found in them And it is considerable that the ancient Bishops of Rome owned not nor claimed any such Authority nor was any such given to them by the Primitive Church To this purpose it may be observed from (l) Epiph. Her 42. Epiphanius that when Marcion being excommunicated by his own Father a pious Bishop for his debauchery went to Rome and desired there to be received into Communion he was told there by those Elders yet alive who were the Disciples of the Apostles that they could not receive him without the permission of his Reverend Father there being one Faith and one Concord they could not act contrary to their Fellow Ministers And this was agreeable to the Rules and Canons of the ancient Church whereby it was ordained (m) Can. Ap. 12. that if any excommunicate person should be received in another City whither he should come not having commendatory Letters he who received him should be himself also under excommunication And the novel Romish Notion of all other Bishops so depending on the Roman as to derive their power and authority from him is so contrary to the sense of the ancient Church that (n) Hieron Ep. ad Evagrium S. Hierome declares ubicunque fuerit Episcopus five Romae five Eugubii ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii omnes Apostolorum successores sunt wheresoever there was a Bishop whether at Rome or at Gubio he is of the same worth and the same Priesthood they are all Successors of the Apostles 20. and prejudicial to other Churches and to Religion it self However the Romish Church upon this encroachment and false pretence claims a power to receive appeals from any other Churches And this oft proves a great obstacle to the Government and discipline of those Churches and an heavy and burdensome molestation to particular persons by chargeable tedious and dilatory prosecutions and is a method also of exhausting the treasures of other Churches and Kingdoms to gratifie ambitious avarice But even the (o) c. 6. qu. 3. scitote Canon Law declares the great reasonableness that every Province where there is ten or eleven Cities and a King should have a Metropolitan and other Bishops and that all causes should be judged and determined by them among themselves and that no Province ought to be so much debased and degraded as to be deprived of such a Judicature Indeed the Canon Law doth here for the sake of the Roman See exempt such cases from this judgement where those who are to be judged enter an appeal which is much different from the appeal the ancient Church allowed (p) Conc. Constant c. 6. to a more General Council after the insufficient hearing of a Provincial one But in truth this right of ordering and judging what is fit in every Province is not only the right of that particular Church or Country or Kingdom but where they proceed according to truth and goodness it is the right of God and the Christian Religion which is above all contrary authority of any other and ought not to be violated thereby And appeals from hence (pp) Cod. ean Eccl. Afr. c. 28. The Romanists Schismatical even to Rome were anciently prohibited in Africa 21. And the Schismatical uncharitableness of them at Rome towards other Churches deserves here to be mentioned This widens divisions and discords and perpetuates them by declaring an irreconcileable opposition to peace and truth They excommunicate them as Hereticks who discerning their right and their duty will not submit themselves to their usurpations and embrace their errors and to them they hereupon deny the hopes of Salvation Thus they deal with them who stedfastly hold to the Catholick faith and to all the holy rules of the Christian life and practice delivered by the Apostles and received by the Primitive Church and who also embrace that Catholick charity and Unity that they own Communion with all the true and regular members of the Christian Church and would with as much joy communicate with the Roman Church her self if she would make her Worship and Communion and the terms of it free from sin as the Father in the Gospel embraced his returning Son But this is the crime of such Churches that while they hold fast the Apostolical Faith and Order they reject the novel additional doctrines introduced by the Church of Rome and they submit not to her usurped authority in not doing what in duty to God they ought to do in imbracing the right wayes of truth 22. Their unjust excommunications hurt not others But the excommunicating such persons and Churches doth no hurt to them who undeservedly lie under this unjust censure but the effect of the censure may fall on them who thus excommunicate For they who reject the Communion of them who are true and orderly Members of the Church Catholick do divide themselves from that Communion To this sense is that received rule (q) c. 24. qu. 3. c. si habes c. certum illicita excommunicatio non laedit eum qui notatur sed eum à quo notatur and this was declared by (r) in Balsamon p. 1096. Nicon to be agreeable to the Canons And the excellency and power of the true Catholick Doctrine and the purity thereof is so much to be preferred before the authority of any persons whomsoever who oppose it that that which the ancient Canons (ſ) Conc. Sardic c. 17. established was very fit and just that if any Bishops and consequently any other persons were ejected from their own Churches or suffered any censures unjustly for their adhering to the Catholick Faith and profession they ought still to be received in other Churches and Cities with kindness and love And whereas there were Canons of the Church which allowed not Bishops to reside in other Churches and Dioceses these Fathers at Sardica dispense with that Rule in such a case as this and thereby declare their fense to be That the observation of Canonical establishments must give place where the higher duties of respect to the Christian Faith and Charity were concerned 23. but only themselves When the Scribes and Pharisees condemned the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles for Heresie and cast them who received it out of the Church the Christians were nevertheless the true members of the Church but they who rejected them were not so And when the Donatists would allow none but their own party to belong to the Church they thereby cast themselves out of the Catholick Communion as Schismaticks And when they at Rome so far follow their steps as to confine the Christian Communion to themselves or to a particular Church especially such an one as so greatly swerves from the truth and purity of the Christian Religion Sect. II. this is in effect to deny that Article of our Creed concerning the Holy Catholick Church And since Charity and Vnity are of so great concernment in Christianity on that account also they are none
and Blood of Christ are consumed by the Priest on the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine because those species are consumed Now it is strange enough to speak of the glorified body of Christ being consumed which is capable of no corruption and it is yet more strange that it should be consumed by consuming the species when it is not the subject of those species Surely it would be more rational to assert the mortality of the soul and to think it sufficiently proved by the death of the body 28. To avoid this difficulty some steer another course (c) Coster Enchir. c. 9. de Sacrificio Missae Costerus a third Jesuit in a manner deserts the cause He first gives such a large description of a Sacrifice as may agree to other acts of Divine worship But when he speaks of the nature of this Sacrifice he declares it to be representative of the passion and Sacrifice of Christ He saith indeed that Christ is here offered but then he saith Christ upon the Cross was truly slain by the real shedding his blood but here is tantum illius mortis repraesentatio sub speciebus panis vini only a representation of his death under the species of Bread and Wine Now though repraesentare be sometimes observed to signifie rem praesentem facere to make the thing present as some learned men have observed the sense of Costerus must be what we generally understand by representing because he sometimes speaks of the species representing the dead body of Christ which cannot be by making it so and sometimes he declares the Sacrifices of the Law to represent the death of Christ but not so excellently as the Eucharist And concerning the effect of this Sacrifice (d) ibid. p. 324 334. he declares this difference between that Sacrifice on the Cross and this of the Mass that the former was offered to satisfie God and pay the price for the sins of the world and all other needful gifts but the latter is for the applying those things which Christ merited and procured by his death on the Cross And to this purpose again Hoc efficitur per Missae Sacrificium ut quod perfecit Christus in cruce id nobis singulis applicetur illic pretium est solutum pro peccatis omnibus hic nobis impetratur hujus pretii applicatio Quod orationibus quoque in Ecclesia praestatur quibus rogatur Deus ut efficiamur participes passionis Christi This indeed if it were the true Doctrine of the Romish Church in this particular would be a fairer account of it than either it self or others give But in truth this is so different from the sense of the Council of Trent above expressed that it seems to import that this Writer thought it hard to clear and defend the true sense of that Church and therefore chose to represent it under a disguise and in this Controversie in most things he comes nearer to the Protestant Doctrine than the Romish We own such a representation of Christs death in this Sacrament as consists with his real presence in a Spiritual and Sacramental manner We acknowledge such a Relation between the Passion of Christ on the Cross and the Memorial of it in this Sacrament that the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and the benefits procured by his passion are exhibited in this Sacrament and are therein by the faithful received And we account the elements of Bread and Wine to be offered to God in this Sacrament as an oblation according to the ancient Church since the setting apart and consecrating the elements is a separating them to God and to his service but we do not look upon them to make way for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist But I now pass from the consideration of the Sacrifice to consider the Priest who is to offer it 29. Cons 3. The Sacrifice of Christ peculiar to his incommunicable Priesthood Cons 3. It is peculiar to the Office of Christs high Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec to offer up himself to be a propitiatory Sacrifice and this high Priesthood is communicated to no other person besides himself The Sacrifice of our Saviour as (e) Athan. cout Arian Orat. 3. Athanasius saith hath compleated all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being once made and he adds Aaron had those who succeeded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but our Lord having an high Priesthood which is not successive nor passeth from one to another is a faithful High Priest And this was the Apostles Doctrine Heb. 7. Now Bellarmine saith (f) de Mis l. 1. c. 24. no Catholicks affirm other Priests to succeed to Christ but they are his Vicars or suffragans in the Melchisedecian Priesthood or rather his Ministers But here it must be considered 1. That if they be Priests of such an order as can offer Christ himself or the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood to be a Sacrifice of atonement and propitiation they must be capable of performing all the necessary rites of that Sacrifice And one great rite thereof is that as the legal High Priest in making an atonement was to enter into the holy of holies with the blood thereof so he who offers the great Sacrifice of atonement which is the Body and Blood of Christ must enter into Heaven it self and there appear in the presence of God for us presenting his Sacrifice to God in that Holy place Heb. 9.11 12 24. but this none but Christ himself can do 2. He who is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must be a Priest for ever since the order of the Melchisedecian Priesthood doth not admit succession as that of the Aaronical did Heb. 7.3 8 17 23 24 28. And therefore such persons as succeed one another in their Office cannot be of the Melchisedecian Priesthood 3. Since an High Priest is chiefly appointed to offer gifts or Sacrifices for sins Heb. 5.1 chap. 8.3 and thereby to make reconciliation and execute other acts of his Office in pursuance of his Sacrifice the offering that Sacrifice of reconciliation for which he is appointed is a main part of his Office and therefore not to be performed by him who hath not the same Office Wherefore since no man hath that Office of High Priesthood which Christ himself hath none can make the same reconciliation by offering the same Sacrifice of atonement or propitiatory Sacrifice 30. But we are told in (g) Catech. ad Paroch de Euch. Sac. p. 249. the Roman Catechism that there being one Sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass there is also one and the same Priest Christ the Lord and the Ministers who sacrifice non suam sed Christi personam suscipiunt they take upon them the person of Christ and they say not this is Christs body but this is my body Now if these words should intend more than that the Minister acts by Christs authority who hath given to none authority
continuing his discourse upon the same subject concerning the Eucharist and in the three verses immediately following using the same expressions of the Bread and the Cup cannot from the order of his discourse be otherwise properly understood than to have respect to the same things though by consecration advanced to a more excellent mystery 2. When the Apostle declares the eating this Bread and drinking this Cup to shew forth the Lords death till he come He both declares this action to be commemorative of Christs death by somewhat which represents the death of him who can die no more and by those words till he come he shews the proper substantial presence of Christs Body not to be in that Bread But the (e) Catech. ad Par. p. 128. Roman Catechism says the Apostle after consecration calls the Eucharist Bread because it had the appearance of bread and a power to nourish the body Now to pass by the strangeness of the body being nourished by that which is no substance it may be considered 1. That if the Romish Doctrine had been true it cannot be conceived that the Apostle purposely discoursing of the Eucharist and laying down the Christian Doctrine concerning it should so often call it what it was not and not what it was 2. Especially when this must have been a truth greatly necessary to be known And 3. Since it still continued in appearance Bread the Apostle would not have complied with those errors which the reason and senses of men were apt to lead them to if these had been truly errors but would have been the more forward to have acquainted them with the truth 25. Sixthly and is not favoured by some Traditions of the Romish Church I shall add though I lay no further stress on this than as it may speak something ad homines that if we may give credit to the approved Ritualists of the Romish Church there are ancient usages in that Church which bear some opposition to Transubstantiation It was a custom received and constantly observed in the Roman Church that the Eucharist must never be consecrated on Good Friday (u) Div. Offic. Explic. c. 97. Johannes Beleth an ancient Ritualist undertaking to give an account of this saith there are four reasons hereof his first is because Christ on this day was in reality and truth sacrificed for us and when the truth cometh the figure ought to cease and give place unto it And his other three reasons have all respect to this first And (w) Rational l. 6. c. 77. n. 34 Durandus in his Rationale undertaking to give an account of the same custom makes the same thing to be his second reason thereof and useth these very words also that the truth coming the figure ought to cease The intent of which is to declare that the Eucharist is a figurative representation of Christs Passion and therefore on Good Friday when the Church had their thoughts of Christ and eye to him as upon that day really suffering they thought fit to forbear the representation of his Passion in the Eucharist But this notion of the Eucharist is not consonant to Transubstantiation 26. What guilt there may be in worshipping what is not God though the belief of the true God be retained Having now discharged Transubstantiation as being neither founded in the Scripture nor consonant thereto as being opposite to the Doctrine and usages of the Primitive Church and as contradictory to sense and the principles of reason I shall upon this foundation proceed to add something concerning the dishonour done to God in giving Divine Worship to that which is not God and the great guilt thereby derived upon man Now it is confessed generally that the giving Divine honour intentionally to a Creature is Idolatry and an heinous transgression But it may be worthy our enquiry to consider how far guilt can be charged upon such persons who profess the only true God to be God and that there is none other but he and design to give the proper and peculiar Divine honour to him a-alone for such we may suppose the case of the Romanists in this Controversie waving here their exorbitant adoration of Saints the relative Divine Worship to Images and somewhat higher yet to the Cross but actually through mistake and delusion do conferr this Divine honour upon that which in truth is not God in confidence and presumption that it is what it is not and that it is an object to which Divine honour is due when in truth it is not so Now in what I shall discourse of this case in general the instances I shall first mention of some bad men are only proposed to give some light to the general resolution of this enquiry and therefore are by no means mentioned to any such purpose as if I intended to write or think any thing dishonourably of the Holy Sacrament which I would not think of but with a pious Christian reverence and due veneration 27. Wherefore I shall here lay down three Assertions Assert 1. The misplacing Divine Worship upon an undue object may be a very gross and heinous sin of Idolatry Assert 1. There may be an Idolatrous misplacing Divine worship consistent with believing one only and the true God though the profession of one only God and of him who is the true God be still retained with an acknowledgement that none other ought to be worshipped This with respect to outward acts of worship was the case of divers lapsed Christians who being prevailed upon by the terrors of persecution did sometimes either offer Sacrifice or incense to Pagan Deities or otherwise communicated in their Worship or did swear by them or the Genius of Caesar or did make profession of such things being God which they were sufficiently convinced were not God And the like miscarriages concerning outward acts of worship may arise from an evil compliance with others or from the great vanity and evil dispositions of mens own minds And concerning inward worship it is easie to apprehend that such acts as proceed from the heart and affections as the highest practical esteem love reverence and fear may be misplaced upon that which men in their judgements do not esteem to be God whilst they either do not consider these things to be acts of worship or else are more governed by their affections than their judgments But concerning such inward acts of worship as proceed from the mind and understanding such as to acknowledge in ones mind such a Being to be God and that Divine honour is due unto it and all Divine excellencies are inherent in it these cannot be performed to any Being but to that only which is thought judged and believed to be God But notwithstanding this even these acts may by delusions be Idolatrously misplaced whilst there is still continued this general acknowledgement and profession of one only God who is the true God 28. Simon Magus as (x) de Praescrip c. 46. Tertullian declares
construction needful in private and publick cases And as a preservative against this sin it is needful that we regulate our passions and maintain a due government over them and set a watch over our lips humbly begging the aid of divine assistance And we must also take care that we allow a favourable construction and a candid interpretation to the words and actions of others especially of our Superiours And to this both ingenuity and Christian charity will direct and oblige us Wise men have justly condemned those persons who are guilty of calumny against a Law in wresting the words thereof to a sense never intended to the prejudice of Authority This is done in some degree when by subtil quirks the letter of a Law is in a forced interpretation observed but the true sense and meaning neglected This fault hath been taxed by the (g) Nimis callida malitiosa juris Interpretatione Cic. de Offic. l. 1. Arist Eth. l. 5. c. 10. gravest Authours as a calumny and the (h) Cod. l. 1. Tit. 14. kg. 5. Civil Law hath particularly provided against it and this includes a false suggestion against the prudence and good design of Authority But besides this there is an higher degree of calumny when a Law or the words or actions of Rulers is odiously represented to intend some ill thing which is contrary to the mind of the Law-giver and this is a reproach against the goodness care and integrity of the Governour And the practice of this which is too frequent gave occasion to Queen Elizabeths admonition to simple people deceived by malicious 40. And towards all men Yet it is prudent to have a cautious jealousie of ill men a favourable interpretation is usually suitable to charity Yet it must not be denied that there are so many men of dangerous and pernicious principles and practices that towards them cautiousness and suspicion in policy and prudence is necessary for preventing the mischiefs which may otherwise ensue The History of all Ages will give us instances of ill designs against publick peace and settlement carried on by fair words and plausible pretences and it is great wisdom to discover and lay open the ill designs of these men and not to be beguiled by them And with respect to the Church even in the Apostolical times there were some who with good words deceived the hearts of the simple Rom. 16.18 And afterwards many Hereticks would use Orthodox words in an heretical sense as the Pelagians would speak much of (i) Aug. de Grat. Chr. cont Pelag. Celest l. 1. c. 1 2. grace in a wrested meaning and in some Councils the subtil Arians gained advantage by the over-great unwariness and charity of other well-meaning Bishops But the considering these cases will not allow any unwarrantably to defame others but will direct them wisely honestly and cautelously to provide in their places for the securing themselves and the publick good and welfare of Church and State And these are things which principally concern Governours and Rulers whom God hath placed over others in the Church or Common-wealth but it is of universal obligation to all Christians that true kindness and general love and due respect to all men especially to Superiours should prevail in them 41. And let those Christians Charity towards revilers required who are opprobriously and injuriously aspersed together with pious stedfastness and resolution embrace the temper of Christian Charity And let nothing of ill will take place in their hearts towards those who revile or slander them but let them heartily pity their folly and their sin A person of common prudence if he discern a distracted man raving and complaining highly against those who deserve well from him will commiserate the mans sad condition who would never have done so if he had not been bereaved of his judgement and understanding And the want of a Christian temper of mind is as sad a thing and on that account deserves as much pity as the loss of the capacities of reason and knowledge Let us therefore pray for them who thus behave themselves towards us Thus as (k) Basil Hom. de Ira. S. Basil urgeth did Moses in this case make intercession for Miriam and David humbled his soul with fasting for those who slandered him and our Saviour prayed for his enemies He commands us to do the like for them who despitefully use us and our Church directs us to beseech God to forgive our enemies persecutors and slanderers and to turn their hearts Wherefore let none render evil for evil but overcome evil with good And the right management of this duty is a considerable action in our Christian warfare It was the consideration of S. (l) Aug. cont lit Petil. l. 3. c. 11 12. Austin when he was reproached by the tongue and writings of Petilian that we are assaulted by good report as a trial whether we can withstand the temptations to pride and by evil report to prove us whether we love our enemies and it is our work to overcome the Devil by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left And upon a due behaviour in our conflict we may expect a reward and crown 42. 'T is necessary for them who have reproached their Rulers to acknowledge their fault and repent To all this I shall now add what I desire may be well considered and therefore I chuse to close this first part therewith and that is That Christianity will engage them who truly practise it that if they have offended in uttering any thing reproachfully or disrespectfully against their Superiours they freely acknowledge their fault and by no means continue in it This may be sufficiently inferred from the general necessity of repentance from all sins and offences against any part of our duty and therefore if this be so heinous a sin as I have manifested it calls aloud for serious repentance But besides this I shall more particularly to this purpose observe that in this special case thus much is taught us by the behaviour of S. Paul in that place which I have before mentioned and shall now more largely explain and insist on Acts 23.2 3 4 5. Where when Ananias the High Priest The example of S. Paul with respect to Ananias proposed or a Chief Priest had commanded him v. 2. to be smitten on the mouth Then said Paul unto him v. 3. God shall smite thee thou Whited Wall for sittest thou to judge me after the Law and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the Law And v. 4. when they that stood by said Revilest thou Gods High Priest Then v. 5. said Paul I wist not brethren that he was the High Priest or a Chief Priest for it is written Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people 43. These words are acknowledged to have some difficulty in them and have been very variously interpreted but according to that sense which I
