Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
truth_n apostle_n church_n succession_n 1,709 5 10.1649 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A64135 Treatises of 1. The liberty of prophesying, 2. Prayer ex tempore, 3. Episcopacie : together with a sermon preached at Oxon. on the anniversary of the 5 of November / by Ier. Taylor. Taylor, Jeremy, 1613-1667. 1648 (1648) Wing T403; ESTC R24600 539,220 854

There are 14 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

temporall felicities and this thing proceeding from so great an Authority as the testimony of Papias drew after it all or most of the Christians in the first three hundred years For besides that the Millenary opinion is expresly taught by Papias Justin Martyr Irenaus Origen Lactantius Severus Victorinus Apollinaris Nepos and divers others famous in their time Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Tryphon sayes it was the beliefe of all Christians exactly Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet there was no such Tradition but a mistake in Papias but I find it nowhere spoke against till Dionysins of Alexandria confuted Nepo's Book and converted Coracion the Egyptian from the opinion Now if a Tradition whose beginning of being called so began with a Scholar of the Apostles for so was Papias and then continued for some Ages upon the meer Authority of so famous a man did yet deceive the Church much more fallible is the pretence when two or three hundred years after it but commences and then by some learned man is first called a Tradition Apostolicall And so it hapned in the case of the Arrian heresy which the Nicene Fathers did confute by objecting a contrary Tradition Apostolicall as Theodoret reports Lib. 1. hist. c. 8. and yet if they had not had better Arguments from Scripture then from Tradition they would have faild much in so good a cause for this very pretence the Arrians themselves made and desired to be tryed by the Fathers of the first three hundred years which was a confutation sufficient to them who pretended Vide Peta● in Epiph. her 69. a clear Tradition because it was unimaginable that the Tradition should leap so as not to come from the first to the last by the middle But that this tryall was sometime declined by that excellent man S. Athanasius although at other times confidently and truly pretended it was an Argument the Tradition was not so * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matt. di●l ad Tryph. Iud. clear but both sides might with some fairnesse pretend to it And therefore one of the prime Founders of their heresy the Heretick † Euse. l. 5. c. ult Artemon having observed the advantage might be taken by any Sect that would pretend Tradition because the medium was plausible and consisting of so many particulars that it was hard to be redargued pretended a Tradition from the Apostles that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Tradition did descend by a constant succession in the Church of Rome to Pope Victors time inclusively and till Zepherinus had interrupted the series and corrupted the Doctrine which pretence if it had not had some appearance of truth so as possibly to abuse the Church had not been worthy of confutation which yet was with care undertaken by an old Writer out of whom Eusebius transcribes a large passage to reprove the vanity of the pretender But I observe from hence that it was usuall to pretend to Tradition and that it was easier pretended then confuted and I doubt not but oftner done then discovered A great Question arose in Africa concerning the Baptism of Hereticks whether it were valid or no. S. Cyprian and his party appealed to Scripture Stephen Bishop of Rome and his party would be judged by custome and Tradition Ecclesiasticall See how much the nearer the Question was to a determination either that probation was not accounted by S. Cyprian and the Bishops both of Asia and Africk to be a good Argument and sufficient to determine them or there was no certain Tradition against them for unlesse one of these two doe it nothing could excuse them from opposing a known truth unlesse peradventure S. Cyprian Firmilian the Bishops of Galatia Cappadocia and almost two parts of the World were ignorant of such a Tradition for they knew of none such and some of them expresly denyed it And the sixth generall Synod approves of the Canon made in the Councell of Carthage under Cyprian upon this very ground because in praedictorum praesulum locis solum secundum Can. 2. traditam eis consuetudinem servatus est they had a particular Tradition for Rebaptization and therefore there could be no Tradition Universall against it or if there were they knew not of it but much for the contrary and then it would be remembred that a conceal'd Tradition was like a silent Thunder or a Law not promulgated it neither was known nor was obligatory And I shall observe this too that this very Tradition was so obscure and was so obscurely delivered silently proclaimed that S. Austin who disputed against the Donatists upon this very Question was not able to prove it but L. 5. de baptism contr Donat. c. 23. by a consequence which he thought probale and credible as appears in his discourse against the Donatists The Apostles saith S. Austin prescrib'd nothing in this particular But this custome which is contrary to Cyprian ought to be believed to have come from their Tradition as many other things which the Catholike Church observes That 's all the ground and all the reason nay the Church did waver concerning that Question and before the decision of a Councell Cyprian and others might dissent without breach of charity It was plain then there was no clear Tradition Lib. 1. de baptism c. 18. in the Question possibly there might be a custome in some Churches postnate to the times of the Apostles but nothing that was obligatory no Tradition Apostolicall But this was a suppletory device ready at hand when ever they needed it and De peccat original l. 2. c. 40. contra Pelagi Caelest S. Austin confuted the Pelagians in the Question of Originall sinne by the custome of exorcisme and insufflation which S. Austin said came from the Apostles by Tradition which yet was then and is now so impossible to be prov'd that he that shall affirm it shall gaine only the reputation of a bold man and a confident 2. I consider if the report of Traditions in the Primitive Numb 4. times so neare the Ages Apostolicall was so uncertain that they were fain to aym at them by conjectures and grope as in the dark the uncertainty is much encreased since because there are many famous Writers whose works are lost which yet if they had continued they might have been good records to us as Clemens Romanus Egesippus Nepos Coracion Dionysius Areopagite of Alexandria of Corinth Firmilian and many more And since we see pretences have been made without reason in those Ages where they might better have been confuted then now they can it is greater prudence to suspect any later pretences since so many Sects have been so many warres so many corruptions in Authors so many Authors lost so much ignorance hath intervened and so many interests have been served that now the rule is to be altered and whereas it was of old time credible that that was Apostolicall whose beginning they
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
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
