Christo Deo ad confederandam Disciplinam Homicidium Adulterium Fraudem Perfidiam caetera scelera prohibentes That hee had discovered nothing of their Sacraments or Mysteries besides obstinacy not to sacrifice but assemblies before day to sing praises to Christ and to God and to confederate their Discipline prohibiting Murther Adultery violation of Faith and other hainous deeds For the Eucharist is the Sacrament by which this discipline of Christianity is established But farr from being voluntary to those whom wee suppose Christians As for Origen in Celsum I. pag. 4. It is manifest that those private Contracts which Celsus calumniateth that the Christians made among themselves as against the State are acknowledged by him to have been those that were solemnized at their Feasts of Love That is at the Eucharist which from the beginning was a part of them whether then it were so or not And therefore the confederacy of Christians among themselves whom these Authors speak of was no otherwise voluntary than Christianity and therefore not voluntary supposing it The words of Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which I do not admit to be well corrected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As being too obscure an expression for so clear a Writer as Origen to say that it was of force to do more mischief than the Bacchanalia which for that jealousie were put down as wee understand by Livy besides that hee must have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not have used a general word for a particular And therefore I suppose hee alludes to the Verse of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissolving by private confederacy that publick League and Bond wherein the peace of every Commonwealth consisteth Thus then saith Origen And hee seeks to calumniate the Love so called of Christians towards one another as subsisting at the peril of the Publick and able to do the mischief of disloyalty If this will not serve the turn but it be demanded that the Communion of the Church was then frequented by voluntary agreement let mee demand whether the authority of the Apostles in the Church subsisted upon no other title For as to the credit of them in delivering the Gospel believing what God had given them to evidence it with it is not possible for any man that pretends to be a Christian to question it If then it be said that they who were tyed to believe them concerning the truth of the Gospel were not bound to receive them as chief Governors of the Church let mee demand how it came to passe that those were received all over the Church whom it was believed that they had granted their authority to or what part soever of it There being no obligation to tye them to receive such afore others and the variety of judgment which all men are subject to being such as never to agree in the same reason where nothing obliges So likewise whereas it is manifest that the Church then both had and must needs have many Rules the general importance whereof was received by all though with particular differences according to times and places I demand how any such could come in force when neither the Jewes deserved that love that all should imbrace them for their sake nor the judgments of all Christians so different in all things could concurr in any thing which their Christianity imported not Especially I demand this concerning the indowment of the Church because it is evident that as Constantine first made good by the Empire all the acts of them that had given whatsoever was ravished away by the persecution of Diocletian then gave much more of his own So all Kingdoms and Commonwealths after the example of that Empire have proceeded to indow it with the first-fruits of their goods in Houses and Glebes and Tithes and Oblations I demand then what imposture could have been then so powerfull as to seduce all the Christian world in a mater so nearly concerning their interest had they not stood convict by the constant practice of Christendom before Constantine that it was no imposture more than the Christianity brought in by the same Apostles Lastly whereas it is acknowledged what strange severity of discipline the Primitive Church was under by the Rules of Penance which then were in force though I have showed in another place that they were yet stricter under the Apostles and that the severity of them necessarily abated as the zele of Christianity under them did abate I demand what common sense can allow that all Christians should agree to make themselves fools by submitting themselves to such Rules which nothing but their own consent could oblige them to imbrace For neither can it be said that they had them from the Jews nor had they been extant among them that the Christians would have received them for their sake CHAP. XIX That Power which was in Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Soveraign The difference between the Church and the Synagogue in that regard The interest of Secular Power in determining maters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church and the act of it No man can be bound to professe the contrary of that which hee believeth Every man is bound to professe that Christianity which hee believeth The Church is the chief Teacher of Christianity through Christendom as the Soveraign of Civil Peace thorough his Dominions Why the Church is to decide maters of Faith rather than the State neither being infallible I Shall not now need to say much to those terms which the Leviathan holds beside that which hath been already said to evidence the Society of the whole Church and the foundation thereof by the Scriptures Hee that acknowledges in the Church a Power to judge of true repentance and accordingly to binde and to loose and that upon the same score and therefore to the same effect as it baptizes together with the Power of appointing publick persons in the Church and the Church in which hee acknowledges the Power to be the Body of Christians in each City by what Title doth hee suppose the Church to hold this Power or this Right the evidence whereof hee fetches from the Scriptures whereby hee proveth it For those Scriptures do not import by what Act it is established but onely that it was in force or use at the doing of those things which they relate Can it be imagined to be any thing else than the act of the Apostles declaring the will of God in that behalf If then by divine right that is by Gods appointment and ordinance imported by those Scriptures the Church that is the Body of Christians in each City stands indowed with those rights how shall the Church that is the Soveraign Power of each State stand indowed with the same rights by the same Title that is by Gods appointment evidenced by the same Scriptures How shall Gods Law that inableth the Body of the Church to binde and to
in mind to adde to the evidence for this all that I said in the beginning of this book to show that the condition of the covenant of grace implyeth a resolution generally to obay all that Christianity injoyneth For whatsoever delight in the true good God may prevent and determine the will with as prevent it he may and doth so as to take most certaine effect it must have in it the force of choice upon deliberation that makes God in steade of the world the utmost end of all a mans actions And in virtue of this choice whatsoever is done in prosecution of it consisteth in the like freedome of preferring it before the difficulties that impeach it which therefore he that will may follow and faile of his purpose He that might have transgressed and did not his goods shall be firme saith Ecclesiasticus XXXI 10. 11. Christianity then supposeth free choice as well to doe rather then not to doe as to doe this rather then that But Christianity cannot suppose this freedome till it can suppose the reason why every thing is to be done to appeare For that is it which must determine the indifference of mans will to proceede And therefore if there be any thing which without Christianity a man under Original sinne stands not convinced that it is to be done though supposing Christianity his freedome may extend to it yet not supposing the same it doth not This is that which I come to in the next place CHAP. XXIII A man is able to doe things truely honest under Originall sin But not to make God the end of all his doings How all the actions of the Gentiles are sins They are accountable onely for the Law of nature How all men have or have not Grace sufficient to save NOw to the second part of my position I say that though notwithstanding the inclination of Originall concupiscnce a man is able to do any kinde of act towards himselfe towards all other men or towards God yet is he not able to doe any for that reason for which it is indeed to be don And therefore that he is by his birth slave to sin and without the grace of Christ cannot become free of that bondage The first part of this position stands upon the words of S Paul Rom. XI 14 15. For when the Gentiles that have not the Law do by nature the things of the Law these not having the Law are a Law to themselves who show the worke of the Law written in their hearts their consciences bearing witnesse with them and their thoughts afterwards interchangeable accusing