expressions in the present Roman Breviary They apply themselves to S. Peter (l) Br. Rom. Jun. 29. in Hymn Peccati vincula Resolve tibi potestate tradita Qua cunctis coelum verbo claudis aperis Loose the bonds of our sins by that power which is delivered to thee whereby by thy word thou shuttest and openest heavent to all men And to all the Apostles they direct their prayers on this manner (m) Br. Rom. in Commun Apost in Festo S. Andr. Qui coelum verbo clauditis Serasque ejus solvitis nos à peccatis omnibus Solvite jussu quaesumus Quorum praecepto subditur Salus languor omnium Sanate aegros moribus nos reddentes virtutibus Ye who by your word do shut up Heaven and loose the barrs thereof we beseech you by your command loose us from all our sins ye to whose command the health and the weakness of all is subject heal those who are sick in their life and practice restoring us to vertue I am apprehensive that many may think these instances the less blameable because the expressions of them have a manifest respect to the commission and authority which Christ gave to his Apostles in the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of remitting and retaining sin and the other Apostles are here owned to have the power of the keys as well as S. Peter But that our Saviours Commission to them referred wholly to the Government of his Church upon Earth is sufficiently manifest from those words both to S. Peter and to all the Apostles whatsoever thou or ye shall bind on earth and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth And though the Apostles are eminently exalted in the glory of the other world yet to acknowledge them in Heaven to acquit or condemn all men and to receive them into Heaven or exclude them from it by their command and by that power which is committed to them must include an owning them to be the full and compleat Judges of the quick and the dead 8. And since the Romish Church asserts all their Bishops to derive and enjoy the same authority which was committed to S. Peter and if this be not only an authority upon earth but in the future state then all their deceased Popes and much to the same purpose may be urged concerning all Priests must still enjoy the same heavenly power which they ascribe to S. Peter though there is great reason to fear that divers of themselves never entred into Heaven To these other numerous instances might be added of their prayers to the Blessed Virgin and to other Saints for grace pardon protection and to be received by them at the hour of death and such instances have been largely and fully produced by some of the worthy Writers of our own Church and Chamier and other Protestant Authors and particularly by Chemnitius in his Examen Conc. Trid. 9. But when Cardinal Bellarmine discoursed of these supplications to the Saints he particularly instanced in some as that to the Virgin Mary Tu nos ab hoste protege hora mortis suscipe do thou defend us from the enemy and receive us at the hour of death but will have them all to be understood as desiring only the benefit of their prayers But because the words they use do not seem to favour this sense of his he tells us (n) Bellarm. de Sanct. Beatitud l. 1. c. 9. Notandum est nos non agere de verbis sed de sensu verborum It must be noted that we dispute not about the words themselves but about the sense and meaning of them Now I acknowledge it fit that words should be taken in their true sense being interpreted also with as much candor as the case will admit Yet I shall observe 1. That it cannot well be imagined that when they expresly declare their hopes of obtaining their petitions to the Saints by their command and by their power which is committed to them which is owned sufficient for the performing these requests as in the instances I mentioned no more should be intended than to desire the assistance of their prayers and this gives just reason to suspect that more is also meant in other expressions and prayers according to the most plain import of the words 2. That though some of the Doctors of the Roman Church would put this construction upon the words of their prayers yet it is manifest the people understand them in the most obvious sense so as to repose their main confidence upon the Saints themselves and their merits This may appear from the words I above cited n. 3. from Cassander who also tells us that (o) Cass Consu t. de Mer. Interc Sanct. homines non mali men who were none of the worser sort did chuse to themselves certain Saints for their Patrons and in eorum meritis atque intercessione plus quam in Christi merito fiduciam posuerunt they placed confidence in their merits and intercession more than in the merits of Christ 10. The invocation of Saints and Angels will appear the more unaccountable No such practice in the Old Testament by considering what is contained in the holy Scriptures and the ancient practice of the Church of God In the Old Testament there is no worshiping of Angels directed though the Law was given by their ministration and that state was more particularly subject to them than the state of the Gospel is as the Apostle declares Heb. 2.5 In the Book of Psalms which were the Praises and Hymns used in the publick Worship of the Jews there is no address made to any departed Saint or even to any Angel though the Jewish Church had no advocate with the Father in our nature which is a peculiar priviledge of the Christian Church since the Ascension of our Saviour That place in the Old Testament which may seem to look most favourably towards the invocation of an Angel Gen. 48.16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the Lads is by many ancient Christian Writers not understood of a created Angel But however it is to be observed that these words were part of the benediction of Jacob to the Sons of Joseph Now a benediction frequently doth not exclude a prayer to the thing or person spoken of but a desire of the good expressed with an implicite application to God that he would grant it Thus in the next words Gen. 48.16 Let my name be named on them and the name of my Fathers Abraham and Isaac which contain no prayer to the names of his Fathers or to his own So Isaac blessed Jacob Gen. 27.29 using these expressions Let People serve thee and Nations bow down unto thee And this Clause of Jacob's Benediction is well paraphrased by one of the (p) Targ. Jonath in Gen. 48.16 Chaldee Paraphrasts Let it be well pleasing before him God that the Angel c. But the Holy Angels themselves declared against the giving to them any
thing concerning Christ or his Church or any matter of faith or rule of Christian life which is not contained in the Scriptures But there was nothing taught in the Apostolical Doctrine to assert or give any countenance to the Popes infallibility or his Universal Supremacy to the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass to the Doctrine of Purgatory Invocation of Saints and many other things now delivered as points de fide in the Church of Rome of which divers are mentioned in this Chapter And these new matters of faith have so altered and changed the ancient Christian Religion that with these mixtures it is very unlike what was declared by Christ and his Apostles 35. The Council of Trent declares their (n) Sess 4. c. 1. All these under the name of Traditions made equal with the Scripture receiving the holy Scripture and their Traditions to be pari pietatis affectu reverentia with the like pious affection and reverence Indeed it calls these Traditions such as were from the mouth of Christ or were dictated by the Holy Ghost and received in the Catholick Church But since after their declaring thus much and expressing the Canon of the Scripture with the additional Books received in the Romish Church they tell us that this was done that all men might know what foundation they would proceed on in their confirming Doctrines and reforming manners it is manifest that all Doctrines of Faith or practice delivered in that Council which are not contained in the Scriptures are reputed to be such Traditions as are of equal authority with the Scriptures And in the (o) Form Juram an 1564. Bull of Pius the Fourth many of these Doctrines are particularly expressed and in the end of it an hearty acceptance is declared of all things defined in the Council of Trent and it is added that this is the true Catholick faith extra quam nemo salvus esse potest out of which no man can be saved And this all who have cure of souls and preferments in the Church must own by their solemn Oath and Vow And yet how little that Council in its Decisions kept to the true Rules of Catholick Tradition is sufficiently evident from what they at this very time declared concerning the Canon of the Scripture for their taking into the Canon several of those Books which we account Apocryphal hath been plainly proved by Bishop Cosins to be contrary to the Vniversal Tradition of the Church 36. And if no man may with honesty and above it add any thing to a mans Deed or Covenant as if it were contained therein how great a crime is it to deal thus with Gods Covenant But the Church of Rome not only equals her Traditions containing many new points of Faith with the Scriptures and what is the true Christian Doctrine but it really sets them above the Holy Scriptures though they be in many things contrary thereunto For they make Tradition such a Rule for the Scripture that it must signifie no more than Tradition will allow Sect. IV. And to this purpose their (p) In Bull. pii 4. Clergy swear to admit the Scriptures according to that sense which the holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold who is to judge of the true sense of Scripture And hereby they mean the Church of Rome there called the Mother of all Churches SECT IV. Of the publick allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists as either debase the Majesty of God or give divine honour to something else besides God THose things deserve to be condemned as greatly evil which debase the Majesty of God or deprive him of that peculiar Glory and Worship which is due to him alone and they who practise or uphold such things ought to be esteemed as evil doers in an high degree Honour which in a suitable measure belongs to every Superior as to a Father or a Prince in the highest measure of it is proper to God and that reverence which is due to him is necessary to be reserved solely for him both from the rules of Justice and Piety and also because God is in this respect a Jealous God 2. 1. Images of the Deity are used by the Papists But First It is an abasing the Majesty of God to represent the glorious infinite and invisible God who is a pure Spirit by a material Image This is frequently and publickly practised in the Church of Rome and is there allowed and defended by many of its Writers (a) De Eccl. Triumph c. 8. Cardinal Bellarmine hath one Chapter on purpose to prove Non esse prohibitas-imagines Dei that Images of God are not prohibited and he cites Cajetan Catharinus and others as defending the same and one chief argument which he useth to prove this is Ex usu Ecclesiae from the usage of the Church And he there declares jam receptae sunt fere ubique ejusmodi imagines that now such Images are almost every where received and that it is not credible that the Church would universally tolerate any unlawful thing Where he also declares that these were approved both in the second Council of Nice and in the Council of Trent But the making an Image of the true God stands condemned in the holy Scriptures even in the Second Commandment against the Divine Law Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them And that the Divine Law doth not only forbid the Images of a false God or an inferiour Deity but such also as were intended to represent the true God is manifest from Deut. 4.15 16. Take good heed to your selves for you saw no manner of similitude in the day the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire lest ye corrupt your selves and make you a Graven Image the similitude of any figure or the likeness of Male or Female And this Command is the more to be considered because of that emphatical caution which is used by way of Preface thereto 3. It was one of the hainous sins which generally prevailed in the Pagan World that they changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible Man and to Birds c. Rom. 1.23 This is agreeable to the Pagan practice And though I charge not the Roman Church with running parallel to the Pagan Idolatry yet this disparaging the Divine Being by setting up visible Images and Representations thereof and giving Worship to them under that relation was one of the great Miscarriages of the Gentiles and yet the chief part at least of the Gentiles did not think these very Images to be the proper Beings of their Gods For besides their acknowledgment of the Wisdom Purity Goodness and Power of the Deity which many Testimonies produced by Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius and other Christian Writers do express there was also retained amongst them such Notions concerning the
used in the Church of Rome as these (w) Conc. Trid. ubi sup c. 1. that Christ who is present in Heaven by his natural presence is present in other places in substance by that way which we can more easily believe than express by words and the Roman Catechism saith (x) de Euch. Sacr. post med this change must not be curiously enquired into for it cannot be perceived by us and Baronius declares that (y) Baron An. Eccl. an 44. n. 49. modo ineffabili transubstantiatur it is transubstantiated by an unspeakable manner But it is manifest from their plain decisions that these and such like expressions relate either to the manner of the Divine operation or to the way of explicating how he can be substantially present in every Sacrament while he is ascended into Heaven and sitteth at Gods right hand for the manner of his presence it self they have expressed to be by Transubstantiation as above explained 16. But that the elements of Bread and Wine No Transubstantiation is proved from Scripture have not their substance changed into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ may appear First Because there is nothing in the Institution of this Sacrament from whence the nature of this Sacrament must be discerned or any where else in the holy Scripture which affords any proof for Transubstantlation It is observed by (z) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins that Scotus Durandus Biel Occam Cameraoensis Bishop Eisher against Duther and Cardinal Cajetan did all acknowledge that Tiansubstantiation could not be proved sufficiently from Scripture and their words are by him produced and that Bellarmine declared himself doubtful thereof Those words of our Saviour so much urged by the Romanists This is my Body do not determine the manner of his presence or that he is Transubstantially there and so carnally that according to the (a) Catech. ad Par. p. 223. Roman Catechism his bones and nerves and whole Christ is there substantially contained But this may well be so understood that he spiritually and sacramentally under visible elements exhibits the Sacrifice of himself so as to apply it to true Christians and interest them in it and the blessings and benefits thereof Nor do the use of the like phrases in Scripture import any substantial change of the things themselves When S. Paul speaks of the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.4 that they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ it cannot be supposed that the substance of the Rock should be changed into the substance of Christ who was not yet Incarnate When S. John declareth Joh. 1.14 The word was made flesh it cannot be thence affirmed without Heresie and Blasphemy that his Divine Nature was changed into his Humane Nature And when our Lord had spoken Joh. 6. of eating his flesh and drinking his blood and added upon his Disciples being offended at those sayings v. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you are spirit and they are life he hereby and also by what he speaks of believing both in the beginning and ending of that Discourse and towards the middle of it v. 35.47 48 64. sufficiently directs them to a Spiritual sense of those things which he had spoken And a like interpretation of those words Take eat this is my Body is somewhat directed by the same expressions and is also most suitable to the nature of the Sacrament nor can those words mentioned both by S. Luke and S. Paul Luk. 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the new Testament be otherwise understood than Sacramentally and somewhat figuratively and these also are expressed as part of the institution of the Eucharist 17. It was not owned in the Primitive Church Secondly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the sense of the ancient Church This is particularly and purposely manifested in that Book of the late Reverend Bishop of Durham which I referred unto in the foregoing Paragraph and therefore I shall only mention some few Testimonies Tertullian arguing against Marcion who denied the reality of Christ's Body as other ancient Hereticks asserted him to have had only the appearance of a Body saith (b) Tertul. cont Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Christ took Bread and distributing it to his Disciples made it his Body saying this is my Body that is the figure of my Body but there had been no figure unless the Body had been in truth Now the manner of his expression concerning the figure of Christs Body shews him not to have accounted the Body of Christ to be substantially but representatively in the Sacrament And his manner of arguing shews him not to have understood or owned the Romish Transubstantiation For it might be said to one who should thus argue and hold the Romish Principles by one of the Disciples of Marcion that there is in the figure the appearance of such a Body which after consecration is not real viz. Bread and Wine and therefore it is then fit to resemble what is of like nature In the Dialogues of Theoderet it was urged in the defence of the Heresie of Eutyches that as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are made other things and changed so the Body of Christ after its assumption is changed into the divine substance and nature But this is answered by the Orthodox person to the Heretick (c) Theod. Dial. 2. that he is here taken in the Nets which himself made for the symbols or mystical signs do not after their Sanctification depart from their own nature but remain in their former substance form and shape And Prosper speaking of the Eucharist saith this (d) De Cons Dist 2. c. Hoc est heavenly bread after its manner is called the Body of Christ when it is indeed the Sacrament of his Body and it is called the Sacrificing his Flesh and the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not being so in the truth or substance of the thing but in the Mystery which signifieth it To these particular testimonies I shall add two things The one is that it is attested by (e) Hesych Hesychius to have been an ancient usage in the Christian Church that after the Communion was ended the remaining elements were burnt in the fire But if Transubstantiation had been then believed that what remained in these elements was no other substance but the Body and Blood of Christ which continued to be such so long as the species of the elements remained it must needs have been an horrid and prophane thing for Christians to cast their Saviour into the fire to be consumed there and no such thing could certainly have entred into their hearts 18. The other thing I shall add is that when in the beginning of Christianity the Pagans falsly aspersed the Christians with
Cypr. a Carthaginian Council of eighty seven Bishops did unanimously declare their judgment for the baptizing Hereticks who returned to the Church which was contrary to what the Bishop of Rome had determined And that this Council did sit after Cyprian had received the Epistle and Judgment of Stephen Bishop of Rome is observed by (x) Argum. Ep. Cyp. 73. Pamelius Now though all these Bishops were in an error in accounting the Baptism of all Hereticks to be null and that they ought generally to be Baptized when they returned to the Church yet it cannot be supposed that they were so obstinately resolved in their error as to reject the infallible evidence of truth When many of these very Bishops who lived to understand their error did as (y) Dial adv Lucifer S. Hierome testifies disclaim and reject it and that Cyprian himself did so as did also those parts of the Eastern Church who adhered to Firmilian is judged not improbable by S. (z) Aug. Ep. 48. Austin though it was not certain But hence it appears that since Stephen's determination was slighted and opposed by such eminent Bishops both of the Carthaginian and Eastern Church who sincerely designed to embrace the truth no such thing was then owned as the Infallibility of the Romish Bishop And if Stephen did so generally declare against the Baptizing any who returned from any Heresie whatsoever as he seems to do in the words of his Epistle cited by (a) Ep. 74. S. Cyprian si quis à quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos c. he erred on the one hand as they did on the other and the determination of the general (b) Conc. Nic. c. 19. Council of Nice and of (c) Conc. Const c. 7. Constantinople takes the middle way requiring some sort of Hereticks who kept the substantial form of Baptism to be received upon their former Baptism and that others should be baptized when they returned to the Church 12. And the Practical judgment of the ancient Church is concerning this case sufficiently manifest in that when Heresies arose and their errors and impieties appeared necessary to be condemned and the Catholick Doctrine was necessary to be declared and confirmed by the greatest and fullest judgment which could be made in the Church this was not done by application to the particular Church of Rome only but by the summoning General Councils which with all the troublesome Journeys and expences attending them had been a very needless and vain thing if the Romish Infallibility had then been owned And in the four first General Councils the Bishop of Rome was personally present in none of them nor was his particular Sanction thought necessary to confirm them but they were all held in the Eastern parts of the Church and all of them desired and obtained the Imperial Confirmation with respect to their external force and effect And the (d) v Crackenthorp's Vigilius Dormitans None infallible who oppose the Doctrine of Christ and contradict themselves fifth General Council was managed perfectly contrary to the mind and sense of Vigilius then Bishop of Rome 13. Fourthly Since so many Doctrines and Practices are asserted in the Church of Rome which are plainly contrary to the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles of which several instances are given in this Chapter that Church ought not nor cannot be owned infallible by those who own the Holy Scriptures and Christ and his Apostles to be so Besides this I might add that the Romish Bishops themselves have oft some of them at one time contradicted what others of them at other times have affirmed The Constitution of Boniface the Eighth was revoked by (e) Clement in l 3. Tit. 17. c. 1. Clemens the Fifth as scandalous and dangerous And I above observed that regal Supremacy in temporals is owned by Innocentius the Third but is disowned in the stile of many Bulls of Deposition by other Popes But there needs no other testimony against any pretended Infallibility than its being contradicted in what it delivers by that evidence which is certainly infallible And there can scarce be a greater imposture and delusion than such a false pretence as this which is designed both as a prop to uphold the whole bulk and fabrick of Popery and a contrivance to raise a very high veneration thereof 14. Secondly Of Indulgences and the pretence of freeing souls from Purgatory thereby I shall consider the pretended power of securing offenders from Purgatory or releasing their souls out of it partly by the Priests Masses and chiefly by the Popes Indulgences and being interested thereby in that treasure of the Church which he hath power to dispense For the Romanists tell us that as there is in sin a fault and in mortal sins an obligation to eternal punishment which is discharged in the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution so there is an obligation to temporal punishment even in venial sins and if this be not sufficiently undergone in this life by way of satisfaction it must be made up by the sufferings of Purgatory And thus a model is contrived and drawn up to shew how sinners may escape these evils of sin without amendment Now sin indeed is of that pernicious and hurtful nature in every respect that by reason of it God sometimes punisheth persons and Families even after true repentance and receiving the person into his particular favour and such were the judgements on Davids House after his Murther and Adultery And I esteem the practices of sin and vice to be so hurtful that though they be sincerely repented of if that repentance and the fruits of it be not very exemplary they will make abatements in the high degrees of the future reward And strict penitential exercises ought to be undertaken by all Penitents for greater offences according to the quality of their transgressions This in the ordinary discipline of the ancient Church was performed before the Church gave Absolution which oft included the severe exercises of divers years and this was the Exomologesis oft mentioned in Tertullian and Cyprian And if in danger of death such penitents were reconciled who had not compleated their penitential exercises (f) Conc. Nic. c. 13.4 Conc. Carth. c. 76. the Canons required that if they recovered these must afterwards be performed And these things were testimonies of their abhorrence of the sin their high value for the favour of God and the priviledges and Communion of the Church and that they had exercised themselves to undergo difficulties and severities rather than to forfeit them 15. But concerning the Romish Purgatory though God never revealed any such thing nor did the ancient Church believe it I shall not here engage in that dispute but shall only observe that this fiction of temperal punishment of sin in Purgatory is somewhat unequal since the body which is so great a partaker in and promoter of the sin is wholly freed from all these punishments and rests quietly in its
know that it is incorrupt as to the faith it contains he may thus be satisfied When he considers that it is Gods Word delivered to the World for their use that they may know him and believe him as we before shewed this common Christian may thence conclude that if he does his best to enquire God will preserve his Word so free from corruption that it shall not misguide him to his hurt And when he further knows that the Church of God hath alwayes had the highest esteem of these Books of any others in the world and the greatest care of them and that there are infinite Copies of them in several Regions of the World both in Originals and Translations which that they all contain in them an agreement in the same matters of truth he hath good reason to believe because it is generally asserted by the best and most learned men this vulgar Christian knows and even the Romanists who design to speak all they can against the certainty of Scripture have never yet dared to affirm the contrary for though there be many various readings yet not such which will mis-guide in any matter of Faith These things will make him more secure of the Scriptures being preserved entire than any man can be of the Statutes of the Land or of any Histories or any other Records whatsoever that is he hath the greatest evidence of its integrity that can be of any Writing in the World which had its original some Ages past and infinitely a greater evidence than can be given for Oral Tradition being preserved For if one Record be commonly acknowledged a more certain preservative of truth and in it self less lyable to corruption than common fame much more when so numerous Records or carefully and religiously transcribed Copies all agree Again when he considereth that in the Jewish Church the Scriptures were untill the coming of Christ in very corrupt times and amongst very corrupt persons preserved so entire that Christ sendeth to them to learn Religion he hath great reason to judge the New Testament preserved entire since we cannot suppose Providence less careful of the New Testament than of the Old and there are now abundantly more Copies both Translations and Originals and old Translations speak the agreement of the old Originals whence they were translated and these Scriptures highly valued and publickly read in a constant manner in so many places of the World and all agree in all points of Faith Nor could they possibly be any where all corrupted to one purpose in a way so apparent to sense as words written are since there never was any General Council collected out of all parts of the World to determine any thing concerning the various Scripture readings or the alteration of any Copies if any such had been it is possible there might have been some corruption general if not by confederacy yet by mistake unless the former Copies should yet remain to discover this as it is certain many very ancient Copies and probably more ancient than any General Council yet remain in the World as for instance that written by Tecla in our Kings Library sent from Cyrill Patriarch of Constantinople Ad § 6. To the fourth Objection concerning the Vulgars knowledge of the right Translation of Scripture I grant their knowledge of Scripture is by Translations S. Austin observed de Doct. Christiana lib. 2. c. 4. The holy Scriptures being spread abroad far and wide by the various Tongues of the Interpreters are made known to the Nations for their salvation And a man of mean capacity may be satisfied concerning Translations if he consider that he hath reason to judge that the Original Languages may be understood by men of learning partly because himself by use and observing hath learnt his own Mother-Tongue and therefore hath reason to think that others by the same means may learn other Languages and particularly those wherein the Scriptures were written partly because he thinks it injurious to the Goodness Wisdom of God to imagine that he should give forth a writing to guide the World and that it should be in a Language which was not intelligible and partly because he hears that so many Churches have these Books translated and that even such as this Discourser who would cast and suggest all doubts they can concerning Scripture translated into the common Tongues yet dare they not say that it is not capable of being translated so as to deliver the same matters of Faith yea the Papists themselves both use allow of and many of them endeavour to make new Translations Having gone thus far he may further consider that if it can be truly translated he hath reason to judge that such men who have the common fame even amongst the Learned for men of skill in Languages are best able to give the sense of the words contained in those Languages and he can conclude that whatever God thought requisite for him to know from this Book is so written that such men of Learning are able to give the sense of it and that whatever in any phrase cannot by such be understood is something fit to be further enquired into but not necessary to be now known Yea further he can conclude that he hath reason to conceive that the Translation with us in use doth contain in it the true Doctrine of Christ which is in the Original because he heareth this oft averred by honest and learned men amongst us and because the Papists who are professed enemies to this Translation yet dare not nor do not assert the contrary but raise only some more inconsiderable Cavils about phrases By this I suppose our vulgar Christian satisfied if this Discourser be not with this answer let him consider a parallel case If many English men should purposely go to France to give a description of that Countrey and they take a particular view of all places and write this and all agree together and many thousand others who after go to see it all agree in all material things yea and when many others shall go over on purpose to find fault with this description who yet can find nothing very material to object but only carp at small things will this Author say that all this can signifie nothing to inform him satisfactorily who stayes at home unless he could be able to demonstrate to himself that they indeed were in France as they all agree and that they did see what they wrote Either this is something very considerable and rational to engage assent or else against all reason most English men have confessed that there is such a place as Rome and such a person as is called the Pope when we never saw either it or him Ad § 7. To the fifth Objection concerning printed Copies Before I answer this I shall observe that as it is suspicious in the whole Book here is manifestly evident either a piece of gross ignorance in the Writer or a designed cheat upon his