wise and good man and yet how others began even then to be abused by that temptation which since hath invaded all Christendome S. Cyprian re baptized Hereticks and thought he was bound so to doe calls a Synod in Africk as being Metropolitan and confirms his opinion by the consent of his Suffragans and Brethren but still with so much modesty that if any man was of another opinion he judg'd him not but gave him that liberty that he desired himself Stephen Bishop of Rome growes angry Excommunicates the Bishops of Asia and Africa that in divers Synods had consented to rebaptization and without peace and without charity condemns them for Hereticks Indeed here was the rarest mixture and conjunction of unlikelihoods that I have observed Here was errour of opinion with much modesty and sweetnesse of temper on one side and on the other an over-active and impetuous zeal to attest a truth it uses not to be so for errour usually is supported with confidence and truth suppressed and discountenanc'd by indifferency But that it might appear that the errour was not the sinne but the uncharitablenesse Stephan was accounted a zealous and furious person and S. * Vid. S. Aug. l. 2. c. 6. de baptis contra Donat. Cyprian though deceiv'd yet a very good man and of great sanctity For although every errour is to be opposed yet according to the variety of errours so is there variety of proceedings If it be against Faith that is a destruction of any part of the foundation it is with zeal to be resisted and we have for it an Apostolicall warrant contend earnestly for the Faith but then as these things recede farther from the foundation our certainty is the lesse and their necessity not so much and therefore it were very fit that our confidence should be according to our evidence and our zeal according to our confidence and our confidence should then be the Rule of our Communion and the lightnesse of an Article should be considered with the weight of a precept of charity And therefore there are some errours to be reproved rather by a private friend then a publike censure and the persons of the men not avoided but admonished and their Doctrine rejected not their Communion few opinions are of that malignity which are to be rejected with the same exterminating spirit and confidence of aversation with which the first Teachers of Christianity condemn'd Ebion Manes and Cerinthus and in the condemnation of Hereticks the personall iniquity is more considerable then the obliquity of the doctrine not for the rejection of the Article but for censuring the persons and therefore it is the piety of the man that excused S. Cyprian which is a certain Argument that it is not the opinion but the impiety that condemns and makes the Heretick And this was it which Vincentius Lirinensis Adv. haeres c. 11. said in this very case of S. Cyprian Vnius ejusdem opinionis mirum videri potest judicamus authores Catholicos sequaces haereticos Excusamus Magistros condemnamus Scholasticos Qui scripserunt libros sunt haeredes Coeli quorum librorum defensores detruduntur ad infernum Which saying if we confront against the saying of Salvian condemning the first Authors of the Arrian Sect and acquitting the Followers we are taught by these two wise men that an errour is not it that sends a man to Hell but he that begins the heresy and is the authour of the Sect he is the man mark'd out to ruine and his Followers scap'd when the Here siarch commenc'd the errour upon pride and ambition and his Followers went after him in simplicity of their heart and so it was most commonly but on the contrary when the first man in the opinion was honestly and invincibly deceived as S. Cyprian was and that his Scholars to maintaine their credit or their ends maintaind the opinion not for the excellency of the reason perswading but for the benefit and accruments or peevishnesse as did the Donatisis qui de Cypriani authoritate fibi carnaliter blandiuntur as S. Austin said of them then the Scholars are the Hereticks and the Master is a Catholike For his errour is not the heresy formally and an erring person may be a Catholike A wicked person in his errour becomes heretick when the good man in the same errour shall have all the rewards of Faith For whatever an ill man believes if he therefore believe it because it serves his own ends be his belief true or false the man hath an hereticall minde for to serve his own ends his minde is prepared to believe a lie But a good man that believes what according to his light and upon the use of his morall industry he thinks true whether he hits upon the right or no because he hath a minde desirous of truth and prepared to believe every truth is therefore acceptable to God because nothing hindred him from it but what hee could not help his misery and his weaknesse which being imperfections meerly naturall which God never punishes he stands faire for a blessing of his morality which God alwayes accepts So that now if Stephen had followed the example of God Almighty or retained but the same peaceable spirit which his Brother of Cathage did he might with more advantage to truth and reputation both of wisdome and piety have done his duty in attesting what he believ'd to be true for we are as much bound to be zealous pursuers of peace as earnest contenders for the Faith I am sure more earnest we ought to be for the peace of the Church then for an Article which is not of the Faith as this Question of re-baptization was not for S. Cyprian died in beliefe against it and yet was a Catholike and a Martyr for the Christian Faith The summe is this S. Cyprian did right in a wrong cause as Numb 23. it hath been since judged and Stephen did ill in a good cause as fame then as piety and charity is to be preferr'd before a true opinion so farre is S. Cyprian's practise a better precedent for us and an example of primitive sanctity then the zeale and indiscretion of Stephen S. Cyprian had not learn'd to forbid to any one a liberty of prophesying or interpretation if hee transgressed not the foundation of Faith and the Creed of the Apostles Well thus it was and thus it ought to be in the first Ages Numb 23. the Faith of Christendome rested still upon the same foundation and the judgements of heresies were accordingly or were amisie but the first great violation of this truth was when Generall Councels came in and the Symbols were enlarged and new Articles were made as much of necessity to be believed as the Creed of the Apostles and damnation threatned to them that did diffent and at last the Creeds multiplyed in number and in Articles and the liberty of prophesying began to be something restrained And this was of so
all their Decrees into the Creed as some have done since to what a volume had the Creed by this time swell'd and all the house had run into foundation nothing left for super-structures But that they did not it appeares that since they thought all their Decrees true yet they did not think them all necessary at least not in that degree and that they published such Decrees they did it declarando not imperando as Doctors in their Chaires not masters of other mens faith and consciences And yet there is some more modesty or warinesse or necessity what shall I call it then this comes too for why are not all controversies determin'd but even when Generall Assemblies of Prelates have been some controversies that have been very vexatious have been pretermitted and others of lesse consequence have been determind Why did never any Generall Councell condemn in expresse sentence the Pelagian heresy that great pest that subtle infection of Cristendome and yet divers Generall Councells did assemble while the heresy was in the world Both these cases in severall degrees leave men in their liberty of believing and prophesying The latter proclaimes that all controversies cannot be determind to sufficient purposes and the first declares that those that are are not all of them matters of Faith and themselves are not so secure but they may bee deceived and therefore possibly it were better it were let alone for if the latter leaves them divided in their opinions yet their Communions and therefore probably their charities are not divided but the former divides their Communions and hinders their interest and yet for ought is certain the accused person is the better Catholike And yet after all this it is not safety enough to say let the Councell or Prelates determine Articles warily seldome with great caution and with much sweetnesse and modesty For though this be better then to doe it rashly frequently and furiously yet if we once transgresse the bounds set us by the Apostles in their Creed and not onely preach other truths but determine them pro tribunali as well as pro cathedra although there be no errour in the subject matter as in Nice there was none yet if the next Ages say they will determine another Article with as much care and caution and pretend as great a necessity there is no hindring them but by giving reasons against it and so like enough they might have done against the decreeing the Article at Nice yet that is not sufficient for since the Authority of the Nicene Councell hath grown to the heigth of a mountainous prejudice against him that should say it was ill done the same reason and the same necessity may be pretended by any Age and in any Councell and they think themselves warranted by the great precedent at Nice to proceed as peremptorily as they did but then if any other Assembly of learned men may possibly be deceiv'd were it not better they should spare the labour then that they should with so great pomp and solennities engage