provinces of narrower circuits of ground And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council rightly so named can be For suppose it be not necessary to consist of all the bishops in the world but of some as delegates in the name of all yet it must consist of so many proportionably delegated from all in the several quarters as may signifie the sence and consent of all Hereupon let it be considered whether there be a possibility of such assemblies much more whether there be a possibility of the continuation or of the succession of them in such frequency as would be requisite in case such an assembly were Head of the Church Nor doth it stand with reason that an Oecumenical council in case it were existent can possibly execute the authority that belongs to the head of the Universal Church in overseeing all in receiving appeals from all in making authoritative determinations for all either immediately by it self or mediately by subordinate councils judicatories and ministers to be superintended regulated and determined by it in their proceedings Nor is there any notice given of the said headship of a General council more than of the Popes or any other bishops universal headship in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Christ hath given to his Church to wit the Holy Scriptures Nor is any rule given therein for the constitution of a General council whether it shall be made up only of the Clergy or only of such bishops as are of a higher order thâ—â— Presbyters or of all such bishops of the Catholick Church or if of some in the name of all what number there must be either definite or indefinite and proportionate to the number of those that are represented It is evident de facto that the officers of the Catholick Church as the particular bishops or pastors and the associations and conventions of them do not derive their spiritual authority from a General council Nor doth it appear that de jure they should derive their power from it any more than from the Pope § 11. The infallibility of the Catholick Church examined THE Romanists assert an insallibility about matters of faith somewhere seated within the Catholick Church as the perpetual priviledg thereof some of them place it in the Pope and others in a General council Hereupon this priviledg is to be considered whether it be and what it is The meaning of the term is a being not liable to be deceived or to deceive about those matters about which it is said to be That the catholick church is infallible in the essentials of the christian religion is a most indubitable truth for every member of the catholick church so remaining is infallible so far it involves a a contradiction that any such should err therein for it were as much as to be a christian and no christian The Query therefore is whether it be liable to errour in the integrals aâ—d accidentals of Religion Now the church remaining such is not necessarily or in its nature infallible so far and therefore if it be infallible it must be so from the free grant of Christ But it doth not appear in the Holy Scripture that any such grant is made to the church What was the Apostles doctrine and consequently the doctrine of the Church in their days obedient to their authority we know what the church universally held in any one age touching all the integral parts of religion much more concerning accidentals I conceive extreamly difficult if not impossible to be known But that the church hath de facto if not universally yet very generally erred in the same errour about some integrals of religion appears by the ancient general practise of some things now generally accounted erroneous as for instance the giving of the Lords Supper to infants Moreover it is evident that the whole Church in its several parts hath erred some in one point some in another and that no part thereof hath been found in which hath appeared no error in some point of Religion or other And if all the parts may variously err in several points why may not they also harmoniously err all of them in one and the same point If the Catholick Church be not infallible in all doctrines of Faith much less is any such Council infallible as was ever yet congregated or is ever like to be congregated Hereupon it follows that in all Controversies of doctrine we cannot stand finally to the decision of the Catholick Church if it were possible to be had or to the decision of any the largest Council that can possibly convene We cannot tell what the Catholick Church is nor what particular Churches or persons are sound parts thereof but by the holy Scriptures For what Criterion can be brought besides them Mens bare testimony of themselves is not to be rested on How can we know that the first Nicene Council was orthodox in its determination about the Sacred Trinity and the second Nicene Council erroneous in its determination for Image-worship but by finding that the former was consonant and the latter dissonant to the Scripture in their aforesaid determinations If it be said That of Councils called General those that consist of greater numbers of bishops must carry it against those that consist of lesser numbers let some proof either from Scripture or Reason be given for it What ground is there from either to conclude that in the time of the Arrian Heresie the major part of bishops in the Roman Empire or the major part of those that assembled in Council and for instance in the first Council at Nice might not possibly have been Arrians Moreover if the major part were to carry it in the first six Centuries why not also in the ten last That promise of Christ Mat. 28. I am with you always to the end of the world may imply That there shall be a successive continuation of Bishops or Pastors in the Catholick Church to the worlds end that shall be Orthodox in the Essentials yea and in the Integrals of Religion yet it doth not imply that they shall be the greater number of those that are called and reputed bishops or pastors within Christendom nor that the greater number of those being convened in Councils shall not err in their Conciliar determinations about matters of Faith § 12. Of the Indefectibility of the Catholick Church CHRIST hath promised the perpetuity of the Church in general in saying that he would build it on a Rock and the gates of Hell should not prevail against it and I am with you always to the end of the world but how far and in what respect this perpetuity and indefectibility is promised ought to be enquired into lest we expect or insist upon more than the promise hath ensured That which Christ hath promised cannot be less than that there be always upon earth a number of true believers or faithful Christians made visible by their external profession of Christianity successively
the Authority of the Pastors but as they are made for the present or absent Pastors who are separately of equal Office Power they are no Laws except in an equivocal sense but only Agreements Now in judging between these two ways of the subordination enquired of let it be considered first That every particular church hath power of government within it self as hath been before observed 2. That a particular church doth not derive that power from any other particular church or collective body of churches but hath it immediately from Christ 3. That yet the acts of government in every particular church have an influence into all the churches being but integral parts of one whole the Catholick church and consequently they are all of them nearly concerned in one another as members of the same body 4. Thereupon that particular churches combine in such collective bodies and associations as have been before mentioned is not arbitrary but their duty 5. That the greater collective bodies are in degrees more august and venerable than the lesser included in them and in that regard ought to have sway with the lesser and not meerly in regard of agreement For tho in the greater there be but the same power in specie with that in the lesser yet it is more amply and illustriously exerted 6. That in all Societies every part being ordered for the good of the whole and the more ample and comprehensive parts coming nearer to the nature and reason of the whole than the lesser and comprehended the more ample parts if they have not a proper governing power over the lesser have at least a preeminence over them for the ends sake and this preeminence hath the force of a proper superior power in bearing sway 7. Hence it follows that the acts of Synods if they be not directly acts of government over the particular Pastors yet they have the efficacy of government as being to be submitted to for the ends sake The general good § 22. What is and what is not of Divine Right in Ecclesiastical Polity WE must distinguish between things that belong to the church as a church or a Society divers in kind from all other Societies and those things that belong to it extrinsecally upon a reason common to it with other regular societies The former wholly rest upon Divine Right the latter are in genere requisite by the Law of Nature which requires decency and order and whatsoever is convenient in all societies and so far they rest upon Divine Right but in specie they are left to human determination according to the general Rules given of God in Nature or Scripture And it is to be noted That such is the sulness of Scripture that it contains all the general Rules of the Law of Nature What soever in matter of Church government doth go to the formal constitution of a church of Christ is of Divine Right The frame of the Church catholick as one spiritual society under Christ the head as before described wholly rests upon Divine Right and so the frame of particular churches as several spiritual Polities and integral parts of the Catholick church as before described is also of Divine Right if such Right be sufficiently signified by the Precepts and Rules given by the Apostles for the framing of them and by their practise therein Moreover the parcelling of that one great Society the Church-catholick into particular Political Societies under their proper spiritual Guides and Rulers is so necessary in nature to the good of the whole that the Law of Nature hath made it unalterable It is intrinsick to all particular stated Churches and so of Divine Right that there be publick Assemblies thereof for the solemn Worship of God that there be Bishops Elders or spiritual Pastors therein and that these as Christs Officers guide the said Assemblies in publick Worship that therein they authoritatively preach the Word and in Christs Name offer the mercies of the Gospel upon his terms and denounce the threatnings of the Gospel against those that despise the mercies thereof that they dispence the Sacraments to the meet partakers and the spiritual censures upon those that justly fall under them that the members of these Societies explicitely or implicitely consent to their relation to their Pastors and one towards another It doth also intrinsecally belong to particular churches as they are integral parts of one Catholick church of which all the particular Christians contained in them are members and consequently it appears to be of Divine Right that they hold communion one with another and that they be imbodied according to their capacities in such Associations as have been before described As for all circumstantial variation and accidental modification of the things aforesaid with respect to meer decency order and convenience according to time and occasion being extrinsick to the spiritual frame and Polity of the Church as such and belonging in common to it with all orderly Societies they are of Divine Right only in genere but in specie they are left to those to whom the conduct and government of the church is committed to be determined according to the general Rules of Gods word Much of the controversie of this Age about several forms of Church-government is about things extrinsick to the church-state and but accidental modes thereof tho the several parties in the controversie make those Forms to which they adhere to be of Divine Right and necessary to a Church-state or as some speak a Church-organical Now in the said controverted Forms of Government there may be a great difference for some may be congruous to the divine and constitutive frame of the Church and advantageous to its ends others may be incongruous to it and destructive to its ends § 23. Of a True or False Church MANY notes of a true Church are contentiously brought in by those that would darken the truth by words without knowledg But without more ado the true and real being of a Church stands in its conformity to that Law of Christ upon which his Church is founded This Law is compleatly written in the Holy Scriptures The more of the aforesaid Conformity is sound in any Church the more true and sound it is and the less of it is found in any church the more corrupt and false it is and the more it declines from truth and soundness A Church may bear so much conformity to its Rule as is sufficient to the real being or essential state of a Christian church and yet withall bear such disconformity to its Rule as renders it very enormous A church holding all the essentials of Faith Worship Ministry and Government together with the addition of such Doctrine Worship Ministry and Government as is by consequence a denial of those essentials and a subverting of the foundation is a true church as to the essentials tho very enormous and dangerous And they that are of the communion of such a church who hold the essentials of Religion
