found in them And it is considerable that the ancient Bishops of Rome owned not nor claimed any such Authority nor was any such given to them by the Primitive Church To this purpose it may be observed from (l) Epiph. Her 42. Epiphanius that when Marcion being excommunicated by his own Father a pious Bishop for his debauchery went to Rome and desired there to be received into Communion he was told there by those Elders yet alive who were the Disciples of the Apostles that they could not receive him without the permission of his Reverend Father there being one Faith and one Concord they could not act contrary to their Fellow Ministers And this was agreeable to the Rules and Canons of the ancient Church whereby it was ordained (m) Can. Ap. 12. that if any excommunicate person should be received in another City whither he should come not having commendatory Letters he who received him should be himself also under excommunication And the novel Romish Notion of all other Bishops so depending on the Roman as to derive their power and authority from him is so contrary to the sense of the ancient Church that (n) Hieron Ep. ad Evagrium S. Hierome declares ubicunque fuerit Episcopus five Romae five Eugubii ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii omnes Apostolorum successores sunt wheresoever there was a Bishop whether at Rome or at Gubio he is of the same worth and the same Priesthood they are all Successors of the Apostles 20. and prejudicial to other Churches and to Religion it self However the Romish Church upon this encroachment and false pretence claims a power to receive appeals from any other Churches And this oft proves a great obstacle to the Government and discipline of those Churches and an heavy and burdensome molestation to particular persons by chargeable tedious and dilatory prosecutions and is a method also of exhausting the treasures of other Churches and Kingdoms to gratifie ambitious avarice But even the (o) c. 6. qu. 3. scitote Canon Law declares the great reasonableness that every Province where there is ten or eleven Cities and a King should have a Metropolitan and other Bishops and that all causes should be judged and determined by them among themselves and that no Province ought to be so much debased and degraded as to be deprived of such a Judicature Indeed the Canon Law doth here for the sake of the Roman See exempt such cases from this judgement where those who are to be judged enter an appeal which is much different from the appeal the ancient Church allowed (p) Conc. Constant c. 6. to a more General Council after the insufficient hearing of a Provincial one But in truth this right of ordering and judging what is fit in every Province is not only the right of that particular Church or Country or Kingdom but where they proceed according to truth and goodness it is the right of God and the Christian Religion which is above all contrary authority of any other and ought not to be violated thereby And appeals from hence (pp) Cod. ean Eccl. Afr. c. 28. The Romanists Schismatical even to Rome were anciently prohibited in Africa 21. And the Schismatical uncharitableness of them at Rome towards other Churches deserves here to be mentioned This widens divisions and discords and perpetuates them by declaring an irreconcileable opposition to peace and truth They excommunicate them as Hereticks who discerning their right and their duty will not submit themselves to their usurpations and embrace their errors and to them they hereupon deny the hopes of Salvation Thus they deal with them who stedfastly hold to the Catholick faith and to all the holy rules of the Christian life and practice delivered by the Apostles and received by the Primitive Church and who also embrace that Catholick charity and Unity that they own Communion with all the true and regular members of the Christian Church and would with as much joy communicate with the Roman Church her self if she would make her Worship and Communion and the terms of it free from sin as the Father in the Gospel embraced his returning Son But this is the crime of such Churches that while they hold fast the Apostolical Faith and Order they reject the novel additional doctrines introduced by the Church of Rome and they submit not to her usurped authority in not doing what in duty to God they ought to do in imbracing the right wayes of truth 22. Their unjust excommunications hurt not others But the excommunicating such persons and Churches doth no hurt to them who undeservedly lie under this unjust censure but the effect of the censure may fall on them who thus excommunicate For they who reject the Communion of them who are true and orderly Members of the Church Catholick do divide themselves from that Communion To this sense is that received rule (q) c. 24. qu. 3. c. si habes c. certum illicita excommunicatio non laedit eum qui notatur sed eum à quo notatur and this was declared by (r) in Balsamon p. 1096. Nicon to be agreeable to the Canons And the excellency and power of the true Catholick Doctrine and the purity thereof is so much to be preferred before the authority of any