inculpably both on their own and their Parents part they misse of baptism for that is the doctrine of the Church of Rome which they learnt from S. Austin and others also doe from hence baptize Infants though with a lesse opinion of its absolute necessity And yet the same manner of precept in the same forme of words in the same manner of threatning by an exclusive negative shall not enjoyn us to communicate Infants though damnation at least in forme of words be exactly and per omnia alike appendant to the neglect of holy Baptism and the venerable Eucharist If nisi quis renatus shall conclude against the Anabaptist for necessity of baptizing Infants as sure enough we say it does why shall not an equall nisi comederitis bring Infants to the holy Communion The Primitive Church for some two whole Ages did follow their own principles where ever they lead them and seeing that upon the same ground equall results must follow they did Communicate Infants as soon as they had baptized them And why the Church of Rome should not doe so too being she expounds nisi comederitis of orall manducation I cannot yet learn a reason And for others that expound it of a spirituall manducation why they shall not allow the disagreeing part the same liberty of expounding nisi quis renatus too I by no meanes can understand And in these cases no externall determiner can bee pretended in answer For whatsoever is extrinsecall to the words as Councels Tradition Church Authority and Fathers either have said nothing at all or have concluded by their practise contrary to the present opinion as is plaine in their communicating Infants by vertue of nisi comederitis 5. I shall not need to urge the mysteriousnesse of some points in Scripture which ex natura rei are hard to be understood Numb 8. though very plainly represented For there are some secreta Theologiae which are only to be understood by persons very holy and spirituall which are rather to be felt then discoursed of and therefore if peradventure they be offered to publike consideration they will therefore be opposed because they runne the same fortune with many other Questions that is not to be understood and so much the rather because their understanding that is the feeling such secrets of the Kingdome are not the results of Logick and Philosophy nor yet of publike revelation but of the publike spirit privately working and in no man is a duty but in all that have it is a reward and is not necessary for all but given to some producing its operations not regularly but upon occasions personall necessities and new emergencies Of this nature are the spirit of obsignation beliefe of particular salvation speciall influences and comforts comming from a sense of the spirit of adoption actuall fervours and great complacencies in devotion spirituall joyes which are little drawings aside of the curtaines of peace and eternity and antepasts of immortality But the not understanding the perfect constitution and temper of these mysteries and it is hard for any man so to understand as to make others doe so too that feele them not is cause that in many Questions of secret Theology by being very apt and easy to be mistaken there is a necessity in forbearing one another and this consideration would have been of good use in the Question between Soto and Catharinus both for the preservation of their charity and explication of the mystery 6. But here it will not be unseasonable to consider that Numb 9. all systems and principles of science are expressed so that either by reason of the Universality of the termes and subject matter or the infinite variety of humane understandings and these peradventure swayed by interest or determin'd by things accidentall and extrinsecall they seem to divers men nay to the same men upon divers occasions to speak things extremly disparate and sometimes contrary but very often of great variety And this very thing happens also in Scripture that if it were not in re sacrâ seria it were excellent sport to observe how the same place of Scripture serves severall turns upon occasion and they at that time believe the words sound nothing else whereas in the liberty of their judgement and abstracting from that occasion their Commentaries understand them wholy to a differing sense It is a wonder of what excellent use to the Church of Rome is tibi dabo claves It was spoken to Peter and none else sometimes and therefore it concerns him and his Successors only the rest are to derive from him And yet if you Question them for their Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution then tibi dabo claves comes in and that was spoken to S. Peter and in him to the whole Colledge of the Apostles and in them to the whole Hierarchy If you question why the Pope pretends to free soules from Purgatory tibi dabo claves is his warrant but if you tell him the Keyes are only for binding and loosing on Earth directly and in Heaven consequently and that Purgatory is a part of Hell or rather neither Earth nor Heaven nor Hell and so the Keyes seem to have nothing to doe with it then his Commission is to be enlarged by a suppletory of reason and consequences and his Keyes shall unlock this difficulty for it is clavis scientiae as well as authoritatis And these Keyes shall enable him to expound Scriptures infallibly to determine Questions to preside in Councels to dictate to all the World Magisterially to rule the Church to dispence with Oaths to abrogate Lawes And if his Key of knowledge will not the Key of Authority shall and tibi dabo claves shall answer for all We have an instance in the single fancy of one man what rare variety of matter is afforded from those plain words of Oravi pro te Petre Luk. 22. for that place sayes Bellarmine is otherwise to be understood of Peter otherwise of the Popes and otherwise of the Church of Rome And pro te Bellar. lib. 1. de Pontif. c. 3. § respondeo primò signifies that Christ prayed that Peter might neither erre personally nor judicially and that Peters Successors if they did erre personally might not erre judicially and that the Roman Church might not erre personally All this variety of sense is pretended by the fancy of one man to be in a few words which are as plain and simple as are any words in Scripture And what then in those thousands that are intricate So is done with pasce oves which a man would think were a commission as innocent and guiltlesse of designs as the sheep in the folds are But if it be asked why the Bishop of Rome calls himselfe Universall Bishop pasce oves is his warrant Why he pretends to a power of deposing Princes Pasce oves said Christ to Peter the second time If it be demanded why also he pretends to a power of authorizing his
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 foure generall Councels 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 unlesse they had noted could not possibly be Traditions And therefore either of them will be lesse uselesse as to our present affaires For indeed the Questions which now are the publike 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 out 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 halfe of those things which certainly by the Fathers were called Traditions Apostolicall and no Testimony of ancient Writers does consign the one halfe 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 wholy differing from the present disputes and they which would bring in after Ages to the Authority of a competent judge or witnesse say the same thing for they plainly confesse that the first Ages spake little or nothing to the present Question or at least nothing to their sense of them for therefore they call in aid from the following Ages and make them suppletory and auxiliary to their designs and therefore there are no Traditions to our purposes And they who would willingly have it otherwise yet have taken no course it should be otherwise for they when they had opportunity in the Councels of the last Ages to determine what they had a mind to yet they never nam'd the number nor expressed the particular Traditions which they would faine have the world believe to be Apostolicall But they have kept the bridle in their own hands and made a reserve of their own power that if need be they may make new pretensions or not be put to it to justifie the old by the engagement of a conciliary declaration Lastly We are acquitted by the Testimony of the Primitive Fathers from any other necessity of believing then of Numb 11. such Articles as are recorded in Scripture And this is done by them whose Authority is pretended the greatest Argument for Tradition as appears largely in Irenaeus who disputes professedly for the sufficiency of Scripture against certain Hereticks who L. 3. c. 2. contr haeres affirm some necessary truths not to be written It was an excellent saying of S. Basil and will never be wipt out with all the eloquence of Perron in his Serm. de fide Manifestus est fidei lapsus liquidum superbiae vitium vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est And it is but a poore device to say that every particular Tradition is consigned in Scripture by those places which give Authority to Tradition and so the introducing of Tradition is not a super-inducing any thing over or besides Scripture because Tradition is like a Messenger and the Scripture is like his Letters of Credence and therefore Authorizes whatsoever Tradition speaketh For supposing Scripture does consign the Authority of Tradition which it might doe before all the whole Instrument of Scripture it self was consign'd and then afterwards there might be no need of Tradition yet supposing it it will follow that all those Traditions which are truly prime and Apostolicall are to be entertain'd according to the intention of the Deliverers which indeed is so reasonable of it selfe that we need not Scripture to perswade us to it it selfe is authentick as Scripture is if it derives from the same fountain and a word is never the more the Word of God for being written nor the lesse for not being written but it will not follow that whatsoever is pretended to be Tradition is so neither is the credit of the particular instances consign'd in Scripture dolosus versatur in generalibus but that this craft is too palpable And if a generall and indefinite consignation of Tradition be sufficient to warrant every particular that pretends to be Tradition then S. Basil had spoken to no purpose by saying it is Pride Apostasy from the Faith to bring in what is not written For if either any man brings in what is written or what he sayes is delivered then the first being expresse Scripture and the second being consign'd in Scripture no man can be charged with superinducing what is not written he hath his Answer ready And then these are zealous words absolutely to no purpose but if such generall consignation does not warrant every thing that pretends to Tradition but only such as are truly proved to be Apostolicall then Scripture is uselesse as to this particular for such Tradition gives testimony to Scripture and therefore is of it selfe first and more credible for it is credible of it selfe and therefore unlesse S. Basil thought that all the will of God in matters of Faith and Doctrine were written I see not what end nor what sense he could have in these words For no man in the world except Enthusiasts and mad-men ever obtruded a Doctrine upon-the Church but he pretended Scripture for it or Tradition and therefore no man could be pressed by these words no man confuted no man instructed no not Enthusiasts or Montanists For suppose either of them should say that since in Scripture the holy Ghost is promised to abide with the Church for ever to teach whatever they pretend the Spirit in any Age hath taught them is not to super-induce any thing beyond what is written because the truth of the Spirit his veracity and his perpetuall teaching being promised and attested in Scripture Scripture hath just so consign'd all such Revelations as Perron saith it hath all such Traditions But I will trouble my selfe no more with Arguments from any humane Authorities but he that is surprized with the beliefe of such Authorities and will but consider the very many Testimonies of Antiquity to this purpose as of a Orat. ad Nicen PP apud Theodor. l. 1. c. 7. Constantine b In Matth. l. 4. c. 23. in Aggaeum S. Hierom c De bono viduil c. 1. S. Austin d Orat. contr gent. S. Athaenasius e In
Psal. 132. S. Hilary f L. 2. contra heres tom 1. haer 61. S. Epiphanius and divers others all speaking words to the same sense with that saying of S. g 1. Cor. 4. Paul Nemo sentiat super quod scriptum est will see that there is reason that since no man is materially a Heretick but he that erres in a point of Faith and all Faith is sufficienly recorded in Scripture the judgement of Faith and Heresy is to be derived from thence and no man is to be condemned for dissenting in an Article for whose probation Tradition only is pretended only according to the degree of its evidence let every one determine himselfe but of this evidence we must not judge for others for unlesse it be in things of Faith and absolute certainties evidence is a word of relation and so supposes two terms the object and the faculty and it is an imperfect speech to say a thing is evident in it selfe unlesse we speak of first principles or clearest revelations for that may be evident to one that is not so to another by reason of the pregnancy of some apprehensions and the immaturity of others This Discourse hath its intention in Traditions Doctrinall and Rituall that is such Traditions which propose Articles new in materiâ but now if Scripture be the repository of all Divine Truths sufficient for us Tradition must be considered as its instrument to convey its great mysteriousnesse to our understandings it is said there are traditive Interpretations as well as traditive propositions but these have not much distinct consideration in them both because their uncertainty is as great as the other upon the former considerations as also because in very deed there are no such things as traditive Interpretations universall For as for particulars they signifie no more but that they are not sufficient determinations of Questions Theologicall therefore because they are particular contingent and of infinite variety and they are no more Argument then the particular authority of these men whose Commentaries they are and therefore must be considered with them The summe is this Since the Fathers who are the best Numb 12. Witnesses of Traditions yet were infinitely deceived in their account since sometimes they guest at them and conjectured by way of Rule and Discourse and not of their knowledge not by evidence of the thing since many are called Traditions which were not so many are uncertaine whether they were or no yet confidently pretended and this uncertainty which at first was great enough is increased by infinite causes and accidents in the succession of 1600 yeares since the Church hath been either so carelesse or so abused that shee could not or would not preserve Traditions with carefulnesse and truth since it was ordinary for the old Writers to set out their own fancies and the Rites of their Church which had been Ancient under the specious Title of Apostolicall Traditions since some Traditions rely but upon single Testimony at first and yet descending upon others come to be attested by many whose Testimony though conjunct yet in value is but single because it relies upon the first single Relator and so can have no greater authority or certainty then they derive from the single person since the first Ages who were most competent to consign Tradition yet did consign such Traditions as be of a nature wholy discrepant from the present Questions and speak nothing at all or very imperfectly to our purposes and the following Ages are no fit Witnesses of that which was not transmitted to them because they could not know it at all but by such transmission and prior consignation since what at first was a Tradition came afterwards to be written and so ceased its being a Tradition yet the credit of Traditions commenc'd upon the certainty and reputation of those truths first delivered by word afterward consign'd by writing since what was certainly Tradition Apostolicall as many Rituals were are rejected by the Church in severall Ages and are gone out into a desuetude and lastly since beside the no necessity of Traditions there being abundantly enough in Scripture there are many things called Traditions by the Fathers which they themselves either proved by no Authors or by Apocryphall and spurious and Hereticall the matter of Tradition will in very much be so uncertain so false so suspitious so contradictory so improbable so unproved that if a Question be contested and be offered to be proved only by Tradition it will be very hard to impose such a proposition to the beliefe of all men with any imperiousnesse or resolved determination but it will be necessary men should preserve the liberty of believing and prophesying and not part with it upon a worse merchandise and exchange then Esau made for his birth-right SECT VI. Of the uncertainty and insufficiency of Councels Ecclesiasticall to the same purpose BUt since we are all this while in uncertainty it is necessary that we should addresse our selves somewhere where we Numb 1. may rest the soale of our foot And nature Scripture and experience teach the world in matters of Question to submit to some finall sentence For it is not reason that controversies should continue till the erring person shall be willing to condemn himselfe and the Spirit of God hath directed us by that great precedent at Jerusalem to addresse our selves to the Church that in a plenary Councell and Assembly shee may synodically determine Controversies So that if a Generall Councell have determin'd a Question or expounded Scripture we may no more disbelieve the Decree then the Spirit of God himselfe who speaks in them And indeed if all Assemblies of Bishops were like that first and all Bishops were of the same spirit of which the Apostles were I should obey their Decree with the same Religion as I doe them whole preface was Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis And I doubt not but our blessed Saviour intended that the Assemblies of the Church should be Judges of Controversies and guides of our perswasions in matters of difficulty But he also intended they should proceed according to his will which he had revealed and those precedents which he had made authentick by the immediate assistance of his holy Spirit He hath done his part but we doe not doe ours And if any private person in the simplicity and purity of his soule desires to find out a truth of which he is in search and inquisition if he prayes for wisedome we have a promise he shall be heard and answered liberally and therefore much more when the representatives of the Catholike Church doe meet because every person there hath in individuo a title to the promise and another title as he is a governour and a guide of soules and all of them together have another title in their united capacity especially if in that union they pray and proceed with simplicity and purity so that there is no disputing against the pretence
might not faile for it was necessary that no bitternesse or stopping should be in one of the first springs least 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 be preserved by vertue of that prayer which the forme of words the time the occasion the manner of the addresse the effect it selfe and all the circumstances of the action and person did determine to be personall And when it was more then personall S. Peter did not represent his Successors at Rome but 22 ae q. 2. a. 6. ar 6. ad 3 m. the whole Catholike Church sayes Aquinas and the Divines of the University of Paris Volunt enim pro solâ Ecclesiâ esse L. 4. de Roman Pont. c. 3. § 1. oratum sayes Bellarmine of them and the glosse upon the Canon Law plainly denies the effect of this prayer at all to appertain to the Pope Quaere de quâ Ecclesia intelligas quod hoc dicitur quod Caus. 21. cap. à recta q. 1. non possit errare si de ipso Papâ qui Ecclesia dicitur sed certum est quod Papa errare potest Respondeo ipsa Congregatio fidelium hic dicitur Ecclesia talis Ecclesia non potest non esse 29. dist Ana. statius 60. dist si Papa nam ipse Dominus orat pro Ecclesiâ 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 sell fouly and denyed his Master shamefully And shall Christs prayer be of greater efficacy for his Successors for whom it was made but indirectly and by consequence then for himselfe 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 cheife and Decessor Peter But it would not be forgotten how the Roman Doctors will by no meanes allow that S. Peter was then the chiefe Bishop or Pope when he denyed his Master But then much lesse was he chosen chiefe 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 intitled to it passes the length of my hand to span But then also if it be supposed and allowed that these words shall intaile infallibility upon the Chaire of Rome why shall not also all the Apostolicall Sees bee infallible as well as Rome why shall not Constaentinople 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 sua veritate Joh. 17. 2. For tibi dabo claves was it personall or not If it were then the Bishops of Rome have nothing to doe with it Numb 4. If it were not then by what Argument will it be made evident that S. Peter in the promise represented only his Successors and not the whole Colledge of Apostles and the whole Hierarchy For if S. Peter was chiefe of the Apostles and Head of the Church he might faire 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 keyes were given for was made afterward to all the Apostles Mat. 18. and the power of remitting and retaining which in reason and according to the stile of the Church is the same thing in other words was actually given to all the Apostles and unlesse 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 pertaine 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 himselfe 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 convey'd 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 tantum dictum est non facit hoc Ecclesia If the Keyes were only given and so promised to S. Peter that Tra. 50. in Ioann the Church hath not the Keyes then the Church can neither bind nor loose remit nor retaine which God forbid if any man should endevour to answer this Argument I leave him and S. Austin to contest it 3. For pasce oves there is little in that Allegation besides the boldnesse of the Objectors for were not all the Apostles Numb 5. 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 himselfe say to all the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithinia that they should feed the flock of God and the great Bishop and Shepheard should give them an immarcescible Crown plainly implying that from whence they derived their Authority from him they were sure of a reward In pursuance of which S. Cyprian laid his Argument upon this basis Nam cum statutum sit omnibus L. 1. Epist. 3. nobis c. singulis pastoribus portio gregis c. Did not S. Paul call to the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the flock of God of which the holy Ghost hath made them Bishops or Over-seers and that this very Commission was spoken to Peter not in a personall but a publike capacity and in him spoke to all the Apostles we see attested by S. Austin and S. Ambrose and generally by all Antiquity De agone Christi c 30. and it so concern'd even every Priest that Damasus was willing enough to have S. Hierom explicate many questions for him And Liberius writes an Epistle to Athanasius with much modesty requiring his advice in a Question of Faith Epist. ad Athanas apud Athanas. tom 1. pag 42. Paris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I also may be perswaded without all doubting of those things which you shall be pleased to command me Now Liberius needed not to have troubled himselfe to have writ into the East to Athanasius for if he had but seated himselfe
in his Chaire and made the dictate the result of his pen and inke would certainly have taught him and all the Church but that the good Pope was ignorant that either pasce oves was his own Charter and Prerogative or that any other words of Scripture had made him to be infallible or if he was not ignorant of it he did very ill to complement himselfe out of it So did all those Bishops of Rome that in that troublesome and unprofitable Question of Easter being unsatisfied in the supputation of the Egyptians and the definitions of the Mathematicall Bishops of Alexandria did yet require and intreat S. Ambrose to tell them his opinion as he himselfe witnesses If pasce oves belongs only to the Pope by primary title in these L. 10. Epist. 83. cases the sheep came to feed the Shepherd which though it was well enough in the thing is very ill for the pretensions of the Roman Bishops and if we consider how little many of the Popes have done toward feeding the sheep of Christ we shall hardly determine which is the greater prevarication that the Pope should claime the whole Commission to be granted to him or that the execution of the Commission should be wholly passed over to others and it may be there is a mystery in it that since S. Peter sent a Bishop with his staffe to raise up a Disciple of his from the dead who was afterward Bishop of Triers the Popes of Rome never weare a Pastorall staffe except it be in that Diocesse sayes Aquinas for great reason that he who does not doe the office should not beare the M. 4. Sent. dist 24. Symbol but a man would think that the Popes Master of the Ceremonies was ill advised not to assigne a Pastorall staffe to him who pretends the Commission of pasce oves to belong to him by prime right and origination But this is not a businesse to be merry in But the great support is expected from Tu es Petrus super Numb 6. hanc Petram adificabo Ecclesiam c. Now there being so great difference in the exposition of these words by persons dis-interressed who if any might be allowed to judge in this Question it is certain that neither one sense nor other can be obtruded for an Article of faith much lesse as a Catholicon instead of all by constituting an Authority which should guide us in all Faith and determine us in all Questions For if the Church was not built upon the person of Peter then his Successors can challenge nothing from this instance now that it was the confession of Peter upon which the Church was to rely for ever we have witnesses very credible a Ad Philadelph S. Ignatius S. b Seleuc. orat 25. Basil c L. 6. de Trinit S. Hilary d De Trinitate advers Iudaeos S. Gregory Nyssen e L. 3. Ep. 33. S. Gregory the Great f In 1. Eph. Ioann tr 10. S. Austin g De Trinit l. 4. S. Cyrill of Alexandria h L. 1. Ep. 235. Isidore Pelusiot and very many more And although all these witnesses concurring cannot make a proposition to be true yet they are sufficient witnesses that it was not the Universall beliefe of Christendome that the Church was built upon S. Peters person Cardinall Perron hath a fine fancy to elude this variety of Exposition and the consequents of it For saith he these Expositions are not contrary or exclusive of each other but inclusive and consequent to each other For the Church is founded causally upon the confession of S. Peter formally upon the ministry of his person and this was a reward or a consequent of the former So that these Expositions are both true but they are conjoyn'd as mediate and immediate direct and collaterall literall and morall originall and perpetuall accessory and temporall the one consign'd at the beginning the other introduc'd upon occasion For before the spring of the Arrian heresy the Fathers expounded these words of the person of Peter but after the Arrians troubled them the Fathers finding great Authority and Energy in this confession of Peter for the establishment of the naturall siliation of the Son of God to advance the reputation of these words and the force of the Argument gave themselves lience to expound these words to the present advantage and to make the confession of Peter to be the foundation of the Church that if the Arrians should encounter this Authority they might with more prejudice to their persons declaime against their cause by saying they overthrew the foundation of the Church Besides that this answer does much dishonour the reputation of the Fathers integrity and makes their interpretations lesse credible as being made not of knowledge or reason but of necessity and to serve a present turn it is also false For * Epist. ad Philadelph In c. 16. Mat. tract 1. Ignatius expounds it in a spirituall sense which also the Liturgy attibuted to S. James cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Origen expounds it mystically to a third purpose but exclusively to this And all these were before the Arrian Controversy But if it be lawfull to make such unproved observations it would have been to better purpose and more reason to have observed it thus The Fathers so long as the Bishop of Rome kept himselfe to the limits prescrib'd him by Christ and indulged to him by the Constitution or concession of the Church were unwary and apt to expound this place of the person of Peter but when the Church began to enlarge her phylacteries by the favour of Princes and the Sun-shine of a prosperous fortune and the Pope by the advantage of the Imperiall Seat and other accidents began to invade upon the other Bishops and Patriarchs then that he might have no colour from Scripture for such new pretensions they did most generally turn the stream of their expositions from the person to the confession of Peter and declar'd that to be the foundation of the Church And thus I have required fancy with fancy but for the maine point that these two Expositions are inclusiue of each other I find no warrant for though they may consist together well enough if Christ had so intended them yet unlesse it could be shown by some circumstance of the Text or some other extrinsecall Argument that they must be so and that both senses were actually intended it is but gratis dictum and a begging of the Question to say that they are so and the fancy so new that when S. Austin had expounded this place of the person of Peter he reviewes it againe and in his Retractations leaves every man to his liberty which to take as having nothing certaine in this Article which had been altogether needlesse if he had believed them to be inclusively in each other neither of them had need to have beene retracted both were alike true both of them might
where clearly the High Priest was supreme in many senses yet in no sense infallible will it inferre more to us then it did amongst the Apostles amongst whom if for orders sake S. Peter was the first yet he had no compulsory power over the Apostles there was no such thing spoke of nor any such thing put in practise And that the other Apostles were by a personall priviledge as infallible as himselfe is no reason to hinder the exercise of jurisdiction or any compulsory power over them for though in Faith they were infallible yet in manners and matter of fact as likely to erre as S. Peter himselfe was and certainly there might have something hapned in the whole Colledge that might have been a Record of his Authority by transmitting an example of the exercise of some Judiciall power over some one of them If he had but withstood any of them to their faces as S. Paul did him it had been more then yet is said in his behalfe Will the Ministeriall Headship inferre any more then when the Church in a Community or a publike capacity should doe any Act of Ministery Ecelesiasticall he shall be first in Order Suppose this to be a dignity to preside in Councels which yet was not alwayes granted him Suppose it to be a power of taking cognisance of the Major Causes of Bishops when Councels cannot be called Suppose it a double voyce or the last decisive or the negative in the causes exteriour Suppose it to be what you will of dignity or externall regiment which when all Churches were united in Communion and neither the interest of States nor the engagement of opinions had made disunion might better have been acted then now it can yet this will fall infinitely short of a power to determine Controversies infallibly and to prescribe to all mens faith and consciences A Ministeriall Headship or the prime Minister cannot in any capacity become the foundation of the Church to any such purpose And therefore men are causlessely amused with such premises and are afraid of such Conclusions which will never follow from the admission of any sense of these words that can with any probability be pretended 8. I consider that these Arguments from Scripture are too weak to support such an Authority which pretends to give Numb 10. Oracles and to answer infallibly in Questions of Faith because there is greater reason to believe the Popes of Rome have erred and greater certainty of demonstration then these places can be that they are infallible as will appear by the instances and perpetuall experiment of their being deceived of which there is no Question but of the sense of these places there is And indeed if I had as clear Scripture for their infallibility as I have against their halfe Communion against their Service in an unknown tongue worshipping of Images and divers other Articles I would make no scruple of believing but limit and conform my understanding to all their Dictates and believe it reasonable all Prophecying should be restrain'd But till then I have leave to discourse and to use my reason And to my reason it seemes not likely that neither Christ nor any of his Apostles S. Peter himselfe not S. Paul writing to the Church of Rome should speak the least word or tittle of the infallibility of their Bishops for it was certainly as convenient to tell us of a remedy as to foretell that certainly there must needs be heresies and need of a remedy And it had been a certain determination of the Question if when so rare an opportunity was ministred in the Question about Circumcision that they should have sent to Peter who for his infallibility in ordinary and his power of Headship would not only with reason enough as being infallibly assisted but also for his Authority have best determin'd the Question if at least the first Christians had known so profitable and so excellent a secret and although we have but little Record that the first Councell at Jerusalem did much observe the solennities of Law and the forms of Conciliary proceedings and the Ceremonials yet so much of it as is recorded is against them S. James and not S. Peter gave the finall sentence and although S. Peter determin'd the Question pro libertate yet S. James made the Decree and the Assumentum too and gave sentence they should abstaine from some things there mentioned which by way of temper he judg'd most expedient And so it passed And S. Peter shewed no sign of a Superiour Authority nothing of S. Chrysost. hom 3. in act Apost Superiour jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if this Question be to be determin'd by Scripture it Numb 11. must either be ended by plaine places or by obscure plaine places there are none and these that are with greatest fancy pretended are expounded by Antiquity to contrary purposes But if obscure places be all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by what meanes shall we infallibly find the sense of them The Popes interpretation though in all other cases it might be pretended in this cannot for it is the thing in Question and therefore cannot determine for it selfe either therefore we have also another infallible guide besides the Pope and so we have two Foundations and two Heads for this as well as the other upon the same reason or else which is indeed the truth there is no infallible way to be infallibly assured that the Pope is infallible Now it being against the common condition of men above the pretences of all other Governours Ecclesiasticall against the Analogy of Scripture and the deportment of the other Apostles against the Oeconomy of the Church and S. Peters own entertainment the presumption lies against him and these places are to be left to their prime intentions and not put upon the rack to force them to confesse what they never thought But now for Antiquity if that be deposed in this Question there are so many circumstances to be considered to reconcile Numb 12. their words and their actions that the processe is more troublesome then the Argument can be concluding or the matter considerable But I shall a little consider it so farre at least as to shew either Antiquity said no such thing as is pretended or if they did it is but little considerable because they did not believe themselves their practise was the greatest evidence in the world against the pretence of their words But I am much cased of a long disquisition in this particular for I love not to prove a Question by Arguments whose Authority is in it selfe as fallible and by circumstances made as uncertain as the Question by the saying of Aeneas Sylvius that before the Nicene Councell every men liv'd to himselfe and small respect was had to the Church of Rome which practise could not well consist with the Doctrine of their Bishops infallibility and by consequence supreme judgement and last resolution in matters of