continued till the end of all things It is also ascertained that there shall be at least the essentials of a Church-state or Church organical as some express it consisting of a part governing and a part governed always continued somewhere upon earth For Christs promise is to be with his Apostles in the executing of their Ministry always to the end of the world and it must be understood of them not barely considered as persons but as his commissioned Officers including their successors not in the Apostolical and Temporary but in the ordinary and perpetual Authority which they had in common with Pastors Bishops or Presbyters And Eph. 4.11 shews that the Ministry is to endure till the whole Mystical body of Christ be compleated But the promise doth not import that any particular Church or any particular combination of Churches in one frame of Ecclesiastical Polity how ample or illustrious soever shall be perpetuated by an uninterrupted succession of Pastors and secured from a total defection and rejection either from a Church state or from Christianity it self If any particular church or any one larger part of the Catholick church hath been preserved from the Apostles days till now when others have been extinct it is by the good pleasure of God whose ways and counsels are wise and holy yet unsearchable and past finding out Nor doth the promise import that the true church shall be perpetually conspicuous tho it be perpetually visible for in some Ages it may be more obscure in others more apparent It is granted by that party that much insists upon the conspicuousness of their church as a city on a hill That in the time of Antichrist the church shall scarcely be discerned Now in such a state it may be said to be tho not absolutely yet comparatively invisible that is being compared with what it is when more conspicuously Visible Nor doth it import that any particular church or any most ample and illustrious part of the Catholick church shall perpetually abide in the Apostolick purity of doctrine worship and government but that it may depart from it and fall into most enormous errors and practises in the said points and yet may not lose the essentials of Christian doctrine and church-state The Scripture foretels of a great falling away and a lasting defection in the Christian church and a long continued predominancy of an Antichristian state therein Nay for ought can be cogently inferred from the aforesaid promise the said defection might have been so universal as to leave no part of the Catholick church divided from the Apostatical or Antichristian state and party by a different external church-polity but the sound and sincere part of the Church may truckle under it and be included in its external frame and keep themselves from being destroyed by it some of them discerning and shunning the bainful doctrine and practise and others that are infected with it holding the truth predominantly in their hearts and lives and so tho not speculatively yet practically prevailing against the wicked errours If in all times there have been some societies of Christians that did not fall away in the great defection nor incorporate with the antichristian state but were by themselves in a severed church-state yet Christ hath not promised that there shall be notice thereof throughout all Christendom in the times when the said societies were in being nor that histories should be written thereof for the knowledg of after ages Howbeit we have sufficient notice by credible history that there have been many ample christian churches throughout all ages that were not incorporated with the antichristian state and that did dissent from their great enormities in Doctrine Worship and Government also that many Worthies living in the midst of that great apostacy did during the whole time thereof successively bear witness for the truth against it and that for a great part of the time huge multitudes also living in the midst of the said apostacy separated from it and were embodied into churches of another constitution more conformable to the Primitive Christianity § 13. The frame of the particular Churches mentioned in Scripture AS we find in Scripture one Catholick church related as one Kingdom Family Flock Spouse and Body to Christ as its only King Master Shepherd Husband and Head so we find particular churches as so many political societies distinct from each other yet all compacted together as parts of that one ample Society the Catholick church as the church at Antioch Acts 13.1 the church at Jerusalem Acts 11.22 Acts 15.4 the church at Cesarea Acts 18.22 the church at Cenchrea Rom. 10.1 the church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1.2 the churches of Galatia Gal. 1.2 the church of the Thessalonians 1 Thes 1.1 the church at Babylon 1 Pet. 5 13. and the seven churches in Asia Apoc. 1. 2. viz. of Ephesus Smyrna Pergamos Thyatyra Sardis Thiladelphia and Laodicea We likewise find that the Christians of a city o◠lesser precinct made one church as the church at Corinth the church at Cenchrea c. but the Christians of a Region or a larger circuit made many churches as the churches of Asia the churches of Galatiae We find also that each of these particular churches did consist of a part governing and a part governed and consequently were political Societies Every church had their proper Elder or Elders Acts. 4.23 which Elders were the same with Bishops Acts 20.28 Tit. 1.5 7. 1 Pet. 5.1 2. and they were constitutive parts of those churches considered as Political Societies We find also that these Elders or Bishops did personally superintend or oversee all the Flock or every member of the church over which they did preside Acts 20 28 29. 1 Thes 5.12 Heb. 13.17 This appears further by their particular work expresly mentioned in Scripture to be personally performed towards all viz. to be the ordinary Teachers of all Heb. 13 7. 1 Thes 5.12 13. to admonish all that were unruly and to rebuke them openly 1 Tim. 5.20 Tit. 1.10 to visit and pray with the sick and all the sick were to send for them to that end James 5.14 and no grant from Christ to discharge the same by Substitutes or Delegates can be found § 14. The Form of a particular Church considered FROM the premises it is evident That all particular churches mentioned in the New Testament were so constituted as that all the members thereof were capable of personal communion in worshipping God if not always at once together yet by turns at least and of living under the present personal superintendency of their proper Elder or Elders Bishop or Bishops Whether to be embodied or associated for personal communion in worship and for personal superintendency of the Pastors over all the members be the true formal or essential constitution of particular churches by divine right I leave to consideration But this is evident that all those churches that the Scripture takes notice of were so constituted and that
certain that the Sun that is set will rise again in our Horizon after such a space of time it is naturally certain that there will be a vicissitude of Summer and Winter in our Climate for that it should be otherwise according to particular nature or in a natural way it is impossible These are in Scripture called the Ordinances of Heaven by the sureness whereof God sets forth the stability of his Covenant of Grace But that Certainty is greater that is founded in the Universal and Unchangeable Reason of things or in the Eternal Law which is founded in the unchangeable nature and perfections of God for this can never fail There is not only an impossibility in the ordinary course of nature but an absolute and utter impossibility that an apprehension or assent founded herein should be falseâ—â—ho in the course of partirular nature it be impossible but that the Sun should go down at the stated time yet it is not utterly impossible that it should not but it may stand still or go back in the firmament as in holy Scripture we read it hath done and consequently we cannot have an absolute certainty thereof But we are absolutely certain of whatsoever truth rests upon the unchangeable Reason of things for the contrary thereof is a contradiction § 4. Of Supernatural Certainty SUpernatural Certainty is an assent upon indubitable Superna-natural evidence viz. Divine Revelation supernatural A Divine Evidence is the highest kind of proof and causeth Certainty if any thing can cause it For there is nothing more sure in the nature of things than Gods Veracity And nothing more is requisite to the certainty of that which brings a divine supernatural evidence or discovery than to know that it is divine or of God Wherefore supernatural Certainty presupposeth two things 1. The natural Certainty of this Principle That God is immutably true 2. A natural Certainty that the supernatural discovery or revelation that is to be the ground of our assent is from God Here by Natural certainty I mean that which ariseth from the very nature of the thing in which there is a full objective evidence Nevertheless the Certainty that is natural in the said respect may in another respect be supernatural namely in respect of the supernatural assistance of the mind unto that certainty or firmness of assent it is natural in respect of the objective evidence of the thing and supernatural in respect of the assistance of the faculty to apprehend it § 5. The distinction of Certainty into evident and obscure considered CERTAINTY hath been distinguished into evident and obscure Evident Certainty is said to be of those things that are some way clearly perceived namely either the first principles or conclusions evidently drawn from them or objects of sence Oâ—â—cure Certainty is only of those things which we hold by belief or opinion namely things believed upon divine authority or humane authority or inferred from signs and conjectures But I conceive that to distinguish Certainty into evident and obscure is all one as to distinguish it into Certain and Uncertain For evidence is the ground of Certainty and so far as we have certain knowledg of any thing so far we have evidence thereof and no farther than we have evidence can we have any Certainty And it rises or falls in the degrees of it according as the degrees of evidence are more or less I take Certainty and Obscurity to be opposite in nature All Certainty connotes knowledg Obscurity belongs not to knowledg as such but to ignorance and obscure knowledg is but knowledg mixed with ignorance Especially I judg it much amiss to place the certainty of divine faith under the head of obscure certainty for that I judg we have as good and sure evidence for the truth of matters of divine faith as for any conclusion of Science as shall be shewn Howbeit I grant that things which are most firmly and rightly assented unto may be in themselves obscure and unseen as the matters of the Christian Faith and the Mysteries of the Gospel that are known only by supernatural revelation Yet in the certainty or firm assent of the mind about these things there is not obscurity but evidence for it rests upon such grounds as are of clear and evident truth as is abundantly proved by divers Authors who have asserted the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures § 6. Whether Certainty admits of degrees CErtainty strictly so called doth admit of degrees A firm assent without wavering or doubting may be more firm My assent to this truth That there is a God is firm without wavering and yet I may have a greater degree of assurance thereof And doubtless the Angels that behold the face of God have a greater Certainty or firmness of assent to the aforesaid truth than mortals upon earth The degree of firmness of knowledg or right assent rises according to the degree of evidence I say not this of the firmness of all assent but of right assent which is knowledg and in which is true certainty There may be firmness of assent which hath no foundation in the thing it self and the highest confidence in the greatest mistake but no certainty which always supposes the true perception of its object That that which is now evident or clearly perceived may become more evident is a truth which I suppose cannot be denied And I think common experience confirms it to every observing man that things sufficiently or indubitably evident are commonly made more and more evident By sufficient evidence I mean that which gives us assurance that the thing cannot be otherwise than we apprehend There are many divine truths that are now evident which no true Christian doubts shall be made more evident in the life to come What we know here we know but in part and not perfectly The Apostle saith that that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect by reason of the glory that excels that is that which positively is glorious comparatively is inglorious So we may say that which positively is evident comparatively is obscure All our present evidence of divine truths is but obscurity in respect of the glorious clearness that shall be hereafter In like manner the firm assent of divine faith may be called weak assent in comparison of the assent of intuitive knowledg in the state of glory The lower degrees of true knowledg are ignorance in respect of the higher and the lower degrees of strength and firmness sufficient in its own place is but weakness in respect of the higher especially those transcendent degrees in heaven And where there is not a privative there may be a negative imperfection § 7. Of the Certainty of Sense CErtainty may be either of Sense or of Reason or of Belief There is a Certainty of sense or sensitive knowledg And this cannot be denied without denial of all Certainty 1. Because almost all knowledg comes in first by the senses 2. All knowledg which