faithful delivery of Christian truths by word of mouth to be a very useful way to bring many to the Faith or to establish them in it and we doubt not but that very great Multitudes who have not the advantage of using reading or hearing the Scriptures may by this means be brought to believe Such was the case of some barbarous Nations in the Primitive times and of many Pagans in these later times But since the ceasing of the extraordinary gifts of revelation in the Church the most faithful delivery of these truths is that which is guided by the Scripture and takes that for its Rule and such are the sober instructions of knowing and well grounded Protestants and no other delivery can be faithful but that which is agreeable to the Scripture and its ruling Power and this was the commendation Irenaeus gave to Polycarp Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 5. c. 20. that he delivered all things consonant to Scriptures Yet though this way of delivery by word of mouth is very useful yet it was then only a sure Rule of Faith when these truths were delivered of them who were inspired of God and thereby were infallible in their delivery and such was the delivery by the Apostles and Evangelists both in their preaching and in their Writing Next to the Apostles but not equally with them we would value the delivery of Apostolical men But in after-ages we deny any certainty of infallible delivery of truths in the way of Oral Tradition and acknowledge that only a certain delivery which appears such by its accord and agreement with the Scripture Rule And as to the sense of Scripture we doubt not but when God gave the Primitive Church gifts of interpretation there was a delivery of the sense of Scripture not only in plain and necessary things which are obvious from the words but even in many more hard and difficult Texts of Scripture Yet all obscure Scriptures were not even in those times explained and their explications generally received since S. Peter speaks of many things in S Pauls Epistles which were hard to be understood which if the interpretation of them had been generally delivered and received in the Churches in Gods name they could not have been The great and necessary Doctrines were then received and delivered according to the true intent and meaning of Christ and that was agreeable to the Scriptures Hence the delivery of any truth to all Churches in the Apostles times and its being received by them so far as this could be made evident was a very useful way to destroy Heresie yet the Fathers who made use of this way did also shew that these truths were plain in Scripture To these Churches so far as the Doctrine by them received can be manifested we would willingly appeal for a trial of Controversies and do readily imbrace such truths as by sure evidence appear to be the Doctrine held by those Churches Partly as thus delivered and chiefly as clear in Scripture we receive those Articles of Faith contained in the Creed commonly owned in the Catholick Church but the Creed we conceive to be delivered in a much more sure and safe way than Oral Tradition since the words of it have with common consent been agreed on fixed and determined the want of which advantage in the Romish Tradition doth manifest it to be very alterable and uncertain in other Doctrines But that all points of Christian Doctrine or Apostolical interpretations of hard Scriptures are infallibly delivered from the Primitive Churches by the way of Oral and Practical Tradition we deny Nor can there be more reason to perswade us that the present delivery of the Romish Church doth faithfully preserve such Doctrines and interpretations than would also perswade that when Ezra read the Law and caused the people to understand the sense of it we might certainly find the Doctrines by him taught and the interpretations by him given amongst the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees as surely as we could have them from Ezra's mouth or from them who heard him and were faithful relaters of his teaching I will only further here observe that Tradition may be considered either as a meer speculation and notion and thus a man may imagine a constant delivery of the self same things truths and actions by the successions of several generations without considering whether there really be any such delivery or whether it can be rationally expected and to treat of such a Tradition as this being a Rule of Faith is but to discourse of aiery fancies and imaginations Or else Tradition may be considered as something reall and in being and thus we may inquire whether such a Tradition as is to be found in the Church or in the World be a sure way to deliver truth infallibly to Posterity This is that we Protestants deny and if this Author intend not the proof of this he will speak nothing to the purpose and will only shew that such Tradition as they of Rome or any other in the World have not might be the Rule of Faith and notwithstanding all this they will be destitute of it I shall now examine his Discourses of Tradition in which every Reader will be able to observe that he hath made no proof considerable unless he hath said more for the Tradition of the Romish Church than can be said to prove Religion not corrupted before the Flood or after the Flood amongst the Gentiles or before the Captivity and at the time of Christ amongst the Jews § 1. Coming to inquire whether that Tradition be the Rule of Faith which he calls Oral and Practical he thus explains it We mean a delivery down from hand to hand by words and a constant course of frequent visible actions conformable to those words of the sense and faith of the fore-Fathers Our business in this Discourse is to inquire whether this can be a Rule of Faith which the Discourser affirms and Protestants deny § 2. To understand this way of Tradition he observes on this manner Children learn the names of Persons Rooms and things they converse with and afterwards to write read and use civil carriage And looking into the thing they gain the notions of several objects either by their own senses or by the help of having them pointed at and this he observes is the constant course of the World continued every Age yea every Year or Month. This is Tradition in Civil matters Concerning this Tradition it may be observed that about matters visible to sense the Objects or Things and the names of the things must be distinctly considered The common notions of Objects visible as of Heaven Earth Sun Moon Rooms Man Trees c. are by common apprehensions even of Children received from Senses not by tradition of a former Generation and those apprehensions are preserved by the view of the visible objects But the words or names are indeed delivered in such a way of Tradition but words thus delivered are not
Tradition § 11. He proceeds to the sixth Property That it is certain in it self because this will prove the fourth fifth and seventh Now though this be not true that what is certain in its self can satisfie the piercing Wits and convince obstinate Adversaries and be ascertainable unto us because there may be a certainty in the thing which is not discerned and it is not the being but the evidence of certainty submitted to that works these effects else could there be no dissatisfaction in any thing since all truth is certainly in it self truth yet if he can prove the certainty of Tradition I shall over and above yield the rest This he thus goes about to prove Since Faith must be certain and must have a certain Rule he hath as he saies shewed that Scripture is not certain therefore Oral Tradition is This loose Argument deserves no better answer than that I have shewed Scripture is certain in it self therefore Oral Tradition is not Yet I must tell him his Argument is otherwise faulty than in supposing his having proved Scripture not certain for there is something besides Scripture which is a better guide or leader to the Faith than the Oral Tradition and that is the Doctrine of the Primitive Church as preserved in the Ancient Fathers or approved Writers of their time For though they were men and might in some things mistake and therefore their testimony is much inferiour to Scripture yet since they lived in times near the Apostles and when the vigour of Christian piety was much continued the Doctrines then received are more like to be truth than what is now owned in the Church of Rome after many successions of Ages and great degeneracy of life even in the dreggs of time And we have as much and more reason to think these men both capable of knowing Doctrines then delivered as the Faith of Christ and faithful in relating them as we can have to judge so concerning any persons now in the Church of Rome But that there is not an agreement in all considerable points in what was then delivered and owned by the Fathers and the present Traditions of the Romish Church may be collected from one instance I shall hereafter mention Disc 8. and so far as concerns this Author from their Rule of Faith which shall be discussed in the end of this Book § 12. He would prove the certainty of Tradition in that he saith It hath for its basis the best nature in the Vniverse man's and that not in speculations which may mistake by passion but his eyes and ears which are necessarily subject to the operations of nature and this in most many times every day which is a much higher certainty than a sworn Witness hath of what he saw or heard but once These upon serious inquiry appear empty vain words For doth Faith consist only in seeing and hearing Must there not be a delivering and receiving which supposeth conceptions and many other acts of the mind He who considers this aright will find the hasis of Tradition to be like Fame's basis a man clad with all his infirmities with a memory that may let things slip especially if they be numerous as revealed truths are with an understanding that may mistake especially in things difficult as many truths are with affections that may disrelish or slight them if corruption prevail as it may oft do in the members of the Church with imaginations which may alter or add somewhat when they think they only explain and yet still may they not deliver all they know and remember In this case he who may be certain that he hath heard such and such words delivered may remain very uncertain whether they be true or not And he who is a Witness in any Court may be much more sure that what he once saw or heard if he perfectly remember it was so heard or seen by him than any man can be of the true relation of things he hath oft heard spoken by men who took them themselves upon others relations and they on others and so on So that the great imperfection of Tradition is chiefly as to the delivery of it by former Ages which this Author doth not so much as touch of here in his proof of its certainty and what pretensions he makes use of in after Discourses shall be answered in their place But what he saith That in most many times every day are these impressions made upon their senses this may be true concerning some Christian truths but to assert this concerning all truth is such an apparent falsity as no ingenuous man could be guilty of For it is plain that in many things they of the Romish Church cannot agree which is truth and have had in many Cases Councils and Decrees to determine what things are matters of Faith and in many other things they are yet undetermined which could not be if these things were daily cleared to their senses unless they be men of much duller sense than the rest of mankind are § 13. He reminds of what he had said before § 8. That it is as evident that while the next Age believes and practises as the former Age did they are of the same Faith as it is that to believe the same is to believe the same But this is not at all to the purpose concerning Oral Tradition only this Discourser pleaseth himself generally in shifting off or wholly omitting matters difficult and sometimes going about to prove what no Adversary would dissent in But there is no certainty in the way of Tradition as we have above shewed that any Age doth in all things believe as the former Age held See n. 13 14. § 14. He tells his Reader That Dissenters or Doubters can say nothing against the way of Tradition not with all the quirks ingenuously misused Logick and abused into Sophistry can furnish them with Indeed what he hath hitherto pleaded for Tradition hath been nothing else but disingenuously abused Logick and Sophistry but what he now asserts is a bold daring to let his Reader know that under some contrived expressions he will strain to vent any falshood though never so gross Will he say that nothing can be said against this Rule when he cannot but know that Protestants who dissent from it do say very much against it yea they say so much as they know can never be solidly answered Yea that we may see how little he designs truth in his Discourse he who here would perswade his Reader that nothing can be said against his way of Oral Tradition yet Disc 7. § 1. himself tells him of somewhat that seems mainly to prejudice it and spends that Discourse in Answer Though indeed much more than that is by us observed against Tradition He concludes § 15. from his Discourse that the four last conditions of the Rule of Faith agree to Tradition but since by Trial his Discourse appears very unsound and faulty I conclude from the
partake of our flesh and blood and made our Body his and became Man of a Woman Wherein he plainly enough makes use of the holy Scriptures to decide the Controversie concerning that point of Faith or rather to confirm that matter of Faith against its opposers SECT IX Of the Rule of Faith acknowledged by the Fathers and first of Coelestine AS it was easie to shew the general consent of the ancient Fathers to the Protestant Doctrine in this particular I shall now indeavour to do it in all those our Discourser pretends to be on his side and to avoid over great prolixity I will confine my self to them only His first citation is from Coelestine in his Epistle to the Ephesine Council where his words somewhat mis cited by the Discourser are to this purpose We must by all means indeavour that we may retain the Doctrines of Faith delivered to us and hitherto preserved by the Apostolical Doctrine But what is here for Oral Tradition Doth Coelestine tell us that that was the way of delivering and preserving truth till his time No such matter yea in the beginning of this Epistle he saith That is certain which is delivered in the Evangelical Letters But that we may better understand Coelestine whose Letter to the Council of Ephesus was written against Nestorius consider first his Letter to Cyril who confuted Nestorius in which are these words This truly is the great triumph of our Faith that thou hast so strongly proved our assertions and so mightily vanquished those that are contrary by the testimony of Divine Scriptures Yea in his Epistle to Nestorius he calls that Heresie of Nestorius a perfidious novelty which indeavours to pull asunder those things which the holy Scripture conjoins And in another Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople he hath these words of Nestorius He fights against the Apostles and explodes the Prophets and despiseth the words of Christ himself speaking of himself of what Religion or of what Law doth he profess himself a Bishop who doth so foully abuse both the Old and the New Testament And in the end of that Epistle thus directs those Constantinopolitans You having the Apostolical words before your eyes be perfect in the same sense and the same meaning These words of Coelestine seem plainly to shew that in the Romish Church Scripture was then the way whereby to try Doctrines But if this be not the sense of these words of this Roman Bishop which seem so plain I may well conclude that the words by which the Roman Church of old delivered truth were not generally intelligible and so their Tradition must be uncertain SECT X. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Irenaeus THe next Father he cites is Irenaeus from whom he cites three testimonies From Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 4. though the naming the Book was omitted by him he would prove that the Apostles gave charge to the Bishops to observe Tradition and that it is a sufficient Rule of Faith without Scripture in which he abuseth Irenaeus From Irenaeus lib. 1. c. 3. he to the same end cites this as his testimony Though there be divers tongues in the world yet the vertue of Tradition is one and the same the preaching of the Church is true and firm in which one and the same way of salvation is shown over the whole world Of which words only the first clause is in the place cited in Irenaeus but these words The preaching of the Church is true and firm c. though glossed upon by this Discourser as considerable are not to be there found in Irenaeus and if they were they would not serve his purpose as may by and by appear And from Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. though he mis-cites it lib. 1. c. 3. he cites words p. 138. to prove that the Doctrine of the present Church is the Doctrine of the Apostles Now that I may give a true account of the meaning of the words cited and also of the judgment of Irenaeus I shall first observe from Irenaeus himself what kind of Hereticks those in the Primitive times were who occasioned these words and how he confutes them and next which was his own judgement of the Rule of Faith Concerning the former Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 2. tells us That those Hereticks when they were convinced out of the Scriptures were turned into the accusing of the Scriptures themselves that they were not right nor of authority that they were variously spoken and that the truth could not be found out of them by those who have not Tradition and that the truth was given in a living voice which was the wisdom in a Mystery which every one of these Hereticks pleaded themselves had in Valentinus or Marcion Cerinthus or Basilides And when they were challenged to hold to the Tradition of the Apostles and their Successors in the Church they said they were wiser than the Apostles and so would neither hold to Scripture nor Tradition since they are slippery as Serpents indeavouring every way to evade he saith they must be every way resisted After this c. 3. he contends with them concerning Tradition and shews that the Churches Tradition is much more considerable than these Hereticks and hath the words which our Discourser cites p. 138. All they who will hear truth may discern in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles manifest in the whole world after which he adds We can mention the Bishops which were by the Apostles instituted in the Churches and were their Successors and if they had known any Mysteries to teach them who are perfect they would not have concealed them from them Further to manifest what was this Tradition he refers to Clemens his Epistle saying from thence they who will may know the Apostolical Tradition of the Church That there is one God c. Then that Polycarp who conversed with the Apostles whom Irenaeus had seen was a more faithful testifier than Valentinus or Marcion and he declared the same Doctrine and from his Epistle to the Philippians they who will may learn the preaching of truth and that John who lived to the time of Trajan was a true witness of the Apostles Tradition Cap. 4. He observes That the Church are the depository of truth and if any have any dispute of any question ought they not to have recourse to the ancient Churches in which the Apostles conversed and from them to receive what is certain concerning the present question And then he adds which our Discourser also cites p. 131. But what if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches To which Ordination assent many Nations of those Barbarians who believe in Christ having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without Paper and Ink and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition believing in one God c. And after saith They who believe this Faith without
exceeding fully declared his opinion for the Scripture being the Rule of Faith 1. He cites S. Austin contra Epist Manich. quam vocant Fundamenti in which he brings in the Manichee c. 14. saying That he doth not promise any perfect Science but such things are shewed to him and that they to whom they are told ought to believe him in those things which they know not To which he answers If I must believe things unknown then follow the words this Authour refers to Why should I not rather believe those things that are now celebrated by the consent of learned and unlearned and are confirmed amongst all people by most grave Authority Here he prefers the consent and fame of the Church before that of the Manichee but this is far from making it a Rule of Faith but only maketh it the more considerable motive and yet in those things wherein learned and unlearned consent Scripture may be their Rule to believe them And S. Austin declares Ep. 3. that there are obvious things in Scripture which it speaks to the heart both of the learned and unlearned What he next adds as spoken in the same Book by S Austin The Authority of the Catholick Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance which Authority from the best established seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthned by the series of Bishops succeeding them and by the assertion of so many Nations These words I find not in that Treatise He indeed there saith c. 5. That he had not believed the Gospel if the Authority of the Catholick Church had not moved him whence it may be inferred that he makes the Authority of the Catholick Church sufficient to cause Faith as a Motive to it and indeed this is all can be inferred from these words here cited And yet it is observable that the Authority of the Catholick Church which was so great a Motive to S. Austin did not confine it self to the present Church but included the Primitive Church whence c. 3. he calls it an Authority begun by Miracles nourished by hope increased by Charity and confirmed by Antiquity His last testimony from S. Austin is I think mis-cited as to the place but the words are but not in Ep. 58. which is not S. Austins The faithful do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church But why may not this be the Scripture can it not be common to little and great according to S. Austin's language Who tells us Ep. 3. By the Scriptures bad understandings are corrected little ones are nourished and great ones are delighted That S. Austin makes the Scripture a Rule of Faith I might very largely shew though I suppose a few expressions may suffice Ep. 157. Where the thing by nature obscure is above our capacity and the Divine Scriptures doth not plainly afford its assistance here humane conjecture rashly presumes to determine any thing And if we would have the word Rule he saith De bono Viduitatis Wherefore should I teach thee any thing more than what we read in the Apostle for the holy Scripture fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine lest we should attempt to know more than we ought to know De Civ Dei lib. 13. c. 18. The City of God believeth the holy Scriptures both Old and New which we call Canonical from thence Faith it self is conceived out of which the just man liveth I will yet add only one testimony more De literis Petiliani Lib. 3. c. 6. If any one I will not say if we no way to be compared to him who said Though we but as in the following words he added If an Angel from Heaven should preach unto you either concerning Christ or his Church or any other thing which belongs to our Faith or Life besides what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be accursed But enough now of this famous Father SECT XVII What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith THe last Father referred to by our Discourser is Petrus Chrysologus from whom he only cites one testimony Serm. 85. where speaking of Festivals from those words in S. John 7. At the midst of the Feast Jesus went up into the Temple he saith A Christian mind knows not how in desperationem deducere a harsh phrase which this Discourser seems to read disputationem and so translates to bring into dispute but I rather think it should be despicationem to bring into contempt those things which are strengthned by the Tradition of the Fathers and by time it self But however we read it this being spoken of Festivals speaks nothing concerning the delivery of Doctrines But I will see if I can meet with something that will speak his mind as to the Rule of Faith In his 99. Serm. of the Parable of the Leaven The Woman who took the Leaven is the Church the Leaven is the Mystery of Heavenly Doctrine the three measures in which it s said she hid the Leaven are the Law the Prophets and the Gospels where the Divine sense is hid and covered by the mystical word that it is not hid from the Believer but is hid from the unbeliever Serm. 112. upon Rom. 5. Concerning Original sin he saith This day the Apostles speech did fully give in it self with apparent light to the sense of them who heard it nor did it leave any thing doubtful to Catholick minds Serm. 18. upon 1 Cor. 15. He saith Lest any one should dare to doubt of the Resurrection of the Dead we have caused this day to be read to you the large Lesson of blessed Paul asserting it by his authority and by examples to which our Sermon can find nothing that it can add Now that where all matters of Divine Faith are contained and which gives clear light concerning matters of Faith yea so fully that nothing can be added and removes all doubts concerning matters of Faith all which he asserts concerning Scriptures must needs be a Rule of Faith I have now done with the Fathers and discovered that all those he chose to be of his side have disowned his opinion and fixed upon that Scriptural Rule of Faith which Protestants own SECT XVIII Answering the remainder of his Discourse BUT because § 15. he supposeth he hath there given a few notes which will make all testimonies of Fathers for Scripture against Tradition lose their edge I will examine them His first Note is That in almost all his citations of Councils and Fathers they speak directly against Hereticks which puts them to declare what fixed them Catholicks Now from this first Note since I have shewed that in all such places they own Scripture for the Rule of Faith the citations to that purpose are the more firm for Scripture His second Note is to consider Whether when Fathers speak highly of Scripture as that it contains all Faith c. whether they speak of Scripture sensed or as yet to