or excusing I know S Augustine Prosper and Fulgentius will have this to be said of the Gentiles that had been converted to Christianity But having shewed that the interpretation of the Scripture is not subject to the authority or judgâ—ment of particular Doctors and knowing that the tradition of the Church neither went before them nor hath followed after them to make the position upon which their interpretation proceeds a point of faith I follow pâ—remptory reason from the processe of S. Pauleâ— discourse Who having conclued the Gentiles to be liable to Gods judgement in case they imbrace not Christianity comeing to doe tâ—e like for the Jewes upon a supposition which he takes to be evident upon experience as appealing to their own consciences in it that they kept not Gods Law by which they hoped to be saved Proceeâ—s to compare with them the Gentiles whom he had convicted afore that he may prove the Jewes to have as much need of the Gospell as he had proved the Gentiles to have He saith then that the Gentiles have also a law of God which is the sense of Gods will which nature workes in their hearts And that as the Jewes did many things according to Gods written Law so did the Gentiles according to the Law of nature But if they could say that the Gentiles kept not the law of nature as hitherto he had proved No lesse might the Gentiles say that they kept not the Law by which they pretended to be righteous before God This you shall easily perceive to be S. Pauls businesse if you compare that which he writes Rom. XI 12 13. 17. 24. concerning the Jewes with that which went afore from Rom. I. 18. concerning the Gentiles Indeed when the Apostle afterwards compares the circumcision of the heart which makes a spiritual Jew with the Gentile who in his uncircumcision doth the same righteous things of the Law which the said spirituall Jew doth Rom. 11. 25 29. as I acknowledge that there is no spirituall Jew by the letter of the law but by the grace of the Gospell which though covertly had course and took effect though in a lesse measure under the Law so I must acknowledg that none but the Gentiles converted to Christianity can be compared to him But it is no prejudice to the Apostels argument to say that the Gentile is capable of that by the Gospell which the Jew could not boast of by the Law but by the grace of the Gospell under the Law Whereas if the apostle do not convict the Jew to have need of the Gospell by showing the Gentile to beere the same fruits by the Law of nature which the Jew brought forth by the law of Moses be leaves him utterly unconvicted of the necessity God had to bring in the gospell for the salvation of the Jew aswell as of the Gentile And therefore when S. Paul names the things of the Law he compâ—â—â—eth as weâ—l â—hoseduties that concerne God as those which concerne our selves and our neighbours Agreeing herein with the experience of all ages and nations whâ—ch allowes religion towards God to be a Law of all Nations as well as the â—ifference between right and wrong in civill contracts between honest â—nd shâ—mefull in mens private actions to be impressed by God upon their hearts from thence expressed in their Lawes and customes And truly it can by no meanes be denied that the difference of three sorts of good things honesta utilia â— jucunda things honest usefull and pleasurable is both understood and admitted amongst heathen nations That is to say that heathen nations doe acknowledg that there are some things which of themselves agreeing with the dignity of mans nature are more worthy to be imbraced then those which present us either with profit or pleasure without consideration of what beseemes us otherwise â—o which assuming this as evident by experience of the world that the reason of that which is honest or honourable as sutable with the dignity worth of mans excellency is not alwaies contradicted in occasions of action either by profit or pleasure there will be no possible reason for any man to deny that notwithstanding Originall concupiscence a man may be led by reason of honesty to do that which it requireth Whereof we have invincible evidence not onely in the Philosophy of the Greeks and the Civility of the Romans
Christianity as the corruption of it Surely he that considers not amiss will finde that it was a great ease to them that were convinced to acknowledg a God above them to imagine the name and honor of this God to rest in something of their own choice or devising which being set up by themselves reason would they should hope to please and have propitious by such obedience and service as they could allow Correspondently God having given the Jewes a Law of such precepts as might be outwardly performed without inward obedience whosoever believe the most difficult point of Gods service to be the submission of the heart will finde it a gain that hee can perswade himself of Gods peace without it whatsoever trouble whatsoever cost hee be at for that perswasion otherwise If then there be in mans nature a principle of Paganism and Judaism notwithstanding that men cannot be at quiet till by imbracing a religion they think they are at peace with God Is it a strange thing that they who have attained the truth of Christianity should entertain a perswasion of peace with God upoâ— terms really inconsequent to or inconsistent with the true intent of it Surely if wee reflect upon the motives of it and the motives of them it cannot seem strange I have said and it is manifest that the nature of Christianity though sufficient yet were purposely provided not to be constraining that the effect of them might be the trial of those dispositions that should be moved therewith And is it a mervail that means to perswade those that have received Christianity that things inconsistent with that which was first delivered are indeed consequent to the same should be left among those that professe that they ought to receive nothing but what was first delivered by our Lord and his Apostles I say nothing now of renouncing Christianity while men professe this for I confesse and insist that while men do believe that there is a society of men visible by the name of the Church it will not be possible for them to forget their whole Christianity or to imbrace the contrary of it But I say that notwithstanding the profession of receiving Christianity from our Lord and his Apostles the present Church may admit Lawes whether of belief or of Communion inconsistent with that which they received at first I allege further that so long as all parts of the Church held free intercourse and correspondence with one another it was a thing either difficult or altogether impossible to bring such things either into the perswasion or practice of all parts of it according to the difficulty of bringing so great a body to agree in any thing against which any part might protest with effect And this held not onely before the Church was ingraffed into the State of the Romano Empire but also so long after as this accessory help of Christianity did not obscure and in the end extinguish the original intercourse and correspondence of the Church For then it grew both possible and easie for them who had the Secular Power on their side to make that which the authority thereof was imployed to maintain to passe for Tradition in the Church Seeing it is manifest that in the ordinary language of Church Writers Tradition signifies no lesse that which the Church delivers to succeeding ages than that which it received from the Apostles Adde hereunto the opinion of the authority of the Church truly pretended originally within the true bounds but by neglecting the due bounds of the truth of Christianity which it supposeth infinitely extended to all States which Powermay have interest to introduce For if it be not impossible to perswade those who know they have received their Christianity upon motives provided by God to convince the judgments and consciences of all that see them to imbrace those things to which the witnesse of them may be applyed that they are to imbrace whatsoever either the expresse act or the silent practice of the Church inforces whether the motives of Faith be applicable to them or not Then is it not impossible to perswade them any thing which this Power shall think to be for their Interest to perswade For no mans Interest it can be to go about to perswade the world that expresse contradictories are both true at once And if it were not impossible that the imaginations of most of them that dispute Controversies for the Church of Rome should be so imbroyled with the equivocation of this word Church as not to distinguish the Infallible authority thereof as a multitude of men not to be deceived in testifying the truth from the authority of it as a Body constituted upon supposition of the same Shall it not be easie for those who can obtain a reputation of the World that their act is to oblige the whole Church to obtain of the same to make no difference between that which is presently decreed and that which was originally delivered by the Apostles The said difference remaining disputable not onely by any text of Scripture but by any record of historical truth testifying the contrary to have passed for truth in any other age or part of the