TREATISES OF 

1. The Liberty of Prophesying.  
2. Prayer Ex Tempore.  
3. Episcopacy.   TOGETHER WITH A Sermon preached at Oxon. on the Anniversary of the 5. of November.  
By IER. TAYLOR, D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAJESTY.  
LONDON, Printed for R. ROYSTON, at the Angel in Ivy-lane. 1648.   


ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΕΚΛΕΚΤΙΚΗ. THE Liberty of Prophesying. (With its just limits and temper.  
W. Martial sculpsit.    

ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΕΚΛΕΚΤΙΚΗ. A DISCOURSE OF The Liberty of Prophesying. SHOWING THE UNREASONABLENESS of prescribing to other men's Faith, and the Iniquity of persecuting differing opinions.  
By IER: TAYLOR, D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAJESTY.  
LONDON, Printed for R. ROYSTON, at the Angel in Ivy-lane. 1647.   

To the Right Honourable CHRISTOPHER Lord HATTON, Baron HATTON of Kirby; comptroller of His Majesty's Household, and one of His Majesty's most Honourable Priyie Council.  
My Lord,  
IN this great Storm which hath dashed the Vessel of the Church all in pieces, I have been cast upon the Coast of Wales, and in a little Boat thought to have enjoyed that rest and quietness, which in England in a greater I could not hope for: Here I cast Anchor, and thinking to ride safely, the Storm followed me with so impetuous violence, that it broke a Cable, and I lost my Anchor: And here again I was exposed to the mercy of the Sea, and the gentleness of an Element that could neither distinguish things nor persons. And but that he who stilleth the raging of the Sea, and the noise of his Waves, and the madness of his people, had provided a Plank for me, I had been lost to all the opportunities of content or study. But I know not whether I have been more preserved by the courtesies of my friends, or the gentleness and mercies of a noble Enemy: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And now since I have come ashore, I have been gathering a few sticks to warm me, a few books to entertain my thoughts, and divert them from the perpetual Meditation of my private Troubles, and the public Dyscrasy, but those which I could obtain were so few and so impertinent, and unuseful to any great purposes, that I began to be sad upon a new stock, and full of apprehension that I should live unprofitably, and die obscurely, and be forgotten, and my bones thrown into some common charnel house, without any name or note to distinguish me from those who only served their Generation by filling the number of Citizens, and who could pretend to no thanks or reward from the Public, beyond a jus trium liberorum. While I was troubled with these thoughts, and busy to find out an opportunity of doing some good in my small proportion, still the cares of the public did so intervene, that it was as impossible to separate my design from relating to the present, as to exempt myself from the participation of the common calamity; still half my thoughts was (in despite of all my diversions and arts of avocation) fixed upon and mingled with the present concernments: so that besides them I could not go. Now because the great Question is concerning Religion, and in that also my Scene lies, I resolved here to fix my considerations, especially when I observed the ways of promoting the several opinions which now are busy, to be such, as besides that they were most troublesome to me, and such as I could by no means be friends withal, they were also such as to my understanding, did the most apparently disserve their ends whose design in advancing their own opinions was pretended for Religion: For as contrary as cruelty is to mercy, as tyranny to charity, so is war and bloodshed to the meekness and gentleness of Christian Religion: And however that there are some exterminating spirits who think God to delight in humane sacrifices, as if that Oracle— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, had come from the Father of Spirits, yet if they were capable of cool and tame Homilies, or would hear men of other opinions give a quiet account without invincible resolutions never to alter their persuasions, I am very much persuaded it would not be very hard to dispute such men into mercies and compliances, and Tolerations mutual, such I say, who are zealous for Jesus Christ; than whose Doctrine never was any thing more merciful and humane, whose lessons were softer than Nard, or the juice of the Candian Olive: Upon the first apprehension, I designed a Discourse to this purpose, with as much greediness as if I had thought it possible with my Arguments to have persuaded the rough and hard handed Soldiers to have disbanded presently: For I had often thought of the Prophecy that in the Gospel, our swords should be turned into plowshares, and our Spears into pruning hooks; I knew that no tittle spoken by God's Spirit could return unperformed and ineffectual, and I was certain, that such was the excellency of Christ's Doctrine, that if men would obey it, Christians should never war one against another; in the mean time I considered not, that it was praedictio consilii, non eventus, till I saw what men were now doing, and ever had done since the heats and primitive fervours did cool, and the love of interests swelled higher than the love of Christianity; but then on the other side, I began to fear that whatever I could say would be as ineffectual, as it could be reasonable: For if those excellent words which our blessed Master spoke, could not charm the tumult of our spirits, I had little reason to hope that one of the meanest and most ignorant of his servants could advance the end of that which he calls his great, and his old, and his new Commandment, so well as the excellency of his own Spirit and discourses could. And yet since he who knew every event of things, and the success and efficacy of every Doctrine; and that very much of it to most men, and all of it to some men would be ineffectual, yet was pleased to consign our duty that it might be a direction to them that would, and a conviction and a Testimony against them that would not obey, I thought it might not misbecome my duty and endeavours to plead for peace and charity, and forgiveness and permissions mutual, although I had reason to believe that such is the iniquity of men, and they so indisposed to receive such impresses, that I had as good plough the Sands, or till the Air, as persuade such Doctrines, which destroy men's interests, and serve no end but the great end of a happy eternity, and what is in order to it. But because the events of things are in God's disposition, and I knew them not, and because if I had known my good purposes would be totally ineffectual as to others, yet my own designation and purposes would be of advantage to myself, who might from God's mercy expect the retribution which he is pleased to promise to all pious intendments; I resolved to encounter with all Objections, and to do something to which I should be determined by the consideration of the present distemperatures and necessities, by my own thoughts, by the Questions and Scruples, the Sects and names, the interests and animosities which at this day, and for some years past have exercised and disquieted Christendom.  
Thus fare I discoursed myself into employment, and having come thus fare, I knew not how to get farther, for I had heard of a great experience, how difficult it was to make Brick without Straw, and here I had even seen my design blasted in the bud, and I despaired in the Calends of doing what I purposed in the Ideses before: For I had no Books of my own here, nor any in the voisinage, and but that I remembered the result of some of those excellent Discourses, I had heard your Lordship make when I was so happy as in private to gather up what your temperance and modesty, forbids to be public, I had come in praelia inermis, and like enough might have fared accordingly. I had this only advantage besides; that I have chosen a Subject, in which, if my own reason does not abuse me, I needed no other books or aides, than what a man carries with him on horseback, I mean the common principles of Christianity, and those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which men use in the transactions of the ordinary occurrences of civil society; and upon the strength of them and some other collateral assistances I have run through it utcunque, and the sum of the following Discourses, is nothing but the sense of these words of Scripture;  
That since we know in part, and prophecy in part, 
1 Cor. 13.  and that now we see through a glass darkly, we should not despise or contemn persons not so knowing as ourselves, but him that is weak in the faith 
Rom. 14.  we should receive, but not to doubtful disputations; Therefore certainly to charity, and not to vexations, not to those which are the idle effects of impertinent wranglings. And provided they keep close to the foundation, which is Faith and Obedience, let them build upon this foundation matter more or less precious, yet if the foundation be entire, they shall be saved with or without loss. And since we profess ourselves servants of so meek a Master, and Disciples of so charitable an Institute, Let us walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called with all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing 
Ephes. 4. 2, 3.  one another in love; for this is the best endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit, when it is fast tied in the bond of peace. And although it be a duty of Christianity, that we all speak the 
1 Cor. 1. 10.  same thing, that there be no divisions among us, but that we be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement, yet this unity is to be estimated according to the unity of faith, in things necessary, in matters of Creed, and Articles fundamental; for as for other things, it is more to be wished then to be hoped for; there are some doubtful Disputations, and in such the Scribe, the 
Rom. 14.  Wise, the Disputer of this world, are most commonly very fare from certainty, and many times from truth: There are diversity of persuasions in matters adiaphorous, as meats and drinks, and holy days, etc. and both parties, the affirmative and the negative, affirm and deny with innocence enough, for the observer and he that observes not, intent both to God; and God is our common Master, we all fellow servants, and not the judge of each other, in matters of conscience or doubtful Disputation: And every man that hath faith must have it to himself before God, but no man must either in such matters judge his brother or set him at nought; but let us follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another: And the way to do that is not by knowledge, but by charity, for knowledge puffeth up, but 
1 Cor. 8. 1.  charity edifieth; and since there is not in every man the same knowledge, but the conscience of some are 
Vers. 7.  weak; as my liberty must not be judged of another 
1 Cor. 10. 29.  man's weak conscience, so must not I please myself so much in my right opinion, but I must also take order that his weak conscience be not offended or despised, for no man must seek his own but every man 
Ibid,  another's wealth: And although we must contend earnestly for the faith, yet above all things we must put on charity which is the bond of perfectness: And therefore this contention must be with arms fit for the Christian warfare, the sword of the Spirit, and the shield of Faith, and preparation of the Gospel of peace instead of shoes, and a helmet of salvation, but not with 
Colos. 3. 14.  other arms; for a Churchman must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a striker, for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual, and the persons that use them aught to be gentle, and easy to be entreated, and we must give an account of our faith to them that ask us with meekness and humility, for so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. These and thousands more to the same purpose are the Doctrines of Christianity, whose sense and intendment I have prosecuted in the following Discourse, being very much displeased that so many opinions and new doctrines are commenced among us, but more troubled that every man that hath an opinion thinks his own and other men's salvation is concerned in its maintenance, but most of all that men should be persecuted and afflicted for disagreeing in such opinions which they cannot with sufficient grounds obtrude upon others necessarily, because they cannot propound them infallibly, and because they have no warrant from Scripture so to do: For if I shall tie other men to believe my opinion, because I think I have place of Scripture, which seems to warrant it to my understanding, why may he not serve up another dish to me in the same dress, and exact the same task of me to believe the contradictory: And then since all the Heretics in the world have offered to prove their Articles by the same means by which true believers propound theirs, it is necessary that some separation either of Doctrine or of persons be clearly made, that all pretences may not be admitted, nor any just Allegations be rejected; and yet that in some other Questions whether they be truly or falsely pretended if not evidently or demonstratively, there may be considerations had to the persons of men and to the Laws of charity more than to the triumphing in any opinion or doctrine not simply necessary. Now because some doctrines are clearly not necessary, and some are absolutely necessary, why may not the first separation be made upon this difference, and Articles necessary be only urged as necessary, and the rest left to men indifferently, as they were by the Scripture indeterminately. And it were well if men would as much consider themselves as the Doctrines, and think that they may as well be deceived by their own weakness, as persuaded by the Arguments of a Doctrine which other men, as wise, call inevident. For it is a hard case that we shall think all Papists and Anabaptists and Sacramentaries to be fools and wicked persons, certainly among all these Sects there are very many wise men and good men, as well as erring; and although some zeals are so hot, and their eyes so inflamed with their ardours, that they do not think their Adversaries look like other men, yet certainly we find by the results of their discourses, and the transactions of their affairs of civil society, that they are men that speak and make syllogisms, and use reason, and read Scripture, and although they do no more understand all of it, than we do, yet they endeavour to understand as much as concerns them, even all that they can, even all that concerns repentance from dead works, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ: And therefore me thinks this also should be another consideration distinguishing the persons, for if the persons be Christians in their lives, and Christians in their profession, if they acknowledge the Eternal Son of God for their Master and their Lord, and live in all relations as becomes persons making such professions, why then should I hate such persons whom God loves, and who love God, who are partakers of Christ, and Christ hath a title to them, who dwell in Christ, and Christ in them, because their understandings have not been brought up like mine, have not had the same Masters, they have not met with the same books, nor the same company, or have not the same interest, or are not so wise, or else are wiser, (that is, for some reason or other which I neither do understand, nor aught to blame) have not the same opinions that I have, and do not determine their School Questions to the sense of my Sect or interest.  
But now I know before hand, that those men who will endure none but their own Sect, will make all manner of attempts against these purposes of charity and compliance, and say I, or do I what I can, will tell all their Proselytes that I preach indifferency of Religion, that I say it is no matter how we believe, nor what they profess: But that they may comply with all Sects, and do violence to their own consciences, that they may be saved in all Religions, and so make way for a colluvies of Heresies, and by consequence destroy all Religion. Nay, they will say worse than all this, and but that I am not used to their phrases and forms of declamation, I am persuaded I might represent fine Tragedies before hand. And this will be such an objection, that although I am most confident I shall make apparent to be as false and scandalous as the Objectors themselves are zealous and impatient, yet besides that, I believe the Objection will come where my answers will not come, or not be understood; I am also confident that in defiance and incuriousnesse of all that I shall say, some men will persist pertinaciously in the accusation, and deny my conclusion in despite of me: well, but however I will try.  
And first I answer, that whatsoever is against the foundation of Faith, or contrary to good life and the laws of obedience, or destructive to humane society, and the public and just interests of bodies politic, is out of the limits of my Question, and does not pretend to compliance or toleration: So that I allow no indifferency, nor any countenance to those Religions whose principles destroy Government, nor to those Religions (if there be any such) that teach ill life, nor do I think that any thing will now excuse from belief of a fundamental Article, except stupidity or sottishness and natural inability. This alone is sufficient answer to this vanity, but I have much more to say.  
Secondly, The intendment of my Discourse is, that permissions should be in Questions speculative, indeterminable, curious, and unnecessary, and that men would not make more necessities than God made, which indeed are not many. The fault I find and seek to remedy is, that men are so dogmatic and resolute in their opinions, and impatient of others disagreings in those things wherein is no sufficient means of union and determination, but that men should let opinions and problems keep their own forms, and not be obtruded as axioms, nor questions in the vast collection of the system of Divinity, be adopted into the family of Faith: And I think I have reason to desire this.  
Thirdly, It is hard to say, that he who would not have men put to death, or punished corporally for such things, for which no humane Authority is sufficient either for cognisance or determination, or competent for infliction, that he persuades to an indifferency, when he refers to another Judicatory, which is competent, sufficient, infallible, just, and highly severe. No man or company of men can judge or punish our thoughts, or secret purposes whilst they so remain, and yet it will be unequal to say, that he who owns this Doctrine preaches it lawful for men to think or purpose what they will. And so it is in matters of doubtful disputation (such as are the distinguishing Articles of most of the Sects of Christendom:) So it is in matters intellectual (which are not cognoscible by a secular power) in matters spiritual (which are to be discerned by spiritual Authority, which cannot make corporal inflictions) and in Questions indeterminate, (which are doubtfully propounded or obscurely, and therefore may be in utramque partem disputed or believed;) for God alone must be Judge of these matters, who alone is Master of our souls, and hath a dominion over humane understanding, and he that says this, does not say that indifferency is persuaded, because God alone is Judge of erring persons.  
Fourthly, No part of this Discourse teaches or encourages variety of Sects, and contradiction in opinions, but supposes them already in being, and therefore since there are, and ever were, and ever will be variety of opinions, because there is variety of humane understandings, and uncertainty in things, no man should be too forward in determining all Questions, nor so forward in prescribing to others, nor invade that liberty which God hath left to us entire by propounding many things obscurely, and by exempting our souls and understandings from all power externally compulsory: So that the restraint is laid upon men's tyranny, but no licence given to men's opinions, they are not considered in any of the Conclusions, but in the premises only as an Argument to exhort to charity. So that if I persuade a licence of discrediting any thing which God hath commanded us to believe, and allow a liberty where God hath not allowed it, let it be shown, and let the Objection press as hard as it can; but to say that men are too forward in condemning where God hath declared no sentence nor prescribed any rule; is to dissuade from tyranny, not to encourage licentiousness, is to take away a licence of judging, not to give a licence of dogmatizing what every one please, or as may best serve his turn. And for the other part of the Objection;  
Fifthly, This Discourse is so fare from giving leave to men to profess any thing though they believe the contrary, that it takes order that no man shall be put to it, for I earnestly contend that another man's opinion shall be no rule to mine, and that my opinion shall be no snare and prejudice to myself, that men use one another so charitably and so gently, that no error or violence tempt men to hypocrisy, this very thing being one of the Arguments I use to persuade permissions, lest compulsion introduce hypocrisy, and make sincerity troublesome and unsafe.  
Sixthly, If men would not call all opinions by the name of Religion, and superstructures by the name of fundamental Articles, and all fancies by the glorious appellative of Faith, this objection would have no pretence or footing, so that it is the disease of the men, not any cause that is ministered by such precepts of charity that makes them perpetually clamorous: And it would be hard to say that such Physicians are incurious of their Patients, and neglectful of their health, who speak against the unreasonableness of such Empirics that would cut off a man's head if they see but a Wart upon his cheek, or a dimple upon his chin, or any lines in his face to distinguish him from another man; the case is altogether the same, and we may as well decree a Wart to be mortal as a various opinion in re alioqui non necessariâ to be capital and damnable.  
For I consider, that there are but few Doctrines of Christianity, that were ordered to be preached to all the world, to every single person, and made a necessary Article of his explicit belief: Other Doctrines which are all of them not simply necessary, are either such as are not clearly revealed, or such as are: If they be clearly revealed, and that I know so too, or may, but for my own fault, I am not to be excused, but for this I am to be left to God's judgement, unless my fault be externally such as to be cognoscible and punishable in humane judicatory: But then, if it be not so revealed but that wise men and good men differ in their opinions, it is a clear case, it is not inter dogmata necessaria simpliciter, and then it is certain I may therefore safely disbelieve it, because I may be safely ignorant of it: For if I may with innocence be ignorant, then to know it or believe it, is not simply obligatory; ignorance is absolutely inconsistent with such an obligation, because it is destructive and a plain negative to its performance, and if I do my honest endeavour to understand it, and yet do not attain it, it is certain that is not obligatory to me so much as by accident, for no obligation can press the person of a man, if it be impossible, no man is bound to do more than his best, no man is bound to have an excellent understanding, or to be infallible, or to be wiser than he can, for these are things that are not in his choice, and therefore not a matter of a Law, nor subject to reward and punishment; so that where ignorance of the Article is not a sin, there disbelieving it in the right sense, or believing it in the wrong, is not breach of any duty, essentially or accidentally necessary, neither in the thing itself, nor to the person; that is, he is neither bound to the Article, nor to any endeavours or antecedent acts of volition and choice, and that man who may safely be ignorant of the proposition, is not tied at all to search it out, and if not at all to search it, then certainly not to find it: All the obligation we are capable of, is not to be malicious or voluntarily criminal in any kind, and then if by accident we find out a truth, we are obliged to believe it; and so will every wise or good man do; indeed he cannot do otherwise: But if he disbelieves an Article without malice, or design, or involuntarily, or unknowingly, it is contradiction to say it is a sin to him who might totally have been ignorant of it; for that he believes it in the wrong sense, it is his ignorance, and it is impossible that where he hath hearty endeavoured to find out a truth, that this endeavour should make him guilty of a sin, which would never have been laid to his charge, if he had taken no pains at all: His ignorance in this case is not a fault at all; possibly it might, if there had been no endeavour to have cured it.  
So that there is wholly a mistake in this proposition: For true it is, there are some propositions, which if a man never hear of, they will not be required of him; and they who cannot read might safely be ignorant, that Melchizedeck was King of Salem; but he who reads it in the Scripture, may not safely contradict it, although before that knowledge did arrive to him, he might safely have been ignorant of it: But this although it be true, is not pertinent to our Question; For in sensu diviso this is true, that which at one time a man may be ignorant of, at some other time he may not disbelieve: But in sensu conjuncto it is false; For at what time, and in what circumstance soever it is no sin to be ignorant, at that time and in that conjuncture, it is no sin to disbelieve; and such is the nature of all Questions disputable, which are therefore not required of us to be believed in any one particular sense, because the nature of the thing is such as not to be necessary to be known at all simply and absolutely, and such is the ambiguity and cloud of its face and representment as not to be necessary so much as by accident, and therefore not to the particular sense of any one person.  
And yet such is the iniquity of men, that they suck in opinions as wild Asses do the wind, without distinguishing the wholesome from the corrupted air, and then live upon it at a venture, and when all their confidence is built upon zeal and mistake, yet therefore because they are zealous and mistaken, they are impatient of contradiction.  
But besides that against this I have laid prejudice enough from the dictates of holy Scripture, it is observable that this with its appendent degrees, I mean restraint of Prophesying, imposing upon other men's understanding, being masters of their consciences, and lording it over their Faith, came in with the retinue and train of Antichrist, that is, they came as other abuses and corruptions of the Church did, by reason of the iniquity of times, and the cooling of the first heats of Christianity, and the increase of interest, and the abatements of Christian simplicity, when the Church's fortune grew better, and her Sons grew worse, and some of her Father's worst of all; For in the first three hundred years there was no sign of persecuting any man for his opinion, though at that time there were very horrid opinions commenced, and such which were exemplary and parallel enough to determine this Question; for they then were assaulted by new Sects which destroyed the common principles of nature, of Christianity, of innocence and public society; and they who used all the means Christian and Spiritual for their disimprovement and conviction, thought not of using corporal force, otherwise then by blaming such proceed: And therefore I do not only urge their not doing it as an Argument of the unlawfulness of such proceeding, but their defying it and speaking against such practices, as unreasonable and destructive of Christianity: For so Tertullian is express, Humani 
Ad Scapulat.  juris & naturalis potestatis, unicuique quod putaverit colere, sed nec religionis est cogere religionem, quae suscipi debet sponte non vi: The same is the Doctrine of S. Cyprian, Lactantius, S. Hilary, Minutius Felix, Sulpitius Severus, S. chrysostom, S. Hierom, S. Austin, Damascen, Theophylact, Socrates Scholasticus, and S. Bernard, as they are severally referred to and urged upon occasion in the following Discourse.  
To which I add, that all wise Princes till they were overborne with faction or solicited by peevish persons, gave Toleration to differing Sects, whose opinions did not disturb the public interest: But at first, there were some heretical persons that were also impatient of an Adversary, and they were the men who at first entreated the Emperors to persecute the Catholics; but till four hundred years after Christ, no Catholic persons, or very few, did provoke the secular arm, or implore its aid against the Heretics, save only that Arrius behaved himself so seditiously and tumultuarily, that the Nicene Fathers procured a temporary Decree for his relegation, but it was soon taken off and God left to be his Judge, who indeed did it to some purpose, when he was trusted with it and the matter wholly left to him.  
But as the Ages grew worse, so men grew more cruel and unchristian, and in the Greek Church Atticus, and Nestorius of Constantinople, Theodosius of Synada, and some few others who had forgotten the mercies of their great Master, and their own duty, grew implacable and furious and impatient of contradiction. It was a bold and an arrogant speech which Nestorius made in his Sermon before Theodosius the younger, Da mihi, O Imperator, terram ab haereticis repurgatam, & ego tibi vicissim coelum dabo: Disperde mecum haereticos, & ego tecum disperdam Persas: It was as groundless and unwarrantable, as it was bloody and inhuman.  
And we see the contrary events prove truer, than this groundless and unlearned promise; for Theodosius and Valentinian were prosperous Princes, and have to all Ages a precious memory, and the reputation of a great piety; but they were so fare from doing what Nestorius had suggested, that they restrained him from his violence and immanity, and Theodosius did highly commend the good Bishop Proclus for his sweetness of deportment towards erring persons, far above the cruelty of his Predecessor Atticus: And the experience which Christendom hath had in this last Age is Argument enough, that Toleration of differing opinions is so fare from disturbing the public peace, or destroying the interest of Princes and Commonwealths, that it does advantage to the public, it secures peace, because there is not so much as the pretence of Religion left to such persons to contend for it, being already indulged to them. When France fought against the Huguenots, the spilling of her own blood was argument enough of the imprudence of that way of promoting Religion; but since she hath given permission to them, the world is witness how prosperous she hath been ever since: But the great instance is in the differing temper, Government and success which Margaret of Parma, and the Duke of Alva had: The clemency of the first had almost extinguished the flame; but when she was removed, D' Alva succeeded and managed the matter of Religion with fire and sword; he made the flame so great, that his Religion and his Prince too hath both been almost quite turned out of the Country. Pelli è medio sapientiam, quoties vi res agitur, said Ennius; and therefore the best of men, and the most glorious of Princes were always ready to give Toleration, but never to make executions for matters disputable: Eusebius in his second Book of the life of Constantine reports these words of the Emperor, Parem cum fidelibus two qui errant, pacis & quietis fruitionem gaudentes accipiant: Ipsa siquidem communicationis & societatis restitutio ad rectam etiam veritatis viam perducere potest. Nemo cui quam molestus sit, quisque quod animo destinat hoc etiam faciat.  
And indeed there is great reason for Princes to give Toleration to disagreeing persons, whose opinions by fair means cannot be altered; for if the persons be confident, they will serve God according to their persuasions; and if they be publicly prohibited, they will privately convene, and then all those inconveniences and mischiefs which are Arguments against the permission of Conventicles, are Arguments for the public permissions of differing Religions, because the denying of the public worship will certainly produce private Conventicles, against which all wise Princes and Commonwealths have upon great reasons made Edicts and severe Sanctions, quicksands quid enim agitur absent rege, in caput ejus plerunque redundat, say the Politics: For the face of a man is as the face of a Lion, and scatters all base machinations which breathe not but in the dark: It is a proverbial saying, quod nimia familiaritas servorum est conspiratio adversus Dominum, and they who for their security run into grots and cellars, and retirements, think that they being upon the defensive, those Princes and those Laws that drive them to it are their Enemies, and therefore they cannot be secure, unless the power of the one, and the obligation of the other be lessened and rescinded; and then the being restrained and made miserable, endears the discontented persons mutually, and makes more hearty and dangerous Confederations. King james of blessed memory, in his Letters to the States of the United Provinces, dated 6 March. 1613. Thus wrote .... Magis autem è re fore si sopiantur authoritate publicâ, ita ut prohibeatis Ministros vestros ne eas disputationes in suggestum aut ad plebem ferant, ac districtè imperetis ut pacem colant se invicem Tolerando in istâ opinionum ac sententiarum discrepantiâ: ..... Eoque justiùs videmur vobis hoc ipsum suadere debere quòd neutram comperimus adeò deviam ut non possint & cum fidei Christianae veritate, & cum animarum salute consistere, etc. The like Council in the divisions of Germany, at the first Reformation was thought reasonable by the Emperor Ferdinand, and his excellent Son Maximilian; For they had observed that violence did exasperate, was unblessed, unsuccessful and unreasonable, and therefore they made Decrees of Toleration, and appointed tempers and expedients to be drawn up by discreet persons, and George Cassander was designed to this great work, and did something towards it: And Emanuel Philibert, D. of Savoy repenting of his war undertaken for Religion against the Pedemontans, promised them Toleration, and was as good as his word: As much is done by the Nobility of Polonia. So that the best Princes and the best Bishops gave Toleration and Impunities; but it is known that the first Persecutions of disagreeing persons were by the Arrians, by the Circumcellians and Donatists, and from them, they of the Church took examples, who in small numbers did sometime persuade it, sometime practise it. And among the Greeks it became a public and authorized practice, till the Question of Images grew hot and high; for then the Worshippers of Images having taken their example from the Empress Irene, who put her Son's eyes out for making an Edict against Images, began to be as cruel as they were deceived, especially being encouraged by the Popes of Rome, who then blew the coals to some purpose.  
And that I may upon this occasion give account of this affair in the Church of Rome, it is remarkable that till the time of justinian the Emperor, A. D. 525. the Catholics and Novatians had Churches indifferently permitted even in Rome itself, but the Bishops of Rome whose interest was much concerned in it, spoke much against it, and laboured the eradication of the Novatians, and at last when they got power into their hands they served them accordingly, but it is observed by Socrates that when the first Persecution was made against them at Rome by Pope Innocent I, at the same instant the Goths invaded Italy, and became Lords of all, it being just in God to bring a Persecution upon them for true belief, who with an incompetent Authority and insufficient grounds do persecute an error less material, in persons agreeing with them in the profession of the same common faith. And I have heard it observed as a blessing upon S. Austin (who was so merciful to erring persons as the greatest part of his life in all senses, even when he had twice changed his mind, yet to Tolerate them, and never to endure they should be given over to the secular power to be killed) that the very night the Vandals set down before his City of Hippo to besiege it, he died and went to God, being (as a reward of his merciful Doctrine) taken from the miseries to come, and yet that very thing was also a particular issue of the Divine Providence upon that City, who not long before had altered their profession into truth by force, and now were falling into their power, who afterward by a greater force turned them to be Arrians.  
But in the Church of Rome, the Popes were the first Preachers of force and violence in matters of opinion, and that so zealously, that Pope Vigilius suffered himself to be imprisoned and handled roughly by the Emperor justinian, rather than he would consent to the restitution and peace of certain disagreeing persons, but as yet it came not so fare as death. The first that preached that Doctrine was Dominick, the Founder of the Begging Orders of Friars, the Friar's Preachers; in memory of which the Inquisition is entrusted only to the Friars of his Order; and if there be any force in dreams, or truth in Legends (as there is not much in either) this very thing might be signified by his Mother's dream, who the night before Dominick was born, dreamed she was brought to Bed of a huge Dog with a firebrand in his mouth: Sure enough, however his disciples expound the dream, it was a better sign that he should prove a rabid, furious Incendiary, than any thing else; whatever he might be in the other parts of his life, in this Doctrine he was not much better, as appears in his deportment toward the Albigenses, against whom he so preached, adeo quidem ut centum haereticorum millia ab octo millibus Catholicorum fusa & interfecta fuisse perhibeantur, saith one of him; and of those who were taken, 180 were burnt to death, because they would not abjure their Doctrine: This was the first example of putting erring persons to death, that I find in the Roman Church; For about 170 years before, 
B. Bruno Berengarianes è suâ diocesi expulit, non morti aut suppliciis corporalibus tradidit.  Berengarius fell into opinion concerning the blessed Sacrament which they called Heresy, and recanted, and relapsed, and recanted again, and fell again two or three times, saith Gerson writing against Romant of the Rose, and yet he died siccâ morte his own natural death, and with hope of Heaven, and yet Hildebrand was once his judge, which shows that at that time Rome was not come to so great heigths of bloodshed. In England, although the Pope had as great power here as any where, yet there were no Executions for matter of opinion known till the time of Henry the Fourth, who (because he Usurped the Crown) was willing by all means to endear the Clergy by destroying their Enemies, that so he might be sure of them to all his purposes. And indeed, it may become them well enough, who are wiser in their generations then the children of light, it may possibly serve the policies of evil persons, but never the pure and chaste designs of Christianity, which admits no blood but Christ's, and the imitating blood of Martyrs, but knows nothing how to serve her ends, by persecuting any of her erring children.  
By this time I hope it will not be thought reasonable to say, he that teaches mercy to erring persons, teaches indifferency in Religion, unless so many Fathers, and so many Churches, and the best of Emperors, and all the world (till they were abused by Tyranny, Popery, and Faction) did teach indifferency, for I have shown that Christianity does not punish corporally, persons erring spiritually, but indeed Popery does; The Donatists, and Circumcellians, and Arrians, and the Itaciani, they of old did: In the middle Ages, the Patrons of Images did, and the Papists at this day do, and have done ever since they were taught it by their S. Dominick.  
Seventhly, And yet after all this, I have something more to exempt myself from the clamour of this Objection: For let all errors be as much and as zealously suppressed as may be, (the Doctrine of the following Discourse contradicts not that) but let it be done by such means as are proper instruments of their suppression, by Preaching and Disputation (so that neither of them breed disturbance) by charity and sweetness, by holiness of life, assiduity of exhortation, by the word of God and prayer.  
For these ways are most natural, most prudent, most peaceable, and effectual. Only let not men be hasty in calling every disliked opinion by the name of Heresy, and when they have resolved, that they will call it so, let them use the erring person like a brother, not beat him like a dog, or convince him with a gibbet, or vex him out of his understanding and persuasions.  
And now if men will still say, I persuade to indifferency, there is no help for me, for I have given reasons against it, I must bear it as well as I can, I am not yet without remedy as they are, for patience will help me, and reason will not cure them, let them take their course, and He take mine:  
Only I will take leave to consider this (and they would do well to do so too) that unless Faith be kept within its own latitude, and not called out to patrocinate every less necessary opinion, and the interest of every Sect, or peevish person; and if damnation be pronounced against Christians believing the Creed, and living good lives, because they are deceived, or are said to be deceived in some opinions less necessary, there is no way in the world to satisfy unlearned persons in the choice of their Religion, or to appease the unquietness of a scrupulous conscience: For suppose an honest Citizen whose employment and parts will not enable him to judge the disputes and arguings of great Clerks, sees factions commenced and managed with much bitterness by persons who might on either hand be fit enough to guide him; when if he follows either, he is disquieted and pronounced damned by the other (who also if he be the most unreasonable in his opinion will perhaps be more furious in his sentence) what shall this man do, where shall he rest the sole of his foot? Upon the Doctrine of the Church where he lives? Well! but that he hears declaimed against perpetually, and other Churches claim highly and pretend fairly for truth, and condemn his Church: If I tell him that he must live a good life, and believe the Creed, and not trouble himself with their disputes, or interesting himself in Sects and Factions, I speak reason: Because no law of God ties him to believe more than what is of essential necessity, and whatsoever he shall come to know to be revealed by God: Now if he believes his Creed, he believes all that is necessary to all, or of itself, and if he do his moral endeavour beside, he can do no more toward finding out all the rest, and then he is secured; but than if this will secure him, why do men press further and pretend every opinion as necessary, and that in so high degree that if they all said true, or any two indeed of them, in 500 Sects which are in the world (and for aught I know there may be 5000) it is 500 to one but that every man is damned, for every Sect damns all but itself, and that is damned of 499, and it is excellent fortune then if that escape; and there is the same reason in every one of them, that is, it is extreme unreasonableness in all of them to pronounce damnation against such persons against whom clearly and dogmatically holy Scripture hath not; In odiosis quod minimum est sequimur, in favoribus quod est maximum, saith the Law, and therefore we should say any thing, or make any excuse that is in any degree reasonable, rather than condemn all the world to Hell, especially if we consider these two things, that we ourselves are as apt to be deceived as any are, and that they who are deceived, when they used their moral industry that they might not be deceived, if they perish for this, they perish for what they could not help.  
But however, if the best security in the world be not in neglecting all Sects, and subdivisions of men, and fixing ourselves on points necessary and plain, and on honest and pious endeavours, according to our several capacities and opportunities for all the rest, if I say all this be not through the mercies of God, the best security to all unlearned persons, and learned too, where shall we fix, where shall we either have peace or security? If you bid me follow your Doctrine, you must tell me why, and perhaps when you have I am not able to judge, or if I be as able as other people are, yet when I have judged, I may be deceived too, and so may you, or any man else you bid me follow, so that I am no whit the nearer truth or peace.  
And then if we look abroad, and consider how there is scarce any Church, but is highly charged by many Adversaries in many things, possibly we may see a reason to charge every one of them in some things; And what shall we do then? The Church of Rome hath spots enough, and all the world is inquisitive enough to find out more, and to represent these to her greatest disadvantage. The Greek Church denies the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son; If that be false Doctrine, she is highly too blame, if it be not, than all the Western Churches are too blame for saying the contrary: And there is no Church that is in prosperity, but altars her Doctrine every Age, either by bringing in new Doctrines, or by contradicting her old, which shows that none are satisfied with themselves, or with their own confessions: And since all Churches believe themselves fallible, that only excepted which all other Churches say is most of all deceived, it were strange if in so many Articles which make up their several bodies of Confessions, they had not mistaken every one of them in something or other: The Lutheran Churches maintain Consubstantiation, the Zwinglians are Sacramentaries, the Calvinists are fierce in the matters of absolute Predetermination, and all these reject Episcopacy, which the Primitive Church would have made no doubt to have called Heresy: The Socinians profess a portentous number of strange opinions; they deny the holy Trinity, and the satisfaction of our blessed Saviour: The Anabaptists laugh at Paedo-baptism; The Ethiopian Churches are Nestorian: where then shall we fix our confidence, or join Communion? to pitch upon any one of these is to throw the dice, if salvation be to be had only in one of them, and that every error that by chance hath made a Sect, and is distinguished by a name, be damnable.  
If this consideration does not deceive me, we have no other help in the midst of these distractions, and dis-unions, but all of us to be united in that common term, which as it does constitute the Church in its being such, so it is the medium of the Communion of Saints, and that is the Creed of the Apostles, and in all other things an honest endeavour to find out 
* Clem. Alex. stromat. 1. ait Philosophiam liberam esse praestantissimam, quae scil. versatur in perspicaciter seligendis dogmatis omnium Sectarum, Polamo Alexandrinus sic primus philosophatus est, ut ait Laërtius in Proëmio, unde cognominatus est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  what truths we can, and a charitable and mutual permission to others that disagree from us and our opinions. I am sure this may satisfy us, for it will secure us, but I know not any thing else that will, and no man can be reasonably persuaded, or satisfied in any thing else, unless he throws himself upon chance, or absolute predestination, or his own confidence, in every one of which it is two to one at least but he may miscarry.  
Thus fare I thought I had reason on my side, and I suppose I have made it good upon its proper grounds, in the pages following. But then if the result be, that men must be permitted in their opinions, and that Christians must not Persecute Christians; I have also as much reason to reprove all those obliqne Arts which are not direct Persecutions of men's persons, but they are indirect proceed, ungentle and unchristian, servants of faction and interest, provocations to zeal and animosities, and destructive of learning and ingenuity. And these are suppressing all the monuments of their Adversaries, forcing them to recant, and burning their Books.  
For it is a strange industry, and an importune diligence that was used by our forefathers; of all those Heresies which gave them battle and employment, we have absolutely no Record or Monument, but what themselves who were Adversaries have transmitted to us, and we know that Adversaries, especially such who observed all opportunities to discredit both the persons and doctrines of the Enemy, are not always the best records or witnesses of such transactions. We see it now in this very Age, in the present distemperatures, that parties are no good Registers of the actions of the adverse side: And if we cannot be confident of the truth of a story now, now I say that it is possible for any man, and likely that the interessed adversary will discover the imposture, it is fare more unlikely, that after Ages should know any other truth, but such as serves the ends of the representers: I am sure such things were never taught us by Christ and his Apostles, and if we were sure that ourselves spoke truth, or that truth were able to justify herself, it were better if to preserve a Doctrine we did not destroy a Commandment, and out of zeal pretending to Christian Religion, lose the glories and rewards of ingenuity and Christian simplicity.  
Of the same consideration is mending of Authors, not to their own mind but to ours, that is, to mend them so as to spoil them; forbidding the publication of Books, in which there is nothing impious, or against the public interest, leaving out clauses in Translations, disgracing men's persons, charging disavowed Doctrines upon men, and the persons of the men with the consequents of their Doctrine, which they deny either to be true or to be consequent, false reporting of Disputations and Conferences, burning Books by the hand of the hangman, and all such Arts, which show that we either distrust God for the maintenance of his truth, or that we distrust the cause, or distrust ourselves and our abilities: I will say no more of these, but only concerning the last, I shall transcribe a passage out of Tacitus in the life of julius Agricola, who gives this account of it, Veniam non petissem nisi incursaturus tam saeva & infesta virtutibus tempora. Legimus cum Aruleno Ruslico Paetus Thrasea, Herennio Senecioni Priscus Helvidius laudatt essent, capitale fuisse, neque in ipsos modo authores, sed in libros quoque eorum saevitum delegato Triumviris ministerio ut monumenta clarissimorum ingeniorum in comitio ac foro urerentur, scil. illo igne vocem populi Rom. & libertatem Senatus & conscientiam generis humani aboleri arbitrabantur, expulsis insuper sapientiae professoribus, at que omni bonâ arte in exilium actâ, ne quid usquam honestum occurreret. It is but an illiterate Policy to think that such indirect and uningenuous proceed can amongst wise and freemen disgrace the Authors, and disrepute their Discourses; And I have seen that the price hath been trebled upon a forbidden or a condemned Book, and some men in policy have got a prohibition that their impression might be the more certainly vendible, and the Author himself thought considerable.  
The best way is to leave tricks and devices, and to fall upon that way which the best Ages of the Church did use: With the strength of Argument, and Allegations of Scripture, and modesty of deportment, and meekness, and charity to the persons of men, they converted misbelievers, stopped the mouths of Adversaries, asserted truth, and discountenanced error; and those other stratagems and Arts of support and maintenance to Doctrines, were the issues of heretical brains; the old Catholics had nothing to secure themselves but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of truth and plain dealing.  
Eidem minutis dissecant ambagibus  
Ut quisque linguâ est ne quior.  
Solvunt ligantque quaestionum vincula  
Per syllogismos plectiles. 
Prudent. apotheos. him. in infidel.   
Vae captiosis Sycophantarum strophis,  
Vae versipelli astutiae.  
Nodos tenaces recta rumpit regula  
Infesta discertantibus:  
Idcirco mundi slulta deligit Deus  
Ut concidant Sophistica.  
And to my understanding, it is a plain Art and design of the Devil, to make us so in love with our own opinions, as to call them Faith and Religion, that we may be proud in our understanding; and besides, that by our zeal in our opinions, we grow cool in our piety and practical duties, he also by this earnest contention. does directly destroy good life, by engagement of Zealots to do any thing rather than be overcome, and lose their beloved propositions: But I would feign know why is not any vicious habit as bad or worse than a false opinion? Why are we so zealous against those we call Heretics, and yet great friends with drunkards, and fornicators, & swearers, and intemperate and idle persons? Is it because we are commanded by the Apostle to reject a Heretic after two admonitions, and not to bid such a one God speed? It is a good reason why we should be zealous against such persons, provided we mistake them not. For those of whom these Apostles speak, are such as deny Christ to be come in the flesh, such as deny an Article of Creed; and in such odious things, it is not safe nor charitable to extend the gravamen and punishment beyond the instances the Apostles make, or their exact parallels. But then also, it would be remembered that the Apostles speak as fiercely against communion with fornicators, and all disorders practical, as against communion with Heretics, If any man that is called a brother be a Fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such a one no not to eat: I am certain that a Drunkard is as contrary to God, and lives as contrary to the Laws of Christianity, as a Heretic; and I am also sure that I know what drunkenness is, but I am not sure that such an opinion is Heresy, neither would other men be so sure as they think for if they did consider it aright, and observe the infinite deceptions, and causes of deceptions in wise men, and in most things, and in all doubtful Questions, and that they did not mistake confidence for certainty.  
But indeed, I could not but smile at those jolly Friars, two Franciscans offered themselves to the fire to prove Savonarola to be a Heretic, but a certain jacobine offered himself to 
Commin. l. 8. c. 19  the fire to prove that Savonarola had true Revelations, and was no Heretic; in the mean time Savonarola preached, but made no such confident offer, not durst he venture at that new kind of fire Ordeal; and put case all four had passed through the fire, and died in the flames, what would that have proved? Had he been a Heretic or no Heretic, the more or the less, for the confidence of these Zealous Idiots? If we mark it, a great many Arguments whereon many Sects rely, are no better probation than this comes to. Confidence is the first, and the second, and the third part of a very great many of their propositions.  
But now if men would a little turn the Tables, and be as zealous for a good life, and all the strictest precepts of Christianity (which is a Religion the most holy, the most reasonable, and the most consummate that ever was taught to man) as they are for such propositions in which neither the life, nor the ornament of Christianity is concerned, we should find, that as a consequent of this piety, men would be as careful as they could, to find out all truths, and the sense of all revelations which may concern their duty; and where men were miserable and could not, yet others that lived good lives too would also be so charitable, as not to add affliction to this misery; and both of them are parts of good life, to be compassionate, and to help to bear one another's burdens, not to destroy the weak, but to entertain him meekly, that's a precept of charity, and to endeavour to find out the whole will of God, that also is a part of the obedience, the choice and the excellency of Faith, and he lives not a good life, that does not do both these.  
But men think they have more reason to be zealous against Heresy then against a vice in manners, because Heresy is infectious and dangerous, and the principle of much evil: Indeed if by a Heresy we mean that which is against an Article of Creed, and breaks part of the Covenant made between God and man by the mediation of Jesus Christ, I grant it to be a very grievous crime, a calling God's veracity into question, and a destruction also of good life, because upon the Articles of Creed, obedience is built, and it lives or dies, as the effect does by its proper cause; for Faith is the moral cause of obedience: But than Heresy, that is, such as this, is also a vice, and the person criminal, and so the sin is to be esteemed in its degrees of malignity, and let men be as zealous against it as they can, and employ the whole arsenal of the spiritual armour against it, such as this, is worse than adultery or murder, in as much as the soul is more noble than the body, and a false doctrine is of greater dissemination and extent than a single act of violence or impurity. Adultery or murder is a duel, but Heresy (truly and indeed such) is an unlawful war, it slays thousands: The losing of Faith is like digging down a foundation; all the superstructures of hope, and patience, and charity fall with it: And besides this, Heresy of all crimes is the most inexcusable and of least temptation; for true faith is most commonly kept with the least trouble of any grace in the world; and Heresy of itself hath not only no pleasure in it, but is a very punishment; because faith as it opposes heretical or false opinions, and distinguishes from charity, consists in mere acts of believing, which because they are of true propositions, are natural and proportionable to the understanding, and more honourable than false. But then concerning those things which men now adays call Heresy, they cannot be so formidable as they are represented, and if we consider that drunkenness is certainly a damnable sin, and that there are more Drunkards than Heretics, and that drunkenness is parent of a thousand vices, it may better be said of this vice then of most of those opinions which we call Heresies, it is infectious and dangerous, and the principle of much evil, and therefore as fit an object for a pious zeal to contest against, as is any of those opinions which trouble men's ease or reputation, for that is the greatest of their malignity.  
But if we consider that Sects are made and opinions are called Heresies upon interest, and the grounds of emolument, we shall see that a good life would cure much of this mischief. For first, the Church of Rome which is the great dictatrix of dogmatic resolutions, and the declarer of Heresy, and calls Heretic more than all the world besides, hath made that the rule of Heresy, which is the conservatory of interest, and the ends of men. For to recede from the Doctrine of the Church, with them makes Heresy, that is, to disrepute their Authority and not to obey them, not to be their subjects, not to give them the Empire of our conscience, is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Heresy.  
So that with them, Heresy is to be esteemed clearly by humane ends, not by Divine Rules; that is formal Heresy which does materially disserve them, and it would make a suspicious man a little inquisitive into their particular Doctrines, and when he finds that Indulgences, and Jubilies, and Purgatories, and Masses, and Offices for the dead, are very profitable; that the Doctrine of primacy, of infallibility, of superiority over Counsels, of indirect power in temporals, are great instruments of secular honour; would be apt enough to think that if the Church of Rome would learn to lay her honour at the feet of the Crucifix, and despise the world, and prefer jerusalem before Rome, and Heaven above the Lateran, that these opinions would not have in them any native strength to support them, against the perpetual assaults of their Adversaries, that speak so much reason and Scripture against them. I have instanced in the Roman Religion, but I wish it may be considered also how fare men's Doctrines in other Sects serve men's temporal ends, so fare that it would not be unreasonable or unnecessary to attempt to cure some of their distemperatures or misperswasions by the salutary precepts of sanctity and holy life: Sure enough, if it did not more concern their reputation and their lasting interest to be counted true believers rather than good livers, they would rather endeavour to live well, then to be accounted of a right opinion in things beside the Creed.  
For my own particular I cannot but expect, that God in his Justice should enlarge the bounds of the Turkish Empire, or some other way punish Christians by reason of their pertinacious disputing about things unnecessary, undeterminable, and unprofitable, and for their hating and persecuting their brethren which should be as dear to them as their own lives, for not consenting to one another's follies, and senseless vanities: How many volumes have been writ about Angels, about immaculate conception, about original sin, when that all that is solid reason or clear Revelation, in all these three Articles, may be reasonably enough comprised in forty lines! And in these trifles and impertinencies, men are curiously busy while they neglect those glorious precepts of Christianity and holy life, which are the glories of our Religion, and would enable us to a happy eternity.  
My Lord, Thus fare my thoughts have carried me, and then I thought I had reason to go further, and to examine the proper grounds upon which these persuasions might rely and stand firm, in case any body should contest against them: For possibly men may be angry at me and my design; for I do all them great displeasure, who think no end is then well served, when their interest is disserved; and but that I have writ so untowardly and heavily, that I am not worth a confutation, possibly some or other might be writing against me. But then I must tell them I am prepared of an answer before hand: For I think I have spoken reason in my Book, and examined it with all the severity I have, and if after all this I be deceived, this confirms me in my first opinion, and becomes a new Argument to me, that I have spoken reason; for it furnishes me with a new instance, that it is necessary, there should be a mutual compliance and Toleration, because even then when a man thinks he hath most reason to be confident, he may easily be deceived.  
For I am sure, I have no other design but the prosecution and advantage of truth, and I may truly use the words of Gregory Nazianzen, Non studemus paci in detrimentum verae doctrinae, .... ut facilitatis & mansuetudinis famam colligamus: But I have writ this because I thought it was necessary and seasonable, and charitable, and agreeable to the great precepts and design of Christianity, consonant to the practice of the Apostles, and of the best Ages of the Church, most agreeable to Scripture and reason, to revelation and the nature of the thing; and it is such a Doctrine, that if there be variety in humane affairs, if the event of things be not settled in a durable consistence, but is changeable, every one of us all may have need of it: I shall only therefore desire that they who will read it may come to the reading it with as much simplicity of purposes and unmixed desires of truth, as I did to the writing it, and that no man trouble himself with me or my discourse, that thinks before hand that his opinion cannot be reasonably altered. If he thinks me to be mistaken before he tries, let him also think that he may be mistaken too, and that he who judges before he hears, is mistaken though he gives a right sentence:  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Aristoph. in Pluto.  
Was as good counsel: But at a venture, I shall leave this sentence of Solomon to his consideration, A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil, but a fool rageth and is confident, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a trick of boys and bold young fellows, says Aristotle; but they who either know themselves, or things, or persons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Peradventure yea, peradventure no, is very often the wisest determination of a Question: For there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the Apostle notes) 
2 Tim. 2.  foolish and unlearned Questions, and it were better to stop the current of such fopperies by silence, then by disputing them convey them to Posterity. And many things there are of more profit which yet are of no more certainty, and therefore boldness of assertion (except it be in matters of Faith and clearest Revelation) is an Argument of the vanity of the man, never of the truth of the proposition; for to such matters the saying of Xenophanes in Varro, is pertinent and applicable, Hominis est haec opinari, Dei scire; God only knows them, and we conjecture.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
And although I be as desirous to know what I should, and what I should not, as any of my Brethren the Sons of Adam; yet I find that the more I search, the further I am from being satisfied, and make but few discoveries, save of my own ignorance, and therefore I am desirous to follow the example of a very wise Personage, julius Agricola, of whom Tacitus gave this testimony, Retinuit que (quod est difficillimum) ex scientiâ modum; or that I may take my precedent from within the pale of the Church, it was the saying of S. Austin, Mallem quidem eorum quae à me quaesivisti habere scientiam quam ignorantiam, sed quia id nondum potui, magis eligo cautam ignorantiam confiteri, quam falsam scientiam profiteri; And these words do very much express my sense. But if there be any man so confident as Luther sometimes was, who said that he could expound all Scripture, or so vain as Eckius who in his Chrysopassus ventured upon the highest and most mysterious Question of Predestination, ut in eâ juveniles possit calores exercere; such persons as these, or any that is furious in his opinion, will scorn me and my Discourse; but I shall not be much moved at it, only I shall wish that I had as much knowledge as they think me to want, and they as much as they believe themselves to have. In the mean time, Modesty were better for us both, and indeed for all men: For when men indeed are knowing, amongst other things they are able to separate certainties from uncertainties; If they be not knowing, it is pity that their ignorance should be triumphant, or discompose the public peace, or private confidence.  
And now (my Lord) that I have inscribed this Book to your Lordship, although it be a design of doing honour to myself, that I have marked it with so honoured and beloved a Name, might possibly need as much excuse as it does pardon, but that your Lordship knows your own; for out of your Mines. I have digged the Mineral; only I have stamped it with my own image, as you may perceive by the deformities which are in it. But your great Name in letters will add so much value to it, as to make it obtain its pardon amongst all them that know how to value you, and all your relatives and dependants by the proportion of relation. For others I shall be incurious, because the number of them that honour you is the same with them that honour Learning and Piety, and they are the best Theatre and the best judges; amongst which the world must needs take notice of my ambition, to be ascribed by my public pretence to be what I am in all heartiness of Devotion, and for all the reason of the world,  
My Honoured Lord, Your Lordship's most faithful and most affectionate servant, J. TAYLOR.   

The Contents of the Sections.  

SECTION I. OF the Nature of Faith, and that its duty is completed in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed. Pag. 5.  
SECT. II. Of Heresy and the nature of it, and that it is to be accounted according to the strict capacity of Christian Faith, and not in Opinions speculative, nor ever to pious persons. pag. 18.  
SECT. III. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of Arguments from Scripture, in Questions not simply necessary, not literally determined. pag. 59  
SECT. iv Of the difficulty of Expounding Scripture. pag. 73.  
SECT. V Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to expound Scripture, or determine Questions. pag. 83.  
SECT. VI Of the uncertainty and insufficiency of Counsels Ecclesiastical to the same purpose. pag. 101.  
SECT. VII. Of the fallibility of the Pope, and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture, and resolving Questions. pag. 125.  
SECT. VIII. Of the disability of Fathers, or Writers Ecclesiastical, to determine our Questions, with certainty and Truth. pag. 151.  
SECT. IX. Of the incompetency of the Church in its diffusive capacity to be judge of Controversies, and the impertinency of that pretence of the Spirit. pag. 161.  
SECT. X. Of the authority of Reason, and that it, proceeding upon the best grounds, is the best judge. pag. 165.  
SECT. XI. Of some causes of Error in the exercise of Reason, which are inculpate in themselves. pag. 171.  
SECT. XII. Of the innocency of Error in opinion in a pious person. pag. 184.  
SECT. XIII. Of the deportment to be used towards persons disagreeing, and the reasons why they are not to be punished with death, etc. pag. 189.  
SECT. XIIII. Of the practice of Christian Churches towards persons disagreeing, and when Persecution first came in. pag. 203.  
SECT. XV. How fare the Church or Governors may act to the restraining false or differing opinions. pag. 210.  
SECT. XVI. Whether it be lawful for a Prince to give toleration to several Religions. pag. 213.  
SECT. XVII. Of compliance with disagreeing persons, or weak Consciences in general. pag. 217.  
SECT. XVIII. A particular consideration of the Opinions of the Anabaptists. pag. 223  
SECT. XIX. That there may be no Toleration of Doctrines inconsistent with piety or the public good. pag. 246.  
SECT. XX. How fare the Religion of the Church of Rome is Tolerable. pag. 249.  
SECT. XXI. Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion. pag. 262.  
SECT. XXII. That particular men may communicate with Churches of different persuasions, and how fare they may do it. pag. 264.    

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. OF THE LIBERTY OF PROPHESYING.  
THe infinite variety of Opinions in matters of Religion, as they have troubled Christendom, with interests, factions, and partialities; so have they caused great divisions of the heart, and variety of thoughts and designs amongst pious and prudent men. For they all seeing the inconveniences which the dis-union of persuasions and Opinions have produced directly or accidentally, have thought themselves obliged to stop this inundation of mischiefs, and have made attempts accordingly. But it hath happened to most of them as to a mistaken Physician, who gives excellent physic but misapplies it, and so misses of his cure; so have these men, their attempts have therefore been ineffectual; for they put their help to a wrong part, or they have endeavoured to cure the symptoms, and have let the disease alone till it seemed incurable. Some have endeavoured to reunite these fractions by propounding such a Guide which they were all bound to follow; hoping that the Unity of a Guide, would have persuaded unity of minds; but who this Guide should be at last became such a Question, that it was made part of the fire that was to be quenched; so fare was it from extinguishing any part of the flame. Others thought of a Rule, and this must be the means of Union, or nothing could do it. But supposing all the World had been agreed of this Rule, yet the interpretation of it was so full of variety, that this also became part of the disease, for which the cure was pretended. All men resolved upon this, that though they yet had not hit upon the right, yet some way must be thought upon to reconcile differences in Opinion, thinking so long as this variety should last, Christ's Kingdom was not advanced, and the work of the Gospel went on but slowly: Few men in the mean time considered, that so long as men had such variety of principles, such several constitutions, educations, tempers, and distempers, hopes, interests and weaknesses, degrees of light, and degrees of understanding, it was impossible all should be of one mind. And what is impossible to be done, is not necessary it should be done: And therefore, although variety of Opinions was impossible to be cured (and they who attempted it, did like him who claps his shoulder to the ground to stop an earthquake) yet the inconveniences arising from it might possibly be cured, not by uniting their beliefs, that was to be despaired of, but by curing that which caused these mischiefs, and accidental inconveniences of their disagreings. For although these inconveniences which every man sees and feels were consequent to this diversity of persuasions, yet it was but accidentally and by chance, in as much as we see that in many things, and they of great concernment, men allow to themselves and to each other a liberty of disagreeing, and no hurt neither. And certainly if diversity of Opinions, were of itself the cause of mischiefs it would be so ever, that is, regularly and universally (but that we see it is not:) For there are disputes in Christendom concerning matters of greater concernment than most of those Opinions that distinguish Sects, and make factions; and yet because men are permitted to differ in those great matters, such evils are not consequent to such differences, as are to the uncharitable managing of smaller and more inconsiderable Questions. It is of greater consequence to believe right in the Question of the validity or invalidity of a deathbed repentance, then to believe aright in the Question of Purgatory; and the consequences of the Doctrine of Predetermination, are of deeper and more material consideration than the products of the belief of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of private Masses; and yet these great concernments where a liberty of Prophesying in these Questions hath been permitted, hath made no distinct Communion, no sects of Christians, and the others have, and so have these too in those places where they have peremptorily been determined on either side. Since than if men are quiet and charitable in some disagreeings, that then and there the inconvenience ceases, if they were so in all others where lawfully they might (and they may in most,) Christendom should be no longer rend in pieces, but would be redintegrated in a new Pentecost, and although the Spirit of God did rest upon us in divided tongues, yet so long as those tongues were of fire not to kindle strife, but to warm our affections, and inflame our charities, we should find that this variety of Opinions in several persons would be looked upon as an argument only of diversity of operations, while the Spirit is the same; and that another man believes not so well as I, is only an argument that I have a better and a clearer illumination than he, that I have a better gift than he, received a special grace and favour, and excel him in this, and am perhaps excelled by him in many more. And if we all impartially endeavour to find a truth, since this endeavour and search only is in our power, that we shall find it being ab extra, a gift and an assistance extrinsecall, I can see no reason why this pious endeavour to find out truth shall not be of more force to unite us in the bonds of charity, than his misery in missing it shall be to dis-unite us. So that since a union of persuasion is impossible to be attained, if we would attempt the cure by such remedies as are apt to enkindle and increase charity, I am confident we might see a blessed peace would be the reward and crown of such endeavours.  
But men are now adays and indeed always have been, since the expiration of the first blessed Ages of Christianity, so in love with their own Fancies and Opinions, as to think Faith and all Christendom is concerned in their support and maintenance, and whoever is not so fond and does not dandle them like themselves, it grows up to a quarrel, which because it is in materiâ theologiae is made a quarrel in Religion, and God is entitled to it; and than if you are once thought an enemy to God, it is our duty to persecute you even to death, we do God good service in it; when if we should examine the matter rightly, the Question is either in materiâ non revelata, or minus evidenti, or non necessariâ, either it is not revealed, or not so clearly, but that wise and honest men may be of different minds, or else it is not of the foundation of faith, but a remote super-structure, or else of mere speculation, or perhaps when all comes to all, it is a false Opinion, or a matter of humane interest, that we have so zealously contended for; for to one of these heads most of the Disputes of Christendom may be reduced; so that I believe the present fractions (or the most) are from the same cause which St Paul observed in the Corinthian Schism, when there are divisions among you, are ye not carnal? It is not the differing Opinions that is the cause of the present ruptures, but want of charity; it is not the variety of understandings, but the disunion of wills and affections; it is not the several principles, but the several ends that cause our miseries: our Opinions commence, and are upheld according as our turns are served and our interests are preserved, and there is no cure for us, but Piety and Charity. A holy life will make our belief holy, if we consult not humanity and its imperfections in the choice of our Religion, but search for truth without designs, save only of acquiring heaven, and then be as careful to preserve Charity, as we were to get a point of Faith; I am much persuaded we should find out more truths by this means; or however (which is the main of all) we shall be secured though we miss them; and then we are well enough.  
For if it be evinced that one heaven shall hold men of several Opinions, if the unity of Faith be not destroyed by that which men call differing Religions, and if an unity of Charity be the duty of us all even towards persons that are not persuaded of every proposition we believe, than I would feign know to what purpose are all those stirs, and great noises in Christendom; those names of faction, the several Names of Churches not distinguished by the division of Kingdoms, ut Ecclesia sequatur Imperium, which was the Primitive 
* Optat. lib. 3.  Rule and Canon, but distinguished by Names of Sects and men; these are all become instruments of hatred, thence come Schisms and parting of Communions, and then persecutions, and then wars and Rebellion, and then the dissolutions of all Friendships and Societies. All these mischiefs proceed not from this, that all men are not of one mind, for that is neither necessary nor possible, but that every Opinion is made an Article of Faith, every Article is a ground of a quarrel, every quarrel makes a faction, every faction is zealous, and all zeal pretends for God, and whatsoever is for God cannot be too much; we by this time are come to that pass, we think we love not God except we hate our Brother, and we have not the virtue of Religion, unless we persecute all Religions but our own; for lukewarmness is so odious to God and Man, that we proceeding furiously upon these mistakes, by supposing we preserve the body, we destroy the soul of Religion, or by being zealous for faith, or which is all one, for that which we mistake for faith, we are cold in charity, and so lose the reward of both.  
All these errors and mischiefs must be discovered and cured, and that's the purpose of this Discourse.  