mens perswasions and determine an Article which after Ages must rescind for therefore most certainly in their own Age the point with safety of faith and salvation might have been disputed and disbelieved And that many mens faiths have been tyed up by Acts and Decrees of Councels for those Articles in which the next Age did see a liberty had better beene preserved because an errour was determined wee shall afterward receive a more certaine account And therefore the Councell of Nice did well and Constantinople did well so did Ephesus and Chalcedon but it is Numb 32. because the Articles were truly determin'd for that is part of my beliefe but who is sure it should be so before hand and whether the points there determin'd were necessary or no to be believ'd or to be determin'd if peace had been concern'd in it through the faction and division of the parties I suppose the judgement of Constantine the Emperour and the famous Hosius of Corduba is sufficient to instruct us whose authority I rather urge then reasons because it is a prejudice and not a reason I am to contend against So that such determinations and publishing of Confessions with Authority of Prince and Bishop are sometimes of very Numb 33. good use for the peace of the Church and they are good also to determine the judgement of indifferent persons whose reasons of either side are not too great to weigh down the probability of that Authority But for persons of confident and imperious understandings they on whose side the determination is are armed with a prejudice against the other and with a weapon to affront them but with no more to convince them and they against whom the decision is doe the more readily betake themselves to the defensive and are engaged upon contestation and publike enmities for such Articles which either might safely have been unknown or with much charity disputed Therefore the Nicene Councell although it have the advantage of an acquir'd and prescribing Authority yet it must not become a precedent to others least the inconveniences of multiplying more Articles upon as great pretence of reason as then make the act of the Nicene Fathers in straightning Prophesying and enlarging the Creed become accidentally an inconvenience The first restraint although if it had been complaind of might possibly have been better consider'd of yet the inconvenience is not visible till it comes by way of precedent to usher in more It is like an Arbitrary power which although by the same reason it take six pence from the subject it may take a hundred pound and then a thousand and then all yet so long as it is within the first bounds the inconvenience is not so great but when it comes to be a precedent or argument for more then the first may justly be complaind of as having in it that reason in the principle which brought the inconvenience in the sequell and we have seen very ill consequents from innocent beginnings And the inconveniences which might possibly arise from Numb 34. this precedent those wise Personages also did fore-see and therefore although they took liberty in Nice to adde some Articles or at least more explicitely to declare the first Creed yet they then would have all the world to rest upon that and goe no farther as believing that to be sufficient S. Athanasius declares their opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist ad Epict. That Faith which those Fathers there confessed was sufficient for the refutation of all impiety and the establishment of all Faith in Christ and true Religion And therefore there was a famous Epistle written by Zeno the Emperour called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euagr. l. 3. c. 14. or the Epistle of reconciliation in which all disagreeing interests are entreated to agree in the Nicene Symbol and a promise made upon that condition to communicate with all other Sects adding withall that the Church should
life for in matters speculative as all determinations are fallible so scarce any of them are to purpose nor ever able to make compensation of either side either for the publike fraction or the particular injustice if it should so happen in the censure But then as the Church may proceed thus far yet no Christian man or Community of men may proceed farther For if they Numb 2. be deceived in their judgement and censure and yet have passed onely spirituall censures they are totally ineffectuall and come to nothing there is no effect remaining upon the soule and such censures are not to meddle with the body so much as indirectly But if any other judgement passe upon persons erring such judgements whose effects remaine if the person be unjustly censured nothing will answer and make compensation for such injuries If a person be excommunicate unjustly it will doe him no hurt but if he be killed or dismembred unjustly that censure and infliction is not made ineffectuall by his innocence he is certainly kill'd and dismembred So that as the Churches authority in such cases so restrained and made prudent cautelous and orderly is just and competent so the proceeding is reasonable it is provident for the publike and the inconveniences that may fall upon particulars so little as that the publique benefit makes ample compensation so long as the proceeding is but spirituall This discourse is in the case of such opinions which by the former rules are formall heresies and upon practicall inconveniences Numb 3. But for matters of question which have not in them an enmity to the publique tranquillity as the Republique hath nothing to doe upon the ground of all the former discourses so if the Church meddles with them where they doe not derive into ill life either in the person or in the consequent or else are destructions of the foundation of Religion which is all one for that those fundamentall articles are of greatest necessity in order to a vertuous and godly life which is wholly built upon them and therefore are principally necessary If she meddles further otherwise then by preaching and conferring and exhortation she becomes tyrannicall in her government makes her selfe an immediate judge of consciences and perswasions lords it over their faith destroyes unity and charity and as if he that dogmatizes the opinion becomes criminall if he troubles the Church with an immodest peevish and pertinacious proposall of his article not simply necessary so the Church does not doe her duty if she so condemnes it pro tribunali as to enjoyne him and all her subjects to beleeve the contrary And as there may be pertinacy in doctrine so there may be pertinacy in judging and both are faults The peace of the Church and the unity of her doctrine is best conserved when it is judged by the proportion it hath to that rule of unity which the Apostles gave that is the Creed for Articles of meer beliefe and the precepts of Jesus Christ and the practicall rules of piety which are most plaine and easie and without controversie set downe in the Gospels and Writings of the Apostles But to multiply articles and adopt them into the family of the faith and to require assent to such articles which as S. Pauls phrase is are of doubtfull disputation equall to that assent wee give to matters of faith is to build a Tower upon the top of a Bulrush and the further the effect of such proceedings does extend the worse they are the very making such a Law is unreasonable the inflicting spirituall censures upon them that cannot doe so much violence to their understanding as to obey it is unjust and ineffectuall but to punish the person with death or with corporall infliction indeed it is effectuall but it is therefore tyrannicall We have seen what the Church may doe towards restraining false or differing opinions next I shall consider by way of Corollarie what the Prince may doe as for his interest and onely in securing his people and serving the ends of true Religion SECT XVI Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give toleration to severall Religions FOr upon these very grounds we may easily give account of Numb 1. that great question Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give toleration to severall Religions For first it is a great fault that men will call the severall sects of Christians by the names of severall Religions The Religion of JESUS CHRIST is the forme of sound doctrine and wholsome words which is set downe in Scripture indefinitely actually conveyed to us by plaine places and separated as for the question of necessary or not necessary by the Symbol of the