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
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
office above Presbyters for in Scripture they could never do it and this is it which we call Episcopacy SECT IX And Superiority of Jurisdiction THIRDLY The Apostles were Rulers of the whole Church and each Apostle respectively of his several Diocess when he would fix his Chair and had superintendency over the Presbyters and the people and this by Christ's donation the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this Sicut misit me Pater sicâ— ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes said Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop in the Council of Carthage related by S. Cyprian and S. Austin But however it is evident in Scripture that the Apostles had such superintendency over the inferior Clergy Presbyters I mean and Deacons and a superiority of jurisdiction and therefore it is certain that Christ gave it them for none of the Apostles took this honour but he that was called of God as was Aaron 1. Our blessed Saviour gave to the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis It was sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent so I send You my Apostles whom I have chosen This was not said to Presbyters for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ but at their first mission to preach repentance I say no commission at all they were not spoken to they were not present Now then consider Suppose that as Aerius did deny the Divine institution of Bishops over the Presbyters cum grege another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of Presbyters what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to shew the Divine institution of them as a distinct Order from Apostles or Bishops Indeed Christ selected 72. and gave them commission to preach but that commission was temporary and expired before the crucifixion for ought appears in Scripture If it be said the Apostles did ordain Presbyters in every City it is true but not sufficient for so they ordained Deacons at Jerusalem and in all established Churches and yet this will not tant'amount to an immediate Divine institution for Deacons and how can it then for Presbyters If we say a constant Catholick traditive interpretation of Scripture does teach us that Christ did institute the Presbyterate together with Episcopacy and made the Apostles Presbyters as well as Bishops this is true But then 1. We recede from the plain words of Scripture and rely upon tradition which in this Question of Episcopacy will be of dangerous consequence to the enemies of it for the same tradition if that be admitted for good probation is for Episcopal preheminence over Presbyters as will appear in the sequel 2. Though no use be made of this advantage yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered that it can never be proved from Scripture that Christ made the Apostles Priests first and then Bishops or Apostles but only that Christ gave them several commissions and parts of the Office Apostolical all which being in one person cannot by force of Scripture prove two Orders Truth is if we change the scene of war and say that the Presbyterate as a distinct Order from the ordinary Office of Apostleship is not of Divine institution the proof of it would be harder than for the Divine institution of Episcopacy Especially if we consider that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clerical Offices there is no enumeration of Presbyters but of Apostles there is and the other Members of the induction are of gifts of Christianity or parts of the Apostolate and either must infer many more Orders than the Church ever yet admitted of or none distinct from the Apostolate insomuch as Apostles were Pastors and Teachers and Evangelists and Rulers and had the gift of Tongues of Healing and of Miracles This thing is of great consideration and this use I will make of it That either Christ made the 72. to be Presbyters and in them instituted the distinct Order of Presbyterate as the ancient Church alwayes did believe or else he gave no distinct commission for any such distinct Order If the second be admitted then the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution but of Apostolical only as is the Order of Deacons and the whole plenitude of power is in the Order Apostolical alone and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power as they did Deacons with a less But if the first be said then the commission to the 72. Presbyters being only of preaching that we find in Scripture all the rest of their power which now they have is by Apostolical ordinance and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis for then they must have made them Apostles and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolical institution neither I care not which part be chosen one is certain but if either of them be true then since to the Apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power it follows that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction as affixed to a distinct order and then the Apostles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolical or if they have jurisdiction they do derive it à foâ—te Apostolorum and then the Apostles have superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolical And that I say truth besides that there is no possibility of shewing the contrary in Scripture by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters then what I have specified I will hereafter shew it to have been the faith and practice of Christendom not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship but that Presbyteâ—s have no Jurisdiction essential to their order but derivative only from Apostolical preheminence 2. Let us now see the matter of fact They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of Jurisdiction over Presbyters for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest saith the Law Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter and a Bishop Would be that for his peremptory rejection of some faithful people from the Catholick Communion without cause and without authority Saint John the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gaius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore when I come I will remember him and all that would have been to very little purpose if he had not had coercive jurisdiction to have punisht his delinquency 3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new Ordination as Matthias succeeded Judas who before his new ordination was
clearly make not distinct orders and why are not all of them of the same consideration I would be answered from grounds of Scripture For there we fix as yet * Indeed the Apostles did ordain such men and scattered their power at first for there was so much imployment in any one of them as to require one man for one office but a while after they united all the lesser parts of power into two sorts of men whom the Church hath since distinguished by the Names of Presbyters and Deacons and called them two distinct orders But yet if we speak properly and according to the Exigence of Divine institution there is Vnum Sacerdotium one Priesthood appointed by Christ and that was the commission given by Christ to his Apostles and to their successors precisely and those other offices of Presbyter and Deacon are but members of the Great Priesthood and although the power of it is all of Divine institution as the power to Baptize to Preach to Consecrate to Absolve to Minister yet that so much of it should be given to one sort of men so much less to another that is only of Apostolical ordinance For the Apostles might have given to some only a power to Absolve to some only to Consecrate to some only to Baptize We see that to Deacons they did so They had only a power to Baptize and Preach whether all Evangelists had so much or no Scripture doth not tell us * But if to some men they had only given a power to use the Keys or made them officers spiritual to restore such as are overtaken in a fault and not to consecrate the Eucharist for we see these powers are distinct and not relative and of necessarie conjunction no more than Baptizing and Consecrating whether or no had those men who have only a power of Absolving or Consecrating respectively whether I say have they the order of a Presbyter If yea then now every Priest hath two orders besides the order of Deacon for by the power of Consecration he hath the power of a Presbyter and what is he then by his other power But if such a man ordained with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter then let any man shew me where it is ordained by Christ or indeed by the Apostles that an order of Clerks should be constituted with both these powers and that these were called Presbyters I only leave this to be considered * But all the Apostolical power we find instituted by Christ and we also find a necessitie that all that power should be succeeded in and that all that power should be united in one order for he that hath the highest viz. a power of Ordination must needs have all the other else he cannot give them to any else but a power of Ordination I have proved to be necessary and perpetual So that we have clear evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetual order of Apostleship mary for the Presbyterate I have not so much either reason or confidence for it as now it is in the Church but for the Apostolate it is beyond exception And to this Bishops do succeed For that it is so I have proved from Scripture and because no Scripture is of private interpretation I have attested it with the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Fathers calling Episcopacie the Apostolate and Bishops successors of S. Peter in particular and of all the Apostles in general in their ordinarie offices in which they were Superiour to the LXXII the Antecessors of the Presbyterate One objection I must clear For sometimes Presbyters are also called Apostles and Successors of the Apostles as in Ignatius in Irenaeus in S. Hierome I answer 1. They are not called Successores Apostolorum by any dogmatical resolution or interpretation of Scripture as the Bishops are in the examples above alledged but by allusion and participation at the most For true it is that they succeed the Apostles in the offices of Baptizing Consecrating and Absolving in privato foro but this is but part of the Apostolical power and no part of their office as Apostles were superiour to Presbyters 2. It is observable that Presbyters are never affirmed to succeed in the power and regiment of the Church but in subordination and derivation from the Bishop and therefore they are never said to succeed In Cathedris Apostolorum in the Apostolick Sees 3. The places which I have specified and they are all I could ever meet with are of peculiar answer For as for Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis he calls the Presbytery or company of Priests the Colledge or combination of Apostles But here S. Ignatius as he lifts up the Presbyters to a comparison with Apostles so he also raises the Bishop to the similitude and resemblance with God Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit Presbyteri verò sunt conjunctus Apostolorum coetus So that although Presbyters grow high yet they do not overtake the Bishops or Apostles who also in the same proportion grow higher than their first station This then will do no hurt As for S. Irenaeus he indeed does say that Presbyters succeed the Apostles but what Presbyters he means he tells us even such Presbyters as were also Bishops such as S. Peter and S. John were who call themselves Presbyters his words are these Proptereà eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatûs successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt And a little after Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait Et dabo Principes tuos in pace Episcopos tuos in Justitiâ So that he gives testimony for us not against us As for S. Hierome the third man he in the succession to the honour of the Apostolate joyns Presbyters with Bishops and that 's right enough for if the Bishop alone does succeed in plenitudinem potestatis Apostolicae ordinariae as I have proved he does then also it is as true of the Bishop together with his consessus Presbyterorum Episcopi Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum those are his words and enforce not so much as may be safely granted for reddendo singula singulis Bishops succeed Apostles and Presbyters Apostolick men and such were many that had not at first any power Apostolical and that 's all that can be inferred from this place of S. Hierome I know nothing else to stay me or to hinder our assent to those authorities of Scripture I have alledged and the full voice of traditive interpretation SECT XII And the Institution of Episcopacy as well as the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by Primitive Authority THE second argument from Antiquity is the direct testimony of the Fathers for a Divine Institution In this S. Cyprian
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Peter and S. John although they were honoured of our Lord yet they would not themselves be but made James sirnamed the Just Bishop of Jerusalem and the reason is that which is given by Hegesippus in Eusebius for his successor Simeon Cleophae for when S. James was crowned with Martyrdom and immediately the City destroyed Traditur Apostolos qui supererant in commune consilium habuisse quem oportere dignum successione Jacobi judicari It was concluded for Simeon because he was the Kinsman of our Lord as S. James also his Predecessor The same concerning S. James is also repeated by Eusebius Judaei ergo cùm Paulus provocâsset ad Caesarem in Jacobum fratrem Domini cui ab Apostolis sedes Hierosolymitana delata fuit omnem suam malevolentiam convertunt In the Apostolical constitutions under the name of S. Clement the Apostles are brought in speaking thus De ordinatis autem à nobis Episcopis in vitâ nostrâ significamus vobis quòd hi sunt Hierosolymis ordinatus est Jacobus Frater Domini S. James the Brother of our Lord was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by us Apostles The same is witnessed by Anacletus Porrò Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. Jacobus qui Justus dicebatur secundum carnem Domini nuncupatus est frater à Petro Jacobo Johanne Apostolis est ordinatus And the same thing in terms is repeated by Anicetus with a Scimus enim Beatissimum Jacobum c. Just as Anacletus before S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem and Peter James and Iohn were his Ordainers But let us see the testimony of one of S. Iames his Successors in the same Chair who certainly was the best witness of his own Church Records S. Cyrill of Jerusalem is the man Nam de his non mihi solum sed etiam Apostolis Jacobo hujus Ecclesiae olim Episcopo curae fuit speaking of the question of circumcision and things sacrificed to Idols and again he calls S. Iames primum hujus parochiae Episcopum the first Bishop of this Diocess S. Austin also attests this story Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae in quâ Petrus sedit in quâ hodiè Anastasius sedet Vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae In qua Jacobus Sedit in quâ hodiè Iohannes sedet I must not omit the testimony of S. Ierome for it will be of great use in the sequel Iacobus saith he post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus and the same also he repeats out of Hegesippus There are many more testimonies to this purpose as of S. Chrysostome Epiphanius S. Ambrose the Council of Constantinople in Trullo But Gregorius Turonensis rises a little higher Iacobus Frater Domini vocitatus ab ipso Domino nostro Iesu Christo Episcopus dicitur ordinatus S. James the Brother of our Lord is said to have been ordained Bishop by our Lord Iesus Christ himself If by Ordinatus he means designatus he agrees with S. Chrysostome But either of them both will serve the turn for the present But either in one sence or the other it is true and attested also by Epiphanius Et primus hic accepit Cathedram Episcopatûs cui concredidit Dominus thronum suum in terra primó S. James had first the Episcopal chair for our Lord first intrusted his earthly throne to him And thus we are incircled with a cloud of witnesses to all which if we add what I before observed that S. Iames is in Scripture called an Apostle and yet he was none of the twelve and that in the sence of Scripture and the Catholick Church a Bishop and an Apostle is all one it follows from the premisses and of them already there is faith enough made that S. Iames was by Christs own designation and ordination Apostolical made Bishop of the Church of Ierusalem that is had power Apostolical concredited to him which Presbyters had not and this Apostolate was limited and fixed as his Successors since have been But that this also was not a temporary business and to expire with the persons of S. Iames and the first Apostles but a regiment of ordinary and successive duty in the Church it appears by the ordination of S. Simeon the son of Cleophas to be his Successor It is witnessed by Eusebius Post martyrium Iacobi traditur Apostolos c. habuisse in commune Concilium quem oporteret dignum successione Iacobi judicari omnesque uno consilio atque uno consensu Simeonem Cleophae filium decrevisse ut Episcopatûs sedem susciperet The same also he transcribes out of Hegesippus posteaquam Iacobus Martyr effectus est electione divina Simeon Cleophae filius Episcopus ordinatur electus ab omnibus pro eo quòd esset consobrinus Domini S. Simeon was ordained Bishop by a divine election And Epiphanius in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Ierusalem reckons first Iames and next Simeon Qui sub Trajano crucifixus est SECT XIV S. Timothy at Ephesus THE next Bishop we find ordained by the Apostles was Timothy at Ephesus That he was ordain'd by an Apostle appears in Scripture For S. Paul imposed hands on him that 's certain Excita Gratiam quae in te est per impositionem manuum mearum By the laying on of my hands That he was there a Bishop is also apparent from the power and offices concredited to him First He was to be resident at Ephesus And although for the publick necessities of the Church and for assistance to S. Paul he might be called sometimes from his Charge yet there he lived and died as the Church story writes there was his ordinary residence and his avocations were but temporary and occasional And when it was his cure was supplied by Tychicus whom S. Paul sent to Ephesus as his Vicar as I shall shew hereafter 2. S. Paul in his Epistles to him gave directions to him for Episcopal deportment as is plain A Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife c. Thirdly S. Paul concredits jurisdiction to S. Timothy Over the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of as great extent in S. Timothies commission as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Commanding as teaching Over Presbyters but yet so as to make difference between them and the Neotericks in Christianity the one as Fathers the other as Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is denied to be used towards either of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas a dishonourable upbraiding or objurgation Nay it is more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is castigo plagam infero saith Budaeus so that that kind of Rebuking the Bishop is forbidden to use either toward Priest or Deacon Clergy or Laity Old or Young For a Bishop must be no striker But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's given him in commission both to old and young Presbyters and Catechumens that is Require them postula
authorem antecessorem hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt c. And when S. Irenaeus had reckoned twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum habet Eleutherius Hâc ordinatione saith he successione ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ traditio veritatis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos est plenissima haec ostensio unam eandem vivatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata tradita in veritate So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination must of it self be a very certain thing when the Church made it a main probation of their faith for the books of Scripture were not all gathered together and generally received as yet Now then since this was a main pillar of their Christianity viz. a constant reception of it from hand to hand as being delivered by the Bishops in every chair till we come to the very Apostles that did ordain them this I say being their proof although it could not be more certain than the thing to be proved which in that case was a Divine revelation yet to them it was more evident as being matter of fact and known almost by evidence of sense and as verily believed by all as it was by any one that himself was baptized both relying upon the report of others Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur saith S. Augustin The very root and foundation of Christian communion is spread all over the world by the successions of Apostles and Bishops And is it not now a madness to say there was no such thing no succession of Bishops in the Churches Apostolical no ordination of Bishops by the Apostles and so as S. Paul's phrase is overthrow the faith of some even of the Primitive Christians that used this argument as a great weapon of offence against the invasion of Hereticks and factious people It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos We can reckon those who from the Apostles until now were made Bishops in the Churches and of this we are sure enough if there be any faith in Christians SECT XIX So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical Ordinance Of the same Authority with many other points generally believed THE summe is this Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopal power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not less than an Apostolical ordinance and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is For for that in the new Testament we have no precept and nothing but the example of the Primitive Disciples meeting in their Synaxes upon that day and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to have changed it into a Thursday meeting to have shown their Christian liberty we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday Festival less than an Apostolical ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed * Baptism of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men do easily observe that the Anabaptist can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us as we do of baptizing infants upon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practice Apostolical recorded in Scripture and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to flye to Apostolical traditive ordination and therefore the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in Scripture than the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Hereticks * Of the same consideration are divers other things in Christianity as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church Clergy and Laity when Christ said Hoc facite do this then why may not every Christian man there represented do that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to do If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then do all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the four Gospels limiting Hoc facite id est benedicite to the Clergy and extending Hoc facite id est accipite manducate to the Laity This also rests upon the practice Apostolical and traditive interpretation of H. Church and yet cannot be denied that so it ought to be by any man that would not have his Christendom suspected * To these I add the communion of Women the distinction of books Apocryphal from Canonical that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of Scripture it self the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festival for a divine institution must needs prevail as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and divers others of greater consequence which I dare not specifie for fear of being misunderstood relye but upon equal faith with this of Episcopacy though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it self SECT XX. And was an office of Power and great Authority WHAT their power and eminence was and the appropriates of their office so ordained by the Apostles appears also by the testimonies before alledged the expressions whereof run in these high terms Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens they were both Prefects of the Church or Prelates that 's the Church-word Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur so Titus he is set over all the affairs of the new-founded Churches in Crete In celsiori gradu collocatus placed in a higher order or degree so the Bishop of Alexandria chosen ex Presbyteris from amongst the Presbyters Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis so Philo of that Bishoprick The seat of Episcopal height above all things in Christianity These are its honours Its offices these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To set in order whatsoever he sees
concurrence of Jurisdiction this must be considered distinctly 1. Then In the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing preaching consecrating and reconciling in privato foro but did not in every Church at the first founding it constitute a Bishop This is evident in Crete in Ephesus in Corinth at Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their own hands There comes upon me saith S. Paul daily the care or supravision of all the Churches Not all absolutely for not all of the Circumcision but all of his charge with which he was once charged and of which he had not exonerated himself by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And again If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearly kept the power in his own hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it governed by Episcopal or Apostolical authority 3. For ought appears in Scripture the Apostles never gave any external or coercitive jurisdiction in publick and criminal causes nor yet power to ordain Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meer Presbyters * The contrary may be greedily swallowed and I know not with how great confidence and prescribing prejudice but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter or Colledge of Presbyters without a Bishop or express delegation of Apostolical authority tanquam vicario suo as to his substitute in absence of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognizance of persons and causes criminal Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination or any commission from Christ or his Apostles This we may best consider by induction of particulars 1. There was a Presbytery at Jerusalem but they had a Bishop always and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop and Apostles Now it cannot be denied both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Jerusalem and also had power alone to govern the Church I say they had power to govern alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordain'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyn with them they must do it themselves and then also they must retain the same power for they could not lose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publick acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they only assisting in subordination and by dependency This only by the way In Jerusalem the Presbyters were something more than ordinary and were not meer Presbyters in the present and limited sence of the word For Barnabas and Judas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chief men amongst the Brethren and yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolical power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is that divers of them were ordained Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction not fixed upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more than meer Presbyters as Barnabas and Judas and Silas men of Apostolical power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equal power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meer Presbyters yet because it is certain and proved and confessed that the Apostles had power to govern the Church alone this their taking meer Presbyteros in partem regiminis was a voluntary act and from this example was derived to other Churches and then it is most true that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere was rather consuetudine Ecclesiae dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's own expression for this is more evident than that Bishops do eminere caeteris by custom rather than Divine institution For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles and although fitting to be retained where the same reasons do remain and circumstances concur yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order not Dominicae dispositionis veritate and not laudable when those reasons cease and there is an emergency of contrary causes 2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch but there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction but of ordination indeed we do and that performed by such men as S. Paul was and Barnabas for they were two of the Prophets reckoned in the Church of Antioch but I do not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meer Presbyters as we now Understand the word as I proved formerly 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must do it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lye the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by vos we shall I hope gain the truth * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus and to them he spoke ** It 's true but that 's not all the vos For there were present at that Sermon Sopater and Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius and Timothy and Tychicus and Trophimus And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis and there many Elders were either accidentally or by ordinary residence yet those were not all Elders of that Church but of all Asia in the Scripture sence the lesser Asia For so in the Preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates Ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confined to Ephesus and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all and therefore were of dispersed habitation and so it is more clearly inferred from verse 25. And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God c. It was a travel to preach to all that were present and therefore
Saint Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before Saint John writ his Revelation 6. Lastly That no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters except a delegate and subordinate appears beyond all exception by Saint Paul's first Epistle to Timothy establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him for ought appears either there or elsewhere * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is clear For what power had they of Jurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before Saint Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did Saint Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it Or if he did not to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminal equal to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Judge and Governour 5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop for they had none of diverse years after the founding of the Church and yet Saint Paul reproves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church * This is it that I said before that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop for in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himself the sole Judge For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly Saint Paul gives the Church of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my Spirit that is My power My authority for so he explains himself my Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for Saint Paul had given sentence before and they of Corinth were to publish it 4. This was a Commission given to the whole Assembly and no more concerns the Presbyters than the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turns neither for an independent Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for Saint Paul's reproving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant I have often heard it confidently averred but never could see ground for it The suspicion of it is ver 2. And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you Taken away But by whom That 's the Question Not by them to be sure For taken away from you implies that it is by the power of another not by their act for no man can take away any thing from himself He may put it away not take it the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning * Well then In all these instances viz. of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Crete and Corinth and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop or in the Bishop when there was any And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affairs I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolical or Episcopal and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Jerusalem where I proved that the Elders were men of more power than meer Presbyters men of Apostolical authority But here lies the issue and strain of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminal and pertaining to the publick Regiment of the Church by vertue of their order or without particular substitution and delegation For there is not in all Scripture any Commission given by Christ to meer Presbyters no Divine institution of any power of Regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolical that meer Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop govern the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any mere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to do but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolical ordination not only with power of imposition of hands but of excommunication of taking cognisance even of causes and actions of Presbyters themselves as to Titus and Timothy the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fixt as in the case of the Corinthian Delinquent before specified which delegation was needless if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then return we to the consideration of S. Hierom's saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Councel of Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops are Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custom rather than Divine disposition Saint Hierome affirms but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custom and condescension rather than by Divine disposition Saint Hierom does not say but it was For he speaks only of matter of fact not of right It might have been otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Jerusalem where the Elders were Apostolical men and had Episcopal authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Judas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocess besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Jerusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Jurisdiction and therefore does clearly evince that the common Councel of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as Saint Paul and Saint John in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes used in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did govern in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of
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
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
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
Sozomen in the case of Elpidius Eustathius Basilius of Ancyra and Eleusius Thus also it was decreed in the second and sixth Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon and in the Imperial constitutions Since therefore we never find Presbyters joyned with Bishops in commission or practice or penalty all this while I may infer from the premisses the same thing which the Council of Hispalis expresses in direct and full sentence Episcopus Sacerdotibus ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest solus auferre non potest The Bishop alone may give the Priestly honour he alone is not suffered to take it away This Council was held in the year 657 and I set it down here for this purpose to show that the decree of the fourth Council of Carthage which was the first that licensed Priests to assist Bishops in ordinations yet was not obligatory in the West but for almost 300 years after ordinations were made by Bishops alone But till this Council no pretence of any such conjunction and after this Council sole ordination did not expire in the West for above 200 years together but for ought I know ever since then it hath obtained that although Presbyters joyn not in the consecration of a Bishop yet of a Presbyter they do but this is only by a positive subintroduced constitution first made in a Provincial of Africa and in other places received by insinuation and conformity of practice * I know not what can be said against it I only find a piece of an objection out of S. Cyprian who was a Man so complying with the Subjects of his Diocess that if any man he was like to furnish us with an Antinomy Hunc igitur Fratres Dilectissimi à me à Collegis qui praesentes aderant ordinatum sciatis Here either by his Colleagues he means Bishops or Presbyters If Bishops then many Bishops will be found in the ordination of one to an inferiour order which because it was as I observed before against the practice of Christendom will not easily be admitted to be the sence of S. Cyprian But if he means Presbyters by Collegae then sole ordination is invalidated by this example for Presbyters joyned with him in the ordination of Aurelius I answer that it matters not whether by his Colleagues he means one or the other for Aurelius the Confessor who was the man ordained was ordained but to be a Reader and that was no Order of Divine institution no gift of the Holy Ghost and therefore might be dispensed by one or more by Bishops or Presbyters and no way enters into the consideration of this question concerning the power of collating those orders which are gifts of the Holy Ghost and of Divine ordinance and therefore this although I have seen it once pretended yet hath no validity to impugne the constant practice of Primitive Antiquity But then are all ordinations invalid which are done by meer Presbyters without a Bishop What think we of the reformed Churches 1. For my part I know not what to think The question hath been so often asked with so much violence and prejudice and we are so bound by publick interest to approve all that they do that we have disabled our selves to justifie our own For we were glad at first of abettors against the Errors of the Roman Church we found these men zealous in it we thanked God for it as we had cause and we were willing to make them recompence by endeavouring to justifie their ordinations not thinking what would follow upon our selves But now it is come to that issue that our own Episcopacy is thought not necessary because we did not condemn the ordinations of their Presbytery 2. Why is not the question rather what we think of the Primitive Church than what we think of the reformed Churches Did the Primitive Councils and Fathers do well in condemning the ordinations made by meer Presbyters If they did well what was a vertue in them is no sin in us If they did ill from what principle shall we judge of the right of ordinations since there is no example in Scripture of any ordination made but by Apostles and Bishops and the Presbytery that imposed hands on Timothy is by all Antiquity expounded either of the office or of a Colledge of Presbyters and S. Paul expounds it to be an ordination made by his own hands as appears by comparing the two Epistles to S. Timothy together and may be so meant by the principles of all sides for if the names be confounded then Presbyter may signifie a Bishop and that they of this Presbytery were not Bishops they can never prove from Scripture where all men grant that the Names are confounded * So that whence will men take their estimate for the rites of ordinations From Scripture That gives it always to Apostles and Bishops as I have proved and that a Priest did ever impose hands for ordination can never be shown from thence From whence then From Antiquity That was so far from licensing ordinations made by Presbyters alone that Presbyters in the Primitive Church did never joyn with Bishops in Collating holy Orders of Presbyter and Deacon till the fouth Council of Carthage much less do it alone rightly and with effect So that as in Scripture there is nothing for Presbyters ordaining so in Antiquity there is much against it And either in this particular we must have strange thoughts of Scripture and Antiquity and not so fair interpretation of the ordinations of reformed Presbyteries But for my part I had rather speak a truth in sincerity than erre with a glorious correspondence But will not necessity excuse them who could not have orders from Orthodox Bishops shall we either sin against our consciences by subscribing to heretical and false resolutions in materiâ fidei or else lose the being of a Church for want of Episcopal ordinations * Indeed if the case were just thus it was very hard with good people of the transmarine Churches but I have here two things to consider 1. I am very willing to believe that they would not have done any thing either of error or suspicion but in cases of necessity But then I consider that M. Du Plessis a man of honour and great learning does attest that at the first reformation there were many Arch-Bishops and Cardinals in Germany England France and Italy that joyned in the reformation whom they might but did not imploy in their ordinations And what necessity then can be pretended in this case I would fain learn that I might make their defence But which is of more and deeper consideration for this might have been done by inconsideration and irresolution as often happens in the beginning of great changes but it is their constant and resolved practice at least in France that if any returns to them they will reordain him by their Presbytery though he had before Episcopal ordination as both their friends and their enemies bear