SECTION I.  
Of the nature of Faith, and that its duty is completed in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed.  
FIrst than it is of great concernment to know the nature and integrity of faith: For there gins our first and great mistake; 
Number 1.  for Faith although it be of great excellency, yet when it is taken for a habit intellectual, it hath so little room and so narrow a capacity, that it cannot lodge thousands of those Opinions which pretend to be of her Family.  
For although it be necessary for us to believe whatsoever we 
Numb. 2.  know to be revealed of God, and so every man does, that believes there is a God: yet it is not necessary, concerning many things, to know that God hath revealed them that is, we may be ignorant of, or doubt concerning the propositions, and indifferently maintain either part, when the Question is not concerning God's veracity, but whether God hath said so or no: That which is of the foundation of Faith, that only is necessary; and the knowing or not knowing of that, the believing or dis-believing it, is that only which in genere credendorum, is in immediate and necessary order to salvation or damnation.  
Now all the reason and demonstration of the world convinces 
Numb. 3.  us, that this foundation of Faith, or the great adequate object of the Faith that saves us, is that great mysteriousness of Christianity which Christ taught with so much diligence, for the credibility of which he wrought so many miracles; for the testimony of which the Apostles endured persecutions; that which was a folly to the Gentiles, and a scandal to the Jews, this is that which is the object of a Christians Faith: All other things are implicitly in the belief of the Articles of God's veracity, and are not necessary in respect of the Constitution of faith to be drawn out, but may there lie in the bowels of the great Articles without danger to any thing or any person, unless some other accident or circumstance makes them necessary: Now the great object which I speak of, is Jesus Christ crucified; Constitui enim apud vos nihil scire praeter Jesum Christum & hunc crucifixum; so said S. Paul to the Church of Corinth: This is the Article upon the Confession of which Christ built his Church, viz. only upon S. Peter's Creed, which was no more but this simple enunciation, We believe and are sure that thou 
Mat. 16. 19  art Christ, the Son of the living God: And to this salvation particularly is promised, as in the case of Martha's Creed, joh. 11. 27. To this the Scripture gives the greatest Testimony, and to all them that confess it; For every spirit that confesseth that jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And who ever 
1 joh. 4. 2, 15.  confesseth that jesus Christ is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God: The believing this Article is the end of writing the four Gospels: For all these things are written, that 
joh. 20. 31.  ye might believe, that jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and then that this is sufficient follows, and that believing, viz. this Article (for this was only instanced in) ye might have life through his name: This is that great Article which in genere credendorum, is sufficient disposition to prepare a Catechumen to Baptism, as appears in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch, whose Creed was only this, I believe that jesus Christ is the Son of God, and upon this Confession (saith the story) they both went into the water, and the Ethiop was washed and became as white as snow.  
In these particular instances, there is no variety of Articles, save only that in the annexes of the several expressions, such 
Numb. 4.  things are expressed, as besides that Christ is come, they tell from whence, and to what purpose: And whatsoever is expressed, or is to these purposes employed, is made articulate and explicate, in the short and admirable mysterious Creed of S. Paul, Rom. 10. 8. This is the word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: This is the great and entire complexion of a Christian's faith, and since salvation is promised to the belief of this Creed, either a snare is laid for us, with a purpose to deceive us, or else nothing is of prime and original necessity to be believed, but this, jesus Christ our Redeemer; and all that which is the necessary parts, means, or main actions of working this redemption for us, and the honour for him is in the bowels and fold of the great Article, and claims an explicit belief by the same reason that binds us to the belief of its first complexion, without which neither the thing could be acted, nor the proposition understood.  
For the act of believing propositions, is not for itself, 
Numb. 5.  but in order to certain ends; as Sermons are to good life and obedience; for (excepting that it acknowledges, God's veracity, and so is a direct act of Religion) believing a revealed proposition, hath no excellency in itself, but in order to that end for which we are instructed in such revelations. Now Gods great purpose being to bring us to him by Jesus Christ, Christ is our medium to God, obedience is the medium to Christ, and Faith the medium to obedience, and therefore is to have its estimate in proportion to its proper end, and those things are necessary, which necessarily promote the end, without which obedience cannot be encouraged or prudently enjoined: So that those Articles are necessary, that is, those are fundamental points, upon which we build our obedience; and as the influence of the Article is to the persuasion or engagement of obedience, so they have their degrees of necessity. Now all that Christ, when he preached, taught us to believe, and all that the Apostles in their Sermons propound, all aim at this, that we should acknowledge Christ for our Lawgiver and our Saviour; so that nothing can be necessary by a prime necessity to be believed explicitly, but such things which are therefore parts of the great Article, because they either encourage our services, or oblige them, such as declare Christ's greatness in himself, or his goodness to us: So that although we must neither deny nor doubt of any thing, which we know our great Master hath taught us: yet salvation is in special and by name annexed to the belief of those Articles only, which have in them the indearements of our services, or the support of our confidence, or the satisfaction of our hopes, such as are; Jesus Christ the Son of the living God, the Crucifixion and Resurrection of jesus, forgiveness of sins by his blood, Resurrection of the dead, and life eternal, because these propositions qualify Christ for our Saviour and our Lawgiver, the one to engage our services, the other to endear them; for so much is necessary as will make us to be his servants, and his Disciples; and what can be required more? This only. Salvation is promised to the explicit belief of those Articles, and therefore those only are necessary, and those are sufficient; but thus, to us in the formality of Christians, which is a formality superadded to a former capacity, we before we are Christians are reasonable creatures, and capable of a blessed eternity, and there is a Creed which is the Gentiles Creed which is so supposed in the Christian Creed, as it is supposed in a Christian to be a man, and that is, oportet accedentem ad Deum credere Deum esse, & esse remuneratorem quaerentium eum.  
If any man will urge farther, that whatsoever is deducible from these Articles by necessary consequence, is necessary to be believed explicitly: I Answer. It is true, if he sees the deduction and coherence of the parts; but it is not certain that every man shall be able to deduce whatsoever is either immediately, or certainly deducible from these premises; and then since salvation is promised to the explicit belief of these, I see not how any man can justify the making the way to heaven narrower than Jesus Christ hath made it, it being already so narrow, that there are few that find it.  
In the pursuance of this great truth, the Apostles or the holy 
Numb. 7.  men, their Contemporaries and Disciples composed a Creed to be a Rule of Faith to all Christians, as appears in Irenaeus, 
a Apol. contr. Gent. c. 47. de veland. virg, c. 1.  Tertullian, 
b In exposit. Symbol.  S. Cyprian, 
c Serm. 5. de tempore, cap. 2.  S. Austin, 
d In Symbol. apud Cyprian.  Ruffinus, and divers 
e Omnes orthodoxi Patres affirmant Symbolum ab ipsis Apostolis conditum, Sext. Senensis, lib. 2. bibl. 5. vide Genebr. l. 3. de Trin.  others; which Creed unless it had contained all the entire object of Faith, and the foundation of Religion, it cannot be imagined to what purpose it should serve; and that it was so esteemed by the whole Church of God in all Ages, appears in this, that since Faith is a necessary pre-disposition to Baptism in all persons capable of the use of reason, all Catechumen in the Latin Church coming to Baptism, were interrogated concerning their Faith, and gave satisfaction in the recitation of this Creed. And in the East they professed exactly the same Faith, something differing in words, but of the same matter, reason, design, and consequence; and so they did at Jerusalem, so at Aquileia: This was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These Articles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. L. 5. Cod. de S. Trinit. & fid. Cath. Cùm recta. Now since the Apostles and Apostolical men and Churches in these their Symbols, did recite particular Articles to a considerable number, and were so minute in their recitation, as to descend to circumstances, it is more than probable that they omitted nothing of necessity; and that these Articles are not general principles, in the bosom of which many more Articles equally necessary to be believed explicitly and more particular, are enfolded; but that it is as minute an explication of those prima credibilia I before reckoned, as is necessary to salvation.  
And therefore Tertullian calls the Creed regulam fidei, quâ saluâ & formâ ejus manente in suo ordine, possit in Scriptura 
Numb. 8.  tractari & inquiri si quid videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari. Cordis signaculum & nostrae militiae Sacramentum, S. Ambrose calls it, lib. 3. de velandis virgin. Comprehensio fidei nostrae atque perfectio, by S. Austin. Serm. 115. Confessio, expositio, regula fidei, generally by the Ancients: The profession of this Creed, was the exposition of that saying of S. Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The answer of a good conscience towards God. For of the recitation and profession of this Creed in Baptism, it is that Tertullian de resur. carnis says, Anima non lotione, sed responsione sancitur. And of this was the prayer of Hillary, lib. 12. de Trinit. Conserva hanc conscientiae meae vocem ut quod in regenerationis meae Symbolo Baptizatus in Patre, Filio, Spir. S. professus sum semper obtineam. And according to the Rule and Reason of this Discourse (that it may appear that the Creed hath in it all Articles primò & per se, primely and universally necessary) the Creed is just such an explication of that Faith which the Apostles preached, viz. the Creed which S. Paul recites, as contains in it all those things which entitle Christ to us in the capacities of our Lawgiver and our Saviour, such as enable him to the great work of redemption, according to the predictions concerning him, and such as engage and encourage our services. For, taking out the Article of Christ's descent into Hell (which was not in the old Creed, as appears in some of the Copies I before referred to, in Tertullian, Ruffinus, and Irenaeus; and indeed was omitted in all the Confessions of the Eastern Churches, in the Church of Rome, and in the Nicene Creed, which by adoption came to be the Creed of the Catholic Church) all other Articles are such as directly constitute the parts and work of our redemption, such as clearly derive the honour to Christ, and enable him with the capacities of our Saviour and Lord. The rest engage our services by proposition of such Articles which are rather promises then propositions; and the whole Creed, take it in any of the old Forms, is but an Analysis of that which S. Paul calls the word of salvation, whereby we shall be saved, viz. that we confess Jesus to be Lord, and that God raised him from the dead: by the first whereof he became our Lawgiver and our Guardian; by the second he was our Saviour: the other things are but parts and main actions of those two. Now what reason there is in the world that can inwrap any thing else within the foundation, that is, in the whole body of Articles simply and inseparably necessary, or in the prime original necessity of Faith, I cannot possibly imagine. These do the work, and therefore nothing can upon the true grounds of reason enlarge the necessity to the enclosure of other Articles.  
Now if more were necessary than the Articles of the Creed, I demand why was it made the 
* Vide Isidor▪ de Eccles. offic. lib. 1. cap. 20. Suidan. Turnebum. lib. 2. c. 30. advers. Venant. For. in Exeg. Symb. Fevardent. in Iren. lib. 1. c. 2.  Characteristic note of a 
Numb. 9  Christian from a Heretic, or a Jew, or an Infidel? or to what purpose was it composed? Or if this was intended as sufficient, did the Apostles or those Churches which they founded, know any thing else to be necessary? If they did not, then either nothing more is necessary (I speak of matters of mere belief) or they did not know all the will of the Lord, and so were unfit Dispenser's of the mysteries of the Kingdom; or if they did know more was necessary, and yet would not insert it, they did an act of public notice, and consigned it to all Ages of the Church to no purpose, unless to beguile credulous people by making them believe their faith was sufficient, having tried it by that touchstone Apostolical, when there was no such matter.  
But if this was sufficient to bring men to heaven then, why not now? If the Apostles admitted all to their Communion that 
Numb. 10.  believed this Creed, why shall we exclude any that preserve the same entire? why is not our saith of these Articles of as much efficacy for bringing us to heaven, as it was in the Churches Apostolical? who had guides more infallible that might without error have taught them superstructures enough, if they had been necessary: and so they did; But that they did not insert them into the Creed, when they might have done it with as much certainty, as these Articles, makes it clear to my understanding, that other things were not necessary, but these were; that whatever profit and advantages might come from other Articles, yet these were sufficient, and however certain persons might accidentally be obliged to believe much more, yet this was the one and only foundation of Faith upon which all persons were to build their hopes of heaven; this was therefore necessary to be taught to all, because of necessity to be believed by all: So that although other persons might commit a delinquency in genere morum, if they did not know or did not believe much more, because they were obliged to further disquisitions in order to other ends, yet none of these who held the Creed entire, could perish for want of necessary faith, though possibly he might for supine negligence or affected ignorance, or some other fault which had influence upon his opinions, and his understanding, he having a new supervening obligation ex accident to know and believe more.  
Neither are we obliged to make these Articles more particular and minute than the Creed. For since the Apostles and indeed 
Numb. 11.  our blessed Lord himself promised heaven to them who believed him to be the Christ that was to come into the world, and that he who believes in him, should be partaker of the resurrection and life eternal, he will be as good as his word; yet because this Article was very general, and a complexion rather than a single proposition; the Apostles and others our Fathers in Christ did make it more explicit, and though they have said no more than what lay entire and ready formed in the bosom of the great Article, yet they made their extracts, to great purpose, and absolute sufficiency, and therefore there needs no more deductions or remoter consequences from the first great Article, than the Creed of the Apostles. For although whatsoever is certainly deduced from any of these Articles made already so explicit, is as certainly true, and as much to be believed as the Article itself, because ex veris possunt nil nisi vera sequi, yet because it is not certain that our deductions from them are certain, and what one calls evident, is so obscure to another, that he believes it false; it is the best and only safe course to rest in that explication the Apostles have made, because if any of these Apostolical deductions were not demonstrable evidently to follow from that great Article to which salvation is promised, yet the authority of them who compiled the Symbol, the plain description of the Articles from the words of Scriptures, the evidence of reason demonstrating these to be the whole foundation, are sufficient upon great grounds of reason to ascertain us; but if we go farther, besides the easiness of being deceived, we relying upon our own discourses, (which though they may be true and then bind us to follow them, but yet no more then when they only seem truest,) yet they cannot make the thing certain to another, much less necessary in itself. And since God would not bind us upon pain of sin and punishment, to make deductions ourselves▪ much less would he bind us to follow another man's Logic as an Article of our Faith; I say much less another man's; for our own integrity (for we will certainly be true to ourselves, and do our own business hearty) is as fit and proper to be employed as another man's ability. He cannot secure me that his ability is absolute and the greatest, but I can be more certain that my own purposes and fidelity to myself is such. And since it is necessary to rest somewhere, lest we should run to an infinity, it is best to rest there where the Apostles and the Churches Apostolical rested; when not only they who are able to judge, but others who are not, are equally ascertained of the certainty and of the sufficiency of that explication.  
This I say, not that I believe it unlawful or unsafe for the 
Numb. 12.  Church or any of the Antistites religionis, or any wise man to extend his own Creed to any thing may certainly follow from any one of the Articles; but I say, that no such deduction is fit to be pressed on others as an Article of Faith; and that every deduction which is so made, unless it be such a thing as is at first evident to all, is but sufficient to make a humane Faith, nor can it amount to a divine, much less can be obligatory to bind a person of a differing persuasion to subscribe under pain of losing his Faith, or being a Heretic. For it is a demonstration, that nothing can be necessary to be believed under pain of damnation, but such propositions of which it is certain that God hath spoken and taught them to us, and of which it is certain that this is their sense and purpose: For if the sense be uncertain, we can no more be obliged to believe it in a certain sense, than we are to believe it at all, if it were not certain that God delivered it. But if it be only certain that God spoke it, and not certain to what sense, our Faith of it is to be as indeterminate as its sense, and it can be no other in the nature of the thing, nor is it consonant to God's justice to believe of him that he can or will require more. And this is of the nature of those propositions which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which without any further probation, all wise men will give assent at its first publication. And therefore deductions inevident, from the evident and plain letter of Faith, are as great recessions from the obligation as they are from the simplicity, and certainty of the Article. And this I also affirm, although the Church of any one denomination, or represented in a Council, shall make the deduction or declaration. For unless Christ had promised his Spirit to protect every particular Church from all errors less material, unless he had promised an absolute universal infallibility etiam in minutioribus, unless superstructures be of the same necessity with the foundation, and that God's Spirit doth not only preserve his Church in the being of a Church, but in a certainty of not saying any thing that is less certain; and that whether they will or no too; we may be bound to peace and obedience, to silence, and to charity, but have not a new Article of Faith made; and a new proposition though consequent (as 'tis said) from an Article of Faith becomes not therefore a part of the Faith, nor of absolute necessity, Quid unquam aliud Ecclesia Conciliorum decretis 
Contra haeres. cap, 32.  e●isa est, nisi ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur, hoc idem postea diligentiùs crederetur, said Vincentius Lirinensis, whatsoever was of necessary belief before is so still, and hath a new degree added by reason of a new light or a clear explication; but no prositions can be adopted into the foundation. The Church hath power to intent our Faith, but not to extend it; to make our belief more evident, but not more large and comprehensive. For Christ and his Apostles concealed nothing that was necessary to the integrity of Christian Faith, or salvation of our souls; Christ declared all the will of his Father, and the Apostles were Stewards and Dispenser's of the same Mysteries, and were faithful in all the house, and therefore concealed nothing, but taught the whole Doctrine of Christ; so they said themselves. And indeed if they did not teach all the Doctrine of Faith, an Angel or a man might have taught us other things then what they taught, without deserving an Anathema, but not without deserving a blessing for making up that Faith entire which the Apostles left imperfect. Now if they taught all the whole body of Faith, either the Church in the following Ages lost part of the Faith (and then where was their infallibility, and the effect of those glorious promises to which she pretends and hath certain Title; for she may as well introduce a falsehood as lose a truth, it being as much promised to her that the Holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth, as that she shall be preserved from all errors as appears, joh. 16. 13.) Or if she retained all the Faith which Christ and his Apostles consigned and taught, than no Age can by declaring any point, make that be an Article of Faith which was not so in all Ages of Christianity before such declaration. And indeed if the 
* Vide jacob Almain. in 3. Sent. d, 25. Q. Vnic. Dub. 3 Patet ergo, quod nulla veritas est Catholica ex approbatione, Ecclesiae vei Papae, Gabr. Biel. in 3. Sent. Dist, 25. q. Unic. art. 3. Dub. 3. ad finem.  Church by declaring an Article can make that to be necessary, which before was not necessary, I do not see how it can stand with the charity of the Church so to do (especially after so long experience she hath had that all men will not believe every such decision or explication) for by so doing she makes the narrow way to heaven narrower, and chalks out one path more to the Devil than he had before, and yet the way was broad enough when it was at the narrowest. For before, differing persons might be saved in diversity of persuasions, and now afterthis declaration if they cannot, there is no other alteration made, but that some shall be damned who before even in the same dispositions and belief should have been beatified persons. For therefore, it is well for the Fathers of the Primitive Church that their errors were not discovered, for if they had been contested (for that would have been called discovery enough) vel errores emendassent, vel ab Ecclesiâ 
Bellar. de laici● l. 3. c. 20. §. ad primam confirmationem.  ejecti fuissent. But it is better as it was, they went to heaven by that good fortune, whereas otherwise they might have gone to the Devil. And yet there were some errors, particularly that of S. Cyprian that was discovered, and he went to heaven, 'tis thought; possibly they might so too for all this pretence. But suppose it true, yet whether that declaration of an Article of which with safety we either might have doubted or been ignorant, does more good, than the damning of those many souls occasionally, but yet certainly and fore-knowingly does hurt, I leave it to all wise and good men to determine. And yet besides this, it cannot enter into my thoughts, that it can possibly consist with God's goodness, to put it into the power of man so palpably and openly to alter the paths and in-lets to heaven, and to straighten his mercies, unless he had furnished these men with an infallible judgement and an infallible prudence, and a never failing charity, that they should never do it but with great necessity, and with great truth, and without ends and humane designs, of which I think no Arguments can make us certain, what the Primitive Church hath done in this case: I shall afterwards consider and give an account of it, but for the present, there is no insecurity in ending there where the Apostles ended, in building where they built, in resting where they left us, unless the same infallibility which they had, had still continued, which I think I shall hereafter make evident it did not: And therefore those extensions of Creed which were made in the first Ages of the Church, although for the matter they were most true; yet because it was not certain that they should be so, and they might have been otherwise, therefore they could not be in the same order of Faith, nor in the same degrees of necessity to be believed with the Articles Apostolical; and therefore whether they did well or no in laying the same weight upon them, or whether they did lay the same weight or no, we will afterwards consider.  
But to return. I consider that a foundation of Faith cannot alter, unless a new building be to be made, the foundation is 
Numb. 13.  the same still; and this foundation is no other but that which Christ and his Apostles laid, which Doctrine is like himself, yesterday and to day, and the same for ever: So that the Articles of necessary belief to all (which are the only foundation) they cannot be several in several Ages, and to several persons. Nay, the sentence & declaration of the Church, cannot lay this foundation, or make any thing of the foundation, because the Church cannot lay her own foundation; we must suppose her to be a building, and that she relies upon the foundation, which is therefore supposed to be laid before, because she is built upon it, or (to make it more explicate) because a cloud may arise from the Allegory of building and foundation, it is plainly thus; The Church being a company of men obliged to the duties of Faith and obedience, the duty and obligation being of the faculties of will and understanding to adhere to such an object, must pre-suppose the object made ready for them; for as the object is before the act in order of nature, and therefore not to be produced or increased by the faculty (which is receptive, cannot be active upon its proper object:) So the object of the Church's Faith is in order of nature before the Church, or before the act and habit of Faith, and therefore cannot be enlarged by the Church, any more than the act of the visive faculty can add visibility to the object. So that if we have found out what foundation Christ and his Apostles did lay, that is what body and systeme of Articles simply necessary they taught and required of us to believe, we need not, we cannot go any further for foundation, we cannot enlarge that system or collection. Now then, although all that they said is true, and nothing of it to be doubted or dis-believed, yet as all that they said, is neither written nor delivered (because all was not necessary) so we know that of those things which are written, some things are as fare off from the foundation as those things which were omitted, and therefore although now accidentally they must be believed by all that know them, yet it is not necessary all should know them; and that all should know them in the same sense and interpretation, is neither probable nor obligatory; but therefore since these things are to be distinguished by some differences of necessary and not necessary, whether or no is not the declaration of Christ's and his Apostles affixing salvation to the belief of some great comprehensive Articles, and the act of the Apostles rendering them as explicit as they thought convenient, and consigning that Creed made so explicit, as a tessera of a Christian, as a comprehension of the Articles of his belief, as a sufficient disposition and an express of the Faith of a Catechumen in order to Baptism: whether or no I say, all this be not sufficient probation that these only are of absolute necessity, that this is sufficient for mere belief in order to heaven, and that therefore whosoever believes these Articles hearty and explicitly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. John's expression is, God dwelleth in him, I leave it to be considered and judged of from the premises: Only this, if the old Doctors had been made Judges in these Questions, they would have passed their affirmative; for to instance in one for all, of this it was said by Tertullian, Regula quidem fidei una omnino est 
Lib. de veland. Virg,  sola immobilis & irreformabilis &c. Hâc lege fidei manente caetera jam disciplinae & conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis, operante scil. & proficiente usque in finem gratia Dei. This Symbol is the one sufficient immovable unalterable and unchangeable rule of Faith, that admits no increment or decrement; but if the integrity and unity of this be preserved, in all other things men may take a liberty of enlarging their knowledges and prophesyings, according as they are assisted by the grace of God.   

SECT. II.  
Of Heresy and the nature of it, and that it is to be accounted according to the strict capacity of Christian Faith, and not in Opinions speculative, nor ever to pious persons.  
ANd thus I have represented a short draught of the Object 
Numb. 1.  of Faith, and its foundation; the next consideration in order to our main design, is to consider what was and what ought to be the judgement of the Apostles concerning Heresy: For although there are more kinds of vices, than there are of virtues; yet the number of them is to be taken by accounting the transgressions of their virtues, and by the limits of Faith; we may also reckon the Analogy and proportions of Heresy, that as we have seen who was called faithful by the Apostolical men, we may also perceive who were listed by them in the Catalogue of Heretics, that we in our judgements may proceed accordingly.  
And first the word Heresy is used in Scripture indifferently, in a good sense for a Sect or Division of Opinion, and men 
Numb. 2.  following it, or sometimes in a bad sense, for a false Opinion signally condemned; but these kind of people were then called Anti-christs and false Prophets more frequently than Heretics, and then there were many of them in the world. But it is observable that no Heresies are noted signantèr in Scripture, but such as are great errors practical in materâ pietatis, such whose doctrines taught impiety, or such who denied the coming of Christ directly or by consequence, not remote or wiredrawn, but prime and immediate: And therefore in the Code de S. Trinitate & fide Catholica, heresy is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a wicked Opinion and an ungodly doctrine.  
The first false doctrine we find condemned by the Apostles was the opinion of Simon Magus, who thought the Holy Ghost 
Numb. 3.  was to be bought with money; he thought very dishonourably to the blessed Spirit; but yet his followers are rather noted of a vice, neither resting in the understanding, nor derived from it, but wholly practical; 'tis simony, not heresy, though in Simon it was a false opinion proceeding from a low account of God, and promoted by his own ends of pride and covetousness: The great heresy that troubled them was the doctrine of the necessity of keeping the Law of Moses, the necessity of Circumcision; against which doctrine they were therefore zealous, because it was a direct overthrow to the very end and excellency of Christ's coming. And this was an opinion most petinaciously and obstinately maintained by the Jews, and had made a Sect among the Galathians, and this was indeed wholly in opinion; and against it the Apostles opposed two Articles of the Creed, which served at several times according as the Jews changed their opinion, and left some degrees of their error, I believe in Jesus Christ, and I believe the holy Catholic Church; For they therefore pressed the necessity of Moses Law, because they were unwilling to forgo the glorious appellative of being Gods own peculiar people; and that salvation was of the Jews, and that the rest of the world were capable of that grace, no otherwise but by adoption into their Religion, and becoming Proselytes: But this was so ill a doctrine, as that it overthrew the great benefits of Christ's coming; for if they were circumcised, Christ profited them nothing, meaning this, that Christ will not be a Saviour to them who do not acknowledge him for their Lawgiver; and they neither confess him their Lawgiver nor their Saviour, that look to be justified by the Law of Moses, and observation of legal rites; so that this doctrine was a direct enemy to the foundation, and therefore the Apostles were so zealous against it. Now than that other opinion, which the Apostles met at Jerusalem to resolve, was but a piece of that opinion; for the jews and Proselytes were drawn off from their lees and sediment, by degrees, step by step. At first, they would not endure any should be saved but themselves, and their proselytes. Being wrought off from this height by Miracles, and preaching of the Apostles, they admitted the Gentiles to a possibility of salvation, but yet so as to hope for it by Moses Law. From which foolery, when they were with much ado dissuaded, and told that salvation was by Faith in Christ, not by works of the Law, yet they resolved to blow with an Ox and an Ass still, and join Moses with Christ; not as shadow and substance, but in an equal confederation, Christ should save the Gentiles if he was helped by Moses but alone Christianity could not do it. Against this the Apostles assembled at Jerusalem, and made a decision of the Question, tying some of the Gentiles (such only who were blended by the jews in communi patria) to observation of such Rites which the jews had derived by tradition from Noah, intending by this to satisfy the jews as fare as might be with a reasonable compliance and condescension; the other Gentiles who were unmixed, in the mean while, remaining free as appears in the liberty S. Paul gave the Church of Corinth of eating Idol Sacrifices (expressly against the Decree at Jerusalem) so it were without scandal. And yet for all this care and curious discretion, a little of the leaven still remained: All this they thought did so concern the Gentiles, that it was totally impertinent to the jews; still they had a distinction to satisfy the letter of the Apostles Decree, and yet to persist in their old opinion; and this so continued that fifteen Christian Bishops in succession 
Euseb. l. 4. Eccles. hist. c. 5.  were circumcised, even until the destruction of Jerusalem, under Adrian, as Eusebius reports.  
First, By the way let me observe, that never any matter of 
Numb. 4.  Question in the Christian Church was determined with greater solennity, or more full authority of the Church than this Question concerning Circumcision: No less than the whole College of the Apostles, and Elders at Jerusalem, and that with a Decree of the highest sanction, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis. Secondly, Either the case of the Hebrews in particular was omitted, and no determination concerning them, 
2.  whether it were necessary or lawful for them to be circumcised, or else it was involved in the Decree, and intended to oblige the Jews. If it was omitted since the Question was the re necessaria (for dico vobis, I Paul say unto you, If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing) it is very remarkable how the Apostles to gain the jews, and to comply with their violent projudice in behalf of Moses Law, did for a time Tolerate their dissent etiam in re aliôquin necessariâ, which I doubt not but was intended as a precedent for the Church to imitate for ever after: But if it was not omitted, either all the multitude of the jews (which S. James then 
Act. 21. 20.  their Bishop expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Thou seest how many myriads of Jews that believe and yet are zealots for the Law; and Eusebius speaking of Justus says, he was one ex infinit â multitudine 
L. 3. 32. Eccles. Hist.  eorum qui ex circumcisione in Jesum credebant,) I say all these did perish, and their believing in Christ served them to no other ends, but in the infinity of their torments to upbraid them with hypocrisy and heresy; or if they were saved, it is apparent how merciful God was and pitiful to humane infirmities, that in a point of so great concernment did pity their weakness, and pardon their errors, and love their good mind, since their prejudice was little less than insuperable, and had fair probabilities, at least, it was such as might abuse a wise and good man (and so it did many) they did bono a●im● carrare. And if I mistake not, this consideration S. Paul urged as a reason why God forgave him who was a Persecutor 
1. Tim. 1.  of the Saints, because he did it ignorantly in unbelief, that is, he was not convinced in his understanding, of the truth of the way which he persecuted, he in the mean while remaining in that incredulity not out of malice or ill ends, but the mistakes of humanity and a pious zeal, therefore God had mercy on him: And so it was in this great Question of circumcision, here only was the difference, the invincibility of S. Paul's error, and the honesty of his heart caused God so to pardon him as to bring him to the knowledge of Christ, which God therefore did because it was necessary, necessitate medii; no salvation was consistent with the actual remanency of that error; but in the Question of Circumcision, although they by consequence did overthrow the end of Christ's coming: yet because it was such a consequence, which they being hindered by a prejudice not impious did not perceive, God tolerated them in their error till time and a continual dropping of the lessons and dictates Apostolical did wear it out, and then the doctrine put on its apparel, and became clothed with nenessity; they in the mean time so kept to the foundation, that is, jesus Christ crucified and risen again, that although this did make a violent concussion of it, yet they held fast with their heart, what they ignorantly destroyed with their tongue, (which Saul before his conversion did not) that God upon other Titles, than an actual dereliction of their error did bring them to salvation.  
And in the descent of so many years, I find not any one Anathema passed by the Apostles or their Successors upon any 
Numb. 5.  of the Bishops of Jerusalem, or the Believers of the Circumcision, and yet it was a point as clearly determined, and of as great necessity as any of those Questions that at this day vex and crucify Christendom.  
Besides this Question, and that of the Resurrection, commenced in the Church of Corinth, and promoted with some variety 
Numb. 6.  of sense by Hymenaeus and Philetus in Asia, who said that the Resurrection was passed already, I do not remember any other heresy named in Scripture, but such as were errors of impiety, seductiones in materiâ practicâ, such as was particularly, forbidding to marry, and the heresy of the Nicolaitans, a doctrine that taught the necessity of lust and frequent fornication.  
But in all the Animadversions against errors made by the Apostles in the New Testament, no pious person was condemned, 
Numb. 7.  no man that did invincibly err, or bona ment; but something that was amiss in genere morum, was that which the Apostles did redargue. And it is very considerable, that even they of the Circumcision who in so great numbers did hearty believe in Christ, and yet most violently retain Circumcision, and without Question went to Heaven in great numbers; yet of the number of these very men, they came deeply under censure, when to their error they added impiety: So long as it stood with charity and without humane ends and secular interests, so long it was either innocent or connived at; but when they grew covetous, and for filthy lucre's sake taught the same doctrine which others did in the simplicity of their hearts, than they turned Heretics, than they were termed Seducers; and Titus was commanded to look to them, and to silence them; For there are many that are intractable and vain babblers, Seducers of minds, especially they of the Circumcision, who seduce whole houses, teaching things that they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. These indeed were not to be endured, but to be silenced, by the conviction of sound doctrine, and to be rebuked sharply, and avoided.  
For heresy is not an error of the understanding, but an error 
Numb. 8.  of the will. And this is clearly insinuated in Scripture, in the stile whereof Faith and a good life are made one duty, and vice is called opposite to Faith, and heresy opposed to holiness and sanctity. So in S. Paul, For (saith he) the end of 
1 Tim. 1.  the Commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned; à quibus quòd aberrarunt quidam, from which charity, and purity, and goodness, and sincerity, because some have wandered, deflexerunt ad vaniloquium. And immediately after, he reckons the oppositions to faith and sound doctrine, and instances only in vices that stain the lives of Christians, the unjust, the unclean, the uncharitable, the liar, the perjured person, & si quis alius qui sanae doctrinae adversatur; these are the enemies of the true doctrine. And therefore S. Peter having given in charge, to add to our virtue, patience, temperance, charity, and the like; gives this for a reason, for if these things be in you and abound, ye shall be fruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. So that knowledge and faith is inter praecepta morum, is part of a good life: 
* Quid igitur credulitas vel fides? opinor fidelitèr hominem Christo credere, id est, fidelem Deo esse, hoc est, fidelitèr Dei mandata servare. So Salvian.  And Saint Paul calls Faith or the form of sound words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the doctrine that is according to godliness, 1 Tim. 6. 3. 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; That's our Religion, or Faith, the whole manner of serving God, C. de summâ Trinit. & fide Cathol.  And veritati credere, and in injustitiâ sibi complacere, are by the same Apostle opposed, and intimate, that piety and faith is all one thing; faith must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, entire and holy too, or it is not right. It was the heresy of the Gnostics, that it was no matter how men lived, so they did but believe aright: Which wicked doctrine Tatianus a learned Christian did so detest, that he fell into a quite contrary, Non est curandum quid quisque credat, id tantum curandum est quod quisque faciat; And thence came the Sect Excratites: Both these heresies sprang from the too nice distinguishing the faith from the piety and good life of a Christian: They are both but one duty. However, they may be distinguished, if we speak like Philosophers; they cannot be distinguished, when we speak like Christians. For to believe what God hath commanded, is in order to a good life; and to live well is the product of that believing, and as proper emanation from it, as from its proper principle, and as heat is from the fire. And therefore, in Scripture, they are used promiscuously in sense, and in expression, as not only being subjected in the same person, but also in the same faculty; faith is as truly seated in the will as in the understanding, and a good life as merely derives from the understanding as the will. Both of them are matters of choice and of election, neither of them an effect natural and invincible or necessary antecedently (necessaria ut fiant, non necessario facta.) And indeed if we remember that S. Paul reckons heresy amongst the works of the flesh, and ranks it with all manner of practical impieties, we shall easily perceive that if a man mingles not a vice with his opinion, if he be innocent in his life, though deceived in his doctrine his error is his misery, not his crime; it makes him an argument of weakness and an object of pity, but not a person sealed up to ruin and reprobation.  
For as the nature of faith is, so is the nature of heresy, contraries having the same proportion and commensuration. Now 
Numb. 9  faith, if it be taken for an act of the understanding merely, is so fare from being that excellent grace that justifies us, that it is not good at all, in any kind but in genere naturae, and makes the understanding better in itself, or pleasing to God, just as strength doth the arm, or beauty the face, or health the body; these are natural perfections indeed, and so knowledge and a true belief is to the understanding. But this makes us not at all more acceptable to God; for then the unlearned were certainly in a damnable condition, and all good Scholars should be saved (whereas I am afraid too much of the contrary is true.) But unless Faith be made moral by the mixtures of choice, and charity, it is nothing but a natural perfection, not a grace or a virtue; and this is demonstrably proved in this, that by the confession of all men of all interests and persuasions, in matters of mere belief, invincible ignorance is our excuse if we be deceived, which could not be, but that neither to believe aright is commendable, nor to believe amiss is reprovable; but where both one and the other is voluntary and chosen antecedently or consequently, by prime election or ex post facto, and so comes to be considered in morality, and is part of a good life or a bad life respectively. Just so it is in heresy, if it be a design of ambition, and making of a Sect (so Erasmus expounds S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sectarum 
* Alieni sunt à veritate qui se obarmant multitudine. Chryst.  authorem) if it be for filthy lucre's sake as it was in some, that were of the circumcision, if it be of pride and love of pre-eminence, as it was in Diotrephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or out of pevishnesse and indociblenesse of disposition, or of a contentious spirit, that is, that their feet are not shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace; in all these cases the error is just so damnable, as is its principle, but therefore damnable not of itself, but by reason of its adherency. And if any shall say any otherwise, it is to say that some men shall be damned when they cannot help it, perish without their own fault, and be miserable for ever, because of their unhappiness to be deceived through their own simplicity and natural or accidental, but inculpable infirmity.  
For it cannot stand with the goodness of God, who does 
Numb. 10.  so know our infirmities, that he pardons many things in which our wills indeed have the least share (but some they have) but are overborne with the violence of an impetuous temptation; I say, it is inconsistent with his goodness to condemn those who err where the error hath nothing of the will in it, who therefore cannot repent of their error, because they believe it true, who therefore cannot make compensation because they know not that they are tied to dereliction of it. And although all Heretics are in this condition, that is, they believe their errors to be true; yet there is a vast difference between them who believe so out of simplicity, and them who are given over to believe a lie, as a punishment or an effect of some other wickedness or impiety. For all have a concomitant assent to the truth of what they believe; and no man can at the same time believe what he does not believe, but this assent of the understanding in Heretics is caused not by force of Argument, but the Argument is made forcible by something that is amiss in his will; and although a Heretic may peradventure have a stronger Argument for his error then some true Believer for his right persuasion; yet it is not considerable how strong his Argument is (because in a weak understanding, a small motive will produce a great persuasion, like gentle physic in a weak body) but that which here is considerable, is, what it is that made his Argument forcible. If his invincible and harmless prejudice, if his weakness, if his education, if his mistaking piety, if any thing that hath no venom, nor a sting in it, there the heartiness of his persuasion is no sin, but his misery and his excuse: but if any thing that is evil in genere morum did incline his understanding, if his opinion did commence upon pride, or is nourished by covetousness, or continues through stupid carelessness, or increases by pertinacy, or is confirmed by obstinacy, than the innocency of the error is disbanded, his misery is changed into a crime, and gins its own punishment. But by the way I must observe, that when I reckoned obstinacy amongst those things which make a false opinion criminal, it is to be understood with some discretion and distinction. For there is an obstinacy of will which is indeed highly guilty of misdemeanour, and when the School makes pertinacy or obstinacy to be the formality of heresy, they say not true at all, unless it be meant the obstinacy of the will and choice; and if they do, they speak imperfectly and inartificially, this being but one of the causes that makes error become heresy; the adequate and perfect formality of heresy is whatsoever makes the error voluntary and vicious, as is clear in Scripture, reckoning covetousness, and pride, and lust, and whatsoever is vicious to be its causes; (and in habits, or moral changes and productions, whatever altars the essence of a habit, or gives it a new formality, is not to be reckoned the efficient but the form) but there is also an obstinacy (you may call it) but indeed, is nothing but a resolution and confirmation of understanding, which is not in a man's power honestly to alter, and it is not all the commands of humanity, that can be Argument sufficient to make a man leave believing that for which he thinks he hath reason, and for which he hath such Arguments as hearty convince him. Now the persisting in an opinion finally, and against all the confidence and imperiousness of humane commands, that makes not this criminal obstinacy, if the erring person have so much humility of will as to submit to whatever God says, and that no vice in his will hinders him from believing it. So that we must carefully distinguish continuance in opinion from obstinacy, confidence of understanding from peevishness of affection, a not being convinced from a resolution never to be convinced, upon humane ends and vicious principles: Scimus quosdam quod 
Lib. 2. Epist. 1.  semel imbiberint nolle deponere, nec propositum suum facile mutare, sed salvo inter collegas pacis & concordiae vinculo quaedam propriae quae apud se semel sint usurpata retinere; Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, saith S. Cyprian. And he himself was such a one; for he persisted in his opinion of rebaptisation until death, and yet his obstinacy was not called criminal, or his error turned to heresy. But to return.  
In this sense, it is that a Heretic is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, self condemned, not by an immediate express sentence of understanding, 
Numb. 11.  but by his own act or fault brought into condemnation. As it is in the Canon Law, Notorious percussor Clerici is ipso jure excommunicate, not per sententiam latam ab homine, but à jure. No man hath passed sentence pro tribunali, but Law hath decreed it pro edicto: So it is in the case of a Heretic. The understanding which is judge, condemns him not by an express sentence; for he errs with as much simplicity in the result, as he had malice in the principle: But there is sententia lata à jure, his will which is his law, that hath condemned him. And this is gathered from that saying of S. Paul, 2 Tim. 3. 13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived: First, they are evil men; malice and peevishness is in their wills; then they turn Heretics and seduce others, and while they grow worse and worse, the error is master of their understanding, they are deceived themselves, given over to believe a lie, saith the Apostle: They first play the knave, and then play the fool; they first sell themselves to the purchase of vain glory or ill ends, and then they become possessed with a lying spirit, and believe those things hearty, which if they were honest, they should with God's Grace discover and disclaim. So that now we see that bona fides in falso articulo, a hearty persuasion in a false article does not always make the error to be esteemed involuntary; but then only when it is as innocent in the principle as it is confident in the present persuasion. And such persons who by their ill lives and vicious actions, or manifest designs (for by their fruits ye shall know them) give testimony of such criminal indispositions, so as competent judges by humane and prudent estimate may so judge them, than they are to be declared Heretics, and avoided. And if this were not true, it were vain that the Apostle commands us to avoid an Heretic: For no external act can pass upon a man for a crime that is not cognoscible.  
Now every man that errs, though in a matter of consequence, 
Numb. 12.  so long as the foundation is entire, cannot be suspected justly guilty of a crime to give his error a formality of heresy; for we see many a good man miserably deceived (as we shall make it appear afterwards) and he that is the best amongst men, certainly hath so much humility to think he may be easily deceived, and twenty to one but he is in some thing or other; yet if his error be not voluntary, and part of an ill life, then because he lives a good life, he is a good man, and therefore no Heretic: No man is a Heretic against his will. And if it be pretended that every man that is deceived, is therefore proud, because he does not submit his understanding to the authority of God or Man respectively, and so his error becomes a heresy: To this I answer, That there is no Christian man but will submit his understanding to God, and believes whatsoever he hath said; but always provided, he knows that God hath said so, else he must do his duty by a readiness to obey when he shall know it. But for obedience or humility of the understanding towards men, that is a thing of another consideration, and it must first be made evident that his understanding must be submitted to men; and who those men are, must also be certain, before it will be adjudged a sin not to submit. But if I mistake not Christ's saying [call no man master upon earth] is so great a prejudice against this pretence, as I doubt it will go near wholly to make it invalid. So that as the worshipping of Angels is a humility indeed, but it is voluntary and a will-worship to an ill sense, not to be excused by the excellency of humility, nor the virtue of Religion: so is the relying upon the judgement of man, an humility too, but such as comes not under that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that obedience of Faith which is the duty of every Christian; but intrenches upon that duty which we own to Christ as an acknowledgement that he is our great Master, and the Prince of the Catholic Church. But whether it be or be not, if that be the Question whether the disagreeing person be to be determined by the dictates of men, I am sure the dictates of men must not determine him in that Question, but it must be settled by some higher principle: So that if of that Question the disagreeing person does opine, or believe, or err bonâ fide, he is not therefore to be judged a Heretic, because he submits not his understanding, because till it be sufficiently made certain to him that he is bound to submit, he may innocently and piously disagree, and this not submitting is therefore not a crime (and so cannot make a heresy) because without a crime he may lawfully doubt whether he be bound to submit or no, for that's the Question. And if in such Questions which have influence upon a whole system of Theology, a man may doubt lawfully if he doubts hearty, because the authority of men being the thing in Question, cannot be the judge of this Question, and therefore being rejected, or (which is all one) being questioned, that is, not believed, cannot render the doubting person guilty of pride, and by consequence not of heresy, much more may particular questions be doubted of, and the authority of men examined, and yet the doubting person be humble enough, and therefore no Heretic for all this pretence. And it would be considered that humility is a duty in great ones as well as in Idiots. And as inferiors must not disagree without reason, so neither must superiors prescribe to others without sufficient authority, evidence and necessity too: And if rebellion be pride, so is tyranny; and it being in materiâ intellectuali, both may be guilty of pride of understanding, sometimes the one in imposing, sometimes the other in a causeless disagreeing; but in the inferiors it is then only the want of humility, when the guides impose or prescribe what God hath also taught, and then it is the disobeying Gods dictares, not man's, that makes the sin. But then this consideration will also intervene, that as no dictate of God obliges men to believe it, unless I know it to be such: So neither will any of the dictates of my superiors, engage my faith, unless I also know, or have no reason to does believe, but that they are warranted to teach them to me, therefore, because God hath taught the same to them, which if I once know, or have no reason to think the contrary, if I disagree, my sin is not in resisting humane authority, but divine. And therefore the whole business of submitting our understanding to humane authority, comes to nothing; for either it resolves into the direct duty of submitting to God, or if it be spoken of abstractedly, it is no duty at all.  
But this pretence of a necessity of humbling the understanding, is none of the meanest arts whereby some persons have 
Numb. 13.  invaded, and usurped a power over men's faith and consciences, and therefore we shall examine the pretence afterwards, and try if God hath invested any Man or company of Men with such a power. In the mean time, he that submits his understanding to all that he knows God hath said, and is ready to submit to all that he hath said if he but know it, denying his own affections and ends, and interests and humane persuasions, laying them all down at the foot of his great Master Jesus Christ, that man hath brought his understanding into subjection, and every proud thought unto the obedience of Christ, and this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the obedience of Faith, which is the duty of a Christian.  
But to proceed: Besides these heresies noted in Scripture, the age of the Apostles, and that which followed, was infested 
Numb. 14.  with other heresies; but such as had the same formality and malignity with the precedent, all of them either such as taught practical impieties, or denied an Article of the Creed. Egesippus in Eusebius reckons seven only prime heresies that sought to deflower the purity of the Church: That of Simon, that of Thebutes, of Cleobius, of Dositheus, of Gortheus, of Masbotheus; I suppose Cerinthus to have been the seventh man, though he express him not: But of these, except the last, we know no particulars; but that Egesippus says, they were false Christ's, and that their doctrine was directly against God and his blessed Son. Menander also was the first of a Sect, but he bewitched the people with his Sorceries. Cerinthus his doctrine pretended Enthusiasm or a new Revelation, and ended in lust and impious theorems in matter of uncleanness. The 
* Vid. Hilar. lib. 1. de Trin.  Ebionites denied Christ to be the Son of God, and affirmed him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, begot by natural generation, (by occasion of which and the importunity of the Asian Bishops, S. John writ his Gospel) and taught the observation of Moses Law. Basilides taught it lawful to renounce the faith, and take false oaths in time of Persecution. Carpocrates was a very bedlam, halfe-witch, and quite madman, and practised lust, which he called the secret operations to overcome the Potentates of the world. Some more there were, but of the same nature and pest, not of a nicety in dispute, not a question of secret Philosophy, not of atoms, and undiscernible propositions, but open defiances of all Faith, of all sobriety, and of all sanctity, excepting only the doctrine of the Millenaries, which in the best Ages was esteemed no heresy, but true Catholic Doctrine, though since it hath justice done to it, and hath suffered a just condemnation.  
Hitherto, and in these instances, the Church did esteem 
Numb. 15.  and judge of heresies, in proportion to the rules and characters of Faith. For Faith being a Doctrine of piety as well as truth, that which was either destructive of fundamental verity, or of Christian sanctity was against Faith, and if it made a Sect, was heresy; if not, it ended in personal impiety and went no farther. But those who as S. Paul says, not only did such things, but had pleasure in them that do them, and therefore taught others to do what they impiously did dogmatise, they were Heretics both in matter and form, in doctrine and deportment, towards God, and towards man, and judicable in both tribunals.  
But the Scripture and Apostolical Sermons, having expressed most high indignation against these masters of impious 
Numb. 16.  Sects, leaving them under prodigious characters, and horrid representments, as calling them men of corrupt minds, reprobates concerning the faith, given over to strong delusions to the belief of a lie, false Apostles, false Prophets, men already condemned, and that by themselves, Anti-christs, enemies of God; and heresy itself, a work of the flesh, excluding from the kingdom of heaven; left such impressions in the minds of all their successors, and so much zeal against such Sects, that if any opinion commenced in the Church, not heard of before; it oftentimes had this ill luck to run the same fortune with an old heresy. For because the Heretics did bring in new opinions in matters of great concernment, every opinion de novo brought in was liable to the same exception; and because the degree of malignity in every error was oftentimes undiscernible, and most commonly indemonstrable, their zeal was alike against all; and those Ages being full of piety, were fitted to be abused with an overactive zeal, as wise persons and learned are with a too much indifferency.  
But it came to pass, that the further the succession went from the Apostles, the more forward men were in numbering 
Numb. 17.  heresies, and that upon slighter and more uncertain grounds. Some footsteps of this we shall find, if we consider the Sects that are said to have sprung in the first three hundred years, and they were pretty and quick in their springs and falls; fourscore and seven of them are reckoned. They were indeed reckoned afterward, and though when they were alive, they were not condemned with as much forwardness, as after they were dead; yet even then, confidence began to mingle with opinions less necessary, and mistakes in judgement were oftener and more public than they should have been. But if they were forward in their censures (as some times some of them were) it is no great wonder they were deceived. For what principle or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had they then to judge of heresies, or condemn them, besides the single dictates or decretals of private Bishops? for Scripture was indifferently pretended by all; and concerning the meaning of it, was the Question: now there was no general Council all that while, no opportunity for the Church to convene; and if we search the communicatory letters of the Bishops and Martyrs in those days, we shall find but few sentences decretory concerning any Question of Faith, or new sprung opinion. And in those that did, for aught appears, the persons were misreported, or their opinions mistaken, or at most, the sentence of condemnation was no more but this; Such a Bishop who hath had the good fortune by posterity to be reputed a Catholic, did condemn such a man or such an opinion, and yet himself erred in as considerable matters, but meeting with better neighbours in his life time, and a more charitable posterity, hath his memory preserved in honour. It appears plain enough in the case of Nicholas the Deacon of Antioch, upon a mistake of his words whereby he taught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abuse the flesh, viz. by acts of austerity and self denial, and mortification; some wicked people that were glad to be mistaken and abused into a pleasing crime, pretended that he taught them to abuse the flesh by filthy commixtures and pollutions: This mistake was transmitted to posterity with a full cry, and acts afterwards found out to justify an ill opinion of him. For by S. Hierome's time it grew out of Question, but that he was the vilest of men, and the worst of Heretics; Nicolaus Antiochenus, omnium 
Ad Ctesiph.  immunditiarum conditor choros duxit faemineos. And again, Iste Nicolaus Diaconus ita immundus extitit ut etiam in praesepi Domini nefas perpetrârit: Accusations that while the 
Epist. de Fabiano lapso.  good man lived were never thought of; for his daughters were Virgins, and his Sons lived in holy coelibate all their lives, and himself lived in chaste Wedlock; and yet his memory had rotten in perpetual infamy, had not God (in whose sight, the memory of the Saints is precious) preserved it by the testimony of 
* L. 3. Stromat.  Clemens Alexandrinus, and from him of 
† L. 3. c. 26. Hist.  Eusebius and Nicephorus. But in the Catalogue of Heretics made by Philastrius he stands marked with a black character as guilty of many heresies: By which one testimony we may guess what trust is to be given to those Catalogues: Well, This good man had ill luck to fall into unskilful hands at first; but Irenaeus, Justin Maryr, Lactantius, (to name no more) had better fortune; for it being still extant in their writings that they were of the Millenary opinion, Papias before, and Nepos after were censured hardly, and the opinion put into the catalogue of heresies and yet these men never suspected as guilty, but like the children of the Captivity walked in the midst of the flame, and not so mcuh as the smell of fire passed on them. But the uncertainty of these things is very memorable, in the Story of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch contesting with Eusebius Pamphilus: Eustathius accused Eusebius for going about to corrupt the Nicene Creed, of which slander he then acquitted himself (saith Socrates) and yet he is not cleared by 
L. 1. c. 23.  posterity, for still he is suspected, and his fame not clear: However Eusebius then scaped well, but to be quit with his Adversary, he recriminares and accuses him to be a favourer of Sabellius, rather than of the Nicene Canons; an imperfect accusation, God knows, when the crime was a suspicion, provable only by actions capable of divers constructions, and at the most, made but some degrees of probability, and the fact itself did not consist in indivisibili, and therefore was to stand or fall, to be improved or lessened according to the will of the Judges, whom in this cause Eustathius by his ill fortune and a potent Adversary found harsh towards him, in so much that he was for heresy deposed in the Synod of Antioch; and though this was laid open in the eye of the world as being most ready at hand, with the greatest ease charged upon every man, and with greatest difficulty acquitted by any man; yet there were other suspicions raised upon him privately, or at least talked of ex post facto, and pretended as causes of his deprivation, lest the sentence should seem too hard for the first offence. And yet what they were no man could tell, saith the story. But it is observable what Socrates saith, as in excuse of such proceed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
L. 1. c. 24.  It is the manner among the Bishops, when they accuse them that are deposed, they call them wicked, but they publish not the actions of their impiety. It might possibly be that the Bishops did it in tenderness of their reputation, but yet hardly; for to punish a person publicly and highly, is a certain declaring the person punished guilty of a high crime, and then to conceal the fault upon pretence to preserve his reputation, leaves every man at liberty, to conjecture what he pleaseth, who possibly will believe it worse than it is, in as much as they think his judges so charitable as therefore to conceal the fault, lest the publishing of it should be his greatest punishment, and the scandal greater than his deprivation. 
* Simplicitèr pateat vitium fortasse pusillum, Quod-tegitur majus creditur esse malum Martial.  However this course, if it were just in any, was unsafe in all; for it might undo more than it could preserve, and therefore is of more danger, than it can be of charity. It is therefore too probable that the matter was not very fair; for in public sentence the acts ought to be public; but that they rather pretend heresy to bring their ends about, shows how easy it is to impute that crime, and how forward they were to do it: And that they might and did then as easily call Heretic as afterward, when Vigilius was condemned of heresy for saying there were Antipodes; or as the Friars of late did, who suspected Greek and Hebrew of heresy, and called their Professors Heretics, and had like to have put Terence and Demosthenes into the Index Expurgatorius; sure enough they railed at them pro concione, therefore because they understood them not, and had reason to believe they would accidentally be enemies to their reputation among the people.  
By this instance which was a while after the Nicene Council, where the acts of the Church were regular, judicial and orderly, 
Numb. 18.  we may guess at the sentences passed upon heresy, at such times and in such cases, when their process was more private, and their acts more tumultuary, their information less certain, and therefore their mistakes more easy and frequent. And it is remarkable in the case of the heresy of Montanus, the scene of whose heresy lay within the first three hundred years, though it was represented in the Caralogues afterwards, and possibly the mistake concerning it, is to be put upon the score of Epiphanius, by whom Montanus and his Followers were put into the Catalogue of Heretics for commanding abstinence from meats, as if they were unclean, and of themselves unlawful. Now the truth was, Montanus said no such thing, but commanded frequent abstinence, enjoined dry diet, and an ascetic Table, not for conscience sake, but for Discipline; and yet because he did this with too much rigour and strictness of mandate, the Primitive Church misliked it in him, as being too near their error, who by a Judaical superstition abstained from meats as from uncleanness. This by the way will much concern them who place too much sanctity in such Rites and Acts of Discipline; for it is an eternal Rule and of never failing truth, that such abstinences if they be obtruded as Acts of original immediate duty and sanctity, are unlawful and superstitious; if they be for Discipline they may be good, but of no very great profit; it is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which S. Paul says profiteth but little; and just in the same degree the Primitive Church esteemed them; for they therefore reprehended Montanus, for urging such abstinences with too much earnestness, though but in the way of Discipline, for that it was no more, Tertullian, who was himself a Montanist, and knew best the opinions of his own Sect, testifies; and yet Epiphanus reporting the errors of Montanus, commends that which Montanus truly and really taught, and which the Primitive Church condemned in him, and therefore represents that heresy to another sense, and affixes that to Montanus, which Epiphanius believed a heresy, and yet which Montanus did not teach. And this also among many other things lessens my opinion very much of the integrity or discretion of the old Catalogues of Heretics, and much abates my confidence towards them.  
And now that I have mentioned them casually in passing by, I shall give a short account of them; for men are much 
Numb. 19  mistaken; some in their opinions concerning the truth of them, as believing them to be all true, some concerning their purpose as thinking them sufficient not only to condemn all those opinions, there called heretical; but to be a precedent to all Ages of the Church to be free and forward in calling Heretic. But he that considers the Catalogues themselves, as they are collected by Epiphanius, Philastrius, and S. Austin, shall find that many are reckoned for Heretics for opinions in matters disputable, and undetermined, and of no consequence; and that in these Catalogues of Heretics there are men numbered for Heretics, which by every side respectively are acquitted; so that there is no company of men in the world that admit these Catalogues as good Records, or sufficient sentences of condemnation. For the Churches of the Reformation, I am certain, they acquit Aërius for denying prayer for the dead, and the Eustathians for denying invocation of Saints. And I am partly of opinion that the Church of Rome is not willing to call the Collyridians' Heretics for offering a Cake to the Virgin Mary, unless she also will run the hazard of the same sentence for offering Candles to her: And that they will be glad with S. Austin (l. 6. de haeres. c. 86.) to excuse the 
* D. Thom. l. contr. gent. c. 21.  Tertullianists for picturing God in a visible corporal representment. And yet these Sects are put in the black book by Epiphanius and S. Austin, and Isidore respectively. I remember also that the Osseni are called Heretics, because they refused to worship toward the East; and yet in that dissent, I find not the malignity of a heresy, nor any thing against an Article of Faith or good manners; and it being only in circumstance, it were hard, if they were otherwise pious men and true believers, to send them to Hell for such a trifle. The Parermeneutae refused to follow other men's dictates like sheep, but would expound Scripture according to the best evidence themselves could find, and yet were called Heretics whether they expounded true or no. The 
* Euthym. part. 1. tit. 21.▪ Epiphan. haeres. 64.  Pauliciani for being offended at crosses, the Proclians for saying in a regenerate man all his sins were not quite dead, but only kerbed and assuaged, were called Heretics, and so condemned; for aught I know for affirming that which all pious men feel in themselves to be too true. And he that will consider how numerous the Catalogues are, and to what a volumn they are come in their last collections, to no less than five hundred and twenty (for so many heresies and Heretics are reckoned by Prateolus) may think that if a re-trenchment were justly made of truths, and all impertinencies, and all opinions, either still disputable, or less considerable, the number would much decrease; and therefore that the Catalogues are much amiss, and the name Heretic is made a terriculamentum to affright people from their belief, or to discountenance the persons of men, and disrepute them, that their Schools may be empty and their Disciples few.  
So that I shall not need to instance how that some men 
Numb. 20.  were called Heretics by Philastrius for rejecting the translation of the LXX. and following the Bible of Aquila, wherein the great faults mentioned by Philastrius, are that he translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not Christum, but unctum Dei, and in stead of Emanuel writes Deus nobiscum. But this most concerns them of the Primitive Church with whom the translation of Aquila was in great reputation, is enim veluti plus à quibusdam ..... intellexisse laudatur. It was supposed he was a greater Clerk and understood more than ordinary; it may be so he did. But whether yea or no, yet since the other Translators by the Confession of Philastrius, quaedam praetermisisse necessitate urgente cogerentur, if some wise men or unwise did follow a Translator who understood the Original well (for so Aquila had learned amongst the Jews) it was hard to call men Heretics for following his Translation, especially since the other Bible's (which were thought to have in them contradictories; and, it was confessed, had omitted some things) were excused by necessity, and the others necessity of following Aquila, when they had no better was not at all considered, nor a less crime than heresy laid upon their score 
* Philastr 99 eos inter haereticos numerat qui spiraculum vitae in libro Genes. interpretantur animam rationalem, & non potiùs gratiam Spiritus sancti. . Such another was the heresy of the Quartodecimani; for the Easterlings were all proclaimed Heretics for keeping Easter after the manner of the East; and as Socrates and Nicephorus report, the Bishop of Rome was very forward to Excommunicate all the Bishops of the lesser Asia for observing the Feast according to the Tradition of their Ancestors, though they did it modestly, quietly, and without faction; and although they pretended, and were as well able to prove their Tradition from S. John, of so observing it, as the Western Church could prove their Tradition derivative from S. Peter and S. Paul. If such things as these make up the Catalogues of Heretics (as we see they did) their accounts differ from the Precedents they ought to have followed, that is, the censures Apostolical, and therefore are unsafe Precedents for us; and unless they took the liberty of using the word heresy, in a lower sense, than the world now doth, since the Counsels have been forward in pronouncing Anathema, and took it only for a distinct sense, and a differing persuasion in matters of opinion and minute Articles, we cannot excuse the persons of the men: But if they intended the crime of heresy against those opinions as they laid them down in their Catalogues, that crime (I say) which is a work of the flesh, which excludes from the Kingdom of Heaven, all that I shall say against them, is, that the causeless curse shall return empty, and no man is damned the sooner, because his enemy cries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and they that were the Judges and Accusers might err as well as the persons accused, and might need as charitable construction of their opinions and practices as the other. And of this we are sure they had no warrant from any rule of Scripture or practice Apostolical, for driving so furiously and hastily in such decretory sentences. But I am willing rather to believe their sense of the word heresy was more gentle then with us it is, and for that they might have warrant from Scripture.  
But by the way, I observe that although these Catalogues are 
Numb. 21.  a great instance to show that they whose Age and spirits were fare distant from the Apostles, had also other judgements concerning Faith and heresy, than the Apostles had, and the Ages Apostolical; yet these Catalogues although they are reports of heresies in the second and third Ages, are not to be put upon the account of those Ages, nor to be reckoned as an instance of their judgement, which although it was in some degrees more culpable than that of their Predecessors, yet in respect of the following Ages it was innocent and modest. But these Catalogues I speak of, were set down according to the sense of the then presentages, in which as they in all probability did differ from the apprehensions of the former Centuries, so it is certain, there were differing learnings, other sancies, divers representments and judgements of men depending upon circumstances which the first Ages knew, and the following Ages did not; and therefore the Catalogues were drawn with some truth, but less certainty, as appears in their differing about the Authors of some heresies; several opinions imputed to the same, and some put in the roll of Heretics by one, which the other left out; which to me is an Argument that the Collectors were determined, not by the sense and sentences of the three first Ages but by themselves, and some circumstances about them, which to reckon for Heretics, which not. And that they themselves were the prime Judges, or perhaps some in their own Age together with them; but there was not any sufficient external judicatory competent to declare heresy that by any public or sufficient sentence or acts of Court had furnished them with warrant for their Catalogues. And therefore they are no Argument sufficient that the first Ages of the Church, which certainly were the best, did much recede from that which I shown to be the sense of the Scripture, and the practice of the Apostles; they all contented themselves with the Apostles Creed as the rule of the Faith; and therefore were not forward to judge of heresy, but by analogy to their rule of Faith: And those Catalogues made after these Ages are not sufficient Arguments that they did otherwise; but rather of the weakness of some persons, or of the spirit and genius of the Age in which the Compilers lived, in which the device of calling all differing opinions by the name of heresies, might grow to be a design to serve ends, and to promote interests, as often as an act of zeal and just indignation against evil persons destroyers of the Faith and corrupters of manners.  
For whatever private men's opinions were, yet till the Nicene 
Numb. 22.  Council, the rule of Faith was entire in the Apostles Creed, and provided they retained that, easily they broke not the unity of Faith, however differing opinions might possibly commence in such things in which a liberty were better suffered then prohibited with a breach of charity. And this appears exactly in the Question between S. Cyprian of Carthage, and Stephan Bishop of Rome, in which one instance it is easy to see what was lawful and safe for a wise and good man, and yet how others began even then to be abused by that temptation, which since hath invaded all Christendom. S. Cyprian re. baptised Heretics, and thought he was bound so to do; calls a Synod in afric as being Metropolitan, and confirms his opinion by the consent of his Suffragans and Brethren, but still with so much modesty that if any man was of another opinion, he judged him not, but gave him that liberty that he desired himself; Stephen Bishop of Rome grows angry, Excommunicates the Bishops of Asia and Africa, that in divers Synods had consented to rebaptisation, and without peace, and without charity condemns them for Heretics. Indeed here was the rarest mixture and conjunction of unlikelihoods that I have observed. Here was error of opinion with much modesty and sweetness of temper on one side; and on the other, an overactive and impetuous zeal to attest a truth, it uses not to be so, for error usually is supported with confidence, and truth suppressed and discountenanced by indifferency. But that it might appear that the error was not the sin but the uncharitableness, Stephan was accounted a zealous and furious person, and S. 
* Vid. S. Aug. l. 2. c. 6. de baptis. contra Donat.  Cyprian though deceived, yet a very good man, and of great sanctity. For although every error is to be opposed, yet according to the variety of errors, so is there variety of proceed. If it be against Faith, that is, a destruction of any part of the foundation, it is with zeal to be resisted, and we have for it an Apostolical warrant, contend earnestly for the Faith; but then as these things recede farther from the foundation, our certainty is the less, and their necessity not so much, and therefore it were very fit, that our confidence should be according to our evidence, and our zeal according to our confidence, and our confidence should then be the Rule of our Communion; and the lightness of an Article should be considered with the weight of a precept of charity. And therefore, there are some errors to be reproved, rather by a private friend then a public censure, and the persons of the men not avoided but admonished, and their Doctrine rejected, not their Communion; few opinions are of that malignity which are to be rejected with the same exterminating spirit, and confidence of aversation, with which the first Teachers of Christianity condemned Ebion, Manes, and Cerinthus; and in the condemnation of Heretics the personal iniquity is more considerable than the obliquity of the doctrine, not for the rejection of the Article, but for censuring the persons; and therefore it is the piety of the man that excused S. Cyprian, which is a certain Argument that it is not the opinion, but the impiety that condemns and makes the Heretic. And this was it which Vincentius Lirinensis 
Adu. haeres. c. 11.  said in this very case of S. Cyprian, Vnius & ejusdem opinionis (mirum videri potest) judicamus authores Catholicos, & sequaces haereticos. Excusamus Magistros, & condemnamus Scholasticos. Qui scripserunt libros sunt haeredes Coeli, quorum librorum defensores detruduntur ad infernum. Which saying, if we confront against the saying of Salvian condemning the first Authors of the Arrian Sect, and acquitting the Followers, we are taught by these two wise men, that an error is not it that sends a man to Hell, but he that gins the heresy, and is the author of the Sect, he is the man marked out to ruin; and his Followers scaped, when the Here siarch commenced the error upon pride and ambition, and his Followers went after him in simplicity of their heart; and so it was most commonly: but on the contrary, when the first man in the opinion was honestly and invincibly deceived, as S. Cyprian was, and that his Scholars to maintain their credit, or their ends, maintained the opinion, not for the excellency of the reason persuading, but for the benefit and accruments, or peevishness, as did the Donatisis, qui de Cypriani authoritate sibi carnaliter blandiuntur, as S. Austin said of them; then the Scholars are the Heretics, and the Master is a Catholic. For his error is not the heresy formally, and an erring person may be a Catholic. A wicked person in his error becomes heretic, when the good man in the same error shall have all the rewards of Faith. For whatever an ill man believes, if he therefore believe it because it serves his own ends, be his belief true or false, the man hath an heretical mind, for to serve his own ends, his mind is prepared to believe a lie. But a good man that believes what according to his light, and upon the use of his moral industry he thinks true, whether he hits upon the right or no, because he hath a mind desirous of truth, and prepared to believe every truth is therefore acceptable to God, because nothing hindered him from it, but what he could not help, his misery and his weakness, which being imperfections merely natural, which God never punishes, he stands fair for a blessing of his morality, which God always accepts. So that now if Stephen had followed the example of God Almighty, or retained but the same peaceable spirit which his Brother of Cathage did, he might with more advantage to truth, and reputation both of wisdom and piety have done his duty in attesting what he believed to be true; for we are as much bound to be zealous pursuers of peace as earnest contenders for the Faith I am sure more earnest we ought to be for the peace of the Church, then for an Article which is not of the Faith, as this Question of rebaptisation was not; for S. Cyprian died in belief against it, and yet was a Catholic, and a Martyr for the Christian Faith.  
The sum is this S. Cyprian did right in a wrong cause (as 
Numb. 23.  it hath been since judged) and Stephen did ill in a good cause; as fame then as piety and charity is to be preferred before a true opinion, so fare is S. Cyprian's practise a better precedent for us, and an example of primitive sanctity, than the zeal and indiscretion of Stephen: S. Cyprian had not learned to forbid to any one a liberty of prophesying or interpretation, if he transgressed not the foundation of Faith and the Creed of the Apostles.  
Well thus it was, and thus it ought to be in the first Ages, 
Numb. 23.  the Faith of Christendom rested still upon the same foundation, and the judgements of heresies were accordingly, or were amisie; but the first great violation of this truth was, when General Counsels came in, and the Symbols were enlarged, and new Articles were made as much of necessity to be believed as the Creed of the Apostles, and damnation threatened to them that did diffent, and at last the Creeds multiplied in number, and in Articles, and the liberty of prophesying began to be something restrained.  
And this was of so much the more force and efficacy because 
Numb. 25.  it began upon great reason, and in the first instance, with success good enough. For I am much pleased with the enlarging of the Creed, which the Council of Nice made, because they enlarged it to my sense; but I am not sure that others are satisfied with it; While we look upon the Article they did determine, we see all things well enough; but there are some wise personages consider it in all circumstances, and think the Church had been more happy if she had not been in some sense constrained to alter the simplicity of her faith, and make it more curious and articulate, so much that he had need be a subtle man to understand the very words of the new determinations.  
For the first Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, in the presence 
Numb. 26.  of his Clergy, entreats somewhat more curiously of the secret of the mysterious Trinity, and Unity, so curiously, that 
Socra. l. 1. c. 8.  Arius (who was a Sophister too subtle as it afterward appeared) misunderstood him, and thought he intended to bring in the heresy of Sabellius. For while he taught the Unity of the Trinity either he did it so inartificially, or so intricately, that Arius thought he did not distinguish the persons, when the Bishop intended only the unity of nature. Against this Arius furiously drives, and to confute Sabellius, and in him (as he thought) the Bishop, distinguishes the natures too, and so to secure the Article of the Trinity, destroys the Unity. It was the first time the Question was disputed in the world, and in such mysterious niceties, possibly every wise man may understand something, but few can understand all, and therefore suspect what they understand not, and are furiously zealous for that part of it which they do perceive. Well, it happened in these as always in such cases, in things men understand not they are most impetuous; and because suspicion is a thing infinite in degrees, for it hath nothing to determine it, a suspicious person is ever most violent; for his fears are worse than the thing feared, because the thing is limited, but his fears are not; so that upon this grew contentions on both sides, and 
Lib. 1. c. 6.  tumults, railing and reviling each other; and then the Laity were drawn into parts, and the Meletians abetted the wrong part, and the right part fearing to be overborne, did any thing that was next at hand to secure itself. Now than they that lived in that Age, that understood the men, that saw how quiet the Church was before this stir, how miserably rend now, what little benefit from the Question, what schism about it, gave other censures of the business, than we since have done, who only look upon the Article determined with truth and approbation of the Church generally, since that time. But the Epistle of Constantine to Alexander and Arius, tells the truth, and 
Cap. 7.  chides them both for commencing the Question, Alexander for broaching it, Arius for taking it up; and although this be true, that it had been better for the Church it never had begun, yet being begun, what is to be done in it? of this also in that admirable Epistle, we have the Emperor's judgement (I suppose not without the advice and privity of Hosius Bishop of Corduba, whom the Emperor loved and trusted much, and employed in the delivery of the Letters.) For first he calls it a certain vain piece of a Question, ill begun and more unadvisedly published, a Question which no Law or Ecclesiastical Canon defineth, a fruitless contention, the product of idle brains, a matter so nice, so obscure, so intricate that it was neither to be explicated by the Clergy, nor understood by the people, a dispute of words, a doctrine inexpliable, but most dangerous when taught lest it introduce discord or blasphemy; and therefore, the Objector was rash, and the answerer unadvised; for it concerned not the substance of Faith, or the worship of God, nor any chief commandment of Scripture, and therefore, why should it be the matter of discord? For though the matter be grave; yet because neither necessary, nor explicable, the contention is trifling and toyish. And therefore, as the Philosophers of the same Sect, though differing in explication of an opinion, yet more love for the unity of their Profession, then disagree for the difference of opinion; So should Christians believing in the same God, retaining the same Faith, having the same hopes, opposed by the same enemies, not fall at variance upon such disputes, considering our understandings are not all alike; and therefore, neither can our opinions in such mysterious Articles: so that the matter being of no great importance, but vain, and a toy in respect of the excellent blessings of peace and charity, it were good that Alexander and Arius should leave contending, keep their opinions to themselves, ask each other forgiveness, and give mutual toleration. This is the substance of Constantine's letter, and it contains in it much reason, if he did not undervalue the Question; but it seems it was not then thought a Question of Faith but of nicety of dispute; they both did believe one God, and the holy Trinity. Now than that he afterward called the Nicene Council, it was upon occasion of the vileness of the men of the Arian part, their eternal discord and pertinacious wrangling, and to bring peace into the Church; that was the necessity; and in order to it was the determination of the Article. But for the Article itself, the Letter declares what opinion he had of that, and this Letter was by Socrates called a wonderful exhortation, full of grace and sober counsels; and such as Hosius himself, who was the messenger, pressed with all earnestness, with all the skill and Authority he had.  
I know the opinion the world had of the Article afterward is quite differing from this censure given of it before; and 
Numb. 27.  therefore they have put it into the Creed (I suppose) to bring the world to unity, and to prevent Sedition in this Question, and the accidental blasphemies, which were occasioned by their curious talk of such secret mysteries, and by their illiterate resolutions. But although the Article was determined with an excellent spirit, and we all with much reason profess to believe it; yet it is another consideration, whether or no it might not have been better determined, if with more simplicity; and another yet, whether or no since many of the Bishops who did believe this thing, yet did not like the nicety and curiosity of expressing it, it had not been more agreeable to the practice of the Apostles to have made a determination of the Article by way of Exposition of the Apostles Creed, and to have left this in a rescript, for record to all posterity, and not to have enlarged the Creed with it; for since it was an Explication of an Article of the Creed of the Apostles, as Sermons are of places of Scripture, it was thought by some, that Scripture might with good profit, and great truth be expounded, and yet the expositions not put into the Canon, or go for Scripture, but that left still in the naked Original simplicity, and so much the rather since that Explication was further from the foundation, and though most certainly true, yet not penned by so infallible a spirit, as was that of the Apostles; and therefore not with so much evidence, as certainty. And if they had pleased, they might have made use of an admirable precedent to this and many other great and good purposes, no less then of the blessed Apostles, whose Symbol they might have imitated, with as much simplicity as they did the Expressions of Scripture, when they first composed it. For it is most considerable, that although in reason, every clause in the Creed should be clear, and so inopportune and unapt to variety of interpretation, that there might be no place left for several senses or variety of Expositions: yet when they thought fit to insert some mysteries into the Creed, which in Scripture were expressed in so mysterious words, that the last and most explicit sense would still be latent, yet they who (if ever any did) understood all the senses and secrets of it, thought it not fit to use any words but the words of Scripture, particularly in the Articles of [Christ's descending into Hell, and sitting at the right hand of God] to show us, that those Creeds are best which keep the very words of Scripture; and that Faith is best which hath greatest simplicity, and that it is better in all cases humbly to submit; then curiously to inquire and pry into the mystery under the cloud, and to hazard our Faith by improving our knowledge: If the Nicene Fathers had done so too, possibly the Church would never have repent it.  
And indeed the experience, the Church had afterwards, 
Numb. 28.  shown that the Bishops and Priests were not satisfied in all circumstances, nor the schism appeased, nor the persons agreed, nor the Canons accepted, nor the Article understood, nor any thing right, but when they were overborne with Authority, which Authority when the scales turned, did the same service and promotion to the contrary.  
But it is considerable, that it was not the Article or the 
Numb. 29.  thing itself that troubled the disagreeing persons, but the manner of representing it. For the five Dissenters, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis, Maris, Theonas, and Secundus, believed Christ to be very God of very God, but the clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they derided as being persuaded by their Logic, that he was neither of the substance of the Father, by division as a piece of a lump nor derivation as children from their Parents, nor by production as buds from trees, and no body could tell them any other way at that time, and that made the fire to burn still. And that was it I said; if the Article had been with more simplicity, and less nicety determined; charity would have gained more, and faith would have lost nothing. And we shall find the wisest of them all, for so Eusebius Pamphilus was esteemed, published a Creed or Confession in the Synod, and though he and all the rest believed that great mystery of Godlinesle, 
Vide Sozomen. lib. 2. c. 18.  God manifested in the flesh, yet he was not fully satisfied, nor so soon of the clause of one substance, till he had done a little violence to his own understanding; for even when he had subscribed to the clause of one substance, he does it with a protestation, that heretofore he never had been acquainted, nor accustomed himself to such speeches. And the sense of the word was either so ambiguous, or their meaning so uncertain that Andrea's Fricius does with some probability dispute that 
Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 26.  the Nicene Fathers by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, did mean Patris similitudinem, non essentiae unitatem, Sylva. 4. c. 1. And it was so well understood by personages disinterested, that when Arius and Euzoius had confessed Christ to be Deus verbum, without inserting the clause of one substance, the Emperor by his Letter approved of his Faith, and restored him to his Country and Office, and the Communion of the Church. And along time after although the Article was believed with 
Non imprudentèr dix●t, qui curiosae explicationi hujus mysterii dictum Aristonis Philosophi applicu●t, H●lleborus niger si crassiùs sumatur purgat & senate. Quum autum teritur & comminuitur, suffocat.  nicety enough, yet when they added more words still to the mystery, and brought in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saying there were three hypostases in the holy Trinity; it was so long before it could be understood, that it was believed therefore, because they would not oppose their Superiors, or disturb the peace of the Church, in things which they thought could not be understood: in so much that S. Hierom writ to Damasus, in these words: Discern si placet obsecro, non timebo tres hypostases dicere, si jubetis; and again, Obtestor beatitudinem tuam per Crucifixum, mundi salutem, per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trinitatem, ut mihi Epistolis tuis, sive tacendarum sive dicendarum hypostaseôn detur authoritas.  
But without all Question, the Fathers determined the Question 
Numb. 30.  with much truth, though I cannot say, the Arguments upon which they built their Decrees, were so good as the conclusion itself was certain; But that which in this case is considerable, is whether or no they did well in putting a curse to the foot of their Decree, and the Decree itself into the Symbol, as if it had been of the same necessity? For the curse, Eusebius Pamphilus could hardly find in his heart to subscribe, at last he did; but with this clause that he subscribed it because the form of curse did only forbid men to acquaint themselves with foreign speeches and unwritten languages, whereby confusion and discord is brought into the Church. So that it was not so much a magisterial high assertion of the Article, as an endeavour to secure the peace of the Church. And to the same purpose for aught I know, the Fathers composed a Form of Confession, not as a prescript Rule of Faith to build the hopes of our salvation on but as a tessera of that Communion which by public Authority was therefore established upon those Articles because the Articles were true, though not of prime necessity, and because that unity of confession was judged, as things than stood, the best preserver of the unity of minds.  
But I shall observe this, that although the Nicene Fathers 
Numb. 31.  in that case at that time, and in that conjuncture of circumstances did well (and yet their approbation is made by after Ages ex post facto) yet if this precedent had been followed by all Counsels (and certainly they had equal power, if they had thought it equally reasonable) and that they had put all their Decrees into the Creed, as some have done since, to what a volume had the Creed by this time swelled? and all the house had run into foundation, nothing left for superstructures. But that they did not, it appears that since they thought all their Decrees true, yet they did not think them all necessary, at least not in that degree, and that they published such Decrees, they did it declarando, not imperando, as Doctors in their Chairs, not masters of other men's faith and consciences. And yet there is some more modesty, or wariness or necessity (what shall I call it?) then this comes too: for why are not all controversies determined? but even when General Assemblies of Prelates have been, some controversies that have been very vexatious, have been pretermitted, and others of less consequence have been determined: Why did never any General Council condemn in express sentence the Pelagian heresy, that great pest, that subtle infection of Christendom? and yet divers General Counsels did assemble while the heresy was in the world. Both these cases in several degrees leave men in their liberty of believing and prophesying. The latter proclaims that all controversies cannot be determined to sufficient purposes, and the first declares that those that are, are not all of them matters of Faith, and themselves are not so secure, but they may be deceived; and therefore possibly it were better it were let alone; for if the latter leaves them divided in their opinions, yet their Communions, and therefore probably their charities are not divided; but the former divides their Communions, and hinders their interest; and yet for aught is certain, the accused person is the better Catholic. And yet after all this, it is not safety enough to say, let the Council or Prelates determine Articles warily, seldom, with great caution, and with much sweetness and modesty. For though this be better than to do it rashly, frequently and furiously; yet if we once transgress the bounds set us by the Apostles in their Creed, and not only preach other truths, but determine them pro tribunali as well as pro cathedra, although there be no error in the subject matter (as in Nice there was none) yet if the next Ages say they will determine another Article with as much care and caution, and pretend as great a necessity, there is no hindering them, but by giving reasons against it; and so like enough they might have done against the decreeing the Article at Nice; yet that is not sufficient; for since the Authority of the Nicene Council hath grown to the height of a mountainous prejudice against him that should say it was ill done, the same reason and the same necessity may be pretended by any Age and in any Council, and they think themselves warranted by the great precedent at Nice, to proceed as peremptorily as they did; but then if any other Assembly of learned men may possibly be deceived, were it not better they should spare the labour, then that they should with so great pomp and solennities engage men's persuasions, and determine an Article which after Ages must rescind; for therefore most certainly in their own Age, the point with safety of faith and salvation, might have been disputed and disbelieved: And that many men's faiths have been tied up by Acts and Decrees of Counsels for those Articles in which the next Age did see a liberty had better been preserved, because an error was determined, we shall afterward receive a more certain account.  
And therefore the Council of Nice did well, and Constantinople did well, so did Ephesus and Chalcedon; but it is 
Numb. 32.  because the Articles were truly determined (for that is part of my belief;) but who is sure it should be so before hand, and whether the points there determined were necessary or not to be believed or to be determined, if peace had been concerned in it through the faction and division of the parties, I suppose the judgement of Constantine the Emperor and the famous Hosius of Corduba is sufficient to instruct us, whose authority I rather urge then reasons, because it is a prejudice and not a reason I am to contend against.  
So that such determinations and publishing of Confessions with Authority of Prince and Bishop, are sometimes of very 
Numb. 33.  good use for the peace of the Church, and they are good also to determine the judgement of indifferent persons, whose reasons of either side, are not too great to weigh down the probability of that Authority: But for persons of confident and imperious understandings, they on whose side the determination is, are armed with a prejudice against the other, and with a weapon to affront them, but with no more to convince them; and they against whom the decision is, do the more readily betake themselves to the defensive, and are engaged upon contestation and public enmities, for such Articles which either might safely have been unknown, or with much charity disputed. Therefore the Nicene Council, although it have the advantage of an acquired and prescribing Authority, yet it must not become a precedent to others, lest the inconveniences of multiplying more Articles upon as great pretence of reason as then, make the act of the Nicene Fathers in straightening Prophesying, and enlarging the Creed, become accidentally an inconvenience. The first restraint, although if it had been complained of, might possibly have been better considered of; yet the inconvenience is not visible, till it comes by way of precedent to usher in more. It is like an Arbitrary power, which although by the same reason it take six pence from the subject, it may take a hundred pound, and then a thousand, and then all, yet so long as it is within the first bounds, the inconvenience is not so great; but when it comes to be a precedent or argument for more, than the first may justly be complained of, as having in it that reason in the principle, which brought the inconvenience in the sequel; and we have seen very ill consequents from innocent beginnings.  
And the inconveniences which might possibly arise from 
Numb. 34.  this precedent, those wise Personages also did foresee, and therefore although they took liberty in Nice, to add some Articles, or at least more explicitly to declare the first Creed, yet they then would have all the world to rest upon that and go no farther, as believing that to be sufficient. S. Athanasius declares their opinion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Epist ad Epict.  That Faith which those Fathers there confessed, was sufficient for the refutation of all impiety, and the establishment of all Faith in Christ and true Religion. And therefore there was a famous Epistle written by Zeno the Emperor, called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Euagr. l. 3. c. 14.  or the Epistle of reconciliation, in which all disagreeing interests, are entreated to agree in the Nicene Symbol, and a promise made upon that condition to communicate with all other Sects, adding withal, that the Church should never receive any other Symbol then that which was composed by the Nicene Fathers. And however Honorius was condemned for a Monothelite; yet in one of the Epistles which the sixth Synod alleged against him, (viz. the second) he gave them counsel that would have done the Church as much service as the determination of the Article did; for he advised them not to be curious in their dispute, nor dogmatic in their determinations about that Question; and because the Church was not used to dispute in that Question, it were better to preserve the simplicity of Faith, then to ensnare men's consciences by a new Article. And when the Emperor Constantius was by his Faction engaged in a contrary practice, the inconvenience and unreasonableness was so great, that a prudent Heathen observed and noted it in this character of Constantius, Christianam religionem absolutam & simplicem [N. B.] anili superstitione confudit. In quâ scrutandâ perplexiùs quam in componendà gratiùs, excitavit dissidia quae progressa fusiùs aluit concertatione verborum dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere conatur arbitrium.  
And yet men are more lead by Example then either by Reason or by Precept; for in the Council of Constantinople one 
Numb. 35.  Article de novo & integro was added, viz. I believe one Baptism for the remission of sins; and then again they were so confident, that that Confession of Faith was so absolutely entire, and that no man ever after should need to add any thing to the integrity of Faith, that the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus pronounced Anathema to all those that should add any thing to the Creed of Constantinople. And yet for all this, the Church of Rome in a Synod at Gentilly added the clause of Filioque, to the Article of the procession of the holy Ghost, and what they have done since, all the world knows, Exempla non consistunt, sed quamvis in tenuem recepta tramitem, latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem. All men were persuaded that it was most reasonable the limits of Faith should be no more enlarged; but yet they enlarged it themselves, and bond others from doing it, like an intemperate Father, who because he knows he does ill himself, enjoins temperance to his Son, but continues to be intemperate himself.  
But now if I should be questioned concerning the Symbol of 
Numb. 36.  Athanasius (for we see the Nicene Symbol was the Father of many more, some twelve or thirteen Symbols in the space of a hundred years) I confess I cannot see that moderate sentence and gentleness of charity in his Preface and Conclusion as there was in the Nicene Creed. Nothing there but damnation and perishing everlastingly, unless the Article of the Trinity be believed, as it is there with curiosity and minute particularities explaind. Indeed Athanasius had been sound vexed on one side, and much cried up on the other; and therefore it is not so much wonder for him to be so decretory and severe in his censure; for nothing could more ascertain his friends to him, and dis-repute his enemies, than the belief of that damnatory Appendix; but that does not justify the thing. For the Articles themselves, I am most hearty persuaded of the truth of them, and yet I dare not say all that are not so, are irrevocably damned, because citra hoc Symbolum, the Faith of the Apostles Creed is entire, and he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, that is, he that believeth such a belief as is sufficient disposition to be baptised, that Faith with the Sacrament is sufficient for heaven. Now the Apostles Creed does one; why therefore do not both entitle us to the promise? Besides, if it were considered concerning Athanasius Creed, how many people understand it not, how contrary to natural reason it seems, how little the 
* Vide Hosum de author. S. Scrip. l. 3. p. 53. & Gordon. Huntlaeum. Tom. 1. controv. 1. de verbo Dei, cap. 19  Scripture says of those curiosities of Explication, and how Tradition was not clear on his side for the Article itself, much less for those forms and minutes (how himself is put to make an answer, and excuse for the 
† Vide Gretser. & Tanner. in coloq. Ratisbon. Eusebium fuisse Arrianum ait Perron. lib. 3. cap. 2. contre le Roy jaques. Idem ait Originem negasse Divinitatem filii & Spir. S. l. 2. c. 7. de Euchar. contra. Duplessis. idem cap. 5. observ. 4. ait. Irenaeum talia dixifle quae qui hodiè diceret, pro Arriano reputaretur. vide etiam Fisher. in resp. ad 9 Quaest jacobi Reg. & Epiphan. in haeres. 69.  Father's speaking in favour of the Arrians, at least so seemingly, that the Arrians appealed to them for trial, and the offer was declind) and after all this that the Nicene Creed itself went not so fare, neither in Article, nor Anathema nor Explication, it had not been amiss if the final judgement had been left to Jesus Christ; for he is appointed Judge of all the World, and he shall Judge the people righteously, for he knows every truth, the degree of every necessity, and all excuses that do lessen, or take away the nature or malice of a crime; all which I think Athanasius though a very good man, did not know so well as to warrant such a sentence. And put case the heresy there condemned be damnable, (as it is damnable enough) yet a man may maintain an opinion that is in itself damnable, and yet he not knowing it so, and being invincibly lead into it may go to heaven; his opinion shall burn, and himself be saved. But however, I find no opinions in Scripture called damnable, but what are impious in materiâ practicâ, or directly destructive of the Faith or the body of Christianity, such of which S. Peter speaks [bringing in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, these are the false Prophets who out of covetousness make 
2 Pet. 2. 1.  merchandise of you through cozening words.] Such as these are truly heresies, and such as these are certainly damnable. But because there are no degrees either of truth or salshood, every true proposition being alike true; that an error is more or less damnable, is not told us in Scripture, but is determined by the man and his manners, by circumstance and accidents; and therefore the censure in the Preface and end, are Arguments of his zeal and strength of his persuasion; but they are extrinsecall and accidental to the Articles, and might as well have been spared. And indeed to me it seems very hard to put uncharitableness into the Creed, and so to make it become as an Article of Faith, though perhaps this very thing was no Faith of Athanasius who if we may believe Aquinas, made this manifestation of Faitth, non per modum Symboli, sed per modum doctrinae, 
D. Tho. 22ae. q. 1. artic. 1. ad ●um.  that is, if I understood him right, not with a purpose to impose it upon others, but with confidence to declare his own belief; and that it was prescribed to others as a Creed, was the act of the Bishops of Rome; so he said, nay, possibly it was none of his: So said the Patriarch of C. P. Meletius about one hundred and thirty years since, in his Epistle to John Douza, Athanasio falsò adscriptum Symbolum cum Pontificum Rom. appendice illâ adulteratum, luce lucidiùs contestamur. And it is more than probable that he said true, because this Creed was written originally in Latin, which in all reason Athanasius did not, and it was translated into Greek, it being apparent that the Latin Copy is but one, but the Greek is various, there being three Editions or Translations rather, expressed by Genebrard, lib. 3. de Trinit. But in this particular, who list, may better satisfy himself in a disputation de Symbolo Athanasii, printed at Wertzburg 1590. supposed to be written by Serrarius or Cleneherus.  
And yet I must observe that this Symbol of Athanasius, and 
Numb. 37.  that other of Nice, offer not at any new Articles; they only pretend to a further Explication of the Articles Apostolical, which is a certain confirmation that they did not believe more Articles to be of belief necessary to salvation: if they intended these further Explications to be as necessary as the dogmatic Articles of the Apostles Creed, I know not how to answer all that may be objected against that; but the advantage that I shall gather from their not proceeding to new matters, is laid out ready for me in the words of Athanasius, saying of this Creed [this is the Catholic Faith] and if his authority be good, or his saying true, or he the Author, than no man can say of any other Article, that it is a part of the Catholic Faith, or that the Catholic Faith can be enlarged beyond the contents of that Symbol; and therefore it is a strange boldness in the Church of Rome, first to add twelve new Articles, 
Bulla Pii quarti supra forma juramenti professionis fidei, in fin. Conc. Trident.  and then to add the Appendix of Athanasius to the end of them, This is the Catholic Faith, without which no man can be saved.  
But so great an example of so excellent a man, hath been either mistaken or followed with too much greediness, all 
Numb. 38.  the world in factions, all damning one another, each party damned by all the rest, and there is no disagreeing in opinion from any man that is in love with his own opinion, but damnation presently to all that disagree. A Ceremony and a Rite hath caused several Churches to Excommunicate each other, as in the matter of the Saturday Fast, and keeping Easter. But what the spirits of men are when they are exasperated in a Question and difference of Religion, as they call it, though the thing itself may be most inconsiderable, is very evident in that request of Pope Innocent the Third, desiring of the Greeks (but reasonably a man would think) that they would not so much hate the Roman manner of consecrating in unleavened bread, as to wash, and scrape, and pair the Altars after a Roman Priest had consecrated. Nothing more furious than a mistaken zeal, and the actions of a scrupulous and abused conscience. When men think every thing to be their Faith and their Religion, commonly they are so busy in trifles and such impertinencies in which the scene of their mistake lies, that they neglect the greater things of the Law, charity, and compliances, and the gentleness of Christian Communion; for this is the great principle of mischief, and yet is not more pernicious than unreasonable.  
For I demand: Can any man say and justify that the Apostles did deny Communion to any man that believed the Apostles 
Numb. 39  Creed, and lived a good life? And dare any man tax that proceeding of remissness, and indifferency in Religion? And since our blessed Saviour promised salvation to him that believeth (and the Apostles when they gave this word the greatest extent, enlarged it not beyond the borders of the Creed) how can any man warrant the condemning of any man to the flames of Hell that is ready to die in attestation of this Faith, so expounded and made explicit by the Apostles, and lives accordingly? And to this purpose it was excellently said by a wise and a pious Prelate, S. Hilary, Non per difficiles nos 
L. 10. de Trin. ad finem.  Deus ad b●atam vitam quaestiones vocat, etc. In absoluto nobis & facili est aeternitas; Jesum suscitatum à mortuis, per Deum credere, & ipsum esse Dominum confiteri, etc. These are the Articles which we must believe which are the sufficient and adequate object of that Faith which is required of us in order to Salvation. And therefore it was, that when the Bishops of Istria 
Concil. tom. 4. Edit. Paris. p. 473.  deserted the Communion of Pope Pelagius, in causâ trium Capitulorum, he gives them an account of his Faith by recitation of the Creed, and by attesting the four General Counsels, and is confident upon this that de fidei firmitate nulla poterit esse quaestio vel suspicio generari; let the Apostles Creed, especially so explicated, be but secured, and all Faith is secured; and yet that explication too, was less necessary than the Articles themselves; for the explication was but accidental, but the Articles even before the Explication were accounted a sufficient inlet to the Kingdom of heaven.  
And that there was security enough, in the simple believing 
Numb. 40.  the first Articles, is very certain amongst them, and by their Principles who allow of an implicit faith to serve most persons to the greatest purposes; for if the Creed did contain in it the whole Faith, and that other Articles were in it implicitly, (for such is the doctrine of the School, and particularly of Aquinas) than he that explicirely believes all the Creed, does implicitly believe all the Articles contained in it, and then it 
22ae. q. 1. a. 10. cap.  is better the implication should still continue, then that by any explication (which is simply unnecessary) the Church should be troubled with questions, and uncertain determinations, and factions enkindled, and animosities set on foot, and men's souls endangered, who before were secured by the explicit belief of all that the Apostles required as necessary, which belief also did secure them for all the rest, because it implied the belief of whatsoever was virtually in the first Articles, if such belief should by chance be necessary.  
The sum of this discourse is this, if we take an estimate of the nature of Faith from the dictates and promises Evangelicall, 
Numb. 41.  and from the practice Apostolical, the nature of Faith and its integrity consists in such propositions which make the foundation of hope and charity, that which is sufficient to make us to do honour to Christ, and to obey him, and to encourage us in both; and this is completed in the Apostles Creed. And since contraries are of the same extent, heresy is to be judged by its proportion and analogy to faith, and that is heresy only which is against Faith. Now because Faith is not only a precept of Doctrines, but of manners and holy life, whatsoever is either opposite to an Article of Creed, or teaches ill life, that's heresy; but all those propositions which are extrinsecall to these two considerations, be they true or be they false, make not heresy, nor the man an Heretic; and therefore however he may be an erring person, yet he is to be used accordingly, pitied and instructed, not condemned or Excommunicated; And this is the result of the first ground, the consideration of the nature of Faith and heresy.   