his heart bringeth forth evil things And this is that which the usual observation of the world hath testified as (f) Hierocl in Pyth. Carm. p. 140. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierocles declared men speak either good or evil sutably to the contrary inclinations of their minds There is indeed some difference here between the evil and the good heart The man of a malicious spirit may sometimes speak fair and smoothly even unto flattery and a wicked man may speak good words and act the hypocrite and the reason of this is because an evil heart may incline the man to dissemble and speak falsly but such words though they carry a fair appearance are evil words because full of fraud unfaithfulness and dissimulation But where the heart is good and upright there true integrity prevails and though an evil man may in many outward things speak and do as the good man doth out of hypocrisie and still continue wicked no good man can speak and do evil things according to the practice of the sinful and vicious person and whosoever doth so must be really wicked because goodness and uprightness both hate all counterfeiting and dissembling and all other compliances with sin and evil 7. and speaks a prevalency of sin But there is so much evil and wickedness contained under this sin of defaming others that a great part of the testimony which the Apostle gave of the Jews being estranged from true goodness and piety and being under sin is included herein He declares from the writings of the Old Testament Rom. 3.13 14 15. Their throat is an open Sepulchre with their tongues they have used deceit the poyson of asps is under their lips Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness Their feet are swift to shed blood c. Now the sense of most part of these words is plainly contained in this sin I am declaring against And when the Apostle mentions their mouth being full of cursing it may be worthy our observation that contumelious speaking against and reproaching others doth in some degree really include in it the true and proper nature of cursing it being a plain declaration of the persons wishing and desiring evil to him of whom he speaks And what S. Paul adds that their feet are swift to shed blood even this is frequently the natural effect of the same sin For when men by evil speaking especially of their Superiours have wrought themselves and others into a greater dislike of them and hatred towards them how oft this hath fomented fierce passions and wrought dispositions to cruelty and put men upon insurrections and forwardness of shedding blood the Histories of all times and the remembrance of this last Age in our own Nation will give undeniable evidence Now such a temper which gives an apparent indication that they who practised such things were turned aside from God and the ways of piety cannot be thought reconcileable with the holiness and purity of the Christian Religion 8. Thirdly This practice is mighty dangerous 3. It exposeth the offender to condemnation with respect to mens great and eternal interests Many are too neglectful in calling themselves to an account for their words but God hath assured us that at the great day he will take an account of them and will not then allow that liberty that men now give themselves in evil speaking but even this sin may be sufficient to bring upon them eternal condemnation Our Lord hath declared Matt. 12.36 37. That of every idle word men shall give an account in the day of Judgment For by their words they shall be justified and by their words they shall be condemned And these words of our Saviour are so solemn and weighty as laying down a rule of proceeding in the future judgment and condemnation that they ought not to be slighted and disregarded but to be seriously pondered and considered Many of the ancient Writers interpret this Text concerning such words as were not useful and profitable to edification Thus S. Basil S. Hierom Greg. Magnus and others And (g) Iren. adâ—â— Haeres l. 4. c. 31. Irenaeus mentions them as such a Doctrine of our Saviour whereby he advanceth and exalteth the Christian Religion and the rules and precepts thereof And it is thence inferred that if such words which are not of use to good shall be under the heavy condemnation of the great Day much more those which are contumelious and include evil 9. But this strict interpretation Mat. 12.36 Concerning every idle word explained would deny Christians the liberty of ordinary conversation and that freedom of familiar speaking concerning common affairs which is necessary thereunto and it cannot well be thought that our Saviour whose yoke is easie would lay such a severe restraint upon his Disciples under pain of eternal damnation And therefore the notion entertained by Grotius and Dr. Hammond that by every idle word is understood every false and evil word including what is unseemly and unbecoming Sobriety is the much more probable sense of our Saviours speech and the account they give of it is very reasonable and considerable And this is a sense that wants not the authority of some of the Ancients Thus Theophylact expounds these words and so doth also S. Chrysostome both upon S. Matthew and (h) Chrys Serm. 62. in Paralyt elsewhere And (i) Eus praep Ev. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius declares that upon account of these words of our Saviour the Christians would not admit either any lye or any reproach nor any filthy nor any unseemly word 10. This sense is also agreeable to the manner of the Scripture expression in divers other places where it speaks of things and words hurtful and evil under such phrases as most directly signifie their being not useful Thus S. Paul calls such words as turn men from piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain words Ephes 5.6 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain babling 1 Tim. 6.20 2 Tim. 2.16 and the expressions of an empty word and an idle word are not much unlike but under that phrase the Apostle evidently intends wicked and sinful words So when the Idols of the Gentiles are oft called vanities as Act. 14.15 and the adhering to them a becoming vain in their imaginations Rom. 1.21 it is not only intended that these things are void of goodness but that they are things abominable So the Apostle intends that it will be of pernicious consequence to men when those who watch for their souls give up their account with grief when he only expresseth it to be unprofitable Heb. 13.17 And the Holy Scripture calls the works of darkness unfruitful when it designs them to be accounted hurtful Ephes 5.11 11. And this interpretation of these words of our Lord accords very well with the truth delivered in other Scriptures that revilers and lyars shall not inherit the Kingdom of God and that his Religion is vain who bridleth not
his tongue It is very suitable also to the occasion on which our Saviour spake these words which was the Pharisees defaming his Miracles and him in working them as if he did them by Beelzebub And therefore this speech hath a particular respect to words of calumny The sad doom of Reproachers hence observed and speaks the heavy doom of such persons as please themselves with speaking evil of others when Christ himself shall come to judge Let every Christian therefore stand in awe of this threatning of our Lord and carefully observe that precept of S. James Jam. 2.12 So speak ye and so do as those that shall be judged by the law of liberty Both our words and actions will be hereafter judged according to that Gospel which passeth a Sentence against reproaching expressions And the Gospel is such a law of liberty that besides other advantages they who will seriously mind their duty may under it and by the grace thereof be set free from the power and rule of their passions and lusts and therefore the serving these under the grace of the Gospel is utterly inexcusable 12. Fourthly 4. A pious government of the tongue is an excellent Christian perfection The good and pious government of the tongue is a very considerable perfection in the practice of Religion For this manifests such a person to have gotten the victory over the passions and disorderly motions of his mind which are apt in others to discover themselves by rash words the tongue being a quick and glib mover and oft forward to express any prevailing irregular discomposure of the Spirit Hence Jam. 3.2 If any man offend not in word the same is a perfect man and able also to bridle the whole body But these words of that Apostle must be so understood as to speak particularly the perfection of him who thus behaves himself upon the true principles of Christianity For it must be acknowledged that passionate and reproachful words may be suppressed in some by the advantage of their natural temper of mildness and courteousness which doth not much encline them to this sin whilst they live in the practice of others In others they may be restrained by the rules of policy and subtilty and a strong resolution in the managing of some design and much may be done in others by mere rational and Philosophical considerations There are many instances among the ancient Philosophers and their followers of such persons as gained a considerable mastery of their passions and a great command of their words and actions Among others Socrates was a rare instance hereof if he came any thing nigh that admirable character that (k) Xenoph. Memor l. 1. p. 710. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Xenophon gives him That no man ever saw Socrates do any action or heard him speak any word that was contrary to Religious piety or unholy This was mighty considerable though we understand it only with respect to the rules of morality admitted under the Pagan Philosophy And it is unbecoming Christians to come short of such examples when their Religion doth so wonderfully go beyond all the principles of Ethnick Philosophy 13. Where this is wanting the Christian spirit hath not had its due effect Christianity tends to bring men into a lively sense of the only true God to a clear knowledge of that excellent revelation delivered by our Saviour it guides unto that universal purity which excludes all the Idolatry and other vices which the most refined Paganism did admit it sheweth obedience to its precepts to be of the highest concernment imaginable from the plainest manifestation of the great account and judgment to come and the future state either of endless glorious perfection or of intolerable torment And it also most expresly manifests the great necessity of well governing the tongue both as to the practice of Religion and the obtaining everlasting happiness and it affords the aids and grace of the Holy Spirit to assist and enable us to the performance of all those duties it injoyns upon us Now this Religion cannot be received in any considerable degree by them who entertain the practice of evil speaking and reproaching which is contrary and opposite to it to the author of it and to the obtaining the good it proposeth to its followers But where the true fear of God and a conscientious regard to all the rules of the Christian life have prevailed for the well-ordering of the tongue it may be expected that they will have a like power and efficacy for the government of the whole man And where this member is disordered it becomes an incendiary and as a pestilential Contagion spreads abroad venome and evil and in S. James's expression it sets on fire the course of nature and it is set on fire of hell who also saith it is a world of iniquity and defileth the whole body Jam. 3.6 And the Great miscarriages of the tongue which in that Chapter are complained of with divers earnest and emphatical expressions appear plainly to be the censuring and speaking evil of others and the promoting and exciting strife and contention CHAP. II. The excessive disorders and unreasonable extravagancy of speaking evil when men give way to their passions and uncharitable temper manifested especially from the Censures our Saviour underwent SECT I. The best deserving persons are oft under obloquy and undeserved Censure Sect. I THese things being premised I shall now come to discourse 1. Of the great disorder of an ill-governed tongue in censuring and reproaching 2. Of the sinfulness of this practice and the great guilt thereof 2. First The tongue is such an unruly evil as S. James calls it Jam. 3.8 that when men indulge themselves in uncharitableness and censoriousness it puts them upon the contriving Censoriousness is unruly and wonderfully extravagant or pursuing the most unaccountable and unreasonable calumnies and slanders Good Hezekiah shall fall under the lavish revilings of a Rabshakeh and his reformation excellently and piously performed will be condemned as impious And Christianity it self was made a matter of reproach by Saul whilst he was a blasphemer a persecuter and injurious and by many others who professed themselves enemies unto it and the Christians in general were spoken of as evil doers 1 Pet. 2.12 But we cannot better discern how ungovernable and extravagant the censorious and uncharitable tongue is than by considering the instances of our blessed Saviour and other excellent men Even the Holy Jesus when he conversed upon Earth escaped not the sharp and bitter reproaches of reviling tongues though he deserved no censure nor gave any just occasion for any The persons considered who bear reproach And therefore what he and other good men met with will abundantly manifest the strange unruliness of a defaming temper which is contained under no bounds and limits of truth justice or charity 3. This may especially appear by our enquiring into three things 1. What the great excellencies were
Eucharistia consecrabatur ut comprehendit simul Missam Catechumenorum haec est communissima acceptio And hence such portions of Scripture as are parts of the publick service are included in that rule and Constitution which relates to the whole And the (i) de Verbo Del c. 15. Cardinal declares that what is done by the Protestants is a real and practical asserting their heretical opinion against the Church whilst they ordinarily translate the Scriptures into the German French and English tongues and publickly read and sing them in the same tongues In England before the Reformation I know of no allowed translation into English made by any whom they own to be of their Communion That of Wiclef though out of the Vulgar Latin must not be owned as such Since the Reformation the Romanists have translated the Testament into English but though these Books may be procured by some few persons they are not easily had by very many And it is probable that in some Popish Countries they may have no translation of the Scriptures into their Vulgar tongue to this time which carryeth any publick approbation or allowance with it 24. A third impediment of piety in the Romish Church 3. Of their publick Service and Prayers in a tongue not understood by the people which I shall instance in is their having the publick Prayers and the administration of the Offices of the Church in a language not understood by the people which is a great hindrance to their devotion That this practice is generally used and is established and appointed in the Church of Rome is sufficiently known and is manifest from the foregoing Section But that the Primitive Church did generally own the fitness and usefulness of having the publick service and Prayers of the Church in a language understood by the common people is evident enough from what was then practised and established Publick Offices in the Primitive Church were performed in a tongue commonly understood In a great part of the Eastern Church where the Greek language was then the common speech of the Country as is well known and doth appear from the popular Homilies of the Greek Fathers which they spake in that language they had their publick prayers and service of the Church in the Greek tongue and not in the Latin and some of the ancient Liturgies then used in that tongue are still extant And in that part of the Western Church in which the Latin was then the Vulgar or commonly known language as in Italy and many other parts the publick prayers and service were performed in that tongue and not in the Greek or any other not commonly known in that Country And this is proved from those parts of the ancient Latin Offices which are still preserved 25. But in such other Countries where neither of these languages were commonly known there are sufficient instances of the use of other languages which were known In those Eastern parts where the Syriack language obtained they had their publick Offices in that language And a Collection of sixteen Syriack Offices are declared by (k) Gabr. Sionit de Ritib Maronit in init Gabriel Sionita to be in a Manuscript in his possession many of which were used together in the same Church and others probably in other Churches and in other Ages And after the first Centuries when the Arabick and the Coptick or Aegyptian language prevailed much in Egypt and the Patriarchate of Alexandria they had also the Coptick Liturgies as (l) In Epist ad Nihusium praef Rituali Cophticarum Athanasius Kircherus testifies And that part which might seem least needful to be in the Vulgar tongue which concerns the Ordination of their Ecclesiastical Officers who might be presumed to understand other tongues was translated by Kircher into Latin out of a very ancient Manuscript in which all the Ritual was in the Coptick tongue except the exhortations which were in the Arabick This translation was by Kircher sent to Nihusius 1647 and by him published five or six years after And several other Liturgical forms both in Syriack and other languages used in those Eastern Churches are mentioned by Ecchellensis in the account he gives of several Authours and Books written in those languages in the end of his Eutychius vindicatus And I doubt not but further proof may be given of this matter That the people might understand the Service care was taken by the Imperial Law by them who have the opportunity of seeing and consulting such Writers 26. To this general and practical testimony of the Church in former ages I shall add three particular testimonies but all of them of a publick nature all which acknowledged the usefulness of the people understanding the publick Offices of the Church and in the two former there was care taken thereof The first is out of the Imperial Law in (o) Justin Novel 137. c. 6. which it is enacted that the Bishops and Priests should express the Prayers at the holy Communion and at Baptism with a voice that might be heard by the faithful people for the raising the souls of the hearers into a greater devotion and affectionate giving glory to God And then that Law citeth the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.16 Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks seeing he understands not what thou saist Which imperial Law takes care that the Prayers of the Church may be understood by the people for their profit providing that the words thereof should be audibly pronounced and supposing these Prayers to be expressed as they then were in a language commonly understood A second testimony is from the Roman Pontifical in which was continued down to the Council of Trent by the Roman Pontifical a direction at the Ordination of Lectors as is noted in (p) Hist Con c. Trid. l. 6. p. 470. the History of that Council ut studeant distincte articulate legere ut à populo intelligantur From whence it is easily collected that when that Pontifical was composed the service of the Roman Church was then in that language which was understood by the people and the sense of the Roman Church then was that it was requisite it should be understood and by its authority it took care that it might be so expressed as to be understood But when after some time the Latin tongue by degrees grew out of vulgar use especially under the various Mutations in the Empire there was then want of care to order the expressions of the publick service to be such as would suit the capacities of the people 27. The third testimony is from the Council of Trent which declares (q) Sess 22. cap. 8. Etsi Missa contineat magnam populi eruditionem Patribus tamen visum non expedire ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur Quamobrem retento Ecclesiae Romanae ritu
is not within the Churches authority 2. They may as well say that whole Christ is in one kind and therefore there needs no consecration of the Cup as that therefore there needs no distribution And so the Cup may be wholly rejected with as much Piety as the Laity are now deprived of it 3. What is contained in the Sacrament is contained in it according to the Will of Christ and his Institution and thereby the Bread is the Communion of the body of Christ and the Cup is the Communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 And (n) Ration l. 4. c. 54. n. 13. Durandus did truly assert that the blood of Christ is not Sacramentally in the Host because the Bread signifies the Body and not the Blood So he with somewhat more to this purpose And this is the more considerable because in the Holy Eucharist the death of Christ is represented and in the Cup his Blood as shed And Gelasius who was once Bishop of Rome when he heard that some received the Bread only and not the Cup declared what then it seems was Catholick Doctrine at Rome that they must either receive the whole Sacrament or be rejected from the whole because (o) de Consec Dist c. 2. comperimus divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire the dividing one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge Which words contain a more full and plain censure of what since his time is practised in the Church of Rome than can be evaded by the strained and frivolous Interpretations either of Gratian of Binius or Baronius And we have also much greater authority than his For besides what I have above mentioned this use of the Cup was part of what S. Paul received of the Lord and delivered to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11 23-25 and it was matter of praise in the Corinthians that they kept the ordinances as he delivered them v. 2. 19. And what is asserted in the Council of Trent that the Church had just reason to order the Communion in one kind and what others say that it is more profitable to Christians and contains an honour and reverence to that Ordinance must suppose that their wisdom is greater than our Saviour's who did not know or consider with so much prudence as they do what is fit to be appointed and established in his Ordinance And since the Holy Ghost declared both the Bread and the Cup to be appointed to shew forth Christs death till he come 1 Cor. 11.26 they must therefore be both used to this purpose until his second coming and then no power was left to any Church to alter and change this institution And whilst some pretend reverence to God and this Sacrament in taking away the Cup from the people it would be considered that there can be no honour to God in acts of disobedience But if pretences of honouring God in acts of disobedience could render actions commendable Sauls Sacrificing must have passed for a pious attempt and the Doctrine of the Pharisees for the observing their vow of Corban must have been esteemed a Religious assertion 20. A third Instance I shall consider Of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is their pretending to offer a proper expiatory Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass which is derogatory to Christs own Priestly oblation whereby he once offered himself a compleat Sacrifice of expiation But the (p) Sess 22. c. 2. Council of Trent declares that in the Mass is Sacrificium verè propitiatorium a truly propitiatory Sacrifice and that it is offered both for the sins punishments and other necessities of the living Christians and also for the dead in Christ who are not fully purged And it pronounced an Anathema against him who shall say in missa non offerri Deo verum proprium sacrificium that in the Mass is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice or that it ought not to be offered for the quick and the dead And they declare it to be the very same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross And the (q) Catech. ad paroch jux dec Trid. p. 247. Roman Catechism saith that this Sacrifice of the Mass doth not only contain an efficacious meriting but a satisfying also and even as Christ by his passion did both merit and satisfie So they who offer this Sacrifice do satisfie And the Council of (r) Anath 3. Trent will have it offered for satisfactions 21. Now it is acknowledged that that perfect Sacrifice which Christ himself once offered is lively represented and eminently commemorated in the holy Communion and the benefits thereof are there received by the worthy Communicant and on this account this Sacrament especially is a Christian Sacrifice in a large sense The Eucharist how a Christian Sacrifice as that Jewish Feast was called the Passeover as it was a memorial and representation of the original Passeover when the destroying Angel passed by the Houses of the Israelites And it may be called a Sacrifice as it contains the performance of such a chief part of service and worship to God as renders them who do it aright pleasing and acceptable to God And therein we present our selves to God with our homage and oblations and our praises and supplications that we and the whole Church may obtain remission of sins and all other benefits of Christs passion And such great actions of Religion are in a more large sense though not in a strict sense frequently called Sacrifices both in the holy Scriptures as in Psal 51.17 Rom. 12.1 Phil. 4.18 Heb. 13.15 16. 1 Pet. 2.5 and frequently in the Fathers as may be shewed from Justin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus and divers others But this sense is so far from satisfying the Council of Trent that it pronounceth (ſ) ubi sup an Anathema against him who shall say it is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and not a propitiatory Sacrifice 22. Now that there is not nor can be in the Sacrament a proper Sacrificing Christ's Body and Blood to make expiation for the sins of men may appear from four Considerations Cons 1. Christ's once offering himself a Sacrifice Cons 1. The Sacrifice of the Mass derogates from the death and pussion of Christ was so compleat that it neither needs nor admits of any reiterating or that this or any other propitiatory or expiatory Sacrifices should be again offered This is observed by the Apostle to be one excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ once offered above the legal Sacrifices that whereas by reason of the imperfection of them the Priests offered oftentimes the same Sacrifices Christ by one offering had fully perfected his work and the Apostle therefore expressly saith he should not offer himself often Heb. 9.25 26 27 28. chap. 10 10-14 (t) de Missa l.