but yet of no objection in case of Confirmation * And indeed Consignari is us'd in Antiquity for any signing with the Cross and anealing Thus it is used in the first Arausican Council for extreme Vnction which is there in case of extreme necessity permitted to Presbyters Haereticos in mortis discrimine positos Si Catholici esse desiderent si desit Episcopus à Presbyteris cum Chrismate benedictione Consignari placet Consign'd is the word and it was clearly in extreme Unction for that rite was not then ceased and it was in anealing a dying body and a part of reconciliation and so limited by the sequent Canon and not to be fancied of any other consignation But I return *** The first Council of Toledo prohibites any from making Chrisme but Bishops only and takes order Vt de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum ante diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere that the Chrisme be fetcht by the Deacons from the Bishop to be used in all Churches But for what use why it was destinatum ad diem Paschae says the Canon against the Holy time of Easter and then at Easter was the solemnity of publick baptisms so that it was to be used in baptism And this sence being premised the Canon permits to Presbyters to sign with Chrisme the same thing that S. Gregory did to the Priests of Sardinia Statutum verò est Diaconum non Chrismare sed Presbyterum absente Episcopo praesente verò si ab ipso fuerit praeceptum Now although this be evident enough yet it is something clearer in the first Arausican Council Nullus ministrorum qui Baptizandi recipit officium sine Chrismate usquam debet progredi quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate Chrismari The case is evident that Chrismation or Consigning with ointment was used in baptism and it is as evident that this Chrismation was it which S. Gregory permitted to the Presbyters not the other for he expresly forbad the other and the exigence of the Canons and practice of the Church expound it so and it is the same which S. Innocent the first decreed in more express and distinctive terms Presbyteris Chrismate baptizatos ungere licet sed quod ab Episcopo fuerit Consecratum there is a clear permission of consigning with Chrisme in baptism but he subjoyns a prohibition to Priests for doing it in Confirmation Non tamen frontem eodem oleo signare quod solis debetur Episcopis cùm tradunt Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum By the way some that they might the more clearly determine S. Gregorie's dispensation to be only in baptismal Chrisme read it Vt baptizandos ungant not baptizatos so Gratian so S. Thomas but it is needless to be troubled with that for Innocentius in the decretal now quoted useth the word Baptizatos and yet clearly distinguishes this power from the giving the Chrisme in Confirmation I know no other objection and these we see hinder not but that having such evidence of fact in Scripture of Confirmations done only by Apostles and this evidence urged by the Fathers for the practice of the Church and the power of Confirmation by many Councils and Fathers appropriated to Bishops and denied to Presbyters and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their own opinion but witnesses of a Catholick practice and do actually attest it as done by a Catholick consent and no one example in all antiquity ever produced of any Priest that did no law that a Priest might impose hands for Confirmation we may conclude it to be a power Apostolical in the Original Episcopal in the Succession and that in this power the order of a Bishop is higher than that of a Presbyter and so declared by this instance of Catholick practice SECT XXXIV And Jurisdiction Which they expressed in Attributes of Authority and great Power THUS far I hope we are right But I call to mind that in the Nosotrophium of the old Philosopher that undertook to cure all Calentures by Bathing his Patients in water some were up to the Chin some to the Middle some to the Knees So it is amongst the enemies of the Sacred Order of Episcopacy some endure not the Name and they indeed deserve to be over head and ears some will have them all one in office with Presbyters as at first they were in Name and they had need bath up to the Chin but some stand shallower and grant a little distinction a precedency perhaps for order-sake but no preheminence in reiglement no superiority of Jurisdiction Others by all means would be thought to be quite through in behalf of Bishops order and power such as it is but call for a reduction to the Primitive state and would have all Bishops like the Primitive but because by this means they think to impair their power they may well endure to be up to the ankles their error indeed is less and their pretence fairer but the use they make of it of very ill consequence But curing the mistake will quickly cure this distemper That then shall be the present issue that in the Primitive Church Bishops had more power and greater exercise of absolute jurisdiction than now Men will endure to be granted or than themselves are very forward to challenge 1. Then The Primitive Church expressing the calling and offices of a Bishop did it in terms of presidency and authority Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit saith S. Ignatius The Bishop carries the representment of God the Father that is in power and authority to be sure for how else so as to be the supreme in suo ordine in offices Ecclesiastical And again Quid enim aliud est Episcopus quà m is qui omni Principatu potestate superior est Here his superiority and advantage is expressed to be in his power A Bishop is greater and higher than all other in power viz. in materiâ or gradu religionis And in his Epistle to the Magnesians Hortor ut hoc sit omnibus studium in Dei concordiâ omnia agere Episcopo praesidente loco Dei Do all things in Vnity the Bishop being President in the place of God President in all things And with a fuller tide yet in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem Dei quidem propter Principatum Christi verò propter Sacerdotium It is full of fine expression both for Eminency of order and Jurisdiction The Bishop is the Prince of the Priests bearing the Image of God for his Principality that 's his jurisdiction and power but of Christ himself for his Priesthood that 's his Order S. Ignatius hath spoken fairly and if we consider that he was so primitive a man that himself saw Christ in the flesh and liv'd a man of exemplary sanctity and died a Martyr and hath
were Presbyters before this choice And lastly It was only a nomination of seven Men the determination of the business and the authority of rejection was still in the Apostles and indeed the whole power Whom we may appoint over this business and after all this there can be no hurt done by the objection especially since clearly and indubiously the election of Bishops and Presbyters was in the Apostles own persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Ignatius of Evodias Evodias was first appointed to be your Governour or Bishop by the Apostles and themselves did commit it to others that were Bishops as in the instances before reckoned Thus the case stood in Scripture 2. In the practice of the Church it went according to the same law and practice Apostolical The People did not might not chuse the Ministers of holy Church So the Council of Laodicea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The people must not chuse those that are to be promoted to the Priesthood The prohibition extends to their Non-election of all the Superiour Clergy Bishops and Presbyters But who then must elect them The Council of Nice determines that for in 16 and 17 Canons the Council forbids any promotion of Clerks to be made but by the Bishop of that Church where they are first ordained which clearly reserves to the Bishop the power of retaining or promoting all his Clergy * 3. All Ordinations were made by Bishops alone as I have already proved Now let this be confronted with the practice of Primitive Christendom that no Presbyter might be ordained sine titulo without a particular charge which was always custom and at last grew to be a law in the Council of Chalcedon and we shall perceive that the ordainer was the only chuser for then to ordain a Presbyter was also to give him a charge and the Patronage of a Church was not a lay inheritance but part of the Bishops cure for he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The care of the Churches in all the Diocess as I have already shown And therefore when S. Jerome according to the custom of Christendom had specified some particular ordinations or election of Presbyters by Bishops as how himself was made Priest by Paulinus and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus Gaudeat Episcopus judicio suo cum tales Christo elegerit Sacerdotes Let the Bishop rejoyce in his own act having chosen such worthy Priests for the service of Christ. Thus S. Ambrose gives intimation that the dispensing all the offices in the Clergy was solely in the Bishop Haec spectet Sacerdos quod cuique congruat id officii deputet Let the Bishop observe these rules and appoint every one his office as is best answerable to his condition and capacity And Theodoret report of Leontius the Bishop of Antioch how being an Arian Adversarios recti dogmatis suscipiens licet turpem habentes vitam ad Presbyteratus tamen ordinem Diaconatus evexit Eos autem qui Vniversis virtutibus ornabantur Apostolica dogmata defendebant absque honore deseruit He advanced his own faction but would not promote any man that was catholick and pious So he did The power therefore of Clerical promotion was in his own hands This thing is evident and notorious and there is scarce any example in Antiquity of either Presbyters or people chusing any Priest but only in the case of S. Austin whom the Peoples haste snatch'd and carried him to their Bishop Valerius intreating him to ordain him Priest This indeed is true that the testimony of the people for the life of them that were to be ordained was by S. Cyprian ordinarily required In ordinandis Clericis Fratres Charissimi solemus vos ante consulere mores ac merita singulorum communi consilio ponderare It was his custom to advise with his people concerning the publick fame of Clerks to be ordained It was usual I say with him but not perpetual for it was otherwise in the case of Celerinus and divers others as I shewed elsewhere 4. In election of Bishops though not of Priests the Clergy and the people had a greater actual interest and did often intervene with their silent consenting suffrages or publick acclamations But first This was not necessary It was otherwise among the Apostles and in the case of Timothy of Titus of S. James of S. Mark and all the Successors whom they did constitute in the several charges 2. This was not by law or right but in fact only It was against the Canon of the Laodicean Council and the 31 Canon of the Apostles which under pain of deposition commands that a Bishop be not promoted to his Church by the intervening of any lay power Against this discourse S. Cyprian is strongly pretended Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi Quod ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere c. Thus he is usually cited the people have power to chuse or to refuse their Bishops and this comes to them from Divine authority No such matter The following words expound him better Quod ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos plebe Praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur dignus atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur That the Bishop is chosen publickly in the presence of the people and he only be thought fit who is approved by publick judgment and testimony or as S. Pauls phrase is he must have a good report of all men that is indeed a divine institution and that to this purpose and for the publick attestation of the act of election and ordination the peoples presence was required appears clearly by S. Cyprians discourse in this Epistle For what is the Divine authority that he mentions It is only the example of Moses whom God commanded to take the Son of Eleazar and cloath him with his Fathers robes coram omni Synagoga before all the congregation The people chose not God chose Eleazar and Moses consecrated him and the people stood and looked on that 's all that this argument can supply * Just thus Bishops are and ever were ordained Non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientiâ In the sight of the people standing by but to what end Vt plebe praesente detegantur malorum crimina vel bonorum merita praedicentur All this while the election is not in the people nothing but the publick testimony and examination for so it follows Et sit ordinatio justa legitima quae omnium suffragio judicio fuerit examinata ** But S. Cyprian hath two more proofs whence we may learn either the sence or the truth of his assertion The one is of the Apostles ordaining the seven Deacons but this we have already examined the other of S. Peter chusing S. Matthias into the Apostolate it was indeed done in the presence of the people * But
his posterity 870 874. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose the liberty of will 874. The sin of Adam is not in us properly and formally a sin 876. His sin to his posterity is not damnable 877. Of the Covenant God made with Adam 914. The Law of works onely imposed on him 587 n. 1. What evil we really had from Adam's fall 748 n. 14. The following of Adam cannot be original sin 764 n. 28. The fall of Adam lost us not heaven 748 n. 3 4. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 748 n. 4. Adam was made mortal 779 n. 4. Those evils that were the effects of Adam's fall are not in us sins properly inherent 750 n. 8. His sin made us not heirs of damnation 714 n. 22. nor makes us necessarily vicious 717 n. 39. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a physical efficiency 717 n. 40. nor because we were in his loins 717 n. 41. nor because of the decree of God 717 n. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What latitude of signification it hath 809 n. 39. Aelfrick Who lived in England about A. D. 996. determines against Transubstantiation 266 n. 12. Aerius How he could be an heretick being his errour was not against any fundamental article 150 ss 48. He was never condemned by any general Council 150 ss 48. The heresie of the Acephali what it was 151 ss 48. Aggravate No circumstance aggravates sin so much as that of the injured person 614 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word in the Scripture 639 n. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 638 n. 14. Alms. Are a part of repentance 848 n. 81. How they operate in order to pardon ibid. It is one of the best penances 860 n. 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 617 n. 21. and 619 n. 26. S. Ambrose He was both Bishop and Prefect of Milane at one time 160 ss 49. His testimony against transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority for confirmation by Presbyters considered 19 b. 20 b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The notion of the word 809 n. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The importance of the word 617 n. 122. Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.10 explained 58. § 9. Of worshipping them 467. Antiquity The reverence that is due to it 882. Apostle Whence that name was taken 48 § 4. Bishops were successours of the Apostles ibid. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ep. to Philip. 2.25 does not signifie Messenger but Apostle 49 § 4. That Bishops were successours in their office to the Apostles was the judgement of antiquity 59 § 10. St. James Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the twelve Apostles 48 § 4. Apostles in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 85 § 23. That the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Of the Canons that go under their names 981 n. 9. The Apostles were by Christ invested with an equal authority 308. S. Peter did not act as having any superiority over the other Apostles 310 § 10. c. l. 1. Arius His preaching his errours was the cause why in Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach 128 § 37. How the Orthodox complied with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum 441. How his heresie began 958 n. 26. The opinion of Constantine the Great concerning the heresie of Arius 959 n. 26. How the opposition against his heresie was managed 958 959 960 n. 26 ad 36. Art How much it changes nature 652 n. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of the word 665 n. 18. and 637 n. 8. Athanasius The questions and answers to Antiochus under his name are spurious 544. He intended not his Creed to be imposed on others 963. Concerning his Creed ibid. n. 36. His Creed was first written in Latine then translated into Greek 963 n. 36. Attrition What it is 842 n. 63. and 828 n. 25. The difference between it and contrition ibid. Attrition joyned with absolution by the Priest that it is not sufficient demonstrated by many arguments 830 n. 33. Attrition joyned with confession to a Priest and his absolution is not equal to contrition 842 n. 62 64. S. Augustine He was employed in secular affairs at Hippo as well as Ecclesiastical 161 § 49. His authority against Transubstantiation 261 262 § 12. Of his rule to try traditions Apostolical 432. Gratian quotes that out of him that certainly never was in his writings 451. He prayed for his dead mother when he believed her to be in heaven 501 502. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no article of faith in his time 506. The Purgatory that Augustine sometimes mentions is not the Roman Purgatory 507 508. His authority in the matter of Transubstantiation 525 His zeal against the Pelagians was the occasion of his mistake in interpreting Rom. VII 15 775 n. 18. His inconstancy in the question whether concupiscence be a sin 913. Austerity Of the acts of austerity in Religion of what use they are 955 n. 18. Authority That is most effectual which is seated in the Conscience 160 § 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the Apostle means by it Tit. III. 11 780 n. 30. and 951 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 689 n. 5. B. Baptism THE doctrine of Infant-Baptism relieth not upon tradition onely but Scripture too 425 426. S. Ambrose S. Hierome and S. Augustine though born of Christian parents were not baptized till they were at full age 425. The reason why the Church baptizeth Infants 426. An answer to that saying of Perron's That there is no place of Scripture whereby we can certainly convince the Anabaptists 426. The validity of the baptism of hereticks is not to be proved by tradition without Scripture 426 427. Of the salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. Of the Scripture Liturgy in an unknown tongue 471. The promise of quorum remiseritis is by some understood of Baptism 486. Of the pardon of sins after baptism 802 n. 7. Saint Cyprian and S. Chrysostome's testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. The principle on which the necessity of Infants baptism is grounded 426 and 718 n. 42. Sins committed after it may be pardoned by repentance 802 n. 8 9. It admits us into the Covenant of repentance 803 n. 10. If we labour not under the guilt of original sin why in our infancy are we baptized That objection answered 884. The state of unbaptized Infants 897. The difference between this Chrism and that of Confirmation 20 b. The difference between Baptism and Confirmation as to the use 26 b. Of the change
made in us by it 28 b. With Baptism Confirmation was usually administred 29 b. Berengarius The Pope forced him to recant his errour about Transubstantiation in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. Bind What it means in the promise of Christ 736 45 46 47. and 486. Bishop The benefits that England has received in several ages from the Bishops Order Ep. dedic to Episcop asserted They were the Apostles successors 48 § 4. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. The Angel mentioned in the Epistles to the Seven Churches in the Apocalypse means the Bishop 57 § 9. That Bishops were successors in their office to the Apostles was the sense of Antiquity 59 § 10. The office of a Bishop was not inconsistent with that of an Evangelist 69 § 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.5 signifies Bishop and not mere Presbyter 71 § 15. The authority and text of S. Hierom against the Prelacy of Bishops considered 77 § 21. Those Presbyters mentioned Act. 20.28 in those words in quos Spir. Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos were Bishops and not mere Presbyters 80 § 21. Concerning the testimony of S. Hierome taken out of his Commentary in Ep. ad Tit. usually urged against the sole authority of Bishops 77 § 21. per tot and § 44. and pag. 144. In what sense it is true that Bishops were not greater then Presbyters 83 § 21. Bishops in Scripture are styled Presbyters 85 § 23. Mere Presbyters in Scripture are never styled Bishops 86 § 23. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining of a Bishop 98 § 31. Pope Pelagius not lawfully ordained Bishop according to the Canon 98 § 31. Why a Bishop cannot be made per saltum 101 § 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had the Ordination of a Bishop but not the Jurisdiction 102 § 32. Novatus was ordained by a Bishop without the assistance of other Clergy 104 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter in the Ceremony 105 § 32. Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches performed without Bishops 105 § 32. He could suspend or depose alone without the presence of a Presbyter 116 117 § 36. The latitude or extent of the Bishop's power 120 § 36. It encroaches not upon the royal power ibid. What persons are under the Bishop's jurisdiction 123 § 36. In the Primitive Church Presbyters might not officiate without the licence of the Bishop 127 § 37. The Bishop for his acts of judicature was responsible to none but God 145 146 § 44. The Presbyters assistence to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's behalf 147 § 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was there was not always a College of Presbyters onely in the greater Churches 146 § 44. One Bishop alone without the concurrence of more Bishops could not depose a Presbyter 147 § 44. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The African Christians of Byzac chose to suffer martyrdome rather then hazard the succession of Bishops 149 § 45. In the first Council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick though he believe aright that separates from his Bishop 151 § 48. The great honour that belongs to Bishops 153 § 48. It was not unlawful for Bishops to take secular employments 157 § 49. Christian Emperours allowed appeals in secular affairs from secular tribunals to that of the Bishop 160 § 49. They used in the Primitive Church to be Embassadours for their Princes 161 § 49. The Bishop might do any office of piety though of secular burthen 161 § 49. By the Law of God one Bishop is not superiour to another and they all derive their power equally from Christ 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. Saint Cyprian affirms that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproveth the Patriarch of Constantinople for calling himself universal Bishop 310. If a secular Prince give a safe conduct the Romanists teach it binds not the Bishop who is under him 341. Socrates his censure of their judicial proceedings in the Primitive Church 994 n. 17. Body Berengarius maintained in Rome That by the power of God one body could not be in two places at one time 222 § 9. How a body is in place 226 § 11. What a body is 236. One body cannot at the same time be in two places 236 § 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality as others are in S. Augustine's opinion 237 § 11. Aquinas affirmeth that the body of Christ is in the Elements not after the manner of a body but a substance This notion considered 238 § 11. That consequence That if two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places considered 243 § 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place 245 § 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place 245 § 11. The Romanists absurdities in explicating the nature of the conversion of the Elements into the Body of Christ 247 § 11. C. Canons THat the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Carnality What it is in Scripture 724 n. 53. Of the use of the word Carnal in Scripture 774 n. 16. Catechizing The excellent use of Catechizing Children 30. b. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Certainty It may be where is no evidence 686 n. 72. Charity The great Charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. The uncharitableness of that of Rome ibid. Charity gives being to all vertues 650 n. 56. Children How God punisheth the fathers upon the Children 725. God never imputes the father's sin to the child so as to inflict eternal punishment but temporal onely 725 n. 56. This he does onely in very great crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. and before the Gospel was published not since 726 n. 62. Rules of deportment for those Children who fear a curse descending upon them from their sinful parents 738 n. 93. The state of the unbaptized 897. Chorepiscopi They had Episcopal Ordination but not Jurisdiction 102 § 32. The institution of them what ends it served 142 § 43. Christ. The Romanists teach that Christ being our Judge is not fit to be our Advocate 329 c. 2. § 9. The Article of Christ's descent into hell omitted in some Creeds 440. We are by him redeemed from the state of spiritual infirmity 779 n. 27. Christian. The sum of Christian Religion 445. Upon what motives most men imbrace that Religion 460. Chrysostome His notion of a sinner 760
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
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
Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sence that S. Peter and S. John were and the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem * 4. Suppose this had been true in the sence that any body please to imagine yet this not being by any divine Ordinance that Presbyters should by their counsel assist in external regiment of the Church neither by any imitation of Scripture nor by affirmation of S. Hierom it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose Postquà m omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata aliter composita res est quam coeperat It might be so at first de facto and yet no need to be so neither then nor after For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of its own nor Crete and there was no need for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them and S. John and other of the Apostles but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither for when themselves were to go away the power must be concredited to another And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters yet it was but in dependance on the Apostles and by substitution not by any ordinary power and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle or the sending of a Bishop to reside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a business of being persecuted he writ to his Presbyters Do you feed the Flock amongst you till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler viz. My Successor No longer Your Commission expires when a Bishop comes * 5. To the conclusion of S. Hierom's discourse viz. That Bishops are not greater than Presbyters by the truth of Divine disposition I answer that this is true in this sence Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater than all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters such as were the Elders in the Councel at Jerusalem such as were they of Antioch such as S. Peter and S. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sence that is of a fixt and particular Diocess and Jurisdiction * Secondly S. Hierom's meaning is also true in this sence Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater than Presbyters viz. quoad exercitium actûs that is they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their own persons but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters and that they did not so but kept the exercise of it only in their own hands in S. Hierome's time this is it which he saith is rather by custom than by Divine dispensation for it was otherwise at first viz. de facto and might be so still there being no Law of God against the delegation of power Episcopal * As for the last words in the Objection Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere it is an assumentum of S. Hierom's own for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names and common Regiment de facto not de jure and from a fact to conclude with a Deberet is a Non sequitur unless this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former Arguments that is they ought not by God's Law but in imitation of the practice Apostolical to wit when things are as they were then when the Presbyters are such as then they were they ought for many considerations and in great cases not by the necessity of a precept * And indeed to do him right he so explains himself Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere imitantes Moysen qui cum haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret The Presbyters ought to judge in common with the Bishop for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses who might have ruled alone yet was content to take others to him and himself only to rule in chief Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops do but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them and therefore though his counsel perhaps might be good then yet it is necessary at no time and was not followed then and to be sure is needless now For the Arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this intention what ever it is I have and shall elsewhere produce for they yield many other considerations than this collection of S. Hierome and prove nothing less than the equality of the Offices of Episcopacy and Presbyterate The same thing is per omnia respondent to the parallel place of S. Chrysostom It is needless to repeat either the Objection or Answer * But however this saying of S. Hierome and the parallel of S. Chrysostom is but like an argument against an evident truth which comes forth upon a desperate service and they are sure to be killed by the adverse party or to run upon their own Swords For either they are to be understood in the sences above explicated and then they are impertinent or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Catholick antiquity and so are false and die within their own trenches I end this argument of tradition Apostolical with that saying of Saint Hierome in the same place Postquam Vnusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo Ego autem Cephae in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut schismatum semina tollerentur That is a publick decree issued out in the Apostles times that in all Churches one should be chosen out of the Clergy and set over them viz. to rule and govern the Flock committed to his charge This I say was in the Apostles times even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schism for then they said I am of Paul and I of Apollo and then it was that he that baptized any Catechumens took them for his own not as Christ's Disciples So that it was tempore Apostolorum that this decree was made for in the time of the Apostles S. James and S. Mark and S. Timothy and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieroms express attestation It was also toto orbe decretum so that if it had not been proved to have been an immediate Divine institution yet it could not have gone much less it being as I have proved and as S. Hierom acknowledges Catholick and Apostolick * SECT XXII And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom BE ye followers of me as I am of Christ is an Apostolical precept We have seen how the Apostles have followed Christ how their tradition is consequent of Divine institution Next let us see how the Church hath followed the Apostles as the Apostles have followed Christ. Catholick practice is the next Basis of the
Christened first in Antioch for they had their baptism some years before they had their Name It had been no wonder then if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the Offices and Orders of the Church SECT XXIV Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreme Church-officer BUT immediately after the Apostles and still more in descending ages Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the Church the Bishop in the present and vulgar conception Some few examples I shall give instead of Myriads In the Canons of the Apostles the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop is used thirty six times in appropriation to him that is the Ordinary Ruler and President of the Church above the Clergy and the Laity being twenty four times expresly distinguished from Presbyter and in the other fourteen having particular care for government jurisdiction censures and ordinations committed to him as I shall shew hereafter and all this is within the verge of the first fifty which are received as Authentick by the Councel of Nice of Antioch 25. Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles the Councel of Gangra calling them Canones Ecclesiasticos and Apostolicas traditiones by the Epistle of the first Councel of Constantinople to Damasus which Theodoret hath inserted into his story by the Councel of Ephesus by Tertullian by Constantine the Great and are sometimes by way of eminency called the Canons sometimes the Ecclesiastical Canons sometimes the ancient and received Canons of our Fathers sometimes the Apostolical Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the Fathers of the Councel in Trullo and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture so in effect does Isidore in his Preface to the work of the Councels for he sets these Canons in front because Sancti Patres eorum sententias authoritate Synodali roborarunt inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones The H. Fathers have established these Canos by the authority of Councels and have put them amongst the Canonical Constitutions And great reason for in Pope Stephen's time they were translated into Latine by one Dionysius at the intreaty of Laurentius because then the old Latine copies were rude and barbarous Now then this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephen's time who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian the old copy elder than this and yet after the Original to be sure shews them to be of prime antiquity and they are mentioned by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bishop Hilarius where he is severe in censure of them who do prevaricate these Canons * But for farther satisfaction I refer the Reader to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Moderators of the City of Norimberg I deny not but they are called Apocryphal by Gratian and some others viz. in the sence of the Church just as the Wisdom of Solomon or Ecclesiasticus but yet by most believed to be written by S. Clement from the dictate of the Apostles and without all question are so far Canonical as to be of undoubted Ecclesiastical authority and of the first Antiquity Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Father of all And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What is the Bishop but he that hath all authority and rule What is the Presbytery but a sacred Colledge Counsellors and helpers or assessors to the Bishop what are Deacons c. So that here is the real and exact distinction of Dignity the appropriation of Name and intimation of Office The Bishop is above all the Presbyters his helpers the Deacons his Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imitators of the Angels who are Ministring Spirits But this is of so known so evident a truth that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it Himself in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in distinct enumeration viz. to the Trallians to the Philadelphians to the Philippians * And now I shall insert these considerations 1. Although it was so that Episcopus and Presbyter were distinct in the beginning after the Apostles death yet sometimes the names are used promiscuously which is an evidence that confusion of names is no intimation much less an argument for the parity of Offices since themselves who sometimes though indeed very seldom confound the names yet distinguish the Offices frequently and dogmatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means the Presbyters of the Church of Antioch so indeed some say and though there be no necessity of admitting this meaning because by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may mean the suffragan Bishops of Syria yet the other may be fairly admitted for himself their Bishop was absent from his Church and had delegated to the Presbytery Episcopal jurisdiction to rule the Church till he being dead another Bishop should be chosen so that they were Episcopi Vicarii and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishops power by delegation were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this was done lest the Church should not be only without a Father but without a Guardian too and yet what a Bishop was and of what authority no man more confident and frequent than Ignatius * Another example of this is in Eusebius speaking of the Youth whom S. John had converted and commended to a Bishop Clemens whose story this was proceeding in the relation sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the Presbyter unless by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here S. Clement means not the Order but Age of the Man as it is like enough he did for a little after he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old man Tum verò Presbyter in domum suam suscipit adolescentem Redde depositum O Episcope saith S. John to him Tunc graviter suspirans Senior c. So S. Clement * But this as it is very unusual so it is just as in Scripture viz. in descent and comprehension for this Bishop also was a Presbyter as well as Bishop or else in the delegation of Episcopal power for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius 2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was chosen to be appropriate to the supream order of the Clergy was done with fair reason and design For this is no fastuous or pompous title the word is of no dignity and implies none but what is consequent to the just and fair execution of its Offices But Presbyter is a name of dignity and veneration Rise up to the grey head and it transplants the honour and reverence of Age to the office of the Presbyterate And yet this the Bishops left and took that which signifies a meer supra-vision and overlooking of his charge so that if we take estimate from the names Presbyter is a name of
dignity and Episcopus of office and burden * He that desires the office of a Bishop desires a good work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostom Nec dicit si quis Episcopatum desiderat bonum desiderat gradum sed bonum opus desiderat quod in majore ordine constitutus possit si velit occasionem habere exercendarum virtutum so S. Hierom. It is not an honourable Title but a good Office and a great opportunity of the exercise of excellent Vertues But for this we need no better testimony than of S. Isidore Episcopatus autem vocabulum inde dictum quòd ille qui superefficitur superintendat curam scil gerens subditorum But Presbyter Graecè Latinè senior interpretatur non pro aetate vel decrepitâ senectute sed propter honorem dignitatem quam acceperunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Julius â—ollux 3. Supposing that Episcopus and Presbyter had been often confounded in Scripture and Antiquity and that both in ascension and descension yet as Priests may be called Angels and yet the Bishop be the Angel of the Church the Angel for his excellency of the Church for his appropriate preheminence and singularity so though Presbyters had been called Bishops in Scripture of which there is not one example but in the sences above explicated to wit in conjunction and comprehension yet the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminence the Bishop and in descent of time it came to pass that the compellation which was alwayes his by way of eminence was made his by appropriation And a fair precedent of it we have from the compellation given to our blessed Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great Shepherd and Bishop of our Souls The name Bishop was made sacred by being the appellative of his person and by fair intimation it does more immediately descend upon them who had from Christ more immediate mission and more ample power and therefore Episcopus and Pastor by way of eminence are the most fit appellatives for them who in the Church hath the greatest power office and dignity as participating of the fulness of that power and authority for which Christ was called the Bishop of our Souls * And besides this so fair a Copy besides the using of the word in the prophecy of the Apostolate of Matthias and in the Prophet Isaiah and often in Scripture as I have shewn before any one whereof is abundantly enough for the fixing an appellative upon a Church Officer this name may also be intimated as a distinctive compellation of a Bishop over a Priest because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed often used for the office of Bishops as in the instances above but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the office of the inferiours for Saint Paul writing to the Romans who then had no Bishop fixed in the Chair of Rome does command them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this for the Bishop that for the subordinate Clergy So then the word Episcopus is fixt at first and that by derivation and example of Scripture and fair congruity of reason SECT XXV Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church BUT the Church used other appellatives for Bishops which it is very requisite to specifie that we may understand diverse authorities of the Fathers using those words in appropriation to Bishops which of late have been given to Presbyters ever since they have begun to set Presbyters in the room of Bishops And first Bishops were called Pastors in antiquity in imitation of their being called so in Scripture Eusebius writing the story of S. Ignatius Denique cum Smyrnam venisset ubi Polycarpus erat scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios eorumque Pastorem that is Onesimus for so follows in quâ meminit Onesimi Now that Onesimus was their Bishop himself witnesses in the Epistle here mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Onesimus was their Bishop and therefore their Pastor and in his Epistle ad Antiochenos himself makes mention of Evodius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your most blessed and worthy Pastor * When Paulus Samosatenus first broached his heresie against the Divinity of our blessed Saviour presently a Councel was called where S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria could not be present Caeteri vero Ecclesiarum Pastores diversis è locis urbibus convenerunt Antiochiam In quibus insignes caeteris praecellentes erant Firmilianus à Caesarea Cappadociae Gregorius Athenodorus Fratres Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus Sed Maximus Bostrensis Episcopus dignus eorum consortio cohaerebat These Bishops Firmilianus and Helenus and Maximus were the Pastors and not only so but Presbyters were not called Pastors for he proceeds sed Presbyteri quamplurimi Diaconi ad supradictam Vrbem convenerunt So that these were not under the general appellative of Pastors And the Councel of Sardis making provision for the manner of election of a Bishop to a Widow-Church when the people is urgent for the speedy institution of a Bishop if any of the Comprovincials be wanting he must be certified by the Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the multitude require a Pastor to be given unto them * The same expression is also in the Epistle of Julius Bishop of Rome to the Presbyters Deacons and people of Alexandria in behalf of their Bishop Athanasius Suscipite itaque Fratres charissimi cum omni divinâ gratiâ Pastorem vestrum ac praesulem tanquam vere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a little after gaudere fruentes orationibus qui Pastorem vestrum esuritis sititis c. The same is often used in S. Hilary and S. Gregory Nazianzen where Bishops are called Pastores magni Great Shepherds or Pastors * When Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata was banished Vniversi lachrymis prosecuti sunt ereptionem Pastoris sui saith Theodoret They wept for the loss of their Pastor And Eulogius a Presbyter of Edessa when he was arguing with the Prefect in behalf of Christianity Et Pastorem inquit habemus nutus illius sequimur we have a Pastor a Bishop certainly for himself was a Priest and his commands we follow But I need not specifie any more particular instances I touch'd upon it before He that shall consider that to Bishops the Regiment of the whole Church was concredited at the first and the Presbyters were but his Assistants in Cities and Villages and were admitted in partem soll citudinis first casually and cursorily and then by station and fixt residency when Parishes were divided and endowed will easily see that this word Pastor must needs be appropriated to Bishops to whom according to the conjunctive expression of S. Peter and the practice of infant Christendom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was intrusted first solely then in communication with others but alwayes principally * But now of late especially