SECT. III.  
Of the difficulty and uncertainty of Arguments from Scripture, in Questions not simply necessary, not literally determined.  
GOd who disposes of all things sweetly and according to the nature and capacity of things and persons, had made those 
Numb. 1.  only necessary, which he had taken care should be sufficiently propounded to all persons of whom he required the explicit belief. And therefore all the Articles of Faith are clearly and plainly set down in Scripture, and the Gospel is not hid nisi pereuntibus saith S. Paul; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Damascen, and that 
Orthod. fidei. lib. 4. c. 18.  so manifestly that no man can be ignorant of the foundation of Faith without his own apparent fault. And this is acknowledged by all wise and good men, and is evident, besides the reasonableness of the thing, in the testimonies of Saints 
a Super Psal. 88 & de util. cred. c. 6.  Austin, 
b Super Isa. c. 19 & in Psal. 86.  Hierome, 
c Homil. 3. in Thess. Ep. 2.  chrysostom, 
d Serm de confess.  Fulgentius, 
e Miseel. 2. l. 1. tit. 46.  Hugo de Sancto Victore, 
f In Gen. ap. Struch p. 87.  Theodoret, 
g C. 6. c. 21.  Lactantius, 
h Ad Antioch. l. 2. p. 918.  Theophilus Antiochenus, 
i Par. 1. q. 1. art. 9 Numb. 2.  Aquinas, and the latter School men. And God hath done more; for many things which are only profitable, are also set down so plainly, that (as S. Austin says) nemo inde haurire non possit, si modò ad hauriendum devotè ac piè accedat (ubi supra de util. cred. c. 6.) but of such things there is no Question commenced in Christendom, and if there were, it cannot but be a crime and humane interest, that are the Authors of such disputes, and therefore these cannot be simple errors, but always heresies, because the principle of them is a personal sin.  
But besides these things which are so plainly set down, some for doctrine as S. Paul says, that is, for Articles and foundation of Faith, some for instruction, some for reproof, some for comfort, that is, in matters practical and speculative of several tempers and constitutions, there are innumerable places containing in them great mysteries, but yet either so enwrapped with a cloud, or so darkened with umbrages, or heigthened with expressions, or so covered with allegories and garments of Rhetoric so profound in the matter, or so altered or made intricate in the manner in the clothing and in the dressing that God may seem to have left them as trials of our industry, and Arguments of our imperfections, and incentives to the long after heaven, and the clearest revelations of eternity, and as occasions and opportunities of our mutual charity and toleration to each other, and humility in ourselves, rather than the repositories of Faith, and furniture of Creeds, and Articles of belief.  
For wherever the word of God is kept, whether in Scripture 
Numb. 3.  alone, or also in Tradition, he that considers that the meaning of the one, and the truth or certainty of the other are things of great Question, will see a necessity in these things (which are the subject matter of most of the Questions of Christendom) that men should hope to be excused by an implicit faith in God Almighty. For when there are in the Explications of Scripture so many Commentaries, so many senses and Interpretations, so many Volumes in all Ages, and all, like men's faces, exactly none like another, either this difference and inconvenience is absolutely no fault at all, or if it be, it is excusable, by a mind prepared to consent in that truth which God intended. And this I call an implicit Faith in God, which is certainly of as great excellency as an implicit Faith in any man or company of men. Because they who do require an implicit Faith in the Church for Articles less necessary, and excuse the want of explicit Faith by the implicit, do require an implicit Faith in the Church, because they believe that God hath required of them to have a mind prepared to believe whatever the Church says; which because it is a proposition of no absolute certainty, whosoever does in readiness of mind believe all that God spoke, does also believe that sufficiently, if it be fitting to be believed, that is, if it be true, and if God hath said so; for he hath the same obedience of understanding in this as in the other. But because it is not so certain God hath tied him in all things to believe that which is called the Church, and that it is certain we must believe God in all things, and yet neither know all that either God hath revealed or the Church taught, it is better to take the certain then the uncertain, to believe God rather than men, especially since if God hath bound us to believe men, our absolute submission to God does involve that, and there is no inconvenience in the world this way, but that we implicitly believe one Article more, viz. the Church's Authority or infallibility, which may well be pardoned, because it secures our belief of all the rest, and we are sure if we believe all that God said explicitly or implicitly, we also believe the Church implicitly in case we are bound to it; but we are not certain, that if we believe any company of men whom we call the Church, that we therefore obey God and believe what he hath said. But however, if this will not help us, there is no help for us, but good fortune or absolute predestination; for by choice and industry, no man can secure himself that in all the mysteries of Religion taught in Scripture he shall certainly understand and explicitly believe that sense, that God intended. For to this purpose there are many considerations.  
1. There are so many thousands of Copies that were writ by persons of several interests and persuasions, such different 
Numb. 4.  understandings and tempers, such distinct abilities and weaknesses, that it is no wonder there is so great variety of readings both in the Old Testament and in the New. In the Old Testament the Jews pretend that the Christians have corrupted many places, on purpose to make symphony between both the Testaments. On the other side, the Christians have had so much reason to suspect the Jews, that when Aquila had translated the Bible in their Schools, and had been taught by them, they rejected the Edition many of them, and some of them called it heresy to follow it. And Justin Martyr justified it to Tryphon, that the Jews had defalked many say from the Books of the old Prophets, and amongst the rest, he instances in that of the Psalm, Dicite in nationibus quia Dominus regnavit à ligno. The last words they have cut off, and prevailed so fare in it, that to this day none of our Bible's have it; but if they ought not to have it, than Justin Martyrs Bible had more in it then it should have, for there it was; so that a fault there was either under or over. But however, there are infinite Readins in the New Testament (for in that I will instance) some whole Verses in one that are not in another, and there was in some Copies of S. Marks Gospel in the last Chapter a whole verse, a Chapter it was anciently called, that is not found in our Bibles, as S. Hierom. ad Hedibiam, q. 3. notes. The words he repeats, Lib. 2. contra Polygamos. Et illi satis faciebant dicentes, saeculum istud iniquitatis & incredulitatis sub stantia est, quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem, idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam. These words are thought by some, to favour of Manichaisme, and for aught I can find were therefore rejected out of many Greek Copies, and at last out of the Latin. Now suppose that a Manichee in disputation should urge this place, having found it in his Bible, if a Catholic should answer him by saying it is Apocryphal, and not found in divers Greek Copies, might not the Manichees ask how it came in, if it was not the word of God, and if it was, how came it out? and at last take the same liberty of rejecting any other Authority which shall be alleged against him; it he can find any Copy that may favour him, however that favour be procured; and did not the Ebionites reject all the Epistles of S. Paul upon pretence he was an enemy to the Law of Moses? indeed it was boldly and most unreasonably done; but if one title or one Chapter of S. Mark be called Apocryphal, for being suspected of Manicheisme, it is a plea that will too much justify others in their taking and choosing what they list. But I will not urge it so fare; but is not there as much reason for the fierce Lutherans to reject the Epistle of S. James for favouring justification by works, or the Epistle to the Hebrews, upon pretence that the sixth and tenth Chapters do favour Novatianisme; especially since it was by some famous Churches at first not accepted, even by the Church of Rome herself? The Parable of the woman taken in adultery, which is now in Joh. 8. Eusebius says was not in any Gospel, but the Gospel secundum Hebraeos, and S. Hierom makes it doubtful, and so does S. chrysostom and Euthimius, the first not vouchsafing to explicate it in Homilies upon S. John, the other affirming it not to be found in the exacter Copies. I shall not need to urge that there are some words so near in sound, that the Scribes might easily mistake: There is one famous one of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which yet some Copies read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the sense is very unlike though the words be near, and there needs some little luxation to strain this latter reading to a good sense; That famous precept of S. Paul, that the women must pray with a covering on their head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of the Angels, hath brought into the Church an opinion that Angels are present in Churches, and are Spectators of our devotion and deportment. Such an opinion if it should meet with peevish opposites on one side, and confident Hyperaspists on the other, might possibly make a Sect, and here were a clear ground for the affirmative, and yet who knows but that it might have been a mistake of the Transcribers to double the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? for if it were read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the sense be, women in public Assemblies must wear a veil, by reason of the Companies of the young men there present, it would be no ill exchange for the loss of a letter, to make so probable so clear a sense of the place. But the instances in this kind, are too many, as appears in the variety of readings in several Copies proceeding from the negligence or ignorance of the Transcribers, or the malicious 
* Graeci corruperunt novum Testamentum ut testantur Tertul. l. 5. adv. Martion. Euseb. l. 5. Hist. c. ult. Irenae. l. 1. c. 29. allu. haerel. Basil. l. 2. contr. Eunomium.  endeavour of Heretics, or the inserting Marginal Notes into the Text, or the nearness of several words. Indeed there is so much evidence of this particular, that it hath encouraged the servants of the Vulgar Translation (for so some are now adays) to prefer that Translation before the Original; for although they have attempted that proposition with very ill success yet that they could think it possible to be proved, is an Argument there is much variety and alterations in divers Texts; for if they were not, it were impudence to pretend a Translation, and that none of the best, should be better than the Original. But so it is that this variety of reading is not of slight consideration; for although it be demonstrably true, that all things necessary to Faith and good manners are preserved from alteration and corruption, because they are of things necessary, and they could not be necessary, unless they were delivered to us, God in his goodness and his justice having obliged himself to preserve that which he hath bound us to observe and keep; yet in other things which God hath not obliged himself so punctually to preserve, in these things since variety of reading is crept in, every reading takes away a degree of certainty from any proposition derivative from those places so read: And if some Copies (especially if they be public and notable) omit a verse or title, every argument from such a title or verse loses much of its strength and reputation; and we find it in a great instance. For when in probation of the mystery of the glorious Unity in Trinity, we allege that saying of S. John [there are three which bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one:] the Antitrinitarians think they have answered the Argument by saying the Syrian Translation, and divers Greek Copies have not that verse in them, and therefore being of doubtful Authority, cannot conclude with certainty in a Question of Faith. And there is an instance on the Catholic part. For when the Arrians urge the saying of our Saviour, [No man knows that day and hour (viz. of Judgement) no not the Son, but the Father only], to prove that the Son knows not all things, and therefore cannot be God in the proper sense; S. Ambrose thinks he hath answered the Argument by saying, those words [no not the Son] was thrust into the Text by the fraud of the Arrians. So that here we have one objection, which must first be cleared and made infallible, before we can be ascertained in any such Question as to call them Heretics that descent.  
2. I consider that there are very many senses and designs of 
Numb. 5.  expounding Scripture, and when the Grammatical sense is found out, we are many times never the nearer; it is not that which was intended; for there is in very many Scriptures a double sense, a literal and a Spiritual (for the Scripture is a Book written within and without (Apoc. 5.) And both these senses are subdivided. For the literal sense is either natural or figurative: And the Spiritual is sometimes allegorical, sometimes anogogicall, nay, sometimes there are divers literal senses in the same sentence, as S. Austin excellently proves in divers 
* Lib. 12. confess, cap. 26. Lib. 11. de Civit. Dei. c. 19 Li. 3. de doctrinâ Christ. cap. 27.  places, and it appears in divers quotations in the New Testament, where the Apostles and Divine Writers bring the same Testimony to divers purposes; and particularly, S. Paul's making that saying of the Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, to be an Argument of Christ's Resurrection, and a designation or ordination to his Pontificate is an instance very famous in his 1. and 5. chapter to the Hebrews. But now there being such variety of senses in Scripture, and but few places so marked out, as not to be capable of divers senses, if men will write Commentaries, as Herode made Orations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what infallible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be left whereby to judge of the certain dogmatic resolute sense of such places which have been the matter of Question? For put case a Question were commenced concerning the degrees of glory in heaven, as there is in the Schools a noted one, To show an inequality of reward, Christ's Parable is brought of the reward of ten Cities, and of five according to the divers improvement of the Talents; this sense is mystical, and yet very probable, and understood by men for aught I know, to this very sense. And the result of the Argument is made good by S. Paul, as one star differeth from another in glory; so shall it be in the resurrection of the dead. Now suppose another should take the same liberty of Expounding another Parable to a mystical sense and Interpretation, as all Parables must be expounded; then the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, and though differing in labour, yet having an equal reward, to any man's understanding may seem very strongly to prove the contrary, and as if it were of purpose, and that it were primum intentum of the Parable, the Lord of the Vineyard determined the point resolutely upon the mutiny and repining of them that had born the burden and heat of the day, I will give unto this last even as to thee; which to my sense seems to determine the Question of degrees; They that work but little, and they that work long, shall not be distinguished in the reward, though accidentally they were in the work: And if this opinion could but answer S. Paul's words, it stands as fair, and perhaps fairer than the other. Now if we look well upon the words of S. Paul, we shall find he speaks nothing at all of diversity of degrees of glory in beatified bodies, but the differences of glory in bodies heavenly and earthly. There are (says he) bodies earthly, and there are heavenly bodies: And one is the glory of the earthly, another the glory of the heavenly; one glory of the Sun, another of the Moon, etc. So shall it be in the Resurrection; for it is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. Plainly thus, our bodies in the Resurrection shall differ as much from our bodies here in the state of corruption, as one Star does from another. And now suppose a Sect should be commenced upon this Question (upon lighter and vainer many have been) either side must resolve to answer the others Arguments, whether they can or no, and to deny to each other a liberty of expounding the parable to such a sense, and yet themselves must use it or want an Argument. But men use to be unjust in their own cases; And were it not better to leave each other to their liberty and seek to preserve their own charity? For when the words are capable of a mystical or a divers sense, I know not why men's fancies or understandings should be more bound to be like one another then their faces: And either in all such places of Scripture, a liberty must be indulged to every honest and peaceable wise man, or else all Argument from such places must be wholly declined. Now although I instanced in a Question, which by good fortune never came to open defiance, yet there have been Sects framed upon lighter grounds, more inconsiderable Questions, which have been disputed on either side with Arguments less material and less pertinent. S. Austin laughed at the Donatists, for bringing that saying of the Spouse in the Canticles to prove their Schism, Indica mihi ubi pascas, ubi cubes in meridie. For from thence they concluded the residence of the Church was only in the South part of the world, only in Africa. It was but a weak way of Argument; yet the Fathers were free enough to use such mediums, to prove mysteries of great 
Hieron. in Matth. 13.  concernment; but yet again, when they speak either against an Adversary, or with consideration, they deny that such mystical senses can sufficiently confirm a Question of Faith. But I shall instance in the great Question of Rebaptisation of Heretics, which many Saints, and Martyrs, and Confessors, and divers Counsels, and almost all Asia and Africa did once believe and practise. Their grounds for the invalidity of the baptism by a Heretic, were such mystical words as these, Oleum peccatoris non impinguet caput meum Ps. 140. And Qui baptizatur à mortuo, quid proficit lavatio ejus? Ecclus 34. And ab aquâ alienâ abstinete, Prov. 5. And Deus peccatores non exaudit, Joh. 9 And he that is not with me is against me, Luk. 11. I am not sure the other part had Arguments so good. For the great one of una fides, unum baptisma, did not conclude it to their understandings who were of the other opinion, and men famous in their generations; for it was no Argument that they who had been baptised by John's baptism should not be baptised in the name of Jesus, because unus Deus, unum baptisma; and as it is still one Faith which a man confesseth several times, and one Sacrament of the Eucharist, though a man often communicates; so it might be one baptism though often ministered. And the unity of baptism might not be derived from the unity of the ministration, but from the unity of the Religion into which they are baptised; though baptised a thousand times, yet because it was still in the name of the holy Trinity, still into the death of Christ, it might be unum baptisma. Whether S. Cyprian, Firmilian, and their Colleagues had this discourse or no (I know not) I am sure they might have had much better to have evacuated the force of that Argument, although I believe they had the wrong cause in hand. But this is it that I say, that when a Question is so undetermined in Scripture, that the Arguments rely only upon such mystical places whence the best fancies can draw the greatest variety, and such which perhaps were never intended by the holy Ghost, it were good the rivers did not swell higher than the fountain, and the confidence higher than the Argument and evidence; for in this case there could not any thing be so certainly proved, as that the disagreeing party should deserve to be condemned by a sentence of Excommunication for disbelieving it, and yet they were; which I wonder at so much the more, because they (who as it was since judged) had the right cause, had not any sufficient Argument from Scripture, not so much as such mystical Arguments, but did fly to the Tradition of the Church, in which also I shall afterward show, they had nothing that was absolutely certain.  
3. I consider that there are divers places of Scripture containing 
Numb. 6.  in them mysteries and Questions of great concernment, and yet the fabric and constitution is such, that there is no certain mark to determine whether the sense of them should be literal or figurative; I speak not here concerning extrinsecall means of determination, as traditive Interpretation, Counsels, Fathers, Popes, and the like; I shall consider them afterward in their several places; but here the subject matter being concerning Scripture in its own capacity, I say there is nothing in the nature of the thing to determine the sense and meaning, but it must be gotten out as it can; and that therefore it is unreasonable, that what of itself is ambiguous should be understood in its own prime sense and intention, under the pain of either a sin or an Anathema; I instance in that famous place from whence hath sprung that Question of Transubstantiation, Hoc est corpus meum. The words are plain and clear, apt to be understood in the literal sense and yet this sense is so hard as it does violence to reason, and therefore it is the Question whether or no it be not a figurative speech. But here what shall we have to determine it? What mean soever we take, and to what sense soever you will expound it, you shall be put to give an account why you expound other places of Scripture in the same case to quite contrary senses. For if you expound it literally, then besides that it seems to entrench upon the words of our blessed Saviour, The words that I speak they are Spirit and they are life, that is, to be spiritually understood (and it is a miserable thing to see what wretched shifts are used to reconcile the literal sense to these words, and yet to distinguish it from the Capernaitical fancy) but besides this, why are not those other say of Christ expounded literally, I am a Vine, I am the Door, I am a Rock? Why do we fly to a figure in those parallel words? This is the Covenant which I make between me and you; and yet that Covenant was but the sign of the Covenant; and why do we fly to a figure in a precept, as well as in mystery and a proposition? If thy right hand offend thee cut it off; and yet we have figures enough to save a limb. If it be said because reason tells us these are not to be expounded according to the letter; This will be no plea for them who retain the literal exposition of the other instance▪ against all reason, against all Philosophy, against all sense, and against two or three sciences. But if you expound these words figuratively, besides that you are to contest against a world of prejudices you give yourself the liberty, which if others will use when either they have a reason or a necessity so to do, they may perhaps turn all into Allegory, and so may evacuate any precept, and elude any Argument. Well, so it is that very wise men have expounded things 
* Sic S Hieron. In ad ●es●entiâ provocatus ardore & study Scriptuarum allegoricè interpretatus sum Abdiam Prophetam, cujus historiam nesciebam. De sensu Allegorico S. Script. dixit Basilius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Allegorically, when they should have expounded them literally. So did the famous Origen, who as S. Hierom reports of him, turned Paradise so into an Allegory, that he took away quite the truth of the Story, and not only Adam was turned out of the Garden, but the Garden itself out of Paradise. Others expound things literally when they should understand them in Allegory; so did the Ancient Papias understand (Apocal. 20.) Christ's Millenary reign upon earth, and so, depressed the hopes of Christianity and their desires to the longing and expectation of temporal pleasures and satisfactions, and he was followed by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, and indeed the whole Church generally till S. Austin and S. Hierom's time who first of any whose works are extant did reprove the error. If such great spirits be deceived in finding out what kind of senses 
L. 23. de Civit. Dei, c 7. praefat. ●. 19 in Isai. & in c. 36. Ezek.  be to be given to Scriptures, it may well be endured that we who sit at their feet, may also tread in the steps of them whose feet could not always tread aright.  
4. I consider that there are some places of Scripture that 
Numb. 7.  have the self same expressions, the same preceptive words, the same reason and account in all appearance, and yet either must be expounded to quite different senses, or else we must renounce the Communion, and the charities of a great part of Christendom. And yet there is absolutely nothing in the thing or in its circumstances, or in its adjuncts that can determine it to different purposes. I instance in those great exclusive negatives for the necessity of both Sacraments. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ etc. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, etc. a non introibit in regnum coelorum for both these. Now than the first is urged for the absolute indispensable necessity of baptism even in Infants, insomuch that Infants go to part of Hell if (inculpably both on their own and their Parent's part) they miss of baptism, for that is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, which they learned from S. Austin, and others also do from hence baptise Infants, though with a less opinion of its absolute necessity. And yet the same manner of precept in the same form of words, in the same manner of threatening, by an exclusive negative, shall not enjoin us to communicate Infants, though damnation (at least in form of words) be exactly and per omnia alike appendent to the neglect of holy Baptism and the venerable Eucharist. If [nisi quis renatus] shall conclude against the Anabaptist, for necessity of baptising Infants (as sure enough we say, it does) why shall not an equal [nisi comederitis] bring Infants to the holy Communion? The Primitive Church for some two whole Ages did follow their own principles, where ever they lead them; and seeing that upon the same ground equal results must follow, they did Communicate Infants as soon as they had baptised them. And why the Church of Rome should not do so too, being she expounds [nisi comederitis] of oral manducation, I cannot yet learn a reason. And for others that expound it of a spiritual manducation, why they shall not allow the disagreeing part the same liberty of expounding [nisi quis renatus] too, I by no means can understand. And in these cases no external determiner can be pretended in answer. For whatsoever is extrinsecall to the words, as Counsels, Tradition, Church Authority, and Fathers, either have said nothing at all, or have concluded by their practice contrary to the present opinion, as is plain in their communicating Infants by virtue of [nisi comederitis.]  
5. I shall not need to urge the mysteriousness of some points in Scripture, which ex natura rei are hard to be understood 
Numb. 8.  though very plainly represented. For there are some secreta Theologiae, which are only to be understood by persons very holy and spiritual, which are rather to be felt then discoursed of, and therefore if peradventure they be offered to public consideration, they will therefore be opposed because they run the same fortune with many other Questions, that is, not to be understood, and so much the rather because their understanding, that is, the feeling such secrets of the Kingdom, are not the results of Logic and Philosophy, nor yet of public revelation, but of the public spirit privately working, and in no man is a duty but in all that have it, is a reward, and is not necessary for all, but given to some, producing its operations, not regularly, but upon occasions, personal necessities and new emergencies. Of this nature are the spirit of obsignation, belief of particular salvation, special influences and comforts coming from a sense of the spirit of adoption, actual fervours and great complacencies in devotion spiritual joys, which are little drawings aside of the curtains of peace and eternity, and antepasts of immortality. But the not understanding the perfect constitution and temper of these mysteries (and it is hard for any man so to understand, as to make others do so too that feel them not) is cause that in many Questions of secret Theology, by being very apt and easy to be mistaken, there is a necessity in forbearing one another; and this consideration would have been of good use in the Question between Soto and Catharinus, both for the preservation of their charity and explication of the mystery.  
6. But here it will not be unseasonable to consider, that 
Numb. 9  all systems and principles of science are expressed so that either by reason of the Universality of the terms and subject matter or the infinite variety of humane understandings, and these peradventure swayed by interest, or determined by things accidental and extrinsecall, they seem to divers men, nay to the same men upon divers occasions to speak things extremely disparate and sometimes contrary, but very often of great variety. And this very thing happens also in Scripture; that if it were not in re sacrâ & seria, it were excellent sport to observe how the same place of Scripture serves several turns upon occasion, and they at that time believe the words sound nothing else, whereas in the liberty of their judgement and abstracting from that occasion, their Commentaries understand them wholly to a differing sense. It is a wonder of what excellent use to the Church of Rome, is [tibi dabo claves:] It was spoken to Peter and none else (sometimes) and therefore it concerns him and his Successors only; the rest are to derive from him. And yet if you Question them for their Sacrament of Penance, and Priestly Absolution, then tibi dabo claves comes in, and that was spoken to S. Peter, and in him to the whole College of the Apostles, and in them to the whole Hierarchy. If you question why the Pope pretends to free souls from Purgatory, tibi dabo claves is his warrant; but if you tell him the Keys are only for binding and losing on Earth directly, and in Heaven consequently; and that Purgatory is a part of Hell, or rather neither Earth nor Heaven nor Hell, and so the Keys seem to have nothing to do with it, than his Commission is to be enlarged by a suppletory of reason and consequences, and his Keys shall unlock this difficulty; for it is clavis scientiae as well as authoritatis. And these Keys shall enable him to expound Scriptures infallibly, to determine Questions, to preside in Counsels, to dictate to all the World Magisterially, to rule the Church, to dispense with Oaths, to abrogate Laws: And if his Key of knowledge will not, the Key of Authority shall, and tibi dabo claves shall answer for all. We have an instance in the single fancy of one man, what rare variety of matter is afforded from those plain words of [Oravi pro te Petre] Luk. 22. for that place says Bellarmine, is otherwise to be understood of Peter, otherwise of the Popes, and otherwise of the Church of Rome. And [pro te] 
Bellar. lib. 1. de Pontif. c. 3. § respondeo primò.  signifies that Christ prayed that Peter might neither err personally nor judicially, and that Peter's Successors if they did err personally, might not err judicially, and that the Roman Church might not err personally. All this variety of sense is pretended by the fancy of one man, to be in a few words which are as plain and simple as are any words in Scripture. And what then in those thousands that are intricate? So is done with pasce oves, which a man would think were a commission as innocent and guiltless of designs, as the sheep in the folds are. But if it be asked why the Bishop of Rome calls himself Universal Bishop, pasce oves is his warrant? Why he pretends to a power of deposing Princes, Pasce oves, said Christ to Peter, the second time. If it be demanded why also he pretends to a power of authorising his subjects to kill him, Pasce agnos said Christ the third time: And pasce is doce, and pasce is Impera, and pasce is occide. Now if others should take the same (unreasonableness I will not say, but the same) liberty in expounding Scripture, or if it be not licence taken, but that the Scripture itself is so full and redundant in senses quite contrary, what man soever, or what company of men soever shall use this principle, will certainly find such rare productions from several places, that either the unreasonableness of the thing will discover the error of the proceeding, or else there will be a necessity of permitting a great liberty of judgement, where is so infinite variety without limit or mark of necessary determination. If the first, then because an error is so obvious and ready to ourselves, it will be great imprudence or tyranny to be hasty in judging others; but if the latter, it is it that I contend for: for it is most unreasonable, when either the thing itself ministers variety, or that we take licence to ourselves in variety of interpretations, or proclaim to all the world our great weakness, by our actually being deceived, that we should either prescribe to others magisterially when we are in error, or limit their understandings when the thing itself affords liberty and variety.   