Church Upon these premises I do appeal to the common sense of all men to judge whether the Church professing to hold nothing but by Tradition from the Apostles may not be induced to admit that as received from the Apostles which indeed never was delivered by the Apostles For when the Socinians pretend that the Faith of the Trinity of the Incarnation and Satisfaction of our Lord Christ not being delivered by the Apostles in their writings crept into the Church as soon as they were dead they still maintain that nothing is to be admitted but what comes from our Lord and his Apostles But upon their supposition that Antichrist came into the Church as soon as they were dead are obliged to renounce all that can be pretended to come by Tradition and in that very next age Which I yield and insist that whosoever shall consider the intercourse and correspondence visibly establisht by the Apostles between all parts of the Church shall easily perceive to be a contradiction to common sense But when so much difference is visible between the State of the Church in several ages and what change hath succeeded in things manifest to inferre what may have succeeded in things disputable Hee must have his minde well and thoroughly possessed with prejudice to the utter renouncing of common sense that can indure a demand so contrary to all appearance to be imposed upon his common sense The same I say to the other demands of certain and sensible distances of time which they that see the end of may be certainly assured what was received at the beginning of them and so by mean distances this age what was held by the Apostles Of the like time for blotting out the remembrance of the truth as for introducing falshood For it is evidently true that
that the godly of the Old Testament were reconciled to God by the meanes of his Word and Spirit howsoever they understood that which is signified by these Titles I know the Arians made their advantage of that which Justine and others had said That God imployed his Sonne to man because he was himself invisible To say thereupon that the Father onely is invisible and incomprehensible even by the Sonne And that S. Austine thereupon counts it rashnesse to say that all the intercourse between God and man was ministred by the Sonne the Father and the holy Ghost not appearing at all in any of these Revelations That Dionysius acknowledgeth that all of them Athanasius that some of them were done by the Ministery of Angels The testomonies whereof you may find collected there And truly that God the Father was not revealed by these apparitions were a thing utterly unreasonable to imagine That Gods Angels did attend upon his Sonne in those messages wherein some one of them caries the proper Name of God is a thing which the Scriptures alledged afore will necessarily require But that whereâ—oever God deales with man by the Ministry of an Angel to whom the proper name and honour of God is attributed there the Sonne of God came to do Gods Word to man for a preface to his coming in the flesh And that whosoever received this word from God was withall possessed by his Spirit as I see it is very agreeable to the Scripture so I find no reason valuable why I should repent me to have said it I know that Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria hath been alledged for an authority that interrupteth the Tradition of the Church in the matter of the Trinity And I acknowledge S. Basils judgement comparing him with one who dressing plants and finding one that growes awry bends it so without measure that he sets it as much awry on the other side For writing against Sabellius and not content to settle the difference of the persons he saies that through heat of contention he let fall words that signified also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 difference of nature inferiority of Power and diversity of glory Epist XLI Whereof though I intend not to question any part I will say neverthelesse as I have alleged this passage of Dionysius in evidence for the unity of the Church so here that I desire no better evidence for the Rule of Faith which the same presupposeth Suppose for the present the sense of Dionysius to be questionable as it was to these Bishops of Pentapolis his Suffraganes who finding themselves offended at that which he had written gave information of it to Dionysius then Bishop of Rome and to his Synode which Athanasius de Synodis Arim. Seleuciae expresly nominateth Can there be a greater argument that the communion of the Church stood grounded upon the profession of that Faith which he seemed to transgresse then the concurrence of Rome and the Churches that resorted to Rome with those which resorted to Alexandria in that Faith which he seemed to transgresse Certainly the agreement of all Christians in admitting the Scriptures at this day is not able to produce the like And therefore granting the writings of Dionysius to have been an attempt upon the Faith the opposition that was so warmly made assures us that doctrine which the authority of a Bishop of Alexandria could not give passeport to was inconsistent with the Rule in force For the Satisfaction which he tendred in the Letter recorded by Athanasius shewes what the sense of the Church was for satisfaction whereof he was forced to write And therefore I may safely and do acknowledge some of his words to be more offensive then it can be fit for me to excuse Though his own leter alledges the similitudes of a plant and the shoot of it of a well and the stream flowing from it which the Church since Arius hath always used to make it understood Which may seem to render him reconcileable to the Faith of Nicaea by understanding the difference which he signifieth to consist not in the Godhead which may be understood to be the same in the fountain as in the stream but in the rank and manner of having it necessarily rendring that which proceedeth in that regard inferior to that from whence it proceedeth I know it is said againe that the Council of LXXX Bishops that condemned Samosatenus at Antiochia in their Epistle alledged there by Athanasius do say that the Sonne is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance with the Father And that it is said that the two parts of a contradiction may as well be reconciled as this with the Faith of Nicaea But with what judgement let S. Hilary speake Libro de Synodis Male intelligitur homousion Quid ad me bene intelligentem Male homousion Samosateâ—s confessus est Sed nunquid melius Ariani negarunt Octagiâ—ta Episcopi olim respuerunt Sed trecenti decâ—m octo nuper receperunt The homousion is wrong understood What is that to me that understand it right Samosatenus acknowledged it wrong Were the Arians more in the right in denying it Fourscore Bishops resused it long since Three hundred and eighteen have received it of late This had been enough to make a reasonable man suspect an equivocation in the businesse But Athanasius would have told him wherein it consisted and how and in what sense Samosatenus maintained it His argument was If our Lord Christ were not made God of man which first he had been made then must he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance with the Father and so there shall be three substances one principall that of the Father two proceeding from him of the Son and holy Ghost And shall not all that imbrace the Creed of Nicaea disdaine Consubstantiality in this sense Which plainly makes the Father Sonne and holy Ghost of the same substance no otherwise then three men are said to be of one substance I know Gregory of Nâ—oâ—aesarea might have been further alledged out of S. Basil Epist LXIV Where he acknowledgeth him to have called the Father and the Sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this in a discourse written to Aelian a Pagan to convert him to Christianity and at the bottom consisting of nothing but equivocation of terms He allowing himself to term the Sonne the creature and make of the Father whom the Greek Fathers commonly call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the cause of the Sonne And to call them two in notion but one for hypostasis because he takes hypostasis for substance and notion for that Character which distinguisheth between persons which in the now terms of the Schoole are said to be known and discerned by their notions But I will go no further in Origens behalf or in behalf of any Scholar of Origens If he have left that which necessarily imports an ill sense whereof his Scholars Dionysius or