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
the nature of the thing and never any act of ordination by a Non-Bishop approved by any Council decretal or single suffrage of any famous man in Christendom if that ordinations of Bishops were always made and they ever done by Bishops and no pretence of Priests joyning with them in their consecrations and after all this it was declared heresie to communicate the power of giving orders to Presbyters either alone or in conjunction with Bishops as it was in the case of Aerius if all this that is if whatsoever can be imagined be sufficient to make faith in this particular then it is evident that the power and order of Bishops is greater than the power and order of Presbyters to wit in this Great particular of ordination and that by this loud voice and united vote of Christendom SECT XXXIII And Confirmation * BUT this was but the first part of the power which Catholick antiquity affixed to the order of Episcopacy The next is of Confirmation of baptized people And here the rule was this which was thus expressed by Damascen Apostolorum Successorum eorum est per manus impositionem donum Spiritûs sancti tradere It belongs to the Apostles and their successors to give the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands But see this in particular instance The Council of Eliberis giving permission to faithful people of the Laity to baptize Catechumens in the cases of necessity and exigence of journey Ita tamen ut si supervixerit baptizatus ad Episcopum eum perducat ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit Let him be carried to the Bishop to be improved by imposition of the Bishops hands This was Law It was also a custom saith S. Cyprian Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur per Praepositos Ecclesiae offerantur per nostram orationem manûs impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur signaculo Dominico consummentur And this custom was Catholick too and the Law was of Vniversal concernment Omnes Fideles per manuum impositionem Episcoporum Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent ut pleni Christiani accipere debent So S. Vrbane in his decretal Epistle And Omnibus festinandum est sine mora renasci demùm Consignari ab Episcopo septiformem Spiritûs sancti gratiam recipere so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle under the name of S. Clement All faithful baptized people must go to the Bishop to be consigned and so by imposition of the Bishops hands to obtain the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain affirms Confirmation in this to have a special excellency besides baptism Quòd solùm à summis Sacerdotibus confertur because Bishops only can give Confirmation And the same is said and proved by S. Eusebius in his third Epistle enjoyning great veneration to this holy mystery Quòd ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus It cannot it may not be performed by any but by the Bishops Thus S. Chrysostom speaking of S. Philip converting the Samaritans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philip baptizing the men of Samaria gave not the Holy Ghost to them whom he had baptized For he had not power For this gift was only of the twelve Apostles And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was peculiar to the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it comes to pass that the principal and chief of the Church do it and none else And George Pachymeres the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is required that a Bishop should consign faithful people baptized For this was the Ancient practice I shall not need to instance in too many particulars for that the Ministry of Confirmation was by Catholick custom appropriate to Bishops in all ages of the Primitive Church is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Councils and Fathers particularly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius Tertullian S. Innocentius the first Damasus S. Leo in John the third in S. Gregory Amphilochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius and Eubulus the Council of Orleans and of Melda and lastly of Sevill which affirms Non licere Presbyteris per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptizandis paracletum spiritum tradere It is not lawful for Presbyters to give confirmation for it is properly an act of Episcopal power Chrismate spiritus S. super infunditur Vtraque verò ista manu ore Antistitis impetramus These are enough for authority and dogmatical resolution from antiquity For truth is the first that ever did communicate the power of confirming to Presbyters was Photius the first Author of that unhappy and long lasting schism between the Latin and Greek Churches and it was upon this occasion too For when the Bulgarians were first converted the Greeks sent Presbyters to baptize and to confirm them But the Latins sent again to have them re-confirmed both because as they pretended the Greeks had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria nor the Presbyters a capacity of order to give confirmation The matters of fact and acts Episcopal of Confirmation are innumerable but most famous are those Confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of Brema and of S. Malchus attested by S. Bernard because they were ratified by miracle saith the Ancient story I end this with the saying of S. Hierome Exigis ubi scriptum sit In actibus Apostolorum Sed etiamsi Scripturae authoritas non subesset totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret If you ask where it is written viz. that Bishops alone should Confirm It is written in the Acts of the Apostles meaning by precedent though not express precept but if there were no authority of Scripture for it yet the consent of all the world upon this particular is instead of a command *** It was fortunate that S. Hierome hath expressed himself so confidently in this affair for by this we are armed against an objection from his own words for in the same dialogue speaking of some acts of Episcopal priviledge and peculiar ministration particularly of Confirmation he says it was ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quà m ad legis necessitatem For the honour of the Priesthood rather than for the necessity of a law To this the answer is evident from his own words That Bishops should give the Holy Ghost in Confirmation is written in the Acts of the Apostles and now that this is reserved rather for the honour of Episcopacy than a simple necessity in the nature of the thing makes no matter For the question here that is only of concernment is not to what end this power is reserved to the Bishop but by whom it was reserved Now S. Hierome says it was done apud
obedient yet both the right of electing and solemnity of ordaining was in the Bishops the peoples interest did not arrive to one half of this 6. There are in Antiquity divers precedents of Bishops who chose their own successors it will not be imagined the people will chuse a Bishop over his head and proclaim that they were weary of him In those days they had more piety * Agelius did so he chose Sisinnius and that it may appear it was without the people they came about him and intreated him to chuse Marcian to whom they had been beholding in the time of Valens the Emperor he complied with them and appointed Marcian to be his successor and Sisinnius whom he had first chosen to succeed Marcian Thus did Valerius chuse his successor S. Austin for though the people named him for their Priest and carried him to Valerius to take Orders yet Valerius chose him Bishop And this was usual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius expresses this case it was ordinary to do so in many Churches 7. The manner of election in many Churches was various for although indeed the Church had commanded it and given power to the Bishops to make the election yet in some times and in some Churches the Presbyters or the Chapter chose one out of themselves S. Hierome says they always did so in Alexandria from S. Mark 's time to Heraclas and Dionysius S. Ambrose says that at the first the Bishop was not by a formal new election promoted but recedente uno sequens ei succedebat As one died so the next senior did succeed him In both these cases no mixture of the peoples votes 8. In the Church of England the people were never admitted to the choice of a Bishop from its first becoming Christian to this very day and therefore to take it from the Clergy in whom it always was by permission of Princes and to interest the people in it is to recede à traditionibus Majorum from the religion of our forefathers and to Innovate in a high proportion 9. In those Churches where the peoples suffrage by way of testimony I mean and approbation did concur with the Synod of Bishops in the choice of a Bishop the people at last according to their usual guise grew hot angry and tumultuous and then were ingaged by divisions in religion to name a Bishop of their own sect and to disgrace one another by publick scandal and contestation and often grew up to Sedition and Murder and therefore although they were never admitted unless where themselves usurped farther than I have declared yet even this was taken from them especially since in tumultuary assemblies they were apt to carry all before them they knew not how to distinguish between power and right they had not well learned to take denial but began to obtrude whom they listed to swell higher like a torrent when they were checked and the soleship of election which by the Ancient Canons was in the Bishops they would have asserted wholly to themselves both in right and execution * I end this with the annotation of Zonaras upon the twelfth Canon of the Laodicean Council Populi suffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur understand him in the sences above explicated sed cùm multae inde seditiones existerent hinc factum est ut Episcoporum Vniuscujusque provinciae authoritate eligi Episcopum quemque oportere decreverint Patres Of old time Bishops were chosen not without the suffrage of the people for they concurred by way of testimony and acclamation but when this occasioned many seditions and tumults the Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be chosen by the authority of the Bishops of the Province And he adds that in the election of Damasus 137 men were slain and that six hundred examples more of that nature were producible Truth is the Nomination of Bishops in Scripture was in the Apostles alone and though the Kindred of our blessed Saviour were admitted to the choice of Simeon Cleophae the successor of S. James to the Bishoprick of Jerusalem as Eusebius witnesses it was propter singularem honorem an honorary and extraordinary priviledge indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our blessed Lord the fountain of all benison to us and for that very reason Simeon himself was chosen Bishop too Yet this was praeter regulam Apostolicam The rule of the Apostles and their precedents were for the sole right of the Bishops to chuse their Colleagues in that Sacred order * And then in descent even before the Nicene Council the people were forbidden to meddle in election for they had no authority by Scripture to chuse by the necessity of times and for the reasons before asserted they were admitted to such a share of the choice as is now folded up in a piece of paper even to a testimonial and yet I deny not but they did often take more as in the case of Nilammon quem cives elegerunt saith the story out of Sozomen they chose him alone though God took away his life before himself would accept of their choice and then they behav'd themselves often times with so much insolency partiality faction sedition cruelty and Pagan baseness that they were quite interdicted it above 1200 years agone So that they had their little in possession but a little while and never had any due and therefore now their request for it is no petition of right but a popular ambition and a snatching at a sword to hew the Church in pieces But I think I need not have troubled my self half so far for they that strive to introduce a popular election would as fain have Episcopacy out as popularity of election let in So that all this of popular election of Bishops may seem superfluous For I consider that if the peoples power of chusing Bishops be founded upon God's law as some men pretend from S. Cyprian not proving the thing from Gods law but Gods law from S. Cyprian then Bishops themselves must be by Gods law For surely God never gave them power to chuse any man into that office which himself hath no way instituted And therefore I suppose these men will desist from their pretence of Divine right of popular election if the Church will recede from her Divine right of Episcopacy But for all their plundering and confounding their bold pretences have made this discourse necessary SECT XLI Bishops only did Vote in Councils and neither Presbyters nor People IF we add to all these foregoing particulars the power of making laws to be in Bishops nothing else can be required to the making up of a spiritual Principality Now as I have shewen that the Bishop of every Diocess did give laws to his own Church for particulars so it is evident that the laws of Provinces and of the Catholick Church were made by conventions of Bishops without the intervening or concurrence of Presbyters or any else for sentence and decision
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
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
than they had a mind should be sav'd harmless Men would be safe alone or not at all supposing that their truth and good cause was warranty enough to preserve it self and they thought true it was indeed warranty enough against persecution if men had believed it to be truth but because we were fallen under the power of our worst enemies for Brethren turn'd enemies are ever the most implacable they looked upon us as men in misperswasion and error and therefore I was to defend our persons that whether our cause were right or wrong for it would be supposed wrong yet we might be permitted in liberty and impunity but then the Consequent would be this that if we when we were supposed to be in error were yet to be indemnified then others also whom we thought as ill of were to rejoyce in the same freedom because this equality is the great instrument of justice and if we would not do to others as we desir'd should be done to us we were no more to pretend Religion because we destroy the Law and the Prophets Of this some men were impatient and they would have all the world spare them and yet they would spare no body But because this is too unreasonable I need no excuse for my speaking to other purposes Others complain'd that it would have evil effects and all Heresies would enter at the gate of toleration and because I knew that they would croud and throng in as far as they could I placed such guards and restraints there as might keep out all unreasonable pretenders allowing none to enter here that speak against the Apostles Creed or weakened the hands of Government or were enemies to good life But the most complain'd that in my ways to perswade a toleration I helped some men too far and that I arm'd the Anabaptists with swords instead of shields with a power to offend us besides the proper defensatives of their own To this I shall need no reply but this I was to say what I could to make their persons safe by shewing how probably they were deceived and they who thought it too much had either too little confidence or too little knowledge of the goodness of their own cause and yet if any one made ill use of it it was more than I allowed or intended to him but so all kindness may be abused But if a Criminal be allowed Counsel he would be scorned if he should avow his Advocate as a real Patron of his crime when he only says what he can to alleviate the Sentence But wise men understand the thing and are satisfied but because all men are not of equal strength I did not only in a Discourse on purpose demonstrate the true doctrine in that question but I have now in this Edition of that Book answered all their pretensions not only fearing lest some be hurt with their offensive arms but lest others like Tarpeia the Roman Lady be oppressed with shields and be brought to think well of their Cause by my pleading for their persons And now My Lord I have done all that I can do or can be desired only I cannot repent me of speaking truth or doing charity but when the loyns of the Presbytery did lie heavy upon us and were like to crush us into flatness and death I ought not to have been reproached for standing under the ruine and endeavouring to defend my Brethren and if I had strain'd his arm whom I was lifting up from drowning he should have deplor'd his own necessity and not have reproved my charity if I say I had been too zealous to preserve them whom I ought to love so zealously But I have been told that my Discourse of Episcopacy relying so much upon the Authority of Fathers and Councils whose authority I so much diminish in my Liberty of Prophesying I seem to pull down with one hand what I build with the other To these men I am used to answer that they ought not to wonder to see a man pull down his Out-houses to save his Father and his Children from the flames and therefore if I had wholly destroyed the Topick of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which is but an outward Guard to Episcopacy to preserve the whole Ecclesiastical order I might have been too zealous but in no other account culpable But my Lord I have done nothing of this as they mistake For Episcopacy relies not upon the Authority of Fathers and Councils but upon Scripture upon the institution of Christ or the institution of the Apostles upon an universal Tradition and an universal practice not upon the words and opinions of the Doctors It hath as great a testimony as Scripture it self hath and it is such a government as although every thing in Antiquity does minister to it and illustrate or confirm it yet since it was before the Fathers and Councils and was in full power before they had a being and they were made up of Bishops for the most part they can give no authority to themselves as a body does not beget it self or give strength to that from whence themselves had warranty integrity and constitution We bring the sayings of the Fathers in behalf of Episcopacy because the reputation they have justly purchased from posterity prevails with some and their reason with others and their practice with very many and the pretensions of the adversaries are too weak to withstand that strength But that Episcopacy derives from a higher Fountain appears by the Justifications of it against them who value not what the Fathers say But now he that says that Episcopacy besides all its own proper grounds hath also the witness of Antiquity to have descended from Christ and his Apostles and he that says that in Questions of Religion the Sayings of the Fathers alone is no demonstration of Faith does not speak things contradictory He that says that we may dissent from the Fathers when we have a reason greater than that authority does no way oppose him that says you ought not to dissent from what they say when you have no reason great enough to out-weigh it He that says the words of the Fathers are not sufficient to determine a nice Question stands not against him who says they are excellent Corroboratives in a Question already determined and practised accordingly He that says the Sayings of Fathers are no demonstration in a Question may say true and yet he that says it is a degree of probability may say true too He that says they are not our Masters speaks consonantly to the words of Christ but he that denies them to be good Instructors does not speak agreeably to reason or to the sence of the Church Sometimes they are excellent Arbitrators but not always good Judges In matters of Fact they are excellent Witnesses In matters of Right or Question they are rare Doctors and because they bring good Arguments are to be valued accordingly and he that considers these things will find that Ecclesiastical Antiquity can
desire to do natural or moral good things but even spiritual 784 4o. he may leave many sins which he is commanded to forsake 785 5o. he may leave some sins not only for temporal interest but out of fear of God and regard to his Law ibid. 6o. he may besides abstinence from evil do many good things 786 7 o he may have received the Spirit of God and yet be in a state of distance from God ibid. 6. The character of the unregenerate state or person n. 42.787 7. What are properly and truly sins of infirmity and how far they can consist with the regenerate estate 789 8. Practical advices to be added to the foregoing considerations 795. n. 65. Chap. IX Of the effect of Repentance viz. remission of Sins 800 Sect. 1. There is no sin but with Repentance may be pardoned ibid. 2. Of pardon of sins committed after baptism 802 3. Of the difficulty of obtaining pardon The doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church in this Article 803 4. Of the sin against the H. Ghost and in what sence it may be unpardonable 808 5. What sin is spoken of by our Lord Matth. 12.32 and that final impenitence is not it 810 6. The former doctrines reduced to practice 815 Chap. X. Of Ecclesiastical Penance or the fruits of Repentance 820 Sect. 1. What the fruits of Repentance are in general ibid. 2. Of Contrition or godly sorrow the reasons measures and constitution of it 821 3. Of the nature and differences of Attrition and Contrition 828 4. Of Confession 830 1o. Confession is necessary to Repentance ibid. 2o. It is due only to God 831 3o. In the Primitive Church there was no judicial absolution used in their Liturgies n. 54.838 4o. The judicial absolution of a Priest does effect no material change in the Penitent as to giving of pardon 841. n. 60 5. Attrition or imperfect Repentance though with absolution is not sufficient 842 6. Of Penance or satisfactions 844. 1o. sorrow and mourning 2o. Corporal austerities 3o. Prayers 847. 4o. Alms 848. 5o. forgiving injuries 6 o restitution 849 7. The former doctrine reduced to practice 850 8. The practice of Confession 854 9. The practice of Penances and corporal austerities 858 A Discourse in Vindication of Gods Attributes of Goodness and Justice in the matter of Original Sin against the Calvinists way of understanding it 1o. THe truth of the Article with the errors and mistakes about it 869 2o. Arguments to prove the truth 872 3o. Objections answered 881 4o. An Explication of Rom. 5.12 ad 19. 887 An Answer to the Bishop of Rochesters First Letter written concerning the Sixth Chapter of Original Sin in the Discourse of Repentance 895 The Bishop of Rochesters Second Letter upon the same subject 907 An Answer to the Second Letter from the Bishop of Rochester 909 The Liberty of Prophesying EPist Dedicatory Introduction Sect. 1. Of the nature of Faith and that the duty of it is compleated in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed 941 2. Of Heresie its nature and measures That it is to be accounted according to the stricter capacity of the Christian Faith and not in opinions speculative nor ever to pious persons 947 3. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary nor literally determined 965 4. Of the difficulty of expounding Scripture 971 5. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to expound Scripture or determine questions 976 6. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Councils Ecclesiastical to expound Scripture or determine questions 984 7. Of the fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his expounding Scripture and resolving Questions 995 8. How unable the Fathers or Writers Ecclesiastical are to determine our questions with certainty and truth 1007 9. How incompetent the Church in its diffusive capacity is to be Judge of controversies and how impertinent that pretence of the Spirit is 1011 10. Of the authority of reason and that it proceeding on the best grounds is the best Judge 1013 11. Of some causes of error in the exercise of reason which are in themselves inculpable 1016 12. How innocent error of mere opinion is in a pious person 1022 13. Of the deportment to be used toward persons disagreeing and reasons why they are not to be punished with death 1025 14. Of the practice of Christian Churches toward persons disagreeing and when persecution first came in use 1031 15. How far the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing opinions 1034 16. Whether it be lawful for a Prince to give toleration to several Religions 1036 17. Of complying with disagreeing persons or weak Consciences in general 1038 18. A particular instance in the opinion of the Anabaptists to shew that there is so much reason on both sides of the Question that a pious person mistaking may be innocent in his error 1040 1o. The arguments usually alledged for baptizing Infants n. 3. ad 12.1041 1042 2o. How much the Anabaptists have to say in opposition to those arguments and to justifie their own tenent n. 12. ad 34.1043 ad 1051 3o. A reply to the arguments of the Anabaptists by the Author since the first Edition wherein the lawfulness of the Churches practice is established n. 34. ad fin Sect. 1051. ad 1068 19. That there ought not to be any toleration of doctrines inconsistent with piety or the publick good 1069 20. How far the Religion of the Church of Rome may be tolerated 1070 21. Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion 1076 22. That particular men may communicate with Churches of different perswasions and how far they may do it 1077 The Discourse of Confirmation INtroduction Sect. 1. Of the Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Rite of Confirmation 3 2. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery 12 3. That Confirmation which by laying on of Hands gives the H. Spirit was actually continued and practised by all succeeding Ages of the Primitive Church 15 4. The Bishops were always and are still the only Ministers of Confirmation 18 5. The whole procedure of Confirmation is by prayer and laying on of Hands 22 6. Many great Graces and Blessings are consequent to the worthy reception and due ministery of Confirmation 24 7. Of preparation to Confirmation and the circumstances of receiving it 28 A Discourse of Friendship 1. HOw far a perfect Friendship is authorized by the principles of Christianity 35 2. What are the requisites of Friendship 38 3. What are the lawful expressions and acts of Friendship 42 4. Whether a Friend may be dearer than a Husband or Wife 47 5. What are the duties of Friendship 49 6. Ten Rules to be observed in the conduct of Friendship 50 Five Letters about change of Religion 53 THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE APOLOGY FOR AUTHORIZED and SET FORMS OF LITURGY WHEN Judges were instead of Kings and Hophni and Phinehas were among the Priests every
all that are deposited in the primitive records of our Religion Are not those Prayers and Hymns in holy Scripture excellent compositions admirable instruments of devotion full of piety rare and incomparable addresses to God Dare any man with his gift of Prayer pretend that he can ex tempore or by study make better Who dares pretend that he hath a better spirit than David had or than the Apostles and Prophets and other holy persons in Scripture whose Prayers and Psalms are by Gods Spirit consigned to the use of the Church for ever Or will it be denied but that they also are excellent Directories and Patterns for prayer And if Patterns the nearer we draw to our example are not the imitations and representments the better And what then if we took the Samplers themselves Is there any imperfection in them and can we mend them and correct the Magnificat The very matter of these and the Author no less than Divine cannot but justifie the Forms though set determin'd and prescribed Sect. 85. IN a just proportion and commensuration I argue so concerning the primitive and ancient forms of Church-service which are composed according to those so excellent Patterns which if they had remained pure as in the first institution or had always been as they had been reformed by the Church of England they would against all defiance put in for the next place to those forms of Liturgy which mutatis mutandis are nothing but the words of Scripture But I am resolved at this present not to enter into Question concerning the matter of Prayers Sect. 86. NEXT we must enquire what the Apostles did in obedience to the precept of Christ and what the Church did in imitation of the Apostles That the Apostles did use the Prayer their Lord taught them I think need not much be questioned they could have no other end of their desire and it had been a strange boldness to ask for a form which they intended not to use or a strange levity not to do what they intended But I consider they had a double capacity they were of the Jewish Religion by education and now Christians by a new institution in the first capacity they used those Set forms of Prayer which their Nation used in their devotions Christ and his Apostles sang a Hymn part of the great Allelujah which was usually sung at the end of the Paschal Supper After the Supper they sang a Hymn sayes the Evangelist The Jews also used every Sabbath to sing the XCII Psalm which is therefore intitled A Song or Psalm for the Sabbath and they who observed the hours of Prayer and Vows according to the rites of the Temple need not be suspected to have omitted the Jewish forms of prayer And as they complied with the religious customes of the Nation worshipping according to the Jewish manner it is also in reason to be presumed they were Worshippers according to the new Christian institution and used that form their Lord taught them Sect. 87. NOW that they tyed themselves to recitation of the very words of Christs Prayer pro loco tempore I am therefore easie to believe because I find they were strict to a scruple in retaining the Sacramental words which Christ spake when he instituted the blessed Sacrament insomuch that not only three Evangelists but Saint Paul also not only making a narrative of the institution but teaching the Corinthians the manner of its celebration to a tittle he recites the words of Christ. Now the action of the Consecrator is not a theatrical representment of the action of Christ but a sacred solemn and Sacramental prayer in which since the Apostles at first and the Church ever after did with reverence and fear retain the very words it is not only a probation of the Question in general in behalf of set forms but also a high probability that they retained the Lords Prayer and used it to an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the very form of words Sect. 88. AND I the rather make this inference from the preceding argument because of the cognation one hath with the other for the Apostles did also in the consecration of the Eucharist use the Lords Prayer and that together with the words of institution was the only form of consecration saith Saint Gregory and Saint Hierome affirms that the Apostles by the command of their Lord used this prayer in the benediction of the Elements Sect. 89. BUT besides this when the Apostles had received great measures of the Spirit and by their gift of Prayer composed more Forms for the help and comfort of the Church and contrary to the order in the first Creation the light which was in the body of the Sun was now diffused over the face of the new heavens and the new Earth it became a precept Evangelical that we should praise God in Hymns and Psalms and Spiritual Songs which is so certain that they were compositions of industry and deliberation and yet were sung in the Spirit that he who denies the last speaks against Scriptures he who denies the first speaks against Reason and would best confute himself if in the highest of his pretence of the Spirit he would venture at some ex tempore Hymns And of this we have the express testimony of St. Austin de Hymnis Psalmis canendis haberi Domini Apostolorum documenta utilia praecepta And the Church obeyed them for as an Ancient Author under the name of Diâ—nysius Areopagita relates the chief of the Clerical and Ministring Order offer bread upon the altar Cum Ecclesiastici omnes laudem hymnumque generalem Deo tribuerunt cum quibus Pontifex sacras preces ritè perficit c. They all sing one Hymn to God and the Bishop prays ritè according to the ritual or constitution which in no sence of the Church or of Grammar can be understood without a solemn and determined form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Casaubon is cantare idem saepiùs dicere apud Graecos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were forms of praising God used constantly periodically and in the daily Offices And the Fathers of the Councel of Antioch complain against Paulus Samosatenus Quod Psalmos cantus qui ad domini nostri Jesu Christi honorem decantari solent tanquam recentiores à viris recentioris memoriae editos exploserit The quarrel was that he said the Church had used to say Hymns which were made by new men and not deriv'd from the Ancients which if we consider that the Councel of Antioch was in the twelfth year of Galienus the Emperour 133 years after Christs Ascension will fairly prove that the use of prescribed Forms of prayer Hymns and forms of Worshipping were very early in the Church and it is unimaginable it should be otherwise when we remember the Apostolical precept before mentioned And if we fancy a higher precedent than what was manifested upon earth we
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
Ministers for they were Doctors or Teachers and that 's not all for they were Prophets too This even at first sight is more than the ordinary office of the Presbytery We shall see this clear enough in Saint Paul where the ordinary office of Prophets is reckoned before Pastors before Evangelists next to Apostles that is next to such Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint Paul there expresses it next to those Apostles to whom Christ hath given immediate mission And these are therefore Apostles too Apostles secundi ordinis none of the twelve but such as Saint James and Epaphroditus and Barnabas and Saint Paul himself To be sure they were such Prophets as Saint Paul and Barnabas for they are reckoned in the number by Saint Luke for here it was that Saint Paul although he had immediate vocation by Christ yet he had particular ordination to his Apostolate or Ministery of the Gentiles It is evident then what Prophets these were they were at the least more than ordinary Presbyters and therefore they imposed hands and they only And yet to make the business up compleat Saint Mark was amongst them but he imposed no hands he was there as the Deacon and Minister vers 5. but he medled not Saint Luke fixes the whole action upon the Prophets such as Saint Paul himself was and so did the Holy Ghost too but neither did Saint Mark who was an Evangelist and one of the 72. Disciples as he is reckoned in the Primitive Catalogues by Eusebius and Dorotheus nor any of the Colledge of the Antiochian Presbyters that were less than Prophets that is who were not more than meer Presbyters The sum is this Imposition of hands is a duty and office necessary for the perpetuating of a Church ne gens sit Vnius aetatis lest it expire in one age this power of imposition of hands for Ordination was fixt upon the Apostles and Apostolick men and not communicated to the 72. Disciples or Presbyters for the Apostles and Apostolick men did so de facto and were commanded to do so and the 72. never did so therefore this Office and Ministery of the Apostolate is distinct and superiour to that of Presbyters and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the Church for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession and therefore as perpetual as the Clergy as the Church it self SECT VIII And Confirmation SECONDLY The Apostles did impose hands for confirmation of Baptized people and this was a perpetual act of a power to be succeeded to and yet not communicated nor executed by the 72. or any other mere Presbyter That the Apostles did confirm Baptized people and others of the inferiour Clergy could not is beyond all exception clear in the case of the Samaritan Christians Acts 8. For when Saint Philip had converted and Baptized the Men of Samaria the Apostles sent Peter and John to lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost Saint Philip he was an Evangelist he was one of the 72. Disciples a Presbyter and appointed to the same ministration that Saint Stephen was about the poor Widdows yet he could not do this the Apostles must and did This giving of the Holy Ghost by imposition of the Apostles hands was not for a miraculous gift but an ordinary Grace For Saint Philip could and did do miracles enough but this Grace he could not give the Grace of consigning or confirmation The like case is in Acts 12. where some people having been Baptized at Ephesus Saint Paul confirmed them giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands The Apostles did it not the twelve only but Apostolick men the other Apostles Saint Paul did it Saint Philip could not nor any of the 72. or any other mere Presbyters ever did it that we find in Holy Scripture Yea but this imposition of hands was for a Miraculous issue for the Ephesine Christians received the Holy Ghost and spake with tongues and prophesied which effect because it is ceased certainly the thing was temporary and long ago expired First Not for this reason to be sure For extraordinary effects may be temporary when the function which they attest may be eternal and therefore are no signs of an extraordinary Ministery The Apostles preaching was attended by Miracles and extraordinary conversions of people ut in exordio Apostolos divinorum signorum comitabantur effectus Spiritûs Sancti gratia ità ut videres unâ alloquutione integros simul populos ad cultum divinae religionis adduci praedicantium verbis non esse tardiorem audientium fidem as Eusebius tells of the success of the preaching of some Evangelists yet I hope preaching must not now cease because no Miracles are done or that to convert one man now would be the greatest Miracle The Apostles when they cursed and anathematized a delinquent he dyed suddenly as in the case of Ananias and Saphira whom Saint Peter slew with the word of his Ministery and yet now although these extraordinary issues cease it is not safe venturing upon the curses of the Church When the Apostles did excommunicate a sinner he was presently delivered over to Satan to be buffeted that is to be afflicted with corporal punishments and now although no such exterminating Angels beat the bodies of persons excommunicate yet the power of excommunication I hope still remains in the Church and the power of the Keys is not also gone So also in the power of confirmation which however attended by a visible miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost in gifts of languages and healing yet like other miracles in respect of the whole integrity of Christian faith these miracles at first did confirm the function and the faith for ever Now then that this right of imposing hands for confirming of baptized people was not to expire with the persons of the Apostles appears from these considerations First Because Christ made a promise of sending Vicarium suum Spiritum the Holy Ghost in his stead and this by way of appropriation is called the promise of the Father This was pertinent to all Christendom Effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem so it was in the Prophecy For the promise is to you and to your Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to all them that are afar off even to as many as the Lord shall call So it was in the first accomplishing To all And this for ever for I will send the Holy Ghost unto you and he shall abide with you for ever for it was in subsidium to supply the comforts of his desired presence and must therefore ex vi intentionis be remanent till Christ's coming again Now then this promise being to be communicated to all and that for ever must either come to us by 1. Extraordinary and miraculous mission or by 2. an ordinary Ministery Not the first for we might as well expect the gift of Miracles
