give very great assistances to Episcopal Government and yet be no warranty for Tyrannical and although even the Sayings of the Fathers is greater warranty for Episcopacy and weighs more than all that can be said against it Yet from thence nothing can be drawn to warrant to any man an Empire over Consciences and therefore as the probability of it can be used to one effect so the fallibility of it is also of use to another but yet even of this no man is to make any use in general but when he hath a necessity and a greater reason in the particular and I therefore have joyn'd these two Books in one Volume because they differ not at all in the design nor in the real purposes to which by their variety they minister I will not pretend to any special reason of the inserting any of the other Books into this Volume it is the design of my Bookseller to bring all that he can into a like Volume excepting only some Books of devotion which in a lesser Volume are more fit for use As for the Doctrine and Practice of Repentance which because I suppose it may so much contribute to the interest of a good life and is of so great and so necessary consideration to every person that desires to be instructed in the way of godliness and would assure his salvation by all means I was willing to publish it first in the lesser Volume that men might not by the encreasing price of a larger be hindred from doing themselves the greatest good to which I can minister which I humbly suppose to be done I am sure I intended to have done in that Book And now my Lord I humbly desire that although the presenting this Volume to your Lordship can neither promote that honour which is and ought to be the greatest and is by the advantages of your worthiness already made publick nor obtain to it self any security or defence from any injury to which without remedy it must be exposed yet if you please to expound it as a testimony of that great value I have for you though this signification is too little for it yet I shall be at ease a while till I can converse with your Lordship by something more proportionable to those greatest regards which you have merited of mankind but more especially of My Lord Your Lordships most affectionate Servant JER TAYLOR THE CONTENTS and ORDER of the whole Volume The Apologie for Liturgie THE Authors PREFACE to the Apology for Authorized and Set Forms of Liturgy Quest. 1. Whether all Set Forms are unlawful Page 2 2. Whether are better in publick Set Forms injoyned by Authority or Set Forms composed by private Preachers Sect. 51. pag. 13 Episcopacy Asserted Sect. 1. CHrist did institute a government in his Church pag. 45 2. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ. 46 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors 47 4. This Succession is made by Bishops 48 § For the Apostle and Bishop are all one in Name and Person ibid. 5. and Office 49 6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters 50 7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not 51 § as of Ordination ibid. 8. and Confirmation 52 9. and Superiority of Jurisdiction 55 10. So that Bishops are Successors in the office of Apostleship according to Antiquity 11. and particularly of S. Peter 61 12. And the institution of Episcopacy expressed to be jure divino by Primitive Authority 63 13. In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches as S. James and S. Simeon at Jerusalem 65 14. S. Timothy at Ephesus 67 15. S. Titus at Crete 70 16. S. Mark at Alexandria 73 17. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome 74 18. S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others 75 19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed 76 20. And was an office of Power and great Authority 77 21. Not lessened by the counsel and assistance of Presbyters ibid. 22. And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom 84 23. Who first distinguished names used before in common 85 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus to the supreme Church-officer 89 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church 91 26. and Doctor 92 27. and Pontifex ibid. 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest 94 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree 96 30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands 97 32. For a Bishop had a power distinct and superior to that of Presbyters As of Ordination 101 33. and Confirmation 108 34. and Jurisdiction Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 111 35. Requiring universal obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity 113 36. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Laity in spiritual causes 115 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license 125 38. Reserving Church Goods to Episcopal dispensation 129 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Dioecese or to travel without leave of the Bishop 129 40. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased 130 41. Bishops only did vote in Council and neither Presbyters nor People 133 42. The Bishops had a propriety in the persons of their Clerks 138 43. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes 139 44. And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired 144 45. So that the Government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary 148 46. For they are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop 149 47. And Hereticks 150 48. And Bishops were always in the Church men of great honour 152 49. And trusted with affairs of Secular interest 157 50. And therefore were forced to delegate their power and put others in substitution 163 51. But they were ever Clergie-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church 164 A Discourse of the Real Presence Sect. 1. THE state of the Question 181 2. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 186 3. Of the Sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel 188 4. Of the words of Institution 198 5. Of the Particle Hoc in the words of Institution 201 6. Of these words Hoc est corpus meum 208 7. Considerations of the manner circumstances and annexes of the Institution 213 8. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 217 9. Arguments from other Texts of Scripture proving Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual not Natural 219 10. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against Sense 223 11. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 230 12. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church 249 13. Of Adoration of the Sacrament 267 The
concurrence of Jurisdiction this must be considered distinctly 1. Then In the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing preaching consecrating and reconciling in privato foro but did not in every Church at the first founding it constitute a Bishop This is evident in Crete in Ephesus in Corinth at Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their own hands There comes upon me saith S. Paul daily the care or supravision of all the Churches Not all absolutely for not all of the Circumcision but all of his charge with which he was once charged and of which he had not exonerated himself by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And again If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearly kept the power in his own hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it governed by Episcopal or Apostolical authority 3. For ought appears in Scripture the Apostles never gave any external or coercitive jurisdiction in publick and criminal causes nor yet power to ordain Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meer Presbyters * The contrary may be greedily swallowed and I know not with how great confidence and prescribing prejudice but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter or Colledge of Presbyters without a Bishop or express delegation of Apostolical authority tanquam vicario suo as to his substitute in absence of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognizance of persons and causes criminal Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination or any commission from Christ or his Apostles This we may best consider by induction of particulars 1. There was a Presbytery at Jerusalem but they had a Bishop always and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop and Apostles Now it cannot be denied both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Jerusalem and also had power alone to govern the Church I say they had power to govern alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordain'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyn with them they must do it themselves and then also they must retain the same power for they could not lose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publick acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they only assisting in subordination and by dependency This only by the way In Jerusalem the Presbyters were something more than ordinary and were not meer Presbyters in the present and limited sence of the word For Barnabas and Judas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chief men amongst the Brethren and yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolical power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is that divers of them were ordained Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction not fixed upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more than meer Presbyters as Barnabas and Judas and Silas men of Apostolical power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equal power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meer Presbyters yet because it is certain and proved and confessed that the Apostles had power to govern the Church alone this their taking meer Presbyteros in partem regiminis was a voluntary act and from this example was derived to other Churches and then it is most true that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere was rather consuetudine Ecclesiae dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's own expression for this is more evident than that Bishops do eminere caeteris by custom rather than Divine institution For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles and although fitting to be retained where the same reasons do remain and circumstances concur yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order not Dominicae dispositionis veritate and not laudable when those reasons cease and there is an emergency of contrary causes 2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch but there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction but of ordination indeed we do and that performed by such men as S. Paul was and Barnabas for they were two of the Prophets reckoned in the Church of Antioch but I do not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meer Presbyters as we now Understand the word as I proved formerly 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must do it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lye the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by vos we shall I hope gain the truth * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus and to them he spoke ** It 's true but that 's not all the vos For there were present at that Sermon Sopater and Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius and Timothy and Tychicus and Trophimus And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis and there many Elders were either accidentally or by ordinary residence yet those were not all Elders of that Church but of all Asia in the Scripture sence the lesser Asia For so in the Preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates Ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confined to Ephesus and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all and therefore were of dispersed habitation and so it is more clearly inferred from verse 25. And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God c. It was a travel to preach to all that were present and therefore
than they had a mind should be sav'd harmless Men would be safe alone or not at all supposing that their truth and good cause was warranty enough to preserve it self and they thought true it was indeed warranty enough against persecution if men had believed it to be truth but because we were fallen under the power of our worst enemies for Brethren turn'd enemies are ever the most implacable they looked upon us as men in misperswasion and error and therefore I was to defend our persons that whether our cause were right or wrong for it would be supposed wrong yet we might be permitted in liberty and impunity but then the Consequent would be this that if we when we were supposed to be in error were yet to be indemnified then others also whom we thought as ill of were to rejoyce in the same freedom because this equality is the great instrument of justice and if we would not do to others as we desir'd should be done to us we were no more to pretend Religion because we destroy the Law and the Prophets Of this some men were impatient and they would have all the world spare them and yet they would spare no body But because this is too unreasonable I need no excuse for my speaking to other purposes Others complain'd that it would have evil effects and all Heresies would enter at the gate of toleration and because I knew that they would croud and throng in as far as they could I placed such guards and restraints there as might keep out all unreasonable pretenders allowing none to enter here that speak against the Apostles Creed or weakened the hands of Government or were enemies to good life But the most complain'd that in my ways to perswade a toleration I helped some men too far and that I arm'd the Anabaptists with swords instead of shields with a power to offend us besides the proper defensatives of their own To this I shall need no reply but this I was to say what I could to make their persons safe by shewing how probably they were deceived and they who thought it too much had either too little confidence or too little knowledge of the goodness of their own cause and yet if any one made ill use of it it was more than I allowed or intended to him but so all kindness may be abused But if a Criminal be allowed Counsel he would be scorned if he should avow his Advocate as a real Patron of his crime when he only says what he can to alleviate the Sentence But wise men understand the thing and are satisfied but because all men are not of equal strength I did not only in a Discourse on purpose demonstrate the true doctrine in that question but I have now in this Edition of that Book answered all their pretensions not only fearing lest some be hurt with their offensive arms but lest others like Tarpeia the Roman Lady be oppressed with shields and be brought to think well of their Cause by my pleading for their persons And now My Lord I have done all that I can do or can be desired only I cannot repent me of speaking truth or doing charity but when the loyns of the Presbytery did lie heavy upon us and were like to crush us into flatness and death I ought not to have been reproached for standing under the ruine and endeavouring to defend my Brethren and if I had strain'd his arm whom I was lifting up from drowning he should have deplor'd his own necessity and not have reproved my charity if I say I had been too zealous to preserve them whom I ought to love so zealously But I have been told that my Discourse of Episcopacy relying so much upon the Authority of Fathers and Councils whose authority I so much diminish in my Liberty of Prophesying I seem to pull down with one hand what I build with the other To these men I am used to answer that they ought not to wonder to see a man pull down his Out-houses to save his Father and his Children from the flames and therefore if I had wholly destroyed the Topick of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which is but an outward Guard to Episcopacy to preserve the whole Ecclesiastical order I might have been too zealous but in no other account culpable But my Lord I have done nothing of this as they mistake For Episcopacy relies not upon the Authority of Fathers and Councils but upon Scripture upon the institution of Christ or the institution of the Apostles upon an universal Tradition and an universal practice not upon the words and opinions of the Doctors It hath as great a testimony as Scripture it self hath and it is such a government as although every thing in Antiquity does minister to it and illustrate or confirm it yet since it was before the Fathers and Councils and was in full power before they had a being and they were made up of Bishops for the most part they can give no authority to themselves as a body does not beget it self or give strength to that from whence themselves had warranty integrity and constitution We bring the sayings of the Fathers in behalf of Episcopacy because the reputation they have justly purchased from posterity prevails with some and their reason with others and their practice with very many and the pretensions of the adversaries are too weak to withstand that strength But that Episcopacy derives from a higher Fountain appears by the Justifications of it against them who value not what the Fathers say But now he that says that Episcopacy besides all its own proper grounds hath also the witness of Antiquity to have descended from Christ and his Apostles and he that says that in Questions of Religion the Sayings of the Fathers alone is no demonstration of Faith does not speak things contradictory He that says that we may dissent from the Fathers when we have a reason greater than that authority does no way oppose him that says you ought not to dissent from what they say when you have no reason great enough to out-weigh it He that says the words of the Fathers are not sufficient to determine a nice Question stands not against him who says they are excellent Corroboratives in a Question already determined and practised accordingly He that says the Sayings of Fathers are no demonstration in a Question may say true and yet he that says it is a degree of probability may say true too He that says they are not our Masters speaks consonantly to the words of Christ but he that denies them to be good Instructors does not speak agreeably to reason or to the sence of the Church Sometimes they are excellent Arbitrators but not always good Judges In matters of Fact they are excellent Witnesses In matters of Right or Question they are rare Doctors and because they bring good Arguments are to be valued accordingly and he that considers these things will find that Ecclesiastical Antiquity can
was an Angel-Minister and this his office must make him the guide and superiour to the Rest even all the whole Church since he was charged with all 3. By the Angel is meant a singular person for the reprehensions and the commendations respectively imply personal delinquency or suppose personal excellencies Add to this that the compellation is singular and of determinate number so that we may as well multiply Churches as persons for the seven Churches had but seven stars and these seven stars were the Angels of the seven Churches And if by seven stars they may mean 70 times seven stars for so they may if they begin to multiply then by one star they must mean many stars and so they may multiply Churches too for there were as many Churches as stars and no more Angels than Churches and it is as reasonable to multiply these seven Churches into 7000 as every star into a Constellation or every Angel into a Legion But besides the exigency of the thing it self these seven Angels are by Antiquity called the seven Governours or Bishops of the seven Churches and their names are commemorated Unto these seven Churches S. Iohn saith Arethas reckoneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equal number of Angel-Governours and Oecumenius in his Scholia upon this place saith the very same words Septem igitur Angelos Rectores septem Ecclesiarum debemus intelligere eò quòd Angelus nuntius interpretatur saith S. Ambrose and again Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis Let the woman have a covering on her head because of the Angels that is in reverence and in subjection to the Bishop of the Church for Bishops are the Angels as is taught in the Revelation of S. Iohn Divinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae so S. Austin By the voice of God the Bishop of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Presidents and actually Bishops of these Churches S. Polycarpe was one to be sure apud Smyrnam Episcopus Martyr saith Eusebius He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna And he had good authority for it for he reports it out of Polycrates who a little after was himself an Angel of the Church of Ephesus and he also quotes S. Irenaeus for it and out of the Encyclical Epistle of the Church of Smyrna it self and besides these authorities it is attested by S. Ignatius and Tertullian S. Timothy was another Angel to wit of the Church of Ephesus to be sure had been and most likely was still surviving Antipas is reckoned by Name in the Revelation and he had been the Angel of Pergamus but before this book was written he was turned from an Angel to a Saint Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ecclesiam regens celeberrimi inter caeteros habebantur saith Eusebius These men were actually living when S. Iohn writ his Revelation for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia and writ after the Revelation for he writ a Treatise of it as saith Eusebius However at least some of these were then and all of these about that time were Bishops of these Churches and the Angels S. John speaks of were such who had jurisdiction over their whole Diocess therefore these or such as these were the Angels to whom the Spirit of God writ hortatory and commendatory letters such whom Christ held in his Right hand and fixed them in the Churches like lights set on a candlestick that they might give shine to the whole house The Summe of all is this that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters or 72 Disciples To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power for the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable for by vertue of it they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation and of giving his grace in the collation of holy Orders a power of jurisdiction and authority to govern the Church and this power was not temporary but successive and perpetual and was intended as any ordinary office in the Church so that the successors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had and though the personal mission was not immediate as of the Apostles it was yet the commission and institution of the function was all one But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but of preaching which was a very limited commission There was all the immediate Divine institution of Presbyterate as a distinct order that can be fairly pretended But yet farther these 72 the Apostles did admit in partem solicitudinis and by new ordination or delegation Apostolical did give them power of administring Sacraments of Absolving sinners of governing the Church in conjunction and subordination to the Apostles of which they had a capacity by Christs calling them at first in sortem ministerii but the exercise and the actuating of this capacity they had from the Apostles So that not by Divine ordination or immediate commission from Christ but by derivation from the Apostles and therefore in minority and subordination to them the Presbyters did exercise acts of order and jurisdiction in the absence of the Apostles or Bishops or in conjunction consiliary and by way of advice or before the consecration of a Bishop to a particular Church And all this I doubt not but was done by the direction of the Holy Ghost as were all other acts of Apostolical ministration and particularly the institution of the other order viz. of Deacons This is all that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the commission given in the institution of Presbyters and this I shall afterwards confirm by the practice of the Catholick Church and so vindicate the practises of the present Church from the common prejudices that disturb us for by this account Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution but the only order that derives immediately from Christ. For the present only I summe up this with that saying of Theodoret speaking of the 72 Disciples Palmae sunt isti qui nutriuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apostolis Nam quanquam Christus hos etiam elegit erant tamen duodecim illis inferiores postea illorum Discipuli sectatores The Apostles are the twelve fountains and the LXXII are the palms that are nourished by the waters of those fountains For though Christ also ordained the LXXII yet they were inferior to the Apostles and afterwards were their followers and Disciples I know no objection to hinder a conclusion only two or three words out of Ignatius are pretended against the main question viz. to prove that he although a Bishop yet had no Apostolical authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not
of Ephesus by S. Paul and there enthron'd To this purpose are those compellations and titles of Bishopricks usually in antiquity S. Basil calls a Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Theodoret. An Apostolical presidency The summe is the same which S. Peter himself taught the Church as S. Clement his scholar or some other Primitive man in his name reports of him Episcopos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Dominum docuisse dicebat reliquorum Discipulorum vicem tenere Presbyteros debere insinuabat He Peter said that our Lord taught that Bishops were to succeed in the place of the Apostles and Presbyters in the place of the Disciples Who desires to be farther satisfied concerning Catholick consent for Bishops succession to Apostles in their order and ordinary office he may see it in Pacianus the renowned Bishop of Barcinona in S. Gregory S. Iohn Damascen in S. Sextus the first his second decretal Epistle and most plentifully in S. Caelestine writing to the Ephesine Council in the Epistle of Anacletus de Patriarchis Primatibus c. In Isidore and in Venerable Bede His words are these Sicut duodecim Apostolos formam Episcoporum exhibere simul demonstrare nemo est qui dubitet sic 72 figuram Presbyterorum gessisse sciendum est tametsi primis Ecclesiae temporibus ut Apostolica Scriptura testis est utrique Presbyteri utrique vocabantur Episcopi quorum unum scientiae maturitatem aliud industriam curae Pastoralis significat Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti As no man doubts but Apostles were the order of Bishops so the 72 of Presbyters though at first they had names in common Therefore Bishops by Divine right are distinct from Presbyters and their Prelates or Superiours SECT XI And particularly of S. Peter TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of Antiquity that call all Bishops ex aequo successors of S. Peter So S. Cyprian Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere observare debemus Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur dicit Petro ego tibi dico Quia tu es Petrus c. Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur c. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and instituting Episcopal dignity he said to Peter thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church Hence comes the order of Bishops and the constitution or being of the Church that the Church be founded upon Bishops c. The same also S. Jerome intimates Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri It is not a small thing to stand in the place of Paul to obtain the degree of Peter so he while he disswades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Episcopal office Pasce oves meas said Christ to Peter and feed the flock of God which is amongst you said S. Peter to the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia Similia enim Successoribus suis Petrus scripsit praecepta saith Theodoret. S. Peter gave the same precepts to his successors which Christ gave to him And S. Ephrem speaking of S. Basil the Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia Et sicut rursus Petrus Ananiam Saphiram fraudantes de precio agri enecavit ita Basilius locum Petri obtinens ejúsque pariter authoritatem libertatémque participans suam ipsius promissionem fraudantem Valentem redarguit ejúsque filium morte mulctavit As S. Peter did to Ananias and Saphira so Basil did to Valens and his Son for the same delinquency for he had the place liberty and authority of S. Peter Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the Successor of S. Peter and Gildas sirnamed the wise saith that all evil Bishops whatsoever do with unhallowed and unclean feet usurp the seat of S. Peter But this thing is of Catholick belief and of this use If the order and office of the Apostolate be eternal and to be succeded in and this office Superior to Presbyters and not only of Divine institution but indeed the only order which can clearly show an immediate Divine commission for its power and authority as I have proved of the function Apostolical then those which do succeed the Apostles in the ordinary office of Apostolate have the same institution and authority the Apostles had as much as the successors of the Presbyters have with the first Presbyters and perhaps more For in the Apostolical ordinations they did not proceed as the Church since hath done Themselves had the whole Priesthood the whole commission of the Ecclesiastical power and all the offices Now they in their ordaining assistant Ministers did not in every Ordination give a distinct order as the Church hath done since the Apostles For they ordained some to distinct offices some to particular places some to one part some to another part of Clerical imployment as S. Paul who was an Apostle yet was ordained by imposition of hands to go to the Churches of the Uncircumcision so was Barnabas S. John and James and Cephas to the Circumcision and there was scarce any publick design or grand imployment but the Apostolick men had a new ordination to it a new imposition of hands as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles So that the Apostolical ordinations of the inferiour Clergy were only a giving of particular commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolical calling as they would please to imploy them in Nay sometimes their ordinations were only a delivering of Jurisdiction when the persons ordained had the order before as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas Of the same consideration is the institution of Deacons to spiritual offices and it is very pertinent to this Question For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher than Apostolical ordinance and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authorized for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now and sometimes more as to Judas and Silas and divers others who therefore were more than meer Presbyters as the word is now used * The result is this The office and order of a Presbyter is but part of the office and order of an Apostle so is a Deacon a lesser part so is an Evangelist so is a Prophet so is a Doctor so is a helper or a Surrogate in Government but these will not be called orders every one of them will not I am sure at least not made distinct orders by Christ for it was in the Apostles power to give any one or all these powers to any one man or to distinguish them into so many men as there are offices or to unite more or fewer of them All these I say
authorem antecessorem hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt c. And when S. Irenaeus had reckoned twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum habet Eleutherius Hâc ordinatione saith he successione ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ traditio veritatis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos est plenissima haec ostensio unam eandem vivatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata tradita in veritate So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination must of it self be a very certain thing when the Church made it a main probation of their faith for the books of Scripture were not all gathered together and generally received as yet Now then since this was a main pillar of their Christianity viz. a constant reception of it from hand to hand as being delivered by the Bishops in every chair till we come to the very Apostles that did ordain them this I say being their proof although it could not be more certain than the thing to be proved which in that case was a Divine revelation yet to them it was more evident as being matter of fact and known almost by evidence of sense and as verily believed by all as it was by any one that himself was baptized both relying upon the report of others Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur saith S. Augustin The very root and foundation of Christian communion is spread all over the world by the successions of Apostles and Bishops And is it not now a madness to say there was no such thing no succession of Bishops in the Churches Apostolical no ordination of Bishops by the Apostles and so as S. Paul's phrase is overthrow the faith of some even of the Primitive Christians that used this argument as a great weapon of offence against the invasion of Hereticks and factious people It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos We can reckon those who from the Apostles until now were made Bishops in the Churches and of this we are sure enough if there be any faith in Christians SECT XIX So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical Ordinance Of the same Authority with many other points generally believed THE summe is this Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopal power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not less than an Apostolical ordinance and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is For for that in the new Testament we have no precept and nothing but the example of the Primitive Disciples meeting in their Synaxes upon that day and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to have changed it into a Thursday meeting to have shown their Christian liberty we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday Festival less than an Apostolical ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed * Baptism of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men do easily observe that the Anabaptist can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us as we do of baptizing infants upon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practice Apostolical recorded in Scripture and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to flye to Apostolical traditive ordination and therefore the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in Scripture than the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Hereticks * Of the same consideration are divers other things in Christianity as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church Clergy and Laity when Christ said Hoc facite do this then why may not every Christian man there represented do that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to do If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then do all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the four Gospels limiting Hoc facite id est benedicite to the Clergy and extending Hoc facite id est accipite manducate to the Laity This also rests upon the practice Apostolical and traditive interpretation of H. Church and yet cannot be denied that so it ought to be by any man that would not have his Christendom suspected * To these I add the communion of Women the distinction of books Apocryphal from Canonical that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of Scripture it self the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festival for a divine institution must needs prevail as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and divers others of greater consequence which I dare not specifie for fear of being misunderstood relye but upon equal faith with this of Episcopacy though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it self SECT XX. And was an office of Power and great Authority WHAT their power and eminence was and the appropriates of their office so ordained by the Apostles appears also by the testimonies before alledged the expressions whereof run in these high terms Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens they were both Prefects of the Church or Prelates that 's the Church-word Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur so Titus he is set over all the affairs of the new-founded Churches in Crete In celsiori gradu collocatus placed in a higher order or degree so the Bishop of Alexandria chosen ex Presbyteris from amongst the Presbyters Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis so Philo of that Bishoprick The seat of Episcopal height above all things in Christianity These are its honours Its offices these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To set in order whatsoever he sees
most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations 1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter as it is contended for on one side and granted on all sides then where both the words are used what shall determine the signification For whether to instance in this place shall Presbyter limit Episcopus or Episcopus extend Presbyter Why may not Presbyter signifie one that is verily a Bishop as Episcopus signifie a meer Presbyter For it is but an ignorant conceit where-ever Presbyter is named to fancy it in the proper and limited sence and not to do so with Episcopus and when they are joyned together rather to believe it in the limited and present sence of Presbyter than in the proper and present sence of Episcopus So that as yet we are indifferent upon the terms These men sent for from Ephesus are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters of the Church but at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos there they are called Bishops or overseers So that I may as well say here properly so called Bishops as another may say here were meer Presbyters * And lest it be objected in prejudice of my affirmative that they could not be Bishops because they were of Ephesus there never being but one Bishop in one Church I answer that in the Apostles times this was not true For at Jerusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopal and Apostolical authority and so at Antioch as at Jerusalem where James and Judas and Silas and the Apostles and Paul and Barnabas at Antioch and at Rome at the same time Peter and Paul and Linus and Clemens but yet but one of them was fixt and properly the Bishop of that place But secondly All these were not of Ephesus but the Elders of all Asia but some from other Countries as appears ver 4. So that although they were all Bishops we might easily find distinct Diocesses for them without incumbring the Church of Ephesus with a multiplied incumbency Thus far then we are upon even terms the community of compellations used here can no more force us to believe them all to be meer Presbyters than Bishops in the proper sence 2. It is very certain that they were not all meer Presbyters at his farewell Sermon for S. Timothy was there and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony and many of those which are reckoned ver 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey and imployed in mission Apostolical for the founding of Churches and particularly Sosipater was there and he was Bishop of Iconium and Tychicus of Chalcedon in Bythinia as Dorotheus and Eusebius witness and Trophimus of Arles in France for so it is witnessed by the suffragans of that province in their Epistle to S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presbyters for besides the premisses we have a witness beyond exception the ancient S. Irenaeus In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso à reliquis proximis civitatibus quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere c. S. Paul making haste to keep his Pentecost at Jerusalem at Miletus did call together the Bishops and Presbyters from Ephesus and the neighbouring Cities * Now to all these in conjunction S. Paul spoke and to these indeed the Holy Ghost had concredited his Church to be fed and taught with Pastoral supravision but in the mean while here is no commission of power or jurisdiction to Presbyters distinctly nor supposition of any such praeexistent power 3. All that S. Paul said in this narration was spoken in the presence of them all but not to them all For that of verse 18. Ye know how I have been with you in Asia in all seasons that indeed was spoke to all the Presbyters that came from Ephesus and the voisâ—â—age viz. in a collective sence not in a distributive for each of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travels but this was not spoken to Sopater the Berean or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian but to Tychicus and Trophimus who were Asians it might be addressed And for that of vers 25. Ye all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more this was directed only to the Asians for he was never more to come thither but Timothy to be sure saw him afterwards for Saint Paul sent for him a little before his death to Rome and it will not be supposed he neglected to attend him So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops and Presbyters at his meeting as most certainly there was and of Evangelists and Apostolical men besides how shall it be known or indeed with any probability suspected that clause of vers 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters and not particularly to Timothy who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus and to Gaius and to the other Apostolical men who had at least Episcopal authority that is power of founding and ordering Churches without a fixt and limited jurisdiction 4. Either in this place is no jurisdiction at all intimated de antiquo or concredited de novo or if there be it is in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 28. Bishops and Feeders and then it belongs either to the Presbyters in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishops for to the meer Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertain by any intimation of that place 5. How and if these Presbyters which came from Ephesus and the other parts of Asia were made Bishops at Miletus Then also this way all difficulty will be removed And that so it was is more than probable for to be sure Timothy was now entring and fixing upon his See and it was consonant to the practice of the Apostles and the exigence of the thing it self when they were to leave a Church to fix a Bishop in it for why else was a Bishop fixt in Jerusalem so long before any other Churches but because the Apostles were to be scattered from thence and there the first bloody field of Martyrdom was to be fought And the case was equal here for Saint Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more and foresaw that ravening Wolves would enter into the Folds and he had actually placed a Bishop in Ephesus and it is unimaginable that he would not make equal provision for other Churches there being the same necessity from the same danger in them all and either Saint Paul did it now or never and that about this time the other six Asian Churches had Angels or Bishops set in their Candlesticks is plain for there had been a succession in the Church of Pergamus Antipas was dead and Saint Timothy had sat in Ephesus and
the nature of the thing and never any act of ordination by a Non-Bishop approved by any Council decretal or single suffrage of any famous man in Christendom if that ordinations of Bishops were always made and they ever done by Bishops and no pretence of Priests joyning with them in their consecrations and after all this it was declared heresie to communicate the power of giving orders to Presbyters either alone or in conjunction with Bishops as it was in the case of Aerius if all this that is if whatsoever can be imagined be sufficient to make faith in this particular then it is evident that the power and order of Bishops is greater than the power and order of Presbyters to wit in this Great particular of ordination and that by this loud voice and united vote of Christendom SECT XXXIII And Confirmation * BUT this was but the first part of the power which Catholick antiquity affixed to the order of Episcopacy The next is of Confirmation of baptized people And here the rule was this which was thus expressed by Damascen Apostolorum Successorum eorum est per manus impositionem donum Spiritûs sancti tradere It belongs to the Apostles and their successors to give the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands But see this in particular instance The Council of Eliberis giving permission to faithful people of the Laity to baptize Catechumens in the cases of necessity and exigence of journey Ita tamen ut si supervixerit baptizatus ad Episcopum eum perducat ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit Let him be carried to the Bishop to be improved by imposition of the Bishops hands This was Law It was also a custom saith S. Cyprian Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur per Praepositos Ecclesiae offerantur per nostram orationem manûs impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur signaculo Dominico consummentur And this custom was Catholick too and the Law was of Vniversal concernment Omnes Fideles per manuum impositionem Episcoporum Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent ut pleni Christiani accipere debent So S. Vrbane in his decretal Epistle And Omnibus festinandum est sine mora renasci demùm Consignari ab Episcopo septiformem Spiritûs sancti gratiam recipere so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle under the name of S. Clement All faithful baptized people must go to the Bishop to be consigned and so by imposition of the Bishops hands to obtain the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain affirms Confirmation in this to have a special excellency besides baptism Quòd solùm à summis Sacerdotibus confertur because Bishops only can give Confirmation And the same is said and proved by S. Eusebius in his third Epistle enjoyning great veneration to this holy mystery Quòd ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus It cannot it may not be performed by any but by the Bishops Thus S. Chrysostom speaking of S. Philip converting the Samaritans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philip baptizing the men of Samaria gave not the Holy Ghost to them whom he had baptized For he had not power For this gift was only of the twelve Apostles And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was peculiar to the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it comes to pass that the principal and chief of the Church do it and none else And George Pachymeres the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is required that a Bishop should consign faithful people baptized For this was the Ancient practice I shall not need to instance in too many particulars for that the Ministry of Confirmation was by Catholick custom appropriate to Bishops in all ages of the Primitive Church is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Councils and Fathers particularly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius Tertullian S. Innocentius the first Damasus S. Leo in John the third in S. Gregory Amphilochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius and Eubulus the Council of Orleans and of Melda and lastly of Sevill which affirms Non licere Presbyteris per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptizandis paracletum spiritum tradere It is not lawful for Presbyters to give confirmation for it is properly an act of Episcopal power Chrismate spiritus S. super infunditur Vtraque verò ista manu ore Antistitis impetramus These are enough for authority and dogmatical resolution from antiquity For truth is the first that ever did communicate the power of confirming to Presbyters was Photius the first Author of that unhappy and long lasting schism between the Latin and Greek Churches and it was upon this occasion too For when the Bulgarians were first converted the Greeks sent Presbyters to baptize and to confirm them But the Latins sent again to have them re-confirmed both because as they pretended the Greeks had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria nor the Presbyters a capacity of order to give confirmation The matters of fact and acts Episcopal of Confirmation are innumerable but most famous are those Confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of Brema and of S. Malchus attested by S. Bernard because they were ratified by miracle saith the Ancient story I end this with the saying of S. Hierome Exigis ubi scriptum sit In actibus Apostolorum Sed etiamsi Scripturae authoritas non subesset totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret If you ask where it is written viz. that Bishops alone should Confirm It is written in the Acts of the Apostles meaning by precedent though not express precept but if there were no authority of Scripture for it yet the consent of all the world upon this particular is instead of a command *** It was fortunate that S. Hierome hath expressed himself so confidently in this affair for by this we are armed against an objection from his own words for in the same dialogue speaking of some acts of Episcopal priviledge and peculiar ministration particularly of Confirmation he says it was ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quà m ad legis necessitatem For the honour of the Priesthood rather than for the necessity of a law To this the answer is evident from his own words That Bishops should give the Holy Ghost in Confirmation is written in the Acts of the Apostles and now that this is reserved rather for the honour of Episcopacy than a simple necessity in the nature of the thing makes no matter For the question here that is only of concernment is not to what end this power is reserved to the Bishop but by whom it was reserved Now S. Hierome says it was done apud