persons whomsoever who oppose it that that which the ancient Canons (ſ) Conc. Sardic c. 17. established was very fit and just that if any Bishops and consequently any other persons were ejected from their own Churches or suffered any censures unjustly for their adhering to the Catholick Faith and profession they ought still to be received in other Churches and Cities with kindness and love And whereas there were Canons of the Church which allowed not Bishops to reside in other Churches and Dioceses these Fathers at Sardica dispense with that Rule in such a case as this and thereby declare their fense to be That the observation of Canonical establishments must give place where the higher duties of respect to the Christian Faith and Charity were concerned 23. but only themselves When the Scribes and Pharisees condemned the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles for Heresie and cast them who received it out of the Church the Christians were nevertheless the true members of the Church but they who rejected them were not so And when the Donatists would allow none but their own party to belong to the Church they thereby cast themselves out of the Catholick Communion as Schismaticks And when they at Rome so far follow their steps as to confine the Christian Communion to themselves or to a particular Church especially such an one as so greatly swerves from the truth and purity of the Christian Religion Sect. II. this is in effect to deny that Article of our Creed concerning the Holy Catholick Church And since Charity and Vnity are of so great concernment in Christianity on that account also they are none
what ever was written of him brethren is accomplished and is true So far S. Austin there cited and approved So that we see they grounded all along upon the Scriptures and the necessary consequence of his having two wills from his having two Natures And when in this Council was read the Type of Paul Bishop of Constantinople wherein he prohibited all disputes about Christ's having or not having two wills the Council liked his intention to have all contention cease but declared their dislike of his dealing alike with the truth and the error yet they determined that if he could have and had shewed by the approbation of Scripture that both were equally subject to reproof or praise his Type had been well All this considered there is no more in the words cited by this Discourser to prove they made Oral Tradition their Rule than when the Church of England declares her consent with any Confessions of others or any Doctrines of the Fathers and shall say We agree to all there spoken it could be thence concluded that the Church of England hath Oral Tradition for her Rule of Faith SECT III. Of the Council of Sardica and what it owned as the Rule of Faith NExt he produceth the Council of Sardica which is the only Council by him produced within the first six hundred years after Christ Out of the Synodical Epistle of that Council sent to all Bishops he citeth these words We have received this Doctrine we have been taught so we hold this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession Let us consider the place cited more largely This Council declared that the Hereticks contended that there were different and separate Hypostases by which word that Council tells us those Hereticks meant Substances of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost But we have received and been taught this and have this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession that there is one Hypostasis or Substance of the Father Son and Holy Ghost But 1. How did these Fathers receive this They presently add That the Father cannot be named or be without the Son is the testimony of the Son himself saying I am in the Father and the Father in me and again I and my Father are one 2. This Council of Sardica was held not long after the first Council of Nice and received this faith from it and in this Council of Sardica the Catholick Bishops did establish the determination of faith in the Council of Nice Socr. lib. 2. c. 20. And after the end of this Council Hosius and Protogenes the leading men in the Council wrote to Julius Bishop of Rome testifying that all things in the Council of Nice were to be accounted ratified by them which they explained as they saw need Sozom. 3.11 Wherefore that which was the Rule of Faith in that first and famous Council of Nice is likewise owned to be the sufficient Rule by the Council of Sardica especially if this was any way declared by that Nicene Council in the same manner as if now any English Convocation should by publick writing declare their establishing and receiving the Doctrine of the Thirty Nine Articles it must needs be concluded that they own that to be the Rule of Faith which is there declared to be such Concerning the first Council of Nice I shall discourse after enquiry into the second Nicene Council which he next applyes himself to in his Discourse SECT IV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by the second Council of Nice THe last Council he produceth is the second Council of Nice whose Authority