SECT. iv  
Of the difficulty of Expounding Scripture.  
THese considerations are taken from the nature of Scripture itself; but then if we consider that we have no certain 
Numb. 1.  ways of determining places of difficulty and Question, infallibly and certainly, but that we must hope to be saved in the belief of things plain, necessary and fundamental, and our pious endeavour to find out God's meaning in such places which he hath left under a cloud for other great ends reserved to his own knowledge, we shall see a very great necessity in allowing a liberty in Prophesying without prescribing authoritatively to other men's consciences, and becoming Lords and Masters of their Faith. Now the means of expounding Scripture are either external, or internal. For the external, as Church Authority, Tradition, Fathers, Counsels and Decrees of Bishops, they are of a distinct consideration, and follow after in their order. But here we will first consider the invalidity and uncertainty of all those means of expounding Scripture which are more proper and internal to the nature of the thing. The great Masters of Commentaries, some whereof have undertaken to know all mysteries, have propounded many ways to expound Scripture, which indeed are excellent helps, but not infallible assistances, both because themselves are but moral instruments which force not truth ex abscondito, as also because they are not infallibly used and applied. 1. Sometime the sense is drawn forth by the context and connexion of parts: It is well when it can be so. But when there is two or three antecedents, and subjects spoken of, what man or what rule shall ascertain me that I make my reference true by drawing the relation to such an antecedent; to which I have a mind to apply it, another hath not. For in a contexture where one part does not always depend upon another, Where things of differing natures intervene and interrupt the first intentions, there it is not always very probable to expound Scripture, take its meaning by its proportion to the neighbouring words. But who desires satisfaction in this, may read the observation verified in S. Gregory's morals upon Job, lib. 5. c. 29. and the instances he there brings are excellent proof, that this way of Interpretation does not warrant any man to impose his Expositions upon the belief and understanding of other men too confidently and magisterially.  
2. Another great pretence of medium is the conference of places, which Illyricus calls ingens remedium & faelicissimam expositionem 
Numb. 2.  sanctae scripturae; and indeed so it is if well and temperately used; but then we are beholding to them that do so; for there is no rule that can constrain them to it; for comparing of places is of so indefinite capacity, that if there be ambiguity of words, variety of sense, alteration of circumstances, or difference of stile amongst Divine Writers, than there is nothing that may be more abused by wilful people, or may more easily deceive the unwary, or that may amuse the most intelligent Observer. The Anabaptists take advantage enough in this proceeding, (and indeed so may any one that list) and when we pretend against them the necessity of baptising all, by authority of nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ & spiritu, they have a parallel for it, and tell us that Christ will baptise us with the holy Ghost and with fire, and that one place expounds the other; and because by fire is not meant an Element or any thing that is natural, but an Allegory and figurative expression of the same thing; so also by water may be meant the figure signifying the effect or manner of operation of the holy Spirit. Fire in one place, and water in the other, do but represent to us that Christ's baptism is nothing else but the cleansing and purifying us by the holy Ghost; But that which I here note as of greatest concernment, and which in all reason ought to be an utter overthrow to this topique, is an universal abuse of it among those that use it most, and when two places seem to have the same expression, or if a word have a double signification, because in this place it may have such a sense, therefore it must, because in one of the places the sense is to their purpose, they conclude that therefore it must be so in the other too. An instance I give in the great Question between the Socinians and the Catholics. If any place be urged in which our blessed Saviour is called God, they show you two or three where the word God is taken in a depressed sense, for a quasi Deus, as when God said to Moses, Constitui te Deum Pharaonis; and hence they argue, because I can show the word is used for a Deus factus, therefore no Argument is sufficient to prove Christ to be Deus verus from the appellative of Deus. And might not another argue to the exact contrary, and as well urge that Moses is Deus verus, because in some places the word Deus is used pro Deo aeterno: Both ways the Argument concludes impiously and unreasonably. It is a fallacy à posse ad esse affirmatiuè; because breaking of bread is sometimes used for an Eucharistical manducation in Scripture; therefore I shall not from any testimony of Scripture affirming the first Christians to have broken bread together, conclude that they lived hospitably and in common society. Because it may possibly be eluded, therefore it does not signify any thing. And this is the great way of answering all the Arguments that can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mind to defend; and any man that reads any controversies of any side, shall find as many instances of this vanity almost as he finds Arguments from Scripture; this fault was of old noted by S. Austin, for than they had got the trick, and he is angry at it, neque enim putare debemus 
De doctri. Christian. lib. 3.  esse praescriptum, ut quod in aliquo loco res aliqua per similitudinem significaverit, hoc etiam semper significare credamus.  
3. Oftentimes Scriptures are pretended to be expounded by 
Numb. 3.  a proportion and Analogy of reason. And this is as the other, if it be well, it's well. But unless there were some intellectus universalis furnished with infallible propositions, by referring to which every man might argue infallibly, this Logic may deceive as well as any of the rest. For it is with reason as with men's tastes; although there are some general principles which are reasonable to all men, yet every man is not able to draw out all its consequences, nor to understand them when they are drawn forth, nor to believe when he does understand them. There is a precept of S. Paul directed to the Thessalonians before they were gathered into a body of a Church, 2 Thes. 3. 6. To withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly. But if this precept were now observed, I would feign know whether we should not fall into that inconvenience which S. Paul sought to avoid in giving the same commandment to the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 5. 9 I wrote to you that ye should not company with fornicators; And yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, for than ye must go out of the world: And therefore he restrains it to a quitting the society of Christians living ill lives. But now that all the world hath been Christians, if we should sin in keeping company with vicious Christians, must we not also go out of this world? Is not the precept made null, because the reason is altered, and things are come about, and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called brethren, as S. Paul's phrase is? And yet either this never was considered, or not yet believed; for it is generally taken to be obligatory, though (I think) seldom practised. But when we come to expound Scriptures to a certain sense by Arguments drawn from prudential motives, than we are in a vast plain without any sufficient guide, and we shall have so many senses, as there are humane prudences. But that which goes further than this, is a parity of reason from a plain place of Scripture to an obscure, from that which is plainly set down in a Text to another that is more remote from it. And thus is that place in S. Matthew forced, If thy brother refuse to be amended, Dic ecclesiae. Hence some of the Roman Doctors argue, If Christ commands to tell the Church in case of adultery or private injury, then much more in case of heresy. Well, suppose this to be a good Interpretation; Why must I stay here? Why may not I also add by a parity of reason, If the Church must be told of heresy, much more of treason: And why may not I reduce all sins to the cognizance of a Church tribunal, as some men do indirectly, and Snecanus does hearty and plainly? If a man's principles be good, and his deductions certain, he need not care whether they carry him. But when an Authority is entrusted to a person, and the extent of his power expressed in his commission, it will not be safety to meddle beyond his commission upon confidence of a parity of reason. To instance once more; When Christ in pasce oves & tu es Petrus, gave power to the Pope to govern the Church (for to that sense the Church of Rome expounds those Authorities) by a certain consequence of reason, say they, he gave all things necessary for exercise of this jurisdiction, and therefore in pasce oves] he gave him an indirect power over temporals, for that is necessary that he may do his duty: Well, having gone thus fare, we will go further upon the parity of reason, therefore he hath given the Pope the gift of tongues, and he hath given him power to give it; for how else shall Xavier convert the Indians? He hath given him also power to command the Seas and the winds, that they should obey him, for this also is very necessary in some cases. And so pasce oves is accipe donum linguarum, and Impera ventis, & dispone regum diademata, & laicorum praedia, and influentias caeli too, and whatsoever the parity of reason will judge equally necessary in order to pasce outs; when a man does speak reason, it is but reason he should be heard; but though he may have the good fortune, or the great abilities to do it, yet he hath not a certainty, no regular infallible assistance, no inspiration of Arguments and deductions; and if he had, yet because it must be reason that must judge of reason, unless other men's understandings were of the same air, the same constitution and ability, they cannot be prescribed unto, by another man's reason; especially because such reasonings as usually are in explication of particular places of Scripture, depend upon minute circumstances and particularities, in which it is so easy to be deceived, and so hard to speak reason regularly and always, that it is the greater wonder if we be not deceived.  
4. Others pretend to expound Scripture by the analogy of 
Numb. 4.  Faith, and that is the most sure and infallible way (as it is thought:) But upon stricter survey it is but a Chimaera, a thing in nubibus which varies like the right hand and left hand of a Pillar, and at the best is but like the Coast of a Country to a Traveller out of his way; It may bring him to his journeys end though twenty mile about; it may keep him from running into the Sea, and from mistaking a river for dry land; but whether this little path or the other be the right way it tells not. So is the analogy of Faith, that is, if I understand it right, the rule of Faith, that is the Creed. Now were it not a fine device to go to expound all the Scripture by the Creed, there being in it so many thousand places which have no more relation to any Article in the Creed, than they have to Tityre tu patula? Indeed if a man resolves to keep the analogy of Faith, that is to expound Scripture, so as not to do any violence to any fundamental Article, he shall be sure however he errs, yet not to destroy Faith, he shall not perish in his Exposition. And that was the precept given by S. Paul, that all Prophesyings should be estimated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 6. 12. and to this very purpose, S. Austin in his Exposition of Genesis, by way of Preface sets down the Articles of Faith, with this design and protestation of it, that if he says nothing against those Articles, though he miss the particular sense of the place, there is no danger, or sin in his Exposition; but how that analogy of Faith should have any other influence in expounding such places in which those Articles of Faith are neither expressed, nor involved, I understand not. But then if you extend the analogy of Faith further than that which is proper to the rule of Symbol of Faith, than every man expounds Scripture according to the analogy of Faith; but what? His own Faith: which Faith if it be questioned, I am no more bound to expound according to the analogy of another man's Faith, than he to expound according to the analogy of mine. And this is it that is complained on of all sides that overvalue their own opinions. Scripture seems so clearly to speak what they believe, that they wonder all the world does not see it as clear as they do; but they satisfy themselves with saying that it is because they come with prejudice, whereas if they had the true belief, that is, theirs, they would easily see what they see. And this is very true: For if they did believe as others believe, they would expound Scriptures to their sense; but if this be expounding according to the analogy of Faith, it signifies no more than this, Be you of my mind and then my Arguments will seem concluding and my Authorities and Allegations pressing and pertinent: And this will serve on all sides, and therefore will do but little service to the determination of Questions, or prescribing to other men's consciences on any side.  
Lastly, Consulting the Originals is thought a great matter 
Numb. 5.  to Interpretation of Scriptures. But this is to small purpose: For indeed it will expound the Hebrew and the Greek, and rectify Translations. But I know no man that says that the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek are easy and certain to be understood, and that they are hard in Latin and English: The difficulty is in the thing however it be expressed, the least is in the language. If the Original Languages were our mother tongue, Scripture is not much the easier to us; and a natural Greek or a Jew, can with no more reason, nor authority obtrude his Interpretations upon other men's consciences, than a man of another Nation. Add to this that the inspection of the Original, is no more certain way of Interpretation of Scripture now than it was to the Fathers and Primitive Ages of the Church; and yet he that observes what infinite variety of Translations of the Bible were in the first Ages of the Church (as S. Hierom observes) and never a one like another; will think that we shall differ as much in our Interpretations as they did, and that the medium is as uncertain to us as it was to them; and so it is; witness the great number of late Translations, and the infinite number of Commentaries, which are too pregnant an Argument that we neither agree in the understanding of the words nor of the sense.  
The truth is, all these ways of Interpreting of Scripture which of themselves are good helps, are made either by design, 
Numb. 6.  or by our infirmites' ways of intricating and involving Scriptures in greater difficulty, because men do not learn their doctrines from Scripture, but come to the understanding of Scripture with preconceptions and ideas of doctrines of their own, and then no wonder that Scriptures look like Pictures, wherein every man in the room believes they look on him only, and that wheresoever he stands, or how often soever he changes his station. So that now what was intended for a remedy, becomes the promoter of our disease, and our meat becomes the matter of sicknesses: And the mischief is, the wit of man cannot find a remedy for it; for there is no rule, no limit, no certain principle, by which all men may be guided to a certain and so infallible an Interpretation, that he can with any equity prescribe to others to believe his Interpretations in places of controversy or ambiguity. A man would think that the memorable Prophecy of Jacob, that the Sceptre should not departed from Judah till Shiloh come, should have been so clear a determination of the time of the Messiah, that a Jew should never have doubted it to have been verified in Jesus of Nazareth; and yet for this so clear vaticination, they have no less than twenty six Answers. S. Paul and S. James seem to speak a little diversely concerning Justification by Faith and Works, and yet to my understanding it is very easy to reconcile them: but all men are not of my mind; for Osiander in his confutation of the book which Melanchton wrote against him, observes, that there are twenty several opinions concerning justification, all drawn from the Scriptures, by the men only of the Augustan Confession. There are sixteen several opinions concerning original sin; and as many definitions of the Sacraments as there are Sects of men that disagree about them.  
And now what help is there for us in the midst of these uncertainties? If we follow any one Translation, or any one 
Numb. 7.  man's Commentary, what rule shall we have to choose the right by? or is there any one man, that hath translated perfectly, or expounded infallibly? No Translation challenges such a prerogative as to be authentic, but the Vulgar Latin; and yet see with what good success: For when it was declared authentic by the Council of Trent, Sixtus put forth a Copy much mended of what it was, and tied all men to follow that; but that did not satisfy; for Pope Clement reviews and corrects it in many places, and still the Decree remains in a changed subject. And secondly, that Translation will be very unapt to satisfy, in which one of their own men Isidore Clarius a Monk of Brescia, found and mended eight thousand faults, besides innumerable others which he says he pretermitted. And then thirdly, to show how little themselves were satisfied with it, divers learned men amongst them did new translate the Bible, and thought they did God and the Church good service in it. So that if you take this for your precedent, you are sure to be mistaken infinitely: If you take any other, the Authors themselves do not promise you any security. If you resolve to follow any one as fare only as you see cause, than you only do wrong or right by chance; for you have certainty just proportionable to your own skill, to your own infallibility. If you resolve to follow any one, whether soever he leads, we shall oftentimes come thither where we shall see ourselves become ridiculous, as it happened in the case of Spiridion Bishop of Cyprus, who so resolved to follow his old book, that when an eloquent Bishop who was desired to Preach, read his Text, Tu autem tolle cubile tuum & ambula; Spiridion was very angry with him, because in his book it was tolle lectum tuum, and thought it arrogance in the preacher to speak better Latin than his Translator had done: And if it be thus in Translations, it is fare worse in Expositions: [Quia scil. Scripturam sacram pro ipsa sui altitudine non uno eodemque sensu omnes accipiunt, ut penè quot homines tot illic sententiae erui posse videantur, said Vincent Lirinensis] in which every man knows 
In Commonit.  what innumerable ways there are of being mistaken, God having in things not simply necessary left such a difficulty upon those parts of Scripture which are the subject matters of controversy ad edomandam labore superbiam, & intellectum à fastidio revocandum (as S. Austin gives a reason) that all that err honestly, are therefore to be pitied, and tolerated, because 
Lib. 2. de doctr. Christian. c. 6.  it is or may be the condition of every man at one time or other.  
The sum is this: Since holy Scripture is the repository 
Numb. 8.  of divine truths, and the great rule of Faith, to which all Sects of Christians do appeal for probation of their several opinions, and since all agree in the Articles of the Creed as things clearly and plainly set down, and as containing all that which is of simple and prime necessity; and since on the other side there are in Scripture many other mysteries, and matters of Question upon which there is a veil; since there are so many Copies with infinite varieties of reading; since a various Interpunction, a parenthesis, a letter, an accent may much alter the sense; since some places have divers literal senses, many have spiritual, mystical and Allegorical meanings; since there are so many tropes, metonymies, ironies, hyperboles, proprieties and improprieties of language, whose understanding depends upon such circumstances that it is almost impossible to know its proper Interpretation; [now that the knowledge of such circumstances and particular stories is irrevocably lost: since there are some mysteries which at the best advantage of expression, are not easy to be apprehended, and whose explication, by reason of our imperfections, must needs be dark, sometimes weak, sometimes unintelligle: and lastly, since those ordinary means of expounding Scripture, as searching the Originals, conference of places, parity of reason, and analogy of Faith, are all dubious, uncertain, and very fallible, he that is the wisest and by consequence the likeliest to expound truest in all probability of reason, will be very fare from confidence, because every one of these and many more are like so many degrees of improbability and incertainty, all depressing our certainty of finding out truth in such mysteries and amidst so many difficulties. And therefore a wise man that considers this, would not willingly be prescribed to by others; and therefore if he also be a just man, he will not impose upon others; for it is best every man should be left in that liberty from which no man can justly take him, unless he could secure him from error: So that here also there is a necessity to conserve the liberty of Prophesying, and Interpreting Scripture; a necessity derived from the consideration of the difficulty of Scripture in Questions controverted, and the uncertainty of any internal medium, of Interpretation.   

SECT. V  
Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to Expound Scripture, or determine Questions.  
IN the next place, we must consider those extrinsecall means 
Numb. 1.  of Interpreting Scripture, and determining Questions, which they most of all confide in that restrain Prophesying with the greatest Tyranny. The first and principal is Tradition, which is pretended not only to expound Scripture (Necesse enim est 
Vincent. Lirinens. in Commonitor.  propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus, ut Propheticae & Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici & Catholici sensus normam dirigatur:) but also to propound Articles upon a distinct stock, such Articles whereof there is no mention and proposition in Scripture. And in this topic, not only the distinct Articles are clear and plain, like as the fundamentals of Faith expressed in Scripture, but also it pretends to expound Scripture, and to determine Questions with so much clarity and certainty, as there shall neither be error nor doubt remaining, and therefore not disagreeing is here to be endured. And indeed it is most true if Tradition can perform these pretensions, and teach us plainly, and assure us infallibly of all truths, which they require us to believe, we can in this case have no reason to disbelieve them, and therefore are certainly Heretics if we do, because without a crime, without some humane interest or collateral design, we cannot disbelieve traditive Doctrine or traditive Interpretation, if it be infallibly proved to us that tradition is an infallible guide.  
But here I first consider that tradition is no repository of 
Numb. 2.  Articles of Faith, and therefore the not following it is no Argument of heresy; for besides that I have showed Scripture in its plain expresses to be an abundant rule of Faith and manners, Tradition is a topic as fallible as any other; so fallible that it cannot be sufficient evidence to any man in a matter of Faith or Question of heresy.  
For 1. I find that the Fathers were infinitely deceived in 
Numb. 3.  their account and enumeration of Traditions, sometimes they did call some Traditions, such, not which they knew to be so, but by Arguments and presumptions they concluded them so. Such as was that of S. Austin, ca quae universalis tenet Ecclesia nec à Conciliis 
Epist. 118. ad januar. De bapt. contr. Donat. lib. 4. c. 24.  instituta reperiuntur, credibile est ab Apostolorum traditione descendisse. Now suppose this rule probable, that's the most, yet it is not certain; It might come by custom, whose Original was not known, but yet could not derive from an Apostolical principle. Now when they conclude of particular Traditions by a general rule, and that general rule not certain, but at the most probable in any thing, and certainly false in some things, it is wonder if the productions, that is, their judgements, and pretence fail so often. And if I should but instance in all the particulars, in which Tradition was pretended falsely or uncertainly in the first Ages, I should multiply them to a troublesome variety; for it was then accounted so glorious a thing to have spoken with the persons of the Apostles, that if any man could with any colour pretend to it, he might abuse the whole Church, and obtrude what he listed under the specious title of Apostolical Tradition, and it is very notorious to every man that will but read and observe the Recognitions or stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus, where there is enough of such false wares showed in every book, and pretended to be no less then from the Apostles. In the first Age after the Apostles, Papias pretended he received a Tradition from the Apostles, that Christ before the day of Judgement should reign a thousand years upon Earth, and his Saints with him in temporal felicities; and this thing proceeding from so great an Authority as the testimony of Papias, drew after it all or most of the Christians in the first three hundred years. For besides, that the Millenary opinion is expressly taught by Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Origen, Lactantius, Severus, Victorinus, Apollinaris, Nepos, and divers others famous in their time, Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Tryphon says, it was the belief of all Christians exactly Orthodox, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet there was no such Tradition, but a mistake in Papias; but I find it nowhere spoke against, till Dionysins of Alexandria confuted Nepo's Book, and converted Coration the Egyptian from the opinion. Now if a Tradition whose beginning of being called so began with a Scholar of the Apostles (for so was Papias) and then continued for some Ages upon the mere Authority of so famous a man, did yet deceive the Church: much more fallible is the pretence, when two or three hundred years after, it but commences, and then by some learned man is first called a Tradition Apostolical. And so it happened in the case of the Arrian heresy, which the Nicene Fathers did confute by objecting a contrary Tradition Apostolical, as Theodoret reports; 
Lib. 1. hist. c. 8.  and yet if they had not had better Arguments from Scripture then from Tradition, they would have failed much in so good a cause; for this very pretence the Arrians themselves made, and desired to be tried by the Fathers of the first three hundred years, which was a confutation sufficient to them who pretended 
Vide Peta●: in Epiph. her. 69.  a clear Tradition, because it was unimaginable that the Tradition should leap so as not to come from the first to the last by the middle. But that this trial was sometime declined by that excellent man S. Athanasius, although at other times confidently and truly pretended, it was an Argument the Tradition was not so 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 Matt. di●l ad Tryph. jud.  clear, but both sides might with some fairness pretend to it. And therefore one of the prime Founders of their heresy, the Heretic 
† Euse. l. 5. c. ult.  Artemon having observed the advantage might be taken by any Sect that would pretend Tradition, because the medium was plausible and consisting of so many particulars, that it was hard to be redargued, pretended a Tradition from the Apostles, that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that the Tradition did descend by a constant succession in the Church of Rome to Pope Victor's time inclusively, and till Zepherinus had interrupted the series and corrupted the Doctrine; which pretence if it had not had some appearance of truth, so as possibly to abuse the Church, had not been worthy of confutation, which yet was with care undertaken by an old Writer, out of whom Eusebius transcribes a large passage to reprove the vanity of the pretender. But I observe from hence, that it was usual to pretend to Tradition, and that it was easier pretended than confuted, and I doubt not but oftener done then discovered. A great Question arose in Africa concerning the Baptism of Heretics, whether it were valid or no. S. Cyprian and his party appealed to Scripture; Stephen Bishop of Rome and his party, would be judged by custom and Tradition Ecclesiastical. See how much the nearer the Question was to a determination, either that probation was not accounted by S. Cyprian, and the Bishops both of Asia and afric, to be a good Argument, and sufficient to determine them, or there was no certain Tradition against them; for unless one of these two do it, nothing could excuse them from opposing a known truth, unless peradventure, S. Cyprian, Firmilian, the Bishops of Galatia, Cappadocia, and almost two parts of the World were ignorant of such a Tradition, for they knew of none such, and some of them expressly denied it. And the sixth general Synod approves of the Canon made in the Council of Carthage under Cyprian upon this very ground, because in praedictorum praesulum locis & solum secundum 
Can. 2.  traditam eis consuetudinem servatus est; they had a particular Tradition for Rebaptisation, and therefore there could be no Tradition Universal against it, or if there were they knew not of it, but much for the contrary; and than it would be remembered that a concealed Tradition was like a silent Thunder, or a Law not promulgated; it neither was known, nor was obligatory. And I shall observe this too, that this very Tradition was so obscure, and was so obscurely delivered, silently proclaimed, that S. Austin who disputed against the Donatists upon this very Question was not able to prove it, but 
L. 5. de baptism. contr. Donat. c. 23.  by a consequence which he thought probale and credible, as appears in his discourse against the Donatists. The Apostles, saith S. Austin, prescribed nothing in this particular: But this custom which is contrary to Cyprian ought to be believed to have come from their Tradition, as many other things which the Catholic Church observes. That's all the ground and all the reason; nay the Church did waver concerning that Question, and before the decision of a Council, Cyprian and others might descent without breach of charity. It was plain then there was no clear Tradition 
Lib. 1. de baptism. c. 18.  in the Question, possibly there might be a custom in some Church's postnate to the times of the Apostles, but nothing that was obligatory, no Tradition Apostolical. But this was a suppletory device ready at hand when ever they needed it; and 
De peccat. original. l. 2. c. 40. contra Pelagi. & Caelest.  S. Austin confuted the Pelagians, in the Question of Original sin, by the custom of exorcism and insufflation, which S. Austin said came from the Apostles by Tradition, which yet was then, and is now so impossible to be proved, that he that shall affirm it, shall gain only the reputation of a bold man and a confident.  
2. I consider if the report of Traditions in the Primitive 
Numb. 4.  times so near the Ages Apostolical was so uncertain, that they were fain to aim at them by conjectures, and grope as in the dark, the uncertainty is much increased since, because there are many famous Writers whose works are lost, which yet if they had continued, they might have been good records to us, as Clemens Romanus, Egesippus, Nepos, Coration, Dionysius Areopagite, of Alexandria, of Corinth, Firmilian and many more: And since we see pretences have been made without reason in those Ages where they might better have been confuted, then now they can, it is greater prudence to suspect any later pretences, since so many Sects have been, so many wars, so many corruptions in Authors, so many Authors lost, so much ignorance hath intervened, and so many interests have been served, that now the rule is to be altered; and whereas it was of old time credible, that that was Apostolical whose beginning they knew not, now quite contrary we cannot safely believe them to be Apostolical unless we do know their beginning to have been from the Apostles. For this consisting of probabilities and particulars, which put together make up a moral demonstration, the Argument which I now urge hath been growing these fifteen hundred years; and if anciently there was so much as to evacuate the Authority of Tradition, much more is there now absolutely to destroy it, when all the particulars, which time and infinite variety of humane accidents have been amassing together, are now concentred, and are united by way of constipation. Because every Age and every great change, and every heresy, and every interest, hath increased the difficulty of finding out true Traditions.  
3. There are very many Traditions which are lost, and yet they are concerning matters of as great consequence as most of 
Numb. 5.  those Questions for the determination whereof Traditions are pretended: It is more than probable, that as in Baptism and the Eucharist the very forms of ministration are transmitted to us, so also in confirmation and ordination, and that there were special directions for visitation of the sick, and explicit interpretations of those difficult places of S. Paul which S. Peter affirmed to be so difficult that the ignorant do wrest them to their own damnation, and yet no Church hath conserved these or those many more which S. Basil affirms to be so many that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the day would fail him in the very simple enumeration of all 
Cap. 29. despir. Sancto.  Traditions Ecclesiastical. And if the Church hath failed in keeping the great variety of Traditions, it will hardly be thought a fault in a private person to neglect Tradition, which either the whole Church hath very much neglected inculpably, or else the whose Church is very much too blame. And who can ascertain us that she hath not entertained some which are no Traditions as well as lost thousands that are? That she did entertain some false Traditions, I have already proved; but it is also as probable that some of those which these Ages did propound for Traditions, are not so, as it is certain that some which the first Ages called Traditions, were nothing less.  
4. There are some opinions which when they began to be publicly received, began to be accounted prime Traditions, 
Numb. 6.  and so became such not by a native title, but by adoption; and nothing is more usual then for the Fathers to colour their popular opinion with so great an appellative. S. Austin called the communicating of Infants an Apostolical Tradition, and yet we do not practise it, because we disbelieve the Allegation. And that every custom which at first introduction was but a private fancy or singular practice, grew afterwards into a public rite and went for a Tradition after a while continuance, appears by Tertullian who seems to justify it, Non enim existimas tu 
Contra Marcon.  licitum esse cuicunque fideli constituere quod Deo placere illi visum 
De coron. milit. c. 3. & 4.  fuerit, ad disciplinam & salutem. And again, A quocunque traditore censetur, nec authorem respicias sed authoritatem. And S. Hierome most plainly, Praecepra majorum Apostolicas Tradiones 
Apud Euseb. l. 5. c. 20.  quisque existimat. And when Irenaeus had observed that great variety in the keeping of Lent, which yet to be a forty days Fast is pretended to descend from Tradition Apostolical, some fasting but one day before Easter, some two, some forty, and this even long before Irenaeus time, he gives this reason, Varietas illa jejunii coepit apud Majores nostros qui non accuratè consuetudinem eorum qui vel simplicitate quâdam vel privatâ authoritate in posterum aliquid statuissent, observarant [ex translatione Christophorsoni:] And there are yet some points of good concernment, which if any man should Question in a high manner, they would prove indeterminable by Scripture, or sufficient reason, and yet I doubt not their confident Defenders would say they are opinions of the Church, and quickly pretend a Tradition from the very Apostles, and believe themselves so secure that they could not be discovered, because the Question never having been disputed, gives them occasion to say that which had no beginning known, was certainly from the Apostles. For why should not Divines do in the Question of reconfirmation as in that of rebaptisation? Are not the grounds equal from an indelible character in one as in the other? and if it happen such a Question as this after contestation should be determined not by any positive decree, but by the session of one part, and the authority and reputation of the other, does not the next Age stand fair to be abused with a pretence of Tradition, in the matter of reconfirmation, which never yet came to a serious Question? For so it was in the Question of rebaptisation for which there was then no more evident Tradition then there is now in the Question of reconfirmation, as I proved formerly, but yet it was carried upon that Title.  
5. There is great variety in the probation of Tradition, so that whatever is proved to be Tradition, is not equally and 
Numb. 7.  alike credible; for nothing but universal Tradition is of itself credible; other Traditions in their just proportion as they partake of the degrees of universality. Now that a Tradition be universal, or which is all one that it be a credible Testimony, S. Irenaeus requires that Tradition should derive from all the 
Lib. 3. c. 4.  Churches Apostolical. And therefore according to this rule there was no sufficient medium to determine the Question about Easter, because the Eastern and Western Churches had several Traditions respectively, and both pretended from the Apostles. Clemens Alexandrinus says, it was a secret Tradition 
Li. 1. Stromat.  from the Apostles that Christ preached but one year: But 
L. 2. c. 39  Irenaeus says it did derive from Heretics, and says that he 
Omnes Seniores testantur qui in Asiâ apud johannem Discipulum Domini convenerunt id ipsum tradidisse eis johannem, etc. & qui alios Apostolos viderunt haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt, & testantur de ejusmodi relatione.  by Tradition first from S. John, and then from his Disciples received another Tradition, that Christ was almost fifty years old when he died, and so by consequence preached almost twenty years; both of them were deceived, and so had all that had believed the report of either pretending Tradition Apostolical. Thus the custom in the Latin Church of fasting on Saturday was against that Tradition which the Greeks had from the Apostles; and therefore by this division and want of consent, which was the true Tradition was so absolutely indeterminable, that both must needs lose much of their reputation. But how then when not only particular Churches but single persons are all the proof we have for a Tradition? And this often happened; I think S. Austin is the chief Argument and Authority we have for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary; the Baptism of Infants is called a Tradition by Origen alone at first, and from 
Salmeron. disput. 51. in Rom.  him by others. The procession of the holy Ghost from the Son, which is an Article the Greek Church disavows, derives from the Tradition Apostolical, as it is pretended; and yet before S. Austin we hear nothing of it very clearly or certainly, for as much as that whole mystery concerning the blessed Spirit was so little explicated in Scripture, and so little derived to them by Tradition, that till the Council of Nice, you shall hardly find any form of worship or personal address of devotion to the holy Spirit, as Erasmus observes, and I think the contrary will very hardly be verified. And for this particular in which I instance, whatsoever is in Scripture concerning it, is against that which the Church of Rome calls Tradition, which makes the Greeks so confident as they are of the point, and is an Argument of the vanity of some things which for no greater reason are called Traditions, but because one man hath said so, and that they can be proved by no better Argument to be true. Now in this case wherein Tradition descends upon us with unequal certainty, it would be very unequal to require of us an absolute belief of every thing not written, for fear we be accounted to slight Tradition Apostolical. And since no thing can require our supreme assent, but that which is truly Catholic and Apostolic, and to such a Tradition is required as Irenaeus says, the consent of all those Churches which the Apostles planted, and where they did preside, this topic will be of so little use in judging heresies that (besides what is deposited in Scripture) it cannot be proved in any thing but in the Canon of Scripture itself, and as it is now received, even in that there is some variety.  
And therefore there is wholly a mistake in this business; for when the Father's appeal to Tradition, and with much earnestness, 
Numb. 8.  and some clamour they call upon Heretics to conform to or to be tried by Tradition, it is such a Tradition as delivers the fundamental points of Christianity, which were also recorded in Scripture. But because the Canon was not yet perfectly consigned, they called to that testimony they had, which was the testimony of the Churches Apostolical, whose Bishops and Priests being the Antistites religionis, did believe and preach Christian Religion and conserve all its great mysteries according as they had been taught. Irenaeus calls this a Tradition Apostolical, Christum accepisse calicem, & dixisse sanguinem suum esse, & docuisse novam oblationem novi Testamenti, quam Ecclesia per Apostolos accipiens offert per totum mundum. And the Fathers in these Ages confute Heretics by Ecclesiastical Tradition, that is, they confront against their impious and blaspemous doctrines that Religion which the Apostles having taught to the Churches where they did preside, their Successors did still preach, and for a long while together suffered not the enemy to sow tares amongst their wheat. And yet these doctrines which they called Traditions, were nothing but such fundamental truths which were in Scripture, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is Irenaeus in Eusebius observes, in the instance of Polycarpus, and it is manifest by considering 
Lib. 5. cap. 20.  what heresies they fought against, the heresies of Ebion, Cerinthus, Nicolaitans, Valentinians, Carpocratians, persons that 
Vid. Irenae. l. 3 & 4. cont. haeres.  denied the Son of God, the Unity of the Godhead, that preached impurity, that practised Sorcery and Witchcraft. And now that they did rather urge Tradition against them then Scripture was, because the public Doctrine of all the Apostolical Churches was at first more known and famous than many parts of the Scripture, and because some Heretics denied S. Luke's Gospel, some received none but S. Matthews, some rejected all S. Paul's Epistles, and it was a long time before the whole Canon was consigned by universal Testimony, some Churches having one part some another, Rome herself had not all, so that in this case the Argument from Tradition was the most famous, the most certain, and the most prudent. And now according to this rule they had more Traditions than we have, and Traditions did by degrees lessen as they came to be written, and their necessity was less, as the knowledge of them was ascetained to us by a better Keeper of Divine Truths. All that great mysteriousness of Christ's Priesthood, the unity of his Sacrifice, Christ's Advocation and Intercession for us in Heaven, and many other excellent. Doctrines might very well be accounted Traditions before S. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was published to all the World; but now they are written truths; and if they had not, possibly we might either have lost them quite, or doubted of them as we do of many other Traditions, by reason of the insufficiency of the propounder. And therefore it was that S. Peter took order that the Gospel 
2 Pet. 1. 13.  should be Writ, for he had promised that he would do something which after his decease should have these things in remembrance. He knew it was not safe trusting the report of men where the fountain might quickly run dry, or be corrupted so insensibly, that no cure could be found for it, nor any just notice taken of it till it were incurable. And indeed there is scarce any thing but what is written in Scripture, that can with any confidence of Argument pretend to derive from the Apostles, except rituals, and manners of ministration; but no doctrines or speculative mysteries are so transmitted to us by so clear a current, that we may see a visible channel, and trace it to the Primitive fountains. It is said to be a Tradition Apostolical, that no Priest should baptise without chrism and the command of the Bishop: Suppose it were, yet we cannot be obliged to believe it with much confidence, because we have but little proof for it, scarce any thing but the single testimony of S. Hierom. And yet if it were, this is but a ritual, of which in passing by, I shall give that account: That, 
Dialog. adv. Lucifer.  suppose this and many more rituals did derive clearly from Tradition Apostolical (which yet but very few do) yet it is hard that any Church should be charged with crime for not observing such rituals, because we see some of them which certainly did derive from the Apostles, are expired and gone out in a desuetude; such as are abstinence from blood, and from things strangled, the coenobitick life of secular persons, the college of widows, to worship standing upon the Lord's day, to give milk and honey to the newly baptised, and many more of the like nature; now there having been no mark to distinguish the necessity of one from the indifferency of the other, they are all alike necessary, or alike indifferent; if the former, why does no Church observe them? if the later, why does the Church of Rome charge upon others the shame of novelty, for leaving of some Rites and Ceremonies which by her own practice we are taught to have no obligation in them, but to be adiaphorous? S. Paul gave order, that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife; The Church of Rome will not allow so much; other Churches allow more: The Apostles commanded Christians to Fast on Wednesday and Friday, as appears in their Canons; The Church of Rome Fasts Friday and Saturday, and not on Wednesday: The Apostles had their Agapae or love Feasts, we should believe them scandalous: They used a kiss of charity in ordinary addresses, the Church of Rome keeps it only in their Mass, other Churches quite omit it: The Apostles permitted Priests and Deacons to live in conjugal Society as appears in the 5. Can. of the Apostles (which to them is an Argument who believe them such) and yet the Church of Rome, by no means will endure it; nay more, Michael Medina gives Testimony that of 84 Canons Apostolical which Clemens collected, 
De sacr. hom, continent, li 5. c. 105.  scarce six or eight are observed by the Latin Church, and Peresius gives this account of it, In illis contineri multa quae temporum corruptione non plenè observantur, aliis pro temporis & 
De Tradit. part. 3. c. de Author. Can. Apost.  materiae qualitate aut obliteratis, aut totius Ecclesiae magisterio abrogatis. Now it were good that they which take a liberty to themselves, should also allow the same to others. So that for one thing or other, all Traditions excepting those very few that are absolutely universal, will lose all their obligation, and become no competent medium to confine men's practices, or limit their faiths, or determine their persuasions. Either for the difficulty of their being proved, the incompetency of the testimony that transmits' them, or the indifferency of the thing transmitted, all Traditions both ritual and doctrinal are disabled from determining our consciences either to a necessary believing or obeying.  
6. To which I add by way of confirmation, that there are some things called Traditions, and are offered to be proved to 
Numb. 9  us by a Testimony, which is either false or not extant. Clemens of Alexandria pretended it a Tradition that the Apostles preached to them that died in infidelity, even after their death, and then raised them to life, but he proved it only by the Testimony of the Book of Hermes; he affirmed it to be a Tradition Apostolical, that the Greeks were saved by their Philosophy, but he had no other Authority for it but the Apocryphal Books of Peter and Paul. Tertullian and S. Basil pretend it an Apostolical Tradition, to sign in the air with the sign of the Cross, but this was only consigned to them in the Gospel of Nicodemus. But to instance once for all in the Epistle of Marcellus to the Bishop of Antioch, where he affirms that it is the Canon of the Apostles, praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis, non posse Conciliae celebrari. And yet there is no such Canon extant, nor ever was for aught appears in any Record we have; and yet the Collection of the Canons is so entire, that though it hath something more than what was Apostolical, yet it hath nothing less. And now that I am casually fallen upon an instance from the Canons of the Apostles, I consider that there cannot in the world a greater instance be given how easy it is to be abused in the believing of Traditions. For 1. to the first 50. which many did admit for Apostolical, 35 more were added, which most men now count spurious, all men call dubious, and some of them universally condemned by peremptory sentence, even by them who are greatest admirers of that Collection, as 65. 67. and 8 ⅘ Canons. For the first 50, it is evident that there are some things so mixed with them, and no mark of difference left, that the credit of all is much impaired, insomuch that Isidor of Sevill says, they were Apoeryphall, made by Heretics, and published under the 
Apud Gratian. dist. 16. c. Canon's.  title Apostolical, but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them. And yet they have prevailed so fare amongst some, that Damascen is of opinion they should 
Lib. ●. c. 18 de Orthod. fide.  be received equally with the Canonical writings of the Apostles. One thing only I observe (and we shall find it true in most writings, whose Authority is urged in Questions of Theology) that the Authority of the Tradition is not it which moves the assent, but the nature of the thing; and because such a Canon is delivered, they do not therefore believe the sanction or proposition so delivered, but disbelieve the Tradition, if they do not like the matter, and so do not judge of the matter by the Tradition, but of the Tradition by the matter. And thus the Church of Rome rejects the 84 or 85 Canon of the Apostles, not because it is delivered with less Authority, than the last 35 are, but because it reckons the Canon of Scripture otherwise than it is at Rome. Thus also the fifth Canon amongst the first 50, because it approves the marriage of Priests and Deacons does not persuade them to approve of it too, but itself becomes suspected for approving it: So that either they accuse themselves of palpable contempt of the Apostolical Authority, or else that the reputation of such Traditions is kept up to serve their own ends, and therefore when they encounter them, they are more to be upheld; which what else is it but to teach all the world to contemn such pretences and undervalue Traditions, and to supply to others a reason why they should do that, which to them that give the occasion is most unreasonable?  
7. The Testimony of the Ancient Church being the only 
Numb. 10.  means of proving Tradition, and sometimes their dictates and doctrine being the Tradition pretended of necessity to be imitated, it is considerable that men in their estimate of it, take their rise from several Ages and differing Testimonies, and are not agreed about the competency of their Testimony; and the reasons that on each side make them differ, are such as make the Authority itself the less authentic and more repudiable. Some will allow only of the three first Ages, as being most pure, most persecuted, and therefore most holy, least interested, serving fewer designs, having fewest factions, and therefore more likely to speak the truth for God's sake and its own, as best complying with their great end of acquiring Heaven in recompense of losing their lives: Others 
* Vid. Card. Petron. lettre an Sieur Casaubon.  say, that those Ages being persecuted minded the present Doctrines proportionable to their purposes and constitution of the Ages, and make little or nothing of those Questions which at this day vex Christendom: And both speak true: The first Ages speak greatest truth, but least pertinently. The next Ages, the Ages of the four general Counsels spoke something, not much more pertinently to the present Questions, but were not so likely to speak true, by reason of their dispositions contrary to the capacity and circumstance of the first Ages; and if they speak wisely as Doctors, yet not certainly as witnesses of such propositions which the first Ages noted not; and yet unless they had noted, could not possibly be Traditions. And therefore either of them will be less useless as to our present affairs. For indeed the Questions which now are the public trouble, were not considered or thought upon for many hundred years, and therefore prime Tradition there is none as to our purpose, and it will be an insufficient medium to be used or pretended in the determination; and to dispute concerning the truth or necessity of Traditions, in the Questions of out times, is as if Historians disputing about a Question in the English Story, should fall on wrangling whether Livy or Plutarch were the best Writers: And the earnest disputes about Traditions are to no better purpose. For no Church at this day admits the one half of those things, which certainly by the Fathers were called Traditions Apostolical, and no Testimony of ancient Writers does consign the one half of the present Questions, to be or not to be Traditions. So that they who admit only the Doctrine and Testimony of the first Ages cannot be determined in most of their doubts which now trouble us, because their Writings are of matters wholly differing from the present disputes, and they which would bring in after Ages to the Authority of a competent judge or witness, say the same thing; for they plainly confess that the first Ages spoke little or nothing to the present Question, or at lest nothing to their sense of them; for therefore they call in aid from the following Ages, and make them suppletory and auxiliary to their designs, and therefore there are no Traditions to our purposes. And they who would willingly have it otherwise, yet have taken no course it should be otherwise; for they when they had opportunity in the Counsels of the last Ages to determine what they had a mind to, yet they never named the number, nor expressed the particular Traditions which they would feign have the world believe to be Apostolical: But they have kept the bridle in their own hands, and made a reserve of their own power, that if need be, they may make new pretensions, or not be put to it to justify the old by the engagement of a conciliary declaration.  
Lastly, We are acquitted by the Testimony of the Primitive Fathers, from any other necessity of believing, then of 
Numb. 11.  such Articles as are recorded in Scripture: And this is done by them, whose Authority is pretended the greatest Argument for Tradition, as appears largely in Irenaeus, who disputes professedly for the sufficiency of Scripture against certain Heretics, who 
L. 3. c. 2. contr. haeres.  affirm some necessary truths not to be written. It was an excellent saying of S. Basil and will never be wiped out with all the eloquence of Perron [in his Serm. de fide. Manifestus est fidei lapsus, & liquidum superbiae vitium vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet, vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est.] And it is but a poor device to say that every particular Tradition is consigned in Scripture by those places which give Authority to Tradition; and so the introducing of Tradition is not a super-inducing any thing over or besides Scripture, because Tradition is like a Messenger, and the Scripture is like his Letters of Credence, and therefore Authorises whatsoever Tradition speaketh. For supposing Scripture does consign the Authority of Tradition (which it might do before all the whole Instrument of Scripture itself was consigned, and then afterwards there might be no need of Tradition) yet supposing it, it will follow that all those Traditions which are truly prime and Apostolical, are to be entertained according to the intention of the Deliverers, which indeed is so reasonable of itself, that we need not Scripture to persuade us to it; itself is authentic as Scripture is, if it derives from the same fountain; and a word is never the more the Word of God for being written, nor the less for not being written; but it will not follow that whatsoever is pretended to be Tradition, is so, neither is the credit of the particular instances consigned in Scripture; & dolosus versatur in generalibus, but that this craft is too palpable. And if a general and indefinite consignation of Tradition be sufficient to warrant every particular that pretends to be Tradition, then S. Basil had spoken to no purpose by saying it is Pride & Apostasy from the Faith, to bring in what is not written: For if either any man brings in what is written, or what he says is delivered, than the first being express Scripture, and the second being consigned in Scripture, no man can be charged with superinducing what is not written, he hath his Answer ready; And then these are zealous words absolutely to no purpose; but if such general consignation does not warrant every thing that pretends to Tradition, but only such as are truly proved to be Apostolical; then Scripture is useless as to this particular; for such Tradition gives testimony to Scripture, and therefore is of itself first, and more credible, for it is credible of itself; and therefore unless S. Basil thought that all the will of God in matters of Faith and Doctrine were written, I see not what end nor what sense he could have in these words: For no man in the world except Enthusiasts and madmen ever obtruded a Doctrine uponthe Church, but he pretended Scripture for it or Tradition, and therefore no man could be pressed by these words, no man confuted, no man instructed, no not Enthusiasts or Montanists. For suppose either of them should say, that since in Scripture the holy Ghost is promised to abide with the Church for ever, to teach, whatever they pretend the Spirit in any Age hath taught them, is not to super-induce any thing beyond what is written, because the truth of the Spirit, his veracity, and his perpetual teaching being promised and attested in Scripture, Scripture hath just so consigned all such Revelations, as Perron saith it hath all such Traditions. But I will trouble myself no more with Arguments from any humane Authorities; but he that is surprised with the belief of such Authorities, and will but consider the very many Testimonies of Antiquity to this purpose, as of 
a Orat. ad Nicen. PP. apud. Theodor. l. 1. c. 7.  Constantine, 
b In Matth. l. 4. c. 23. & in Aggaeum.  S. Hierom, 
c De bono viduil. c. 1.  S. Austin, 
d Orat. contr. gent.  S. Athaenasius, 
e In Psal. 132.  S. Hilary, 
f L. 2. contra. heres. tom. 1. haer. 61.  S. Epiphanius, and divers others, all speaking words to the same sense, with that saying of S. 
g 1. Cor. 4.  Paul, Nemo sentiat super quod scriptum est, will see that there is reason, that since no man is materially a Heretic, but he that errs in a point of Faith, and all Faith is sufficiently recorded in Scripture, the judgement of Faith and Heresy is to be derived from thence, and no man is to be condemned for dissenting in an Article for whose probation Tradition only is pretended; only according to the degree of its evidence, let every one determine himself, but of this evidence we must not judge for others; for unless it be in things of Faith, and absolute certainties, evidence is a word of relation, and so supposes two terms, the object and the faculty; and it is an imperfect speech to say a thing is evident in itself (unless we speak of first principles or clearest revelations) for that may be evident to one that is not so to another, by reason of the pregnancy of some apprehensions, and the immaturity of others.  
This Discourse hath its intention in Traditions Doctrinal and Ritual, that is such Traditions which propose Articles new in materiâ; but now if Scripture be the repository of all Divine Truth's sufficient for us, Tradition must be considered as its instrument, to convey its great mysteriousness to our understandings; it is said there are traditive Interpretations as well as traditive propositions, but these have not much distinct consideration in them, both because their uncertainty is as great as the other upon the former considerations; as also because in very deed, there are no such things as traditive Interpretations universal: For as for particulars, they signify no more but that they are not sufficient determinations of Questions Theological, therefore because they are particular, contingent, and of infinite variety, and they are no more Argument than the particular authority of these men whose Commentaries they are, and therefore must be considered with them.  
The sum is this: Since the Fathers who are the best 
Numb. 12.  Witnesses of Traditions, yet were infinitely deceived in their account, since sometimes they guest at them and conjectured by way of Rule and Discourse, and not of their knowledge, not by evidence of the thing; since many are called Traditions which were not so, many are uncertain whether they were or no, yet confidently pretended; and this uncertainty which at first was great enough, is increased by infinite causes and accidents in the succession of 1600 years; since the Church hath been either so careless or so abused that she could not, or would not preserve Traditions with carefulness and truth; since it was ordinary for the old Writers to set out their own fancies, and the Rites of their Church which had been Ancient under the specious Title of Apostolical Traditions; since some Traditions rely but upon single Testimony at first, and yet descending upon others, come to be attested by many, whose Testimony though conjunct, yet in value is but single, because it relies upon the first single Relator, and so can have no greater authority, or certainty, than they derive from the single person; since the first Ages who were most competent to consign Tradition, yet did consign such Traditions as be of a nature wholly discrepant from the present Questions, and speak nothing at all or very imperfectly to our purposes; and the following Ages are no fit Witnesses of that which was not transmitted to them, because they could not know it at all, but by such transmission and prior consignation; since what at first was a Tradition, came afterwards to be written, and so ceased its being a Tradition; yet the credit of Traditions commenced upon the certainty and reputation of those truths first delivered by word, afterward consigned by writing; since what was certainly Tradition Apostolical, as many Rituals were, are rejected by the Church in several Ages, and are gone out into a desuetude; and lastly, since, beside the no necessity of Traditions, there being abundantly enough in Scripture, there are many things called Traditions by the Fathers, which they themselves either proved by no Authors, or by Apocryphal and spurious and Heretical, the matter of Tradition will in very much be so uncertain, so false, so suspicious, so contradictory, so improbable, so unproved, that if a Question be contested and be offered to be proved only by Tradition, it will be very hard to impose such a proposition to the belief of all men with any imperiousness or resolved determination, but it will be necessary men should preserve the liberty of believing and prophesying, and not part with it, upon a worse merchandise and exchange then Esau made for his birthright.   