to be High Priests or Priests of that order which himself is and that it is the person of Christ who offers and not of the Minister then indeed there is a fit Priest for the Sacrifice But then it must be proved which can never be that Christ in his own person undertakes this Office in every Mass and then it must also be granted that no man in the Church of Rome can pretend any more to offer this Sacrifice than he can pretend to be the person of Christ 31. Wherefore (h) de Mis l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine gives us their sense to this purpose The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered by Christ by the Church and by the Minister but in a different manner Christ offers it by a Priest a man as his proper Minister the Church offer as the people offer by their Priest so Christ offers by an inferior the Church by a superior the Minister offers as a true but ministerial Priest Now this pretends an authority from Christ but the Office of performing this Sacrifice to be in the Priest And to this purpose the Council of Trent (i) Sess 22. both declares Christ to have commanded his Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood that they should offer this Sacrifice and also bestow one of their rash Anathema's on him who shall say that Christ did not make his Apostles Priests or did not ordain that they should offer his Body and Blood when he said Do this in remembrance of me But as there is no expression in these words of Christ or any other to shew that he instituted his Apostles and their Successors to be such Priests as to offer a proper propitiatory Sacrifice so it appears that the state of the Gospel doth not admit of any person but only Christ himself to offer his own Body and Blood as a proper and compleat propitiatory Sacrifice since none else are or can be of that Office of Priesthood to which it belongs to offer this Sacrifice nor is any other capable of performing the necessary Rites thereof 32. Cons 4. The great effects of Christs Sacrifice cannot be attributed to any repeated Sacrifice Cons 4. The great benefits from the merits of Christs Sacrifice are wholly procured by that one offering of himself when he died and gave himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour and now lives for ever to pursue the ends thereof And therefore there neither can nor need be any other propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood For that Sacrifice of Christ which was offered by himself and made satisfaction for sin did thereby obtain the grace and gave a compleat and abiding sanction to the terms of the Gospel Covenant that through his name all who believe and obey may through his mediation receive remission of sins and all other blessings of the Covenant Now the Eucharist as a Sacrament confirms the benefits of this Covenant and exhibits the blessings thereof But the Eucharist cannot now since the death of Christ give such a Sanction and establishment to the new Covenant that from it that Covenant should receive its sureness and validity as it did from Christ's real Sacrifice nor are any new terms of grace superadded to that But the validity of the new Covenant is supposed in the administration of the Eucharist And Christs own offering obtained to himself that high exaltation whereby he can give repentance and remission of sins and is a continual Intercessor and Advocate and therefore lives to execute his own last Will and Testament and to bestow the benefits of that propitiatory Sacrifice which he hath offered Now these which were the great things procured by his Sacrifice have such a peculiar respect to his own offering himself that it is impossible they should have any dependance upon any after-celebration of the Eucharist especially when this Sacrament must have its vertue from that new Covenant established and from the exaltation of Christ And since by that Sacrifice Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole World there is need of no renewed expiatory Sacrifice to extend or apply the benefits thereof to particular persons which is sufficiently done in the Eucharist as a Sacrament and in other Ministerial administrations dispensing in Gods name and by his authority the blessings of the new Covenant to pious penitent and believing persons 33. I might here also observe that (k) Barrad Conc. Evang. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. some of the Romanists themselves declare that Christ doth not merit in the Sacrament of the Eucharist because the state of heavenly Glory in which he is excludes merit but here are presented to God the infinite merits of his death on the Cross Now if this be true and the reason given for it is not inconsiderable it must needs exclude any propitiatory Sacrifice from the Eucharist But I shall further observe that those admirable acts of the obedience of Christ in the wonderful humiliation of his life and death and submitting himself according to his Fathers will to suffer even the death of the Cross were of high value for the making his propitiatory Sacrifice which himself offered available in the sight of God to procure his blessing to man But now since our Lord sits at Gods right hand there is no such further humiliation nor need there be since what he once did was of such unspeakable merit and worth to give any new merits of like nature to renewed proper propitiatory Sacrifices But the merits of his life and death are of infinite and sufficient vertue And whereas Christ neither appointed that there should be nor declared that there is any proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist he who can think against plain evidence that in the first celebration of the Eucharist Christ offered himself a proper propitiatory Sacrifice and consequently that he died really the night before he was crucified and was dead when his Disciples heard him speak and conversed with him alive hath a mind and belief of a fit size to receive this and several other strange Doctrines of the Church of Rome But besides what I have here said if Transubstantiation be a Doctrine contrary to truth of which I shall discourse in the (l) Sect. 4. n. 14-25 next Section the foundation of the Proper Propitiatory Sacrifice is thereby removed 34. Of additional Doctrines in the Church of Rome To these Instances I may further add that the Romish Church superadding to the Christian Religion many new Doctrines as necessary points of Faith doth hereby also derogate from the authority of our Saviour For this casts a disparagement upon his revelation Christ and his Apostles made a full declaration of the Christian Doctrine insomuch that whosoever shall teach any other Doctrine is under the Apostolical Anathema Gal. 1.8 9. which (m) Cont. lit Petil. l. 3. c. 6. S. Austin extends so far as to apply that Anathema to him whosoever he be who shall teach any
nature an extension of matter and of that which hath parts added to one another and yet here is extension and consequently several parts distant from one another but still there is nothing extended nor any matter nor any thing that hath parts And the like may be said of other accidents 4. If it could be imagined that the substance of the Bread and Wine was abolished by consecration though it is not usual for the blessing of God to destroy but preserve the thing he blesseth the accidents or appearances thereof only remaining and that the substance of Christs Body and Blood should be there substituted without any corporeal accidents even this could not be Transubstantiation according to the Romish description thereof For if a corporeal substance should cease to be its accidents or modifications remaining this must be by annihilation and if there be a new substance this must be by a new production not a changing the former substance into a latter since corporeal substances are not capable of being changed but by the difference of their modifications or accidents but the ceasing or abolishing of the substance it self which is the being of a thing the subject matter which must be supposed in the changing things is wholly removed 22. And 5. That there must be new matter continually prepared in the Sacramental elements out of which the true substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is to be produced this also includes manifest contradiction For then the Body and Blood of Christ must be supposed to be produced out of a different matter at a different time and in a different manner from that Body which was born of the Blessed Virgin and in which he assumed our nature and yet this Body which is so many ways differing from that substantial Body which is ascended into Heaven must be acknowledged to be substantially the same When I consider such things as these with which this Romish Doctrine is full fraught I must acknowledge that the belief of Transubstantiation includes so much of self-denial that it is a believing against Reason But there is one thing wanting which hinders it from being an act of Christian self-denial or of true Religion and that is that it is not a believing God or Christ who never declared any such Doctrine but must resolve it self into the believing the declaration of the Roman Church which both Scotus and Cajetan cited by the Reverend (q) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins make the necessary ground and support for this Doctrine 23. What account may be given that so many knowing men in the Church of Rome should own such unreasonable and unaccountable Doctrines And I have sometimes set my self to consider hour it should come to pass that so many understanding and learned men as are in the Church of Rome should receive such monstrous Doctrines as this and some others are and I have given my self some satisfaction by observing 1. That education and Principles once imbibed and professed have a mighty force upon many mens minds insomuch that bad notions embraced do almost pervent their very capacities of understanding as appears in the followers of many Sects and in the Pagan Philosophers who set them selves against Christianity and these things especially when linked with interest have such a commanding influence upon many men of understanding that they hinder them from attending to the clearest evidences against their assertions as was manifest from the Scribes and Pharisees in our Saviours time who generally stood up for their Traditions against his Doctrine and Miracles also And they of the Church of Rome are politickly careful in the training up and principling the more knowing part of their youth in their Doctrines 2. That when gross corruptions formerly prevailed in that Church through the blindness and superstition of ignorant and degenerate ages the politick governing part think it not expedient now to acknowledge those things for errors lest they thereby lose that reverence they claim to their Church when they have once acknowledged it to have erred and not to be infallible And therefore all these things must be owned as points of faith and such other things added as are requisite to support them 3. Many more modest and well disposed persons acquiesce in the determination of the Church and its pretence to infallibility and by this they filence all objections and suffer not any doubtful enquiry since whatsoever the Doctrine be no evidence can outweigh that which is infallible And these also are the less inquisitive from the odious reprensentations which are made of them who depart from the Romish Doctrine and from their being prohibited the use of such Books which might help to inform them better 4. Others are deterred from making impartial search into truth by the severity of that Church against them who question its received Doctrines both in the tortures of the Inquisition and in the loud thundrings of its Anathemas 5. The specious and pompous names of the Churches Tradition Antiquity Vniversality and uninterrupted succession have a great influence upon them who have not discovered the great falshood of these pretences And very many knowing men have not made such things the business of their search and others who have made search are willing to take things according to the sense and interpretation the favourers of that Church impose upon them and they are herein influenced by some of the things above mentioned 6. The just judgment of God may blind them who shut their eyes against the light that through strong delusions they should believe a lye 24. Fifthly This Romish Doctrine is contrary to the holy Scriptures The Scripture declareth the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament and our Church acknowledgeth that (r) Art of Relig. Art 28. this Body is given taken and eaten in the Sacrament but then it tells us that this is only after an heavenly and spiritual manner Transubstantiation is against the Scripture and this is according to the sense of the Scriptures as I noted n. 16. But the Scripture is so far from owning Transubstantiation to be the manner of Christs presence that it plainly declares the elements to remain after the consecration and at the distribution of them S. Paul therefore mentions not only the Bread which we break 1 Cor. 10 16. but speaking also of receiving the Eucharist thrice in three verses together he expresseth it by eating that Bread and drinking that Cup 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and this must suppose the element of Bread to be remaining when the Sacrament was administred to the Communicants But (Å¿) Coster Enchir. some object that Bread here is not to be understood of that which is properly and substantially Bread but of Christ who is called the bread of life But 1. The Apostle having spoken before of Bread and the Cup 1 Cor. 11.24 25. where he understood thereby that which was properly and substantially Bread and Wine and
the same promise can be no security to the Jews or the Posterity of Jacob in their unbelief and disobedience but God can otherwise accomplish his promise made to the Seed of Abraham by accomplishing it to them who walk in the steps of the Faith of Abraham 3. As this true sense is wholly alien from proving Infants not to be members of the Christian Church so the sense imposed upon them by the Anabaptists is neither agreeable to the words themselves and the scope of that place nor to such other expressions of the New Testament as I have above mentioned 8. Secondly This Opinion and Practice of Anabaptism is very uncharitable to Infants born in the Christian Church upon a double account For First The consequence of this Position will be to take away that great hope of Salvation which the true Principles of Christianity do afford concerning Christian Infants dying in their infancy I acknowledge that this consequence concerning all Infants is not owned by those who hold this erroneous opinion in denying Infant-Baptism who run into other errors to avoid this But yet this is deducible from their Assertion and therefore I charge this uncharitableness to be a proper consequent of this opinion For since Christians are Baptized into the Body or Church of Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 and are thereby entred as members thereof if Infants be denied to have any right to Baptism or to be capable of being Baptized they cannot then be owned to be members of the visible Church of Christ and parts of his Body And they who are supposed to be excluded from the visible Church by Gods special institution and to be thereby made uncapable of being received as members thereof cannot well be presumed to be admitted into membership with the invisible Church if we consider what God himself hath declared concerning the power of the Keys and of Binding and Loosing upon Earth And those great priviledges of the New Covenant of which eternal Salvation is the chief belong to that Church which is the Body of Christ and to the lively members thereof For Christ is the Saviour of this body Eph. 5.23 And this Body which is his Church is that which he will present to himself having neither spot nor wrinkle nor any such thing v. 27. And whereas Baptism is the laver of regeneration Tit. 3.5 if Infants are not capable of being partakers of that washing of water whereby the Church is cleansed and sanctified Eph. 5.26 and of the laver of regeneration and of regeneration it self also they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Joh. 3.3 5. 9. But this opinion is further uncharitable to Infants in denying to them such means of grace as the Gospel of our Saviour doth afford them and the Christian Church hath from the beginning alwayes acknowledged to belong to them All the Ordinances and special Institutions of Christ tend to the great advantage and good of them who do aright partake of them and are useful to their spiritual and eternal welfare and benefit and so particularly is Christian Baptism Of this I have particularly discoursed in (d) Libert Eccles B. 1. c. 5. Sect. 3.4.5 another place And as the Scriptures sufficiently express the great benefit of Baptism with respect to regeneration and remission of sins so whosoever hath a due reverence for our Lord and Saviour can by no means entertain such low thoughts of his Institutions as to think them of no considerable usefulness to them who duly receive them But this piece of uncharitableness to Infants is much worse and more hurtful and prejudicial to them than the former For the opinion from whence the former consequent was deduced being untrue the consequence it self is also false and so hath no real influence or effect upon the state of Infants nor are damaged thereby whereas they are truly prejudiced by being denied the means of grace 10. On this account the Chiristian Church in the first ages thereof and in a continued succession from thence to this time hath admitted Infants to be Baptized and thought it self bound so to do S. Austin (e) de peccar Mer. remis l. 1. c. 26. declares this practice to have authoritatem universae Ecclesiae proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditam the Authority of the Vniversal Church without doubt delivered by the Lord and the Apostles and the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism is called by S. Austin (f) Ep. 28. firmissima Ecclesiae fides a Doctrine of Faith most firmly and constantly believed in the Church And much to the same purpose is frequently expressed by S. Austin To this purpose the determination of (g) Ep. 59. ad Fidum S. Cyprian and an African Council with him is very manifest When Fidus had written to Cyprian his opinion that Infants ought not to be Baptized within the second or third day of their Birth or until the eighth day which was the time appointed for Circumcision though this opinion allowed and asserted Infant-Baptism S. Cyprian largely declares that not any one of this Council did agree to this opinion but every one of them judged Nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei gratiam denegandam That the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no Child of man i. e. upon account of their age And he there shews that Infants from the time of their Birth are not to be prohibited Baptism And of how great consequence they in those early times judged Infant-Baptism is apparent from this expression relating thereto (h) ibid. quantum in nobis est si fieri potest nulla anima perdenda est as far as is in our power if it be possible no soul is to be lost The plain testimonies of Origen both upon Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romans and of divers other Fathers and Councils might be added to manifest the universal reception of Infant-Baptism in the Catholick Church But this having been clearly and sufficiently evidenced by the Historical Theses of (i) Thes Theolog p. 429 c. Vossius upon this Subject of Paedobaptism I shall refer him thither who would have more large and ample proof hereof 11. But that learned man truly observes that there is something which may seem singular in some expressions of Tertullian and Nazianzen who though they deny not Infant-Baptism yet intimate the usefulness of deferring the Baptism of Infants and incline to perswade the same Now though any singular apprehension of one or two men is not to be laid in the balance against the general sense of the Church I shall however observe something further concerning the sense of both these ancient Writers Gr. Nazianzen doth indeed in his Oration (k) Orat. 40. p. 458. concerning Baptism advise that if Infants be in no danger of death their Baptism may be deferred till they be three years old or somewhat less or more that themselves may hear something of that Mystery and give answer But though he might proceed
upon a notion peculiar to himself it is manifest that he was no favourer of Anabaptism because in that very place he both declares the lawfulness of Baptizing Infants as they were Circumcised the eighth day and the profitableness of Baptism to them that die in their infancy and also presseth the practice thereof when the Infant is in any danger But besides all this it seems to me not improbable that these words of Nazianzen have respect to some special case and probably to that which was then very ordinary and usual in the Christian Church concerning such Infants whose Parents were yet unbaptized either continuing Catechumens according to the discipline of the Church or else after their embracing Christianity did long by their own choice and neglect defer their Baptism Of this latter sort he discourseth much in this Oration (l) p. 647. 650 658 660. and oft-times and even in this very place reprehends the fault of many adult persons who neglected Baptism and urgeth them to be Baptized and then proposeth this Question and gives this Answer concerning Infants 12. And there are three things which incline me to think that these words must have respect to some such special case as this I have mentioned besides that this is very suitable to the Scope and Coherence of his Discourse in this place it self 1. Because he doth in (m) p. 448. another place of this Oration perswade to the Baptizing Children even those who are Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and that they should be sanctified while they are Babes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this he recommends to be done before any evil be imbraced as being greatly useful for the future life of the Child 2. In the same Oration he declares his judgement that even Infants dying without Baptism (n) p. 453. should not be admitted to future glory though they would be free from future punishment And therefore it cannot be supposed that he would advise that to be ordinarily done which might run a needless hazard of the loss of future glory to Infants in that case where they were certainly qualified for the receiving Baptism and being benefitted by it as the Infants of Believing and Baptized Parents were But in such a case as that abovementioned where there might be doubtfulness concerning such Infants being in a capacity to receive Baptism he might account that advice he gave to be proper and useful 3. Because the Christian Church did generally admit those who were in the very entrance of their infancy unto Baptism and it cannot well be imagined that so peaceable a man as Gregory Nazianzen was would advise against the general practice of the Christian Church in ordinary cases while yet he professedly allowed the lawfulness and usefulness of that practice 13. Tertullian adviseth the deferring (o) Tertul. de Bapt. c. 18. the Baptism of Infants till themselves be instructed But this place also may I suppose have a good account given of it by considering the state and discipline of the Primitive Church And therefore 1. Pamelius thinketh (p) In Tertul. de Bapt. n. 126. that this might probably be spoken concerning such Infants whose Parents were Infidels but I had rather understand this also concerning those whose Parents were professed Christians but not yet Baptized 2. Tertullian (q) c. 12 13. both in this very Book and elsewhere * de Anima c. 39 40. asserts that Baptism is necessary to salvation and the priviledges of Christianity and to that purpose he applys to Baptism as other ancient Writers generally did those words of Christ Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God And therefore he plainly asserts Nemini sine Baptismo competere salutem And this shews that the advice of deferring Baptism in persons fitly disposed to receive it and further than the just rules of trial fixed in the ancient Church did require was unreasonable and dangerous And this may incline us to think that he intended not to plead for any other procrastinating Baptism so far as his words can be fairly reconciled to this sense And he seems plainly enough to speak his judgment that the Infants of (r) de Anima ubi sup Christian Parents were fitly qualified for Baptism 3. He adviseth also grown persons to defer their Baptism and particularly Virgins (ſ) de Bapt. c. 18. and Widows till they either Marry or were of tried and confirmed constancy But all this seems to require the careful observance of that which the Primitive rules of order established that all those who were born Gentiles and were by Baptism to be solemnly entred into the Christian profession must first give evidence by due and sufficient trial both to themselves and to the Church also that they were stedfastly resolved to be constant and serious practisers of the holy rules of the Christian life And till they had done this he perswades them not to put themselves over forwardly upon Baptism lest they should deceive themselves and the Church too by failing in their practice for as he saith here (t) ibid. omnis petitio decipere potest decipi 14. If any person will contend that Tertullian intended to perswade to a more general delay of Baptism than what this fair account of his words doth admit he must acknowledge also that he adviseth this forbearance as well in the case of the adult as of Infants But though the very long deferring of Baptism was practised by several persons it was generally disliked by all the wisest and best men in the Christian Church Hence the particular Fathers set themselves vigorously to reprove and disswade this practice which was undertaken by several persons upon different accounts insomuch that many chose to defer their Baptism until they had apprehensions of approaching death and then were Baptized in their Beds But the ancient Church gave that publick testimony of its dislike of this practice in that such Clinicks if they recovered were adjudged unworthy to be admitted into any Office in the Ministry not only by the (u) Conc. Neoc c. 12. Council of Neocaesarea but by earlier rules of more ancient observation which were urged by (x) Eus Hist l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cornelius against Novatus And if Tertullians words should be construed as I think they need not be to perswade what the Church so generally disallowed this would only speak him to err but would be far from giving any allowance to this practice And thus having now considered the custom of the ancient Church for the Baptizing Infants we have from thence in complyance with the Scripture a further confirmation thereof and a sufficient evidence that the Primitive Church were not nor durst be so uncharitable to Infants as to debar them of Baptism 15. Thirdly Anabaptism so far as it throughly prevails must utterly rend the peace and unity of the Church and renounce the