if it was indeed on his side yet would it no way tend to determine this Controversie and he cannot but know that Protestants have no great esteem for that Council having these several things rationally to object against it 1. That it was a Council above eight hundred years after Christ not only celebrated in that time when the purity of Primitive Doctrine was much declined but even the matters therein declared concerning the worship of Images were innovations and not agreeable to the more ancient Church 2. That this Council cannot in reason be pretended to declare the general Tradition of the Church Catholick when it is certain that immediately before it a Council of 330 Bishops at Constantinople defined the contrary and the like was presently after it done by a German Council 3. They delivered that as the sense of the Church Catholick which was not such nor will the present Roman Church acknowledge it to be such in Act 5. of that Council when the Book of John of Thessalonica was read wherein it was asserted That the sense of the Catholick Church was that Angels and Souls of men were not wholly incorporeal but had Bodies and therefore were imitabiles picturâ as Binius hath it representable by Pictures Tharasius and the Synod approved of it Yet here Carranza in his Collection of the Councils adds a Note that this is not yet determined by the Church and observes that many of the Fathers asserted the Angels to be wholly incorporeal whom the first Synod of Lateran seems to follow Pamelius puts it among the Paradoxes of Tertullian Parad. 7. which S. Austin condemned to assert the Souls of men to have any effigies and colour and both Pamelius upon Tertul. and Baron ad an 173. n. 31. derive the original of this Opinion from the Montanists 4. It is evidenceable by many instances that they satisfied themselves with very weak proof both from Scriptures and from the Fathers as hath been by several Protestant Writers shewed Yet as bad as this Council was which was bad enough I assert That it was not of this Discoursers judgment that Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith In order to the evidencing of which I shall first examine his citations His first citation is out of Act. 2. We imbued with the precepts of the Fathers have so confessed and do confess Which words I suppose he took out of Carranza where they are curtly delivered for sure had he read them as they are at large in the Council he would never have been so mistaken as to have applied them to Oral Tradition The words more at large are thus spoken by Tharasius Patriarch of Constantinople and approved by the Synod Adrian Primate of old Rome seems to me to have written clearly and truly both to our Emperours and to us and hath declared the ancient Tradition of the Church to be right Wherefore we also searching by the Scriptures by inquiring arguing and demonstrating and also being imbued with the precepts of the Fathers have so confessed and do confess and will confess and do confirm the force of the Letters read So that whatever is here spoken concerning a Rule of Faith must be this that that which upon inquiry may be made appear by Arguments and Demonstrations to be the Doctrine of the Scripture and accords with the ancient Fathers is delivered to us by the Rule of Faith And is this
his tongue It is very suitable also to the occasion on which our Saviour spake these words which was the Pharisees defaming his Miracles and him in working them as if he did them by Beelzebub And therefore this speech hath a particular respect to words of calumny The sad doom of Reproachers hence observed and speaks the heavy doom of such persons as please themselves with speaking evil of others when Christ himself shall come to judge Let every Christian therefore stand in awe of this threatning of our Lord and carefully observe that precept of S. James Jam. 2.12 So speak ye and so do as those that shall be judged by the law of liberty Both our words and actions will be hereafter judged according to that Gospel which passeth a Sentence against reproaching expressions And the Gospel is such a law of liberty that besides other advantages they who will seriously mind their duty may under it and by the grace thereof be set free from the power and rule of their passions and lusts and therefore the serving these under the grace of the Gospel is utterly inexcusable 12. Fourthly 4. A pious government of the tongue is an excellent Christian perfection The good and pious government of the tongue is a very considerable perfection in the practice of Religion For this manifests such a person to have gotten the victory over the passions and disorderly motions of his mind which are apt in others to discover themselves by rash words the tongue being a quick and glib mover and oft forward to express any prevailing irregular discomposure of the Spirit Hence Jam. 3.2 If any man offend not in word the same is a perfect man and able also to bridle the whole body But these words of that Apostle must be so understood as to speak particularly the perfection of him who thus behaves himself upon the true principles of