SECT. VI  
Of the uncertainty and insufficiency of Counsels Ecclesiastical to the same purpose.  
BUt since we are all this while in uncertainty, it is necessary that we should address ourselves somewhere, where we 
Numb. 1.  may rest the sole of our foot: And nature, Scripture, and experience teach the world in matters of Question to submit to some final sentence. For it is not reason that controversies should continue till the erring person shall be willing to condemn himself; and the Spirit of God hath directed us by that great precedent at Jerusalem, to address ourselves to the Church, that in a plenary Council and Assembly, she may synodically determine Controversies. So that if a General Council have determined a Question, or expounded Scripture, we may no more disbelieve the Decree, than the Spirit of God himself who speaks in them. And indeed, if all Assemblies of Bishops were like that first, and all Bishops were of the same spirit of which the Apostles were, I should obey their Decree with the same Religion as I do them whole preface was Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis: And I doubt not but our blessed Saviour intended that the Assemblies of the Church should be Judges of Controversies, and guides of our persuasions in matters of difficulty. But he also intended they should proceed according to his will which he had revealed, and those precedents which he had made authentic by the immediate assistance of his holy Spirit: He hath done his part, but we do not do ours. And if any private person in the simplicity and purity of his soul desires to find out a truth of which he is in search and inquisition, if he prays for wisdom, we have a promise he shall be heard and answered liberally, and therefore much more, when the representatives of the Catholic Church do meet, because every person there hath in individuo a title to the promise, and another title as he is a governor and a guide of souls, and all of them together have another title in their united capacity, especially, if in that union they pray, and proceed with simplicity and purity; so that there is no disputing against the pretence and promises, and authority of General Counsels. For if any one man can hope to be guided by God's Spirit in the search, the pious and impartial and unprejudicate search of truth, then much more may a General Council. If no private man can hope for it, than truth is not necessary to be found, nor we are not obliged to search for it, or else we are saved by chance: But if private men can by virtue of a promise, upon certain conditions be assured of finding out sufficient truth, much more shall a General Council. So that I consider thus: There are many promises pretended to belong to General Assemblies in the Church; But I know not any ground, nor any pretence, that they shall be absolutely assisted, without any condition on their own parts, and whether they will or no: Faith is a virtue as well as charity, and therefore consists in liberty and choice, and hath nothing in it of necessity: There is no Question but that they are obliged to proceed according to some rule; for they expect no assistance by way of Enthusiasm; if they should, I know no warrant for that, neither did any General Council ever offer a Decree which they did not think sufficiently proved by Scripture, Reason, or Tradition, as appears in the Acts of the Counsels; now then, if they be tied to conditions, it is their duty to observe them; but whether it be certain that they will observe them, that they will do all their duty, that they will not sin even in this particular in the neglect of their duty, that's the consideration. So that if any man questions the Title and Authority of General Counsels, and whether or no great promises appertain to them, I suppose him to be much mistaken; but he also that thinks all of them have proceeded according to rule and reason, and that none of them were deceived, because possibly they might have been truly directed, is a stranger to the History of the Church, and to the perpetual instances and experiments of the faults and failings of humanity. It is a famous saying of S. Gregory that he had the four first Counsels in esteem and veneration next to the four Evangelists; I suppose it was because he did believe them to have proceeded according to Rule, and to have judged righteous judgement; but why had not he the same opinion of other Counsels too which were celebrated before his death; for he lived after the fifth General? not because they had not the same Authority; for that which is warrant for one is warrant for all; but because he was not so confident that they did their duty nor proceeded so without interest as the first four had done, and the following Counsels did never get that reputation which all the Catholic Church acknowledged due to the first four. And in the next Order were the three following generals; for the Greeks and Latins did never jointly acknowledge but seven generals to have been authentic in any sense, because they were in no sense agreed that any more than seven had proceeded regularly and done their duty: So that now the Question is not whether General Counsels have a promise that the holy Ghost will assist them; For every private man hath that promise, that if he does his duty he shall be assisted sufficiently in order to that end to which he needs assistance; and therefore much more shall General Counsels in order to that end for which they convene, and to which they need assistance, that is, in order to the conservation of the Faith, for the doctrinal rules of good life, and all that concerns the essential duty of a Christian, but not in deciding Questions to satisfy contentious or curious or presumptuous spirits. But now can the Bishops so convened be factious, can they be abused with prejudice, or transported with interests, can they resist the holy Ghost, can they extinguish the Spirit, can they stop their ears, and serve themselves upon the holy Spirit and the pretence of his assistances, and cease to serve him upon themselves, by captivating their understandings to his dictates, and their wills to his precepts? Is it necessary they should perform any condition? is there any one duty for them to perform in these Assemblies, a duty which they have power to do or not do? If so, than they may fail of it, and not do their duty: And if the assistance of the holy Spirit be conditional, than we have no more assurance that they are assisted, then that they do their duty and do not sin.  
Now let us suppose what this duty is: Certainly, if the Gospel 
Numb. 2.  be hid, it is hid to them that are lost; and all that come to the knowledge of the truth, must come to it by such means which are spiritual and holy dispositions, in order to a holy and spiritual end. They must be shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace, that is, they must have peaceable and docible dispositions, nothing with them that is violent, and resolute to encounter those gentle and sweet assistances: and the Rule they are to follow, is the Rule which the holy Spirit hath consigned to the Catholic Church, that is the holy Scripture, either 
* Vid. Optat. Milev. l. 5. adv. Parm. Baldvin. in eundem. & S. August. in Psa. 21. Expos. 2.  entirely or at least for the greater part of the Rule: So that now if the Bishops be factious and prepossessed with persuasions depending upon interest, it is certain they may judge amiss; and if they recede from the Rule, it is certain they do judge amiss: And this I say upon their grounds who most advance the authority of General Counsels: For if a General Council may err if a Pope confirm it not, then most certainly if in any thing it recede from Scripture, it does also err; because that they are to expect the Pope's confirmation they offer to prove from Scripture: now if the Pope's confirmation be required by authority of Scripture, and that therefore the defaillance of it does evacuate the Authority of the Council, than also are the Counsels Decrees invalid, if they recede from any other part of Scripture: So that Scripture is the Rule they are to follow, and a man would have thought it had been needless to have proved it, but that we are fallen into Ages in which no truth is certain, no reason concluding, nor is there any thing that can convince some men. For Stapleton with extreme boldness against the piety of Christendom, against the public sense of the ancient 
Relect. centrov. 4. q. 1. a. 3  Church, and the practice of all pious Assemblies of Bishops affirms the Decrees of a Council to be binding, etiamsi non confirmetur ne probabili testimonio Scripturarum; nay, though it be quite extra Scripturam, but all wise and good men have ever said that sense which S. Hilary expressed in these words, Quae extra Evangelium sunt non defendam; This was it which the good Emperor Constantine propounded to the Fathers 
I. 2. ad Constant.  met at Nice, libri Evangelici, oracula Apostolorum, & veterum Prophetarum clarè nos instruunt quid sentiendum in Divinis, 
Apud Theodor. l 1. c. 7.  and this is confessed by a sober man of the Roman Church itself, the Cardinal of Cusa, Oportet qnod omnia talia quae legere debent, contineantur in Authoritatibus sacrarum Scripturarum: 
Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c 10.  Now than all the advantage I shall take from hence, is this, That if the Apostles commended them who examined their Sermons by their conformity to the Law and the Prophets, and the men of Berea were accounted noble for searching the Scriptures whether those things which they taught were so or no; I suppose it will not be denied, but the Counsels Decrees, may also be tried whether they be conform to Scripture yea or no; and although no man can take cognisance and judge the Decrees of a Council pro Authoritate publicâ, yet pro informatione privatâ they may; the Authority of a Council is not greater than the Authority of the Apostles, nor their dictates more sacred or authentic. Now then put case a Council should recede from Scripture; whether or no were we bound to believe its Decrees? I only ask the Question: For it were hard to be bound to believe what to our understanding seems contrary to that which we know to be the Word of God: But if we may lawfully recede from the Counsels Decrees, in case they be contrariant to Scripture, it is all that I require in this Question. For if they be tied to a Rule, than they are to be examined and understood according to the Rule, and then we are to give ourselves that liberty of judgement which is requisite to distinguish us from beasts, and to put us into a capacity of reasonable people, following reasonable guides. But how ever if it be certain that the Counsels are to follow Scripture, then if it be notorious that they do recede from Scripture, we are sure we must obey God rather than men, and then we are well enough. For unless we are bound to shut our eyes, and not to look upon the Sun, if we may give ourselves liberty to believe what seems most plain, and unless the Authority of a Council be so great a prejudice as to make us to do violence to our understanding, so as not to disbelieve the Decree, because it seems contrary to Scripture, but to believe it agrees with Scripture, though we know not how, therefore because the Council hath decreed it, unless I say we be bound in duty to be so obediently blind, and sottish, we are sure that there are some Counsels which are pretended General, that have retired from the public notorious words and sense of Scripture. For what wit of man can reconcile the Decree of the thirteenth Session of the Council of Constance with Scripture, in which Session the half Communion was decreed, in defiance of Scripture, and with a non obstante to Christ's institution. For in the Preface of the Decree, Christ's institution and the practice of the Primitive Church is expressed, and then with a non obstante, Communion in one kind is established. Now then suppose the non obstante in the form of words relates to the Primitive practice; yet since Christ's institution was taken notice of in the first words of the Decree, and the Decree made quite contrary to it, let the non obstante relate whither it will, the Decree (not to call it a defiance) is a plain recession from the institution of Christ, and therefore the non obstante will refer to that without any sensible error; and indeed for all the excuses to the contrary, the Decree was not so discreetly framed but that in the very form of words, the defiance and the non obstante is too plainly relative to the first words. For what sense can there be in the first licet else? licet Christus in utraque specie, and licet Ecclesia Primitiva, etc. tamen hoc non obstante, etc. the first licet being a relative term, as well as the second licet, must be bounded with some correspondent. But it matters not much; let them whom it concerns enjoy the benefit of all excuses they can imagine, it is certain Christ's institution and the Counsels sanction are as contrary as light and darkness. Is it possible for any man to contrive a way to make the Decree of the Council of Trent, commanding the public Offices of the Church to be in Latin, friends with the fourteenth chapter of the Corinthians? It is not amiss to observe how the Hyperaspists of that Council sweat to answer the Allegations of S. Paul, and the wisest of them do it so extremely poor, that it proclaims to all the world that the strongest man, that is, cannot eat Iron or swallow a Rock. Now then, would it not be an unspeakable Tyranny to all wise persons, (who as much hate to have their souls enslaved as their bodies imprisoned) to command them to believe that these Decrees are agreeable to the word of God? Upon whose understanding soever these are imposed, they may at the next Session reconcile them to a crime, and make any sin sacred, or persuade him to believe propositions contradictory to a Mathematical demonstration. All the Arguments in the world that can be brought to prove the infallibility of Counsels, can not make it so certain that they are infallible, as these two instances do prove infallibly that these were deceived, and if ever we may safely make use of our reason and consider whether Counsels have erred or no, we cannot by any reason be more assured, that they have or have not, than we have in these particulars: so that either our reason is of no manner of use, in the discussion of this Question, and the thing itself is not at all to be disputed, or if it be, we are certain that these actually were deceived, and we must never hope for a clearer evidence in any dispute. And if these be, others might have been, if they did as these did, that is, depart from their Rule. And it was wisely said of Cusanus: Notandum est experimento rerum universale Concilium posse deficere: The experience 
L. 2. c. 14. Concord. Cathol.  of it is notorious, that Counsels have erred: And all the Arguments against experience are but plain sophistry.  
And therefore I make no scruple to slight the Decrees of such Counsels, wherein the proceed were as prejudicated 
Numb. 3.  and unreasonable, as in the Council wherein Abailardus was condemned, where the precedents having pronounced Damnamus, they at the lower end being awaked at the noise, heard the latter part of it, and concurred as fare as Mnamus went, and that was as good as Damnamus, for if they had been awake at the pronouncing the whole word, they would have given sentence accordingly. But by this means S. Bernard numbered the 
Epist. Abailardi. ad Heliss. conjugem.  major part of voices against his Adversary Abailardus: And as fare as these men did do their duty, the duty of Priests and Judges, and wise men; so we may presume them to be assisted: But no further. But I am content this (because but a private Assembly) shall pass for no instance: But what shall we say of all the Arrian Counsels celebrated with so great fancy, and such numerous Assemblies? we all say that they erred. And it will not be sufficient to say they were not lawful Counsels: For they were convened by that Authority which all the world knows did at that time convocate Counsels, and by which (as it is 
* Cusanus, l. 2. cap. 25, Concord.  confessed and is notorious) the first eight Generals did meet, that is by the Authority of the Emperor all were called, and as many and more did come to them, than came to the most famous Council of Nice: So that the Counsels were lawful, and if they did not proceed lawfully, and therefore did err, this is to say that Counsels are then not deceived, when they do their duty, when they judge impartially, when they decline interest, when they follow their Rule; but this says also that it is not infallibly certain that they will do so; for these did not, and therefore the others may be deceived as well as these were. But another thing is in the wind; for Counsels not confirmed by the Pope, have no warrant that they shall not err, and they not being confirmed, therefore failed. But whether is the Pope's confirmation after the Decree or before? It cannot be supposed before; for there is nothing to be confirmed till the Decree be made, and the Article composed. But if it be after, then possibly the Pope's Decree may be requisite in solemnity of Law, and to make the Authority popular, public and humane; but the Decree is true or false before the Pope's confirmation, and is not at all altered by the supervening Decree, which being postnate to the Decree, altars not what went before, Nunquam enim crescit ex postfacto praeteriti aestimatio, is the voice both of Law and reason. So that it cannot make it divine, and necessary to be hearty believed. It may make it lawful, not make it true, that is, it may possibly by such means become a Law but not a truth. I speak now upon supposition the Pope's confirmation were necessary, and required to the making of conciliary and necessary sanctions. But if it were, the case were very hard: For suppose a heresy should invade, and possess the Chair of Rome, what remedy can the Church have in that case, if a General Council be of no Authority without the Pope confirm it? will the Pope confirm a Council against himself; will he condemn his own heresy? That the Pope may be a Heretic appears in the 
* Dist. 40. Can. si Papa.  Canon Law, which says he may for heresy be deposed, and therefore by a Council which in this case hath plenary Authority without the Pope. And therefore in the Synod at Rome held under Pope Adrian the Second, the Censure of the Sixth Synod against Honorius who was convict of heresy, is approved with this Appendix, that in this case the case of heresy, minores possint de majoribus judicare: And therefore if a Pope were above a Council, yet when the Question is concerning heresy, the case is altered; the Pope may be judged by his inferiors, who in this case which is the main case of all, become his Superiors. And it is little better than impudence to pretend that all Counsels were confirmed by the Pope, or that there is a necessity in respect of divine obligation, that any should be confirmed by him, more than by another of the Patriarches. For the Council of Chalcedon itself one of those four which S. Gregory did revere next to the four Evangelists, is rejected by Pope Leo, who in his 53 Epistle to Anatolius, and in his 54 to Martian, and in his 55 to Pulcheria, accuses it of ambition and inconsiderate temerity, and therefore no fit Assembly for the habitation of the holy Spirit, and Gelasius in his Tome de vinculo Anathematis, affirms that the Council is in part to be received, in part to be rejected, and compares it to heretical books of a mixed matter, and proves his assertion by the place of S. Paul, Omnia probate, quod bonum est retinete. And Bellarmine says the same; In Concilio Chalcedonensi quaedam sunt bona, quaedam mala, quaedam recipienda, quaedam rejicienda; 
De laicis, l. 3. c. 20. § ad hoc ult.  ita & in libris haereticorum, and if any thing be false, than all is Questionable, and judicable and discernible, and not infallible antecedently. And however, that Council hath ex postfacto, and by the voluntary consenting of after Ages obtained great reputation; yet they that lived immediately after it, that observed all the circumstances of the thing, and the disabilities of the persons, and the uncertainty of the truth of its decrees, by reason of the unconcludingnesse of the Arguments brought to attest it, were of another mind, Quod autem ad Concilium Chalcedonense attinet, illud id temporis (viz. Anastasii Imp.) neque palam in Ecclesiis sanctissimis praedicatum fuit, neque ab omnibus rejectum, nam singuli 
Evagr. lib. 3. cap. 30.  Ecclesiarum praesides pro suo arbitratu in ea re egerunt. And so did all men in the world that were not mastered with prejudices and undone in their understanding with accidental impertinencies; they judged upon those grounds which they had and saw, and suffered not themselves to be bound to the imperious dictates of other men, who are as uncertain in their determinations as other in their Questions. And it is an evidence that there is some deception, and notable error either in the thing or in the manner of their proceeding, when the Decrees of a Council shall have no authority from the Compilers, nor no strength from the reasonableness of the decision, but from the accidental approbation of Posterity: And if Posterity had pleased, Origen had believed well and been an Orthodox person. And it was pretty sport to see that Papias was right for two Ages together, and wrong ever since; and just so it was in Counsels, particularly in this of Chalcedon, that had a fate alterable according to the Age, and according to the Climate, which to my understanding is nothing else but an Argument that the business of infallibility is a later device, and commenced to serve such ends as cannot be justified by true and substantial grounds, and that the Pope should confirm it as of necessity, is a fit cover for the same dish.  
In the sixth General Council, Honorius Pope of Rome was condemned; did that Council stay for the Pope's Confirmation 
Numb. 4.  before they sent forth their Decree? Certainly they did not think it so needful, as that they would have suspended or cassated the Decree, in case the Pope had then disavowed it: For besides the condemnation of Pope Honorius for heresy, the 13th and 55th Canons of that Council are expressly against the custom of the Church of Rome. But this particular is involved in that new Question, whether the Pope be above a Council. Now since the Contestation of this Question, there was never any free or lawful Council 
* Vid. postea de Concil. Sinvessane. §. 6. N. 9  that determined for the Pope, it is not likely any should, and is it likely that any Pope will confirm a Council that does not? For the Council of Basil is therefore condemned by the last Lateran which was an Assembly in the Pope's own Palace, and the Council of Constance is of no value in this Question, and slighted in a just proportion, as that Article is disbelieved. But I will not much trouble the Question with a long consideration of this particular; the pretence is senseless and illiterate, against reason and experience, and already determined by S. Austin sufficiently as to this particular, 
Epist. 162. ad Glorium.  Ecce putemus illos Episcopos qui Romae judicaverunt non bonos judices fuisse, Restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae universae Concilium ubi etiam cum ipsis judicibus causa possit agitari, ut si male judicasse convicti essent, eorum sententiae solverentur. For since Popes may be parties, may be Simoniacs, Schismatics, Heretics, it is against reason that in their own causes, they should be judges, or that in any causes they should be superior to their judges. And as it is against reason, so is it against all experience too; for the Council Sinvessanum (as it said) was convened to take Cognisance of Pope Marcellinus; and divers Counsels were held at Rome to give judgement in the causes of Damasus, Sixtus the III, Symmachus, and Leo III and IV, as is to be seen in Platina, and the Tomes of the Counsels. And it is no answer to this and the like allegations to say in matters of fact and humane constitution, the Pope may be judged by a Council, but in matters of Faith all the world must stand to the Pope's determination and authoritative decision: For if the Pope can by any colour pretend to any thing, it is to a suprem Judicature in matters Ecclesiastical, positive and of fact; and if he fails in this pretence, he will hardly hold up his head for any thing else; for the ancient Bishops derived their Faith from the fountain, and held that in the highest tenure, even from Christ their Head; but by reason of the Imperial 
* Vide Concil. Chalced act. 15.  City it became the principal Seat, and he surprised the highest Judicature, partly by the concession of others, partly by his own accidental advantages, and yet even in these things although he was major singulis, yet he was minor universis: And this is no more than what was decreed of the eighth General 
Act. ult. can. 21.  Synod; which if it be sense, is pertinent to this Question; for General Counsels are appointed to take Cognizance of Questions and differences about the Bishop of Rome, non tamen audacter in eum ferre sententiam: By audactèr, as is supposed, is meant praecipitanter hastily and unreasonably; but if to give sentence against him be wholly forbidden, it is nonsense, for to what purpose is an Authority of taking Cognizance, if they have no power of giving sentence, unless it were to deserre it to a superior Judge, which in this case cannot be supposed? for either the Pope himself is to judge his own cause after their examination of him, or the General Council is to judge him: So that although the Council is by that Decree enjoined to proceed modestly and warily, yet they may proceed to sentence, or else the Decree is ridiculous and impertinent.  
But to clear all, I will instance in matters of Question and opinion: For not only some Counsels have made their Decrees 
Numb. 5.  without or against the Pope, but some Counsels have had the Pope's confirmation, and yet have not been the more legitimate or obligatory, but are known to be heretical. For the Canons of the sixth Synod although some of them were made against the Popes, and the custom of the Church of Rome, a Pope a while after did confirm the Council, and yet the Canons are impious and heretical, and so esteemed by the Church of Rome herself. I instance in the second Canon which approves of that Synod of Carthage under Cyprian for rebaptisation of Heretics, and the 72 Canon that dissolves marriage between persons of differing persuasion in matters of Christian Religion; and yet these Canons were approved by Pope Adrian I. who in his Epistle to Tharasius, which is in the second action of the seventh Synod, calls them Canon's divinè & legalitèr praedicatos. And these Canons were used by Pope Nicholas I. in his Epistle ad Michaclem, and by Innocent III. c. à multis. extra. de aetat. ordinandorum. So that now (that we may apply this) there are seven General Counsels which by the Church of Rome are condemned of error. The 
* Vid. Socra. l. z. c. 5. & Sozom. l. 3. c. 5.  Council of Antioch, A. D. 345. in which S. Athanasius was condemned: The Council of Milan A. D. 354. of above 300 Bishops: The Council of Ariminum, consisting of 600 Bishops: The second Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449. in which the Eutychian heresy was confirmed, 
Gregor. in Regist. li. 3. cause. 7. ait. Concilium Numidiae errasse. Concilium Aquisgrani erravit. De ra ptore & raptâdist. 20. can. de libellis. in glossâ.  and the Patriarch Flavianus killed by the faction of Dioscorus: The Council of Constantinople under Leo Isaurus, A. D. 730: And another at Constantinople 35 years after: And lastly, the Council at Pisa 134 years since. Now that these General Counsels are condemned, is a sufficient Argument that Counsels may err; and it is no answer to say they were not confirmed by the Pope; for the Pope's confirmation I have shown not to be necessary, or if it were, yet even that also is an Argument that General Counsels may become invalid, either by their own fault, or by some extrinsecall supervening accident, either of which evacuates their Authority; and whether all that is required to the legitimation of a Council, was actually observed in any Council, is so hard to determine, that no man can be infallibly sure that such a Council is authentic and sufficient probation.  
2. And that is the second thing I shall observe, There are so many Questions concerning the efficient, the form, the 
Numb. 6.  matter of General Counsels, and their manner of proceeding, and their final sanction, that after a Question is determined by a Conciliary Assembly, there are perhaps twenty more Questions to be disputed before we can with confidence either believe the Council upon its mere Authority, or obtrude it upon others. And upon this ground, how easy it is to elude the pressure of an Argument drawn from the Authority of a General Council, is very remarkable in the Question about the Popes or the Counsels Superiority, which Question although it be defined for the Council against the Pope by five General Counsels, the Council of Florence, of Constance, of Basil, of Pisa, and one of the Lateran's, yet the Jesuits to this day, account this Question pro non definitâ, and have rare pretences for their escape; as first, It is true, a Council is above a Pope, in case there be no Pope, or he uncertain; which is Bellarmine's answer, never considering whether he spoke sense or no, nor yet remembering that the Council of Basil deposed Eugenius who was a true Pope and so acknowledged. Secondly, sometimes the Pope did not confirm these Counsels, that's their Answer: (And although it was an exception that the Fathers never thought of, when they were pressed with the Authority of the Council of Ariminum or Syrmium, or any other Arrian Convention;) yet the Council of Basil was convened by Pope Martin V then, in its sixteenth Session, declared by Eugenius the iv to be lawfully continued and confirmed expressly in some of its Decrees by Pope Nicholas, and so stood till it was at last rejected by Leo X. very many years after; but that came too late, and with too visible an interest; and this Council did decree fide Catholicâ tenendum Concilium esse supra Papam: But if one Pope confirms it, and another rejects it, as it happened in this case and in many more, does it not destroy the competency of the Authority? and we see it by this instance, that it so serves the turns of men, that it is good in some cases, that is, when it makes for them, and invalid when it makes against them. Thirdly, but it is a little more ridiculous in the case of the Council of Constance, whose Decrees were confirmed by Martin V. But that this may be no Argument against them, Bellarmine tells you he only confirmed those things quae facta fuerant Conciliaritèr, re diligenter examinatâ, of which there being no mark, nor any certain Rule to judge it, it is a device that may evacuate any thing we have a mind to, it was not done Conciliaritèr, that is, not according to our mind; for Conciliaritèr is a fine new nothing, that may signify what you please. Fourthly, but other devices yet more pretty they have: As, Whether the Council of Lateran was a General Council or no, they know not, (no nor will not know) which is a wise and plain reservation of their own advantages, to make it General or not General, as shall serve their turns. Fifthly, as for the Council of Florence, they are not sure, whether it hath defined the Question satis apertè; apertè they will grant, if you will allow them not satis apertè. Sixthly and lastly, the Council of Pisa is neque approbatum neque reprobatum, which is the greatest folly of all and most prodigious vanity; so that by 
Bellar. de conc. l. 1. c. 8.  something or other, either they were not convened lawfully, or they did not proceed Conciliariter, or 'tis not certain that the Council was General or no, or whether the Council were approbatum, or reprobatum or else it is partim confirmatum partim reprobatum, or else it is neque approbatum neque reprobatum; By one of these ways or a device like to these, all Counsels and all Decrees shall be made to signify nothing, and to have no Authority.  
3. There is no General Council that hath determined 
Numb. 7.  that a General Council is infallible: No Scripture hath recorded it; no Tradition universal hath transmitted to us any such proposition; So that we must receive the Authority at a lower rate, and upon a less probability than the things consigned by that Authority. And it is strange that the Decrees of Counsels should be esteemed authentic and infallible, and yet it is not infallibly certain, that the Counsels themselves are infallible, because the belief of the Counsels infallibility is not proved to us by any medium, but such as may deceive us.  
4. But the best instance that Counsels are some and may all be deceived, is the contradiction of one Council to another; 
Numb. 8.  for in that case both cannot be true, and which of them is true, must belong to another judgement, which is less than the solennity of a General Council; and the determination of this matter can be of no greater certainty after it is concluded, then when it was propounded as a Question, being it is to be determined by the same Authority or by a less than itself. But for this allegation, we cannot want instances; The Council of Trent allows picturing of God the Father; The Council of Nice altogether disallows it; The same Nicene 
Sess. 25.  Council, which was the seventh General, allows of picturing Christ in the form of a Lamb; But the sixth Synod by no 
Act. 2.  means will endure it, as Caranza affirms: The Council of Neocaesarea confirmed by Leo IV, dist. 20. de libellis, and approved 
Can. 82.  by the first Nicene Council as it is said in the seventh Session of the Council of Florence, forbids second Marriages, and imposes Penances on them that are married the second time, forbidding Priests to be present at such Marriage Feasts: Besides, that this is expressly against the Doctrine of S. Paul, it is also against the Doctrine of the Council of Laodicea which took off such 
Cap. 1.  Penances, and pronounced second Marriages to be free and lawful: Nothing is more discrepant than the third Council of Carthage and the Council of Laodicea, about assignation of the Canon of Scripture, and yet the sixth General Synod approves both: And I would feign know if all General Counsels are of the same mind with the Fathers of the Council of Carthage, who reckon into the Canon five Books of Solomon. I am sure S. Austin reckoned but three, and I think all Christendom 
L. 17. de cull. Dei. c. 20.  beside are of the same opinion. And if we look into the title of the Law de Conciliis, called Concordantia discordantiarum, we shall find instances enough to confirm that the Decrees of some Counsels are contradictory to others, and that no wit can reconcile them: And whether they did or no, that they might disagree, and former Counsels be corrected by later, was the belief of the Doctors in those Ages in which the best and most famous Counsels were convened, as appears in that famous saying of S. Austin speaking concerning the rebaptising of Heretics; and how much the Africans were deceived in that Question, he answers the Allegation of the Bishop's Letters, and those Nationall Counsels which confirmed S. Cyprians opinion by saying that they were no final determination. For Episcoporum literae emendari possunt à Conciliis nationalibus, 
L. 2. de bapt. Donat. c. 3.  Concilia nationalia à plenariis, ipsaque plenaria priora à posterioribus emendari. Not only the occasion of the Question being a matter not of fact, but of Faith, as being instanced in the Question of rebaptisation: but also the very fabric and oeconomy of the words, put by all the answers of those men who think themselves pressed with the Authority of S. Austin. For as Nationall Counsels may correct the Bishop's Letters, and General Counsels may correct Nationall, so the later General may correct the former, that is, have contrary and better Decrees of manners, and better determinations in matters of faith. And from hence hath risen a Question whether is to be received the former or the later Counsels, in case they contradict each other. The former are nearer the fountains Apostolical, the later are of greater consideration; The first, have more Authority, the later more reason; The first are more venerable, the later more inquisitive and seeing. And now what rule shall we have to determine out beliefs, whether to Authority, or Reason the Reason and the Authority both of them not being the highest in their kind, both of them being repudiable, and at most but probable? And here it is that this great uncertainty is such as not to determine any body, but fit to serve every body; and it is sport to see that Bellarmine will by all means have the Council of Carthage preferred before the Council of Laodicea, because it is later, and 
L. 2. de Conc. c. 8. § respondeo in primis.  yet he prefers the second Nicene 
* Ibid. § de Concilio autem.  Council before the Council of Frankfurt, because it is elder: S. Austin would have the former Generals to be mended by the later; but Isidore in Gratian says when Counsels do differ scandum esse antiquioribus, the elder must carry it: And indeed these probables are 
Dist. 20. Can. Domino Sancto.  buskins to serve every foot, and they are like magnum & parvum, they have nothing of their own, all that they have is in comparison of others; so these topics have nothing of resolute and dogmatic truth, but in relation to such ends as an interessed person hath a mind to serve upon them.  
5. There are many Counsels corrupted, and many pretended and alleged, when there were no such things, both which 
Numb. 9  make the topic of the Authority of Counsels to be little and inconsiderable: There is a Council brought to light in the edition of Counsels by Binius, viz. Sinvessanum, pretended to be kept in the year 303, but it was so private till then, that we find no mention of it in any ancient Record: Neither Eusebius, nor Ruffinus, S, Hierom, nor Socrates, Sozomen, nor Theodoret, nor Eutropius, nor Bede knew any thing of it, and the eldest allegation of it is by Pope Nicholas I, in the ninth Century. And he that shall consider that 300 Bishops in the midst of horrid Persecutions (for so then they were) are pretended to have convened, will need no greater Argument to suspect the imposture; besides, he that was the framer of the engine did not lay his ends together handsomely, for it is said that the deposition of Marcellinus by the Synod was told to Diocletian, when he was in the Persian War, when as it is known before that time he had returned to Rome, and triumphed for his Persian Conquest as Eusebius in his Chronicle reports: And this is so plain that Binius and Baronius pretend the Text to be corrupted & to go to 
* Pro [cum esset in bello Persarum] legi volunt [cum reversus esset è bello Persarum] Euseb. Chronicon vide Binium in notis ad Concil. Sinvessanum. Tom. 1. Concil. & Baron. Annal. Tom. 3. A. D. 303. num. 107.  mend it by such an emendation as is a plain contradiction to the sense, and that so un-clerk-like, viz. by putting in two words and leaving out one, which whether it may be allowed them by any licence less than Poetical let Critics judge. S. Gregory saith that the Constantinopolitans had corrupted the Synod of 
I. 5. Ep. 14. ad Narsem.  Chalcedon, and that he suspected the same concerning the Ephesine Council: And in the fifth Synod there was a notorious prevarication, for there were false Epistles of Pope Vigilius and Menna the Patriarch of Constantinople inserted, and so they passed for authentic till they were discovered in the sixth General Synod, Actions the 12. and 14: And not only false Decrees and Actions may creep into the Codes of Counsels; but sometimes the authority of a learned man may abuse the Church with pretended Decrees, of which there is no Copy or shadow in the Code itself: And thus Thomas Aquinas says that the Epistle to the Hebrews was reckoned in the Canon 
Comment. in Hebr.  by the Nicene Council, no shadow of which appears in those Copies we now have of it; and this pretence and the reputation of the man prevailed so fare with Melchior Canus the learned Bishop of Canaries, that he believed it upon this ground, Vir sanctus rem adeo gravem non astrueret, nisi compertum habuisset; and there are many things which have prevailed upon less reason and a more slight Authority. And that very Council of Nice, hath not only been pretended by Aquinas, but very much abused by others, and its Authority and great reputation hath made it more liable to the fraud and pretences of idle people: For whereas the Nicene Fathers made but twenty Canons, for so many and no more were received by 
a Con. Carthag. VI cap. 9  Cecilian of Carthage, that was at Nice in the Council; by S. 
b Con. African.  Austin, and 200 African Bishops with him, by S. 
c Ibid. c. 102. etc. 133.  Cyrill of Alexandria, by 
d Lib. 1. Eccl. Hist. c. 6.  Atticus of Constantinople, by Ruffinus, 
e In princ. Con. de Synod. Princ.  Isidore and Theodoret, as 
f Baronius, tom. 3. A. D. 325. n. 156. Tom. 3. ad A. D. 325. n. 62 63.  Baronius witnesses, yet there are fourscore lately found out in an Arabian M. S. and published in Latin by Turrian and Alfonsus of Pisa Jesuits surely, and like to be masters of the mint. And not only the Canons, but the very Acts of the Nicene Council are false and spurious, and are so confessed by Baronius; though how he and 
g Panopl. l. 2. c. 6.  Lindanus will be reconciled upon the point, I neither know well nor much care. Now if one Council be corrupted, we see by the instance of S. Gregory, that another may be suspected and so all; because he found the Council of Chalcedon corrupted, he suspected also the Ephesine, and another might have suspected more, for the Nicene was tampered foully with, and so three of the four Generals were sullied and made suspicious, and therefore we could not be secure of any; If false Acts be inserted in one Council, who can trust the actions of any, unless he had the keeping the Records himself, or durst swear for the Register: And if a very learned man (as Thomas Aquinas was,) did either wilfully deceive us, or was himself ignorantly abused in Allegation of a Canon which was not, it is but a very fallible Topick at the best, and the most holy man that is, may be abused himself, and the wisest may deceive others.  
6. And lastly, To all this and to the former instances, by way of Corollary, I add some more particulars in which it is notorious 
Numb. 10.  that Counsels General, and Nationall, that is, such as were either General by Original, or by adoption into the Canon of the Catholic Church did err, and were actually deceived. The first Council of Toledo admits to the Communion him that hath a Concubine, so he have no wife besides, and this Council is approved by Pope Leo in the 92 Epistle to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona: Gratian says that the Council means by a Concubine, a wife married sine dote & solennitate; but this is 
Dist. 34. can. omnibus.  daubing with untempered mortar. For though it was a custom amongst the Jews to distinguish Wives from their Concubines, by Dowry and legal Solennities, yet the Christian distinguished them no otherwise, then as lawful and unlawful, then as Chastity and Fornication: And besides, if by a Concubine is meant a lawful wife without a Dowry, to what purpose should the Council make a Law that such a one might be admitted to the Communion? for I suppose it was never thought to be a Law of Christianity, that a man should have a Portion with his Wife, nor he that married a poor Virgin should deserve to be Excommunicate. So that Gratian and his Followers are pressed so with this Canon, that to avoid the impiety of it, they expound it to a signification without sense or purpose. But the business than was, that Adultery was so public and notorious a practice that the Council did choose rather to endure simple Fornication, that by such permission of a less, they might slacken the public custom of a greater, just as at Rome they permit Stews to prevent unnatural sins; But that by a public sanction Fornicators, habitually and notoriously such, should be admitted to the holy Communion was an act of Priests, so unfit for Priests, that no excuse can make it white or clean. The Council of Worms does authorise a superstitious custom at that time too much used, of 
Cap. 3.  discovering stolen goods by the holy Sacrament, which 
a Part. 3. q 80. a. 6. ad 3 m.  Aquinas justly condemns for Superstition. The 
b Can. 72.  sixth Synod separates persons lawfully married upon an accusation and crime of heresy: The Roman Council under 
c Can ego Berengar. de consecrat. dist. 2.  Pope Nicholas II. defined that not only the Sacrament of Christ's body, but the very body itself of our blessed Saviour is handled and broke by the hands of the Priest, and chewed by the teeth of the Communicants, which is a manifest error derogatory from the truth of Christ's beatifical Resurrection, and glorification in the Heavens, and disavowed by the Church of Rome itself: But Bellarmine that answers all the Arguments in the world, whither it be possible or not possible, would feign make the 
Lib. 2. c. 8. de Concil.  matter fair, and the Decree tolerable, for says he, the Decree means that the body is broken not in itself but in the sign, and yet the Decree says that not only the Sacrament (which if any thing be, is certainly the sign) but the very body itself is broken and champed with hands and teeth respectively; which indeed was nothing but a plain overacting the Article in contradiction to Berengarius. And the answer of Bellarmine is not sense; for he denies that the body itself is broken in itself (that was the error we charged upon the Roman Synod) and the sign abstracting from the body is not broken, (for that was the opinion that Council condemned in Berengarius) but says Bellarmine, the body in the sign: What's that? for neither the sign, nor the body, nor both together are broken: For if either of them distinctly, they either rush upon the error which the Roman Synod condemned in Berengarius, or upon that which they would fain excuse in Pope Nicholas; but if both are broken then 'tis true to affirm it of either, and then the Council is blasphemous in saying that Christ's glorified body is passable and frangible by natural manducation: So that it is and it is not, it is not this way, and yet it is no way else, but it is some way, and they know not how, and the Council spoke blasphemy, but it must be made innocent; and therefore, it was requisite a cloud of a distinction should be raised, that the unwary Reader might be amused, and the Decree scape untouched; but the truth is, they that undertake to justify all that other men say, must be more subtle than they that said it, and must use such distinctions which possibly the first Authors did not understand. But I will multiply no more instances, for what instance soever I shall bring, some or other will be answering it, which thing is so fare from satisfying me in the particulars, that it increases the difficulty in the general, and satisfies me in my first belief: For 
* Illa demùm cis videntur edicta & Concilia quae in rem suam faciunt; reliqua non pluris aestimant quam conventum muliercularum in textrinâ vel thermis. Ludo. Vives. in Scholiis lib. 20. Aug. de Civit. Dei. c. 26.  if no Decrees of Counsels can make against them though they seem never so plain against them, then let others be allowed the same liberty, (and there is all the reason in the world they should) and not Decree shall conclude against any Doctrine, that they have already entertained; and by this means the Church is no fit instrument to Decree Controversies then the Scripture itself, there being as much obscurity and disputing in the sense, and the manner, and the degree, and the competency, and the obligation of the Decree of a Council, as of a place of Scripture. And what are we the nearer for a Decree, if any Sophister shall think his elusion enough to contest against the Authority of a Council? yet this they do, that pretend highest for their Authority, which consideration or some like it might possibly make Gratian prefer S. Hierom's single 
36. q. 2. c. placuit.  Testimony before a whole Council, because he had Scripture of his side; which says, that the Authority of Counsels is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that Counsels may possibly recede from their Rule, from Scripture; and in that case, a single person proceeding according to Rule is a better Argument; which indeed was the saying of Panormitan, in concernentibus 
Part. 1. de election. Et elect. potest. cap. significant.  fidem etiam dictum unius privati esset dicto Pape aut totius Concilii praeferendum, si ille moveretur melioribus Argumentis.  
I end this Discourse with representing the words of Gregory Nazianzen in his Epistle to Procopius; Ego si vera scribere 
Numb. 11.  oportet ita animo affectus sum, ut omnia Episcoporum Concilia 
Athanas. lib. de Synod. Frusta igitur circumcursitantes praetexunt ob fidem se Synodos postulare, cum sit Divina Scriptura omnibus potentior.  fugiam, quoniam nullius Concilii finem laetum faustumque vidi, nec quod depulsionem malorum potius quam accessionem & incrementum habuerit: But I will not be so severe and dogmatic against them: For I believe many Counsels to have been called with sufficient Authority, to have been managed with singular piety and prudence, and to have been finished with admirable success and truth. And where we find such Counsels, he that will not with all veneration believe their Decrees, and receive their sanctions, understands not that great duty he owes to them who have the care of our souls, whose faith we are bound to follow (saith S. Paul) that is so long as they follow Christ, and certainly many Counsels have done so: But 
Heb. 13. 7.  this was then when the public interest of Christendom was better conserved in determining a true Article, then in finding a discreet temper, or a wise expedient to satisfy disagreeing persons; (As the Fathers at Trent did, and the Lutherans and Calvinists did at Sendomir in Polonia; and the Sublapsarians and Supralapsarians did at Dort:) It was in Ages when the sum of Religion did not consist in maintaining the Grandezza of the Papacy; where there was no order of men with a fourth Vow upon them to advance S. Peter's Chair; when there was no man, nor any company of men, that esteemed themselves infallible, and therefore they searched for truth as if they meant to find it, and would believe it if they could see it proved, not resolved to prove it because they had upon chance or interest believed it; then they had rather have spoken a truth, then upheld their reputation, but only in order to truth. This was done sometimes, and when it was done, God's Spirit never failed them, but gave them such assistances as were sufficient to that good end for which they were Assembled, and did implore his aid: And therefore it is that the four general Counsels so called by way of eminency, have gained so great a reputation above all others, not because they had a better promise, or more special assistances, but because they proceeded better according to the Rule, with less faction, without ambition and temporal ends.  
And yet those very Assemblies of Bishops had no Authority by their Decrees to make a Divine Faith, or to constitute 
Numb. 12.  new objects of necessary Credence; they made nothing true that was not so before, and therefore they are to be apprehended in the nature of excellent Guides, and whose Decrees are most certainly to determine all those who have no Argument to the contrary of greater force and efficacy than the Authority or reasons of the Council. And there is a duty owing to every Parish Priest, and to every Dioecesan Bishop; these are appointed over us and to answer for our souls, and are therefore morally to guide us, as reasonable Creatures are to be guided, that is, by reason and discourse: For in things of judgement and understanding, they are but in form next above Beasts, that are to be ruled by the imperiousness and absoluteness of Authority, unless the Authority be Divine, that is, infallible. Now then in a juster height, but still in its true proportion, Assemblies of Bishops are to guide us with a higher Authority, because in reason it is supposed they will do it better, with more Argument and certainty, and with Decrees, which have the advantage by being the results of many discourses of very wise and good men: But that the Authority of general Counsels, was never esteemed absolute, infallible and unlimited, appears in this, that before they were obliging, it was necessary that each particular Church respectively should accept them, Concurrente universali totius Ecclesiae consensu, etc. 
Vid. S. August. 1. l. c. 18. de bapt. contr. Donat.  in declaratione veritatum quae credendae sunt etc. That's the way of making the Deerees of Counsels become authentik, and be turned into a Law as Gerson observes; and till they did, their Decrees were but a dead letter (and therefore it is that these later Popes have so laboured, that the Council of Trent should be received in France; and Carolus Molineus a great Lawyer, and of the Roman Communion disputed 
* So did the third Estate of France in the Convention of the three Estates under Lewis the 13th earnestly contend against it.  against the reception,) and this is a known condition in the Canon Law, but it proves plainly that the Decrees of Counsels have their Authority from the voluntary submission of the particular Churches, not from the prime sanction and constitution of the Council. And there is great reason it should; for as the representative body of the Church derives all power from the diffusive body which is represented, so it resolves into it, and though it may have all the legal power, yet it hath not all the natural; for more able men may be unsent, then sent; and they who are sent may be wrought upon by stratagem, which cannot happen to the whole diffusive Church; it is therefore most fit that since the legal power, that is, the external was passed over to the body representative, yet the efficacy of it, and the internal should so still remain in the diffusive, as to have power to consider whether their representatives did their duty yea or no, and so to proceed accordingly: For unless it be in matters of justice, in which the interest of a third person is concerned, no man will or can be supposed to pass away all power from himself of doing himself right, in matters personal, proper, and of so high concernment: It is most unnatural and unreasonable. But besides, that they are excellent instruments of peace, the best humane Judicatories in the world, rare Sermons for the determining a point in Controversy, and the greatest probability from humane Authority, besides these advantages (I say) I know nothing greater that general Counsels can pretend to with reason and Argument sufficient to satisfy any wise man: And as there was never any Council so general, but it might have been more general; for in respect of the whole Church, even Nice itself was but a small Assembly; so there is no Decree so well constituted, but it may be proved by an Argument higher than the Authority of the Council: And therefore general Counsels, and Nationall, and Provincial, and Dioecesan in their several degrees, are excellent Guides for the Prophets and directions and instructions for their Prophesying, but not of weight and Authority to restrain their Liberty so wholly, but that they may descent when they see a reason strong enough so to persuade them, as to be willing upon the confidence of that reason and their own sincerity, to answer to God for such their modesty, and peaceable, but (as they believe) their necessary disagreeing.   

SECT. VII.  
Of the fallibility of the Pope, and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture, and resolving Questions.  
BUt since the Question between the Council and the Pope 
Numb. 1.  grew high, there have not wanted abettors so confident on the Pope's behalf, as to believe General Counsels to be nothing but Pompes and Solennities of the Catholic Church, and that all the Authority of determining Controversies is formally and effectually in the Pope. And therefore to appeal from the Pope to a future Council is a heresy, yea, and Treason too said Pope Pius TWO, and therefore it concerns us now 
Epist. ad Norimberg.  to be wise and wary. But before I proceed, I must needs remember that Pope Pius TWO, while he was the wise and learned 
Patrum & avorum nostrorum tempore pauci audebant dicere Papam esse supra Concilium. l. 1. de gestis Concil. Basil.  Aeneas Silvius, was very confident for the pre-eminence of a Council, and gave a merry reason why more Clerks were for the Popes than the Council, though the truth was on the other side, even because the Pope gives Bishoprics and Abbeys, but Counsels give none; and yet as soon as he was made Pope, as if he had been inspired, his eyes were open to see the great privileges of S. Peter's Chair, which before he could not see, being amused with the truth, or else with the reputation of a General Council. But however, there are many that hope to make it good, that the Pope is the Universal and the infallible Doctor, that he breathes Decrees as Oracles, that to descent from any of his Cathedral determinations is absolute heresy, the Rule of Faith being nothing else but consormity to the Chair of Peter. So that here we have met a restraint of Prophecy indeed; but yet to make amends, I hope we shall have an infallible Guide, and when a man is in Heaven, he will never complain that his choice is taken from him, and that he is confined to love and to admire, since his love and his admiration is fixed, upon that which makes him happy, even upon God himself. And in the Church of Rome there is in a lower degree, but in a true proportion as little cause to be troubled, that we are confined to believe just so, and no choice left us for our understandings to discover or our wills to choose, because though we be limited, yet we are pointed out where we ought to rest, we are confined to our Centre, and there where our understandings will be satisfied, and therefore will be quiet, and where after all our strive, studies and endeavours we desire to come, that is, to truth, for there we are secured to find it, because we have a Guide that is infallible: If this prove true, we are well enough. But if it be false or uncertain, it were better we had still kept our liberty, then be cozened out of it with gay pretences. This than we must consider.  
And here we shall be oppressed with a cloud of Witnesses: For what more plain than the Commission given to Peter? 
Numb. 2.  Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church. And to thee will I give the Keys. And again, for thee have I prayed that thy faith fail not; but thou when thou art converted confirm thy brethren; And again, If thou lovest me feed my sheep: Now nothing of this being spoken to any of the other Apostles, by one of these places S. Peter must needs be appointed Foundation or Head of the Church, and by consequence he is to rule and govern all. By some other of these places he is made the supreme Pastor, and he is to teach and determine all, and enabled with an infallible power so to do: And in a right understanding of these Authorities, the Fathers speak great things of the Chair of Peter; for we are as much bound to believe that all this was spoken to Peter's Successors, as to his Person; that must by all means be supposed, and so did the old Doctors, who had as much certainty of it as we have, and no more; but yet let's hear what they have said, 
a Irenae. contra. haeres. l. 3. c. 3.  To this Church by reason of its more powerful principality, it is necessary all Churches round about should Convene: ..... In this, Tradition Apostolical always was observed, and therefore to communicate with this Bishop with this 
* Ambr. de obitu Salyri, & l. 1. Ep. 4. ad Imp. Cypr. Ep. 52.  Church, was to be in Communion with the Church Catholic: .... 
b Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Cornel.  To this Church error or perfidiousness cannot have access: .... 
c S. Austin. in Psal. contra. partem. Donat.  Against this Sea the gates of Hell cannot prevail: .... 
d Hieron. Ep. 57 ad Damasum.  For we know this Church to be built upon a Rock: .... And whoever eats the Lamb not within this House, is profane; he that is not in the Ark of Noah perishes in the inundation of waters. He that gathers not with this Bishop he scatters; and he that belongeth not to Christ, must needs belong to Antichrist. And that's his final sentence: But if you would have all this proved by an infallible Argument, 
e L. 2. contra. Parmenian.  Optatus of Milevis in Africa supplies it to us from the very name of Peter: For therefore Christ gave him the cognomination of Cephas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to show that S. Peter was the visible Head of the Catholic Church. Dignum patellà operculum! This long harangue must needs be full of tragedy to all them that take liberty to themselves to follow Scripture and their best Guides, if it happens in that liberty that they depart from the persuasions or the Communion of Rome: But indeed, if with the peace of the Bishops of Rome I may say it, this Scene is the most unhandsomely laid, and the worst carried of any of those pretences that have lately abused Christendom.  
1. Against the Allegations of Scripture, I shall lay no greater 
Numb. 3.  prejudice than this, that if a person disinterested should see them, and consider what the products of them might possibly be, the last thing that he would think of, would be how that any of these places should serve the ends or pretences of the Church of Rome: For to instance in one of the particulars, that man had need have a strong fancy who imagines that because Christ prayed for S. Peter, that (being he had designed him to be one of those upon whose preaching and Doctrine he did mean to constitute a Church) that his faith might not fail, (for it was necessary that no bitterness or stopping should be in one of the first springs, lest the current be either spoiled or obstructed) that therefore the faith of Pope Alexander VI, or Gregory, or Clement 1500 years after, should be be preserved by virtue of that prayer, which the form of words, the time, the occasion, the manner of the address, the effect itself, and all the circumstances of the action and person did determine to be personal: And when it was more than personal, S. Peter did not represent his Successors at Rome, but 
22ae. q. 2. a. 6. ar. 6. ad 3 m.  the whole Catholic Church, says Aquinas and the Divines of the University of Paris, Volunt enim pro solâ Ecclesiâ esse 
L. 4. de Roman. Pont. c. 3. § 1.  oratum, says Bellarmine of them, and the gloss upon the Canon Law plainly denies the effect of this prayer at all to appertain to the Pope: Quaere de quâ Ecclesia intelligas quod hoc dicitur quod 
Caus. 21. cap. à recta. q. 1.  non possit errare, si de ipso Papâ qui Ecclesia dicitur? sed certum est quod Papa errare potest— Respondeo ipsa Congregatio fidelium hic dicitur Ecclesia, & talis Ecclesia non potest non esse, 
29. dist. Ana. statius 60. dist. si Papa.  nam ipse Dominus orat pro Ecclesiâ, & voluntate labiorum suorum non fraudabitur. But there is a little danger in this Argument when we well consider it; but it is likely to redound on the head of them whose turns it should serve: For it may be remembered that for all this prayer of Christ for S. Peter, the good man sell foully, and denied his Master shamefully: And shall Christ's prayer be of greater efficacy for his Successors, for whom it was made but indirectly and by consequence, then for himself, for whom it was directly and in the first intention? And if not, then for all this Argument, the Popes may deny Christ as well as their chief and Decessor Peter. But it would not be forgotten how the Roman Doctors will by no means allow that S. Peter was then the chief Bishop or Pope, when he denied his Master. But then much less was he chosen chief Bishop, when the prayer was made for him, because the prayer was made before his fall; that is, before that time in which it is confessed, he was not as yet made Pope: And how then the whole Succession of the Papacy should be entitled to it, passes the length of my hand to span. But then also if it be supposed and allowed, that these words shall entail infallibility upon the Chair of Rome, why shall not also all the Apostolical Sees be infallible as well as Rome? why shall not Constaentinople or Byzantium where S. Andrew sat? why shall not Ephesus where S. John sat? or Jerusalem where S. James sat? for Christ prayed for them all, ut Pater sanctificaret eos sua veritate, Joh. 17.  
2. For [tibi dabo claves,] was it personal or not? If it were, than the Bishops of Rome have nothing to do with it: 
Numb. 4.  If it were not, then by what Argument will it be made evident that S. Peter, in the promise represented only his Successors, and not the whole College of Apostles, and the whole Hierarchy? For if S. Peter was chief of the Apostles, and Head of the Church, he might fair enough be the representative of the whole College, and receive it in their right as well as his own; which also is certain that it was so, for the same promise of binding and losing, (which certainly was all that the keys were given for) was made afterward to all the Apostles, Mat. 18. and the power of remitting and retaining which in reason and according to the stile of the Church is the same thing in other words, was actually given to all the Apostles, and unless that was the performing the first and second promise, we find it not recorded in Scripture how or when or whether yet or no, the promise be performed: That promise I say which did not pertain to Peter principally and by origination, and to the rest by Communication, society and adherence, but that promise which was made to Peter first, but not for himself, but for all the College and for all their Successors, and then made the second time to them all, without representation but in diffusion, and performed to all alike in presence except S. Thomas. And if he went to S. Peter to derive it from him, I know not; I find no record for that, but that Christ conveyed the promise to him by the same Commission, the Church yet never doubted, nor had she any reason. But this matter is too notorious: I say no more to it, but repeat the words and Argument of S. Austin, Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non facit hoc Ecclesia: If the Keys were only given and so promised to S. Peter, that 
Tra. 50. in joann.  the Church hath not the Keys, than the Church can neither bind nor lose, remit nor retain, which God forbidden; if any man should endeavour to answer this Argument, I leave him and S. Austin to contest it.  
3. For pasce oves there is little in that Allegation, besides the boldness of the Objectors; for were not all the Apostles 
Numb. 5.  bound to feed Christ's sheep? had they not all the Commission from Christ, and Christ's Spirit immediately? S. Paul had certainly; did not S. Peter himself say to all the Bishops of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, that they should feed the flock of God, and the great Bishop and Shepherd should give them an immarcescible Crown; plainly implying, that from whence they derived their Authority, from him they were sure of a reward: In pursuance of which S. Cyprian laid his Argument upon this basis, Nam cum statutum sit omnibus 
L. 1. Epist. 3.  nobis, etc. & singulis pastoribus portio gregis, etc. Did not S. Paul call to the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the flock of God, of which the holy Ghost hath made them Bishops or Overseers? and that this very Commission was spoken to Peter not in a personal, but a public capacity, and in him spoke to all the Apostles we see attested by S. Austin, and S. Ambrose and generally by all Antiquity; 
De ago Christi, c, 30.  and it so concerned even every Priest that Damasus was willing enough to have S. Hierom explicate many questions for him. And Liberius writes an Epistle to Athanasius with much modesty requiring his advice in a Question of Faith, 
Epist. ad Athanas. apud Athanas. tom. 1. pag 42. Paris.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That I also may be persuaded without all doubting of those things which you shall be pleased to command me. Now Liberius needed not to have troubled himself to have writ into the East to Athanasius; for if he had but seated himself in his Chair, and made the dictate, the result of his pen and ink would certainly have taught him and all the Church; but that the good Pope was ignorant that either pasce oves was his own Charter, and Prerogative, or that any other words of Scripture had made him to be infallible, or if he was not ignorant of it, he did very ill to compliment himself out of it. So did all those Bishops of Rome that in that troublesome and unprofitable Question of Easter, being unsatisfied in the supputation of the Egyptians, and the definitions of the Mathematical Bishops of Alexandria, did yet require and entreat S. Ambrose to tell them his opinion, as he himself witnesss; If pasce oves belongs only to the Pope by primary title, in these 
L. 10. Epist. 83.  cases the sheep came to feed the Shepherd, which though it was well enough in the thing, is very ill for the pretensions of the Roman Bishops; and if we consider how little many of the Popes have done toward feeding the sheep of Christ, we shall hardly determine which is the greater prevarication, that the Pope should claim the whole Commission to be granted to him, or that the execution of the Commission should be wholly passed over to others; and it may be there is a mystery in it, that since S. Peter sent a Bishop with his staff to raise up a Disciple of his from the dead, who was afterward Bishop of Triers, the Popes of Rome never wear a Pastoral staff except it be in that Diocese (says Aquinas) for great reason that he who does not do the office, should not bear the 
M. 4. Sent. dist. 24.  Symbol; but a man would think that the Pope's Master of the Ceremonies was ill advised not to assign a Pastoral staff to him, who pretends the Commission of pasce oves to belong to him by prime right and origination. But this is not a business to be merry in.  
But the great support is expected from Tu es Petrus & super 
Numb. 6.  hanc Petram adificabo Ecclesiam, etc. Now there being so great difference in the exposition of these words, by persons disinterressed, who, if any, might be allowed to judge in this Question, it is certain that neither one sense nor other can be obtruded for an Article of faith, much less as a Catholicon instead of all, by constituting an Authority which should guide us in all Faith, and determine us in all Questions: For if the Church was not built upon the person of Peter, than his Successors can challenge nothing from this instance; now that it was the confession of Peter upon which the Church was to rely for ever, we have witnesses very credible, 
a Ad Philadelph.  S. Ignatius, S. 
b Seleuc. orat. 25.  Basil, 
c L. 6. de Trinit.  S. Hilary, 
d De Trinitate advers. judaeos.  S. Gregory Nyssen, 
e L. 3. Ep. 33.  S. Gregory the Great, 
f In 1. Eph. joann. tr. 10.  S. Austin. 
g De Trinit. l. 4.  S. cyril of Alexandria, 
h L. 1. Ep. 235.  Isidore Pelusiot, and very many more. And although all these witnesses concurring cannot make a proposition to be true, yet they are sufficient witnesses, that it was not the Universal belief of Christendom that the Church was built upon S. Peter's person. Cardinal Perron hath a fine fancy to elude this variety of Exposition, and the consequents of it; For (saith he) these Expositions are not contrary or exclusive of each other, but inclusive and consequent to each other: For the Church is founded causally upon the confession of S. Peter, formally upon the ministry of his person, and this was a reward or a consequent of the former: So that these Expositions are both true, but they are conjoined as mediate and immediate, direct and collateral, literal and moral, original and perpetual, accessary and temporal, the one consigned at the beginning, the other introduced upon occasion: For before the spring of the Arrian heresy, the Fathers expounded these words of the person of Peter; but after the Arrians troubled them, the Father's finding great Authority, and Energy in this confession of Peter for the establishment of the natural siliation of the Son of God, to advance the reputation of these words and the force of the Argument, gave themselves lience to expound these words to the present advantage, and to make the confession of Peter to be the foundation of the Church, that if the Arrians should encounter this Authority, they might with more prejudice to their persons declaim against their cause by saying they overthrew the foundation of the Church. Besides that this answer does much dishonour the reputation of the Father's integrity, and makes their interpretations less credible as being made not of knowledge or reason but of necessity and to serve a present turn, it is also false: For 
* Epist. ad Philadelph. In c. 16. Mat. tract. 1.  Ignatius expounds it in a spiritual sense, which also the Liturgy attibuted to S. James calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And Origen expounds it mystically to a third purpose, but exclusively to this: And all these were before the Arrian Controversy. But if it be lawful to make such unproved observations, it would have been to better purpose, and more reason to have observed it thus: The Fathers so long as the Bishop of Rome kept himself to the limits prescribed him by Christ, and indulged to him by the Constitution or concession of the Church, were unwary and apt to expound this place of the person of Peter; but when the Church began to enlarge her phylacteries by the favour of Princes, and the Sunshine of a prosperous fortune, and the Pope by the advantage of the Imperial Seat, and other accidents began to invade upon the other Bishops and Patriarches, then that he might have no colour from Scripture for such new pretensions, they did most generally turn the stream of their expositions from the person to the confession of Peter, and declared that to be the foundation of the Church. And thus I have required fancy with fancy; but for the main point, that these two Expositions are inclusive of each other, I find no warrant; for though they may consist together well enough, if Christ had so intended them; yet unless it could be shown by some circumstance of the Text, or some other extrinsecall Argument that they must be so, and that both senses were actually intended. it is but gratis dictum and a begging of the Question, to say that they are so, and the fancy so new, that when S. Austin had expounded this place of the person of Peter, he reviewes it again, and in his Retractations leaves every man to his liberty, which to take; as having nothing certain in this Article: which had been altogether needless if he had believed them to be inclusively in each other, neither of them had need to have been retracted, both were alike true, both of them might have been believed: But I said the fancy was new, and I had reason; for it was so unknown till yesterday, that even the late Writers of his own side, expound the words of the confession of S. Peter exclusively to his person or any thing else, as is to be seen in 
a Desens. pacis part. 2. c. 28.  Marsilius, 
b Recommend. sacr. Script.  Petrus de Aliaco and the gloss upon Dist. 19 can. ita Dominus, § ut supra, which also was the Interpretation of Phavorinus Camers their own Bishop, from whom they learned the resemblance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which they have made so many gay discourses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
5. But upon condition I may have leave at another time to 
Numb. 7.  recede from so great and numerous Testimony of Fathers, I am willing to believe that it was not the confession of S. Peter, but his person upon which Christ said he would build his Church, or that these Expositions are consistent with and consequent to each other that this confession was the objective foundation of Faith, and Christ and his Apostles the subjective, Christ principally, and S. Peter instrumentally; and yet I understand not any advantage will hence accrue to the Sea of Rome: For upon S Peter it was built, but not alone, for it was upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; and when S. Paul reckoned the Oeconomy of Hierarchy, he reckons not Peter first, and then the Apostles. But first Apostles secondarily Prophets, etc. And whatsoever is first, either is before all things else, or at lest nothing is before it: So that at least S. Peter is not before all the rest of the Apostles, which also S. Paul expressly avers, I am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest of the Apostles, no not in the very being a Rock and a foundation; and it was of the Church of Ephesus, that S. Paul said in particular it was columna & firmamentum veritatis, that Church was, not excluding others, for they also were as much as she; for so we keep close and be united to the corner stone, although some be master bvilders, 
Vid. Socrat. l. 1. c. 19 20. Sozom. l. 2. c 14. Niceph. l. 14. c. 40.  yet all may build, and we have known whole Nations converted by Laymen and women, who have been bvilders so fare as to bring them to the corner stone.  
6. But suppose all these things concern S. Peter in all the 
Numb. 8.  capacities can be with any colour pretended, yet what have the Bishops of Rome to do with this? For how will it appear that these promises and Commissions did relate to him as a particular Bishop, and not as a public Apostle? Since this later is so much the more likely, because the great pretence of all seems in reason more proportionable to the founding of a Church, than its continuance: And yet if they did relate to him as a particular Bishop (which yet is a further degree of improbability, removed further from certainty) yet why shall S. Clement or Linus rather succeed in this great office of headship then S. john or any of the Apostles that survived Peter: It is no way likely a private person should skip over the head of an Apostle; or why shall his Successors at Rome more enjoy the benefit of it then his Successors at Antioch, since that he was at Antioch and preached there, we have a Divine Authority, but that he did so at Rome at most we have but a humane; and if it be replied that because he died at Rome, it was Argument enough that there his Successors were to inherit his privilege, this besides that at most it is but one little degree of probability, and so not of strength sufficient to support an Article of faith: it makes that the great Divine Right of Rome, and the Apostolical presidency was so contingent and fallible as to depend upon the decree of Nero; and if he had sent him to Antioch there to have suffered Martyrdom, the Bishops of that Town had been heads of the Catholic Church. And this thing presses the harder, because it is held by no mean persons in the Church of Rome, that the Bishopric of Rome and the Papacy are things separable: And the Pope may quit that Sea and sit in another, which to my understanding is an Argument, that he that succeeded Peter at Antioch, is as much supreme by Divine Right as he that sits at Rome; both alike, that is, 
Vid. Cameracens. Qu. vel● est.  neither by Divine Ordinance: For if the Roman Bishops by Christ's intention were to be Head of the Church, then by the same intention, the Succession must be continued in that Sea, and then let the Pope go whether he will, the Bishop of Rome must be the Head, which they themselves deny, and the Pope himself did not believe, when in a schism he sat at Avignon; and that it was to be continued in the Sea of Rome, it is but offered to us upon conjecture, upon an act providence, as they fancy it, so ordering it by vision, and this proved by an Author which themselves call fabulous and Apocryphal, under the name of Linus, in Biblioth. PP. de passione Petri & Pauli: A goodly building which relies upon an event that was accidental, whose purpose was but insinuated, the meaning of it but conjectured at, and this conjecture so uncertain, that it was an imperfect aim at the purpose of an event, which whether it was true or no, was so uncertain, that it is ten to one there was no such matter. And yet again another degree of uncertainty is, to whom the Bishops of Rome do succeed: For S. Paul was as much Bishop of Rome, as S. Peter was; there he presided, there he preached, and he it was that was the Doctor of the Uncircumcision and of the Gentiles, S. Peter of the Circumcision, and of the Jews only; and therefore the converted Jews at Rome, might with better reason claim the privilege of S. Peter, than the Romans and the Churches in her Communion, who do not derive from Jewish Parents.  
7. If the words were never so appropriate to Peter, or also 
Numb. 9  communicated to his Successors, yet of what value will the consequent be? what prerogative is entailed upon the Chair of Rome? For that S. Peter was the Ministerial Head of the Church, is the most that is desired to be proved by those and all other words brought for the same purposes, and interests of that Sea: Now let the Ministerall Head have what Dignity can be imagined, let him be the first (and in all Communities that are regular, and orderly there must be something that is first, upon certain occasions where an equal power cannot be exercised, and made pompous or ceremonial:) But will this Ministerial Headship infer an infallibility? will it infer more than the Headship of the Jewish Synagogue, where clearly the High Priest was supreme in many senses, yet in no sense infallible? will it infer more to us, than it did amongst the Apostles? amongst whom if for order's sake, S. Peter was the first, yet he had no compulsory power over the Apostles; there was no such thing spoke of, nor any such thing put in practice. And that the other Apostles were by a personal privilege as infallible as himself, is no reason to hinder the exercise of jurisdiction or any compulsory power over them; for though in Faith they were infallible, yet in manners and matter of fact as likely to err as S. Peter himself was, and certainly there might have something happened in the whole College, that might have been a Record of his Authority, by transmitting an example of the exercise of some Judicial power over some one of them: If he had but withstood any of them to their faces as S. Paul did him, it had been more than yet is said in his behalf. Will the Ministerial Headship infer any more than when the Church in a Community or a public capacity, should do any Act of Ministry Eccelesiastical, he shall be first in Order? Suppose this to be a dignity to preside in Counsels, which yet was not always granted him; Suppose it to be a power of taking cognisance of the Major Causes of Bishops when Counsels cannot be called; Suppose it a double voice or the last decisive, or the negative in the causes exterior; Suppose it to be what you will of dignity or external regiment, which when all Churches were united in Communion, and neither the interest of States, nor the engagement of opinions had made disunion, might better have been acted then now it can; yet this will fall infinitely short of a power to determine Controversies infallibly, and to prescribe to all men's faith and consciences. A Ministerial Headship or the prime Minister cannot in any capacity become the foundation of the Church to any such purpose. And therefore men are causlessely amused with such premises, and are afraid of such Conclusions which will never follow from the admission of any sense of these words that can with any probability be pretended.  
8. I consider that these Arguments from Scripture, are too weak to support such an Authority which pretends to give 
Numb. 10.  Oracles, and to answer infallibly in Questions of Faith, because there is greater reason to believe the Popes of Rome have erred, and greater certainty of demonstration, than these places can be that they are infallible, as will appear by the instances and perpetual experiment of their being deceived, of which there is no Question, but of the sense of these places there is: And indeed, if I had as clear Scripture for their infallibility, as I have against their half Communion, against their Service in an unknown tongue, worshipping of Images, and divers other Articles, I would make no scruple of believing, but limit and conform my understanding to all their Dictates, and believe it reasonable all Prophesying should be restrained: But till then, I have leave to discourse, and to use my reason; And to my reason, it seems not likely that neither Christ nor any of his Apostles, S. Peter himself, not S. Paul writing to the Church of Rome, should speak the least word or tittle of the infallibility of their Bishops, for it was certainly as convenient to tell us of a remedy, as to foretell that certainly there must needs be heresies, and need of a remedy. And it had been a certain determination of the Question, if when so rare an opportunity was ministered in the Question about Circumcision that they should have sent to Peter, who for his infallibility in ordinary, and his power of Headship would not only with reason enough as being infallibly assisted, but also for his Authority have best determined the Question, if at least the first Christians had known so profitable and so excellent a secret; and although we have but little Record, that the first Council at Jerusalem did much observe the solennities of Law, and the forms of Conciliary proceed, and the Ceremonials; yet so much of it as is recorded, is against them, S. James and not S. Peter gave the final sentence, and although S. Peter determined the Question pro libertate, yet S. James made the Decree, and the Assumentum too, and gave sentence they should abstain from some things there mentioned, which by way of temper he judged most expedient: And so it passed. And S. Peter shown no sign of a Superior Authority, nothing of 
S. Chrysost. hom. 3. in. act. Apost.  Superior jurisdiction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
So that if this Question be to be determined by Scripture, it 
Numb. 11.  must either be ended by plain places or by obscure; plain places there are none, and these that are with greatest fancy pretended, are expounded by Antiquity to contrary purposes. But if obscure places be all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by what means shall we infallibly find the sense of them? The Pope's interpretation though in all other cases it might be pretended, in this cannot; for it is the thing in Question, and therefore cannot determine for itself; either therefore we have also another infallible guide besides the Pope, and so we have two Foundations and two Heads (for this as well as the other upon the same reason) or else (which is indeed the truth) there is no infallible way to be infallibly assured that the Pope is infallible. Now it being against the common condition of men, above the pretences of all other Governors Ecclesiastical, against the Analogy of Scripture, and the deportment of the other Apostles, against the Oeconomy of the Church, and S. Peter's own entertainment, the presumption lies against him, and these places, are to be left to their prime intentions and not put upon the rack, to force them to confess what they never thought.  
But now for Antiquity, if that be deposed in this Question, there are so many circumstances to be considered to reconcile 
Numb. 12.  their words and their actions, that the process is more troublesome, than the Argument can be concluding, or the matter considerable: But I shall a little consider it, so fare at least as to show either Antiquity said no such thing as is pretended, or if they did, it is but little considerable, because they did not believe themselves; their practice was the greatest evidence in the world against the pretence of their words. But I am much cased of a long disquisition in this particular (for I love not to prove a Question by Arguments whose Authority is in itself as fallible, and by circumstances made as uncertain as the Question) by the saying of Aeneas Silvius, that before the Nicene Council every men lived to himself, and small respect was had to the Church of Rome, which practice could not well consist with the Doctrine of their Bishop's infallibility, and by consequence supreme judgement and last resolution in matters of Faith; but especially by the insinuation and consequent 
De Rom. Pont. l, 4. c. 2. § secunda sententia.  acknowledgement of Bellarmine, that for 1000 years together the Fathers knew not of the Doctrine of the Pope's infallibility, for Nilus, Gerson, Alemain, the Divines of Paris, Alphonsus de Castro, and Pope Adrian VI, persons who lived 1400 after Christ, affirm, that infallibility is not seated in the Pope's person, that he may err and sometimes actually hath, which is a clear demonstration that the Church knew no such Doctrine as this; there had been no Decree nor Tradition, nor general opinion of the Fathers, or of any age before them; and therefore this opinion which Bellarmine would feign blast if he could, yet in his Conclusion he says it is not propriè haeretica. A device, and an expression of his own without sense or precedent. But if the Fathers had spoken of it and believed it, why may not a disagreeing person as well reject their Authority when it is in behalf of Rome, as they of Rome without scruple cast them off when they speak against it? For as Bellarmine being pressed with the Authority of Nilus' Bishop of Thessalonica and other Fathers, he says that the Pope acknowledges no Fathers but they are all his children, and therefore they cannot depose against him; and if that be true, why shall we take their Testimonies for him? for if Sons depose in their Father's behalf, it is twenty to one, but the adverse party will be cast, and therefore at the best it is but suspectum Testimonium. But indeed this discourse signifies nothing, but a perpetual uncertainty in such topics, and that where a violent prejudice, or a concerning interest is engaged, men by not regarding what any man says, proclaim to all the world that nothing is certain, but Divine Authority.  
But I will not take advantage of what Bellarmine says, nor what Stapleton, or any one of them all say, for that will be 
Numb. 13.  but to press upon personal persuasions, or to urge a general Question with a particular defaillance, and the Question is never the nearer to an end; for if Bellarmine says any thing that is not to another man's purpose or persuasion, that man will be tried by his own Argument, not by another's: And so would every man do that loves his liberty, as all wise men do, and therefore retain it by open violence, or private evasions: But to return.  
An Authority from Irenaeus in this Question, and on behalf of the Pope's infallibility, or the Authority of the Sea of Rome, 
Numb. 14.  or of the necessity of communicating with them is very fallible; for besides that there are almost a dozen answers to the words of the Allegation, as is to be seen in those that trouble themselves in this Question with the Allegation, and answering such Authorities, yet if they should make for the affirmative of this Question, it is protestatio contra factum. For Irenaeus had no such great opinion of Pope Victor's infallibility, that he believed things in the same degree of necessity that the Pope did, for therefore he chides him for Excommunicating the Asian Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all at a blow in the Question concerning Easter day; and in a Question of Faith he expressly disagreed from the doctrine of Rome; for Irenaeus was of the Millenary opinion, and believed it to be a Tradition Apostolical; now if the Church of Rome was of that opinion, then why is she not now? where is the succession of her doctrine? But if she was not of that opinion then, and Irenaeus was, where was his belief of that Church's infallibility? The same I urge concerning S. Cyprian who was the head of a Sect in opposition to the Church of Rome, in the Question of rebaptisation, and he and the abettors, Firmilian and the other Bishops of Cappadocia, and the voisinage spoke harsh words of Stephen, and such as become them not to speak to an infallible Doctor, and the supreme Head of the Church. I will urge none of them to the disadvantage of that Sea, but only note the Satyrs of Firmilian against him, because it is of good use, to show that it is possible for them in their ill carriage to blast the reputation and efficacy of a great Authority: For he says that that Church did pretend the Authority of the Apostles, cum in multis sacramentis divinae rei, à 
Epist. Firmiliani contr. Steph. ad Cyprian. Vid. etiam Ep. Cypriani ad Pompeium.  principio discrepet, & ab Ecclesia Hierosolymitanâ, & defamet Petrum & Paulum tanquam authores. And a little after justè dedignor (says he) apertam & manifestam stultitiam Stephani, per quam veritas Christianae petrae aboletur, which words say plainly that for all the goodly pretence of Apostolical Authority, the Church of Rome did then in many things of Religion disagree from Divine Institution (and from the Church of Jerusalem, which they had as great esteem of for Religion sake, as of Rome for its principality) and that still in pretending to S. Peter and S. Paul they dishonoured those blessed Apostles, and destroyed the honour of their pretence by their untoward prevarication; which words I confess pass my skill to reconcile them to an opinion of infallibility; and although they were spoken by an angry person, yet they declare that in Africa they were not then persuaded, as now they were at Rome: Nam 
Cyprian Epist, ad Quintum. 〈◊〉.  nec Petrus quem primum Dominus clegit vendicavit sibi aliquid insolentèr aut arrogantèr assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere: That was their belief then, and how the contrary hath grown up to that height where now it is all the world is witness: And now I shall not need to note concerning S. Hierome, that he gave a compliment to Damasus, that he would not have given to Liberius, Qui tecum non colligit spargit. For it might be true enough of Damasus who was a good Bishop and a right believer; but if Liberius' name had been put instead of Damasus, the case had been altered with the name; for S. Hierom did believe and write it so, that Liberius had subscribed to Arrianism. And if either he or any of the rest had believed the 
De Script, Eccles. in Fortunatiano.  Pope could not be a Heretic nor his Faith fail, but be so good and of so competent Authority as to be a Rule to Christendom; Why did they not appeal to the Pope in the Arrian Controversy? why was the Bishop of Rome made a Party and a concurrent as other good Bishops were, and not a Judge and an Arbitrator in the Question? Why did the Fathers prescribe so many Rules and cautions and provisoes for the discovery of heresy? Why were the Emperors at so much charge, and the Church at so much trouble as to call and convene in Counsels respectively, to dispute so frequently, to write so: sedulously, to observe all advantages against their Adversaries, and for the truth, and never offered to call for the Pope to determine the Question in his Chair? Certaindly no way could have been so expedite, none so concluding and peremptory, none could have convinced so certainly, none could have triumphed so openly over all discrepants as this, if they had known of any such thing as his being infallible, or that he had been appointed by Christ to be the Judge of Controversies. And therefore I will not trouble this discourse to excuse any more words either pretended or really said to this purpose of the Pope, for they would but make books swell and the Question endless, I shall only to this purpose observe that the Old Writers were so fare from believing the infallibility of the Roman Church or Bishop, that many Bishops and many Churches did actually live and continue out of the Roman Communion; particularly 
* Vbi illa Augustini & reliquorum prudentia? quis jam ferat crassissimae ignorantiae illam vocem in tot & tantis Patribus? Alan. Cop. dialog. p. 76, 77. Vide etiam Bonifac. 11. Epist. ad Eulalium Alexandrinum. Lindanum Panopli. l. 4. c. 89. in fine. Sa'meron Tom. 12. Tract. 68 § ad Canonem Saunder. de visibili Monarchia, l. 7. n. 411. Baron. Tom. 10. A. D. 878.  S. Austin, who with 217 Bishops and their Successors for 100 years together stood separate from that Church, if we may believe their own Records: So did Ignatius of Constantinople, S. chrysostom, S. Cyprian, Firmilian, those Bishops of Asia that separated in the Question of Easter, and those of Africa in the Question of rebaptisation: But besides this, most of them had opinions which the Church of Rome disavows now, and therefore did so then, or else she hath innovated in her Doctrine, which though it be most true and notorious, I am sure she will never confess. But no excuse can be made for S. Augustine's disagreeing, and contesting in the Question of appeals to Rome, the necessity of Communicating Infants, the absolute damnation of Infants to the pains of Hell, if they die before Baptism, and divers other particulars. It was a famous act of the Bishops of Liguria and Istria who seeing the Pope of Rome consenting to the fifth Synod in disparagement of the famous Council of Chalcedon, which for their own interests they did not like of, they renounced subjection to his Patriarchate, and erected a Patriarch at Aquileia who was afterwards translated to Venice, where his name remains to this day. It is also notorious that most of the Fathers were of opinion that the souls of the faithful did not enjoy the beatific Vision before Doomsday; whether Rome was then of that opinion or no, I know not, I am sure now they are not; witness the Counsels of Florence and Trent; but of this I shall give a more full account afterwards. But if to all this which is already noted, we add that great variety of opinions amongst the Fathers and Counsels in assignation of the Canon, they not consulting with the Bishop of Rome, nor any of them thinking themselves bound to follow his Rule in enumeration of the books of Scripture, I think no more need to be said as to this particular.  
8. But now if after all this, there be some Popes which were notorious Heretics, and Preachers of false Doctrine, some that 
Numb. 15.  made impious Decrees both in faith and manners; some that have determined Questions with egregious ignorance and stupidity, some with apparent Sophistry, and many to serve their own ends most openly, I suppose then the infallibility will disband, and we may do to him as to other good Bishops, believe him when there is cause; but if there be none, then to use our Consciences, Non enim salvat Christianum quod Pontifex 
Tract. de interdict. Compos. à Theol. Venet. prop. 13.  constantèr affirmat praeceptum suum esse justum, sed oportet illud examinari, & se juxta regulam superius datum dirigere: I would not instance and repeat the errors of dead Bishops, if the extreme boldness of the pretence did not make it necessary: But if we may believe Tertullian, Pope Zepherinus approved the 
Lib. adver. Praxeam.  Prophecies of Montanus, and upon that approbation granted peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, till Praxeas persuaded him to revoke his act: But let this rest upon the credit of Tertullian, whether Zepherinus were a Montanist or no; some such thing there was for certain. Pope Vigilius denied 
Vid. Liberal. in breviatio, cap. 22. Durand. 4. dist. 7. q. 4.  two natures in Christ, and in his Epistle to Theodora the Empress anathematised all them that said he had two natures in one person; S. Gregory himself permitted Priests to give confirmation, which is all one as if he should permit Deacons to consecrate, they being by Divine Ordinance annexed to the higher orders; and upon this very ground Adrianus affirms that the Pope may err in definiendis dogmatibus fidei. And that we may not fear we shall want instances, we may to secure it 
Quae. de confirm. art. ult.  take their own confession, Nam multae sunt decretales haereticae says Occam as he is cited by Almain, & firmitèr hoc credo 
3. dist. 24. q. unica.  (says he for his own particular) sed non licet dogmatizare oppositum quoniam sunt determinatae. So that we may as well see that it is certain that Popes may be Heretics, as that it is dangerous to say so; and therefore there are so few that teach it: All the Patriarches and the Bishop of Rome himself subscribed to Arrianism (as Baronius confesses;) and 
* Dist. 19 c. 9 L. 4. Ep. 2.  Gratian affirms that Pope Anastasius the Second was strucken of God for communicating 
A. D. 357. n. 44.  with the Heretic Photinus. I know it will be made light of that Gregory the Seventh saith, the very exorcists of the Roman Church are Superior to Princes. But what shall we think of that decretal of Gregory the Third, who wrore to Bonaface his Legate in Germany, quod illi quorum uxores infirmitate aliquâ morbidae debitum reddere noluerunt, aliis poterant 
Vid. C●iranz. Sum. Concil. sol. 218. Edit. Antwerp.  nubere? was this a Doctrine fit for the Head of the Church, an infallible Doctor? it was plainly, if any thing ever was doctrina Daemoniorum, and is noted for such by Gratian, cause. 32. q. 7. can. quod proposuisli. Where the gloss also intimates that the same privilege was granted to the Englishmen by Gregory, quia novi erant in fide. And sometimes we had little reason to expect much better; for, not to instance in that learned discourse in the * Canon Law de majoritate & obedientiâ, where the Pope's Supremacy over Kings is proved from the first chapter of Genesis, and the Pope is the Sun, and the 
Cap per venerabitem. qui filii sint legitimi.  Emperor is the Moon, for that was the fancy of one Pope perhaps; though made authentic and doctrinal by him; it was (if it be possible) more ridiculous, that Pope Innocent the Third urges that the Mosaical Law was still to be observed, and that upon this Argument, Sanè, saith he, cum Deuteronomium secunda lex interpretetur ex vi vocabuli comprobatur ut quod ibi decernitur in Testamento novo debeat observari: Worse yet; for when there was a corruption crept into the Decree called Sancta Romana, where instead of these words Sedulii opus 
Dist. 15. ●pud Gratian.  heroicis versibus descriptum, all the old Copies till of late read haereticis versibus descriptum; this very mistake made many wise men, (as Pierius says) yea Pope Adrian the Sixth, no 
De Sacord. b●●b.  worse man, believe that all Poetry was heretical, because (forsooth) Pope Gelasius whose Decree that was, although he believed Sedulius to be a good Catholic, yet as they thought, he concluded his Verses to be heretical: But these were ignorances'; it hath been worse amongst some others, whose errors have been more malicious. Pope Honorius was condemned by the sixth General Synod, and his Epistles burnt, and in the seventh action of the vl Synod, the Acts of the Roman Council under Adrian the Second are recited, in which it is said that Honorius was justly Anathematised, because he was convict of heresy. Bellarmine says it is probable that Pope Adrian and the Roman Council were deceived with false Copies of the sixth Synod, and that Honorius was no Heretic. To this I say, that although the Roman Synod and the eighth general Synod, and Pope Adrian, altogether are better witnesses for the thing then Bellarmine's conjecture is against it, yet if we allow his conjecture we shall lose nothing in the whole, for either the Pope is no infallible Doctor, but may be a Heretic as Honorius was, or else a Council is to us no infallible determiner; I say, as to us, for if Adrian and the whole Roman Council & the eighth General were all cozened with false Copies of the sixth Synod, which was so little a while before them, and whose acts were transacted & kept in the Theatre and Records of the Catholic Church; he is a bold man that will be confident that he hath true Copies now. So that let which they please stand or fall, let the Pope be a Heretic or the Counsels be deceived and palpably abused, (for the other, we will dispute it upon other instances and arguments when we shall know which part they will choose) in the mean time we shall get in the general what we lose in the particular. This only, this device of saying the Copies of the Counsels were false, was the stratagem of Albertus Pighius 900 years after the thing was 
Vid. diatrib. de act. 6. & 7ae. Synod. praefatione ad Lectorem & Dominicum Bannes 22ae. q. 1. a. 10. dub. 2.  done, of which invention Pighius was presently admonished, blamed, and wished to recant. Pope Nicholas explicated the Mystery of the Sacrament with so much ignorance and zeal that in condemning Berengarius he taught a worse impiety. But what need I any more instances; it is a confessed case by Baronius, by Biel, by Stella, Almain, Occam, and Canus, and generally by the best Scholars in the Church of Rome, that a Pope 
Picus Mirand. in exposit. theorem. 4.  may be a Heretic, and that some of them actually were so, and no less than three general Counsels did believe the same thing: viz. sixth, seaventh, and eighth, as Bellarmine is pleased to acknowledge in his fourth book de Pontifice Romano. c. 11. resp. ad Arg. 4. And the Canon si Papadist. 40. affirms it in express terms, that a Pope is judicable and punishable in that case. But there is no wound but some Empiric or other will pretend to cure it, and there is a cure for this too. For though it be true that if a Pope were a Heretic, the Church might depose him, yet no Pope can be a Heretic, not but that the man may, but the Pope cannot, for he is ipso facto no Pope, for he is no Christian; so Bellarmine: and so when you think you have 
L. 2. c. 30. ubi supra. §. est ergo.  him fast, he is gone, and nothing of the Pope left; but who sees not the extreme folly of this evasion? For besides that out of fear and caution he grants more than he needs, more than was sought for in the Question, the Pope hath no more privilege than the Abbot of Clunie, for he cannot be a Heretic, nor be deposed by a Council, for if he be manifestly a Heretic he is ipso facto no Abbot, for he is no Christian; and if the Pope be a Heretic privaetely and occultly, for that, he may be accused and judged said the Gloss upon the Canon si Papa didst. 40. And the Abbot of Clunie and one of his meanest Monks can be no more, therefore the case is all one. But 
* Vide Alphons. à Castr. l b. 1. adv. haeres. c. 4. hoc lemma ridentem affabrè.  this is fit to make sport with then to interrupt a serious discourse. And therefore although the Canon Sanctae Romana approves all the Decretals of Popes, yet that very Decretal hath not decreed it firm enough, but that they are so warily received by them, that when they list they are pleased to descent from them; And it is evident in the Extravagant of Sixtus IU. Com. De reliquiis; who appointed a 
Vid. etiam Innocentium Serm. 2. de conserat. Pontif. act. 7. 8ae. Synodi. & Concil. 5. sub Symmadio. vide Collat. 8. can. 12. ubi PP. judicialem sententiam P. vigilii in causâ trium Capitulorum damnarunt expressè. Extra. comm. Extrav. grave. Tit. X.  Feast of the immaculate conception, a special Office for the day, and Indulgences enough to the observers of it: And yet the Dominicans were so fare from believing the Pope to be infallible and his Decree authentic, that they declaimed against it in their Pulpits so furiously and so long till they were prohibited under pain of Excommunication, to say the Virgin Mary was conceived in Original sin; Now what sollennity can be more required for the Pope to make a Cathedral determination of an Article? The Article was so concluded, that a Feast was instituted for its celebration, and pain of Excommunication threatened to them which should preach the contrary; Nothing more solemn, nothing more confident and severe: And yet after all this, to show that whatsoever those people would have us to believe, they'll believe what they list themselves: This thing was not determined de fide saith Victorellus; Nay, the Author of the Gloss of the Canon Law hath these express words, De festo Conceptionis nihil dicitur quiae celebrandum non est, sicut in multis 
De Angelo custod. fol. 59 de consecrat. dist. 3. can. pronunciand. gloss. verb. Nativit.  regionibus fit, & maxim in Angliâ, & haec est ratio, quia in peccatis concepta fuit sicut & caeteri Sancti. And the Commissaries, of Sixtus V and Gregory XIII. did not expunge these words, but left them upon Record, not only against a received and more approved opinion of the Jesuits and Franciscans, but also in plain defiance of a Decree made by their visible head of the Church, who (if ever any thing was decreed by a Pope, with an intent to oblige all Christendom) decreed 
* Hâc in perpetuum valiturâ constitutione statuimus, etc. De reliquiis, etc. Extrav. Com. Sixt. 4, cap. 1.  this to that purpose.  
So that without taking particular notice of it, that egregious sophistry and flattery of the late Writers of the Roman Church is in this instance, besides divers others before mentioned, clearly made invalid. For here the Bishop of Rome not as 
Numb. 16.  a private Doctor, but as Pope, not by declaring his own opinion, but with an intent to oblige the Church, gave sentence in a Question which the Dominicans will still account pro non determinatâ. And every decretal recorded in the Canon Law if it be false in the matter, is just such another instance: And Alphonsus à Castro says it to the same purpose, in the instance of Celestine dissolving Marriages for heresy, Neque Caelestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debeat, ita ut illum errasse dicamus velut privatam personam & non ut Papam, quoniam hujusmodi Caelestini definitio habetur in antiquis decretalibus in cap. Laudabilem, titulo de conversione infidelium; quam ego ipse vidi & legi, lib. 1. adv. haeres. cap. 4. And therefore 'tis a most intolerable folly to pretend that the Pope cannot err in his Chair, though he may err in his Closet, and may maintain a false opinion even to his death: For besides that, it is sottish to think that either he would not have the world of his own opinion (as all men naturally would) or that if he were set in his Chair, he would determine contrary to himself in his study (and therefore to represent it as possible, they are feign to fly to a Miracle for which they have no colour, neither instructions, nor insinuation, nor warrant, nor promise; besides that, it were impious and unreasonable to depose him for heresy, who may so easily, even by setting himself in his Chair and reviewing his Theorems, be cured:) it is also against a very great experience: For besides the former Allegations it is most notorious, that Pope Alexander III in a Council at Rome of 300 Archbishops and Bishops A. D. 1179. condemned Peter Lombard of heresy in a matter of great concernment, no less than something about the incarnation; from which sentence he was, after 36 years abiding it, absolved by Pope Innocent III, without repentance or dereliction of the opinion: Now if this sentence was not a Cathedral Dictate, as solemn and great as could be expected, or as is said to be necessary to oblige all Christendom, let the great Hyperaspists of the Roman Church be Judges, who tell us that a particular Council with the Pope's confirmation is made Ecumenical by adoption, and is infallible and obliges all Christendom; so Bellarmine: And therefore he says, that it is temerarium, erroneum, & proximum haeresi, to 
L. 2. de. Concil. cap. 5.  deny it, but whether it be or not it is all one, as to my purpose: For it is certain, that in a particular Council confirmed by the Pope, if ever; then and there the Pope sat himself in his Chair, and it is as certain that he sat besides the cushion and determined ridiculously and falsely in this case: But this is a device 
De Pontif. Rom. c. 14. § respondeo. In 3. sent. d. 24. q. in conl. 6. dub. 6. in fine.  for which there is no Scripture, no Tradition, no one dogmatic resolute saying of any Father, Greek or Latin, for above 1000 years after Christ: And themselves when they list can acknowledge as much. And therefore Bellarmine's saying, I perceive is believed by them to be true: That there are many things in the 
* Proverbialitèr olim dictum erat, de Decretalibus. Malè cum rebus humanis actum esse, ex quo decretis alae accesserunt. scil. cum Decretales post decretum Gratiani sub nomine Gregorii noni edebantur.  Decretal Epistles, which make not Articles to be de fide. And therefore, Non est necessariò credendum determinatis per summum Pontific●m, says Almain: And this serves their turns in every thing they do not like, and therefore I am resolved it shall serve my turn also for some thing, and that is, that the matter of the Pope's infallibility is so ridiculous and improbable, that they do not believe it themselves: Some of them clearly practised the contrary, and although Pope Leo X hath determined the Pope to be above a Council, yet the Sorbon to this day scorn it at the very heart. And I might urge upon them that scorn that Almain truly enough by way of Argument alleges. It is a wonder that they who affirm the Pope cannot 
De Authorit. Eccles. cap, 10. in fine.  err in judgement, do not also affirm that he cannot sinne: they are like enough to say so says he, if the vicious lives of the Popes did not make a daily confutation of such flattery: Now for my own particular, I am as confident and think it as certain, that Popes are actually deceived in matters of Christian Doctrine, as that they do prevaricate the laws of Christian piety: And therefore 
† L. 1. ca 4. advers. haeres. edit. Paris 1534. In seqq. non expurgantur ista verba. at idem sensus manner.  Alphonsus à Castro calls them impudentes Papae assentatores, that ascribe to him infallibility in judgement or interpretation of Scripture.  
But if themselves did believe it hearty, what excuse is there 
Numb. 11.  in the world, for the strange uncharitableness or supine negligence of the Popes, that they do not set themselves in their Chair and write infallible Commentaries, and determine all Controversies without error, and blast all heresies with the word of their mouth, declare what is and what is not the fide, that his Disciples and Confidents may agree upon it; reconcile the Franciscans and Dominicans, and expound all Mysteries? for it cannot be imagined but he that was endued with so supreme power in order to so great ends, was also fitted with proportionable, that is, extraordinary personal abilities, succeeding and derived upon the persons of all the Popes. And then the Doctors of his Church, need not trouble themselves with study, nor writing explications of Scripture, but might wholly attend to practical devotion, and leave all their Scholastical wranglings, the distinguishing opinions of their Orders, and they might have a fine Church, something like Fairy land, or Lucian's Kingdom in the Moon: But if they say they cannot do this when they list, but when they are moved to it by the Spirit, than we are never the nearer; for so may the Bishop of Angolesme write infallible Commentaries when the holy Ghost moves him to it, for I suppose his motions are not ineffectual, but he will sufficiently assist us in performing of what he actually moves us to: But among so many hundred Decrees which the Popes of Rome have made or confirmed and attested (which is all one) I would feign know in how many of them did the holy Ghost assist them? If they know it, let them declare it, that it may be certain which of their Decretals are de fide; for as yet none of his own Church knows: If they do not know, than neither can we know it from them, and then we are as uncertain as ever, and besides, the holy Ghost may possibly move him, and he by his ignorance of it may neglect so profitable a motion, and then his promise of infallible assistance will be to very little purpose, because it is with very much fallibility applicable to practise: And therefore it is absolutely useless to any man or any Church, because, suppose it settled in Thesi, that the Pope is infallible, yet whether he will do his duty, and perform those conditions of being assisted which are required of him, or whether he be a secret Simoniack (for if he be, he is ipso facto, no Pope) or whether he be a Bishop, or Priest, or a Christian, being all uncertain; every one of these depending upon the intention and power of the Baptizer or Ordainer, which also are fallible, because they depend upon the honesty and power of other men; we cannot be infallibly certain of any Pope that he is infallible, and therefore when our Questions are dermined, we are never the nearer, but may hug ourselves in an imaginary truth, the certainty of finding truth out depending upon so many fallible and contingent circumstances. And therefore, the thing, if it were true, being so to no purpose, it is to be presumed that God never gave a power so impertinently, and from whence no benefit can accrue to the Christian Church, for whose use and benefit, if at all, it must needs have been appointed.  
But I am too long in this impertinency: If I were bound 
Numb. 18.  to call any man Master upon earth, and to believe him upon his own affirmative and authority; I would of all men lest follow him that pretends he is infallible and cannot prove it. For that he cannot prove it, makes me as uncertain as ever, and that he pretends to infallibility makes him careless of using such means which will morally secure those wise persons, who knowing their own aptness to be deceived, use what endeavours they can to secure themselves from error, and so become the better and more probable guides.  
Well! Thus fare we are come: Although we are secured in fundamental points from involuntary error, by the plain, 
Numb. 19  express, and dogmatic places of Scripture, yet in other things we are not but may be invincibly mistaken, because of the obscurity and difficulty in the controverted parts of Scripture, by reason of the incertainty of the means of its Interpretation, since Tradition is of an uncertain reputation, and sometimes evidently false, Counsels are contradictory to each other, and therefore certainly are equally deceived many of them, and therefore all may; and then the Popes of Rome are very likely to misled us, but cannot ascertain us of truth in matter of Question; and in this world we believe in part, and prophecy in part, and this imperfection shall never be done away till we be translated to a more glorious state; either we must throw our chances, and get truth by accident or predestination, or else we must lie safe in a mutual toleration, and private liberty of persuasion, unless some other Anchor can be thought upon where we may fasten our floating Vessels, and ride safely.   