If the second as it is most certain so then the main Question is evicted viz. that something perpetually necessary was in the power of the Apostles which was not in the power of the inferiour Ministers nor of any but themselves and their Colleagues to wit Ministerium S. Spiritus or the ordinary office of giving the holy Ghost by imposition of hands For this promise was performed to the Apostles in Pentecost to the rest of the faithful after Baptisme Quod n. nunc in confirmandis Neophytis manûs impositio tribuit singulis hoc tunc spiritûs sancti descensio in credentium populo donavit Vniversis saith Eusebius Emissenus Now we find no other way of performing it nor any ordinary conveyance of the Spirit to all people but this and we find that the Holy Ghost actually was given this way Therefore the effect to wit the Holy Ghost being to continue for ever and the promise of universal concernment this way also of its communication to wit by Apostolical imposition of hands is also perpetuum ministerium to be succeeded to and to abide for ever Secondly This Ministery of imposition of hands for confirmation of baptized people is so far from being a temporary Grace and to determine with the persons of the Apostles that it is a fundamental point of Christianity an essential ingredient to its composition Saint Paul is my Author Therefore leaving the principles of the Doctrine of Christ let us go on unto perfection not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works faith towards God the doctrines of Baptism and of laying on of hands c. Here is imposition of hands reckoned as part of the foundation and a principle of Christianity in Saint Paul's Catechism Now imposition of hands is used by Name in Scripture but for two Ministrations First For Ordination and secondly for this whatsoever it is Imposition of hands for Ordination does indeed give the Holy Ghost but not as he is that promise which is called the promise of the Father For the Holy Ghost for Ordination was given before the Ascension John 20. But the promises of the Holy Ghost the Comforter the Paraclete I say not the Ordainer or Fountain of Priestly order that was not given till the day of Pentecost and besides it was promised to all Christian people and the other was given only to the Clergy * Add to this that Saint Paul having laid this in the foundation makes his progress from this to perfection as he calls it that is to higher mysteries and then his discourse is immediately of the Priesthood Evangelical which is Originally in Christ ministerially in the Clergy so that unless we will either confound the terms of his progress or imagine him to make the Ministery of the Clergy the foundation of Christ's Priesthood and not rather contrary it is clear that by imposition of hands Saint Paul means not ordination and therefore confirmation there being no other ordinary ministry of imposition of hands but these two specified in holy Scripture For as for benediction in which Christ used the ceremony and as for healing in which Ananias and the Apostles used it the first is clearly no Principle or fundamental point of Christianity and the second is confessedly extraordinary therefore the argument is still firm upon its first principles 3. Lastly The Primitive Church did de facto and believed themselves to be tyed de jure to use this Rite of Confirmation and giving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism Saint Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius tells a story of a young man whom S. John had converted and committed to a Bishop to be brought up in the Faith of Christendom Qui saith S. Clement eum baptismi Sacramento illuminavit posteà verò sigillo Domini tanquam perfectâ tutâ ejus animi custodiâ obsignavit The Bishop first baptized him then consigned him Justin Martyr sayes speaking pro more Ecclesiae according to the Custom of the Church that when the mysteries of Baptism were done then the faithful are consigned or confirmed Saint Cyprian relates to this story of Saint Philip and the Apostles and gives this account of the whole affair Et idcircò quia legitimum Ecclesiasticum baptismum consequnti fuerant baptizari eos ultrà non oportebat Sed tantummodo id quod deerat id à Petro Iohanne factum erat ut oratione pro eis habitâ manu impositâ invocaretur infunderetur super eos Spiritus S. Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur Praepositis Ecclesiae offerantur ut per nostram orationem ac manûs impositionem Spiritum S. consequantur signaculo Dominico confirmentur Saint Peter and Saint Iohn by imposing their hands on the Converts of Samaria praying over them and giving them the Holy Ghost made supply to them of what was wanting after Baptism and this is to this day done in the Church for new baptized people are brought to the Bishops and by imposition of their hands obtain the Holy Ghost But for this who pleases to be farther satisfied in the Primitive faith of Christendom may see it in the decretal Epistles of Cornelius the Martyr to Fabianus recorded by Eusebius in the Epistle written to Iulius and Iulianus Bishops under the name of Saint Clement in the Epistle of Vrban P. and Martyr in Tertullian in Saint Austin and in Saint Cyril of Ierusalem whose whole third Mistagogique Catechism is concerning Confirmation This only The Catholicks whose Christian prudence it was in all true respects to disadvantage Hereticks lest their poyson should infect like a Pest laid it in Novatus's dish as a crime He was baptized in his bed and was not confirmed Vnde nec Spiritum sanctum unquam potuerit promereri therefore he could never receive the gift of the Holy Ghost So Cornelius in the forequoted Epistle Whence it is evident that then it was the belief of Christendom that the Holy Ghost was by no ordinary Ministery given to faithful people after Baptism but only by Apostolical or Episcopal consignation and imposition of hands What also the faith of Christendom was concerning the Minister of confirmation and that Bishops only could do it I shall make evident in the descent of this discourse Here the scene lies in Scripture where it is clear that Saint Philip one of the 72. Disciples as antiquity reports him and an Evangelist and a Disciple as Scripture also expresses him could not impose hands for application of the promise of the Father and ministerial giving of the Holy Ghost but the Apostles must go to do it and also there is no example in Scripture of any that ever did it but an Apostle and yet this is an ordinary Ministery which de jure ought and de facto alwayes was continued in the Church Therefore there must alwayes be an ordinary office of Apostleship in the Church to do it that is an
one of the 72. as Eusebius Epiphanius and S. Jerom affirm and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with Jesus S. Clement succeeded S. Peter at Rome S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. James at Jerusalem S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea and divers others of the 72. reckoned by Dorotheus Eusebius and others of the Fathers did govern the several Churches after the Apostles death which before they did not Now it is clear that he that receives no more power after the Apostles than he had under them can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge or Churches It follows then since as will more fully appear anon Presbyters did succeed the Apostles that under the Apostles they had not such jurisdiction as afterwards they had But the Apostles had the same to which the Presbyters succeeded to therefore greater than the Presbyters had before they did succeed When I say Presbyters succeeded the Apostles I mean not as Presbyters but by a new ordination to the dignity of Bishops so they succeeded and so they prove an evidence of fact for a superiority of Jurisdiction in the Apostolical Clergy *** Now that this superiority of Jurisdiction was not temporary but to be succeeded in appears from Reason and from ocular demonstration or of the thing done 1. If superiority of Jurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolical for the Regiment of the Church there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession since upon the emergency of Schisms and Heresies which were foretold should multiply in descending ages government and superiority of jurisdiction unity of supremacy and coercion was more necessary than at first when extraordinary gifts might supply what now we expect to be performed by an ordinary Authority 2. Whatsoever was the Regiment of the Church in the Apostles times that must be perpetual not so as to have all that which was personal and temporary but so as to have no other for that and that only is of Divine institution which Christ committed to the Apostles and if the Church be not now governed as then We can shew no Divine authority for our government which we must contend to do and do it too or be call'd usurpers For either the Apostles did govern the Church as Christ commanded them or not If not then they failed in the founding of the Church and the Church is built upon a Rock If they did as most certainly they did then either the same disparity of jurisdiction must be retained or else we must be governed with an unlawful and unwarranted equality because not by that which only is of immediate Divine institution and then it must needs be a fine government where there is no authority and where no man is superiour 3. We see a disparity in the Regiment of Churches warranted by Christ himself and confirmed by the Holy Ghost in fairest intimation I mean the seven Angel-presidents of the seven Asian Churches If these seven Angels were seven Bishops that is Prelates or Governours of these seven Churches in which it is evident and confessed of all sides there were many Presbyters then it is certain that a Superiority of Jurisdiction was intended by Christ himself and given by him insomuch as he is the fountain of all power derived to the Church For Christ writes to these seven Churches and directs his Epistles to the seven Governours of these Churches calling them Angels which it will hardly be supposed he would have done if the function had not been a ray of the Sun of righteousness they had not else been Angels of light nor stars held in Christs own right hand This is certain that the function of these Angels whatsoever it be is a Divine institution Let us then see what is meant by these Stars and Angels The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches 1. Then it is evident that although the Epistles were sent with a final intention for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocess with an Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesiis yet the personal direction was not to the whole Church for the whole Church is called the Candlestick and the superscription of the Epistles is not to the seven Candlesticks but to the seven Stars which are the Angels of the seven Churches viz. The lights shining in the Candlesticks By the Angel therefore is not cannot be meant the whole Church 2. It is plain that by the Angel is meant the Governour of the Church First Because of the title of eminency The Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Messenger the Legate the Apostle of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For these words Angel or Apostle although they signifie Mission or Legation yet in Scripture they often relate to the persons to whom they are sent As in the examples before specified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles of the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Angel of the Church of Ephesus and divers others Their compellation therefore being a word of office in respect of him that sends them and of eminence in relation to them to whom they are sent shews that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively 2. Because acts of jurisdiction are concredited to him as not to suffer false Apostles So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus which is clearly a power of cognizance and coercion in causis Clericorum to be watchful and strengthen the things that remain as to the Angel of the Church in Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first is the office of Rulers for they watch for your Souls And the second of Apostles and Apostolick men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judas and Silas confirmed the Brethren for these men although they were but of the LXXII at first yet by this time were made Apostles and chief men among the Brethren S. Paul also was joyned in this work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He Went up and down confirming the Churches And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Paul To confirm the Churches and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government these were offices of power and jurisdiction no less than Episcopal or Apostolical and besides the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Diocess Thou hast a few names even in Sardis they were the Bishops people the Angel had a right to them And good reason that the people should be his for their faults are attributed to him as to the Angel of Pergamus and divers others and therefore they are deposited in his custody He is to be their Ruler and Pastor and this is called His Ministery To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have known thy Ministery His office therefore was clerical it
was an Angel-Minister and this his office must make him the guide and superiour to the Rest even all the whole Church since he was charged with all 3. By the Angel is meant a singular person for the reprehensions and the commendations respectively imply personal delinquency or suppose personal excellencies Add to this that the compellation is singular and of determinate number so that we may as well multiply Churches as persons for the seven Churches had but seven stars and these seven stars were the Angels of the seven Churches And if by seven stars they may mean 70 times seven stars for so they may if they begin to multiply then by one star they must mean many stars and so they may multiply Churches too for there were as many Churches as stars and no more Angels than Churches and it is as reasonable to multiply these seven Churches into 7000 as every star into a Constellation or every Angel into a Legion But besides the exigency of the thing it self these seven Angels are by Antiquity called the seven Governours or Bishops of the seven Churches and their names are commemorated Unto these seven Churches S. Iohn saith Arethas reckoneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equal number of Angel-Governours and Oecumenius in his Scholia upon this place saith the very same words Septem igitur Angelos Rectores septem Ecclesiarum debemus intelligere eò quòd Angelus nuntius interpretatur saith S. Ambrose and again Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis Let the woman have a covering on her head because of the Angels that is in reverence and in subjection to the Bishop of the Church for Bishops are the Angels as is taught in the Revelation of S. Iohn Divinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae so S. Austin By the voice of God the Bishop of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Presidents and actually Bishops of these Churches S. Polycarpe was one to be sure apud Smyrnam Episcopus Martyr saith Eusebius He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna And he had good authority for it for he reports it out of Polycrates who a little after was himself an Angel of the Church of Ephesus and he also quotes S. Irenaeus for it and out of the Encyclical Epistle of the Church of Smyrna it self and besides these authorities it is attested by S. Ignatius and Tertullian S. Timothy was another Angel to wit of the Church of Ephesus to be sure had been and most likely was still surviving Antipas is reckoned by Name in the Revelation and he had been the Angel of Pergamus but before this book was written he was turned from an Angel to a Saint Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ecclesiam regens celeberrimi inter caeteros habebantur saith Eusebius These men were actually living when S. Iohn writ his Revelation for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia and writ after the Revelation for he writ a Treatise of it as saith Eusebius However at least some of these were then and all of these about that time were Bishops of these Churches and the Angels S. John speaks of were such who had jurisdiction over their whole Diocess therefore these or such as these were the Angels to whom the Spirit of God writ hortatory and commendatory letters such whom Christ held in his Right hand and fixed them in the Churches like lights set on a candlestick that they might give shine to the whole house The Summe of all is this that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters or 72 Disciples To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power for the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable for by vertue of it they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation and of giving his grace in the collation of holy Orders a power of jurisdiction and authority to govern the Church and this power was not temporary but successive and perpetual and was intended as any ordinary office in the Church so that the successors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had and though the personal mission was not immediate as of the Apostles it was yet the commission and institution of the function was all one But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but of preaching which was a very limited commission There was all the immediate Divine institution of Presbyterate as a distinct order that can be fairly pretended But yet farther these 72 the Apostles did admit in partem solicitudinis and by new ordination or delegation Apostolical did give them power of administring Sacraments of Absolving sinners of governing the Church in conjunction and subordination to the Apostles of which they had a capacity by Christs calling them at first in sortem ministerii but the exercise and the actuating of this capacity they had from the Apostles So that not by Divine ordination or immediate commission from Christ but by derivation from the Apostles and therefore in minority and subordination to them the Presbyters did exercise acts of order and jurisdiction in the absence of the Apostles or Bishops or in conjunction consiliary and by way of advice or before the consecration of a Bishop to a particular Church And all this I doubt not but was done by the direction of the Holy Ghost as were all other acts of Apostolical ministration and particularly the institution of the other order viz. of Deacons This is all that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the commission given in the institution of Presbyters and this I shall afterwards confirm by the practice of the Catholick Church and so vindicate the practises of the present Church from the common prejudices that disturb us for by this account Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution but the only order that derives immediately from Christ. For the present only I summe up this with that saying of Theodoret speaking of the 72 Disciples Palmae sunt isti qui nutriuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apostolis Nam quanquam Christus hos etiam elegit erant tamen duodecim illis inferiores postea illorum Discipuli sectatores The Apostles are the twelve fountains and the LXXII are the palms that are nourished by the waters of those fountains For though Christ also ordained the LXXII yet they were inferior to the Apostles and afterwards were their followers and Disciples I know no objection to hinder a conclusion only two or three words out of Ignatius are pretended against the main question viz. to prove that he although a Bishop yet had no Apostolical authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not
most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations 1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter as it is contended for on one side and granted on all sides then where both the words are used what shall determine the signification For whether to instance in this place shall Presbyter limit Episcopus or Episcopus extend Presbyter Why may not Presbyter signifie one that is verily a Bishop as Episcopus signifie a meer Presbyter For it is but an ignorant conceit where-ever Presbyter is named to fancy it in the proper and limited sence and not to do so with Episcopus and when they are joyned together rather to believe it in the limited and present sence of Presbyter than in the proper and present sence of Episcopus So that as yet we are indifferent upon the terms These men sent for from Ephesus are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters of the Church but at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos there they are called Bishops or overseers So that I may as well say here properly so called Bishops as another may say here were meer Presbyters * And lest it be objected in prejudice of my affirmative that they could not be Bishops because they were of Ephesus there never being but one Bishop in one Church I answer that in the Apostles times this was not true For at Jerusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopal and Apostolical authority and so at Antioch as at Jerusalem where James and Judas and Silas and the Apostles and Paul and Barnabas at Antioch and at Rome at the same time Peter and Paul and Linus and Clemens but yet but one of them was fixt and properly the Bishop of that place But secondly All these were not of Ephesus but the Elders of all Asia but some from other Countries as appears ver 4. So that although they were all Bishops we might easily find distinct Diocesses for them without incumbring the Church of Ephesus with a multiplied incumbency Thus far then we are upon even terms the community of compellations used here can no more force us to believe them all to be meer Presbyters than Bishops in the proper sence 2. It is very certain that they were not all meer Presbyters at his farewell Sermon for S. Timothy was there and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony and many of those which are reckoned ver 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey and imployed in mission Apostolical for the founding of Churches and particularly Sosipater was there and he was Bishop of Iconium and Tychicus of Chalcedon in Bythinia as Dorotheus and Eusebius witness and Trophimus of Arles in France for so it is witnessed by the suffragans of that province in their Epistle to S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presbyters for besides the premisses we have a witness beyond exception the ancient S. Irenaeus In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso à reliquis proximis civitatibus quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere c. S. Paul making haste to keep his Pentecost at Jerusalem at Miletus did call together the Bishops and Presbyters from Ephesus and the neighbouring Cities * Now to all these in conjunction S. Paul spoke and to these indeed the Holy Ghost had concredited his Church to be fed and taught with Pastoral supravision but in the mean while here is no commission of power or jurisdiction to Presbyters distinctly nor supposition of any such praeexistent power 3. All that S. Paul said in this narration was spoken in the presence of them all but not to them all For that of verse 18. Ye know how I have been with you in Asia in all seasons that indeed was spoke to all the Presbyters that came from Ephesus and the voisâ—â—age viz. in a collective sence not in a distributive for each of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travels but this was not spoken to Sopater the Berean or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian but to Tychicus and Trophimus who were Asians it might be addressed And for that of vers 25. Ye all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more this was directed only to the Asians for he was never more to come thither but Timothy to be sure saw him afterwards for Saint Paul sent for him a little before his death to Rome and it will not be supposed he neglected to attend him So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops and Presbyters at his meeting as most certainly there was and of Evangelists and Apostolical men besides how shall it be known or indeed with any probability suspected that clause of vers 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters and not particularly to Timothy who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus and to Gaius and to the other Apostolical men who had at least Episcopal authority that is power of founding and ordering Churches without a fixt and limited jurisdiction 4. Either in this place is no jurisdiction at all intimated de antiquo or concredited de novo or if there be it is in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 28. Bishops and Feeders and then it belongs either to the Presbyters in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishops for to the meer Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertain by any intimation of that place 5. How and if these Presbyters which came from Ephesus and the other parts of Asia were made Bishops at Miletus Then also this way all difficulty will be removed And that so it was is more than probable for to be sure Timothy was now entring and fixing upon his See and it was consonant to the practice of the Apostles and the exigence of the thing it self when they were to leave a Church to fix a Bishop in it for why else was a Bishop fixt in Jerusalem so long before any other Churches but because the Apostles were to be scattered from thence and there the first bloody field of Martyrdom was to be fought And the case was equal here for Saint Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more and foresaw that ravening Wolves would enter into the Folds and he had actually placed a Bishop in Ephesus and it is unimaginable that he would not make equal provision for other Churches there being the same necessity from the same danger in them all and either Saint Paul did it now or never and that about this time the other six Asian Churches had Angels or Bishops set in their Candlesticks is plain for there had been a succession in the Church of Pergamus Antipas was dead and Saint Timothy had sat in Ephesus and
them but Diocesan and therefore the lesser but conventus Capitularis or however not enough to give evidence of a subscription of Presbyters to so much as a Provincial Council For the guise of Christendom was always otherwise and therefore it was the best argument that the Bishops in the Arian hurry used to acquit themselves from the suspicion of heresie Neque nos sumus Arii sectatores Quî namque fieri potest ut cum simus Episcopi Ario Presbytero auscultemus Bishops never receive determination of any article from Priests but Priests do from Bishops Nam vestrum est eos instruere saith S. Clement speaking of the Bishops office and power over Priests and all the Clergy and all the Diocess eorum est vobis obedire ut Deo cujus legatione fungimini And a little after Audire ergo eum attentius oportet ab ipso suscipere doctrinam fidei monita autem vitae à Presbyteris inquirere Of the Priests we must inquire for rules of good life but of the Bishop receive positions and determinations of faith Against this if it be objected Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet That which is of general concernment must also be of general Scrutiny I answer it is true unless where God himself hath intrusted the care of others in a body as he hath in the Bishops and will require the souls of his Diocess at his hand and commanded us to require the Law at their mouths and to follow their faith whom he hath set over us And therefore the determination of Councils pertains to all and is handled by all not in diffusion but in representation For Ecclesia est in Episcopo Episcopus in Ecclesiâ saith S. Cyprian the Church is in the Bishop viz. by representment and the Bishop is in the Church viz. as a Pilot in a ship or a Master in a family or rather as a steward and Guardian to rule in his Masters absence and for this reason the Synod of the Nicene Bishops is called in Eusebius conventus orbis terrarum and by S. Austin consensus totius Ecclesiae not that the whole Church was there present in their several persons but was there represented by the Catholick Bishops and if this representment be not sufficient for obligation to all I see no reason but the Ladies too may vote in Councils for I doubt not but they have souls too But however if this argument were concluding in it self yet it loses its force in England where the Clergy are bound by Laws of Parliament and yet in the capacity of Clergy-men are allowed to chuse neither Procurators to represent us as Clergy nor Knights of the Shire to represent us as Commons In conclusion of this I say to the Presbyters as S. Ambrose said of the Lay-Judges whom the Arians would have brought to judge in Council it was an old heretical trick Veniant planè si qui sunt ad Ecclesiam audiant cum populo non ut quisquam Judex resideat sed unusquisque de suo affectu habeat examen eligat quem sequatur So may Presbyters be present so they may judge not for others but for themselves And so may the people be present and anciently were so and therefore Councils were always kept in open Churches ubi populus judicat not for others but for themselves not by external sentence but internal conviction so S. Ambrose expounds himself in the forecited allegation There is no considerable objection against this discourse but that of the first Council of Jerusalem where the Apostles and Elders did meet together to determine of the question of circumcision For although in the story of celebration of it we find no man giving sentence but Peter and James yet in Acts 16. they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees judged by the Apostles and Elders But first in this the difficulty is the less because Presbyter was a general word for all that were not of the number of the twelve Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors And then secondly it is none at all because Paul and Barnabas are signally and by name reckoned as present in the Synod and one of them Prolocutor or else both So that such Presbyters may well define in such conventual assemblies 3. If yet there were any difficulty latent in the story yet the Catholick practice of Gods Church is certainly the best expositor of such places where there either is any difficulty or where any is pretended And of this I have already given account * I remember also that this place is pretended for the peoples power of voicing in Councils It is a pretty pageant only that it is against the Catholick practice of the Church against the exigence of Scripture which bids us require the law at the mouth of our spiritual Rulers against the gravity of such assemblies for it would force them to be tumultuous and at the best are the worst of Sanctions as being issues of popularity and to summe up all it is no way authorized by this first copy of Christian Councils The pretence is in the Synodal letter written in the name of the Apostles and Elders and Brethren that is says Geta The Apostles and Presbyters and People But why not Brethren that is all the Deacons and Evangelists and Helpers in Government and Ministers of the Churches There is nothing either in words or circumstances to contradict this If it be asked who then are meant by Elders if by Brethren S. Luke understands these Church-officers I answer that here is such variety that although I am not certain which officers he precisely comprehends under the distinct titles of Elders and Brethren yet here are enough to furnish both with variety and yet neither to admit meer Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question nor authorising the decretal For besides the twelve Apostles there were Apostolical men which were Presbyters and something more as Paul and Barnabas and Silas and Evangelists and Pastors besides which might furnish out the last appellative sufficiently But however without any further trouble it is evident that this word Brethren does not distinguish the Laity from the Clergy Now when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts and said unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles Men and brethren what shall we do Judas and Silas who were Apostolical men are called in Scripture chief men among the brethren But this is too known to need a contestation I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperor in the Eighth Synod De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus quà m qui absolutè versamini quid amplius dicam non habeo quà m quòd nullo modo vobis licet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere neque penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae universali Synodo adversari Lay-men says the Emperor must by no means
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
the accidents of a body were not communicable to a Spirit but how easily might they have been deceived if it had pleased God to invest other substances with new and stranger accidents For though a Spirit hath not flesh and bones they may represent to the eyes and hands the accidents of flesh and bones and if it could in the matter of faith stand with the goodness and wisdom of God to suffer it what certainty could there be of any Article of our religion relating to Christs humanity or any proposition proved by miracles To this instance the man that must answer all I mean Bellarmine ventures something saying it was a good argument of our blessed Saviour Handle and see that I am no Spirit That which is handled and seen is no Spirit But it is no good argument to say This is not seen not handled therefore it is no body and therefore the body of Christ may be naturally in the Sacrament though it is not seen nor handled To this I reply 1. That suppose it were true what he said yet it would also follow by his own words This is seen bread and is handled so therefore it is bread Hoc enim affirmativè colligitur This is the affirmative consequent made by our blessed Lord and here confessed to be certain It being the same collection It is I for by feeling and seeing you shall believe it to be so and it is bread for by feeling and seeing and tasting and smelling it you shall perceive it to be so To which let this be added That in Scripture it is as plainly affirmed to be bread as it is called Christs body Now then because it cannot be both in the proper and natural sence but one of them must be figurative and tropical since both of the appellatives are equally affirm'd is it not notorious that in this case we ought to give judgment on that side which we are prompted to by common sense If Christ had said only This is my body and no Apostle had told us also that it is bread we had reason to suspect our senses to be deceived if it were possible they should be but when it is equally affirmed to be bread as to be our Lords body and but one of them can be naturally true and in the letter shall the testimony of all our senses be absolutely of no use in casting the ballance The two affirmatives are equal one must be expounded tropically which will you chuse Is there in the world any thing more certain and expedite than that what you see and feel and taste naturall and proper should be judged to be that which you see and feel and taste naturally and properly and therefore that the other be expounded tropically since you must expound one of the words tropically I think it is not hard to determine whether you ought to do it against your sense or with it But it is also remarkable that our blessed Lord did not only by feeling and seeing prove it to be a body but by proving it was his body he proved it was himself that is by these accidents representing my person ye are not led into an error of the person any more than of the kind of substance See my hands and my feet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is even I my self this I noted lest a silly escape be made by pretending these accidents only proved Christ to be no Spirit but a body and so the accidents of bread declare a latent body meaning the body of Christ For as the accidents of a body declare the substance of a body so the particular accidents of this kind declare this kind of this person declare this person For so our blessed Saviour proved it to be himself in particular and if it were not so the deceit would pass from one thing to another and although it had not been a Spirit yet it might be John the Baptist risen from the dead or Moses or Elias and not Jesus their dear Lord. Besides if this had been all that Jesus had intended only to prove he was no spectrum but a body he had not done what was intended For put case it had been a Spirit and had assumed a body as Bellarmine in the very next Paragraph forgetting himself or else being entangled in the wildernesses of an inconsistent discourse affirms that in Scriptures the Israelites did sometimes see and then they were not deceived in touching or seeing a body for there was a body assumed and so it seemed to Abraham and Lot but then suppose Jesus Christ had done so and had been indeed a Spirit in an assumed body had not the Apostles been deceived by their feeling and seeing as well as the Israelites were in thinking those Angels to be men that came to them in humane shapes how had Christs arguments been pertinent and material how had he proved that he was no Spirit by shewing a body which might be the case of a Spirit but that it is not consistent with the wisdom and goodness of God to suffer any illusion in any matter of sense relating to an Article of Faith 5. Secondly It was the case of the Christian Church once not only to rely upon the evidence of sense for an introduction to the religion but also to need and use this argument in confirmation of an Article of the Creed For the Valentinians and the Marcionites thought Christs body to be fantastical and so denied the Article of the Incarnation and if arguments from sense were not enough to confute them viz. that the Apostles did see and feel a body flesh and blood and bones how could they convince these misbelievers for whatsoever answer can be brought against the reality of bread in the Eucharist all that may be answered in behalf of the Marcionites for if you urge to them all those places of Scripture which affirm Christ to have a body they answer it was in Scripture called a body because it seem'd to be so which is the answer Bellarmine gives to all those places of Scripture which call it bread after consecration And if you object that if it be not what it seems then the senses are deceived They will answer a Jesuit being by and prompting them the senses were not deceived because they only saw colour shape figure and the other accidents but the inward sense and understanding that is the man was deceived when he thought it to be the body of a man for under those accidents and appearances there was an Angel or a Divinity but no Man and now upon the grounds of Transubstantiation how can they be confuted I would fain know 6. But Tertullian disputing against them uses the argument of sense as the only instrument of concluding against them infallibly Non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos revocare c. It is not lawful to doubt of our senses lest the same doubt be made concerning Christ lest peradventure it should
extrinsecal to a quantitative body and it relies upon the definition Aristotle gives of it in the fourth book of his Physicks that place is the superficies of the ambient body which is as absurd in nature as any thing can be imagined for then a stone in the bottom of a river did change his place though it lie still in every instant because new water still washes it and by this rule it is necessary against Aristotles great grounds that some quantitative bodies should not be in a place or else that quantitative bodies were Categorematically infinite For either there is no end but body incloses body for ever or else the ultimate or outmost body is not inclosed by any thing and so cannot be in a place To which add this that if Epicurus his opinion were true and that there were some spaces empty which at least by a Divine power can become true and he can take the air out from the inclosure of four walls In this case if you will suppose a man sitting in the midst of that room either that man were in no place at all which were infinitely absurd or else which indeed is true circumscription or superficies were not the essence of a place Place therefore is nothing but the Space to which quantitative bodies have essential relation and finition that where they consist and by which they are not infinite and this is the definition of place which S. Austin gives in his fourth book Exposit. of Genes ad literam chapt 8. 30. God can do what he please and he can reverse the laws of his whole creation because he can change or annihilate every creature or alter the manners and essences but the question now is what laws God hath already established and whether or no essentials can be changed the things remaining the same that is whether they can be the same when they are not the same He that says God can give to a body all the essential properties of a Spirit says true and confesses Gods omnipotency but he says also that God can change a body from being a body to become a Spirit but if he says that remaining a body it can receive the essentials of a Spirit he does not confess Gods omnipotency but makes this Article difficult to be believed by making it not to work wisely and possibly God can do all things but are they undone when they are done that is are the things chang'd in their essentials and yet remain the same then how are they chang'd and then what hath God done to them 31. But as to the particular question To suppose a body not coextended to a place is to suppose a man alive not coexistent to time to be in no place and to be in no time being alike possible and this intrinsecal extension of parts is as inseparable from the extrinsecal as an intrinsecal duration is from time Place and Time being nothing but the essential manners of material complete substances these cannot be supposed such as they are without time and place because quantitative bodies in their very formality suppose that For place without body in it is but a notion in Logick but when it is a reality it is a Vbi and time is Quando and a body supposed abstractly from place is not real but intentional and in notion only and is in the Category of substance but not of quantity But it is a strange thing that we are put to prove the very principles of nature and first rudiments of art which are so plain that they can be understood naturally but by all devices of the world cannot be made dubitable 32. But against all the evidence of essential and natural reason some overtures of Scripture must be pretended For that two bodies can be in one place appears because Christ came from his mothers womb it being closed into the assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut out of the grave the stone not being rolled away and ascended into Heaven through the solid orbs of all the firmament Concerning the first and the last the Scripture speaks nothing neither can any man tell whether the orbs of Heaven be solid or fluid or which way Christ went in But of the Heavens opening the Scripture sometimes makes mention And the Prophet David spake in the Spirit saying Lift up your heads O ye gates and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors and the King of glory shall come in The stone of the Sepulchre was removed by an Angel so saith S. Matthew But why should it be supposed the Angel rolled it away after Christ was risen or if he did why Christ did not remove it himself who loosed all the bands of death by which he was held and there leave it when he was risen or if he had passed through and wrought a miracle why it should not be told us or why it should not remain as a testimony to the Souldiers and Jews and convince them the more when they should see the body gone and yet their seals unbroken or if it were not how we should come to fancy it was so I understand not neither is there ground for it There is only remaining that we account concerning Jesus his entring into the assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut To this I answer that this infers not a penetration of bodies or that two bodies can be in one place 1. Because there are so many ways of effecting it without that impossibility 2. The door might be made to yield to his Creator as easily as water which is fluid be made firm under his feet for consistence or lability are not essential to wood and water For water can naturally be made consistent as when 't is turned to ice and wood that can naturally be petrified can upon the efficiency of an equal agent be made thin or labile or inconsistent 3. This was done on the same day in which the Sea yielded to the children of Israel that is the seventh day after the Passeover and we may allow it to be a miracle though it be no more than that of the waters that is as these were made consistent for a time Suppositúmque rotis solidum mare So the doors apt to yield to a solid body possint namque omnia reddi Mollia quae fiant aer aqua terra vapores Quo pacto fiant quâ vi cunque gerantur 4. How easie was it for Christ to pass his body through the pores of it and the natural apertures if he were pleased to unite them and thrust the matter into a greater consolidation 5. Wood being reduced to ashes possesses but a little room that is the crass impenetrable parts are but few the other apt for cession which could easily be disposed by God as he pleased 6. The words in the Text are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the past tense the gates or doors having been shut but that they were shut in the instant of his