Christianity For it must be acknowledged that passionate and reproachful words may be suppressed in some by the advantage of their natural temper of mildness and courteousness which doth not much encline them to this sin whilst they live in the practice of others In others they may be restrained by the rules of policy and subtilty and a strong resolution in the managing of some design and much may be done in others by mere rational and Philosophical considerations There are many instances among the ancient Philosophers and their followers of such persons as gained a considerable mastery of their passions and a great command of their words and actions Among others Socrates was a rare instance hereof if he came any thing nigh that admirable character that (k) Xenoph. Memor l. 1. p. 710. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Xenophon gives him That no man ever saw Socrates do any action or heard him speak any word that was contrary to Religious piety or unholy This was mighty considerable though we understand it only with respect to the rules of morality admitted under the Pagan Philosophy And it is unbecoming Christians to come short of such examples when their Religion doth so wonderfully go beyond all the principles of Ethnick Philosophy 13. Where this is wanting the Christian spirit hath not had its due effect Christianity tends to bring men into a lively sense of the only true God to a clear knowledge of that excellent revelation delivered by our Saviour it guides unto that universal purity which excludes all the Idolatry and other vices which the most refined Paganism did admit it sheweth obedience to its precepts to be of the highest concernment imaginable from the plainest manifestation of the great account and judgment to come and the future state either of endless glorious perfection or of intolerable torment And it also most expresly manifests the great necessity of well governing the tongue both as to the practice of Religion and the obtaining everlasting happiness and it affords the aids and grace of the Holy Spirit to assist and enable us to the performance of all those duties it injoyns upon us Now this Religion cannot be received in any considerable degree by them who entertain the practice of evil speaking and reproaching which is contrary and opposite to it to the author of it and to the obtaining the good it proposeth to its followers But where the true fear of God and a conscientious regard to all the rules of the Christian life have prevailed for the well-ordering of the tongue it may be expected that they will have a like power and efficacy for the government of the whole man And where this member is disordered it becomes an incendiary and as a pestilential Contagion spreads abroad venome and evil and in S. James's expression it sets on fire the course of nature and it is set on fire of hell who also saith it is a world of iniquity and defileth the whole body Jam. 3.6 And the Great miscarriages of the tongue which in that Chapter are complained of with divers earnest and emphatical expressions appear plainly to be the censuring and speaking evil of others and the promoting and exciting strife and contention CHAP. II. The excessive disorders and unreasonable extravagancy of speaking evil when men give way to their passions and uncharitable temper manifested especially from the Censures our Saviour underwent SECT I. The best deserving persons are oft under obloquy and undeserved Censure Sect. I THese things being premised I shall now come to discourse 1. Of the great disorder of an ill-governed tongue in censuring and reproaching 2. Of the sinfulness of this practice and the great guilt thereof 2. First The tongue is such an unruly evil as S. James calls it Jam. 3.8 that when men indulge themselves in uncharitableness and censoriousness it puts them upon the contriving Censoriousness is unruly and wonderfully extravagant or pursuing the most unaccountable and unreasonable calumnies and slanders Good Hezekiah shall fall under the lavish revilings of a Rabshakeh and his reformation excellently and piously performed will be condemned as impious And Christianity it self was made a matter of reproach by Saul whilst he was a blasphemer a persecuter and injurious and by many others who professed themselves enemies unto it and the Christians in general were spoken of as evil doers 1 Pet. 2.12 But we cannot better discern how ungovernable and extravagant the censorious and uncharitable tongue is than by considering the instances of our blessed Saviour and other excellent men Even the Holy Jesus when he conversed upon Earth escaped not the sharp and bitter reproaches of reviling tongues though he deserved no censure nor gave any just occasion for any The persons considered who bear reproach And therefore what he and other good men met with will abundantly manifest the strange unruliness of a defaming temper which is contained under no bounds and limits of truth justice or charity 3. This may especially appear by our enquiring into three things 1. What the great excellencies were