assure us of the necessity and efficacy of the works of humiliation and mortification for sinne in appeasing the wrath and recovering the favour of God in obtaining forgivenesse of sinne and restoring to the state of Grace which the ancient Church calleth satisfying for sinne By the same meanes it remaines manifest that these satisfactions are neither injoyned grievous sinners by the Scriptures nor notorious sinners by the Church out of any intent of extinguishing a debt of temporal punishment remaining after the sinne is pardoned That God when he gave the Gospell might have reserved a debt of temporall punishment upon them whose sinne he pardoneth by virtue of it I question not That he hath reserved it can never be proved the penalties which he exerciseth his children with being rather chastisements of love then revenges of wrath That this debt if not extinguished here by satisfaction injoyned in Penance remaines for Purgatory in the world to come I cannot here dispuâ—â— not having yet considered the effect of the keyes of the Church in Penance And therefore for the ground of it which must come from hence I shall conclude according to the premises That the condition which the Gospel requireth to bring a man to the state of Gods grace for remission of sinnes and right to everlasting life in point of conscience as to God as well as in point of profession as to the Church is presupposed to every mans being a Christian and a member of the Church With this difference indeed between them that are invited by the Church to be Christians and them who being Christians shall relapse to those finnes which by their Christianity they professe to forsake That to those that are without the cure of sinne is tendered meerly as Physick which the Physitian hath no meanes to constraine a man to take but his own interesse But to those that are within out of that authority and jurisdiction which the Corporation of the Church foundeth The last resolution whereof though it end in the interest of a mans own good which moveth him to professe Christianity yet that profession having ingaged him to be a Christiane by it he standes bound to stand to the judgement of the Church in all things within the authority of it Now if the Church ought to presume that he who is admitted to the communion thereof is qualified for remission of sinne before he be restored to it then cannot a man by being restored to the communion of the Church become qualified for it unlesse it can be said that the absolution of the Church can presuppose that which it effecteth which without a contradiction cannot be said The Church then pardons not sinne otherwise then as by the power of the keyes obliging the relapsed to use that cure which it prescribeth upon presumption of the cure wrought it warranteth pardon as having effected that disposition which qualifieth a man for it So that all the satisfaction that the Church can have that a man is qualified for pardon proceeds upon a presumption that God first is satisfied by the conversion of a sinner to that disposition which he requireth to remission of sin But evidently in consideration of our Lord Christ because by the Gospel whereof he is the subject As for the merit of Christian mens workes in relation to the world to come if it be considered on one hand how many wayes the Scripture declareth that it is impossible for any creature of God to come before hand with him that made it because his allsufficience allowes him not capable of any advantage that he may receive from it on the other hand that by originall concupiscence we are utterly disabled to satisfie for that in which we are come behind hand with God and for the future to satisfy that originall rule of righteousnesse due from man to God which our creation establisheth I shall not need to use many words in a plaine case that by the originall Law of God no man can merit the reward of everlasting life But by the promise of the Gospell God is tied to reward them with it For on the other side it is most evident that the Scriptures as well of the New Testament as of the Old in which I have showed how that salvation which we attaine by the Gospel is intimated that the favour of God and everlasting life is the prize of that gole the crown of that conquest the wage of that good â—ight of Faith which a Christian in this warfare upon earth professeth The Scriptures that containe this sense being every where so expresse and so well known that I conceive I do the Reader an ease in sparing him the paines of reading them here againe after so many canvases But besides the maine point established at the beginning of this Book inforces inevitably all that this resolution imports For if God have by the Gospell imposed upon Christians the condition of new obedience which Christians through his grace by Christ are able to tender him to recompense them with such a reward standes by his free promise ingaged to it in consideration of that new obedience which he requires This is the utmost which the name of merit can inforce understanding it to be grounded upon the promise of God declared by the Gospell which nothing but his own free grace designed through and in consideration of our Lord Christ before all consideration of any new obedience of Christians which wholly dependeth upon the same could ever have moved him to set on foote For having said before that a meritorious cause can have no place in respect of God otherwise then as he designes us good in consideration of good though the good he considers be originally his own gift whereas men are obliged in reason and justice to reward that good which themselves are prevented with originally as to them moving and obliging them to reward it but the merit of heaven never so fully ascribed to the workes of Christians who are obliged to understand it so to be ascribed by virtue of the Covenant of Grace it can be understood to signify no more then a quality which it requireth upon which the reward becomes due by virtue of that promise which requireth it And that this is the sense of the Catholike Church among infinite arguments this is enough to demonstrate Because whereas it is very well known that the Latine Fathers do attribute the stile and virtue of merits and meriting at Gods hands to the workes of Christians in respect to everlasting life the Greek Fathers in whose mouthes the word could not be expressing the same sense in such termes as their own language affords For who ever undertook to show any difference of sense between them those of the Reformation have alwayes maintainâ—d that their sense is the same with the sense of the ancient Church in the mouth of the Fathers For if in their mouth that word can import no prejudice to Christianity neither can it import
Soveraign over the Churches of these Cities For that were inconsequent to the power of the Apostles whence it proceedeth who as I have proved were equall among themselves and the authority of their companions and successors into whom it stood immediately divided But that it should have that eminence ovâ—r them and by consequence much more over the Churches of inferiour Cities as is requisite to the directing of such maters as might come to be of common interesse to the whole Church to such an agreement as might preserve the unity thereof with advantage to the common Christianity Now when I name these Churches of Antiochia and Alexandria for examples sake supposing that the Churches of the chief Cities of other Provinces of the Empire had also their eminence over the Churches of inferiour Cities within the said Provinces I suppose also that they accordingly approached to the dignity and priviledges of that at Rome the power of obliging the whole which for the State under God rested then in the Emperour alone within the Empire rosting for the Church in the successors of the Apostles according to this weight and greatnesse of their Churches For though Tertulliane de praescrip Haerct cap. XXXVI challengeth that the very Chairs which the Apostles sate in the very authentick leters which they sent to the Churches of Corinth Thessalonica Philippi and Ephesus were extant in his time in the said Churches yet doth it not therefore follow that the priviledges of those Churches should be all the same with all Churches wherein the Apostles sate which would necessarily follow if nothing were to come into consideration but that they were founded by the Apostles themselves For supposing that the Apostles themselves or their companions and successors indowed with the same Power as not confined by any act of the Apostles under whom they claimed to the contrary appointed that regard should be had to the priviledge of the Cities wherein they were planted it follows of reason that S. Peter for the Jews and S. Paul for the Gentiles at least principally should make it their businesse to plant Chistianity and to found the Church of Rome And that the eminence of these Apostles one chief by our Lords choice the other eminent for his labours may very well be alleged for the priviledges of that Church and yet the consequence not hold in other Churches for which it may be alleged that they were the seats of Apostles because the reason for which these Apostles bestowed their pains there hath a reason for it to wit the eminence of that City Here you easily see that deriving the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome not from S. Peters personall pre-eminence onely which it would be impossible to show how it comes intailed upon that Church the pre-eminence of the Apostles not resting in all their Churches but from an Order given out by the Apostles advancing the priviledges of Churches according the secular eminence of Cities I say you easily see that the concurrence of S. Paul with S. Peter to the founding of it is a confirmation of that ground whereupon the preeminence thereof standeth whereas that opinion which derives it onely from the personal eminence of S. Peter admits not the concurrence of