the greatest vanity in the world For when God hath made a Promise pertaining also to our Children for so our Adversaries contend and we also acknowledge in its true sense shall not this Promise this word of God be of sufficient truth certainty and efficacy to cause comfort unlesse we tempt God and require a sign of him May not Christ say to these men as sometime to the Jewes a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign but no sign shall be given unto it But the truth on 't is this Argument is nothing but a direct quarrelling with God Almighty Now since there is no strength in the Doctrinall part the Numb 23. practise and precedents Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall will be of lesse concernment if they were true as is pretended because actions Apostolicall are not alwayes Rules for ever it might be fit for them to doe it pro loco tempore as divers others of their Institutions but yet no engagement past thence upon following Ages for it might be convenient at that time in the new spring of Christianity and till they had engag'd a considerable party by that meanes to make them parties against the Gentiles Superstition and by way of pre-occupation to ascertain them to their own sect when they came to be men or for some other reason not trasmitted to us because the Question of fact it selfe is not sufficiently determin'd For the insinuation of that precept of baptizing all Nations of which Children certainly are a part does as little advantage as any of the rest because other parallel expressions of Scripture doe determine and expound themselves to a sence that includes not all persons absolutely but of a capable condition as adorate eum omnes gentes psallite Deo omnes nationes terrae and divers more As for the conjecture concerning the Family of Stephanus Numb 24. at the best it is but a conjecture and besides that it is not prov'd that there were Children in the Family yet if that were granted it followes not that they were baptized because by whole Families in Scripture is meant all persons of reason and age within the Family for it is said of the Ruler at Capernaum Ioh. 4. 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 bee allowed just as probable But this is unman-like to build upon such slight aery conjectures But Tradition by all meanes must supply the place of Scripture Numb 25. and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolicall 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 doe not value the Allegation of Tradions 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 wee should allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified for so farre as it can yet appeare it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it Now a Tradition Apostolicall if it be not consign'd with a fuller Testimony then of one person whom all after-Ages have condemn'd of many errors will obtain so little reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority pretended to derive from the Apostles and yet falsly that it will be a great Argument that he is credulons and weak that shall be determin'd by so weak probation in matters of so great concernment And the truth of the businesse is as there was no command of Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it so the necessity of Paedobaptism was not determin'd in the Church till in the eighth Age after Christ but in the yeare 418 in the Milevitan Councell a Provinciall of Africa there was a Canon made for Paedo-baptism never till then I grant it was practiz'd in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it and 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 preach'd it to be absolutely necessary and it was in his heat and anger against Pelagius who had warm'd and chafed him so in that Question that it made him innovate in other doctrines possibly of more concernment then this And that 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 a learned Paedo-baptist Ludovicus Vives who in his Annotations upon S. Austin De Civit. Dei l. 1. c. 27. affirms Neminem nisi adultum antiquitùs solere baptizari But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolicall we have very good evidence from Antiquity that it Numb 26. was the opinion of the Primitive Church that Infants ought not to be baptiz'd and this is clear in the sixth Canon of the Councell of Neocaesarea The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sence is this A woman with child may be baptized when she please For her Baptism concernes 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 choyce and election Meaning plainly that if the Baptism of the Mother did also passe 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 choyce it is not reasonable the child should be consign'd with such a mystery since it cannot doe any act of choyce or understanding The Canon speaks reason and it intimates a practise which was absolutely universall 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 And to supply their incapacity by the Answer of a Godfather Numb 27. Quid ni necesse est sie legit Franc. Iunius in notis ad Tertul. sponsores eti am periculo ingeri qui ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possint proventu malae indolis falli Tertul lib. de baptis cap. 18. is but the same unreasonablenesse acted with a worse circumstance And there is no sensible account can be given of it for that which some imperfectly murmure concerning stipulations civill perform'd by Tutors in
upon another point which also perhaps is as Questionable as the former and by this time our spirit of devotion is a little discomposed and something out of countenance there is so much other imployment for the spirit the spirit of discerning and judging All which inconveniences are avoyded in set formes of Liturgy For we know before hand the conditions of our Communion and to what we are to say Amen to which if we like it we may repaire if not there is no harm done your devotion shall not be surprized nor your Communion invaded as it may be and often is in your ex tempore prayers And this thing hath another collaterall inconvenience which is of great consideration for upon what confidence can we sollicite any Recusants to come to our Church where we cannot promise them that the devotions there to be used shall be innocent nor can we put him into a condition to judge for himselfe If hee will venture he may but we can use no Argument to make him choose our Churches though he should quit his own 3. But again let us consider with sobriety Are not those Numb 34. prayers and hymnes 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 then David had or then the Apostles and Prophets and other holy persons in Scripture whose Prayers and Psalmes are by Gods Spirit consigned to the use of the Church for ever Or will it be denyed 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 Magnificat In a just porportion and commensuration I argue so concerning the primitive and ancient forms of Church service which are composed Numb 35. according to those so excellent patterns which if they had remained pure as in their first institution or had alwayes been as they have been reformed by the Church of England they would against all defiance put in for the next place to those formes or 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 But for the forme this I say further 4. That the Church of God hath the promise of the spirit made to her in generall to her in her Catholick and united capacity Numb 36. to the whole Church first then to particular Churches then in the lowest seat of the Category to single persons Now then I infer if any single persons will have us to believe without all possibility of proofe for so it must be that they pray with the Spirit for how shall they be able to prove the spirit actually to abide in those single persons then much rather must we believe it of the Church which by how much the more generall it is so much the more of the spirit she is likely to have and then if there be no errours in the matter the Church hath the advantage and probability on her side and if there be an errour in matter in either of them they faile of their pretences neither of them have the spirit But the publick spirit in all reason is to be trusted before the private when there is a contestation the Church being Prior potior in premissis she hath a greater and prior title to the spirit And why the Church hath not the spirit of prayer in her compositions as well as any of her children I desire once for all to be satisfied upon true grounds either of reason or revelation 5. Or if the Church shall be admitted to have the gift and the spirit of prayer given unto her by virtue of the great promise Numb 37. of the spirit to abide with her for ever yet for all this she is taught to pray in a set form of prayer and yet by the spirit too For what think we When Christ taught us to pray in that incomparable modell the Lords Prayer if we pray that prayer devoutly and with pious and actuall intention doe we not pray in the Spirit of Christ as much as if we prayed any other form of words pretended to be taught us by the Spirit Wee are sure that Christ and Christs Spirit taught us this Prayer they only gather by conjectures and opinions that in their ex tempore forms the spirit of Christ teaches them So much then as certainties are better then uncertaines and God above man so much is this set form besides the infinite advantages in the matter better then their ex tempore forms in the form it selfe 6. If I should descend to minutes and particulars I could instance Numb 38. in the behalfe of set forms that God prescribed to Moses a set form of prayer and benediction to be used when he did blesse the people 7. That Moses composed a song or hymne for the children of Israel to use to all their generations 8. That David composed many for the service of the tabernacle 9. That Solomon and the holy Kings of Judah brought them in and continued them in the ministration of the temple 10. That all Scripture is written for our learning and since all these and many more set forms of prayer are left there upon record it is more then probable that they were left there for our use and devotion 11. That S. John Baptist taught his Disciples a forme of prayer 12. And that Christs Disciples begged the same favour and it was granted as they desired it 13. And that Christ gave it not only in massâ materiae but in forma verborum not in a confused heap of matter but in an exact composure of words it makes it evident he intended it not only pro regula petendorum for a direction of what things we are to ask but also pro forma orationis for a set form of Prayer In which also I am most certainly confirmed besides the universall testimony of Gods Church so attesting it in the precept which Christ added When ye pray pray after this manner and indeed it points not the matter only of our prayers but the form of it the manner and the matter of the addresse both But in the repetition of it by Saint Luke the preceptive words seeme to limit us and direct us to this very form of words when ye pray say Our Father c. 14. I could also adde the example of all the Jewes and by consequence of our blessed Saviour who sung a great part of Davids Psalter in their feast of Passeover which part is called by the Iewes the great Hallelujah it begins at the 113 Psalm and
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 practise of Christendome not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship but that Presbyters have no Iurisdiction essentiall to their order but derivative only from Apostolicall preheminence 2. Let us now see the matter of fact They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of Iurisdiction 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 faithfull people from the Catholick communion without cause and without authority S. Iohn the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gajus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore when I come I will remember him and all that would have been to very little purpose if he had not had coercitive jurisdiction to have punish't his delinquency 3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new ordination as Matthias succeeded Iudas who before his new ordination was one of the 72. as a Lib. 1. hist. c 12. l. 2. c. 9. Eusebius b Haeres 20. Epiphanius and c De script Eccles. in Matth. vide Irenaeum l. 4. c. 63. Tertul de praescript S. Ierome affirme and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with Iesus S. Clement succeeded S. Peter at Rome S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. Iames at Ierusalem S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea diverse others of the 72 reckoned by Dorotheus Eusebius others of the Fathers did governe the severall Churches after the Apostles death which before they did not Now it is cleare that he that receives no more power after the Apostles then he had under them can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge or Churches It followes then since as will more fully appeare 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 then the Presbyters had before they did succeed When I say Presbyters succeeded the Apostles I meane 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 Iurisdiction in the Apostolicall Clergy *** Now that this superiority of Iurisdiction was not temporary but to be succeeded in appeares from Reason and from ocular demonstration or of the thing done 1. If superiority of Iurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolicall for the regiment of the Church there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession since upon the emergency of Schismes and Heresies which were foretold should multiply in descending ages government and superiority of jurisdiction unity of supremacy and coërcion was more necessary then 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 perpetuall not so as to have * Ut puta viduarum collegium Diaconorum coenobium fidelium c all that which was personall 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 doe and doe it too or be call'd usurpers For either the Apostles did governe the Church as Christ commanded them or not If not then they fayl'd in the founding of the Church and the Church is not built upon a Rock If they did as most certainly they did then either the same disparity of jurisdiction must be retayn'd or else we must be governned with an Unlawfull 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 himselfe and confirmed by the Holy Ghost in fayrest intimation I meane the seaven Angel-Presidents of the seaven Asian Churches If these seaven Angels were seaven Bishops that is Prelates or Governours of these seaven Churches in which it is evident and confessed of all sides there were many Presbyters then it is certaine that a Superiority of Iurisdiction was intended by Christ himselfe and given by him insomuch as he is the fountaine of all power derived to the Church For Christ writes to these seaven Churches and directs his Epistles to the seaven Governours of these Churches calling them Angels which it will hardly be suppos'd he would have done if the function had not been a ray of the Sunne of righteousnesse they had not else been Angels of light nor starres held in Christ's owne right hand This is certaine that the function of these Angels whatsoever it be is a Divine institution Let us then see what is meant by these starres and Angels The seaven starres are the Angells of the seaven Revel 1. vers 20. Churches and the seaven Candlesticks are the seaven Churches 1. Then it is evident that although the Epistles were sent with a finall intention for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocesse with an Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesijs yet the personall 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 seaven Candlesticks but to the seaven starres which are the Angels of the seaven Churches viz. the lights shining in the Candlesticks By the Angell therefore is not cannot be mean't the whole Church 2. It is plaine that by the Angel is mean't the Governour of the Church 1. 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 diverse 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 shewes that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively 2. Because acts of jurisdiction are concredited to him as not to
Polamo Alexandrinus sic primus philosophatus est ut ait Laërtius in Proëmio unde cognominatus est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what truths we can and a charitable and mutuall permission to others that disagree from us and our opinions I am sure this may satisfie us for it will secure us but I know not any thing else that will and no man can be reasonably perswaded or satisfied in any thing else unlesse he throwes himselfe upon chance or absolute predestination or his own confidence in every one of which it is two to one at least but he may miscarry Thus farre I thought I had reason on my side and I suppose I have made it good upon its proper grounds in the pages following But then if the result be that men must be permitted in their opinions and that Christians must not Persecute Christians I have also as much reason to reprove all those oblique Arts which are not direct Persecutions of mens persons but they are indirect proceedings ungentle and unchristian servants of faction and interest provocations to zeal and animosities and destructive of learning and ingenuity And these are suppressing all the monuments of their Adversaries forcing them to recant and burning their Books For it is a strange industry and an importune diligence that was used by our fore-fathers of all those Heresies which gave them battle and imployment we have absolutely no Record or Monument but what themselves who were Adversaries have transmitted to us and we know that Adversaries especially such who observ'd all opportunities to discredit both the persons and doctrines of the Enemy are not alwayes the best records or witnesses of such transactions We see it now in this very Age in the present distemperatures that parties are no good Registers of the actions of the adverse side And if we cannot be confident of the truth of a story now now I say that it is possible for any man and likely that the interessed adversary will discover the imposture it is farre more unlikely that after Ages should know any other truth but such as serves the ends of the representers I am sure such things were never taught us by Christ and his Apostles and if we were sure that our selves spoke truth or that truth were able to justifie her selfe it were better if to preserve a Doctrine wee did not destroy a Commandement and out of zeale pretending to Christian Religion loose the glories and rewards of ingenuity and Christian simplicity Of the same consideration is mending of Authors not to their own mind but to ours that is to mend them so as to spoile them forbidding the publication of Books in which there is nothing impious or against the publick interest leaving out clauses in Translations disgracing mens persons charging disavowed Doctrins upon men and the persons of the men with the consequents of their Doctrine which they deny either to be true or to be consequent false reporting of Disputations and Conferences burning Books by the hand of the hang-man and all such Arts which shew that we either distrust God for the maintenance of his truth or that we distrust the cause or distrust our selves and our abilities I will say no more of these but only concerning the last I shall transcribe a passage out of Tacitus in the life of Iulius Agricola who gives this account of it Veniam non petissem nisi incursaturus tam saeva infesta virtutibus tempora Legimus cum Aruleno Ruslico Paetus Thrasea Herennio Senecioni Priscus Helvidius laudatt essent capitale fuisse neque in ipsos modo authores sed in libros quoque eorum saevitum delegato Triumviris ministerio ut monumenta clarissimorum ingeniorum in comitio ac foro urerentur scil illo igne vocem populi Rom. libertatem Senatus conscientiam generis humani aboleri arbitrabantur expulsis insuper sapientiae professoribus at que omni bonâ arte in exilium actâ ne quid usquam honestum occurreret It is but an illiterate Policy to think that such indirect and uningenuous proceedings can amongst wise and free-men disgrace the Authors and disrepute their Discourses And I have seen that the price hath been trebled upon a forbidden or a condemn'd Book and some men in policy have got a prohibition that their impression might be the more certainly vendible and the Author himselfe thought considerable The best way is to leave tricks and devices and to fall upon that way which the best Ages of the Church did use With the strength of Argument and Allegations of Scripture and modesty of deportment and meeknesse and charity to the persons of men they converted misbelievers stopped the mouthes of Adversaries asserted truth and discountenanced errour and those other stratagems and Arts of support and maintenance to Doctrines were the issues of hereticall braines the old Catholicks had nothing to secure themselves but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of truth and plaine dealing Eidem minutis dissecant ambagibus Ut quisque linguâ est ne quior Solvunt ligantque quaestionum vincula Per syllogismos plectiles Prudent apotheos hym in infidel Vae captiosis Sycophantarum strophis Vae versipelli astutiae Nodos tenaces recta rumpit regula Infesta discertantibus Idcirco mundi slulta deligit Deus Ut concidant Sophistica And to my understanding it is a plain Art and design of the Devill to make us so in love with our own opinions as to call them Faith and Religion that we may be proud in our understanding and besides that by our zeale in our opinions we grow coole in our piety and practicall duties he also by this earnest contention does directly destroy good life by engagement of Zealots to do any thing rather then be overcome and loose their beloved propositions But I would faine know why is not any vitious habit as bad or worse then a false opinion Why are we so zealous against those we call Hereticks and yet great friends with drunkards and fornicators swearers and intemperate and idle persons Is it because we are commanded by the Apostle to reject a Heretick after two admonitions and not to bid such a one God speed It is a good reason why we should be zealous against such persons provided we mistake them not For those of whom these Apostles speak are such as deny Christ to be come in the flesh such as deny an Article of Creed and in such odious things it is not safe nor charitable to extend the gravamen and punishment beyond the instances the Apostles make or their exact parallels But then also it would be remembred that the Apostles speak as fiercely against communion with fornicators and all disorders practicall as against communion with Hereticks If any man that is called a brother be a Fornicator or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner with such a one no not to eat I am certain that a Drunkard is as contrary to
to be counted true believers rather then good livers they would rather endeavour to live well then to bee 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 brethren which should be as dear to them as their own lives for not consenting to one anothers follies and senselesse vanities How many volumnes have been writ about Angels about immaculate conception about originall sin when that all that is solid reason or clear Revelation in all these three Articles may be reasonably enough comprized 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 farre my thoughts have carried me and then I thought I had reason to goe further and to examine the proper grounds upon which these perswasions might rely and stand firme in case any body should contest against them For possibly men may be angry at me and my design for I doe 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 before hand 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 deceiv'd 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 bee a mutuall complyance and Toleration because even then when a man thinks he hath most reason to bee confident hee may easily bee deceived For I am sure I have no other design but the prosecution and advantage of truth and I may truly 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 practise 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 affaires if the event of things be not settled in a durable consistence but is changeable every one of us all may have need of it I shall only 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 himselfe with me or my discourse that thinks before hand that his opinion cannot be reasonably altered If he thinks me to be mistaken before he tries let him also think that hee may be mistaken too and that he who judges before he heares is mistaken though he gives a right sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristoph in Pluto Was as good counsell But at a venture I shall leave this sentence of Solomon to his consideration A wise man feareth and departeth from evill but a foole rageth and is confident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a trick of boyes and bold young fellowes sayes 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 2 Tim. 2. 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 boldnesse 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 knowes 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 further 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 Iulius Agricola of whom Tacitus gave this testimony Retinuit que quod est difficillimum ex scientiâ 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 doe very much expresse my sense But if there be any man so confident as Luther sometimes was who said that hee could expound all Scripture or so vaine as Eckius who in his Chrysopassus ventur'd upon the highest and most mysterious Question of Predestination ut in eâ 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 bee much mov'd at it only 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 meane 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 pity that their ignorance should bee triumphant or discompose the publike 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 my selfe that I have markt it with so honour'd and beloved a Name might possibly need as much excuse as it does pardon but that your Lordship knowes your own for out of your Mines I have digg'd the Minerall only I have stampt it with my own image as you may perceive by the deformities which are in it But your great Name in letters will adde so much value to it as to make it obtaine its pardon amongst all them that know how to value you and all your relatives and dependants by the proportion of relation
Corinth of eating Idoll Sacrifices expresly against the Decree at Jerusalem so it were without scandall And yet for all this care and curious discretion a little of the leaven still remain'd All this they thought did so concern the Gentiles that it was totally impertinent to the Iewes still they had a distinction to satisfie the letter of the Apostles Decree and yet to persist in their old opinion and this so continued that fifteene Christian Bishops in succession Euseb. l. 4. Eccles. hist. c. 5. were circumcised even untill the destruction of Jerusalem under Adrian as Eusebius reports First By the way let me observe that never any matter of Numb 4. Question in the Christian Church was determin'd with greater solennity or more full authority of the Church then this Question concerning Circumcision No lesse than the whole Colledge of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem and that with a Decree of the highest sanction Visum est spiritui sancto nobis Secondly Either the case of the Hebrewes in particular was omitted and no determination concerning them 2. whether it were necessary or lawfull for them to be circumcised or else it was involv'd in the Decree and intended to oblige the Jewes If it was omitted since the Question was de re necessaria for dico vobis I Paul say unto you If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing it is very remarkable how the Apostles to gaine the Iewes and to comply with their violent projudice in behalfe of Moses Law did for a time Tolerate their dissent etiam in re aliôquin necessariâ which I doubt not but was intended as a precedent for the Church to imitate for ever after But if it was not omitted either all the multitude of the Iewes which S. James then Act. 21. 20. their Bishop expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou seest how many myriads of Jewes that believe and yet are zelots for the Law and Eusebius speaking of Justus sayes he was one ex infinit â multitudine L. 3. 32. Eccles. Hist. eorum qui ex circumcisione in Jesum credebant I say all these did perish and their believing in Christ serv'd them to no other ends but in the infinity of their torments to upbraid them with hypocrisie and heresie or if they were sav'd it is apparent how mercifull God was and pitifull to humane infirmities that in a point of so great concernment did pity their weaknesse and pardon their errors and love their good minde since their prejudice was little lesse than insuperable and had faire probabilities at least it was such as might abuse a wise and good man and so it did many they did bono aâ—imâ— carrare And if I mistake not this consideration S. Paul urg'd as a reason why God forgave him who was a Persecutor 1. Tim. 1. of the Saints because he did it ignorantly in unbelief that is he was not convinc'd in his understanding of the truth of the way which he persecuted he in the meane while remaining in that incredulity not out of malice or ill ends but the mistakes of humanity and a pious zeale therefore God had mercy on him And so it was in this great Question of circumcision here only was the difference the invincibility of S. Paul's error and the honesty of his heart caused God so to pardon him as to bring him to the knowledge of Christ which God therefore did because it was necessary necessitate medii no salvation was consistent with the actuall remanency of that error but in the Question of Circumcision although they by consequence did overthrow the end of Christ's comming yet because it was such a consequence which they being hindred by a prejudice not impious did not perceive God tolerated them in their error till time and a continuall dropping of the lessons and dictates Apostolicall did weare it out and then the doctrine put on it's apparell and became cloathed with nenessity they in the meane time so kept to the foundation that is Iesus Christ crucified and risen againe that although this did make a violent concussion of it yet they held fast with their heart what they ignorantly destroyed with their tongue which Saul before his conversion did not that God upon other Titles then an actuall dereliction of their error did bring them to salvation And in the descent of so many years I finde not any one Anathema past by the Apostles or their Successors upon any Numb 5. of the Bishops of Jerusalem or the Believers of the Circumcision and yet it was a point as clearly determined and of as great necessity as any of those Questions that at this day vex and crucifie Christendome Besides this Question and that of the Resurrection commenc'd in the Church of Corinth and promoted with some variety Numb 6. of sense by Hymenaeus and Philetus in Asia who said that the Resurrection was past already I doe not remember any other heresy nam'd in Scripture but such as were errours of impiety seductiones in materiâ practicâ such as was particularly forbidding to marry and the heresy of the Nicolaitans a doctrine that taught the necessity of lust and frequent fornication But in all the Animadversions against errours made by the Apostles in the New Testament no pious person was condemn'd Numb 7. no man that did invincibly erre or bona mente but something that was amisse in genere morum was that which the Apostles did redargue And it is very considerable that even they of the Circumcision who in so great numbers did heartily believe in Christ and yet most violently retaine Circumcision and without Question went to Heaven in great numbers yet of the number of these very men they came deeply under censure when to their errour they added impiety So long as it stood with charity and without humane ends and secular interests so long it was either innocent or conniv'd at but when they grew covetous and for filthy lucres sake taught the same doctrine which others did in the simplicity of their hearts then they turn'd Hereticks then they were term'd Seducers and Titus was commanded to look to them and to silence them For there are many that are intractable and vaine bablers Seducers of minds especially they of the Circumcision who seduce whole houses teaching things that they ought not for filthy lucres sake These indeed were not to be indur'd but to be silenced by the conviction of sound doctrine and to be rebuked sharply and avoided For heresy is not an errour of the understanding but an errour Numb 8. of the will And this is clearly insinuated in Scripture in the stile whereof Faith and a good life are made one duty and vice is called opposite to Faith and heresy opposed to holinesse and sanctity So in S. Paul For saith he the end of 1 Tim. 1. the Commandement is charity out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfained à quibus
