Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A33898
|
An answer to the Animadversions on two pamphlets lately published by Mr. Collier, &c.
|
Collier, Jeremy, 1650-1726.
|
1696
(1696)
|
Wing C5242; ESTC R18797
|
14,577
|
23
|
AN ANSWER TO THE Animadversions ON TWO PAMPHLETS Lately Publish'd By Mr. COLLIER c. BEFORE I engage the Argument it may not be amiss to premise one Word concerning the Performance This Author has rallyed the Old Objections against the Absolution of Sir William Perkins drawn them up in a new Figure and proposed them in a Method of Advantage And to do him justice in the first part of his Undertaking He may be said to have done something more He seems to have reinforced the Bishops Declaration with some New Observations and Reasonings of his own His Objections against my Conduct in the Absolution are branched into two general Heads The one relates to the Church the other to the State I shall begin with this Gentleman in his own Method His first Attempt is to take off the Testimonies of Antiquity from which I had sufficiently proved that Absolution with Imposition of Hands was the general Practice of the Antient Church The Animadverter grants the Proof of this Point but disputes the Application The Absolution says he in which those Antients made use of Imposition of Hands was not such an Absolution as that in which Mr. C was concern'd But an Absolution of Persons Excommunicated and given them at their Reconcilement to the Church To disarm this Objection I shall endeavour to make good three things First That upon the Animadverter's own Principles Imposition of Hands could not be confined to the Occasions he mentions without great Reflection upon the Antients Secondly That supposing all my Instances of Antiquity did relate to Excommunicated Persons c. this does not make them unserviceable to the Purpose they were brought for Thirdly That in Fact Absolution with Imposition of Hands was given in other Cases besides the Reconcilement of Offenders 1st That upon the Animadverter's Principles Imposition of Hands could not be confin'd to the Occasions he mentions without great Reflection upon the Antients The Animadverter affirms That the Fathers look'd upon those to whom this Ceremony was applyed as deprived of the Holy Ghost But that the Antient Church did not always suppose This will appear if we consider that as the Animadverter observes Imposition of Hands was given after the Point of Satisfaction was adjusted This Ceremony in the Animadverter's Opinion was a Ratification of Articles between the Penitent and the Church It supposed the Peace concluded and gave an Admission to the Priviledges of the former Allyance Now in many cases this Satisfaction could not be made without running through a long Course of Pennance without extraordinary Abstinence and a great many other Instances of Discipline and Mortification They were abridged in almost all the Entertainments and Conveniencies of Life and passed their Time worse than common Poverty could have used them Their Habit and Devotions their Retirement and publick Appearance were all of them apparent Signs of unusual Severity and Sorrow and Submission And these Exercises of Humiliation were sometimes continued for several Years A Humiliation which had admirable effects upon the Christians of those Times And as the Apostle speaks in a like case What Carefullness did it work in them What clearing of themselves What Indignation What Fear c. 2 Cor. vii 11. And can a Man practise all these Rigours upon himself and subdue the Powers of Custom and Inclination without the Assistance of the Holy Ghost Is it possible to begin Repentance and carry it on through to many Stages of length and difficulty by the pure Abilities of Nature Can a Man practise so many prodigious Instances of Self-denyal and not be under the Conduct of a Divine Influence This is to deny the necessity of Grace to make the Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Vertue and to give away the Antients to the Heresie of Pelagius 'T is true the Antient Church did use Imposition of Hands as a Mark of Authority and a Circumstance of Paternal Benediction She believ'd without doubt this Application a Recommendation to God's Favour and that the Communications of his Spirit were enlarged upon such an Expedient This Perswasion is agreeable to the Doctrine and Practise of the Scriptures And upon this view I suppose it is that our Church lays on her Hands at Ordination But as our Church is far from supposing those who appear for Orders to be no true Christians So neither did the Antients always look upon those they Absolved with Imposition of Hands under such an uncomfortable Notion They could not look upon them