do we disallow to others the grounds our selves proceed upon for we allow to all and commend in all their practice upon clear and well grounded Scripture-evidence but we neither allow our selves nor others to practise upon ungrounded pretences of Scripture being on our side The Third pretended contradiction is To pretend first the Scriptures Letter clear of it self without needing the Church to interpret it and afterwards to judge the followers of it to their best power to go wrong that is to confess it obscure and to need their new Church's interpretation But Protestants do assert that in all necessary Doctrines the evidence of Scripture is so clear that it needs no interpretation nor can they be denied but by preferring interest passion or some other sond conceptions above evidence and this is to forsake Scripture but in many other things they who do not discern the evidence of Scripture may err though they follow it to their best power but notwithstanding this Scripture is sufficiently clear in the evidence it gives of all Divine revealed truth to them who do discern its evidence though men be confessed to be men and many of them not capable of full understanding many truths His Fourth contradiction charged on Hereticks but designed for Protestants is that they persecute others for taking that way which they held at least pretended meritorious in themselves in which charge as the thing intended is palpably false concerning Protestants so the language he useth agreeth not to them The Fifth pretended contradiction is to oblige others to relinquish the sole guidance of Scriptures Letter and to rule themselves by their Tradition and at the same time against Catholicks to impugn Tradition as unfit to sense it and abet only the self-sufficiency of Scriptures Letter The former clause here charged on Protestants is no way their practice for though in matters prudential they require inferiours to be ruled by the commands of their Superiours which both Scripture and the Government of all Societies in the World require yet in matters of Faith they require that men receive them only from Scripture as the Rule of Faith or the main ground of belief Nor are any Protestants in any case commanded to relinquish Scripture as a Rule of Faith and to rule themselves by Tradition more than if in a Corporation a member who cannot read hath his duty read to him by another out of the Charter or told him in words with great care collected out of the Charter to express its sense this should be called a commanding this man as a member of this Society to relinquish the sole guidance of the Charter as his Rule and to be ruled by others Tradition when he follows the Charter by the best evidence he hath concerning it and relies not on a delivery of continued hearsaies report and fame which is a way suitable to the Romish Oral Tradition As to the latter part of this pretended Contradiction which concerns the impugning Tradition as unfit to sense Scripture if this be understood of the present way of Romish Oral Tradition this indeed we do so impugn But if this be understood of the Ancient and Primitive Tradition Protestants do acknowledge this so far as it can be manifested to be general to be very fit to sense such Scriptures as are otherwise difficult and obscure and so far as we have any intimations of such Traditions by the Ancient Fathers we own them useful The last pretended contradiction is To impute that carriage as a fault to our Romish Church which themselves practice and which is most material our Church punishes none but those who desert our Rule but they punish for too close following their Rule All the clauses of this charge are guilty of deserting the Rule of Truth For Protestants who fault this Traditionary way do not practise this Tradition as hath been above shewed nor do Protestants punish any for following Scripture too close as hath been evidenced The middle clause is likewise untrue for if he mean that the Romish Church never punisheth any who pretend to hold to the Tradition they received according to the best of their knowledge how came it to pass that Victor excommunicated all the Asian Churches for not keeping Easter the same day with the Roman Church though these Asian Churches pleaded a certain Tradition not only from their famous Bishops but from Philip the Deacon and his Daughters which were Prophetesses and from S. John the Apostle and Evangelist Eus Hist Eccl. 5. c. 24. Yea how came Mr. White to be censured at Rome who thought he defended the Rule of Tradition yea how came Monsieur Arnold to be so troubled by the Jesuits in France even for the using those words which he received from S. Austin a famous and approved Father But if he only mean that the Church of Rome punisheth none but such as swerve some way from the Traditions she delivers this if true in it self is nothing that can truly be called most material it being neither pertinent to his charge against Protestants nor considerable in it self since it only speaks the Church of Rome commendable in not punishing those who believe every thing it saies and practise every thing it commands and was there ever any Society in the World that in