still disputable or lesse considerable the number would much decrease and therefore that the Catalogues are much amisse and the name Heretick is made a terriculamentum to affright people from their beliefe or to discountenance the persons of men and disrepute them that their Schooles may be empty and their Disciples few So that I shall not neede to instance how that some men Numb 20. were called Hereticks by Philastrius for rejecting the translation of the LXX and following the Bible of Aquila wherein the great faults mentioned by Philastrius are that he translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Christum but unctum Dei and in stead of Emanuel writes Deus nobiscum But this most concerns them of the Primitive Church with whom the translation of Aquila was in great reputation is enim veluti plus à quibusdam ..... intellexisse laudatur It was supposed he was a greater Clerk and understood more then ordinary it may be so he did But whether yea or no yet since the other Translators by the Confession of Philastrius quaedam praetermisisse necessitate urgente cogerentur if some wise men or unwise did follow a Translatour who understood the Originall well for so Aquila had learnt amongst the Jewes it was hard to call men Hereticks for following his Translation especially since the other Bibles which were thought to have in them contradictories and it was confessed had omitted some things were excused by necessity and the others necessity of following Aquila when they had no better was not at all considered nor a lesse crime then heresy laid upon their score * Philastr 99. eos inter haereticos numerat qui spiraculum vitae in libro Genes interpretantur animam rationalem non potiùs gratiam Spiritus sancti Such another was the heresy of the Quartodecimani for the Easterlings were all proclaimed Hereticks for keeping Easter after the manner of the East and as Socrates and Nicephorus report the Bishop of Rome was very forward to Excommunicate all the Bishops of the lesser Asia for observing the Feast according to the Tradition of their Ancestors though they did it modestly quietly and without faction and although they pretended and were as well able to prove their Tradition from S. John of so observing it as the Western Church could prove their Tradition derivative from S. Peter and S. Paul If such things as these make up the Catalogues of Hereticks as we see they did their accounts differ from the Precedents they ought to have followed that is the censures Apostolicall and therefore are unsafe Precedents for us and unlesse they took the liberty of using the word heresy in a lower sense then the world now doth since the Councels have been forward in pronouncing Anathema and took it only for a distinct sense and a differing perswasion in matters of opinion and minute Articles we cannot excuse the persons of the men But if they intended the crime of heresy against those opinions as they laid them down in their Catalogues that crime I say which is a work of the flesh which excludes from the Kingdome of Heaven all that I shall say against them is that the causlesse curse shall return empty and no man is damn'd the sooner because his enemy cryes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that were the Judges and Accusers might erre as well as the persons accused and might need as charitable construction of their opinions and practices as the other And of this we are sure they had no warrant from any rule of Scripture or practice Apostolicall for driving so furiously and hastily in such decretory sentences But I am willing rather to believe their sense of the word heresy was more gentle then with us it is and for that they might have warrant from Scripture But by the way I observe that although these Catalogues are Numb 21. a great instance to shew that they whose Age and spirits were farre distant from the Apostles had also other judgements concerning Faith and heresy then the Apostles had and the Ages Apostolicall yet these Catalogues although they are reports of heresies in the second and third Ages are not to be put upon the account of those Ages nor to be reckoned as an instance of their judgement which although it was in some degrees more culpable then that of their Predecessors yet in respect of the following Ages it was innocent and modest But these Catalogues I speak of were set down according to the sense of the then presentages in which as they in all probability did differ from the apprehensions of the former Centuries so it is certain there were differing learnings other sancies divers representments and judgements of men depending upon circumstances which the first Ages knew and the following Ages did not and therefore the Catalogues were drawn with some truth but lesse certainty as appears in their differing about the Authours of some heresies severall opinions imputed to the same and some put in the roll of Hereticks by one which the other left out which to me is an Argument that the Collectors were determin'd not by the sense and sentences of the three first Ages but by themselves and some circumstances about them which to reckon for Hereticks which not And that they themselves were the prime Judges or perhaps some in their own Age together with them but there was not any sufficient externall judicatory competent to declare heresy that by any publike or sufficient sentence or acts of Court had furnished them with warrant for their Catalogues And therefore they are no Argument sufficient that the first Ages of the Church which certainly were the best did much recede from that which I shewed to be the sense of the Scripture and the practise of the Apostles they all contented themselves with the Apostles Creed as the rule of the Faith and therefore were not forward to judge of heresy but by analogy to their rule of Faith And those Catalogues made after these Ages are not sufficient Arguments that they did otherwise but rather of the weaknesse of some persons or of the spirit and genius of the Age in which the Compilers liv'd in which the device of calling all differing opinions by the name of heresies might grow to be a design to serve ends and to promote interests as often as an act of zeale and just indignation against evill persons destroyers of the Faith and corrupters of manners For whatever private mens opinions were yet till the Nicene Numb 22. Councell the rule of Faith was intire in the Apostles Creed and provided they retained that easily they broke not the unity of Faith however differing opinions might possibly commence in such things in which a liberty were better suffered then prohibited with a breach of charity And this appears exactly in the Question between S. Cyprian of Carthage and Stephan Bishop of Rome in which one instance it is easie to see what was lawfull and safe for a
and to obey him and to encourage us in both and this is compleated in the Apostles Creed And since contraries are of the same extent heresy is to be judg'd by its proportion and analogy to faith and that is heresy only which is against Faith Now because Faith is not only a precept of Doctrines but of manners and holy life whatsoever is either opposite to an Article of Creed or teaches ill life that 's heresy but all those propositions which are extrinsecall to these two considerations be they true or be they false make not heresy nor the man an Heretick and therefore however hee may be an erring person yet he is to be used accordingly pittied and instructed not condemned or Excommunicated And this is the result of the first ground the consideration of the nature of Faith and heresy SECT III. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of Arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary not literally determined GOd who disposes of all things sweetly and according to the nature and capacity of things and persons had made those Numb 1. only necessary which he had taken care should be sufficiently propounded to all persons of whom he required the explicite beliefe And therefore all the Articles of Faith are cleerely and plainly set down in Scripture and the Gospel is not hid nisi pereuntibus saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Damascen and that Orthod fidei lib. 4. c. 18. so manifestly that no man can be ignorant of the foundation of Faith without his own apparent fault And this is acknowledged by all wise and good men and is evident besides the reasonablenesse of the thing in the testimonies of Saints a Super Psal. 88. de util cred c. 6. Austin b Super Isa. c. 19 in Psal. 86. Hierome c Homil. 3. in Thess. Ep. 2. Chrysostome d Serm de confess Fulgentius e Miseel 2. l. 1. tit 46. Hugo de Sancto Victore f In Gen. ap Struch p. 87. Theodoret g C. 6. c. 21. Lactantius h Ad Antioch l. 2. p. 918. Theophilus Antiochenus i Par. 1. q. 1. art 9 Numb 2. Aquinas and the latter Schoole men And God hath done more for many things which are only profitable are also set down so plainly that as S. Austin sayes nemo inde haurire non possit si modò ad hauriendum devotè ac piè accedat ubi supra de util cred c. 6. but of such things there is no Question commenc'd in Christendome and if there were it cannot but be a crime and humane interest that are the Authors of such disputes and therefore these cannot be simple errours but alwayes heresies because the principle of them is a personall sinne But besides these things which are so plainly set down some for doctrine as S. Paul sayes that is for Articles and foundation of Faith some for instruction some for reproofe some for comfort that is in matters practicall and speculative of severall tempers and constitutions there are innumerable places containing in them great mysteries but yet either so enwrapped with a cloud or so darkned with umbrages or heigthened with expressions or so covered with allegories and garments of Rhetorick so profound in the matter or so altered or made intricate in the manner in the clothing and in the dressing that God may seeme to have left them as tryalls of our industry and Arguments of our imperfections and incentives to the longings after heaven and the clearest revelations of eternity and as occasions and opportunities of our mutuall charity and toleration to each other and humility in our selves rather then the repositories of Faith and furniture of Creeds and Articles of beliefe For wherever the word of God is kept whether in Scripture Numb 3. alone or also in Tradition he that considers that the meaning of the one and the truth or certainty of the other are things of great Question will see a necessity in these things which are the subject matter of most of the Questions of Christendome that men should hope to be excused by an implicite faith in God Almighty For when there are in the Explications of Scripture so many Commentaries so many senses and Interpretations so many Volumnes in all Ages and all like mens faces exactly none like another either this difference and inconvenience is absolutely no fault at all or if it be it is excusable by a minde prepar'd to consent in that truth which God intended And this I call an implicite Faith in God which is certainly of as great excellency as an implicite Faith in any man or company of men Because they who doe require an implicite Faith in the Church for Articles lesse necessary and excuse the want of explicite Faith by the implicite doe require an implicite Faith in the Church because they believe that God hath required of them to have a minde prepared to believe whatever the Church sayes which because it is a proposition of no absolute certainty whosoever does in readinesse of minde believe all that God spake does also believe that sufficiently if it be fitting to be believ'd that is if it be true and if God hath said so for he hath the same obedience of understanding in this as in the other But because it is not so certain God hath tyed him in all things to believe that which is called the Church and that it is certain we must believe God in all things and yet neither know all that either God hath revealed or the Church taught it is better to take the certain then the uncertain to believe God rather then men especially since if God hath bound us to believe men our absolute submission to God does involve that and there is no inconvenience in the world this way but that we implicitely believe one Article more viz. the Churches Authority or infallibility which may well be pardoned because it secures our beliefe of all the rest and we are sure if we believe all that God said explicitely or implicitely we also believe the Church implicitely in case we are bound to it but we are not certain that if we believe any company of men whom we call the Church that we therefore obey God and believe what he hath said But however if this will not help us there is no help for us but good fortune or absolute predestination for by choyce and industry no man can secure himselfe that in all the mysteries of Religion taught in Scripture he shall certainly understand and explicitely believe that sense that God intended For to this purpose there are many considerations 1. There are so many thousands of Copies that were writ by persons of severall interests and perswasions such different Numb 4. understandings and tempers such distinct abilities and weaknesses that it is no wonder there is so great variety of readings both in the Old Testament and in the New In the Old
baptized in the name of Jesus because unus Deus unum baptisma and as it is still one Faith which a man confesseth severall times and one Sacrament of the Eucharist though a man often communicates so it might be one baptism though often ministred And the unity of baptism might not be deriv'd from the unity of the ministration but from the unity of the Religion into which they are baptized though baptized a thousand times yet because it was still in the name of the holy Trinity still into the death of Christ it might be unum baptisma Whether S. Cyprian Firmilian and their Collegues had this discourse or no I know not I am sure they might have had much better to have evacuated the force of that Argument although I believe they had the wrong cause in hand But this is it that I say that when a Question is so undetermin'd in Scripture that the Arguments rely only upon such mysticall places whence the best fancies can draw the greatest variety and such which perhaps were never intended by the holy Ghost it were good the rivers did not swell higher then the fountaine and the confidence higher then the Argument and evidence for in this case there could not any thing be so certainly proved as that the disagreeing party should deserve to be condemn'd by a sentence of Excommunication for disbelieving it and yet they were which I wonder at so much the more because they who as it was since judg'd had the right cause had not any sufficient Argument from Scripture not so much as such mysticall Arguments but did fly to the Tradition of the Church in which also I shall afterward shew they had nothing that was absolutely certaine 3. I consider that there are divers places of Scripture containing Numb 6. in them mysteries and Questions of great concernment and yet the fabrick and constitution is such that there is no certain mark to determine whether the sense of them should be literall or figurative I speak not here concerning extrinsecall meanes of determination as traditive Interpretation Councels Fathers Popes and the like I shall consider them afterward in their severall places but here the subject matter being concerning Scripture in its own capacity I say there is nothing in the nature of the thing to determine the sense and meaning but it must be gotten out as it can and that therefore it is unreasonable that what of it selfe is ambiguous should be understood in its own prime sense and intention under the paine of either a sinne or an Anathema I instance in that famous place from whence hath sprung that Question of Transubstantiation Hoc est corpus meum The words are plain and clear apt to be understood in the literall sense and yet this sense is so hard as it does violence to reason and therefore it is the Question whether or no it be not a figurative speech But here what shall we have to determine it What mean soever we take and to what sense soever you will expound it you shall be put to give an account why you expound other places of Scripture in the same case to quite contrary senses For if you expound it literally then besides that it seems to intrench upon the words of our blessed Saviour The words that I speak they are Spirit and they are life that is to be spiritually understood and it is a miserable thing to see what wretched shifts are used to reconcile the literall sense to these words and yet to distinguish it from the Capernaiticall fancy but besides this why are not those other sayings of Christ expounded literally I am a Vine I am the Doore I am a Rock Why doe we flie to a figure in those parallel words This is the Covenant which I make between me and you and yet that Covenant was but the sign of the Covenant and why doe we fly to a figure in a precept as well as in mystery and a proposition If thy right hand offend thee cut it off and yet we have figures enough to save a limb If it be said because reason tells us these are not to be expounded according to the letter This will be no plea for them who retaine the literall exposition of the other instance against all reason against all Philosophy against all sense and against two or three sciences But if you expound these words figuratively besides that you are to contest against a world of prejudices you give your selfe the liberty which if others will use when either they have a reason or a necessity so to doe they may perhaps turn all into Allegory and so may evacuate any precept and elude any Argument Well so it is that very wise men have expounded things * Sic S Hieron In ad â—esâ—entiâ provocatus ardore studio Scriptuarum allegoricè interpretatus sum Abdiam Prophetam cujus historiam nesciebam De sensu Allegorico S. Script dixit Basilius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Allegorically when they should have expounded them literally So did the famous Origen who as S. Hierom reports of him turned Paradise so into an Allegory that he took away quite the truth of the Story and not only Adam was turned out of the Garden but the Garden it selfe out of Paradise Others expound things literally when they should understand them in Allegory so did the Ancient Papias understand Apocal. 20. Christs Millenary raign upon earth and so depressed the hopes of Christianity and their desires to the longing and expectation of temporall pleasures and satisfactions and he was followed by Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Lactantius and indeed the whole Church generally till S. Austin and S. Hierom's time who first of any whose works are extant did reprove the errour If such great spirits be deceiv'd in finding out what kinde of senses L. 23. de Civit. Dei c 7. praefat â— 19. in Isai. in c. 36. Ezek. be to be given to Scriptures it may well be endur'd that we who sit at their feet may also tread in the steps of them whose feet could not alwayes tread aright 4. I consider that there are some places of Scripture that Numb 7. have the selfe same expressions the same preceptive words the same reason and account in all appearance and yet either must be expounded to quite different senses or else we must renounce the Communion and the charities of a great part of Christendome And yet there is absolutely nothing in the thing or in its circumstances or in its adjuncts that can determine it to different purposes I instance in those great exclusive negatives for the necessity of both Sacraments Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ c. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis c. a non introibit in regnum coelorum for both these Now then the first is urg'd for the absolute indispensable necessity of baptism even in Infants insomuch that Infants goe to part of Hell if
subjects to kill him Pasce agnos said Christ the third time And pasce is doce and pasce is Impera and pasce is occide Now if others should take the same unreasonablenesse I will not say but the same liberty in expounding Scripture or if it be not licence taken but that the Scripture it selfe is so full and redundant in senses quite contrary what man soever or what company of men soever shall use this principle will certainly finde such rare productions from severall places that either the unreasonablenesse of the thing will discover the errour of the proceeding or else there will be a necessity of permitting a great liberty of judgement where is so infinite variety without limit or mark of necessary determination If the first then because an errour is so obvious and ready to our selves it will be great imprudence or tyranny to be hasty in judging others but if the latter it is it that I contend for for it is most unreasonable when either the thing it selfe ministers variety or that we take licence to our selves in variety of interpretations or proclaime to all the world our great weaknesse by our actually being deceived that we should either prescribe to others magisterially when we are in errour or limit their understandings when the thing it selfe affords liberty and variety SECT IV. Of the difficulty of Expounding Scripture THese considerations are taken from the nature of Scripture it selfe but then if we consider that we have no certain Numb 1. wayes of determining places of difficulty and Question infallibly and certainly but that we must hope to be sav'd in the beliefe of things plaine necessary and fundamentall and our pious endeavour to finde out Gods meaning in such places which he hath left under a cloud for other great ends reserved to his own knowledge we shall see a very great necessity in allowing a liberty in Prophesying without prescribing authoritatively to other mens consciences and becomming Lords and Masters of their Faith Now the meanes of expounding Scripture are either externall or internall For the externall as Church Authority Tradition Fathers Councels and Decrees of Bishops they are of a distinct consideration and follow after in their order But here we will first consider the invalidity and uncertainty of all those meanes of expounding Scripture which are more proper and internall to the nature of the thing The great Masters of Commentaries some whereof have undertaken to know all mysteries have propounded many wayes to expound Scripture which indeed are excellent helps but not infallible assistances both because themselves are but morall instruments which force not truth ex abscondito as also because they are not infallibly used and applyed 1. Sometime the sense is drawn forth by the context and connexion of parts It is well when it can be so But when there is two or three antecedents and subjects spoken of what man or what rule shall ascertain me that I make my reference true by drawing the relation to such an antecedent to which I have a minde to apply it another hath not For in a contexture where one part does not alwayes depend upon another Where things of differing natures intervene and interrupt the first intentions there it is not alwayes very probable to expound Scripture take its meaning by its proportion to the neighbouring words But who desires satisfaction in this may read the observation verified in S. Gregory's moralls upon Job lib. 5. c. 29. and the instances he there brings are excellent proofe that this way of Interpretation does not warrant any man to impose his Expositions upon the beliefe and understanding of other men too confidently and magisterially 2. Another great pretence of medium is the conference of places which Illyricus calls ingens remedium faelicissimam expositionem Numb 2. sanctae scripturae and indeed so it is if well and temperately used but then we are beholding to them that doe so for there is no rule that can constrain them to it for comparing of places is of so indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sense alteration of circumstances or difference of stile amongst Divine Writers then there is nothing that may be more abused by wilfull people or may more easily deceive the unwary or that may amuse the most intelligent Observer The Anabaptists take advantage enough in this proceeding and indeed so may any one that list and when we pretend against them the necessity of baptizing all by authority of nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ spiritu they have a parallel for it and tell us that Christ will baptize us with the holy Ghost and with fire and that one place expounds the other and because by fire is not meant an Element or any thing that is naturall but an Allegory and figurative expression of the same thing so also by water may be meant the figure signifying the effect or manner of operation of the holy Spirit Fire in one place and water in the other doe but represent to us that Christs baptism is nothing else but the cleansing and purifying us by the holy Ghost But that which I here note as of greatest concernment and which in all reason ought to be an utter overthrow to this topique is an universall abuse of it among those that use it most and when two places seem to have the same expression or if a word have a double signification because in this place it may have such a sense therefore it must because in one of the places the sense is to their purpose they conclude that therefore it must be so in the other too An instance I give in the great Question between the Socinians and the Catholikes If any place be urg'd in which our blessed Saviour is called God they shew you two or three where the word God is taken in a depressed sense for a quasi Deus as when God said to Moses Constitui te Deum Pharaonis and hence they argue because I can shew the word is used for a Deus factus therefore no Argument is sufficient to prove Christ to be Deus verus from the appellative of Deus And might not another argue to the exact contrary and as well urge that Moses is Deus verus because in some places the word Deus is used pro Deo aeterno Both wayes the Argument concludes impiously and unreasonably It is a fallacy à posse ad esse affirmativè because breaking of bread is sometimes used for an Eucharisticall manducation in Scripture therefore I shall not from any testimony of Scripture affirming the first Christians to have broken bread together conclude that they liv'd hospitably and in common society Because it may possibly be eluded therefore it does not signifie any thing And this is the great way of answering all the Arguments that can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mind to defend and any man that reads any controversies
this often hapned I think S. Austin is the chiefe Argument and Authority we have for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary the Baptism of Infants is called a Tradition by Origen alone at first and from Salmeron disput 51. in Rom. him by others The procession of the holy Ghost from the Sonne which is an Article the Greek Church disavowes derives from the Tradition Apostolicall as it is pretended and yet before S. Austin we heare nothing of it very cleerly or certainly for as much as that whole mystery concerning the blessed Spirit was so little explicated in Scripture and so little derived to them by Tradition that till the Councell of Nice you shall hardly find any form of worship or personall addresse of devotion to the holy Spirit as Erasmus observes and I think the contrary will very hardly be verified And for this particular in which I instance whatsoever is in Scripture concerning it is against that which the Church of Rome calls Tradition which makes the Greeks so confident as they are of the point and is an Argument of the vanity of some things which for no greater reason are called Traditions but because one man hath said so and that they can be proved by no better Argument to be true Now in this case wherein Tradition descends upon us with unequall certainty it would be very unequall to require of us an absolute beliefe of every thing not written for feare we be accounted to slight Tradition Apostolicall And since no thing can require our supreme assent but that which is truly Catholike and Apostolike and to such a Tradition is requir'd as Irenaeus sayes 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 besides what is deposited in Scripture it cannot be proved in any thing but in the Canon of Scripture it selfe and as it is now received even in that there is some variety And therefore there is wholy a mistake in this businesse for when the Fathers appeal to Tradition and with much earnestnesse Numb 8. and some clamour they call upon Hereticks to conform to or to be tryed by Tradition it is such a Tradition as delivers the fundamentall points of Christianity which were also recorded in Scripture But because the Canon was not yet perfectly consign'd they call'd to that testimony they had which was the testimony of the Churches Apostolicall whose Bishops and Priests being the Antistites religionis did believe and preach Christian Religion and conserve all its great mysteries according as they had been taught Irenaeus calls this a Tradition Apostolicall Christum accepisse calicem dixisse sanguinem suum esse docuisse novam oblationem novi Testamenti quam Ecclesia per Apostolos accipiens offert per totum mundum And the Fathers in these Ages confute Hereticks by Ecclesiasticall Tradition that is they confront against their impious and blaspemous 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 fundamentall truths which were in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Irenaeus in Eusebius observes in the instance of Polycarpus and it is manifest by considering Lib. 5. cap. 20. what heresies they fought against the heresies of Ebion Cerinthus Nicolaitans Valentinians Carpocratians persons that Vid. Irenae l. 3 4. cont haeres denyed the Sonne of God the Unity of the God-head that preached impurity that practised Sorcery and Witch-craft And now that they did rather urge Tradition against them then Scripture was because the publike Doctrine of all the Apostolicall Churches was at first more known and famous then many parts of the Scripture and because some Hereticks denyed 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 consign'd by universall Testimony some Churches having one part some another Rome her selfe 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 then we have and Traditions did by degrees lessen as they came to be written and their necessity was lesse as the knowledge of them was ascetained to us by a better Keeper of Divine Truths All that great mysteriousnesse 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 publish'd 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 2 Pet. 1. 13. 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 ritualls and manners of ministration but no doctrines or speculative mysteries are so transmitted to us by so cleer a current that we may see a visible channell and trace it to the Primitive fountaines It is said to be a Tradition Apostolicall that no Priest should baptize without chrism and the command of the Bishop Suppose it were yet we cannot be oblig'd to believe it with much confidence because we have but little proofe for it scarce any thing but the single testimony of S. Hierom. And yet if it were this is but a rituall of which in passing by I shall give that account That Dialog adv Lucifer suppose this and many more ritualls did derive clearly from Tradition Apostolicall which yet but very few doe yet it is hard that any Church should be charged with crime for not observing such ritualls because we see some of them which certainly did derive from the Apostles are expir'd and gone out in a desuetude such as are abstinence from blood and from things strangled the coenobitick life of secular persons the colledge of widowes 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 later 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 to be 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 appeares in their Canons The Church of Rome Fasts Friday and Saturday and not on Wednesday The Apostles had their Agapae or love Feasts we should believe them scandalous They used a kisse 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 conjugall 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 meanes will endure it nay more Michael Medina gives Testimony that of 84 Canons Apostolicall which Clemens collected De sacr hom continent li 5. c. 105. 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 observantur aliis pro temporis De Tradit part 3. c. de Author Can. Apost 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 universall will lose all their obligation and become no competent medium to confine mens practises or limit their faiths or determine their perswasions Either for the difficulty of their being prov'd the incompetency of the testimony that transmits them or the indifferency of the thing transmitted all Traditions both rituall and doctrinall are disabled from determining our consciences either to a necessary believing or obeying 6. To which I adde by way of confirmation that there are some things called Traditions and are offered to be proved to Numb 9. 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 dyed 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 Apostolicall that the Greeks were saved by their Philosophy but he had no other Authority for it but the Apocryphall Books of Peter and Paul Tertullian and S. Basil pretend it an Apostolicall Tradition to sign in the aire with the sign of the Crosse but this was only consign'd 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 Conciliae 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 then what was Apostolicall yet it hath nothing lesse 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 easy it is to be abused in the believing of Traditions For 1. to the first 50. which many did admit for Apostolicall 35 more were added which most men now count spurious all men call dubious and some of them universally condemned by peremptory sentence even by them who are greatest admirers of that Collection as 65. 67. and 8 ⅘ 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 impared insomuch that Isidor of Sevill sayes they were Apoeryphall made by Hereticks and published under the Apud Gratian. dist 16. c. Canones title Apostolicall but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them And yet they have prevail'd so farre amongst some that Damascen is of opinion they should Lib. ◠c. 18 de Orthod fide be received equally with the Canonicall 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 Theology 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 doe not therefore believe the sanction or proposition so delivered but disbelieve the Tradition if they doe not like the matter and so doe 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 lesse Authority then the last 35 are but because it reckons the Canon of Scripture otherwise then 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 selfe becomes suspected for approving it So that either they accuse themselves of palpable contempt of the Apostolicall 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 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 7. The Testimony of the Ancient Church being the only Numb 10. meanes 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 severall 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 selfe the lesse 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 designs 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 * Vid. Card. Petron. lettre an Sieur Casaubon 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