who appointed not this kind of Covenanting established the Christian Church in that way of Unity that it was one Church but these have ordered this method for the dividing it 20. Secondly This casts a disparagement on Christs Institution of Baptism as if this Ordinance of his was not sufficient and effectual for the purposes to which he appointed it whereof one was the receiving Members into his Church and the Communion thereof The Scriptures declare Christians to be Baptized into one Body 1 Cor. 12.12 and that they who are Baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 and therefore by this Sacramental Ordinance members are received into fellowship with Christ and communion with his Church But these expressions in the Assembly-confession of (i) Conf. c. 27. n. 1. Sacraments being Instituted to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the World And of Baptism being ordained by Christ for the solemn admission of the party Baptized into the visible Church are rejected and left out in the declaration of Faith by them of the Congregational way And we are told by the New England Independents that (k) Answ to 32. Qu. to qu. 4. they do not believe that Baptism doth make men members of the Church and they there say strangely enough that Christ Baptized but made no new Church Wherefore when Christ appointed Baptism to receive members of his Church this Covenant which he never appointed is by them set up thus far in the place and room of it 21. Thirdly By making this Covenant the only right ground of Church-fellowship they cast a high reflexion on the Apostolical and Primitive Churches who neither practised nor delivered any such thing as if the Apostolical Model must give place to theirs and those first Churches must not be esteemed regularly established But this Covenant managed in the dividing way is somewhat like the practice of Novatus who hath been ever reputed guilty of great Schism who ingaged his followers by the most solemn Vow that they should never forsake him nor return to Cornelius their true Bishop only his Covenant had not a peculiar respect to a particular Congregation But this bond of their own promise and vow was intended to keep them in that separation which the more solemn Vow of Baptism and undertaking Christianity ingaged them to reject And it is a great mistake to imagine that the former ought to take place against the latter or that men may bind themselves to act against the will of God and that thenceforth they ought not to observe it 22. Fourthly The confinement of Church-membership to a single Congregation entred under such a particular Covenant is contrary to several plain duties of Christianity For according to this notion the peculiar offices of Brotherly Love as being members one of another and that Christian care that follows thereupon it limited to a narrow compass together with the exercise of the Pastoral care also which ought to be inlarged to all those professed Christians with whom we do converse And it is of dangerous and pernicious consequence that the duties of love and being helpful to one another and provoking to love and good works upon account of our membership with the Church visible though these things be in practice too much neglected should be straitned by false and hurtful notions and opinions It was none of the least miscarriages of the Jews that when God gave them that great Commandment to love their Neighbour as themselves they should satisfie themselves in the performing this duty with a much more restrained sense of the word Neighbour than the Divine Law intended And it must not be conceived that false imaginations concerning the bounds of the Church and fellowship therein will be esteemed in the sight of God a sufficient discharge from the duties he requires men to perform to others nor will this be a better excuse under Christianity than the like mistake was under Judaism 23. Thirdly I shall consider their placing the chief Ecclesiastical power and authority in the Body of the people or the members of the Church To this purpose by some of them we are told that (m) Answ to 32. Qu. to Q. 14. in Peter and the rest the Keys are committed to all Believers who shall join together in the same confession according to the Ordinance of Christ and they give the people the power of (n) Answ to Qu. 15. censuring offenders even Ministers themselves if they be such And on this account at least in part I suppose the Congregational Churches in their Declaration of Faith omitted the whole Chapter of (o) Ch. 30. Church censures contained in the Assembly's Confession in which they had declared the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to be committed to the Church Officers Now besides that the way of Government and Censure by the major Vote of the people hath been the occasion of much confusion in some of their Congregations that which I shall particularly insist on is the great sin of intruding upon any part of the Ministerial Authority or neglecting due regard or reverence thereto How plain is it in the Scripture that the Apostles governed and ordered the state of the Christian Church and that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Churches did and were to do the like It was to the Apostles as chief Officers of the Christian Church that Christ declared Joh. 20.23 whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained and Matt. 18.18 whatsoever yet shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose in Earth shall be loosed in Heaven And by these and such like words the power of inflicting Censures and receiving to and conferring of the priviledges of the Church as well as of dispensing all those Ordinances whereby the grace of God and remission of sins are particularly tendered are appropriated to the Officers of the Church as part of their Office 24. In this plain sense were these Christian Laws generally understood by the Primitive Church which practised accordingly which they who read the ancient Canons must necessarily confess And the same is manifest from the particular Writers of the first Ages For instance even (p) Cyp. Ep. 27. S. Cyprian from what our Lord spake to S. Peter of the power of the Keys and of binding and loosing infers the Episcopal honour and that every act of the Church must be governed by those Prefects or Superiors And from those words and what our Saviour spake to his Apostles Jo. 20. about remitting sins he concludes that only the Governours in the Church (q) Ep. 73. can give remission of sins And when Rogatianus a Bishop complained to Cyprian concerning a Deacon who behaved himself contumeliously towards him S. Cyprian commends his humility in addressing himself to him (r) Ep. 65. when he had himself power by virtue of his Episcopacy and the
may maintain his ground of suspense with a Might it not be otherwise If he may do so is this any fault in the Rule of Faith or any excuse to him to suspend his assent when he can make no rational exception Were not the Miracles of Moses sufficiently convictive so long as some Egyptians said Might they not be otherwise than from God and was not all that Christ did and spake enough to declare his Doctrine to be from God and a Rule of Faith because the Jews not only said May it not be otherwise but that it is otherwise and must the Rule of Faith now be needs made another thing by us from what it was made in the beginning by Christ himself shall the Scripture now be required to have that condition of a Rule of Faith which it is certain did not at the beginning of Christianity belong to the Rule of Faith If this satisfie not suppose amongst the Beraeans in S. Paul's time there should have been or were some of this Authors principles who thought Faith a Vice if not founded on demonstration and would smile at any man who should talk of demonstrating so much of Scripture as was requisite to found their belief in it and so should refuse to assent to and believe S. Paul when others searching the Scriptures did believe Will this Author so own these principles of this Discourse to say that these sceptical Vnbelievers acted more rationally than S. Paul's Converts and that they who believed his Doctrine by searching the Scriptures did betray their reason and their Faith was a Vice when S. Luke owned them of a noble Spirit and declared them to have searched diligently § 4. He comes to the fifth property that it is convictive of the most obstinate and acute Adversaries Though obstinate persons are capable of no conviction yet we acknowledge that the Rule of Faith is defensible against all opposition and is such that the most acute Adversaries may be satisfied concerning it if sufficient evidence will prevail with them And this we assert concerning Scripture He now supposeth a Deist to enquire How we know the Book of Scripture to be Gods Word and supposeth us to answer By its excellencies These excellencies indeed give considerable evidence especially as he saith to eyes enlightned by faith and do further strengthen and satisfie them yet we need not nor do not assert this alone sufficient to give a rational account to all men without taking in how these Books were received and delivered in the Church as we formerly shewed But he saith his Deist will shew you Texts against known science and in his judgement contradictions Will he shew Texts against known science but what if he cannot and what if some expressions in Scripture are more suited to vulgar apprehensions than the Sciolists notion shall any reject so excellent a Writing because it condescends to speak intelligibly to the lowest capacities Nor where there is proof given of this being Gods Word can seeming contradictions to his judgment be sufficient not to receive it since somewhat mysterious and sublime may come from God and to understand aright all things written by the Pen-men of Scripture it is requisite to be acquainted with the circumstances of History measures proverbial expressions and the like and then he might reconcile as learned men have done many things which now to him seem contrary But he saith his Deist will shew you many absurdities and Heresies in the letter of Scripture as that God hath hands feet and passions like ours Here as his former words are unsavoury his latter are untrue Scripture speaks indeed of Gods hands and feet but no where saith he had such like ours Such things as are thus spoken of God in Scripture have a true literal sense if that may be called literal which is tropical and why may not Scripture be allowed to make use of Tropes or Metaphorical expressions as well as all other Writers and all Discoursers where the sense is easily discernable to reason which is requisite to be used that we may understand any Writing Now the considering what knowledge we have of God by reason and the pondering other places of Scripture which plainly speak God to be a Spirit and considering likewise how these words of hands and feet c. are oft used in a figurative sense this will plainly convince that they must be understood so when they are applied to God When the Romanists by Tradition deliver that the Pope is the Head of the Church will they not expect that mans common reason and what they otherwise teach of the Church should teach all to allow a tropical sense of the word Head and not that they should forthwith imagine that that Church whereof the Pope is the Head should have the outward shape of Man Woman or Beast Thus Celsus whose Arguments against Christianity were much of the nature of this Discoursers makes this an Objection against Christians that they speak unworthily of God as of the work of his hands the mouth of God and the voice of God And Origen lib. 6. cont Cels thought it sufficient to answer that Christians did understand all these in a spiritual not a corporeal sense and that if Celsus had read other places of Scripture he might thence know that Christians would not think otherwise of God It is an unchristian assertion to charge the letter of the Scripture which is the very words of the God of Truth with heresie where we have sure ground of it's interpretation both from other Scripture from Reason Against the latter he objects that then we disown the Scripture Rule and make our Reason and other knowledge our Rule I answer when we include Scripture we cannot disown it yet withal we own Reason as that whereby we judge of the significancy of Words and Phrases as well in Scripture as elsewhere he who doth not this either doth not understand Phrases or hath a prodigious art of understanding without reason Yea we do profess to make use of that knowledge we have of God by Reason thereby to understand the better other expressions which concern God in Truths revealed since we are certain that God gave the Scriptures as a further revelation to man who was supposed to have that Reason and Conscience which God had endued him with But he further in § 5. challengeth the consciousness of our own thoughts whether we do not bring thoughts along with us to interpret Scripture by and these from Tradition or what we have heard and received Here I shall give him a true and faithful account of the Protestants carriage in this thing which must be by a distinction of Persons and Texts of Scripture In such Texts as appear plain where the necessary truths are contained none of us bring any such thoughts to interpret by but discern the evidence plainly in it self and from thence we hold such Truths as Points of Faith In Texts of Scripture which appear more
difficult all Protestants do prepossess themselves with such truths as they have learned by plain Scriptures or other certain evidence and therefore know no difficult Text can be so interpreted as to contradict any such truth Here the vulgar Christians do suppose many times that to be the true sense of such places which they have received from those they judge able and faithful but such a sense of such Scripture they do not own as a necessary Point of Faith but admit it as most probable untill themselves be able fully to search and then if they discern this a true exposition they will receive it upon their own knowledge but if they find it a mistake they will lay down that former apprehension and will entirely be guided by what they see is the true sense of Scripture And persons of great abilities to make the best search into the sense of more difficult Texts do not prepossess themselves with any particular sense of such Scripture but are every where entirely guided by that which appears the best evidence to recommend any sense as knowing that it is not our interest or benefit that this or that opinion or interpretation should be true in things doubtful but our great concernment is to own that which is and God hath declared to be the Truth § 6. He enquires how we can demonstrate concerning any place of Scripture that it is not altered and that not is not inserted or left out I answer this as to any matters of Faith is discovered sufficiently by what we shewed to prove the Scriptures preserved entire in the foregoing Discourse Yea the common principles of Reason and Conscience in man will evidence to him in many necessary truths that if not was left out or put in they could never have been from God That God is Eternal Powerful Good and to be worshipped of his creatures that he treats man with great mercy that men must be holy and righteous that God will judge the World such things as these appear so evident that man where-ever he hears them cannot but acknowledge them to be true and from God and that the contrary cannot be so But further the consent of all Copies in several Countreys is in this case an abundant rational evidence especially considering that these Writings were dispersed into all Countreys presently after they were first written and so no miscarriage in the Faith could be in those first Copies taken from the Original of what this Author moves his doubts which would not have been easily discovered and reformed either by the surviving Apostles or by the Original Writing or Autographa of the Apostles and Evangelists which doubtless being of such high esteem in the Church were some time preserved Now since at the first dispersing of these Copies they did contain the Apostles Doctrine entire the constant agreement of all Copies sufficiently prove the same continued still especially considering that the Copies which all appear to have this agreement were written in several Ages long since past and in several Countreys And that to imagine not left out or foisted in in the matters of Faith in all Books generally and publikly and daily read by Christians must suppose 1. That they all every where in so many Countreys should conspire to falsifie the Faith of Jesus which they appeared to value above their lives and by this Tradition would be corrupted but yet Scripture in all these Books could not unless 2. They should falsifie all the ancient Copies which yet by the very writing appear to have nothing rased out or foisted in And this is a much higher certainty than Josiah could have of his own Copy yea than can be had of any passage in any Historian ancient Law or Record and if this we have said did not generally satisfie the Cavils propounded all History old Laws and Records must be rejected because there can be no such appearance of so great evidence that in any sentence not was not left out or foisted in And so all matters of Fame or Tradition must be disbelieved till he can demonstrate that they had not their original from the reading some Writings which have the same liableness to mistake with other Writings and that not hath not been put in or left out in the Oral delivery And how much his Reader will be beholden to him for such conceits as these we may gather from his own words Disc 9. § 4. where speaking of humane testimonies he tells us amongst the most extravagant Opinionasters none was ever found so frantick as to doubt them and should any do so all sober mankind would esteem them stark mad But as hath been proved this Author would here lead his Reader such a way as himself saith all sober mankind will esteem him mad if he follow him If this be not enough I shall add that the Primitive Christians owned such a tryal of Scriptures incorruptness as fully sufficient for them to rely on and to confound all who opposed it And even this Argument of this Author though urged with greater confidence was that with which several of the Hereticks from the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian to S. Austin opposed the Christians amongst which I shall now only mention the Manichees out of S. Austin who declares that whilst he was a Manichee Confess l. 5. c. 2. he was somewhat shaken by hearing a dispute between Helpidins and the Manichees but the Manichees afterwad privately told him The N. Testament was corrupted and there was no uncorrupt exemplar produced but this did as little satisfie him And after he became an opposer of the Manichees Contra Faustum lib. 11. c. 1. he urgeth against them Scripture testimony to which Faustus answers That this Scripture testimony was not right To which Saint Austin replies If this answer be esteemed of any weight what written Authority can ever be opened what holy Book can ever be searched cap. 2. he demands proof of Faustus what Books ever read otherwise and c. 3. urges All Books new and old have this testimony all Churches read it all tongues consent in it therefore put off the cloak of deceitfulness And in Epist 19. he saith he read the Scripture which is placed in the most sublime and celestial height of Authority being certain and secure of its truth but saith he the Manichees contend that many things in the Scripture are false yet so that they do not ascribe falshood to the Apostles who wrote them but to some which have corrupted the Books but because they cannot prove this by any ancient Copies he saith they are overcome and confounded by the most manifest truth But our Discourser saith It is certain there are many various readings yea so many in the New Testament alone observed by my Lord Usher that he durst not print them for fear of bringing the whole Book into doubt We acknowledge there are several various readings but this speaks the greater security of this Rule because though all these
that they who did see the Law given on Mount Sinai yet knew not the first or second Commandment Yea after many severe judgments to shew how necessary the observation of Gods Commandments were yet when they served Peor in the Wilderness and joined themselves to other Gods frequently in the times of the Judges and of many of the Kings of Israel could this be for want of knowledge when the Law of God was among them which would teach them otherwise Yet if this Authour shall think it was of great ignorance this will as much destroy his way of Tradition since it will then follow that there was not sufficient delivery of truth from hand to hand to make it knowable And yet many of these defections were very general in all the people and Priests and their serving Baalim which their Fathers taught them was of long continuance § 10. He asserts by way of Answer to an Objection That men cannot be as much justified for believing Scripture because setting aside Traditions help this only depends on skills judgements and fancies and not on certain sense either for the meaning or letter of Scripture Touching the letter of Scripture we set not aside the help of Tradition but have a very sure way of Traditional Record to relie on and I have in former Discourses shewed that we have a certain knowledge of Scripture both as to letter and sense Yea the sense of Scripture is more easily discovered in many concerning truths than the sense of Tradition can be because though the words be supposed equally intelligible whether written or spoken it is more evident that the words found in Scripture are such as contain the sense of Scripture than that such and such words do contain the sense of the Church Tradition Because it is certain that in many concerning points there are many things delivered by several in the Church which yet are not by the Papists themselves owned for Church Traditions so that it will be hard if not beyond the reach of the Vulgar to understand what words in many points he may doubt of do truly express the sense of the Church unless he can hear it plainly expressed in some approved and received Writings such as either Scriptures Canons of Catholick Councils or Liturgies or the like the former as this Authour too much rejects so all or almost all his Arguments will as much plead against the other which the Vulgar are not capable of searching Yet that we may compare the evidence to the common apprehensions of men given by Scripture or by Oral and practical Tradition let us follow him in observing which evidence a Jury would soonest close with The case is by him in this § very unfaithfully propounded Whether they would condemn a man upon the testimony of six Witnesses upon sight or upon the judgment or opinion of a thousand men for as we have shewed it is not only skill and opinion that Protestants do ground upon but delivery of Records and therefore the case in truth should be thus propounded Whether if any matter of Fact be inquired of they would be the more swayed by the appearance of several persons who assert that they have heard many say that they heard many others say that they received from others and they from others by hearsaies at the fortieth or fiftieth hand or by others who shall produce plain Records and those preserved safe in several Courts which all agree in testifying it was otherwise Or if the Question be about any Legacy if the one party brings such hearsaies abovementioned and the other brings a Copy of the Will preserved in the Court and evidence that in the same manner it was inrolled in several other Courts is it not plain the latter will appear the better Evidence to the common sense of mankind But in this § 10. he further adds The Vulgar have reason to believe there was such an one as King James or Queen Elizabeth of which they are no otherwise ascertained but by Tradition but if you pump their common reason about the Authority of the Statute Book you shall find them at a loss Concerning King James or Queen Elizabeth they may indeed own them by the common received Tradition because they know this is actually delivered by those who knew it and that it is not capable of a mistake nor could any interest be supposed to devise this nor can mens conceptions of this vary from what is intended to be delivered but in none of these things can men have security in the delivery of many truths by Oral Tradition as was observed in Answer to § 7. But to put the case more like this of discovering which is more justifiable of believing Scripture or Tradition I demand whether as to all considerable actions atchievements or constitutions under these Princes it be more rational to relie on what appears in common fame concluding that nothing is considerable which was not there preserved or to apply our selves to some good Historians especially if we could be certain we could find such as had a certain knowledge of all such things and had a faithful design to commit the truth and nothing else to Writing concerning all these things This security we have concerning the Scriptures since it is certain the Apostles and Evangelists did fully know all points of Faith delivered to the World by Jesus Christ and did declare them in their Writings with like faithfulness Concerning the Vulgars knowledge of the Authority of the Statute Book it is evident that if they hear the Statute Book to be published by such a man or the Statutes by him collected they can thence conclude that as far as they can be assured that it was his Work and that he was certainly able to collect these Statutes and did in this act according to his utmost knowledge so far they are assured of this Books Authority as also as far as they are assured of the faithfulness and ability of judgment in them who own it as such But in all these things we have certainty of Scripture that it was written by the Apostles and Evangelists by the general Tradition of it as such by all Churches that they were able and faithful and their Books faithfully written both from our Saviours approving them to dispense his Gospel and his Church receiving them as such dispensers even in these Writings and God himself bearing them Witness both with Signs and Wonders and manifold gifts of the Holy Ghost So that we are as sure concerning Scripture as a man could be of the Authority of a Statute Book if he knew there was a collection of our Common Law as was done by Justinian's order in the Civil made approved and confirmed by order of the Supreme Power and thereby Enacted that this Collection should be owned as the Statutes of England Here it would be a madness to doubt So that this third Property of the Rule of Faith is agreeable to Scripture but not to Oral
eighth Century and many other cases Now before the determination of such a Council it is not evident which are the true deliverers from the way of Tradition since both parties contend for their own delivery and no other Rule of Trial must be admitted according to this Discourser but delivery or Tradition and upon the former considerations it appears that the best deliverers may be the fewest And this may be as uncertain after a Council since there is nothing else to ascertain us but the vote of a major part which in many Councils hath certainly been the worser part and maintained Heresie and therefore so it may be in others where there can be no evidence given to the contrary And by Determinations of Councils the lesser part and their Adherents are determined to reject their way of delivery and receive the other and by this means the lesser number which may be in the truth must disclaim their own sense and judgment to submit to the judgment of others which may be in the wrong and so the true Tradition may be lost Yet that it may appear more evident how vain the pretence to demonstration in this Discourse is I shall applie his way of demonstrating to some other cases which it will fit as well as Romish Tradition It is certain that after Moses the true Doctrine was dispersed among the Jews and after Noah who was a Preacher of righteousness amongst his Sons they had the greatest hopes and fears to ingage them to this truth and these are the causes of actual will and the truths are knowable therefore both Gentile Tradition from Noah and Jewish from Moses were indefectible according to this Discourser's Principles and so the true Religion may at this time be found either among Gentiles or Jews Yea it was certain that Gods will was declared to Adam and Eve in Paradise and to the Angels that fell before their fall and they had the greatest hopes and fears to perswade them to keep to this will of God knowing that obeying it was their happiness and deserting it their ruine these hopes and fears are the causes of actual will and the duties themselves both knowable and practicable and they had no corrupt inclinations to sway them therefore according to this demonstrator Adam and Eve and all the Angels did continue in their obedience The same way of demonstration would prove that never any Heresies could either be broached or by many be received in the Christian Church But in these cases who sees not that it will be answered that either the truths of God declared were not sufficiently heeded or else the causes of hope and fear were not sufficiently applied and at all times acknowledged and observed and that in such cases there was a corruption either in belief or in practice but then every eye will see that this might as well be imagined in the Romish Church as in any other company of men So that he hath made it as clear that the Romish Tradition is indefectible as that the Gentile and Jewish Traditions were and are and as certain as it is that there is no Devil or fallen Angel and no fall of man and consequently no sin in the World and no Heresie ever in the Christian Church But here it is needful to do this Authour that right as to observe his unusual modesty that he intitles this Discourse not a demonstration but an indeavouring to demonstrate § 6. He speaketh to this purpose If any shall object Original Corruption indisposeth Parents wills since Christs Doctrine was intended to be an Antidote for that Original malice to say it is universally applied and preserves none good is to question Christs wisdom and many thousands Martyrs and Confessors did hereby overcome the declivity of their wills Again nature cannot incline all to this sort of sin to teach their Children what they think will damn them but most strongly carries them to the contrary To this I may in the first place observe that neglects of duty might be if there had been no Original corruption as was in Adam in Paradise and in the Angels where was no antecedent sinful inclination but they were only capable of sinning Yet I assert there is more danger by Original corruption and its prevalency both as to the Will and Understanding Now Christs Doctrine is indeed a poise or Antidote against this yet this is first where this Doctrine is carefully entertained and retained but not so that there should be no fear of its being retained in any Church S. Paul did not nourish needless fears for his Corinthians who had this Doctrine lest their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ nor were they untrue complaints of his Galatians Chap. 3.1 Who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth And we Protestants can discern nothing to shew that this Doctrine must needs be otherwise a poise in the Romish Church than in the Corinthian or Galatian Secondly where this Doctrine is retained it is a poise against Original corruption in a considerable degree yet not so as to remove all imperfections proceeding from Original sin which may hinder right delivery of all truth for though in some excellent persons there be a willingness to deliver truth yet there may be some mistake even in holy Martyrs and Confessors The Church of Rome as well as we own Cyprian as a Saint and Martyr and yet acknowledge him to have erred and most Africans then with him in delivering that they who were Baptized by Hereticks ought to be rebaptized so that in following good men there may be mistake but they are more like to err if they be bad as many certainly are But concerning his last clauses it is no way necessary to suppose that to invalidate Tradition Parents must design to teach Children what they think will damn them we suppose very many may design truth and good who yet may be in error yet there may be others who through prevalency of corruption in themselves may design to corrupt the truth and may teach their Children so and all this out of that Principle that prevails with men to wicked lives which is not a design to damn themselves but a design to gratifie their evil affections S. Paul 2. Cor. 2.17 speaks of many who corrupt the word of God and S. Peter foretells of others who shall bring in damnable Heresies and we know the Jews did teach their Children to worship Baalim most probably this was not out of design to damn them however we know no demonstrations to prove that Romanists have higher affections to their Children naturally than Jews had or that when there is danger of truth being corrupted in the Christian Church they of the Romish should be exempted from liableness to that danger § 7. He thus proceeds If any object the fickle nature of the will he answers Good is the object of the will Now infinite goods and harms sufficiently proposed are