S. Paul to the constitution of this pre-eminence Wheresoever therefore you find S. Peter and S. Paul acknowledged joynt founders thereof in the writings of the Fathers all that must be understood to setle the opinion which I here advance and to destroy that plea which derives it from the Soveraign power of S. Peter over the rest of the Apostles And Epiphanius is not the onely author where you find it the disputes of these times will afford you more then this abridgement can receive But I conceive I have made a fair way to the ground for it by observing some probabilities that S. Paul should be head of those that turned Christians of Jews as S. Peter of Gentiles at Rome Which I will here confirm by expounding the inscription of Ignatius his Epistle to the Romanes according to it othâ—rwise not to be understood It addresseth to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which governeth in the place of the fields at Rome The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here used as many times besides speaking of those places which a man would neither call Cities nor Towns as Act. XXVII 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to sail by the places of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is plain signifies the Country 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then must necessarily signifie here the Vaticane lying in the fields as a suburbe to Rome and being the place where S. Peter was buried and where the Jews of Rome then dwelt as we learn by Philo Legatione ad Caium speaking of Augustus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He knew that great quarter of Rome which is beyond the River Tiber to be held and inhabitated by Jews most of whom were Romanes and Libertines For being brought captives into Italy they were set free by their Masters without constraining them to adulterate any of their Countrie Laws Hereupon the Synagogue of the Libertines Act. VI. 9. is the Synagogue of the Romane Jews Now S. Peters Church we know is to this day in the Vaticane as S. Pauls in the way to Ostia as from the beginning we understand by Caius in Eusebius Hist Eccles II. 25. the places of their burials were Which circumstance points them out Heads the one of the Jewish Christians at Rome the other of those that were converted being Gentiles For that the Vaticane was then the Jewry at Rome we learn also by Tully in his Oration pro Flacco where he complains that his cause was heard in the fields of M ars prope gradus Aurelios that the Jews who were offended at Flaccus for prohibiting them to send their oblations to Jerusalem when he was Governour of Asia might come in and discountenance the cause For plainly this was hard by the Bridge that passed out of those fields into the Vaticane where the Gate called Porta Aurelia stood hard by S. Peters Church to which Gate it seems there were steps to go up which he calleth there gradus Aurelios It is also easie to see that this supposition draweth the ground and reason of the Superiority of Churches originally from the act of Temporall Power which constituteth the eminence of Cities over other Cities But neverthelesse immediately from the act of the Church or of those that have authority to oblige the Church taking the Superiority of Cities as it is for the most reasonable ground of planting in them the most eminent Churches but by their own authority providing that so it be observed Therefore it is to be considered that the Church is by Gods command howsoever by his promise to continue one and the same till the coming of our Lord unto judgement But the dominion of this World upon which the greatnesse of Cities is founded changes as Gods providence appoints Besides that
For all Priests have by their Order the Power of the Keys and by virtue of the same of baptizing and giving the Eucharist to those whom the Laws of the Church not their private judgment admits unless it be in cases which their private judgment stands charged with And that which they shall do upon such terms is to as good effect towards God in the inward Court of Conscience as if a Bishop had done it But because there be cases that concern the unity and good estate of that particular Church whereof each man is a member others that may concern the whole others some part of the whole Church the constitution of the Church necessarily requires in â—â—â—ry Church a Power without which nothing of moment to the State thereof shall be of force in the outward Court as to the Body of the Church This the Chief Power of the Apostles this S. Pauls instructions to Timothy and Titus this the Epistle to the seven Churches this the practice of all Churches before the Reformation settles upon the Bishop And therefore I should think that I showed you a peculiar act which Bishops can do and Priests cannot if I could onely show you that according to this Rule nothing is to be done without the Bishops consent For whatsoever either Law or unreprovable custom may inable a Priest to do that hee doth by the consent of his Bishop involved in passing that Law or admitting that custom And hereof the Bishops peculiar right of sitting in Council is full evidence which if the practice of the Church could justifie nothing else would be an act peculiar to the Order of Bishops according to the premises It was an ancient Rule in the Church that a Priest should not baptize in the presence of a Bishop nor give a Bishop the Eucharist To show that it is by his leave that hee acts as Tertullian saith of the right of Baptizing de Bapt. cap. XVII So the Canons which allow not a Priest to restore him to the communion that had done publick Penance in the face of the Church require the consent of the Bishop to acts that concern the Body of it That ancient author that writ de VII Ordinibus Ecclesiae among S. Jeromes works reckons divers particulars some whereof hee complains that the Bishops where hee lived did not suffer the Priests to do Doth hee therefore make Bishops and Priests all one Certainly hee speaks my sense and my terms when hee sayes the Bishop is the Priests Law That Bishops in Council give Law to the Clergy as well as the people out of Council that which is not otherwise determined nothing but his Order can determine And this is the ground of the difference between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction comparing the Bishop and Presbyters of one and the same Church one with another For the Order of Priesthood importing the Power of the Keys in baptizing in binding and loosing in the invvard court in giving the Eucharist it is plain there is a Power of Order common to both But the use of it without limiting any due bounds at the discretion of every Priest would be destructive to the Unity of the Church which I suppose That Power therefore which provideth those limitations according to vvhich the common povver of the Keys is lawfully exâ—râ—ised whether it be properly called Jurisdiction or not is necessary to the being of every Church even by the common Power of the Keys upon which the foundation of the Church standeth I can therefore allow the said author to complain that Priests in his partâ— were not suffred to do those acts which in the Fast in Illyricum in Africk they did do For all those parts were governed by Synods of Bishops But I allow not his argument Because a Priest can celebrate the Eucharist which is more It is more to the salvation of those that receive toward which the Eucharist immediately worketh no less if a Priest than if a Bishop give it But it is not so much to the Body of the Church as to excommunicate or to restore him that is excommunicate That therefore some offices may be done by both and that according to the order of the ancient Church is no argument that both are one but that it is no prejudice to the Chief Power of the Bishop that they are done by a Priest Let Confirmation be the instance for our author instances in it Certainly there never was so great necessity for it as since all are baptized infants For it expresly renueth the Covenant of Baptism not onely in the conscience between God and the soul but as to the Body of the Church implying an acknowledgment of the obligation then contracted And of the Church to which this acknowledgment is rendred For hee that desires baptism of the Church at years of discretion desireth it upon those terms which the Church tendreth And therefore hee who is baptized an infant and afterwards confirmed submitteth to the same terms in his own person which hee could not do when hee was baptized It is not therefore said That none can be saved that is not confirmed For let him observe the rule of Christianity and that within the Unity of the Church and hee wants nothing necessary to the common salvation of Christians But how effectual a means the solemnity of this profession might be to oblige a man to his Christianity and to the Unity of the Church let reason judg Now S. Hierome saith most truly that this office is reserved to the Bishop for the preserving of Unity in the Church by maintaining him in his prerogative But is that an argument that his prerogative is not original but usurped To me it is not who acknowledg the Eucharist of a Priest as effectual to the inward man as that of a Bishop the difference between them standing in reference to the visible Body of the Church Our author acknowledgeth the same that S. Hierome advers Luciferianos teacheth Demanding onely that it may be lawfull for Priests to consecrate the Chrism which they confirmed with in case of necessity which hee saith was done in many Churches and protesting not to impose Law on the Bishop vvho saith hee is Law to the Priest The supposed S. Ambrose says that in Egypt Priests did confirm in the Bishops absence It is no news that Gregory the Great alloweth Priests to confirm in Sardinia Epist III. 26. for Durandus hath made him an Heretick for it in IV. Dist VII Quaest IV. and Adriane himself afterwards Pope Quaest de Confirm in IV. art ult yields thereupon that a Pope may â—rr in determing mater of Faith And the Instruction of the Armenians by Eugenius IV. in the Council of Florence acknowledges it had been done by Priests the Chrism being consecrated by the Bishop afore The limitations of necessity of the Bishops absence of Chrism consecrated by the Bishop import his allowance and that his prerogative Though as the case is now