Apostles Those impertinencies which the wantonness and vanity of men hath commenced which their interests have promoted which serve not truth so much as their own ends are farre from being distinct Religions for matters of opinion are no parts of the worship of God nor in order to it but as they promote obedience to his Commandments and when they contribute towards it are in that proportion as they contribute parts and actions and minute particulars of that Religion to whose end they doe or pretend to serve And such are all the sects and all the pretences of Christians but pieces and minutes of Christianity if they doe serve the great end as every man for his owne sect and interest beleeves for his share it does 2. Tolleration hath a double sense or purpose for sometimes by it men understand a publick licence and exercise of a sect Sometimes it is onely an indemnity of the persons privately to convene and to opine as they see cause and as they meane to answer to God Both these are very much to the same purpose unlesse some persons whom we are bound to satisfie be scandaliz'd and then the Prince is bound to doe as he is bound to satisfie To God it is all one For abstracting from the offence of persons which is to be considered just as our obligation is to content the persons it is all one whether we indulge to them to meet publikely or privately to do actions of Religion concerning which we are not perswaded that they are truely holy To God it is just one to be in the dark and in the light the thing is the same onely the Circumstance of publick and private is different which cannot be concerned in any thing nor can it concerne any thing but the matter of Scandall and relation to the minds and fantasies of certaine persons 3. So that to tolerate is not to persecute And the question Numb 3. whether the Prince may tollerate divers perswasions is no more then whether he may lawfully persecute any man for not being of his opinion Now in this case he is just so to tollerate diversity of perswasions as he is to tolerate publike actions for no opinion is judicable nor no person punishable but for a sin and if his opinion by reason
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
persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their fore-Fathers which had actuall possession and seizure of mens understandings before the opposite professions had a name And so much the rather because Religion hath more advantages upon the fancy and affections then it hath upon Philosophy and severe discourses and therefore is the more easily perswaded upon such grounds as these which are more apt to amuse then to satisfie the understanding Secondly If we consider the Doctrines themselves we shall Numb 3. finde them to be superstructures ill built and worse manag'd but yet they keep the foundation they build upon God in Jesus Christ they professe the Apostles Creed they retain Faith and Repentance as the supporters of all our hopes of Heaven and believe many more truths then can be proved to be of simple and originall necessity to salvation And therefore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of salvation whilst their errours are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding So that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vaine and unhandsome superstructures But then on the other side if we take account of their Doctrines as they relate to good life or are consistent or inconsistent with civill Government we shall have other considerations Thirdly For I consider that many of their Doctrines doe Numb 4. accidentally teach or lead to ill life and it will appeare to any man that considers the result of these propositions Attrition which is a low and imperfect degree of sorrow for sin or as others say a sorrow for sinne commenc'd upon any reason of temporall hope or feare or desire or any thing else is a sufficient disposition for a man in the Sacrament of penance to receive absolution and be justified before God by taking away the guilt of all his sinnes and the obligation to eternall paines So that already the feare of Hell is quite removed upon conditions so easie that many men take more paines to get a groat then by this Doctrine we are oblig'd to for the curing and acquitting all the greatest sinnes of a whole life of the most vitious person in the world And but that they affright their people with a feare of Purgatory or with the severity of Penances in case they will not venter for Purgatory for by their Doctrine they may chuse or refuse either there would be nothing in their Doctrine or Discipline to impede and slacken their proclivity to sinne but then they have as easy a cure for that too with a little more charge sometimes but most commonly with lesse trouble For there are so many confraternities so many priviledged Churches Altars Monasteries Coemeteries Offices Festivals and so free a concession of Indulgences appendant to all these and a thousand fine devices to take away the feare of Purgatory to commute or expiate Penances that in no sect of men doe they with more ease and cheapnesse reconcile a wicked life with the hopes of heaven then in the Roman Communion And indeed if men would consider things upon their true Numb 5. grounds the Church of Rome should be more reproved upon Doctrines that inferre ill life then upon such as are contrariant to Faith For false superstructures doe not alwayes destroy Faith but many of the Doctrines they teach if they were prosecuted to the utmost issue would destroy good life And therefore my quarrell with the Church of Rome is greater and stronger upon such points which are not usually considerd then it is upon the ordinary disputes which have to no very great purpose so much disturb'd Christendome And I am more scandaliz'd at her for teaching the sufficiency of Attrition in the Sacrament for indulging Penances so frequently for remitting all Discipline for making so great a part of Religon to consist in externalls and Ceremonialls for putting more force and Energy and exacting with more severity the commandments of men then the precepts of Justice and internall Religion Lastly besides many other things for promising heaven to persons after a wicked life upon their impertinent cryes and Ceremon all 's transacted by the Priest and the dying Person I confesse I wish the zeale of Christendome were a little more active against these and the like Doctrines and that men would write and live more earnestly against them then as yet they have done But then what influence this just zeale is to have upon the Numb 6. persons of the Professors is another consideration For as the Pharisees did preach well and lived ill and therefore were to be heard not imitated So if these men live well though they teach ill they are to be imitated not heard their Doctrines by all meanes Christian and humane are to be discountenanc'd but their persons tolerated eatenùs their Profession and Decrees to be rejected and condemn'd but the persons to be permitted because by their good lives they confute their Doctrines that is they give evidence that they think no evill to be consequent to such opinions and if they did that they live good lives is argument sufficient that they would themselves cast the first stone against their own opinions if they thought them guilty of such misdemeanours Fourthly But if we consider their Doctrines in relation to Numb 7. Government and Publick societies of men then if they prove faulty they are so much the more intolerable by how much the consequents are of greater danger and malice Such Doctrines as these The Pope may dispence with all oathes taken to God or man He may absolve Subjects from their Allegiance to their naturall Prince Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks Hereticall Princes may be slaine by their Subjects These Propositions are so deprest and doe so immediately communicate with matter and the interests of men that they are of the same consideration with matters of fact and are to be handled accordingly To other Doctrines ill life may be consequent but the connexion of the antecedent and the consequent is not peradventure perceiv'd or acknowledged by him that believes the opinion with no greater confidence then he disavowes the effect and issue of it But in these the ill effect is the direct profession and purpose of the opinion and therefore the man and the mans opinion is to be dealt withall just as the matter of fact is to be judg'd for it is an immediate a perceiv'd a direct event and the very purpose of the opinion Now these opinions are a direct overthrow to all humane society and mutuall commerce a destruction of Government and of the lawes and duty and subordination which we owe to Princes and therefore those men of the Church of Rome that doe hold them and preach them cannot pretend to the excuses of innocent opinions and