SECT. VIII.  
Of the disability of Fathers, or Writers Ecclesiastical, to determine our Questions, with certainty and Truth.  
THere are some that think they can determine all Questions 
Numb. 1.  in the world by two or three sayings of the Fathers, or by the consent of so many as they will please to call a concurrent Testimony: But this consideration will soon be at an end; for if the Fathers, when they are witnesses of Tradition do not always speak truth, as it happened in the case of Papias and his numerous Followers for almost three Ages together, then is their Testimony more improbable when they dispute or write Commentaries.  
2. The Fathers of the first Ages spoke unitedly concerning 
Numb. 2.  divers Questions of secret Theology, and yet were afterwards contradicted by one personage of great reputation, whose credit had so much influence upon the world, as to make the contrary opinion become popular; why then may not we have the same liberty, when so plain an uncertainty is in their persuasions, and so great contrariety in their Doctrines? But this is evident in the case of absolute predestination, which till S. Austine's time no man preached, but all taught the contrary, and yet the reputation of this one excellent man altered the scene. But if he might descent from so General a Doctrine, why may not we do so too, it being pretended that he is so excellent a precedent to be followed, if we have the same reason? he had no more Authority nor dispensation to descent, than any Bishop hath now. And therefore S. Austin hath dealt ingeniously, and as he took this liberty to himself, so he denies it not to others, but indeed forces them to preserve their own liberty: And 
Sess. ult.  therefore when S. Hierom had a great mind to follow the Fathers in a point that he fancied, and the best security he had, was, Patiaris me cum talibus errare, S. Austin would not endure it, but answered his reason, and neglected the Authority. And therefore it had been most unreasonable that we should do that now, though in his behalf, which he towards greater personages (for so they were then) at that time judged to be unreasonable. It is a plain recession from Antiquity, which was determined by the Council of Florence, piorum animas purgatas, etc. mox in Caelum recipi, & intueri clarè ipsum Deum trinum & unum sicuti est: As who please to try, may see it dogmatically resolved to the contrary by 
a Q. 60. ad Christian.  Justin Martyr, 
b Lib. 5.  Irenaeus, by 
c Hom. 7. in Levit.  Origen, 
d Hom. 39 in 1 Cor.  S. chrysostom, 
e In c. 11. ad Heb.  Theodoret, 
f In c. 6. ad Apoc.  Arethas Caesariensis, 
g In 16. c. Luc.  Euthymius, who may answer for the Greek Church, and it is plain that it was the opinion of the Greek Church by that great difficulty the Romans had of bringing the Greeks to subscribe to the Florentine Council, where the Latins acted their masterpiece of wit and stratagem, the greatest that hath been till the famous and superpolitick design of Trent. And for the Latin Church, 
h Lib. 4. adv. Mar.  Tertullian, 
i L. 2. de. Cain. c. 2.  S. Ambrose, 
k Ep. 111. ad Fortunatianum.  S. Austin, 
l In Psal. 138.  S. Hilary, 
m De exeq. desunctor.  Prudentius, 
n L. 7. c. 21.  Lactantius, 
o In c. 6. Apoc.  Victorinus Martyr, and 
p Serm. 3. de om. sanctis. Vid. enim, S. Aug. in Enchir. c. 108. & l. 12. de civet. Dei. c. 9 & in Ps. 36. & in. l. 1. retract. c. 14. Vid. insuper testimonia quae collegit. Spala. l. 5. c. 8. n. 98. de repub. Eccl. & Sixt. Senens. l. 6. annot. 345.  S. Bernard are known to be of opinion that the souls of the Saints are in abditis receptaculis, & exterioribus atriis, where they expect the resurrection of their bodies, and the glorification of their souls, and though they all believe them to be happy, yet they enjoy not the beatific Vision before the resurrection: Now there being so full a consent of Fathers (for many more may be added) and the Decree of Pope John XXII, besides, who was so confident for his Decree that he commanded the University of Paris to swear that they would preach it and no other, and that none should be promoted to degrees in Theology, that did not swear the like, (as 
q In oper. 90. dierum.  Occam, 
r Serm. de Paschal.  Gerson, 
s In 4. sent. q. 13. a. 3.  Marsilius and 
t In 4. de Sacram. confirmat.  Adrianus report:) Since it is esteemed lawful to descent from all these, I hope no man will be so unjust to press other men to consent to an Authority which he himself judges to be incompetent. These two great instances are enough, but if more were necessary I could instance in the opinion of the Chiliasts, maintained by the second and third Centuries and disavowed ever since: in the Doctrine of communicating Infants, taught and practised as necessary by the fourth and fifth Centuries, & detested by the Latin Church in all the following Ages: in the variety of opinions concerning the very form of baptism, some keeping close to the institution and the words of its first sanction, others affirming it to be sufficient, if it be administered in nomine 
De consecrat dist. 4. c. à quodum judaeo  Christi; particularly S. Ambrose, Pope Nicholas the First, 
* In c. 10. Act.  V Bede and 
† Ep. 340.  S. Bernard besides some Writers of after Ages as Hugo de S. Victore, and the Doctors generally his contemporaries. And it would not be inconsiderable to observe, that if any Synod, General, Nationall, or Provincial, be receded from by the Church of the later Age, (as there have been very many) then, so many Fathers as were then assembled and united in opinion are esteemed no Authority to determine our persuasions. Now suppose 200 Fathers assembled in such a Council, if all they had writ Books, and Authorities, 200 Authorities had been alleged in confirmation of an opinion, it would have made a mighty noise, and loaded any man with an insupportable prejudice that should descent: And yet every opinion maintained against the Authority of any one Council, though but Provincial, is in its proportion such a violent recession and neglect of the Authority and doctrine of so many Fathers as were then assembled, who did as much declare their opinion in those Assemblies by their Suffrages, as if they had writ it in so many books; and their opinion is more considerable in the Assembly then in their writings, because it was more deliberate, assisted, united and more dogmatic. In pursuance of this observation, it is to be noted by way of instance, that S. Austin and two hundred and seventeen Bishops and all their Successors 
* Vid. Epist. Bonifacii 11. apud Nicolinum, Tom. 2. Concil. pag. 544. & exemplar precum Eulalii apud eundem. ibid. p. 525. Qui anathematizat omnes decisores suos qui in in ea● causa Romae se opponendo rectae fidei regulam praevaricati sunt, inter quos tomen fuit Augustinus, quem pro maledicto Caelestinus tacit agnoscit, admittendo sc. exemplar precum. Vid. Doctor. Marta. de jurisdict. part. 4. p. 273. & Erasm annot. in Hieron. praefatin Daniel.  for a whole Age together did consent in denying appeals to Rome; and yet the Authority of so many Fathers (all true Catholics) is of no force now at Rome in this Question; but if it be in a matter they like, one of these Fathers alone is sufficient. The Doctrine of S. Austin alone brought in the festival and veneration of the assumption of the blessed Virgin, and the hard sentence passed at Rome upon unbaptized Infants and the Dominican opinion concerning predetermination, derived from him alone as from their Original: so that if a Father speaks for them, it is wonderful to see what Tragedies are stirred up against them that descent, as is to be seen in that excellent nothing of Campian's ten reasons. But if the Fathers be against them, then Patres in quibusdam non leviter lapsi sunt says Berllarmine, and constat quosdam ex praecipuis, it is certain the chiefest of them have foully erred. Nay, Posa, Salmeron, 
De verb. Dei l. 3. c. 10. §. dices.  and Wadding in the Question of the immaculate conception make no scruple to descent from Antiquity; to prefer new Doctors before the Old, and to justify themselves, bring instances in which the Church of Rome had determined against the Fathers. And it is not excuse enough to say that singly the Fathers may err, but if they concur they are certain Testimony. For there is no question this day disputed by persons that are willing to be tried by the Fathers, so generally attested on either side, as some points are which both sides dislike severally or conjunctly. And therefore 'tis not honest for either side to press the Authority of the Fathers, as a concluding Argument in matter of dispute, unless themselves will be content to submit in all things to the Testimony of an equal number of them, which I am certain neither side will do.  
3. If I should reckon all the particular reasons against the certainty of this topic, it would be more than needs as to this 
Numb. 3.  Question, and therefore I will abstain from all disparagement of those worthy Personages, who were excellent lights to their several Dioceses, and Cures. And therefore I will not instance that Clemens Alexandrinus taught that Christ felt no hunger or thirst, but eat only to make demonstration of the verity of his 
Strom. l. 3. & 6.  humane nature: Nor that S. Hilary taught that Christ in his sufferings had no sorrow; nor that Origen taught the pains of Hell not to have an eternal duration: Nor that S. Cyprian taught rebaptisation; nor that Athenagoras condemned second marriages; nor that S. John Damascen said, Christ only prayed in appearance, not really and in truth; I will let them all rest in peace, and their memories in honour; for if I should inquire into the particular probations of this Article, I must do to them as I should be forced to do now; if any man should say that the Writings of the Schoolmen were excellent Argument and Authority to determine men's persuasions; I must consider their writings, and observe their defaillances, their contradictions, the weakness of their Arguments, the mis-allegations of Scripture, their inconsequent deductions, their false opinions, and all the weaknesses of humanity, and the failings of their persons, which no good man is willing to do, unless he be compelled to it by a pretence that they are infallible, or that they are followed by men even into errors or impiety. And therefore since there is enough in the former instances, to cure any such misperswasion and prejudice, I will not instance in the innumerable particularities that might persuade us to keep our Liberty entire or to use it discreetly. For it is not to be denied but that great advantages are to be made by their writings, & probabile est quod omnibus, quod pluribus, quod sapientibus videtur; If one wise man says a thing, it is an Argument to me to believe it in its degree of probation, that is, proportionable to such an assent as the Authority of a wise man can produce, and when there is nothing against it that is greater; and so in proportion higher and higher as more wise men (such as the old Doctors were) do affirm it. But that which I complain of is that we look upon wise men that lived long ago with so much veneration and mistake, that we reverence them not for having been wise men, but that they lived long since. But when the Question is concerning Authorty, there must be something to build it on; a Divine Commandment, humane Sanction, excellency of spirit, and greatness of understanding, on which things all humane Authority is regularly built. But now if we had lived in their times (for so we must look upon them now, as they did who without prejudice beheld them) I suppose we should then have beheld them, as we in England look on those Prelates, who are of great reputation for learning and sanctity; here only is the difference; when persons are living, their authority is depressed by their personal defaillances, and the contrary interests of their contemporaries, which disband when they are dead, and leave their credit entire upon the reputation of those excellent books, and monuments of learning and piety which are left behind: But beyond this why the Bishop of Hippo shall have greater Authority than the Bishop of the Canaries, caeteris paribus, I understand not. For did they that lived (to instance) in S. Austine's time believe all that he wrote? If they did, they were much too blame, or else himself was too blame for retracting much of it a little before his death; And if while he lived, his affirmative was no more Authority, then derives from the credit of one very wise man, against whom also very wise men were opposed; I know not why his Authority should prevail further now; For there is nothing added to the strength of his reason, since that time, but only that he hath been in great esteem with posterity: And if that be all, why the opinion of the following Ages, shall be of more force than the opinion of the first Ages, against whom S. Austin in many things clearly did oppose himself, I see no reason; or whether the first Ages were against him or no, yet that he is approved by the following Ages is no better Argument; for it makes his Authority not to be innate, but derived from the opinion of others, and so to be precaria, and to depend upon others, who if they should change their opinions, and such examples there have been many, then there were nothing left to urge our consent to him; which when it was at the best, was only this, because he had the good Fortune to be believed by them that came after, he must be so still; and because it was no Argument for the old Doctors before him, this will not be very good in his behalf: The same I say of any company of them, I say not so of all of them, it is to no purpose to say it, for there is no Question this day in contestation, in the explication of which all the old Writers did consent: In the assignation of the Canon of Scripture, they never did consent for six hundred years together, and then by that time the Bishops had agreed indiffently well, and but indifferently, upon that, they fell out in twenty more; and except it be in the Apostels' Creed, and Articles of such nature, there is nothing which may with any colour be called a consent, much less Tradition Universal.  
4. But I will rather choose to show the uncertainty of this 
Numb. 4.  Topick by such an Argument, which was not in the Father's power to help, such as makes no invasion upon their great reputation, which I desire should be preserved as sacred as it ought. For other things, let who please read Mr Daillè du uray usage des Peres; But I shall only consider that the Writings of the Fathers have been so corrupted by the intermixture of Heretics, so many false books put forth in their names, so many of their Writings lost which would more clearly have explicated their sense, and at last an open profession made and a trade of making the Fathers speak, not what themselves thought, but what other men pleased, that it is a great instance of God's providence and care of his Church, that we have so much good preserved in the Writings which we receive from the Fathers, and that all truth is not as clear gone, as is the certainty of their great Authority and reputation.  
The publishing books with the inscription of great names began in S. Paul's time; for some had troubled the Church of 
Numb. 5.  Thessalonica with a false Epistle in S. Paul's name against the inconvenience of which he arms them in 2 Thess. 2. 1. And this increased daily in the Church. The Arrians wrote an Epistle to Constantine, under the name of Athanasius, and the Eutychians 
Apolog. Athanas. ad Constant.  wrote against cyril of Alexandria under the name of Theodoret; and of the Age in which the seventh Synod was kept, Erasmus reports, Libris falso celebrium virorum titulo commendatis 
Vid. Baron. A. D. 553.  scatere omnia. It was then a public business, and a trick not more base than public: But it was more ancient than so, and it is memorable in the books attributed to S. Basil, containing thirty Chapters de Spiritu Sancto, whereof fifteen were plainly added by another hand under the covert of S. Basil, as appears in the difference of the stile, in the impertinent digressions, against the custom of that excellent man, by some passages contradictory to others of S. Basil, by citing Meletius as dead before him, who yet lived three 
* Vid. Baron, in Annal.  years after him, and by the very frame and manner of the discourse; and yet it was so handsomely carried, and so well served the purposes of men, that it was quoted under the title of S. Basil by many, but without naming the number of chapters, and by S. John Damascen in these words, Basilius in opere triginta capitum de Spiritu S. ad Amphilochium, and to the same purpose, and in the number 
L●. de imagine. orat. 1.  of 27 & 29. chapters he is is cited by 
* Nomocan. tit. 1. cap. 3.  Photius, by Euthymius, by Burchard, by Zonaras, Balsamon and Nicephorus; but for this see more in Erasmu's his Preface upon this book of S. Basil. There is an Epistle goes still under the name of S. Hierom ad Demetriadem vi●ginem, and is of great use in the Question of Predestination, with its appendices, and yet a very 
† V Beda. de gratiâ Christi adv. julianum.  learned man 800 years ago did believe it to be written by a Pelagian, and undertakes to confute divers parts of it, as being high and confident Pelagianism, and written by Julianus Episc. Eclanensis, but Gregorius Ariminensis from S. Austin affirms it to have been written by Pelagius himself. I might instance in too many; 
Greg. Arim. in 2. sent. dist. 26. q. 1. a. 3.  There is not any one of the Fathers who is esteemed Author of any considerable number of books, that hath escaped untouched; But the abuse in this kind hath been so evident that now if any interessed person of any side be pressed with an Authority very pregnant against him, he thinks to escape by accusing the Edition, or the Author, or the hands it passed through, or at last he therefore suspects it, because it makes against him; both sides being resolved that they are in the right, the Authorities that they admit, they will believe not to be against them; and they which are too plainly against them, shall be no Authorities: And indeed the whole world hath been so much abused that every man thinks he hath reason to suspect whatsoever is against him, that is, what he please; which proceeding only produces this truth, that there neither is nor can be any certainty, nor very much probability in such Allegations.  
But there is a worse mischief than this, besides those very many which are not yet discovered, which like the pestilence 
Numb. 6.  destroys in the dark, and grows into inconvenience more insensibly and more irremediably, and that is, corruption of particular places, by inserting words and altering them to contrary senses: A thing which the Fathers of the sixth General Synod complained of concerning the constitutions of S. Clement, quibus jam olim ab iis qui à sidè aliena sent junt adulterina quaedam etiam pietate aliena introducta sunt quae divinorum nobis Decretorum 
Can. 2.  elegantem & venustam speciem obscurarunt: And so also have his Recognitions, so have his Epistles been used, if at least they were his at all, particularly the fifth Decretal Epistle that goes under the name of S. Clement, in which community of Wives is taught upon the Authority of S. Luke saying the first Christians had all things common; if all things, than Wives also says the Epistle; a forgery like to have been done by some Nicolaitan, or other impure person: There is an Epistle of cyril extant to Successus Bishop of Diocaesarea, in which he relates that he was asked by Budus Bishop of Emessa, whether he did approve of the Epistle of Athanasius to Epictetus' Bishop of Corinth, and that his answer was, Si haec apud vos scripta non sint adultera: Nam plura ex his ab hostibus Ecclesiae 
Euseb. l. 4. c. 23.  deprehenduntur esse depravata: And this was done even while the Authors themselves were alive; for so Dionysius of Corinth complaned that his writings were corrupted by Heretics, and Pope Leo, that his Epistle to Flavianus was perverted by the Greeks: And in the Synod of Constantinople before quoted (the 
Act. 8. vid. etiam. Synod 7. act. 4.  sixth Synod) Macarius and his Disciples were convicted quod Sanctorum testimonia aut truncârint aut deprauârint: Thus the third Chapter of S. Cyprians book de unitate Ecclesiae in the Edition of Pamelius suffered great alteration: These words [Primatus Petro datur] wholly inserted, and these [super Cathedram Petri fundata est Ecclesia] and whereas it was before, super unum aedificat Ecclesiam Christus, that not being enough they have made it supper [illum] unum. Now these Additions are against the faith of all old Copies, before Minutius and Pamelius, and against Gratian, even after himself had been chastised by the Roman Correctors, the Commissaries of Gregory XIII, as is to be seen where these words are alleged, Decret. c. 24. Q. 1. can. loquitur Dominus ad Petrum. So that we may say of Cyprians works as Pamelius himself said concerning his writings and the writings of other of the Fathers, unde colligimus (saith he) Cypriani scripta ut & aliorum Veterum à librariis variè fuisse 
Annot. Cyprian. super. Concil. Carthage. n. 1.  interpolata. But Gratian himself could do as fine a feat when he listed, or else some body did it for him, and it was in this very Question, their beloved Article of the Pope's Supremacy; for de paenit. didst. 1. c. potest fieri. he quotes these words out of S. Ambrose, Non habent Petri haereditatem qui non habent Petri sedem; sidem, not sedem, it is in S. Ambrose; but this error was made authentic by being inserted into the Code of the Law of the Catholic Church; and considering how little notice the Clergy had of Antiquity, but what was transmitted to them by Gratian, it will be no great wonder that all this part of the world swallowed such a bowl and the opinion that was wrapped in it. But I need not instance in Gratian any further, but refer any one that desires to be satisfied concerning this Collection of his, to Augustinus Archbishop of Tarracon in emendatione Gratiani, where he shall find fopperies and corruptions good store noted by that learned man: But that the Indices Expurgatorii 
Vid. Ind. Expurg. Belg. in Bertram. & Flandr. Hispan. Portugal. Neopolitan. Romanum. lunium in praefat. ad Ind. Expurg. Belg. Hasen muslerum, pag. 275. Withrington. Apolog. num. 449.  commanded by Authority, and practised with public licence profess to alter and correct the say of the Fathers, and to reconcile them to the Catholic sense by putting in and leaving out, is so great an Imposture, so unchristian a proceeding, that it hath made the faith of all books and all Authors justly to be suspected; For considering their infinite diligence and great opportunity, as having had most of the Copies in their own hands, together with an unsatisfiable desire of prevailing in their right or in their wrong, they have made an absolute destruction of this Topick, and when the Fathers speak 
* Videat Lector Andream Cristovium in Bello jesuitico, & joh. Reinolds in hbr. de idol. Rom.  Latin, or breathe in a Roman Diocese, although the providence of God does infinitely overrule them, and that it is next to a miracle that in the Monuments of Antiquity, there is no more found that can pretend for their advantage then there is, which indeed is infinitely inconsiderable: Yet our Questions and uncertainties are infinitely multiplied in stead of a probable and reasonable determination. For since the Latins always complained of the Greeks for privately corrupting the Ancient Records both of Counsels and 
† Vid. Ep. Nicolai ad Michael. Imperat.  Fathers, and now the Latins make open profession not of corrupting, but of correcting their writings (that's the word) and at the most it was but a humane authority, and that of persons not always learned, and very often deceived; the whole matter is so unreasonable, that it is not worth a further disquisition. But if any one desires to inquire further, he may be satisfied in Erasmus, in Henry and Robert Stephens, in their Prefaces before the Editions of Fathers, and their Observations upon them: in Bellarmine de script. Eccles. in Dr. Reynolds, de libris Apocryphis, in Scaliger, and Robert Coke of Leedes in Yorkshire, in his Book De censura Patrum.   

SECT. IX.  
Of the incompetency of the Church in its diffusive capacity to be judge of Controversies, and the impertinency of that pretence of the Spirit.  
ANd now after all these considerations of the several Topics, 
Numb. 1.  Tradition, Counsels, Popes and ancient Doctors of the Church, I suppose it will not be necessary, to consider the authority of the Church apart. For the Church either speaks by Tradition, or by a representative body in a Council, by Popes, or by the Fathers: for the Church is not a Chimaera, not a shadow, but a company of men believing in Jesus Christ, which men either speak by themselves immediately, or by their Rulers, or by their proxies and representatives; now I have considered it in all senses but in its diffusive capacity; in which capacity she cannot be supposed to be a Judge of Controversies, both because in that capacity she cannot teach us, as also because if by a Judge we mean all the Church diffused in all its parts and members, so there can be no controversy, for if all men be of that opinion, than there is no question contested; if they be not all of a mind, how can the whole diffusive Catholic Church be pretended in defiance of any one article, where the diffusive Church being divided, part goes this way, and part another? But if it be said, the greatest part must carry it; Besides that it is impossible for us to know which way the greatest part goes in many questions, it is not always true that the greater part is the best, sometimes the contrary is most certain, and it is often very probable, but it is always possible. And when paucity of followers was objected to Liberius, he gave this in answer, There was a time when but three Children of the Captivity 
Theod. l. 2. c. 16. hist.  resisted the King's Decree. And Athanasius wrote on purpose against those that did judge of truth by multitudes, and indeed 
Tom. 2.  it concerned him so to do, when he alone stood in the gap against the numerous armies of the Arrians.  
But if there could in this case be any distinct consideration of 
Numb. 2.  the Church, yet to know which is the true Church is so hard to be found out, that the greatest questions of Christendom are judged before you can get to your Judge, and then there is no need of him. For those questions which are concerning the Judge of questions must be determined before you can submit to his judgement, and if you can yourselves determine those great questions which consist much in universalities, than also you may determine the particulars as being of less difficulty. And he that considers how many notes there are given to know the true Church, no less than 15. by Bellarmine, and concerning every one of them almost whether it be a certain note or no there are very many questions and uncertainties, and when it is resolved which are the notes, there is more dispute about the application of these notes then of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will quickly be satisfied that he had better sit still then to go round about a difficult and troublesome passage, and at last get no further, but return to the place from whence he first set out. And there is one note amongst the rest, Holiness of Doctrine, that is, so as to have nothing false either in Doctrina fidei or morum, (for so Bellarmine explicates it) which supposes all your Controversies, judged before they can be tried by the authority of the Church, and when we have found out all true Doctrine (for that is necessary to judge of the Church by, that as Saint Austin's council is Ecclesiam in verbis Christi investigemus) than we are bound to follow because we judge it true, not because the Church hath said it, and this is to judge of the Church by her Doctrine, not of the Doctrine by the Church. And indeed it is the best and only way; But then how to judge of that Doctrine will be afterwards inquired into. In the mean time, the Church, that is, the Governors of the Churches are to judge for themselves, & for all those who cannot judge for themselves. For others, they must know that their Governors judge for them too, so as to keep them in peace and obedience, though not for the determination of their private persuasions. For the Oeconomy of the Church requires that her authority be received by all her children. Now this authority is divine in its original, for it derives immediately from Christ, but it is humane in its ministration. We are to be lead like men not like beasts; A rule is prescribed for the guides themselves to follow, as we are to follow the guides; and although in matters indeterminable or ambiguous the presumption lies on behalf of the Governors, (for we do nothing for authority if we suffer it not to weigh that part down of an indifferency and a question which she chooses) yet if there be error manifestus, as it often happens, or if the Church-governors themselves be rend into innumerable sects, as it is this day in Christendom, than we are to be as wise as we can in choosing our guides, and then to follow so long as that reason remains for which we first chose them. And even in that Government which was an immediate sanction of God, I mean the Ecclesiastical government of the Synagogue, where God had consigned the High-Priests authority with a menace of death to them that should disobey, that all the world might know the meaning and extent of such precepts, and that there is a limit beyond which they cannot command, and we ought not to obey: it came once to that pass, that if the Priest had been obeyed in his Conciliary decrees, the whole Nation had been bound to believe the condemnation of our blessed Saviour to have been just, and at another time the Apostles must no more have preached in the name of JEsus. But here was manifest error. And the case is the same to every man that invincibly and therefore innocently believes it so. Deo potius quàm hominibus is our rule in such cases. For although every man is bound to follow his guide, unless he believes his guide to misled him; yet when he sees reason against his guide, it is best to follow his reason: for though in this he may fall into error, yet he will escape the sin; he may do violence to truth, but never to his own conscience; and an honest error is better than an hypocritical profession of truth, or a violent luxation of the understanding, since if he retains his honesty and simplicity, he cannot err in a matter of faith or absolute necessity: God's goodness hath secured all honest and careful persons from that; for other things, he must follow the best guides he can, and he cannot be obliged to follow better than God hath given him.  
And there is yet another way pretended of infallible 
Numb. 3.  Expositions of Scripture; and that is, by the Spirit. But of this I shall say no more, but that it is impertinent as to this question. For put case the Spirit is given to some men enabling them to expound infallibly, yet because this is but a private assistance, and cannot be proved to others, this infallible assistance may determine my own assent, but shall not enable me to prescribe to others, because it were unreasonable I should, unless I could prove to him that I have the Spirit, and so can secure him from being deceived, if he relies upon me. In this case I may say as S. Paul in the case of praying with the Spirit, He verily giveth thanks well, but the other is not edified. So that let this pretence be as true as it will, it is sufficient that it cannot be of consideration in this question.  
The result of all is this; Since it is not reasonable to limit and prescribe to all men's understandings by any external rule in the 
Numb. 4.  interpretation of difficult places of Scripture which is our rule: Since no man nor company of men is secure from error, or can secure us that they are free from malice, interest and design; and since all the ways by which we usually are taught, as Tradition, Counsels, Decretals, etc. are very uncertain in the matter, in their authority, in their being legitimate and natural, and many of them certainly false, and nothing certain but the divine authority of Scripture, in which all that is necessary is plain, and much of that that is not necessary is very obscure, intricate and involved, either we must set up our rest, only upon articles of faith, and plain places, and be incurious of other obscurer revelations, (which is a duty for persons of private understandings, and of no public function) or if we will search further (to which in some measure the guides of others are obliged) it remains we inquire how men may determine themselves, so as to do their duty to God, and not to deserve the Church, that every such man may do what he is bound to, in his personal capacity, and as he relates to the public as a public minister.   

SECT. X.  
Of the authority of Reason, and that it proceeding upon best grounds is the best judge,  
HEre than I consider, that although no man may be trusted to judge for all others, unless this person were infallible and 
Numb. 1.  authorized so to do, which no man nor no company of men is, yet every man may be trusted to judge for himself, I say every man that can judge at all, (as for others they are to be saved as it pleaseth God) but others that can judge at all must either choose their guides who shall judge for them, (and then they oftentimes do the wisest, and always save themselves a labour, but then they choose too) or if they be persons of greater understanding, than they are to choose for themselves in particular, what the others do in general, and by choosing their guide; and for this any man may be better trusted for himself then any man can be for another: For in this case his own interest is most concerned; and ability is not so necessary as honesty, which certainly every man will best preserve in his own case, and to himself, (and if he does not, it is he that must smart for't) and it is not required of us not to be in error, but that we endeavour to avoid it.  
2. He that follows his guide so far as his reason goes along with him, or which is all one, he that follows his own reason 
Numb. 2.  (not guided only by natural arguments, but by divine revelation, and all other good means) hath great advantages over him that gives himself wholly to follow any humane guide whatsoever, because he follows all their reasons and his own too; he follows them till reason leaves them, or till it seems so to him, which is all one to his particular, for by the confession of all sides, an erroneous Conscience binds him, when a right guide does not bind him. But he that gives himself up wholly to a guide is oftentimes (I mean, if he be a discerning person) forced to do violence to his own understanding, and to lose all the benefit of his own discretion, that he may reconcile his reason to his guide. And of this we see infinite inconveniences in the Church of Rome, for we find persons of great understanding, oftentimes so amused with the authority of their Church, that it is pity to see them sweat in answering some objections, which they know not how to do, but yet believe they must, because the Church hath said it. So that if they read, study, pray, search records, and use all the means of art and industry in the pursuit of truth, it is not with a resolution to follow that which shall seem truth to them, but to confirm what before they did believe: and if any argument shall seem unanswerable against any Article of their Church, they are to take it for a temptation, not for an illumination, and they are to use it accordingly: which makes them make the Devil to be the Author of that which Gods Spirit hath assisted them to find in the use of lawful means and the search of truth. And when the Devil of falsehood is like to be cast out by God's Spirit, they say that it is through Beelzebub; which was one of the worst things that ever the Pharisees said or did: And was it not a plain stifling of the just and reasonable demands made by the Emperor, by the Kings of France and Spain, and by the ablest Divines among them which was used in the Council of Trent, when they demanded the restitution of Priests to their liberty of marriage, the use of the Chalice, the Service in the vulgar Tongue, and these things not only in pursuance of Truth, but for other great and good ends, even to take away an infinite scandal and a great schism? And yet when they themselves did profess it, and all the world knew these reasonable demands were denied merely upon a politic consideration, yet that these things should be framed into articles, and decrees of faith, and they for ever after bond not only not to desire the same things, but to think the contrary to be divine truths: never was Reason made more a slave or more useless. Must not all the world say, either they must be great hypocrites, or do great violence to their understanding, when they not only cease from their claim, but must also believe it to be unjust? If the use of their reason had not been restrained by the tyranny & imperiousness of their guide, what the Emperor, and the Kings, and their Theologues would have done, they can best judge who consider the reasonableness of the demand, and the unreasonableness of the denial. But we see many wise men who with their Optandum esset ut Ecclesia licentiam daret, etc. proclaim to all the world, that in some things they consent and do not consent, and do not hearty believe what they are bound publicly to profess and they themselves would clearly see a difference, if a contrary decree should be framed by the Church, they would with an infinite greater confidence rest themselves in other propositions then what they must believe as the case now stands, and they would find that the authority of a Church is a prejudice as often as a free and modest use of reason is a temptation.  
3. God will have no man pressed with another's inconveniences in matters spiritual and intellectual, no man's salvation to depend 
Numb. 3.  upon another, and every tooth that eats sour grapes shall be set on edge for itself, and for none else: and this is remarkable in that saying of God by the Prophet, If the Prophet ceases to 
Ezek. 33.  tell my people of their sins, and leads them into error, the people shall die in their sins, and the blood of them I will require at the hands of that Prophet: Meaning, that God hath so set the Prophets to guide us, that we also are to follow them by a voluntary assent by an act of choice and election. For although accidentally and occasionally the sheep may perish by the shepherd's fault, yet that which hath the chiefest influence upon their final condition, is their own act and election, and therefore God hath so appointed guides to us, that if we perish, it may be accounted upon both our scores, upon our own and the guides too, which says plainly, that although we are entrusted to our guides, yet we are entrusted to ourselves too. Our guides must direct us, and yet if they fail, God hath not so left us to them, but he hath given us enough to ourselves to discover their failings, and our own duties in all things necessary. And for other things we must do as well as we can. But it is best to follow our guides, if we know nothing better; but if we do, it is better to follow the pillar of fire, than a pillar of cloud, though both possibly may lead to Canaan: But then also it is possible that it may be otherwise. But I am sure if I do my own best, then if it be best to follow a Guide, and if it be also necessary, I shall be sure by God's grace and my own endeavour, to get to it; But if I without the particular engagement of my own understanding, follow a guide, possibly I may be guilty of extreme negligence, or I may extinguish God's Spirit, or do violence to my own reason. And whether intrusting myself wholly with another, be not a laying up my talon in a napkin, I am not so well assured. I am certain the other is not. And since another man's answering for me will not hinder, but that I also shall answer for myself; as it concerns him to see he does not wilfully misguide me, so it concerns me to see that he shall not if I can help it, if I cannot it will not be required at my hands: whether it be his fault, or his invincible error, I shall be charged with neither.  
4. This is no other than what is enjoined as a duty. For since 
Numb. 4.  God will be justified with a free obedience, and there is an obedience of understanding as well as of will and affection, it is of great concernment, as to be willing to believe what ever God says, so also to inquire diligently whether the will of God be so as is pretended. Even our acts of understanding are acts of choice, 
Mat. 15. 10. Joh. 5. 40. 1 Joh. 4. 1. Ephes. 5. 17. Luk. 24. 25. Rom. 3. 11. 1. 28. Apoc. 2. 2. Act. 17. 11.  and therefore it is commanded as a duty, to search the Scriptures, to try the spirits whether they be of God or no, of ourselves to be able to judge what is right, to try all things, and to retain that which is best. For he that resolves not to consider, resolves not to be careful whether he have truth or no, and therefore hath an affection indifferent to truth or falsehood, which is all one as if he did choose amiss; and since when things are truly propounded and made reasonable and intelligible we cannot but assent, and then it is no thanks to us; we have no way to give our wills to God in matters of belief, but by our industry in searching it and examining the grounds upon which the propounders build their dictates. And the not doing it is oftentimes a cause that God gives a man over 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into a reprobate and undiscerning mind and understanding.  
5. And this very thing (though men will not understand it) is 
Numb. 5.  the perpetual practice of all men in the world that can give a reasonable account of their faith. The very Catholic Church itself is rationabilis & ubique diffusa, saith Optatus, reasonable, as 
Lib. 3.  well as diffused, every where. For take the Proselytes of the Church of Rome, even in their greatest submission of understanding, they seem to themselves to follow their reason most of all. For if you tell them, Scripture and Tradition are their rules to follow, they will believe you when they know a reason for it, and if they take you upon your word, they have a reason for that too, either they believe you a learned man, or a good man, or that you can have no ends upon them, or something that is of an equal height to fit their understandings. If you tell them they must believe the Church, you must tell them why they are bound to it, and if you quote Scripture to prove it, you must give them leave to judge, whether the words alleged speak your sense or no, and therefore to descent if they say no such thing. And although all men are not wise, and proceed discreetly, yet all make their choice some way or other. He that chooses to please his fancy takes his choice as much as he that chooses prudently. And no man speaks more unreasonably, than he that denies to men the use of their Reason in choice of their Religion. For that I may by the way remove the common prejudice, Reason and Authority are not things incompetent or repugnant, especially when the Authority is infallible and supreme: for there is no greater reason in the world then to believe such an authority. But then we must consider, whether every authority that pretends to be such, is so indeed. And therefore Deus dixit, ergo hoc verum est, is the greatest demonstration in the world for things of this nature. But it is not so in humane dictates, and yet reason and humane authority are not enemies. For it is a good argument for us to follow such an opinion, because it is made sacred by the authority of Counsels and Ecclesiastical Tradition, and sometimes it is the best reason we have in a question, and then it is to be strictly followed; but there may also be at other times a reason greater than it that speaks against it, and then the authority must not carry it. But then the difference is not between reason and authority, but between this reason and that, which is greater: for authority is a very good reason, and is to prevail, unless a stronger comes and disarms it, but than it must give place. So that in this question by [Reason] I do not mean a distinct Topick, but a transcendent that runs through all Topics; for Reason, like Logic, is instrument of all things else, and when Revelation, and Philosophy, and public Experience, and all other grounds of probability or demonstration have supplied us with matter, than Reason does but make use of them; that is, in plain terms, there being so many ways of arguing, so many sects, such differing interests, such variety of authority, so many pretences, and so many false beliefs, it concerns every wise man to consider which is the best argument, which proposition relies upon the truest grounds: & if this were not his only way, why do men dispute and urge arguments, why do they cite Counsels & Fathers, why do they allege Scripture and Tradition, and all this on all sides, and to contrary purposes? If we must judge, than we must use our reason; if we must not judge, why do they produce evidence? Let them leave disputing and decree propositions magisterially, but then we may choose whether we will believe them or no; or if they say we must believe them, they must prove it, and tell us why. And all these disputes concerning Tradition, Counsels, Fathers, etc. are not arguments against or besides reason, but contestations and pretences to the best arguments, and the most certain satisfaction of our reason. But then all these coming into question, submit themselves to reason, that is, to be judged by humane understanding, upon the best grounds and information it can receive. So that Scripture, Tradition, Counsels, and Fathers, are the evidence in a question, but Reason is the Judge: That is, we being the persons that are to be persuaded, we must see that we be persuaded reasonably, and it is unreasonable to assent to a lesser evidence, when a greater and clearer is propounded, but of that every man for himself is to take cognisance if he be able to judge, if he be not, he is not bound under the tye of necessity to know any thing of it; that, that is necessary shall be certainly conveyed to him, God that best can, will certainly take care for that; for if he does not, it becomes to be not necessary; or if it should still remain necessary, and he damned for not knowing it, and yet to know it be not in his power, than who can help it? there can be no further care in this business. In other things, there being no absolute and prime necessity, we are left to our liberty to judge that way that makes best demonstration of our piety and of our love to God and truth, not that way that is always the best argument of an excellent understanding, for this may be a blessing, but the other only is a duty.  
And now that we are pitched upon that way which is most natural 
Numb. 6.  and reasonable in determination of ourselves rather then of questions, which are often indeterminable, since right reason proceeding upon the best grounds it can, viz. of divine revelation and humane authority, and probability is our guide, (Stando in humanis) and supposing the assistance of God's Spirit (which he never denies them that fail not of their duty in all such things in which he requires truth and certainty) it remains that we consider how it comes to pass that men are so much deceived in the use of their reason, and choice of their Religion, and that in this account we distinguish those accidents which make error innocent from those which make it become a heresy.   