in a natural way is had of matters of fact that are contingent comes either by our own sense or by the credit of others that have known the same by sense 3. The Certainty of reason and of belief may as well be denyed as the certainty of sense For if there be no certainty of sense our faculties are not true and if the sensitive faculty be false and not to be trusted the rational faculty may as well be supposed false and not to be trusted and if sense and reason cannot be trusted the credit of men in their reports made to others cannot be trusted But that there be this Certainty the sense must be duly circumstantiated which is when there is a sound Organ and a fit Medium and a due Distance of the Object c. Some supernatural deception of the senses of some particular men by divine permission being granted makes nothing against the natural and ordinary Certainty thereof placed in due Circumstances § 8. Of the Certainty of Reason CERTAINTY of reason or rational knowledg is twofold or of two degrees The first the certain knowledg of the first principles or common notions which are known by themselves and appear as they are to all persons that are compotes mentis The second degree is the knowledg of conclusions so evidently drawn from the first principles as all that understand what they are must assent unto unless they offer violence to their faculties § 9. Of the Certainty of Belief upon Divine Testimony CERTAINTY of Belief rests upon the credible testimony of others The Credibility of all testimony rests upon the veracity of the person testifying and the evidence of that veracity The highest degree of Credibility and consequently of Certainty from testimony is that which rests upon an immutable veracity which belongs to God alone A surer evidence of the truth of any matter cannot be than a divine testimony thereunto For there is not a surer and clearer truth than this That God is unchangeably true And this is the ground of that Certainty which men call the certainty of divine faith the object whereof can never be false Tho Gods veracity be a principle by it self evident yet that this or that testimony is of God may need proof A divine testimony may so carry its own evidence to the person to whom it is immediately made known as to need no proof thereof as in voices and visions and inspirations tho the way of such self-evidence may be unaccountable by us nevertheless in the case of such immediate revelations sometimes holy men have without being blamed asked a sign for confirmation and sometimes God hath without their asking given a sign Every testimony that is by another reported to us to be of God ought to be rationally proved to be such or else it cannot rationally be credited nor be a due object of divine faith which is a rational assent To sound faith reason is always presupposed There are certain rational proofs of a Divine Testimony that are evident to humane reason even such as naturally evince the same And to deny those proofs were to offer violence to the faculty of reasoning § 10. Of Certainty upon Humane Testimony HUmane Testimony as such is not a ground of Certainty strictly so called but at the most only of the above mentioned conjectural Certainty that excludes anxiety and fluctuation of mind but not all apprehension that the thing may be otherwise Even the testimony of the best and wisest of mortal men can rise no higher because there is no mortal man but may deceive or be deceived Upon the same reason that any one man or number of men may deceive every man and all men may deceive Wherefore as the bare testimony of one man or a small number of men by it self considered is not the ground of strict Certainty so neither the testimony of any multitudes or all men by it self considered or meerly as a testimony by way of its proper authority Nevertheless with the testimony of men there may go along such rational evidence as may ascertain the truth of it in the matter testified and make it unquestionable And then it is a ground of strict Certainty not formally and abstractly as a testimony but as accompanied with the said Rational evidence This Rational evidence accompanying humane testimony and making it the ground of strict Certainty is when there is an impossibility evident in Reason that the Witnesses or Reporters should deceive or be deceived He that never saw Rome or Constantinople or Asia Africa or America hath strict Certainty that those Cities and those parts of the world have been in being from the Reports of those that have seen them for it is impossible in reason that all the Reporters should deceive or be deceived Tho it be possible that all the Reporters considered merely as so many particular persons may lye for if any one may all may in that consideration yet it is impossible that they being such multitudes of several nations of several ages of several conditions and so of several interests and inclinations should lye or deceive without detection for there is no possible sufficient cause of such undetected lye and we know there can be no effect without a sufficient cause If it be said It is moâ—â—â—â—â—n we know what sufficient cause there may be it is answered That any such cause is is beyond humane imagination to assign and surely this is enough to satisfie that there is none If there be any sufficient cause of such an undetected lye it must be either a universal combination of all the Reporters to deceive and that combination must be held constantly but this is impossible or else a concurrent inclination and impulse in all the Reporters to lye which is unimaginable and can have no sufficient cause Likewise if it be supposed possible that any one person through the deception of the senses may be deceived in a matter of fact of palpable evidence yet it is impossible supposing our faculties to be true that all the Reporters should be deceived in matters so palpable as that there is day and night that there is a Countrey called France Italy Greece c. for they could not all be mad or sensless Or if this were possible in respect of the humane created nature yet it cannot be conceived without blasphemy that God should govern the World by such an universal and perpetual deception of the senses Now whether this be said to be naturally or morally impossible it comes to one pass and gives equal certainty of the testimony from the impossibility of the contrary part Besides our Arguing shews it impossible in the reason or nature of the thing § 11. Of the nature of Infallibility THE nature and grounds and subject of Certainty being considered I come to consider of Infallibility which one sort of men lay claim unto without warrant and some others without reason explode as a thing transcending all created understandings tho
they grant a kind of Certainty as the one by usurped authority impose upon mens belief in the matter of Religion which is mans highest concernment so the other take away or lessen that security of the mind which is reasonably required in so great a matter and give too great advantage to the pretenders on the other extream The term infallible may be taken first in a passive signification and then it is that which cannot be deceived And so it may be applied either to the propounder or to the believer of a truth It may also be taken in an active signification for that which cannot deceive and so it may be applied to the propounder as also to the truth it self proposed and â—o the evidence thereof as in our English Translation Act. 1.3 by many infallible proofs that is evidence that could not deceive Infallibility as ascribed to the propounder or believer of a truth is subjective infallibility as ascribed to the truth propounded or the evidence thereof it is objective infallibility which signifies no more than that the thing cannot be false and cannot objectively deceive Now if there may be objective there may be also subjective infallibility If there be truth and an evidence of truth that cannot be false then an understanding apprehending that truth as it is cannot be deceived therein nor can deceive in propounding the same to others Besides objective infallibility is an insignificant thing in reference to an understanding uncapable of infallibility An object is denominated infallible with respect to the understanding to which it is or may be propounded as not to be deceived in it § 12. Of Infallibility which is hypothetical and limited and that which is absolute and unlimited INFALLIBILITY therefore denoting an impossibility of being deceived and of deceiving inquire we into the subject to whom it doth belong Some say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding We must distinguish between an impossibility of being deceived that is absolute and unlimited and that which is hypothetical and limited I grant that an absolute impossibility of being deceived belongs not to a finite understanding And no asserter of infallibility in the creature intended the former but the latter kind Hypothetical and limited impossibility of being deceived may belong to a finite and in particular to a humane understanding and it is that which supposeth a full revelation natural or supernatural to the subject in whom it is and is limited to the truth so revealed and this hypothetical infallibility doth not rest barely upon the perfection of the humane nature but upon this principle That God is true in his revelations both natural and supernatural and that he doth not govern the world by falshoods Now this is proper infallibility For upon this principle I am not only sure that I am not deceived but also that I cannot be deceived as to the particular truths so evident to me or to speak it plainer it cannot be that I am therein deceived for it were a contradiction Moreover that which is certain is so upon necessary grounds and therefore cannot be false And he that knows it to be certain knows it upon those necessary grounds and consequently that it cannot be false and this is to know it infallibly If we know nothing infallibly we know nothing either as necessary or as impossible whether absolutely or hypothetically § 13. Of stated or permanent Infallibility and that which is but pro tempore IT hath been shewed that an understanding that is not absolutely or by the perfection of its nature infallible may be secured from possibility of mistake and an understanding that is not universally infallible may be secured from possibility of mistakes and so be infallible in certain cases and to certain intents Now it is further to be noted That there may be a stated or permanent Infallibility and that which is but temporary The former did belong to the established Prophets of the Lord in their declarations to his people and to the Apostles of Christ in matters pertaining to their Apostolical Commission for establishing the Religion and Churches of