this thing was not as commendable as the Church of Rome But when he here tells us their Church punisheth none but those who desert the Rule she recommends surely he much forgat himself § 5. where speaking of Hereticks he saith that the deserters of the natural way of Tradition have been but few and the Descendents of these Revolters followed Tradition for either he must say that their Church punisheth no Descendents of Revolters as he calls them that is allows all Heresies in any but the first Authours of them or else must acknowledge that it punisheth them whom himself accounts and there as he thinks proves that they are not deserters of Tradition § 4. He asks What can follow hence but that Subjects whom common sense cannot but make exceeding sensible of such unreasonable carriage in persecuting them purely for following Gods word which themselves had taught them they ought in conscience to follow should strive to wreak their malice against their Persecutors and to involve whole Nations in War and Blood but he after adds he intends not a justification of those revolting Sects But it cannot be that common sense nor any rational evidence should teach Subjects under Protestant Princes that they are persecuted purely for following Gods Word since there is no such thing in truth they can no otherwise think it is so but by evident mistakes or by such deluding perswasions as this Authour would deceive them with And indeed such pernicious incentives as these of this Discourser may possibly if they meet with fiery and malicious spirits inflame them into a Rebellion and withal shew what Principles may be instilled by pretenders to Tradition But such is the peaceableness
be sensed Truly if he be a man of reason he will easily see that when the Fathers urge Scriptures as manifestly declaring the truth against their opposers who as yet disown the sense or to Doubters who do not yet own it fully they must needs mean the Scriptures without any sense imposed upon them otherwise than as the words will of themselves discover the sense of him who wrote them For this would be a weak way to dispute from Scriptures as the Fathers generally did with them who owned them if they should say we will evidence it from Scriptures but you must then first suppose them to mean as we mean By this means the Scripture can give no evidence or light to any truth in question which is contrary to the whole current of our citations from the Fathers The third Note is That it is frequent with the Fathers to force Hereticks to accept the sense of Scripture from those who gave them the Letter of Scripture and frequent to sense the Letter even when dark by Tradition but never to bend Tradition to the outward shew of the Letter As to the first clause of urging upon Hereticks the sense which they own from whom they received the Letter The Fathers never urged this but in some special case when Hereticks such as Valentinian and some others who could scarce be called receivers of the Scripture-Letter disowned the known and common significations of words in Scriptures and introduced wonderful strange ones Here to preserve the Faithful confirm the Doubtful and reduce the wandring they urged the Churches Authority or Ecclesiastical Tradition of Doctrines and common delivery of significations of words as more considerable than such sensibly monstrous innovations yet this was in things where to men unprejudiced and willing to receive truth they would appear plainly from the very words of Scripture And this is consistent if there were the like cause with the Principles of Protestants as with any others In other cases the Fathers urged against the Hereticks evident arguments from the light of Scripture-Letter Nor did they sense Scripture by Tradition in hard Texts of Scripture otherwise than Protestants will do that is where any assertion is known to be a point of Faith and surely grounded upon Scripture neither they nor we will so interpret any dark Scripture as to oppose such a point of Faith and in many other things will allow Tradition its degree of authority But that they never bent Tradition to Scriptures Letter is very untrue When any truly Catholick Doctrine held by the Church was questioned or impugned was not Tradition bent to Scriptures Letter when they applyed themselves to it to declare and manifest such Doctrine Which was the general practice of the Ancients as hath been shewed But would they ever so bend Tradition to Scripture as to close with Scripture in rejecting Tradition If that which is delivered by Catholick Bishops be a Tradition S. Austin de Vnitate Eccles c. 10. sayes We must not consent with Catholick Bishops if they think any thing against the Scriptures of God But did ever any of the Ancient Fathers say that we must not agree with Scripture if it speaks against what the Bishops who are called Catholick do deliver His last Note is a very vain and empty one That they cannot hold Scripture thus interpretable the Rule of Faith because most Hereticks against whom they wrote held it theirs and therefore could not be Hereticks since they held the Rule But first those Hereticks