and promises and authority of Generall Councels For if any one man can hope to be guided by Gods Spirit in the search the pious and impartiall and unprejudicate search of truth then much more may a Generall Councell If no private man can hope for it then truth is not necessary to be found nor we are not oblig'd to search for it or else we are sav'd by chance But if private men can by vertue of a promise upon certain conditions be assured of finding out sufficient truth much more shall a Generall Councell So that I consider thus There are many promises pretended to belong to Generall Assemblies in the Church But I know not any ground nor any pretence that they shall be absolutely assisted without any condition on their own parts and whether they will or no Faith is a vertue as well as charity and therefore consists in liberty and choyce and hath nothing in it of necessity There is no Question but that they are obliged to proceed according to some rule for they expect no assistance by way of Enthusiasme if they should I know no warrant for that neither did any Generall Councell ever offer a Decree which they did not think sufficiently prov'd by Scripture Reason or Tradition as appears in the Acts of the Councels now then if they be tyed to conditions it is their duty to observe them but whether it be certaine that they will observe them that they will doe all their duty that they will not sin even in this particular in the neglect of their duty that 's the consideration So that if any man questions the Title and Authority of Generall Councels and whether or no great promises appertain to them I suppose him to be much mistaken but he also that thinks all of them have proceeded according to rule and reason and that none of them were deceived because possibly they might have been truly directed is a stranger to the History of the Church and to the perpetuall instances and experiments of the faults and failings of humanity It is a famous saying of S. Gregory that he had the foure first Councels in esteem and veneration next to the foure Evangelists I suppose it was because he did believe them to have proceeded according to Rule and to have judged righteous judgement but why had not he the same opinion of other Councels too which were celebrated before his death for he lived after the fifth Generall 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 foure had done and the following Councels did never get that reputation which all the Catholike Church acknowledged due to the first foure And in the next Order were the three following generalls for the Greeks and Latines did never joyntly acknowledge but seven generalls to have been authentick in any sense because they were in no sense agreed that any more then seven had proceeded regularly and done their duty So that now the Question is not whether Generall Councels 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 Generall Councels 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 doctrinall rules of good life and all that concerns the essentiall duty of a Christian but not in deciding Questions to satisfie contentious or curious or presumptuous spirits But now can the Bishops so conven'd 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 eares 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 doe or not doe If so then they may faile of it and not doe their duty And if the assistance of the holy Spirit be conditionall then we have no more assurance that they are assisted then that they doe their duty and doe not sinne Now let us suppose what this duty is Certainly if the Gospel Numb 2. 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 meanes which are spirituall and holy dispositions in order to a holy and spirituall 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 consign'd to the Catholike Church that is the holy Scripture either * Vid. Optat. Milev l. 5. adv Parm. Baldvin in eundem S. August in Psa. 21. Expos. 2. intirely or at least for the greater part of the Rule So that now if the Bishops bee factious and prepossest with perswasions depending upon interest it is certain they may judge amisse and if they recede from the Rule it is certain they doe judge amisse And this I say upon their grounds who most advance the authority of Generall Councels For if a Generall Councell may erre if a Pope confirm it not then most certainly if in any thing it recede from Scripture it does also erre 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 defaillance of it does evacuate the Authority of the Councell then also are the Councels 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 needlesse to have proved it but that we are fallen into Ages in which no truth is certaine no reason concluding nor is there any thing that can convince some men For Stapleton with extreme boldnesse against the piety of Christendome against the publike sense of the ancient Relect. centrov 4. q. 1. a. 3 Church and the practise of all pious Assemblies of Bishops affirmes the Decrees of a Councell to be binding etiamsi non confirmetur ne probabili testimonio Scripturarum nay though it be quite extra Scripturam but all wise and good men have ever said that sense which S. Hilary expressed in these words Quae extra Evangelium sunt non defendam This was it which the good Emperour
trust the actions of any unlesse he had the keeping the Records himselfe or durst swear for the Register And if a very learned man as Thomas Aquinas was did either wilfully deceive us or was himselfe ignorantly abused in Allegation of a Canon which was not it is but a very fallible Topick at the best and the most holy man that is may be abused himselfe and the wisest may deceive others 6. And lastly To all this and to the former instances by way of Corollary I adde some more particulars in which it is notorious Numb 10. that Councels Generall and Nationall that is such as were either Generall by Originall or by adoption into the Canon of the Catholike Church did erre and were actually deceived The first Councell of Toledo admits to the Communion him that hath a Concubine so he have no wife besides and this Councell is approved by Pope Leo in the 92 Epistle to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona Gratian sayes that the Councell meanes by a Concubine a wife married sine dote solennitate but this is Dist. 34. can omnibus dawbing with untemper'd mortar For though it was a custome amongst the Jewes to distinguish Wives from their Concubines by Dowry and legall Solennities yet the Christian distinguished them no otherwise then as lawfull and unlawfull then as Chastity and Fornication And besides if by a Concubine is meant a lawfull wife without a Dowry to what purpose should the Councell make a Law that such a one might be admitted to the Communion for I suppose it was never thought to be a Law of Christianity that a man should have a Portion with his Wife nor he that married a poore Virgin should deserve to be Excommunicate So that Gratian and his Followers are prest so with this Canon that to avoid the impiety of it they expound it to a signification without sense or purpose But the businesse then was that Adultery was so publike and notorious a practise that the Councell did chuse rather to endure simple Fornication that by such permission of a lesse they might slacken the publike custome of a greater just as at Rome they permit Stewes to prevent unnaturall sinnes But that by a publike sanction Fornicators habitually and notoriously such should be admitted to the holy Communion was an act of Priests so unfit for Priests that no excuse can make it white or cleane The Councell of Wormes does authorize a superstitious custome at that time too much used of Cap. 3. discovering stoln goods by the holy Sacrament which a Part. 3. q 80. a. 6. ad 3 m. Aquinas justly condemns for Superstition The b Can. 72. sixth Synod separates persons lawfully married upon an accusation and crime of heresy The Roman Councell under c Can ego Berengar de consecrat dist 2. Pope Nicholas II. defin'd that not only the Sacrament of Christs body but the very body it selfe of our blessed Saviour is handled and broke by the hands of the Priest and chewed by the teeth of the Communicants which is a manifest errour derogatory from the truth of Christs beatificall Resurrection and glorification in the Heavens and disavowed by the Church of Rome it selfe But Bellarmine that answers all the Arguments in the world whither it be possible or not possible would faine make the Lib. 2. c. 8. de Concil matter faire and the Decree tolerable for sayes he the Decree meanes that the body is broken not in it selfe but in the sign and yet the Decree sayes that not only the Sacrament which if any thing be is certainly the sign but the very body it selfe is broken and champed with hands and teeth respectively which indeed was nothing but a plaine over-acting the Article in contradiction to Berengarius And the answer of Bellarmine is not sense for he denies that the body it selfe is broken in it selfe that was the errour we charg'd upon the Roman Synod and the sign abstracting from the body is not broken for that was the opinion that Councell condemn'd in Berengarius but sayes Bellarmine the body in the sign What 's that for neither the sign nor the body nor both together are broken For if either of them distinctly they either rush upon the errour which the Roman Synod condemn'd in Berengarius or upon that which they would fain excuse in Pope Nicholas but if both are broken then 't is true to affirm it of either and then the Councell is blasphemous in saying that Christ's glorified body is passible and frangible by naturall manducation So that it is and it is not it is not this way and yet it is no way else but it is some way and they know not how and the Councell spoke blasphemy but it must be made innocent and therefore it was requisite a cloud of a distinction should be raised that the unwary Reader might be amused and the Decree scape untoucht but the truth is they that undertake to justifie all that other men say must be more subtle then they that said it and must use such distinctions which possibly the first Authors did not understand But I will multiply no more instances for what instance soever I shall bring some or other will be answering it which thing is so farre from satisfying me in the particulars that it increases the difficulty in the generall and satisfies me in my first beliefe For * Illa demùm cis videntur edicta Concilia quae in rem suam faciunt reliqua non pluris aestimant quam conventum muliercularum in textrinâ vel thermis Ludo. Vives in Scholiis lib. 20. Aug. de Civit. Dei c. 26. if no Decrees of Councels can make against them though they seeme never so plain against them then let others be allowed the same liberty and there is all the reason in the world they should and no Decree shall conclude against any Doctrine that they have already entertain'd and by this meanes the Church is no fitter instrument to Decree Controversies then the Scripture it selfe there being as much obscurity and disputing in the sense and the manner and the degree and the competency and the obligation of the Decree of a Councell as of a place of Scripture And what are we the nearer for a Decree if any Sophister shall think his elusion enough to contest against the Authority of a Councell yet this they doe that pretend highest for their Authority which consideration or some like it might possibly make Gratian preferre S. Hierom's single 36. q. 2. c. placuit Testimony before a whole Councell because hee had Scripture of his side which sayes that the Authority of Councels is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Councels may possibly recede from their Rule from Scripture and in that case a single person proceeding according to Rule is a better Argument which indeed was the saying of Panormitan in concernentibus Part. 1. de election Et elect potest cap. significant
not of weight and Authority to restraine their Liberty so wholy but that they may dissent when they see a reason strong enough so to perswade them as to be willing upon the confidence of that reason and their own sincerity to answer to God for such their modesty and peaceable but as they believe their necessary disagreeing SECT VII Of the fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture and resolving Questions BUt since the Question between the Councell and the Pope Numb 1. grew high there have not wanted abettors so confident on the Popes behalfe as to believe Generall Councels to be nothing but Pompes and Solennities of the Catholike Church and that all the Authority of determining Controversies is formally and effectually in the Pope And therefore to appeale from the Pope to a future Councell is a heresy yea and Treason too said Pope Pius II and therefore it concerns us now Epist. ad Norimberg to be wise and wary But before I proceed I must needs remember that Pope Pius II while he was the wise and learned Patrum avorum nostrorum tempore pauci audebant dicere Papam esse supra Concilium l. 1. de gestis Concil Basil. Aeneas Sylvius was very confident for the preheminence of a Councell and gave a merry reason why more Clerks were for the Popes then the Councell though the truth was on the other side even because the Pope gives Bishopricks and Abbeys but Councels give none and yet as soone as he was made Pope as if he had been inspired his eyes were open to see the great priviledges of S. Peters Chaire which before he could not see being amused with the truth or else with the reputation of a Generall Councell But however there are many that hope to make it good that the Pope is the Universall and the infallible Doctor that he breathes Decrees as Oracles that to dissent from any of his Cathedrall determinations is absolute heresy the Rule of Faith being nothing else but consormity to the Chaire of Peter So that here we have met a restraint of Prophecy indeed but yet to make amends I hope we shall have an infallible Guide and when a man is in Heaven he will never complaine that his choyce is taken from him and that he is confin'd to love and to admire since his love and his admiration is fixt upon that which makes him happy even upon God himselfe And in the Church of Rome there is in a lower degree but in a true proportion as little cause to be troubled that we are confin'd to believe just so and no choice left us for our understandings to discover or our wills to chuse because though we be limited yet we are pointed out where we ought to rest we are confin'd to our Center and there where our understandings will be satisfied and therefore will be quiet and where after all our strivings studies and endeavours we desire to come that is to truth for there we are secur'd to find it because we have a Guide that is infallible If this prove true we are well enough But if it be false or uncertain it were better we had still kept our liberty then be cozened out of it with gay pretences This then we must consider And here we shall be oppressed with a cloud of Witnesses For what more plaine then the Commission given to Peter Numb 2. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church And to thee will I give the Keyes And again for thee have I prayed that thy faith faile not but thou when thou art converted confirm thy brethren And again If thou lovest me feed my sheep Now nothing of this being spoken to any of the other Apostles by one of these places S. Peter must needs be appointed Foundation or Head of the Church and by consequence he is to rule and govern all By some other of these places he is made the supreme Pastor and he is to teach and determine all and inabled with an infallible power so to doe And in a right understanding of these Authorities the Fathers speak great things of the Chaire of Peter for we are as much bound to believe that all this was spoken to Peters Successors as to his Person that must by all meanes be supposed and so did the old Doctors who had as much certainty of it as we have and no more but yet let 's hear what they have said a Irenae contra haeres l. 3. c. 3. To this Church by reason of its more powerfull principality it is necessary all Churches round about should Convene ..... In this Tradition Apostolicall alwayes was observed and therefore to communicate with this Bishop with this * Ambr. de obitu Salyri l. 1. Ep. 4. ad Imp. Cypr. Ep. 52. Church was to be in Communion with the Church Catholike .... b Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Cornel. To this Church errour or perfidiousnesse cannot have accesse .... c S. Austin in Psal. contra partem Donat. Against this Sea the gates of Hell cannot prevaile .... d Hieron Ep. 57. ad Damasum For we know this Church to be built upon a Rock .... And whoever 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 finall sentence But if you would have all this prov'd by an infallible Argument e L. 2. contra Parmenian 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 Catholike Church Dignum patellà 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 or the Communion of Rome But indeed if with the peace of the Bishops of Rome I may say it this Scene is the most unhandsomely laid and the worst carried of any of those pretences that have lately abused Christendome 1. Against the Allegations of Scripture I shall lay no greater Numb 3. 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 pray'd for S. Peter that being he had design'd him to be one of those upon whose preaching and Doctrine he did meane to constitute a Church that his faith
fit maxime in Angliâ haec est ratio quia in peccatis concepta fuit sicut caeteri Sancti And the Commissaries of Sixtus V. and Gregory XIII did not expunge these words but left them upon Record not only against a received and more approved opinion of the Jesuites and Franciscans but also in plain defiance of a Decree made by their visible head of the Church who if ever any thing was decreed by a Pope with an intent to oblige all Christendome decreed * Hâc in perpetuum valiturâ constitutione statuimus c. De reliquiis c. Extrav Com. Sixt. 4 cap. 1. this to that purpose So that without taking particular notice of it that egregious sophistry and flattery of the late Writers of the Roman Church is in this instance besides divers others before mentioned clearly made invalid For here the Bishop of Rome not as Numb 16. a private Doctor but as Pope not by declaring his own opinion but with an intent to oblige the Church gave sentence in a Question which the Dominicans will still account pro non determinatâ And every decretall recorded in the Canon Law if it be false in the matter is just such another instance And Alphonsus à Castro sayes it to the same purpose in the instance of Celestine dissolving Marriages for heresy Neque Caelestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debeat ita ut illum errasse dicamus velut privatam personam non ut Papam quoniam hujusmodi Caelestini definitio habetur in antiquis decretalibus in cap. Laudabilem titulo de conversione infidelium quam ego ipse vidi legi lib. 1. adv haeres cap. 4. And therefore 't is a most intolerable folly to pretend that the Pope cannot erre in his Chaire though he may erre in his Closet and may maintaine a false opinion even to his death For besides that it is sottish to think that either he would not have the world of his own opinion as all men naturally would or that if he were set in his Chaire he would determine contrary to himselfe in his study and therefore to represent it as possible they are faine to flie to a Miracle for which they have no colour neither instructions nor insinuation nor warrant nor promise besides that it were impious and unreasonable to depose him for heresy who may so easily even by setting himselfe in his Chaire and reviewing his Theorems be cured it is also against a very great experience For besides the former Allegations it is most notorious that Pope Alexander III in a Councell at Rome of 300 Archbishops and Bishops A. D. 1179. condemn'd Peter Lombard of heresy in a matter of great concernment no lesse then something about the incarnation from which sentence he was after 36 years abiding it absolv'd by Pope Innocent III without repentance or dereliction of the opinion Now if this sentence was not a Cathedrall Dictate as solemn and great as could be expected or as is said to be necessary to oblige all Christendome let the great Hyperaspists of the Roman Church be Judges who tell us that a particular Councell with the Popes confirmation is made Oecumenicall by adoption and is infallible and obliges all Christendome so Bellarmine And therefore he sayes that it is temerarium erroneum proximum haeresi to L. 2. de Concil cap. 5. deny it but whether it be or not it is all one as to my purpose For it is certain that in a particular Councell confirm'd by the Pope if ever then and there the Pope sate himselfe in his Chaire and it is as certain that he sate besides the cushion and determined ridiculously and falsly in this case But this is a device De Pontif. Rom. c. 14. § respondeo In 3. sent d. 24. q. in conl 6. dub 6. in fine for which there is no Scripture no Tradition no one dogmaticall resolute saying of any Father Greek or Latine for above 1000 years after Christ And themselves when they list can acknowledge as much And therefore Bellarmine's saying I perceive is believ'd by them to be true That there are many things in the * Proverbialitèr olim dictuÌ„ erat de Decretalibus Malè cum rebus humanis actum esse ex quo decretis alae accesserunt scil cum Decretales post decretum Gratiani sub nomine Gregorii noni edebantur Decretall Epistles which make not Articles to be de fide And therefore Non est necessariò credendum determinatis per summum Pontificâ—m sayes Almain And this serves their turns in every thing they doe not like and therefore I am resolved it shall serve my turn also for some thing and that is that the matter of the Pope's infallibility is so ridiculous and improbable that they doe not believe it themselves Some of them clearly practised the contrary and although Pope Leo X hath determined the Pope to be above a Councell yet the Sorbon to this day scorn it at the very heart And I might urge upon them that scorn that Almain truly enough by way of Argument alledges It is a wonder that they who affirm the Pope cannot De Authorit Eccles. cap 10. in fine erre in judgement doe not also affirm that he cannot sinne they are like enough to say so sayes he if the vitious lives of the Popes did not make a daily confutation of such flattery Now for my own particular I am as confident and think it as certain that Popes are actually deceived in matters of Christian Doctrine as that they doe prevaricate the lawes of Christian piety And therefore †L. 1. ca. 4. advers haeres edit Paris 1534. In seqq non expurgantur ista verba at idem sensus maner Alphonsus à Castro calls them impudentes Papae assentatores that ascribe to him infallibility in judgement or interpretation of Scripture But if themselves did believe it heartily what excuse is there Numb 11. in the world for the strange uncharitablenesse or supine negligence of the Popes that they doe not set themselves in their Chaire and write infallible Commentaries and determine all Controversies without errour and blast all heresies with the word of their mouth declare what is and what is not de fide that his Disciples and Confidents may agree upon it reconcile the Franciscans and Dominicans and expound all Mysteries for it cannot be imagined but he that was endued with so supreme power in order to so great ends was also fitted with proportionable that is extraordinary personall abilities succeeding and deriv'd upon the persons of all the Popes And then the Doctors of his Church need not trouble themselves with study nor writing explications of Scripture but might wholly attend to practicall devotion and leave all their Scholasticall wranglings the distinguishing opinions of their Orders and they might have a fine Church something like Fairy land or Lucians Kingdome in the Moone But if they say they
that ever the Pharisees said or did And was it not a plain stifling of the just and reasonable demands made by the Emperour by the Kings of France and Spaine and by the ablest Divines among them which was used in the Councell of Trent when they demanded the restitution of Priests to their liberty of marriage the use of the Chalice the Service in the vulgar Tongue and these things not onely in pursuance of Truth but for other great and good ends even to take away an infinite scandall and a great schisme And yet when they themselves did profess it and all the world knew these reasonable demands were denyed meerly upon a politick consideration yet that these things should be fram'd into articles and decrees of faith and they for ever after bound not onely not to desire the same things but to think the contrary to be divine truths never was Reason made more a slave or more useless Must not all the world say either they must be great hypocrites or doe great violence to their understanding when they not onely cease from their claim but must also beleeve it to be unjust If the use of their reason had not been restrained by the tyrannie imperiousness of their guide what the Emperour and the Kings and their Theologues would have done they can best judge who consider the reasonableness of the demand and the unreasonableness of the denyall But we see many wise men who with their Optandum esset ut Ecclesia licentiam daret c. proclaime to all the world that in some things they consent and doe not consent and doe not heartily beleeve what they are bound publickly to profess and they themselves would cleerly see a difference if a contrary decree should be fram'd by the Church they would with an infinite greater confidence rest themselves in other propositions then what they must beleeve as the case now stands and they would find that the authority of a Church is a prejudice as often as a free and modest use of reason is a temptation 3. God will have no man pressed with anothers inconveniences in matters spirituall and intellectuall no mans salvation to depend Numb 3. upon another and every tooth that eats sowre grapes shall be set on edge for it selfe and for none else and this is remarkable in that saying of God by the Prophet If the Prophet ceases to Ezek. 33. tell my people of their sins and leads them into error the people shall die in their sins and the blood of them I will require at the hands of that Prophet Meaning that God hath so set the Prophets to guide us that we also are to follow them by a voluntary assent by an act of choice and election For although accidentally and occasionally the sheep may perish by the shepherds fault yet that which hath the chiefest influence upon their finall condition is their owne act and election and therefore God hath so appointed guides to us that if we perish it may be accounted upon both our scores upon our own and the guides too which sayes plainly that although we are intrusted to our guides yet we are intrusted to our selves too Our guides must direct us and yet if they faile God hath not so left us to them but he hath given us enough to our selves to discover their failings and our own duties in all things necessary And for other things we must doe as well as we can But it is best to follow our guides if we know nothing better but if we doe it is better to follow the pillar of fire than a pillar of cloud though both possibly may lead to Canaan But then also it is possible that it may be otherwise But I am sure if I doe my own best then if it be best to follow a Guide and if it be also necessary I shall be sure by Gods grace and my own endeavour to get to it But if I without the particular ingagement of my own understanding follow a guide possibly I may be guilty of extream negligence or I may extinguish Gods Spirit or doe violence to my own reason And whether intrusting my self wholly with another be not a laying up my talent in a napkin I am not so well assured I am certain the other is not And since another mans answering for me will not hinder but that I also shall answer for my self as it concerns him to see he does not wilfully misguide me so it concerns me to see that he shall not if I can help it if I cannot it will not be required at my hands whether it be his fault or his invincible error I shall be charg'd with neither 4. This is no other then what is enjoyned as a duty For since Numb 4. God will be justified with a free obedience and there is an obedience of understanding as well as of will and affection it is of great concernment as to be willing to beleeve what ever God sayes so also to enquire diligently whether the will of God be so as is pretended Even our acts of understanding are acts of choice Mat. 15. 10. Joh. 5. 40. 1 Joh. 4. 1. Ephes. 5. 17. Luk. 24. 25. Rom. 3. 11. 1. 28. Apoc. 2. 2. Act. 17. 11. and therefore it is commanded as a duty to search the Scriptures to try the spirits whether they be of God or no of our selves to be able to judge what is right to try all things and to retaine that which is best For he that resolves not to consider resolves not to be carefull whether he have truth or no and therefore hath an affection indifferent to truth or falshood which is all one as if he did choose amiss and since when things are truly propounded and made reasonable and intelligible we cannot but assent and then it is no thanks to us we have no way to give our wills to God in matters of beliefe but by our industry in searching it and examining the grounds upon which the propounders build their dictates And the not doing it is oftentimes a cause that God gives a man over 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into a reprobate and undiscerning mind and understanding 5. And this very thing though men will not understand it is Numb 5. the perpetuall practice of all men in the world that can give a reasonable account of their faith The very Catholike Church it selfe is rationabilis ubique diffusa saith Optatus reasonable as Lib. 3. well as diffused every where For take the Proselites of the Church of Rome even in their greatest submission of understanding they seem to themselves to follow their reason most of all For if you tell them Scripture and Tradition are their rules to follow they will beleeve you when they know a reason for it and if they take you upon your word they have a reason for that too either they beleeve you a learned man or a good man or that you can have