SECT. XI.  
Of some causes of Error in the exercise of Reason which are inculpate in themselves.  
1. THen I consider, that there are a great many inculpable causes of Error, which are arguments of humane imperfections, 
Numb. 1.  not convictions of a sin. And (1.) the variety of humane understandings is so great, that what is plain and apparent to one, is difficult and obscure to another; one will observe a consequent from a common principle, and another from thence will conclude the quite contrary. When S. Peter saw the vision of the sheet let down with all sorts of beasts in it, and a voice saying, Surge Petre, macta & manduca, if he had not by a particular assistance been directed to the meaning of the holy Ghost, possibly he might have had other apprehensions of the meaning of that vision, for to myself it seems naturally to speak nothing but the abolition of the Mosaical rites, and the restitution of us to that part of Christian liberty which consists in the promiscuous eating of meats; and yet besides this, there want not some understandings in the world, to whom these words seem to give Saint Peter a power to kill heretical Princes. Me thinks it is a strange understanding that makes such extractions, but Bozius and Baronius did so. But men may understand what they please, especially when they are to expound Oracles. It was an argument of some wit, but of singularity of understanding, that happened in the great contestation between the missals of Saint Ambrose and Saint Gregory. The lot was thrown, and God made to be Judge, so as he was tempted to a miracle, to answer a question which themselves might have ended without much trouble. The two Missals were laid upon the Altar, & the Church door shut and sealed. By the morrow Matins they found S. Gregory's Missal torn in pieces (saith the story) and thrown about the Church, but S. Ambrose's opened and laid upon the Altar in a posture of being read. If I had been to judge of the meaning of this Miracle, I should have made no scruple to have said it had been the will of God that the Missal of S. Ambrose which had been anciently used, and publicly tried and approved of, should still be read in the Church, and that of Gregory let alone, it being torn by an Angelical hand as an argument of its imperfection, or of the inconvenience of innovation. But yet they judged it otherwise, for by the tearing and scattering about, they thought it was meant, it should be used over all the world, and that of S. Ambrose read only in the Church of Milan. I am more satisfied that the former was the true meaning, than I am of the truth of the story: But we must suppose that. And now there might have been eternal dispute about the meaning of the miracle, and nothing left to determine, when two fancies are the litigants, and the contestations about probabilities hinc inde. And I doubt not this was one cause of so great variety of opinions in the Primitive Church, when they proved their several opinions which were mysterious questions of Christian Theology, by testimonies out of the obscurer Prophets, out of the Psalms and Canticles, as who please to observe their arguments of discourse and actions of Council shall perceive they very much used to do. Now although men's understandings be not equal, and that it is fit the best understandings should prevail, yet that will not satisfy the weaker understandings, because all men will not think that another understanding is better than his own, at least not in such a particular, in which with fancy he hath pleased himself. But commonly they that are least able, are most bold, and the more ignorant is the more confident, therefore it is but reason if he would have another bear with him, he also should bear with another, and if he will not be prescribed to, neither let him prescribe to others. And there is the more reason in this; because such modesty is commonly to be desired of the more imperfect; for wise men know the ground of their persuasion, and have their confidence proportionable to their evidence, others have not, but overact their trifles: and therefore I said it is but a reasonable demand, that they that have the least reason should not be most imperious; and for others it being reasonable enough, for all their great advantages upon other men, they will be soon persuaded to it; for although wise men might be bolder, in respect of the persons of others less discerning, yet they know there are but few things so certain as to create much boldness and confidence of assertion, If they do not, they are not the men I take them for.  
2. When an action or opinion is commenced with zeal and piety against a known vice or a vicious person, commonly all the 
Numb. 2.  mistakes of its proceeding are made sacred by the holiness of the principle, and so abuses the persuasions of good people, that they make it as a Characteristic note to distinguish good persons from bad; and than whatever error is consecrated by this means, is therefore made the more lasting, because it is accounted holy, and the persons are not easily accounted heretics, because they erred upon a pious principle. There is a memorable instance in one of the greatest questions of Christendom, viz. concerning Images. For when Philippicus had espied the images of the six first Synods upon the front of a Church, he caused them to be pulled down; now he did it in hatred of the sixth Synod: for he being a Monothelite, stood condemned by that Synod. The Catholics that were zealous for the sixth Synod, caused the images and representments to be put up again, and then sprung the question concerning the lawfulness of images in Churches; Philippicus and his party strove by suppressing images to do disparagement to the sixth Synod: the Catholics to preserve the honour 
Vid. Paulum Diaconum.  of the sixth Synod, would uphold images. And then the question came to be changed, and they who were easy enough to be persuaded to pull down images, were overawed by a prejudice against the Monothelites, and the Monothelites strived to maintain the advantage they had got by a just and pious pretence against images. The Monothelites would have secured their error by the advantage and consociation of a truth, & the other would rather defend a dubious and disputable error, than lose and let go a certain truth. And thus the case stood, and the successors of both parts were led invincibly. For when the Heresy of the Monothelites disbanded, (which it did in a while after) yet the opinion of the Iconoclasts, & the question of Images grew stronger. Yet since the Iconoclasts at the first were Heretics, not for their breaking Images, but for denying the two wills of Christ, his Divine and his Humane: that they were called Iconoclasts was to distinguish their opinion in the question concerning the Images, but that than Iconoclasts so easily had the reputation of Heretics, was because of the other opinion which was conjunct in their persons; which opinion men afterwards did not easily distinguish in them, but took them for Heretics in gross, and whatsoever they held to be heretical. And thus upon this prejudice grew great advantages to the veneration of Images, and the persons at first were much to be excused, because they were misguided by that which might have abused the best men. And if Epiphanius who was as zealous against Images in Churches as Philippicus or Leo Isaurus, had but begun a public contestation, and engaged Emperors to have made Decrees against them, Christendom would have had other apprehensions of it, than they had when the Monothelites began it. For few men will endure a truth from the mouth of the Devil, and if the person be suspected, so are his ways too. And it is a great subtlety of the Devil so to temper truth and falsehood in the same person, that truth may lose much of its reputation by its mixture with error, and the error may become more plausible by reason of its conjunction with truth. And this we see by too much experience, for we see many truths are blasted in their reputation, because persons whom we think we hate upon just grounds of Religion, have taught them. And it was plain enough in the case of Maldonat, that said of an explication of a place of Scripture, that it was 
In cap 6. johan.  most agreeable to Antiquity, but because Calvin had so expounded it, he therefore chose a new one. This was malice. But when a prejudice works tacitly, undiscernably, and irresistible of the person so wrought upon, the man is to be pitied, not condemned, though possibly his opinion deserves it highly. And therefore it hath been usual to discredit doctrines by the personal defaillances of them that preach them: or with the disreputation of that sect that maintains them in conjunction with other perverse doctrines. Faustus the Manichee in S. Austin, glories much, that in their Religion God was worshipped purely and without Images. 
L. 20. c. 3. cont. Faustum Man. L. 1. c. ult. de Imagine.  S. Austin liked it well, for so it was in his too, but from hence Sanders concludes, that to pull down Images in Churches was the heresy of the Manichees. The Jews endure no Images, therefore Bellarmine makes it to be a piece of Judaisme to oppose them. He might as well have concluded against saying our prayers, and Church music, that it is Judaical, because the Jews used it. And 
De reliq. SS. l. 2. c. 6. Sect. Nicolaus.  he would be loath to be served so himself, for he that had a mind to use such arguments, might with much better probability conclude against their Sacrament of extreme unction, because when the miraculous healing was ceased, than they were not Catholics, but Heretics that did transfer it to the use of dying persons, (says Irenaeus;) for so did the Valentinians: And indeed 
L. 1. c. 8. adv. haer.  this argument is something better than I thought for at first, because it was in Irenaeus time reckoned among the heresies. But there are a sort of men that are even with them, and hate some good things which the Church of Rome teaches, because she who teaches so many errors, hath been the publisher, and is the practiser of those things. I confess the thing is always unreasonable, but sometimes it is invincible and innocent; and then may serve to abate the fury of all such decretory sentences, as condemn all the world but their own Disciples.  
3. There are some opinions that have gone hand in hand with 
Numb. 3.  a blessing, and a prosperous profession; and the good success of their defenders hath amused many good people, because they thought they heard God's voice where they saw God's hand, and therefore have rushed upon such opinions with great piety and as great mistaking. For where they once had entertained a fear of God, and apprehension of his so sensible declaration, such a fear produces scruple, and a scrupulous conscience is always to be pitied, because though it is seldom wise, it is always pious. And this very thing hath prevailed so fare upon the understandings even of wise men, that Bellarmine makes it a note of the true Church. Which opinion when it prevails is a ready way to make, that instead of Martyrs all men should prove heretics or apostates in persecution; for since men in misery are very suspicious, out of strong desires to find out the cause, that by removing it they may be relieved, they apprehend that to be it that is first presented to their fears; and than if ever truth be afflicted, she shall also be destroyed. I will say nothing in defiance of this fancy, although all the experience in the world says it is false, and that of all men Christians should least believe it to be true, to whom a perpetual cross is their certain expectation, (and the argument is like the Moon, for which no garment can be fit, it altars according to the success of humane affairs, and in one age will serve a Papist, and in another a Protestant) yet when such an opinion does prevail upon timorous persons, the malignity of their error (if any be consequent to this fancy, and taken up upon the reputation of a prosperous heresy) is not to be considered simply and nakedly, but abatement is to be made in a just proportion to that fear, and to that apprehension.  
4. Education is so great and so invincible a prejudice, that he 
Numb. 4.  who masters the inconvenience of it, is more to be commended than he can justly be blamed that complyes with it. For men do not always call them principles which are the prime fountains of reason, from whence such consequents naturally flow, as are to guide the actions and discourses of men; but they are principles which they are first taught, which they sucked in next to their milk, and by a proportion to those first principles they usually take their estimate of propositions. For whatsoever is taught to them at first they believe infinitely, for they know nothing to the contrary, they have had no other masters, whose theorems might abate the strength of their first persuasions, and it is a great advantage in those cases to get possession; and before their first principles can be dislodged, they are made habitual and complexional, it is in their nature then to believe them, and this is helped forward very much by the advantage of love and veneration which we have to the first parents of our persuasions. And we see it in the orders of Regulars in the Church of Rome. That opinion which was the opinion of their Patron or Founder, or of some eminent Personage of the Institute, is enough to engage all the Order to be of that opinion; and it is strange that all the Dominicans should be of one opinion in the matter of Predetermination and immaculate conception, and all the Franciscans of the quite contrary, as if their understandings were formed in a different mould, and furnished with various principles by their very rule. Now this prejudice works by many principles, but how strongly they do possess the understanding is visible in that great instance of the affection and perfect persuasion the weaker sort of people have to that which they call the Religion of their Forefathers. You may as well charm a fever asleep with the noise of 
Optima vati ea quae magno ossensu, recepta sunt, quorumque exempla multa saint, nec ad rationem, sed ad similitudinem vivimus. Sen. Vid. Minut. Fel. octav.  bells, as make any pretence of reason against that Religion which old men have entailed upon their heirs male so many generations till they can prescribe. And the Apostles found this to be most true in the extremest difficulty they met with, to contest against the rites of Moses, and the long superstition of the Gentiles, which they therefore thought fit to be retained, because they had done so formerly, Pergentes non quo eundum est, sed quo itur, and all the blessings of this life which God gave them, they had in conjunction with their Religion, and therefore they believed it was for their Religion, and this persuasion was bound fast in them with ribs of iron, the Apostles were forced to unloose the whole conjuncture of parts & principles in their understandings, before they could make them malleable and receptive of any impresses. But the observation and experience of all wise men can justify this truth. All that I shall say to the present purpose, is this, that consideration is to be had to the weakness of persons when they are prevailed upon by so innocent a prejudice, and when there cannot be arguments strong enough to overmaster an habitual persuasion bred with a man, nourished up with him, that always eat at his table, and lay in his bosom, he is not easily to be called Heretic, for if he keeps the foundation of faith, other articles are not so clearly demonstrated on either side, but that a man may innocently be abused to the contrary. And therefore in this case to handle him charitably, is but to do him justice: And when an opinion in minoribus articulis, is entertained upon the title and stock of education, it may be the better permitted to him, since upon no better stock nor stronger arguments, most men entertain their whole Religion, even Christianity itself.  
5. There are some persons of a differing persuasion, who therefore 
Numb. 5.  are the rather to be tolerated, because the indirect practices and impostures of their adversaries have confirmed them, that those opinions which they disavow, are not from God, as being upheld by means not of God's appointment: For it is no unreasonable discourse to say, that God will not be served with a lie, for he does not need one, and he hath means enough to support all those truths which he hath commanded, and hath supplied every honest cause with enough for its maintenance, and to contest against its adversaries. And (but that they which use indirect arts will not be willing to lose any of their unjust advantages, nor yet be charitable to those persons, whom either to gain or to undo, they leave nothing unattempted) the Church of Rome hath much reason not to be so decretory in her sentences against persons of a differing persuasion, for if their cause were entirely the cause of God, they have given wise people reason to suspect it, because some of them have gone to the Devil to defend it. And if it be remembered what tragedies were stirred up against Luther, for saying, the Devil had taught him an argument against the Mass, it will be of as great advantage against them, that they go to the Devil for many arguments to support not only the Mass, but the other distinguishing Articles of their Church: I instance in the notorious forging of Miracles, and framing of false and ridiculous Legends. For the former I need no other instances then what happened in the great contestation about the immaculate conception, when there were Miracles brought on both sides to prove the contradictory parts; and though it be more than probable that both sides played the jugglers, yet the Dominicans had the ill luck to be discovered, and the actors burned at Berne. But this discovery happened by providence; for the Dominican opinion hath more degrees of probability than the Franciscan; is clearly more consonant both to Scripture and all antiquity, and this part of it is acknowledged by the greatest Patrons themselves, as Salmeron, Posa and Wadding, yet because they played the knaves in a just question, and used false arts to maintain a true proposition, God Almighty to show that he will not be served by a lie, was pleased rather to discover the imposture in the right opinion then in the false, since nothing is more dishonourable to God, then to offer a sin in sacrifice to him, and nothing more incongruous in the nature of the thing, than that truth and falsehood should support each other, or that true doctrine should live at the charges of a lie. And he that considers the arguments for each opinion will easily conclude, that if God would not have truth confirmed by a lie, much less would he himself attest a lie with a true miracle. And by this ground it will easily follow, that the Franciscan party, although they had better luck than the Dominicans, yet had not more honesty, because their cause was worse, and therefore their arguments no whit the better. And although the argument drawn from miracles is good to attest a holy doctrine, which by its own worth will support itself, after way is a little made by miracles, yet of itself and by its own reputation it will not support any fabric; for instead of proving a doctrine to be true, it makes that the miracles themselves are suspected to be illusions, if they be pretended in behalf of a doctrine, which we think we have reason to account false. And therefore the Jews did not believe Christ's doctrine for his Miracles, but disbeleeved the truth of his Miracles, because they did not like his doctrine. And if the holiness of his doctrine, and the Spirit of God by inspirations and infusions, and by that which Saint Peter calls a surer word of prophecy, had not attested the Divinity both of his Person and his Office, we should have wanted many degrees of confidence which now we have upon the truth of Christian Religion. But now since we are foretell by this surer word of prophecy, that is, the prediction of Jesus Christ, 
Vid. Baron. A D. 68 n. 22. Philostrat. l. 4. T. 485. compend. Cedrens. p. 202.  that Antichrist should come in all wonders, and signs, and lying miracles, and that the Church saw much of that already verified in Simon Magus, Apollonius Tyaneus, and Manetho, and divers 
* Stapleton. prompt. Moral. pars aestiva, p. 627.  Heretics, it is now come to that pass, that the argument in its best advantage proves nothing so much as that the doctrine which it pretends to prove, is to be suspected, because it was foretold that false doctrine should be obtruded under such pretences. But then when not only true miracles are an insufficient argument to prove a truth since the establishment of Christianity, but that the miracles themselves are false and spurious, it makes that doctrine in whose defence they come, justly to be suspected, because they are a demonstration that the interested persons use all means, leave nothing unattempted to prove their propositions; but since they so fail as to bring nothing from God, but something from the Devil for its justification, it's a great sign that the doctrine is false, because we know the Devil, unless it be against his will, does nothing to prove a true proposition that makes against him. And now then those persons who will endure no man of another opinion, might do well to remember how by their exorcisms, their Devils tricks at Lowdon, and the other side pretending to cure mad folks and persons bewitched, and the many discoveries of their juggling, they have given so much reason to their adversaries to suspect their doctrine, that either they must not be ready to condemn their persons who are made suspicious by their indirect proceeding in attestation of that which they value so high as to call their Religion, or else they must condemn themselves for making the scandal active and effectual.  
As for false Legends, it will be of the same consideration, because 
Numb. 4.  they are false Testimonies of Miracles that were never done, which differs only from the other as a lie in words from a lie in action, but of this we have witness enough in that decree of Pope Leo X. session the eleventh, of the last Lateran Council, where he excommunicates all the forgers and inventors of visions and false Miracles, which is a testimony that it was then a practice so public as to need a Law for its suppression; and if any man shall doubt whether it were so or not, let him see the Centum gravamina of the Princes of Germany where it is highly complained of. But the extreme stupidity and sottishness of the inventors of lying stories is so great, as to give occasion to some persons to suspect the truth of all Church 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I●d. Pelus.  story, witness the Legend of Lombardy: of the author of which the Bishop of the Canaries gives this Testimony, In illo enim libro miraculorum monstra saepius quam vera miracula legas. Hanc homo scripsit ferrei oris, plumbei cordis, animi certe parum severi & prudentis. But I need not descend so low, for Saint Gregory and V Bede themselves reported miracles, for the authority of which they only had the report of the common people, and it is not certain that S. Hierome 
Vid. L. 11. loc. Theol. cap. 6.  had so much in his stories of S. Paul and S. Anthony, and the Fauns and the Satyrs which appeared to them, and desired their 
Canus ibid.  Prayers. But I shall only by way of eminency, note what Sir Thomas More says in his Epistle to Ruthal the King's Secretary before the Dialogue of Lucian [Philopseudes] that therefore he undertook the translation of that dialogue, to free the world from a superstition that crept in under the face and title of Religion. For such lies (says he) are transmitted to us with such authority that a certain impostor had persuaded S. Austin, that the very fable which Lucian scoffs, makes sport withal in that 
* Viz. De duobus spu inis, altero decedente, altero in vitam redeunte post viginti dies; quam in all is nominibus videt ●●cianus. Vide etiam argumentum Gilberti Cognati, in Annotat. in hunc Dialog.  Dialogue was a real story, and acted in his own days. The Epistle is worth the reading to this purpose; but he says this abuse grew to such a height, that scarce any life of any Saint or Martyr is truly related, but is full of lies and lying wonders, and some persons thought they served God if they did honour to God's Saints by inventing some prodigious story, or miracle for their reputation. So that now it is no wonder if the most pious men are apt to believe, and the greatest historians are easy enough to report such stories, which serving to a good end, are also consigned by the report of persons, otherwise pious and prudent enough. I will not instance in Vincentius his speculum, Turonensis, Thomas Cantipratanus, John Herolt, Vitae Patrum, nor the revelations of 
Vid. Palaeot. de sacra sindone, part 1. Epist. ad Lector.  Saint Bridget though confirmed by two Popes, Martin V and Boniface IX. even the best and most deliberate amongst them, Lippoman, Surius, Lipsius Bzovius, and Baronius are so full of fables that they cause great disreputation to the other Monuments and records of antiquity, and yet do no advantage to the cause under which they serve and take pay. They do no good and much hurt; but yet accidentally they may procure this advantage to charity, since they do none to faith; that since they have so abused the credit of story that our confidences want much of that support we should receive from her records of antiquity, yet the men that descent and are scandalised by such proceed should be excused if they should chance to be afraid of truth that hath put on garments of imposture: and since much violence is done to the truth & certainty of their judging, let none be done to their liberty of judging: since they cannot meet a right guide, let them have a charitable judge. And since it is one very great argument against Simon Magus and against Mahomet that we can prove their miracles to be impostures, it is much to be pitied if timorous and suspicious persons shall invincibly and honestly less apprehend a truth which they see conveyed by such a testimony which we all use as an argument to reprove the Mahometan superstition.  
6. Here also comes in all the weaknesses and trifling prejudices which operate not by their own strength, but by advantage taken 
Numb. 7.  from the weakness of some understandings. Some men by a Proverb or a common saying are determined to the belief of a proposition, for which they have no argument better than such a Proverbial sentence. And when divers of the common People in Jerusalem were ready to yield their understandings to the belief of the Messiah, they were turned clearly from their apprehensions by that proverb, look and see, does any good thing come from Galilee? And this, when Christ comes, no man knows from whence he is; but this man was known of what parents, of what City. And thus the weakness of their understanding was abused, and that made the argument too hard for them. And the whole seventh Chapter of Saint john's Gospel is a perpetual instance of the efficacy of such trifling prejudices, and the vanity and weakness of popular understandings. Some whole ages have been abused by a definition, which being once received, as most commonly they are upon slight grounds, they are taken for certainties in any science respectively, and for principles, and upon their reputation men use to frame conclusions, which must be false or uncertain according as the definitions are. And he that hath observed anything of the weaknesses of men, and the successions of groundless doctrines from age to age, and how seldom definitions which are put into systemes, or that derive from the Fathers, or approved among Shoolmen are examined by persons of the same interests, will bear me witness, how many and great inconveniences press hard upon the persuasions of men, who are abused and yet never consider who hurt them. Others, and they very many, are lead by authority or examples of Princes, & great personages, Numquis credit ex Principibus? Some by the reputation of one learned man are carried into any persuasion whatsoever. 
Joh. 7.  And in the middle and latter ages of the Church, this was the more considerable, because the infinite ignorance of the Clerks, and the men of the long robe gave them over to be lead by those few guides which were marked to them by an eminency, much more than their ordinary: which also did the more amuse them, because most commonly they were fit for nothing but to admire what they understood not; their learning then was in some skill in the Master of the Sentences, in Aquinas or Scotus whom they admired next to the most intelligent order of Angels; hence came opinions that made Sects & division of names, Thomists, Scotists, Albertists, Nominals, Reals, and I know not what monsters of names; and whole families of the same opinion, the whole institute of an Order being engaged to believe according to the opinion of some leading man of the same Order, as if such an opinion were imposed upon them in vitute sanctae obedientiae. But this inconvenience is greater when the principle of the mistake runs higher, when the opinion is derived from a Primitive man and a Saint, for than it often happens that what at first was but a plain innocent seduction, comes to be made sacred by the veneration which is consequent to the person for having lived long ago; and then, because the person is also since canonised, the error is almost made eternal, and the cure desperate. These and the like prejudices which are as various as the miseries of humanity or the variety of humane understandings are not absolute excuses, unless to some persons, but truly if they be to any, they are exemptions to all, from being pressed with too peremptory a sentence against them, especially if we consider what leave is given to all men by the church of Rome to follow any one probable Doctor in an opinion which is contested against by many more. And as for the Doctors of the other side, they being destitute of any pretences to an infallible medium to determine questions, must of necessity allow the same liberty to the people, to be as prudent as they can in the choice of a fallible guide; and when they have chosen, if they do follow him into error, the matter is not so inexpiable for being deceived in using the best guides we had, which guides because themselves were abused, did also against their wills deceive me. So that this prejudice may the easier abuse us, because it is almost like a duty to follow the dictates of a probable Doctor, or if it be overacted or accidentally pass into an inconvenience, it is therefore to be excused because the principle was not ill, unless we judge by our event, not by the antecedent probability. Of such men as these it was said by Saint Austin, Caeteram turbam non intelligendi vivacitas, sed 
Contr. Fund. c. 4.  credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit. And Gregory Nazianzen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The common sort of people are 
Orat. 21.  safe in their not enquiring by their own industry, and in the simplicity of their understanding relying upon the best guides they can get.  
But this is of such a nature in which as we may inculpably be deceived, so we may turn it into a vice or a design, and then 
Numb. 6.  the consequent errors will alter the property, and become heresies. There are some men that have men's persons in admiration because of advantage, and some that have itching ears, and heap up teachers to themselves. In these and the like cases the authority of a person, and the prejudices of a great reputation is not the excuse but the fault: And a sin is so fare from excusing an Error, that Error becomes a sin by reason of its relation to that sin as to its parent and principle.   

SECT. XII.  
Of the innocency of Error in opinion in a pious person.  
ANd therefore as there are so many innocent causes of Error, as there are weaknesses within, and harmless and unavoidable 
Numb. 1.  prejudices from without, so if ever error be procured by a vice it hath no excuse, but becomes such a crime, of so much malignity, as to have influence upon the effect and consequent, and by communication makes it become criminal. The Apostles noted two such causes: Covetousness & Ambition, the former in them of the Circumcision, and the latter in Diotrephes and Simon Magus; and there were some that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
2 Tim. 3.  they were of the long robe too, but they were the she-Disciples, upon whose Consciences some false Apostles had influence by advantage of their wantonness, and thus the three principles of all sin become also the principles of heresy, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. And in pursuance of these arts the Devil hath not wanted fuel to set a-work incendiaries in all ages of the church. The Bishops were always honourable, and most commonly had great revenues, and a Bishopric would satisfy the two designs of Covetousness and Ambition, and this hath been the golden apple very often contended for, and very often the cause of great fires in the Church. Thebulis quia rejectus ab Episcopatu Hierosolymitano, turbare coepit Ecclesiam, said Egesippus in Eusebius. Tertullian turned Montanist in discontent for missing the Bishopric of Carthage after Agrippinus, and so did Montanus himself for the same discontent, saith Nicephorus. Novatus would have been Bishop of Rome, Donatus of Carthage, Arrius of Alexandria, Aerius of Sebastia, but they all miss, and therefore all of them vexed Christendom. And this was so common a thing, that oftentimes, the threatening the Church with a schism, or a heresy, was a design to get a Bishopric: And Socrates reports of Asterius, that he did frequent the Conventicles of the Arrians; Nam Episcopatum aliquem ambiebat. And setting aside the infirmities of men, and their innocent prejudices; Epiphanius makes pride to be the only cause of heresies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pride and Prejudice cause them all, the one criminally, the other innocently. And indeed S. Paul does almost make pride the only cause of heresies, his words cannot be expounded, unless it be at least the principal, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and consents not to sound words, and the doctrine that is according to godliness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The sum is this, If ever an opinion be begun with pride, or managed with impiety, or ends in a crime; the man turns Heretic: 
Numb. 2.  but let the error be never so great, so it be not against an Article of Creed, if it be simple and hath no confederation with the personal iniquity of the man, the opinion is as innocent as the person, though perhaps as false as he is ignorant, and therefore shall burn though he himself escape. But in these cases and many more, (for the causes of deception increase by all accidents, and weaknesses, and illusions) no man can give certain judgement upon the persons of men in particular, unless the matter of fact and crime be accident and notorious. The man cannot by humane judgement be concluded a heretic, unless his opinion be an open recession from plain demonstrative divine authority (which must needs be notorious, voluntary, vincible and criminal) or that there be a palpable serving of an end accidental and extrinsecall to the opinion.  
But this latter is very hard to be discerned, because those accidental and adherent crimes which makes the man a heretic, 
Numb. 3.  in questions not simply fundamental or of necessary practice, are actions so internal and spiritual, that cognizance can but seldom be taken of them. And therefore (to instance) though the opinion of Purgatory be false, yet to believe it cannot be heresy, if a man be abused into the belief of it invincibly, because it is not a Doctrine either fundamentally false or practically impious, it neither proceeds from the will, nor hath any immediate or direct influence upon choice and manners. And as for those other ends of upholding that opinion which possibly its Patrons may have, as for the reputation of their Church's infallibility, for the advantage of Dirges, Requiems, Masses, Monthly minds, Anniverssaries, and other offices for the dead, which usually are very profitable, rich and easy, these things may possibly have sole influences upon their understanding, but whether they have or no God only knows. If the proposition and article were true, these ends might justly be subordinate and consistent with a true proposition. And there are some truths that are also profitable, as the necessity of maintenance to the Clergy, the Doctrine of restitution, giving Alms, lending freely, remitting debts in cases of great necessity: and it would be but an ill argument that the preachers of these doctrines speak false, because possibly in these articles they may serve their own ends. For although Demetrius and the Craftsmen were without excuse for resisting the Preaching of S. Paul, because it was notorious they resisted the truth upon ground of profit and personal emoluments, and the matter was confessed by themselves, yet if the Clergy should maintain their just rites and Revenues which by pious dedications and donatives were long since ascertained upon them, is it to be presumed in order of Law and charity, that this end is in the men subordinate to truth, because it is so in the thing itself, and that therefore no judgement in prejudice of these truths can be made from that observation?  
But if aliunde we are ascertained of the truth or falsehood of 
Numb. 4.  a proposition respectively, yet the judgement of the personal ends of the men, cannot ordinarily be certain and judicial, because most commonly the acts are private, and the purposes internal, and temporal ends may sometimes consist with truth, and whether the purposes of the men make these ends principal or subordinate, no man can judge; and be they how they will, yet they do not always prove that when they are conjunct with error, that the error was caused by these purposes and criminal intentions.  
But in questions practical, the doctrine itself and the person 
Numb. 5.  too, may with more ease be reproved, because matter of fact being evident, and nothing being so certain as the experiments of humane affairs, and these being the immediate consequents of such doctrines, are with some more certainty of observation redargued, than the speculative; whose judgement is of itself more difficult, more remote from matter and humane observation, and with less curiosity and explicitenesse declared in Scripture as being of less consequence and concernment in order to Gods and Man's great end. In other things which end in notion and ineffective contemplation, where neither the doctrine is malicious, nor the person apparently criminal, he is to be left to the judgement of God, and as there is no certainty of humane judicature in this case, so it is to no purpose it should be judged. For if the person may be innocent with his Error, and there is no rule whereby he can certainly be pronounced, that he is actually criminal; (as it happens in matters speculative.) Since the end of the Commandment is love out of a pure conscience, and faith unfeigned; and the Commandment may obtain its end in a consistence with this simple speculative Error, Why should men trouble themselves with such opinions, so as to disturb the public charity or the private confidence? Opinions and persons are just so to be judged as other matters and persons criminal. For no man can judge any thing else: it must be a crime, and it must be open, so as to take cognizance, and make true humane judgement of it. And this is all I am to say concerning the causes of heresies, and of the distinguishing rules for guiding of our judgements towards others.  
As for guiding our judgements and the use of our reason 
Numb. 6.  in judging for ourselves, all that is to be said is reducible to this one proposition. Since errors are then made sins when they are contrary to charity or inconsistent with a good life and the honour of God, that judgement is the truest, or at least that opinion most innocent that 1. best promotes the reputation of God's Glory, and 2. is the best instrument of holy life. For in questions and interpretations of dispute, these two analogies are the best to make propositions, & conjectures and determinations. Diligence and care in obtaining the best guides, and the most convenient assistances, prayer, and modesty of spirit, simplicity of purposes and intentions, humility and aptness to learn, & a peaceable disposition, are therefore necessary to finding out truths, because they are parts of good life, without which our truths will do us little advantage, and our errors can have no excuse, but with these dispositions as he is sure to find out all that is necessary, so what truth he inculpably misses of, he is sure is therefore not necessary, because he could not find it when he did his best and his most innocent endeavours. And this I say to secure the persons; because no rule can antecedently secure the proposition in matters disputable. For even in the proportions and explications of this rule there is infinite variety of disputes: And when the dispute is concerning free will, one party denies it because he believes it magnifies the grace of God, that it works irresistably; the other affirms, because he believes it engages us upon greater care and piety of our endeavours. The one opinion thinks God reaps the glory of our good actions, the other thinks it charges our bad actions upon him. So in the question of merit, one part chooses his assertion because he thinks it incourages us to do good works, the other believes it makes us proud, and therefore he rejects it. The first believes it increases piety, the second believes it increases spiritual presumption and vanity. The first thinks it magnifies God's justice, the other thinks it derogates from his mercy. Now then, since neither this nor any ground can secure a man from possibility of mistaking, we were infinitely miserable if it would not secure us from punishment, so long as we willingly consent not to a crime, and do our best endeavour to avoid an error. Only by the way, let me observe, that since there are such great differences of apprehension concerning the consequents of an article, no man is to be charged with the odious consequences of his opinion. Indeed his doctrine is, but the person is not, if he understands not such things to be consequent to his Doctrine; for if he did, and then avows them, they are his direct opinions, & he stands as chargeable with them as with his first propositions; but if he disavows them, he would certainly rather quit his opinion then avow such errors or impieties, which are pretended to be consequent to it, because every man knows that can be no truth, from whence falsehood naturally and immediately does derive, and he therefore believes his first proposition, because he believes it innocent of such errors as are charged upon it directly or consequently.  
So that now, since no error neither for its self nor its consequents 
Numb. 7.  is to be charged as criminal upon a pious person, since no simple error is a sin, nor does condemn us before the throne of God, since he is so pitiful to our crimes, that he pardons many de toto & integro, in all makes abatement for the violence of temptation, and the surprisal and invasion of our faculties, and therefore much less will demand of us an account for our weaknesses; and since the strongest understanding cannot pretend to such an immunity and exemption from the condition of men, as not to be deceived and confess its weakness; it remains we inquire what deportment is to be used towards persons of a differing persuasion, when we are (I do not say doubtful of a proposition, but) convinced that he that differs from us is in Error, for this was the first intention, and the last end of this discourse.   

SECT. XIII.  
Of the deportment to be used towards persons disagreeing, and the reasons why they are not to be punished with death, etc.  
FOr although every man may be deceived, yet some are right and may know it too, for every man that may err, does 
Numb. 1.  not therefore certainly err, and if he errs because he recedes from his rule, then if he follows it he may do right, and if ever any man upon just grounds did change his opinion, than he was in the right and was sure of it too, and although confidence is mistaken for a just persuasion many times, yet some men are confident, and have reason so to be. Now when this happens, the question is what deportment they are to use towards persons that disagree from them, and by consequence are in error.  
1. Then no Christian is to be put to death, dismembered, or otherwise directly persecuted for his opinion, which does not 
Numb. 2.  teach impiety or blasphemy. If it plainly and apparently brings in a crime, and himself does act it or encourage it, than the matter of fact is punishable according to its proportion or malignity; as if he preaches treason or sedition, his opinion is not his excuse, because it brings in a crime, and a man is never the less traitor, because he believes it lawful to commit treason; & a man is a murderer if he kills his brother unjustly, although he thinks he does God good service in it. Matters of fact are equally judicable whether the principle of them be from within or from without: And if a man could pretend to innocence in being seditious, blasphemous, or perjured by persuading himself it is lawful, there were as great a gate opened to all iniquity, as will entertain all the pretences, the designs, the impostures, and disguises of the world. And therefore God hath taken order that all rules concerning matters of fact and good life shall be so clearly explicated, that without the crime of the man, he cannot be ignorant of all his practical duty. And therefore the Apostles and primitive Doctors made no scruple of condemning such persons for heretics, that did dogmatise a sin. He that teaches others to sin, is worse than he that commits the crime, whether he be tempted by his own interest, or encouraged by the others doctrine. It was as bad in Basilides to teach it to be lawful to renounce Faith and Religion, and take all manner of Oaths and Covenants in time of persecution, as if himself had done so; nay it is as much worse, as the mischief is more universal, or as a fountain is greater than a drop of water taken from it. He that writes Treason in a book, or preaches Sedition in a Pulpit, and persuades it to the people, is the greatest Traitor and incendiary, and his opinion there is the fountain of a sin, and therefore could not be entertained in his understanding upon weakness, or inculpable or innocent prejudice; he cannot from Scripture or divine revelation have any pretence to colour that so fairly as to seduce either a wise or an honest man. If it rest there and goes no further, it is not cognoscible, and so escapes that way; but if it be published and comes à stylo ad Machaeram (as Tertullia's phrase is) than it becomes matter of fact in principle and in persuasion, and is just so punishable, as is the crime that it persuades: such were they of whom S. Paul complains, who brought in damnable doctrines and lusts. S. Paul's 
Gal. 5.  Utinam abscindantur is just of them, take it in any sense of rigour and severity, so it be proportionable to the crime, or criminal doctrine. Such were those of whom God spoke in Deut. 13. If any Prophet tempts to idolatry, saying, let us go after other Gods, he shall be slain. But these do not come into this question. But the proposition is to be understood concerning questions disputable in materiâ intellectuali, which also for all that law of killing, such false Prophets were permitted with impunity in the Synagogue, as appears beyond exception in the great divisions and disputes between the Pharisees and the Sadduces. I deny not but certain and known idolatry or any other sort of practical impiety with its principiant doctrine may be punished corporally, because it is no other but matter of fact, but no matter of mere opinion, no errors that of themselves are not sins are to be persecuted or punished by death or corporal inflictions. This is now to be proved.  
2. All the former discourse is sufficient argument how easy it is for us in such matters to be deceived. So long as Christian Religion 
Numb. 3.  was a simple profession of the articles of belief, and a hearty prosecution of the rules of good life, the fewness of the articles and the clearness of the rule, was cause of the seldom prevarication. But when divinity is swelled up to so great a body, when the several questions which the peevishness and wantonness of sixteen ages have commenced, are concentred into one, and from all these questions something is drawn into the body of Theology till it hath ascended up to the greatness of a mountain, and the sum of Divinity collected by Aquinas, makes a volume as great as was that of Livy mocked at in the Epigram,  Quem mea vix totum bibliotheca capit. 
It is impossible for any industry to consider so many particulars in the infinite numbers of questions as are necessary to be considered before we can with certainty determine any. And after all the considerations which we can have in a whole age, we are not sure not to be deceived. The obscurity of some questions, the nicety of some articles, the intricacy of some revelations, the variety of humane understandings, the wind of Logic, the tricks of adversaries, the subtlety of Sophisters, the engagement of educations, personal affections, the portentous number of writers, the infinity of authorities, the vastness of some arguments, as consisting in enumeration of many particulars, the uncertainty of others, the several degrees of probability, the difficulties of Scripture, the invalidity of probation of tradition, the opposition of all exterior arguments to each other, and their open contestation, the public violence done to authors and records, the private arts and supplantings, the falsifyings, the indefatigable industry of some men to abuse all understandings, and all persuasions into their own opinions, these and thousands more, even all the difficulty of things, and all the weaknesses of man & all the arts of the Devil, have made it impossible for any man in so great variety of matter not to be deceived. No man pretends to it but the Pope, and no man is more deceived than he is in that very particular.  
3. From hence proceeds a danger which is consequent to this proceeding, for if we, who are so apt to be deceived, & so insecure 
Numb. 4.  in our resolution of questions disputable, should persecute a dis-agreeing person, we are not sure we do not fight against God, for if his proposition be true and persecuted, then, because all truth derives from God, this proceeding is against God, and therefore this is not to be done upon Gamaliel's ground, lest peradventure we be found to fight against God, of which because we can have no security (at least) in this case, we have all the guilt of a doubtful or an uncertain Conscience. For if there be no security in the thing as I have largely proved, the Conscience in such cases is as uncertain as the question is, and if it be not doubtful where it is uncertain, it is because the man is not wise, but as confident as ignorant, the first without reason, and the second without excuse. And it is very disproportionable for a man to persecute another certainly, for a proposition, that if he were wise, he would know is not certain, at least, the other person may innocently be uncertain of it. If he be killed, he is certainly killed, but if he be called heretic, it is not so certain that he is an heretic. It were good therefore, that proceed were according to evidence, and the rivers not swell over the banks, nor a certain definitive sentence of death passed upon such persuasions which cannot certainly be defined. And this argument is of so much the more force, because we see that the greatest persecutions that ever have been, were against truth, even against Christianity itself, and it was a prediction of our blessed Saviour, that persecution should be the lot of true believers: and if we compute the experience of suffering Christendom, and the prediction, that truth should suffer, with those few instances of suffering heretics, it is odds, but persecution is on the wrong side, and that it is error and heresy, that is, cruel and tyrannical, especially since the truth of Jesus Christ, and of his Religion are so meek, so charitable, and so merciful: and we may in this case, exactly use the words of S. Paul, But as then, he that was borne after the flesh, persecuted him that was borne after the spirit; even so it is now: and so it ever will be till Christ's second coming. 
Numb. 5.   
4. Whoever persecutes a disagreeing person, arms all the 
Quo comperto illi in nostram pemiciem licentiore audacia grassabuntur. S Aug. epist. ad Dona. Procons. & Contr. ep. Fund. ita nunc debeo sustinére & tantâ patientiâ vobiscum agere quantâ mecum egerunt proximi mei cum in vestro dogmate rabiosus ac cacus err●rem.  world against himself, and all pious people of his own persuasion, when the scales of authority return to his adversary, and attest his contradictory; and then, what can he urge for mercy for himself, or his party that showeth none to others? If he says, that he is to be spared because he believes true, but the other was justly persecuted because he was in error, he is ridiculous. For he is as confidently believed to be a heretic, as he believes his adversary such, and whether he be or no, being the thing in question, of this he is not to be his own judge, but he that hath authority on his side, will be sure to judge against him. So that, what either side can indifferently make use of, it is good that neither would, because neither side can with reason sufficient do it in prejudice of the other. If a man will say, that every man must take his adventure, and if it happens authority to be with him, he will persecute his adversaries, and if it turns against him he will bear it as well as he can, and hope for a reward of Martyrdom, and innocent suffering; besides that this is so equal to be said of all sides, and besides, that this is a way to make an eternal disunion of hearts and charities, and that it will make Christendom nothing but a shambles, and a perpetual butchery, and as fast as men's wits grow wanton, or confident, or proud, or abused, so often there will be new executions and massacres. Besides all this, it is most unreasonable and unjust, as being contrariant to those Laws of Justice and Charity, whereby we are bound with greater zeal to spare and preserve an innocent, then to condemn a guilty person, and there's less malice and iniquity in sparing the guilty, then in condemning the good. Because it is in the power of men to remit a guilty person to divine judicature, and for divers causes, not to use severity, but in no case is it lawful, neither hath God at all given to man a power to condemn such persons as cannot be proved other than pious and innocent. And therefore it is better, if it should so happen, that we should spare the innocent person, and one that is actually deceived, then that upon the turn of the wheel, the true believers should be destroyed.  
And this very reason, he that had authority sufficient, and absolute to make Laws, was pleased to urge as a reasonable inducement 
Numb. 6.  for the establishing of that Law which he made for the indemnity of erring persons. It was in the parable of the tares mingled with the good seed in Agro dominico the good seed (Christ himself being the interpreter) are the Children of the Kingdom, the tares are the children of the wicked one, upon this comes the precept, gather not the tares by themselves, but let them both grow together till the harvest, that is, till the day of Judgement. This Parable hath been tortured infinitely to make it confess its meaning, but we shall soon dispatch it. All the difficulty and variety of exposition is reducible to these two questions; What is meant by [Gather not,] and what by [Tares.] That is, what kind of sword is forbidden, and what kind of persons are to be tolerated. The former is clear; for the spiritual sword is not forbidden to be used to any sort of criminals, for that would destroy the power of excommunication. The prohibition therefore lies against the use of the temporal sword, in cutting off some persons. Who they are, is the next difficulty. But by tares, or the children of the wicked one, are meant either persons of ill lives, wicked persons only in re practicâ, or else another kind of evil persons, men criminal or faulty in re intellectuali. One or other of these two must be meant; a third I know not. But the former cannot be meant, because it would destroy all bodies politic, which cannot consist without laws, nor laws without a compulsory and a power of the sword, therefore if criminals were to be let alone till the day of Judgement, bodies politic must stand or fall ad arbitrium impiorum, and nothing good could be protected, not Innocence itself, nothing could be secure but violence and tyranny. It follows then that since a kind of persons which are indeed faulty are to be tolerated, it must be meant of persons faulty in another kind, in which the Gospel had not in other places clearly established a power externally compulsory, and therefore since in all actions practically criminal a power of the sword is permitted, here where it is denied must mean a crime of another kind, and by consequence errors intellectual, commonly called heresy. 
Numb. 7.   
And after all this the reason there given confirms this 
* Vide S. Chrysost. homil. 47. in Cap. 13. Matth. et. S. August.  interpretation, for therefore it is forbidden to cut off these tares, lest we also pull up the wheat with them, which is the sum of these two last arguments. For because Heresy is of so nice consideration, and difficult sentence, in thinking to root up heresies, 
Quest. in cap. 13 Mat. S. Cyprian. Ep. lib. 3 Ep. 1.  we may by our 
* S. Hieron. in cap 13. Matth. ait, per hanc parabolam significari, ne in rebus aub●is praecep● fiat judicium.  mistakes destroy true doctrine, which although it be possible to be done in all cases of practical question, by mistake, yet because external actions are more discernible than inward speculations and opinions, innocent persons are not so 
Theophyl. in 13. Matth.  easily mistaken for the guilty, in actions criminal, as in matters of inward persuasion. And upon that very reason Saint Martin was zealous to have procured a revocation of a Commission granted to certain Tribunes to make enquiry in Spain for sects and opinions; for under colour of rooting out the Priscilianists, there was much mischief done, and more likely to happen to the Orthodox. For it happened then, as oftentimes since, Pallore potius & veste quam fide haeretieus dijudicari solebat aliquando per Tribunos Maximi. They were no good inquisitors of heretical pravity, so Sulpitius' witnesses. But secondly, the reason says, that therefore these persons are so to be permitted as not to be persecuted, lest when a revolution of humane affairs sets contrary opinions in the throne or chair, they who were persecuted before, should now themselves become persecutors of others, and so at one time or other, before or after, the wheat be rooted up, and the truth be persecuted. But as these reasons confirm the Law, and this sense of it, so abstracting from the Law, it is of itself concluding by an argument ab incommodo, and that founded upon the 
Numb. 8.  principles of justice, and right reason, as I formerly alleged.  
4. We are not only uncertain of finding out truths in matters disputable, but we are certain that the best and ablest 
* Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciunt cum quo labore verum inveniatur, & quam difficilè caveantur errores. Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciunt quam rarum et arduum sit carnalia phantasmatae piae mentis serenitaete supevare. Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciunt quibus & suspiriis & gemitibus fiat ut exquantulancunque parte possit intelligi Deus. Postremo illi in vos saeviant qui nullo tali errore decepti sunt, quali vos deceptos vident.  Doctors of Christendom have been actually deceived in matters of great concernment, which thing is evident in all those instances of persons from whose doctrines all sorts of Christians respectively take liberty to descent. The errors of Papias, Irenaeus, Lactantius, justin Martyr in the Millenary opinion, of Saint Cyprian, Firmilian, the Asian and African Fathers in the question of Rebaptisation, Saint Austin in his decretory and uncharitable sentence against the unbaptized children of Christian parents, the Roman or the Greek Doctors in the question of the procession of the holy Ghost, and in the matter of images, are examples beyond exception. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now if these great personages had been persecuted or destroyed for their opinions, who should have answered the invaluable loss the Church of God should have sustained in missing so excellent, so exemplary, and so great lights? But then if these persons erred, and by consequence, might have been destroyed, what should have become of others whose understanding was lower, and their security less, their errors more, and their danger greater? At this rate all men should have passed through the fire, for who can escape, when Saint Cyprian and Saint Austin cannot? Now to say these persons were not to be persecuted because although they had errors, yet none condemned by the Church, at that time or before, is to say nothing to the purpose, nor nothing that is true. Not true, because Saint Cyprians 
S. August. Contr. Ep. Fund.  error was condemned by Pope Stephen, which in the present sense of the prevailing party in the Church of Rome, is to be condemned by the Church. Not to the purpose; because it is nothing else but to say that the Church did tolerate their errors. For since those opinions were open and manifest to the world, that the Church did not condemn them, it was either because those opinions were by the Church not thought to be errors, or if they were, yet she thought fit to tolerate the error and the erring person. And if she would do so still, it would in most cases be better than now it is. And yet if the Church had condemned them, it had not altered the case as to this question, for either the persons upon the condemnation of their error should have been persecuted or not. If not, why shall they now, against the instance and precedent of those ages who were confessedly wise & pious, and whose practice are often made to us arguments to follow? If yea, and that they had been persecuted, it is the thing which this argument condemns, and the loss of the Church had been invaluable in the losing or the provocation and temptation of such rare personages: and the example and the rule of so ill consequence, that all persons might upon the same ground have suffered, and though some had escaped, yet no man could have any more security from punishment then from error.  
5. Either the disagreeing person is in error, or not, but a true believer; in either of the cases to persecute him is extremely imprudent. 
Numb. 9  For if he be a true believer, than it is a clear case that we do open violence to God, and his servants, and his truth. If he be in error, what greater folly and stupidity then to give to error the glory of Martyrdom, and the advantages which are accidentally consequent to a persecution? For as it was true of the Martyrs Quoties morimur toties nascimur, and the increase of their trouble was the increase of their confidence and the establishment of their persuasions: so it is in all false opinions; for that an opinion is true or false is extrinsecall or accidental to the consequents and advantages it gets by being afflicted. And there is a popular pity that follows all persons in misery, and that compassion breeds likeness of affections, and that very often produces likeness of persuasion; and so much the rather, because there arises a jealousy and pregnant suspicion that they who persecute an opinion are destitute of sufficient arguments to confute it, and that the hangman is the best disputant. For if those arguments which they have for their own doctrine were a sufficient ground of confidence & persuasion, men would be more willing to use those means arguments which are better compliances with humane understanding, which more naturally do satisfy it, which are more humane and Christian, than that way which satisfies none, which destroys many, which provokes more, which makes all men jealous. To which add that those who die for their opinion, leave in all men, great arguments of the heartiness of their belief, of the confidence of their persuasion, of the piety and innocence of their persons, of the purity of their intention and simplicity of purposes; that they are persons totally disinterest, and separate from design. For no interest can be so great as to be put in balance against a man's life and his soul, & he does very imprudently serve his ends who seeingly & fore-knowingly loses his life in the prosecution of them. Just as if Titius should offer to die for Sempronius upon condition he might receive twenty talents when he had done his work. It is certainly an argument of a great love, and a great confidence, and a great sincerity, and a great hope when a man lays down his life in attestation of a proposition. Greater love than this hath no man, then to lay down his life, saith our Blessed Saviour. And although laying of a wager is an argument of confidence more than truth, yet laying such a wager, staking of a man's Soul, and pawning his life gives a hearty testimony that the person is honest, confident, resigned, Charitable and Noble. And I know not whether truth can do a person or a cause more advantages, than these can do to an error. And therefore besides the impiety, there is great imprudence in Canonising a heretic, and consecrating an error by such means, which were better preserved as encouragements of truth, and comforts to real and true Martyrs. And it is not amiss to observe that this very advantage was taken by heretics who were ready to show and boast their Catalogues of Martyrs, in particular the Circumcellians did so, and the Donatists, and yet the first were heretics, the second Schismatics. And it was remarkable in the Scholars of Priscillian, who, as they had their Master in the reputation of a Saint while he was living, so when he was dead, they had him in veneration as a Martyr; they with reverence and devotion carried his, and the bodies of his slain companions to an honourable sepulture, and counted it Religion to swear by the name of Priscillian. So that the extinguishing of the person, gives life and credit to his doctrine, and when he is dead he yet speaks more effectually.  
6. It is unnatural and unreasonable to persecute disagreeing opinions. Unnatural; for Understanding being a thing wholly 
Numb. 10.  spiritual, cannot be restrained, and therefore neither punished by corporal afflictions. It is in alienâ republicâ, a matter of another world; you may as well cure the colic by brushing a man's clothes, or fill a man's belly with a syllogism: these things do not communicate in matter, and therefore neither in action nor passion; and since all punishments in a prudent government punish the offender to prevent a future crime, and so it proves more medicinal than vindictive, the punitive act being in order to the cure and prevention: and since no punishment of the body can cure a disease in the soul, it is disproportionable in nature, and in all civil government, to punish where the punishment can do no good. It may be an act of tyranny, but never of justice. For is an opinion ever the more true or false for being persecuted? Some men have believed it the more, as being provoked into a confidence, and vexed into a resolution, but the thing itself is not the truer, and though the hangman may confute a man with an inexplicable dilemma, yet not convince his understanding, for such premises can infer no conclusion, but that of a man's life: and a Wolf may as well give laws to the understanding, as he whose dictates are only propounded in violence, and writ in blood. And a dog is as capable of a law as a man, if there be no choice in his obedience, nor discourse in his choice, nor reason to satisfy his discourse. And as it is unnatural, so it is unreasonable, that Sempronius should force Caius to be of his opinion, because Sempronius is Consul this year, and commands the Lictors: As if he that can kill a man cannot but be infallible: and if he be not, why should I do violence to my conscience, because he can do violence to my person?  
7. Force in matters of opinion can do no good, but is very 
Numb. 11.  apt to do hurt; for no man can change his opinion when he will, or be satisfied in his reason that his opinion is false, because discountenanced. If a man could change his opinion when he lists, he might cure many inconveniences of his life: all his fears and his sorrows would soon disband, if he would but alter his opinion, whereby he is persuaded, that such an accident that afflicts him is an evil, and such an object formidable; let him but believe himself impregnable, or that he receives a benefit when he is plundered, disgraced, imprisoned, condemned, and afflicted, neither his sleeps need to be disturbed, nor his quietness discomposed. But if a man cannot change his opinion when helists, nor ever does hearty or resolutely but when he cannot do otherwise, then to use force, may make him an hypocrite, but never to be a right believer, and so instead of erecting a trophy to God and true Religion, we build a Monument for the Devil. Infinite examples are recorded in Church story to this very purpose: But Socrates' instances in one for all; for when Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicum was threatened by the Emperor Ualens with banishment and confiscation, if he did not subscribe to the decree of Ariminum, at last he yielded to the Arrian opinion, and presently fell into great torment of Conscience, openly at Cyzicum recanted the error, asked God and the Church forgiveness, and complained of the Emperor's injustice, and that was all the good the Arrian party got by offering violence to his Conscience. And so many families in Spain which are as they call them new Christians, and of a suspected faith, into which they were forced by the tyranny of the Inquisition, and yet are secret Moors, is evidence enough, of the 
* Ejusmodi fuit Hipponensium conversio, cujus quidem species decepit August. ita ut opinaretur haereticos licet non morte trucidandos vi tamen coercendos. Experientiaenim demonstravit eos tam facile ad Arianismum transiisse atque ad Cathelicismum, cum Arriani Principes rerum in ed civitate petirentur.  inconvenience of preaching a doctrine in ore gladii cruentandi. For it either punishes a man for keeping a good conscience, or forces him into a bad; it either punishes sincerity, or persuades hypocrisy; it persecutes a truth, or drives into error: and it teaches a man to dissemble and to be safe, but never to be honest.  
8. It is one of the glories of Christian Religion, that it was so pious, excellent, miraculous and petswasive, that it came in upon its own piety and wisdom, with no other force but a torrent 
Numb. 12.  of arguments and demonstration of the Spirit; a mighty rushing wind to beat down all strong holds, and every high thought and imagination; but towards the persons of men it was always full of meekness and charity, compliance and toleration, condescension and bearing with one another, restoring persons overtaken with an error, in the spirit of meekness, considering lest we also be tempted. The consideration is as prudent, and the proposition as just as the precept is charitable, and the precedent was pious and holy. Now things are best conserved with that which gives it the first being, and which is agreeable to its temper and constitution. That precept which it chief preaches in order to all the blessedness in the world, that is, of meekness, mercy and charity, should also preserve itself and promote its own interest. For indeed nothing will do it so well, nothing doth so excellently insinuate itself into the understandings and affections of men, as when the actions and persuasions of a sect, and every part and principle and promotion are univocal. And it would be a mighty disparagement to so glorious an institution, that in its principle it should be merciful and humane, and in the promotion and propagation of it so inhuman: And it would be improbable and unreasonable that the sword should be used in the persuasion of one proposition, and yet in the persuasion of the whole Religion nothing like it. To do so, may serve the end of a temporal Prince, but never promote the honour of Christ's Kingdom; it may secure a design of Spain, but will very much disserve Christendom, to offer to support it by that which good men believe to be a distinctive cognisance of the Mahometan Religion, from the excellency and piety of Christianity, whose sense and spirit is described in those excellent words of S. Paul, 2 Tim. 2. 24. The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging the truth. They that oppose themselves, must not be strucken by any of God's servants; and if yet any man will smite these who are his opposites in opinion, he will get nothing by that, he must quit the title of being a servant of God for his pains. And I think a distinction of persons Secular and Ecclesiastical will do no advantage for an escape, because even the Secular power if it be Christian, and a servant of God must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I mean in those cases where meekness of instruction is the remedy, or if the case be irremediable, abscission by Censures is the penalty.  
9 And if yet in the nature of the thing it were neither unjust 
Numb. 13.  nor unreasonable, yet there is nothing under God Almighty that hath power over the soul of man, so as to command a persuasion, or to judge a disagreeing: Humane positive Laws direct all external acts in order to several ends, and the Judges take cognisance accordingly, but no man can command the will, or punish him, that obeys the Law against his will: for because its end is served in external obedience, it neither looks after more, neither can it be served by more, nor take notice of any more. And yet possibly the understanding is less subject to humane power then the will, for that humane power hath a command over external acts which naturally and regularly flow from the will, & ut plurimùm suppose a direct act of will, but always either a direct or indirect volition, primary or accidental; but the understanding is a natural faculty subject to no command, but where the command is itself a reason fit to satisfy and persuade it. And therefore God commanding us to believe such revelations, persuades and satisfies the understanding, by his commanding and revealing: for there is no greater probation in the world that a proposition is true, then because God hath commanded us to believe it. But because no man's command is a satisfaction to the understanding, or a verification of the proposition, therefore the understanding is not subject to humane authority. They may persuade, but not enjoin where God hath not; and where God hath, if it appears so to him, he is an Infidel if he does not believe it. And if all men have no other efficacy or authority on the understanding but by persuasion, proposal and entreaty, than a man is bound to assent but according to the operation of the argument, and the energy of persuasion, neither indeed can he, though he would never so feign, and he that out of fear and too much compliance and desire to be safe, shall desire to bring his understanding with some luxation to the belief of humane dictates and authorities, may as often miss of the truth as hit it, but is sure always to lose the comfort of truth, because he believes it upon indirect, insufficient, and incompetent arguments: and as his desire it should be so is his best argument that it is so, so the pleasing of men is his best reward, and his not being condemned and contradicted all the possession of a truth.   

SECT. XIIII.  
Of the practice of Christian Churches towards persons disagreeing, and when persecution first came in.  
ANd thus this truth hath been practised in all times of Christian Religion, when there were no collateral designs on foot, nor interests to be served, nor passions to be satisfied. In S. Paul's time, though the censure of heresy were not so lose and forward as afterwards, and all that were called Heretics were clearly such, and highly criminal; yet as their crime was, so was, their censure, that is, spiritual. They were first admonished, once at least, for so 
a l. 3. cap. 3.  Irenaeus, 
b de prescript.  Tertullian, 
c lib. ad Quirinum.  Cyprian, 
d in hunc locum.  Ambrose, and 
e ibidem.  Hierome read that place of Titus 3. But since that time all men, and at that time some read it, Post unam & alteram admonitionem, reject a Heretic. Rejection from the communion of Saints after two warnings, that's the penalty. Saint John expresses it by not eating with them, not bidding them God speed, but the persons against whom he decrees so severely, are such as denied Christ to become in the flesh, direct Antichrists: and let the sentence be as high as it lists in this case, all that I observe is, that since in so damnable doctrines nothing but spiritual censure, separation from the communion of the faithful was enjoined and prescribed, we cannot pretend to an Apostolical precedent, if in matters of dispute and innocent question, and of great uncertainty and no malignity we should proceed to sentence of death.  
For it is but an absurd and illiterate arguing, to say that excommunication is a greater punishment, and killing, a less; and therefore 
Numb. 2.  whoever may be excommunicated may also be put to death (which indeed is the reasoning that Bellarmine uses) for first, excommunication is not directly, and of itself a greater punishment then corporal death. Because it is indefinite, and incomplete, and in order to a further punishment, which if it happens, than the excommunication was the inlet to it, if it does not, the excommunication did not signify half so much as the loss of a member, much less, death. For it may be totally ineffectual, either by the iniquity of the proceeding, or repentance of the person: and in all times and cases it is a medicine if the man please; if he will not, but perseveres in his impiety, than it is himself that brings the Censure to effect, that actuates the judgement and gives a sting, and an energy upon that which otherwise would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Secondly, but when it is at worst, it does not kill the Soul, it only consignes it to that death which it had deserved, and should have received independently from that sentence of the Church. Thirdly, and yet excommunication is to admirable purpose; for whether it refers to the person censured or to others, it is prudential in itself, it is exemplary to others, it is medicinal to all. For the person censured, is by this means threatened into piety, and the threatening made the more energetical upon him because by fiction of Law, or as it were by a Sacramental representment the pains of hell are made presential to him; and so becomes an act of prudent judicature, and excellent discipline, and the best instrument of spiritual Government: Because the nearer the threatening is reduced to matter, & the more present and circumstantionable it is made, the more operative it is upon our spirits while they are immerged in matter. And this is the full sense and power of excommunication in its direct intention: consequently and accidentally other evils might follow it, as in the times of the Apostles, the censured persons were buffeted by Satan, and even at this day there is less security even to the temporal condition of such a person whom his spiritual parents have Anathematised. But besides this, I know no warrant to affirm any thing of excommunication, for the sentence of the Church does but declare, not effect the final sentence of damnation. Whoever deserves excommunication deserves damnation; and he that reputes shall be saved, though he die out of the Churches external Communion, and if he does not repent, he shall be damned though he was not excommunicate.  
But suppose it greater than the sentence of corporal death, yet 
Numb. 3.  it follows not, because heretics may be excommunicate, therefore killed, for from a greater to a less, in a several kind of things the argument concludes not. It is a greater thing to make an excellent discourse then to make a shoe, yet he that can do the greater cannot do this less. An Angel cannot beget a man, & yet he can do a greater matter in that kind of operations which we term spiritual and Angelical. And if this were concluding that whoever may be excommunicate may be killed, then, because of excommunications the Church is confessed the sole and entire Judge, she is also an absolute disposer of the lives of persons. I believe this will be but ill doctrine in Spain: for in Bullâ Coenae Domini the King of Spain is every year excommunicated on Maunday Thursday; but if by the same power he might also be put to death (as upon this ground he may) the Pope might with more ease be invested in that part of S. Peter's patrimony which that King hath invaded and surprised. But besides this, it were extreme harsh Doctrine in a Roman Consistory, from whence excommunications issue for trifles, for fees, for not suffering themselves infinitely to be oppressed, for any thing; if this be greater than death, how great a tyranny is that which does more than kill men for less than trifles, or else how inconsequent is that argument which concludes its purpose upon so false pretence & supposition?  
Well, however zealous the Apostles were against heretics, yet none were by them, or their dictates put to death. The death of 
Numb. 4.  Ananias and Saphira, and the blindness of Elymas the Sorcerer amount not to this, for they were miraculous inflictions: and the first was a punishment to Vow-breach and Sacrilege, the second of Sorcery, and open contestation against the Religion of Jesus Christ; neither of them concerned the case of this present question: or if the case were the same, yet the authority is not the same: For he that inflicted these punishments was infallible, and of a power competent: But no man at this day is so. But as yet, people were converted by Miracles, & Preaching, and Disputing, and Heretics by the same means were redargued, and all men instructed, none tortured for their opinion. And this continued till Christian people were vexed by disagreeing persons, and were impatient and peevish, by their own too much confidence and the luxuriancy of a prosperous fortune: but then they would not endure persons that did dogmatise any thing which might entrench upon their reputation or their interest. And it is observable that no man, nor no age did ever teach the lawfulness of putting heretics to death, till they grew wanton with prosperity. But when the reputation of the Governors was concerned, when the interests of men were endangered, when they had something to lose, when they had built their estimation upon the credit of disputable questions, when they began to be jealous of other men, when they overvalued themselves and their own opinions, when some persons invaded Bishoprics upon pretence of new opinions, than they as they thrived in the favour of Emperors, and in the success of their disputes, solicited the temporal power to banish, to fine, to imprison, and to kill their adversaries.  
So that the case stands thus. In the best times, amongst the 
Numb. 5.  best men, when there were fewer temporal ends to be served, when Religion and the pure and simple designs of Christianity were only to be promoted; in those times and amongst such men, no persecution was actual, nor persuaded nor allowed towards disagreeing persons. But as men had ends of their own and not of Christ's, as they receded from their duty, and Religion from its purity, as Christ anity began to be compounded with interests, and blended with temporal designs, so men were persecuted for their opinions. This is most apparent, if we consider when persecution first came in, and if we observe how it was checked by the holiest and the wisest persons.  
The first great instance I shall note was in Priscillian and his 
Numb. 6.  followers, who were condemned to death by the Tyrant Maximus. Which instance although S. Hierom observes as a punishment, and judgement for the crime of heresy, yet is of no use in the present question, because Maximus put some Christians of all sorts to death promiscuously, Catholic and Heretic without choice, and therefore the Priscilianists might as well have called it a judgement upon the Catholics, as the Catholics upon them.  
But when Ursatus and Stacius, two Bishops, procured the Priscilianists death by the power they had at Court: S. Martin 
Numb. 7.  was so angry at them for their cruelty, that he excommunicated them both. And S. Ambrose upon the same stock denied his communion to the Itaciani. And the account that Sulpitius gives of the story is this, Hoc modo (says he) homines luce indignissimi pessimo exemplo necati sunt. The example was worse than the men. If the men were heretical, the execution of them however was unchristian.  
But it was of more authority that the Nicene Fathers supplicated 
Numb. 8.  the Emperor, and prevailed for the banishment of Arius, 
Sozom. l. 1. c. 20  of this we can give no other account, but that by the history of the time we see baseness enough, and personal misdemeanour, 
Socrat. l. 1. c. 26 Cont. Crescon. Grammat. lib. 3. c. 50. vide etiam Epist. 61. ad dulcilium. et Epist. 158. et 159. et lib. 1. c. 29. cont. tit. petilian. vide etiam Socrat. li. 3. c. 3, et c. 29.  and factiousness of spirit in Arius, to have deserved worse than banishment, though the obliquity of his opinion were not put into the balance; which we have reason to believe was not so much as considered, because Constantine gave toleration to differing opinions, and Arius himself was restored upon such conditions to his country and office, which would not stand with the ends of the Catholics, if they had been severe exactors of concurrence and union of persuasions.  
I am still within the scene of Ecclesiastical persons, and am considering what the opinion of the learnedest and the holiest prelate's were concerning this great question. If we will believe 
Lib. 2. Cap. 5. retractat. vide Epist. 48. ad vincent. script. post. retract. et Epist. 50. ad Bonifac.  Saint Austin (who was a credible person) no good man did allow it. Nullis tamen bonis in Catholicâ hoc placet, si usque ad mortem in quenquam licet haereticum saeviatur. This was S. Augustine's final opinion; For he had first been of the mind that it was not honest to do any violence to mispersuaded persons; and when upon an accident happening in Hippo he had altered and retracted that part of the opinion, yet then also he excepted death, and would by no means have any mere opinion made capital. But for aught appears, S. Austin had greater reason to have retracted that retractation, than his first opinion. For his saying of nullis bonis placet was as true as the thing was reasonable it should be so. Witness those known testimonies of 
a ad S capulan.  Tertullian, 
b lib. 3. Ep. 1. Epist  Cyprian, 
c Lib. 5. c. 20.  Lactantius, 
d in cap 13. Matth. et in cap. 2. hos.  Hierom, 
e in vit: S. Martin.  Severus Sulpitius, 
f O ctav.  Minutius, 
g count. Auxent. Arr.  Hilary, 
h 3. sect: C. 32.  Damascen, 
i in cap. 13. Matth. hom: 47.  chrysostom, 
k in cuang. Matth.  Theophylact, and 
l in verba Apost. fides ex auditu.  Bernard, and divers others, whom the Reader may find quoted by the Archbishop of Spalleto, Lib. 8. de rep. Eccles. cap. 8.  
Against this concurrent testimony my reading can furnish me with no adversary, nor contrary instances, but in Attious of C. P. Theodosius of Synada, in Stacius & Ursaeus before reckoned. Only indeed some of the later Popes of Rome began to be busy and unmerciful, but it was then when themselves were secure, and their interests great, and their temporal concernments highly considerable.  
For it is most true, and not amiss to observe it, that no man who was under the ferula did ever think it lawful to have opinions 
Numb. 11.  forced, or heretics put to death, and yet many men who themselves have escaped the danger of a pile and a faggot, have changed their opinion just as the case was altered, that is, as themselves were unconcerned in the suffering. Petilian, Parmenian, and 
Apud Aug li. 1. c. 7. coat. Epist. Parmenian. & l. 2. c. 1●. coat. tit. Petilian.  Gaudentius, by no means would allow it lawful, for themselves were in danger, and were upon that side that is ill thought of and discountenanced: but 
* Epist. 1. ad Tu●bium.  Gregory and 
* Lib. 1. cp. 72.  Leo, Popes of Rome, upon whose side the authority and advantages were, thought it lawful they should be punished and persecuted, for themselves were unconcerned in the danger of suffering. And therefore S. Gregory commends the Exarch of Ravenna, for forcing them who dissented from those men who called themselves the Church. And there were some Divines in the Lower Germany, who upon great reasons spoke against the tyranny of the Inquisition, and restraining Prophesying, who yet when they had shaked off the Spanish yoke, began to persecute their Brethren. It was unjust in them, in all men unreasonable and uncharitable, and often increases the error, but never lessens the danger.  
But yet although the Church, I mean, in her distinct & clerical capacity, was against destroying or punishing difference in opinion, 
Numb. 12.  till the Popes of Rome did super-seminate and persuade the contrary, yet the Bishops did persuade the Emperors to make Laws against Heretics, and to punish disobedient persons with fines, with imprisonment, with death and banishment respectively. This indeed calls us to a new account. For the Churchmen might not proceed to blood nor corporal inflictions, but might they not deliver over to the Secular arm, and persuade Temporal Princes to do it? For this, I am to say, that since it is notorious that the doctrine of the Clergy was against punishing Heretics, the Laws which were made by the Emperors against them might be for restraint of differing Religion in order to the preservation of the public peace, which is too frequently violated by the division of opinions. But I am not certain whether that was always the reason, or whether or no some Bishops of the Court did not also serve their own ends in giving their Princes such untoward counsel; but we find the Laws made severally to several purposes, in divers cases and with different severity. Constantine the Emperor made a Sanction, Ut parem cum fidelibus 
Apud Euseb. de vita Constant.  two qui errant pacis & quietis fruitionem gaudentes accipiant. The Emperor Gratian decreed, Ut quam quisque vellet religionem sequeretur; & conventus Ecclesiasticos semoto metu omnes agerent. But he excepted the Manichees, the Photinians, and Eunomians. Theodosius the elder made a law of death against the Anabaptists of his time, and banished Eunomius, and against other erring persons 
vide Socrat. l 7. c. 12.  appointed a pecuniary mulct; but he did no executions so severe as his sanctions, to show they were made in terrorem only. 
Vid. Cod. de heretic. L. manichees. & leg. Arriani, & l. Quicunque.  So were the Laws of Valentinian and Martian, decreeing contra omnes qui prava docere tenent, that they should be put to death; so did 
* Apud Paulum Diac. l. 16. & l. 24.  Michael the Emperor, but justinian only decreed banishment.  
But what ever whispers some Politics might make to their Princes, as the wisest & holiest did not think it lawful for Churchmen alone to do executions, so neither did they transmit such 
Numb. 11.  persons to the Secular Judicature. And therefore when the Edict of Macedonius the Precedent was so ambiguous, that it seemed to threaten death to Heretics, unless they recanted; S. Austin admonished him carefully to provide that no Heretic should be put to death, alleging it also not only to be unchristian, but illegal also, and not warranted by imperial constitutions; for before his time no Laws were made for their being put to death: but however he prevailed, that Macedonius published another Edict, more explicit, and less seemingly severe. But in his Epistle to Donatus, the African Proconsul, he is more confident and determinate, Necessitate nobis impactâ & indictâ, ut potiùs occidi ab eis eligamus, quam eos occidendos vestris judiciis ingeramus.  
But afterwards many got a trick of giving them over to the Secular power, which at the best is no better than hypocrisy, removing 
Numb. 12.  envy from themselves, and laying it upon others, a refusing to do that in external act, which they do in council and approbation: which is a transmitting the act to another, and retaining a proportion of guilt unto themselves, even their own and the others too. I end this with the saying of chrysostom, Dogmuta 
Serw. de Anathemate.  impia & quae ab haereticis profecta sunt arguere & anathematizare oportet, hominibus autem parcendum & pro salute eorum candum.   