who pretended to own Scripture who were not the most did not perfectly hold the same Rule with Catholicks who held to Scripture as their Rule The Catholicks Rule is Scripture as the words will naturally hold forth the true and genuine sense but the Rule of Hereticks who pretended to Scripture is Scripture as the words are wilfully perverted contrary to their natural and plain sense and meaning But again why may not they be Hereticks who profess to hold the Rule of Faith if they take no heed to be guided by that Rule and reject Doctrines declared by it cannot reason be a Rule in Philosophy because two parties both pretend to reason I have now dismissed his testimonies In the last place he undertakes to shew That the Council of Trent and the present Church of Rome own this way of Oral and Practical Tradition Now though I could shew that in the present Church of Rome where this Author pretends so great a clearness of Tradition they are not yet agreed upon the first principle of Traditionary Doctrine Yet since I have enough shewed the dissent of this his opinion from the truth and the Ancient Church and therefore if they all were of this Authors opinion it will neither make any thing for their own Doctrine nor against the Protestants I will for my part let him injoy the fruit of his labours in this particular fearing most that Papists will indeavour in this point to deal with Protestants as we above observed that the Arians did with the ancient Catholicks that is like Chamaelions change their shape and when they were confuted in one way they opposed the truth in another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SERMONS PREACHED UPON Several Occasions BY WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. A SERMON Preached at Lyn-St Margaret's at the Bishop's VISITATION Octob. 15. 1677. 2 COR. 5.18 And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation THAT the Christian Religion is of mighty Efficacy for the reforming the World is not only evinced from the Nature of the Doctrine it self but from that visible Difference which appeared between the Lives of the true Primitive Christians and other Men insomuch that Eusebius tells us Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 13. gr that Christianity became greatly fam'd every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Purity of Life in them who embraced it But as no sick Man can rationally expect any Relief against his Distemper by the Directions of the best Physicians unless he will observe them So it is not to be wondred if many who own the Name of Christianity without sincere submission thereto have Lives unsuitable to this Profession Hence some of them practise open Viciousness Looseness and Debauchery and others embrace Pride Uncharitableness and Disobedience all which are diametrically opposite to the Spirit of Christ Hence also many who pretend an high respect to the Holy Jesus do slight his peculiar Institution◠undervaluing the Use even of that Prayer which our Lord composed and enjoined the Communion of that Catholick Church which he founded and built upon a Rock the Attendance upon that Holy Sacrament which he appointed the Night he was betrayed and the Reverence for that Ministry which he hath established in his Church and the Benefit of which these Words in part declare in that God hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation In which Words I shall consider I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry in general without respect to the distinction of its
Preach the Gospel to every Creature So that this was not a singular Authority committed to St. Peter but he was first made choice of to have a right understanding of the extent of his Commission And it is not to be doubted but that Authority which did belong to all the Apostles of leading Men to the Church receiving them into it governing them in it and excluding them from it doth contain the chief part of the power of the Keys 3. To us not only to the Apostles but even to other Officers of the Church as Bishops and Priests or Presbyters is given this Ministry of Reconciliation for if we consider the nature of this Office the Ministry of Reconciliation or which is all one the Ministry of the Gospel must not cease till the end of it in the Salvation of Men be accomplished And our Saviour both promiseth his Presence and Authority to be with his Ministry unto the end of the World and establisheth them in his Church till we all come in the Unity of the Faith Mat. 28.20 Eph. 4.14 and Knowledg of the Son of God unto a perfect Man And we may further observe That in writing this second Epistle to the Corinthians it is manifest from the Inscription thereof that Timothy therein joined with S. Paul Now though he was no Apostle nor a Companion of St. Paul till after the Council of Jerusalem as appears from the History of the Acts yet he here as well as St. Paul hath a share in the Ministry of Reconciliation That Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus is generally declared by the Ancient Writers Eusebius attesteth it Eus Hist l. 3. c. 4. and besides others this was expressed