by Hereticks nor Schismaticks So must he attribute the effect of the rest to the foundation of the Church the Prayers whereof God by founding it hath promised to hear being made according to that Christianity which the foundation thereof supposeth Let us consider whether extreme Unction may be or must be counted a Sacrament upon these termes or not for if that what question will remaine of the rest I conceive I have observed that which is very pertinent to the consideration of all the rest in showing that they are the solemnities wherewith some acts of that publick authority is exercised which the Church hath in respect of the members of it Onely in the Unction of the sick I have not found any act of authority distinct from that power of the Keyes whereby in extremity all are admitted to the communion of the Eucharist in hope of Gods mercy acknowledging the debt of that Penance remaining if they survive which must qualify them for it in the the judgement of the Church And the promise of forgiveness of sins annexed to it I have found to suppose that contrition which undertaketh the same in case a man survive Which notwithstanding whosoever acknowledges the Church cannot think the prayers of the Church needlesse in such an exigent But as for the ceremony of anointing with oyle I have found it in the premises to concern the recovery of bodily health by the practice of all ages that are found to have used it Though not pretending miraculous graces of curing diseases extant in the primitive times but onely that confidence which Gods generall promise to the Church groundeth of hearing the prayers thereof even for temporall blessings so farre as the exception to it which Christianity maketh shall allow It was thought fit to lay aside this ceremony at the Reformation least the Church should seem to pretend a promise the effect whereof being temporall and visible could not be made to appear Which might seem a disparagement to our common Christianity But there have not wanted Doctors of the Reformation Bucer by name that have acknowledged nor will any man of a peaceable judgement make question that the ceremony might have been retained at the visitation of the sick Which he that would have the Church lay aside because the Church of Rome useth this ceremony at it he would have the Church be no Church because the Church of Rome is one For as the office of the Church can never be more necessary then in that extremity to procure that disposition qualifying for pardon which then it is not too late to procure So can no ceremony be filter then annointing with oil to signify that health of body which the Church chearfully prayeth for on behalf of them whom she promiseth remission of sinne That health of minde which the present agony so peremptorily requireth Supposing then the constitution of the Church such that the ministery thereof must needs be thought sufficient meanes to procure salvation for the members of it And then supposing the Church so constituted injoyne prayer to be made for the sicke to whose reconcilement the keyes thereof are applied anointing them with oyl to signify that health of body and mind which is prayed for So farre am I from dividing the Church in that regard that I acknowledge it may be very well counted one of the Sacraments of the Church in that case To wit as a ceremony appointed by the Church signifying that health which the Church rightly using the Power which it is trusted with appointeth to be prayed for in that case To prove Marriage to be a Sacrament it is well known how the text of S. Paul is alledged Ephes V. 32. Sacramentum hoc magnum est This is a great mystery but I mean concerning Christ and the Church But Saint Paul saith not that the mariage of Christians is a sacrament but that the mariage of Adam and Eve was a great mystery As indeed it was if the Apostle say true that it figured the marriage of our Lord Christ with his Church and that therefore the woman was taken out of the man as Christians are the bimbs of Christ and therefore wives are to be subject to their husbands as the Church to Christ True it is that seing mariage in Paradise was made an inseparable conjunction of one with one with an intent that it should figure the inseparable conjunction between our L. Christ and the congregation of them whom he foreseeth that they shall persevere in that regard the marriage of Christians also being by our Lord reformed to the first institution of Paradise cannot chuse but signify the same though now in being Whereas the marriage of Adam was a mystery for signifying the same to be But supposing all this and not supposing an Order in the Church for the blessing of marriage as a solemnity prescribed by the Church I know not whether there could be cause to reckon marriage among the Sacraments of the Church all the rest which pretend to tha quality being offices of the Church to be performed with some solemnity Whereas supposing something peculiar to the marriage of Christians in regard whereof it is to be celebrated with the solemne Blessing of the Church there is no cause why under the equivocation premised it may not be counted among the Sacraments of the Church For is there any question to be made that Christians submitting themselves to marry according to the Law of Christ with an intent not onely to keep faith to one another according to that which is between Christ and his Church but to breed children for the Church And so submitting unto the Church and those limits wherewith the Church boundeth the exercise of Gods Law for maintaining of unity in the Church may promise themselves the effect of that Blessing which the Church joynes them with Supposing them qualified for the common blessings of Christians and the Church formed by God with a promise of his blessings What doubt can be made that the Blessing shall have effect which the Church joynes them with But what assurance can be had of the effect of that Blessing without it supposing the Church and supposing the blessing of marriage appointed by the Church I have showed the ground whereupon the allowance of mrriage among Christians is necessarily part of the interest of the Church I have showed that in Ordination in Confirmation in Penance as well as in Baptisme and in the Eucharist the Church exerciseth some power and authority which she is trusted with by God The blessing of mariage what is it but the marke of that authority in allowing the mariages of Christians which the Church thereby exerciseth If Ignatius and Tertullian require the consent of the Church to the mariages of Christians it must needes be inferred from thence that this consent was declared by the blessing of the Church as the Power of ordaining and the Power of absolving is exercised with blessing that is praying for