eldest Writers of the Latine Church that in their times it was ab antiquo the custome of the Church to pray for the Soules of the Faithfull departed in the dreadfull mysteries And it was an Institution Apostolicall sayes one of them and so transmitted to the following Ages of the Church and when once it began upon slight and discontent to be contested against by Aërius the man was presently condemn'd for a Heretick as appeares in Epiphanius But I am not to consider the Arguments for the Doctrine Numb 13. it selfe although the probability and faire pretence of them may help to excuse such persons who upon these or the like grounds doe heartily believe it But I am to consider that whether it be true or false there is no manner of malice in it and at the worst it is but a wrong errour upon the right side of charity and concluded against by its Adversaries upon the confidence of such Arguments which possibly are not so probable as the grounds pretended for it And if the same judgement might be made of any more of Numb 14. their Doctrines I think it were better men were not furious in the condemning such Questions which either they understood not upon the grounds of their proper Arguments or at least consider not as subjected in the persons and lessened by circumstances by the innocency of the event or other prudentiall considerations But the other Article is harder to be judged of and hath made greater stirres in Christendome and hath been dasht at Numb 15. with more impetuous objections and such as doe more trouble the Question of Toleration For if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false as upon much evidence we believe it is then t is accused of introducing Idolatry giving Divine worship to a Creature adoring of bread and wine and then comes in the precept of God to the Jewes that those Prophets who perswaded to Idolatry should be slaine But here we must deliberate for it is concerning the lives Deut. 13. of men and yet a little deliberation may suffice For Idolatry Numb 16. is a forsaking the true God and giving Divine Worship to a Creature or to an Idoll that is to an imaginary god who hath no foundation in essence or existence And is that kind of superstition which by Divines is called the superstition of an undue object Now it is evident that the Object of their Adoration that which is represented to them in their minds their thoughts and purposes and by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions in the blessed Sacrament is the only true and eternall God hypostatically joyned with his Holy humanity which humanity they believe actually present under the veile of the Sacramentall signes And if they thought him not present they are so farre from worshipping the bread in this case that themselves professe it to be Idolatry to doe so which is a demonstration that their soule hath nothing in it that is Idololatricall If their confidence and fancyfull opinion hath engag'd them upon so great mistake as without doubt it hath yet the will hath nothing in it but what is a great enemy to Idolatry Et nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas And although they have done violence to all Philosophy and the reason of man and undone and cancelled the principles of two or three Sciences to bring in this Article yet they have a Divine Revelation whose literall and Grammaticall sense if that sense were intended would warrant them to doe violence to all the Sciences in the Circle and indeed that Transubstantiation is openly and violently against naturall reason is an Argument to make them disbelieve who believe the mystery of the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the Schoole and which now adayes passe for the Doctrine of the Church with as much violence to the principles of naturall and supernaturall Philosophy as can be imagin'd to be in the point of Transubstantiation 1. But for the Article it selfe we all say that Christ is there Numb 17. present some way or other extraordinary and it will not be amisse to worship him at that time when he gives himselfe to us in so mysterious a manner and with so great advantages especially since the whole Office is a Consociation of divers actions of Religion and Divine Worship Now in all opinions of those men who think it an act of Religion to communicate and to offer a Divine Worship is given to Christ and is transmitted to him by mediation of that action and that Sacrament and it is no more in the Church of Rome but that they differ and mistake infinitely in the manner of his presence which errour is wholly seated in the Understanding and does not communicate with the will for all agree that the Divinity and the Humanity of the Sonne of God is the ultimate and adequate object of Divine Adoration and that it is incommunicable to any creature whatsoever and before they venture to passe an Act of Adoration they believe the bread to be annihilated or turn'd into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped and they who have these thoughts are as much enemies of Idolatry as they that understand better how to avoid that inconvenience which is supposed to be the crime which they formally hate and we materially avoid This consideration was concerning the Doctrine it selfe 2. And now for any danger to mens persons for suffering Numb 18. such a Doctrine this I shall say that if they who doe it are not formally guilty of Idolatry there is no danger that they whom they perswade to it should be guilty and what persons soever believe it to be Idolatry to worship the Sacrament while that perswasion remaines will never bee brought to it there is no feare of that And he that perswades them to doe it by altering their perswasions and beliefes does no hurt but altering the opinions of the men and abusing their understandings but when they believe it to be no Idolatry then their so believing it is sufficient security from that crime which hath so great a tincture and residency in the will that from thence only it hath its being criminall 3. However if it were Idolatry I think the Precept of God Numb 19. to the Jewes of killing false and Idolatrous Prophets will be no warrant for Christians so to doe For in the case of the Apostles and the men of Samaria when James and John would have cald for fire to destroy them even as Elias did under Moses Law Christ distinguished the spirit of Elias from his own Spirit and taught them a lesson of greater sweetnesse and consign'd this truth to all Ages of the Church that such severity is not consistent with the meekenesse which Christ by his example and Sermons hath made a precept Evangelicall At most it was but a Iudiciall Law and no more of Argument to make it necessary to
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
much the more force and efficacy because Numb 25. it began upon great reason and in the first instance with successe good enough For I am much pleased with the enlarging of the Creed which the Councell of Nice made because they enlarged it to my sense but I am not sure that others are satisfied with it While we look upon the Article they did determine we see all things well enough but there are some wise personages consider it in all circumstances and think the Church had been more happy if she had not been in some sense constrain'd to alter the simplicity of her faith and make it more curious and articulate so much that he had need be a subtle man to understand the very words of the new determinations For the first Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in the presence Numb 26. of his Clergy entreats somewhat more curiously of the secret of the mysterious Trinity and Unity so curiously that Socra l. 1. c. 8. Arius who was a Sophister too subtle as it afterward appear'd misunderstood him and thought he intended to bring in the heresy of Sabellius For while he taught the Unity of the Trinity either he did it so inartificially or so intricately that Arius thought he did not distinguish the persons when the Bishop intended only the unity of nature Against this Arius furiously drives and to confute Sabellius and in him as he thought the Bishop distinguishes the natures too and