as entirely abandoned by Heaven or if they had believed them in this unsupported Condition they would never have deferred their Assistance so long nor refus'd them the releiving Ceremony till Pennance was over and Satisfaction made as the Animadverter asserts 2dly Supposing all my Instances from Antiquity did relate to Excommunicated Persons c. this does not make them unserviceable to the Purpose for which they were brought To take off the force of these Authorities the Animadverter ought to prove That the Antients forbad Imposition of Hands or at least forbore it in all other Cases of Absolution besides those above-mentioned But this he has not in the least attempted I have sufficiently proved that giving Absolution with Imposition of Hands was the general Practise of the Primitive Church Does it not therefore lie upon the Animadverter to prove That this Ceremony was appropriated to the more solemn and publick Cases of Absolution by him recited Ought he not to make good this Point by some Fact or Doctrine by some Affirmation or Instance of Antiquity All the Precedents produced are on my side and many more might be alledged to the same purpose So that unless the Animadverter can show that Absolution in the more ordinary Cases was generally given without Imposition of Hands and that in the Opinion of the Antients the Necessities of Dying Persons were reckoned among ordinary Cases unless he can show this it must follow in contradiction to what he asserts That I have the practise of the Primitive Church for my Justification If he insists That the Cases ought to have been proved exactly parallel To this I answer at present that there is no necessity for such a Performance For we are to observe That the Remains of the Primitive Church with Relation to Rites and Discipline are very imperfect The antient Liturgies are most of them lost That little which stands upon Record was in all likelyhood most remarkable by which we have reason to believe the more common Instances were regulated Churches don't use to alter the Solemnities of an Office upon every diversity of Occasion To do this without weighty Considerations would argue Inconstancy weaken the Notion of Authority and introduce Disorder and Neglect But 3dly I shall produce some direct Proofs That Absolution with Imposition of Hands was given in other Cases besides those of the Reconcilement of Offenders This Assertion I shall endeavour to make out by three Arguments The first That Imposition of Hands was given before
Satisfaction made to the Church as well as after Secondly That it was applyed to those who were not under Censure Thirdly That private Pennance was perform'd with the same Rites with that which was publick 1st That Imposition of Hands was given before Satisfaction as well as after It was used at the beginning of Pennance as a Ceremony of Entrance into that State To mention some Authorities Optatus will afford us two Instances very full to our Purpose This Father tells us That the Bishops of the Donatists Faction pretended that the Ordination of Caecilian was null because his Ordainer Foelix was a Traditor Caecilian being willing to stifle the Schisme before it became too flagrant very frankly offers himself to be re-ordained Upon this Purpurius a Donatist Bishop out of his customary Malice as Optatus observes breaks out into this Expression Let him come says he as if he was to receive Imposition of Hands in order to be made a Bishop and then we will put him under Pennance with this Ceremony This Father elsewhere complains of these Schismaticks for patting the Clergy under Pennance by Imposition of Hands That herein they contradicted the Practise of the Catholick Church and inflicted those Punishments upon a lower Pretence which were not imposed on Bishops tho' guilty of Idolatry And here we may see Imposition of Hands was sometimes taken for Pennance and sometimes for Reconciliation as the Reader may be informed if he pleases That it was given at the beginning of Pennance may be farther proved from all those Canons which forbid Imposition of Hands at the Degradation of the Clergy And here I might cite several Councils but to avoid length I shall only produce the 11th Canon of the 5th Council of Carthage by which 't is decreed That if any Priests or Deacons are convicted of any great Crimes for which they must be Degraded Non eis manus tanquam poenitentibus vel tanquam Fidelibus Laicis imponatur i.e. Let not Hands be laid on them either as Penitents or as Faithful Laicks From hence I shall observe two things First That Imposition of Hands was introductive to a Course of Pennance and not always a Mark of Privilege and Reconciliation as the Animadverter affirms 'T was sometimes the