the nature of the imployment for I love not to be as S. Paul calls it one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disputers of this world For I suppose skill in Controversies as they are now us'd to be the worst part of learning and time is the worst spent in them and men the least benefited by them that is when the Questions are curious and impertinent intricate and unexplicable not to make men better but to make a Sect. But when the Propositions disputed are of the foundation of Faith or lead to good life or naturally do good to single persons or publick Societies then they are part of the depositum of Christianity of the Analogy of faith and for this we are by the Apostle commanded to contend earnestly and therefore Controversies may become necessary but because they are not often so but oftentimes useless and always troublesome and as an ill diet makes an ill habit of body so does the frequent use of controversies baffle the understanding and makes it crafty to deceive others it self remaining instructed in nothing but useless notions and words of contingent signification and distinctions without difference which minister to pride and contention and teach men to be pertinacious troublesome and uncharitable therefore I love them not But because by the Apostolical Rule I am tyed to do all things without murmurings as well as without disputings I consider'd it over again and found my self reliev'd by the subject matter and the grand consequent of the present Questions For in the present affair the case is not so as in the others here the Questions are such that the Church of Rome declares them to reach a◠far as eternity and damn all that are not of their opinions and the Protestants have much more reason to fear concerning the Papists such who are not excus'd by ignorance that their condition is very sad and deplorable and that it is charity to snatch them as a brand from the fire and indeed the Church of Rome maintains Propositions which if the Ancient Doctors of the Church may be believ'd are apt to separate from God I instance in their superaddition of Articles and Propositions derived only from a pretended tradition and not contain'd in Scripture Now the doing of this is a great sin and a great danger Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus detrahentibus destinatum said Tertullian I adore the fulness of Scripture and if it be not written let Hermogenus fear the woe that is destin'd to them that detract from or add to it S. Basil says Without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity and a most certain sign of pride to introduce any thing that is not written in the Scriptures our blessed Saviour having said My sheep hear my voice and the voice of strangers they will not hear and to detract from Scriptures or add any thing to the Faith that is not there is most vehemently forbidden by the Apostle saying If it be but a mans Testament nemo superordinat no man adds to it And says also This was the Will of the Testator And Theophilus Alexandrinus says plainly It is the part of a Devillish spirit to think any thing to be Divine that is not in the authority of the holy Scriptures and therefore S. Athanasius affirms that the Catholicks will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in Religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being immodestiae vaecordia an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written Now let any man judge whether it be not our duty and a necessary work of charity and the proper office of our Ministery to perswade our charges from the immodesty of an evil heart from having a Devillish spirit from doing that which is vehemently forbidden by the Apostle from infidelity and pride and lastly from that eternal Woe which is denounc'd against them that add other words and doctrines than what is contain'd in the Scriptures and say Dominus dixit The Lord hath said it and he hath not said it If we had put these severe censures upon the Popish doctrine of Tradition we should have been thought uncharitable but because the holy Fathers do so we ought to be charitable and snatch our Charges from the ambient flame And thus it is in the question of Images Dubium non est quin Religio nulla sit ubicunque simulacrum est said Lactantius Without all peradventure where ever an Image is meaning for worship there is no Religion and that we ought rather to die than pollute our Faith with such impieties said Origen It is against the Law of Nature it being expresly forbidden by the second Commandment as Irenaeus affirms Tertullian Cyprian and S. Augustine and therefore is it not great reason we should contend for that Faith which forbids all worship of Images and oppose the superstition of such Guides who do teach their people to give them veneration to prevaricate the Moral Law and the very Law of Nature and do that which whosoever does has no Religion We know Idolatry is a damnable sin and we also know that the Roman Church with all the artifices she could use never can justifie her self or acquit the common practices from Idolatry and yet if it were but suspicious that it is Idolatry it were enough to awaken us for God is a jealous God and will not endure any such causes of suspicion and motives of jealousie I instance but once more The Primitive Church did excommunicate them that did not receive the holy Sacrament in both kinds and S. Ambrose says that he who receives the Mystery other ways than Christ appointed that is but in one kind when he hath appointed it in two is unworthy of the Lord and he cannot have Devotion Now this thing we ought not to suffer that our people by so doing should remain unworthy of the Lord and for ever be indevout or cozen'd with a false shew of devotion or fall by following evil Guides into the sentence of Excommunication These matters are not trifling and when we see these errors frequently taught and own'd as the only true Religion and yet are such evils which the Fathers say are the way of damnation we have reason to hope that all wise and good men lovers of souls will confess that we are within the circles of our duty when we teach our people to decline the crooked ways and to walk in the ways of Scripture and Christianity But we have observed amongst the generality of the Irish such a declension of Christianity so great credulity to believe every superstitious story such confidence in vanity such groundless pertinacy such vicious lives so little sense of true Religion and the fear of God so much care to obey the Priests and so little to obey God such intolerable ignorance such fond Oaths and manners of swearing thinking
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
which Pope John the Eighth severely reprov'd them and commanded them to do so no more but being better inform'd he wrote a letter to their Prince Sfentoputero in which he affirms that it is not contrary to faith and found doctrine to say Mass and other prayers in the Slavonian tongue and adds this reason because he that Hebrew Greek and Latin hath made the others also for his glory and this also he confirms with the authority of S. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians and some other Scriptures only he commanded for the decorum of the business the Gospel should first be said in Latin and then in the Slavonian tongue But just two hundred years after this the Tables were turned and though formerly these things were permitted yet so were many things in the Primitive Church but upon better examination they have been corrected And therefore P. Gregory the seventh wrote to Vratislaus of Bohemia that he could not permit the celebration of the divine offices in the Slavonian tongue and he commanded the Prince to oppose the people herein with all his forces Here the world was strangely altered and yet S. Paul's Epistle was not condemned of heresie and no Council had decreed that all vulgar languages were prophane and no reason can yet be imagined why the change was made unless it were to separate the Priest from the people by a wall of Latin and to nurse stupendious ignorance in them by not permitting to them learning enough to understand their publick prayers in which every man was greatly concerned Neither may this be called a slight matter for besides that Gregory the seventh thought it so considerable that it was a just cause of a war or persecution for he commanded the Prince of Bohemia to oppose the people in it with all his forces besides this I say to pray to God with the understanding is much better than praying with the tongue that alone can be a good prayer this alone can never and then the loss of all those advantages which are in prayers truly understood the excellency of devotion the passion of desires the ascent of the mind to God the adherence to and acts of confidence in him the intellectual conversation with God most agreeable to a rational being the melting affections the pulses of the heart to and from God to and from our selves the promoting and exercising of our hopes all these and very many more which can never be intire but in the prayers and devotions of the heart and can never be in any degree but in the same in which the prayers are acts of love and wisdom of the will and the understanding will be lost to the greatest part of the Catholick Church if the mouth be set open and the soul be gag'd so that it shall be the word of the mouth but not the word of the mind All these things being added to what was said in this article by the Disswasive will more than make it clear that in this article the consequents of which are very great the Church of Rome hath causelesly troubled Christendom and innovated against the Primitive Church and against her own ancient doctrines and practices and even against the Apostle But they care for none of these things Some of their own Bigots profess the thing in the very worst of all these expressions for so Reynolds and Gifford in their Calvino Turcismus complain that such horrid and stupendious evils have followed the translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages that they are of force enough ad istas translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi Divina vel Apostolica authoritate niterentur Although they did rely upon the authority Apostolical or Divine yet they ought to be taken away So that it is to no purpose to urge Scripture or any argument in the world against the Roman Church in this article for if God himself command it to be translated yet it is not sufficient and therefore these men must be left to their own way of understanding for beyond the law of God we have no argument I will only remind them that it is a curse which God threatens to his rebellious people I will speak to this people with men of another tongue and by strange lips and they shall not understand This is the curse which the Church of Rome contends earnestly for in behalf of their people SECT VI. Of the Worship of Images THAT society of Christians will not easily be reformed that think themselves oblig'd to dispute for the worship of Images the prohibition of which was so great a part of the Mosaick Religion and is so infinitely against the nature and spirituality of the Christian a thing which every understanding can see condemned in the Decalogue and no man can excuse but witty persons that can be bound by no words which they can interpret to a sence contradictory to the design of the common a thing for the hating of and abstaining from which the Jews were so remark'd by all the world and by which as by a distinctive cognizance they were separated from all other Nations and which with perfect resolution they keep to this very day and for the not observing of which they are intolerably scandaliz'd at those societies of Christians who without any necessity in the thing without any pretence of any Law of God for no good and for no wise end and not without infinite danger at least of idolatry retain a worship and veneration to some stocks and stones Such men as these are too hard for all laws and for all arguments so certain it is that faith is an obedience of the will in a conviction of the understanding that if in the will and interests of men there be a perverseness and a non-compliance and that it is not bent by prudent and wise â—lexures and obedience to God and the plain words of God in Scripture nothing can ever prevail neither David nor his Sling nor all the worthies of his army In this question I have said enough in the Disswasive and also in the Ductor Dubitantium but to the arguments and fulness of the perswasion they neither have nor can they say any thing that is material but according to their usual method like flies they search up and down and light upon any place which they suppose to be sore or would make their proselytes believe so I shall therefore first vindicate those few quotations which the Epistles of his brethren except against for there are many and those most pregnant which they take no notice of as bearing in them too clear a conviction 2. I shall answer such testimonies which some of them steal out of Bellarmine and which they esteem as absolutely their best And 3. I shall add something in confirmation of that truth of God which I here have undertaken to defend First for the questioned quotations against the worship of Images S. Cyril was nam'd in the Disswasive as denying that the Christians
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a root of bitterness such as was in Esau when he undid himself and repented too late an evil heart in turning from the living Lord a sear'd conscience a walking according to the Prince of this world enemies of the cross of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as cannot cease from sin enemies that will not have Christ but the Devil to reign over them for this is the true state and constitution of vicious habits This is more than an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or hindrance of doing our duty it is a direct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a disorder and corruption inherent in all our faculties 22. This is signally describ'd by S. Paul who calls it a concupiscence wrought by sin For sin saith he wrought in me all manner of concupiscence it is called by him a law in the members fighting against the law in my mind and the man he calls carnal sold under sin dead killed and the sin it self inhabitants peccatum sin dwelling in me and flesh in which dwelleth no good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the carnal mind These things as is evident cannot be spoken of the single actions of sin but of the law the power the dominion the reign the habit of sin It is that which was wrought by sin viz. by the single actions of sin and therefore he does not mean single actions neither can he mean the remanent guilt of the past action but he speaks of a direct state of sinfulness which is prolifical and productive of sin For sin wrought this concupiscence and carnal-mindedness and this carnal-mindedness is such a propensity and desire to sin and hath in it such easiness to act that it bringeth forth many sins and they bring forth death and therefore the Apostle says expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this carnal mindedness is death and enmity against God this is that state in which whosoever abides cannot please God To the same purpose are those other expressions of Scripture calling this state Vias Balaam the ways of Balaam the son of Bosor a walking perversly with God a being sold under sin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hearts excercised or imployed and used to covetousness and it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sons of cursing The fault or charge is more than that of single actions and the curse is greater than ordinary as the sin is so is the curse the one is apportion'd to the other and appropriate 23. III. But I consider further A single act of sin does not in all cases denominate a man vicious A man is not called a drunkard for having been once drunk but for being often for repeating the act or continuing the affection Every single act provokes God to anger but that anger can be as soon rescinded as the act is past if it remains not by something that is habitual Indeed he is called a thief or an adulterer that does one action of those crimes because his consent in such things is great enough to equal a habit in lesser things The effect is notorious the prohibition severe the dangers infinite the reasons of them evident they are peccata vastantia conscientiam quae uno actu perimunt as S. Austin says they kill with one blow and therefore God exacts them highly and men call the criminal by the name of the vice But the action gives denomination but in some cases but the habit in all No man lives without sin and in the state of regeneration our infirmities still press upon us and make our hands shake and our foot to stumble and sometimes the enemy makes an inroad and is presently beaten out again and though the good man resolves against all and contends against all Pauca tamen suberunt priscae vestigia fraudis there will be something for him to be humbled at something to contest against to keep him watchful and upon his guard But if he be ebriosus or petulans if he be a drunkard or wanton an extortioner or covetous that is if he have a habit of any sin whatsoever then he is not the son of God but an heir of death and hell That therefore which in all cases denominates a man such both before God and before men when the actions do not that must needs have in it a proper malignity of its own and that 's the habit 24. IV. This we may also see evidently in the matter of smaller sins and the trifles of our life which though they be often repeated yet if they be kept asunder by the intercision of the actions of repentance do not discompose our state of grace but if they be habitual they do though it may be the single instances by some accident being hindred do not so often return and this is confess'd on all hands But then the consequent of this is that the very being habitual is a special irregularity 25. V. This also appears by the nature and malignity of the greater sins A vicious habit is a principle of evil naturally and directly And therefore as the capital sins are worse than others because they are an impure root and apt to produce accursed fruits as covetousness is the root of all evil and pride and envy and idolatry so is every habit the mother of evil not accidentally and by chance but by its proper efficacy and natural germination and therefore is worse than single actions 26. VI. If natural concupiscence hath in it the nature of sin and needs a laver of regeneration and the blood of Christ to wash it off much more shall our habitual and acquir'd concupiscence For this is much worse procur'd by our own act introduc'd by our consent brought upon us by the wrath of God which we have deserved springing from the baseness of our own manners the consequent of our voluntary disobedience So that if it were unreasonable that our natural concupiscence should be charged upon us as criminal as being involuntary yet for the same Reason it is most reasonable that our habitual sins our superinduc'd concupiscence should be imputed to us as criminal because it is voluntary in its cause which is in us and is voluntary in the effect that is it is delighted in and seated in the will But however this argument ought to prevail upon all that admit the article of original sin as it is usually taught in Schools and Churches For upon the denial of it Pelagius also introduc'd this opinion against which I am now disputing And lest concupiscence might be reckon'd a sin he affirm'd that no habitude no disposition nothing but an act could be a sin But on the other side lest concupiscence should be accounted no sin S. Austin disputes earnestly largely affirming and proving that a sinful habit is a special sinfulness distinct from that of evil actions malus thesaurus cordis the evil treasure of the heart out of which proceeds all mischief and a continual defluxion of impurities 27. VII And therefore as God
excellency of the Divine grace and S. Austin needed not to have been put to his shifts in this Question it is considerable that his first Exposition had done his business better For if these words of S. Paul be as indeed they are to be expounded of an unregenerate man one under the law but not under grace nothing could more have magnified Gods grace than that an unregenerate person could not by all the force of nature nor the aids of the law nor the spirit of fear nor temporal hopes be redeem'd from the slavery and tyranny of sin and that from this state there is no redemption but by the Spirit of God and the grace of the Lord Jesus which is expresly affirmed and proved by S. Paul if you admit this sence of the words And therefore Irenaeus who did so cites these words to the same effect viz. for the magnifying the grace of God Ipse Dominus erat qui salvabat eos quia per semetipsos non habebant salvari Et propter hoc Paulus infirmitatem hominis annuncians ait Scio enim quoniam non habitat in carne meâ bonum significans quoniam non à nobis sed à Deo est bonum salutis Et iterum Miser ego homo quis me liberabit de corpore mortis hujus Deinde infert liberatorem Gratia Jesu Christi Domini nostri S. Paul's complaint shews our own infirmity and that of our selves we cannot be saved but that our salvation is of God and the grace of our Redeemer Jesus Christ. But whatever S. Austins design might be in making the worse choice it matters not much only to the interpretation it self I have these considerations to oppose 19. I. Because the phrase is insolent and the exposition violent to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by concupiscere to do is more than to desire factum dictum concupitum are the several kinds and degrees of sinning assigned by S. Austin himself and therefore they cannot be confounded and one made to expound the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also used here by the Apostle which in Scripture signifies sometimes to sin habitually never less than actually and the other word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies perficere patrare to finish the act at least or to do a sin throughly and can in no sence be reasonably expounded by natural ineffective and unavoidable desires And it is observable that when S. Austin in prosecution of this device is to expound those words to will is present with me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to perform what is good I find not he makes the word to signifie to do it perfectly which is as much beyond as the other sence of the same word is short What I do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I approve not Therefore the man does not do his sin perfectly he does the thing imperfectly for he does it against his conscience and with an imperfect choice but he does the thing however So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie to do the good imperfectly the action it self only for such was this mans impotency that he could not obtain power to do even imperfectly the good he desir'd The evil he did though against his mind but the good he could not because it was against the law of sin which reigned in him But then the same word must not to serve ends be brought to signifie a perfect work and yet not to signifie so much as a perfect desire 20. II. The sin which S. Paul under another person complains of is such a sin as did first deceive him and then slew him but concupiscence does not kill till it proceeds further as S. James expresly affirms that concupiscence when it hath conceived brings forth sin and sin when it is finished brings forth death which is the just parallel to what S. Paul says in this very Chapter The passions of sins which were by the law did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death peccatum perpetratum when the desires are acted then sin is deadly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the passions or first motions of sin which come upon us nobis non volentibus nec scientibus whether we will or no these are not imputed to us unto death but are the matter of vertue when they are resisted and contradicted but when they are consented to and delighted in then it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin in conception with death and will proceed to action unless it be hindred from without and therefore it is then the same sin by interpretation Adulterium cordis so our blessed Saviour called it in that instance the adultery of the heart but till it be an actual sin some way or other it does not bring forth death 21. III. It is an improper and ungrammatical manner of speaking to say Nolo concupiscere or Volo non concupiscere I will lust or I will not lust i. e. I will or I will not desire or will For this lust or first motions of desire are before an act of will the first act of which is when these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these motions and passions are consented to or rejected These motions are natural and involuntary and are no way in our power but when they are occasion'd by an act of the Will collaterally and indirectly or by applying the proper incentives to the faculty Vellem non concupiscere every good man must say I would fain be free from concupiscence but because he cannot it is not subject to his Will and he cannot say volo I will be free and therefore S. Paul's Volo and Nolo are not intended of Concupiscence or desires 22. IV. The good which S. Austin says the Apostle fain would but could not perfect or do it perfectly is Non concupiscere not to have concupiscence Volo non perficio but Concupiscere is but velle it is not so much and therefore cannot be more So that when he says to will is present with me he must mean to desire well is present with me but to do this I find not that is if S. Austins interpretation be true though I do desire well yet I do lust and do not desire well for still concupisco I lust and I lust not I have concupiscence and I have it not which is a contradiction 23. Many more things might be observed from the words of the Apostle to overthrow this exposition but the truth when it is proved will sufficiently reprove what is not true and therefore I shall apply my self to consider the proper intention and design of the Apostle in those so much mistaken periods SECT IV. 24. COncerning which these things are to be cleared upon which the whole issue will depend 1. That S. Paul speaks not in his own person as an Apostle or a Christian a man who is regenerate but in the person of a Jew one under the law one that is not regenerate 2. That
in our first access to Christ because they for whom Christ and his Martyr S. Stephen prayed were not yet converted and so were to be saved by Baptismal Repentance Then the Power of the Keys is exercised and the gates of the Kingdom are opened then we enter into the Covenant of mercy and pardon and promise faith and perpetual obedience to the laws of Jesus and upon that condition forgiveness is promised and exhibited offer'd and consign'd but never after for it is in Christianity for all great sins as in the Civil Law for theft Qui eâ mente alienum quid contrectavit ut lucrifaceret tametsi mutato consilio id Domino postea reddidit fur est nemo enim tali peccato poenitentiâ suâ nocens esse desinit said Vlpian and Gaius Repentance does not here take off the punishment nor the stain And so it seems to be in Christianity in which every baptized person having stipulated for obedience is upon those terms admitted to pardon and consequently if he fails of his duty he shall fail of the grace 8. But that this objection may proceed no further it is certain that it is an infinite lessening of the mercy of God in Jesus Christ to confine pardon of sins only to the Font. For that even lapsed Christians may be restored by repentance and be pardoned appears in the story of the incestuous Corinthian and the precept of S. Paul to the spiritual man or the Curate of souls If any man be overtaken in a fault ye which are spiritual restore such a man in the spirit of meekness considering thy self lest thou also be tempted The Christian might fall and the Corinthian did so and the Minister himself he who had the ministery of restitution and reconciliation was also in danger and yet they all might be restored To the same sence is that of S. James Is any man sick among you let him send for the Presbyters of the Church and let them pray over him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although he was a doer of sins they shall be forgiven him For there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sin that is not unto death And therefore when S. Austin in his first Book de Sermone Dei had said that there is some sin so great that it cannot be remitted he retracts his words with this clause addendum fuit c. I should have added If in so great perverseness of mind he ends his life For we must not despair of the worst sinner we may not despair of any since we ought to pray for all 9. For it is beyond exception or doubt that it was the great work of the Apostles and of the whole new Testament to engage men in a perpetual repentance For since all men do sin all men must repent or all men must perish And very many periods of Scripture are directed to lapsed Christians baptized persons fallen into grievous crimes calling them to repentance So Simon Peter to Simon Magus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Repent of thy wickedness and to the Corinthian Christians S. Paul urges the purpose of his legation We pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God The Spirit of God reprov'd some of the Asian Churches for foul misdemeanours and even some of the Angels the Asian Bishops calling upon them to return to their first love and to repent and to do their first works and to the very Gnosticks and filthiest Hereticks he gave space to repent and threatned extermination to them if they did not do it speedily For 10. Baptism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the admission of us to the Covenant of Faith and Repentance or as Mark the Anchoret call'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the introduction to repentance or that state of life that is full of labour and care and amendment of our faults for that is the best life that any man can live and therefore repentance hath its progress after baptism as it hath its beginning before for first repentance is unto baptism and then baptism unto repentance And if it were otherwise the Church had but ill provided for the state of her sons and daughters by commanding the baptism of Infants For if repentance were not allowed after then their early baptism would take from them all hopes of repentance and destroy the mercies of the Gospel and make it now to all Christendom a law of works in the greater instances because since in our infancy we neither need nor can perform repentance if to them that sin after baptism repentance be denied it is in the whole denied to them for ever to repent But God hath provided better things for us and such which accompany salvation 11. For besides those many things which have been already consider'd our admission to the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a perpetual entertainment of our hopes because then and there is really exhibited to us the body that was broken and the blood that was shed for remission of sins still it is applied and that application could not be necessary to be done anew if there were not new necessities and still we are invited to do actions of repentance to examine our selves and so to eat all which as things are order'd would be infinitely useless to mankind if it did not mean pardon to Christians falling into foul sins even after baptism 12. I shall add no more but the words of S. Paul to the Corinthians Lest when I come again my God will humble me among you and that I shall bewail many who have sinn'd already and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed Here is a fierce accusation of some of them for the foulest and the basest crimes and a reproof of their not repenting and a threatning them with censures Ecclesiastical I suppose this article to be sufficiently concluded from the premises The necessity of which proof they only will best believe who are severely penitent and full of apprehension and fear of the Divine anger because they have highly deserved it However I have serv'd my own needs in it and the need of those whose consciences have been or shall be so timorous as mine hath deserved to be But against the universality of this doctrine there are two grand objections The one is the severer practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church denying repentance to some kind of sinners after baptism The other the usual discourses and opinions concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost Of these I shall give account in the two following Sections SECT III. Of the Difficulty of obtaining Pardon The Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church in this Article 13. NOvatianus and Novatus said that the Church had not power to minister pardon of sins except only in Baptism which proposition when they had well digested and considered they did thus explicate That there are some capital sins crying and clamorous into
their Adversaries that speak so much reason and Scripture against them I have instanced in the Roman Religion but I wish it may be considered also how far mens doctrines in other Sects serve mens temporal ends so far that it would not be unreasonable or unnecessary to attempt to cure some of their distemperatures or misperswasions by the salutary precepts of sanctitie and holy life Sure enough if it did not more concern their reputation and their lasting interest to be counted true believers rather then good livers they would rather endeavour to live well then to be accounted of a right Opinion in things beside the Creed For my own particular I cannot but expect that God in his Justice should enlarge the bounds of the Turkish Empire or some other way punish Christians by reason of their pertinacious disputing about things unnecessary undeterminable and unprofitable and for their hating and persecuting their brethen which should be as dear to them as their own lives for not consenting to one another's follies and senseless vanities How many volumes have been writ about Angels about immaculate Conception about Original sin when that all that is solid Reason or clear Revelation in all these three Articles may be reasonably enough comprised in fourty lines And in these trifles and impertinencies men are curiously busie while they neglect those glorious precepts of Christianity and holy life which are the glories of our Religion and would enable us to a happy eternity My Lord Thus far my thoughts have carried me and then I thought I had reason to go further and to examine the proper grounds upon which these perswasions might rely and stand firm in case any body should contest against them For possibly men may be angry at me and my design for I do all them great displeasure who think no end is then well served when their interest is disserved and but that I have writ so untowardly and heavily that I am not worth a confutation possibly some or other might be writing against me But then I must tell them I am prepared of an answer beforehand For I think I have spoken reason in my Book and examined it with all the severity I have and if after all this I be deceived this confirms me in my first opinion and becomes a new Argument to me that I have spoken reason for it furnishes me with a new instance that it is necessary there should be a mutual compliance and Toleration because even then when a man thinks he hath most reason to be confident he may easily be deceived For I am sure I have no other design but the prosecution and advantage of Truth and I may truely use the words of Gregory Nazianzen Non studemus paci in detrimentum verae doctrinae ut facilitatis mansuetudinis famam colligamus but I have writ this because I thought it was necessary and seasonable and charitable and agreeable to the great precepts and design of Christianity consonant to the practice of the Apostles and of the best Ages of the Church most agreeable to Scripture and Reason to Revelation and the nature of the thing and it is such a Doctrine that if there be variety in humane affairs if the event of things be not setled in a durable consistence but is changeable every one of us all may have need of it I shall onely therefore desire that they who will reade it may come to the reading it with as much simplicity of purposes and unmixed desires of truth as I did to the writing it and that no man trouble himself with me or my discourse that thinks beforehand that his Opinion cannot be reasonably altered If he thinks me to be mistaken before he tries let him also think that he may be mistaken too and that he who judges before he hears is mistaken though he gives a right sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Was good counsel But at a venture I shall leave this sentence of Solomon to his consideration A wise man feareth and departeth from evil but a fool rageth and is confident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a trick of boys and bold young fellows says Aristotle but they who either know themselves or things or persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peradventure yea peradventure no is very often the wisest determination of a Question For there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle notes foolish and unlearned Questions and it were better to stop the current of such fopperies by silence then by disputing them convey them to posterity And many things there are of more profit which yet are of no more certainty and therefore boldness of assertion except it be in matters of Faith and clearest Revelation is an Argument of the vanity of the man never of the truth of the Proposition for to such matters the saying of Xenophanes in Varro is pertinent and applicable Hominis est haec opinari Dei scire God only knows them and we conjecture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And although I be as desirous to know what I should and what I should not as any of my brethren the sons of Adam yet I find that the more I search the farther I am from being satisfied and make but few discoveries save of my own ignorance and therefore I am desirous to follow the example of a very wise personage Julius Agricola of whom Tacitus gave this testimony RetinuÃtque quod est difficillimum ex scientia modum or that I may take my precedent from within the pale of the Church it was the saying of S. Austin Mallem quidem eorum quae à me quaesivisti habere scientiam quam ignorantiam sed quia id nondum potui magis eligo cautam ignorantiam confiteri quam falsam scientiam profiteri And these words do very much express my sense But if there be any man so confident as Luther sometime was who said that he could expound all Scripture or so vain as Eckius who in his Chrysopassus ventur'd upon the highest and most mysterious Question of Predestination ut in ea juveniles possit calores exercere such persons as these or any that is furious in his opinion will scorn me and my Discourse but I shall not be much mov'd at it onely I shall wish that I had as much knowledge as they think me to want and they as much as they believe themselves to have In the mean time modesty were better for us both and indeed for all men For when men indeed are knowing amongst other things they are able to separate certainties from uncertainties If they be not knowing it is pitty that their ignorance should be triumphant or discompose the publick peace or private confidence And now my Lord that I have inscrib'd this Book to your Lordship although it be a design of doing honour to myself that I have mark'd it with so honour'd and beloved a Name might possibly need as much excuse as it does pardon but that your
saying of Saint Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The answer of a good conscience towards God For of the recitation and profession of this Creed in Baptism it is that Tertullian de resur carnis says Anima non lotione sed responsione sancitur And of this was the prayer of Hilary lib. 12. de Trinit Conserva hanc conscientiae meae vocem ut quod in regenerationis meae Symbolo baptizatus in Patre Filio Spir. S. professus sum semper obtineam And according to the rule and reason of this Discourse that it may appear that the Creed hath in it all Articles primò per se primely and universally necessary the Creed is just such an explication of that Faith which the Apostles preached viz. the Creed which St. Paul recites as contains in it all those things which entitle Christ to us in the capacities of our Law-giver and our Saviour such as enable him to the great work of redemption according to the predictions concerning him and such as engage and encourage our services For taking out the Article of Christs descent into Hell which was not in the old Creed as appears in some of the Copies I before referred to in Tertullian Ruffinus and Irenaeus and indeed was omitted in all the Confessions of the Eastern Churches in the Church of Rome and in the Nicene Creed which by adoption came to be the Creed of the Catholick Church all other Articles are such as directly constitute the parts and work of our redemption such as clearly derive the honour to Christ and enable him with the capacities of our Saviour and Lord. The rest engage our services by proposition of such Articles which are rather promises than propositions and the whole Creed take it in any of the old Forms is but an Analysis of that which St. Paul calls the word of salvation whereby we shall be saved viz. that we confess Jesus to be Lord and that God raised him from the dead by the first whereof he became our Law-giver and our Guardian by the second he was our Saviour the other things are but parts and main actions of those two Now what reason there is in the world that can inwrap any thing else within the foundation that is in the whole body of Articles simply and inseparably necessary or in the prime original necessity of Faith I cannot possibly imagine These do the work and therefore nothing can upon the true grounds of reason enlarge the necessity to the inclosure of other Articles 9. Now if more were necessary than the Articles of the Creed I demand why was it made the Characteristick note of a Christian from a Heretick or a Jew or an Infidel or to what purpose was it composed Or if this was intended as sufficient did the Apostles or those Churches which they founded know any thing else to be necessary If they did not then either nothing more is necessary I speak of matters of meer belief or they did not know all the will of the Lord and so were unfit Dispensers of the mysteries of the Kingdom or if they did know more was necessary and yet would not insert it they did an act of publick notice and consign'd it to all Ages of the Church to no purpose unless to beguile credulous people by making them believe their faith was sufficient having tried it by that touch-stone Apostolical when there was no such matter 10. But if this was sufficient to bring men to heaven then why not now If the Apostles admitted all to their Communion that believed this Creed why shall we exclude any that preserve the same intire Why is not our faith of these Articles of as much efficacy for bringing us to heaven as it was in the Churches Apostolical Who had guides more infallible that might without errour have taught them superstructures enough if they had been necessary and so they did But that they did not insert them into the Creed when they might have done it with as much certainty as these Articles makes it clear to my understanding that other things were not necessary but these were that whatever profit and advantages might come from other Articles yet these were sufficient and however certain persons might accidentally be obliged to believe much more yet this was the one and only foundation of Faith upon which all persons were to build their hopes of Heaven this was therefore necessary to be taught to all because of necessity to be believed by all So that although other persons might commit a delinquency in genere morum if they did not know or did not believe much more because they were obliged to further disquisitions in order to other ends yet none of these who held the Creed intire could perish for want of necessary faith though possibly he might for supine negligence or affected ignorance or some other fault which had influence upon his opinions and his understanding he having a new supervening obligation ex accidente to know and believe more 11. Neither are we oblig'd to make these Articles more particular and minute than the Creed For since the Apostles and indeed our blessed Lord himself promised heaven to them who believed him to be the Christ that was to come into the World and that he who believes in him should be partaker of the resurrection and life eternal he will be as good as his word yet because this Article was very general and a complexion rather than a single proposition the Apostles and others our Fathers in Christ did make it more explicite though they have said no more than what lay entire and ready form'd in the bosom of the great Article yet they made their extracts to great purpose and absolute sufficiency and therefore there needs no more deductions or remoter consequences from the first great Article than the Creed of the Apostles For although whatsoever is certainly deduced from any of these Articles made already so explicite is as certainly true and as much to be believed as the Article it self because ex veris possunt nil nisi vera sequi yet because it is not certain that our deductions from them are certain and what one calls evident is so obscure to another that he believes it is false it is the best and only safe course to rest in that explication the Apostles have made because if any of these Apostolical deductions were not demonstrable evidently to follow from that great Article to which salvation is promised yet the authority of them who compil'd the Symbol the plain description of the Articles from the words of Scriptures the evidence of reason demonstrating these to be the whole foundation are sufficient upon great grounds of reason to ascertain us but if we go farther besides the easiness of being deceived we relying upon our own discourses which though they may be true and then bind us to follow them but yet no more than when they only seem truest yet they cannot make