but yet of no objection in case of Confirmation * And indeed Consignari is us'd in Antiquity for any signing with the Cross and anealing Thus it is used in the first Arausican Council for extreme Vnction which is there in case of extreme necessity permitted to Presbyters Haereticos in mortis discrimine positos Si Catholici esse desiderent si desit Episcopus à Presbyteris cum Chrismate benedictione Consignari placet Consign'd is the word and it was clearly in extreme Unction for that rite was not then ceased and it was in anealing a dying body and a part of reconciliation and so limited by the sequent Canon and not to be fancied of any other consignation But I return *** The first Council of Toledo prohibites any from making Chrisme but Bishops only and takes order Vt de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum ante diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere that the Chrisme be fetcht by the Deacons from the Bishop to be used in all Churches But for what use why it was destinatum ad diem Paschae says the Canon against the Holy time of Easter and then at Easter was the solemnity of publick baptisms so that it was to be used in baptism And this sence being premised the Canon permits to Presbyters to sign with Chrisme the same thing that S. Gregory did to the Priests of Sardinia Statutum verò est Diaconum non Chrismare sed Presbyterum absente Episcopo praesente verò si ab ipso fuerit praeceptum Now although this be evident enough yet it is something clearer in the first Arausican Council Nullus ministrorum qui Baptizandi recipit officium sine Chrismate usquam debet progredi quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate Chrismari The case is evident that Chrismation or Consigning with ointment was used in baptism and it is as evident that this Chrismation was it which S. Gregory permitted to the Presbyters not the other for he expresly forbad the other and the exigence of the Canons and practice of the Church expound it so and it is the same which S. Innocent the first decreed in more express and distinctive terms Presbyteris Chrismate baptizatos ungere licet sed quod ab Episcopo fuerit Consecratum there is a clear permission of consigning with Chrisme in baptism but he subjoyns a prohibition to Priests for doing it in Confirmation Non tamen frontem eodem oleo signare quod solis debetur Episcopis cùm tradunt Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum By the way some that they might the more clearly determine S. Gregorie's dispensation to be only in baptismal Chrisme read it Vt baptizandos ungant not baptizatos so Gratian so S. Thomas but it is needless to be troubled with that for Innocentius in the decretal now quoted useth the word Baptizatos and yet clearly distinguishes this power from the giving the Chrisme in Confirmation I know no other objection and these we see hinder not but that having such evidence of fact in Scripture of Confirmations done only by Apostles and this evidence urged by the Fathers for the practice of the Church and the power of Confirmation by many Councils and Fathers appropriated to Bishops and denied to Presbyters and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their own opinion but witnesses of a Catholick practice and do actually attest it as done by a Catholick consent and no one example in all antiquity ever produced of any Priest that did no law that a Priest might impose hands for Confirmation we may conclude it to be a power Apostolical in the Original Episcopal in the Succession and that in this power the order of a Bishop is higher than that of a Presbyter and so declared by this instance of Catholick practice SECT XXXIV And Jurisdiction Which they expressed in Attributes of Authority and great Power THUS far I hope we are right But I call to mind that in the Nosotrophium of the old Philosopher that undertook to cure all Calentures by Bathing his Patients in water some were up to the Chin some to the Middle some to the Knees So it is amongst the enemies of the Sacred Order of Episcopacy some endure not the Name and they indeed deserve to be over head and ears some will have them all one in office with Presbyters as at first they were in Name and they had need bath up to the Chin but some stand shallower and grant a little distinction a precedency perhaps for order-sake but no preheminence in reiglement no superiority of Jurisdiction Others by all means would be thought to be quite through in behalf of Bishops order and power such as it is but call for a reduction to the Primitive state and would have all Bishops like the Primitive but because by this means they think to impair their power they may well endure to be up to the ankles their error indeed is less and their pretence fairer but the use they make of it of very ill consequence But curing the mistake will quickly cure this distemper That then shall be the present issue that in the Primitive Church Bishops had more power and greater exercise of absolute jurisdiction than now Men will endure to be granted or than themselves are very forward to challenge 1. Then The Primitive Church expressing the calling and offices of a Bishop did it in terms of presidency and authority Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit saith S. Ignatius The Bishop carries the representment of God the Father that is in power and authority to be sure for how else so as to be the supreme in suo ordine in offices Ecclesiastical And again Quid enim aliud est Episcopus quà m is qui omni Principatu potestate superior est Here his superiority and advantage is expressed to be in his power A Bishop is greater and higher than all other in power viz. in materiâ or gradu religionis And in his Epistle to the Magnesians Hortor ut hoc sit omnibus studium in Dei concordiâ omnia agere Episcopo praesidente loco Dei Do all things in Vnity the Bishop being President in the place of God President in all things And with a fuller tide yet in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem Dei quidem propter Principatum Christi verò propter Sacerdotium It is full of fine expression both for Eminency of order and Jurisdiction The Bishop is the Prince of the Priests bearing the Image of God for his Principality that 's his jurisdiction and power but of Christ himself for his Priesthood that 's his Order S. Ignatius hath spoken fairly and if we consider that he was so primitive a man that himself saw Christ in the flesh and liv'd a man of exemplary sanctity and died a Martyr and hath
the matter of right and whether or no the Presbyters might de jure do any offices without Episcopal license but whether or no de facto it was permitted them in the Primitive Church This is sufficient to shew to what issue the reduction of Episcopacy to a primitive consistence will drive and if I mistake not it is at least a very probable determination of the question of right too For who will imagine that Bishops should at the first in the calenture of their infant-devotion in the new spring of Christianity in the times of persecution in all the publick disadvantages of state and fortune when they anchor'd only upon the shore of a Holy Conscience that then they should have thoughts ambitious incroaching of usurpation and advantages of purpose to devest their Brethren of an authority intrusted them by Christ and then too when all the advantage of their honour did only set them upon a hill to feel a stronger blast of persecution and was not as since it hath been attested with secular assistance and fair arguments of honour but was only in a meer spiritual estimate and ten thousand real disadvantages This will not be supposed either of wise or holy men But however Valeat quantum valere potest The question is now of matter of fact and if the Church of Martyrs and the Church of Saints and Doctors and Confessors now regnant in Heaven be fair precedents for practices of Christianity we build upon a rock though we had digg'd no deeper than this foundation of Catholick practice Upon the hopes of these advantages I proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Presbyter disrespecting his own Bishop shall make conventions apart or erect an Altar viz. without the Bishops license let him be deposed clearly intimating that potestas faciendi concionem the power of making of Church-meetings and assemblies for preaching or other offices is derived from the Bishop and therefore the Canon adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is a lover of Rule he is a Tyrant that is an usurper of that power and government which belongs to the Bishop The same thing is also decreed in the Council of Antioch and in the Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the most Reverend Bishops cried out this is a righteous law this is the Canon of the holy Fathers This viz. The Canon Apostolical now cited Tertullian is something more particular and instances in Baptism Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus Dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est alioquin etiam Laicis jus est The place is of great consideration and carries in it its own objection and its answer The Bishop hath the right of giving baptism Then after him Presbyters and Deacons but not without the authority of the Bishop So far the testimony is clear and this is for the honour of the Church * But does not this intimate it was only by positive constitution and neither by Divine nor Apostolical ordinance No indeed It does not For it might be so ordained by Christ or his Apostles propter honorem Ecclesiae and no harm done For it is honourable for the Church that her Ministrations should be most ordinate and so they are when they descend from the superiour to the subordinate But the next words do of themselves make answer Otherwise Lay-men have right to baptize That is without the consent of the Bishop Lay-men can do it as much as Presbyters and Deacons For indeed baptism conferred by Lay-men is valid and not to be repeated but yet they ought not to administer it so neither ought Presbyters without the Bishops license so says Tertullian let him answer it Only the difference is this Lay-men cannot jure ordinario receive a leave or commission to make it lawful in them to baptize any Presbyters and Deacons may for their order is a capacity or possibility ** But besides the Sacrament of Baptism Tertullian affirms the same of the venerable Eucharist Eucharistiae Sacramentum non de aliorum manu quà m Praesidentium sumimus The former place will expound this if there be any scruple in Praesidentium for clearly the Christians receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist from none but Bishops I suppose he means without Episcopal license Whatsoever his meaning is these are his words The Council of Gangra forbidding Conventicles expresses it with this intimation of Episcopal authority If any man shall make assemblies privately and out of the Church so despising the Church or shall do any Church-offices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the presence of a Priest by the decree of a Bishop let him be anathema The Priest is not to be assistant at any meeting for private offices without the Bishops license If they will celebrate Synaxes privately it must be by a Priest and he must be there by leave of the Bishop and then the assembly is lawful And this thing was so known that the Fathers of the second Council of Carthage call it ignorance or hypocrisie in Priests to do their offices without a license from the Bishop Numidius Episcopus Massilytanus dixit In quibusdam locis sunt Presbyteri qui aut ignorantes simpliciter aut dissimulantes audacter praesente inconsulto Episcopo complurimis in domiciliis agunt agenda quod disciplinae incongruum cognoscit esse Sanctitas vestra In some places there are Priests that in private houses do offices houseling of people is the office meant communicating them at home without the consent or leave of the Bishop being either simply ignorant or boldly dissembling implying that they could not else but know their duties to be to procure Episcopal license for their ministrations Ab Vniversis Episcopis dictum est Quisquis Presbyter inconsulto Episcopo agenda in quolibet loco voluerit celebrare ipse honori suo contrarius existit All the Bishop said if any Priest without leave of his Bishop shall celebrate the mysteries be the place what it will be he is an enemy to the Bishops dignity After this in time but before in authority is the great Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Clergy according to the tradition of the Fathers remain under the power of the Bishops of the City So that they are for their offices in dependance of the authority of the Bishop The Canon instances particularly to Priests officiating in Monasteries and Hospitals but extends it self to an indefinite expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They must not dissent or differ from their Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. All they that transgress this constitution in any way not submitting to their Bishop Let them be punished Canonically So that now these general expressions of obedience and subordination to the Bishop being to be understood according to the exigence of the matter to wit the Ministeries of the Clergy in their
meddle with causes Ecclesiastical nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councils Oecumenical They must not meddle for these things appertain to the cognizance of Bishops and their decision And now after all this what authority is equal to this Legislative of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make laws But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairly enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops SECT XLII And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks LASTLY as if all the acts of Jurisdiction and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri the Bishops Presbyters as having a propriety in them and therefore a superiority over them and as the Bishop was a dispencer of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae so he was of the persons too a Ruler in propriety * S. Hilary in the book which himself delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros meos communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by my Presbyters And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have but one Presbyter must one be taken from him Id sequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved Vt Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retain anothers Bishop without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries and entred to purge himself Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero suo He comes in with Timothy his Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius His Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius his Priests So Theodoret Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters as himself witnesses Paulinianus sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerk Sed ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordain But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summ is this The question was whether or no and how far the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars The power of Church goods and the sole dispensation of them and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop For the Clergy and Church possessions were in his power in his administration the Clergy might not travel without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocess without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to prefer them and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it without him they might not baptize not consecrate the Eucharist not communicate not reconcile penitents not preach not only not without his ordination but not without a special faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonical impositions even by the decree of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Council of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Judges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocess by the concurcurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperor and by the Apostles and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents and absolving them as they saw cause and by the dogmatical resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopal function that they have supreme and universal spiritual power viz. in the sence above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of the Diocess as That they are higher than all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority imcomparable unparallell'd power and many more if all this be witness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction we have their depositions we may proceed as we see cause for and reduce our Episcopacy to the Primitive state for that is truly a reformation Id Dominicum quod primum id haereticum quod posterius and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations SECT XLIII Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes BUT against the cause it is objected super totam Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochial and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or City Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! Put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what then yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them in all the particular advantages of the former instances 2. If the Bishops had the Parishes what cure had the Priests so that this will debase the Priests as much as the Bishops and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest If it brings a Bishop lower than a Diocess it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish For set a Bishop where you will either in a Diocess or a Parish a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination the same distance still So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse will no way mend the matter for any side but make it far worse it will not advance the Presbytery but it will depress the whole Hierarchy and all the orders of Holy Church * But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy I will consider it in little and besides that it does no body any good advantage I will represent it in its fucus and shew the falshood of it 1. Then It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus who lived almost 100 years after Christ and divided Rome into seven Parishes assigning to every one a Presbyter So Damasus reports of him in the
for the other also without any sensible error It is not the word it is the ambitious seeking of a temporal principality as the issue of Christianity and an affix of the Apostolate that Christ interdicted his Apostles * And if we mark it our Blessed Saviour points it out himself The Princes of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise authority over them and are called Benefactors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It shall not be so with you Not so how Not as the Princes of the Gentiles for theirs is a temporal Regiment your Apostolate must be Spiritual They rule as Kings you as fellow servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that will be first amongst you let him be your Minister or Servant It seems then among Christs Disciples there may be a Superiority when there is a Minister or servant But it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this greatness doth consist it must be in doing the greatest service and ministration that the superiority consists in But more particularly it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must not be as the Princes of the Gentiles but it must be as the son of man so Christ sayes expresly And how was that why he came to Minister and to serve and yet in the lowest act of his humility the washing his Disciples feet he told them ye call me Lord and Master and ye say well for so I am It may be so with you Nay it must be as the son of Man But then the being called Rabbi or Lord nay the being Lord in spirituali Magisterio regimine in a spiritual superintendency and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may stand with the humility of the Gospel and office of Ministration So that now I shall not need to take advantage of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to rule with more than a political Regiment even with an absolute and despotick and is so used in holy Scripture viz. in sequiorem partem God gave authority to man over the creatures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word in the Septuagint and we know the power that man hath over beasts is to kill and to keep alive And thus to our blessed Saviour the power that God gave him over his enemies is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this we know how it must be exercised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a rod of iron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall break them in pieces like a potters vessel That 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it shall not be so with you But let this be as true as it will The answer needs no way to rely upon a Criticism It is clear that the form of Regiment only is distinguished not all Regiment and authority taken away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not as the Kings of the Gentiles but as the son of man so must your Regiment be for sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you It must be a government not for your Impery but for the service of the Church So that it is not for your advancement but the publick Ministery that you are put to rule over the Houshold * And thus the Fathers express the authority and regiment of Bishops Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum non ad Principatum vocatur sed ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae saith Origen And Saint Hierom Episcopi Sacerdotes se esse noverint non Dominos And yet Saint Hierom himself writing to Saint Austin calls him Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa Forma Apostolica haec est Dominatio interdicitur indicitur Ministratio It is no Principality that the Apostles have but it is a Ministery a Ministery in chief the Officers of which Ministration must govern and we must obey They must govern not in a temporal Regiment by vertue of their Episcopacy but in a Spiritual not for honour to the Rulers so much as for benefit and service to the subject So Saint Austin Nomen est operis non honoris ut intelligat se non esse Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit non prodesse And in the fourteenth Chapter of the same Book Qui imperant serviunt iis rebus quibus videntur Imperare Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant sed officio consulendi nec principandi superbiâ sed providendi misericordiâ And all this is intimated in the prophetical visions where the Regiment of Christ is design'd by the face of a man and the Empire of the world by Beasts The first is the Regiment of a Father the second of a King The first spiritual the other secular And of the fatherly authority it is that the Prophet sayes Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children whom thou mayest make Princes in all lands This say the Fathers is spoken of the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops who may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes or Rulers of Churches not Princes of Kingdoms by vertue or challenge of their Apostolate But if this Ecclesiastical rule or chiefty be interdicted I wonder how the Presidents of the Presbyters the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Reformed Churches will acquit themselves How will their Superiority be reconciled to the place though it be but temporary For is it a sin if it continues and no sin if it lasts but for a week Or is it lawful to sin and domineer and Lord it over their Brethren for a week together * But suppose it were what will they say that are perpetual Dictators Calvin was perpetual President and Beza till Danaeus came to Geneva even for many years together * But beyond all this how can the Presbytery which is a fixt lasting body rule and govern in causes Spiritual and Consistorial and that over all Princes and Ministers and people and that for ever For is it a sin in Episcopacy to do so and not in the Presbytery If it be lawful here then Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domineer and as they call it now adayes to Lord it over their Brethren when a Colledge of Apostles shall not be suffered to govern But if the Apostles may govern then we are brought to a right understanding of our Saviours saying to the sons of Zebedee and then also their successors the Bishops may do the same If I had any further need of answer or escape it were easie to pretend that this being a particular directory to the Apostles was to expire with their persons So S. Cyprian intimates Apostoli pari fuêre consortio praediti honoris dignitatis and indeed this may be concluding against the Supremacy of S. Peter's Successors but will be no wayes pertinent to impugn Episcopal authority For inter se they might be equal and yet superiour to the Presbyters and the people Lastly It shall not be so with you so
saying of Saint Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The answer of a good conscience towards God For of the recitation and profession of this Creed in Baptism it is that Tertullian de resur carnis says Anima non lotione sed responsione sancitur And of this was the prayer of Hilary lib. 12. de Trinit Conserva hanc conscientiae meae vocem ut quod in regenerationis meae Symbolo baptizatus in Patre Filio Spir. S. professus sum semper obtineam And according to the rule and reason of this Discourse that it may appear that the Creed hath in it all Articles primò per se primely and universally necessary the Creed is just such an explication of that Faith which the Apostles preached viz. the Creed which St. Paul recites as contains in it all those things which entitle Christ to us in the capacities of our Law-giver and our Saviour such as enable him to the great work of redemption according to the predictions concerning him and such as engage and encourage our services For taking out the Article of Christs descent into Hell which was not in the old Creed as appears in some of the Copies I before referred to in Tertullian Ruffinus and Irenaeus and indeed was omitted in all the Confessions of the Eastern Churches in the Church of Rome and in the Nicene Creed which by adoption came to be the Creed of the Catholick Church all other Articles are such as directly constitute the parts and work of our redemption such as clearly derive the honour to Christ and enable him with the capacities of our Saviour and Lord. The rest engage our services by proposition of such Articles which are rather promises than propositions and the whole Creed take it in any of the old Forms is but an Analysis of that which St. Paul calls the word of salvation whereby we shall be saved viz. that we confess Jesus to be Lord and that God raised him from the dead by the first whereof he became our Law-giver and our Guardian by the second he was our Saviour the other things are but parts and main actions of those two Now what reason there is in the world that can inwrap any thing else within the foundation that is in the whole body of Articles simply and inseparably necessary or in the prime original necessity of Faith I cannot possibly imagine These do the work and therefore nothing can upon the true grounds of reason enlarge the necessity to the inclosure of other Articles 9. Now if more were necessary than the Articles of the Creed I demand why was it made the Characteristick note of a Christian from a Heretick or a Jew or an Infidel or to what purpose was it composed Or if this was intended as sufficient did the Apostles or those Churches which they founded know any thing else to be necessary If they did not then either nothing more is necessary I speak of matters of meer belief or they did not know all the will of the Lord and so were unfit Dispensers of the mysteries of the Kingdom or if they did know more was necessary and yet would not insert it they did an act of publick notice and consign'd it to all Ages of the Church to no purpose unless to beguile credulous people by making them believe their faith was sufficient having tried it by that touch-stone Apostolical when there was no such matter 10. But if this was sufficient to bring men to heaven then why not now If the Apostles admitted all to their Communion that believed this Creed why shall we exclude any that preserve the same intire Why is not our faith of these Articles of as much efficacy for bringing us to heaven as it was in the Churches Apostolical Who had guides more infallible that might without errour have taught them superstructures enough if they had been necessary and so they did But that they did not insert them into the Creed when they might have done it with as much certainty as these Articles makes it clear to my understanding that other things were not necessary but these were that whatever profit and advantages might come from other Articles yet these were sufficient and however certain persons might accidentally be obliged to believe much more yet this was the one and only foundation of Faith upon which all persons were to build their hopes of Heaven this was therefore necessary to be taught to all because of necessity to be believed by all So that although other persons might commit a delinquency in genere morum if they did not know or did not believe much more because they were obliged to further disquisitions in order to other ends yet none of these who held the Creed intire could perish for want of necessary faith though possibly he might for supine negligence or affected ignorance or some other fault which had influence upon his opinions and his understanding he having a new supervening obligation ex accidente to know and believe more 11. Neither are we oblig'd to make these Articles more particular and minute than the Creed For since the Apostles and indeed our blessed Lord himself promised heaven to them who believed him to be the Christ that was to come into the World and that he who believes in him should be partaker of the resurrection and life eternal he will be as good as his word yet because this Article was very general and a complexion rather than a single proposition the Apostles and others our Fathers in Christ did make it more explicite though they have said no more than what lay entire and ready form'd in the bosom of the great Article yet they made their extracts to great purpose and absolute sufficiency and therefore there needs no more deductions or remoter consequences from the first great Article than the Creed of the Apostles For although whatsoever is certainly deduced from any of these Articles made already so explicite is as certainly true and as much to be believed as the Article it self because ex veris possunt nil nisi vera sequi yet because it is not certain that our deductions from them are certain and what one calls evident is so obscure to another that he believes it is false it is the best and only safe course to rest in that explication the Apostles have made because if any of these Apostolical deductions were not demonstrable evidently to follow from that great Article to which salvation is promised yet the authority of them who compil'd the Symbol the plain description of the Articles from the words of Scriptures the evidence of reason demonstrating these to be the whole foundation are sufficient upon great grounds of reason to ascertain us but if we go farther besides the easiness of being deceived we relying upon our own discourses which though they may be true and then bind us to follow them but yet no more than when they only seem truest yet they cannot make
videantur said Vincent Lirinensis in which every man knows what innumerable ways there are of being mistaken God having in things not simply necessary left such a difficulty upon those parts of Scripture which are the subject matters of controversie ad edomandam labore superbiam intellectum à fastidio revocandum as S. Austin gives a reason that all that err honestly are therefore to be pitied and tolerated because it is or may be the condition of every man at one time or other 8. The sum is this Since holy Scripture is the repository of divine truths and the great rule of Faith to which all Sects of Christians do appeal for probation of their several opinions and since all agree in the Articles of the Creed as things clearly and plainly set down and as containing all that which is of simple and prime necessity and since on the other side there are in Scripture many other mysteries and matters of Question upon which there is a vail since there are so many Copies with infinite varieties of reading since a various Interpunction a parenthesis a letter an accent may much alter the sence since some places have divers literal sences many have spiritual mystical and Allegorical meanings since there are so many tropes metonymies ironies hyperboles proprieties and improprieties of language whose understanding depends upon such circumstances that it is almost impossible to know its proper interpretation now that the knowledge of such circumstances and particular stories is irrevocably lost since there are some mysteries which at the best advantage of expression are not easie to be apprehended and whose explication by reason of our imperfections must needs be dark sometimes weak sometimes unintelligible and lastly since those ordinary means of expounding Scripture as searching the Originals conference of places parity of reason and analogie of Faith are all dubious uncertain and very fallible he that is the wisest and by consequence the likeliest to expound truest in all probability of reason will be very far from confidence because every one of these and many more are like so many degrees of improbability and incertainty all depressing our certainty of finding out truth in such mysteries and amidst so many difficulties And therefore a wise man that considers this would not willingly be prescribed to by others and therefore if he also be a just man he will not impose upon others for it is best every man should be left in that liberty from which no man can justly take him unless he could secure him from errour So that here also there is a necessity to conserve the liberty of Prophesying and Interpreting Scripture a necessity derived from the consideration of the difficulty of Scripture in Questions controverted and the uncertainty of any internal medium of Interpretation SECT V. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to Expound Scripture or determine Questions 1. IN the next place we must consider those extrinsecal means of Interpreting Scripture and determining Questions which they most of all confide in that restrain Prophesying with the greatest Tyranny The first and principal is Tradition which is pretended not only to expound Scripture Necesse enim est propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus ut Propheticae Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigatur But also to propound Articles upon a distinct stock such Articles whereof there is no mention and proposition in Scripture And in this topick not only the distinct Articles are clear and plain like as the fundamentals of Faith expressed in Scripture but also it pretends to expound Scripture and to determine Questions with so much clarity and certainty as there shall neither be errour nor doubt remaining and therefore no disagreeing is here to be endured And indeed it is most true if Tradition can perform these pretensions and teach us plainly and assure us infallibly of all truths which they require us to believe we can in this case have no reason to disbelieve them and therefore are certainly Hereticks if we doe because without a crime without some humane interest or collaterall design we cannot disbelieve traditive Doctrine or traditive Interpretation if it be infallibly proved to us that tradition is an infallible guide 2. But here I first consider that tradition is no repository of Articles of faith and therefore the not following it is no Argument of heresie for besides that I have shewed Scripture in its plain expresses to be an abundant rule of Faith and manners Tradition is a topick as fallible as any other so fallible that it cannot be sufficient evidence to any man in a matter of Faith or Question of heresie 3. For first I find that the Fathers were infinitely deceived in their account and enumeration of Traditions sometimes they did call some Traditions such not which they knew to be so but by Arguments and presumptions they concluded them so Such as was that of S. Austin ea quae universalis tenet Ecclesia nec à Conciliis instituta reperiuntur credibile est ab Apostolorum traditione descendisse Now suppose this rule probable that 's the most yet it is not certain It might come by custome whose Original was not known but yet could not derive from an Apostolical principle Now when they conclude of particular Traditions by a general rule and that general rule not certain but at the most probable in any thing and certainly false in some things it is wonder if the productions that is their judgments and pretence fail so often And if I should but instance in all the particulars in which Tradition was pretended falsely or uncertainly in the first Ages I should multiply them to a troublesome variety for it was then accounted so glorious a thing to have spoken with the persons of the Apostles that if any man could with any colour pretend to it he might abuse the whole Church and obtrude what he listed under the specious title of Apostolical Tradition and it is very notorious to every man that will but read and observe the Recognitions or stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus where there is enough of such false wares shewed in every book and pretended to be no less than from the Apostles In the first Age after the Apostles Papias pretended he received a Tradition from the Apostles that Christ before the day of Judgment should reign a thousand years upon Earth and his Saints with him in temporal felicities and this thing proceeding from so great an Authority as the testimony of Papias drew after it all or most of the Christians in the first three hundred years For besides that the Millenary opinion is expresly taught by Papias Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Severus Victorinus Apollinaris Nepos and divers others famous in their time Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Tryphon says it was the belief of all Christians exactly Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
in France and Carolus Molineus a great Lawyer and of the Roman Communion disputed against the reception And this is a known condition in the Canon Law but it proves plainly that the Decrees of Councils have their Authority from the voluntary submission of the particular Churches not from the prime sanction and constitution of the Council And there is great Reason it should for as the representative body of the Church derives all power from the diffusive body which is represented so it resolves into it and though it may have all the legal power yet it hath not all the natural for more able men may be unsent then sent and they who are sent may be wrought upon by stratagem which cannot happen to the whole diffusive Church It is therefore most fit that since the legal power that is the externall was passed over to the body representative yet the efficacy of it and the internall should so still remain in the diffusive as to have power to consider whether their representatives did their duty yea or no and so to proceed accordingly For unless it be in matters of justice in which the interest of a third person is concern'd no man will or can be supposed to pass away all power from himself of doing himself right in matters personall proper and of so high concernment It is most unnatural and unreasonable But besides that they are excellent instruments of peace the best humane Judicatories in the world rare Sermons for the determining a point in Controversie and the greatest probability from humane Authority besides these advantages I say I know nothing greater that general Councils can pretend to with reason and Argument sufficient to satisfie any wise man And as there was never any Council so general but it might have been more general for in respect of the whole Church even Nice it self was but a small Assembly so there is no Decree so well constituted but it may be prov'd by an Argument higher then the Authority of the Council And therefore general Councils and National and Provinciall and Diocesan in their severall degrees are excellent Guides for the Prophets and directions and instructions for their Prophesyings but not of weight and Authority to restrain their Liberty so wholly but that they may dissent when they see a reason strong enough so to persuade them as to be willing upon the confidence of that reason and their own sincerity to answer to God for such their modesty and peaceable but as they believe their necessary disagreeing SECT VII Of the Fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture and resolving Questions 1. BUT since the Question between the Council and the Pope grew high there have not wanted abettors so confident on the Pope's behalf as to believe General Councils to be nothing but Pomps and Solemnities of the Catholick Church and that all the Authority of determining Controversies is formally and effectually in the Pope And therefore to appeal from the Pope to a future Council is a heresie yea and Treason too said Pope Pius II. and therefore it concerns us now to be wise and wary But before I proceed I must needs remember that Pope Pius II. while he was the wise and learned Aeneas Sylvius was very confident for the preeminence of a Council and gave a merry reason why more Clerks were for the Popes then the Council though the truth was on the other side even because the Pope gives Bishopricks and Abbeys but Councils give none and yet as soon as he was made Pope as if he had been inspired his eyes were open to see the great priviledges of S. Peter's Chair which before he could not see being amused with the truth or else with the reputation of a General Council But however there are many that hope to make it good that the Pope is the Universal and the Infallible Doctor that he breaths Decrees as Oracles that to dissent from any of his Cathedral determinations is absolute heresie the Rule of Faith being nothing else but conformity to the Chair of Peter So that here we have met a restraint of Prophecy indeed but yet to make amends I hope we shall have an infallible Guide and when a man is in Heaven he will never complain that his choice is taken from him and that he is confin'd to love and to admire since his love and his admiration is fixt upon that which makes him happy even upon God himself And in the Church of Rome there is in a lower degree but in a true proportion as little cause to be troubled that we are confin'd to believe just so and no choice left us for our understandings to discover or our wills to chuse because though we be limited yet we are pointed out where we ought to rest we are confin'd to our Center and there where our understandings will be satisfied and therefore will be quiet and where after all our strivings studies and endeavours we desire to come that is to truth for there we are secur'd to finde it because we have a Guide that is infallible If this prove true we are well enough But if it be false or uncertain it were better we had still kept our liberty then be couzened out of it with gay pretences This then we must consider 2. And here we shall be oppressed with a cloud of Witnesses For what more plain then the Commission given to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church And to thee will I give the Keys And again For thee have I prayed that thy faith fail not but thou when thou art converted confirm thy brethren And again If thou lovest me feed my sheep Now nothing of this being spoken to any of the other Apostles by one of these places S. Peter must needs be appointed Foundation or Head of the Church and by consequence he is to rule and govern all By some other of these places he is made the supreme Pastor and he is to teach and determine all and enabled with an infallible power so to do And in a right understanding of these Authorities the Fathers speak great things of the Chair of Peter for we are as much bound to believe that all this was spoken to Peter's successors as to his Person that must by all means be supposed and so did the old Doctors who had as much certainty of it as we have and no more but yet let 's hear what they have said To this Church by reason of its more powerfull principality it is necessary all Churches round about should Convene In this Tradition Apostolical always was observed and therefore to communicate with this Bishop with this Church was to be in Communion with the Church Catholick To this Church errour or perfidiousness cannot have access Against this See the gates of Hell cannot prevail For we know this Church to be built upon a Rock And whoever
Scripture both for the confirmation of good things and also for the reproof of the evil S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 12. Illuminat saith Attend not to my inventions for you may possibly be deceiv'd but trust no word unless thou dost learn it from the Divine Scriptures and in Catech. 4. Illum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For it behoves us not to deliver so much as the least thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine and holy mysteries of Faith without the Divine Scriptures nor to be moved with probable discourses Neither give credit to me speaking unless what is spoken be demonstrated by the Holy Scriptures For that is the security of our Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is derived not from witty inventions but from the demonstration of Divine Scriptures Omne quod loquimur debemus affirmare de Scripturis Sanctis so S. Hierom in Psal. 89. And again Hoc quia de Scripturis authoritatem non habet eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur in Matth. 23. Si quid dicitur absque Scripturâ auditorum cogitatio claudicat So S. Chrysostom in Psal. 95. Homil. Theodoret Dial. 1. cap. 6. brings in the Orthodox Christian saying to Eranistes Bring not to me your Logismes and Syllogismes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I rely only upon Scriptures I could reckon very very many more both elder and later and if there be any Universal Tradition consigned to us by the Universal Testimony of Antiquity it is this that the Scriptures are a perfect repository of all the Will of God of all the Faith of Christ and this I will engage my self to make very apparent to you and certain against any opposer Upon the supposition of which it follows that whatever the Church of Rome obtrudes as necessary to Salvation and an Article of Faith that is not in Scripture is an Innovation in matter of Faith and a Tyranny over Consciences which whosoever submits to prevaricates the rule of the Apostle commanding us that we stand fast in the liberty with which Christ hath set us free To the other Question Whether an Ecclesiastical Tradition be of equal authority with Divine I answer Negatively And I believe I shall have no adversary in it except peradventure some of the Jesuited Bigots An Ecclesiastical Tradition viz. a positive constitution of the Church delivered from hand to hand is in the power of the Church to alter but a Divine is not Ecclesiastical Traditions in matters of Faith there are none but what are also Divine as for Rituals Ecclesiastical descending by Tradition they are confessedly alterable but till they be altered by abrogation or desuetude or contrary custom or a contrary reason or the like they do oblige by vertue of that Authority whatsoever it is that hath power over you I know not what Mr. G. did say but I am confident they who reported it of him were mistaken He could not say or mean what is charged upon him I have but two things more to speak to One is you desire me to recite what else might impede your compliance with the Roman Church I answer Truth and Piety hinder you For you must profess the belief of many false propositions and certainly believe many Uncertain things and be uncharitable to all the world but your own party and make Christianity a faction and you must yield your reason a servant to man and you must plainly prevaricate an institution of Christ and you must make an apparent departure from the Church in which you received your Baptism and the Spirit of God if you go over to Rome But Sir I refer you to the two Letters I have lately published at the end of my Discourse of Friendship and I desire you to read my Treatise of the Real Presence and if you can believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation you can put off your reason and your sense and your religion and all the instruments of Credibility when you please and these are not little things In these you may perish an error in these things is practical but our way is safe as being upon the defence and intirely resting upon Scripture and the Apostolical Churches The other thing I am to speak to is the report you have heard of my inclinations to go over to Rome Sir that party which needs such lying stories for the support of their Cause proclaim their Cause to be very weak or themselves to be very evil Advocates Sir be confident they dare not tempt me to do so and it is not the first time they have endeavoured to serve their ends by saying such things of me But I bless God for it it is perfectly a Slander and it shall I hope for ever prove so Sir if I may speak with you I shall say very many things more for your confirmation Pray to God to guide you and make no change suddenly For if their way be true to day it will be so to morrow and you need not make haste to undo your self Sir I wish you a setled mind and a holy Conscience and that I could serve you in the capacity of Your very Loving Friend and Servant in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Munday Jan. 11. 1657. THE SECOND LETTER SIR I Perceive that you are very much troubled and I see also that you are in great danger but that also troubles me because I see they are little things and very weak and fallacious that move you You propound many things in your Letter in the same disorder as they are in your Conscience to all which I can best give answers when I speak with you to which because you desire I invite you and promise you a hearty endeavour to give you satisfaction in all your material inquiries Sir I desire you to make no haste to change in case you be so miserable as to have it in your thoughts for to go over to the Church of Rome is like death there is no recovery from thence without a Miracle because Unwary souls such are they who change from us to them are with all the arts of wit and violence strangely entangled and ensur'd when they once get the prey Sir I thank you for the Paper you inclosed The men are at a loss they would fain say something against that Book but know not what Sir I will endeavour if you come to me to restore you to peace and quiet and if I cannot effect it yet I will pray for it and I am sure God can To his Mercy I commend you and rest Your very affectionate Friend in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Febr. 1. 1657 8. THE THIRD LETTER SIR THE first Letter which you mention in this latter of the 10 th of March I received not I had not else failed to give you an answer I was so wholly unknowing of it that I did not understand your Servant's meaning when he came to require an answer But to your Question which you now propound I answer