so to secure the Article of the Trinity destroyes the Unity It was the first time the Question was disputed in the world and in such mysterious niceties possibly every wise man may understand something but few can understand all and therefore suspect what they understand not and are furiously zealous for that part of it which they doe perceive Well it hapned in these as alwayes in such cases in things men understand not they are most impetuous and because suspition is a thing infinite in degrees for it hath nothing to determine it a suspitious person is ever most violent for his feares are worse then the thing feared because the thing is limited but his feares are not so that upon this grew contentions on both sides and Lib. 1. c. 6. tumults rayling and reviling each other and then the Laity were drawn into parts and the Meletians abetted the wrong part and the right part fearing to be overborn did any thing that was next at hand to secure it selfe Now then they that lived in that Age that understood the men that saw how quiet the Church was before this stirre how miserably rent now what little benefit from the Question what schisme about it gave other censures of the businesse then we since have done who only look upon the Article determind with truth and approbation of the Church generally since that time But the Epistle of Constantine to Alexander and Arius tells the truth and Cap. 7. chides them both for commencing the Question Alexander for broaching it Arius for taking it up and although this be true that it had been better for the Church it never had begun yet being begun what is to be done in it of this also in that admirable Epistle we have the Emperours judgement I suppose not without the advise and privity of Hosius Bishop of Corduba whom the Emperour lov'd and trusted much and imployed in the delivery of the Letters For first he calls it a certain vain piece of a Question ill begun and more unadvisedly published a Question which no Law or Ecclesiasticall Canon defineth a fruitlesse contention the product of idle braines a matter so nice so obscure so intricate that it was neither to be explicated by the Clergy nor understood by the people a dispute of words a doctrine inexpliable but most dangerous when taught least it introduce discord or blasphemy and therefore the Objector was rash and the answerer unadvised for it concernd not the substance of Faith or the worship of God nor any cheife commandment of Scripture and therefore why should it be the matter of discord For though the matter be grave yet because neither necessary nor explicable the contention is trifling and toyish And therefore as the Philosophers of the same Sect though differing in explication of an opinion yet more love for the unity of their Profession then disagree for the difference of opinion So should Christians believing in the same God retaining the same Faith having the same hopes opposed by the same enemies not fall at variance upon such disputes considering our understandings are not all alike and therefore neither can our opinions in such mysterious Articles so that the matter being of no great importance but vaine and a toy in respect of the excellent blessings of peace and charity it were good that Alexander and Arius should leave contending keep their opinions to themselves ask each other forgivenesse and give mutuall toleration This is the substance of Constantine's letter and it contains in it much reason if he did not undervalue the Question but it seems it was not then thought a Question of Faith but of nicety of dispute they both did believe one God and the holy Trinity Now then that he afterward called the Nicene Councell it was upon occasion of the vilenesse of the men of the Arian part their eternall discord and pertinacious wrangling and to bring peace into the Church that was the necessity and in order to it was the determination of the Article But for the Article it selfe the Letter declares what opinion he had of that and this Letter was by Socrates called a wonderfull exhortation full of grace and sober councels and such as Hosius himself who was the messenger pressed with all earnestnesse with all the skill and Authority he had I know the opinion the world had of the Article afterward is quite differing from this censure given of it before and Numb 27. therefore they have put it into the Creed I suppose to bring the world to unity and to prevent Sedition in this Question and the accidentall blasphemies which were occasioned by their curious talkings of such secret mysteries and by their illiterate resolutions But although the Article was determin'd with an excellent spirit and we all with much reason professe to believe it yet it is another consideration whether or no it might not have been better determin'd if with more simplicity and another yet whether or no since many of the Bishops who did believe this thing yet did not like the nicety and curiosity of expressing it it had not been more agreeable to the practise of the Apostles to have made a determination of the Article by way of Exposition of the Apostles Creed and to have left this in a rescript for record to all posterity and not to have enlarged the Creed with it for since it was an Explication of an Article of the Creed of the Apostles as Sermons are of places of Scripture it was
thought by some that Scripture might with good profit and great truth be expounded and yet the expositions not put into the Canon or goe for Scripture but that left still in the naked Originall simplicity and so much the rather since that Explication was further from the foundation and though most certainly true yet not penn'd by so infallible a spirit as was that of the Apostles and therefore not with so much evidence as certainty And if they had pleased they might have made use of an admirable precedent to this and many other great and good purposes no lesse then of the blessed Apostles whose Symbol they might have imitated with as much simplicity as they did the Expressions of Scripture when they first composed it For it is most considerable that although in reason every clause in the Creed should be clear and so inopportune and unapt to variety of interpretation that there might be no place left for severall senses or variety of Expositions yet when they thought fit to insert some mysteries into the Creed which in Scripture were expressed in so mysterious words that the last and most explicite sense would still be latent yet they who if ever any did understood all the senses and secrets of it thought it not fit to use any words but the words of Scripture particularly in the Articles of Christs descending into Hell and sitting at the right hand of God to shew us that those Creeds are best which keep the very words of Scripture and that Faith is best which hath greatest simplicity and that it is better in all cases humbly to submit then curiously to enquire and pry into the mystery under the cloud and to hazard our Faith by improving our knowledge If the Nicene Fathers had done so too possibly the Church would never have repented it And indeed the experience the Church had afterwards Numb 28. shewed that the Bishops and Priests were not satisfied in all circumstances nor the schism appeased nor the persons agreed nor the Canons accepted nor the Article understood nor any thing right but when they were overborn with Authority which Authority when the scales turned did the same service and promotion to the contrary But it is considerable that it was not the Article or the Numb 29. thing it selfe that troubled the disagreeing persons but the manner of representing it For the five Dissenters Eusebius of Nicomedia Theognis Maris Theonas and Secundus believed Christ to be very God of very God but the clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they derided as being perswaded by their Logick that he was neither of the substance of the Father by division as a piece of a lump nor derivation as children from their Parents nor by production as buds from trees and no body could tell them any other way at that time and that made the fire to burn still And that was it I said if the Article had been with more simplicity and lesse nicety determin'd charity would have gain'd more and faith would have lost nothing And we shall finde the wisest of them all for so Eusebius Pamphilus was esteem'd published a Creed or Confession in the Synod and though he and all the rest believed that great mystery of Godlinesle Vide Sozomen lib. 2. c. 