to be called so by their opposers would prove them Hereticks then when ever the truth hath any foul mouthed Adversary who would nick-name its Professors the truth it self must be owned for an Heresie but must the true holders of Christianity be called Hereticks because the Jews called them Nazarens Edomites Epicureans and the like The Montanists as we may learn from Tertullian called the true Christians Psychicos or carnal ones the Arians called them who held the Faith of Nice Homoousiasts Athanas Dial. de Trin. and Julian by a Law commanded Christians to be called Galilaeans Naz. Orat. 3. cont Julian But if he mean that they who call themselves by other names are Hereticks this is as vain a way of Trial as the former for though he intends it against Protestants who own that name of Catholick and account themselves such it will conclude for Hereticks all who own themselves Papists Jesuits Romanists Dominicans Jansenists Molinists and such like as much as Protestants § 3. He saith After a while the pretended Rule of Scriptures Letters self-sufficiency is thrown by as useless Children are taught that they are to believe their Pastors and Fathers and to guide themselves by their sense in reading Scripture which is the very way Catholicks ever took If any follow their own judgement and differ from the Reformers these if they have power will oblige them to act which if conscientiously is to hold as they do else they will punish and persecute them which shews that it is not the letter of Gods word but these mens interpretations which is thought fit to guide to Faith whence he saith follow self-contradictions But is this the farther description of an Heretick to reject the pretended Rule of Scripture when most Hereticks never pretended it to be a Rule some went in this Discoursers way of Tradition as was shewed Disc 4. n. 15 and shall be further shewed in answer to his Authorities Almost all if not all Hereticks in the first Ages of the Church rejected Scripture Eusebius Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 28. notes that Cerinthus a notorius Heretick was an enemy to the Scriptures of God Origen in the end of lib. 5. contra Cels observes that the Ebionites of both sorts rejected the Epistles of S. Paul and Euseb Hist Eccl. 3. c. 27. saith they esteemed none of the Gospels but that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews they received Yea it was the Charge which the Catholick Christians laid against the Hereticks condemned by the four first General Councils that they would not hearken to the Scriptures nor reverence them as shall in due place appear This S. Austin oft condemns in the Manichees and chargeth some Donatists coâ—â—r Fulgentium Donatist with burning the Gospels as things to be rased out and Athanasius Epist ad Orthodox testifies that the Arians did burn the Books of the holy Scripture which they found in the Church But however he hath a design in this 3. § to shew that the followers of Hereticks under which name he chiefly intends Protestants do in practice disown the Scripture rule as insufficient and close with and build upon the way of Tradition whence he would make evident that by the common acknowledgement of all men no other way of receiving the Doctrine of Faith can be owned but this only I shall here shew in what he criminates Protestants to be false but before I come to answer on the behalf of Protestants to the things here charged on them and the self-contradictions pretended for though he talks of Heresie in this Discourse it is easie to observe his only aim is not at Hereticks but at Protestants that is at truly Catholick Christians I shall observe that what he hath declared in this Paragraph is a very effectual way to shew Oral Tradition no Rule of Faith nor so much as a probable way to discern truth for if they who desert Tradition or Doctrines delivered by it may require their Children to guide themselves by their sense if this be possible as indeed it is and this Discourser here asserts as much it can never be demonstrated that this hath not been the practice of the present Romish Church and that many things now delivered as truths in their way of Tradition were not Heresies or errors broached by some mens fancies in a former Generation who required their Children to follow their sense Yea besides this if it be the general way of Heresie as this Authour here asserts to promote their Heretical tenets in the way of Oral Tradition it will be beyond the skill of this Authour unless he shall retract this description of Heresie to give the least assurance to any reasonable men that the Roman Church which goes on in the way of Oral Tradition is not upon this account of Tradition to be much suspected of holding Heresies Yea it will hence also the more effectually follow that it is impossible that Hereticks should be discerned from the holders of the true Faith if there were no other Rule to discover this but Oral Tradition since this Discourser asserts that this very Rule Hereticks generally close with in the propagation of Heresie at a distance from its first original Yea and it will tend much to the justifying of the followers of Protestants if it shall appear that they go not in the way of Tradition which this Authour hath assured us is the constant way the followers of all Hereticks run into See both his § 3. and § 5. I answer now to this 3. § that Protestants do not at all throw aside the Scripture Letters Self-sufficiency as a Rule I suppose this Discourser cannot be ignorant that while we own Scripture a Rule of Faith we acknowledge the necessary and principal Doctrines thereof to be so clear and intelligible in Scripture that they may without actual error be comprized in some form of sound words such as are Creeds Confessions of Faith Articles Catechisms or the like and we do acknowledge and assert these truths even so many as are necessary to the Salvation of all the adult in the Church to be infallibly evident to the judgements and understandings of men from the fulness and plainness of their proposal in Scripture Protestants will require Children to receive such things as these as certain truths from the Pastors or Parents not because they are from their Fathers or Teachers but because they are things certainly by them discerned to be in Scripture and till these Children are able to search and discern the same themselves their Parents or Teachers knowledge is a very considerable Motive to them to own such truths as clear in Scripture And this is a knowledge as certain as they are capable of until they come themselves to peruse and understand the Scripture yea it is certain enough to them to command their assent as certain as other things are which credible persons attest upon their eye-sight For in what I plainly discern I as surely know that I
them out of design and by these men if in an allowed and confirmed Council both the present and future Generation must be determined But what he speaks of a future Generation easily discovering the innovation makes me think he forgets himself For how should the following Generation of Catholicks consistently with this Authours Principles discover it By former Monuments But he in this Book declares that they must not give heed to any former private mens Writings against the delivered Doctrine of the Church publickly attested And if any publick Writing though it be their own approved Canons seem contrary they must find such interpretation as will agree with this declared Doctrine and stick to it though it be wrested so that whatsoever can be shewed from History or Ancient Doctors as this Authour declares in his Corollaries is to such Papists of no account against present Tradition See Coroll 14.16 17. Yea if you shall produce a great number of opposers as may in many cases easily be done he will hold to the greater number in his present Council If you produce him a former Council against any now received Doctrine he must not rationally judge of the Tradition but from the present Tradition condemn that if it cannot be otherwise interpreted as Heretical If you produce the Eastern or Graecian or other Churches as delivering otherwise if this cannot by other means be evaded they must not be acknowledged by Romanists for true Deliverers But if we can produce an approved General Council have we not now such sufficient Monuments to discover thereby what was the Doctrine of the Church such Councils our Discourser calls the greatest Authority in the Catholick Church p. 129. Yet if the Council was approved and by the Roman Church acknowledged both for Catholick and General still they have a device to reject what ever dislikes them in such a Council by saying that it is ex parte approbatum and ex parte reprobatum or part of it rejected and part of it received by this device they reject part of the Second General Council at Constantinople and the Twenty eighth Canon of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon which declares that their Fathers gave Priviledges to the See of old Rome because that was the Imperial City and therefore upon the same consideration they gave the same Priviledges to the See of Constantinople And thus they have rejected others of old as also part of the Council of Constance and the Council of Basil more lately concerning the Authority and Power of the General Councils over the Bishop of Rome Thus doth Binius and other Papists So that no way remains for a Papist thus principled to detect this Innovation where he hath contrary evidence much less in many cases where the matter now determined hath not been so distinctly of old treated of so that the Roman Church may innovate and yet expect to be believed that the Doctrine was ever delivered Provided they take care not so palpably to contradict their own publick and former delivery in such a way as no possible interpretation can make things consist one with the other If they do take this care there is room enough left for many innovations in Doctrine in points not clearly enough determined formerly in the publick Monuments of that Church and in those also by misinterpretations But though Papists consistently with their Principles can make no discovery of Innovations but must either make use of strained interpretations of former Writers or else must condemn those Writers yet Protestants can and do make this discovery And blessed be God that they of the Romish Church have not so blotted out the Writings of the Ancient Fathers though they have shewed some good will thereto nor have they been able so to correct the Letter of the Scripture according to their own sense as this Authour thinks convenient Cor. 29. but that we are able from them to discover the Error and Apostasie of the present Church of Rome of which in the close of this Discourse I will give him one instance § 6. From these Principles he concludes That since nothing new could be owned as not new in any Generation by the first nor a foregoing Age make it received as not new by Posterity by the second therefore since we hold it descended uninterruptedly it did descend as such To this I answer That if the former Principles had been both true as neither of them are yet would not this conclusion have followed from them because it supposeth besides these Principles many other things to be true which are either very improbable or certainly false First it supposeth that all points held as matters of Faith have in all Ages since Christ been delivered in such terms as ever delivered-points of Faith whereby they have been known distinctly from disputable opinions if this had been so the many Controversies whether such and such things were de fide shew the maintainers of them on the one side not capable of understanding plain words Secondly it supposeth that nothing can be received as ever delivered by a following Generation which was not delivered as ever received in a former Generation unless they declare something not to be new which they know is new For why may not that which is propounded as a probable opinion in one Generation be thought to be delivered as a truth in the next Generation and in some following Generations who cannot give an Historical account how far in every Age every Position was received it may be owned as a point of Faith by which means also Constitutions of expediency may be owned as Doctrines necessary In which case they now only hold as a matter of Faith what the former Generation held as a truth and so they hold no new thing differing in the substance from the former nor design they any thing new in the Mode of holding it Thirdly This supposeth that every Generation from the time of the Apostles have been of the opinion this Authour pretends to to design to hold all and nothing but what the immediately foregoing Generation held which is a point can never be proved For this would be indeed to assert that never any persons studied to understand any point more clearly than it was comprized in the words they received from their Fathers or else that when they had so studied they never declared their conceptions or opinions in such points or if they did declare them yet no number of men would ever entertain them And this is as much as to say that the Church never had any Doctors studied in the points of Faith or at least that such studies never were honoured in the Church and the fruits of them received and applauded by it which if it would not cast a great indignity upon the Church yet it is apparently contrary to the truth Fourthly It supposeth but proves not that all points of Faith have come down by the way of Tradition and none of them failed of
Doctrine Cor. 27. Traditions certainty being disproved general or Provincial Councils or Societies cannot be infallible by proceeding upon it because it may both mislead and be mistaken Cor. 28. The Roman See with its head cannot be infallible by Traditional certainty because Tradition is fallible Nor hath the Church of Rome any particular advantages to render it hereby more infallible than any other When he here saies That the joint indeavours Preaching Miracles and Martyrdom of the two chief Apostles at Rome were more vigorous causes to imprint Christs Doctrine than were found any where else He sure forgat Jerusalem where were the joint indeavours Preaching and Miracles of Christ Jesus himself and all his Apostles the Passion of Jesus and Martyrdom of other chief Apostles and Prophets and yet in that Church were professed by the Bishops both Arianism and Pelagianism and therefore Rome cannot be proved free from false Doctrine by such Arguments Nor will its constant visible profession make more for Romish Oral Tradition than for Jewish or Gentile Tradition Cor. 29. If this Tradition were established and put in practice according to this Discoursers mind the Romish Church could not be secure that they have any Copy of Scripture truly significative of Christs sense Because if as this Author here talks They should correct Scriptures Letter by the sense of mens hearts it would be wonderfully depraved because in this sense Tradition may and doth err But we know Sixtus and Clemens went not this way in correcting the vulgar Latin And themselves declare that ancient Copies and Writings were their Rule for correction And by these means Protestants have a Copy preserved significative of Christs sense by the several deliveries of Scripture Copies in several Ages and Churches Cor. 30. Tradition disproved Scripture can no waies be infallibly interpreted by this Oral Tradition because it is fallible and false But Protestants in all things necessary can infallibly understand the sense of Scripture since such things are delivered in clear and plain words Cor. 31. Tradition being disproved the Church which relies on it may receive as held ever what was not so held ever Cor. 32. Whence also errors opposing Faith may be received by the followers of Tradition as Faith because they may err in the Faith Cor. 33. Notwithstanding Tradition Erroneous opinions may generally and with publick Authority spread themselves in the Church because this defectible Tradition may deliver errors by the viciousness of some and the liableness to error in others Cor. 34. By the same reason may errors gain sure footing and abide in the Church in the way of Tradition because as many Opinators who deliver their conceptions of truth may both mistake themselves and be mistaken by others for testifiers of the sense of the former Generation and as many corrupters of truth may be mistaken by others for deliverers of truth as was the case in the prevalency of the Arian and other spreading Heresies so may the determination of a confirmed Council where error hath taken place give it sure footing among them who stand ingaged to own that Council which is the case of Papists Cor. 35. The ignorance or corruption of the Church-governours and the better part being overpowered may hinder many corrupt opinions from being ever declared against the way of Oral Tradition and cause many true opinions to be so declared against that without rejecting the way of such Oral Tradition they can never be received Because Tradition when once it errs can never return without denying it self Cor. 36. By the same reason Erroneous Opinions may constantly abide in the Traditionary Church What he here saith That following evil practices will necessarily shew them opposite to Faith is his erroneous opinion because practices though bad if grounded on opinions held for truth are judged lawful by such holders nor can they be convinced of such practices being evil till first they be perswaded that such opinions were evil Such was the case of the Gentiles gross Idolatry the Pharisaical breaking Gods Commands as in Corban c. and Papists worshipping Images and Saints c. Cor. 37. Erroneous opinions and practices may fully prevail in the judgements and practices of the most faithful who follow the way of Oral Tradition Because since their Rule may fail them they may do their best to follow this and yet may their judgements and practices both miscarry Cor. 38. Erroneous opinions may be charged upon that Church which follows Oral Tradition because they may follow from that Churches Rule necessarily since Tradition is a false guide and they may be generally owned by that Church in its publick profession and the determination of its Councils Cor. 39. Therefore it is no weakness to object against such a Church such opinions and practices Cor. 40. Oral Tradition can be no first principle in Controversial Divinity for since it could be no otherwise a principle than by declaring what God said and it may err and fail in that it is therefore no principle in Divinity Cor. 41. If as this Author here reasonably concludeth Christs promise to his Church can bear no part in the Rule of Faith nor be any first Principle to manifest the certainty of the Churches Tradition then have great and many followers of the Romish Tradition hitherto erred in that this promise hath been held and delivered by them for such a Principle An Inquiry after and Examination of the consent of Authority to the foregoing Discourse AT last this Discourser proceeds to Authorities and testimonies both of Scripture Councils and Fathers which is an inquiry of very great use in this matter For since Protestants own Scripture as an unerrable guide if it pronounce Tradition to be the Rule of Faith then will we acknowledge it to be such and its reasonable to expect from Papists who own the Scripture to contain Divine truth and with the Council of Trent own no Tradition with greater reverence than the Scriptures that if Scriptures declare themselves to be the Rule of Faith then this may be generally received Concerning Councils and Fathers if these could be generally produced from the Apostles times Protestants will grant That what is so declared to be the Rule of Faith is certainly such But if only some Councils and Fathers in some after Ages be produced if such plead for Tradition Protestants own it not a demonstration because they know they might be in some error Yet concerning the known Councils and Fathers of the Ancient Church we are so confident that they were not mistaken concerning the Rule of Faith that we will acknowledge that to be the true Rule of Faith which was by them declared to be such But if generally the Doctrine of the Ancients be on our side then Oral Tradition will further evidently appear to be no Rule of Faith yea not only to be fallible but false and self-inconsistent if that which is now delivered concerning it be contradicted by the consent of the Ancient Church
what ever was written of him brethren is accomplished and is true So far S. Austin there cited and approved So that we see they grounded all along upon the Scriptures and the necessary consequence of his having two wills from his having two Natures And when in this Council was read the Type of Paul Bishop of Constantinople wherein he prohibited all disputes about Christ's having or not having two wills the Council liked his intention to have all contention cease but declared their dislike of his dealing alike with the truth and the error yet they determined that if he could have and had shewed by the approbation of Scripture that both were equally subject to reproof or praise his Type had been well All this considered there is no more in the words cited by this Discourser to prove they made Oral Tradition their Rule than when the Church of England declares her consent with any Confessions of others or any Doctrines of the Fathers and shall say We agree to all there spoken it could be thence concluded that the Church of England hath Oral Tradition for her Rule of Faith SECT III. Of the Council of Sardica and what it owned as the Rule of Faith NExt he produceth the Council of Sardica which is the only Council by him produced within the first six hundred years after Christ Out of the Synodical Epistle of that Council sent to all Bishops he citeth these words We have received this Doctrine we have been taught so we hold this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession Let us consider the place cited more largely This Council declared that the Hereticks contended that there were different and separate Hypostases by which word that Council tells us those Hereticks meant Substances of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost But we have received and been taught this and have this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession that there is one Hypostasis or Substance of the Father Son and Holy Ghost But 1. How did these Fathers receive this They presently add That the Father cannot be named or be without the Son is the testimony of the Son himself saying I am in the Father and the Father in me and again I and my Father are one 2. This Council of Sardica was held not long after the first Council of Nice and received this faith from it and in this Council of Sardica the Catholick Bishops did establish the determination of faith in the Council of Nice Socr. lib. 2. c. 20. And after the end of this Council Hosius and Protogenes the leading men in the Council wrote to Julius Bishop of Rome testifying that all things in the Council of Nice were to be accounted ratified by them which they explained as they saw need Sozom. 3.11 Wherefore that which was the Rule of Faith in that first and famous Council of Nice is likewise owned to be the sufficient Rule by the Council of Sardica especially if this was any way declared by that Nicene Council in the same manner as if now any English Convocation should by publick writing declare their establishing and receiving the Doctrine of the Thirty Nine Articles it must needs be concluded that they own that to be the Rule of Faith which is there declared to be such Concerning the first Council of Nice I shall discourse after enquiry into the second Nicene Council which he next applyes himself to in his Discourse SECT IV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by the second Council of Nice THe last Council he produceth is the second Council of Nice whose Authority if it was indeed on his side yet would it no way tend to determine this Controversie and he cannot but know that Protestants have no great esteem for that Council having these several things rationally to object against it 1. That it was a Council above eight hundred years after Christ not only celebrated in that time when the purity of Primitive Doctrine was much declined but even the matters therein declared concerning the worship of Images were innovations and not agreeable to the more ancient Church 2. That this Council cannot in reason be pretended to declare the general Tradition of the Church Catholick when it is certain that immediately before it a Council of 330 Bishops at Constantinople defined the contrary and the like was presently after it done by a German Council 3. They delivered that as the sense of the Church Catholick which was not such nor will the present Roman Church acknowledge it to be such in Act 5. of that Council when the Book of John of Thessalonica was read wherein it was asserted That the sense of the Catholick Church was that Angels and Souls of men were not wholly incorporeal but had Bodies and therefore were imitabiles picturâ as Binius hath it representable by Pictures Tharasius and the Synod approved of it Yet here Carranza in his Collection of the Councils adds a Note that this is not yet determined by the Church and observes that many of the Fathers asserted the Angels to be wholly incorporeal whom the first Synod of Lateran seems to follow Pamelius puts it among the Paradoxes of Tertullian Parad. 7. which S. Austin condemned to assert the Souls of men to have any effigies and colour and both Pamelius upon Tertul. and Baron ad an 173. n. 31. derive the original of this Opinion from the Montanists 4. It is evidenceable by many instances that they satisfied themselves with very weak proof both from Scriptures and from the Fathers as hath been by several Protestant Writers shewed Yet as bad as this Council was which was bad enough I assert That it was not of this Discoursers judgment that Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith In order to the evidencing of which I shall first examine his citations His first citation is out of Act. 2. We imbued with the precepts of the Fathers have so confessed and do confess Which words I suppose he took out of Carranza where they are curtly delivered for sure had he read them as they are at large in the Council he would never have been so mistaken as to have applied them to Oral Tradition The words more at large are thus spoken by Tharasius Patriarch of Constantinople and approved by the Synod Adrian Primate of old Rome seems to me to have written clearly and truly both to our Emperours and to us and hath declared the ancient Tradition of the Church to be right Wherefore we also searching by the Scriptures by inquiring arguing and demonstrating and also being imbued with the precepts of the Fathers have so confessed and do confess and will confess and do confirm the force of the Letters read So that whatever is here spoken concerning a Rule of Faith must be this that that which upon inquiry may be made appear by Arguments and Demonstrations to be the Doctrine of the Scripture and accords with the ancient Fathers is delivered to us by the Rule of Faith And is this