Christ Also upon supposition of the Saints perseverance it belongs to all true Christians as to the Essentials of Christianity The temporary Infallibility belongs to such persons as receive the Visions of God or are divinely inspired not statedly but occasionally at some particular time or times as among holy men Zacharias John Baptists Father Gideon the Parents of Sampson among the unholy Balaam in his Prophesies before Balaac and Saul who sometime was found prophecying § 14. The Infallibility of a finite Vnderstanding further cleared IT is granted by the deniers of Infallibility That that which is true is not possible to be false And thence I infer If I know it to be true I know it is not possible to be false and so I infallibly know it And my assent to a truth as for instance to the Christian Faith cannot possibly be false Some that say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding do grant that an understanding liable to be deceived may not be deceived and be sure that he is not And I infer thereupon that he cannot be deceived in that particular assent I mean not that he cannot simply but in that state and circumstances wherein he is put he cannot be deceived therein and that he knows he cannot because he knows it implies a contradiction that he should be deceived in that wherein he is sure that he is not deceived For if I may be deceived in such an apprehension or assent not only simply but all circumstances being put I cannot be sure that I am not deceived therein Likewise those that say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding do grant that a man cannot be deceived in that thing with the belief whereof God inspires him and gives him such evidence thereof as cannot be false Now this is a concession of hypothetical and limited insallibility to humane understanding For it is here acknowledged that there may be such evidence of divine inspiration as cannot be false And indeed I take it for a repugnancy in nature that God should inspire the belief of a falshood Nevertheless a man divinely inspired is not simply infallible in his apprehension of divine inspiration for he may sometime be deceived in thinking he is so inspired when he is not Thus it being evident that an understanding that is not simply infallible in a matter may in the state and circumstances wherein he is put be therein infallible I think it better to explain and limit the term and notion of infallibility in the humane understanding than wholly to reject it But howsoever they that reject or dislike it do grant and contend for a sufficiently certrin evidence of truth and I will not quarrel if that will serve for infallibility And they will also grant that they who
death of Mark and in other places by that example And it plainly shews as the Apostle Paul doth That the Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops The Testimony of Irenaeus It is clear that this Father makes the presbyters to be the same with bishops and the successors of the Apostles and with him the succession of bishops is all one with the succession of presbyters Lib. 4. c. 43. We must obey those presbyters which are in the Church who together with the succession of Episcopacy have received the gift of truth Id. l. 3. c. 2. Unto that tradition which is in the church by the succession of presbyters we challenge them that say they are wiser not only than the presbyters but the Apostles Id. l. 3. c. 3. declaring the tradition of the greatest and ancientest church and known to all even the church of Rome founded by Peter and Paul at Rome that which it hath from the Apostles and the Faith declared to men and coming to us by the succession of bishops c. Id. lib. 4. c. 4. We must forsake unjust Presbyters serving their own lusts and adhere to those who with the order of presbytery keep the doctrine of the Apostles found and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest The church nourisheth such presbyters whereof the Prophet speaks I will give thee princes in peace and thy bishops in righteousness Id. lib. 4. c. 63. The true knowledg of the doctrine of the Apostles and the ancient state in the whole world according to the succession of bishops to which they gave the church which is in every place which is come even to us From these citations it is evident that this Father doth express one and the same order of Episcopacy in all presbyters If any do use this evasion that he calls all those that were true bishops by the name of presbyters let them shew where he mentions presbyters of another order or makes two different orders of Episcopacy and Presbyterate Here I will take notice of the words of Irenaus concerning those Elders of the church mentioned Acts 20. lib. 3. c. 14. viz. In Miletum the bishops and presbyters which were from Ephesus and other the next Cities being convocated Tho it seems most reasonable by the Elders of the church there sent for by Paul to understand the elders of that particular church of Ephesus to which the Apostle then sent and indeed if they had been from other Cities also it would have said according to the Scripture way of expression the elders of the churches yet admitting what this Father saith hereof observe we that he speaks of bishops and presbyters as congregated in the meeting and he might mention two names of the same office And the Apostle speaks to all those presbyters that there convened as those whom the Holy Ghost had made bishops of the flock And suppose they were the bishops of Asia as some would have it yet it cannot be proved that they were any other than bishops of single Congregations or that they were such bishops as had subject presbyters of a lower order under them The Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus He thus writes Stromat lib. 6. p. 667. He is really a presbyter of the church and a true Deacon of the will of God if he teach the things of the Lord not as ordained by men nor esteemed just because he is a presbyter but taken into the presbytery because he is just Here in the Church are progressions of bishops presbyters deacons imitations as I think of the Angelical glory and of the heavenly dispensation which the Scripture speaks they expect who treading in the footsteps of the Apostles have lived in the perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel These the Apostle writes being taken up into the clouds shall first be made deacons and then shall be taken into the presbytery according to the progress of glory Here this Father first mentions only two orders presbyters and deacons afterwards a progression of bishops presbyters and deacons as imitations of the heavenly dispensation but in the close applying the similitude to blessed men taken into heaven he makes the progress to be only in being first as deacons then as presbyters mentioning no higher order Hence I conceive may be inferred that he speaks of presbyters and deacons as of two different orders and of bishops but as a higher degree in the order of presbyters This also may be further confirmed Stromat lib. 7. p. 700. where distinguishing of a twofold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or employment in secular affairs viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that presbyters hold that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes men better and the deacons that which consists in service His meaning is that as in the Civil State there are two orders the one governing and the other ministring so there are likewise in the Church the Presbyters holding the one and the deacons the other These passages of this Author I thought fit to mention and have not found in him any more relating to the distinct ministers of the church The Testimony of Jerome This Father also speaks of presbyters as the same with bishops and successors of the Apostles On the Epistle to Titus c. 1. he saith As presbyters know that they are by the custom of the church subject to him that is set over them so let the bishops know that they are greater than presbyters rather by custom than by the verity of the Lords appointment He also testifies that they did and ought to rule the church in common and that imparity came in by little and little In his Epistle to Evagrius he shews that the presbyters of Alexandria from Mark till Heraclas and Dionysius had always one chosen out of them and placed in a higher degree and named bishop as if an Army made an Emperor and Deacons chose one whom they knew industrious and called him Arch-deacon Here he mentions no other making of bishops than by presbyters And that the presbyters made the bishop is an argument brought by him to prove the identity at first and afterwards the nearness of their power And he ascribes to presbyters the making of their bishop and placing him in a higher degree and naming him bishop And he distinguisheth the ancient way of making bishops by presbyters from that way of making them which followed the times of Heraclas and Dionysius which was by Episcopal ordination This evidence is confirmed by the testimony of Eutichius Patriarch of Alexandria who out of the Records and Traditions of that Church in his Arabick Originals saith according to Seldens Translation in his Commentary p. 29 30. That the presbyters laid hands on him whom they elected till the time of Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria for he forbad the presbyters any longer to create the Patriarch and decreed that the Patriarch being deceased bishops should
convene and ordain one to the Patriarchate and that they might chuse the Patriarch out of any Region Jerome as an Historian only mentions from the testimony of Eusebius some bishops made by the Apostles But who can prove that those bishops were of a higher order than Presbyters The Testimonies of other Ancients in the same point Cyprian lib. 3. Epist 9. Erasmus his Edit to Rogatianus The Deacons must remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is bishops and Praepositi but after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles made Deacons to themselves as ministers of their Episcopacy and the church Here are but two Orders mentioned 1. bishops and Praepositi who were as the Apostles 2. Deacons who are ministers to them and the church Id. lib. 1. Epist 11. to Pomponius When all ought to maintain discipline much more the Praepositi and the Deacons From this and the other place before cited it may plainly appear that there was no middle office between that of the Praepositi and the Deacons And all the Presbyters being Praepositi must needs be of the same Order with bishops that title importing the very nature of the bishops office Chrysostome on the first to Timothy consesseth that there is little or no difference between a bishop and a presbyter That a bishop had not a different ordination from a presbyter Ambrose shews on 1 Tim. c. 3. in these words Why after the bishop doth he come to the ordination of a deacon Why but because there is one ordination of a bishop and presbyter for either of them is a priest but the bishop is the first every bishop is a presbyter but every presbyter is not a bishop for he is a bishop who is first among the presbyters Here note that the difference lies in this that the bishop is the first among the Presbyters Vid. Sedulius on Tit. 1. Anselm of Canterbury on Phil. 1. Beda on Acts 20. Alcuinus de divinis officiis c. 35 36. all agreeing in this point § 7. Testimonies to prove That the Episcopal Authority is really in the Presbyters 1. THAT Presbyters have the power of the keys and that the Apostles received it as Presbyters is commonly agreed on all sides Mr. Thorndike in his form of primitive Government and Right of Churches p. 128. saith That the power of the keys that is the power of the Church whereof that power is the root and source is common to bishops and presbyters Bishop Morton in his Apology Dr. Field and many others say much more 2. Presbyters have the power of jurisdiction and discipline particularly of excommunication and absolution Spalatensis proves that the power of excommunication and absolution is not different from the power of the keys which is exercised in foro poenitentiali and is acknowledged to belong to presbyters L. 5 c. 9. n. 2. l. 5. c. 2. n. 48 c. Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor saith If I sin a presbyter may deliver me to Satan In the Church of England a presbyter is set to pass the sentence of excommunication in the Chancellors Court tho he doth but speak the words when the Court bids him Tertullian in his Apology c. 59. saith that probati quique seniores all the approved Elders did exercise discipline in the Church Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 7. saith that in the Church the presbyters keep that discipline which makes men better Irenaeus l. 4. c. 44. With the order of presbytery they keep the doctrine of the Apostles sound and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest This place shews that discipline for correction as well as doctrine for information did belong to the presbyters Epiphanius haeres 42. reports that Marcion was expell'd by the Roman presbyters the Sea being vacant Id Heres 47. That Noetus was convicted judged and expelled by a session of presbyters Many Diocesses have been long without bishops upon several occasions and governed all that time by presbyters Vid. Blondels Apol. sect 3. p. 183 184. The Church of England allows presbyters in the Convocation to make Canons Also it allows presbyters to keep persons from the Communion of the Church for some offences and to receive them again if they repent To say that the presbyters cannot exercise this power without the bishops consent doth not derogate from the truth of their power herein for in some ancient times it was so ordered that presbyters could perform â—o sacred ministrations without their bishop They might not baptize as hath been observed without the bishops command but that limitation respected only the exercise of the power but not the power in it self 3. Presbyters have power of ordaining Acts 13.1 2 3. The Church of Antioch had not many Prelates at that time if any but the prophets and teachers there are mentioned as Ordainers Whereas some say they were bishops of many Churches in Syria they speak without proof and against the text which saith there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers c. which clearly expresseth that they all belonged to that Church this right of presbyters is confirmed by the passages before cited concerning the ordaining and making the bishops of Alexandria by the presbyters of that Church Firmilian in Cyprian Ep. 75. saith of them that Rule in the Church that they have the power of baptizing of laying on of hands and ordaining and who they be he expressed a little before viz. Seniors and Praepositi by which the presbyters as well as the bishops are understood Foelicissimus was ordained a deacon by Novatus one of Cyprians presbyters schismatically yet his ordination was not nulled by Cyprian but he was deposed for mal-administration The first Council of Nice in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria and all the Churches of Egypt Libia and Pentapolis thus determine concerning the presbyters ordained by Meletius Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. Let those that by the grace of God and helped by our prayers are found to have turned aside to no schism but have contained themselves within the bounds of the Catholick and Apostolick Church free from spot of error have authority of ordaining Ministers and also of nominating those that are worthy of the Clergy c. Now tho they had not this power granted them to be exercised apart without their bishop yet it is to be noted that they had the power tho the Bishop as president guided in all those acts The Author of the Comment on the Ephesians that goes under the name of Ambrose saith That in Egypt the presbyters ordain consignant if the bishop be not present Also Austin faith that in Alexandria and all Egypt if the bishop be wanting the presbyters consecrate Presbyters sent bishops into England and ordained bishops for England Bedes Hist l. 3. c. 4 5. The Abbot and other presbyters of the Island Hye sent Aydan c. at King Oswalds Request and this was the ordinary custom tho in respect of the custom
of the Empire it is said to be unusual That presbyters may ordain see Anselm on 1 Tim. 4.14 also Bucer Script Anglic. p. 254 255 259 291. The Lollards and Wickliefists in England held and practised ordination by meer presbyters Walsingham Hist Ang. An. 1389. so did the Lutheran protestants Bugenhagius Pomeranus a presbyter of Wittenberg ordained the Protestant bishops of Denmark in the presence of the King and Senate in the chief Church at Hafnia See Melchior Adam in the Life of Bugenhagius and Chytraeus Saxon Chronicle l. 14 15 16 17. Forbes in his Irenicum l. 2. c. 11. saith that presbyters have a share with bishops in the imposition of hands not only as consenting to the ordination but as ordainers with the bishop by a power received from the Lord and as praying for grace to be confer'd on the persons ordained by them and the bishop That the Ancients did argue from the power of baptizing to the power of ordaining is evident out of the Master lib. 4. distinct 25. 4. Presbyters with Bishops laid on hands for Restoring the excommunicate and blessing the people Cyprian Epist 12. Nor can any return to communion unless hands be laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy Vid. also Ep. 9. 46. Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit To the presbyters and deacons against some presbyters who had given the peace of the Church rashly to some of the lapsed with the knowledg of the Bishop In lesser offences sinners after a just time of penance and confession receive Right of Communication by the imposition of hands of the Bishop and Clergy Clemens Alexandrin paedag p. 248. speaking against women wearing other hair than their own saith On whom doth the presbyter lay hands whom doth he bless Not on the woman adorn'd but on anothers Hair and thereby on anothers Head § 8. Testimonies in reference to the Bishops Plea of being the Apostles Successors FOR the diversity of order between a bishop and a presbyter it is alledged That bishops are the Apostles successors which presbyters are not To this it is answered 1. The ancient Fathers make presbyters as well as bishops the successors of the Apostles Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 43 44. We must obey the presbyters that are in the Church even those that have succession from the Apostles who have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father with the succession of Episcopacy Here presbyters are said to have succession from the Apostles and to have succession of Episcopacy This cannot be evaded by saying he intended it only of presbyters of a superior order which are bishops for this is to beg the question and in this Father there is no footstep of any order of presbyters but what are bishops Cyprian l. 3. Ep. 9. The Deacons must remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is bishops and Praepositi but after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles made deacons to themselves as Ministers of their Episcopacy and the Church Now in the names of Bishops and Praepositi the presbyters are included as I have before made manifest And it is plain that in this place all in the sacred Ministry above Deacons are included in those names and called Apostles Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor speaks in general that Clericks are said to sucreed the Apostolical degree The late form of Ordination in the Church of England viz. Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser c. is for the former part the very form of words used by our Saviour to his Apostles to express their Pastoral Authority and fully proves that the office of a presbyter is Pastoral and of the same nature with that which was ordinary in the Apostles and in which they had successors 2. Some conceive there is no proper succession to the Apostles whose office as to its formal state and specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons And in proper speaking the ordinary Bishops or Elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were contemporary with them in the first planting of the Churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power which the Apostles did not supercede by their presence tho it were under the regulation of their supereminent authority and the Bishops or Elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops Bellarmine l. 4. de Pontif. c. 25. saith That bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles because the Apostles being not ordinary but extraordinary Pastors have no successors and that the Pope of Rome properly succeeds Peter not as an Apostle but as an ordinary pastor of the whole church 3. Whereas some say That the Order of bishops began in the Apostles and the order of presbyters in the seventy disciples it is answered 1. As concerning the bishops order when the Fathers speak of Apostles or Evangelists long residing in one church they did by way of similitude call them bishops thereof Reynolds against Hart saith That the Fathers when they term an Apostle the bishop of this or that City mean in a general way that he did attend that Church for the time and supply that room in preaching which the bishop afterwards did And not only the Apostles but itinerant Ministers or Evangelists were in such a general sence bishops of the places where they came Paul staid at or about Ephesus three years Acts 20.31 yet he was not bishop there in the strict and proper sense of the word James was either no bishop of Jerusalem or no Apostle but as many think another James 2. As concerning the order of inferior presbyters said to be instituted in the seventy disciples it is spoken without proof and against Reason Spalatensis saith those seventy had but a temporary commission and therefore that he cannot affirm that Presbyterial Order was directly and immediately instituted in them de Rep. Eccles l. 2. c. 3. n. 4. Saravia acknowledgeth that the seventy disciples were Evangelists de Minist Evang. grad c. 4. § 9. Testimonies concerning the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 1. TImothy was not a fixed bishop His travels we find upon sacred Record When Paul went from Beraea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behind him Acts 17.14 Afterwards they coming to Paul at Athens Paul sent Timothy thence to Thessalonica to confirm the Christians there 1 Thes 3.6 An. C. 47. Thence he returned to Athens again and Paul sent him and Silas thence into Macedonia Acts 18.5 and thence they returned to Paul at Corinth An. 48. Afterwards they travel to Ephesus whence Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Acts 19.22 whither Paul went after them An. 51. from Macedonia they with divers brethren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 and come to Miletum where Paul sent to Ephesus to call the elders of the Church An. 53. Then Paul did
was referred to a Synod consisting of bishops and presbyters Other precepts given them were above the proper work of a bishop of a particular Church To erect and govern Churches in a hundred Cities and to govern such presbyters who according to Dr. Hammond were bishops belonged not to an ordinary bishop of a particular Church Wherefore this latter sort of duties belonged to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists or General Ministers who had a kind of Vice-Apostolick office of which sort were Barnabas Silas Apollos Titus Timothy and Epaphroditus and others Ambrose on Eph. 4. saith they are stiled Evangelists who did Evangelizare sine Cathedra It often happened that those unfixed Officers resided for a longer time in some places and then they managed the affairs of those Churches in chief during the time of their residence § 10. Concerning the Angels of the Seven Churches in ASIA IT is much insisted on that these Angels were bishops of a superior Order to that of presbyters Whereupon let it be considered 1. That the title of Stars and Angels are not proper but figurative and mystical names made use of in a mystical book and that the said names are common to all ministers Gregory the Great l. 34. Mor. on Joâ— c. 4. saith that these Angels are the preachers of the Churches 2. That the name Angel may be taken collectively not individually Austins Homily on the Apoc on these words I will remove thy Candlestick saith that John calls the Church the Angel As the Civil state of the Pagano-Christian Empire is called the Beast and the Ecclesiastical state the Whore so Angel may signifie the whole Presbytery but put in the singular number to hold proportion to the seven stars which signifie the same thing and the seven Candlesticks In these Epistles to the Churches there are indications that not a single person but a company is represented under this name Rev. 2.10 16 24 25. 