made in us by it 28 b. With Baptism Confirmation was usually administred 29 b. Berengarius The Pope forced him to recant his errour about Transubstantiation in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. Bind What it means in the promise of Christ 736 45 46 47. and 486. Bishop The benefits that England has received in several ages from the Bishops Order Ep. dedic to Episcop asserted They were the Apostles successors 48 § 4. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. The Angel mentioned in the Epistles to the Seven Churches in the Apocalypse means the Bishop 57 § 9. That Bishops were successors in their office to the Apostles was the sense of Antiquity 59 § 10. The office of a Bishop was not inconsistent with that of an Evangelist 69 § 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.5 signifies Bishop and not mere Presbyter 71 § 15. The authority and text of S. Hierom against the Prelacy of Bishops considered 77 § 21. Those Presbyters mentioned Act. 20.28 in those words in quos Spir. Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos were Bishops and not mere Presbyters 80 § 21. Concerning the testimony of S. Hierome taken out of his Commentary in Ep. ad Tit. usually urged against the sole authority of Bishops 77 § 21. per tot and § 44. and pag. 144. In what sense it is true that Bishops were not greater then Presbyters 83 § 21. Bishops in Scripture are styled Presbyters 85 § 23. Mere Presbyters in Scripture are never styled Bishops 86 § 23. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining of a Bishop 98 § 31. Pope Pelagius not lawfully ordained Bishop according to the Canon 98 § 31. Why a Bishop cannot be made per saltum 101 § 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had the Ordination of a Bishop but not the Jurisdiction 102 § 32. Novatus was ordained by a Bishop without the assistance of other Clergy 104 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter in the Ceremony 105 § 32. Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches performed without Bishops 105 § 32. He could suspend or depose alone without the presence of a Presbyter 116 117 § 36. The latitude or extent of the Bishop's power 120 § 36. It encroaches not upon the royal power ibid. What persons are under the Bishop's jurisdiction 123 § 36. In the Primitive Church Presbyters might not officiate without the licence of the Bishop 127 § 37. The Bishop for his acts of judicature was responsible to none but God 145 146 § 44. The Presbyters assistence to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's behalf 147 § 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was there was not always a College of Presbyters onely in the greater Churches 146 § 44. One Bishop alone without the concurrence of more Bishops could not depose a Presbyter 147 § 44. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The African Christians of Byzac chose to suffer martyrdome rather then hazard the succession of Bishops 149 § 45. In the first Council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick though he believe aright that separates from his Bishop 151 § 48. The great honour that belongs to Bishops 153 § 48. It was not unlawful for Bishops to take secular employments 157 § 49. Christian Emperours allowed appeals in secular affairs from secular tribunals to that of the Bishop 160 § 49. They used in the Primitive Church to be Embassadours for their Princes 161 § 49. The Bishop might do any office of piety though of secular burthen 161 § 49. By the Law of God one Bishop is not superiour to another and they all derive their power equally from Christ 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. Saint Cyprian affirms that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproveth the Patriarch of Constantinople for calling himself universal Bishop 310. If a secular Prince give a safe conduct the Romanists teach it binds not the Bishop who is under him 341. Socrates his censure of their judicial proceedings in the Primitive Church 994 n. 17. Body Berengarius maintained in Rome That by the power of God one body could not be in two places at one time 222 § 9. How a body is in place 226 § 11. What a body is 236. One body cannot at the same time be in two places 236 § 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality as others are in S. Augustine's opinion 237 § 11. Aquinas affirmeth that the body of Christ is in the Elements not after the manner of a body but a substance This notion considered 238 § 11. That consequence That if two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places considered 243 § 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place 245 § 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place 245 § 11. The Romanists absurdities in explicating the nature of the conversion of the Elements into the Body of Christ 247 § 11. C. Canons THat the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Carnality What it is in Scripture 724 n. 53. Of the use of the word Carnal in Scripture 774 n. 16. Catechizing The excellent use of Catechizing Children 30. b. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Certainty It may be where is no evidence 686 n. 72. Charity The great Charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. The uncharitableness of that of Rome ibid. Charity gives being to all vertues 650 n. 56. Children How God punisheth the fathers upon the Children 725. God never imputes the father's sin to the child so as to inflict eternal punishment but temporal onely 725 n. 56. This he does onely in very great crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. and before the Gospel was published not since 726 n. 62. Rules of deportment for those Children who fear a curse descending upon them from their sinful parents 738 n. 93. The state of the unbaptized 897. Chorepiscopi They had Episcopal Ordination but not Jurisdiction 102 § 32. The institution of them what ends it served 142 § 43. Christ. The Romanists teach that Christ being our Judge is not fit to be our Advocate 329 c. 2. § 9. The Article of Christ's descent into hell omitted in some Creeds 440. We are by him redeemed from the state of spiritual infirmity 779 n. 27. Christian. The sum of Christian Religion 445. Upon what motives most men imbrace that Religion 460. Chrysostome His notion of a sinner 760
damneth not 756 n. 16. The sum of the doctrine of Original sin 757 n. 5. Clemens Alexandrinus in the opinion of Vossius understood not Original sin 759 n. 20. P. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 WHat it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie 809 n. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of it 617 n. 21. Pardons Of Pardons 316 318 c. 2. § 3 4. What is the use of so many hundred thousand years of pardon 317. The many follies about Pardons and the difficulties 319. Wherein the pardon of sin doth consist 484 485. At the day of Judgement a different pardon is given from what we obtain in this world 501. Several degrees of pardon of sin 839 n. 54. As our repentance is so is our pardon 839. Mistakes about Pardon and Salvation 789 n. 45. Some sins called unpardonable in a limited sense 806 n. 22. What is our state of pardon in this life 814 n. 57. and 816. In what manner and to what purpose the Church pardoneth Penitents by the hand of a Priest 838 839 n. 54. The usefulness of pardon by a Priest 841 n. 59. Parishes When the first division of them was 139 § 43. Episcopal Dioceses in the Primitive notion of them had no subordination nor distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Passions What they are 870. How the Will and Passions do differ and where they are seated ibid. They do not rule the will 871. Their violence excuseth not under the title of sins of infirmity 792 n. 56. Make it the great business of thy life to subdue thy Passions 795 n. 67. A state of passion is a state of spiritual death 793 n. 58. A Passion in the soul is nothing but a peculiar way of being affected with an object 825 n. 19. The Passions are not immediately subject to commandment 826 n. 19. From what cause each Passion flows ibid. Passeover The Eucharist does imitate the words used at the Passeover as the institution is a Copy of that 201 § 5. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. Peace Truth and Peace compared in their value 883. All truth is not to be preferred before it 882 962. Pelagian How the doctrine of Original sin as here explicated is contrary to the Pelagian 571. Saint Augustine's zeal against the Pelagians made him mistake Rom. 7.15 19. pag. 775 n. 18. Of that Heresie 761 n. 23 24. How it is mistaken 761 762 n. 23. Pelagius's Heresie not condemned by any General Council 961 n. 31. Penances Of corporal austerities 858 n. 111. A rule for the measure of them 860 n. 114 115. Which are best and rather to be chosen 860 n. 114. Fasting Prayer and Alms are the best penances 860 n. 115. They are not to be accounted simply necessary or a direct service of God 860 n. 116. People Against popular Elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. The people had de facto no vote in the first Oecumenical Council 137 § 41. Perfection How Christian perfection and supererogation differ 590 591 n. 16. Perfection of degrees and of state 582 n. 41. ad 48. How perfection is consistent with repentance 582 n. 47. § 3. per tot Wherein perfection of state consisteth 583 n. 47. Perfection in genere actûs 584. what it is 584. The perfection of a Christian is not the supreme degree of action or intention 585 n. 47. It cannot be less then an entire Piety perfect in its parts 585 n. 48. The perfection of a Christian requires increase 589 n. 13. and 583 n. 44. Philippians Chap. 1. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Text discussed 87 § 23. Chap. 2. 12 13. Work out your salvation with fear explained 676 n. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What these words in Saint Paul's style do import 767 n. 38. and 781. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word 723 and 767 n. 35. Picture Divers Hereticks did worship the Picture of our Lord and were reproved for it 545. A reply to that answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. Against the distinction of picturing the Essence and the Shape 550 554. Pope John caused those to be burned for Hereticks that made Pictures of the Trinity 555. Pilgrimages They are reproved by the ancient Fathers 293 496. Place Picus Mirandula maintained at Rome that one body by the power of God could not be in two places at one time 222 § 9. How a spirit is in place 236 § 11. How a body is in place ibid. One body cannot at the same time be in two places 236 § 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality as others are according to Saint Augustine's opinion 237 § 11. Ubiquity is an incommunicable attribute of God's 237 § 11. and 241. The device of potential and actual Ubiquity helps not 237 § 11. Three natural ways of being in a place 237 § 11 Of being in a place Sacramentaliter 239 § 11. Bellarmine holds that one body may be in two places at once which Aquinas denieth 239 § 11. That one body cannot be at once in two distant places 236 and 241 § 11. That consequence If two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places denied 243 § 11. Against Aristotle's definition of place 244 § 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place 245 § 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place 245 § 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The true notion of it 636 n. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How it differs from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 724 n. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of it 636 n. 5. Pope A Text of Saint Cyprian's contrary to their Supremacy over the Bishops that succeed other Apostles 155 § 48. The authority of a Pope against publick Prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The Apostles were from Christ invested with an equal authority 308. By the Law of Christ one Bishop is not superiour to another and they all derive their power equally from Christ 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. Saint Cyprian affirms that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproved the Patriarch of Constantinople for
man did what was right in his own eyes but few did what was pleasing in the eyes of the Lord and the event was this God put on his fierce anger against them and stirr'd up and arm'd the Enemies of their Country and Religion and they prevail'd very far against the expectation and confidence of them who thought the goodness of their cause would have born out the iniquity of their persons and that the impiety of their adversaries would have disabled them even from being made Gods scourges and instruments of punishing his own people The sadness of the event proved the vanity of their hopes for that which was the instrument of their worship the determination of their religious addresses the place where God did meet his people from which the Priests spake to God and God gave his Oracles that they dishonourably and miserably lost The Ark of the Lord was taken the impious Priests who made the Sacrifice of the Lord to become an abomination to the people were slain with the sword of the Philistines old Eli lost his life and the wife of Phinehas died with sorrow and the miscarriages of childbirth crying out That the Glory was departed from Israel because the Ark of God was taken 2. In these things we also have been but too like the sons of Israel for when we sinned as greatly we also have groaned under as great and sad a calamity For we have not only felt the evils of an intestine War but God hath smitten us in our spirit and laid the scene of his judgments especially in Religion he hath snuffed our lamp so near that it is almost extinguished and the sacred fire was put into a hole of the Earth even then when we were forced to light those Tapers that stood upon our Altars that by this sad truth better than by the old ceremony we might prove our succession to those holy men who were constrained to sing Hymns to Christ in dark places and retirements 3. But I delight not to observe the correspondencies of such sad accidents which as they may happen upon diverse causes or may be forc'd violently by the strength of fancy or driven on by jealousie and the too fond opâ—nings of troubled hearts and afflicted spirits so they do but help to vex the offending part and relieve the afflicted but with a phantastick and groundless comfort I will therefore deny leave to my own affections to ease themselves by complaining of others I shall only crave leave that I may remember Jerusalem and call to mind the pleasures of the Temple the order of her Services the beauty of her Buildings the sweetness of her Songs the decency of her Ministrations the assiduity and Oeconomy of her Priests and Levites the daily Sacrifice and that eternal fire of Devotion that went not out by day nor by night these were the pleasures of our peace and there is a remanent felicity in the very memory of those spiritual delights which we then enjoyed as antepasts of Heaven and consignations to an immortality of joys And it may be so again when it shall please God who hath the hearts of all Princes in his hand and turneth them as the rivers of waters and when men will consider the invaluable loss that is consequent and the danger of sin that is appendant to the destroying such forms of discipline and devotion in which God was purely worshipped and the Church was edified and the people instructed to great degrees of piety knowledge and devotion 4. And such is the Liturgy of the Church of England I shall not need to enumerate the advantages of Liturgy in general though it be certain that some Liturgie or other is most necessary in publick addresses that so we may imitate the perpetual practice of all setled Churches since Christianity or ever since Moses's Law or the Jewish Church came to have a setled foot and any rest in the land of Canaan 2. That we may follow the example and obey the precept of our blessed Saviour who appointed a set form of devotion and certainly they that profess enmity against all Liturgy can in no sence obey the precept given by him who gave command When ye pray say Our Father 3. That all that come may know the condition of publick Communion their Religion and manner of address to God Almighty 4. That the truth of the proposition the piety of the desires and the honesty of the petitions the simplicity of our purposes and the justice of our designs may be secured before-hand because Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin and it is impossible that we should pray to God in the extempore prayers of the Priest by any Faith but unreasonable unwarranted insecure and implicit 5. That there may be union of hearts and spirits and tongues 6. That there may be a publick symbol of Communion in our prayers which are the best instruments of endearing us to God and to one another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Private prayer not assisted with the concord and unity of a publick spirit is weaker and less effectual saith S. Basil. 7. That the Ministers less learned may have provisions of devotions made for them 8. That the more learned may have no occasion of ostentation ministred to them lest their best actions their prayers be turned into sin 9. That extravagant levities and secret impieties be prevented 10. That the offices Ecclesiastical may the better secure the Articles of Religion 11. That they may edifie the people by being repositories of holy and necessary truths ready form'd out of their needs and described in their Books of daily use for that was one of the advices of the Apostle t eaching and admonishing one another in Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs 12. That men by the intervening of authority may be engaged to certain devotions 13. That not only the duty but the very form of its ministration may be honoured by the countenance of authority and not be exposed to contempt by reason of the insufficiency of its external warrant 14. That the assignation of such offices and appropriating them to the ministery of certain persons may be a cancel to secure the inclosures of the Clerical orders from the usurpings and invasions of pretending and unhallowed spirits 15. That indetermination of the office may not introduce indifferency nor indifferency lead in a freer liberty or liberty degenerate into licentiousness or licentiousness into folly and vanity and these come sometime attended with secular designs lest these be cursed with the immission of a peevish spirit upon our Priests and that spirit be a teacher of lies and these lies become the basis of impious theoremes which are certainly attended with ungodly lives and then either Atheism or Antichristianism may come according as shall happen in the conjunction of time and other circumstances for this would be a sad climax a ladder upon which are no Angels ascending or descending because the degrees lead to darkness and
the Roman Sea yet a viper sprung out of Queen Maries sires which at Frankford first leap'd upon the hand of the Church but since that time it hath gnawn the bowels of its own Mother and given it self life by the death of its Parent and Nurse 15. For as for the Adversaries from the Roman party they were so convinc'd by the piety and innocence of the Common-Prayer-Book that they could accuse it of no deformity but of imperfection of a want of some things which they judged convenient because the error had a wrinkle on it and the face of antiquity And therefore for ten or eleven years they came to our Churches joyn'd in our devotions and communicated without scruple till a temporal interest of the Church of Rome rent the Schism wider and made it gape like the jaws of the grave And let me say it adds no small degree to my confidence and opinion of the English Common-Prayer-Book that amongst the numerous Armies sent from the Roman Seminaries who were curious enough to enquire able enough to find out and wanted no anger to have made them charge home any error in our Liturgy if the matter had not been unblameable and the composition excellent there was never any impiety or Heresie charg'd upon the Liturgy of the Church for I reckon not the calumnies of Harding for they were only in general calling it Darkness c. from which aspersion it was worthily vindicated by M. Deering The truth of it is the Compilers took that course which was sufficient to have secur'd it against the malice of a Spanish Inquisitor or the scrutiny of a more inquisitive Presbytery for they put nothing of controversie into their prayers nothing that was then matter of question only because they could not prophesie they put in some things which since then have been called to question by persons whose interest was highly concerned to find fault with something But that also hath been the fate of the Penmen of holy Scripture some of which could prophesie and yet could not prevent this But I do not remember that any man was ever put to it to justifie the Common-Prayer against any positive publick and professed charge by a Roman Adversary Nay it is transmitted to us by the testimony of persons greater than all exceptions that Paulus Quartus in his private entercourses and Letters to Queen Elizabeth did offer to confirm the English Common-Prayer-Book if she would acknowledge his Primacy and authority and the Reformation derivative from him And this lenity was pursued by his Successor Pius Quartus with an omnia de nobis tibi polliceare he assured her she should have any thing from him not only things pertaining to her soul but what might conduce to the establishment and confirmation of her Royal Dignity amongst which that the Liturgy new established by her authority should not be rescinded by the Popes power was not the least considerable 16. And possibly this hath cast a cloud upon it in the eyes of such persons who never will keep charity or so much as civility but with those with whom they have made a league offensive and defensive against all the world This hath made it to be suspected of too much compliance with that Church and her Offices of devotion and that it is a very Cento composed out of the Mass-Book Pontifical Breviaries Manuals and Portuises of the Roman Church 17. I cannot say but many of our Prayers are also in the Roman Offices But so they are also in the Scripture so also is the Lords Prayer and if they were not yet the allegation is very inartificial and the charge peevish and unreasonable unless there were nothing good in the Roman Books or that it were unlawful to pray a good prayer which they had once stain'd with red letters The Objection hath not sence enough to procure an answer upon its own stock but by reflection from a direct truth which uses to be like light manifesting it self and discovering darkness 18. It was first perfected in King Edward the Sixths time but it was by and by impugned through the obstinate and dissembling malice of many They are the words of M. Fox in his Book of Martyrs Then it was reviewed and published with so much approbation that it was accounted the work of God but yet not long after there were some persons qui divisionis occasionem arripiebant saith Alesius vocabula pene syllabas expendendo they tried it by points and syllables and weighed every word and sought occasions to quarrel which being observed by Archbishop Cranmer he caused it to be translated into Latin and sent it to Bucer requiring his judgment of it who returned this answer That although there are in it some things quae rapi possunt ab inquietis ad materiam contentionis which by peevish men may be cavill'd at yet there was nothing in it but what was taken out of the Scriptures or agreeable to it if rightly understood that is if handled and read by wise and good men The zeal which Archbishop Grindal Bishop Ridly Dr. Taylor and other the holy Martyrs and Confessors in Queen Maries time expressed for this excellent Liturgy before and at the time of their death defending it by their disputations adorning it by their practice and sealing it with their bloods are arguments which ought to recommend it to all the sons of the Church of England for ever infinitely to be valued beyond all the little whispers and murmurs of argument pretended against it and when it came out of the flame and was purified in the Martyrs sires it became a vessel of honour and used in the house of God in all the days of that long peace which was the effect of Gods blessing and the reward as we humbly hope of an holy Religion and when it was laid aside in the days of Queen Mary it was to the great decay of the due honour of God and discomfort to the Professors of the truth of Christs Religion they are the words of Queen Elizabeth and her grave and wise Parliament 19. Archbishop Cranmer in his purgation A. D. 1553. made an offer if the Queen would give him leave to prove All that is contained in the Common-Prayer-Book to be conformable to that order which our blessed Saviour Christ did both observe and command to be observed And a little after he offers to joyn issue upon this point That the Order of the Church of England set out by authority of the innocent and godly Prince Edward the Sixth in his high Court of Parliament is the same that was used in the Church fifteen hundred years past 20. And I shall go near to make his words good For very much of our Liturgy is the very words of Scriptures The Psalms and Lessons and all the Hymns save one are nothing else but Scripture and owe nothing to the Roman Breviaries for their production or authority So that the matter of them is out
Confessor are the great demonstration to all the world that Truth is as Dear to your MAJESTY as the Jewels of your Diadem and that your Conscience is tender as a pricked eye I shall pretend this only to alleviate the inconvenience of an unseasonable address that I present your MAJESTY with a humble persecuted truth of the same constitution with that condition whereby you are become most Dear to God as having upon you the characterism of the Sons of God bearing in your Sacred Person the marks of the Lord Jesus who is your Elder Brother the King of Sufferings and the Prince of the Catholick Church But I consider that Kings and their Great Councils and Rulers Ecclesiastical have a special obligation for the defence of Liturgies because they having the greatest Offices have the greatest needs of auxiliaries from Heaven which are best procured by the publick Spirit the Spirit of Government and Supplication And since the first the best and most solemn Liturgies and Set forms of Prayer were made by the best and greatest Princes by Moses by David and the Son of David Your MAJESTY may be pleased to observe such a proportion of circumstances in my laying this Apology for Liturgy at Your feet that possibly I may the easier obtain a pardon for my great boldness which if I shall hope for in all other contingencies I shall represent my self a person indifferent whether I live or die so I may by either serve God and Gods Church and Gods Vicegerent in the capacity of Great Sir Your Majesties most humble and most obedient Subject and Servant JER TAYLOR Hierocl in Pythag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An APOLOGY for Authorized and Set Forms of LITVRGY I Have read over this Book which the Assembly of Divines is pleased to call The Directory for Prayer I confess I came to it with much expectation and was in some measure confident I should have found it an exact and unblameable model of Devotion free from all those Objections which men of their own perswasion had obtruded against the Publick Liturgie of the Church of England or at least it should have been composed with so much artifice and fineness that it might have been to all the world an argument of their learning and excellency of spirit if not of the goodness and integrity of their Religion and purposes I shall give no other character of the whole but that the publick disrelish which I find amongst Persons of great piety of all qualities not only of great but even of ordinary understandings is to me some argument that it lies so open to the objections even of common spirits that the Compilers of it did intend more to prevail by the success of their Armies than the strength of reason and the proper grounds of perswasion which yet most wise and good Men believe to be the more Christian way of the two But because the judgment I made of it from an argument so extrinsecal to the nature of the thing could not reasonably enable me to satisfie those many Persons who in their behalf desired me to consider it I resolv'd to look upon it nearer and to take its account from something that was ingredient to its Constitution that I might be able both to exhort and convince the Gainsayers who refuse to hold fast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that faithful word which they had been taught by their Mother the Church of England Sect. 2. I SHALL decline to speak of the efficient cause of this Directory and not quarrel at it that it was composed against the Laws both of England and all Christendom If the thing were good and pious and did not directly or accidentally invade the rights of a just Superiour I would learn to submit to the imposition and never quarrel at the incompetency of his authority that ingaged me to do pious and holy things And it may be when I am a little more used to it I shall not wonder at a Synod in which not one Bishop sits in the capacity of a Bishop though I am most certain this is the first example in England since it was first Christened But for the present it seems something hard to digest it because I know so well that all Assemblies of the Church have admitted Priests to consultation and dispute but never to authority and decision till the Pope enlarging the phylacteries of the Archimandrites and Abbots did sometime by way of priviledge and dispensation give to some of them decisive voices in publick Councils but this was one of the things in which he did innovate and invade against the publick resolutions of Christendom though he durst not do it often and yet when he did it it was in very small and inconsiderable numbers Sect. 3. I SAID I would not meddle with the Efficient and I cannot meddle with the Final cause nor guess at any other ends and purposes of theirs than at what they publickly profess which is the abolition and destruction of the Book of Common Prayer which great change because they are pleased to call Reformation I am content in charity to believe they think it so and that they have Zelum Dei but whether secundum scientiam according to knowledge or no must be judg'd by them who consider the matter and the form Sect. 4. BUT because the matter is of so great variety and minute Consideration every part whereof would require as much scrutiny as I purpose to bestow upon the whole I have for the present chosen to consider only the form of it concerning which I shall give my judgment without any sharpness or bitterness of spirit for I am resolved not to be angry with any men of another perswasion as knowing that I differ just as much from them as they do from me Sect. 5. THE Directory takes away that Form of Prayer which by the aâ—â—hority and consent of all the obliging power of the Kingdom hath been used and enjoyned ever since the Reformation But this was done by men of differing spirits and of disagreeing interests Some of them consented to it that they might take away all set forms of prayer and give way to every mans spirit the other that they might take away this Form and give way and countenance to their own The first is an enemy to all deliberation The Second to all authority They will have no man to deliberate These would have none but themselves The former are unwise and rash the latter are pleased with themselves and are full of opinion They must be considered apart for they have rent the Question in pieces and with the fragment in his hand every man hath run his own way question 1 Sect. 6. FIRST of them that deny all set forms though in the subject matter they were confessed innocent and blameless Sect. 7. AND here I consider that the true state of the Question is only this Whether it is better to pray to God with Consideration or without Whether is the wiser
be changed or else time must stand still and things be ever in the same state and possibility Both the Consequents are extremely full of inconvenience For if it be left to humane prudence then either the government of the Church is not in immediate order to the good and benison of souls or if it be that such an institution in such immediate order to eternity should be dependant upon humane prudence it were to trust such a rich commodity in a cock-boat that no wise Pilot will be supposed to do But if there be often changes in government Ecclesiastical which was the other consequent in the publick frame I mean and constitution of it either the certain infinity of Schisms will arise or the dangerous issues of publick inconsistence and innovation which in matters of Religion is good for nothing but to make men distrust all and come the best that can come there will be so many Church-Governments as there are humane Prudences For so if I be not mis-informed it is abroad in some Towns that have discharged Episcopacy As Saint Galles in Switzerland there the Ministers and Lay-men rule in Common but a Lay-man is President But the Consistories of Zurick and Basil are wholly consistent of Lay-men and Ministers are joyned as Assistants only and Counsellors but at Schaff-hausen the Ministers are not admitted to so much but in the Huguenot Churches of France the Ministers do all 3. In such cases where there is no power of the sword for a compulsory and confessedly of all sides there can be none in Causes and Courts Ecclesiastical if there be no opinion of Religion no derivation from a Divine authority there will be sure to be no obedience and indeed nothing but a certain publick calamitous irregularity For why should they obey Not for Conscience for there is no derivation from Divine authority Not for fear for they have not the power of the sword 4. If there be such a thing as the power of the Keys by Christ concredited to his Church for the binding and losing Delinquents and Penitents respectively on earth then there is clearly a Court erected by Christ in his Church for here is the delegation of Judges Tu Petrus vos Apostoli whatsoever ye shall bind Here is a compulsory ligaveritis Here are the causes of which they take cognizance quodcunque viz. in materiâ scandali For so it is limited Matth. 18. but it is indefinite Matth. 16. and Universal John 20. which yet is to be understood secundùm materiam subjectam in causes which are emergent from Christianity ut sic that secular jurisdictions may not be intrenched upon But of this hereafter That Christ did in this place erect a Jurisdiction and establish a government besides the evidence of fact is generally asserted by primitive exposition of the Fathers affirming that to Saint Peter the Keys were given that to the Church of all ages a power of binding and loosing might be communicated Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae ut quae solveret in terrâ soluta essent in coelo scil ut quisquis in Ecclesia ejus dimitti sibi peccata crederet seque ab iis correctus averteret in ejusdem Ecclesiae gremio constitutus eâdem fide atque correctione sanaretur So S. Austin And again Omnibus igitur sanctis ad Christi corpus inseparabiliter pertinentibus propter hujus vitae procellosissima gubernaculum ad liganda solvenda peccata claves regni coelorum primus Apostolorum Petrus accepit Quoniam nec ille solus sed universa Ecclesia ligat solvitque peccata Saint Peter first received the government in the power of binding and loosing But not he alone but all the Church to wit all succession and ages of the Church Vniversa Ecclesia viz. in Pastoribus solis as Saint Chrysostom In Episcopis Presbyteris as S. Hierome The whole Church as it is represented in the Bishops and Presbyters The same is affirmed by Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Chrysostom S. Hilary Primasius and generally by the Fathers of the elder and Divines of the middle ages 5. When our blessed Saviour had spoken a parable of the sudden coming of the Son of Man and commanded them therefore with diligence to stand upon their watch the Disciples asked him Speakest thou this parable to us or even to all And the Lord said Who then is that faithful and wise steward whom his Lord shall make ruler over his houshold to give them their portion of meat in due season As if he had said I speak to You for to whom else should I speak and give caution for the looking to the house in the Masters absence You are by office and designation my stewards to feed my servants to govern my house 6. In Scripture and other Writers to Feed and to Govern is all one when the office is either Political or Oeconomical or Ecclesiastical So he Fed them with a faithful and true heart and Ruled them prudently with all his power And Saint Peter joyns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So does Saint Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers or Overseers in a Flock Pastors It is ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euripides calls the Governours and Guides of Chariots 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And our blessed Saviour himself is called the Great Shepherd of our souls and that we may know the intentum of that compellation it is in conjunction also with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is therefore our Shepherd for he is our Bishop our Ruler and Overseer Since then Christ hath left Pastors or Feeders in his Church it is also as certain he hath left Rulers they being both one in name in person in office But this is of a known truth to all that understand either Laws or Languages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Philo they that feed have the power of Princes and Rulers the thing is an undoubted truth to most men but because all are not of a mind something was necessary for confirmation of it SECT II. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ. THIS Government was by immediate substitution delegated to the Apostles by Christ himself in traditione clavium in spiratione Spiritûs in missione in Pentecoste When Christ promised them the Keys he promised them power to bind and loose when he breathed on them the Holy Ghost he gave them that actually to which by the former promise they were intitled and in the Octaves of the Passion he gave them the same authority which he had received from his Father and they were the faithful and wise stewards whom the Lord made Rulers over his Houshold But I shall not labour much upon this Their founding all the Churches from East to West and so by being Fathers derived their authority from the nature of the
Diocess Saint James had priority of order before him vers 9. And when 1 James 2 Cephas and 3 John c. First James before Cephas and Saint Peter Saint James also was President of that Synod which the Apostles convocated at Jerusalem about the Question of Circumcision as is to be seen Acts 15. to him Saint Paul made his address Acts 21. to him the Brethren carried him where he was found sitting in his Colledge of Presbyters there he was alwayes resident and his seat fixt and that he lived Bishop of Jerusalem for many years together is clearly testified by all the faith of the Primitive Fathers and Historians But of this hereafter 3. Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians I have sent unto you Epaphroditus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My Compeer and your Apostle Gradum Apostolatûs recepit Epaphroditus saith Primasius and what that is we are told by Theodoret dictus Philippensium Apostolus à S. Paulo quid hoc aliud nisi Episcopus Because he also had received the Office of being an Apostle among them saith Saint Hierom upon the same place and it is very observable that those Apostles to whom our blessed Saviour gave immediate substitution are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles of Jesus Christ but those other men which were Bishops of Churches and called Apostles by Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles of Churches or sometime Apostles alone but never are intitled of Jesus Christ. Other of the Apostles saw I none but James the Lord Brother Gal. 1. There S. James the Bishop of Jerusalem is called an Apostle indefinitely But S. Paul calls himself often the Apostle of Jesus Christ not of man neither by man but by Jesus Christ. So Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ but S. James in his Epistle to the Jews of the dispersion writes not himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 James the Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. Further yet S. Paul although as having an immediate calling from Christ to the office of Apostolate at large calls himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ yet when he was sent to preach to the Gentiles by the particular direction indeed of the Holy Ghost but by Humane constitution and imposition of hands in relation to that part of his Office and his cure of the uncircumcision he limits his Apostolate to his Diocess and calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle of the Gentiles as Saint Peter for the same reason and in the same modification is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The Apostle of those who were of the Circumcision And thus Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians who clearly was their Bishop as I shall shew in the sequel that is he had an Apostolate limited to the Diocess of Philippi Paulatim verò tempore procedente alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat ordinati sunt Apostoli sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat dicens necessarium autem existimo Epaphroditum c. So Saint Jerome In process of time others besides those whom the Lord had chosen were ordained Apostles and particularly he instances in Epaphroditus from the authority of this instance adding also that by the Apostles themselves Judas and Silas were called Apostles 4. Thus Titus and some other with him who came to Jerusalem with the Corinthian benevolence are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostles of the Churches Apostles I say in the Episcopal sence They were none of the twelve they were not of immediate divine mission but of Apostolick ordination they were actually Bishops as I shall shew hereafter Titus was Bishop of Crete and Epaphroditus of Philippi and these were the Apostles for Titus came with the Corinthian Epaphroditus with the Collossian liberality Now these men were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called Messengers in respect of these Churches sending them with their contributions 1. Because they are not called the Apostles of these Churches to wit whose alms they carried but simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches viz. of their own of which they were Bishops For if the title of Apostle had related to their mission from these Churches it is unimaginable that there should be no term of relation expressed 2. It is very clear that although they did indeed carry the benevolence of the several Churches yet Saint Paul not those Churches sent them And we have sent with them our Brother c. 3. They are called Apostles of the Churches not going from Corinth with the money but before they came thither from whence they were to be dispatch'd in legation to Jerusalem If any inquire of Titus or the Brethren they are the Apostles of the Church and the glory of Christ. So they were Apostles before they went to Corinth not for their being imployed in the transportation of their charity So that it is plain that their Apostolate being not relative to the Churches whose benevolence they carried and they having Churches of their own as Titus had Crete Epaphroditus had Philippi their Apostolate was a fixt residence and superintendency of their several Churches SECT V. And Office BUT in holy Scripture the identity of the ordinary office of Apostleship and Episcopacy is clearer yet For when the holy Spirit had sent seven Letters to the seven Asian Bishops the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for trying them which say they are Apostles and are not and hath found them liars This Angel of the Church of Ephesus as Antiquity hath taught us was at that time Timothy or Gaius the first a Disciple the other had been an entertainer of the Apostles and either of them knew them well enough it could not be that any man should dissemble their persons and counterfeit himself Saint Paul or Saint Peter And if they had yet little trying was needful to discover their folly in such a case and whether it was Timothy or Gaius he could deserve but small commendations for the meer believing of his own eyes and memory Besides the Apostles except Saint John all were then dead and he known to live in Paâ—mos known by the publick attestation of the sentence of relegation ad insulam These men therefore dissembling themselves to be Apostles must dissemble an ordinary function not an extraordinary person And indeed by the concurse of story place and time Diotrephes was the Man Saint John chiefly pointed at For he seeing that at Ephesus there had been an Episcopal chair plac'd and Timothy a long while possess'd of it and perhaps Gaius after him if we may trust Dorotheus and the like in some other Churches and that Saint John had not constituted Bishops in all other Churches of the lesser Asia but kept the Jurisdiction to be ministred by himself would arrogantly take upon him to be a Bishop without Apostolical ordination obtruding himself upon the