no ends upon them or something that is of an equall height to fit their understandings If you tell them they must beleeve the Church you must tell them why they are bound to it and if you quote Scripture to prove it you must give them leave to judge whether the words alledged speak your sense or no and therefore to dissent if they say no such thing And although all men are not wise and proceed discreetly yet all make their choice some way or other He that chooses to please his fancie takes his choice as much as he that chooses prudently And no man speaks more unreasonably then he that denyes to men the use of their Reason in choice of their Religion For that I may by the way remove the common prejudice Reason and Authority are not things incompetent or repugnant especially when the Authority is infallible and supreme for there is no greater reason in the world then to beleeve such an authority But then we must consider whether every authority that pretends to be such is so indeed And therefore Deus dixit ergo hoc verum est is the greatest demonstration in the world for things of this nature But it is not so in humane dictates and yet reason and humane authority are not enemies For it is a good argument for us to follow such an opinion because it is made sacred by the authority of Councells and Ecclesiasticall Tradition and sometimes it is the best reason we have in a question and then it is to be strictly followed but there may also be at other times a reason greater than it that speaks against it and then the authority must not carry it But then the difference is not between reason and authority but between this reason and that which is greater for authority is a very good reason and is to prevaile unless a stronger comes and disarms it but then it must give place So that in this question by Reason I doe not meane a distinct Topick but a transcendent that runs through all Topicks for Reason like Logick is instrument of all things else and when Revelation and Philosophie and publick Experience and all other grounds of probability or demonstration have supplyed us with matter then Reason does but make use of them that is in plain terms there being so many wayes of arguing so many sects such differing interests such variety of authority so many pretences and so many false beliefes it concernes every wise man to consider which is the best argument which proposition relies upon the truest grounds if this were not his only way why doe men dispute and urge arguments why do they cite Councels Fathers why do they alledge Scripture and Tradition and all this on all sides and to contrary purposes If we must judge then we must use our reason if we must not judge why doe they produce evidence Let them leave disputing and decree propositions magisterially but then we may choose whether we will believe them or no or if they say we must believe them they must prove it and tell us why And all these disputes concerning Tradition Councells Fathers c. are not arguments against or besides reason but contestations and pretences to the best arguments and the most certain satisfaction of our reason But then all these comming into question submit themselves to reason that is to be judged by humane understanding upon the best grounds and information it can receive So that Scripture Tradition Councells and Fathers are the evidence in a question but Reason is the Judge That is we being the persons that are to be perswaded we must see that we be perswaded reasonably and it is unreasonable to assent to a lesser evidence when a greater and cleerer is propounded but of that every man for himselfe is to take cognisance if he be able to judge if he be not he is not bound under the tye of necessity to know any thing of it that that is necessary shall be certainly conveyed to him God that best can will certainly take care for that for if he does not it becomes to be not necessary or if it should still remain necessary and he damned for not knowing it and yet to know it be not in his power then who can help it there can be no further care in this business In other things there being no absolute and prime necessity we are left to our liberty to judge that way that makes best demonstration of our piety and of our love to God and truth not that way that is alwayes the best argument of an excellent understanding for this may be a blessing but the other onely is a duty And now that we are pitch'd upon that way which is most naturall Numb 6. and reasonable in determination of our selves rather then of questions which are often indeterminable since right reason proceeding upon the best grounds it can viz. of divine revelation and humane authority and probability is our guide Stando in humanis and supposing the assistance of Gods Spirit which he never denies them that faile not of their duty in all such things in which he requires truth and certainty it remaines that we consider how it comes to pass that men are so much deceived in the use of their reason and choice of their Religion and that in this account we distinguish those accidents which make error innocent from those which make it become a heresie SECT XI Of some causes of Errour in the exercise of Reason which are inculpate in themselves 1. THen I consider that there are a great many inculpable causes of Errour which are arguments of humane imperfections Numb 1. not convictions of a sinne And 1. the variety of humane understandings is so great that what is plaine and apparent to one is difficult and obscure to another one will observe a consequent from a common principle and another from thence will conclude the quite contrary When S. Peter saw the vision of the sheet let downe with all sorts of beasts in it and a voice saying Surge Petre macta manduca if he had not by a particular assistance beene directed to the meaning of the holy Ghost possibly he might have had other apprehensions of the meaning of that vision for to my selfe it seemes naturally to speake nothing but the abolition of the Mosaicall rites and the restitution of us to that part of Christian liberty which consists in the promiscuous eating of meates and yet besides this there want not some understandings in the world to whom these words seeme to give Saint Peter a power to kill hereticall Princes Me thinkes it is a strange understanding that makes such extractions but Bozius and Baronius did so But men may understand what they please especially when they are to expound Oracles It was an argument of some wit but of singularity of understanding that hapned in the great contestation betweene the Missalls of Saint Ambrose and
ends at the 118 inclusively And the Scripture mentions it as part of our blessed Saviours devotion and of his Disciples that they sung a Psalme 15. That this afterward became a Precept Evangelicall that we should praise God in Hymnes Psalmes and spirituall Songs which is a form of Liturgy in which we sing with the spirit but yet cannot make our Hymnes ex tempore it would be wild stuffe if we should goe about it 16. And lastly that a set form of worship and addresse to God was recorded by Saint John and sung in heaven and it was Apoc. 15. 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 to Saint John by way of vision and extasie All which and many more are to me as so many Arguments of the use excellency and necessity of set forms of Prayer for publick Liturgies and of greatest conveniencie even for private devotions 17. And so the Church of God in all Ages did understand it Numb 39. I shall not multiply Authorities to this purpose for they are too many and various but shall only observe two great instances of their beliefe and practise in this particular 1. The one is the perpetuall use and great Eulogies of the Lords Prayer assisted by the many Commentaries of the Fathers upon it 2. The other is that solemn form of benediction and mysticall prayer as Saint Augustine calls it Lib. 3. de Trinit c. 4. which all Churches and themselves said it was by Ordinance Apostolicall used in the Consecration of the blessed Sacrament But all of them used the Lords Prayer in the Canon and office of Consecration and other prayers taken from Scripture so Justin Martyr testifies that the Consecration is made per preces verbi Dei by the prayers taken from the Word of God and the whole Canon was short determined and mysterious Who desires to be further satisfied in this particular shall Numb 40. find enough in Walafridus Strabo Aymonius Cassander Elacius Illyrious Josephus Vicecomes and the other Ritualists and the other Ritualists and in the old offices themselves So that I need not put you in mind of that famous doxology of Gloria Patria c. nor the Trisagion nor any of those memorable hymnes used in the Ancient Church so knownly and frequently that the beginning of them came to bee their name and they were known more by their own words then the Authors inscription At last when some men that thought themselves better gifted Numb 41. would be venturing at conceived formes of their own there was a timely restraint made in the Councell of Milevis in Africa Placuit ut preces quae probatae fuerint in Concilio ab omnibus celebrentur nec aliae omnino dicantur in Ecclesia nisi quae à prudentioribus factae fuerint in Synodo That 's the restraint and prohibition publick prayers must be such as are publickly appointed and prescribed by our Superiours and no private forms of our conceiving must be used in the Church The reason followes Ne forte aliquid contra fidem vel per ignorantiam vel per minus studium sit compositum Lest through ignorance or want of deliberation any thing be spoken in our prayers against faith and good manners The reason is good and they are eare-witnesses of it that hear the variety of prayers before and after Sermons there where the Directory is practised where to speak most modestly not only their private opinions but also humane interests and their own personall concernments and wild fancies born perhaps not two dayes before are made the objects of the peoples hopes of their desires and their prayers and all in the meane time pretend to the holy Spirit I will not now instance in the vaine-glory that is appendant Numb 42. to these ex tempore formes of prayer where the gift of the man is more then the devotion of the man nor will I consider that then his gift is best when his prayer is longest and if he take a complacency in his gift as who is not apt to doe it he will be sure to extend his Prayer till a suspicious and scrupulous man would be apt to say his prayer pressed hard upon that which our blessed Saviour reprehended in the Pharisees who thought to bee heard for their much babling But these things are accidentall to the nature of the thing And therefore though they are too certainly consequent to the person yet I will not be too severe but preserve my selfe on the surer side of charitable construction which truly I desire to keep nor only to their persons whom I much reverence but also to their actions But yet I durst not doe the same thing even for these last reasons though I had no other But it is objected that in set forms of Prayer we restrain and Numb 43. confine the blessed Spirit and in conceived forms when every man is left to his liberty then the Spirit is free unlimited and unconstrained I answer either their conceived formes I use their own words Numb 44. though indeed the expression is very inartificiall are premeditate and described or they are ex tempore If they be premeditate and described then the Spirit is as much limited in their conceived forms as in the Churches conceived forms For as to this particular it is all one who describes and limits the form whether the Church or a single man does it still the Spirit is in constraint and limit So that in this case they are not angry at set forms of Prayer but that they do not make them And if it be replyed that if a single person composes a set form he may alter it if he please and so his spirit is at liberty I answer so may the Church if she see cause for it and unlesse there be cause the single person will not alter it unlesse he do things unreasonable and without cause So that it will be an unequall and a peevish quarrell to allow of set forms of prayer made by private persons and not of set forms made by the publick spirit of the Church It is evident that the Spirit is limited in both alike But if by Conceived forms in this objection they meane Numb 45. ex tempore prayers for so they most generally practice it and that in the use of these the liberty of the spirit is best preserved To this I answer that the being ex tempore or premeditate will be wholly impertinent to this Question of limiting the spirit For there may be great liberty in set forms even when there is much variety and there may be great restraint in ex tempore prayers even then when it shall be called unlawfull to use set forms That the spirit is restrained or that it is free in either is accidentall to them both for it may be either free
the Primitive Church against the example of all famous Churches in all Christendome in the whole descent of 15. Ages without all command and warrant of Scripture that it is unreasonable in the nature of the thing against prudence and the best wisedome of humanity because it is without deliberation that it is innovation in a high degree without that Authority which is truly and by inherent and ancient right to command and prescribe to us in externall forms of worship that it is much to the disgrace of the first reformers of our Religion that it gives encouragement to the Papists to quarrell with some reason and more pretence against our Reformation as being by the Directory confessed to have been done in much blindnesse and therefore might erre in the excesse as well as in the defect in the throwing out too much as casting off too little which is the more likely because they wanted zeale to carry it farre enough He that considers the universall deformity of publike worship and the no meanes of union no Symbol of publike communion being publikely consigned that all Heresies may with the same Authority bee brought into our prayers and offered to God in behalfe of the people with the same Authority that any truth may all the matter of our prayers being left to the choyce of all men of all perswasions and then observes that actually there are in many places heresie and blasphemy and impertinency and illiterate rudenesses put into the devotions of the most Solemne dayes and the most publike meetings and then lastly that there are divers parts of Lyturgy for which no provisions at all is made in the Directory and the very administration of the Sacraments left so loosely that if there be any thing essentiall in the forms of Sacraments the Sacrament may come ineffectuall by want of due words and due ministration I say he that considers all these things and many more he may consider will finde that particular men are not fit to be intrusted to offer in publike with their private spirit to God for the people in such solemnities in matters of so great concernment where the honour of God the benefit of the people the interest of Kingdomes the being of a Church the unity of minds the conformity of practice the truth of perswasions and the salvation of soules are so very much concerned as they are in the publike prayers of a whole Nationall Church An unlearned man is not to be trusted and a wise man dare not trust himselfe hee that is ignorant cannot he that is knowing will not The End OF THE SACRED ORDER AND OFFICES OF EPISCOPACIE By Divine Jnstitution Apostolicall Tradition and Catholique Practice TOGETHER WITH Their Titles of Honour Secular Employment Manner of Election Delegation of their Power and other appendant questions asserted against the Aerians and Acephali new and old By IER TAYLOR D. D. Chaplaine in Ordinarie to His MAJESTIE Published by His MAJESTIES Command ROM 13. 1. There is no power but of God The Powers that be are ordained of God CONCIL CHALCED 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for RICHARD ROYSTON at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1647. TO THE TRVLY VVORTHY AND MOST ACCOMPLISHT S r CHRISTOPHER HATTON Knight of the Honourable Order of the BATH SIR I AM ingag'd in the defence of a Great Truth and J would willingly finde a shrowd to cover my selfe from danger and calumny and although the cause both is ought to be defended by Kings yet my person must not goe thither to Sanctuary unlesse it be to pay my devotion and I have now no other left for my defence I am robd of that which once did blesse me and indeed still does but in another manner and I hope will doe more but those distillations of coelestiall dewes are conveyed in Channels not pervious to an eye of sense and now adayes we seldome look with other be the object never so beauteous or alluring You may then think Sir I am forc'd upon You may that beg my pardon and excuse but I should do an injury to Your Noblenesse if I should onely make You a refuge for my need pardon this truth you are also of the fairest choice not only for Your love of Learning for although that be eminent in You yet it is not Your eminence but for Your duty to H. Church for Your loyaltie to His sacred Majestie These did prompt me with the greatest confidence to hope for Your faire incouragement and assistance in my pleadings for Episcopacy in which cause Religion and Majesty the King and the Church are interested as parties of mutuall concernment There was an odde observation made long agoe and registred in the Law to make it authentick Laici sunt infensi Clericis Now the Clergy pray but fight not and therefore if not specially protected by the King contra Ecclesiam Malignantium they are made obnoxious to all the contumelies and injuries which an envious multitude will inflict upon them It was observ'd enough in King Edgars time Quamvis decreta In Chartē Edgar Regis A. D. 485. apud Hen. Spelman Pontificum verba Sacerdotum in convulsis ligaminibus velut fundamenta montium fixa sunt tamen plerumque tempestatibus turbinibus saecularium rerum Religio S. Matris Ecclesiae maculis reproborum dissipatur acrumpitur Idcirco Decrevimus Nos c. There was a sad example of it in K. Iohn's time For when he threw the Clergy from his Protection it is incredible what injuries what affronts what robberies yea what murders were committed upon the Bishops and Priests of H. Church whom neither the Sacrednesse of their persons nor the Lawes of God nor the terrors of Conscience nor feares of Hell nor Church-censures nor the Lawes of Hospitality could protect from Scorne from blowes from slaughter Now there being so neer a tye as the necessity of their own preservation in the midst of so apparent danger it will tye the Bishops hearts and hands to the King faster then all the tyes of Lay-Allegiance all the Politicall tyes I mean all that are not precisely religious and obligations in the Court of Conscience 2. But the interest of the Bishops is conjunct with the prosperity of the King besides the interest of their own securitie by the obligation of secular advantages For they who have their livelyhood from the King and are in expectance of their fortune from him are more likely to pay a tribute of exacter duty then others whose fortunes are not in such immediate dependancy on His Majesty Aeneas Sylvius once gave a merry reason why Clerks advanced the Pope above a Councell viz. because the Pope gave spirituall promotions but the Councels gave none It is but the Common expectation of gratitude that a Patron Paramount shall be more assisted by his Beneficiaries in cases of necessity then by those who receive nothing from him but the common influences of Goverment 3. But the Bishops duty to the King derives it selfe
these times have been called the last times for 1600 years together our expectation of the Great revelation is very neer accomplishing what a Grand innovation of Ecclesiasticall government contrary to the faith practice of Christendome may portend now in these times when we all expect Antichrist to be revealed is worthy of a jealous mans inquiry Secondly Episcopacy 2. if we consider the finall cause was instituted as an obstructive to the diffusion of Schisme and Heresy So in 1. ad Titū S. Hierome In toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur coeteris VT SCHISMATVM SEMINA TOLLERENTUR And therefore if Vnity and division be destructive of each other then Episcopacy is the best deletery in the world for Schisme and so much the rather because they are in eâdem materiâ for Schisme is a division for things either personall or accidentall which are matters most properly the subject of government and there to be tryed there to receive their first and last breath except where they are starv'd to death by a desuetude and Episcopacy is an Unity of person governing and ordering persons and things accidentall and substantiall and therefore a direct confronting of Schisme not only in the intention of the author of it but in the nature of the institution Now then although Schismes alwaies will be and this by divine prediction which clearly showes the necessity of perpetuall Episcopacy and the intention of its perpetuity either by Christ himselfe ordaining it who made the prophecy or by the Apostles and Apostolick men at least who knew the prophecy yet to be sure these divisions and dangers shall be greater about and at the time of the Great Apostacy for then were not the houres turned into minutes an universall ruine should seize all Christendome No flesh should be saved if those daies were not shortned is it not next to an evidence of fact that this multiplication of Schismes must be removendo prohibens and therefore that must be by invalidating Episcopacy ordayn'd as the remedy and obex of Schisme either tying their hands behind them by taking away their coercion or by putting out their eyes by denying them cognisance of causes spirituall or by cutting off their heads and so destroying their order How farre these will lead us I leave to be considered This only Percute pastores atque oves despergentur and I believe it will be verified at the comming of that wicked one I saw all Israel scattered upon the Mountaines as sheep having no sheapheard I am not new in this conception I learn't it of S. Cyprian Christi adversarius Ecclesiae ejus inimicus Epist. 55. ad hoc ECCLESIae PRAEPOSITVM suâ infestatione persequitur ut Gubernatore sublato atrociùs atque violentiùs circà Ecclesiae naufragin grassetur The adversary of Christ and enemy of his Spouse therefore persecutes the Bishop that having taken him away he may without check pride himselfe in the ruines of the Church and a little after speaking of them that are enemies to Bishops he sayes that Antichristi jam propinquantis adventum imitantur their deportment is just after the guise of Antichrist who is shortly to be revealed But be this conjecture vaine or not the thing of it selfe is of deep consideration and the Catholick practise of Christendome for 1500 years is so insupportable a prejudice against the enemies of Episcopacy that they must bring admirable evidence of Scripture or a cleare revelation proved by Miracles or a contrary undoubted tradition Apostolicall for themselves or else hope for no beliefe against the prescribed possession of so many ages But before I begin mee thinks in this contestation ubi potior est conditio possidentis it is a considerable Question what will the Adversaries stake against it For if Episcopacy cannot make its title good they loose the benefit of their prescribed possession If it can I feare they will scarce gain so much as the obedience of the adverse party by it which yet already is their due It is very unequall but so it is ever when Authority is the matter of the Question Authority never gaines by it for although the cause goe on its side yet it looses costs and dammages for it must either by faire condescention to gain the adversaries loose something of it selfe or if it asserts it selfe to the utmost it is but where it was but that seldome or never happens for the very questioning of any authority hoc ipso makes a great intrenchment even to the very skirts of its cloathing But hûc deventumest Now we are in we must goe over FIrst then that wee may build upon a Rock §. 1. Christ did institute a governement in his Church Christ did institute a government to order and rule his Church by his authority according to his lawes and by the assistance of the B. Spirit 1. If this were not true how shall the Church be governed For I hope the adversaries of Episcopacy that are so punctuall to pitch all upon Scripture ground will be sure to produce cleare Scripture for so maine a part of Christianity as is the forme of the Government of Christs Church And if for our private actions and duties Oeconomicall they will pretend a text I suppose it will not be thought possible Scripture should make default in assignation of the publick Government insomuch as all lawes intend the publick and the generall directly the private and the particular by consequence only and comprehension within the generall 2. If Christ himselfe did not take order for a government then we must derive it from humane prudence and emergency of conveniences and concurse of new circumstances and then the Government must often be changed or else time must stand still and things be ever in the same state and possibility Both the consequents are extreamely full of inconvenience For if it be left to humane prudence then either the government of the Church is not in immediate order to the good and benison of soules or if it be that such an institution in such immediate order to eternity should be dependant upon humane prudence it were to trust such a rich commodity in a cock-boat that no wise Pilot will be supposed to doe But if there be often changes in government Ecclesiasticall which was the other consequent in the publike frame I meane and constitution of it either the certain infinity of Schismes will arise or the dangerous issues of publick inconsistence and innovation which in matters of religion is good for nothing but to make men distrust all and come the best that can come there will be so many Church governments as there are humane Prudences For so if I be not mis-informed it is abroad in some townes that have discharged Simler de rep Helvet fol. 148. 172. Episcopacy At S t Galles in Switzerland there the Ministers and Lay-men rule in Common but a Lay-man is president But the
of that Synod which the Apostles convocated at Ierusalem about the Question of circumcision as is to be seen * Vide pag. Act. 15. to him S. Paul made his addresse Act. 21. to him the brethren carried him where he was found sitting in his Colledge of Presbyters there he was alwaies resident and his seat fixt and that he liv'd Bishop of Ierusalem 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 compeere Philip. 2. 25. and your Apostle Gradum Apostolatus recepit Epaphroditus saith Primasius and what that is In hunc locum uterque Theod. in 1. Tim 3. 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 S. Ierome upon the same place and it is very observeable that those Apostles to whom our blessed Saviour gave immediate substitution are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles of Iesus 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 Iesus Christ. Other of the Apostles saw I none but Iames the Lords Brother Gal. 1. There S. Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem is called an Apostle indefinitely But S. Paul calls himselfe often the Apostle of Iesus Christ not of man neither by man but by Iesus Christ. So Peter an Apostle of Iesus Christ but S. Iames in his Epistle to the Iewes of the dispersion writes not himselfe the Apostle of Iesus Christ but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iames the servant of God and of the Lord Iesus Christ. Further yet S. Paul although as having an immediate calling from Christ to the office of Apostolate at large calls himselfe the Apostle of Iesus Christ yet when he was sent to preach to the Gentiles by the particular direction indeed of the holy Acts. 13. v. 2 3. 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 Diocesse and calls himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 11. 13. The Apostle of the Gentiles as S. Peter for the same reason and in the same modification is called Galat. 2. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Apostle of those who were of the Circumcision And thus Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians who clearely was their Bishop as I shall shew in the sequel that is he had an Apostolate limited to the Diocesse of Philippi Paulatim verò tempore procedente aliè ab his quos Dominus eleger at ordinati sunt Apostoli sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat dicens necessarium In 1. cap. Galat autem existimo Epaphroditum c. So S. Ierome In processe 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 Iudas and Silas were called Apostles 4. Thus Titus and some other with him who came to Ierusalem with the Corinthian benevolence 2. Corinth 8. 23. are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles of the Churches Apostles I say in the Episcopall sence They were none of the twelve they were not of immediate divine mission but of Apostolike 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 Colossian 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 almes 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 terme of relation expressed 2. It is very cleare that although they did indeed carry the benevolence of the severall Churches yet S. Paul not those Churches sent Vers. 22. them And we have sent with them our Brother c. 3. They are called Apostles of the Churches not going from Corinth with the mony but before they came thither from whence they were to be dispatch't in legation to Ierusalem If any enquire of V. 23. 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 plaine 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 severall Churches BVt in holy Scripture the identity of the ordinary § 5. And office office of Apostleship and Episcopacy is clearer yet For when the holy Spirit had sent seaven letters to the seaven Asian Bishops the Angell of the Church Apocal. 2. of Ephesus is commended for trying them which say they are Apostles and are not and hathfound themlyars This Angell of the Church of Ephesus as Antiquity hath taught us was at that time Timothy or * Doroth. Synops Gajus 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 counterfeit himselfe S. Paul or S. Peter And if they had yet little trying was needfull to discover their folly in such a case and whether it was Timothy or Gajus he could deserve but small commendations for the meer believing of his own eyes and memory Besides the Apostles all were then dead and he known to live in Patmos 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 of story place and time Diotrephes was the Man S. Iohn cheifly pointed at For he seeing that of Ephesus there had been an Episcopall chayre plac'd and Timothy a long while possess'd of it and * Vide Constit. Apost per Clement ubt quidam Iohannes in Epheso Episc. post Timoth. collocatur perhaps Gajus after him if we may trust Dorotheus and the like in some other Churches and that S. Iohn had not constituted Bishops in all the other Churches of the lesser Asia but kept
Whence it is evident that then it was the beliefe of Christendome that the holy Ghost was by no ordinary ministery given to faithfull people after Baptisme but only by Apostolicall or Episcopall consignation and imposition of hands What also the faith of Christendome was concerning the Minister of confirmation and that Bishops only could doe it I shall make evident in the descent of this discourse Here the scene lies in Scripture where it is cleare that S. 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 ministeriall giving of the holy Ghost but the Apostles must goe to doe 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 de facto alwaies was continued in the Church Therefore there must alwaies be an ordinary office of Apostleship in the Church to doe it that is an office above Presbyters for in Scripture they could never doe it and this is it which we call Episcopacy 3. THe Apostles were rulers of the whole § 9. And Superiority of Iurisdiction Church each Apostle respectively of his severall Diocesse when he would fixe his chaire had superintendency over the Presbyters and the people and this by Christs donation the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this Sicut misit me Pater Iohn 20. 21. sic ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Manifesta enim est sententiae Domini nostri Iesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis Lib. 7. de baptism Contra Donatist c. 43. vide etiam S. Cyprian de Unit. Eccles. S. Cyrill in Ioh. lib. 12. c. 55. ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes said Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop in the Councell 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 Aërius 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 appeares in Scripture If it be said the Apostles did ordaine Presbyters in every City it is true but not sufficient for so they ordained Deacons at Ierusalem 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 enimies of it for the same tradition if that be admitted for good probation is for Episcopall preheminence over Presbyters as will appeare 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 bee proved from Scripture that Christ made the Apostles Priests first and then Bishops or Apostles but only that Christ gave them severall commissions and parts of the office Apostolicall all which being in one person cannot by force of Scripture prove two orders Truth is if we change the scene of warre 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 then for the Divine institution of Episcopacy Especially if we consider that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clericall Ephes. 4. 1. Corinth 12. offices there is no enumeration of Presbyters but of Apostles there is and the other members of the induction are of guifts of Christianity or parts of the Apostolate and either must inferre many more orders then 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 guift 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 alwaies 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 Apostolicall only as is the Order of Deacons and the whole plenitude of power is in the order Apostolicall alone and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power as they did Deacons with a lesse 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 Apostolicall 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 Apostolicall 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 followes 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 Apostolicall or if they have jurisdiction they doe derive it à fonte Apostolorum and then the Apostles have superiority of Iurisdiction over Presbyters because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolicall And that I say truth besides that