3. Beza saith that this Angel was only praeses Indeed he to whom the title of bishop was appropriated by the ancient Fathers was the President of the presbytery Ambrose on 1 Tim. c. 3. saith He is the bishop who is first among the presbyters This priority or presidency is in History observed to have begun first at Alexandria the people whereof above other men were given to schism and sedition as Socrates saith of them l 7. c. 13. If this presidency began at Alexandria upon the death of Mark it must needs be long before the death of John the Apostle Howbeit Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians takes no notice of such a priority or presidency of one above the rest in that Church And Jerome having mentioned John as the last of the Apostles saith that afterwards one was set over the rest Now whereas Jerome called the imparity of bishops and presbyters an Apostolical tradition it is to be noted that with him an Apostolical tradition and Ecclesiastical custome are the same But the main thing still remains unproved for ought that is to be gathered from this title of Angel or from any thing contained in these Epistles to the Asian Churches namely that these Angels whatsoever they might be were bishops of a superior order than that of presbyters or that they had a superiority of jurisdiction over the presbyters or that they were bishops set over divers setled Churches or fixed Congregations with their Pastors or that they had the sole power of jurisdiction and ordination The main point in controversie is not Whether bishops but whether such as the present Diocesan bishops have continued from the Apostles times to this Age. The ancient bishop was the Officer of a particular Church not a general Officer of many Churches He was not a bishop of bishops that is he did not assume a power of ruling bishops who have their proper stated Churches Cypr. in Conc. Carth. saith None of us calls himself or makes himself to be a bishop of bishops or by tyrannical terror drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying The ancient bishop did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church He did not and might not ordain without the Counsel of his Clergy Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trall saith What is the presbytery but the sacred Assembly of the Councellors and Confessors of the bishops Cyprian in his epistle to Cornelius wisheth him to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy at Rome that did preside with him Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit From the beginning of my Episcopacy I resolved to do nothing without your counsel and without the consent of my people 4. Conc. Carthag 23. The sentence of a bishop shall be void without the presence of his Clericks Concil Caâ—thag c. 22. Let not a bishop ordain Clericks without a Council of his Clericks The Present Ecclesiastical Government compared with the Ancient EPISCOPACY IT is commonly objected against the Nonconformists That they are enemies to Episcopacy and that they renounce the Ancient Government received in all the Churches The truth of this Objection may easily be believed by those that hear of Episcopal Government and consider only the name thereof which hath continued the same till now but not the thing signified by that name which is so changed that it is of another nature and kind from what was in the first Ages There be Nonconformists who think they are more for the Ancient Episcopacy than the Assertors of the present Hierarchy are and who believe they are able to make it evident may they be permitted Something to this purpose is here in a short Scheme tendered to consideration and proof is ready to be made of each particular here asserted touching the state and practice of the Ancient Church 1. IN the first ages a Political Church constituted as well for Government and Discipline as for Divine Worship was one particular Society of Christians having its proper and immediate bishop or bishops pastor or pastors In these times the lowest political Church is a Diocess usually consisting of many hundred parishes having according to the Hierarchical principle no bishop but the Diocesan Yet these parishes being stated ecclesiastical Societies having their proper pastors are really so many particular Churches 2. In the first Ages the bishops were bishops of one stated Ecclesiastical Society or particular Church But in the present age bishops that are of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle are bishops of many hundred churches which kind of bishop the ancient churches did not know and which differs as much from the ancient bishop as the General of an Army from the Captain of a single Company 3. The bishop of the first Ages was a bishop over his own Church but he was not a bishop of bishops that is he was not a Ruler of the Pastors of other Churchs But the present bishop even of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle is a bishop of bishops namely of the presbyters of
permanently or unalterably holy as well sanctifying the duties therein performed as sanctified by them so I suppose that the appointed feasts or at least some of them are set apart by the Church to a state of like holiness I confess that as touching the dedication of such days and times as some of those are which are appointed by the Church I have not a clearness of judgment to determine for or against the warrantableness thereof Nor would I break with the Church upon this account but would make those days an occasion of joining in the unquestionable divine worship then celebrated But I know not how to declare an unfeigned assent and consent to the sanctifying of those days because in so doing I should not speak the truth while I doubt of the warrantableness thereof Of the Order for Morning and Evening-prayer THE second Rubrick before Morning-prayer is taken to enjoin the use of the Surplice Supposing that the use thereof is not in it self unlawful nevertheless I question whether I may lawfully consent to a Rule enjoining the use of it to such Ministers and in such Congregations by which the use thereof is judged unlawful or to which it is odious or greatly offensive by invincible or inveterate prejudice I enquire Whether a consent to the use of this Rubrick doth not imply a consent to the enjoining of this Vestment for the enjoined retaining and using of it so that sacred Ministrations shall not be performed without it is the subject matter of the Rubrick I enquire also Whether I may lawfully declare my consent to the use of this Vestment supposing that tho I do not scruple the bare lawfulness of using it yet I wish in my heart the use thereof were not retained but laid aside in regard of the great offence taken at it it being a thing unnecessary and the worship of God being as decently and profitably performed without it as with it Moreover what were those Ornaments in the Church which were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the sixth I do not well know Some say this Rubrick seems to bring back the Cope and other Vestments forbidden in the Common-prayer-book 5 6. of Edw. 6. to the use whereof I do not see it fit for me to declare my consent The Responsals of the Clerk and people the multiplied repetitions of the Gloria Patri and the Lords Prayer the omission of the Doxology in the Lords Prayer the composure of many short Collects instead of one continued prayer I can submit unto and declare my consent to them as to things passable But if the declaration of consent imply not only the simple allowableness but also the laudableness and comparative usefulness or expediency of these things I am not clear therein Of the Creed of St. Athanasius I Heartily own the whole Doctrine of the Trinity and of the incarnation of the Son of God as set forth in this Creed yet I am not satisfied to declare my assent to these assertions Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled without doubt he shall perish everlastingly Also This is the Catholick faith which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved Also he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity This Creed doth contain deep mysteries as that the Son is not made nor created but begotten That the Holy Ghost is neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding The difference between eternal generation and eternal procession being a mystery wherein the greatest Divines see but darkly we may be justly afraid to condemn all persons as uncapable of salvation who do not understand and explicitely believe these mysteries Likewise the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son being here delivered as a part of the faith concerning which it is asserted That except every one do keep whole without doubt he shall perish everlastingly the undoubted damnation of those Churches and Christians who hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only seems to be thence inferred The best answer to these objections that I have seen I here transcribe out of a book lately written It is to be considered That in this Creed there be some things contained and expressed as necessary points of Faith and other things for the more clear and useful explication of the truth tho they be not of equal necessity to be understood and believed even by the meanest capacity Thus if we first consider the contexture of this Creed the Faith declared necessary concerning the Trinity is thus expressed in the beginning thereof The Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance After this follows an explication useful to set forth the true Christian Doctrine which begins For there is one person of the Father c. After which explication the same necessary doctrine to be known and believed is thus again expressed and distinguished from that explication in these words So that in all things as aforesaid the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity is to be worshipped he therefore who will be saved must thus think of the Trinity What is contained in this consideration is the more clear by the following observation That our Church doth both here and in her Articles evidently receive the Athanasian Creed and yet from the manner of using the Apostles Creed in the form of Baptism as containing the profession of that Faith into which we are baptized in the Catechism as containing all the Articles of the Christian Faith and in the Visitation of the sick as being the Rule to try whether he believe as a Christian man should or not it is manifest that no more is esteemed in our Church of necessity to salvation for all men to believe than that only which is contained and expressed in the Apostles Creed Hereunto I make this Reply In this point the question is not What the Church of England but what the Athanasian Creed appointed by this Church to be read on certain solemn days instead of the Apostles Creed declares to be of necessity to salvation Now the thing that is manifestly asserted in this Creed to be of necessity to salvation is the intire belief of the Catholick Faith as it is there expressed For it is said Which Faith except every one keep whole c. Wherefore to distinguish the summary of the doctrine of the Trinity set down in the beginning and the conclusion from the whole intermediate explication thereof as if the belief of the one but not of the other were affirmed to be necessary to salvation is a very forc'd and unwarrantable narrowing of the intendment of the Words The explication as well as the said Summary is set forth as that Catholick Faith which except every one keep whole and undefiled he shall without doubt perish everlastingly Yea it is expresly said in