one of the 72. as Eusebius Epiphanius and S. Jerom affirm and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with Jesus S. Clement succeeded S. Peter at Rome S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. James at Jerusalem S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea and divers others of the 72. reckoned by Dorotheus Eusebius and others of the Fathers did govern the several Churches after the Apostles death which before they did not Now it is clear that he that receives no more power after the Apostles than he had under them can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge or Churches It follows then since as will more fully appear anon Presbyters did succeed the Apostles that under the Apostles they had not such jurisdiction as afterwards they had But the Apostles had the same to which the Presbyters succeeded to therefore greater than the Presbyters had before they did succeed When I say Presbyters succeeded the Apostles I mean not as Presbyters but by a new ordination to the dignity of Bishops so they succeeded and so they prove an evidence of fact for a superiority of Jurisdiction in the Apostolical Clergy *** Now that this superiority of Jurisdiction was not temporary but to be succeeded in appears from Reason and from ocular demonstration or of the thing done 1. If superiority of Jurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolical for the Regiment of the Church there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession since upon the emergency of Schisms and Heresies which were foretold should multiply in descending ages government and superiority of jurisdiction unity of supremacy and coercion was more necessary than at first when extraordinary gifts might supply what now we expect to be performed by an ordinary Authority 2. Whatsoever was the Regiment of the Church in the Apostles times that must be perpetual not so as to have all that which was personal and temporary but so as to have no other for that and that only is of Divine institution which Christ committed to the Apostles and if the Church be not now governed as then We can shew no Divine authority for our government which we must contend to do and do it too or be call'd usurpers For either the Apostles did govern the Church as Christ commanded them or not If not then they failed in the founding of the Church and the Church is built upon a Rock If they did as most certainly they did then either the same disparity of jurisdiction must be retained or else we must be governed with an unlawful and unwarranted equality because not by that which only is of immediate Divine institution and then it must needs be a fine government where there is no authority and where no man is superiour 3. We see a disparity in the Regiment of Churches warranted by Christ himself and confirmed by the Holy Ghost in fairest intimation I mean the seven Angel-presidents of the seven Asian Churches If these seven Angels were seven Bishops that is Prelates or Governours of these seven Churches in which it is evident and confessed of all sides there were many Presbyters then it is certain that a Superiority of Jurisdiction was intended by Christ himself and given by him insomuch as he is the fountain of all power derived to the Church For Christ writes to these seven Churches and directs his Epistles to the seven Governours of these Churches calling them Angels which it will hardly be supposed he would have done if the function had not been a ray of the Sun of righteousness they had not else been Angels of light nor stars held in Christs own right hand This is certain that the function of these Angels whatsoever it be is a Divine institution Let us then see what is meant by these Stars and Angels The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches 1. Then it is evident that although the Epistles were sent with a final intention for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocess with an Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesiis yet the personal direction was not to the whole Church for the whole Church is called the Candlestick and the superscription of the Epistles is not to the seven Candlesticks but to the seven Stars which are the Angels of the seven Churches viz. The lights shining in the Candlesticks By the Angel therefore is not cannot be meant the whole Church 2. It is plain that by the Angel is meant the Governour of the Church First Because of the title of eminency The Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Messenger the Legate the Apostle of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For these words Angel or Apostle although they signifie Mission or Legation yet in Scripture they often relate to the persons to whom they are sent As in the examples before specified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles of the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Angel of the Church of Ephesus and divers others Their compellation therefore being a word of office in respect of him that sends them and of eminence in relation to them to whom they are sent shews that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively 2. Because acts of jurisdiction are concredited to him as not to suffer false Apostles So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus which is clearly a power of cognizance and coercion in causis Clericorum to be watchful and strengthen the things that remain as to the Angel of the Church in Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first is the office of Rulers for they watch for your Souls And the second of Apostles and Apostolick men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judas and Silas confirmed the Brethren for these men although they were but of the LXXII at first yet by this time were made Apostles and chief men among the Brethren S. Paul also was joyned in this work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He Went up and down confirming the Churches And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Paul To confirm the Churches and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government these were offices of power and jurisdiction no less than Episcopal or Apostolical and besides the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Diocess Thou hast a few names even in Sardis they were the Bishops people the Angel had a right to them And good reason that the people should be his for their faults are attributed to him as to the Angel of Pergamus and divers others and therefore they are deposited in his custody He is to be their Ruler and Pastor and this is called His Ministery To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have known thy Ministery His office therefore was clerical it
command this as an Apostle for what am I and what is my Fathers house that I should compare my self with them but as your fellow souldier and a Monitor But this answers it self if we consider to whom he speaks it Not to his own Church of Antioch for there he might command as an Apostle but to the Philadelphians he might not they were no part of his Diocess he was not their Apostle and then because he did not equal the Apostles in their commission extraordinary in their personal priviledges and in their universal jurisdiction therefore he might not command the Philadelphians being another Bishops charge but admonish them with the freedom of a Christian Bishop to whom the souls of all faithful people were dear and precious So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office this hinders not and I know nothing else pretended and that antiquity is clearly on this side is the next business For hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episcopacy by arguments derived from Scripture I shall only add two more from Antiquity and so pass on to tradition Apostolical SECT X. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship according to the general Tenent of Antiquity 1. THE belief of the Primitive Church is that Bishops are the ordinary successors of the Apostles and Presbyters of the LXXII and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine institution as the Apostolate for the ordinary office both of one and the other is the same thing For this there is abundant testimony Some I shall select enough to give fair evidence of a Catholick tradition S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this particular Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos Etenim si recondita mysteria scîssent Apostoli his vel maxime traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant quos successores relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes We can name the men the Apostles made Bishops in their several Churches appointing them their successors and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which themselves knew they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches and left to be their successors in the same power and authority themselves had Tertullian reckons Corinth Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolical apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident Apostolical they are from their foundation and by their succession for the Apostles did found them and Apostles or men of Apostolick authority still do govern them S. Cyprian Hoc enim vel maximè Frater laboramus laborare debemus ut Vnitatem à Domino per Apostolos Nobis Successoribus traditam quantùm possumus obtinere curemus We must preserve the Vnity commanded us by Christ and delivered by his Apostles to us their Successors To us Cyprian and Cornelius for they only were then in view the one Bishop of Rome the other of Carthage And in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum Nec haec jacto sed dolens profero cum te Judicem Dei constituas Christi Qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt qui vos audit me audit c. Christ said to his Apostles and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence He that heareth you heareth me Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop spoken in the Council of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes Nos successimus We succeed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power He spake it in full Council in an assembly of Bishops and himself was a Bishop The Council of Rome under S. Sylvester speaking of the honour due to Bishops expresses it thus Non oportere quemquam Domini Discipulis id est Apostolorum successoribus detrahere No man must detract from the Disciples of our Lord that is from the Apostles successors S. Hierome speaking against the Montanists for undervaluing their Bishops shews the difference of the Catholicks honouring and the Hereticks disadvantaging that sacred order Apud nos saith he Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent apud eos Episcopus tertius est Bishops with us Catholicks have the place or authority of Apostles but with them Montanists Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist pro Patribus nati sunt tibi filii S. Hierome and divers others of the Fathers make this gloss Pro Patribus Apostolis filii Episcopi ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant The Apostles are Fathers instead of whom Bishops do succeed whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands So S. Hierome S. Austin and Euthymius upon the 44 Psalm alià s 45. But S. Austin for his own particular makes good use of his succeeding the Apostles which would do very well now also to be considered Si solis Apostolis dixit qui vos spernit me spernit spernite nos si autem sermo ejus pervenit ad nos vocavit nos in eorum loco constituit nos videte ne spernatis nos It was good counsel not to despise Bâ—shops for they being in the Apostles places and offices are concerned and protectâ—d by that saying He that despiseth you despiseth me I said it was good counsel especially if besides all these we will take also S. Chrysostomes testimony Potestas anathematizandi ab Apostâ—lis ad successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transit A power of anathematizing delinquents is derived from the Apostles to their successors even to Bishops S. Ambrose upon that of S. Paul Ephes. 4. Quosdam dedit Apostolos Apostoli Episcopi sunt He hath given Apostles that is he hath given some Bishops That 's downright and this came not by chance from him he doubles his assertion Caput itaque in Ecclesiâ Apostolis posuit qui legati Christi sunt sicut dicit idem Apostolus pro quo legatione fungimur Ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante istud Petro Apostolo dicente inter caetera de Judâ Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And a third time Numquid omnes Apostoli verum est Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episcopus Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Ambrose when he spake of their ordinary offices which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycrates of the Martyrdom of Timothy in Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Timothy was ordained Bishop in the Metropolis
clearly make not distinct orders and why are not all of them of the same consideration I would be answered from grounds of Scripture For there we fix as yet * Indeed the Apostles did ordain such men and scattered their power at first for there was so much imployment in any one of them as to require one man for one office but a while after they united all the lesser parts of power into two sorts of men whom the Church hath since distinguished by the Names of Presbyters and Deacons and called them two distinct orders But yet if we speak properly and according to the Exigence of Divine institution there is Vnum Sacerdotium one Priesthood appointed by Christ and that was the commission given by Christ to his Apostles and to their successors precisely and those other offices of Presbyter and Deacon are but members of the Great Priesthood and although the power of it is all of Divine institution as the power to Baptize to Preach to Consecrate to Absolve to Minister yet that so much of it should be given to one sort of men so much less to another that is only of Apostolical ordinance For the Apostles might have given to some only a power to Absolve to some only to Consecrate to some only to Baptize We see that to Deacons they did so They had only a power to Baptize and Preach whether all Evangelists had so much or no Scripture doth not tell us * But if to some men they had only given a power to use the Keys or made them officers spiritual to restore such as are overtaken in a fault and not to consecrate the Eucharist for we see these powers are distinct and not relative and of necessarie conjunction no more than Baptizing and Consecrating whether or no had those men who have only a power of Absolving or Consecrating respectively whether I say have they the order of a Presbyter If yea then now every Priest hath two orders besides the order of Deacon for by the power of Consecration he hath the power of a Presbyter and what is he then by his other power But if such a man ordained with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter then let any man shew me where it is ordained by Christ or indeed by the Apostles that an order of Clerks should be constituted with both these powers and that these were called Presbyters I only leave this to be considered * But all the Apostolical power we find instituted by Christ and we also find a necessitie that all that power should be succeeded in and that all that power should be united in one order for he that hath the highest viz. a power of Ordination must needs have all the other else he cannot give them to any else but a power of Ordination I have proved to be necessary and perpetual So that we have clear evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetual order of Apostleship mary for the Presbyterate I have not so much either reason or confidence for it as now it is in the Church but for the Apostolate it is beyond exception And to this Bishops do succeed For that it is so I have proved from Scripture and because no Scripture is of private interpretation I have attested it with the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Fathers calling Episcopacie the Apostolate and Bishops successors of S. Peter in particular and of all the Apostles in general in their ordinarie offices in which they were Superiour to the LXXII the Antecessors of the Presbyterate One objection I must clear For sometimes Presbyters are also called Apostles and Successors of the Apostles as in Ignatius in Irenaeus in S. Hierome I answer 1. They are not called Successores Apostolorum by any dogmatical resolution or interpretation of Scripture as the Bishops are in the examples above alledged but by allusion and participation at the most For true it is that they succeed the Apostles in the offices of Baptizing Consecrating and Absolving in privato foro but this is but part of the Apostolical power and no part of their office as Apostles were superiour to Presbyters 2. It is observable that Presbyters are never affirmed to succeed in the power and regiment of the Church but in subordination and derivation from the Bishop and therefore they are never said to succeed In Cathedris Apostolorum in the Apostolick Sees 3. The places which I have specified and they are all I could ever meet with are of peculiar answer For as for Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis he calls the Presbytery or company of Priests the Colledge or combination of Apostles But here S. Ignatius as he lifts up the Presbyters to a comparison with Apostles so he also raises the Bishop to the similitude and resemblance with God Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit Presbyteri verò sunt conjunctus Apostolorum coetus So that although Presbyters grow high yet they do not overtake the Bishops or Apostles who also in the same proportion grow higher than their first station This then will do no hurt As for S. Irenaeus he indeed does say that Presbyters succeed the Apostles but what Presbyters he means he tells us even such Presbyters as were also Bishops such as S. Peter and S. John were who call themselves Presbyters his words are these Proptereà eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatûs successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt And a little after Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait Et dabo Principes tuos in pace Episcopos tuos in Justitiâ So that he gives testimony for us not against us As for S. Hierome the third man he in the succession to the honour of the Apostolate joyns Presbyters with Bishops and that 's right enough for if the Bishop alone does succeed in plenitudinem potestatis Apostolicae ordinariae as I have proved he does then also it is as true of the Bishop together with his consessus Presbyterorum Episcopi Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum those are his words and enforce not so much as may be safely granted for reddendo singula singulis Bishops succeed Apostles and Presbyters Apostolick men and such were many that had not at first any power Apostolical and that 's all that can be inferred from this place of S. Hierome I know nothing else to stay me or to hinder our assent to those authorities of Scripture I have alledged and the full voice of traditive interpretation SECT XII And the Institution of Episcopacy as well as the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by Primitive Authority THE second argument from Antiquity is the direct testimony of the Fathers for a Divine Institution In this S. Cyprian
primitùs sunt constituti The Lord did at first ordain and the Apostles did so order it and so Bishops at first had their Original constitution These and all the former who affirm Bishops to be successors of the Apostles and by consequence to have the same institution drive all to the same issue and are sufficient to make faith that it was the doctrine Primitive and Catholick that Episcopacy is a Divine institution which Christ Planted in the first founding of Christendom which the Holy Ghost Watered in his first descent on Pentecost and to which we are confident that God will give an increase by a neve-failing succession unless where God removes the Candlestick or which is all one takes away the star the Angel of light from it that it may be invelop'd in darkness usque ad consummationem saeculi aperturam tenebrarum The conclusion of all I subjoyn in the words of Venerable Bede before quoted Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti Bishops are distinct from Presbyters and Superiour to them by the law of God The second Basis of Episcopacy is Apostolical tradition We have seen what Christ did now we shall see what was done by his Apostles And since they knew their Masters mind so well we can never better confide in any argument to prove Divine institution of a derivative authority than the practice Apostolical Apostoli enim Discipuli veritatis existentes extra omne mendacium sunt non enim communicat mendacium veritati sicut non communicant tenebrae luci sed praesentia alterius excludit alterum saith S. Irenaeus SECT XIII In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches FIRST then the Apostles did presently after the Ascension fix an Apostle or a Bishop in the chair of Jerusalem For they knew that Jerusalem was shortly to be destroyed they themselves foretold of miseries and desolations to ensue Petrus Paulus praedicunt cladem Hierosolymitanam saith Lactantius l. 4. inst famines and wars and not a stone left upon another was the fate of that Rebellious City by Christs own prediction which themselves recorded in Scripture And to say they understood not what they writ is to make them Enthusiasts and neither good Doctors nor wise seers But it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the holy Spirit which was promised to lead them into all truth would instruct them in so concerning an issue of publick affairs as was so Great desolation and therefore they began betimes to establish that Church and to fix it upon its perpetual base Secondly The Church of Jerusalem was to be the president and platform for other Churches The word of God went forth into all the world beginning first at Jerusalem and therefore also it was more necessary a Bishop should be there plac'd betimes that other Churches might see their government from whence they receiv'd their doctrine that they might see from what stars their continual flux of light must stream Thirdly the Apostles were actually dispers'd by persecution and this to be sure they look'd for and therefore so implying the necessity of a Bishop to govern in their absence or decession any ways they ordained S. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem there he fixt his chair there he lived Bishop for 30 years and finished his course with glorious Martyrdom If this be proved we are in a fair way for practice Apostolical First Let us see all that is said of S. James in Scripture that may concern this affair Acts 15. We find S. James in the Synod at Jerusalem not disputing but giving final determination to that Great Question about Circumcision And when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said c. He first drave the question to an issue and told them what he believed concerning it with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we trust it will go as well with us without circumcision as with our Forefathers who used it But S. James when he had summed up what had been said by S. Peter gave sentence and final determination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore I judge or give sentence So he The acts of Council which the Brethren or Presbyters did use were deliberative they disputed v. 7. S. Peter's act was declarative but S. James his was decisive which proves him clearly if by reasonableness of the thing and the successive practice of Christendom in imitation of this first Council Apostolical we may take our estimate that S. James was the President of this Synod which considering that he was none of the twelve as I proved formerly is unimaginable were it not for the advantage of the place it being held in Jerusalem where he was Hierosolymorum Episcopus as S. Clement calls him especially in the presence of S. Peter who was primus Apostolus and decked with many personal priviledges and prerogatives * Add to this that although the whole Council did consent to the sending of the Decretal Epistle and to send Judas and Silas yet because they were of the Presbytery and Colledge of Jerusalem S. James his Clergy they are said as by way of appropriation to come from S. James Gal. 2. v. 12. Upon which place S. Austin saith thus Cùm vidisset quosdam venisse à Jacobo i. e. à Judaeâ nam Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae Jacobus praefuit To this purpose that of Ignatius is very pertinent calling S. Stephen the Deacon of S. James and in his Epistle to Hero saying that he did Minister to S. James and the Presbyters of Jerusalem which if we expound according to the known discipline of the Church in Ignatius's time who was Suppar Apostolorum only not a contemporary Bishop here is plainly the eminency of an Episcopal chair and Jerusalem the seat of S. James and the Clergy his own of a Colledge of which he was the praepositus Ordinarius he was their Ordinary * The second evidence of Scripture is Acts 21. And when we were come to Jerusalem the Brethren received us gladly and the day following Paul went in with us unto James and all the Elders were present Why unto James Why not rather unto the Presbytery or Colledge of Elders if James did not eminere were not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Praepositus or Bishop of them all Now that these conjectures are not vain and impertinent see it testified by Antiquity to which in matter of fact and Church-story he that will not give faith upon current testimonies and uncontradicted by Antiquity is a mad-man and may as well disbelieve every thing that he hath not seen himself and can no way prove that himself was Christned and to be sure after 1600 years there is no possibility to disprove a matter of fact that was never questioned or doubted of before and therefore can never obtain the faith of any man to his contradictory it being impossible to prove it Eusebius reports out of S. Clement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
destination for divine service and in a word by his authority to establish such Discipline and Rituals as himself did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God For he that was appointed by S. Paul to rectifie and set things in order was most certainly by him supposed to be the Judge of all the obliquities which he was to rectifie 2. The next work is Episcopal too and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every City Not Presbyters collectively in every City but distributively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 City by City that is Elders in several Cities one in one City many in many For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops Of the identity of Names I shall afterwards give an account but here it is plain S. Paul expounds himself to mean Bishops 1. In terms and express words To ordain Elders in every City If any be the husband of one wife c. For a Bishop must be blameless That is the Elders that you are to ordain in several cities must be blameless for else they must not be Bishops 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot hinder this exposition for S. Peter calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. John Presbyter electae Dominae and Presbyter delectissimo Gaio Such Presbyters as these were Apostolical and that 's as much as Episcopal to be sure 3. S. Paul adds farther a Bishop must be blameless as the steward of God Who then is that faithful and wise steward whom his Lord shall make ruler S. Paul's Bishop is Gods steward and Gods steward is the ruler of his houshold says our blessed Saviour himself and therefore not a meer Presbyter amongst whom indeed there is a parity but no superintendency of Gods making 4. S. Paul does in the sequel still qualifie his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of rulers A Bishop must be no striker not given to wine They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts If the Steward of the house will drink and be drunk and beat his fellow servants then the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers The steward of the houshold this Ruler must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more must a Bishop he must not be given to wine no striker Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat saith S. Hierome still then these are the Rulers of the Church which S. Titus was to ordain and therefore it is required should Rule well his own house for how else shall he take charge of the Church of God implying that this his charge is to rule the house of God 5. The reason why S. Paul appointed him to ordain these Bishops in cities is in order to coercive jurisdiction because many unruly and vain talkers were crept in verse 10. and they were to be silenced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their mouths must be stopped Therefore they must be such Elders as had superiority of jurisdiction over these impertinent Preachers which to a single Presbyter either by Divine or Apostolical institution no man will grant and to a Colledge of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it for himself had given it singly to S. Titus For I consider Titus alone had coercive Jurisdiction before he ordained these Elders be they Bishops be they Presbyters The Presbyters which were at Crete before his coming had not Episcopal power or coercive Jurisdiction for why then was Titus sent As for the Presbyters which Titus ordained before his ordaining them to be sure they had no power at all they were not Presbyters If they had a coercive Jurisdiction afterwards to wit by their ordination then Titus had it before in his own person for they that were there before his coming had not as I shewed and therefore he must also have it still for he could not lose it by ordaining others or if he had it not before how could he give it unto them whom he ordained For plus juris in alium tranferre nemo potest quam ipse habet Howsoever it be then to be sure Titus had it in his own person and then it follows undeniably that either this coercive Jurisdiction was not necessary for the Church which would be either to suppose men impeccable or the Church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of Schism and tumultuary factions without possibility of relief or if it was necessary then because it was in Titus not as a personal prerogative but a power to be succeeded to he might ordain others he had authority to do it with the same power he had himself and therefore since he alone had this coercion in his own person so should his successors and then because a single Presbyter could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides nor the Colledge of Presbyters which were there before his coming had it not for why then was Titus sent with a new commission nor those which he was to ordain if they were but meer Presbyters could not have it no more than the Presbyters that were there before his coming it follows that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordain being such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false Doctors and prating Preachers and with authority to silence them as is evident in the first Chapter of that Epistle these Elders I say are verily and indeed such as himself calls Bishops in the proper sence and acceptation of the word 6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there before S. Titus's coming had not power to ordain others that is had not that power that Titus had For Titus was sent thither for that purpose therefore to supply the want of that power And now because to ordain others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the Church that is because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world and meer Presbyters could not do it and yet this must be done not only by Titus himself but after him it follows undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordain men with the same power that himself had that is with more than his first Cretan Presbyters that is Bishops and he means them in the proper sence 7. That by Elders in several Cities he means Bishops is also plain from the place where they were to be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In populous Cities not in village Towns For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in village Towns as is to be seen in the Councils of Sardis of Chalcedon and S. Leo the Cities therefore do at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordained were not meer Presbyters The issue of this discourse is That since Titus was sent to Crete to ordain Bishops himself was a Bishop to be
sure at least If he had ordained only Presbyters it would have proved that But this infers him to be a Metropolitan forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him of his own constitution and yet of proper Diocesses However if this discourse concludes nothing peculiar it frees the place from popular prejudice and mistakes upon the confusion of Episcopus and Presbyter and at least infers his being a Bishop if not a great deal more Yea but did not S. Titus ordain no meer Presbyters yes most certainly But so he did Deacons too and yet neither one nor the other are otherwise mentioned in this Epistle but by consequence and comprehension within the superior order For he that ordains a Bishop first makes him a Deacon and then he obtains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and then a Presbyter and then a Bishop So that these inferior orders are presupposed in the authorizing the Supream and by giving direction for the qualifications of Bishops he sufficiently instructs the inferior orders in their deportment insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher 2. Add to this that he that ordains Bishops in Cities set there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinem generativum Patrum as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy and therefore most certainly with intention not that it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus Mortua but to produce others and therefore Presbyters and Deacons 3. S. Paul made no express provision for Villages and yet most certainly did not intend to leave them destitute and therefore he took order that such ordinations should be made in Cities which should be provisionary for Villages and that is of such men as had power to ordain and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased For since Presbyters could not ordain other Presbyters as appears by S. Paul's sending Titus to do it there where most certainly many Presbyters before were actually resident if Presbyters had gone to Villages they must have left the Cities destitute or if they staid in Cities the Villages would have perished and at last when these men had died both one and the other had been made a prey to the wolf for there could be no shepherd after the decay of the first generation But let us see further into S. Titus his commission and letters of orders and institution A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Cognizance of Heretical pravity and animadversion against the Heretick himself is most plainly concredited to S. Titus For first he is to admonish him then to reject him upon his pertinacy from the Catholick communion Cogere autem illos videtur qui saepe corripit saith S. Ambrose upon the establishing a coactive or coercive jurisdiction over the Clergy and whole Diocess But I need not specifie any more particulars for S. Paul committed to S. Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority and power The consequence is that which S. Ambrose prefixes to the Commentary on his Epistle Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum ideò commonet eum ut sit solicitus in Ecclesiasticâ ordinatione id est ad quosdam qui simulatione quâdam dignos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent simulque haereticos ex circumcisione corripiendos And now after so fair preparatory of Scripture we may hear the testimonies of antiquity witnessing that Titus was by S. Paul made Bishop of Crete Sed Lucas saith Eusebius in actibus Apostolorum Timothei meminit Titi quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus alter ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis ab eo ordinatus praeficitur That is it which S. Ambrose expresses something more plainly Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum The Apostle consecrated Titus Bishop and Theodoret calling Titus Cretensium Episcopum The Bishop of the Cretians And for this reason saith S. Paul did not write to Sylvanus or Silas or Clemens but to Timothy and Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because to these he had already committed the government of Churches But a fuller testimony of S. Titus being a Bishop who please may see in S. Hierome in Dorotheus in Isidore in Vincentius in Theodoret in S. Gregory in Primasius in Sedulius Theophylact and Nicephorus To Which if we add the subscription of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent objections by the clearer testimony of S. Athanasius S. Jerome the Syriack translation Oecumenius and Theophylact no confident denial can ever break through or scape conviction And now I know not what objection can fairly be made here for I hope S. Titus was no Evangelist he is not called so in Scripture and all Antiquity calls him a Bishop and the nature of his offices the eminence of his dignity the superiority of jurisdiction the cognizance of causes criminal and the Epistle proclaim him Bishop But suppose a while Titus had been an Evangelist I would fain know who succeeded him or did all his office expire with his person If so then who shall reject Hereticks when Titus is dead Who shall silence factious Preachers If not then still who succeeded him The Presbyters How can that be For if they had more power after his death than before and governed the Churches which before they did not then to be sure their government in common is not an Apostolical Ordinance much less is it a divine right for it is postuate to them both But if they had no more power after Titus than they had under him how then could they succeed him There was indeed a dereliction of the authority but no succession The succession therefore both in the Metropolis of Crete and also in the other Cities was made by singular persons not by a Colledge for so we find in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recorded by Eusebius that in Gnossus of Crete Pinytus was a most eminent Bishop and that Philip was the Metropolitan at Gortyna Sed Pinytus nobilissimus apud Cretam in Episcopis fuit saith Eusebius But of this enough SECT XVI S. Mark at Alexandria MY next instance shall be of one that was an Evangelist indeed one that writ the Gospel and he was a Bishop of Alexandria In Scripture we find nothing of him but that he was an Evangelist and a Deacon for he was Deacon to S. Paul and Barnabas when they went to the Gentiles by ordination and special designment made at Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had John to be their Minister viz. John whose sirname was Mark. * But we are not to expect all the ordinations made by the Apostles in their Acts written by S. Luke which end at S. Pauls first going to Rome but many other things their founding of divers Churches their ordination of Bishops their journeys their persecutions their Miracles and Martyrdoms are recorded and relye upon the
Saint Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before Saint John writ his Revelation 6. Lastly That no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters except a delegate and subordinate appears beyond all exception by Saint Paul's first Epistle to Timothy establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him for ought appears either there or elsewhere * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is clear For what power had they of Jurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before Saint Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did Saint Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it Or if he did not to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminal equal to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Judge and Governour 5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop for they had none of diverse years after the founding of the Church and yet Saint Paul reproves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church * This is it that I said before that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop for in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himself the sole Judge For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly Saint Paul gives the Church of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my Spirit that is My power My authority for so he explains himself my Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for Saint Paul had given sentence before and they of Corinth were to publish it 4. This was a Commission given to the whole Assembly and no more concerns the Presbyters than the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turns neither for an independent Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for Saint Paul's reproving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant I have often heard it confidently averred but never could see ground for it The suspicion of it is ver 2. And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you Taken away But by whom That 's the Question Not by them to be sure For taken away from you implies that it is by the power of another not by their act for no man can take away any thing from himself He may put it away not take it the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning * Well then In all these instances viz. of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Crete and Corinth and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop or in the Bishop when there was any And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affairs I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolical or Episcopal and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Jerusalem where I proved that the Elders were men of more power than meer Presbyters men of Apostolical authority But here lies the issue and strain of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminal and pertaining to the publick Regiment of the Church by vertue of their order or without particular substitution and delegation For there is not in all Scripture any Commission given by Christ to meer Presbyters no Divine institution of any power of Regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolical that meer Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop govern the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any mere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to do but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolical ordination not only with power of imposition of hands but of excommunication of taking cognisance even of causes and actions of Presbyters themselves as to Titus and Timothy the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fixt as in the case of the Corinthian Delinquent before specified which delegation was needless if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then return we to the consideration of S. Hierom's saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Councel of Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops are Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custom rather than Divine disposition Saint Hierome affirms but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custom and condescension rather than by Divine disposition Saint Hierom does not say but it was For he speaks only of matter of fact not of right It might have been otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Jerusalem where the Elders were Apostolical men and had Episcopal authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Judas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocess besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Jerusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Jurisdiction and therefore does clearly evince that the common Councel of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as Saint Paul and Saint John in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes used in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did govern in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of
Christened first in Antioch for they had their baptism some years before they had their Name It had been no wonder then if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the Offices and Orders of the Church SECT XXIV Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreme Church-officer BUT immediately after the Apostles and still more in descending ages Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the Church the Bishop in the present and vulgar conception Some few examples I shall give instead of Myriads In the Canons of the Apostles the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop is used thirty six times in appropriation to him that is the Ordinary Ruler and President of the Church above the Clergy and the Laity being twenty four times expresly distinguished from Presbyter and in the other fourteen having particular care for government jurisdiction censures and ordinations committed to him as I shall shew hereafter and all this is within the verge of the first fifty which are received as Authentick by the Councel of Nice of Antioch 25. Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles the Councel of Gangra calling them Canones Ecclesiasticos and Apostolicas traditiones by the Epistle of the first Councel of Constantinople to Damasus which Theodoret hath inserted into his story by the Councel of Ephesus by Tertullian by Constantine the Great and are sometimes by way of eminency called the Canons sometimes the Ecclesiastical Canons sometimes the ancient and received Canons of our Fathers sometimes the Apostolical Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the Fathers of the Councel in Trullo and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture so in effect does Isidore in his Preface to the work of the Councels for he sets these Canons in front because Sancti Patres eorum sententias authoritate Synodali roborarunt inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones The H. Fathers have established these Canos by the authority of Councels and have put them amongst the Canonical Constitutions And great reason for in Pope Stephen's time they were translated into Latine by one Dionysius at the intreaty of Laurentius because then the old Latine copies were rude and barbarous Now then this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephen's time who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian the old copy elder than this and yet after the Original to be sure shews them to be of prime antiquity and they are mentioned by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bishop Hilarius where he is severe in censure of them who do prevaricate these Canons * But for farther satisfaction I refer the Reader to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Moderators of the City of Norimberg I deny not but they are called Apocryphal by Gratian and some others viz. in the sence of the Church just as the Wisdom of Solomon or Ecclesiasticus but yet by most believed to be written by S. Clement from the dictate of the Apostles and without all question are so far Canonical as to be of undoubted Ecclesiastical authority and of the first Antiquity Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Father of all And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What is the Bishop but he that hath all authority and rule What is the Presbytery but a sacred Colledge Counsellors and helpers or assessors to the Bishop what are Deacons c. So that here is the real and exact distinction of Dignity the appropriation of Name and intimation of Office The Bishop is above all the Presbyters his helpers the Deacons his Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imitators of the Angels who are Ministring Spirits But this is of so known so evident a truth that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it Himself in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in distinct enumeration viz. to the Trallians to the Philadelphians to the Philippians * And now I shall insert these considerations 1. Although it was so that Episcopus and Presbyter were distinct in the beginning after the Apostles death yet sometimes the names are used promiscuously which is an evidence that confusion of names is no intimation much less an argument for the parity of Offices since themselves who sometimes though indeed very seldom confound the names yet distinguish the Offices frequently and dogmatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means the Presbyters of the Church of Antioch so indeed some say and though there be no necessity of admitting this meaning because by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may mean the suffragan Bishops of Syria yet the other may be fairly admitted for himself their Bishop was absent from his Church and had delegated to the Presbytery Episcopal jurisdiction to rule the Church till he being dead another Bishop should be chosen so that they were Episcopi Vicarii and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishops power by delegation were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this was done lest the Church should not be only without a Father but without a Guardian too and yet what a Bishop was and of what authority no man more confident and frequent than Ignatius * Another example of this is in Eusebius speaking of the Youth whom S. John had converted and commended to a Bishop Clemens whose story this was proceeding in the relation sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the Presbyter unless by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here S. Clement means not the Order but Age of the Man as it is like enough he did for a little after he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old man Tum verò Presbyter in domum suam suscipit adolescentem Redde depositum O Episcope saith S. John to him Tunc graviter suspirans Senior c. So S. Clement * But this as it is very unusual so it is just as in Scripture viz. in descent and comprehension for this Bishop also was a Presbyter as well as Bishop or else in the delegation of Episcopal power for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius 2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was chosen to be appropriate to the supream order of the Clergy was done with fair reason and design For this is no fastuous or pompous title the word is of no dignity and implies none but what is consequent to the just and fair execution of its Offices But Presbyter is a name of dignity and veneration Rise up to the grey head and it transplants the honour and reverence of Age to the office of the Presbyterate And yet this the Bishops left and took that which signifies a meer supra-vision and overlooking of his charge so that if we take estimate from the names Presbyter is a name of