toy in respect of the excellent blessings of peace and charity it were good that Alexander and Arius should leave contending keep their opinions to themselves ask each other forgiveness and give mutual toleration This is the substance of Constantine's letter and it contains in it much reason if he did not undervalue the Question but it seems it was not then thought a question of Faith but of nicety of dispute they both did believe one God and the holy Trinity Now then that he afterward called the Nicene Council it was upon occasion of the vileness of the men of the Arian part their eternal discord and pertinacious wrangling and to bring peace into the Church that was the necessity and in order to it was the determination of the Article But for the Article it self the Letter declares what opinion he had of that and this Letter was by Socrates called a wonderful exhortation full of grave and sober counsels and such as Hosius himself who was the messenger pressed with all earnestness with all the skill and Authority he had 27. I know the opinion the world had of the Article afterward is quite differing from this censure given of it before and therefore they have put it into the Creed I suppose to bring the world to unity and to prevent Sedition in this Question and the accidental blasphemies which were occasioned by their curious talkings of such secret mysteries and by their illiterate resolutions But although the Article was determined with an excellent spirit and we all with much reason profess to believe it yet it is another consideration whether or no it might not have been better determined if with more simplicity and another yet whether or no since many of the Bishops who did believe this thing yet did not like the nicety and curiosity of expressing it it had not been more agreeable to the practice of the Apostles to have made a determination of the Article by way of Exposition of the Apostles Creed and to have lest this in a rescript for record to all posterity and not to have enlarged the Creed with it for since it was an Explication of an Article of the Creed of the Apostles as Sermons are of places of Scripture it was thought by some that Scripture might with good profit and great truth be expounded and yet the Expositions not put into the Canon or go for Scripture but that left still in the naked Original simplicity and so much the rather since that Explication was further from the foundation and though most certainly true yet not penn'd by so infallible a spirit as was that of the Apostles and therefore not with so much evidence as certainty And if they had pleased they might have made use of an admirable precedent to this and many other great and good purposes no less than of the blessed Apostles whose Symbol they might have imitated with as much simplicity as they did the Expressions of Scripture when they first composed it For it is most considerable that although in reason every clause in the Creed should be clear and so inopportune and unapt to variety of interpretation that there might be no place left for several sences or variety of Expositions yet when they thought fit to insert some mysteries into the Creed which in Scripture were expressed in so mysterious words that the last and most explicite sence would still be latent yet they who if ever any did understood all the sences and secrets of it thought it not fit to use any words but the words of Scripture particularly in the Articles of Christs descending into Hell and sitting at the right hand of God to shew us that those Creeds are best which keep the very words of Scripture and that Faith is best which hath greatest simplicity and that it is better in all cases humbly to submit than curiously to enquire and pry into the mystery under the cloud and to hazard our Faith by improving our knowledge If the Nicene Fathers had done so too possibly the Church would never have repented it 28. And indeed the experience the Church had afterwards shewed that the Bishops and Priests were not satisfied in all circumstances nor the schism appeased nor the persons agreed nor the Canons accepted nor the Article understood nor any thing right but when they were overborn with Authority which Authority when the scales turned did the same service and promotion to the contrary 29. But it is considerable that it was not the Article or the thing it self that troubled the disagreeing persons but the manner of representing it For the five Dissenters Eusebius of Nicomedia Theognis Maris Theonas and Secundus believed Christ to be very God of very God but the clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they derided as being perswaded by their Logick that he was neither of the substance of the Father by division as a piece of a lump nor derivation as children from their Parents nor by production as buds from trees and no body could tell them any other way at that time and that made the fire to burn still And that was it I said if the Article had been with more simplicity and less nicety determined charity would have gained more and faith would have lost nothing And we shall find the wisest of them all for so Eusebius Pamphilus was esteemed published a Creed or Confession in the Synod and though he and all the rest believed that great mystery of Godliness God manifested in the flesh yet he was not fully satisfied nor so soon of the clause of one substance till he had done a little violence to his own understanding for even when he had subscribed to the clause of one substance he does it with a protestation that heretofore he never had been acquainted nor accustomed himself to such speeches And the sence of the word was either so ambiguous or their meaning so uncertain that Andreus Fricius does with some probability dispute that the Nicene Fathers by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did mean Patris similitudinem non essentiae unitatem Sylva 4. c. 1. And it was so well understood by personages disinterested that when Arius and Euzoius had confessed Christ to be Deus verbum without inserting the clause of one substance the Emperour by his Letter approved of his Faith and restored him to his Countrey and Office and the Communion of the Church And a long time after although the Article was believed with nicety enough yet when they added more words still to the mystery and brought in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying there were three hypostases in the holy Trinity it was so long before it could be understood that it was believed therefore because they would not oppose their Superiours or disturb the peace of the Church in things which they thought could not be understood in so much that Saint Hierom writ to Damascus in these words Discerne si placet obsecro non timebo
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
Tradition descends upon us with unequal certainty it would be very unequal to require of us an absolute belief of every thing not written for fear we be accounted to slight Tradition Apostolical And since no thing can require our supreme assent but that which is truly Catholick and Apostolick and to such a Tradition is required as Irenaeus says the consent of all those Churches which the Apostles planted and where they did preside this topick will be of so little use in judging heresies that beside what is deposited in Scripture it cannot be proved in any thing but in the Canon of Scripture it self and as it is now received even in that there is some variety 8. And therefore there is wholly a mistake in this business for when the Fathers appeal to Tradition and with much earnestness and some clamour they call upon Hereticks to conform to or to be tryed by Tradition it is such a Tradition as delivers the fundamental points of Christianity which were also recorded in Scripture But because the Canon was not yet perfectly consign'd they called to that testimony they had which was the testimony of the Churches Apostolical whose Bishops and Priests being the Antistites religionis did believe and preach Christian Religion and conserve all its great mysteries according as they have been taught Irenaeus calls this a Tradition Apostolical Christum accepisse calicem dixisse sanguinem suum esse docuisse nodum oblationem novi Testamenti quam Ecclesia per Apostolos accipiens offert per totum mundum And the Fathers in these Ages confute Hereticks by Ecclesiastical Tradition that is they confront against their impious and blasphemous doctrines that Religion which the Apostles having taught to the Churches where they did preside their Successors did still preach and for a long while together suffered not the enemy to sow tares amongst their wheat And yet these doctrines which they called Traditions were nothing but such fundamental truths which were in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Irenaeus in Eusebius observes in the instance of Polycarpus and it is manifest by considering what heresies they fought against the heresies of Ebion Cerinthus Nicolaitans Valentinians Carpocratians persons that denied the Son of God the Unity of the Godhead that preached impurity that practised Sorcery and Witch-craft And now that they did rather urge Tradition against them than Scripture was because the publick Doctrine of all the Apostolical Churches was at first more known and famous than many parts of the Scripture and because some Hereticks denied S. Lukes Gospel some received none but S. Matthews some rejected all S. Pauls Epistles and it was a long time before the whole Canon was consigned by universal testimony some Churches having one part some another Rome her self had not all so that in this case the Argument from Tradition was the most famous the most certain and the most prudent And now according to this rule they had more Traditions than we have and Traditions did by degrees lessen as they came to be written and their necessity was less as the knowledge of them was ascertained to us by a better Keeper of Divine Truths All that great mysteriousness of Christs Priest-hood the unity of his Sacrifice Christs Advocation and Intercession for us in Heaven and many other excellent Doctrines might very well be accounted Traditions before S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews was published to all the World but now they are written truths and if they had not possibly we might either have lost them quite or doubted of them as we doe of many other Traditions by reason of the insufficiency of the propounder And therefore it was that S. Peter took order that the Gospel should be Writ for he had promised that he would doe something which after his decease should have these things in remembrance He knew it was not safe trusting the report of men where the fountain might quickly run dry or be corrupted so insensibly that no cure could be found for it nor any just notice taken of it till it were incurable And indeed there is scarce any thing but what is written in Scripture that can with any confidence of Argument pretend to derive from the Apostles except rituals and manners of ministration but no doctrines or speculative mysteries are so transmitted to us by so clear a current that we may see a visible channel and trace it to the Primitive fountains It is said to be a Tradition Apostolical that no Priest should baptize without chrism and the command of the Bishop Suppose it were yet we cannot be obliged to believe it with much confidence because we have but little proof for it scarce any thing but the single testimony of S. Hierom. And yet if it were this is but a ritual of which in passing by I shall give that account That suppose this and many more rituals did derive clearly from Tradition Apostolical which yet but very few doe yet it is hard that any Church should be charged with crime for not observing such rituals because we see some of them which certainly did derive from the Apostles are expired and gone out in a desuetude such as are abstinence from bloud and from things strangled the coenobitick life of secular persons the colledge of widows to worship standing upon the Lords day to give milk and honey to the newly baptized and many more of the like nature now there having been no mark to distinguish the necessity of one from the indifferency of the other they are all alike necessary or alike indifferent If the former why does no Church observe them If the latter why does the Church of Rome charge upon others the shame of novelty for leaving of some Rites and Ceremonies which by her own practice we are taught to have no obligation in them but the adiaphorous S. Paul gave order that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife The Church of Rome will not allow so much other Churches allow more The Apostles commanded Christians to Fast on Wednesday and Friday as appears in their Canons the Church of Rome Fasts Friday and Saturday and not on Wednesday The Apostes had their Agapae or love Feasts we should believe them scandalous They used a kiss of charity in ordinary addresses the Church of Rome keeps it only in their Masse other Churches quite omit it The Apostles permitted Priests and Deacons to live in conjugal Society as appears in the 5. Can. of the Apostles which to them is an Argument who believe them such and yet the Church of Rome by no means will endure it nay more Michael Medina gives Testimony that of 84. Canons Apostolical which Clemens collected scarce six or eight are observed by the Latine Church and Peresius gives this account of it In illis contineri multa quae temporum corruptione non plenè observantu◠aliis pro temporis materiae qualitate aut obliteratis aut totius
Ecclesiae magisterio abrogatis Now it were good that they which take a liberty to themselves should also allow the same to others So that for one thing or other all Traditions excepting those very few that are absolutely universal will lose all their obligation and become no competent medium to confine mens practices or limit their faiths or determine their perswasions Either for the difficulty of their being proved the incompetency of the testimony that transmits them or the indifferency of the thing transmitted all Traditions both ritual and doctrinal are disabled from determining our consciences either to a necessary believing or obeying 9. Sixthly To which I adde by way of confirmation that there are some things called Traditions and are offered to be proved to us by a Testimony which is either false or not extant Clemens of Alexandria pretended it a Tradition that the Apostles preached to them that died in infidelity even after their death and then raised them to life but he proved it only by the Testimony of the Book of Hermes he affirmed it to be a Tradition Apostolical that the Greeks were saved by their Philosophie but he had no other Authority for it but the Apocryphal Books of Peter and Paul Tertullian and S. Basil pretended it an Apostolical Tradition to sign in the aire with the sign of the Cross but this was only consigned to them in the Gospel of Nicodemus But to instance once for all in the Epistle of Marcellus to the Bishop of Antioch where he affirmes that it is the Canon of the Apostles praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis non posse Concilia celebrari And yet there is no such Canon extant nor ever was for ought appears in any Record we have and yet the Collection of the Canons is so intire that though it hath something more than what was Apostolical yet it hath nothing less And now that I am casually fallen upon an instance from the Canons of the Apostles I consider that there cannot in the world a greater instance be given how easie it is to be abused in the believing of Traditions For 1. to the first 50 which many did admit for Apostolical 35 more were added which most men now count spurious all men call dubious and some of them univerally condemned by peremptory sentence even by them who are greatest admirers of that Collection as 65.67 and 8â…˜ Canons For the first 50 it is evident that there are some things so mixt with them and no mark of difference left that the credit of all is much impaired insomuch that Isidor of Sevil says they were Apocryphal made by Hereticks and published under the title Apostolical but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them And yet they have prevailed so far amongst some that Damascen is of opinion they should be received equally with the Canonical writings of the Apostles One thing only I observe and we shall find it true in most writings whose Authority is urged in Questions of Theologie that the Authority of the Tradition is not it which moves the assent but the nature of the thing and because such a Canon is delivered they do not therefore believe the sanction or proposition so delivered but disbelieve the Tradition if they do not like the matter and so do not judge of the matter by the Tradition but of the Tradition by the matter And thus the Church of Rome rejects the 84. or 85. Canon of the Apostles not because it is delivered with less Authority than the last 35 are but because it reckons the Canon of Scripture otherwise than it is at Rome Thus also the fifth Canon amongst the first 50 because it approves the marriage of Priests and Deacons does not perswade them to approve of it too but it self becomes suspected for approving it So that either they accuse themselves of palpable contempt of the Apostolical Authority or else that the reputation of such Traditions is kept up to serve their own ends and therefore when they encounter them they are no more to be upheld which what else is it but to teach all the world to contemn such pretences and undervalue Traditions and to supply to others a reason why they should doe that which to them that give the occasion is most unreasonable 10. Seventhly The Testimony of the Ancient Church being the only means of proving Tradition and sometimes their dictates and doctrine being the Tradition pretended of necessity to be imitated it is considerable that men in their estimate of it take their rise from several Ages and differing Testimonies and are not agreed about the competency of their Testimony and the reasons that on each side make them differ are such as make the authority it self the less authentick and more repudiable Some will allow only of the three first Ages as being most pure most persecuted and therefore most holy least interested serving fewer designes having fewest factions and therefore more likely to speak the truth for Gods sake and its own as best complying with their great end of acquiring Heaven in recompence of losing their lives Others say that those Ages being persecuted minded the present Doctrines proportionable to their purposes and constitution of the Ages and make little or nothing of those Questions which at this day vex Christendome And both speak true The first Ages speak greatest truth but least pertinently The next Ages the Ages of the four general Councils spake something not much more pertinently to the present Questions but were not so likely to speak true by reason of their dispositions contrary to the capacity and circumstance of the first Ages and if they speak wisely as Doctors yet not certainly as witnesses of such propositions which the first Ages noted not and yet unless they had noted could not possibly be Traditions And therefore either of them will be less useless as to our present affairs For indeed the Questions which now are the publick trouble were not considered or thought upon for many hundred years and therefore prime Tradition there is none as to our purpose and it will be an insufficient medium to be used or pretended in the determination and to dispute concerning the truth or necessity of Traditions in the Questions of our times is as if Historians disputing about a Question in the English Story should fall on wrangling whether Livie or Plutarch were the best Writers And the earnest disputes about Traditions are to no better purpose For no Church at this day admits the one half of those things which certainly by the Fathers were called Traditions Apostolical and no Testimony of ancient Writers does consign the one half of the present Questions to be or not to be traditions So that they who admit only the doctrine and testimony of the first Ages cannot be determined in most of their doubts which now trouble us because their writings are of matters wholly differing from the present disputes and they which
the faults and failings of humanity It is a famous saying of St. Gregory That he had the four first Councils in esteem and veneration next to the four Evangelists I suppose it was because he did believe them to have proceeded according to rule and to have judged righteous judgment but why had not he the same opinion of other Councils too which were celebrated before his death for he lived after the fifth General not because they had not the same Authority for that which is warrant for one is warrant for all but because he was not so confident that they did their duty nor proceeded so without interest as the first four had done and the following Councils did never get that reputation which all the Catholick Church acknowledged due to the first four And in the next Order were the three following Generals for the Greeks and Latines did never jointly acknowledge but seven Generals to have been authentick in any sence because they were in no sence agreed that any more than seven had proceeded regularly and done their duty So that now the Question is not whether General Councils have a promise that the holy Ghost will assist them For every private man hath that promise that if he does his duty he shall be assisted sufficiently in order to that end to which he needs assistance and therefore much more shall General Councils in order to that end for which they convene and to which they need assistance that is in order to the conservation of the Faith for the doctrinal rules of good life and all that concerns the essential duty of a Christian but not in deciding Questions to satisfie contentions or curious or presumptuous spirits But now can the Bishops so convened be factious can they be abused with prejudice or transported with interests can they resist the holy Ghost can they extinguish the Spirit can they stop their ears and serve themselves upon the holy Spirit and the pretence of his assistances and cease to serve him upon themselves by captivating their understandings to his dictates and their wills to his precepts Is it necessary they should perform any condition is there any one duty for them to perform in these Assemblies a duty which they have power to do or not to do If so then they may fail of it and not do their duty And if the assistance of the holy Spirit be conditional then we have no more assurance that they are assisted than that they do their duty and do not sin 2. Now let us suppose what this duty is Certainly if the Gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost and all that come to the knowledge of the truth must come to it by such means which are spiritual and holy dispositions in order to a holy and spiritual end They must be shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace that is they must have peaceable and docible dispositions nothing with them that is violent and resolute to encounter those gentle and sweet assistances and the Rule they are to follow is the Rule which the holy Spirit hath consigned to the Catholick Church that is the holy Scripture either intirely or at least for the greater part of the Rule So that now if the Bishops be factious and prepossessed with perswasions depending upon interest it is certain they may judge amiss and if they recede from the Rule it is certain they do judge amiss And this I say upon their grounds who most advance the Authority of General Councils For if a General Council may err if a Pope confirm it not then most certainly if in any thing it recede from Scripture it does also err because that they are to expect the Popes confirmation they offer to prove from Scripture now if the Popes confirmation be required by authority of Scripture and that therefore the defailance of it does evacuate the Authority of the Council then also are the Councils Decrees invalid if they recede from any other part of Scripture So that Scripture is the Rule they are to follow and a man would have thought it had been needless to have proved it but that we are fallen into Ages in which no truth is certain no reason concluding nor is there any thing that can convince some men For Stapleton with extream boldness against the piety of Christendom against the publick sence of the ancient Church and the practice of all pious Assemblies of Bishops affirms the Decrees of a Council to be binding etiamsi non confirmetur ne probabilì testimonio Scripturarum nay though it be quite extra Scripturam but all wise and good men have ever said that sence which Saint Hilary expressed in these words Quae extra Evangelium sunt non defendam This was it which the good Emperour Constantine propounded to the Fathers met at Nice Libri Evangelici oracula Apostolorum veterum Prophetarum clarè nos instruunt quid sentiendum in Divinis And this is confessed by a sober man of the Roman Church it self the Cardinal of Cusa Oportet quòd omnia talia quae legere debent contineantur in Authoritatibus sacrarum Scripturarum Now then all the advantage I shall take from hence is this That if the Apostles commended them who examined their Sermons by their conformity to the Law and the Prophets and the men of Berea were accounted noble for searching the Scriptures whether those things which they taught were so or no I suppose it will not be denied but the Councils Decrees may also be tryed whether they be conform to Scripture yea or no and although no man can take cognisance and judge the Decrees of a Council pro Authoritate publicâ yet pro informatione privatâ they may the Authority of a Council is not greater than the Authority of the Apostles nor their dictates more sacred or authentick Now then put case a Council should recede from Scripture whether or no were we bound to believe its Decrees I only ask the Question For it were hard to be bound to believe what to our understanding seems contrary to that which we know to be the Word of God But if we may lawfully recede from the Councils Decrees in case they be contrariant to Scripture it is all that I require in this Question For if they be tyed to a Rule then they are to be examined and understood according to the Rule and then we are to give our selves that liberty of judgment which is requisite to distinguish us from beasts and to put us into a capacity of reasonable people following reasonable guides But however if it be certain that the Councils are to follow Scripture then if it be notorious that they do recede from Scripture we are sure we must obey God rather than men and then we are well enough For unless we are bound to shut our eyes and not to look upon the Sun if we may give our selves liberty to believe what seems most
eats the Lamb not within this House is prophane he that is not in the Ark of Noah perishes in the inundation of waters He that gathers not with this Bishop he scatters and he that belongeth not to Christ must needs belong to Antichrist And that 's his final sentence But if you would have all this proved by an infallible Argument Optatus of Milevis in Africa supplies it to us from the very name of Peter For therefore Christ gave him the cognomination of Cephas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shew that S. Peter was the visible Head of the Catholick Church Dignum patellâ operculum This long harangue must needs be full of tragedy to all them that take liberty to themselves to follow Scripture and their best Guides if it happens in that liberty that they depart from the perswasions of the Communion of Rome But indeed if with the peace of the Bishops of Rome I may say it this Scene is the most unhandsomly laid and the worst carried of any of those pretences that have lately abused Christendome 3. First Against the Allegations of Scripture I shall lay no greater prejudice then this that if a person dis-interested should see them and consider what the products of them might possibly be the last thing that he would think of would be how that any of these places should serve the ends or pretences of the Church of Rome For to instance in one of the particulars that man had need have a strong fancy who imagines that because Christ prayed for S. Peter that being he had design'd him to be one of those upon whose preaching and Doctrine he did mean to constitute a Church his faith might not fail for it was necessary that no bitterness or stopping should be in one of the first springs lest the current be either spoil'd or obstructed that therefore the faith of Pope Alexander VI. or Gregory or Clement 1500 years after should be preserved by virtue of that prayer which the form of words the time the occasion the manner of the address the effect it self and all the circumstances of the action and person did determine to be personal And when it was more then personal S. Peter did not represent his Successors at Rome but the whole Catholick Church say Aquinas and the Divines of the University of Paris Volunt enim pro sola Ecclesia esse oratum says Bellarmine of them and the gloss upon the Canon Law plainly denies the effect of this prayer at all to appertain to the Pope Quaere de qua Ecclesia intelligas quod hîc dicitur quòd non possit errare an de ipso Papa qui Ecclesia dicitur sed certum est quòd Papa errare potest Respondeo ipsa Congregatio fidelium hîc dicitur Ecclesia talis Ecclesia non potest non esse nam ipse Dominus orat pro Ecclesia voluntate labiorum suorum non fraudabitur But there is a little danger in this Argument when we well consider it but it is likely to redound on the head of them whose turns it should serve For it may be remembred that for all this prayer of Christ for S. Peter the good man fell foully and denied his Master shamefully And shall Christ's prayer be of greater efficacy for his Successors for whom it was made but indirectly and by consequence then for himself for whom it was directly and in the first intention And if not then for all this Argument the Popes may deny Christ as well as their chief predecessor Peter But it would not be forgotten how the Roman Doctors will by no means allow that S. Peter was then the chief Bishop or Pope when he denied his Master But then much less was he chosen chief Bishop when the prayer was made for him because the prayer was made before his fall that is before that time in which it is confessed he was not as yet made Pope And how then the whole Succession of the Papacy should be entitled to it passes the length of my hand to span But then also if it be supposed and allowed that these words shall intail infallibility upon the Chair of Rome why shall not also all the Apostolical Sees be infallible as well as Rome why shall not Constantinople or Byzantium where S. Andrew sate why shall not Ephesus where S. John sate or Jerusalem where S. James sate for Christ prayed for them all ut Pater sanctificaret eos suâ veritate Joh. 17. 4. Secondly For tibi dabo claves was it personal or not If it were then the Bishops of Rome have nothing to do with it If it were not then by what Argument will it be made evident that S. Peter in the promise represented onely his Successors and not the whole Colledge of Apostles and the whole Hierarchy For if S. Peter was chief of the Apostles and Head of the Church he might fair enough be the representative of the whole Colledge and receive it in their right as well as his own which also is certain that it was so for the same promise of binding and loosing which certainly was all that the Keys were given for was made afterward to all the Apostles Matt. 18. and the power of remitting and retaining which in reason and according to the style of the Church is the same thing in other words was actually given to all the Apostles and unless that was the performing the first and second promise we find it not recorded in Scripture how or when or whether yet or no the promise be performed That promise I say which did not pertain to Peter principally and by origination and to the rest by Communication society and adherence but that promise which was made to Peter first but not for himself but for all the Colledge and for all their Successors and then made the second time to them all without representation but in diffusion and perform'd to all alike in presence except S. Thomas And if he went to S. Peter to derive it from him I know not I find no record for that but that Christ conveyed the promise to him by the same Commission the Church yet never doubted nor had she any reason But this matter is too notorious I say no more to it but repeat the words and Argument of S. Austin Si hoc Petro tantùm dictum est non facit hoc Ecclesia if the Keys were onely given and so promised to S. Peter that the Church hath not the Keys then the Church can neither bind nor loose remit nor retain which God forbid If any man should endeavour to answer this Argument I leave him and S. Austin to contest it 5. Thirdly For Pasce oves there is little in that Allegation besides the boldness of the Objectors for were not all the Apostles bound to feed Christ's sheep had they not all the Commission from Christ and Christ's Spirit immediately S. Paul had certainly Did not S. Peter himself say to all
family for it is said of the Ruler at Capernaum that he believed and all his house Now you may also suppose that in his house were little babes that is likely enough and you may suppose that they did believe too before they could understand but that 's not so likely and then the argument from baptizing of Stephen's houshold may be allowed just as probable But this is unman-like to build upon such slight airy conjectures 25. But Tradition by all means must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical that Infants were baptized But at this we are not much moved for we who rely upon the written Word of God as sufficient to establish all true Religion do not value the Allegation of Traditions And however the world goes none of the Reformed Churches can pretend this Argument against this Opinion because they who reject Tradition when 't is against them must not pretend it at all for them But if we should allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified For so far as it can yet appear it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it For as for the testimony pretended out of Justin Martyr it is to no purpose because the book from whence the words are cited is not Justin's who was before Origen and yet he cites Origen Irenaeus But who please may see it sufficiently condemned by Sixtus Senensis Biblioth Sanct. l. 4. verbo Justinus And as for the â—â—stimony of Origen we know nothing of it for every Heretick interessed person did interpolate all his Works so much that we cannot discern which are his which not Now a Tradition Apostolical if it be not consigned with a fuller testimony then of one person whom all after Ages have condemned of many errours will obtain so little reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority pretended to derive from the Apostles and yet falsely that it will be a great Argument that he is â—redulous weak that shall be determined by so weak probation in matters of so great concernment And the truth of the business is as there was no command of Scripture to oblige children to the susception of it so the necessity of Paedo-baptism was not determined in the Church till in the eighth Age after Christ but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Council a Provincial of Africa there was a Canon made for Paedo-baptism never till then I grant it was practised in Africa before that time they or some of them thought well of it though that be no Argument for us to think so yet none of them did ever before pretend it to be necessary none to have been a precept of the Gospel S. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be absolutely necessary and it was in his heat anger against Pelagius who had warmed chased him so in that question that it made him innovate in other Doctrines possibly of more concernment then this And although this was practised anciently in Africa yet that it was without an opinion of necessity and not often there nor at all in other places we have the testimony of the learned Paedo-baptist Ludovicus Vives who in his Annotations upon Saint Austin De Civit. Dei l. 1. c. 27. affirms neminem nisi adultum antiquitus solere baptizari 26. But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good evidence from Antiquity that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church that Infants ought not to be baptized and this is clear in the sixth Canon of the Council of Nâ—ocaesarea The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense is this A woman with child may be baptized when she please for her Baptism concerns not the child The reason of the connexion of the parts of that Canon is in the following words Because every one in that confession is to give a demonstration of his own choice and election Meaning plainly that if the Baptism of the mother did also pass upon the child it were not fit for a pregnant woman to receive Baptism because in that Sacrament there being a confession of Faith which confession supposes understanding and free choice it is not reasonable the child should be consigned with such a mysterie since it cannot doe any act of choice or understanding And to this purpose are the words of Balsamon speaking of this Decree and of Infants unborn not to be baptized he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The unborn babe is not to be baptized because he neither is come to light nor can he make choice of the confession that is of the Articles to be confessed in Divine baptism To the same sense are the words of Zonaras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Embryo or unborn babe does then need Baptism when he can chuse The Canon speaks reason and it intimates a practice which was absolutely universal in the Church of interrogating the Catechumens concerning the Articles of Creed Which is one Argument that either they did not admit Infants to Baptism or that they did prevaricate egregiously in asking questions of them who themselves knew were not capable of giving answer But the former was the more probable according to the testimony of Walafridus Stabo Notandum deinde primis temporibus illis solummodo Baptismi gratiam dari solitam qui corporis mentisâ—integritate jam ad hoc pervenerunt ut scire intelligere possent quid emolumenti in Baptismo consequendum quid confitendum atque credendum quid postremò renatis in Christo esset servandum It is to be noted that in those first times the grace of Baptism was wont to be given to those onely who by their integrity of mind and body were arrived to this that they could know and understand what profit was to be had by Baptism what was to be confessed and believ'd in Baptism and what is the duty of them who are born again in Christ. 27. But to supply their incapacity by the answer of a Godfather is but the same unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance and there is no sensible account can be given of it For that which some imperfectly murmure concerning stipulations civil performed by Tutors in the name of their Pupils is an absolute vanity For what if by positive constitution of the Romans such solennites of Law are required in all stipulations and by indulgence are permitted in the case of a notable benefit accruing to Minors must God be tied and Christian Religion transact her mysteries by proportion and compliance with the Law of the Romans I know God might if he would have appointed Godfathers to give answer in behalf of the Children and to be Fide jussors for them but we cannot find any Authority or ground that he hath and if he had then it is to be supposed he would have given them commission to