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 Apostolicall 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 confirme by the practise of the Catholick Church and so vindicate the practises of the present Church from the common prejudices that disturbe 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 In Lucae cap. 10. Palmae sunt isti qui nutriuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apostolis Nam quanquam Christus hos etiam elegit erant tamen duodecem illis inferiores posteà illorum Discipuli sectatores The Apostles are the twelve fountaines and the 72 are the palmes that are nourished by the waters of those fountaines For though Christ also ordain'd the 72 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 maine question viz. to prove that he although a Bishop yet had no Apostolicall authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I doe not command Epist. ad Philadelph this as an Apostle for what am I and what is my Fathers house that I should compare my selfe with them but as your fellow souldier and a Monitor But this answers it selfe if we consider to whom he speakes it Not to his own Church of Antioch for there he might command as an Apostle but to the Philadelphians he might not they were no part of his Diocesse he was not their Apostle and then because he did not equall the Apostles in their commission extraordinary in their personall priviledges and in their universall jurisdiction therefore he might not command the Philadelphians being another Bishops charge but admonish them with the freedome of a Christian Bishop to whom the soules of all faithfull people were deare and precious So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office this hinders not and I know nothing else pretended and that Antiquity is clearely on this side is the next businesse For hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episcopacy by arguments derived from Scripture I shall only adde two more from Antiquity and so passe on to tradition § 10. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship according to the generall tenent of Antiquity Apostolicall 1. THE beliefe of the primitive Church is that Bishops are the ordinary successors of the Apostles and Presbyters of the 72 and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine institution as the Apostolate for the ordinary office both of one and the other is the same thing For this there is abundant testimony Some I shall select enough to give faire evidence of a Catholick tradition S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this Lib. 3. cap. 3. particular Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis ET SUCCESSORES EORUM usque ad nos ... Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent Apostoli ... his vel maximè traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant ... quos SUCCESSORES relinquebant SUUM IPSORUM LOCUM MAGISTERII tradentes We can name the men the Apostles made Bishops in their severall Churches appointing them their successors and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which them selves knew they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches and left to be their successors in the same power and authority themselves had Tertullian reckons Corinth Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolicall Lib. de praescript c. 36. apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident Apostolicall they are from their foundation and by their succession for Apostles did found them and Apostles or men of Apostolick authority still doe governe them S. Cyprian Hoc enim vel maximè Frater laboramus laborare debemus ut Vnitatem à Domino Epist. 42. ad Cornelium per Apostolos NOBIS SUCCESSORIBUS traditam quantùm possumus obtinere curemus We must preserve the Vnity commanded us by Christ and delivered by his Apostles to us their Successors To us Cyprian and Cornelius for they only were then in view the one Bishop of Rome the other of Carthage And in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum Nec haec jacto Epist. 69. sed dolens profero cum te Iudicem Dei constituas Christi qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc adomnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt quivos audit me audit c. Christ said to his Apostles and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence he that heareth you heareth mee Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop spoken in the Councell of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin Manifesta est sententia Domini Lib. 7. c. 43. de baptis cont Donatist nostri Iesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes Nos successimus We succeed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power He spake it in full Councell in an assembly of Bishops and himselfe was a Bishop The Councell of Rome under S. Sylvester speaking of the honour due to Bishops expresses it thus Non oportere quenquam Domini Discipulis id est Apostolorum successoribus detrahere No man must detract from the Disciples of our Lord that is from the Apostles successors S. Hierome speaking against the Montanists for Epist. 54. undervaluing their Bishops shewes the difference of the Catholicks honouring and the Hereticks disadvantaging that sacred order Apud nos saith he Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent apud eos Episcopus tertius est Bishops with us Catholicks have the place or authority of Apostles but with them Montanists Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist pro Patribus nati sunt tibi filii S. Hierome and diverse others of the Fathers make this glosse Pro Patribus Apostolis
those which doe succeed the Apostles in the ordinary office of Apostolate have the same institution and authority the Apostles had as much as the successors of the Presbyters have with the first Presbyters and perhaps more For in the Apostolicall ordinations they did not proceed as the Church since hath done Themselves had the whole Priesthood the whole commission of the Ecclesiasticall power and all the offices Now they in their ordayning assistant Ministers did not in every ordination give a distinct order as the Church hath done since the Apostles For they ordayned some to distinct offices some to particular places some to one part some to another part of Clericall imployment as S. Paul who was an Apostle yet was ordain'd by imposition of hands to goe to the Churches of the Uncircumcision so was Barnabas S. Iohn and Iames and Cephas to the Circumcision and there was scarce any publike designe or Grand imployment but the Apostolike men had a new ordination to it a new imposition of hands as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles So that the Apostolicall ordinations of the inferiour Clergy were onely a giving of partilar commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolicall calling as they would please to imploy them in Nay sometimes their ordinations were onely a delivering of Iurisdiction when the persons ordayned had the order before as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas Of Acts 13. the same consideration is the institution of Deacons to spirituall offices and it is very pertinent to this Question For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher then Apostolicall ordinance and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authoriz'd for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now and sometimes more as to Iudas and Silas and diverse others who therefore were more then meere Presbyters as the word is now us'd * The result is this The office and order of a Presbyter is but part of the office and order of an Apostle so is a Deacon a lesser part so is an Evangelist so is a Prophet so is a Doctor so is a helper or a Surrogate in Government but these will not be called orders every one of them will not I am sure atleast not made distinct orders by Christ for it was in the Apostles power to give any one or all these powers to any one man or to distinguish them into so many men as there are offices or to unite more or fewer of them All these I say clearely 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 ordaine 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 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 lesse to another that is onely of Apostolicall ordinance For the Apostles might have given to some onely a power to absolve to some onely to consecrate to some onely to baptize We see that to Deacons they did so They had onely a power to baptize and preach whether all Evangelists had so much or no Scripture does not tell us * But if to some men they had onely given a power to use the Keyes or made them officers spirituall 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 necessary conjunction no more then 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 Preist 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 ordayn'd with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter then let any man shew me where it is ordayned 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 Apostolicall power we find instituted by Christ and we also find a necessity 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 perpetuall So that we have cleare evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetuall 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 doe succeed For that it is so I have proved from Scirpture and because no Scripture is of private interpretation I have attested it with the Catholike testimony of the Primitive Fathers calling Episcopacy the Apostolate and Bishops successors of S. Peter in particular and of all the Apostles in general in their ordinary offices in which they were Superior to the 72 the Antecessors of the Presbyterate One objection I must cleare 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 dogmaticall resolution or interpretation of Scripture as the Bishops are in the examples above alleaged 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 Apostolicall power and no part of their office as Apostles were superiour to Presbyters 2. It is observeable 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
in veritate So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination must of it selfe be a very certain thing when the Church made it a maine 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 chaire till wee come to the very Apostles that did ordain them this I say being their proof although it could not be more certain then 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 himselfe was baptized both relying upon the report of others * Radix Christianae societatis Epist. 42. per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur saith S. Austin 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 madnesse to say there was no such thing no succession of Bishops in the Churches Apostolicall 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 haereticks and factious people It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis Ubi supra postolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos We can reckon those who from the Apostles untill now were made Bishops in the Churches and of this we are sure enough if there be any faith in Christians THe summe is this Although we had not prooved § 19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolicall ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed the immediate Divine institution of Episcopall power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not lesse then an Apostolicall ordinance and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lord's 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 Iewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to have chang'd it into a Thursday meeting to have showne their Christian liberty we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday-Festivall lesse then an Apostolicall ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed * Baptisme of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cryed and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men doe easily observe that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us as we doe of baptizing infants upon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practise Apostolicall recorded in Scripture and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to fly to Apostolicail traditive ordination and therefore the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in Scripture then the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemn'd for Hereticks * Of the same consideration are diverse 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 Doe this then why may not every Christian man there represented doe that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to doe If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then doe all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the foure Gospells 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 practise Apostolicall 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 Christendome suspected * To these I adde the communion of Women the distinction of bookes Apocryphall from Canonicall that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of Scripture it selfe the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution must needs prevaile as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and divers others of greater consequence which I dare not specify for feare of being misunderstood rely but upon equall 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 selfe VVHat their power and eminence was and § 20. And was an office of power and great authority the appropriates of their office so ordain'd by the Apostles appears also by the testimonies before alleadged the expressions whereof runne in these high termes 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 affaires of the new-founded Churches in Crete In celsiori gradu collocatus plac'd in a higher order or degree so the Bishop of Alexandria chosen ex Presbyteris from amongst the Presbyters Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes so Philo of that Bishoprick The seat of Episcopall height above all things in Christianity These are its honours Its offices these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To set in order whatsoever he sees wanting or amisse to silence vaine prating Preachers that will not submit to their superiors to ordaine elders to rebuke delinquents to reject Hereticks viz. from the communion of the faithfull for else why was the Angell of the Church of Pergamus reprov'd for tolerating the Nicolaitan hereticks but that it was in his power to eject them And the same is the case of the Angell of Thyatir a in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people but to the Bishop was committed the cognisance of causes
Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their owne 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 himselfe by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And againe If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thess. 3. 14. signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearely kept the power in his owne hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it govern'd by Episcopall or Apostolicall authority 3. For ought appeares in Scripture the Apostles never gave any externall or coercitive jurisdiction in publike and criminall causes nor yet power to ordaine Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meere 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 expresse delegation of Apostolicall authority tanquam vicario suo as to his substitute in absense of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognisance of persons and causes criminall 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 Ierusalem but they had a Bishop alwayes and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop Apostles Now it cannot be denyed both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Ierusalem and also had power alone to governe the Church I say they had power to governe alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordayn'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyne with them they must doe it themselves and then also they must retaine the same power for they could not loose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publike acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they onely assisting in subordination and by dependency This onely by the way In Ierusalem the Presbyters were some thing more then ordinary and were not meere Presbyters in the present and limited sense of the word For Barnabas and Iudas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chiefe men amongst the Act. 15. Brethren yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolicall power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is in Act. Apost that diverse of them were ordain'd Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction not fix'd upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more then meere Presbyters as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas men of Apostolicall power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equall power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meere Presbyters yet because it is certaine and proov'd and confess'd that the Apostles had power to governe the Church alone this their taking meere Presbyters 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 then dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's owne expression for this is more evident then that Bishops doe eminere caeteris by custome rather then 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 retain'd where the same reasons doe remaine and circumstances concurre 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 doe Act. 13. 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 doe not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meere 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 Act. 20. of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must doe it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lay the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by Vos we shall I hope gaine 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 Act. 20. 4. 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 sense the lessar 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 vers 18. beene with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confin'd 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 clearely infer'd from vers 25. And now behold I know that YE ALL AMONG WHOM I HAVE GONE preaching the Kingdome of God c It was a travaile to preach to all that were present and therefore 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
exception by S. Pauls 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 appeares either there or else-where * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is cleare For what power had they of Iurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before S. Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did S. 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 criminall equall to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had then what did Titus doe there If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Iudge 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 yeares after the founding of the Church and yet S. Paul reprooves 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 himselfe the sole Iudge For I verily as 1. Cor. 5. 3. absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly S. Paul gives the Church V. 4. of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause In the name of our Lord Iesus Christ when ye are gathered together and MY SPIRIT that is My power My authority for so he explaines himselfe MY SPIRIT WITH THE POWER OF OUR LORD IESVS CHRIST to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for S. 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 concernes the Presbyters then the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turnes neither for an independant Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for S. Paul's reprooving 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 v. 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 himselfe 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 Ierusalem 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 affaires I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolicall or Episcopall and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Ierusalem where I prooved that the Elders were men of more power then meere Presbyters men of Apostolicall authority But here lies the issue and straine of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminall 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 meere Presbyters no divine institution of any power of regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolicall that meere Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop governe the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any meere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to doe but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolicall 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 Angell 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 fix't as in the case of the Corinthian delinquent before specified which delegation was needlesse if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then returne we to the consideration of S. Hieromes saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Counsell of the Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops were Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custome rather then Divine disposition S. Hierome affirmes but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custome and condescension rather then by Divine disposition S. Hierome does not say but it was For he speakes onely of matter of fact not of right It might have beene otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Ierusalem where the Elders were Apostolicall men and had Episcopall authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocesse besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Ierusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Iurisdiction and therefore does clearely evince that the common-counsell 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 S. Peter and S. Iohn in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes us'd in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did governe in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sense that S. Peter and S.
Iohn were and the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem * 4. Suppose this had beene true in the sense that any body please to imagine yet this not being by any divine ordinance that Presbyters should by their Counsell assist in externall regiment of the Church neither by any intimation of Scripture nor by affirmation of S. Hierome it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose Postquà m omnibus in Ephes. 4. locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata alitèr composita res est quà m caperat 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 it 's owne nor Crete and there was no need for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them and S. Iohn and other of the Apostles but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither for when themselves were to goe 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Antioch So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a businesse of being persecuted he writ to his Presbyters Doe 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. Hieromes discourse viz. That Bishops are not greater then Presbyters by the truth of divine disposition I answer that this is true in this sense Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater then all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters such as were the Elders in the Councell at Ierusalem such as were they of Antioch such as S. Peter and S. Iohn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sense that is of a fixt and particular Diocesse and Iurisdiction * 2 ly S. Hieromes meaning is also true in this sense Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater then Presbyters viz. quoad exercitium actûs that is they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their owne 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 owne hands in S. Hieromes time this is it which he saith is rather by custome then 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 Episcopall * As for the last words in the objection Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere it is an assumentum of S. Hieromes owne 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 Debere is a Non sequitur unlesse this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former arguments that is THEY OUGHT not by Gods law but in imitation of the practise Apostolicall 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 Divine precept * And indeed to doe him right he so explaines himselfe Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere imitantes Moysen qui cùm haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret The Presbyters ought to Iudge in common with the Bishop for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses who might have rul'd alone yet was content to take others to him and himselfe only to rule in chiefe Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops doe but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them and therefore though his Councell perhaps might be good then yet it is necessary at no time and was not followed then and to be sure is needlesse now * For the arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this his intention what ever it is I have and shall else where produce for they yeeld many other considerations then this collection of S. Hierome and prove nothing lesse then the equality of the offices of Episcocy and Presbyterate The same thing is per omnia respondent to the paralell place of a In 1. Tim. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. 11. S. Chrysostome It is needlesse to repeat either the objection or answer * But however this saying of S. Hierome and the paralell of S. Chrysostome is but like an argument against an Evident truth which comes forth upon a desperate service and they are sure to be kill'd by the adverse party or to runne upon their owne Swords For either they are to be understood in the senses above explicated and then they are impertinent or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Catholike antiquity and so are false and dye within their owne trenches I end this argument of tradition Apostolicall with that saying of S. 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 Vnus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut schismatum semina tollerentur That is a publike 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 governe the flock commited to his charge This I say was in the Apostles times even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schisme for then they said I am of Paul and I of Apollo and then it was that he that baptized any Catechumens tooke them for his owne not as Christs disciples So that it was tempore Apostolorum that this decree was made for in the time of the Apostles S. Iames and S. Marke and S. Timothy and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieromes expresse attestation It was also toto orbe decretum so that if it had not beene proved to have beene an immediate Divine institution yet it could not have gone much lesse it being as I have proved and as S. Hierome acknowledges CATHOLIKE and APOSTOLICK * BEe ye followers of me as I am of Christ is an Apostolicall precept We have § 22. And all this hath beene the faith practise of Christendome seene 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. CATHOLIKE
PRACTISE is the next Basis of the power and order of Episcopacy And this shall be in subsidium to them also that call for reduction of the state Episcopall to a primitive consistence and for the confirmation of all those pious sonnes of Holy Church who have a venerable estimate of the publike and authoriz'd facts of Catholike Christendome * 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 Iesu Christi to erect a government of their owne devising not ordayn'd by Christ not delivered by his Apostles and to relinquish a Divine foundation and the Apostolicall 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 Gentilisme 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 Universall dereliction of so considerable a part of their Masters will and leave Gentilisme to destroy Christianity for he that erects another Oeconomy then what the Master of the family hath ordayn'd destroyes all those relations of mutuall 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 Apostolicall that so long as that ordinance of the Apostles concerning abstinence from bloud was of force they would rather dye then 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 the 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 availe if after all they should be hurried out of this world and all their fortunes and possessions by untimely by disgracefull by dolourous deaths to be set before a tribunall to give account of their universall neglect and contemning of Christs last testament in so great an affaire as the whole government of his Church * If all Christendome should be guilty of so open so united a defiance against their Master by what argument or confidence can any misbeliever be perswaded to Christianity which in all its members for so many ages together is so unlike its first institution as in its most publike affaire and for matter of order of the most generall concernement is so contrary to the first birth * Where are the promises of Christ's perpetuall 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 errour as to erect a throne where Christ had made all levell or appointed others to sit in it then whom he suffers * Either Christ hath left no government or most certainly the Church hath retain'd that Government whatsoever it is for the contradictory to these would either make Christ improvident or the Catholick Church extreamely negligent to say no worse and incurious of her depositum * But upon the confidence of all * Christendome if there were no more in it I * suppose we may fairely venture Sit anima mea * cum Christianis THE first thing done in Christendome upon the § 23. Who first distinguished Names used before in common 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 Clericall offices were given to the superiour order and particularly all offices and parts and persons design'd in any imployment of the sacred Preisthood were signified by Presbyter and Presbyterium And therefore least the confusion of Names might perswade an identity and indistinction of office the wisdome 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 Iesus 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 Epist. ad Corinth last breath But so it was 1. The Apostles which I have proved to be the supreame ordinary office in the Church and to be succeeded in we called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Peter the Apostle the Elders 1. Pet. 5. 1. or Presbyters that are among you I also who am an Elder or Presbyter doe intreat Such elders S. Peter spoke to as he was himselfe 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 Titus to Tychicus to Sosipater to the Angells of the Asian Churches and all others whom himselfe 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 meere 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 knowes what lies on him by proportion and intuition to the Bishops admonition But againe * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Iohn the Apostle and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Presbyter to Gajus the Presbyter to the elect Lady 2. * If Apostles be called Presbyters no harme though Bishops be called so too for Apostles and Bishops are all one in ordinary office as I have proved formerly Thus are those Apostolicall men in the Colledge at Ierusalem called Presbyters whom yet the Holy Ghost calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principall 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 Citties 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 speake 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 unlesse it be in conjunction with Bishops and then in the Generall addresse which in all faire deportments is made to the more eminent sometimes Presbyters are or may be comprehended This observation if it prove true will clearely 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 selfe are so distinguished that a meere Presbyter alone is never called a Bishop but a Bishop an 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 maine Question nor this observation * Paul and Timotheus to all the saints which are in Christ Iesus which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons I am willinger to choose this instance because the place is of much consideration in the whole Question and I shall take this occasion to cleare it from prejudice and disadvantage * By Bishops are here meant Presbyters because * many Bishops in a Church could not be and yet * S. Paul speaks plurally of the Bishops of the * Church of Philippi and therefore must meane * meere Presbyters * so it is pretended 1. Then By Bishops are or may be meant the whole superior 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 becomprehended 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 sense 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 admiitting that there were any meere 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 Episcopall men as there were at Antioch might doe 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 then that there was no Bishop And certainely it is most unlikely that what is not expressed to wit Presbyters should be onely meant and that which is expressed should not be at all intended * 3. With the Bishops may be understood in the proper sense and yet no more Bishops in one Diocesse then one of a fixt residence for in that sense is S. Chrysostome and the fathers to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in 1. Phil. 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 unusuall in such great Churches to have many men who were temporary residentiaries but of an Apostolicall and Episcopall authority as in the Churches of Ierusalem Rome Antioch there was as I have proved in the premises Nay in Philippi it selfe If I mistake not as instance may be given full and home to this purpose Salutant te Episcopi One simus Bitus 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 S. Paul's dictate of the Epistle * 4. Why may not Bishops be meant in the proper sense Because there could not be more Bishops then one in a Diocesse 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 doe its worst we are safe enough * 5. With the Bishops may be taken distributively for Philippi was a Metropolis and had diverse Bishopricks under it and S. 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 referres this clause of Cum Episcopis Diaconis to S. Paul and S. Timothy intimating In 1. Philip. that the benediction and salutation was sent to the Saints at Philippi from S. Paul and S. Timothy with the 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 Diaconi 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 S. Clement to the Corinthians which may give another light to this speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 54. They delivered their first fruits to the Bishops and Deacons Bishops here indeed may be taken distributively and so will not inferre 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 Ecclesiasticall provision which no man imagines of what interest soever he be it followes then that Bishops and Deacons are no more but Majores and Minores Sacerdotes in both places for as Presbyter and Episcopus were confounded so also Presbyter and Diaconus And I thinke it will easily be shewen in Scripture that the