by Leontius in the great Council of Chalcedon Conc. Chalc. Action 11. there being then preserved an exact Record and Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church And though Learned Men herein disagree and there is manifest difficulty in fixing the Chronology it is greatly probable from comparing the Epistles to Timothy with the History of the Acts that he was not yet made Bishop of Ephesus when this Epistle to the Corinthians was written And this might then give some fair probability from the instance of Timothy that that Order of Priest or Presbyter as distinct from a Bishop was of an Apostolical and therefore a Divine Original But because several difficulties too large to be here discussed must be obviated for the clearing this particular I shall rather fix upon another Consideration which may be sufficient to perswade the same It is very evident from the History of the Acts and some expressions in the Epistles that for several years after the famous Church of Ephesus was founded by St. Paul Timothy the first Bishop there was usually with St. Paul in his Journeys or by his Command in other places Now it may be acknowledged that the chief Government and power of Censure in several Churches was for some time reserved in the hands of the Apostles themselves though at a distance as is evident from the Epistles to the Corinthians it was concerning the Church of Corinth But he who shall think that in all this time they had no Church-Officer fixed amongst them in that great Church of Ephesus to administer the Holy Communion and celebrate other needful Ministerial Performances must account the Apostles to have had no great care of the Churches they planted nor the Churches to have had any great zeal for the Religion they embraced which no Man can judg who hath any knowledg of the Spirit of that Primitive Christianity But if they had in the Church of Ephesus other fixed Officers distinct from the Bishop to celebrate the Holy Communion and other necessary acts of ordinary Ministration then must the Order of Presbyters be of as early original in the Church as the History of the Acts and then the ordaining Elders in every Church must take in those who are distinctly called Priests or Presbyters To this I add that the Office of Presbyter includeth an Authority to tender in God's Name remission of Sins and as from him to exhibit to his Church the Sacramental Symbols of his Grace and upon that account no such Office could ever have its Original from any lower than Apostolical and Divine Authority 4. To us in different Ranks and Orders in the Church not in a parity and equality Here is S. Paul an Apostle and Timothy in an Order inferiour to him When Christ was upon Earth he appointed the Apostles and the Seventy and when he Ascended he gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers And though most of these were Officers by an extraordinary Commission which are ceased yet when Timothy was fixed at Ephesus where there then were Presbyters as I have shewed the chief power of Government and the care of Ordination was intrusted in his hands singly as is manifest and hath been oft observed from the Epistles to Timothy The like appears concerning Titus as also that the chief care of the Churches of Asia was in the hands of the Angels of those Churches If we consult the Ancient state of the Church this chief Government in a single Person or Bishop in those ancient times took place as far as Christianity it self reached Besides what may be said from particular Writers 1 Can. Ap. 2. Can. Nic. 19. the first General Council of Nice and the more ancient Code called the Canons of the Apostles do both of them not only frequently mention as distinct Offices the Bishop Presbyter and Deacon but also express this distinction between Bishop and Presbyter 1. 2 Can. Ap. 1. Can Nic. 4. 3 Can. Ap. 15 31 32 38. Conc. Nic. c. â— That the peculiar power of Ordaining doth reside in the Bishop 2. That he receiveth his Episcopal Office by a special Ordination thereto 3. That he hath a particular power of governing and censuring the Laiety and other Clergy And he who shall consider that many things in the Scripture may receive considerable Light from understanding the custom of the Jews and even of the Gentiles must needs acknowledg that an account of the practice and customs of the Christian Church may lead us to the true sense of those expressions of Scripture which have relation thereto especially since no Man without this help can give a satisfactory account of the distinct work and business of those ordinary Church-Officers which are particularly mentioned in Scripture Wherefore I doubt not but according to the Scripture and the Universal practice of the ancient Church throughout the World the power of the Keys and of remitting and retaining Sins which takes in the whole Office of the Ministry is in some eminent parts of it wholly reserved to Bishops while other parts thereof are dispensed by Priests and some by Deacons Ignat. ad Smyr Tert. de Bapt. c. 17. yet so that these ever acted with submission to the Bishop as is asserted by Ignatius and Tertullian