change the customes of the Church Therefore this repeal never took place in the West For first the Gothes retained Theodosius his Law as Cassidore VII 46. testifieth which Cvias saith is the reason why in Gaiâ—s out of whom Justinian took his Institutes for the most part it is at this day read Duorum fratrum vel sororum liberi vel fratris sororis jungi non possunt The children of two Brothers or Sisters or of a Brother and Sister may not mary together contrary to that which Justinian is known to have inacted Then the later Emperours revived the Law of Theodosius upon which occasion it is still read in many Copies of the Institutes de Nupt. X. 4. non possunt expresly against many parts of Justinians Law And for the East how shall we say that Justinians Law was repealed or upon what ground but that the custome of the Church prevailed to move Christian Emperours to repeal it seeing Christendom scandalized at the license introduced by it He therefore that alleges Iâ—stinian in these cases or even Moses let him allege Herods marying his Brothers Daughter and espousing his Daughter to his Brother Pheroras in Iosephus Aâ—t XII XVI and so allowing the same which when Claudius for his own lust licensed there was scarce found a Gentleman in Rome that would do the like as Tacitus reporteth Indeed when S. Austine says this was rarely done afore Theodosius signifying that sometimes it was done we must accknowledge not onely that the mariage was not void that was so made from the beginning for neither is the mariage of the deceased wives Sister or of the neece void by the Canons of the Apostles and the Eliberine Canon injoyns upon marying the wives sister five yeares Penance signifying that it was not void but also we remain uncertain whether it were censured by the Church or how But when S. Gregory allows Austine the Monk to allow the first Christian Saxons to mary in the fourth degree we are not certified whither according to the account of the Romane Law or according to that account which the Popes afterwards brought in use For the Romane Law counting the stock for one made no first degree in the cross line but reckoned Brothers the second and by consequence Cousin Germanes the fourth determining both legall successions and affinities within seven degrees which are sometime called six as you include both terms or exclude the one L. X. ff de gradibus affinibus Paulus Sent. IV. 11. ubi Anianus Modest L. XLV ff de gradibus affinibuâ— Whereupon mariage was first forbidden in the West as far as the seventh degree inclusive Caus XXV q. 2 3. cap. 20. ib. Greg. P P. I. Nic. P P. II. c. 17. ib. sentent IV. dist XL. Isid Orig. IX c. 6. Caus XXXV q. 5. Grat. c. 21. whereby it should seem that this degree was dispensed with by S. Gregory being otherwise then prohibited But the Pope afterwards introducing a contrary way of counting brothers for one degree and Cousin Germanes the second which before were the second and the fourth determined kindred by seven of these degrees which were before just halfe so many Alex. PP 2. c. 2. Caus XXXV q. 5. and all these prohibited c. 14. Caus XXXV q. 2 3. till reduced to the fourth by the Laterane Council under Innocent III. for the difficulty and burthen of it which fourth is just the eight by the former account which is now the law of the West under the Pope A thing which I cannot admire at enough either how proposed or how admitted Whereas in the East the seventh degree according to the Roman account is neither permitted nor the mariage dissolved if consummate Ius Graecorum L. III. p. 204. lib. IV. pag. 266. afterwards under Michael Patriarch of C P. Ib. lib. 3. p. 206. the seventh was forbidden the eighth alwayes licensed See further Harmenop lib. IV. Tit. 5 Arcudius VII 30. which I allege all to no purpose but this that the consent of Christendom submitting to be restrained beyond all degrees any way pretended to be expressed by Gods Law is an evidence of the two Principles alledged that they were from the beginning admitted by all Christendom Indeed when it is said that which the Church censured not which S. Gregory dispensed with which the Romane Emperours and Gothish Kings reserved themselves a power of dispensing in as appeares by a Law of Honorius and Theodosius in C. Theod. Si nuptia ex resciptâ— pâ—tantur and by Cassiâ—d VII 46. It is no marvail if it be permitted by the Statute of H. VIII XXXVI 38. we may see the case hath been not much otherwise with us since that statute then with Christendom before the act of Theodosius For as then the known custome of the Church so since with us the remains of the opinion of that publick honesty which Christianity first introduced hath been the cause that few have used the known liberty of the temporal law and that with such reluctation of judgement as hath been thought the occasion of evill consequences As for those degrees which being prohibited by the Popes are of course dispensed in for paying the fees without any notice of particular reason in the case as it is not for me either to maintain the abuse of Ecclesiasticall power or because of the abuse to yield the Church to have no power in those causes which it could have no power in if that power might not be abused so I am able to conclude that it were more Christian for any Christian state to undergo a burthen altogether unreasonable then to shake of a burthen for which there is so much reason in Christianity as I have showed for prohibiting the mariage of Cousin Germanes Another impediment of force to void mariage whether onely contracted or consummate also by carnall knowledge pretended by the Church of Rome and practised in the Eastern Church is that of profession of single life to attend upon the service of God alone For whether Christians under wedlock upon consent may part from bed and bord for this purpose there is no reason for any Christian to make difficulty the wish of S. Paul that all were as he 1 Cor. VII 1. taking place in them as well as in all others That to avoid fornication one man should mary one wife not taking place but in them in whom no such resolution is supposed Upon which supposition they are commanded to return to the use of wedlock after having retired for Prayer and Fasting least Satan tempt them through their incontinence But this is disputable whether it be a dissolution of the bond or onely a suspension of the exercise of mariage It is further pretended that the one party may by publishing such a profession make void the mariage that is not yet consummate by carnall knowledge leaving the other free to mary elsewhere This in the Church of Rome For in the Eastern Church I doubt
of rejoycing are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming 1 Pet. I. 5. Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed at the last time 1 Cor. V. 5. that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 2 Tim. IV. 8. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousnesse which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day Luke XIV 14. Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just For all which there were no reason to be given but the mention of the day of judgement would be every where utterly impertinent if the reward were declared at the houre of death and that judgement which then passeth For how can that be expected which is already injoyed You have seen the souls of the Martyrs that appear to Saint John before Gods Throne where none but Martyrs appeare as I have argued bidden to expect the conâ—ummation of their company before the vengeance of God be exercised upon their persecutors Apoc. VI. 9 10 11. VII 14 After this vengeance is exercised and they had raigned M. yeares with Christ and the devil was loosed againe and had brought Gog and Magog to fight against Gods Church and they had been destroyed and the generall judgement represented Apoc. XX. the Spirit returneth to show Saint John the New Jerusalem containing those that see Gods face and have his Name upon their foreheads Apoc. XXI XXII 1-5 Who have no need of the Sunne because God is their light and shall raigne for everlasting For after all this againe The Spirit and the bride say come And let him that heareth say come And let him that thirsteth come and let who will come and take of the water of life for nothing And he that testifyeth these things saith Indeed I come quickly Amen Even so come Lord Jesus What demandeth all this That which seemeth not to be refused admitting the consequence of the Visions That those souls who appear before Gods Throne pray for the second coming of Christ and the consummation of all things The renewing of their prayer Apoc. VI. after the representation of the generall judgement Apoc. XX. inforceth it The Saints therefore in heaven still desiring the second coming of Christ is it marvaile if there remaine something to be prayed for on behalf of inferiour rankes having showed that those who were sealed and saved in Jewry are not described to appeare in heaven before Gods Throne Whither we admit all that dy in the state of Grace to be with Christ as well as S. Paul and that in Paradise taken for the third heavens Or reserve as well we may reserve so much privilege to an Apostle and a martyr according to that which I have showed you out of the Apocalypse as not to equall with him all that dy in the state of Grace Certaine we are the estate of those that dy in Gods grace admits a solicitous expectation of the day of judgement though assured of the issue of it That is it which so many texts of Scripture alledged afore signifie nothing if they signify it not What is it then that reason grounded upon the Scriptures requires Certainly did our justification consist in the immediate imputation of Christs righteousnesse revealed by that Faith which therefore justifieth no man could dy in the state of Grace but be must be as pure as the Blessed Virgine and he that can digest such excessive assertions may think strange that any difference should be made among them that dye in Grace But I must and do suppose that which I have proved that the performance of that common Christianity the undertaking whereof justifies makes as much difference between the righteousnesse of severall Christians as must needes be found between the Highest of Gods Saints and the Lowest of those that escape the second death And therefore inferre that the difference of theire estates between death and the generall judgement must needes be answereable though from their death they know to whether lot they be deputed as for their particular judgment And this will necessarily follow supposing this world to be the Race