Beginning of Discipline and Sorrows and of Exclusion from Church-Communion So that the reason why the Canon forbids laying on of Hands upon the Clergy at their Degrading is because this Ceremony would have put them under Pennance and Pennance besides the rigour of the Discipline would have barr'd them the Privileges of Communion Now this would have been punishing twice for one Fault which was contrary to the Apostles Canons and the Practise of the Primitive Church And therefore those Crimes which were Excommunication in the Laity went no farther than Degradation in the Clergy The loss of Orders being then reckon'd a Punishment as it were equivalent to Excommunication I observe farther from this Canon and bring it as a second Argument for the Point That Imposition of Hands was given to the Faithful Now the Faithful and the Penitents both in the Language of this Canon and in the known sence of Antiquity are two ranks of Christians contradistinguish'd and opposed to each other They were distinctly plaeed in the Church and the first were admitted to the Blessed Sacrament and to all the Prayers and Advantages of Communion which the other had not Now that Imposition of Hands usually receiv'd by the Faithful was an Absolution-Imposition and had some Confessionary reference I prove thus in a word Either this Imposition c. must relate to Absolution or Confirmation To Confirmation it cannot because 't is prohibited in the Canon by way of Moderation and Abatement of Rigour But Confirmation was always thought a Privilege not a Punishment 'T is plain therefore by the Supposals and Implication of the Canon that Imposition of Hands was customarily given to the Faithful that is to those who were under no Censure and Given them at their Absolution upon their Confession of those Sins which were thought too light for Excommunication 3 dly Private Pennance was perform'd with the same Rites with that which was Publick The difference between these two consisted only in the Abatement of the Solemnity In some circumstances which were to be perform'd by Assistance But the Priest's Office was the same in both By consequence the first must have Imposition of Hands no less than the later Now private Pennance was transacted between the Priest and the Penitent and therefore there could be no precedent Excommunication to make way for such a Reconcilement as the Animadverter supposes I say there could be no precedent Excommunication for such a Censure does not use to be made a Secret but passed in the Face of the Congregation Indeed without publick notice the Censure could not be executed the Excommunicated Person could not be treated with that Distance not refused in Church-Correspondence as the Punishment required The Learned Morinus above-mention'd cites Marianus Victorius to prove that no one was absolved without Imposition of Hands And for this Marianus quotes a Synod under Charles the Great And in his Book de Poenitentiis publicis He affirms That every Absolution consisted of two things i. e. Imposition of Hands and Prayer That this Imposition of Hands was twofold Publick and Private That is called Publick which is publickly perform'd in the Church before the Congregation That is called Private which is given at Home or at any private place Morinus brings several other Authorities to the same purpose And thus the Animadverter may please to take notice that Imposition of Hands in Absolution was practis'd in other Cases besides those which relate to the publick Reconcilement of Offenders The Animadverter goes on and endeavours to shew that the Plea of Antiquity tho' never so well furnish'd with resembling Cases will not justifie my Proceedings in Absolving with Imposition of Hands Animad pag. 6. His Reasoning stands upon this Ground That Rites and Ceremonies are not unalterable in their own nature but are liable to be chang'd or abolish'd as Circumstances require at the discretion of every Particular or National Church For this he cites Tertullian and the 34 th Article of our own Church I grant the Animadverter all this but which way 't will affect me is not so easie to determine I never asserted the Necessity of Imposition of Hands or that Absolution was imperfect without it Neither does my Practise suppose any such thing Well! But this Ceremony is not retain'd in the Church of England and therefore the Practise of the African Church tho' never so Primitive is no sufficient Warrant For good Order and Vniformity require that Particular Ministers should not make use of any Ceremonies but what the Church and Law amongst us prescribe Animad p. 7 8. In answer to this I can't help taking notice of his saying that a Minister of the Church of England is not to govern himself