been honoured as a holy Catholick by all posterity certainly these testimonies must needs be of great pressure being Sententiae repetiti dogmatis not casually slipt from him and by incogitancy but resolutely and frequently But this is attested by the general expressions of after ages Fungaris circa eum Potestate honoris tui saith S. Cyprian to Bishop Rogatianus Execute the Power of thy dignity upon the refractory Deacon And Vigor Episcopalis and Authoritas Cathedrae are the words expressive of that power whatsoever it be which S. Cyprian calls upon him to assert in the same Epistle This is high enough So is that which he presently subjoyns calling the Bishops power Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimem ac divinam potestatem A high and a divine power and authority in regiment of the Church * Locus Magisterii traditus ab Apostolis so S. Irenaeus calls Episcopacy A place of mastership or authority delivered by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors Eusebius speaking of Dionysius who succeeded Heraclas he received saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishoprick of the Precedency over the Churches of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Council of Sardis to the top or height of Episcopacy Apices Principes omnium so Optatus calls Bishops the Chief and Head of all and S. Denys of Alexandria Scribit ad Fabianum Vrbis Romae Episcopum ad alios quam plurimos Ecclesiarum Principes de fide Catholicâ suâ saith Eusebius And Origen calls the Bishop eum qui totius Ecclesiae arcem obtinet He that hath obtained the Tower or height of the Church The Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in Trullo ordained that the Bishops dispossessed of their Churches by incroachments of Barbarous people upon the Churches pale so as the Bishop had in effect no Diocess yet they should enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority of their Presidency according to their proper state their appropriate presidency And the same Council calls the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prelate or Prefect of the Church I know not how to expound it better But it is something more full in the Greeks Council of Carthage commanding that the convert Donatists should be received according to the will and pleasure of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Governs the Church in that place * And in the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop hath Power over the affairs of the Church Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacula gubernabat Saint Sylvester the Bishop held the Reines or the stern of the Roman Church saith Theodoret But the instances of this kind are infinite two may be as good as twenty and these they are The first is of S. Ambrose Honor Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari The honour and sublimity of Episcopal Order is beyond all comparison great And their commission he specifies to be in Pasce oves meas Vnde regendae Sacerdotibus contraduntur meritò rectoribus suis subdi dicuntur c. The sheep are delivered to Bishops as to Rulers and are made their Subjects and in the next Chapter Haec verò cuncta Fratres ideò nos praemisisse cognoscere debetis ut ostenderemus nihil esse in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdotibus nihil sublimius Episcopis reperiri ut cum dignitatem Episcopatûs Episcoporum oraculis demonstramus dignè noscamus quid sumus actione potius quà m Nomine demonstremus These things I have said that you may know nothing is higher nothing more excellent than the dignity and Eminence of a Bishop c. * The other is of S. Hierom Cura totius Ecclesiae ad Episcopum pertinet The care of the whole Church appertains to the Bishop But more confidently spoken is that in his dialogue adversus Luciferianos Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis Dignitate pendet cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus Eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot Sacerdotes The safety of the Church consists in the dignity of a Bishop to whom unless an Eminent and Vnparallel'd power be given by all there will be as many Schisms as Priests Here is dignity and authority and power enough expressed and if words be expressive of things and there is no other use of them then the Bishop is Superiour in a Peerless and Incomparable Authority and all the whole Diocess are his subjects viz. in regimine Spirituali SECT XXXV Requiring Vniversal Obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity BUT from words let us pass to things For the Faith and practice of Christendom require obedience Universal obedience to be given to Bishops I will begin again with Ignatius that these men who call for reduction of Episcopacy to Primitive consistence may see what they gain by it for the more Primitive the testimonies are the greater exaction of obedience to Bishops for it happened in this as in all other things at first Christians were more devout more pursuing of their duties more zealous in attestation of every particle of their faith and that Episcopacy is now come to so low an ebbe it is nothing but that it being a great part of Christianity to honour and obey them it hath the fate of all other parts of our Religion and particularly of Charity come to so low a declension as it can scarce stand alone and faith which shall scarce be found upon earth at the coming of the Son of Man But to our business S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis Necesse itaque est saith he quicquid facitis ut sine Episcopo nihil Tentetis So the Latin of Vedelius which I the rather chuse because I am willing to give all the advantage I can It is necessary saith the good Martyr that whatsoever ye do you should attempt nothing without your Bishop And to the Magnesians Decet itaque vos obedire Episcopo in nullo illi refragari It is fitting that ye should obey your Bishop and in nothing to be refractory to him Here is both a Decet and a Necesse est already It is very fitting it is necessary But if it be possible we have a fuller expression yet in the same Epistle Quemadmodum enim Dominus sine Patre nihil facit nec enim possumfacere à me ipso quicquam sic vos sine Episcopo nec Diaconus nec Laiconus nec Laicus Nec quicquam videatur vobis Consentaneum quod sit praeter illius Judicium quod enim tale est Deo inimicum Here is obedience universal both in respect of things and persons and all this no less than absolutely necessary For as Christ obeyed his Father in all things saying of my self I can do nothing so nor you without your Bishop whoever you be whether Priest or Deacon or Layman Let nothing please you which the Bishop
same words with the former Canons Hosius the President said If any Deacon or Priest or of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall go to another Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing him to be excommunicated by his own Bishop that other Bishop must by no means receive him into his communion Thus far we have matter of publick right and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Judge of the causes and persons of Clergy-men and have power of inflicting censures both upon the Clergy and the Laity And if there be any weight in the concurrent testimony of the Apostolical Canons of the General Councils of Nice and of Chalcedon of the Councils of Antioch of Sardis of Carthage then it is evident that the Bishop is the Ordinary Judge in all matters of Spiritual cognizance and hath power of censures and therefore a Superiority of jurisdiction This thing only by the way in all these Canons there is no mention made of any Presbyters assistant with the Bishop in his Courts For though I doubt not but the Presbyters were in some Churches and in some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Ignatius calls them Counsellors and Assessors with the Bishop yet the power and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop and no concurrent jurisdiction mentioned in the Presbytery but of this hereafter more particularly * Now we may see these Canons attested by practice and dogmatical resolution S. Cyprian is the man whom I would chuse in all the world to depose in this cause because he if any man hath given all dues to the Colledge of Presbyters and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop and that absolutely and independently of conjunction with the Presbytery we are all well enough and without suspicion Diù patientiam meam tenui Fratres Charissimi saith he writing to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent and though he was as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Diocess yet he also must assert his own priviledges and peculiar Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensâ Domini quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelii nec loci sui memores sed neque futurum Domini judicium neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum contumcliâ contemptu Praepositi totum sibi vendicent The matter was that certain Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon and this was done without the Bishops leave by the Presbyters Forgetting their own place and the Gospel and their Bishop set over them a thing that was never heard of till that time Totum sibi vendicabant They that might do nothing without the Bishops leave yet did this whole affair of their own heads Well! Upon this S. Cyprian himself by his own authority alone suspends them till his return and so shews that his authority was independent theirs was not and then promises they shall have a fair hearing before him in the presence of the Confessors and all the people Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me uti Dominus jubet ut interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos apud Confessores ipsos apud plebem Vniversam causam suam * Here it is plain that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his own authority in absence from his Church and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate saying they ought to have asked the Bishops leave Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est for so was the Catholick custom ever that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandment and dishonour the Bishop Yea but the Confessors interceded for the lapsi and they seldom were discountenanc'd in their requests What should the Presbyters do in this case S. Cyprian tells them writing to the Confessors Petitiones itaque desideria vestra Episcopo servent Let them keep your petitions for the Bishop to consider of But they did not therefore he suspended them because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui cathedrae Preserve the honour of the Bishops chair and the Episcopal authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus resolves this affair for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abused his Bishop he complained to S. Cyprian who was an Arch-Bishop and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the business that he would complain to him Cum pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae Authoritate haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari When as he had power Episcopal and sufficient authority himself to have punished the Deacon for his petulancy The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question and is clear evidence for the great authority of Episcopal jurisdiction the summe whereof is in this incouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian Fungaris circa eum Potestate Honoris tui ut eum vel deponas vel abstineas Exercise the power of your honour upon him and either suspend him or depose him And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Felicissimus the Schismatick from the Church vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet with full authority as becomes a Bishop Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. John Chrysostom says That in reforming the lives of the Clergy he was too fastuous and severe Mox igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae erat plurimis exosus veluti furio sum universi declinabant He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergie that he was hated by them which clearly shows that the Bishop had jurisdiction and authority over them for tyranny is the excess of power and authority is the subject matter of rigour and austerity But this power was intimated in that bold speech of his Deacon Serapio Nunquam poteris ô Episcope hos corrigere nisi uno baculo percusseris Vniversos Thou canst not amend the Clergie unless thou strikest them all with thy pastoral rod. S. John Chrysostom did not indeed do so but non multum pòst temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis He deprived and suspended most of the Clergie-men for divers causes and for this his severity he wanted no slanders against him for the delinquent Ministers set the people on work against him * But here we see that the power of censures was
clearly and only in the Bishop for he was incited to have punished all his Clergy Vniversos And he did actually suspend most of them Plurimos and I think it will not be believed the Presbytery of his Church should joyn with their Bishop to suspend themselves Add to this that Theodoret also affirms that Chrysostom intreated the Priests to live Canonically according to the sanctions of the Church Quas quicunque praevaricari praesumerent eos ad templum prohibebat accedere All them that transgressed the Canons he forbad them entrance into the Church *** Thus S. Hierom to Riparius Miror sanctum Episcopum in cujus Parochiâ esse Presbyter dicitur acquiescere furori ejus non virgâ Apostolica virgaque ferrea confringere vas inutile tradere in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus fiat I wonder saith he that the holy Bishop is not moved at the fury of Vigilantius and does not break him with his Apostolical rod that by this temporary punishment his soul might be saved in the day of the Lord. * Hitherto the Bishops Pastoral staffe is of fair power and coercion The Council of Aquileia convoked against the Arians is full and mighty in asserting the Bishops power over the Laity and did actually exercise censures upon the Clergy where S. Ambrose was the Man that gave sentence against Palladius the Arian Palladius would have declined the judgment of the Bishops for he saw he should certainly be condemned and would fain have been judged by some honourable personages of the Laity But S. Ambrose said Sacerdotes de Laicis judicare debent non Laici de Sacerdotibus Bishops must judge of the Laity not the Laity of the Bishops That 's for the jus and for the factum it was the shutting up of the Council S. Ambrose Bishop of Milaine gave sentence Pronuncio illum indignum Sacerdotio carendum in loco ejus Catholicus ordinetur The same also was the case of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia whom for heresie the Bishops at Constantinople deposed Eusebius giving sentence and chose Basilius in his Room * But their Grandfather was served no better Alexander Bishop of Alexandria served him neither better nor worse So Theodoret. Alexander autem Apostolicorum dogmatum praedicator prius quidem revocare eum admonitionibus consiliis nitebatur Cum vero eum superbire vidisset apertè impietatis facinora praedicare ex ordine Sacerdotali removit The Bishop first admonished the heretick but when to his false doctrine he added pertinacy he deprived him of the execution of his Priestly function This crime indeed deserved it highly It was for a less matter that Triferius the Bishop excommunicated Exuperantius a Presbyter viz. for a personal misdemeanour and yet this censure was ratified by the Council of Taurinum and his restitution was left arbitrio Episcopi to the good will and pleasure of the Bishop who had censured him Statuit quoque de Exuperantio Presbytero sancta Synodus qui ad injuriam sancti Episcopi sui Triferii gravia multa congesserat frequentibus eum contumeliis provocaverat propter quam causam ab eo fuerat Dominicâ communione privatus ut in ejus sit arbitrio restitutio ipsius in cujus potestate ejus fuit abjectio His restitution was therefore left in his power because originally his censure was * The like was in the case of Palladius a Laick in the same Council Qui à Triferio Sacerdote fuerat mulctatus Who was punished by Triferius the Bishop Hoc ei humanitate Concilio reservato ut ipse Triferius in potestate habeat quando voluerit ei relaxare Here is the Bishop censuring Palladius the Laick and excommunicating Exuperantius the Priest and this having been done by his own sole authority was ratified by the Council and the absolution reserved to the Bishop too which indeed was an act of favour for they having complained to the Council by the Council might have been absolved but they were pleased to reserve to the Bishop his own power * These are particular instances and made publick by acts conciliary intervening * But it was the General Canon and Law of Holy Church Thus we have it expressed in the Council of Agatho Contumaces vero Clerici prout dignitatis ordo promiserit ab Episcopis corrigantur Refractory Clerks must be punished by their Bishops according as the order of their dignity allows I end this particular with some Canons commanding Clerks to submit to the judgement and censures of their Bishop under a Canonical penalty and so go on ad alia In the second Council of Carthage Alypius Episcopus dixit nec illud praetermittendum est ut si quis fortè Presbyter ab Episcopo sùo correptus aut excommunicatus rumore vel superbiâ inflatus putaverit separatim Deo sacrificia offerenda vel aliud erigendum altare contra Ecclesiasticam fidem disciplinamque crediderit non exeat impunitus And the same is repeated in the Greek code of the African Canons If any Presbyter being excommunicated or otherwise punished by his Bishop shall not desist but contest with his Bishop let him by no means go unpunished The like is in the Council of Chalcedon the words are the same that I before cited out of the Canons of the Council of Antioch and of the Apostles But Carosus the Archimandrite spake home in that action 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The faith of the 318 Fathers of the Council of Nice into which I was baptized I know Other faith I know not They are Bishops They have power to excommunicate and condemn and they have power to do what they please other faith than this I know none * This is to purpose and it was in one of the four great Councils of Christendom which all ages since have received with all veneration and devout estimate Another of them was that of Ephesus conven'd against Nestorius and this ratifies those acts of condemnation which the Bishops had passed upon delinquent Clerks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They who are for their unworthy practices condemned by the Synod or by their own Bishops although Nestorius did endeavour to restore them yet their condemnation should still remain vigorous and confirm'd Upon which Canon Balsamon makes this observation which indeed of it self is clear enough in the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence you have learned that Metropolitans and Bishops can judge their Clergie and suspend them and sometimes depose them Nay they are bound to it Pastoralis tamen necessitas habet ne per plures serpant dira contagia separare ab ovibus sanis morbidam It is necessary that the Bishop should separate the scabbed sheep from the sound lest their infection scatter so S. Austin And therefore the fourth Council of Carthage commands Vt Episcopus accusatores Fratrum excommunicet That the Bishop excommunicate the accuser of
their Brethren viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholick doctrine to be punished in secular tribunals For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholick communion I add no more but that excellent saying of S. Austin which doth freely attest both the preceptive and vindictive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocess Ergo praecipiant tantum modò nobis quid facere debeamus qui nobis praesunt faciamus orent pro nobis non autem nos corripiant arguant si non fecerimus Imò omnia fiant quoniam Doctores Ecclesiarum Apostoli omnia faciebant praecipiebant quae fierent corripiebant si non fierent c. And again Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus pro culparum diversitate diversis vel minoribus vel amplioribus quia ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium quâ poenâ in Ecclesiâ nulla major est potest si Deus voluerit in correptionem saluberrimam cedere atque proficere Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocess and to punish the disobedient and of excommunication by way of proper Ministery damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium a condemnation of the Bishops infliction Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendom by the Canons of three General Councils and divers other Provincial which are made Catholick by adoption and in inserting them into the Code of the Catholick Church that the Bishop was Judge of his Clergy and of the Lay-people of his Diocess that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of Delinquency that his censures were firm and valid and as yet we find no Presbyters joyning either in commission or fact in power or exercise but excommunication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops and to be only dispatch'd by them either in full Council if it was a Bishops cause or in his own Consistory if it was the cause of a Priest or the inferior Clergy or a Laick unless in cases of appeal and then it was in pleno Concilio Episcoporum in a Synod of Bishops And all this was confirmed by secular authority as appears in the imperial Constitutions For the making up this Paragraph complete I must insert two considerations First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognizance And secondly of Persons The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speak in most large and comprehensive terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to do what they list Their power is as large as their will So the Council of Chalcedon before cited It was no larger though than S. Pauls expression for to this end also did I write that I might know the proof of you whether ye be obedient in all things A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the stile of the Church runs in descension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Ignatius ye must do nothing without your Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contradict him in nothing The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgment or cognizance so the Council of Antioch * But these Universal expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam so S. Ignatius expresses himself Ye must without your Bishop do nothing nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things pertaining to the Church So also the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things of the Church are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted They are Ecclesiastical persons it is an Ecclesiastical power they are indowed with it is for a spiritual end viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of souls and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognizance And what are those things 1. Then it is certain that since Christ hath professed his Kingdom is not of this world that government which he hath constituted de novo does no way in the world make any intrenchment upon the Royalty Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia So the Church us'd to sing Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all actions civil all publick violations of justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes and Commonwealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae but then when it is once indulged that act which does annul such pious vows is just contrary to that religion which first gave them and then unless there was sin in the donative the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae But this it may be is impertinent 2. The Bishops All comes in after this And he is Judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock by its new distinctive Principles I say by its new Principles for there where it extends justice and pursues the laws of nature there the secular tribunal is also extended if it be Christian The Bishop gets nothing of that But those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the republick hath introduc'd all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals subordination of inferiour Clergie to their Superiour censures irregularities Orders hierarchical rites and ceremonies liturgies and publick forms of prayer as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologies and thence was derived to all Churches of Christendom and all such things as are in immediate dependance of these as dispensation of Church Vessels and Ornaments and Goods receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church and whatsoever is of the same consideration according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church adding this reason Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint creditae multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere He that is intrusted with our precious souls may much more be intrusted with the offertories of faithful people 3. There are some things of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiastical concurr to their constitution and these are of double cognizance the secular power and the Ecclesiastical do both in their several capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencies of Clergy-men who are both Clergy
in their Diocesses all I mean in the sence above explicated they have power to inflict censures excommunication is the highest the rest are parts of it and in order to it Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognizance of or may not the secular power find out some external compulsory in stead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certain cases 1. To this I answer that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may or such in which they must use excommunication then in these cases no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away 2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory For if the Church be not capable of a jus Gladii as most certainly she is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser pains in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I mean in the formality of a Church-tribunal then they give the Church what she must not cannot take I deny not but Clergy-men are as capable of the power of life and death as any men but not in the formality of Clergy-men A Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiastical tribunal and then if any man or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents in some cases in which she might lawfully inflict them and pretend to give her another compulsory they take away the Church-consistory and erect a vey secular Court dependant on themselves and by consequence to be appealed to from themselves and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power is Traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat He betrays the individual and inseparable right of holy Church For her censure she may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security The other is begged or borrowed none of her own nor of a fit edge to be used in her abscisions and coercions I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of so frequent use in this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affairs of the Church and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocess The next Consideration concerning the Bishops jurisdiction is of what persons he is Judge And because our Scene lyes here in Church-practice I shall only set down the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affair and leave it under that representation Presbyters and Deacons and inferiour Clerks and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons No man there was exempted of whose soul any Bishop had charge And all Christs sheep hear his voice and the call of his shepherd-Ministers * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperor for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Milaine the Emperor wished them to be careful in the choice of a Bishop in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Set such an one in the Archiepiscopal Throne that we who rule the Kingdom may sincerely submit our head unto him viz. in matters of spiritual import * And since all power is derived from Christ who is a King and a Priest and a Prophet Christian Kings are Christi Domini and Vicars in his Regal power but Bishops in his Sacerdotal and Prophetical * So that the King hath a Supreme Regal power in causes of the Church ever since his Kingdom became Christian and it consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment and cure of souls and in these also all the external compulsory and jurisdiction is his own For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects himself also upon the same terms becomes a Christian Ruler and in both capacities he is to rule viz. both as Subjects and as Christian Subjects except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotal authority And therefore the Kingdom and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their several capacities For superiority is usually expressed in three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excellency Impery and Power The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery The Bishop hath an Excellency viz. of Spiritual Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in several capacities the King in potentiâ gladii the Bishop in potestate clavium The Sword and the Keys are the emblems of their distinct power Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophetâ gloriosius Pontifice clarius Rege sublimius King and Priest and Prophet are in their several excellencies the Highest powers under Heaven *** In this sence it is easie to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacredness of Royal prerogatives were not both the piety and sence of the Church sufficiently clear in the issues of her humblest obedience And this is the sence of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopo pareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himself obey the Bishop This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati erit inferius c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine that most blessed Prince Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and in causis simplicis religionis So that good Emperor in his oration to the Nicene Fathers It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocess to the Arians His answer was that Palaces belong'd to the Emperor but Churches to the Bishop and so they did by all the laws of Christendom The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperor exactly the same per omnia as it is related by Ruffinus S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperor to desire him
to go forth of the Cancelli in his Church at Milaine shews that then the powers were so distinct that they made no intrenchment upon each other * It was no greater power but a more considerable act and higher exercise the forbidding the communion to Theodosius till he had by repentance washed out the blood that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica It was a wonderful concurrence of piety in the Emperor and resolution and authority in the Bishop But he was not the first that did it For Philip the Emperor was also guided by the Pastoral rod and the severity of the Bishop De hoc traditum est nobis quòd Christianus fuerit in die Paschae i. e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluerit communicare mysteriis ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum nisi confiteretur peccata inter poenitentes staret nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam culpas quae de eo ferebantur plurimae deluisset The Bishop of the place would not let him communicate till he had wash'd away his sins by repentance And the Emperor did so Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuerat suscepisse He did it willingly undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ecclesiastical Ministery It was S. Chrysostomes command to his Presbyters to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion If he be a Captain a Consul or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily forbid him and keep him off thy power is greater than his If thou darest not remove him tell it me I will not suffer it c. And had there never been more error in the managing Church-censures than in the foregoing instances the Church might have exercised censures and all the parts of power that Christ gave her without either scandal or danger to her self or her penitents But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new ingredient put a great proportion of secular inconveniences and humane interest when excommunications as in the Apostles times they were deliverings over to Satan so now shall be deliverings over to a foreign enemy or the peoples rage as then to be buffeted so now to be deposed or disinteress'd in the allegiance of subjects in these cases excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorized and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution but to an end of private designs and rebellious interest Bishops have no power of such censures nor is it lawful to inflict them things remaining in that consistence and capacity And thus is that famous saying to be understood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's but is indeed found in the Ordinary Gloss upon Matth. 13. Princeps multitudo non est excommunicanda A Prince or a Commonwealth are not to be excommunicate Thus I have given a short account of the Persons and causes of which Bishops according to Catholick practice did and might take cognizance This use only I make of it Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of souls such a power Quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari yet it hath its limits and a proper cognizance viz. things spiritual and the emergencies and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced de novo and superadded as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Commonwealth And this I the rather noted to shew how those men would mend themselves that cry down the tyranny as they list to call it of Episcopacy and yet call for the Presbytery *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognizance of all causes whatsoever which are either sins directly or by reduction All crimes which by the Law of God deserve death There they bring in Murders Treasons Witchcrafts Felonies Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of Scandalous and offensive Nay Quodvis peccatum saith Snecanus to which if we add this consideration that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable sin there is nothing in the world good or bad vitious or suspicious scandalous or criminal true or imaginary real actions or personal in all which and in all contestations and complaints one party is delinquent either by false accusation or real injury but they comprehend in their vast gripe and then they have power to nullifie all Courts and judicatories besides their own and being for this their cognizance they pretend Divine institution there shall be no causes imperfect in their Consistory no appeal from them but they shall hear and determine with final resolution and it will be sin and therefore punishable to complain of injustice and illegality * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy and the modesty of their several demands and the reasonableness and divinity of each vindication examined I suppose were there nothing but Prudential motives to be put into the balance to weigh down this Question the cause would soon be determined and the little finger of Presbytery not only in its exemplary and tried practices but in its dogmatical pretensions is heavier than the loyns nay than the whole body of Episcopacy but it seldom happens otherwise but that they who usurp a power prove tyrants in the execution whereas the issues of a lawful power are fair and moderate SECT XXXVII Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances of Episcopal Jurisdiction The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sacraments was in the Bishop by prime authority and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation insomuch that they might not exercise any ordinary ministration without license from the Bishop They had power and capacity by their order to Preach to Minister to Offer to Reconcile and to Baptize They were indeed acts of order but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts without license from the Bishop that is an act or issue of jurisdiction and shews the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters by the practice of Christendom S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question and here also he brings in succour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawful without the Bishop viz. without his leave either to baptize or to offer Sacrifice or to make oblation or to keep feasts of charity and a little before speaking of the B. Eucharist and its ministration and having premised a general interdict for doing any thing without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let that Eucharist saith he be held valid which is celebrated under the Bishop or under him to whom the Bishop shall permit *** * I do not here dispute
were Presbyters before this choice And lastly It was only a nomination of seven Men the determination of the business and the authority of rejection was still in the Apostles and indeed the whole power Whom we may appoint over this business and after all this there can be no hurt done by the objection especially since clearly and indubiously the election of Bishops and Presbyters was in the Apostles own persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Ignatius of Evodias Evodias was first appointed to be your Governour or Bishop by the Apostles and themselves did commit it to others that were Bishops as in the instances before reckoned Thus the case stood in Scripture 2. In the practice of the Church it went according to the same law and practice Apostolical The People did not might not chuse the Ministers of holy Church So the Council of Laodicea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The people must not chuse those that are to be promoted to the Priesthood The prohibition extends to their Non-election of all the Superiour Clergy Bishops and Presbyters But who then must elect them The Council of Nice determines that for in 16 and 17 Canons the Council forbids any promotion of Clerks to be made but by the Bishop of that Church where they are first ordained which clearly reserves to the Bishop the power of retaining or promoting all his Clergy * 3. All Ordinations were made by Bishops alone as I have already proved Now let this be confronted with the practice of Primitive Christendom that no Presbyter might be ordained sine titulo without a particular charge which was always custom and at last grew to be a law in the Council of Chalcedon and we shall perceive that the ordainer was the only chuser for then to ordain a Presbyter was also to give him a charge and the Patronage of a Church was not a lay inheritance but part of the Bishops cure for he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The care of the Churches in all the Diocess as I have already shown And therefore when S. Jerome according to the custom of Christendom had specified some particular ordinations or election of Presbyters by Bishops as how himself was made Priest by Paulinus and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus Gaudeat Episcopus judicio suo cum tales Christo elegerit Sacerdotes Let the Bishop rejoyce in his own act having chosen such worthy Priests for the service of Christ. Thus S. Ambrose gives intimation that the dispensing all the offices in the Clergy was solely in the Bishop Haec spectet Sacerdos quod cuique congruat id officii deputet Let the Bishop observe these rules and appoint every one his office as is best answerable to his condition and capacity And Theodoret report of Leontius the Bishop of Antioch how being an Arian Adversarios recti dogmatis suscipiens licet turpem habentes vitam ad Presbyteratus tamen ordinem Diaconatus evexit Eos autem qui Vniversis virtutibus ornabantur Apostolica dogmata defendebant absque honore deseruit He advanced his own faction but would not promote any man that was catholick and pious So he did The power therefore of Clerical promotion was in his own hands This thing is evident and notorious and there is scarce any example in Antiquity of either Presbyters or people chusing any Priest but only in the case of S. Austin whom the Peoples haste snatch'd and carried him to their Bishop Valerius intreating him to ordain him Priest This indeed is true that the testimony of the people for the life of them that were to be ordained was by S. Cyprian ordinarily required In ordinandis Clericis Fratres Charissimi solemus vos ante consulere mores ac merita singulorum communi consilio ponderare It was his custom to advise with his people concerning the publick fame of Clerks to be ordained It was usual I say with him but not perpetual for it was otherwise in the case of Celerinus and divers others as I shewed elsewhere 4. In election of Bishops though not of Priests the Clergy and the people had a greater actual interest and did often intervene with their silent consenting suffrages or publick acclamations But first This was not necessary It was otherwise among the Apostles and in the case of Timothy of Titus of S. James of S. Mark and all the Successors whom they did constitute in the several charges 2. This was not by law or right but in fact only It was against the Canon of the Laodicean Council and the 31 Canon of the Apostles which under pain of deposition commands that a Bishop be not promoted to his Church by the intervening of any lay power Against this discourse S. Cyprian is strongly pretended Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi Quod ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere c. Thus he is usually cited the people have power to chuse or to refuse their Bishops and this comes to them from Divine authority No such matter The following words expound him better Quod ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos plebe Praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur dignus atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur That the Bishop is chosen publickly in the presence of the people and he only be thought fit who is approved by publick judgment and testimony or as S. Pauls phrase is he must have a good report of all men that is indeed a divine institution and that to this purpose and for the publick attestation of the act of election and ordination the peoples presence was required appears clearly by S. Cyprians discourse in this Epistle For what is the Divine authority that he mentions It is only the example of Moses whom God commanded to take the Son of Eleazar and cloath him with his Fathers robes coram omni Synagoga before all the congregation The people chose not God chose Eleazar and Moses consecrated him and the people stood and looked on that 's all that this argument can supply * Just thus Bishops are and ever were ordained Non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientiâ In the sight of the people standing by but to what end Vt plebe praesente detegantur malorum crimina vel bonorum merita praedicentur All this while the election is not in the people nothing but the publick testimony and examination for so it follows Et sit ordinatio justa legitima quae omnium suffragio judicio fuerit examinata ** But S. Cyprian hath two more proofs whence we may learn either the sence or the truth of his assertion The one is of the Apostles ordaining the seven Deacons but this we have already examined the other of S. Peter chusing S. Matthias into the Apostolate it was indeed done in the presence of the people * But
obedient yet both the right of electing and solemnity of ordaining was in the Bishops the peoples interest did not arrive to one half of this 6. There are in Antiquity divers precedents of Bishops who chose their own successors it will not be imagined the people will chuse a Bishop over his head and proclaim that they were weary of him In those days they had more piety * Agelius did so he chose Sisinnius and that it may appear it was without the people they came about him and intreated him to chuse Marcian to whom they had been beholding in the time of Valens the Emperor he complied with them and appointed Marcian to be his successor and Sisinnius whom he had first chosen to succeed Marcian Thus did Valerius chuse his successor S. Austin for though the people named him for their Priest and carried him to Valerius to take Orders yet Valerius chose him Bishop And this was usual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius expresses this case it was ordinary to do so in many Churches 7. The manner of election in many Churches was various for although indeed the Church had commanded it and given power to the Bishops to make the election yet in some times and in some Churches the Presbyters or the Chapter chose one out of themselves S. Hierome says they always did so in Alexandria from S. Mark 's time to Heraclas and Dionysius S. Ambrose says that at the first the Bishop was not by a formal new election promoted but recedente uno sequens ei succedebat As one died so the next senior did succeed him In both these cases no mixture of the peoples votes 8. In the Church of England the people were never admitted to the choice of a Bishop from its first becoming Christian to this very day and therefore to take it from the Clergy in whom it always was by permission of Princes and to interest the people in it is to recede à traditionibus Majorum from the religion of our forefathers and to Innovate in a high proportion 9. In those Churches where the peoples suffrage by way of testimony I mean and approbation did concur with the Synod of Bishops in the choice of a Bishop the people at last according to their usual guise grew hot angry and tumultuous and then were ingaged by divisions in religion to name a Bishop of their own sect and to disgrace one another by publick scandal and contestation and often grew up to Sedition and Murder and therefore although they were never admitted unless where themselves usurped farther than I have declared yet even this was taken from them especially since in tumultuary assemblies they were apt to carry all before them they knew not how to distinguish between power and right they had not well learned to take denial but began to obtrude whom they listed to swell higher like a torrent when they were checked and the soleship of election which by the Ancient Canons was in the Bishops they would have asserted wholly to themselves both in right and execution * I end this with the annotation of Zonaras upon the twelfth Canon of the Laodicean Council Populi suffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur understand him in the sences above explicated sed cùm multae inde seditiones existerent hinc factum est ut Episcoporum Vniuscujusque provinciae authoritate eligi Episcopum quemque oportere decreverint Patres Of old time Bishops were chosen not without the suffrage of the people for they concurred by way of testimony and acclamation but when this occasioned many seditions and tumults the Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be chosen by the authority of the Bishops of the Province And he adds that in the election of Damasus 137 men were slain and that six hundred examples more of that nature were producible Truth is the Nomination of Bishops in Scripture was in the Apostles alone and though the Kindred of our blessed Saviour were admitted to the choice of Simeon Cleophae the successor of S. James to the Bishoprick of Jerusalem as Eusebius witnesses it was propter singularem honorem an honorary and extraordinary priviledge indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our blessed Lord the fountain of all benison to us and for that very reason Simeon himself was chosen Bishop too Yet this was praeter regulam Apostolicam The rule of the Apostles and their precedents were for the sole right of the Bishops to chuse their Colleagues in that Sacred order * And then in descent even before the Nicene Council the people were forbidden to meddle in election for they had no authority by Scripture to chuse by the necessity of times and for the reasons before asserted they were admitted to such a share of the choice as is now folded up in a piece of paper even to a testimonial and yet I deny not but they did often take more as in the case of Nilammon quem cives elegerunt saith the story out of Sozomen they chose him alone though God took away his life before himself would accept of their choice and then they behav'd themselves often times with so much insolency partiality faction sedition cruelty and Pagan baseness that they were quite interdicted it above 1200 years agone So that they had their little in possession but a little while and never had any due and therefore now their request for it is no petition of right but a popular ambition and a snatching at a sword to hew the Church in pieces But I think I need not have troubled my self half so far for they that strive to introduce a popular election would as fain have Episcopacy out as popularity of election let in So that all this of popular election of Bishops may seem superfluous For I consider that if the peoples power of chusing Bishops be founded upon God's law as some men pretend from S. Cyprian not proving the thing from Gods law but Gods law from S. Cyprian then Bishops themselves must be by Gods law For surely God never gave them power to chuse any man into that office which himself hath no way instituted And therefore I suppose these men will desist from their pretence of Divine right of popular election if the Church will recede from her Divine right of Episcopacy But for all their plundering and confounding their bold pretences have made this discourse necessary SECT XLI Bishops only did Vote in Councils and neither Presbyters nor People IF we add to all these foregoing particulars the power of making laws to be in Bishops nothing else can be required to the making up of a spiritual Principality Now as I have shewen that the Bishop of every Diocess did give laws to his own Church for particulars so it is evident that the laws of Provinces and of the Catholick Church were made by conventions of Bishops without the intervening or concurrence of Presbyters or any else for sentence and decision
circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit Be my substitutes in the administration of Church affairs He intreats them pro dilectione because they loved him he Commands them pro religione by their religion for it was a piece of their religion to obey him and in him was the government of his Church else how could he have put the Presbyters and Deacons in substitution * Add to this It was the custome of the Church that although the Bishop did only impose hands in the ordination of Clerks yet the Clergy did approve and examine the persons to be ordained and it being a thing of publick interest it was then not thought fit to be a personal action both in preparation and ministration too and for this S. Chrysostome was accused in Concilio nefario as the title of the edition of it expresses it that he made ordinations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet when S. Cyprian saw occasion for it he did ordain without the consent of the Clergy of his Church for so he ordained Celerinus so he ordained Optatus and Saturnus when himself was from his Church and in great want of Clergy-men to assist in the ministration of the daily offices *** He did as much in jurisdiction too and censures for himself did excommunicate Felicissimus and Augendus and Repostus and Irene and Paula as appears in his 38 and 39 Epistles and tells Rogatianus that he might have done as much to the petulant Deacon that abused him by vertue of his Episcopal authority And the same power singly and solely he exercised in his acts of favour and absolution Vnus atque alius obnitente Plebe contradicente mea tamen facilitate suscepti sunt Indeed here is no contradiction of the Clergy expressed but yet the absolution said to be his own act against the people and without the Clergy For he alone was the Judge insomuch that he declared that it was the cause of Schism and heresie that the Bishop was not obeyed Nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur and that one high Priest in a Church and Judge instead of Christ is not admitted So that the Bishop must be one and that one must be Judge and to acknowledge more in S. Cyprians Lexicon is called schism and heresie Farther yet this Judicatory of the Bishop is independant and responsive to none but Christ. Actum suum disponit dirigit Vnusquisque Episcopus rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus and again habet in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque Praepositus rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus The Bishop is Lord of his own actions and may do what seems good in his own eyes and for his actions he is to account to Christ. This general account is sufficient to satisfie the allegations out of the 6th and 8th Epistles and indeed the whole Question But for the 18th Epistle there is something of peculiar answer For first it was a case of publick concernment and therefore he would so comply with the publick interest as to do it by publick council 2dly It was a necessity of times that made this case peculiar Necessitas temporum facit ut non temerè pacem demus they are the first words of the next epistle which is of the same matter for if the lapsi had been easily and without a publick and solemn trial reconcil'd it would have made Gentile Sacrifices frequent and Martyrdom but seldom 3dly The common-council which S. Cyprian here said he would expect was the council of the Confessors to whom for a peculiar honour it was indulged that they should be interested in the publick assoyling of such penitents who were overcome with those fears which the Confessors had overcome So that this is evidently an act of positive and temporary discipline and as it is no disadvantage to the power of the Bishop so to be sure no advantage to the Presbyter * But the clause of objection from the 19th epistle is yet unanswered and that runs something higher tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere It is called presumption to reconcile the penitents without the advice of those to whom he writ But from this we are fairly delivered by the title Cypriano Compresbyteris Carthagini consistentibus Caldonius salutem It was not the epistle of Cyprian to his Presbyters but of Caldonius one of the suffragan Bishops of Numidia to his Metropolitan and now what wonder if he call it presumption to do an act of so publick consequence without the advice of his Metropolitan He was bound to consult him by the Canons Apostolical and so he did and no harm done to the present Question of the Bishops sole and independent power and unmixt with the conjunct interest of the Presbytery who had nothing to do beyond ministery counsel and assistance 3. In all Churches where a Bishops seat was there were not always a Colledge of Presbyters but only in the greatest Churches for sometime in the lesser Cities there were but two Esse oportet aliquantos Presbyteros ut bini sint per Ecclesias unus in civitate Episcopus so S. Ambrose sometimes there was but one in a Church Post-humianus in the third Council of Carthage put the case Deinde qui unum Presbyterum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri The Church of Hippo had but one Valerius was the Bishop and Austin was the Priest and after him Austin was the Bishop and Eradius the Priest Sometimes not one as in the case Aurelius put in the same Council now cited of a Church that hath never a Presbyter to be consecrated Bishop in the place of him that died and once at Hippo they had none even then when the people snatch'd S. Austin and carried him to Valerius to be ordain'd In these cases I hope it will not be denied but the Bishop was Judge alone I am sure he had but little company sometimes none at all 4. But suppose it had been always done that Presbyters were consulted in matters of great difficulty and possibility of Scandal for so S. Ambrose intimates Ecclesia seniores habuit sine quorum Concilio nihil gerebatur in Ecclesiâ understand in these Churches where Presbyters were fixt yet this might be necessary and was so indeed in some degree at first which in succession as it prov'd troublesome to the Presbyters so unnecessary and impertinent to the Bishops At first I say it might be necessary For they were times of persecutions and temptation and if both the Clergy and people too were not complied withal in such exigence of time and agonies of spirit it was the way to make them relapse to Gentilism for a discontented spirit will hide it self and take sanctuary in the reeds and mud of Nilus rather than not take complacence in an imaginary
titles of honour be either unfit in themselves to be given to Bishops or what the guise of Christendome hath been in her spiritual heraldry 1. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna gives them this command Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem Honour the Bishop as the image of God as the Prince of Priests Now since honour and excellency are terms of mutual relation and all excellency that is in men and things is but a ray of divine excellency so far as they participate of God so far they are honourable Since then the Bishop carries the impress of God upon his forehead and bears Gods image certainly this participation of such perfection makes him very honourable And since honor est in honorante it is not enough that the Bishop is honourable in himself but it tells us our duty we must honour him we must do him honour and of all the honours in the world that of words is the cheapest and the least S. Paul speaking of the honour due to the Prelates of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them be accounted worthy of double honour And one of the honours that he there means is a costly one an honour of Maintenance the other must certainly be an honour of estimate and that 's cheapest The Council of Sardis speaking of the several steps and capacities of promotion to the height of Episcopacy uses this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that shall be found worthy of so Divine a Priesthood let him be advanced to the highest honour Ego procidens ad pedes ejus rogabam excusans me declinans honorem cathedrae potestatem saith S. Clement when S. Peter would have advanced him to the Honour and power of the Bishops chair But in the third epistle speaking of the dignity of Aaron the High-Priest and then by analogy of the Bishop who although he be a Minister in the Order of Melchisedech yet he hath also the Honour of Aaron Omnis enim Pontisex sacro crismate perunctus in civitate constitutus in Scripturis sacris conditus charus preciosus hominibus oppidò esse debet Every High-Priest ordained in the City viz. a Bishop ought forthwith to be dear and precious in the eyes of men Quem quasi Christi locum tenentem honorare omnes debent eique servire obedientes ad salutem suam fideliter existere scientes quòd sive honor sive injuria quae ei defertur in Christum redundat à Christo in Deum The Bishop is Christs Vicegerent and therefore he is to be obeyed knowing that whether it be honour or injury that is done to the Bishop it is done to Christ and so to God * And indeed what is the saying of our blessed Saviour himself He that despiseth you despiseth me If Bishops be Gods Ministers and in higher order than the rest then although all discountenance and disgrace done to the Clergy reflect upon Christ yet what is done to the Bishop is far more and then there is the same reason of the honour And if so then the Question will prove but an odd one even this Whether Christ be to be honoured or no or depressed to the common estimate of Vulgar people for if the Bishops be then he is This is the condition of the Question 2. Consider we that all Religions and particularly all Christianity did give Titles of honour to their High-Priests and Bishops respectively * I shall not need to instance in the great honour of the Priestly tribe among the Jews and how highly honourable Aaron was in proportion Prophets were called Lords in holy Scripture Art not thou my Lord Elijah said Obadiah to the Prophet Knowest thou not that God will take thy Lord from thy head this day said the children in the Prophets Schools So it was then And in the new Testament we find a Prophet Honoured every where but in his own Country And to the Apostles and Presidents of Churches greater titles of honour given than was ever given to man by secular complacence and insinuation Angels and Governours and Fathers of our Faith and Stars Lights of the World the Crown of the Church Apostles of Jesus Christ nay Gods viz. to whom the Word of God came and of the compellation of Apostles particularly Saint Hierom saith that when Saint Paul called himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ it was as Magnifically spoken as if he had said Praefectus praetorio Augusts Caesaris Magister exercitus Tiberii Imperatoris And yet Bishops are Apostles and so called in Scripture I have proved that already Indeed our blessed Saviour in the case of the two sons of Zebedee forbad them to expect by vertue of their Apostolate any Princely titles in order to a Kingdom and an earthly Principality For that was it which the ambitious woman sought for her sons viz. fair honour and dignity in an earthly Kingdom for such a Kingdom they expected with their Messias To this their expectation our Saviours answer is a direct antithesis And that made the Apostles to be angry at the two Petitioners as if they had meant to supplant the rest and get the best preferment from them to wit in a temporal Kingdom No saith our blessed Saviour ye are all deceived The Kings of the Nations indeed do exercise authority and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors so the word signifies Gracious Lords so we read it But it shall not be so with you What shall not be so with them shall not they exercise authority Who then is that faithful and wise Steward whom his Lord made Ruler over his Houshould Surely the Apostles or no body Had Christ authority Most certainly Then so had the Apostles for Christ gave them his with a sicut misit me pater c. Well! the Apostles might and we know they did exercise authority What then shall not be so with them Shall not they be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indeed if Saint Mark had taken that title upon him in Alexandria the Ptolomies whose Honorary appellative that was would have questioned him highly for it But if we go to the sence of the word the Apostles might be Benefactors and therefore might be called so But what then Might they not be called Gratious Lords The word would have done no hurt if it had not been an Ensign of a secular Principality For as for the word Lord I know no more prohibition for that than for being called Rabbi or Master or Doctor or Father What shall we think now May we not be called Doctors God hath constituted in his Church Pastors and Doctors saith Saint Paul Therefore we may be called so But what of the other the prohibition runs alike for all as is evident in the several places of the Gospels and may no man be called Master or Father Let an answer be thought on for these and the same will serve
Synodum quòd quidam qui in Clero sunt allecti Propter Lucra Turpia conductores alienarum possessionum fiant saecularia negotia sub curâ suâ suscipiant Dei quidem Ministerium parvipendentes Saecularium verò discurrentes domos Propter Avaritiam patrimoniorum sollicitudinem sumentes Clergy-men were farmers of lands and did take upon them secular imployment for covetous designs and with neglect of the Church These are the things the Councel complain'd of and therefore according to this exigence the following Sanction is to be understood Decrevit itaque hoc Sanctum magnumque Concilium nullum deinceps non Episcopum non Clericum vel Monachum aut possessiones conducere aut negotiis secularibus se immiscere No Bishop no Clergy-man no Monk must farm grounds nor ingage himself in secular business What in none No none Praeter pupillorum si forte leges imponant inexcusabilem curam aut civitatis Episcopus Ecclesiasticarum rerum sollicitudinem habere praecipiat aut Orphanorum viduarum carum quae sine ullâ defensione sunt ac personarum quae maximè Ecclesiastico indigent adjutorio propter timorem Domini causa deposcat This Canon will do right to the Question All secular affairs and bargains either for covetousness or with considerable disturbance of Church-Offices are to be avoided For a Clergy man must not be covetous much less for covetise must he neglect his cure To this purpose is that of the second Councel of Arles Clericus turpis lucri gratiâ aliquod genus negotiationis non exerceat But not here nor at Chalcedon is the prohibition absolute nor declaratory of an inconsistence and incapacity for for all this the Bishop or Clerk may do any office that is in piâ curiâ He may undertake the supra-vision of Widows and Orphans And although he be forbid by the Canon of the Apostles to be a Guardian of Pupils yet it is expounded here by this Canon of Chalcedon for a voluntary seeking it is forbidden by the Apostles but here it is permitted only with si fortè leges imponant if the Law or Authority commands him then he may undertake it That is if either the Emperor commands him or if the Bishop permits him then it is lawful But without such command or licence it was against the Canon of the Apostles And therefore Saint Cyprian did himself severely punish Geminius Faustinus one of the Priests of Carthage for undertaking the executorship of the Testament of Geminius Victor he had no leave of his Bishop so to do and for him of his own head to undertake that which would be an avocation of him from his Office did in Saint Cyprian's Consistory deserve a censure 3. By this Canon of Chalcedon any Clerk may be the Oeconomus or Steward of a Church and dispence her Revenue if the Bishop command him 4. He may undertake the patronage or assistance of any distressed person that needs the Churches aid * From hence it is evident that all secular imployment did not hoc ipso avocate a Clergy-man from his necessary office and duty for some secular imployments are permitted him All causes of piety of charity all occurrences concerning the Revenues of the Church and nothing for covetousness but any thing in obedience any thing I mean of the forenamed instances Nay the affairs of Church Revenues and dispensation of Ecclesiastical Patrimony was imposed on the Bishop by the Canons Apostolical and then considering how many possessions were deposited first at the Apostles feet and afterwards in the Bishops hands we may quickly perceive that a case may occur in which something else may be done by the Bishop and his Clergy besides prayer and preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Ignatius to Saint Polycarpe of Smyrna Let not the Widows be neglected after God do thou take care of them Qui locupletes sunt volunt pro arbitrio quisque suo quod libitum est contribuit quod collectum est apud Praesidem deponitur atque is inde opitulatur Orphanis viduis iisque qui vel morbo vel aliâ de causà egent tum iis qui vincti sunt peregrè advenientibus hospitibus ut uno verbo dicam omnium indigentium Curator est All the Collects and Offerings of faithful people are deposited with the Bishop and thence he dispenses for the relief of the Widows and Orphans thence he provides for travellers and in one word he takes care of all indigent and necessitous people So it was in Justin Martyr's time and all this a man would think requir'd a considerable portion of his time besides his studies and prayer and preaching This was also done even in the Apostles times for first they had the provision of all the goods and persons of the coenobium of the Church at Jerusalem This they themselves administred till a complaint arose which might have prov'd a scandal then they chose seven men men full of the Holy Ghost men that were Priests for they were of the seventy Disciples saith Epiphanius and such men as Preached and Baptized so Saint Stephen and Saint Philip therefore to be sure they were Clergy-men and yet they left their preaching for a time at least abated of the height of the imployment for therefore the Apostles appointed them that themselves might not leave the Word of God and serve Tables plainly implying that such men who were to serve these Tables must leave the Ministery of the Word in some sence or degree and yet they chose Presbyters and no harm neither and for a while themselves had the imployment I say there was no harm done by this temporary Office to their Priestly function and imployment For to me it is considerable If the calling of a Presbyter does not take up the whole man then what inconvenience though his imployment be mixt with secular allay But if it does take up the whole man then it is not safe for any Presbyter ever to become a Bishop which is a dignity of a far greater burden and requires more than a Man 's all if all was requir'd to the function of a Presbyter But I proceed 4. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Bishops and Clerks do prohibit it only in gradu impedimenti officii Clericalis and therefore when the Offices are supplyed by any of the Order it is never prohibited but that the personal abilities of any man may be imployed for the fairest advantages either of Church or Commonwealth And therefore it is observable that the Canons provide that the Church be not destitute not that such a particular Clerk should there officiate Thus the Councel of Arles decreed Vt Presbyteri sicut hactenus factum est indiscretè per diversa non mittantur loca ne fortè propter eorum absentiam animarum pericula Ecclesiarum in quibus constituti sunt negligantur officia So that here we see 1. That it had been usual to send Priests
Bishop and were his Emissaries for the gaining souls in City or Suburbs But when the Bishops divided Parishes and fixt the Presbyters upon a cure so many Parishes as they distinguished so many delegations they made And these we all believe to be good both in Law and Conscience For the Bishop per omnes divinos ordines propriae hierarchiae exercet mysteria saith Saint Denis he does not do the offices of his Order by himself only but by others also for all the inferiour Orders do so operate as by them he does his proper offices * But besides this grand act of the Bishops first and then of all Christendom in consent we have fair precedent in Saint Paul for he made delegation of a power to the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person It was a plain delegation for he commanded them to do it and gave them his own spirit that is his own authority and indeed without it I scarce find how the Delinquent should have been delivered over to Satan in the sence of the Apostolick Church that is to be buffetted for that was a miraculous appendix of power Apostolick * When Saint Paul sent for Timothy from Ephesus he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar Do thy diligence to come unto me shortly for Demas hath forsaken me c. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus Here was an express delegation of the power of jurisdiction to Tychicus who for the time was Curate to Saint Timothy Epaphroditus for a while attended on Saint Paul although he was then Bishop of Philippi and either Saint Paul or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution or the Church was relinquished for he was most certainly non-resident * Thus also we find that Saint Ignatius did delegate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdom Presbyteri pascite gregem qui inter vos est donec Deus designaverit eum qui principatum in vobis habiturus est Ye Presbyters do you feed the Flock till God shall design you a Bishop Till then Therefore it was but a delegate power it could not else have expired in the presence of a Superiour To this purpose is that of the Laodicean Council Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi sedere in tribunalibus nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus aut in peregrinis eum esse constiterit Presbyters must not sit in Consistory without the Bishop unless the Bishop be sick or absent So that it seems what the Bishop does when he is in his Church that may be committed to others in his absence And to this purpose Saint Cyprian sent a plain Commission to his Presbyters Fretus ergo dilectione religione vostrâ his literis hortor mando ut vos Vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quae adiministratio religiosa deposcit I intreat and command you that you do my office in the administration of the affairs of the Church and another time he put Herculanus and Caldonius two of his Suffragans together with Rogatianus and Numidicus two Priests in substitution for the excommunicating Foelicissimus and four more Cùm ego vos pro me Vicarios miserim So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius Videbatur autem Melitius praemenire c. ut qui secundum locum habebat post Petrum in Archiepiscopatu velut adjuvandi ejus gratiâ sub ipso existens sub ipso Ecclesiastica curans He did Church offices under and for Hierocles And I could never find any Canon or personal declamatory clause in any Council or Primitive Father against a Bishops giving more or less of his jurisdiction by way of delegation * Hitherto also may be referr'd that when the goods of all the Church which then were of a perplex and busie dispensation were all in the Bishops hand as part of the Episcopal function yet that part of the Bishops office the Bishop by order of the Council of Chalcedon might delegate to a Steward provided he were a Clergy-man and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Council of Sevill forbad any Lay-men to be Stewards for the Church Elegimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundùm Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat But the reason extends the Canon further Indecorum est enim laicum Vicarium esse Episcopi Saeculares in Ecclesiâ judicare Vicars of Bishops the Canon allows only forbids Lay-men to be Vicars In uno enim eodemque officio non decet dispar professio quod etiam in divinâ lege prohibetur c. In one and the same office the Law of God forbids to joyn men of disparate capacities Then this would be considered For the Canon pretends Scripture Precepts of Fathers and Tradition of Antiquity for its Sanction SECT LI. But they were ever Clergy-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church FOR although Antiquity approves of Episcopal delegations of their power to their Vicars yet these Vicars and Delegates must be Priests at least Melitius was a Biship and yet the Chancellor of Hierocles Patriarch of Alexandria so were Herculanus and Caldonius to Saint Cyprian But they never delegated to any Lay-man any part of their Episcopal power precisely Of their lay-power or the cognisance of secular causes of the people I find one delegation made to some Gentlemen of the Laity by Sylvanus Bishop of Troas when his Clerks grew covetous he cur'd their itch of Gold by trusting men of another profession so to shame them into justice and contempt of money Si quis autem Episcopus posthâc Ecclesiasticam rem aut Laicali procuratione administrandam elegerit non solùm à Christo de rebus Pauperum judicatur reus sed etiam Concilio manebit obnoxius If any Bishop shall hereafter concredit any Church affairs to Lay-Administration he shall be responsive to Christ and in danger of the Council But the Thing was of more ancient constitution For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of Saint Clement which is most certainly very ancient whoever was the Author of it it is decreed Si qui ex Fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores saeculi non judicentur sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur If Christian people have causes of difference and judicial contestation let it be ended before the Priests For so Saint Clement expounds Presbyteros in the same Epistle reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy To this or some parallel constitution Saint Hierom relates saying that Priests from the beginning were appointed Judges of causes He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops and they were Judges ab initio from the beginning saith S. Hierom So that the saying of the Father may no way prejudge
the Fathers were not against them what need these Arts Why should they use them thus Their own expurgatory indices are infinite testimony against them both that they do so and that they need it But besides these things we have thought it fit to represent in one aspect some of their chief Doctrines of difference from the Church of England and make it evident that they are indeed new and brought into the Church first by way of opinion and afterwards by power and at last by their own authority decreed into Laws and Articles SECT II. FIRST We alledge that that this very power of making new Articles is a Novelty and expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and we prove it first by the words of the Apostle saying If we or an Angel from Heaven shall preach unto you any other Gospel viz. in whole or in part for there is the same reason of them both than that which we have preached let him be Anathema and secondly by the sentence of the Fathers in the third General Council that at Ephesus That it should not be lawful for any Man to publish or compose another Faith or Creed than that which was defin'd by the Nicene Council and that whosoever shall dare to compose or offer any such to any Persons willing to be converted from Paganism Judaism or Heresie if they were Bishops or Clerks they should be depos'd if Lay-men they should be accursed And yet in the Church of Rome Faith and Christianity increase like the Moon Bromyard complain'd of it long since and the mischief increases daily They have now a new Article of Faith ready for the stamp which may very shortly become necessary to salvation we mean that of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary Whether the Pope be above a Council or no we are not sure whether it be an Article of Faith amongst them or not It is very near one if it be not Bellarmine would fain have us believe that the Council of Constance approving the Bull of Pope Martin the fifth declar'd for the Popes Supremacy But John Gerson who was at the Council sayes that the Council did abate those heights to which flattery had advanc'd the Pope and that before that Council they spoke such great things of the Pope which afterwards moderate Men durst not speak but yet some others spake them so confidently before it that he that should then have spoken to the contrary would hardly have escap'd the note of Heresie and that these Men continued the same pretensions even after the Council But the Council of Basil decreed for the Council against the Pope and the Council of Lateran under Leo the tenth decreed for the Pope against the Council So that it is cross and pile and whether for a penny when it can be done it is now a known case it shall become an Article of Faith But for the present it is a probationary Article and according to Bellarmine's expression is serè de fide it is almost an Article of Faith they want a little age and then they may go alone But the Council of Trent hath produc'd a strange new Article but it is sine controversiâ credendum it must be believ'd and must not be controverted that although the ancient Fathers did give the Communion to Infants yet they did not believe it necessary to salvation Now this being a matter of fact whether they did or did not believe it every man that reads their writings can be able to inform himself and besides that it is strange that this should be determin'd by a Council and determin'd against evident truth it being notorious that divers of the Fathers did say it is necessary to salvation the decree it self is beyond all bounds of modesty and a strange pretension of Empire over the Christian belief But we proceed to other Instances SECT III. THE Roman Doctrine of Indulgences was the first occasion of the great change and Reformation of the Western Churches begun by the Preachings of Martyn Luther and others and besides that it grew to that intolerable abuse that it became a shame to it self and a reproach to Christendom it was also so very an Innovation that their great Antoninus confesses that concerning them we have nothing expresly either in the Scriptures or in the sayings of the ancient Doctors And the same is affirmed by Sylvester Prierias Bishop Fisher of Rochester sayes that in the beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences and that they began after the people were a while affrighted with the torments of Purgatory and many of the School-men confess that the use of Indulgences began in the time of Pope Alexander the third towards the end of the twelfth Century but Agrippa imputes the beginning of them to Boniface the eighth who liv'd in the Reign of King Edward the first of England 1300. years after Christ. But that in his time the first Jubilee was kept we are assur'd by Crantzius This Pope lived and died with great infamy and therefore was not likely from himself to transfer much honour and reputation to the new institution But that about this time Indulgences began is more than probable much before it is certain they were not For in the whole Canon Law written by Gratian and in the sentences of Peter Lombard there is nothing spoken of Indulgences Now because they liv'd in the time of Pope Alexander the third if he had introduc'd them and much rather if they had been as ancient as Saint Gregory as some vainly and weakly pretend from no greater authority than their own Legends it is probable that these great Men writing Bodies of Divinity and Law would have made mention of so considerable a Point and so great a part of the Roman Religion as things are now order'd If they had been Doctrines of the Church then as they are now it is certain they must have come under their cognisance and discourses Now lest the Roman Emissaries should deceive any of the good Sons of the Church we think it fit to acquaint them that in the Primitive Church when the Bishops impos'd severe penances and that they were almost quite perform'd and a great cause of pity intervened or danger of death or an excellent repentance or that the Martyrs interceded the Bishop did sometimes indulge the penitent and relax some of the remaining parts of his penance and according to the example of Saint Paul in the case of the incestuous Corinthian gave them ease lest they should be swallowed up with too much sorrow But the Roman Doctrine of Indulgences is wholly another thing nothing of it but the abused name remains For in the Church of Rome they now pretend that there is an infinite of degrees of Christ's merits and satisfaction beyond what is necessary for the salvation of his servants and for fear Christ should not have enough the Saints have a surplusage of
There was here no remedy no second thoughts no amends to be made But because much was not required of him and the Commandment was very easie and he had strengths more than enough to keep it therefore he had no cause to complain God might â—nd did exact at first the Covenant of Works because it was at first infinitely toleâ—â—ble But 2. From this time forward this Covenant began to be hard and by degrees beâ—â—â—e impossible not only because mans fortune was broken and his spirit troubled 〈◊〉 his passions disordered and vext by his calamity and his sin but because man upon â—â—e birth of children and the increase of the world contracted new relations and consequently had new duties and obligations and men hindred one another and their faculties by many means became disorder'd and lessen'd in their abilities and their will becoming perverse they first were unwilling and then unable by superinducing dispositions and habits contrary to their duty However because there was a necessity that man should be tied to more duty God did in the several periods of the world multiply Commandments first to Noah then to Abraham and then to his posterity and by this time they were very many And still God held over mans head the Covenant of Works 3. Upon the pressure of this Covenant all the world did complain Tanta mandata sunt ut impossibile sit servari ea said S. Ambrose the Commandments were so many and great that it was impossible they should be kept For at first there were no promises at all of any good nothing but a threatning of evil to the transgressors and after a long time they were entertain'd but with the promise of temporal good things which to some men were perform'd by the pleasures and rewards of sin and then there being a great imperfection in the nature of man it could not be that man should remain innocent and for repentance in this Covenant there was no regard or provisions made But I said 4. The Covenant of Works was still kept on foot How justly will appear in the sequel but the reasonableness of it was in this that men living in a state of awfulness might be under a pedagogy or severe institution restraining their loosenesses recollecting their inadvertencies uniting their distractions For the world was not then prepar'd by spiritual usages and dispositions to be governed by love and an easie yoke but by threatnings and severities And this is the account S. Paul gives of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Law was a Schoolmaster that is had a temporary authority serving to other ends with no final concluding power It could chastise and threaten but it could not condemn it had not power of eternal life and death that was given by other measures But because the world was wild and barbarous good men were few the bad potent and innumerable and sin was conducted and help'd forward by pleasure and impunity it was necessary that God should superinduce a law and shew them the rod and affright and check their confidences left the world it self should perish by dissolution The law of Moses was still a part of the Covenant of Works Some little it had of repentance Sacrifice and expiations were appointed for small sins but nothing at all for greater Every great sin brought death infallibly And as it had a little image of Repentance so it had something of Promises to be as a grace and auxiliary to set forward obedience But this would not do it The promises were temporal and that could not secure obedience in great instances and there being for them no remedy appointed by repentance the law could not justifie it did not promise life Eternal nor give sufficient security against the Temporal only it was brought in as a pedagogy for the present necessity 5. But this pedagogie or institution was also a manuduction to the Gospel For they were used to severe laws that they might the more readily entertain the holy precepts of the Gospel to which eternally they would have shut their ears unless they had had some preparatory institution of severity and fear And therefore S. Paul also calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pedagogie or institution leading unto Christ. 6. For it was this which made the world of the Godly long for Christ as having commission to open the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hidden mystery of Justification by Faith and Repentance For the law called for exact obdience but ministred no grace but that of fear which was not enough to the performance or the engagement of exact obedience All therefore were here convinced of sin but by this Covenant they had no hopes and therefore were to expect relief from another and a better according to that saying of S. Paul The Scripture concludes all under sin that is declares all the world to be sinners that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe This S. Bernard expresses in these words Deus nobis hoc fecit ut nostram imperfectionem ostenderet Christi avidiores nos faceret Our imperfection was sufficiently manifest by the severity of the first Covenant that the world might long for salvation by Jesus Christ. 7. For since mankind could not be saved by the Covenant of works that is of exact obedience they must perish for ever or else hope to be sav'd by a Covenant of ease and remission that is such a Covenant as may secure Mans duty to God and Gods Mercy to Man and this is the Covenant which God made with mankind in Christ Jesus the Covenant of Repentance 8. This Covenant began immediately after Adams fall For as soon as the first Covenant the Covenant of works was broken God promised to make it up by an instrument of mercy which himself would find out The Seed of the woman should make up the breaches of the man But this should be acted and published in its own time not presently In the mean time man was by virtue of that new Covenant or promise admitted to Repentance 9. Adam confessed his sin and repented Three hundred years together did he mourn upon the mountains of India and God promised him a Saviour by whose obedience his repentance should be accepted And when God did threaten the old world with a floud of waters he called upon them to repent but because they did not God brought upon them the floud of waters For 120. years together he called upon them to return before he would strike his final blow Ten times God tried Pharaoh before he destroyed him And in all ages in all periods and with all men God did deal by this measure and excepting that God in some great cases or in the beginning of a Sanction to establish it with the terror of a great example he scarce ever destroyed a single man with temporal death for any nicety of the law but for long and great prevarications of it and when
or the Judicial whether it were better to say God of his mercy pardon thee or by his authority committed to me I absolve thee and in Peter Lombards days when it was esteemed an innocent doctrine to say that the Priests power was only declarative it is likely the form of absolution would be according to the power believed which not being then universally believed to be Judicial the Judicial form could not be of universal use and in the Pontifical there is no Judicial form at all but only Optative or by way of prayer But in this affair besides what is already mentioned I have two great things to say which are a sufficient determination of this whole Article 54. I. The first is that in the Primitive Church there was no such thing as a judicial absolution of sins used in any Liturgy or Church so far as can appear but all the absolution of penitents which is recorded was the mere admitting them to the mysteries and society of the faithful in religious offices the summ and perfection of which was the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper So the fourth Council of Carthage Can. 76. makes provision for a penitent that is near death reconcilietur per manus impositionem infundatur ori ejus Eucharistia Let him be reconciled by the imposition of hands and let the Eucharist be poured into his mouth that was all the solemnity even when there was the greatest need of the Churches ministery that is before their penances and satisfactions were completed The Priest or Bishop laid his hands upon him and prayed and gave him the Communion For that this was the whole purpose of imposition of hands we are taught expresly by S. Austin who being to prove that imposition of hands viz. in repentance might be repeated though baptism might not uses this for an argument Quid enim est aliud nisi oratio super hominem It is nothing else but a Prayer said over the man And indeed this is evident and notorious in matter of fact for in the beginning and in the progression in the several periods of publick repentance and in the consummation of it the Bishop or the Priest did very often impose hands that is pray over the penitent as appears in Is. Ling. from the authority of the Gallican Councils Omni tempore jejuniis manus poenitentibus à Sacerdotibus imponantur And again Criminalia peccata multis jejuniis crebris manus sacerdotum impositionibus eorúmque supplicationibus juxta Canonum statuta placuit purgari Criminal that is great sins must according to the Canons be purged with much fasting and frequent impositions of the Priests hands and their supplications In every time or period of their fast let the Priests hands be laid upon the penitents that is let the Priests frequently pray with him and for him or over him The same with that which he also observes out of the Nicene Council Vultu capite humiliato humilitèr ex corde veniam postulent pro se orare exposcant that 's the intent of imposition of hands let the penitent humbly ask pardon that is desire that the holy man and all the Church would pray for him This in every stage or period of repentance was a degree of reconciliation for as God pardons a sinner when he gives him time to repent he pardons him in one degree that is he hath taken off that anger which might justly and instantly crush him all in pieces and God pardons him yet more when he exhorts him to repentance and yet more when he inclines him and as he proceeds so does God but the pardon is not full and final till the repentance is so too So does the Minister of repentance and pardon Those only are in the unpardoned state who are cut off from all entercourse in holy things with holy persons in holy offices when they are admitted to do repentance they are admitted to the state of pardon and every time the Bishop or Minister prays for him he still sets him forwarder towards the final pardon but then the penitent is fully reconciled on Earth when having done his repentance towards men that is by the commands of the Church he is admitted to the holy Communion and if that be sincerely done on the penitents part and this be maturely and prudently done on the Priests part as the repentance towards men was a repentance also towards God so the absolution before men is a certain indication of absolution before God But as to the main question Then the Church only did reconcile penitents when she admitted them to the Communion and therefore in the second Council of Carthage absolution is called reconciliari Divinis altaribus a being reconciled to the Altar of God and in the Council of Eliberis Communione reconciliari a being reconciled by receiving the Communion opposite to which in the same Canon is Communionem non accipiat he may not receive the Communion that is he shall not be absolved The same is to be seen in the eighth Canon of the Council of Ancyra in the second Canon of the Council of Laodicea in the 85 Epistle of P. Leo and the first Epistle of P. Vigilius and in the third Council of Toledo we find the whole process of binding and loosing described in these words Because we find that in certain Churches of Spain men do not according to the Canons but unworthily repent them of their sins that so often as they please to sin so often they desire of the Priest to be reconciled therefore for the restraining so execrable a presumption it is commanded by the holy Council that repentance should be given according to the form of the ancient Canons that is that he who repents him of his doings being first suspended from the Communion he should amongst the other penitents often run to the imposition of hands that is to the Prayers of the Bishop and the Church but when the time of his satisfaction is completed according as the Priests prudence shall approve let him restore him to the Communion That 's the absolution as the rejecting him from it was the binding him It was an excommunication from which when he was restored to the Communion he was loosed And this was so known so universal a practice and process of Ecclesiastical repentance that without any alteration as to the main inquiry it continued so in the Church to very many ages succeeding and it was for a long while together the custom of penitent people in the beginning of Lent to come voluntarily to receive injunctions of discipline and penitential offices from the Priest and to abstain from the holy Communion till they had done their penances and then by ceremonies and prayers to be restored to the Communion at Easter without any other form of Judicial absolution as is to be seen in Albinus and in the Roman Pontifical To which this consideration may be added That the
practicâ or directly destructive of the Faith or the body of Christianity such of which Saint Peter speaks bringing in damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them these are the false Prophets who out of covetousness make merchandise of you through cozening words Such as these are truly heresies and such as these are certainly damnable But because there are no degrees either of truth or falshood every true proposition being alike true that an errour is more or less damnable is not told us in Scripture but is determined by the man and his manners by circumstances and accidents and therefore the censure in the Preface and end are Arguments of his zeal and strength of his perswasion but they are extrinsecal and accidental to the Articles and might as well have been spared And indeed to me it seems very hard to put uncharitableness into the Creed and so to make it become as an Article of Faith though perhaps this very thing was no Faith of Athanasius who if we may believe Aquinas made this manifestation of Faith non per modum Symboli sed per modum doctrinae that is if I understand him right not with a purpose to impose it upon others but with confidence to declare his own belief and that it was prescribed to others as a Creed was the act of the Bishops of Rome so he said nay possibly it was none of his So said the Patriarch of C. P. Meletius about one hundred and thirty years since in his Epistle to John Douza Athanasio falsò adscriptum Symbolum cum Pontificum Rom. appendice illâ adulteratum luce lucidiùs contestamur And it is more than probable that he said true because this Creed was written originally in Latine which in all reason Athanasius did not and it was translated into Greek it being apparent that the Latine Copy is but one but the Greek is various there being three Editions or Translations rather expressed by Genebrard lib. 3. de Trinit But in this particular who list may better satisfie himself in a disputation de Symbolo Athanasii printed at Wertzburg 1590. supposed to be written by Serrarius or Clencherus 37. And yet I must observe that this Symbol of Athanasius and that other of Nice offer not at any new Articles they only pretend to a further Explication of the Articles Apostolical which is a certain confirmation that they did not believe more Articles to be of belief necessary to salvation If they intended these further Explanations to be as necessary as the dogmatical Articles of the Apostles Creed I know not how to answer all that may be objected against that but the advantage that I shall gather from their not proceeding to new matters is laid out ready for me in the words of Athanasius saying of this Creed This is the Catholick Faith and if his authority be good or his saying true or he the Author then no man can say of any other Article that it is a part of the Catholick Faith or that the Catholick Faith can be enlarged beyond the contents of that Symbol and therefore it is a strange boldness in the Church of Rome first to add twelve new Articles and then to add the Appendix of Athanasius to the end of them This is the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved 38. But so great an Example of so excellent a man hath been either mistaken or followed with too much greediness all the World in factions all damning one another each party damn'd by all the rest and there is no disagreeing in opinion from any man that is in love with his own opinion but damnation presently to all that disagree A Ceremony and a Rite hath caused several Churches to Excommunicate each other as in the matter of the Saturday Fast and keeping Easter But what the spirits of men are when they are exasperated in a Question and difference of Religion as they call it though the thing it self may be most inconsiderable is very evident in that request of Pope Innocent the Third desiring of the Greeks but reasonably a man would think that they would not so much hate the Roman manner of consecrating in unleavened bread as to wash and scrape and pare the Altars after a Roman Priest had consecrated Nothing more furious than a mistaken zeal and the actions of a scrupulous and abused conscience When men think every thing to be their Faith and their Religion commonly they are so busie in trifles and such impertinencies in which the scene of their mistake lies that they neglect the greater things of the Law charity and compliances and the gentleness of Christian Communion for this is the great principle of mischief and yet is not more pernicious than unreasonable 39. For I demand Can any man say and justifie that the Apostles did deny Communion to any man that believed the Apostles Creed and lived a good life And dare any man tax that proceeding of remissness and indifferency in Religion And since our blessed Saviour promised salvation to him that believeth and the Apostles when they gave this word the greatest extent enlarged it not beyond the borders of the Creed how can any man warrant the condemning of any man to the flames of Hell that is ready to die in attestation of this Faith so expounded and made explicite by the Apostles and lives accordingly And to this purpose it was excellently said by a wise and a pious Prelate St. Hilary Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam quaestiones vocat c. In absoluio nobis facili est aeternitas Jesum suscitatum à mortuis per Deum credere ipsum esse Dominum confiteri c. These are the Articles which we must believe which are the sufficient and adequate object of the Faith which is required of us in order to Salvation And therefore it was that when the Bishops of Istria deserted the Communion of Pope Pelagius in causâ trium Capitulorum He gives them an account of his Faith by recitation of the Creed and by attesting the four General Councils and is confident upon this that de fidei firmitate nulla poterit esse quaestio vel suspicio generari let the Apostles Creed especially so explicated be but secured and all Faith is secured and yet that explication too was less necessary than the Articles themselves for the Explication was but accidental but the Articles even before the Explication were accounted a sufficient inlet to the Kingdome of Heaven 40. And that there was security enough in the simple believing the first Articles is very certain amongst them and by their Principles who allow of an implicite faith to serve most persons to the greatest purposes for if the Creed did contain in it the whole Faith and that other Articles were in it implicitely for such is the doctrine of the School and particularly of Aquinas then he that explicitely believes all the Creed