the Wicked and Evil-doers Even in Aaron's blessing the People God declared that he himself would bless them And the whole intention of the Gospel is a Dispensation of God's Blessing which cometh upon them who serve him The Blessed Jesus was sent to Bless in turning Men from their Iniquities to such he begins his Sermon in the Mount with Blessing Mat. 5.3.4 Luke 24.50 51 and this also was the last action he perform'd immediately upon his Ascension into Heaven Most of the Apostolical Epistles both begin and end with Benedictions which persons partake of according to their pious qualifications For when not only the Apostles but also the Seventy were commanded to pronounce Peace to the House or Place where they came Mat. 10.12 13 Luke 10.5.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Peace being according to the usual Jewish Phrase a comprehension of all Blessing our Saviour tells them that if the Son of Peace be there their Peace shall rest upon it if not it shall turn to them again The ancient Church to this end used particular Benedictions in Confirmation Ordination receiving Penitents Matrimony and to dying Persons but all these the Corruption of Times hath transformed into reputed proper Sacraments And those Blessings in Confirmation and Ordination are most Solemn the former of which was granted even by S. Hierome Hier. adv Luc. according to the custom of the Church all over the World to be performed by the Bishop only And in our Administration thereof the serious renewing the Baptismal Covenant which is a necessary duty of Christian Profession is a good disposition for receiving the Blessing of God and on this account Confirmation is not to be slighted or wilfully neglected by those who have a high esteem for the Blessing of God 3. They who receive this Ministry are to guide the Church and Christian Society that its Members may please God not forfeit his Favour or provoke his Displeasure The most things contained under this head will respect those Ministers of the Church who are the chief Governours thereof and the things established by their consent and agreement The Church of God is a most excellent Society and his Ministers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who are to have the care and ordering of this Family of God Titus 1.7 and such publick Worship as is ordered according to the Will of God being acceptable to him it belongs to them to take care of the performance thereof and also of establishing Order and Decency and the framing and executing such Rules and Canons for Government and Discipline as are meet And though the external Sanction of these things is well ordered by the Secular power yet the directive part and the spiritual Authority belongs to the Guides of the Church who by the Gospel are appointed therein Rulers and Presidents Hence Inferiours are required to obey them that are over them and submit themselves and Titus was sent to Crete to order the things that were wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes 5.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13.7 17.24 Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Pet. 5.2 and Bishops in general stand charged by S. Paul and St. Peter to take care of the Church of God And as that is a requisite to Order and due Reverence in Religious Worship to them also belongs the setting apart and consecrating Places for the publick Service of God But because there can be no security for Order where every Officer may act independently at his own Pleasure therefore they have Authority to order Uniformity which is in it self desirable and ought to be observed not only with respect to the secular Sanction but together therewith in compliance also with the Ecclesiastical Authority invested in Synods which hath in all Ages from the Apostles been honoured in the Christian Church of which the observation of the Canons of the several Councels and Codes is an experimental Evidence And as the mutual Consent of Pastors in Synods is according to natural Prudence directly pursueth the great ends of Peace and Unity and by their agreement addeth Weight to their Authority so this Case is eminently included in that Promise of our Saviour Where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the midst of them Mat. 18.20 Act. 16.4 5. Act. 21.18 24 26. Act. 8.14 And St. Paul himself yielded manifest Obedience both to the Decrees of the Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. And to that other Council Act. 21. And so did S. Peter and S. John to another Council And since Christians being established in the Truth is of great use both to their own and the Churches Peace in order hereunto the Pastors of the Church in Councils have power to abandon Heretical and dangerous Doctrines and to require submission to the Truth they declare This was done in the Synod of the Apostles against the necessity of Circumcision and in the four first general Councils concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Person of the Mediator And such Decisions concerning matters of Doctrine when managed aright have been deservedly reverenced in the Church since one end of God's appointing these Officers is that we should be no more Children tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine Eph. 4.14 And upon this account a particular Honour is due to the established Doctrine of our Church which hath a high agreement with the Rule of Scripture and the Catholick and Primitive Church Besides these things all particular Officers of the Church in their charge are to watch over those committed to them as much as in them lies with special regard to the Sick and to those also who need to be Catechised in the Principles of Religion John 21.15 it being our Saviour's first charge to S. Peter to feed his Lambs with earnest Prayer for the Grace and Blessing of God upon them all 4. The Ministry of Reconciliation includeth an Authority of rebuking and admonishng Offenders of casting them out of the Church and of restoring them again upon Repentance This hath been the ordinarily received sense of those great words of our Saviour Mat. 18.18 Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven There is indeed a late Objection made that these words speak not of binding and loosing Persons but Things and that it is usual with the Jewish Writers to express the binding and loosing of Things not of Persons meaning thereby the declaring or judging such things prohibited or allow'd But besides what may be otherwise said I think it sufficient at present to observe that the admitting this notion may well enough consist with the true sense of these words which if interpreted by it will import 1. That the power of binding and loosing hath a considerable respect to such things as the Cases Offences and Penitent Performances of persons
and sutably our Saviour after his Resurrection gave his Apostles the authority of remitting and retaining Sins which phrase also immediately respecteth not Persons but Things but yet binding in this sense must include an authoritative declaring the Practices of Men to be so far Evil as to deprive the offending Persons of their Christian Priviledges 2. These words will also imply that the Officers of the Church are intrusted to bind and continue or to loose and discharge the observation of Penitential Rules and accordingly the Apostle saith to whom you forgive any thing I forgive it also in the Person of Christ 2 Cor. 2.10 And even this severe part of Ecclesiastical Power is for Edification not Destruction both to the whole Church and to the Offender that through Repentance his Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord and so is properly included under the Ministry of Reconciliation The general result of all I have said is That the Office of the Ministry is of very high and great importance and such persons who have a low esteem thereof if they have any reverence for their Saviour let them seriously consider whether he who is Truth and Goodness can be thought to use such high expressions in this case as to declare his giving them the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and that what they bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and such like to impose upon the World which he came to guide and save and upon his Church which he so dearly loves with empty sounds of great things which signify little or nothing What a mighty sense had the Primitive Christians of this power of the Keys when the Penitent Offenders under censure undertook according to some Canons the strict observation of Penance Conc. Ancyr c. 16. Elib c. 2 7 47 63. Valent. cap. 3. sometimes for 20 or 30 years and even to the end of their Life that they might obtain Absolution and the Peace of the Church and its Communion And under this severe Discipline as Tertullian describes it by the name of their Exomologesis de Poenit. c. 9. they did ly in Sackcloth and Ashes they never used such Cloaths or Diet as might appear pleasant they frequently exercised themselves in Fasting Prayers and Tears crying to God day and night and among other things they made humble Supplication even upon their Knees unto the Members of the Church and fell down prostrate before its Officers it being their custom Presbyteris advolvi charis Dei adgeniculari And all this was done in the greatest degree while the Church was under persecution from the Civil Power But that which they apprehended and which I doubt not to be true Exam. Conc. Trid. de Poeni is that as Chemnitius expresseth it Christus est qui per ministerium absolvit peccata remittit it is Christ who gives Absolution by his Ministry viz. where they proceed according to his Will And as under the Law he who trespassed beside the amendment of his fault and restitution either in things Sacred or Civil was to have recourse to the Trespass-Offering for obtaining the Mercy of God even so under the Gospel he who performs the other conditions of Christianity ought where it may be had to apply himself also to the Ministerial power of remitting Sin and the receiving this Testimony together with that of a good Conscience upon a Christian Penitent Deportment is next to the great Absolution by Christ the greatest encouragement for Peace and Comfort Only I must here add which I desire may be particularly observed that the principal way of ministerial dispensing Remission of Sins and other Blessings of the Gospel to them who fall not under gross enormities and the censures of the Church though performed also in its degree in Doctrine and other Benedictions and Absolutions is chiefly done by Administring the Holy Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper to persons duly qualified And it is one of the miscarriages of the Roman Church that they take too little notice of this advantage in receiving the Holy Eucharist and do inordinately advance their Sacrament of Penance so far into its place as to be esteemed the only Sacrament after Baptism wherein may be obtained remission of Sins Wherefore I conceive that as that Man who being converted to Christianity doth profess the Doctrine and embrace the practice thereof in other things but wholly omitteth Christian Baptism doth thereby deprive himself of the ordinary visible Testimony of God's favour and runs himself upon the needless hazard of hoping to find acceptance by extraordinary Grace in the neglect of the ordinary means thereof even so is it with those adult persons who being otherwise piously disposed do ordinarily neglect the attendance upon the Lord's Supper which is particularly appointed of God to be a means of conveying and applying the benefits of Christ's Holy Sacrifice for remission of Sins and other blessings of the Covenant to them who are worthy and meet to receive the same And if this which to me seemeth a great Truth was duly heeded the frequent attendance upon the Holy Communion and other Services of God would be as it was in the Primitive Times generally looked on as a Duty of very great importance in Persons adult and resolving upon a true Christian course of life Having asserted the nature and excellency of the Ministerial Power it will be necessary also to disclaim and reject from it these two things 1. That the Ministry of Reconciliation is not appointed to offer in the Mass a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for the Quick and the Dead and herewith must be rejected also the Power of effecting Transubstantiation St. Chrysostom truly asserteth Chrysost in 2 Cor. 2.5 That it is not the same thing which is done by Christ i. e. in reconciling us by his Sacrifice and by his Ministry But the Priestly Authority according to the Romish Ordination Pontif. Rom. is chiefly placed in this proper Power of Sacrificing their Form being Accipe potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo c. And all the Orders of their Ministry have some proper thing appointed for them which relateth to this Sacrifice of the Mass That is properly Ordo Th. Mor. l. 5. Tr. 9. c. 1. saith F. Layman where there is gradus potestatis ad peragendum Missae Sacrificium or a degree of Power to perform something about the Sacrifice of the Mass Much to the same purpose is in many other Writers and even in the Roman Catechism ad Parcchos in which as also in the Council of Trent it self Cat. ad Par. de Ord. Sacr. Concil Trid. Sess 23. cap. 2. their Priesthood is reckoned as the highest of their seven Orders partly upon this account and partly because this Notion serveth further to advance the Dignity and Eminency of the Pope But there is no such Sacrifice of the Mass in the Religion of our Saviour Indeed here it must be granted and asserted that the
Preach the Gospel to every Creature So that this was not a singular Authority committed to St. Peter but he was first made choice of to have a right understanding of the extent of his Commission And it is not to be doubted but that Authority which did belong to all the Apostles of leading Men to the Church receiving them into it governing them in it and excluding them from it doth contain the chief part of the power of the Keys 3. To us not only to the Apostles but even to other Officers of the Church as Bishops and Priests or Presbyters is given this Ministry of Reconciliation for if we consider the nature of this Office the Ministry of Reconciliation or which is all one the Ministry of the Gospel must not cease till the end of it in the Salvation of Men be accomplished And our Saviour both promiseth his Presence and Authority to be with his Ministry unto the end of the World and establisheth them in his Church till we all come in the Unity of the Faith Mat. 28.20 Eph. 4.14 and Knowledg of the Son of God unto a perfect Man And we may further observe That in writing this second Epistle to the Corinthians it is manifest from the Inscription thereof that Timothy therein joined with S. Paul Now though he was no Apostle nor a Companion of St. Paul till after the Council of Jerusalem as appears from the History of the Acts yet he here as well as St. Paul hath a share in the Ministry of Reconciliation That Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus is generally declared by the Ancient Writers Eusebius attesteth it Eus Hist l. 3. c. 4. and besides others this was expressed by Leontius in the great Council of Chalcedon Conc. Chalc. Action 11. there being then preserved an exact Record and Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church And though Learned Men herein disagree and there is manifest difficulty in fixing the Chronology it is greatly probable from comparing the Epistles to Timothy with the History of the Acts that he was not yet made Bishop of Ephesus when this Epistle to the Corinthians was written And this might then give some fair probability from the instance of Timothy that that Order of Priest or Presbyter as distinct from a Bishop was of an Apostolical and therefore a Divine Original But because several difficulties too large to be here discussed must be obviated for the clearing this particular I shall rather fix upon another Consideration which may be sufficient to perswade the same It is very evident from the History of the Acts and some expressions in the Epistles that for several years after the famous Church of Ephesus was founded by St. Paul Timothy the first Bishop there was usually with St. Paul in his Journeys or by his Command in other places Now it may be acknowledged that the chief Government and power of Censure in several Churches was for some time reserved in the hands of the Apostles themselves though at a distance as is evident from the Epistles to the Corinthians it was concerning the Church of Corinth But he who shall think that in all this time they had no Church-Officer fixed amongst them in that great Church of Ephesus to administer the Holy Communion and celebrate other needful Ministerial Performances must account the Apostles to have had no great care of the Churches they planted nor the Churches to have had any great zeal for the Religion they embraced which no Man can judg who hath any knowledg of the Spirit of that Primitive Christianity But if they had in the Church of Ephesus other fixed Officers distinct from the Bishop to celebrate the Holy Communion and other necessary acts of ordinary Ministration then must the Order of Presbyters be of as early original in the Church as the History of the Acts and then the ordaining Elders in every Church must take in those who are distinctly called Priests or Presbyters To this I add that the Office of Presbyter includeth an Authority to tender in God's Name remission of Sins and as from him to exhibit to his Church the Sacramental Symbols of his Grace and upon that account no such Office could ever have its Original from any lower than Apostolical and Divine Authority 4. To us in different Ranks and Orders in the Church not in a parity and equality Here is S. Paul an Apostle and Timothy in an Order inferiour to him When Christ was upon Earth he appointed the Apostles and the Seventy and when he Ascended he gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers And though most of these were Officers by an extraordinary Commission which are ceased yet when Timothy was fixed at Ephesus where there then were Presbyters as I have shewed the chief power of Government and the care of Ordination was intrusted in his hands singly as is manifest and hath been oft observed from the Epistles to Timothy The like appears concerning Titus as also that the chief care of the Churches of Asia was in the hands of the Angels of those Churches If we consult the Ancient state of the Church this chief Government in a single Person or Bishop in those ancient times took place as far as Christianity it self reached Besides what may be said from particular Writers 1 Can. Ap. 2. Can. Nic. 19. the first General Council of Nice and the more ancient Code called the Canons of the Apostles do both of them not only frequently mention as distinct Offices the Bishop Presbyter and Deacon but also express this distinction between Bishop and Presbyter 1. 2 Can. Ap. 1. Can Nic. 4. 3 Can. Ap. 15 31 32 38. Conc. Nic. c. â— That the peculiar power of Ordaining doth reside in the Bishop 2. That he receiveth his Episcopal Office by a special Ordination thereto 3. That he hath a particular power of governing and censuring the Laiety and other Clergy And he who shall consider that many things in the Scripture may receive considerable Light from understanding the custom of the Jews and even of the Gentiles must needs acknowledg that an account of the practice and customs of the Christian Church may lead us to the true sense of those expressions of Scripture which have relation thereto especially since no Man without this help can give a satisfactory account of the distinct work and business of those ordinary Church-Officers which are particularly mentioned in Scripture Wherefore I doubt not but according to the Scripture and the Universal practice of the ancient Church throughout the World the power of the Keys and of remitting and retaining Sins which takes in the whole Office of the Ministry is in some eminent parts of it wholly reserved to Bishops while other parts thereof are dispensed by Priests and some by Deacons Ignat. ad Smyr Tert. de Bapt. c. 17. yet so that these ever acted with submission to the Bishop as is asserted by Ignatius and Tertullian
I shall only here further observe that in the very beginning of Christianity the distinction of the Officers of the Christian Church was owned and acknowledged to be correspondent and parallel to the distinction of the Officers of the Jewish Temple-Service the observing of which seemeth of considerable moment in this case Even St. Hierome declares That what place Aaron Hieron ad Evagr. Epiph. Haer. 29. 78. Hieronym de scrip Eccles in Jacobo Eus Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 23 gr his Sons and the Levites had in the Temple the same have the Bishops Priests and Deacons in the Church It is related concerning St. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem by Epiphanius out of Clemens that he did wear the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in the Septuagint the Plate upon the high Priest's Mitre on which was engraven Holiness to the Lord and he as also S. Hierome and Eusebius from Egesippus relate that to him only it was lawful to enter into the Holy of Holies 〈…〉 Now all these Christian â—â—â—iters with others who use somewhat like expressions as â—â—â—crates concerning St. John must never be thought to â—â—â—â—pire together to impose Fables upon the after-Ages 〈◊〉 â—ould they be so much wanting in the knowledge of Christianity as to imagine that these great Officers of the Christian Church were Jewish High Priests and ministred in their Temple-Service but the sense of these expressions though they may seem at first view obscure is that S. James was acknowledged to have a like eminency of Office above others in the Christian Church of Jerusalem as the Jewish High-Priest had above other Priests in the Jewish Church Naz. Or. 5. And Nazianzen expresseth his being ordained Bishop by these and other like words saith he Thou anointedst me an High-Priest and broughtst me to the Altar of the Spiritual Burnt-Offering sacrificedst the Calf of Initiation and madest me view the Holy of Holies Which words evidence that the Christian Bishop by an Allegorical Allusion was described by words primarily relating to the Jewish High-Priest because of a Parallel eminency in each of them Now this Observation shews the distinction of these Officers of the Christian Church Euseb HIst l. 2. c. 1. Hieron de script Eccles from the very beginning thereof St. James being ordained Bishop of Jerusalem very soon after our Saviour's Ascension And this will further evidence that as the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the Jewish Writers frequently mention the Officers of the Temple-Service only by the names of Priests and Levites including therein the High-Priest whose Office was distinct from the other Priests so it is no prejudice to the like distinction of Offices under the New Testament that in the Scriptures and some other ancient Writers the Officers above Deacons are sometimes expressed by the name of Bishops sometime of Elders Priests or Presbyters whilst yet we have very plain Testimony of the singular eminency of one who hath since been peculiarly called the Bishop I come now to the last thing to be discoursed of the Divine Authority by which this Ministry is established God in Christ hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation and this speaketh three things 1. The true Original of this Function God the Father gave the Ministry of Reconciliation our Lord sent his Apostles as his Father sent him and the Holy Ghost made the Elders of Ephesus to be Overseers of the Flock And here not only St. Paul who was called immediately but Timothy also even as those other Elders of Ephesus being called by Men whom God made chief Officers in his Church received this Ministry by Divine Authority and therefore the Administrations thereof are performed in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost This therefore is such a Sanction as every Person upon Earth ought to reverence and whosoever either despise or oppose this Ministry had need seriously and timely to consider whose Authority they undertake to affront When our Saviour appointed the Twelve Apostles and afterwards the Seventy Mat. 10.15 Luke 10 12. he bids them both to shake off the Dust of their Feet against that City that should not receive them and tells them it shall be more tolerable for Sodom in that day than for that City and declares further even to the Seventy who were then of the lowest rank of them whom he sent Luke 10.16 he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me But for all those who are employed about God's Work and are warranted by his Authority if they be faithful in his Service 1 Pet. 5.4 they shall be here under his Care and hereafter partakers of his Reward St. Peter acquaints us that when the chief Shepherd shall appear they shall receive a Crown of Glory that fadeth not away Rev. l. 16 20. ch 2. l. and St. John assures us That our Lord himself holdeth the seven Stars or the Angels of the seven Churches in his right hand 2. This speaks also the Excellency of this Ministry As it is from God it is properly and eminently a Gift of God even a Gift of that high Nature that when Christ in his glorious Exaltation received Gifts for Men he then gave some Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4 1â— and as Head of his Church established this fixed Ministry And if we consider it as it respects Men the most excellent Designs are thereby pursued to wit the promoting among Men the Glory of God and the Kingdom and Government of Jesus Christ and the conducting Men into the Ways of God and thereby unto Peace and Reconciliation with him and to everlasting Happiness Hereupon they who serve God in this Office 1 Cor. 3.9 2 Cor. 6.1 are owned to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fellow-workers with God himself as under God carrying on the great Design of God and his Goodness in the World And this speaks it an Institution of great Value Worth and Honour And as I above noted this Ministry to excell the Jewish Priesthood which yet was very excellent so St. Chrysostom observes That God hath given this high Honour thereto Chrysost de Sacerdot l. 3. c. 5. which he hath not given to the holy Angels and Archangels themselves to be Ministers of Reconciliation and to dispense in his Name the Pledges of his Grace and Favour unto the Members of his Church 3. This sheweth that no Man may take this Honour unto himself but he that entreth into any Order of this Ministry must do it in that way which God appointeth The Apostles were constituted and commissionated immediatly by Christ himself and as he committed the general Care of his Church to them he therewith endued them with a Power to ordain others which is a chief part of that Care and of great concernment for the present and future Good of the Church The Assistants of the Apostles and the first Bishops and other Officers of the several