diligence and labour to what sufferings or journeyings he is oblig'd for the procuring of this ministery there must be debita sollicitudo a real providential zealous care to be where it is to be had is the duty of every Christian according to his own circumstances but they who will not receive it unless it be brought to their doors may live in such places and in such times where they shall be sure to miss it and pay the price of their neglect of so great a ministery of Salvation Turpissima est jactura quae per negligentiam sit He is a Fool that loses his good by carelesness But no man is zealous for his Soul but he who not only omits no opportunity of doing it advantage when it is ready for him but makes and seeks and contrives opportunities Si non necessitate sed incuriâ voluntate remanserit as S. Clement's expression is If a man wants it by necessity it may by the overflowings of the Divine Grace be supplied but not so if negligence or choice causes the omission 3. Our way being made plain we may proceed to other places of Scripture to prove the Divine Original of Confirmation It was a Plant of our Heavenly Father's planting it was a Branch of the Vine and how it springs from the Root Christ Jesus we have seen it is yet more visible as it was dressed and cultivated by the Apostles Now as soon as the Apostles had received the Holy Spirit they preached and baptized and the inferior Ministers did the same and S. Philip particularly did so at Samaria the Converts of which place received all the Fruits of Baptism but Christians though they were they wanted a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something to make them perfect The other part of the Narrative I shall set down in the words of S. Luke Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God they sent unto them Peter and John Who when they were come down prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost For as yet he was fallen upon none of them only they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost If it had not been necessary to have added a new solemnity and ministration it is not to be supposed the Apostles Peter and John would have gone from Jerusalem to impose hands on the Baptized at Samaria Id quod deerat à Petro Joanne factum est ut Oratione pro eis habitâ manu impositâ invocaretur infunderetur super eos Spiritus Sanctus said S. Cyprian It was not necessary that they should be Baptized again only that which was wanting was performed by Peter and John that by prayer and imposition of hands the Holy Ghost should be invocated and poured upon them The same also is from this place affirmed by P. Innocentius the First S. Hierom and many others and in the Acts of the Apostles we find another instance of the celebration of this Ritual and Mystery for it is signally expressed of the Baptized Christians at Ephesus that S. Paul first Baptized them and then laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost And these Testimonies are the great warranty for this Holy Rite Quod nunc in confirmandis Neophytis manûs Impositio tribuit singulis hoc tunc Spiritûs Sancti descensio in credentium populo donavit universis said Eucherius Lugdunensis in his Homily of Pentecost The same thing that is done now in Imposition of hands on single persons is no other than that which was done upon all Believers in the descent of the Holy Ghost it is the same Ministery and all deriving from the same Authority Confirmation or Imposition of hands for the collation of the Holy Spirit we see was actually practised by the Apostles and that even before and after they preached the Gospel to the Gentiles and therefore Amalarius who entred not much into the secret of it reckons this Ritual as derived from the Apostles per consuetudinem by Catholick custom which although it is not perfectly spoken as to the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Authority of it yet he places it in the Apostles and is a witness of the Catholick succeeding custom and practice of the Church of God Which thing also Zanchius observing though he followed the sentiment of Amalarius and seemed to understand no more of it yet says well Interim says he exempla Apostolorum veteris Ecclesiae vellem pluris aestimari I wish that the Example of the Apostles and the Primitive Church were of more value amongst Christians It were very well indeed they were so but there is more in it than mere Example These examples of such solemnities productive of such spiritual effects are as S. Cyprian calls them Apostolica Magisteria the Apostles are our Masters in them and have given Rules and Precedents for the Church to follow This is a Christian Law and written as all Scriptures are for our instruction But this I shall expresly prove in the next Paragraph 4. We have seen the Original from Christ the Practice and exercise of it in the Apostles and the first Converts in Christianity that which I shall now remark is that this is established and passed into a Christian Doctrine The warranty for what I say is the words of S. Paul where the Holy Rite of Confirmation so called from the effect of this ministration and expressed by the Ritual part of it Imposition of Hands is reckoned a Fundamental point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works and of Faith towards God of the Doctrine of Baptisms and of laying on of Hands of Resurrection from the Dead and Eternal Judgment Here are six Fundamental points of S. Paul's Catechism which he laid as the Foundation or the beginning of the institution of the Christian Church and amongst these Imposition of hands is reckoned as a part of the Foundation and therefore they who deny it dig up Foundations Now that this Imposition of hands is that which the Apostles used in confirming the Baptized and invocating the Holy Ghost upon them remains to be proved For it is true that Imposition of hands signifies all Christian Rites except Baptism and the Lord's Supper not the Sacraments but all the Sacramentals of the Church it signifies Confirmation Ordination Absolution Visitation of the Sick Blessing single persons as Christ did the Children brought to him and blessing Marriages all these were usually ministred by Imposition of hands Now the three last are not pretended to be any part of this Foundation neither Reason Authority nor the Nature of the thing suffer any such pretension The Question then is between the first three First Absolution of Penitents cannot be meant here not only because we never read that the Apostles did use that Ceremony in their Absolutions
the hands of the Bishop he was not Confirmed Quo non impetrato quomodo Spiritum Sanctum obtinuisse putandus est Which having not obtain'd how can he be suppos'd to have receiv'd the Holy Spirit The same also something more fully related by Nicephorus but wholly to the same purpose Melchiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain argues excellently about the necessity and usefulness of the Holy Rite of Confirmation What does the mystery of Confirmation profit me after the mystery of Baptism Certainly we did not receive all in our Baptism if after that Lavatory we want something of another kind Let your charity attend As the Military order requires that when the General enters a Souldier into his list he does not only mark him but furnishes him with Arms for the Battel so in him that is Baptiz'd this Blessing is his Ammunition You have given Christ a Souldier give him also Weapons And what will it profit him if a Father gives a great Estate to his Son if he does not take care to provide a Tutor for him Therefore the Holy Spirit is the Guardian of our Regeneration in Christ he is the Comforter and he is the Defender I have already alledged the plain Testimonies of Optatus and S. Cyril in the first Section I add to them the words of S. Gregory Nazianzen speaking of Confirmation or the Christian signature Hoc viventi tibi maximum est tutamentum Ovis enim quae sigillo insignita est non facilè patet insidiis quae verò signata non est facilè à furibus capitur This Signature is your greatest guard while you live For a Sheep when it is mark'd with the Master's sign is not so soon stollen by Thieves but easily if she be not The same manner of speaking is also us'd by S. Basil who was himself together with Eubulus confirm'd by Bishop Maximinus Quomodo curam geret tanquam ad se pertinentis Angelus quomodo eripiat ex hostibus si non agnoverit signaculum How shall the Angel know what sheep belong unto his charge how shall he snatch them from the Enemy if he does not see their mark and signature Theodoret also and Theophylact speak the like words and so far as I can perceive these and the like sayings are most made use of by the School-men to be their warranty for an indeleble Character imprinted in Confirmation I do not interest my self in the question but only recite the Doctrine of these Fathers in behalf of the Practice and Usefulness of Confirmation I shall not need to transcribe hither those clear testimonies which are cited from the Epistles of S. Clement Vrban the First Fabianus and Cornelius the summ of them is in those plainest words of Vrban the First Omnes fideles per manûs impositionem Episcoporum Spiritum Sanctum post Baptismum accipere debent All faithful people ought to receive the Holy Spirit by Imposition of the Bishops hands after Baptism Much more to the same purpose is to be read collected by Gratian de Consecrat dist 4. Presbyt de Consecrat dist 5. Omnes fideles ibid. Spiritus Sanctus S. Hierom brings in a Luciferian asking Why he that is Baptiz'd in the Church does not receive the Holy Ghost but by Imposition of the Bishop's hands The answer is Hanc observâ—tionem ex Scripturae authoritate ad Sacerdotii honorem descendere This observation for the honour of the Priesthood did descend from the authority of the Scriptures adding withall it was for the prevention of Schisms and that the Safety of the Church did depend upon it Exigis ubi scriptum est If you ask where it is written it is answered in Actibus Apostolorum It is written in the Acts of the Apostles But if there were no authority of Scripture for it totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret the Consent of the whole Christian World in this Article ought to prevail as a Commandment But here is a twofold Chord Scripture and Universal Tradition or rather Scripture expounded by an Universal traditive interpretation The same observation is made from Scripture by S. Chrysostom The words are very like those now recited from S. Hierom's Dialogue and therefore need not be repeated S. Ambrose calls Confirmation Spiritale signaculum quod post fontem superest ut perfectio fiat A spiritual Seal remaining after Baptism that Perfection be had Oecumenius calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perfection Lavacro peccata purgantur Chrismate Spiritus Sanctus superfunditur utraque verò ista manu ore Antistitis impetramus said Pacianus Bishop of Barcinona In Baptism our sins are cleans'd in Confirmation the Holy Spirit is pour'd upon us and both these we obtain by the hands and mouth of the Bishop And again vestrae plebi unde Spiritus quam non consignat unctus Sacerdos The same with that of Cornelius in the case of Novatus before cited I shall add no more lest I overset the Article and make it suspicious by too laborious a defence only after these numerous testimonies of the Fathers I think it may be useful to represent that this Holy Rite of Confirmation hath been decreed by many Councils The Council of Eliberis celebrated in the time of P. Sylvester the First decreed that whosoever is Baptiz'd in his sickness if he recover ad Episcopum eum perducat ut per manûs impositionem perfici possit Let him be brought to the Bishop that he may be perfected by the Imposition of hands To the same purpose is the 77. Can. Episcopus eos per benedictionem perficere debebit The Bishop must perfect those whom the Minister Baptiz'd by his Benediction The Council of Laodicea decreed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that are Baptized must be anointed with the celestial Unction and so be partakers of the Kingdom of Christ. All that are so that is are Confirm'd for this celestial Unction is done by holy Prayers and the invocation of the Holy Spirit so Zonaras upon this Canon All such who have this Unction shall reign with Christ unless by their wickedness they preclude their own possessions This Canon was put into the Code of the Catholick Church and makes the 152. Canon The Council of Orleans affirms expresly that he who is Baptiz'd cannot be a Christian meaning according to the usual style of the Church a full and perfect Christan nisi confirmatione Episcopali suerit Chrismatus unless he have the Unction of Episcopal Confirmation But when the Church had long disputed concerning the re-baptizing of Hereticks and made Canons for and against it according as the Heresies were and all agreed that if the first Baptism had been once good it could never be repeated yet they thought it fit that such persons should be Confirm'd by the Bishop all supposing Confirmation to be the perfection and consummation of the less-perfect Baptism Thus the
they minister shadows instead of substances SECT V. The whole Procedure or Ritual of Confirmation is by Prayer and Imposition of Hands THE Heart and the Eye are lift up to God to bring Blessings from him and so is the Hand too but this also falls upon the People and rests there to apply the descending Blessing to the proper and prepared suscipient God governed the People of Israel by the hand of Moses and Aaron calidae fecêre silentia turbae Majestate manûs And both under Moses and under Christ when-ever the President of Religion did bless the People he lifted up his Hand over the Congregation and when he blessed a single Person he laid his Hand upon him This was the Rite used by Jacob and the Patriarchs by Kings and Prophets by all the eminently Religious in the Synagogue and by Christ himself when he blessed the Children which were brought to him and by the Apostles when they blessed and confirmed the baptized Converts and whom else can the Church follow The Apostles did so to the Christians of Samaria to them of Ephesus and S. Paul describes this whole mystery by the Ritual part of it calling it the Foundation of the Imposition of hands It is the solemnity of Blessing and the solemnity and application of Paternal prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Clement of Alexandria Upon whom shall he lay his hands whom shall he bless Quidenim aliud est Impositio manuum nisi Oratio super hominem said S. Austin The Bishop's laying his hands on the People what is it but the solemnity of Prayer for them that is a prayer made by those Sacred persons who by Christ are appointed to pray for them and to bless in his Name and so indeed are all the Ministeries of the Church Baptism Consecration of the B. Eucharist Absolution Ordination Visitation of the Sick they are all in genere Orationis they are nothing but solemn and appointed Prayer by an intrusted and a gracious Person specificated by a proper order to the end of the blessing then designed And therefore when S. James commanded that the sick Persons should send for the Elders of the Church he adds and let them pray over them that is lay their hands on the sick and pray for them that is praying over them It is adumbratio dextrae as Tertullian calls it the right hand of him that ministers over-shadows the person for whom the solemn Prayer is to be made This is the Office of the Rulers of the Church for they in the Divine Eutaxy are made your Superiors they are indeed your servants for Jesus sake but they are over you in the Lord and therefore are from the Lord appointed to bless the People for without contradiction saith the Apostle the less is blessed of the greater that is God hath appointed the Superiors in Religion to be the great Ministers of Prayer he hath made them the gracious Persons them he will hear those he hath commanded to convey your needs to God and God's blessings to you and to ask a blessing is to desire them to pray for you them I say whom God most respecteth for their piety and zeal that way or else regardeth for that their place and calling bindeth them above others to do this duty such as are Natural and Spiritual Fathers It is easie for prophane persons to deride these things as they do all Religion which is not conveyed to them by sense or natural demonstrations but the Oeconomy of the Spirit and the things of God are spiritually discerned The Spirit bloweth where it listeth and no man knows whence it comes and whither it goes and the Operations are discerned by Faith and received by Love and by Obedience Date mihi Christianum intelligit quod dico None but true Christians understand and feel these things But of this we are sure that in all the times of Mose's Law while the Synagogue was standing and in all the days of Christianity so long as men loved Religion and walked in the Spirit and minded the affairs of their Souls to have the Prayers and the Blessing of the Fathers of the Synagogue and the Fathers of the Church was esteemed no small part of their Religion and so they went to Heaven But that which I intend to say is this That Prayer and Imposition of Hands was the whole procedure in the Christian Rites and because this Ministery was most signally performed by this Ceremony and was also by S. Paul called and noted by the name of the Ceremony Imposition of hands this name was retained in the Christian Church and this manner of ministring Confirmation was all that was in the commandment or institution But because in Confirmation we receive the Unction from above that is then we are most signally made Kings and Priests unto God to offer up spiritual sacrifices and to enable us to seek the Kingdom of God and the Righteousness of it and that the giving of the Holy Spirit is in Scripture called the Vnction from above the Church of God in early Ages made use of this Allegory and passed it into an External Ceremony and Representation of the Mystery to signifie the Inward Grace Post inscripta oleo frontis signacula per quae Vnguentum Regale datum est Chrisma perenne We are consigned on the Fore-head with Oil and a Royal Unction and an Eternal Chrism is given to us so Prudentius gives testimony of the ministery of Confirmation in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said S. Cyril Preserve this Unction pure and spotless for it teaches you all things as you have heard the blessed S. John speaking and philosophizing many things of this holy Chrism Upon this account the H. Fathers used to bless and consecrate Oil and Balsam that by an External Signature they might signifie the Inward Unction effected in Confirmation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Chrism is not simple or common when it is blessed but the gift of Christ and the presence of his H. Spirit as it were effecting the Divinity it self the body is indeed anointed with visible Ointment but is also sanctified by the holy and quickning Spirit so S. Cyril I find in him and in some late Synods other pretty significations and allusions made by this Ceremony of Chrisms Nos autem pro igne visibili qui die Pentecostes super Apostolos apparuit oleum sanctum materiam nempe ignis ex Apostolorum traditione ad confirmandum adhibemus This using of Oil was instead of the Baptism with Fire which Christ baptized his Apostles with in Pentecost and Oil being the most proper matter of Fire is therefore used in Confirmation That this was the ancient Ceremony is without doubt and that the Church had power to do so hath no question and I add it was not unreasonable for if ever the Scripture expresses the mysteriousness of a Grace conferred by an Exterior ministery as this is by
betray it yet the same severity you 'l find among us For though we will not tell a lie to help a sinner and say that is necessary which is only appointed to make men do themselves good yet we advise and commend it and do all the work of Souls to all those people that will be saved by all means to devout persons that make Religion the business of their lives and they that do not so in the Churches of the Roman Communion as they find but little advantage by periodical confessions so they feel but little awfulness and severity by the injunction You must confess to God all your secret actions you must advise with a holy man in all the affairs of your Soul you will be but an ill friend to your self if you conceal from him the state of your spiritual affairs We desire not to hear the circumstance of every sin but when matter of justice is concerned or the nature of the sin is changed that is when it ought to be made a Question and you will find that though the Church of England gives you much liberty from the bondage of innumerable Ceremonies and humane devices yet in the matter of holiness you will be tied to very great service but such a service as is perfect freedom that is the service of God and the love of the holy Jesus and a very strict religious life For we do not promise Heaven but upon the same terms it is promised us that is Repentance towards God and Faith in our Lord Jesus and as in Faith we make no more to be necessary than what is made so in holy Scripture so in the matter of Repentance we give you no easie devices and suffer no lessening definitions of it but oblige you to that strictness which is the condition of being saved and so expressed to be by the infallible Word of God but such as in the Church of Rome they do not so much stand upon Madam I am weary of my Journey and although I did purpose to have spoken many things more yet I desire that my not doing it may be laid upon the account of my weariness all that I shall add to the main business is this 4. Read the Scripture diligently and with an humble spirit and in it observe what is plain and believe and live accordingly Trouble not your self with what is difficult for in that your duty is not described 5. Pray frequently and effectually I had rather your prayers should be often than long It was well said of Petrarch Magno verborum fraeno uti decet cum superiore colloquentem When you speak to your Superior you ought to have a bridle upon your tongue much more when you speak to God I speak of what is decent in respect of our selves and our infinite distances from God But if love makes you speak speak on so shall your prayers be full of charity and devotion Nullus est amore superior ille te coget ad veniam qui me ad multiloquium Love makes God to be our friend and our approaches more united and acceptable and therefore you may say to God The same love which made me speak will also move thee to hear and pardon Love and devotion may enlarge your Litanies but nothing else can unless Authority does interpose 6. Be curious not to communicate but with the true Sons of the Church of England lest if you follow them that were amongst us but are gone out from us because they were not of us you be offended and tempted to impute their follies to the Church of England 7. Trouble your self with no controversies willingly but how you may best please God by a strict and severe conversation 8. If any Protestant live loosely remember that he dishonours an excellent Religion and that it may be no more laid upon the charge of our Church than the ill lives of most Christians may upon the whole Religion 9. Let no man or woman affright you with declamations and scaring words of Heretick and Damnation and Changeable for these words may be spoken against them that return to light as well as to those that go to darkness and that which men of all sides can say it can be of effect to no side upon its own strength or pretension THE END THREE LETTERS WRITTEN TO A GENTLEMAN That was tempted to the Communion of the ROMISH CHURCH The First Letter SIR YOU needed not to make the Preface of an excuse for writing so friendly and so necessary a Letter of Inquiry It was your kindness to my person which directed your addresses hither and your duty which ingag'd you to inquire some-where I do not doubt but you and very many other ingenious and conscientious persons do every day meet with the Tempters of the Roman Church who like the Pharisees compass Sea and Land to get a Proselyte at this I wonder not for as Demetrius said by this craft they get their living but I wonder that any ingenious person and such as I perceive you to be can be shaken by their weak assaults for their batteries are made up with impossible propositions and weak and violent prejudices respectively and when they talk of their own infallibility they prove it with false Mediums say we with fallible Mediums as themselves confess and when they argue us of an Uncertain Faith because we pretend to no infallibility they are themselves much more Uncertain because they build their pretence of infallibility upon that which not only can but will deceive them and since they can pretend no higher for their infallibility than prudential motives they break in pieces the staff upon which they lean and with which they strike us But Sir you are pleased to ask two Questions 1. Whether the Apostles of our Blessed Lord did not Orally deliver many things necessary to Salvation which were not committed to writing To which you add this assumentum in which because you desire to be answered I suppose you meant it for another Question viz. whether in those things which the Church of Rome retains and we take no notice of She be an Innovator or a conserver of Tradition and whether any thing which she so retains was or was not esteemed necessary The answer to the first part will conclude the second I therefore answer that whatsoever the Apostles did deliver as necessary to Salvation all that was written in the Scriptures and that to them who believe the Scriptures to be the word of God there needs no other Magazine of Divine truths but the Scripture And this the Fathers of the first and divers succeeding Ages do Unanimously affirm I will set down two or three so plain that either you must conclude them to be deceivers or that you will need no more but their testimony The words of S. Basil are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Every word and every thing ought to be made credible or believ'd by the testimony of the Divinely-inspired
n. 22. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. Church Neither it alone nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by substitution ibid. No Church-presidency ever given to the Laiety 114 § 36. Whether secular power can give prohibitions against the power of the Church 122. § 36. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold-cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church 165 § 51. What the Church signifieth 382 383. Wicked men are not true members of it 383. In what sense Saint Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth 386 387. What truth that is of which the Church is the pillar 387. Whether the representative Church be infallible 389. The word Church is never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Of the meaning of that of our Lord Tell the Church 389. Of the notes of the Church 402. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. Some rites which the Apostles injoyned the Christian Church does not now practise 430. The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to salvation 436. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. The authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between authority quoad nos in se it salves not the difficulty 451. Eckius's pitiful Argument to prove the authority of the Church to be above the Scripture 451. The Church is such a Judge of Controversies that they must all be decided before you can find him 1012. Success and worldly prosperity no note of the true Church 1018. Clemens Alexandrinus His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. In Vossius his opinion he understood not original sin 759 n. 20. Clergy The word Church never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Clinicks Objections against the repentance of Clinicks 678 n. 57. and 677 n. 56. and 679 n. 64. Heathens newly baptized if they die immediately need no other repentance ibid. The objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered 681 n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against the repentance of Clinicks 682 n. 66. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed 695 n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of Clinicks 696 n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have according to the opinion of the Fathers of the Church 696 697 n. 30. The manner how the ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks 699 n. 5. The particular acts and parts of repentance that are fittest for a dying man 700 n. 32. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks 804. The repentance of Clinicks 853 n. 96. Colossians Chap. 2.18 explained 781 n. 31. Commandment Of the difference between S. Augustine and S. Hierome in the proposition about the possibility of keeping God's Commandments 579 n. 30. Communicate To doe it in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 § 3. Commutations When they were first set up 292. Amends may be made for some sins by a commutation of duties 648 68. Comparative Instances in Texts of Scripture wherein comparative and restrained negatives are set down in an absolute form 229 § 10. Concupiscence It is not a mortal sin till it proceeds farther 776 n. 20. It is an evil but not a sin 734 n. 84. It is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin 752 n. 11. Natural inclinations are but sins of infirmity 789 n. 50. Where it is not consented to it is no sin 752 n. 11. and 765 n. 30. and 767 n. 39. and 898 907 909 911 912 876. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin 766 n. 32. It is not original sin 911. The inconstancy of S. Augustine about it 913. Confession According to the Roman doctrine Confession does not restrain sin and quiets not the Conscience 315 § 2. c. 2. A right confesfession according to the Roman Doctrine is not possible 316 § 3. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken if it be to save the life of the Prince or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Roman doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Nectarius abolished the custome of having sins published in the Church 474 488 492. That the seal of confession is broken among them upon divers great occasions 475. Whether to confess all our great sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. Of the harmony of Confession made by the Reformed 899. Nothing of auricular confession to a Priest in Scripture 479. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for auricular confession 491. Auricular confession made an instrument to carry on unlawful plots 488 489. Father Arnold Confessor to Lewis XIII of France did cause the King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him 489. Auricular confession leaves behind it an eternal scruple upon the Conscience 489. Auricular confession is an instance of the Romanists teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 477. Confession is a necessary act of repentance 830 n. 34. It is due to God 831. Why we are to confess sins to God who knoweth them before 832 n. 37. What properly is meant by it ibid. Auricular confession whence it descended 833 41. Confession to a Priest is no part of contrition ibid. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834. Rules concerning the practice of confession 854 n. 100. Shame should not hinder confession 855 n. 104. A rule to be observed by the Minister that receiveth confession 856 n. 105. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857 n. 109. Confession in preparation to the Sacrament 857 n. 110. Confirmation It was not to expire with the age of the Apostles 53 § 8. Photius was the first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The words Signator consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifie Baptismal unction 110 § 33. The great benefit and need of the rite of Confirmation in the Church Ep. ded to that Treatise pag. 2. The Latine Church would have sold the title of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. ded pag. 5. The Papists hold Confirmation to be a Sacrament and yet not necessary 3. b. That it is a Divine Ordinance 3 4. b. Of the necessity of
Pope Nicholas II. defined the Capernaitical sense of Transubstantiation 992 n. 10. Gregory Nazianzen's opinion concerning Episcopal Councils in his time 993. Creed The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new Articles as necessarily to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Article of Christ's descent into Hell omitted in some Creeds 440. What stir it made in the Primitive Church to add but one word to the Creed though it were done onely by way of Explication 440. The Fathers complained of the dismal troubles in the Church upon enlarging Creeds 441. The addition to the Creed at Nice produced above thirty explicative Creeds soon after 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds 441. They did not forbid onely things contrary but even explicative additions 441 442. The imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius considered and the argument from it answered 443. The sense of that Article in the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church 448. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed by restraining that Article to the Roman Church 448. The end of making Creeds 942 n. 7. and 960 n. 30. They are the standard by which Heresie is tried 957 n. 22. The article of Christ's descent into Hell was not in the ancient copies of the Creed 943 n. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How this word is sometimes used in Scripture 885 887 888 889 902. Saint Cyprian His authorities alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in governing the Church answered 145 146 § 44. He did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. A Text of Saint Cyprian contrary to the Supremacy of Saint Peter's successors 155 § 48. His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. The Sermons de coena Domini usually imputed to him are not his but seem to be the works of Arnoldus de Bona villa 680 n. 64. and 259 § 1◠He affirms that Pope Steven had not superiority of power over Bishops of forrein Dioceses 310. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing hereticks Saint Cyprian regarded it not nor changed his opinion 399. Saint Cyprian against Purgatory 513 514. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. He for his errour about rebaptization was no heretick but his Scholars were 957 958 n. 22. When Pope Stephen excommunicated him Saint Cyprian was thought the better Catholick 957 n. 22. Cyril His testimony alledged that the bread in the Eucharist is not bread answered fully 229 § 10. His testimony against the worship of Images 306. D. Damnation HOW this word and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes used in Scripture 885 898 902. Deacon He might in the ancient Church give absolution 484. Death How to treat a dying man being in despair 677 n. 56. In Spain they execute not a condemned criminal till his Confessour give him a bene discessit 678 n. 56. Deathbed-repentance How secure and easie some make it 567. Delegation Saint Paul made delegation of his power 163 § 50. Other examples of like delegation 164 § 50. Demonstration Silhon thinks a moral Demonstration to be the best way of proving the immortality of the soul 357. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as demonstration where there is no shew of reason against it 362. Of moral demonstration what it is 368 369. Despair A caution to be observed by them that minister comfort to those that are nigh to despair 852 n. 95. and 677. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of penitent Clinicks 696 n. 29. Devil The manner of casting him out by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the use and signification of those words 903. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning thereof 639 n. 15. Diocese Episcopal Dioceses in the primitive notion of them had no subordination and distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Dionysius Areopagita His authority against Transubstantiation 266 § 12. His testimony against Purgatory 513 514. Disputing Two brothers the one a Protestant the other a Papist disputed to convert one another and in the event each of them converted the other 460. Division Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome 403. Doctrine Oral tradition was not usefull to convey Doctrines 354 355 358. What is meant by that reproof our Lord gave the Pharisees of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 471 472. The Romanists doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Durandus His opinion in the question of Transubstantiation 520. E. Ecclesiastes Chap. 5.2 And let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God explained 2. n. 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies 637 n. 10. Education The force of it in the choice of Religion 1018 1019. Elections Against popular elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. England The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick prayers 328 c. 2. § 8. The character of the Church of England 346. The great charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death 464. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. When Image-worship first came in hither 550. Ephesians Chap. 2. v. 3. by nature children of wrath explained 722 n. 50. Chap. 2.5 dead in sins explained 909. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the signification of it 900. Ephrem Syrus His authority against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. Epiphanius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority against the worship of Images 306. The testimony against Images out of his Epistle 536. He mistook and misreported the Heresie of Montanus 955 n. 18. Equivocation The Romanists defend Equivocation and mental reservation 340 c. 3. § 1. Evangelist What that office was 69 § 14. That office was not inconsistent with the office of a Bishop ibid. Eucharist The real presence of Christ is not to be searched into too curiously as to the manner of it 182 § 1. The Pope forced Berengarius to recant in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 199 § 4. That Sacrament does imitate the words used at the Passeover as
explained 777 n. 26. Chap. 8.7 explained 781 n. 31. Chap. 7.22 23. explained 781 n. 31. Chap. 5.10 explained 818 n. 77. Rosary What it is 328. S. Sabbath THE observation of the Lord's day relieth not upon Tradition 428. The Jewish and Christian Sabbath were for many years in the Christian Church kept together 428. Sacraments The Sacraments as the Romanists teach do not onely convey Grace but supply the defect of it 337. The Romanists cannot agree about the definition of a Sacrament 404. They impute greater virtue to their Sacramentals then to the Sacraments themselves 429. The Church of God used of old to deny the Sacrament to no dying penitent that desired it 696. Of Confession to a Priest in preparation to the Sacrament 857. Saints The Romanists teach and practise the Invocation of Saints 329 332. and that with the same confidence and in the same style as they do to God ibid. They do not onely pray to Saints to pray for them but they relie upon their merits 330. They have a Saint for every malady 330. It is held ominous for a Pope to canonize a Saint 333 c. 2. § 9. Of the Invocation of Saints 467. Salvation The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to Salvation 436. What Articles the Scripture proposeth as necessary to Salvation 436 437. The Church of Rome imposeth Articles of her own devising as necessary to Salvation 461. Of the Salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. 1. Book of Samuel Chap. 2. v. 25. explained 812 813 n. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it meaneth in the style of the New Testament 724 n. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 767 781. Satisfaction One may according to the Roman doctrine satisfie for another man's sin 322 c. 2. § 6. The use of that word in Classical Authours 844 845 n. 72. It was the same with Confession 845 n. 72. What it signified in the sense of the Ancients 844 and 832 n. 34. The Ancients did not believe Satisfaction simply necessary to the procuring pardon from God 847. Schism Photius was the first Authour of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Church 109 § 33. What Schism is 149 § 46. The whole stress of Religion Schismaticks commonly place in their own distinguishing Article 459. Scripture To make new Articles of Faith that are not in Scripture as the Papists do is condemned by the suffrage of the Fathers Pref. to Diss. pag. 4 5. Christ and his Apostles made use of Scripture for arguments and not Tradition 353. An answer to that Objection Scripture proves not it self to be God's Word 353. An answer to that Objection Tradition is the best Argument to prove the Scripture to be the Word of God therefore it is a better Principle 354. The Romanists hold the Scripture for no Infallible Rule 381. Whether the Scripture be a sufficient Rule 405 406 407. In what case the Scripture can give testimony concerning it self 406. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. To believe that the Scripture contains not all things necessary to Salvation is a fountain of most Errours and Heresies 409. The doctrine of the Scripture's sufficiency proved by Tradition 410. Some of the Fathers by Tradition mean Scripture 410 411 412. Things necessary to Salvation are in the Scripture easie and plain 418. Scripture is the best Interpreter of Scripture 419. Tradition is necessary because Scripture could not be conveyed to us without it 424. The Questions that arose in the Nicene Council were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition give great advantage to the Socinians 425. That the Doctrine of the Trinity relieth not upon Tradition but Scripture 425. That the Doctrine of Infant-baptism relieth not upon Tradition onely but Scripture 425 426. The validity of the Baptism of Hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture 426 427. The procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition 427 428. What Articles the Scripture proposeth as necessary to Salvation 436 437. The Romanists teach that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith and a new Scripture 450. The Authority of the Church of Rome as they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the Question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between Authority quoad nos and in se it salves not the difficulty 451. The Romanists reckon the Decretal Epistles of Popes among the Holy Scriptures 451. Eckius his pitiful Argument to prove the Authority of the Church to be above the Scriptures ibid. Variety of Readings in it 967. n. 4. As much difference in expounding it 967 n. 5. Of the several ways taken to expound it 971 972 973. Of expounding it by Analogy of Faith 973 974 n. 4. Saint Basil's testimony for Scripture against Tradition which Perron endeavours to elude vindicated 982 983. Nothing of Auricular Confession in Scripture 479. The manner of it is to include the Consequents in the Antecedent 679 n. 52. Secular Whether this Power can give Prohibitions against the Ecclesiastical 122 § 36. It was not unlawful for Bishops to take Secular Imployment 157 § 49. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after Secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it in gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Christian Emperours allowed Appeals in secular affairs from secular Tribunals to that of the Bishop 160 § 49. Saint Ambrose was Bishop and Prefect of Milain at the same time 161 § 49. Saint Austin's condition was somewhat like at Hippo 161. § 49. Bishops used in the Primitive Church to be Embassadours for their Princes 161 § 49. The Bishop or his Clerks might doe any office of Piety though of secular burthen 161 § 49. If a Secular Prince give a safe conduct the Romanists teach it binds not the Bishops that are under him 341. Sense If the doctrine of Transubstantiation be true then the truth of Christian Religion that relies upon evidence of sense is questionable 223 224 § 10. The Papists Answer to that Argument and our Reply 224 § 10. Bellarmine's Answer and our Reply upon it 226 § 10. If the testimony of our Senses be not in fit circumstances to be relied on the Catholicks could not have confuted the Valentinians and Marcionites 227 § 10. The Touch the most certain of the Senses ibid. Signat That word as also Consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifies Baptismal Unction 110 § 33. Vid. 20. b. Sin Venial sins hinder the fruit of Indulgences 320. The Papists teach the habit of the sin is not a distinct evil from the act of it 322. Of the distinction of sins mortal and venial 329 c.