he is angry at it neque enim putare debemus esse praescriptum ut quod in aliquo loco res aliqua per similitudinem significaverit hoc etiam semper significare credamus 3. Thirdly Oftentimes Scriptures are pretended to be expounded by a proportion and Analogy of reason And this is as the other if it be well it 's well But unless there were some intellectus universalis furnished with infallible propositions by referring to which every man might argue infallibly this Logick may deceive as well as any of the rest For it is with reason as with mens tastes although there are some general principles which are reasonable to all men yet every man is not able to draw out all its consequences nor to understand them when they are drawn forth nor to believe when he does understand them There is a precept of S. Paul directed to the Thessalonians before they were gathered into a body of a Church 2 Thes. 3.6 To withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly But if this precept were now observed I would fain know whether we should not fall into that inconvenience which S. Paul sought to avoid in giving the same commandment to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 5.9 I wrote to you that ye should not company with fornicators And yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world for then ye must go out of the world And therefore he restrains it to a quitting the society of Christians living ill lives But now that all the world hath been Christians if we should sin in keeping company with vitious Christians must we not also go out of this world Is not the precept made null because the reason is altered and things are come about and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called brethren as S. Pauls phrase is And yet either this never was considered or not yet believed for it is generally taken to be obligatory though I think seldom practised But when we come to expound Scriptures to a certain sence by Arguments drawn from prudential motives then we are in a vast plain without any sufficient guide and we shall have so many sences as there are humane prudences But that which goes further than this is a parity of reason from a plain place of Scripture to an obscure from that which is plainly set down in a Text to another that is more remote from it And thus is that place in S. Matthew forced If thy brother refuse to be amended Dic ecclesiae Hence some of the Roman Doctors argue If Christ commands to tell the Church in case of adultery or private injury then much more in case of heresie Well suppose this to be a good Interpretation Why must I stay here Why may not I also adde by a parity of reason If the Church must be told of heresie much more of treason And why may not I reduce all sins to the cognizance of a Church tribunal as some men do directly and Snecanus does heartily and plainly If a mans principles be good and his deductions certain he need not care whither they carry him But when an Authority is intrusted to a person and the extent of his power expressed in his commission it will not be safety to meddle beyond his commission upon confidence of a parity of reason To instance once more When Christ in pasce oves tu es Petrus gave power to the Pope to govern the Church for to that sence the Church of Rome expounds those Authorities by a certain consequence of reason say they he gave all things necessary for exercise of this jurisdiction and therefore in pasce oves he gave him an indirect power over temporals for that is necessary that he may do his duty Well having gone thus far we will go farther upon the parity of reason therefore he hath given the Pope the gift of tongues and he hath given him power to give it for how else shall Xavier convert the Indians He hath given him power also to command the Seas and the winds that they should obey him for this also is very necessary in some cases And so pasce oves is accipe donum linguarum and Impera ventis dispone regum diademata laicorum praedia and influentias coeli too and whatsoever the parity of reason will judge equally necessary in order to pasce oves When a man does speak reason it is but reason he should be heard but though he may have the good fortune or the great abilities to do it yet he hath not a certainty no regular infallible assistance no inspiration of Arguments and deductions and if he had yet because it must be reason that must judge of reason unless other mens understandings were of the same aire the same constitution and ability they cannot be prescribed unto by another mans reason especially because such reasonings as usually are in explication of particular places of Scripture depend upon minute circumstances and particularities in which it is so easie to be deceived and so hard to speak reason regularly and always that it is the greater wonder if we be not deceived 4. Fourthly Others pretend to expound Scripture by the analogie of Faith and that is the most sure and infallible way as it is thought But upon stricter survey it is but a Chimera a thing in nubibus which varies like the right hand and left hand of a Pillar and at the best is but like the Coast of a Country to a Traveller out of his way It may bring him to his journeys end though twenty miles about it may keep him from running into the Sea and from mistaking a river for dry land but whether this little path or the other be the right away it tells not So is the analogie of Faith that is if I understand it right the rule of Faith that is the Creed Now were it not a fine device to goe to expound all the Scripture by the Creed there being in it so many thousand places which have no more relation to any Article in the Creed than they have to Tityre tu patulae Indeed if a man resolves to keep the analogie of Faith that is to expound Scripture so as not to doe any violence to any fundamental Article he shall be sure however he errs yet not to destroy Faith he shall not perish in his Exposition And that was the precept given by Saint Paul that all Prophecyings should be estimated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 6.12 and to this very purpose St. Austin in his Exposition of Genesis by way of Preface sets down the Articles of Faith with this design and protestation of it that if he says nothing against those Articles though he miss the particular sence of the place there is no danger or sin in his Exposition but how that analogie of Faith should have any other influence in expounding such places in which those Articles of Faith are
〈◊〉 and yet there was no such Tradition but a mistake in Papias but I find it nowhere spoke against till Dionysius of Alexandria confuted Nepo's Book and converted Coracian the Egyptian from the opinion Now if a Tradition whose beginning of being called so began with a Scholar of the Apostles for so was Papias and then continued for some Ages upon the meer Authority of so famous a man did yet deceive the Church much more fallible is the pretence when two or three hundred years after it but commences and then by some learned man is first called a Tradition Apostolical And so it happened in the case of the Arrian heresie which the Nicene Fathers did confute by objecting a contrary Tradition Apostolical as Theodoret reports and yet if they had not had better Arguments from Scripture than from Tradition they would have fail'd much in so good a cause for this very pretence the Arrians themselves made and desired to be tryed by the Fathers of the first three hundred years which was a confutation sufficient to them who pretended a clear Tradition because it was unimaginable that the Tradition should leap so as not to come from the first to the last by the middle But that this trial was sometime declined by that excellent man S. Athanasius although at other times confidently and truly pretended it was an Argument the Tradition was not so clear but both sides might with some fairness pretend to it And therefore one of the prime Founders of their heresie the Heretick Arâ—emon having observed the advantage might be taken by any Sect that would pretend Tradition because the medium was plausible and consisting of so many particulars that it was hard to be redargued pretended a Tradition from the Apostles that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Tradition did descend by a constant succession in the Church of Rome to Pope Victors time inclusively and till Zephyrinus had interrupted the series and corrupted the Doctrine which pretence if it had not had some appearance of truth so as possibly to abuse the Church had not been worthy of confutation which yet was with care undertaken by an old Writer out of whom Eusebius transcribes a large passage to reprove the vanity of the pretender But I observe from hence that it was usual to pretend to Tradition and that it was easier pretended than confuted and I doubt not but oftener done than discovered A great Question arose in Africa concerning the Baptism of Hereticks whether it were valid or no. S. Cyprian and his party appealed to Scripture Stephen Bishop of Rome and his party would be judged by custome and Tradition Ecclesiastical See how much the nearer the Question was to a determination either that probation was not accounted by S. Syprian and the Bishops both of Asia and Africk to be a good Argument and sufficient to determine them or there was no certain Tradition against them for unless one of these two doe it nothing could excuse them from opposing a known truth unless peradventure S. Cyprian Firmilian the Bishops of Galatia Cappadocia and almost two parts of the World were ignorant of such a Tradition for they knew of none such and some of them expresly denied it And the sixth general Synod approves of the Canon made in the Council of Carthage under Cyprian upon this very ground because in praedictorum praesulum locis solum secundum traditam eis consuetudinem servatus est they had a particular Tradition for Rebaptization and therefore there could be no Tradition Universal against it or if there were they knew not of it but much for the contrary and then it would be remembred that a conceal'd Tradition was like a silent Thunder or a Law not promulgated it neither was known nor was obligatory And I shall observe this too that this very Tradition was so obscure and was so obscurely delivered silently proclaimed that S. Austin who disputed against the Donatists upon this very Question was not able to prove it but by a consequence which he thought probable and credible as appears in his discourse against the Donatists The Apostles saith S. Austin prescribed nothing in this particular But this custome which is contrary to Cyprian ought to be believed to have come from their Tradition as many other things which the Catholick Church observes That 's all the ground and all the reason nay the Church did waver concerning that Question and before the decision of a Council Cyprian and others might dissent without breach of charity It was plain then there was no clear Tradition in the Question possibly there might be a custome in some Churches postnate to the times of the Apostles but nothing that was obligatory no Tradition Apostolical But this was a suppletory device ready at hand when ever they needed it and S. Austin confuted the Pelagians in the Question of Original sin by the custome of exorcism and insufflation which S. Austin said came from the Apostles by Tradition which yet was then and is now so impossible to be proved that he that shall affirm it shall gain only the reputation of a bold man and a confident 4. Secondly I consider if the report of Traditions in the Primitive times so near the Ages Apostolical was so uncertain that they were fain to aym at them by conjectures and grope as in the dark the uncertainty is much increased since because there are many famous Writers whose works are lost which yet if they had continued they might have been good records to us as Clemens Romanus Egesippus Nepos Coracion Dionysius Areopagite of Alexandria of Corinth Firmilian and many more And since we see pretences have been made without reason in those Ages where they might better have been confuted than now they can it is greater prudence to suspect any later pretences since so many Sects have been so many wars so many corruptions in Authors so many Authors lost so much ignorance hath intervened and so many interests have been served that now the rule is to be altered and whereas it was of old time credible that that was Apostolical whose beginning they knew not now quite contrary we cannot safely believe them to be Apostolical unless we do know their beginning to have been from the Apostles For this consisting of probabilities and particulars which put together make up a moral demonstration the Argument which I now urge hath been growing these fifteen hundred years and if anciently there was so much as to evacuate the Authority of Tradition much more is there now absolutely to destroy it when all the particulars which time and infinite variety of humane accidents have been amassing together are now concentred and are united by way of constipation Because every Age and every great change and every heresie and every interest hath increased the difficulty of finding out true Traditions 5. Thirdly There are very many Traditions which are lost and
Ecclesiae magisterio abrogatis Now it were good that they which take a liberty to themselves should also allow the same to others So that for one thing or other all Traditions excepting those very few that are absolutely universal will lose all their obligation and become no competent medium to confine mens practices or limit their faiths or determine their perswasions Either for the difficulty of their being proved the incompetency of the testimony that transmits them or the indifferency of the thing transmitted all Traditions both ritual and doctrinal are disabled from determining our consciences either to a necessary believing or obeying 9. Sixthly To which I adde by way of confirmation that there are some things called Traditions and are offered to be proved to us by a Testimony which is either false or not extant Clemens of Alexandria pretended it a Tradition that the Apostles preached to them that died in infidelity even after their death and then raised them to life but he proved it only by the Testimony of the Book of Hermes he affirmed it to be a Tradition Apostolical that the Greeks were saved by their Philosophie but he had no other Authority for it but the Apocryphal Books of Peter and Paul Tertullian and S. Basil pretended it an Apostolical Tradition to sign in the aire with the sign of the Cross but this was only consigned to them in the Gospel of Nicodemus But to instance once for all in the Epistle of Marcellus to the Bishop of Antioch where he affirmes that it is the Canon of the Apostles praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis non posse Concilia celebrari And yet there is no such Canon extant nor ever was for ought appears in any Record we have and yet the Collection of the Canons is so intire that though it hath something more than what was Apostolical yet it hath nothing less And now that I am casually fallen upon an instance from the Canons of the Apostles I consider that there cannot in the world a greater instance be given how easie it is to be abused in the believing of Traditions For 1. to the first 50 which many did admit for Apostolical 35 more were added which most men now count spurious all men call dubious and some of them univerally condemned by peremptory sentence even by them who are greatest admirers of that Collection as 65.67 and 8â…˜ Canons For the first 50 it is evident that there are some things so mixt with them and no mark of difference left that the credit of all is much impaired insomuch that Isidor of Sevil says they were Apocryphal made by Hereticks and published under the title Apostolical but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them And yet they have prevailed so far amongst some that Damascen is of opinion they should be received equally with the Canonical writings of the Apostles One thing only I observe and we shall find it true in most writings whose Authority is urged in Questions of Theologie that the Authority of the Tradition is not it which moves the assent but the nature of the thing and because such a Canon is delivered they do not therefore believe the sanction or proposition so delivered but disbelieve the Tradition if they do not like the matter and so do not judge of the matter by the Tradition but of the Tradition by the matter And thus the Church of Rome rejects the 84. or 85. Canon of the Apostles not because it is delivered with less Authority than the last 35 are but because it reckons the Canon of Scripture otherwise than it is at Rome Thus also the fifth Canon amongst the first 50 because it approves the marriage of Priests and Deacons does not perswade them to approve of it too but it self becomes suspected for approving it So that either they accuse themselves of palpable contempt of the Apostolical Authority or else that the reputation of such Traditions is kept up to serve their own ends and therefore when they encounter them they are no more to be upheld which what else is it but to teach all the world to contemn such pretences and undervalue Traditions and to supply to others a reason why they should doe that which to them that give the occasion is most unreasonable 10. Seventhly The Testimony of the Ancient Church being the only means of proving Tradition and sometimes their dictates and doctrine being the Tradition pretended of necessity to be imitated it is considerable that men in their estimate of it take their rise from several Ages and differing Testimonies and are not agreed about the competency of their Testimony and the reasons that on each side make them differ are such as make the authority it self the less authentick and more repudiable Some will allow only of the three first Ages as being most pure most persecuted and therefore most holy least interested serving fewer designes having fewest factions and therefore more likely to speak the truth for Gods sake and its own as best complying with their great end of acquiring Heaven in recompence of losing their lives Others say that those Ages being persecuted minded the present Doctrines proportionable to their purposes and constitution of the Ages and make little or nothing of those Questions which at this day vex Christendome And both speak true The first Ages speak greatest truth but least pertinently The next Ages the Ages of the four general Councils spake something not much more pertinently to the present Questions but were not so likely to speak true by reason of their dispositions contrary to the capacity and circumstance of the first Ages and if they speak wisely as Doctors yet not certainly as witnesses of such propositions which the first Ages noted not and yet unless they had noted could not possibly be Traditions And therefore either of them will be less useless as to our present affairs For indeed the Questions which now are the publick trouble were not considered or thought upon for many hundred years and therefore prime Tradition there is none as to our purpose and it will be an insufficient medium to be used or pretended in the determination and to dispute concerning the truth or necessity of Traditions in the Questions of our times is as if Historians disputing about a Question in the English Story should fall on wrangling whether Livie or Plutarch were the best Writers And the earnest disputes about Traditions are to no better purpose For no Church at this day admits the one half of those things which certainly by the Fathers were called Traditions Apostolical and no Testimony of ancient Writers does consign the one half of the present Questions to be or not to be traditions So that they who admit only the doctrine and testimony of the first Ages cannot be determined in most of their doubts which now trouble us because their writings are of matters wholly differing from the present disputes and they which
of the Imperial City it became the principal Seat and he surprized the highest Judicature partly by the concession of others partly by his own accidental advantages and yet even in these things although he was major singulis yet he was minor universis And this is no more then what was decreed of the eighth General Synod which if it be sense is pertinent to this Question for General Councils are appointed to take Cognizance of Questions and differences about the Bishop of Rome non tamen audacter in eum ferre sententiam By audacter as is supposed is meant praecipitanter hastily and unreasonably but if to give sentence against him be wholly forbidden it is non-sense for to what purpose is an Authority of taking Cognizance if they have no power of giving sentence unless it were to defer it to a superiour judge which in this case cannot be supposed For either the Pope himself is to judge his own cause after their examination of him or the General Council is to judge him So that although the Council is by that Decree enjoyned to proceed modestly and warily yet they may proceed to sentence or else the Decree is ridiculous and impertinent 5. But to clear all I will instance in matters of Question and opinion For not onely some Councils have made their Decrees without or against the Pope but some Councils have had the Pope's confirmation and yet have not been the more legitimate or obligatory but are known to be heretical For the Canons of the sixth Synod although some of them were made against the Popes and the custome of the Church of Rome a Pope a while after did confirm the Council and yet the Canons are impious and hereticall and so esteemed by the Church of Rome herself I instance in the second Canon which approves of that Synod of Carthage under Cyprian for rebaptization of Hereticks and the 72. Canon that dissolves marriage between persons of differing perswasion in matters of Christian Religion and yet these Canons were approved by Pope Adrian I. who in his Epistle to Tharasius which is in the second Action of the seventh Synod calls them Canones divinè legaliter praedicatos And these Canons were used by Pope Nicolas I. in his Epistle ad Michaelem and by Innocent III. c. à multis extra de aetat ordinandorum So that now that we may apply this there are seven General Councils which by the Church of Rome are condemn'd of errour The Council of Antioch A. D. 345. in which Saint Athanasius was condemned The Council of Millan A. D. 354. of above 300 Bishops The Council of Ariminum consisting of 600 Bishops The second Council of Ephesus A. D. 449. in which the Eutychian heresie was confirmed and the Patriarch Flavianus kill'd by the faction of Dioscorus The Council of Constantinople under Leo Isaurus A. D. 730 And another at Constantinople 35 years after And lastly the Council at Pisa 134 years since Now that these General Councils are condemned is a sufficient Argument that Councils may erre and it is no answer to say they were not confirmed by the Pope for the Pope's confirmation I have shewn not to be necessary or if it were yet even that also is an Argument that General Councils may become invalid either by their own fault or by some extrinsecall supervening accident either of which evacuates their Authority And whether all that is required to the legitimation of a Council was actually observ'd in any Council is so hard to determine that no man can be infallibly sure that such a Council is authentick and sufficient probation 6. Secondly And that is the second thing I shall observe There are so many Questions concerning the efficient the form the matter of General Councils and their manner of proceeding and their final sanction that after a Question is determined by a Conciliary Assembly there are perhaps twenty more Questions to be disputed before we can with confidence either believe the Council upon its mere Authority or obtrude it upon others And upon this ground how easie it is to elude the pressure of an Argument drawn from the Authority of a General Council is very remarkable in the Question about the Pope's or the Council's Superiority which Question although it be defined for the Council against the Pope by five General Councils the Council of Florence of Constance of Basil of Pisa and one of the Laterans yet the Jesuites to this day account this Question pro non definita and have rare pretences for their escape As first It is true a Council is above a Pope in case there be no Pope or he uncertain which is Bellarmin's answer never considering whether he spake sense or no nor yet remembring that the Council of Basil deposed Eugenius who was a true Pope and so acknowledged Secondly sometimes the Pope did not confirm these Councils that 's their Answer And although it was an exception that the Fathers never thought of when they were pressed with the Authority of the Council of Ariminum or Sirmium or any other Arrian Convention yet the Council of Basil was conven'd by Pope Martin V. then in its sixteenth Session declared by Eugenius the IV. to be lawfully continued and confirmed expresly in some of its Decrees by Pope Nicolas and so stood till it was at last rejected by Leo the X. very many years after but that came too late and with too visible an interest and this Council did decree fide Catholicâ tenendum Concilium esse supra Papam But if one Pope confirms it and another rejects it as it happened in this case and in many more does it not destroy the competency of the Authority and we see it by this instance that it so serves the turns of men that it is good in some cases that is when it makes for them and invalid when it makes against them Thirdly but it is a little more ridiculous in the case of the Council of Constance whose Decrees were confirmed by Martin V. But that this may be no Argument against them Bellarmine tells you he onely confirmed those things quae facta fuerant Conciliariter re diligenter examinatâ of which there being no mark nor any certain Rule to judge it it is a device that may evacuate any thing we have a mind to it was not done Conciliariter that is not according to our mind for Conciliariter is a fine new-nothing that may signifie what you please Fourthly but other devices yet more pretty they have As Whether the Council of Lateran was a General Council or no they know not no nor will not know which is a wise and plain reservation of their own advantages to make it General or not General as shall serve their turns Fifthly as for the Council of Florence they are not sure whether it hath defined the Question satìs apertè apertè they will grant if you will allow them not satìs aperté Sixthly and lastly the
from the person to the confession of Peter and declared that to be the foundation of the Church And thus I have requited fancy with fancy but for the main point that these two Expositions are inclusive of each other I find no warrant For though they may consist together well enough if Christ had so intended them yet unless it could be shewn by some circumstance of the Text or some other extrinsecall Argument that they must be so and that both senses were actually intended it is but gratìs dictum and a begging of the Question to say that they are so and the fancy so new that when S. Austin had expounded this place of the person of Peter he reviews it again and in his Retractions leaves every man to his liberty which to take as having nothing certain in this Article which had been altogether needless if he had believed them to be inclusively in each other neither of them had need to have been retracted both were alike true both of them might have been believed But I said the fancy was new and I had reason for it was so unknown till yesterday that even the late Writers of his own side expound the words of the confession of S. Peter exclusively to his person or any thing else as is to be seen in Marsilius Petrus de Aliaco and the gloss upon Dist. 19. can ità Dominus § ut suprá Which also was the Interpetation of Phavorinus Camers their own Bishop from whom they learnt the resemblance of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which they have made so many gay discourses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7. Fifthly But upon condition I may have leave at another time to recede from so great and numerous Testimony of Fathers I am willing to believe that it was not the confession of S. Peter but his person upon which Christ said he would build his Church or that these Expositions are consistent with and consequent to each other that this confession was the objective foundation of Faith and Christ and his Apostles the subjective Christ principally and S. Peter instrumentally and yet I understand not any advantage will hence accrue to the See of Rome For upon S. Peter it was built but not alone for it was upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone and when S. Paul reckoned the Oeconomy of Hierarchy he reckons not Peter first and then the Apostles but first Apostles secondarily Prophets c. And whatsoever is first either is before all things else or at least nothing is before it So that at least S. Peter is not before all the rest of the Apostles which also S. Paul expresly averrs I am in nothing inferiour to the very chiefest of the Apostles no not in the very being a Rock and a Foundation and it was of the Church of Ephesus that S. Paul said in particular it was columna firmamentum veritatis that Church was not excluding others for they also were as much as she for so we keep close and be united to the corner-stone although some be master-builders yet all may build and we have known whole Nations converted by Lay-men and women who have been builders so far as to bring them to the corner-stone 8. Sixthly But suppose all these things concern S. Peter in all the capacities can be with any colour pretended yet what have the Bishops of Rome to doe with this For how will it appear that these promises and Commissions did relate to him as a particular Bishop and not as a publick Apostle since this latter is so much the more likely because the great pretence of all seems in reason more proportionable to the founding of a Church then its continuance And yet if they did relate to him as a particular Bishop which yet is a farther degree of improbability removed farther from certainty yet why shall S. Clement or Linus rather succeed in this great office of Headship then S. John or any of the Apostles that survived Peter It is no way likely a private person should skip over the head of an Apostle Or why shall his Successors at Rome more enjoy the benefit of it then his Successors at Antioch since that he was at Antioch and preached there we have a Divine Authority but that he did so at Rome at most we have but a humane And if it be replied that because he died at Rome it was Argument enough that there his Successors were to inherit his privilege this besides that at most it is but one little degree of probability and so not of strength sufficient to support an Article of faith it makes that the great Divine Right of Rome and the Apostolical presidency was so contingent and fallible as to depend upon the decree of Nero and if he had sent him to Antioch there to have suffered Martyrdome the Bishops of that Town had been heads of the Catholick Church And this thing presses the harder because it is held by no mean persons in the Church of Rome that the Bishoprick of Rome and the Papacy are things separable and the Pope may quit that See and sit in another which to my understanding is an Argument that he that succeeded Peter at Antioch is as much supreme by Divine Right as he that sits at Rome both alike that is neither by Divine Ordinance For if the Roman Bishops by Christ's intention were to be Head of the Church then by the same intention the Succession must be continued in that See and then let the Pope go whither he will the Bishop of Rome must be the Head which they themselves deny and the Pope himself did not believe when in a schism he sat at Avignon And that it was to be continued in the See of Rome it is but offered to us upon conjecture upon an act of providence as they fansy it so ordering it by vision and this proved by an Author which themselves call fabulous and Apocryphal under the name of Linus in Biblioth PP de passione Petri Pauli A goodly building which relies upon an event that was accidental whose purpose was but insinuated the meaning of it but conjectured at and this conjecture so uncertain that it was an imperfect aim at the purpose of an event which whether it was true or no was so uncertain that it is ten to one there was no such matter And yet again another degree of uncertainty is to whom the Bishops of Rome do succeed For S. Paul was as much Bishop of Rome as S. Peter was there he presided there he preached and he it was that was the Doctor of the Uncircumcision and of the Gentiles S. Peter of the Circumcision and of the Jews onely and therefore the converted Jews at Rome might with better reason claim the privilege of S. Peter then the Romans and the Churches in her Communion who do not derive from Jewish
Parents 9. Seventhly If the words were never so appropriate to Peter or also communicated to his Successors yet of what value will the consequent be what prerogative is entailed upon the Chair of Rome For that S. Peter was the Ministerial Head of the Church is the most that is desired to be proved by those and all other words brought for the same purposes and interests of that See Now let the Ministerial Head have what Dignity can be imagined let him be the first and in all Communities that are regular and orderly there must be something that is first upon certain occasions where an equal power cannot be exercised and made pompous or ceremonial But will this Ministerial Headship inferr an infallibility will it inferr more then the Headship of the Jewish Synagogue where clearly the High Priest was supreme in many senses yet in no sense infallible will it inferr more to us then it did amongst the Apostles amongst whom if for order's sake S. Peter was the first yet he had no compulsory power over the Apostles there was no such thing spoke of nor any such thing put in practice And that the other Apostles were by a personal privilege as infallible as himself is no reason to hinder the exercise of jurisdiction or any compulsory power over them for though in Faith they were infallible yet in manners and matter of fact as likely to erre as S. Peter himself was and certainly there might have something happened in the whole Colledge that might have been a Record of his Authority by transmitting an example of the exercise of some Judicial power over some one of them If he had but withstood any of them to their faces as S. Paul did him it had been more then yet is said in his behalf Will the Ministerial Headship inferr any more then that when the Church in a Community or a publick capacity should do any Act of Ministery Ecclesiasticall he shall be first in Order Suppose this to be a dignity to preside in Councils which yet was not always granted him suppose it to be a power of taking cognizance of the Major Causes of Bishops when Councils cannot be called suppose it a double voice or the last decisive or the negative in the causes exteriour suppose it to be what you will of dignity or externall regiment which when all Churches were united in Communion and neither the interest of States nor the engagement of opinions had made disunion might better have been acted then now it can yet this will fall infinitely short of a power to determine Controversies infallibly and to prescribe to all mens faith and consciences A Ministerial Headship or the prime Minister cannot in any capacity become the foundation of the Church to any such purpose And therefore men are causelesly amused with such premisses and are afraid of such Conclusions which will never follow from the admission of any sense of these words that can with any probability be pretended 10. Eighthly I consider that these Arguments from Scripture are too weak to support such an Authority which pretends to give Oracles and to answer infallibly in Questions of Faith because there is greater reason to believe the Popes of Rome have erred and greater certainty of demonstration then these places give that they are infallible as will appear by the instances and perpetual experiment of their being deceived of which there is no Question but of the sense of these places there is And indeed if I had as clear Scripture for their infallibility as I have against their half Communion against their Service in an unknown tongue worshipping of Images and divers other Articles I would make no scruple of believing but limit and conform my understanding to all their Dictates and believe it reasonable all Prophesying should be restrained But till then I have leave to discourse and to use my reason And to my reason it seems not likely that neither Christ nor any of his Apostles not S. Peter himself not S. Paul writing to the Church of Rome should speak the least word or tittle of the infallibility of their Bishops for it was certainly as convenient to tell us of a remedy as to foretell that certainly there must needs be heresies and need of a remedy And it had been a certain determination of the Question if when so rare an opportunity was ministred in the Question about Circumcision that they should have sent to Peter who for his infallibility in ordinary and his power of Headship would not onely with reason enough as being infallibly assisted but also for his Authority have best determined the Question if at least the first Christians had known so profitable and so excellent a secret And although we have but little Record that the first Council at Jerusalem did much observe the solennities of Law and the forms of Conciliary proceedings and the Ceremonials yet so much of it as is recorded is against them S. James and not S. Peter gave the final sentence and although S. Peter determined the Question pro libertate yet S. James made the Decree and the Assumentum too and gave sentence they should abstain from some things there mentioned which by way of temper he judged most expedient And so it passed And S. Peter shewed no sign of a Superiour Authority nothing of Superiour jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 11. So that if the Question be to be determined by Scripture it must either be ended by plain places or by obscure Plain places there are none and these that are with greatest fancy pretended are expounded by Antiquity to contrary purposes But if obscure places be all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by what means shall we infallibly find the sense of them The Pope's interpretation though in all other cases it might be pretended in this cannot for it is the thing in Question and therefore cannot determine for itself Either therefore we have also another infallible guide besides the Pope and so we have two Foundations and two Heads for this as well as the other upon the same reason or else which is indeed the truth there is no infallible way to be infallibly assured that the Pope is infallible Now it being against the common condition of men above the pretences of all other Governours Ecclesiasticall against the Analogie of Scripture and the deportment of the other Apostles against the Oeconomy of the Church and S. Peter's own entertainment the presumption lies against him and these places are to be left to their prime intentions and not put upon the rack to force them to confess what they never thought 12. But now for Antiquity if that be deposed in this Question there are so many circumstances to be considered to reconcile their words and their actions that the process is more troublesome then the Argument can be concluding or the matter considerable But I shall a little consider it so far at least as to shew either Antiquity said
pleasing of men is his best reward and his not being condemned and contradicted all the possession of a Truth SECT XIV Of the practice of Christian Churches towards persons Disagreeing and when Persecution first came in AND thus this Truth hath been practised in all times of Christian Religion when there were no collateral designs on foot nor interests to be served nor passions to be satisfied In Saint Paul's time though the censure of Heresie were not so loose and forward as afterwards and all that were called Hereticks were clearly such and highly criminal yet as their crime was so was their censure that is spiritual They were first admonished once at least for so Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose and Hierom read that place of Titus 3. But since that time all men and at that time some read it Post unam alteram admonitionem reject a Heretick Rejection from the communion of Saints after two warnings that 's the penalty Saint John expresses it by not eating with them not bidding them God speed but the persons against whom he decrees so severely are such as denied Christ to be come in the flesh direct Antichrists And let the sentence be as high as it lists in this case all that I observe is that since in so damnable Doctrines nothing but spiritual censure separation from the communion of the faithfull was enjoyned and prescribed we cannot pretend to an Apostolicall precedent if in matters of dispute and innocent question and of great uncertainty and no malignity we should proceed to sentence of Death 2. For it is but an absurd and illiterate arguing to say that Excommunication is a greater punishment and killing a less and therefore who-ever may be excommunicated may also be put to death which indeed is the reasoning that Bellarmine uses For first Excommunication is not directly and of itself a greater punishment then corporal Death because it is indefinite and incompleat and in order to a farther punishment which if it happens then the Excommunication was the inlet to it if it does not the Excommunication did not signifie half so much as the loss of a member much less Death For it may be totally ineffectual either by the iniquity of the proceeding or repentance of the person and in all times and cases it is a medicine if the man please if he will not but perseveres in his impiety then it is himself that brings the Censure to effect that actuates the judgement and gives a sting and an energy upon that which otherwise would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly but when it is at worst it does not kill the Soul it onely consigns it to that death which it had deserved and should have received independently from that sentence of the Church Thirdly and yet Excommunication is to admirable purpose for whether it refers to the person censured or to others it is prudentiall in itself it is exemplary to others it is medicinal to all For the person censured is by this means threatned into piety and the threatning made the more energeticall upon him because by fiction of Law or as it were by a Sacramental representment the pains of hell are made presentiall to him and so becomes an act of prudent judicature and excellent discipline and the best instrument of spiritual Government because the nearer the threatning is reduced to matter and the more present and circumstantiate it is made the more operative it is upon our spirits while they are immerged in matter And this is the full sense and power of Excommunication in its direct intention consequently and accidentally other evils might follow it as in the times of the Apostles the censured persons were buffeted by Satan and even at this day there is less security even to the temporal condition of such a person whom his spiritual parents have Anathematiz'd But besides this I know no warrant to affirm any thing of Excommunication for the sentence of the Church does but declare not effect the final sentence of damnation Whoever deserves Excommunication deserves damnation and he that repents shall be saved though he die out of the Churche's externall Communion and if he does not repent he shall be damned though he was not excommunicate 3. But suppose it greater then the sentence of corporal Death yet it follows not because Hereticks may be excommunicate therefore killed for from a greater to a less in a several kinde of things the argument concludes not It is a greater thing to make an excellent discourse then to make a shoe yet he that can doe the greater cannot doe this less An Angel cannot beget a man and yet he can doe a greater matter in that kinde of operations which we term spiritual and Angelicall And if this were concluding that whoever may be excommunicate may be kill'd then because of Excommunications the Church is confessed the sole and intire Judge she is also an absolute disposer of the lives of persons I believe this will be but ill doctrine in Spain for in Bulla Coenae Domini the King of Spain is every year excommunicated on Maunday-Thursday but if by the same power he might also be put to death as upon this ground he may the Pope might with more ease be invested in that part of Saint Peter's Patrimony which that King hath invaded and surprized But besides this it were extreme harsh Doctrine in a Roman Consistory from whence Excommunications issue for trifles for fees for not suffering themselves infinitely to be oppressed for any thing if this be greater then Death how great a tyranny is that which doth more then kill men for lesse then trifles or else how inconsequent is that argument which concludes its purpose upon so false pretence and supposition 4. Well however zealous the Apostles were against Hereticks yet none were by them or their dictates put to death The death of Ananias and Sapphira and the blindness of Elymas the Sorcerer amount not to this for they were miraculous inflictions and the first was a punishment to Vow-breach and Sacrilege the second of Sorcery and open contestation against the Religion of Jesus Christ neither of them concerned the case of this present question Or if the case were the same yet the Authority is not the same For he that inflicted these punishments was infallible and of a power competent but no man at this day is so But as yet people were converted by Miracles and Preaching and Disputing and Hereticks by the same means were redargued and all men instructed none tortured for their Opinion And this continued till Christian people were vexed by disagreeing persons and were impatient and peevish by their own too much confidence and the luxuriancy of a prosperous fortune but then they would not endure persons that did dogmatize any thing which might intrench upon their reputation or their interest And it is observable that no man nor no Age did ever teach the lawfulness of putting