and the next the Gole according to the tenor of the Covenant of Grace which hath been declared For supposing that he who keepeth account of his steps and watcheth over his wayes may be ready for Gods call and appeare before him without sinne having washed it away by the blood of Christ infused in the tears of finall repentance Must we not of necessity suppose that they who doe not so who are evidently the farre greater part of Christians departing with the guilt and slaine of such sinne upon them must needs appear with it before God notwithstanding the Covenant of Grace Againe the ove of this world and of our selves from whence such sinne proceedeth and would have proceeded should men proceed to live suppose it be such as drives not Gods Spirit away because incident to that humane â—railty which the Covenant of Grace presupposeth how shall it be washed out of that soule after death by virtue of the Covenant of Grace which hath failed of the Covenant of Grace in not washing it away being alive It is therefore necessarily consequent upon the premises that Christiane soules which escape the second death because the love of God was alive in them to strive against sinne though not to clear them of it continue in that estate wherein they departed till the generall judgement As for the love of God or of the World so for the joy or remorse which they have in them selves for it That the purity of this joy or the mixture of it with remorse be not meerly the punishment of sinne committed but the effect and consequence of the estate in which it departeth though the sin which it committed in the Body be the meanes to constitute this estate That the departure thereof bring it to that anxiety concerning the everlasting judgement which is proportionable to the love of the creature which it departeth with That being reposed in an estate and place of refreshment which those secret receptacles and chambers of Esdras seem to signify it remaine subject as well to those clouds of sorrow and remorse which the sense of sinne done and the love of God which hath not conquered the love of the Creature produceth as to that light and refreshment which the Spirit of God may create That the end of all this may be the trial of the day of judgement purging away all the dregs and drosse of sinne and of the love of this world which may remaine in soules that depart or are found then alive in the state of Grace by the fiercenesse and sharpnesse of that griefe which the triall of the generall judgement shall cause It may be thought that the fire wherewith the day of the Lord is revealed seizing their bodies which they shall have resumed by the paine which it
change which Temporal Power remaining in the same hands is able to produce within its own dominions The consequence of which consideration will be this that where Temporal Power makes such a change in the state of those Cities which are the seats of Churches that the Government and advancement of Christianity either may proceed changing the priviledges of the Churches or cannot proceed otherwise there the Church either may or ought to transferre the pre-eminences of Churches from City to City And therefore that where the case is otherwise the Church is not bound upon every act of Temporall Power to proceed to any change If this seem obscure being thus generally said let not the Reader despair before we have done to find instances in things that have come to pass not onely to clear my meaning but also to evidence the reason upon which I proceed It is likewise easie for him that considers this supposition and the effect and consequence of it to see that it gives no Jurisdiction to the Church of Rome much lesse to the Head thereof in behalfe of it over other Churches then those which resort immediately to it as every Diocess is concluded by the mother Church and every Province by the Synod of it much lesse the Power of giving Law to the whole but by the act of those Synods whereof the whole consists or of judging â—ny appeal that may be brought to it But it makes the Church of Rome as other Head Churches the center to which the causes that concern first the Western Churches in particular then the whole are to resort that they may find issue and be decided by the consent and to the unity of all whom they concern It is also easily to be observed that this eminence of the greatest Churches over their inferiours which originally is no further defined and limited then the consequence of this ground in respect of the rest of Christendom required might lawfully be defined and limited further either by sâ—lent custome or by express law of the Church consenting at leaâ—â—â—â—â—ffect and practice which is the onely real positive Law that rules all Societies Whereby new rights and priviledges might come to the Church of Rome as well as to other Churches which might also be for the good of the whole in â—â—intaining the unity of the Church together with the common interest of Christianity But I deny not on the other side that this Power the beginning whereof is so necessary and just the intent so excellent by the change of the world and the state of things in it may be so inhansed that though it do provide for the unity of the Church yet it shall not provide for the interess of Chistianity But of this and the consequence of it in due time For the present the reason upon which my position the effect and consequence whereof I have hitherto set forth is grounded is the effect of it in all proceedings of the Church recorded first in the Scriptures and afterwards in Church Writers as they succeed those that I must here principally consider being the very same that I considered in the first Book to make evidence of the being of the Church in point of fact as a body out of which now the right which held it together as the soul must appear Adding the consideration of such eminent passages in succeeding times as may serve to the same purpose I will not here repeat the marks of it which I have produced out of the Scriptures in the right of the Church Chap. II. For the dependence of Churches is part of this position as an ingredient without which the unity of the whole is not attainable I will onely adde here the consideration of that which I alleged in the first Book out of S. Johns last Epistle 5-10 Some have thought it so strange that Diotrephes and his faction should not acknowledge those that were recommended by S. John an Apostle that they have rather intitled the Epistle to a successor of his in the Church of Ephesus whose Tombe S. Jerome saw there besides S. John the Apostle whom Papias called John the elder as he is called in the beginning of these two Epistles Hieron Catal. in Johanne Papiâ Ens. Ecclesiast Hist II. 25. But he that considers what S. Paul writes to the Corinthians of his adversaries there will not marvail that S. John should find opposition at the hands of Diotrephes aspiring to the Bishoprick by banding a faction against the Jewish Christians whom it appears sufficiently that S. John cherished And therefore the mark here set upon Diotrephes is not for introducing Episcopacy as the Presbyterians would have it but for disobeying the superiour Church whereof S. John was head to the indangering of Unity in the Whole For could Diotrephes hope to make himselfe Bishop in his own Church when no body was Bishop in any Church besides Or might not Diotrephes hope to do it by heading a party that disallowed compliance with Judaism at that time If then the Apostles provided not that the Church should continue alwayes one if this Unity was not alwayes maintained by the dependence of Churches let this reproof have no effect in any succeeding time of the Church But if the eminence of S. Johns Church above the neighbour Churches in insuing ages was a necessary ingredient to the unity of the whole then be it acknowledged that S. Johns successors might lay the blame of Diotrephes his ambition upon any successor of his that should follow it Before I go any further I will here allege those Fathers which do teach that our Lord gave S. Peter the Keys of his Church in the person of the Church and as the figure of it Namely S. Cyprian Pacianus S. Hierom S. Augustine and Optatus whose words I will not here write out to inflame the bulk of this Book because you have them in the Archbishop of Spalato de Rep. Eccl. 1. VII 17-29 VIII 8. 9. Adding onely to them S. Ambrose de dignitate Sacerdotali cap. 1. affirming that in S. Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven are given to all Priests And cap. II. speaking of the words of our Lord to S. Peter Feede my sheepe Quas oves quem gregem non solum tunc beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes Which sheep and which flock not onely S. Peter then undertook but also he with us and with him we all undertook them And venerable Bede upon the words of our Lord Tell the Church Haec potestas sanctae Ecclesiae Episcopis specialiter commissa est generaliter vero omni Ecclesiae data creditur Nam quod dominus alibi hanc ligandi solvendique potestatem Petro tribuit utique in Petro qui typum gerebat Ecclesiae omnibus Apostolis hoc concessisse non dubitatur The power of the Keys is committed especially to the Bishops of the Holy Church but is believed to be