be the best way of proving the immortality of the Soul 357. Aristotle believed the Soul of man to be divine and not of the body 718 n. 41. There is no difference between the inferiour and superiour faculties of the Soul 728 n. 68. and 825 n. 19. The frailty of man's Soul 734 n. 83. Spirit Whether the ordinary gifts of the Spirit be immediate infusions of faculties and abilities or an improvement of our natural powers and means 4 n. 15. ad 34. How the Holy Spirit did inspire the Apostles and Writers of the New Testament as to the very words 8 n. 32. What in the sense of Scripture is praying with the Spirit 9 n. 37. and 47. What a Spirit is as to nature 236 § 11. How a Spirit is in place 236 § 11. The Holy Spirit perfects our Redemption 1. b. The Spirit of God 1. b. The frailty of the spirit of man 735 n. 83. The rule of the Spirit in us 782. To have received the Spirit is not an inseparable propriety of the regenerate 786. What the Spirit of God doth in us 787. The regenerate man hath not onely received the Spirit of God but is wholly led by him 788. Sublapsarians Their Doctrine in five Propositions 872. It is not much better then the Supralapsarian 873. Against this way 886 n. 8. Substance What a Substance is 236 § 11. Aquinas says that the Body of Christ is in the Elements not after the manner of a Body but a Substance this Notion considered 238 § 11. Succession Of the succession of Bishops 402 403. Supererogation How it and Christian perfection differ 590 591 n. 16 17. What it is 786. Superlative This is usually exprest by a synonymal word by an Hebraism 909. Supralapsarians Their Doctrine 871. T. Tears A Man by them must not judge of his Repentance nor by any other one way of expression 850 n. 86. Temptation Every temptation to sin if overcome increases not the reward 661 n. 7. No man is tempted of God 737 n. 86. The violence of a temptation doth not in the whole excuse sin 743. Testament In a humane or Divine Testament figurative words may be admitted 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's aenigmatical Testament 210 § 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What they were 835 n. 44. Theodoret. His words about Transubstantiation considered 264 265 § 12. Theology The power of Reason in matters of Theology 230 231 § 11. It findeth a medium between Vertue and Vice 673. Thief on the Cross. Why his Repentance was accepted 681 n. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What that word means 637 n 10. 1. Epistle to Timothy Chap. 4. v. 8. explained 860 n. 114. Chap. 5. v. 22. explained 808 n. 31. Chap. 5.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 152 § 48. and 166 § 51. Chap. 3.15 16. the pillar and ground of truth explained 386 387. Chap. 1.5 6. explained 949 n. 8. 2. Epistle to Timothy Chap. 2. v. 4. explained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 162 § 49. Epistle to Titus Chap. 5.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 780 n. 30. Tradition Christ and his Apostles made use of Scripture for arguments not Tradition 353. An answer to that Objection Tradition is the best argument to prove the Scripture to be the word of God therefore it is a better Principle then that 354. Oral Tradition was useful to convey matter of fact onely not Doctrines 354 355 358. Oral Tradition a very uncertain means to convey down a Doctrine 356. The Romanists have no Tradition to assure them the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical 361. The doctrine of the Scriptures sufficiency proved by Tradition 410. Some of the Fathers by Tradition mean Scripture 410 411 412. What Tradition is and what the word meaneth 420 § 3. When and in what case Tradition is an useful Topick 421. It is necessary in the Church because the Scripture could not be conveyed to us without it 424. The Questions that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. The Tradition urged by the Ancients was not oral 425. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition gave great advantage to the Socinians 425. The doctrine of the Trinity relieth not upon Tradition but Scripture 425. That the doctrine of Infant-baptism relieth not upon Tradition onely but Scripture too 425 426. The validity of Baptism by Hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture 426 427. The Procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition 427 428. The observation of the Lord's Day relieth not upon Tradition 428. Instances wherein oral Tradition has failed in conveyance 431. Saint Augustine's Rule to try Apostolical Traditions 432. Some Traditions said to be Apostolical have proceeded from the testimony of one man alone and he none of them 432. Of the means of proving a Tradition to be Apostolical 433. Of Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule to discern Apostolical Tradition 434. In the Question about the immaculate Conception Tradition is equally pretended on both sides 435. Traditions now held that are contrary to the Primitive Traditions 453 454. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for Auricular Confession 490. Of what use Tradition is in expounding Scripture 976. It is no sufficient medium to end Controversies 976 sect 5. per tot It was pretended by the Arians and divers other hereticks as well as the Orthodox 977 n. 3. The report of Tradition was uncertain even in the Ages Apostolical 978 n. 4. Tradition could not be made use of to determine the Controversie about Easter between the Churches of the East and West because both sides pretended it 979 n. 7. What Tradition it was the Fathers used to appeal to 979 n. 8. Transubstantiation The arts by which the Romanists have managed this Article Ep. Ded. to Real Pres. 174. It is acknowledged by the Romanists that this doctrine cannot be proved out of Scripture 187 § 2. and 298. How many figurative terms there are in the words of Institution 211 212 § 6. If this doctrine be true then the truth of Christian Religion which relieth upon the evidence of Sense is questionable 223 224 § 10. The Papists Answer to that Argument with our Reply 224 § 10. Bellarmine's Answer and a Reply upon it 226 § 10. If the testimony of our Senses in fit circumstances be not to be relied on the Catholicks could not have confuted the Valentinians and Marcionites 227 § 10. Irenaeus mentions an Impostour that essayed to counterfeit Transubstantiation long before the Roman Church decreed it 228 § 10. The miraculous Apparitions that are brought to prove Transubstantiation are proved to be false by their own doctrine 229 § 10. Picus Mirandula offered to maintain in Rome this Thesis Paneitas potest suppositare corpus Domini 230 § 11. How many ways the words of Christ Hoc est corpus meum may be verified without Transubstantiation 230 231 § 11. The folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to
children So that this Argument though sligthly passed over by the Anab. yet is of very great perswasion in this Article and so us'd and relied upon by the Church of England in her office of Baptism and for that reason I have the more insisted upon it Ad. 5. the next Argument without any alteration or addition stands firm upon its own basis Adam sinn'd and left nakedness to descend upon his posterity a relative guilt and a remaining misery he left enough to kill us but nothing to make us alive he was the head of mankind in order to temporal felicity but there was another head intended to be the representative of humane nature to bring us to eternal but the temporal we lost by Adam and the eternal we could never receive from him but from Christ onely from Adam we receive our nature such as it is but grace and truth comes by Jesus Christ Adam left us an imperfect nature that tends to sin and death but he left us nothing else and therefore to holiness and life we must enter from another principle So that besides the natural birth of Infants there must be something added by which they must be reckoned in a new account they must be born again they must be reckon'd in Chrst they must be adopted to the inheritance and admitted to the Promise and intitled to the Spirit Now that this is done ordinarily in Baptism is not to be denied for therefore it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Font or Laver of regeneration it is the gate of the Church it is the solemnity of our admission to the Covenant Evangelical and if Infants cannot goe to Heaven by the first or natural birth then they must goe by a second and supernatural and since there is no other solemnity or Sacrament no way of being born again that we know of but by the ways of God's appointing and he hath appointed Baptism and all that are born again are born this way even men of Reason who have or can receive the Spirit being to enter at the door of Baptism it follows that Infants also must enter here or we cannot say that they are entred at all And it is highly considerable that whereas the Anab. does clamorously and loudly call for a precept for childrens Baptism this consideration does his work for him and us He that shews the way needs not bid you walk in it and if there be but one door that stands open and all must enter some way or other it were a strange perverseness of argument to say that none shall pass in at that door unless they come alone and they that are brought or they that lean on crutches or the shoulders of others shall be excluded and undone for their infelicity and shall not receive help because they have the greatest need of it But these men use Infants worse then the poor Paralytick was treated at the pool of Bethesda he could not be washed because he had none to put him in but these men will not suffer any one to put them in and untill they can goe in themselves they shall never have the benefit of the Spirit 's moving upon the waters Ad. 15. but the Anab. to this discourse gives onely this reply that the supposition or ground is true a man by Adam or any way of nature cannot goe to Heaven neither men nor Infants without the addition of some instrument or means of God's appointing but this is to be understood to be true onely ordinarily and regularly but the case of Infants is extraordinary for they are not within the rule and the way of ordinary dispensation and therefore there being no command for them to be baptized there will be some other way to supply it extraordinarily To this I reply that this is a plain begging of the question or a denying the conclusion for the Argument being this that Baptism being the ordinary way or instrument of new birth and admission to the Promises Evangelical and supernatural happiness and we knowing of no other and it being as necessary for Infants as for men to enter some way or other it must needs follow that they must goe this way because there is a way for all and we know of no other but this therefore the presumption lies on this that Infants must enter this way They answer that it is true in all but Infants the contradictory of which was the conclusion and intended by the argument For whereas they say God hath not appointed a rule and an order in this case of Infants it is the thing in question and therefore is not by direct negation to be opposed against the contrary Argument For I argue thus Whereever there is no extraordinary way appointed there we must all goe the ordinary but for Infants there is no extraordinary way appointed or declared therefore they must goe the ordinary and he that hath without difference commanded that all Nations should be baptized hath without difference commanded all sorts of persons and they may as well say that they are sure God hath not commanded women to be baptized or Hermaphrodites or eunuchs or fools or mutes because they are not named in the precept for sometimes in the Census of a nation women are no more reckoned then children and when the Children of Israel coming out of Egypt were numbred there was no reckoning either of women or children and yet that was the number of the Nation which is there described But then as to the thing itself whether God hath commanded Infants to be baptized it is indeed a worthy inquiry and the summe of all this contestation but then it is also to be concluded by every Argument that proves the thing to be holy or charitable or necessary or the means of Salvation or to be instituted and made in order to an indispensable end For all commandments are not expressed in imperial forms as we will or will not thou shalt or shalt not but some are by declaration of necessity some by a direct institution some by involution and apparent consequence some by proportion and analogy by identities and parities and Christ never expresly commanded that we should receive the Holy Communion but that when the Supper was celebrated it should be in his memorial And if we should use the same method of arguing in all other instances as the Anabaptist does in this and omit every thing for which there is not an express Commandment with an open nomination and describing of the capacities of the persons concerned in the Duty we should have neither Sacrament nor Ordinance Fasting nor Vows communicating of Women nor baptizing of the Clergy And when Saint Ambrose was chosen Bishop before he was baptized it could never upon their account have been told that he was obliged to Baptism because though Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize others yet he no way told them that their Successors should be baptized any more then the Apostles themselves were
of whom we reade nothing in Scripture that either they were actually baptized or had a commandment so to be To which may be added that as the taking of Priestly Orders disobliges the suscipient from receiving Chrism or Confirmation in case he had it not before so for ought appears in Scripture to the contrary it may excuse from Baptism But if it does not then the same way of arguing which obliges women or the Clergy to be baptized will be sufficient warrant to us to require in the case of Infants no more signal precept then in the other and to be content with the measures of wise men who give themselves to understand the meaning of Doctrines and Laws and not to exact the tittles and unavoidable commands by which fools and unwilling persons are to be governed lest they die certainly if they be not called upon with univocal express open and direct commandments But besides all this and the effect of all the other Arguments there is as much command for Infants to be baptized as for men there being in the words of Christ no nomination or specification of persons but onely in such words as can as well involve children as old men as Nisi quis and omnes gentes and the like Ad 16. But they have a device to save all harmless yet for though it should be granted that infants are press'd with all the evils of original sin ye there will be no necessity of Baptism to Infants because it may very well be supposed that as Infants contracted the relative guilt of Adam's sin that is the evils descending by an evil inheritance from him to us without any solemnity so may Infants be acquitted by Christ without solemnity or the act of any other man This is the summe of the 16 th Number To which the Answer is easie First that at the most it is but a dream of proportions and can infer onely that if it were so there were some correspondency between the effects descending upon us from the two great Representatives of the world but it can never infer that it ought to be so For these things are not wrought by the ways of Nature in which the proportions are regular and constant but they are wholly arbitrary and mysterious depending upon extrinsick causes which are conducted by other measures which we onely know by events and can never understand the reasons For because the sin of Adam had effect upon us without a Sacrament must it therefore be wholly unnecessary that the death of Christ be applied to us by Sacramental ministrations If so the Argument will as well conclude against the Baptism of men as of Infants for since they die in Adam and had no solemnity to convey that death therefore we by Christ shall all be made alive and to convey this life there needs no Sacrament This way of arguing therefore is a very trifle but yet this is not As Infants were not infected with the stain and injured by the evils of Adam's sin but by the means of natural generation so neither shall they partake of the benefits of Christ's death but by spiritual regeneration that is by being baptized into his death For it is easier to destroy then to make alive a single crime of one man was enough to ruine him and his posterity but to restore us it became necessary that the Son of God should be incarnate and die and be buried and rise again and intercede for us and become our Law-giver and we be his subjects and keep his Commandments There was no such order of things in our condemnation to death must it therefore follow that there is no such in the justification of us unto life To the first there needs no Sacrament for evil comes fast enough but to the latter there must goe so much as God please and the way which he hath appointed us externally is Baptism to which if he hath tied us it is no matter to us whether he hath tied himself to it or no for although he can goe which way he please yet he himself loves to goe in the ways of his ordinary appointing as it appears in the extreme paucity of Miracles which are in the world and he will not endure that we should leave them So that although there are many thousand ways by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself yet he will bring no soul to himself by ways extraordinary when he hath appointed ordinary and therefore although it be unreasonable of our own heads to carry Infants to God by Baptism without any direction from him yet it is not unreasonable to understand Infants to be comprehended in the duty and to be intended in the general precept when the words do not exclude them nor any thing in the nature of the Sacrament and when they have a great necessity for the relief of which this way is commanded and no other way signified all the world will say there is reason we should bring them also the same way to Christ. And therefore though we no ways doubt but if we doe not our duty to them God will yet perform his mercifull intention yet that 's nothing to us though God can save by miracle yet we must not neglect our charitable ministeries Let him doe what he please to or for Infants we must not neglect them Ad 6. The Argument which is here described is a very reasonable inducement to the belief of the certain effect to be consequent to the Baptism of Infants Because Infants can do nothing towards Heaven and yet they are designed thither therefore God will supply it But he supplies it not by any internall assistances and yet will supply it therefore by an externall But there is no other externall but Baptism which is of his own institution and designed to effect those blessings which Infants need therefore we have reason to believe that by this way God would have them brought Ad 17. To this it is answered after the old rate that God will doe it by his own immediate act Well I grant it that is he will give them Salvation of his own goodness without any condition on the Infants part personally performed without Faith and Obedience if the Infant dies before the use of Reason but then whereas it is added that to say God will doe it by an externall act and ministery and that by this Rite of Baptism and no other is no good Argument unless God could not doe it without such means or said he would not The Reply is easie that we say God will effect this grace upon Infants by this externall ministery not because God cannot use another nor yet because he hath said he will not but because he hath given us this and hath given us no other For he that hath a mind to make an experiment may upon the same argument proceed thus God hath given bread to strengthen man's heart and hath said that in the sweat of our
but because the Apostle speaking of the Foundation in which Baptism is and is reckoned one of the principal parts in the Foundation there needed no Absolution but Baptismal for they and we believing one Baptism for the Remission of Sins this is all the Absolution that can be at first and in the Foundation The other was secunda post naufragium tabula it came in after when men had made a shipwrack of their good conscience and were as S. Peter says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forgetful of the former cleansing and purification and washing of their old sins Secondly It cannot be meant of Ordination and this is also evident 1. Because the Apostle says he would thence-forth leave to speak of the Foundation and go on to perfection that is to higher Mysteries Now in Rituals of which he speaks there is none higher than Ordination 2. The Apostle saying he would speak no more of Imposition of Hands goes presently to discourse of the mysteriousness of the Evangelical Priesthood and the honour of that vocation by which it is evident he spake nothing of Ordination in the Catechism or Narrative of Fundamentals 3. This also appears from the context not only because Laying on of hands is immediately set after Baptism but also because in the very next words of his Discourse he does enumerate and apportion to Baptism and Confirmation their proper and proportioned effects to Baptism illumination according to the perpetual style of the Church of God calling Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an enlightning and to Confirmation he reckons tasting the Heavenly gift and being made partakers of the Holy Ghost by the thing signified declaring the Sign and by the mystery the Rite Upon these words S. Chrysostom discoursing says That all these are Fundamental Articles that i◠that we ought to Repent from dead works to be Baptized into the Faith of Christ and be made worthy of the gift of the Spirit who is given by Imposition of Hands and we are to be taught the mysteries of the Resurrection and Eternal Judgment This Catechism says he is perfect so that if any man have Faith in God and being baptized is also confirmed and so tastes the Heavenly gift and partakes of the Holy Ghost and by hope of the Resurrection tastes of the good things of the World to come if he falls away from this state and turns Apostate from this whole Dispensation digging down and turning up these Foundations he shall never be built again he can never be Baptized again and never be Confirmed any more God will not begin again and go over with him again he cannot be made a Christian twice If he remains upon these Foundations though he sins he may be renewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Repentance and by a Resuscitation of the Spirit if he have not wholly quenched him but if he renounces the whole Covenant disown and cancel these Foundations he is desperate he can never be renewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Title and Oeconomy of Repentance This is the full explication of this excellent place and any other ways it cannot reasonably be explicated but therefore into this place any notice of Ordination cannot come no Sence no Mystery can be made of it or drawn from it but by the interposition of Confirmation the whole context is clear rational and intelligible This then is that Imposition of hands of which the Apostle speaks Vnus hic locus abunde testatur c. saith Calvin This one place doth abundantly witness that the original of this Rite or Ceremony was from the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostom for by this Rite of Imposition of hands they receiv'd the Holy Ghost Fo◠though the Spirit of God was given extra-regularly and at all times as God was pleas'd to do great things yet this Imposition of hands was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this was the Ministery of the Spirit For so we receive Christ when we hear and obey his word we eat Christ by Faith and we live by his Spirit and yet the Blessed Eucharist is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ministery of the Body and Blood of Christ. Now as the Lord's Supper is appointed ritually to convey Christ's Body and Bloud to us so is Confirmation ordain'd ritually to give unto us the Spirit of God And though by accident and by the overflowings of the Spirit it may come to pass that a man does receive perfective graces alone and without Ministeries external yet such a man without a miracle is not a perfect Christian ex statuum vitae dispositione but in the ordinary ways and appointment of God and until he receive this Imposition of hands and be Confirmed is to be accounted an imperfect Christian. But of this afterwards I shall observe one thing more out of this testimony of S. Paul He calls it the Doctrine of Baptisms and Laying on of hands by which it does not only appear to be a lasting ministery because no part of the Christian Doctrine could change or be abolished but hence also it appears to be of Divine institution For if it were not S. Paul had beed guilty of that which our Blessed Saviour reproves in the Scribes and Pharisees and should have taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. Which because it cannot be suppos'd it must follow that this Doctrine of Confirmation or Imposition of hands is Apostolical and Divine The Argument is clear and not easie to be reprov'd SECT II. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery YEA but what is this to us It belong'd to the days of wonder and extraordinary The Holy Ghost breath'd upon the Apostles and Apostolical men but then he breath'd his last recedente gratiâ recessit disciplina when the Grace departed we had no further use of the Ceremony In answer to this I shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by divers particulars evince plainly that this Ministery of Confirmation was not temporary and relative only to the Acts of the Apostles but was to descend to the Church for ever This indeed is done already in the preceding Section in which it is clearly manifested that Christ himself made the Baptism of the Spirit to be necessary to the Church He declar'd the fruits of this Baptism and did particularly relate it to the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Church at and after that glorious Pentecost He sanctified it and commended it by his Example just as in order to Baptism he sanctified the Floud Jordan and all other waters to the mystical washing away of sin viz. by his great Example and fulfilling this righteousness also This Doctrine the Apostles first found in their own persons and Experience and practised to all their Converts after Baptism by a solemn and external Rite and all this passed into an Evangelical Doctrine the whole mystery being signified by the external Rite in the words of the Apostle as before it was by Christ expressing
only the internal so that there needs no more strength to this Argument But that there may be wanting no moments to this truth which the Holy Scripture affords I shall add more weight to it And 1. The Perpetuity of this Holy Rite appears because this great Gift of the Holy Ghost was promised to abide with the Church for ever And when the Jews heard the Apostles speak with Tongues at the first and miraculous descent of the Spirit in Pentecost to take off the strangeness of the wonder and the envy of the power S. Peter at that very time tells them plainly Repent and be Baptized every one of you and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the meanest person amongst you all but shall receive this great thing which ye observe us to have received and not only you but your Children too not your Children of this Generation only sed Natinatorum qui nascentur ab illis but your Children for ever For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off even to as many as the Lord our God shall call Now then let it be considered 1. This gift is by Promise by a promise not made to the Apostles alone but to all to all for ever 2. Consider here at the very first as there is a verbum a word of promise so there is sacramentum too I use the word as I have already premonished in a large fence only and according to the style of the Primitive Church It is a Rite partly Moral partly Ceremonial the first is Prayer and the other is Laying on of the hands and to an effect that is but transient and extraordinary and of a little abode it is not easie to be supposed that such a Solemnity should be appointed I say such a Solemnity that is it is not imaginable that a solemn Rite annexed to a perpetual Promise should be transient and temporary for by the nature of Relatives they must be of equal abode The Promise is of a thing for ever the Ceremony or Rite was annexed to the Promise and therefore this also must be for ever 3. This is attested by S. Paul who reduces this Argument to this Mystery saying In whom after that ye believed signati estis Spiritu Sancto promissionis ye were sealed by that Holy Spirit of promise He spake it to the Ephesians who well understood his meaning by remembring what was done to themselves by the Apostles but a while before who after they had Baptized them did lay their hands upon them and so they were sealed and so they received the Holy Spirit of promise for here the very matter of Fact is the clearest Commentary on S. Paul's words The Spirit which was promised to all Christians they then received when they were consigned or had the Ritual seal of Confirmation by Imposition of hands One thing I shall remark here and that is that this and some other words of Scripture relating to the Sacraments or other Rituals of Religion do principally mean the Internal Grace and our consignation is by a secret power and the work is within but it does not therefore follow that the External Rite is not also intended for the Rite is so wholly for the Mystery and the Outward for the Inward and yet by the Outward God so usually and regularly gives the Inward that as no man is to rely upon the External Ministery as if the opus operatum would do the whole Duty so no man is to neglect the External because the Internal is the more principal The mistake in his particular hath caused great contempt of the Sacraments and Rituals of the Church and is the ground of the Socinian Errors in these Questions But 4. What hinders any man from a quick consent at the first representation of these plain reasonings and authorities Is it because there were extraordinary effects accompanying this Ministration and because now there are not that we will suppose the whole Oeconomy must cease If this be it and indeed this is all that can be supposed in opposition to it it is infinitely vain 1. Because these extraordinary effects did continue even after the death of all the Apostles S. Irenaeus says they did continue even to his time even the greatest instance of Miraculous power Et in fraternitate saepissime propter aliquid necessarium eâ quae est in quoquo loco Vniversâ Ecclesiâ postulante per jejunium supplicationem multam reversus est spiritus c. When God saw it necessary and the Church prayed and fasted much they did miraculous things even of reducing the spirit to a dead man 2. In the days of the Apostles the Holy Spirit did produce miraculous effects but neither always nor at all in all men Are all workers of Miracles do all speak with Tongues do all interpret can all heal No the Spirit bloweth where he listeth and as he listeth he gives Gifts to all but to some after this manner and to some after that 3. These Gifts were not necessary at all times any more than to all persons but the Promise did belong to all and was made to all and was performed to all In the days of the Apostles there was an Effusion of the Spirit of God it ran over it was for themselves and others it wet the very ground they trode upon and made it fruitful but it was not to all in like manner but there was also then and since then a Diffusion of the Spirit tanquam in pleno S. Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost he was full of faith and power The Holy Ghost was given to him to fulfil his Faith principally the working Miracles was but collateral and incident But there is also an Infusion of the Holy Ghost and that is to all and that is for ever The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withall saith the Apostle And therefore if the Grace be given to all there is no reason that the Ritual ministration of that Grace should cease upon pretence that the Spirit is not given extraordinarily 4. These extraordinary Gifts were indeed at first necessary In the beginnings always appear the sensible visions of spiritual things for their sakes who cannot receive the understanding of an incorporeal Nature that if afterward they be not so done they may be believed by those things which were already done said S. Chrysostom in the place before quoted that is these visible appearances were given at first by reason of the imperfection of the state of the Church but the greater Gifts were to abide for ever and therefore it is observable that S. Paul says that the gift of Tongues is one of the least and most useless things a mere Sign and not so much as a Sign to Believers but to Infidels and Unbelievers and before this he greatly prefers the gift of
damneth not 756 n. 16. The sum of the doctrine of Original sin 757 n. 5. Clemens Alexandrinus in the opinion of Vossius understood not Original sin 759 n. 20. P. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 WHat it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie 809 n. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of it 617 n. 21. Pardons Of Pardons 316 318 c. 2. § 3 4. What is the use of so many hundred thousand years of pardon 317. The many follies about Pardons and the difficulties 319. Wherein the pardon of sin doth consist 484 485. At the day of Judgement a different pardon is given from what we obtain in this world 501. Several degrees of pardon of sin 839 n. 54. As our repentance is so is our pardon 839. Mistakes about Pardon and Salvation 789 n. 45. Some sins called unpardonable in a limited sense 806 n. 22. What is our state of pardon in this life 814 n. 57. and 816. In what manner and to what purpose the Church pardoneth Penitents by the hand of a Priest 838 839 n. 54. The usefulness of pardon by a Priest 841 n. 59. Parishes When the first division of them was 139 § 43. Episcopal Dioceses in the Primitive notion of them had no subordination nor distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Passions What they are 870. How the Will and Passions do differ and where they are seated ibid. They do not rule the will 871. Their violence excuseth not under the title of sins of infirmity 792 n. 56. Make it the great business of thy life to subdue thy Passions 795 n. 67. A state of passion is a state of spiritual death 793 n. 58. A Passion in the soul is nothing but a peculiar way of being affected with an object 825 n. 19. The Passions are not immediately subject to commandment 826 n. 19. From what cause each Passion flows ibid. Passeover The Eucharist does imitate the words used at the Passeover as the institution is a Copy of that 201 § 5. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. Peace Truth and Peace compared in their value 883. All truth is not to be preferred before it 882 962. Pelagian How the doctrine of Original sin as here explicated is contrary to the Pelagian 571. Saint Augustine's zeal against the Pelagians made him mistake Rom. 7.15 19. pag. 775 n. 18. Of that Heresie 761 n. 23 24. How it is mistaken 761 762 n. 23. Pelagius's Heresie not condemned by any General Council 961 n. 31. Penances Of corporal austerities 858 n. 111. A rule for the measure of them 860 n. 114 115. Which are best and rather to be chosen 860 n. 114. Fasting Prayer and Alms are the best penances 860 n. 115. They are not to be accounted simply necessary or a direct service of God 860 n. 116. People Against popular Elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. The people had de facto no vote in the first Oecumenical Council 137 § 41. Perfection How Christian perfection and supererogation differ 590 591 n. 16. Perfection of degrees and of state 582 n. 41. ad 48. How perfection is consistent with repentance 582 n. 47. § 3. per tot Wherein perfection of state consisteth 583 n. 47. Perfection in genere actûs 584. what it is 584. The perfection of a Christian is not the supreme degree of action or intention 585 n. 47. It cannot be less then an entire Piety perfect in its parts 585 n. 48. The perfection of a Christian requires increase 589 n. 13. and 583 n. 44. Philippians Chap. 1. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Text discussed 87 § 23. Chap. 2. 12 13. Work out your salvation with fear explained 676 n. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What these words in Saint Paul's style do import 767 n. 38. and 781. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word 723 and 767 n. 35. Picture Divers Hereticks did worship the Picture of our Lord and were reproved for it 545. A reply to that answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. Against the distinction of picturing the Essence and the Shape 550 554. Pope John caused those to be burned for Hereticks that made Pictures of the Trinity 555. Pilgrimages They are reproved by the ancient Fathers 293 496. Place Picus Mirandula maintained at Rome that one body by the power of God could not be in two places at one time 222 § 9. How a spirit is in place 236 § 11. How a body is in place ibid. One body cannot at the same time be in two places 236 § 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality as others are according to Saint Augustine's opinion 237 § 11. Ubiquity is an incommunicable attribute of God's 237 § 11. and 241. The device of potential and actual Ubiquity helps not 237 § 11. Three natural ways of being in a place 237 § 11 Of being in a place Sacramentaliter 239 § 11. Bellarmine holds that one body may be in two places at once which Aquinas denieth 239 § 11. That one body cannot be at once in two distant places 236 and 241 § 11. That consequence If two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places denied 243 § 11. Against Aristotle's definition of place 244 § 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place 245 § 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place 245 § 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The true notion of it 636 n. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How it differs from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 724 n. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of it 636 n. 5. Pope A Text of Saint Cyprian's contrary to their Supremacy over the Bishops that succeed other Apostles 155 § 48. The authority of a Pope against publick Prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The Apostles were from Christ invested with an equal authority 308. By the Law of Christ one Bishop is not superiour to another and they all derive their power equally from Christ 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. Saint Cyprian affirms that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproved the Patriarch of Constantinople for