of that temper and expedient but either he must lose the formality of a law and neither have power coercitive nor obligatory but ad arbitrium inferiorum or else it cannot antecedently to the particular case give leave to any sort of men to disagree or disobey 5. Secondly Suppose that a Law be made with great reason so as to satisfie divers persons pious and prudent that it complies with the necessity of Government and promotes the interest of God's service and publick order it may easily be imagined that these persons which are obedient sons of the Church may be as zealous for the publick Order and Discipline of the Church as others for their opinion against it and may be as much scandalized if disobedience be tolerated as others are if the Law be exacted and what shall be done in this case Both sorts of men cannot be complied withall because as these pretend to be offended at the Law and by consequence if they understand the consequents of their own Opinion at them that obey the Law so the others are justly offended at them that unjustly disobey it If therefore there be any on the right side as confident and zealous as they who are on the wrong side then the disagreeing persons are not to be complied with to avoid giving offence for if they be offence is given to better persons and so the mischief which such complying seeks to prevent is made greater and more unjust obedience is discouraged and disobedience is legally canonized for the result of a holy and a tender Conscience 6. Thirdly Such complying with the disagreeings of a sort of men is the total overthrow of all Discipline and it is better to make no Laws of publick Worship then to rescind them in the very constitution and there can be no end in making the Sanction but to make the Law ridiculous and the Authority contemptible For to say that complying with weak Consciences in the very framing of a Law of Discipline is the way to preserve unity were all one as to say to take away all Laws is the best way to prevent disobedience In such matters of indifferency the best way of cementing the fraction is to unite the parts in the Authority for then the question is but one viz. Whether the authority must be obeyed or not But if a permission be given of disputing the particulars the Questions become next to infinite A Mirrour when it is broken represents the object mutiplied and divided but if it be entire and through one centre transmits the species to the eye the Vision is one and natural Laws are the Mirrour in which men are to dress and compose their actions and therefore must not be broken with such clauses of exception which may without remedy be abused to the prejudice of Authority and peace and all humane Sanctions And I have known in some Churches that this pretence hath been nothing but a design to discredit the Law to dismantle the Authority that made it to raise their own credit and a trophee of their zeal to make it a characteristick note of a Sect and the cognizance of holy persons and yet the men that claimed exemption from the Laws upon pretence of having weak Consciences if in hearty expression you had told them so to their heads they would have spit in your face and were so far from confessing themselves weak that they thought themselves able to give Laws to Christendome to instruct the greatest Clerks and to catechize the Church herself And which is the worst of all they who were perpetually clamourous that the severity of the Laws should slacken as to their particular and in matter adiaphorous in which if the Church hath any Authority she hath power to make Laws to indulge a leave to them to doe as they list yet were the most imperious amongst men most decretory in their sentences and most impatient of any disagreeing from them though in the least minute and particular whereas by all the justice of the world they who perswade such a compliance in matters of fact and of so little question should not deny to tolerate persons that differ in Questions of great difficulty and contestation 7. Fourthly But yet since all things almost in the world have been made matters of dispute and the will of some men and the malice of others and the infinite industry and pertinacy of contesting and resolution to conquer hath abused some persons innocently into a perswasion that even the Laws themselves though never so prudently constituted are superstitious or impious such persons who are otherwise pious humble and religious are not to be destroyed for such matters which in themselves are not of concernment to Salvation and neither are so accidentally to such men and in such cases where they are innocently abused and they erre without purpose and design And therefore if there be a publick disposition in some persons to dislike Laws of a certain quality if it be fore-seen it is to be considered in lege dicenda and whatever inconvenience or particular offence is fore-seen is either to be directly avoided in the Law or else a compensation in the excellency of the Law and certain advantages made to out-weigh their pretensions But in lege jam dicta because there may be a necessiy some persons should have a liberty indulged them it is necessary that the Governours of the Church should be intrusted with a power to consider the particular case and indulge a liberty to the person and grant personal dispensations This I say is to be done at several times upon particular instance upon singular consideration and new emergencies But that a whole kinde of men such a kinde to which all men without possibility of being confuted may pretend should at once in the very frame of the Law be permitted to disobey is to nullifie the Law to destroy Discipline and to hallow disobedience it takes away the obliging part of the Law and makes that the thing enacted shall not be enjoyn'd but tolerated onely it destroys unity and uniformity which to preserve was the very end of such laws of Discipline it bends the Rule to the thing which is to be ruled so that the Law obeys the subject not the subject the Law it is to make a Law for particulars not upon general reason and congruity against the prudence and design of all Laws in the world and absolutely without the example of any Church in Christendome it prevents no scandal for some will be scandalized at the Authority itself some at the complying and remisness of Discipline and several men at matters and upon ends contradictory All which cannot some ought not to be complied withall 8. Sixthly The summe is this The end of the Laws of Discipline are in an immediate order to the conservation and ornament of the publick and therefore the Laws must not so tolerate as by conserving persons to destroy themselves and the publick benefit but if
diligence and labour to what sufferings or journeyings he is oblig'd for the procuring of this ministery there must be debita sollicitudo a real providential zealous care to be where it is to be had is the duty of every Christian according to his own circumstances but they who will not receive it unless it be brought to their doors may live in such places and in such times where they shall be sure to miss it and pay the price of their neglect of so great a ministery of Salvation Turpissima est jactura quae per negligentiam sit He is a Fool that loses his good by carelesness But no man is zealous for his Soul but he who not only omits no opportunity of doing it advantage when it is ready for him but makes and seeks and contrives opportunities Si non necessitate sed incuriâ voluntate remanserit as S. Clement's expression is If a man wants it by necessity it may by the overflowings of the Divine Grace be supplied but not so if negligence or choice causes the omission 3. Our way being made plain we may proceed to other places of Scripture to prove the Divine Original of Confirmation It was a Plant of our Heavenly Father's planting it was a Branch of the Vine and how it springs from the Root Christ Jesus we have seen it is yet more visible as it was dressed and cultivated by the Apostles Now as soon as the Apostles had received the Holy Spirit they preached and baptized and the inferior Ministers did the same and S. Philip particularly did so at Samaria the Converts of which place received all the Fruits of Baptism but Christians though they were they wanted a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something to make them perfect The other part of the Narrative I shall set down in the words of S. Luke Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God they sent unto them Peter and John Who when they were come down prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost For as yet he was fallen upon none of them only they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost If it had not been necessary to have added a new solemnity and ministration it is not to be supposed the Apostles Peter and John would have gone from Jerusalem to impose hands on the Baptized at Samaria Id quod deerat à Petro Joanne factum est ut Oratione pro eis habitâ manu impositâ invocaretur infunderetur super eos Spiritus Sanctus said S. Cyprian It was not necessary that they should be Baptized again only that which was wanting was performed by Peter and John that by prayer and imposition of hands the Holy Ghost should be invocated and poured upon them The same also is from this place affirmed by P. Innocentius the First S. Hierom and many others and in the Acts of the Apostles we find another instance of the celebration of this Ritual and Mystery for it is signally expressed of the Baptized Christians at Ephesus that S. Paul first Baptized them and then laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost And these Testimonies are the great warranty for this Holy Rite Quod nunc in confirmandis Neophytis manûs Impositio tribuit singulis hoc tunc Spiritûs Sancti descensio in credentium populo donavit universis said Eucherius Lugdunensis in his Homily of Pentecost The same thing that is done now in Imposition of hands on single persons is no other than that which was done upon all Believers in the descent of the Holy Ghost it is the same Ministery and all deriving from the same Authority Confirmation or Imposition of hands for the collation of the Holy Spirit we see was actually practised by the Apostles and that even before and after they preached the Gospel to the Gentiles and therefore Amalarius who entred not much into the secret of it reckons this Ritual as derived from the Apostles per consuetudinem by Catholick custom which although it is not perfectly spoken as to the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Authority of it yet he places it in the Apostles and is a witness of the Catholick succeeding custom and practice of the Church of God Which thing also Zanchius observing though he followed the sentiment of Amalarius and seemed to understand no more of it yet says well Interim says he exempla Apostolorum veteris Ecclesiae vellem pluris aestimari I wish that the Example of the Apostles and the Primitive Church were of more value amongst Christians It were very well indeed they were so but there is more in it than mere Example These examples of such solemnities productive of such spiritual effects are as S. Cyprian calls them Apostolica Magisteria the Apostles are our Masters in them and have given Rules and Precedents for the Church to follow This is a Christian Law and written as all Scriptures are for our instruction But this I shall expresly prove in the next Paragraph 4. We have seen the Original from Christ the Practice and exercise of it in the Apostles and the first Converts in Christianity that which I shall now remark is that this is established and passed into a Christian Doctrine The warranty for what I say is the words of S. Paul where the Holy Rite of Confirmation so called from the effect of this ministration and expressed by the Ritual part of it Imposition of Hands is reckoned a Fundamental point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works and of Faith towards God of the Doctrine of Baptisms and of laying on of Hands of Resurrection from the Dead and Eternal Judgment Here are six Fundamental points of S. Paul's Catechism which he laid as the Foundation or the beginning of the institution of the Christian Church and amongst these Imposition of hands is reckoned as a part of the Foundation and therefore they who deny it dig up Foundations Now that this Imposition of hands is that which the Apostles used in confirming the Baptized and invocating the Holy Ghost upon them remains to be proved For it is true that Imposition of hands signifies all Christian Rites except Baptism and the Lord's Supper not the Sacraments but all the Sacramentals of the Church it signifies Confirmation Ordination Absolution Visitation of the Sick Blessing single persons as Christ did the Children brought to him and blessing Marriages all these were usually ministred by Imposition of hands Now the three last are not pretended to be any part of this Foundation neither Reason Authority nor the Nature of the thing suffer any such pretension The Question then is between the first three First Absolution of Penitents cannot be meant here not only because we never read that the Apostles did use that Ceremony in their Absolutions
the hands of the Bishop he was not Confirmed Quo non impetrato quomodo Spiritum Sanctum obtinuisse putandus est Which having not obtain'd how can he be suppos'd to have receiv'd the Holy Spirit The same also something more fully related by Nicephorus but wholly to the same purpose Melchiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain argues excellently about the necessity and usefulness of the Holy Rite of Confirmation What does the mystery of Confirmation profit me after the mystery of Baptism Certainly we did not receive all in our Baptism if after that Lavatory we want something of another kind Let your charity attend As the Military order requires that when the General enters a Souldier into his list he does not only mark him but furnishes him with Arms for the Battel so in him that is Baptiz'd this Blessing is his Ammunition You have given Christ a Souldier give him also Weapons And what will it profit him if a Father gives a great Estate to his Son if he does not take care to provide a Tutor for him Therefore the Holy Spirit is the Guardian of our Regeneration in Christ he is the Comforter and he is the Defender I have already alledged the plain Testimonies of Optatus and S. Cyril in the first Section I add to them the words of S. Gregory Nazianzen speaking of Confirmation or the Christian signature Hoc viventi tibi maximum est tutamentum Ovis enim quae sigillo insignita est non facilè patet insidiis quae verò signata non est facilè à furibus capitur This Signature is your greatest guard while you live For a Sheep when it is mark'd with the Master's sign is not so soon stollen by Thieves but easily if she be not The same manner of speaking is also us'd by S. Basil who was himself together with Eubulus confirm'd by Bishop Maximinus Quomodo curam geret tanquam ad se pertinentis Angelus quomodo eripiat ex hostibus si non agnoverit signaculum How shall the Angel know what sheep belong unto his charge how shall he snatch them from the Enemy if he does not see their mark and signature Theodoret also and Theophylact speak the like words and so far as I can perceive these and the like sayings are most made use of by the School-men to be their warranty for an indeleble Character imprinted in Confirmation I do not interest my self in the question but only recite the Doctrine of these Fathers in behalf of the Practice and Usefulness of Confirmation I shall not need to transcribe hither those clear testimonies which are cited from the Epistles of S. Clement Vrban the First Fabianus and Cornelius the summ of them is in those plainest words of Vrban the First Omnes fideles per manûs impositionem Episcoporum Spiritum Sanctum post Baptismum accipere debent All faithful people ought to receive the Holy Spirit by Imposition of the Bishops hands after Baptism Much more to the same purpose is to be read collected by Gratian de Consecrat dist 4. Presbyt de Consecrat dist 5. Omnes fideles ibid. Spiritus Sanctus S. Hierom brings in a Luciferian asking Why he that is Baptiz'd in the Church does not receive the Holy Ghost but by Imposition of the Bishop's hands The answer is Hanc observâ—tionem ex Scripturae authoritate ad Sacerdotii honorem descendere This observation for the honour of the Priesthood did descend from the authority of the Scriptures adding withall it was for the prevention of Schisms and that the Safety of the Church did depend upon it Exigis ubi scriptum est If you ask where it is written it is answered in Actibus Apostolorum It is written in the Acts of the Apostles But if there were no authority of Scripture for it totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret the Consent of the whole Christian World in this Article ought to prevail as a Commandment But here is a twofold Chord Scripture and Universal Tradition or rather Scripture expounded by an Universal traditive interpretation The same observation is made from Scripture by S. Chrysostom The words are very like those now recited from S. Hierom's Dialogue and therefore need not be repeated S. Ambrose calls Confirmation Spiritale signaculum quod post fontem superest ut perfectio fiat A spiritual Seal remaining after Baptism that Perfection be had Oecumenius calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perfection Lavacro peccata purgantur Chrismate Spiritus Sanctus superfunditur utraque verò ista manu ore Antistitis impetramus said Pacianus Bishop of Barcinona In Baptism our sins are cleans'd in Confirmation the Holy Spirit is pour'd upon us and both these we obtain by the hands and mouth of the Bishop And again vestrae plebi unde Spiritus quam non consignat unctus Sacerdos The same with that of Cornelius in the case of Novatus before cited I shall add no more lest I overset the Article and make it suspicious by too laborious a defence only after these numerous testimonies of the Fathers I think it may be useful to represent that this Holy Rite of Confirmation hath been decreed by many Councils The Council of Eliberis celebrated in the time of P. Sylvester the First decreed that whosoever is Baptiz'd in his sickness if he recover ad Episcopum eum perducat ut per manûs impositionem perfici possit Let him be brought to the Bishop that he may be perfected by the Imposition of hands To the same purpose is the 77. Can. Episcopus eos per benedictionem perficere debebit The Bishop must perfect those whom the Minister Baptiz'd by his Benediction The Council of Laodicea decreed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that are Baptized must be anointed with the celestial Unction and so be partakers of the Kingdom of Christ. All that are so that is are Confirm'd for this celestial Unction is done by holy Prayers and the invocation of the Holy Spirit so Zonaras upon this Canon All such who have this Unction shall reign with Christ unless by their wickedness they preclude their own possessions This Canon was put into the Code of the Catholick Church and makes the 152. Canon The Council of Orleans affirms expresly that he who is Baptiz'd cannot be a Christian meaning according to the usual style of the Church a full and perfect Christan nisi confirmatione Episcopali suerit Chrismatus unless he have the Unction of Episcopal Confirmation But when the Church had long disputed concerning the re-baptizing of Hereticks and made Canons for and against it according as the Heresies were and all agreed that if the first Baptism had been once good it could never be repeated yet they thought it fit that such persons should be Confirm'd by the Bishop all supposing Confirmation to be the perfection and consummation of the less-perfect Baptism Thus the
his posterity 870 874. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose the liberty of will 874. The sin of Adam is not in us properly and formally a sin 876. His sin to his posterity is not damnable 877. Of the Covenant God made with Adam 914. The Law of works onely imposed on him 587 n. 1. What evil we really had from Adam's fall 748 n. 14. The following of Adam cannot be original sin 764 n. 28. The fall of Adam lost us not heaven 748 n. 3 4. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 748 n. 4. Adam was made mortal 779 n. 4. Those evils that were the effects of Adam's fall are not in us sins properly inherent 750 n. 8. His sin made us not heirs of damnation 714 n. 22. nor makes us necessarily vicious 717 n. 39. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a physical efficiency 717 n. 40. nor because we were in his loins 717 n. 41. nor because of the decree of God 717 n. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What latitude of signification it hath 809 n. 39. Aelfrick Who lived in England about A. D. 996. determines against Transubstantiation 266 n. 12. Aerius How he could be an heretick being his errour was not against any fundamental article 150 ss 48. He was never condemned by any general Council 150 ss 48. The heresie of the Acephali what it was 151 ss 48. Aggravate No circumstance aggravates sin so much as that of the injured person 614 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word in the Scripture 639 n. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 638 n. 14. Alms. Are a part of repentance 848 n. 81. How they operate in order to pardon ibid. It is one of the best penances 860 n. 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 617 n. 21. and 619 n. 26. S. Ambrose He was both Bishop and Prefect of Milane at one time 160 ss 49. His testimony against transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority for confirmation by Presbyters considered 19 b. 20 b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The notion of the word 809 n. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The importance of the word 617 n. 122. Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.10 explained 58. § 9. Of worshipping them 467. Antiquity The reverence that is due to it 882. Apostle Whence that name was taken 48 § 4. Bishops were successours of the Apostles ibid. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ep. to Philip. 2.25 does not signifie Messenger but Apostle 49 § 4. That Bishops were successours in their office to the Apostles was the judgement of antiquity 59 § 10. St. James Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the twelve Apostles 48 § 4. Apostles in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 85 § 23. That the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Of the Canons that go under their names 981 n. 9. The Apostles were by Christ invested with an equal authority 308. S. Peter did not act as having any superiority over the other Apostles 310 § 10. c. l. 1. Arius His preaching his errours was the cause why in Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach 128 § 37. How the Orthodox complied with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum 441. How his heresie began 958 n. 26. The opinion of Constantine the Great concerning the heresie of Arius 959 n. 26. How the opposition against his heresie was managed 958 959 960 n. 26 ad 36. Art How much it changes nature 652 n. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of the word 665 n. 18. and 637 n. 8. Athanasius The questions and answers to Antiochus under his name are spurious 544. He intended not his Creed to be imposed on others 963. Concerning his Creed ibid. n. 36. His Creed was first written in Latine then translated into Greek 963 n. 36. Attrition What it is 842 n. 63. and 828 n. 25. The difference between it and contrition ibid. Attrition joyned with absolution by the Priest that it is not sufficient demonstrated by many arguments 830 n. 33. Attrition joyned with confession to a Priest and his absolution is not equal to contrition 842 n. 62 64. S. Augustine He was employed in secular affairs at Hippo as well as Ecclesiastical 161 § 49. His authority against Transubstantiation 261 262 § 12. Of his rule to try traditions Apostolical 432. Gratian quotes that out of him that certainly never was in his writings 451. He prayed for his dead mother when he believed her to be in heaven 501 502. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no article of faith in his time 506. The Purgatory that Augustine sometimes mentions is not the Roman Purgatory 507 508. His authority in the matter of Transubstantiation 525 His zeal against the Pelagians was the occasion of his mistake in interpreting Rom. VII 15 775 n. 18. His inconstancy in the question whether concupiscence be a sin 913. Austerity Of the acts of austerity in Religion of what use they are 955 n. 18. Authority That is most effectual which is seated in the Conscience 160 § 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the Apostle means by it Tit. III. 11 780 n. 30. and 951 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 689 n. 5. B. Baptism THE doctrine of Infant-Baptism relieth not upon tradition onely but Scripture too 425 426. S. Ambrose S. Hierome and S. Augustine though born of Christian parents were not baptized till they were at full age 425. The reason why the Church baptizeth Infants 426. An answer to that saying of Perron's That there is no place of Scripture whereby we can certainly convince the Anabaptists 426. The validity of the baptism of hereticks is not to be proved by tradition without Scripture 426 427. Of the salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. Of the Scripture Liturgy in an unknown tongue 471. The promise of quorum remiseritis is by some understood of Baptism 486. Of the pardon of sins after baptism 802 n. 7. Saint Cyprian and S. Chrysostome's testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. The principle on which the necessity of Infants baptism is grounded 426 and 718 n. 42. Sins committed after it may be pardoned by repentance 802 n. 8 9. It admits us into the Covenant of repentance 803 n. 10. If we labour not under the guilt of original sin why in our infancy are we baptized That objection answered 884. The state of unbaptized Infants 897. The difference between this Chrism and that of Confirmation 20 b. The difference between Baptism and Confirmation as to the use 26 b. Of the change
n. 22. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. Church Neither it alone nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by substitution ibid. No Church-presidency ever given to the Laiety 114 § 36. Whether secular power can give prohibitions against the power of the Church 122. § 36. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold-cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church 165 § 51. What the Church signifieth 382 383. Wicked men are not true members of it 383. In what sense Saint Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth 386 387. What truth that is of which the Church is the pillar 387. Whether the representative Church be infallible 389. The word Church is never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Of the meaning of that of our Lord Tell the Church 389. Of the notes of the Church 402. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. Some rites which the Apostles injoyned the Christian Church does not now practise 430. The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to salvation 436. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. The authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between authority quoad nos in se it salves not the difficulty 451. Eckius's pitiful Argument to prove the authority of the Church to be above the Scripture 451. The Church is such a Judge of Controversies that they must all be decided before you can find him 1012. Success and worldly prosperity no note of the true Church 1018. Clemens Alexandrinus His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. In Vossius his opinion he understood not original sin 759 n. 20. Clergy The word Church never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Clinicks Objections against the repentance of Clinicks 678 n. 57. and 677 n. 56. and 679 n. 64. Heathens newly baptized if they die immediately need no other repentance ibid. The objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered 681 n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against the repentance of Clinicks 682 n. 66. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed 695 n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of Clinicks 696 n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have according to the opinion of the Fathers of the Church 696 697 n. 30. The manner how the ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks 699 n. 5. The particular acts and parts of repentance that are fittest for a dying man 700 n. 32. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks 804. The repentance of Clinicks 853 n. 96. Colossians Chap. 2.18 explained 781 n. 31. Commandment Of the difference between S. Augustine and S. Hierome in the proposition about the possibility of keeping God's Commandments 579 n. 30. Communicate To doe it in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 § 3. Commutations When they were first set up 292. Amends may be made for some sins by a commutation of duties 648 68. Comparative Instances in Texts of Scripture wherein comparative and restrained negatives are set down in an absolute form 229 § 10. Concupiscence It is not a mortal sin till it proceeds farther 776 n. 20. It is an evil but not a sin 734 n. 84. It is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin 752 n. 11. Natural inclinations are but sins of infirmity 789 n. 50. Where it is not consented to it is no sin 752 n. 11. and 765 n. 30. and 767 n. 39. and 898 907 909 911 912 876. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin 766 n. 32. It is not original sin 911. The inconstancy of S. Augustine about it 913. Confession According to the Roman doctrine Confession does not restrain sin and quiets not the Conscience 315 § 2. c. 2. A right confesfession according to the Roman Doctrine is not possible 316 § 3. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken if it be to save the life of the Prince or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Roman doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Nectarius abolished the custome of having sins published in the Church 474 488 492. That the seal of confession is broken among them upon divers great occasions 475. Whether to confess all our great sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. Of the harmony of Confession made by the Reformed 899. Nothing of auricular confession to a Priest in Scripture 479. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for auricular confession 491. Auricular confession made an instrument to carry on unlawful plots 488 489. Father Arnold Confessor to Lewis XIII of France did cause the King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him 489. Auricular confession leaves behind it an eternal scruple upon the Conscience 489. Auricular confession is an instance of the Romanists teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 477. Confession is a necessary act of repentance 830 n. 34. It is due to God 831. Why we are to confess sins to God who knoweth them before 832 n. 37. What properly is meant by it ibid. Auricular confession whence it descended 833 41. Confession to a Priest is no part of contrition ibid. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834. Rules concerning the practice of confession 854 n. 100. Shame should not hinder confession 855 n. 104. A rule to be observed by the Minister that receiveth confession 856 n. 105. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857 n. 109. Confession in preparation to the Sacrament 857 n. 110. Confirmation It was not to expire with the age of the Apostles 53 § 8. Photius was the first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The words Signator consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifie Baptismal unction 110 § 33. The great benefit and need of the rite of Confirmation in the Church Ep. ded to that Treatise pag. 2. The Latine Church would have sold the title of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. ded pag. 5. The Papists hold Confirmation to be a Sacrament and yet not necessary 3. b. That it is a Divine Ordinance 3 4. b. Of the necessity of
Confirmation 8. b. That the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews speaking of laying on of hands meaneth Confirmation and not Absolution nor Ordination 10 11. b. It was to continue down to all ages of the Church 13 14. b. Confirmation proved by the Testimony of the Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Church 15. b. Of the authority of S. Ambrose and Pope Sylvester alledged to prove that Confirmation may be administred by Presbyters 19 20 ss 4. b. The difference between the Chrism of Confirmation and Baptism 20. b. Friers Regulars and Jesuites did in England challenge by Commission from the Pope a power of administring Confirmation though they were but Presbyters 21. b. The difference as to the use between Confirmation and Baptism 26. b. The blessings and graces usually conveyed by Episcopal Confirmation 25 26. b. The Ceremonies of it 24 25. b. Of the change made in us by it 28. b. Confirmation was usually administred at the same time with Baptism 29. b. The reason was because few were then baptized but adult persons ibid. The Apostles were not confirmed till after they had received the Sacrament of our Lord's Supper 30. b. Whether Confirmation be administred more opportunely in infancy or in our riper years 29 30. b. Whether it can be administred more then once 32. b. On what account the Primitive Christians did confirm hereticks reduced and reconciled 32. b. Conscience That authority is most effectual which is seated there 160 § 49. The Church of Rome arrogates to her self an Empire over Consciences 461. The niceties that every Ideot must trouble his Conscience with that worships Images in the way of the Romanists 548. How the religious man's Conscience is intangled by some modern errours that are allowed Pref. to Discourse of Repentance The contention between the flesh and conscience no sign of Regeneration 781 n. 31. How to know which prevails in this contention ibid. Consequent The manner of the Scripture is to include the consequent in the antecedent 679 n. 62. Consignare Of the sense of that word in the ancient Church 20. b. Contrition A description of Contrition 829 n. 28 29. The efficacy of it in repentance 670 n. 61. What it is 821 n. 5. The difference between it and Attrition 828. It must not be mistaken for a single act 829 n. 31. 1 Corinth Chap. 11. v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 58 § 9. and 11.29 Eateth and drinketh unworthily explained 218 § 8. and 898. and 6.12 expl 619 n. 23. and 10.23 ibid. and 2.14 expl 723 n. 53. and 785 n. 44. and 11.27 expl 814 n. 59. 2 Corinth Chap. 15.21 expl 712 n. 15. and 12.21 expl 803 n. 12. and 1.21 22. Now he which confirmeth us and hath anointed and sealed expl 28. b. Corporal Austerities Or penances 858 n. 111. They are not simply necessary ibid. Corporal Afflictions are not of repentance 846 n. 75. How they are to be used 846 847 n. 76 77. The Primitive Christians did not believe them simply necessary 847 n. 78 79. Covenant Reasons why with a Covenant of works God began this intercourse with man 575. The opposition between the new and old Covenant is not in respect of faith and works 588 n. 7. Councils Presbyters had not the power of voting in them 136 § 41. That of Basil was the first in which Presbyters in their own right were admitted to vote 136 § 41. Presbyters as such did not vote in that first Oecumenical Council Act. 15. p. 137 § 41. The people had de facto no vote in that Council ibid. The sixth Canon of the Council of Sevil objected and explained 147 § 44. Aërius was never condemned by any general Council 150 § 48. In the first council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick that believes right but separates from his Bishop 151 § 48. The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Council of Trent decreed a Proposition in matter of fact that was past 290. c. 1. § 2. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to God himself 267 § 13. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. The authority of a general Council against publick prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The Council of Eliberis and the Synod of Francford were against the worship of Images 306. The Council of Chalcedon did by decree give to the Bishop of Constantinople equal privileges with Rome 310. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders 325 c. 2. § 7. Even among the Romanists the authority of general Councils is but precarious 391. Hard to tell which are General Councils 392 393. The last Lateran Council is at Rome esteemed a general Council but in France and Germany none at all 392. General Councils not infallible 392. Instances of General Councils that have been condemned by the succeeding 393. How to know which are General Councils 393. It cannot be known who have voices in Councils who not 394. The Laiety were sometime admitted to vote in Councils 394 395. What if two parties call each their Council 395. How shall the decision be in a Council if the Bishops be divided in their opinions 395. Who hath power to call a general Council 395. Of a general Council confirmed by the Pope 395. A general Council in many cases cannot have the Pope's confirmation 396. Whether the Pope be above a Council 396. The Divinity of the H. Ghost was not decreed in the Council of Nice 424. The questions that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. How many of the Orthodox did begin to comply with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum 441. The definitions of general Councils were not so binding in the Primitive Church 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds ibid. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in the behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. What passed in the Lateran Council concerning Transubstantiation 519. Neither Transubstantiation nor any thing else was in the Lateran Council decreed 519. The same Council that decreed Transubstantiation made Rebellion the duty of subjects 520. Of the second Council of Nice and that of Francford and the Capitular of Charles the Great 540 541. Of the testimony of the Eliberitane Council against Images 538. Of the Council of the Apostles held at Jerusalem mentioned Act. 15. p. 948 n. 3. Of Councils Ecclesiastical 948 § 6. per tot Concilium Sinuessanum a forged one 991 n. 9. Reasons why decrees of Councils in defining controversies lay no obligation 986 987 988 989 ad fin sect Saint Augustine teacheth that the decrees of general Councils are as much subject to amendment as the letters of private Bishops 991 n. 8. The Roman Council under
calling himself Universal Bishop 310. Saint Peter did not act as having any superiority over the Apostles 310 c. 1. § 10. There is nothing in Scripture to prove that the Bishop of Rome succeeds Saint Peter in that power he had more then any other 310. Pope Victor and Pope Stephen were opposed by other Bishops 310. The Council of Chalcedon did by decree give to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priviledges with Rome 310. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders 325 c. 2. § 7. It is held ominous for a Pope to canonize a Saint 333 c. 2. § 9. The Romanists teach the Pope hath power to dispense with all the Laws of God 342. He hath power as the Romanists teach to dispose of the temporal things of all Christians 344. He is to be obeyed according to their doctrine though he command Sin or forbid Vertue 345. He takes upon him to depose Princes that are not heretical 345. The greatness of the Pope's power 345. Sixtus Quintus did in an Oration in the Conclave solemnly commend the Monk that kill'd Henry III. of France 346 c. 3. § 3. Of the Pope's confirming a General Council 395. A General Council in many cases cannot have the Pope's Confirmation 396. Whether the Pope be above a Council 396. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing Hereticks Saint Cyprian regarded it not nor changed his opinion 399. Sixtus V. and some other Popes were Simoniacal 401. A Simoniacal Pope is no Pope ibid. An Heretical Pope is no Pope ibid. What Popes have been heretical 401 402. What Popes have been guilty of those crimes that disannul their authority 400 401 402. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of Faith 446 447. Of his Infallibility 995 § 7. per tot He the Romanists teach can make new Articles of Faith and new Scripture 450. The Roman Writers reckon the Decretal Epistles of Popes among the Holy Scriptures 451. Bellarmine confesseth that for 1500 years the Pope's judgment was not esteemed infallible 453. A strange unintelligible Indulgence given by two Popes about the beginning of the Council of Trent 498. An instance of a Pope's skill in the Bible 505. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. The same Pope that decreed Transubstantiation made Rebellion lawful 520. When the Pope excommunicated Saint Cyprian all Catholicks absolved him 957 n. 22. Some Papists hold that the Popedome is separable from the Bishoprick of Rome how then can he get any thing by the title of Succession 999. Divers ancient Bishops lived separate from the Communion of the Roman Pope 1002. The Bishops of Liguria and Istria renounced subjection to the Patriarchate of Rome and set up one of their own at Aquileia ibid. Divers Popes were Hereticks 1003. Possible Two senses of it 580 n. 34. Prayer The practice of the Heathens in their prayers and hymns to their gods 3 n. 11. Against them that deny all Set forms of Prayer 2 n. 6. seq Against those that allow any Set forms of prayer but those that are enjoyned by Authority 13 n. 51. Prescribed forms in publick are more for the edification of the Church then the other kind 14 n. 56. ad 65. The Lord's Prayer was given to be a Directory not onely for the matter of prayer but the manner or form too 19 n. 75. The Church hath the gift of Prayer and can exercise it in none but prescribed Forms 18 n. 69 70. Our Lord gave his Prayer to be not onely a Copy but a prescribed Form 19 n. 78. The practice of the Primitive Church in this matter 21 n. 86. Whether the Primitive Church did well in using publick prescribed Forms of Prayer and upon what grounds 25 n. 97. An answer to that Objection That Set forms limit the Spirit 30 n. 116. That Objection that Ministers may be allowed a liberty in their Prayers as well as their Sermons answered 32 n. 129. What in the sense of Scripture is praying with the Spirit 9 n. 37. and 47. The Romanists teach that neither attention nor devotion are required in our prayers 327 c. 2. § 8. Of the Scripture and Liturgy in an unknown tongue 471. A Pope gave leave to the Moravians to have Mass in the Sclavonian tongue 534. Of Prayer as a fruit or act of Repentance 848 n. 80. It is one of the best penances 860 n. 114. Those testimonies of the Fathers that prove Prayer for the dead do not prove Purgatory 295. The opinion and practice of the ancient Church in the language of publick Prayers 303 304. The Papists corrupted the Imperial law of Justinian in the matter of Prayers in an unknown tongue 304 c. 1. § 7. The authority of a Pope and General Council against publick Prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick Prayer 328 c. 2. § 8. Prayer for the dead The Primitive Fathers that practised it did not think of Purgatory 501. Saint Augustine prayed for his dead Mother when he believed her to be a Saint in Heaven 501 502. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. Communicantes offerentes pro sanctis proved to mean prayer and not thanksgiving onely 502. Instances out of the Latin Missal where prayers are made for those that were dead and yet not in Purgatory 505. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers 512. Preach Presbyters in Africk by Law were not allowed to preach upon occasion of Arius preaching his errours 128 § 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyter Tit. 1.15 it signifies Bishop and not mere Presbyter 71 § 15. Presbyters in Jerusalem were something more then Presbyters in other Churches 97 § 21. Those Presbyters mentioned Act. 20.28 in these words in quo Spir. Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos were Bishops and not mere Presbyters 80 § 21. Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by delegation 82 § 21. In what sense it is true that Bishops are not greater then Presbyters 83 § 21. Bishops in Scripture are styled Presbyters 85 § 23. Apostles in Scripture styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 85 § 23. Mere Presbyters in Scripture are never called Bishops 86 § 23. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining a Bishop 98 § 31. Presbyters could not ordain 102 § 32. The Council of Sardis would not own them as Presbyters who were ordained by none but Presbyters 103 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter 105 § 32. Photius was â—he first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The Bishop alone could
the third Council of Toledo complains and makes remedy commanding Vt omnia secundum constitutionem antiquam ad Episcopi ordinationem potestatem pertineant The same is renewed in the fourth Council of Toledo Noverint autem conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conserunt nullam se potestatem habere sed juxta Canonum instituta sicut Ecclesiam ita dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere These Councils I produce not as Judges but as witnesses in the business for they give concurrent testimony that as the Church it self so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishops disposition by the Ancient Canons For so the third Council of Toledo calls it antiquam Constitutionem and it self is almost 1100 years old so that still I am precisely within the bounds of the Primitive Church though it be taken in a narrow sence For so it was determined in the great Council of Chalcedon commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop SECT XXXIX Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocess or to travel without leave of the Bishop ADDE to this that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not go to another Diocess So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles under pain of suspension or deposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the censure and that especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he would not return when his Bishop calls him The same is renewed in the Council of Antioch cap. 3. and in the Council of Constantinople in Trullo cap. 17. the censure there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fix himself in the Diocess of another Bishop But with license of his Bishop he may Sacerdotes vel alii Clerici concessione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare But this is frequently renewed in many other Synodal decrees these may suffice for this instance * But this not leaving the Diocess is not only meant of promotion in another Church but Clergy-men might not travel from City to City without the Bishops license which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico but extends it almost to a despotick But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of duty and Clerical subordination to their Bishop The Council of Laodicea commands a Priest or Clergy-man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to travel without Canonical or dimissory letters And who are to grant these letters is expressed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priest or a Clerk must not travel without the command of his Bishop and this prohibition is inserted into the body of the Law De consecrat dist 5. can non oportet which puts in the clause of Neque etiam Laicum but this was beyond the Council The same is in the Council of Agatho The Council of Venice adds a censure that those Clerks should be like persons excommunicate in all those places whither they went without letters of license from their Bishop The same penalty is inflicted by the Council of Epaunum Presbytero vel Diaecono sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat The first Council of Tourayne in France and the third Council of Orleans attest the self-same power in the Bishop and duty in all his Clergy SECT XL. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased BUT a Coercitive authority makes not a compleat jurisdiction unless it be also remunerative and the Princes of the Nations are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors for it is but half a tye to indear obedience when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit that which cannot profit And therefore the Primitive Church to make the Episcopal Jurisdiction up intire gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocess to the higher Orders and nearer degrees of approximation to himself and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted Item placuit ut quicunque Clerici vel Diaconi pro necessitatibus Ecclesiarum non obtemperaverit Episcopis suis volentibus eos ad honorem ampliorem in sua Ecclesia promovere nec illic ministrent in gradu suo unde recedere noluerunt So it is decreed in the African Code They that will not by their Bishop be promoted to a greater honour in the Church must not enjoy what they have already But it is a question of great consideration and worth a strict inquiry in whom the right and power of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church for the right and the power did not always go together and also several Orders had several manners of election Presbyters and inferior Clergy were chosen by the Bishop alone the Bishop by a Synod of Bishops or by their Chapter And lastly because of late strong outcries are made upon several pretensions amongst which the people make the biggest noise though of all their title to election of Clerks be most empty therefore let us consider it upon all its grounds 1. In the Acts of the Apostles which are most certainly the best precedents for all acts of holy Church we find that Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church and they passed through Lystra Iconium Antioch and Derbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointing them Elders * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and he says of himself and Titus For this cause I sent thee to Crete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That thou shouldest appoint Presbyters or Bishops be they which they will in every City The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that the whole action was his For that he ordained them no man questions but he also appointed them and that was saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I commanded thee It was therefore an Apostolical ordinance that the Bishop should appoint Presbyters Let there be half so much shown for the people and I will also endeavour to promote their interest *** There is only one pretence of a popular election in Scripture It is of the seven that were set over the widows * But first this was no part of the hierarchy This was no cure of souls This was no divine institution It was in the dispensation of monies It was by command of the Apostles the election was made and they might recede from their own right It was to satisfie the multitude It was to avoid scandal which in the dispensation of monies might easily arise It was in a temporary office It was with such limitations and conditions as the Apostles prescribed them It was out of the number of the 70 that the election was made if we may believe S. Epiphanius so that they