18. God manifested in the flesh yet he was not fully satisfied nor so soone of the clause of one substance till he had done a little violence to his own understanding for even when he had subscribed to the clause of one substance he does it with a protestation that heretofore he never had been acquainted nor accustomed himselfe to such speeches And the sense of the word was either so ambiguous or their meaning so uncertain that Andreas Fricius does with some probability dispute that Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 26. the Nicene Fathers by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did meane Patris similitudinem non essentiae unitatem Sylva 4. c. 1. And it was so well undestood by personages disinterested that when Arius and Euzoius had confessed Christ to be Deus verbum without inserting the clause of one substance the Emperour by his Letter approv'd of his Faith and restor'd him to his Countrey and Office and the Communion of the Church And along time after although the Article was believed with Non imprudentèr dix●t qui curiosae explicationi hujus mysterii dictum Aristonis Philosophi applicu●t H●lleborus niger si crassiùs sumatur purgat senat Quum autum teritur comminuitur suffocat nicety enough yet when they added more words still to the mystery and brought in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying there were three hypostases in the holy Trinity it was so long before it could be understood that it was believed therefore because they would not oppose their Superiours or disturb the peace of the Church in things which they thought could not be understood in so much that S. Hierom writ to Damasus in these words Discerne si placet obsecro non timebo tres hypostases dicere si jubetis and againe Obtestor beatitudinem tuam per Crucifixum mundi salutem per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trinitatem ut mihi Epistolis tuis sive tacendarum sive dicendarum hypostaseôn detur authoritas But without all Question the Fathers determin'd the Question Numb 30. with much truth though I cannot say the Arguments upon which they built their Decrees were so good as the conclusion it selfe was certain But that which in this case is considerable is whether or no they did well in putting a curse to the foot of their Decree and the Decree it selfe into the Symbol as if it had been of the same necessity For the curse Eusebius Pamphilus could hardly finde in his heart to subscribe at last he did but with this clause that he subscribed it because the forme of curse did only forbid men to acquaint themselves with forraign speeches and unwritten languages whereby confusion and discord is brought into the Church So that it was not so much a magisteriall high assertion of the Article as an endeavour to secure the peace of the Church And to the same purpose for ought I know the Fathers composed a Form of Confession not as a prescript Rule of Faith to build the hopes of our salvation on but as a tessera of that Communion which by publike Authority was therefore established upon those Articles because the Articles were true though not of prime necessity and because that unity of confession was judg'd as things then stood the best preserver of the unity of minds But I shall observe this that although the Nicene Fathers Numb 31. in that case at that time and in that conjuncture of circumstances did well and yet their approbation is made by after Ages ex post facto yet if this precedent had been followed by all Councels and certainly they had equall power if they had thought it equally reasonable and that they had put
had so expounded it he therefore chose a new one This was malice But when a prejudice works tacitely undiscernably and irresistabl● of the person so wrought upon the man is to be pityed not condemned though possibly his opinion deserves it highly And therefore it hath been usuall to discredit doctrines by the personall defaillances of them that preach them or with the disreputation of that sect that maintains them in conjunction with other perverse doctrines Faustus the Manichee in S. Austin glories much that in their Religion God was worshipped purely and without Images L. 20. c. 3. cont Faustum Man L. 1. c. ult de Imagin S. Austin liked it well for so it was in his too but from hence Sanders concludes that to pull down Images in Churches was the heresie of the Manichees The Jews endure no Images therefore Bellarmine makes it to be a piece of Judaisme to oppose them He might as well have concluded against saying our prayers and Church musick that it is Judaicall because the Jews used it And De reliq SS l. 2. c. 6. Sect. Nicolaus he would be loth to be served so himself for he that had a mind to use such arguments might with much better probability conclude against their Sacrament of extreme unction because when the miraculous healing was ceased then they were not Catholiques but Heretiques that did transferre it to the use of dying persons sayes Irenaeus for so did the Valentinians And indeed L. 1. c. 8. adv haer this argument is something better then I thought for at first because it was in Irenaeus time reckoned among the heresies But there are a sort of men that are even with them and hate some good things which the Church of Rome teaches because she who teaches so many errors hath been the publisher and is the practicer of those things I confess the thing is alwayes unreasonable but sometimes it is invincible and innocent and then may serve to abate the fury of all such decretory sentences as condemne all the world but their own Disciples 3. There are some opinions that have gone hand in hand with Numb 3. a blessing and a prosperous profession and the good success of their defenders hath amused many good people because they thought they heard Gods voice where they saw Gods hand and therefore have rushed upon such opinions with great piety and as great mistaking For where they once had entertain'd a feare of God and apprehension of his so sensible declaration such a feare produces scruple and a scrupulous conscience is alwayes to be pityed because though it is seldome wise it is alwayes pious And this very thing hath prevail'd so farre upon the understandings even of wise men that Bellarmine makes it a note of the true Church Which opinion when it prevailes is a ready way to make that instead of Martyrs all men should prove hereticks or apostates in persecution for since men in misery are very suspicious out of strong desires to finde out the cause that by removing it they may be relieved they apprehend that to be it that is first presented to their fears and then if ever truth be afflicted she shall also be destroyed I will say nothing in defiance of this fancy although all the experience in the world sayes it is false and that of all men Christians should least believe it to be true to whom a perpetuall crosse is their certain expectation and the argument is like the Moone for which no garment can be fit it alters according to the success of humane affairs and in one age will serve a Papist and in another a Protestant yet when such an opinion does prevaile upon timerous persons the malignity of their error if any be consequent to this fancie and taken up upon the reputation of a prosperous heresie is not to be considered simply and nakedly but abatement is to be made in a just proportion to that feare and to that apprehension 4. Education is so great and so invincible a prejudice that he Numb 4. who masters the inconvenience of it is more to be commended than he can justly be blam'd that complyes with it For men doe not alwayes call them principles which are the prime fountaines of reason from whence such consequents naturally flow as are to guide the actions and discourses of men but they are principles which they are first taught which they suckt in next to their milke and by a proportion to those first principles they usually take their estimate of propositions For whatsoever is taught to them at first they believe infinitely for they know nothing to the contrary they have had no other masters whose theoremes might abate the strength of their first perswasions and it is a great advantage in those cases to get possession and before their first principles can be dislodg'd they are made habituall and complexionall it is in their nature then to believe them and this is helped forward very much by the advantage of love and veneration which we have to the first parents of our perswasions And we see it in the orders of Regulars