word Diaconus is given oftner to Apostles and Bishops and Presbyters then to those ministers which now by way of appropriation we call Deacons But of this anon Now againe to the main observation * Thus also it was in the Church of Ephesus for S. Paul writing to their Bishop and giving order for the constitution and deportment of the Church orders 1. Timoth. 3. 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 then Episcopus to the Superiour nor so much neither For Episcopus was never us'd 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 principall and the Presbyter is also comprehended for his conjunction and involution in the Superiour which was the principall 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 S. Ambrose * So that if in the description of in Ephis 4. * Idem ait S. Dionysius Eccles hierarch cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 vaine dreame 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 then the word Bishop 1. Because Bishop is spoken of in the singular number Deacons in the Plurall and so liker to comprehend the multitude of Presbyters 2. Presbyters or else Bishops and therefore much more Presbyters are called by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministers Deacons is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deacons by whose Ministration yee beleived and 3. By the same argument Deacons may be as well one with the Bishop too for in the Epistle to Titus S. 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 aëry and impertinent nothing After all this yet it cannot be showne in Scripture that any one single and meere 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 onely 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 meere Deacon or a meere Presbyter should be called either Bishop or Apostle it can never be brought either to depresse the order of Bishops below their throne or erect meere Presbyters above their stalls in the Quire For we may as well confound Apostle and Deacon and with clearer probability then 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 S. Matthias when he succeded Iudas in the Apostolate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said S. Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 6. 4. A Deacon of the New Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 3. 5. is said of the first founders of the Corinthian Church Deacons by whom ye beleived Paul and Apollos were the men It is the observation of S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1. Philip And a Bishop was called a Deacon wherefore writing to Timothy he saith to him being a Bishop Fulfillthy Deaconship * Adde to this that there is no word or designation of any Clericall 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 Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos PASCERE ECCLESIAM DEI. Whereupon trhe Geeke Scholiast expounds the word Pastors to signifie Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And ever since that S. Peter set us a copie in the compellation of the Prototype calling him the Great Sheapherd and Bishop of our soules it hath obtayned 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 Ephes. 4. TEACHERS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Pastors then also Doctors and Teachers And this is observed by S. Austin Pastors Doctors whom you would Epist. 59. ad Paulinum 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 setled Bishops fix't upon their severall Sees then the Names also were made distinct only those names which did designe temporary offices did expire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostome Thus farre the names were common viz. in the sense above explicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But immediately the names were made proper and distinct and to every order it 's owne Name is left of a Bishop to a Bishop of a Presbyter to a Presbyter * This could not be suppos'd at first for when
appropriate to the supreame order of the Clergy was done with faire reason and designe 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 faire execution of its offices But Presbyter is a name of dignity and veneration Rise up to the gray 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 meere 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. Chrysostome Nec dicit si quis Episcopatum desider at bonum desider at gradum sed bonum opus desider at quod in majore ordine constitutus possit si velit occasionem habere exercendarum virtutum So S. Hierome 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 then of S. Isidore Episcopatus autem vocabulum inde dictum quòd ille qui superefficitur Lib. 7. etymolog c. 12. superintendat curam scil gerens subditorum But Presbyter Grecè latinè senior interpretatur non pro aetate vel decrepitâ senectute sed propter honorem dignitatem quam acceperunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Iulius Pollux 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 Angells 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 senses 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 passe that the compellation which was alwaies his by way of eminence was made his by appropriation And a faire precedent of it wee have from the compellation given to our blessed Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great sheapheard and Bishop of our soules The name Bishop was made sacred by being the appellative of his person and by faire intimation it does more immediatly 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 have the greatest power office and dignity as participating of the fulnesse of that power and authority for which Christ was called the Bishop of our soules * And besides this so faire a Copy besides the useing of the word in the prophecy of the Apostolate of Matthias and in the prophet Isaiah and often in Scripture as I have showne 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 S. Paul writing to the Romans who then had no Bishop fixed in the chaire of Rome does command them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 16. 17. 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 faire congruity of reason BVt the Church used other appellatives for Bishops § 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church which it is very requisite to specifie that we may understand diverse authorities of the Fathers useing those words in appropriation to Bishops which of late have bin given to Presbyters ever since they have begun to set Presbyters in the roome 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 lib. 3. hist. c. 36. Denique cùm Smyrnam venisset ubi Polycarpus erat scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios eorumque Pastorem that is Onesimus for so followes in quâmeminit Onesimi Now that Onesimus was their Bishop Epist. ad Ephes himselfe witnesses in the Epistle here mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Onesimus was their Bishop and therefore their Pastor and in his Epistle ad Antiochenos himselfe 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 Councell was called where S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria could not be present Caeteri verò Ecclesiarum PASTORES diversis è locis urbibus .... convenerunt Antiochiam In quibus in signes caeteris praecellentes erant Firmilianus à Caesareá Cappadociae Gregorius Athenodorus Fratres .... Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 24. 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 proceedes sed Prebyteri quamplurimi Diaconiad supradictam Vrbem .... conventrunt So that these were not under the generall appellative of Pastors * And the Councell of Sardis Can. 6. making provision for the manner of election of a Bishop to a Widdow-Church when the people is urgent for the speedy institution of a Bishop if any of the Comprovincialls be wanting he must be certifi'd by the Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the multitude require a Pastor to be given vnto them * The same expression is also in the Epistle of Iulius Bishop of Rome to the Presbyters Deacons and People of Alexandria in behalfe of their Bishop Athanasius Suscipite itaque Fratres hist. tripartlib 4. c. 29. charissimi cumomni divinâ gratiâ PASTOREM VESTRUM ACPRAESULEM tanquam verè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a litle after gaudere fruentes orationibus qui PASTOREM VESTRUM esuritis sititis c The same is often us'd in S. Hilary and S. Gregory Nazianzen where Bishops are called PASTORES MAGNI Great sheapheards or PASTORS * When Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata was banished Vniversi lachrymis prosequuti sunt ereptionem PASTORIS sui saith Theodoret they wept for the losse of their PASTOR And lib. 4. cap. 14. Eulogius a Presbyter of Edessa when he was arguing with the Prefect in behalfe of Christianity PASTOREM inquit habemus nutus illius sequimur we have a PASTOR a
ad PRINCIPATUM SACERDOTII pertinent Presbyteris verò quae ad Sacerdotium And in b Lib. 3. Ep. 1. S. Cyprian Presbyteri cum Episcopis Sacerdotali honore conjuncti But although in such distinction and subordination in concretion a Presbyter is sometimes called Sacerdos yet in Antiquity Sacerdotium Ecclesiae does evermore signify Episcopacy and Sacerdos Ecclesiae the Bishop Theotecnus SACERDOTIUM Ecclesiae tenens in Episcopatu saith c Lib. 7. c. 28. Eusebius and summus Sacerdos the Bishop alwaies Dandi baptismum jus habet summus SACERDOS qui est Episcopus saith d Lib. de baptism Tertullian and indeed Sacerdos alone is very seldome used in any respect but for the Bishop unlesse when there is some distinctive terme and of higher report given to the Bishop at the same time Ecclesia est plebs SACERDOTI adunata Grex pastori suo adhaerens saith S. e Epist. 69. 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 * f Euseb. lib. 3. c. 21. Eusebius reckoning some of the chief Bishops assembled in the Councell of Antioch In quibus erant Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus Nicomas ab Iconio Hierosolymorum PRAECIPUUS SACERDOS Hymenaeus vicinae huic urbis Caesareae Theotecnus and in the same place the Bishops of Pontus are called Ponti provinciae SACERDOTES Abilius apud Alexandriam tredecem annis SACERDOTIO ministrato diem obiit for so long he was Bishop cui succedit Cerdon tertius in SACERDOTIUM Et Papias similiter apud Hierapolim SACERDOTIUM gerens for he was Bishop of Hierapolis saith g Lib. 3. c. 35. Eusebius and the h Epist. Comprovinc ad S. Leonem Bishops of the Province of Arles speaking of their first Bishop Trophimus ordained Bishop by S. Peter say quod prima inter Gallias Arelatensis civit as missum à Beatissimo Petro Apostolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit SACERDOTEM *** The Bishop also was ever design'd when ANTISTES Ecclesiae was the word Melito Lib. 4. c. 26. quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae ANTISTES saith Eusebius out of Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the name in Greeke and used for the Bishop by Iustin Martyr and is of the same authority and use with PRAELATUS and praepositus Ecclesiae ANTISTES autem SACERDOS dictus ab eo quod antestat Primus est enim in ordine Ecclesiae suprase nullum habet saith S. Isidore Lib 7. Etymol c. 12. *** But in those things which are of no Question I need not insist One title more I must specify to prevent misprision upon a mistake of theirs of a place in S. Ambrose The Bishop is sometimes called PRIMUS PRESBYTER Nam Timotheum Episcopum Comment in 4. Ephes. à secreatum Presbyterum vocat quia PRIMI PRESBYTERI Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet Elections were made of Bishops out of the Colledge of Presbyters Presbyteri unum ex se electum Episcopum nominabant saith S. Hierome but at first this election was made not according to merit but according to seniority and therefore Bishops were called PRIMI PRESBYTERI that 's S. Ambrose his sense But S. Austin gives Quast Vet. et N. Testam Qu. 101. another PRIMI PRESBYTERI that is chiefe above the Presbyters Quid est Episcopus nisi PRIMUS PRESBYTER h. e. summus Sacerdos saith he And S. Ambrose himselfe gives a better exposition of his words then is intimated in that clause before Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est Vterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus PRIMUS est ut omnis Episcopus In 1. Tim. 3. Presbyter sit non omnis Presbyter Episcopus Hic enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros PRIMUS est The bishop is PRIMUS PRESBYTER that is PRIMUS SACERDOS h. e. PRINCEPS EST SACERDOTUM so he expounds it not Princeps or Primus INTER In 4. Ephes. PRESBYTEROS himselfe remaining a meere Presbyter but PRINCEPS PRESBYTERORUM for PRIMUS PRESBYTER could not be Episcopus in another sense he is the chiefe not the senior of the Presbyters Nay Princeps Presbyterorum is used in a sense lower then Episcopus for Theodoret speaking of S. Iohn Chrysostome saith that having been the first Presbyter at Antioch yet refused to be made Bishop for a long time Iohannes enim qui diutissimi Princeps fuit Presbyterorum Antiochiae ac saepe electus praesul perpetuus vitator dignitatis illius de hoc admirabili solo pullulavit *** The Church also in her first language when she spake of Praepositus Ecclesiae meant the Bishop of the Diocesse Of this there are innumerable examples but most plentifully in S. Cyprian in his 3 4 7 11 13 15 23 27 Epistles and in Tertullian his book ad Martyres and infinite places more Of which this advantage is to be made that the Primitive Church did generally understand those places of Scripture which speak of Prelates or Praepositi to be meant of Bishops Obedite praepositis Heb. 13. saith S. Paul Obey your Prelates or them that are set over you Praepositi autem Pastores sunt saith S. Austin Prelates are they that are Pastors But S. Cyprian summes up many of them together and insinuates the severall relations expressed in the severall compellations of Bishops For writing against Florentius Epist. 69. Pupianus ac nisi saith he apud te purgati fuerimus .... eccejam sex annis nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum nec plebs praepositum nec grex Pastorem nec Ecclesia gubernatorem nec Christus antistatem nec Deus Sacerdotes and all this he means of himselfe who had then been sixe years Bishop of Carthage a Prelate of the people a governour to the Church a Pastor to the flock a Priest of the most high God a Minister of Christ. The summe is this When we find in antiquity any thing asserted of any order of the hierarchy under the names of Episcopus or Princeps Sacerdotum or Presbyterorum primus or Pastor or Doctor or Pontifex or Major or Primus Sacerdos or Sacerdotium Ecclesiae habens or Antistes Ecclesiae or Ecclesiae sacerdos unlesse there be a specification and limiting of it to a parochiall and inferior Minister it must be understood of Bishops in its present acceptation For these words are all by way of eminency and most of them by absolute appropriation and singularity the appellations and distinctive names of Bishops BUT 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Philosopher § 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest and this their distinction of Names did amongst the Fathers of the Primitive Church denote a distinction of calling and office supereminent to the rest For
first Bishops are by all Antiquity reckoned as a distinct office of Clergy Si quis Presbyter aut Diaconus aut quilibet de Numero Clericorum .... pergat ad alienam parochiam praeter Episcopi sui conscientiam c. So it is in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles and so it is there plainly distinguished as an office different from Presbyter and Deacon above thirty times in those Canons and distinct powers given to the Bishop which are not given to the other and to the Bishop above the other * The Councell of Ancyra inflicting censures upon Presbyters first then Deacons which had faln in time of persecution gives leave to the Bishop to mitigate Can. 1. 2. the paines as he sees cause Sed si ex Episcopis aliqui in iis vel afflictionem aliquam .... viderint in eorum potestate id esse The Canon would not suppose any Bishops to fall for indeed they seldome did but for the rest provision was made both for their penances and indulgence at the discretion of the Bishop And yet sometimes they did fall Optatus bewailes it but withall gives evidence of their distinction of order Quid commemorem Laicos qui Lib. 1. ad Parmen tunc in Ecclesiâ nullâ fuerant dignitate suffulti Quid Ministros plurimos quid Diaconos in tertio quid Presbyteros in secundo Sacerdotio constitutos Ipsi apices Principes omnium aliqui Episcopi aliqua instrumenta Divinae Legis impiè tradiderunt The Laity the Ministers the Deacons the Presbyters nay the Bishops themselves the Princes and chiefe of all prov'd traditors The diversity of order is herefairely intimated but dogmatically affirmed by him in his 2 d book adv Parmen Quatuor genera capitum sunt in Ecclesiâ Episcoporum Presbyterorum Diaconorum fidelium There are foure sorts of heads in the Church Bishops Presbyters Deacons and the faithfull Laity And it was remarkable that when the people of Hippo had as it were by violence carried S. Austin to be made Priest by their Bishop Valerius some seeing the good man weep in consideration of the great hazard and difficulty accruing to him in his ordination to such an office thought he had wept because he was not Bishop they pretending comfort told him quia locus Presbyterii De vitâ August c. 4. licet ipse majore dignus esset appropinquaret tamen Episcopatui The office of a Presbyter though indeed he deserv'd a greater yet was the next step in order to a Bishoprick So Possidonius tells the story It was the next step the next in descent in subordination the next under it So the Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is sacriledge to bring downe a Bishop to the degree Can. 29. and order of a Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Councell permits in case of great delinquency to suspend him from the execution of his Episcopall order but still the character remaines and the degree of it selfe is higher * Nos autem idcirco haec scribimus Fratres chariss quia novimus quà m Sacrosanctum debeat esse Episcopale Sacerdotium quod clero plebi debet esse exemplo said the Fathers of the Councell of Antioch in Eusebius The office of a Bishop is sacred Lib. 7. c. 26. and exemplary both to the Clergy and the People Inter dixit per omnia Magna Synodus non Episcopo non Presbytero non Diacono licere c. And it was Can. 3. Nicen. Concil a remarkable story that Arius troubled the Church for missing of a Prelation to the order and dignity of a Bishop Post Achillam enim Alexander .... ordinatur Episcopus Hoc autem tempore Arius in ordine Presbyterorum fuit Alexander was ordain'd a Bishop and Arius still left in the order of meer Presbyters * Of the same exigence are all those clauses of commemoration of a Bishop and Presbyters of the same Church Iulius autem Romanus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit erantque pro eo praesentes Vitus Vincentius Presbyteriejusdem Ecclesiae They were his Vicars and deputies for their Bishop in the Nicene Councell saith Sozomen But most pertinent is that of the Indian Lib. 2. c. 1. hist. tripart persecution related by the same man Many of them were put to death Erant autem horum alii quidem Lib. 3. tripart c. 2. Episcopi alii Presbyteri alii diversorum ordinum Clerici * And this difference of Order is cleare in the Epistle of the Bishops of Illyricum to the Bishops of the Levant De Episcopis autem constituendis vel comministris jam constitutis si permanserint usque ad finem sani bene .... Similitèr Presbyteros atque Diaconos in Sacerdotali ordine definivimus c. And of Sabbatius it is said Nolens in suo ordine Manere Presbyteratus desiderabat Episcopatum he would not stay in the order of a Presbyter but desir'd a Bishoprick Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est in Patriarchis Hist. tripart l. 11. c. 5. Archiepiscopis Metropolitanis Episcopis faith S. Isidore Omnes autem superiùs disignati ordines uno eodemque vocabulo Episcopi Nominantur Lib. 7. etymol. c. 12. But it were infinite to reckon authorities and clauses of exclusion for the three orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons we cannot almost dip in any tome of the Councells but we shall find it recorded And all the Martyr Bishops of Rome did ever acknowledge and publish it that Episcopacy is a peculiar office and order in the Church of God as is to be seen in their decretall Epistles in the first tome of the Councells * I onely summe this up with the attestation of the Church of England in the Per Binium Paris preface to the book of ordination It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there have been these ORDERS of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons The same thing exactly that was said in the second Councell of Carthage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 2. But wee shall see it better and by more reall probation for that Bishops were a distinct order appears by this 1. THe Presbyterate was but a step to Episcopacy § 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree Can. 10. as Deaconship to the Presbyterate and therefore the Councell of Sardis decreed that no man should be ordain'd Bishop but he that was firsta Reader and a Deacon and a Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by every degree he may passe to the sublimity of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the degree of every order must have the permanence and triall of no small time Here there is clearely a distinction of orders and ordinations and assumptions to them respectively all of the same distance and consideration And Theodoret out of the Synodicall Epistle of the Lib. 5. c. 8. same
Presbyters If they did well what was a vertue in them is no sinne in us If they did ill from what principle shall wee 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 impos'd 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 owne hands as appeares 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 signify 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 alwayes to Apostles and Bishops as I have proved and that a Priest did ever impose hands for ordination can never be showne from thence From whence then From Antiquity That was so farre from licensing ordinations made by Presbyters alone that Presbyters in the primitive Church did never joyne with Bishops in Collating holy Orders of Presbyter and Deacon till the 4 th Councell of Carthage much lesse doe 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 or not so faire interpretation of the ordinations of reformed Presbyteries But for my part I had rather speake a truth in sincerity then erre with a glorious correspondence But will not necessity excuse them who could not have orders from Orthodoxe Bishops shall we either sinne against our consciences by suscribing to hereticall and false resolutions in materiâ fidei or else loose the being of a Church for want of Episcopall ordinations * Indeed if the case were just thus it was very hard with the good people of the transmarine Churches but I have here two things to consider 1. I am very willing to beleive that they would not have done any thing either of error or suspition but in cases of necessity But then I consider that M. Du Plessis a man of honour and Great learning de Eccles. cap. 11. does attest that at the first reformation there were many Arch-Bishops and Cardinalls in Germany England France and Italy that joyn'd 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 faine learne 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 practise at least in France that if any returnes to them they will reordayne him by their Presbytery though he had before Episcopall Danaeus part 2. Isagog lib. 2. cap. 22. Perron repl fol 92. impress 1605. Ordination as both their friends and their enemies beare witnesse 2. I consider that necessity may excuse a personall delinquency but I never heard that necessity did build a Church Indeed no man is forc'd for his owne particular to committ a sinne for if it be absolutely a case of necessity the action ceases to be a sinne but indeed if God meanes to build a Church in any place he will doe it by meanes proportionable to that end that is by putting them into a possibility of doing and acquiring those things which himselfe hath required of necessity to the constitution of a Church * So that supposing that Ordination by a Bishop is necessary for the vocation of Priests and Deacons as I have proved it is and therefore for the founding or perpetuating of a Church either God hath given to all Churches opportunity and possibility of such Crdinations and then necessity of the contrary is but pretence and mockery or if he hath not given such possibility then there is no Church there to be either built or continued but the Candlestick is presently removed There are diverse stories in Ruffinus to this purpose Eccles. hist lib. 10. cap. 9. per Ruffinum When Aedesius and Frumentius were surprized by the Barbarous Indians they preached Christianity and baptized many but themselves being but Lay-men could make no Ordinations and so not fixe a Church What then was to be done in the case Frumentius Alexandriam pergit .... rem omnem ut gesta est narrat EPISCOPO ac monet ut provideat virum aliquem dignum quem congregatis jam plurimis Christianis in Barbarico solo Episcopum mittat Frumentius comes to Alexandria to get a Bishop Athanasius being then Patriarch ordayn'd Frumentius their Bishop tradito ei Sacerdotio redire eum cum Domini Gratiâ unde venerat jubet .... ex quo saith Ruffinus in Indiae partibus populi Christianorum Ecclesiae factae sunt Sacerdotium caepit The same happened in the case of the Iberians Ibidem c. 10. apud Theodoret. l. 1. converted by a Captive woman posteà verò quà m Ecclesia magnificè constructa est populi fidem Dei majore ardore sitiebant captivae monitis ad Imperatorem Constantinum totius Gentis legatio mittitur Res gesta exponitur SACERDOTES mittere oratur qui caeptum ergà se Dei munus implerent The worke of Christianity could not be completed nor a Church founded without the Ministery of Bishops * Thus the case is evident that the want of a Bishop will not excuse us from our endeavours of acquiring one and where God meanes to found a Church there he will supply them with those meanes and Ministeries which himselfe hath made of ordinary and absolute necessity And therefore if it happens that those Bishops which are of ordinary Ministration amongst us prove hereticall still Gods Church is Catholike and though with trouble yet Orthodoxe Bishops may be acquir'd For just so it happen'd when Mauvia Queene of the Saracens was so earnest to have Moses the Hermit made the Bishop of her Nation and offer'd peace to the Catholikes upō that condition Lucius an Arrian troubled the affayre by his interposing and offering to ordayne Moses The Hermit discover'd his vilenesse it a Eccles hist. lib. 11. cap. 6. per Ruffinum majore dedecore deformatus compulsus est acquiescere Moses refus'd to be ordayn'd by him that was an Arrian So did the reform'd Churches refuse ordinations by the Bishops of the Roman communion But what then might they have done Even the same that Moses did in that necessity compulsus est ab Episcopis quos in exilium truserat Lucius sacerdotium sumere Those good people might have had orders from the Bishops of England or the Lutheran Churches if at least they thought our
let it rest upon * Apologiae pro Ignatio Vedelius a man who is no waies to be suspected as a party for Episcopacy or rather upon the credit of a Lib. 3. hist. c. 30. Eusebius b De Script Eccles. S. Hierome and c Apud Eusebquem Latine reddidit Ruffinus who reckon the first seven out of which I have taken these excerpta for naturall and genuine And now I will make this use of it Those men that call for reduction of Episcopacy to the Primitive state should doe well to stand close to their principles and count that the best Episcopacy which is first and then consider but what S. Ignatius hath told us for direction in this affaire and see what is gotten in the bargaine For my part since they that call for such a reduction hope to gaine by it and then would most certainly have abidden by it I think it not reasonable to abate any thing of Ignatius his height but expect such subordination and conformity to the Bishop as he then knew to be a law of Christianity But let this be remembred all along in the specification of the parts of their Iurisdiction But as yet I am in the generall demonstration of obedience The Councell of Laodicea having specified some Can. 56. particular instances of subordination and dependance to the Bishop summes them up thus * Idem videre est apud Damasum Epist. de Chorepiscopis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So likewise the Presbyters let them doe nothing without the precept and counsell of the Bishop so is the translation of Isidore ad verbum This Councell is ancient enough for it was before the first Nicene So also was that of Arles commanding the same thing exactly * Vt Presbyteri sine conscientiâ Episcoporum Can. 19. nihil faciant Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in Vnaquaque parochiâ aliquid agere saies the thirteenth Canon of the Ancyran Councell according to the Latine of Isidore The same thing is in the first Councell of Toledo the very Can. 20. same words for which I cited the first Councell of Arles viz. That Presbyters doe nothing without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop * Esto SUBIECTUS Epist. ad Nepotian PONTIFICI Tuo quasi animae parentemsuscipe It is the counsell of S. Hierome Be subject to thy Bishop and receive him as the Father of thy soule I shall not need to derive hither any more particular instances of the duty and obedience owing from the Laity to the Bishop For this account will certainly be admitted by all considering men God hath intrusted the soules of the Laity to the care of the Ecclesiasticall orders they therefore are to submit to the government of the Clergy in matters Spirituall with which they are intrusted For either there is no Government at all or the Laity must governe the Church or else the Clergy must To say there is no Government is to leave the Church in worse condition then a tyranny To say that the Laity should governe the Church when all Ecclesiasticall Ministeries are committed to the Clergy is to say Scripture means not what it saies for it is to say that the Clergy must be Praepositi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and praelati and yet the prelation and presidency and rule is in them who are not ever by Gods spirit called Presidents or Prelates and that it is not in them who are called so * In the mean time if the Laity in matters Spirituall are inferior to the Clergy and must in things pertaining to the Soule be rul'd by them with whom their Soules are intrusted then also much rather they must obey those of the Clergy to whom all the other Clergy themselves are bound to be obedient Now since by the frequent precept of so many Councells and Fathers the Deacons and Presbyters must submit in all things to the Bishop much more must the Laity and since the Bishop must rule in chiefe and the Presbyters at the most can but rule in conjunction and assistance but ever in subordination to the Bishop the Laity must obey de integro For that is to keep them in that state in which God hath placed them But for the maine S. Clement in his Epistle to S. Iames translated by Ruffinus saith it was the doctrine of Peter according to the institution of Christ that Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishop in all things and in his third Epistle that Presbyters and Deacons and others of the Clergy must take heed that they doe nothing without the license of the Bishop * And to make this businesse up compleat all these authorities of great antiquity were not the prime constitutions in those severall Churches respectively but meere derivations from tradition Apostolicall for not only the thing but the words so often mentioned are in the 40 th Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same is repeated in the twenty fourth Canon of the Councell of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters and Deacons must doe nothing without leave of the Bishop for to him the Lords people is committed and he must give an account for their soules * And if a Presbyter shall contemne his owne Bishop making conventions apart and erecting another altar he is to be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the 32. Canon as a lover of Principality intimating that he arrogates Episcopall dignity and so is ambitious of a Principality The issue then is this * The Presbyters and Clergy and Laity must obey therefore the Bishop must governe and give them lawes It was particularly instanc'd in the case of S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret He adorned and instructed Pontus with these Lawes so he reckoning up the extent Lib. 5. cap. 28. of his jurisdiction * But now descend we to a specification of the power and jurisdiction * of Bishops § 36. Appointing them to be Iudges of the Clergy and spirituall causes of the Laity THe Bishops were Ecclesiasticall Iudges over the Presbyters the inferiour Clergy and the Laity What they were in Scripture who were constituted in presidency over causes spirituall I have already twice explicated and from hence it descended by a close succession that they who watched for soules they had the rule over them and because no regiment can be without coërcion therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of causes and coërcion of persons * The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on delinquent person's makes the Bishop's hand to doe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 33. If any Presbyter or Deacon be excommunicated BY THE BISHOP he must not be received by any else but by him that did so censure him vnlesse the BISHOP THAT CENSUR'D HIM be dead The same is repeated in the Nicene Councell only