that it was not used in the first Celebration by our Saviour with his Disciples nor in the Apostles time as doth any way appear nor afterwards when General Councils forbad kneeling in any act of adoration on the Lords day To this it may be answered that it is not the enjoyning but the using of this gesture that is consented to and the objected inconvenience follows not the using but the enjoyning thereof in the rigor as to debar from the Sacrament those that scruple it But I further inquire Whether a consent to the use of a Rubrick which hath the nature of an injunction doth not imply a consent not only to the using but to the injoyning of the thing therein prescribed Moreover the very using or observing of this Rubrick by the Minister is an injunction in respect of the people because it includes an obligation upon him not to deliver the Sacrament to them except they use this gesture In the Rubrick after the Communion Note that every Parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year whereof Easter to be one That it is the duty of every Parishioner to be fit to receive the Sacrament and accordingly to receive it also that the Church may require this duty of all her Members and Censure those who continue wilfully unfit is not to be questioned But this Rubrick injoyns all Parishioners to communicate and the Parish-Ministers to admit them without any proviso here made touching their fitness or due caution elsewhere taken for it that I know of when it is sadly known that in most Parishes too many Parishioners are notoriously unfit And we see the practice consequent to this Rule a constant general admission or intrusion of notoriously ignorant or ungodly Persons who pollute the Communion of the Church and eat and drink Damnation to themselves Besides this Infidels Papists and such as secretly at least renounce the Communion of the parish-Parish-Churches are Parishioners in many places Now tho such may be compelled to use those means which God hath made universally necessary to bring the ignorant and erroneous to the knowledg of the truth yet I do not see that they may be injoyned in word or deed to profess what they believe not or to take that which is the special Priviledg of Visible Church-Members Of the Order of Baptism THE sign of the Cross in Baptism hath been more suspected to be unlawful than any other ceremony injoyned in the Church of England I shall first set down what hath made me question the lawfulness of it and afterwards what may be said in answer to it Against the lawfulness of the sign of the Cross it is thus objected It is not a meer circumstance but an ordinance of Divine Worship of mans devising and as great as an external rite can be and hath in it the nature of a Sacrament Here is an outward Visible sign of an inward spiritual Grace The outward sign is the representation of the Cross the instrument of Christs Suffering the spiritual Grace is the Grace of being a Christian or a Soldier and Servant of Christ and of Christian fortitude consequent thereunto as the Words of the Liturgy do import And we sign him with the sign of the Cross in token hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ crucified and to fight manfully under his banner against Sin the World and the Devil and to continue Christs faithful Soldier and Servant unto his lives end If it were granted it hath not the compleat Nature of a Sacrament yet one essential part thereof is most apparently in it that is to be an engaging-sign for our part in the Covenant of Grace For in the Liturgy it is declared to be a token of our engagement to Christ crucified in the relations of his Soldier and Servant and to perform the duties of those relations Moreover as Baptism dedicates to Christ so doth the sign of the Cross according to the express words of the Canon viz. It is an honourable badge whereby the party baptized is dedicated to the Service of him that dyed upon the Cross Hereupon I inquire Whether an Ordinance that is of the same import with the Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace or an essential part thereof may be instituted by humane authority or lawfully used by those that are under authority Tho the Imposers say it is not a Sacrament yet while they declare its meaning to be of the formal Nature of a Sacrament they make it to be one indeed tho in word they deny it Whereas to avoid this Argument some say it is imposible for man to make a Sacrament therefore the sign of the Cross cannot be such it is answered That tho God only can institute a lawful and valid Sacrament of his Covenant yet man may presume to institute an Ordinance of the same nature and reason and intent with a Sacrament of divine institution tho it be unlawful and of no effect And such an Ordinance is truly and properly a Sacrament tho an unlawful one as any other Ordinance devised by man that hath the Nature and formal Reason of Religious Worship is truly and properly Worship whatsoever may be said of the lawfulness or unlawfulness thereof The Reply The grand objection against the lawfulness of the sign of the Cross as used in Baptism supposes that it is of the same Nature with a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace whereupon the proper Nature of such a Sacrament is necessary to be considered Sacraments are signs appointed to ratisie seal and confirm the Covenant of God and to tender and exhibit the Grace of that Covenant to us And if any humane authority constitute any sign to this end it would be a high intrenchment upon the soveraignty of God But the sign of the Cross in Baptism is not used to this end and purpose It is used indeed as a token by way of remembrance and as a testimony of engagement that the party baptized stands obliged to maintain the Christian profession and warfare And altho such profession and engagement be included in a Sacrament yet it is not peculiar thereunto or of its specifically differencing nature Standing at the Creed is a professing and engaging sign of Christianity yet it is not a Sacrament It appears both by the 30th Canon and by the Liturgy it self That the Infant baptized is by vertue of Baptism before it be signed with the sign of the Cross received into the Congregation of Christs Flock as a perfect member thereof and not by any power ascribed to the sign of the Cross And tho it be declared by the Canon That it is an honourable badge whereby the party Baptized is dedicated c. yet this Dedication by the Cross is wholly distinct from the baptismal Dedication to be a Member of the Church We must understand that the Church by this sign engageth the party upon her account to the Service of Christ The Minister acting in the
is not properly a punishment to the Infant but meerly a non-deliverance or a being left in the state of sin and wrath wherein he is by nature I still query Whether the aforecited assertion That it is certain by Gods word that Children which are baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved be not contained under the Declaration It being the matter of a directing Rubrick and for use as I suppose Moreover this Rubrick seems evidently included in the injoyned Subscription and to be justified thereby as not contrary to the word of God Now the same things that are objected about the saving Regeration of all baptized Children may be objected in reference to this also Besides to affirm the certainty of this position by the word of God is much harder than to admit it as a probable truth only Whereas it is said that this position may be acknowledged as certainly true of children indefinitely without denying it to be true universally I answer That to understand it but of children indefinitely is to make it an insignificant and useless Assertion unworthy to be matter of a Rubrick as shewing no more but that it is certainly true that all baptized children are not damaned but some saved This is not rationally apprehended to be the meaning thereof According to the order prescribed in the Liturgy Children are devoted to God and brought into the Covenant of Grace and the Baptismal Vow by Godfathe s and Godmothers who have no propriety in them nor right of dedicating them to God or bringing them into his Covenant and the Parents who have right and by whom the Infants have title to this priviledg are excluded It is not mans Law that can authorize any to bring children into the bond of the Covenant with God And there is no Law of God that authorizeth any besides Parents Proparents or Proprietors so to do Tho the taking in of Sureties in conjunction with the Parents for a greater assurance of the Infants Christian Education may be commendable and useful if those Sureties did indeed concern themselves therein and not make it a matter of meer formality as generally it is made yet there can be no reason for such a rigid insisting upon Sureties the use of whom at the most is but expedient for greater caution about the Childs future education and in the mean time to overlook yea to exclude the Parents open and solemn dedication of the infant which is necessary That form of speaking to the Infant by the Sureties Dost thou renounce c. dost thou believe c. wilt thou be baptized c. wilt thou obediently keep c. and the taking of several answers as from him by the Sureties is not a form of words expressing ones being devoted or brought into Gods Covenant by another but of ones own professed present actual believing desiring and vowing If it be said This is spoken to the Sureties in the Childs name and 't is a declaring of what the child undertakes by his baptism I answer The child is not capable of doing any thing in the case and the child doth not and cannot undertake any thing by another as in his name To say the Infant doth these things passively and that he doth passively accept the Covenant is that which I do not understand I grant that baptized infants are under a vow of dedication to God but not a vow made by themselves but by those whom God hath authorized to dedicate them and by which they are bound as much as by a vow actually made by themselves when they are capable Of the CATECHISM EVery baptized person is taught thus to answer in my baptism wherein I was made a member of Christ the child of God and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven By the very receiving of baptism neither infants nor the adult are first put into a state of grace but those who by their own faith or by the faith of their Parents were before in the Covenant of Grace are by Baptism solemnly invested in that Grace Ones being in the Covenant of Grace is a prerequisite condition to the saving use of this Sacrament which is the soleâ—n dedication to God of one so qualified and his solemn investiture in the Grace of the Covenant But whether the said words be understood of the first consering of those benefits or of the solemn investiture therein nevertheless be it considered Whether it be fit to teach every Catechised person to believe That by his baptism he was made a pertaker of or solemnly invested in those high priviledges which only the children of true believers do receive by their Infant-baptism Be it also considered whether it tends not to cause many who are yet in the state of sin to believe that they are in the state of grace Of the Order of Confirmation ANY such baptized persons as are come to a competent age and can say in their Mother-tongue the Creed the Lords Prayer and the Ten Commandments and also can answer to other questions of the Catechism and to the Bishops interrogatory touching the renewing of the Vow made in their name at their Baptism and their consenting thee unto shall answer I do are according to the Rule of this Book sufficiently qualified for confirmation Be it considered Whether all this may not be said by a person in whom appears no credibility of a sincere yea or of an intelligent profession If it be said it is left to the Bishops discretion by these words of the Rubrick and if the bishop approve of them he shall confirm them nevertheless the Rule here set down doth express and require no more The Query is Whether I may consent to the use of a Rule insufficient for its end Confirmation is reserved to the Bishop alone yet it is ordinarily impossible for him to take due notice of all persons to be confirmed within his Diocess and consequently it cannot be duly administred to a multitude of persons that are to be brought to it Whereas it is alledged That this reservation was the usage of the ancient Church let it be considered that the primitive or more ancient bishops were bishops but of one particular Church and were capable of taking the oversight of every particular person of their flock and did personally perform the same But the present bishops being bishops of many hundred Churches have commonly more souls in their several Diocesses than an hundred bishops can personally watch over In the prayer immediately before the act of Confirmation it is said of all persons admitted to it That God hath vouchsafed to regenerate them by water and the Holy Ghost and hath given them the forgiveness of all their sins I enquire Whether this be warrantable and according to truth considering what is the corruption of human nature and what the inclinations and behaviour of most young ones are and what regeneration by the Holy Ghost doth import and how such as are far from any credible
Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Between the Orders of bishops and deacons there is unquestionably an essential difference But if by the orders of bishops and priests be meant several Orders or Offices specifically or essentially different and not several degrees of superiority and inferiority in the same office the essential nature whereof is in both I cannot by subscription declare that the said assertion is not contrary to the word of God Upon diligent reading of the Holy Scripture I cannot find therein the office or order of a presbyter that is no bishop Nor can I consent to this passage in the said Preface No man shall be accounted or taken for a lawful Priest or be suffered to execute the function except he be called according to this form or hath had formerly Episcopal Ordination I am no way satisfied in the disabling or degrading of so many Ministers as are ordained only by Presbyters Of the promissory part of the second Article of Subscription in these words That he himself will use the form in the said book prescribed in publick prayer and administration of Sacraments d n one other Can. 36. THE last words and none other taken in their most obvivious sense seem to exclude all other form of prayer used by the Minister before or after Sermon whether conceived at the present or precomposed For prayer before and after Sermon is publick prayer Now it is expresly promised by the Subscriber that he will use no other form in publick prayer than what is prescribed in the said book I know many Conformists do practise otherwise than is here expressed But I know also that some do urge this and another Canon against their practise and I now enquire into the plain force of the words which ought to be regarded by a considerate Subscriber I suppose it will be granted by all That the Church intends hereby to engage against using any other form whatsoever in the administration of Sacraments and thereupon one would think that she intended hereby to engage also against using any other form whatsoever in publick prayer seeing in the words of the promise the engagement against the use of any other form both in publick prayer and administration of Sacraments is alike expressed If any sufficient reason or good warrant can be produced for restraining the words to the excluding only of the use of any other publick Liturgy as for example the Mass-book or of any other publick Directory of Worship instead of the Common-prayer nevertheless it were to be wished that men might not be enjoined to make a promise in those words which in their plain sense do express an engagement which is not thereby intended I have considered many particulars which come within the compass of the Declaration of unfeigned assent and consent injoined by the Act of Uniformity and the Subscription required by the Thirty sixth Canon In all which my desire and design is not to disaffect any persons to the Book of Common prayer but to receive satisfaction if it may be had concerning the things wherein I am dissatisfied For I own the said form of worship to be in the main sound and good for the matter of it and I sincerely join with the Congregation in the same tho I take it to be less perfect than is to be desired It is not therefore the use of a Liturgy in the publick Worship of God nor the reading of the Common-prayer in the ordinary daily service that makes me a Nonconformist But the high strain of the Declaration and Subscription and the strict observation of all things prescribed are difficulties which I cannot overcome This consideration of the present state of Conformity hath proceeded according to the limited sense of the Declaration as restrained to the use of things which being a probable limitation I have willingly admitted for peace sake But there be those who will not allow it saying that the true intendment of the said Declaration is to be taken from the plain signification of the form of words wherein it is expressed which is no less than a full justification of all things whatsoever contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. as right and good I confess I am not able with a judgment of certainty to determine which of these two explications doth truly and rightly expound the full intendment of this Declaration And tho I have admitted the more restrained meaning thereof as probable yet the truth is I have not found that it doth any great matter to make the way of Conformity easie or passable as appears by the foregoing examination of many things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy But if the other opinion of the more comprehensive meaning be true the way is yet more difficult for then the Declaration doth imply an acknowledgment of the truth of all assertions any where contained in this Book also of the truth lawfulness and goodness of all expressions not only in the divine Service it self but in all the directing-Rules viz. Rubricks Calendar and Tables also of the lawfulness and fitness not only of the use of things injoined but of the very injunction or imposition the said directing Rules being so many injunctions strictly requiring us to observe the things prescribed in them But as I have before observed if the sense of the Declaration be restrained to the use of things it doth not appear that the injoined Subscription is to be so restrained As I have said I consent to the use of the Common-prayer as a tolerable Form of Worship but that doth not imply my allowing of all and every thing therein contained Upon the review of the whole matter let it be impartially considered whether a Declaration of so high a strain about a book of meer humane and fallible composition containing in it many hundreds of propositions and consequences should be so rigorously exacted If some recognition in this kind be thought necessary it were to be desired that it might be contrived in a form of words less p rplexing and ensnaring yet sufficiently engaging Of the Renouncing of the Obligation of the COVENANT Required by the Act of Vniformity THis Covenant was not meerly a League between men confirmed by an Oath but a Vow to God of several things directly respecting him And tho its intent were to engage men one to another yet that was not the whole nor chief intent thereof but its chief intendment was to engage all the Covenanters jointly to God Howsoever it be called an Oath yet so far as it is an Oath of things which directly and immediately respect God or that are to be performed towards him it hath the nature of a Vow To invalidate the Obligation of an Oath or Vow made to God is a thing of a high nature and had need to be done with a clear judgment One point of this Oath or Vow was to endeavour Church-Reformation according to our Places and Callings And no Reformation
less perfect and some of them as Jerome were almost contumelious against it Yet in those times some appeared to give some check to those contumelies cast upon Marriage When Christianity obtained the Empire those Laws which were made in special favour of Marriage and disadvantage of single Life were abrogated and the Monastick state was greatly propagated and priviledged Yea in later times Married persons were encouraged to forsake their yokefellows and go into Monasteries § 7. Upon this occasion I am led to consider what worth or excellence in celebate and virginity more than in the Married Life can be shewed from the Holy Scripture or from right reason In the Scripture we find no greater excellence ascribed to single continence than to Matrimonial chastity It is said 1 Cor. 7.1 It is good for a man not to touch a Woman The goodness here spoken of is a moral convenience and in that respect to abstain from Marriage is here said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or vertuous For it is vertuous to choose that which is most commodious to Christian life and to avoid all avoidable hinderances of the freer exercise of godliness Now divers cares and troubles which accompany Marriage may well be avoided by one who hath the special gift of continence And those difficulties and sufferings which come upon us in times of the Churches calamities may be better born and the temptations thereof more easily escaped in a single than in a Married Life In the same Chapter vers 25 26. Virginity is commended not from its intrinsick excellency as far as that appears but from its conveniency in regard of the distresses of the Church The Apostle saith It is good for the present distress Here also he useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shews that the thing is vertuously good but upon what account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It had in that state of things a Moral convenience and therefore to make choice of it was vertuous Yet he shews vers 28. that to Marry in such a time is no sin tho not to Marry be more expedient Likewise vers 32 33 34. and so to the end of the Chapter single Life is prefered before Marriage by reason of its convenience and on no other account § 8. Marriage was instituted for man in the state of innocence And it must needs be acknowleeged by all that in that state it would have been altogether as pure and perfect as Celibate and Virginity If Matrimony by reason of the fall be accompanied with some unavoidable irregularities or inordinate motions in the sensitive Nature single life is a like yea perhaps more obnoxious in that respect Matrimonial chastity is as truly chastity as Virginal chastity And the same degree of Matrimonial chastity is equally pure with the same degree of Virginal chastity or to speak in other terms there may be as great chastity both of body and mind in Matrimony as in Virginity If there be a glory and excellency in that Victory over sense which they have who having the gift of continence abstain from the sensitive pleasure of the Marriage-bed it may be equalled by the sobriety and regularity of the use of the Marriage bed being accompanied with a Christian Wisdom Fortitude and Patience in bearing and managing the difficulties of the Married condition for the glory of God and the good of the Church and Commonwealth besides the private good of Families And there appears much less self-denial in a single than in a married life to be exercised by those that have the gift of continence § 9. Principles tending to render Marriage vile and loathsome have been propagated by some out of an excessive admiration of Virginity and total abstinence from carnal conjunction and by others whose interest it was to inhance the reputation of single life for the strengthning of the Papal Kingdom Of which sort are these viz. The natural desire of copulation is prohibited lust That corporeal delight may not be intended in the conjugal act That a mans desire of pleasure with his own Wife cannot be without sin That a man doth sin except he come to the act with grief Accordingly some Popish Writers have said That most frequently mortal sin and always venial sin is committed in the conjugal act And the truth is if these things were true they were enough to deter from Marriage all those that have a due care of their own souls Some of great name among the Ancients held That there should have been no commixtion of Sexes in the state of innocence because tho it were used for procreation alone yet as they thought it could not have been without shameful lust § 10. Now for the redargation of such opinions let it be considered that when men otherwise very worthy shall give scope to their own conceits and shall advance self-chosen ways they will overlook the clearest evidence both of Scripture and Reason For what other cause could be rendered for the creation of the different Sexes but the foresaid commixtion And of a man and his wife in the state of innocence it was said They shall be one flesh And for the vehement desire of the said conjunction it is in it self an Animal Faculty for the conservation of the Species as the like desire of ingestion and egestion is for the conservation of the individual Since the Fall the sensitive appetite ought to be distinguished from its inordinacy from which by grace it may be separated and so it may be alike pure and sinless with other parts of human nature in this imperfect state And this being granted in other kinds of sensitive appetite why should it be denied in the kind here treated of Some say of it That it is a brutifying act and that the mind is so carried away therein that it can think nothing worthy of a wise man But I make no question but godly persons know the contrary by experience And I can see no reason but that they who have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts as all true Christians have may by due care carry themselves in this matter with a due sobriety and regularity and that the more perfect Christians ordinarily do so And tho herein they be not perfectly yet they are prevalently pure And that it is perfectly pure can scarce be said of any good act in the present state of mankind The delight of eating and drinking after hunger and thirst or of rest after labour doth swallow up Reason in the Vicious or more or less disturb it according to the degree of their intemperance And so the delight here considered doth swallow up Reason in them that use it inordinately and that more or less according to the degree of their inordinacy But as the delight of eating and drinking doth not brutifie the temperate so the delight here considered doth not brutifie them that use it purely and soberly not in opposition but subordination to spiritual delights § 11. Indeed it