in the Church of Rome That opinion which was the opinion of their Patron or Founder or of some eminent Personage of the Institute is enough to engage all the Order to be of that opinion and it is strange that all the Dominicans should be of one opinion in the matter of Predetermination and immaculate conception and all the Franciscans of the quite contrary as if their understandings were form'd in a different mold and furnished with various principles by their very rule Now this prejudice works by many principles but how strongly they doe possess the understanding is visible in that great instance of the affection and perfect perswasion the weaker sort of people have to that which they call the Religion of their Forefathers You may as well charm a feaver asleep with the noise of Optima vati ea quae magno ossensu recepta sunt quorumque exempla multa sant nec ad rationem sed ad similitudinem vivimus Sen. Vid. Minut. Fel. octav bells as make any pretence of reason against that Religion which old men have intayl'd upon their heirs male so many generations till they can prescribe And the Apostles found this to be most true in the extremest difficulty they met with to contest against the rites of Moses and the long superstition of the Gentiles which they therefore thought fit to be retain'd because they had done so formerly Pergentes non quo eundum est sed quo itur and all the blessings of this life which God gave them they had in conjunction with their Religion and therefore they beleeved it was for their Religion and this perswasion was bound fast in them with ribs of iron the Apostles were forc'd to unloose the whole conjuncture of parts principles in their understandings before they could make them malleable and receptive of any impresses
But the observation and experience of all wise men can justifie this truth All that I shall say to the present purpose is this that consideration is to be had to the weakness of persons when they are prevail'd upon by so innocent a prejudice and when there cannot be arguments strong enough to over-master an habituall perswasion bred with a man nourish'd up with him that alwayes eat at his table and lay in his bosome he is not easily to be called Heretique for if he keeps the foundation of faith other articles are not so cleerly demonstrated on either side but that a man may innocently be abused to the contrary And therefore in this case to handle him charitably is but to doe him justice And when an opinion in minoribus articulis is entertain'd upon the title and stock of education it may be the better permitted to him since upon no better stock nor stronger arguments most men entertain their whole Religion even Christianity it selfe 5. There are some persons of a differing perswasion who therefore Numb 5. are the rather to be tolerated because the indirect practices and impostures of their adversaries have confirmed them that those opinions which they disavow are not from God as being upheld by means not of Gods appointment For it is no unreasonable discourse to say that God will not be served with a lye for he does not need one and he hath means enough to support all those truths which he hath commanded and hath supplyed every honest cause with enough for its maintenance and to contest against its adversaries And but that they which use indirect arts will not be willing to lose any of their unjust advantages nor yet be charitable to those persons whom either to gain or to undoe they leave nothing unattempted the Church of Rome hath much reason not to be so decretory in her sentences against persons of a differing perswasion for if their cause were entirely the cause of God they have given wise people reason to suspect it because some of them have gone to the Devill to defend it And if it be remembred what tragedies were stirred up against Luther for saying the Devill had taught him an argument against the Mass it will be of as great advantage against them that they goe to the Devill for many arguments to support not onely the Mass but the other distinguishing Articles of their Church I instance in the notorious forging of Miracles and framing of false and ridiculous Legends For the former I need no other instances then what hapned in the great contestation about the immaculate conception when there were Miracles brought on both sides to prove the contradictory parts and though it be more then probable that both sides play'd the jugglers yet the Dominicans had the ill luck to be discovered and the actors burn'd at Berne But this discovery hapned by providence for the Dominican opinion hath more degrees of probability then the Franciscan is cleerly more consonant both to Scripture and all antiquity and this part of it is acknowledged by the greatest Patrons themselves as Salmeron Posa and Wadding yet because they played the knaves in a just question and used false arts to maintain a true proposition God Almighty to shew that he will not be served by a lye was pleased rather to discover the imposture in the right opinion then in the false since nothing is more dishonourable to God then to offer a sin in sacrifice to him and nothing more incongruous in the nature of the thing then that truth and falshood should support each other or that true doctrine should live at the charges of a lye And he that considers the arguments for each opinion will easily conclude that if God would not have truth confirmed by a lye much lesse would he himself attest a lye with a true miracle And by this ground it will easily follow that the Franciscan party although they had better luck then the Dominicans yet had not more honesty because their cause was worse and therefore their arguments no whit the better And although the argument drawn from miracles is good to attest a holy doctrine which by its own worth will support it selfe after way is a little made by miracles yet of it selfe and by its owne reputation it will not support any fabrick for instead of proving a doctrine to be true it makes that the miracles themselves are suspected to be illusions if they be pretended in behalfe of a doctrine which we think we have reason to account false And therefore the Jews did not beleeve Christs doctrine for his Miracles but dis-beleeved the truth of his Miracles because they did not like his doctrine And if the holinesse of his doctrine and the Spirit of God by inspirations and infusions and by that which Saint Peter calls a surer word of prophecy had not attested the Divinity both of his Person and his Office we should have wanted many degrees of confidence which now we have upon the truth of Christian Religion But now since we are fore-told by this surer word of prophecy that is the prediction of Jesus Christ Vid. Baron AE D. 68. n. 22. Philostrat l. 4. T. 485. compend Cedren p. 202. that Antichrist should come in all wonders and signs and lying miracles and that the Church saw much of that already verified in Simon Magus Apollonius Tyaneus and Manetho and divers * Stapleton prompt Moral pars aestiva p. 627. Heretiques it is now come to that passe that the argument in its best advantage proves nothing so much as that the doctrine which it pretends to prove is to be suspected because it was foretold that false doctrine should be obtruded under such pretences But then when not onely true miracles are an insufficient argument to prove a truth since the establishment of Christianity but that the miracles themselves are false and spurious it makes that doctrine in whose defence they come justly to be suspected because they are a demonstration that the interested persons use all means leave nothing unattempted to prove their propositions but since they so faile as to bring nothing from God but something from the Devill for its justification it 's a great signe that the doctrine is false because we know the Devill unlesse it be against his will does nothing to prove a true proposition that makes against him And now then those persons who will endure no man of another opinion might doe well to remember how by their exorcismes their Devils tricks at Lowdon and the other side pretending to cure mad folkes and persons bewitched and the many discoveries of their jugling they have given so much reason to their adversaries to suspect their doctrine that either they must not be ready to condemne their persons who are made suspicious by their indirect proceeding in attestation of that which they value so high as to call their Religion or else they must condemne themselves for making