est But I need not more particular arguments for till the Councell of Basil the Church never admitted Presbyters as in their own right to voyce in Councells and that Councell we know savourd too much of the Schismatick but before this Councell no example no president of subscriptions of the Presbyters either to Oecumenicall or Provinciall Synods Indeed to a Diocesan Synod viz. that of Auxerre in Burgundy I find 32 Presbyters subscribing This Synod was neither Oecumenicall nor Provinciall but meerely the Convocation of a Diocesse For here was but one Bishop and some few Abbots and 32 Presbyters It was indeed no more then a visitation or the calling of a Chapter for of this we receive intimation in the seaventh Canon of that assembly ut in medio Maio omnes Presbyteri ad Concil Antisiodor can 7. Synodum venirent that was their summons in Novembri omnes Abbates ad Concilium so that here is intimation of a yearely Synod besides the first convention the greatest of 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 Provinciall Councell For the guise of Christendome was alwaies otherwise and therefore it was the best argument that the Bishops in the Arian hurry used to acquit themselves from the suspition of heresy Neque nos sumus Arii sectatores Quî namque fieri potest ut cùm simus Episcopi Ario Presbytero auscultemus Socrat. lib. 2. c. 7. Bishops never receive determination of any article from Priests but Priests doe from Bishops Nam vestrum est eos instruere saith S. Clement speaking Epist. 3. per Ruffinum of the Bishops office and power over Priests and all the Clergy and all the Diocesse eorum est vobis obedire ut Deo cujus legatione fungimini And a little after Audire ergo eum attentiùs oportet ab ipso suscicere 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 generall concernement must also be of generall Scrutiny I answer it is true unlesse where God himselfe hath intrusted the care of others in a body as he hath in the Bishops and will require the soules of his Diocesse at his hand and commanded us to require the Law at their mouths and to follow their faith Hebr. 13. 7. 17. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Act. 20. whom he hath set over us And therefore the determination of Councells 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 Epist. 69. 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 Lib. 3. de vitâ Constant. lib. de baptis cap. 18. terrarum and by S. Austin consensus totius Ecclesiae not that the whole Church was there present in their severall persons but was there represented by the Catholike Bishops and if this representment be not sufficient for obligation to all I see no reason but the Ladyes too may vote in Councells for I doubt not but they have soules too But however if this argument were concluding in it selfe yet it looses its force in England where the Clergy are bound by Lawes of Parliament and yet in the capacity of Clergy-men are allowed to choose 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 Councell it was an old hereticall trick Veniant planè si qui sunt ad Ecclesiam audiant cum populo non ut Epist. 32. QUIS QUAM IUDEX resideat sed unus quisque 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 Councells were alwaies kept in open Churches ubi populus judicat not for others but for themselves not by externall sentence but internall conviction so S. Ambrose expounds himselfe in the forecited allegation There is no considerable objection against this discourse but that of the first Councell of Ierusalem 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 Iames yet in 16. Acts they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees IUDGED by the Apostles and Elders But first in this the difficulty is the lesse because Presbyter was a generall 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 conventuall 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 voycing in Councells It is a pretty pageant onely 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 spirituall Rulers against the gravity of such assemblies for it would force them to betumultuous and at the best are the worst of Sanctions as being issues of popularity and to summe up all it is no way authoriz'd by this first copy of Christian Councells The pretence is in the Synodall * Acts 15. 23. letter written in the name of the Apostles and Elders and Brethren that is saies Geta The Apostles and Presbyters and People But why not BRETHREN that is all the Deacons and Evangelists and Helpers in Governement and Ministers of the Churches There is nothing either in words or circumstances to contradict this If it be ask'd 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
sanctum unum Episcopum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse debere And these very words the people also used in the contestation about Liberius and Faelix For when the Emperour was willing that Liberius should returne to his See on condition that Faelix the Arian might be Bishop there too they derided the suggestion crying out One God one Christ one Bishop So Theodoret reports But who lists to see more of this may be satisfied Lib. 2. c. 11. if plenty will doe it in a In 1. Philip. S. Chrysostome b in 1. Philip Theodoret S. c in 1. Philip Hierom d in 1. Philip Oecumenius e lib. 2. contr Parmen Optatus S. f in 1. Tim. 3. in 1. Phil. Ambrose and if he please he may read a whole booke of it written by S. Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae sive de singularitate Prelatorum 6ly Suppose the ordinary Diocesses had been parishes yet what were the Metropolitans and the Primates were they also parish-Bishops Surely if Bishops were parochiall then these were at least diocesan by their owne argument for to be sure they had many Bishops under them But there were none such in the Primitive Church yes most certainly The 35 Canon of the Apostles tells us so most plainely and at the worst they were a very primitive record Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos PRIMUS HABEATUR quem velut caput existiment nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant quà m ea sola quae parochiae propriae villis quae sub eâ sunt competunt The Bishops of every Nation must know who is their PRIMATE and esteeme him as their HEAD and doe NOTHING without his consent but those things that appertaine to their owne Diocesse And from hence the Fathers of the Councell of Antioch deriv'd their sanction per singulas regiones Episcopos convenit nosse METROPOLITANUM Concil Antioch ca. 9. Episcopum sollicitudinem totius provinciae gerere c. The Bishops of every province must know that their METROPOLITAN Bishop does take cure of all the province For this was an Apostolicall Constitution saith S. Clement that in the conversion of Gentile Epist. 1. ad Iacobum Fratrem Domini Cities in place of the Archflamines Archbishops Primates or Patriarchs should be placed qui reliquorum Episcoporum judicia majora quoties necesse foret negotia in fide agitarent secundùm Dei voluntatem sicut constituerunt Sancti Apostoli definirent * Alexandria was a Metropoliticall See long before the Nicene Councell as appeares in the sixth Canon before cited Nay Dioscorus the Bishop of vide Concil Chalced. act 1. in epist. Theod. Valentin Imp. that Church was required to bring ten of the METROPOLITANS that he had UNDER HIM to the Councell of Ephesus by Theodosius and Valentinian Emperours so that it was a PATRIARCHAT These are enough to shew that in the Primitive Church there were Metropolitan Bishops Now then either Bishops were Parochiall or no If no then they were Diocesan if yea then at least many of them were Diocesan for they had according to this rate many Parochiall Bishops under them * But I have stood too long upon this impertinent trifle but as nowadayes it is made the consideration of it is materiall to the maine Question Only this I adde That if any man should trouble the world with any other fancy of his owne and say that our Bishops are nothing like the Primitive because all the Bishops of the Primitive Church had onely two townes in their charge and no more and each of these townes had in them 170 families and were bound to have no more how should this man be confuted It was just such a device as this in them that first meant to disturbe this Question by pretending that the Bishops were onely parochiall not diocesan and that there was no other Bishop but the Parish-Priest Most certainely themselves could not beleive the allegation onely they knew it would raise a dust But by God's providence there is water enough in the Primitive fountaines to allay it ANother consideration must here be interpos'd §. 44. concerning the intervening of Presbyters in And was ayded by Presbyters but not impayred the regiment of the severall Churches For though I have twice already showne that they could not challenge it of right either by Divine institution or Apostolicall ordinance yet here also it must be considered how it was in the practice of the Primitive Church for those men that call the Bishop a Pope are themselves desirous to make a Conclave of Cardinalls too to make every Diocesse a Romane Consistory 1. Then the first thing we heare of Presbyters after Scripture I meane for of it I have already given account is from the testimony of S. Hierome in Epist. ad Titum cap. 1. Antequam studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli c communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Before factions arose in the Church the Church was govern'd by the common Counsell of Presbyters Here S. Hierome either meanes it of the time before Bishops were constituted in particular Churches or after Bishops were appointed If before Bishops were appointed no hurt done the Presbyters might well rule in common before themselves had a ruler appointed to governe both them and all the diocesse beside For so S. Ignatius writing to the Church of Antioch Epist. ad Antioch exhorts the Pres byters to feed the flock untill God should declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he would make their ruler And S. Cyprian speaking of Etecusa Epist. 2. 1. and some other women that had made defaillance in time of persecution and so were put to penance praeceperunt eas Praepositi tantispèr sic esse donec Episcopus constituatur The Presbyters whom sede vacante hee praeter morem suum calls Praepositos they gave order that they should so remaine till the Consecration of a Bishop * But if S. Hierome meanes this saying of his after Bishops were fixt then his expression answers the allegation for it was but communi CONSILIO Presbyterorum the IUDICIUM might be solely in the Bishop he was the IUDGE though the Presbyters were the COUNSELLORS For so himselfe addes that upon occasion of those first Schismes in Corinth it was DECREED in ALL THE WORLD vt omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertineret all the care of the diocesse was in the Bishop and therefore all the power for it was unimaginable that the burden should be laid on the Bishop and the strength put into the hands of the Presbyters * And so S. Ignatius stiles them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Assessors and Counsellors to the Bishop But yet if we take our estimate from Ignatius The Bishop is THE RULER without him though all concurr'd yet nothing could be done nothing attempted The Bishop was Superiour in ALL POWER
the Kings of the Gentiles but as the sonne of man so must your regiment be for sicut misit me Pater c. As my father hath sent me even so send I you It must be a government not for your Impery but for the service of the Church So that it is not for your advancement but the publick ministery that you are put to rule over the Houshold * And thus the Fathers expresse the authority and regiment of Bishops * Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum non ad Principatum vocatur sed ad servitutem totius siae saith Origen And S. Hierom Episcopi Sacer dotes se esse noverint non Dominos And yet S. Hierom homil 6. in Isai. himselfe writing to S. Austin calls him Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa * Forma Apostolica haec est Dominatio interdicitur indicitur Ministratio S. Bernard lib. 10. de considerat It is no Principality that the Apostles have but it is a Ministery a Ministery in chiefe the officers of which Ministration must governe and wee must obey They must governe not in a temporall regiment by vertue of their Episcopacy but in a spirituall not for honour to the Rulers so much as for benefit and service to the subject So S. Austin Nomen est operis non honoris ut intelligat se non esse lib. 19. de civit Dei cap. 19. Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit non prodesse And in the fourteenth chapter of the same book Qui imperant serviunt ijs rebus quibus videntur Imperare Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant sed officio confulendi nec principandi superbiâ sed providendi misericordiâ And all this is intimated in the Propheticall visions where the regiment of Christ is design'd by the face of a man and the Empire of the world by Beasts The first is the regiment of a Father the second of a King The first spirituall the other secular And of the Fatherly authority it is that the Prophet saies Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children whom thou maist make Princes in all lands This say the Fathers is spoken of the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops who may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes or Rulers of Churches not Princes of Kingdomes by vertue or challenge of their Apostolate But if this Ecclesiasticall rule or cheifty be interdicted I wonder how the Presidents of the Presbyters the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Reformed Churches will acquit themselves How will their Superiority be reconciled to the place though it be but temporary For is it a sinne if it continues and no sinne if it lasts but for a weeke or is it lawfull to sinne and domineere and Lord it over their Brethren for a weeke together * But suppose it were what will they say that are perpetuall Dictators Calvin was perpetuall president and Beza till Danaeus came to Geneva even for many years together * But beyond all this how can the Presbytery which is a fixt lasting body rule and governe in causes Spirituall and Consistoriall and that over all Princes and Ministers and people and that for ever For is it a sinne in Episcopacy to doe so and not in the Presbytery If it be lawfull here then Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domineere and as they call it now a dayes to Lord it over their Brethren when a Colledge of Apostles shall not be suffered to governe but if the Apostles may governe then we are brought to a right understanding of our Saviours saying to the sonnes of Zebedee and then also their successors the Bishops may doe the same If I had any further need of answer or escape it were easy to pretend that this being a particular directory to the Apostles was to expire with their persons So S. Cyprian intimates Apostoli pari fuêre De Vnitat Eccles consortio praediti honoris dignitatis and indeed this may be concluding against the Supremacy of S. Peter's Successors but will be no waies pertinent to impugne Episcopall authority For inter se they might be equall and yet Superiour to the Presbyters and the people Lastly It shall not be so with you so Christ said non designando officium but Sortem not their duty but their lot intimating that their future condition should not be honorary but full of trouble not advanc'd but persecuted But I had rather insist on the first answer in which I desire it be remembred that I said seeking temporall Principality to be forbidden the Apostles as an Appendix to the office of an Apostle For in other capacities Bishops are as receptive of honour and temporall principalities as other men Bishops vt sic are not secular Princes must not seeke for it But some secular Princes may be Bishops as in Germany and in other places to this day they are For it is as unlawfull for a Bishop to have any Land as to have a Country and a single acre is no more due to the Order then a Province but both these may be conjunct in the same person though still by vertue of Christs precept the functions and capacities must be distinguished according to the saying of Synesius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To confound and intermixe the Kingdome and the Priesthood is to joyne things incompossible and inconsistent Inconsistent I say not in person but absolutely discrepant in function 3. Consider we that S. Peter when he speakes of the duteous subordination of Sarah to her Husband Abraham he propunds her as an example to all married women in these words shee obeyed Abraham and called him Lord why was this spoken to Christian women but that they should doe so too And is it imaginable that such an Honourable compellation as Christ allowes every woman to give to her husband a Mechanick a hard-handed artisan he would forbid to those eminent pillars of his Church those lights of Christendome whom he really indued with a plenitude of power for the regiment of the Catholike Church Credat Apella 4. PASTOR and FATHER are as honourable titles as any They are honourable in Scripture Honour thy Father c Thy Father in all senses They are also made sacred by being the appellatives of Kings and Bishops and that not onely in secular addresses but even in holy Scripture as is knowne * Adde to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Acts. 15. Rom. 12. Hebr. 13. used in Scripture for the Prelates of the Church and I am certaine that Duke and Captaine Rulers and Commanders are but just the same in English that the other are in Greeke and the least of these is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lord. And then if we consider that since Christ erected a spirituall regiment and us'd words of secular honour to expresse it as in the instances above although Christ did interdict a secular principality yet
suas saeculares apuà nos finire cupientes quando eis necessarij fuerimus sic nos Sanctos Epist. 147. Dei servos appellant ut negotiaterrae suae peragant Aliquando agamus negotium salutis nostrae salutis ipsorum non de auro non de argento non de fundis pecoribus pro quibus rebus quotidiè submisso capite salutamur ut dissensiones hominum terminemus It was almost the businesse of every day to him to judge causes concerning Gold and Silver Cattell and glebe and all appertenances of this life This S. Austin would not have done if it had not been lawfull so we are to suppose in charity but yet this we are sure of S. Austin thought it not deâ—pare Monach cap 29. only lawfull but a part of his duty quibus nos molestijs idem affixit Apostolus and that by the authority not of himselfe but of him that spake within him even the H. Ghost so he Thus also it was usuall for Princes in the Primitive Church to send Bishops their Embassadours Constans the Emperour sent two Bishops chosen out of the Councell of Sardis together with Salianus Tripart hist lib 4. cap. 25. the Great Master of his Army to Constantius * S. Chrysostom was sent Embassadour to Gainas Maruthus the Bishop of Mesopotamia was sent Embassadour lib 10. cap 6. ibid. 11. cap. 8. ibid. from the Emperour to Isdigerdes the King of Persia. S. Ambrose from Valentinian the yonger lib. 5. Epist. Ambros. 33. Euseb lib. 8. cap. 1. to the Tyrant Maximus * Dorotheus was a Bishop and a chamberlaine to the Emperour Many more examples there are of the concurrence of the Episcopall office and a secular dignity or imployment Now then Consider * The Church did not might not challenge any secular honour or imployment by vertue of her Ecclesiasticall dignity precisely 2. The Church might not be ambitious or indagative of such imployment 3. The Churche's interest abstractly considered was not promoted by such imployment but where there was no greater way of compensation was interrupted and depress'd 4. The Church though in some cases shee was allowed to make secession yet might not relinquish her owne charge to intervene in anothers ayd 5. The Church did by no meanes suffer her Clerks to undertake any low secular imployment much more did shee forbid all sordid ends and Covetous designes 6. The Bishop or his Clerks might ever do any action of piety though of secular burden Clerks were never forbidden to reade Grammer or Philosophy to youth to be Masters of Schooles of Hospitalls they might reconcile their Neighbours that were falne out about a personall trespasse or reall action and yet since now adayes a Clergy-man's imployment and capacity is bounded within his Pulpit or reading deske or his study of Divinity at most these that I have reckoned are as verily secular as any thing and yet no law of Christendome ever prohibited any of these or any of the like Nature to the Clergy nor any thing that is ingenuous that is fit for a Scholler that requires either finenesse of parts or great learning or overruling authority or exemplary piety 7. Clergy-men might do any thing that was imposed on them by their Superiours 8. The Bishops and Priests were men of Great ability and surest confidence for determinations of Iustice in which religion was ever the strongest binder And therefore the Princes and People sometimes forc'd the Bishops from their owne interest to serve the Common-wealth in it they serv'd themselves directly and by consequence too the Church had not only a sustentation from the secular arme but an addition of honour and secular advantages and all this warranted by precedent of Scripture and the practice of the Primitive Church and particularly of men whom all succeeding ages have put into the Calender of Saints * So that it would be considered that all this while it is the kings interest and the Peoples that is pleaded when we assert a capacity to the Bishops to undertake charges of publike trust It is no addition to the calling of Bishops It serves the King it assists the republike and in such a plethory and almost a surfet of Clergy-men as this age is supplied with it can be no disservice to the Church whose dayly offices may be plentifully supplyed by Vicars and for the temporary avocation of some few aboundant recompence is made to the Church which is not at all injured by becomming an occasion of indearing the Church to those whose aide shee is * There is an admirable epistle written by Petrus Blesensis in the name of the Arch bishop of Canterbury Epist. 84. to P. Alexander the third in the defence of the Bishop of Ely Winchester Norwich that attended the Court upon service of the King Non est novum saith he quòd Regum Consiliis intersint Episcopi Sicut enim honestate sapientiâ caeteros antecedunt sic expeditiores efficaciores in reip administratione censentur Quia sicut Scriptum est minús salubritèr disponitur regnum quod non regitur consilio sapientum In quo not atur eos consiliis Regum debere assistere qui sciant velint possint patientibus compati paciterrae ac populi saluti prospicere crudire adjustitiam Reges imminentibus occursare periculis vitaeque maturioris exemplis informare subditos quâdam authoritate potestativâ praesumptionem malignantium cohibere It is no new thing for Bishops to be Counsellors to Princes saith he their wisdome and piety that enables them for a Bishoprick proclaimes them fit instruments to promote the publike tranquillity of the Common-wealth They know how to comply with oppressed people to advance designes of peace and publike security It is their office to instruct the King to righteousnesse by their sanctity to be a rule to the Court and to diffuse their exemplary piety over the body of the Kingdome to mixe influences of religion with designes of state to make them have as much of the dove as of the serpent and by the advantage of their religious authority to restraine the malignity of accursed people in whom any image of a God or of religion is remaining * He proceeds in the discourse and brings the examples of Samuel Isaiah Elisha Iojada Zecharias who were Priests and Prophets respectively and yet imployed in Princes Courts and Councells of Kings and addes this Vnum noveritis quia nisi familiares Consiliarii Regis essent Episcopi suprà dorsum Ecclesiae hodiè fabricarent peccatores immanitèr ac intolerabilitèr opprimeret Clerum praesumptio Laicalis That 's most true If the Church had not the advantage of additionall honorary imployments the plowers would plow upon the Churches back make long furrowes * The whole Epistle is worth transcribing But I shall content my selfe with this summary of the advantages which are acquir'd both to policy and Religion by the imployment of Bishops in
reports that Hosius Bishop of Epist. ad Solitar Corduba president in the Nicene Councell said it was the abhomination of delolation that a lay-man should be judge in Ecclesiasticis judicijs in Church-causes And Leontius calls Church-affayres Res Suidas in vitâ Leontij alienas à Laicis things of another Court of a distinct cognisance from the Laity * To these adde the Councell of Venice for it is very considerable in Can. 9. A. D. 453. this Question Clerico nisi ex permissu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium caeperit habere suspectum aut ipsi de proprietate aliquà adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit nata contentio aliorum Episcoporum audientiam NON SAECULARIUM POTESTATUM debebit ambire Alitèr à communione habeatur alienus Clergy-men without delegation from their Bishop may not heare the causes of their servants but the Bishop unlesse the Bishop be appealed from then other Bishops must heare the cause but NO LAY IUDGES by any meanes * These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperour to ratifie by an Imperiall edict for so Novell constit 123. Iustinian commanded that in causes Ecclesiasticall Secular Iudges should have no interest SED SANCTISSIMUS EPISCOPUS SECUNDUM SACRAS REGULAS CAUSAE FINEM IMPONAT The Bishop according to the Sacred Canons must be the sole judge of Church-matters I end this with the decretall of S. Gregory one of the fower Doctors of the Church Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ ne saecularibus viris atque non sub regulâ nostrâ degentibus res Ecclesiasticae lib. 7. epist. 66. committantur Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiasticall be not any waies concredited to secular persons But of this I have twice spoken already § 36. and § 41. The thing is so evident that it is next to impudence to say that in Antiquity Lay-men were parties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church It was against their faith it was against their practice and those few pigmy objections out of * Tertull. Apol. c. 33. S. Ambros. in 1. Tim. 5. 1. lib. 1. de offic c. 20. S. August lib. 3. contra Crescon Epist. 137. Tertullian S. Ambrose and S. Austin using the word Seniores or Elders sometimes for Priests as being the latine for the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for a secular Magistrate or Alderman for I thinke S. Austin did so in his third booke against Cresconius are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not foure for to pretend such slight aëry imaginations against the constant knowne open Catholike practice and doctrine of the Church and history of all ages is as if a man should goe to fright an Imperiall army with a single bulrush They are not worth further considering * But this is That in this Question of lay-Elders the Moderne Aërians and Acephali doe wholly mistake their own advantages For whatsoever they object out of antiquity for the white and watry colours of lay-Elders is either a very misprision of their allegations or else clearly abused in the use of them For now adayes they are only us'd to exclude and drive forth Episcopacy but then they misalledge antiquity for the men with whose Heifers they would faine plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part and he that was not would faine have beene it is knowne so of Tertullian and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of lay-Iudges in Church matters which they never dream'd of yet meant them not so as to exclude Episcopacy and if not then the pretended allegations can doe no service in the present Question I am only to cleare this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood and then it cannot have any colour from any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either divine or humane but that Lay-Iudges of causes Ecclesiasticall as they are unheard of in antiquity so they are neither nam'd in Scripture nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came even the lake of Gebenna and so to the place of the neerest denomination The objection is from S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let the Elders that rule well be 1. Tim. 5. 17. accounted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word doctrine especially they therefore all Elders doe not so Here are two sorts of Elders Preaching Ministers and Elders not Preachers Therefore Lay-Elders and yet all are governours 1. But why therefore Lay-Elders Why may there not be diverse Church-officers and yet but one or two of them the Preacher Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach saith S. Paul and yet the commission of baptizate was as large as praedicate and why then might not another say Christ sent me not to Preach but to Baptize that is in S. Pauls sense not so much to doe one as to doe the other and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptisme and betook himselfe to the ordinary office of Preaching then to be sure some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer and so not the Preacher for if he might be both ordinarily why was not S. Paul both For though their power was common to all of the same order yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to severall gifts and that of Prophecy or Preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure but that some of them might be destin'd to the ordinary execution of other offices and yet because the guift of Prophecy was the greatest so also was the office and therefore the sense of the words is this that all Presbyters must be honour'd but especially they that Prophecy doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministery So no Lay-Elders yet Adde to this that it is also plain that all the Clergy did not Preach Valerius Bishop of Hippo could not well skill in the Latine tongue being a Greek borne and yet a Godly Bishop and S. Austin his Presbyter preach'd for him The same case might occurre in the Apostles times For then was a concurse of all Nations to the Christian Synaxes especially in all great Imperiall Citties and Metropolitans as Rome Antioch Ierusalem Caesarea and the like Now all could not speak with tongues neither could all Prophecy they were particular guifts given severally to severall men appointed to minister in Church-offices Some Prophecyed some interpreted and therefore is is an ignorant fancy to think that he must needs be a Laick whosoever in the ages Apostolicall was not a Preacher 2. None of the Fathers ever expounded this place of Lay-Elders so that we have a traditive interpretation of it in prejudice to the pretence of our new office 3. The word Presbyter is never used in the new Testament for a Lay-man if a Church officer