SECT. XV.  
How fare the Church or Governors may act to the restraining false or differing opinions.  
BUt although Heretical persons are not to be destroyed, yet heresy being a work of the flesh, and all heretic's criminal persons, whose acts and doctrine have influence upon Communities of men whether Ecclesiastical or civil, the governor's of the Republic, or Church respectively are to do their duties in restraining those mischiefs which may happen to their several charges, for whose indemnity they are answerable. And therefore according to the effect or malice of the doctrine or the person, so the cognisance of them belongs to several judicatures. If it be false doctrine in any capacity and doth mischief in any sense, or teaches ill life in any instance, or incourages evil in any particular, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these men must be silenced, they must be convinced by sound doctrine, and put to silence by spiritual evidence, and restrained by authority Ecclesiastical, that is, by spiritual censures according as it seems necessary to him who is most concerned in the regiment of the Church. For all this we have precept and precedent Apostolical, and much reason. For by thus doing, the governor of the Church uses all that authority that is competent, and all the means that is reasonable, and that proceeding which is regular, that he may discharge his cure and secure his flock. And that he possibly may be deceived in judging a doctrine to be heretical, and by consequence the person excommunicate suffers injury, is no argument against the reasonableness of the proceeding. For all the injury that is, is visible and in appearance, and so is his crime. judge's must judge according to their best reason guided by law of God as their rule, and by evidence and appearance as their best instrument, and they can judge no better. If the Judges be good and prudent, the error of proceeding will not be great, nor ordinary, and there can be no better establishment of humane judicature, then is a fallible proceeding upon an infallible ground; And if the judgement of heresy be made by estimate and proportion of the opinion to a good or a bad life respectively, supposing an error in the deduction, there will be no malice in the conclusion; and that he endeavours to secure piety according to the best of his understanding, and yet did mistake in his proceeding, is only an argument that he did his duty after the manner of men, possibly with the piety of a Saint, though not with the understanding of an Angel. And the little inconvenience that happens to the person injuriously judged is abundantly made up in the excellency of the Discipline, the goodness of the example, the care of the public, and all those great influences into the manners of men which derive from such an act so publicly consigned. But such public judgement in matters of opinion must be seldom and curious, and never but to secure piety, and a holy life; for in matters speculative, as all determinations are fallible, so scarce any of them are to purpose, nor ever able to make compensation of either side, either for the public fraction, or the particular injustice if it should so happen in the censure.  
But then as the Church may proceed thus far, yet no Christian man, or Community of men may proceed farther. For if they 
Numb. 2.  be deceived in their judgement and censure, and yet have passed only spiritual censures, they are totally ineffectual, and come to nothing, there is no effect remaining upon the soul, and such censures are not to meddle with the body so much as indirectly. But if any other judgement pass upon persons erring, such judgements whose effects remain, if the person be unjustly censured nothing will answer and make compensation for such injuries. If a person be excommunicate unjustly, it will do him no hurt, but if he be killed or dismembered unjustly, that censure and infliction is not made ineffectual by his innocence, he is certainly killed and dismembered. So that as the Church's authority in such cases so restrained and made prudent, cautelous, and orderly, is just and competent: so the proceeding is reasonable, it is provident for the public, and the inconveniences that may fall upon particulars so little, as that the public benefit makes ample compensation, so long as the proceeding is but spiritual.  
This discourse is in the case of such opinions, which by the former rules are formal heresies, and upon practical inconveniences. 
Numb. 3.  But for matters of question which have not in them an enmity to the public tranquillity, as the Republic hath nothing to do, upon the ground of all the former discourses; so if the Church meddles with them where they do not derive into ill life, either in the person or in the consequent, or else are destructions of the foundation of Religion, which is all one, for that those fundamental articles are of greatest necessity in order to a virtuous and godly life, which is wholly built upon them, (and therefore are principally necessary) If she meddles further, otherwise then by preaching, and conferring, and exhortation, she becomes tyrannical in her government, makes herself an immediate judge of consciences and persuasions, lords it over their faith, destroys unity, and charity; and as if he that dogmatizes the opinion becomes criminal, if he troubles the Church with an immodest, peevish, and pertinacious proposal of his article, not simply necessary; so the Church does not do her duty, if she so condemns it pro tribunali as to enjoin him and all her subjects to believe the contrary. And as there may be pertinacy in doctrine, so there may be pertinacy in judging, and both are faults. The peace of the Church and the unity of her doctrine is best conserved when it is judged by the proportion it hath to that rule of unity which the Apostles gave, that is the Creed for Articles of mere belief, and the precepts of Jesus Christ, and the practical rules of piety, which are most plain and easy, and without controversy, set down in the Gospels, and Writings of the Apostles. But to multiply articles, and adopt them into the family of the faith, and to require assent to such articles which (as S. Paul's phrase is) are of doubtful disputation, equal to that assent we give to matters of faith, is to build a Tower upon the top of a Bulrush, and the further the effect of such proceed does extend, the worse they are; the very making such a Law is unreasonable, the inflicting spiritual censures upon them that cannot do so much violence to their understanding as to obey it, is unjust and ineffectual; but to punish the person with death, or with corporal infliction, indeed it is effectual, but it is therefore tyrannical. We have seen what the Church may do towards restraining false or differing opinions, next I shall consider by way of Corollary what the Prince may do as for his interest, and only in securing his people, and serving the ends of true Religion.   

SECT. XVI.  
Whether it be lawful for a Prince to give toleration to several Religions.  
FOr upon these very grounds we may easily give account of 
Numb. 1.  that great question, Whether it be lawful for a Prince to give toleration to several Religions.  
For first, it is a great fault that men will call the several sects of Christians by the names of several Religions. The Religion of JESUS CHRIST is the form of sound doctrine and wholesome words, which is set down in Scripture indefinitely, actually conveyed to us by plain places, and separated as for the question of necessary or not necessary by the Symbol of the Apostles. Those impertinencies which the wantonness and vanity of men hath commenced, which their interests have promoted, which serve not truth so much as their own ends, are fare from being distinct Religions; for matters of opinion are no parts of the worship of God, nor in order to it, but as they promote obedience to his Commandments; and when they contribute towards it, are in that proportion as they contribute parts and actions, and minute particulars of that Religion to whose end they do, or pretend to serve. And such are all the sects and all the pretences of Christians, but pieces and minutes of Christianity, if they do serve the great end, as every man for his own sect and interest believes for his share it does.  
2. Toleration hath a double sense or purpose, for sometimes by it men understand a public licence and exercise of a sect: Sometimes it is only an indemnity of the persons privately to convene and to opine as they see cause, and as they mean to answer to God. Both these are very much to the same purpose, unless some persons whom we are bound to satisfy be scandalised, and then the Prince is bound to do as he is bound to satisfy. To God it is all one. For abstracting from the offence of persons, which is to be considered just as our obligation is to content the persons, it is all one whether we indulge to them to meet publicly or privately, to do actions of Religion concerning which we are not persuaded that they are truly holy. To God it is just one to be in the dark and in the light, the thing is the same, only the Circumstance of public and private is different, which cannot be concerned in any thing, nor can it concern any thing but the matter of Scandal and relation to the minds and fantasies of certain persons.  
3. So that to tolerate is not to persecute. And the question 
Numb. 3.  whether the Prince may tolerate divers persuasions, is no more than whether he may lawfully persecute any man for not being of his opinion. Now in this case he is just so to tolerate diversity of persuasions as he is to tolerate public actions, for no opinion is judicable, nor no person punishable, but for a sin, and if his opinion by reason of its managing, or its effect, be a sin in itself, or becomes a sin to the person, then as he is to do towards other sins, so to that opinion or man so opining. But to believe so, or not so, when there is no more but mere believing, is not in his power to enjoin, therefore not to punish. And it is not only lawful to tolerate disagreeing persuasions, but the authority of God only is competent to take notice of it, and infallible to determine it, and fit to judge, and therefore no humane authority is sufficient to do all those things which can justify the inflicting temporal punishments upon such as do not conform in their persuasions to a rule or authority which is not only fallible, but supposed by the disagreeing person to be actually deceived.  
But I consider that in the toleration of a different opinion, 
Numb. 4.  Religion is not properly and immediately concerned, so as in any degree to be endangered. For it may be safe in diversity of persuasions, and it also a part of Christian 
* Humani iuris & naturalis peteslatis, unicuique quod putaverit, colere Sed nec religionis est cogere religionem, quae suscipi sponte debet, non vi. Tertul. ad Scapulam.  Religion that the liberty of men's Consciences should be preserved in all things, where God hath not set a limit and made a restraint; that the soul of man should be free, and acknowledge no master but Jesus Christ; that matters spiritual should not be restrained by purishments corporal; that the same meekness and charity should be preserved in the promotion of Christianity, that gave it foundation and increment, & firmness in its first publication; that conclusions should not be more dogmatic than the virtual resolution and efficacy of the premises: And that the persons should not more certainly be condemned then their opinions confuted; and lastly, that the infirmities of men and difficulties of things should be both put in balance to make abatement in the definitive sentence against men's persons. But then because toleration of opinions is not properly a question of Religion, it may be a question of policy: And although a man may be a good Christian, though he believe an error not fundamental, and not directly or evidently impious, yet his opinion may accidentally disturb the public peace through the over-activenesse of the person, and the confidence of their belief and the opinion of its appendent necessity, and therefore toleration of differing persuasions in these cases is to be considered upon political grounds, and is just so to be admitted or denied as the opinions or toleration of them may consist with the public and necessary ends of Government. Only this: As Christian Princes must look to the interest of their Government, so especially must they consider the interests of Christianity, & not call every redargution or modest discovery of an established error, by the name of disturbance of the peace. For it is very likely that the peevishness and impatience of contradiction in the Governors may break the peace. Let them remem-but the gentleness of Christianity, the Liberty of Consciences which ought to be preserved, and let them do justice to the persons, whoever they are that are peevish, provided no man's person be overborn with prejudice. For if it be necessary for all men to subscribe to the present established Religion, by the same reason at another time a man may be bound to subscribe to the contradictory, and so to all Religions in the world. And they only, who by their too much confidence entitle God to all their fancies, and make them to be questions of Religion, and evidences for Heaven, or consignations to Hell, they only think this doctrine unreasonable, and they are the men that first disturb the Church's peace, and then think there is no appeasing the tumult but by getting the victory. But they that consider things wisely, understand that since salvation and damnation depend not upon impertinencies, and yet that public peace and tranquillity may, the Prince is in this case to seek how to secure Government, and the issues and intentions of that, while there is in these cases directly no insecurity to Religion, unless by the accidental uncharitableness of them that dispute: Which uncharitableness is also much prevented when the public peace is secured, and no person is on either side engaged upon 
* Dextera praecipuè capit indulgentia mentes, A●peritas oditi saevaque bella parit.  revenge, or troubled with disgrace, or vexed with punishments by any decretory sentence against him. It was the saying of a wise statesman (I mean Thuanus) Haeretici qui pace data factionibus scinduntur, persecutione uniuntur contra Remp. If you persecute heretics or discrepants, they unite themselves as to a common defence: If you permit them, they divide themselves upon private interest, and the rather, if this interest was an ingredient of the opinion.  
The Sum is this, it concerns the duty of a Prince because it concerns the Honour of God, that all vices and every part of 
Numb. 5.  ill life be discountenanced and restrained: And therefore in relation to that, opinions are to be dealt with. For the understanding being to direct the will, and opinions to guide our practices, they are considerable only as they teach impiety and vice, as they either dishonour God or disobey him. Now all such doctrines are to be condemned; but for the persons preaching such Doctrines, if they neither justify nor approve the pretended Consequences which are certainly impious, they are to be separated from that consideration. But if they know such consequences and allow them, or if they do not stay till the doctrines produce impiety, but take sin before hand, and manage them impiously in any sense; or if either themselves or their doctrine do really and without colour or feigned pretext, disturb the public peace 
* Extat prudens monitum Mecaenatis apud Dionem Cassium ad Augustum in haec verba. Eos vero qui in Divinis aliquid innovant, adio habe, & coerce, non Deorum solùm causâ: sed quia nova numina high tales introducentes mulios impellunt ad mutationem rerum. Unde conjurationes, seditiones, Conciliabula existunt, res profectò minime conducibiles principatui. Et legib us quoque expressum est, quod in religionem committitur, in omnium fertur injuriam.  and just interests, they are not to be suffered. In all other cases it is not only lawful to permit them, but it is also necessary, that Princes and all in authority should not persecute discrepant opinions. And in such cases wherein persons not otherwise incompetent are bound to reprove an error, (as they are in many) in all these if the Prince makes restraint, he hinders men from doing their duty, and from obeying the Laws of JESUS CHRIST.   

SECT. XVII.  
Of compliance with disagreeing persons or weak constiences in general.  
Upon these grounds it remains that we reduce this doctrine 
Numb. 1.  to practical Conclusions, and consider among the differing sects and opinions which trouble these parts of Christendom, and come into our concernment, which sects of Christians are to be tolerated, and how fare? and which are to be restrained and punished in their several proportions?  
The first consideration is, that since diversity of opinions does 
Numb. 2.  more concern public peace than religion, what is to be done to persons who disobey a public sanction upon a true allegation; that they cannot believe it to be lawful to obey such constitutions, although they disbelieve them upon insufficient grounds, that is, whether in constituta lege disagreeing persons or weak consciences are to be complied withal, and their disobeying and disagreeing tolerated?  
1. In this question there is no distinction can be made between 
Numb. 3.  persons truly weak, and but pretending so. For all that pretend to it, are to be allowed the same liberty whatsoever it be; for no man's spirit is known to any, but to God and himself: and therefore pretences and realityes in this case, are both alike in order to the public toleration. And this very thing is one argument to persuade a Negative. For the chief thing in this case is the concernment of public government, which is then most of all violated, when what may prudently be permitted to some purposes, may be demanded to many more, and the piety of the Laws abused to the impiety of other men's ends. And if laws be made so malleable, as to comply with weak consciences, he that hath a mind to disobey, is made impregnable against the coercitive power of the Law by this pretence. For a weak conscience signify nothing in this case, but a dislike of the Law upon a contrary persuasion. For if some weak consciences do obey the law, and others do not, it is not their weakness indefinitely that is the cause of it, but a definite and particular persuasion to the contrary. So that if such a pretence be excuse sufficient from obeying, than the law is a sanction obliging every one to obey that hath a mind to it, and he that hath not, may choose, that is, it is no Law at all, for he that hath a mind to it may do it if there be no Law, and he that hath no mind to it need not for all the Law.  
And therefore the wit of man cannot prudently frame a law 
Numb. 4.  of that temper, and expedient, but either he must lose the formality of a law, and neither have power coercitive nor obligatory, but ad arbitrium inferiorum, or else it cannot antecedently to the particular case give leave to any sort of men to disagree or disobey.  
2. Suppose that a Law be made with great reason so as to satisfy divers persons pious & prudent, that it complyes with the necessity 
Numb. 5.  of government, and promotes the interest of God's service and public order, it may easily be imagined that these persons which are obedient sons of the Church, may be as zealous for the public order and discipline of the Church, as others for their opinion against it, and may be as much scandalised if disobedience be tolerated, as others are if the Law be exacted, and what shall be done in this case? Both sorts of men cannot be complied withal, because as these pretend to be offended at the Law, and by consequence (if they understand the consequents of their own opinion) at them that obey the Law: so the others are justly offended at them that unjustly disobey it. If therefore there be any on the right side as confident and zealous as they who are on the wrong side, than the disagreeing persons are not to be complied with, to avoid giving offence; for if they be, offence is given to better persons, and so the mischief, which such complying seeks to prevent, is made greater and more unjust, obedience is discouraged, and disobedience is legally canonised for the result of a holy and a tender conscience.  
3. Such complying with the disagreings of a sort of men, is 
Numb. 6.  the total overthrow of all Discipline, and it is better to make no Laws of public worship, then to rescind them in the very constitution: and there can be no end in making the sanction, but to make the Law ridiculous, and the authority contemptible. For to say that complying with weak consciences in the very framing of a Law of Discipline, is the way to preserve unity, were all one as to say, To take away all Laws is the best way to prevent disobedience. In such matters of indifferency, the best way of cementing the fraction, is to unite the parts in the authority, for then the question is but one, viz. Whether the authority must be obeyed or not? But if a permission be given of disputing the particulars, the questions become next to infinite. A Mirror when it is broken represents the object multiplied and divided: but if it be entire and through one centre transmits' the species to the eye, the Vision is one and natural. Laws are the Mirror in which men are to dress and compose their actions, and therefore must not be broken with such clauses of exception which may without remedy be abused to the prejudice of authority, and peace, and all humane sanctions. And I have known in some Churches that this pretence hath been nothing but a design to discredit the Law, to dismantle the authority that made it, to raise their own credit, and a trophy of their zeal, to make it a characteristic note of a sect, and the cognisance of holy persons, and yet the men that claimed exemption from the Laws, upon pretence of having weak consciences, if in hearty expression you had told them so to their heads, they would have spit in your face, and were so fare from confessing themselves weak, that they thought themselves able to give Laws to Christendom, to instruct the greatest Clerks, and to Catechise the Church herself; And which is the worst of all, they who were perpetually clamorous that the severity of the Laws should slacken as to their particular, and in matter adiaphorous (in which, if the Church hath any authority, she hath power to make Laws) to indulge a leave to them to do as they list, yet were the most imperious amongst men, most decretory in their sentences, and most impatient of any disagreeing from them though in the least minute and particular: whereas by all the justice of the world, they who persuade such a compliance in matters of fact, and of so little question, should not deny to tolerate persons that differ in questions of great difficulty and contestation.  
4. But yet since all things almost in the world have been 
Numb. 7.  made matters of dispute, and the will of some men, and the malice of others, and the infinite industry and pertinacy of contesting and resolution to conquer hath abused some persons innocently into a persuasion, that even the Laws themselves, though never so prudently constituted, are superstitious or impious, such persons who are otherwise pious, humble and religious, are not to be destroyed for such matters, which in themselves are not of concernment to salvation, and neither are so accidentally to such men and in such cases where they are innocently abused, and they err without purpose and design. And therefore if there be a public disposition in some persons to dislike Laws of a certain quality, if it before-seene it is to be considered in lege dicendâ; and whatever inconvenience or particular offence is foreseen, is either to be directly avoided in the Law, or else a compensation in the excellency of the Law, and certain advantages, made to outweigh their pretensions: But in lege jam dictâ, because there may be a necessity some persons should have a liberty indulged them, it is necessary that the Governors of the Church should be entrusted with a power to consider the particular case, and indulge a liberty to the person, and grant personal dispensations. This I say is to be done at several times, upon particular instance, upon singular consideration, and new emergencies. But that a whole kind of men, such a kind to which all men without possibility of being confuted may pretend, should at once in the very frame of the Law be permitted to disobey, is to nullify the Law, to destroy Discipline, and to hollow disobedience; it takes away the obliging part of the Law, and makes that the thing enacted shall not be enjoined, but tolerated only: it destroys unity and uniformity, which to preserve was the very end of such laws of Discipline: it bends the rule to the thing which is to be ruled, so that the law obeys the subject, not the subject the law: it is to make a law for particulars, not upon general reason and congruity, against the prudence and design of all Laws in the world, and absolutely without the example of any Church in Christendom; it prevents no scandal, for some will be scandalised at the authority itself, some at the complying, and remissness of Discipline, and several men at matters, and upon ends contradictory: All which cannot, some ought not to be complied withal.  
6. The sum is this. The end of the Laws of Discipline are in an immediate order to the conservation and ornament of the 
Numb. 8.  public, and therefore the Laws must not so tolerate, as by conserving persons to destroy themselves and the public benefit, but if there be cause for it, they must be cassated, or if there be no sufficient cause, the complyings must be so as may best preserve the particulars in conjunction with the public end, which because it is primarily intended, is of greatest consideration. But the particulars whether of case or person are to be considered occasionally and emergently by the Judges, but cannot antecedently and regularly be determined by a Law.  
But this sort of men is of so general pretence, that all Laws 
Numb. 9  and all Judges may easily be abused by them. Those sects which are signified by a Name, which have a system of Articles, a body of profession, may be more clearly determined in their question concerning the lawfulness of permitting their professions and assemblies.  
I shall instance in two, which are most troublesome and most disliked; and by an account made of these, we may make judgement what may be done towards others whose errors are not apprehended of so great malignity. The men I mean are the Anabaptists and the Papists.   

SECT. 18.  
A particular consideration of the opinions of the Anabaptists.  
IN the Anabaptists I consider only their two capital opinions, the one against the baptism of infants, the other against 
Numb. 1.  Magistracy: and because they produce different judgements and various effects, all their other fancies which vary as the Moon does, may stand or fall in their proportion and likeness to these.  
And first I consider their denying baptism to infants; although it be a doctrine justly condemned by the most sorts of 
Numb. 2.  Christians, upon great grounds of reason, yet possibly their defence may be so great, as to take off much, and rebate the edge of their adversaries assault. It will be neither unpleasant nor unprofitable to draw a short scheme of plea for each party, the result of which possibly may be, that though they be deceived, yet they have so great excuse on their side, that their error is not impudent or vincible. The baptism of infants rests wholly upon this discourse.  
When God made a covenant with Abraham for himself and his posterity, into which the Gentiles were reckoned by spiritual 
Numb. 3.  adoption, he did for the present consign that covenant with the Sacrament of circumcision. The extent of which rite, was to all his family, from the Major domo, to the Proselytus domicilio, and to infants of eight days old. Now the very nature of this covenant being a covenant of faith for its formality, and with all faithful people for the object; and circumcision being a seal of this covenant, if ever any rite do supervene to consign the same covenant, that rite must acknowledge circumcision for its type and precedent. And this the Apostle tells us in express doctrine. Now the nature of types, is to give some proportions to its successor the Antitype, and they both being seals of the same righteousness of faith, it will not easily be found where these two seals have any such distinction in their nature or purposes, as to appertain to persons of differing capacity, and not equally concern all, and this argument was thought of so much force by some of those excellent men which were Bishops in the primitive church, that a good Bishop writ an Epistle to S. Cyprian, to know of him whether or no it were lawful to baptise infants before the eighth day, because the type of baptism was ministered in that circumcision, he in his discourse supposing that the first rite was a direction to the second, which prevailed with him so fare as to believe it to limit every circumstance.  
And not only this type, but the acts of Christ which were 
Numb. 4.  previous to the institution of baptism did prepare our understanding by such impresses as were sufficient to produce such persuasion in us, that Christ intended this ministry for the actual advantage of infants as well as of persons of understanding. For Christ commanded that children should be brought unto him, he took them in his arms, he imposed hands on them and blessed them, and without question did by such acts of favour consign his love to them, and them to a capacity of an eternal participation of it. And possibly the invitation which Christ made to all to come to him, all them that are heavy laden, did in its proportion concern infants as much as others, if they be guilty of Original sin, and if that sin be a burden, and presses them to any spiritual danger or inconvenience. And it is all the reason of the world, that since the grace of Christ is as large as the prevarication of Adam, all they who are made guilty by the first Adam, should be cleansed by the second. But as they are guilty by another man's act, so they should be brought to the Font, to be purified by others, there being the same proportion of reason, that by others acts, they should be relieved who were in danger of perishing by the act of others. And therefore S. Austin argues excellently to this purpose. Accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes, ut veniant; aliorum cor, ut credant; aliorum linguam, ut fateantur: ut quoniam quod aegri sunt, alio peccante praegravantur, sic cum 
Serm. 10. de verb. Apost.  sani fiant alio confitente salventur. And justin Martyr, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Resp. ad Orthodoxos.   
But whether they have original sin or no, yet take them in puris naturalibus, they cannot go to God, or attain to eternity: 
Numb. 5.  to which they were intended in their first being and creation, and therefore much less since their naturals are impaired by the curse on humane nature, procured by Adam's prevarication. And if a natural agent cannot in puris naturalibus attain to heaven, which is a supernatural end, much less when it is loaden with accidental and grievous impediments. Now then since the only way revealed to us of acquiring Heaven is by Jesus Christ; and the first inlet into Christianity, and access to him is by Baptism, as appears by the perpetual Analogy of the New Testament; either Infants are not persons capable of that end which is the perfection of humane nature, and to which the soul of man in its being made immortal was essentially designed, and so are miserable and deficient from the very end of humanity, if they die before the use of reason; or else they must be brought to Christ by the Church doors, that is by the Font and waters of Baptism.  
And in reason, it seems more pregnant and plausible that Infants rather than men of understanding should be baptised: For 
Numb. 6.  since the efficacy of the Sacraments depends upon Divine Institution and immediate benediction, and that they produce their effects independently upon man, in them that do not hinder their operation; since Infants cannot by any act of their own promote the hope of their own salvation, which men of reason and choice may, by acts of virtue & election; it is more agreeable to the goodness of God, the honour and excellency of the Sacrament, and the necessity of its institution that it should in Infants supply the want of humane acts and free obedience. Which the very thing itself seems to say it does, because its effect is from God, and requires nothing on man's part, but that its efficary be not hindered: And then in Infants, the disposition is equal, and the necessity more: they cannot ponere obicens, and by the same reason cannot do others acts, which without the Sacraments do advantage us towards our hopes of heaven, and therefore have more need to be supplied by an act, and an Institution Divine and supernatural.  
And this is not only necessary in respect of the condition of Infants in capacity, to do acts of grace, but also in obedience 
Numb. 7.  to Divine precept. For Christ made a Law whose Sanction is with an exclusive negative to them that are not baptised, [Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven;] If then Infants have a capacity of being coheirs with Christ in the Kingdom of his Father, as Christ affirms they have, by saying [for of such is the kingdom of heaven] then there is a necessity that they should be brought to Baptism, there being an absolute exclusion of all persons unbaptised, and all persons not spiritual from the kingdom of heaven.  
But indeed, it is a destruction of all the hopes and happiness of Infants, a denying to them an exemption from the final 
Numb. 8.  condition of Beasts and Insectiles, or else a designing of them to a worse misery, to say that God hath not appointed some external or internal means of bringing them to an eternal happiness: Internal they have none; for Grace being an improvement and heigthning the faculties of nature, in order to a heigthened and supernatural end, Grace hath no influence or efficacy upon their faculties, who can do no natural acts of understanding: And if there be no external means, than they are destitute of all hopes, and possibilities of salvation.  
But thanks be to God, he hath provided better and told us 
Numb. 9  accordingly, for he hath made a promise of the holy Ghost to Infants as well as to men: The Promise is made to you and to your children, said S. Peter; The Promise of the Father, the Promise that he would send the holy Ghost: Now if you ask how this Promise shall be conveyed to our children, we have an express out of the same Sermon of S. Peter, Be baptised, and ye 
Act. 2. 38. 39  shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost; So that therefore because the holy Ghost is promised, and Baptism is the means of receiving the Promise, therefore Baptism pertains to them, to whom the Promise which is the effect of Baptism does appertain. And that we may not think this Argument is fallible, or of humane collection, observe that it is the Argument of the same Apostle in express terms: For in the case of Cornelius and his Family, he justified his proceeding by this very medium, Shall we deny Baptism to them who have received the gift of the holy Ghost as well as we? Which Discourse if it be reduced to form of Argument says this; They that are capable of the same Grace are receptive of the same sign; but then (to make the Syllogism up with an assumption proper to our present purpose) Infants are capable of the same Grace, that is of the holy Ghost (for the Promise is made to our Children as well as to us, and S. Paul says the Children of believing Parents are holy, and therefore have the holy Ghost who is the Fountain of holiness and sanctification) therefore they are to receive the sign and the seal of it, that is, the Sacrament of Baptism.  
And indeed since God entered a Covenant with the Jews, 
Numb. 10.  which did also actually involve their Children, and gave them a sign to establish the Covenant, and its appendent Promise, either God does not so much love the Church as he did the Synagogue, and the mercies of the Gospel are more restrained, than the mercies of the Law, God having made a Covenant with the Infants of Israel, and none with the Children of Christian Parents; or if he hath, yet we want the comfort of its Consignation; and unless our Children are to be baptised, and so entitled to the Promises of the new Covenant, as the Jewish Babes were by Circumcision, this mercy which appertains to Infants is so secret and undeclared and unconsigned, that we want much of that mercy and outward Testimony which gave them comfort and assurance.  
And in proportion to these Precepts and Revelations was the practice Apostolical: For they (to whom Christ gave in 
Numb. 11.  Precept to make Disciples all Nations baptising them, and knew that Nations without Children never were, and that therefore they were passively concerned in that commission,) baptised whole Families, particularly that of Stephanus and divers others, in which it is more than probable there were some Minors if not sucking Babes. And this practice did descend upon the Church in after Ages by Tradition Apostolical: Of this we have sufficient Testimony from Origen, Pro hoc Ecclesia 
In Rom. 6. tom. 2. pag. 543.  ab Apostolis traditionem accepit, etiam parvulis baptismum dare: And S. Austin, Hoc Ecclesia à majorum fide percepit: And 
Serm. 10. de verb. Apost. c. 2.  generally all Writers (as Calvin says) affirm the same thing: For nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus, qui non ejus originem ad Apostolorum saeculum pro certo referat. From hence the Conclusion 
4. Instir. cap. 16. §. 8.  is, that Infants ought to be baptised, that it is simply necessary, that they who deny it are Heretics, and such are not to be endured because they deny to Infant's hopes and take away the possibility of their salvation, which is revealed to us on no other condition of which they are capable but Baptism. For by the insinuation of the Type, by the action of Christ, by the title Infants have to Heaven, by the precept of the Gospel, by the Energy of the Promise, by the reasonableness of the thing, by the infinite necessity on the Infant's part, by the practice Apostolcall, by their Tradition, and the universal practice of the Church; by all these God and good people proclaim the lawfulness, the conveniency, and the necessity of Infant's Baptism.  
To all this, the Anabaptist gives a soft and gentle Answer, that it is a goodly harangue, which upon strict examination will 
Numb. 12.  come to nothing, that it pretends fairly and signifies little; That some of these Allegations are false, some impertinent, and all the rest insufficient.  
For the Argument from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite 
Numb. 13.  considerations; Figures and Types prove nothing, unless a Commandment go along with them, or some express to signify such to be their purpose: For the Deluge of Waters and the Ark of Noah were a figure of Baptism said Peter; and if therefore the circumstances of one should be drawn to the other, we should make Baptism a prodigy rather than a Rite: The Paschall Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptism does to Circumcision; but because there was in the manducation of the Paschall Lamb, no prescription of Sacramental drink, shall we thence conclude that the Eucharist is to be ministered but in one kind? And even in the very instance of this Argument, supposing a correspondence of analogy between Circumcision and Baptism, yet there is no correspondence of identity: For although it were granted that both of them did consign the Covenant of Faith, yet there is nothing in the circumstance of children's being circumcised that so concerns that Mystery, but that it might very well be given to Children, and yet Baptism only to men of reason; because Circumcision left a Character in the flesh, which being imprinted upon Infants did its work to them when they came to age; and such a Character was necessary because there was no word added to the sign; but Baptism imprints nothing that remains on the body, and if it leaves a Character at all it is upon the soul, to which also the word is added which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the sign itself is; for both which reasons, it is requisite that the persons baptised should be capable of reason, that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament, and the impress made upon the Spirit: Since therefore the reason of this parity does wholly fail, there is no thing left to infer a necessity of complying in this circumstance of age any more than in the other annexes of the Type: And the case is clear in the Bishop's Question to Cyprian, for why shall not Infants be baptised just upon the 
L. 3. Epist. 8. ad Fidum.  eighth day as well as circumcised? If the correspondence of the Rites be an Argument to infer one circumstance which is impertinent and accidental to the mysteriousness of the Rite, why shall it not infer all? And then also Females must not be baptiezd, because they were not circumcised: But it were more proper if we would understand it right, to prosecute the analogy from the Type to the Anti-type by way of letter and spirit, and signification, and as Circumcision figures Baptism, so also the adjuncts of the Circumcision shall signify something, spiritual, in the adherencies of Baptism: And therefore as Infants were circumcised, so spiritual Infants shall be baptised, which is spiritual Circumcision; for therefore Babes had the ministry of the Type, to signify that we must when we give our names to Christ become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children in malice, [for unless you become like one of these little ones, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven] said our blessed Saviour, and then the Type is made complete. And this seems to have been the sense of the Primitive Church; for in the Age next to the Apostles they gave to all baptised persons milk and honey to represent to them their duty, that though in age and understanding they were men, yet they were Babes in Christ, and children in malice. But to infer the sense of the Paedobaptists is so weak a manner of arguing that Austin whose device it was (and men use to be in love with their own fancies) at the most pretended it but as probable and a mere conjecture.  
And as ill success will they have with the other Arguments as with this; For from the action of Christ's blessing Infants 
Numb. 14.  to infer that they are to be baptised, proves nothing so much as that there is great want of better Arguments; The Conclusion would be with more probability derived thus: Christ blessed children and so dismissed them, but baptised them not, therefore Infants are not to be baptised: But let this be as weak as its enemy, yet that Christ did not baptise them, is an Argument sufficient that Christ hath other ways of bringing them to heaven then by baptism, he passed his act of grace upon them by benediction and imposition of hands.  
And therefore, although neither Infants nor any man in puris naturalibus can attain to a supernatural end without the addition 
Numb. 15.  of some instrument or means of Gods appointing ordinarily and regularly, yet where God hath not appointed a Rule nor an Order, as in the case of Infants we contend he hath not, the Argument is invalid. And as we are sure that God hath not commanded Infants to be baptised; so we are sure God will do them no injustice, nor damn them for what they cannot help.  
And therefore, let them be pressed with all the inconveniences that are consequent to Original sin, yet either it will not be 
Numb. 16.  laid to the charge of Infants, so as to be sufficient to condemn them; or if it could, yet the mercy and absolute goodness of God will secure them, if he takes them away before they can glorify him with a free obedience; Quid ergo festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum, was the Question of Tertullian, (lib. de bapt.) he knew no such danger from their Original guilt as to drive them to a laver of which in that Age of innocence they had no need, as he conceived. And therefore, there is no necessity of flying to the help of others, for tongue, and heart, and faith, and predispositions to baptism; for what need all this stir? as Infants without their own consent, without any act of their own; and without any exterior solennity contracted the guilt of Adam's sin, and so are liable to all the punishment which can with justice descend upon his posterity who are personally innocent; so Infants shall be restored without any solennity or act of their own, or of any other men for them, by the second Adam, by the redemption of Jesus Christ, by his righteousness and mercies applied either immediately, or how or when he shall be pleased to appoint. And so Austin's Argument will come to nothing without any need of Godfathers, or the faith of any body else. And it is too narrow a conception of God Almighty, because he hath tied us to the observation of the Ceremonies of his own institution, that therefore he hath tied himself to it. Many thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself: But nothing is more unreasonable, then because he hath tied all men of years and discretion to this way, therefore we of our own heads shall carry Infants to him that way without his direction: The conceit is poor and low, and the action consequent to it is too bold and venturous, mysterium meum mihi & filiis domus meae: Let him do what he please to Infants, we must not.  
Only this is certain, that God hath as great care of Infants as of others, and because they have no capacity of doing such acts 
Numb. 17.  as may be in order to acquiring salvation, God will by his own immediate mercy bring them thither where he hath intended them; but to say that therefore he will do it by an external act and ministry, and that confined to a particular, viz. This Rite and no other, is no good Argument, unless God could not do it without such means, or that he had said he would not: And why cannot God as well do his mercies to Infants now immediately, as he did before the institution either of Circumcision or Baptism?  
However, there is no danger that Infants should perish for want of this external Ministry, much less for prevaricating 
Numb. 18.  Christ's precept of Nisiquis renatus fuerit, etc. For first, the Water and the Spirit in this place signify the same thing; and by Water is meant the effect of the Spirit, cleansing and purifying the Soul, as appears in its parallel place of Christ baptising with the Spirit and with Fire. For although this was literally fulfilled in Pentecost, yet morally there is more in it, for it is the sign of the effect of the holy Ghost, and his productions upon the soul; and it was an excellency of our blessed Saviour's office, that he baptises all that come to him with the holy Ghost and with fire; for so S. John preferring Christ's mission and office before his own, tells the Jews, not Christ's Disciples, that Christ shall baptise them with Fire and the holy Spirit, that is, all that come to him, as John the Baptist did with water, for so lies the Antithesis: And you may as well conclude that Infants must also pass through the fire as through the water. And that we may not think this a trick to elude the pressure of this place, Peter says the same thing; for when he had said that Baptism saves us, he adds by way of explication [not the washing of the flesh, but the confidence of a good Conscience towards God] plainly saying that it is not water, or the purifying of the body, but the cleansing of the Spirit, that does that which is supposed to be the effect of Baptism; and if our Saviour's exclusive negative be expounded by analogy to this of Peter, as certainly the other parallel instance must, and this may, than it will be so fare from proving the necessity of Infant's Baptism, that it can conclude for no man that he is obliged to the Rite; and the doctrine of the Baptism is only to derive from the very words of Institution, and not be forced from words which were spoken before it was Ordained. But to let pass this advantage, and to suppose it meant of external Baptism, yet this no more infers a necessity of Infant's Baptism, than the other words of Christ infer a necessity to give them the holy Communion, Nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis sangninem, non introibitis in regnum coelonum; and yet we do not think these words sufficient Argument to communicate them; if men therefore will do us Justice, either let them give both Sacraments to Infants, as some Ages of the Church did, or neither. For the wit of man is not able to show a disparity in the Sanction, or in the Energy of its expression. And therefore they were honest that understood the obligation to be parallel, and performed it accordingly, and yet because we say they were deceived in one instance, and yet the obligation (all the world cannot reasonably say but) is the same; they are as honest and as reasonable that do neither. And since the Ancient Church did with an equal opinion of necessity give them the Communion, and yet men nowadays do not, why shall men be more burdened with a prejudice and a name of obloquy, for not giving the Infants one Sacrament more than they are disliked for not affording them the other. If Anabaptist shall be a name of disgrace, why shall not some other name be invented for them that deny to communicate Infants, which shall be equally disgraceful, or else both the opinions signified by such names, be accounted no disparagement, but receive their estimate according to their truth?  
Of which truth since we are now taking account from pretences 
Numb. 19  of Scripture, it is considerable that the discourse of S. Peter which is pretended for the intitling Infants to the Promise of the holy Ghost, and by consequence to Baptism, which is supposed to be its instrument and conveyance, is wholly a fancy, and hath in it nothing of certainty or demonstration, and not much probability. For besides that the thing itself is unreasonable, and the holy Ghost works by the heigthning and improving our natural faculties, and therefore is a promise that so concerns them as they are reasonable creatures, and may have a title to it, in proportion to their nature, but no possession or reception of it, till their faculties come into act; besides this, I say, the words mentioned in S. Peter's Sermon (which are the only record of the promise) are interpreted upon a weak mistake: The promise belongs to you and to your children, therefore Infants are actually receptive of it in that capacity. That's the Argument; but the reason of it is not yet discovered, nor ever will, for [to you and your children] is to you and your posterity, to you & your children when they are of the same capacity, in which you are effectually receptive of the promise: But he that when ever the word [children] is used in Scripture shall by [children] understand Infants, must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men, but all were Infants; and if that had been true, it had been the greater wonder they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab, and march so fare, and discourse so well, for they were all called the children of Israel.  
And for the Allegation of S. Paul that Infants are holy, if 
Numb. 20.  their Parents be faithful, it signifies nothing but that they are holy by designation, just as Jeremy and John Baptist were sanctified in their Mother's womb, that is they were appointed and designed for holy Ministeries; but had not received the Promise of the Father the gift of the holy Ghost, for all that sanctification; and just so the Children of Christian Parents are sanctified, that is designed to the service of Jesus Christ, and the future participation of the Promises.  
And as the Promise appertains not (for aught appears) to 
Numb. 21.  Infants in that capacity and consistence, but only by the title of their being reasonable creatures, and when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty; so if it did, yet Baptism is not the means of conveying the holy Ghost. For that which Peter says, be baptised and ye shall receive the holy Ghost, signifies no more than this: First be baptised and then by imposition of the Apostles hands (which was another mystery and rite,) ye shall receive the Promise of the Father: And this is nothing but an insinuation of the rite of confirmation, as is to this sense expounded by divers Ancient Authors, and in ordinary ministry the effect of it is not bestowed upon any unbaptized persons; for it is in order next after Baptism; and upon this ground Peter's Argument in the case of Cornelius was concluding enough à majori ad minus: Thus the holy Ghost was bestowed upon him and his Family, which gift by ordinary ministry was consequent to Baptism, (not as the effect is to the cause or to the proper instrument, but as a consequent is to an antecedent in a chain of causes accidentally and by positive institution depending upon each other) God by that miracle did give testimony, that the persons of the men were in great dispositions towards Heaven, and therefore were to be admitted to those Rites, which are the ordinary inlets into the Kingdom of Heaven. But then from hence to argue that wherever there is a capacity of receiving the same grace, there also the same sign is to be ministered, and from hence to infer Paedo-baptism, is an Argument very fallacious upon several grounds. First, because Baptism is not the sign of the holy Ghost, but by another mystery it was conveyed ordinarily, and extraordinarily, it was conveyed independently from any mystery, and so the Argument goes upon a wrong supposition. Secondly, if the supposition were true, the proposition built upon it is false; for they that are capable of the same grace, are not always capable of the same sign; for women under the Law of Moses, although they were capable of the righteousness of Faith, yet they were not capable of the sign of Circumcision: For God does not always convey his graces in the same manner, but to some mediately, to others immediately; and there is no better instance in the world of it, than the gift of the holy Ghost (which is the thing now instanced in this contestation) for it is certain in Scripture, that it was ordinarily given by imposition of hands, and that after Baptism; (And when this came into an ordinary ministry, it was called by the Ancient Church Chrism or Confirmation) but yet it was given sometimes without imposition of hands, as at Pentecost and to the Family of Cornelius; sometimes before Baptism, sometimes after, sometimes in conjunction with it.  
And after all this, lest these Arguments should not ascertain 
Numb. 22.  their Cause, they fall on complaining against God, and will not be content with God, unless they may baptise their Children, but take exceptions that God did more for the Children of the Jews. But why so? Because God made a Covenant with their Children actually as Infants, and consigned it by Circumcision: Well; so he did with our children too in their proportion. He made a Covenant of spiritual Promises on his part, and spiritual and real services on ours; and this pertains to Children when they are capable, but made with them as soon as they are alive, and yet not so as with the Jews Babes; for as their rite consigned them actually, so it was a Nationall and temporal blessing and Covenant, as a separation of them from the portion of the Nations, a marking them for a peculiar people, (and therefore while they were in the Wilderness and separate from the commixture of all people, they were not at all circumcised) but as that rite did seal the righteousness of Faith, so by virtue of its adherency, and remanency in their flesh, it did that work when the Children came to age. But in Christian Infants the case is otherwise; for the new Covenant being established upon better Promises, is not only to better purposes, but also in distinct manner to be understood; when their spirits are as receptive of a spiritual act or impress as the bodies of Jewish Children were of the sign of Circumcision, than it is to be consigned: But this business is quickly at an end, by saying that God hath done no less for ours, then for their Children; for he will do the mercies of a Father and Creator to them, and he did no more to the other; but he hath done more to ours; for he hath made a Covenant with them and built it upon Promises of the greatest concernment; he did not so to them: But then for the other part which is the main of the Argument, that unless this mercy be consigned by Baptism, as good not at all in respect of us, because we want the comfort of it; this is the greatest vanity in the world: For when God hath made a Promise pertaining also to our Children (for so our Adversaries contend, and we also acknowledge in its true sense) shall not this Promise, this word of God be of sufficient truth, certainty, and efficacy to cause comfort, unless we tempt God and require a sign of him? May not Christ say to these men as sometime to the Jews, a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, but no sign shall be given unto it? But the truth on't is, this Argument is nothing but a direct quarrelling with God Almighty.  
Now since there is no strength in the Doctrinal part, the 
Numb. 23.  practice and precedents Apostolical and Ecclesiastical, will be of less concernment, if they were true as is pretended, because actions Apostolical are not always Rules for ever; it might be fit for them to do it pro loco & tempore as divers others of their Institutions, but yet no engagement past thence upon following Ages; for it might be convenient at that time, in the new spring of Christianity, and till they had engaged a considerable party, by that means to make them parties against the Gentiles Superstition, and by way of pre-occupation to ascertain them to their own sect when they came to be men; or for some other reason not trasmitted to us, because the Question of fact itself is not sufficiently determined. For the insinuation of that precept of baptising all Nations, of which Children certainly are a part, does as little advantage as any of the rest, because other parallel expressions of Scripture do determine and expound themselves to a sense that includes not all persons absolutely, but of a capable condition, as adorate eum omnes gentes, & psallite Deo omnes nationes terrae and divers more.  
As for the conjecture concerning the Family of Stephanus, 
Numb. 24.  at the best it is but a conjecture, and besides that it is not proved that there were Children in the Family; yet if that were granted, it follows not that they were baptised, because by [whole Families] in Scripture is meant all persons of reason and age within the Family; for it is said, of the Ruler at Capernaum, 
joh. 4.  that he believed and all his house: Now you may also suppose that in his house were little Babes, that is likely enough, and you may suppose that they did believe too before they could understand, but that's not so likely; and then the Argument from baptising of Stephen's household may be allowed just as probable: But this is unman-like to build upon such slight airy conjectures.  
But Tradition by all means must supply the place of Scripture, 
Numb. 25.  and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical, that Infants were baptised: But at this we are not much moved; For we who rely upon the written Word of God as sufficient to establish all true Religion, do not value the Allegation of Tradions: And however the world goes, none of the Reformed Churches can pretend this Argument against this opinion, because they who reject Tradition when 'tis against them, must not pretend it at all for them: But if we should allow the Topick to be good, yet how will it be verified? for so fare as it can yet appear, it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen, for from him Austin had it. Now a Tradition Apostolical if it be not consigned with a fuller Testimony then of one person whom all after-Ages have condemned of many errors, will obtain so little reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority pretended to derive from the Apostles, and yet falsely, that it will be a great Argument that he is credulons and weak, that shall be determined by so weak probation in matters of so great concernment. And the truth of the business is, as there was no command of Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it, so the necessity of Paedobaptism was not determined in the Church till in the eighth Age after Christ, but in the year 418 in the Milevitan Council, a Provincial of Africa, there was a Canon made for Paedo-baptism; never till then! I grant it was practised in Africa before that time, and they or some of them thought well of it, and though that be no Argument for us to think so, yet none of them did ever before, pretend it to be necessary, none to have been a precept of the Gospel. S. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be absolutely necessary, and it was in his heat and anger against Pelagius who had warmed and chafed him so in that Question that it made him innovate in other doctrines possibly of more concernment than this. And that although this was practised anciently in Africa, yet that it was without an opinion of necessity, and not often there, nor at all in other places, we have the Testimony of a learned Paedobaptist, Ludovicus Vives, who in his Annotations upon S. Austin, De Civit. Dei. l. 1. c. 27. affirms, Neminem nisi adultum antiquitùs solere baptizari.  
But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical; we have very good evidence from Antiquity, that it 
Numb. 26.  was the opinion of the Primitive Church, that Infants ought not to be baptised; and this is clear in the sixth Canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, The words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The sense is this, A woman with child may be baptised when she please; For her Baptism concerns not the child. The reason of the connexion of the parts of that Canon is in the following words, because every one in that Confession is to give a demonstration of his own choice and election: Meaning plainly, that if the Baptism of the Mother did also pass upon the child, it were not fit for a pregnant woman to receive Baptism, because in that Sacrament there being a Confession of Faith, which Confession supposes understanding, and free choice, it is not reasonable the child should be consigned with such a mystery, since it cannot do any act of choice or understanding: The Canon speaks reason, and it intimates a practice which was absolutely universal in the Church, of interrogating the Catechumen concerning the Articles of Creed: Which is one Argument that either they did not admit Infants to Baptism, or that they did prevaricate egregiously in ask Questions of them, who themselves knew were not capable of giving answer.  
And to supply their incapacity by the Answer of a Godfather, 
Numb. 27. Quid ni necesse est (sie legit Franc. junius in notis ad Tertul.) sponsores eti. am periculo ingeri qui & ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possint, & proventu malae indolis falli? Tertul. lib. de baptis cap. 18.  is but the same unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance: And there is no sensible account can be given of it; for that which some imperfectly murmur concerning stipulations civil performed by Tutors in the name of their Pupils, is an absolute vanity: For what if by positive Constitution of the Romans such solennities of Law are required in all stipulations, and by indulgence are permitted in the case of a notable benefit accrueing to Minors, must God be tied, and Christian Religion transact her mysteries by proportion and compliance with the Law of the Romans? I know God might if he would have appointed Godfathers to give Answer in behalf of the Children, and to be fidejussors for them; but we cannot find any Authority or ground that he hath, and if he had, than it is to be supposed he would have given them Commission to have transacted the solennity with better circumstances, and given Answers with more truth. For the Question is asked of believing in the present. And if the Godfathers answer in the name of the child, [I do believe] it is 
Lib. de baptis. prope finem, cap. 18. itaque pro personae cujusque conditione ac dispositione, etiam aetate, cunctatio baptismi utilior est, praecipuè tamen circa parvulos .... Fiant Christiani cum Christum nosse potuerint.  notorious they speak false and ridiculously; for the Infant is not capable of believing, and if he were, he were also capable of dissenting, and how then do they know his mind? And therefore Tertullian gives advice that the Baptism of Infants should be deferred till they could give an account of their Faith, and the same also is the Council of 
* Orat. 40, quaest in S. Baptisma.  Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum, although he allows them to hasten it in case of necessity; for though his reason taught him what was fit, yet he was overborne with the practice and opinion of his Age, which began to bear too violently upon him, and yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom Baptism was not administered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by reason of Infancy; To which if we add that the Parents of S. Austin, S. Hierom, and S. Ambrose although they were Christian, yet did not baptise their children before they were; o years of age, it will be very considerable in the example, and of great efficacy for destroying the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles.  
But however, it is against the perpetual analogy of Christ's 
Numb. 28.  Doctrine to baptise Infants: For besides that Christ never gave any precept to baptise them, nor ever himself nor his Apostles (that appears) did baptise any of them; All that either he or his Apostles said concerning it, requires such previous dispositions to Baptism of which Infants are not capable, and these are Faith and Repentance: And not to instance in those innumerable places that require Faith before this Sacrament, there needs no more but this one saying of our blessed Saviour, He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not 
Mar. 16.  shall be damned; plainly thus, Faith and Baptism in conjunction will bring a man to heaven; but if he have not Faith, Baptism shall do him no good. So that if Baptism be necessary then, so is Faith, and much more; for want of Faith damns absolutely; it is not said so of the want of Baptism. Now if this decretory sentence be to be understood of persons of age, and if Children by such an Answer (which indeed is reasonable enough) be excused from the necessity of Faith, the want of which regularly does damn, than it is sottish to say the same incapacity of reason and Faith shall not excuse from the actual susception of Baptism, which is less necessary, and to which Faith and many other acts are necessary predisposions when it is reasonably and humanely received. The Conclusion is, that Baptism is also to be deferred till the time of Faith: And whether Infants have Faith or no, is a Question to be disputed by persons that care not how much they say, nor how little they prove.  
1. Personal and actual Faith they have none; for they have 
Numb. 29.  no acts of understanding; and besides how can any man know that they have, since he never saw any sign of it, neither was he told so by any one that could tell? 2. Some say they have imputative Faith; but then so let the Sacrament be too, that is, if they have the Parent's Faith or the Churches, than so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them, that as in their Mother's womb, and while they hang on their breasts, they live upon their Mother's nourishment, so they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church. For since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism (and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to dawb the matter up) such as the Faith is, such must be the Sacrament: for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament and an imputative Faith, this being in immediate and necessary order to that: And whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of actual Faith, all that and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of Baptism. 3. The first of these devices was that of Luther and his Scholars, the second of Calvin and his; and yet there is a third device which the Church of Rome teaches, and that is, that Infants have habitual Faith: But who told them so? how can they prove it? what Revelation, or reason teaches any such thing? Are they by this habit so much as disposed to an actual belief without a new master? Can an Infant sent into a Mahometan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a man, then if he had not been baptised? Are there any acts precedent, concomitant or consequent to this pretended habit? This strange invention is absolutely without art, without Scripture, Reason or Authority: But the men are to be excused unless there were a better; But for all these stratagems, the Argument now alleged against the Baptism of Infants is demonstrative and unanswerable.  
To which also this consideration may be added, that if Baptism 
Numb. 30.  be necessary to the salvation of Infants, upon whom is the imposition laid? To whom is the command given? to the Parents or to the Children? not to the Children, for they are not capable of a Law; not to the Parents, for then God hath put the salvation of innocent Babes into the power of others; and Infants may be damned for their Father's carelessness or malice. It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them, to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law, and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably entrusted to others with the appendent necessity; and if it be not necessary, it is certain it is not reasonable, and most certain it is nowhere in terms prescribed, and therefore it is to be presumed, that it ought to be understood and administered according as other precepts are with reference to the capacity of the subject, and the reasonableness of the thing.  
For I consider, that the baptising of Infants does rush us upon 
Numb. 31.  such inconveniences which in other Questions we avoid like Rocks, which will appear if we Discourse thus.  
Either Baptism produces spiritual effects, or it produces them not: If it produces not any, why is such contention about it, what are we the nearer heaven if we are baptised? and if it be neglected, what are we the farther off? But if (as without all peradventure all the Paedobaptists will say) Baptism does do a work upon the soul, producing spiritual benefits and advantages, these advantages are produced by the external work of the Sacrament alone, or by that as it is helped by the co-operation and predispositions of the suscipient.  
If by the external work of the Sacrament alone, how does this differ from the opus operatum of the Papists, save that it is worse? for they say the Sacrament does not produce its effect but in a suscipient disposed by all requisites and due preparatives of piety, faith, and repentance; though in a subject so disposed, they say the Sacrament by its own virtue does it; but this opinion says it does it of itself without the help, or so much as the coexistence of any condition but the mere reception.  
But if the Sacrament does not do its work alone, but per modum recipientis according to the predispositions of the suscipient, then because Infants can neither hinder it, nor do any thing to further it, it does them no benefit at all. And if any man runs for secure to that exploded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Infants have Faith, or any other inspired habit of I know not what or how, we desire no more advantage in the world, then that they are constrained to an answer without Revelation, against reason, common sense, and all the experience in the world.  
The sum of the Argument in short, is this though under another representment.  
Either Baptism is a mere Ceremony, or it implies a Duty on our part. If it be a Ceremony only, how does it sanctify us, or make the comers thereunto perfect? If it implies a Duty on our part, how then can Children receive it, who cannot do duty at all?  
And indeed, this way of Ministration makes Baptism to be wholly an outward duty, a work of the Law, a carnal Ordinance, it makes us adhere to the letter, without regard of the Spirit, to be satisfied with shadows, to return to bondage, to relinquish the mysteriousness, the substance and Spirituality of the Gospel. Which Argument is of so much the more consideration, because under the Spiritual Covenant, or the Gospel of Grace, if the mystery goes not before the Symbol (which it does when the Symbols are Seals and Consignations of the Grace, as it is said the Sacraments are) yet it always accompanies it, but never follows in order of time: And this is clear in the perpetual analogy of holy Scripture.  
For Baptism is never propounded, mentioned or enjoined as a means of remission of sins, or of eternal life, but something of duty, choice and sanctity is joined with it, in order to production of the end so mentioned, Know ye not that as many 
Rom. 6. 3.  as are baptised into Christ Jesus, are baptised into his death? There is the mystery and the Symbol together, and declared to be perpetually united, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All of us who were baptised into one, were baptised into the other, Not only into the Name of Christ, but into his death also: But the meaning of this as it is explained in the following words of S. Paul, makes much for our purpose: For to be baptised into his death, signifies to be buried with him in Baptism, that as Christ risen from the dead, we also should walk in newness of life: That's 
Vers. 4.  the full mystery of Baptism; For being baptised into his death, or which is all one in the next words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the likeness of his death, cannot go alone; if we be so planted 
Vers. 5.  into Christ, we shall be partakers of his Resurrection, and that is not here instanced in precise reward, but in exact Duty, for all this is nothing but crucifixion of the old man, a destroying the 
Vers. 6.  body of sin, that we no longer serve sin.  
This indeed is truly to be baptised both in the Symbol and the Mystery: Whatsoever is less than this, is but the Symbol only, a mere Ceremony, an opus operatum, a dead letter, an empty shadow, an instrument without an agent to manage, or force to actuate it.  
Plainer yet: Whosoever are baptised into Christ have put on Christ, have put on the new man: But to put on this new man, is to be form in righteousness, and holiness, and truth: This whole Argument is the very words of S. Paul: The Major proposition is dogmatically determined, Gal. 3. 27. The Minor in Ephes. 4. 24. The Conclusion than is obvious, that they who are not form new in righteousness, and holiness, and truth, they who remaining in the present incapacities cannot walk in newness of life, they have not been baptised into Christ, and then they have but one member of the distinction, used by S. Peter, they have that Baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh; but they have not that Baptism which is the answer of a 
1 Pet. 3. 21.  good conscience towards God, which is the only Baptism that saves us: And this is the case of children; And then the case is thus.  
As Infants by the force of nature cannot put themselves into a supernatural condition, (and therefore say the Paedobaptists, they need Baptism to put them into it:) so if they be baptised before the use of reason, before the works of the Spirit, before the operations of Grace, before they can throw off the works of darkness, and live in righteousness and newness of life, they are never the nearer: From the pains of Hell they shall be saved by the mercies of God and their own innocence, though they die in puris naturalibus, and Baptism will carry them no further. For that Baptism that saves us, is not the only washing with water, of which only, Children are capable, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, of which they are not capable till the use of reason, till they know to choose the good and refuse the evil.  
And from thence I consider anew, That all vows made by persons under others Names, stipulations made by Minors, are not valid till they by a supervening act after they are of sufficient age do ratify them. Why then may not Infants as well make the vow de novo, as de novo ratify that which was made for them ab antiquo when they come to years of choice? If the Infant vow be invalid till the Manly confirmation, why were it 
Vide Erasmum in praefat. ad Annotat. in Matth.  not as good they stayed to make it till that time, before which if they do make it, it is to no purpose? This would be considered.  
And in Conclusion, Our way is the the surer way, for not to baptise Children till they can give an account of their Faith, is 
Numb. 32.  the most proportionable to an act of reason and humanity, and it can have no danger in it: For to say that Infants may be damned for want of Baptism, (a thing which is not in their power to acquire, they being persons not yet capable of a Law) is to affirm that of God which we dare not say of any wise and good man. Certainly it is much derogatory to God's Justice and a plain defiance to the infinite reputation of his goodness.  
And therefore, who ever will pertinaciously persist in this opinion 
Numb. 33.  of the Paedobaptists and practise it accordingly, they pollute the blood of the everlasting Testament, they dishonour and make a pageantry of the Sacrament, they ineffectually represent a sepulture into the death of Christ, and please themselves in a sign without effect, making Baptism like the figtree in the Gospel, full of leaves but no fruit; And they invocate the holy Ghost in vain, doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a stone, or a tree.  
Thus fare the Anabaptists may argue, and men have Disputed 
Numb. 34.  against them with so much weakness and confidence, that they have been encouraged in their error 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nazianzen observes of the case of the Church in his time.  more by the accidental advantages we have given them by our weak arguings, then by any truth of their cause, or excellency of their wit. But the use I make of it as to our present Question is this: That since there is no direct impiety in the opinion, nor any that is apparently consequent to it, and they with so much probability do or may pretend to true persuasion, they are with all means, Christian, fair, and humane, to be redargued, or instructed, but if they cannot be persuaded they must be left to God, who knows every degree of every man's understanding, all his weaknesses and strengths, what impress each Argument makes upon his Spirit, and how unresistible every reason is, and he alone judges his innocency and sincerity; and for the Question, I think there is so much to be pretended against that, which I believe to be the truth, that there is much more truth than evidence on our side, and therefore we may be confident as for our own particulars, but not too forward peremptorily to prescribe to others, much less damn, or to kill, or to persecute them that only in this particular disagree.   

SECT. XIX.  
That there may be no Toleration of Doctrines inconsistent with piety or the pulique good.  
BUt then for their other capital Opinion, with all its branches, 
Numb. 1.  that it is not lawful for Princes to put Malefactors to death, nor to take up desensive Arms, nor to minister an Oath, nor to contend in judgement, it is not to be disputed with such liberty as the former: For although it be part of that Doctrine which Clemens Alexandrinus says was delivered per secretam traditionem Apostolorum, Non licere Christianis contendere 
L. 7. Stromat.  in judicio, nec coràm gentibus, nec coràm sanctis, & perfectum non debere jurare; and the other part seems to be warranted by the eleventh Canon of the Nicene Council, which enjoins penance to them that take Arms after their conversion to Christianity; yet either these Authorities are to be slighted, or be made receptive of any interpretation rather than the Commonwealth be disarmed of its necessary supports, and all Laws made ineffectual and impertinent: For the interest of the republic, and the well being of bodies politic is not to depend upon the nicety of our imaginations, or the fancies of any peevish or mistaken Priests, and there is no reason a Prince should ask John-a-Brunck, whether his understanding will give him leave to reign, and be a King: Nay, suppose there were divers places of Scripture which did seemingly restrain the Political use of the Sword, yet since the avoiding a personal inconvenience, hath by all men been accounted sufficient reason to expound Scripture to any sense rather than the literal, which infers an unreasonable inconvenience, (and therefore the pulling out an eye, and the cutting off a hand, is expounded by mortifying a vice, and killing a criminal habit) much rather must the Allegations against the power of the Sword endure any sense rather than it should be thought that Christianity should destroy that which is the only instrument of Justice, the restraint of vice and support of bodies politic. It is certain that Christ and his Apostles, and Christian Religion did comply with the most absolute Government, and the most imperial that was then in the world; and it could not have been at all endured in the world if it had not; for indeed the world itself could not last in regular and orderly communities of men, but be a perpetual confusion, if Princes and the Supreme Power in Bodies Politic, were not armed with a coercive power to punish Malefactors: The public necessity, and universal experience of all the world convinces those men of being most unreasonable, that make such pretences which destroy all Laws, and all Communities, and the bands of civil Societies, and leave it arbitrary to every vain or vicious person whether men shall be safe, or Laws be established, or a Murderer hanged, or Prince's Rule. So that in this case men are not so much to Dispute with particular Arguments, as to consider the Interest and concernment of Kingdoms and Public Societies: For the Religion of Jesus Christ is the best establisher of the felicity of private persons, and of public Communities; it is a Religion that is prudent and innocent, humane, and reasonable, and brought infinite advantages to mankind, but no inconvenience, nothing that is unnatural, or unsociable, or unjust. And if it be certain that this world cannot be governed without Laws, and Laws without a compulsory signify nothing, than it is certain, that it is no good Religion that teaches Doctrine whose consequents will destroy all Government; and therefore it is as much to be rooted out, as any thing that is the greatest pest and nuisance to the public interest: And that we may guess at the purposes of the men, and the inconvenience of such Doctrine; these men that did first intent by their Doctrine to disarm all Princes, and bodies Politic, did themselves take up arms to establish their wild, and impious fancy; and indeed that Prince or Commonwealth that should be persuaded by them; would be exposed to all the insolences of forraingners, and all mutinies of the teachers themselves, and the Governors of the people could not do that duty they own to their people of protecting them from the rapine and malice which will be in the world as long as the world is. And therefore, here they are to be restrained from preaching such Doctrine, if they mean to preserve their Government, and the necessity of the thing will justify the lawfulness of the thing: If they think it to themselves, that cannot be helped; so long it is innocent as much as concerns the Public; but if they preach it, they may be accounted Authors of all the consequent inconveniences, and punished accordingly: No Doctrine that destroys Government is to be endured; For although those Doctrines are not always good that serve the private ends of Princes, or the secret designs of State, which by reason of some accidents or imperfections of men may be promoted by that which is false and pretending, yet no Doctrine can be good that does not comply with the formality of Government itself, and the well being of bodies Politic; Augur cum esset Cato, dicere ausus est, optimis auspiciis ea geri 
Cicero de senectute.  quae pro Reipub. salute gererentur; quae contra Rempub. fierent contra auspicia fieri: Religion is to meliorate the condition of a people, not to do it disadvantange, and therefore those Doctrines that inconvenience the Public, are no parts of good Religion; ut Respub. salva fit, is a necessary consideration in the permission of Prophecying; for according to the true, solid, and prudent ends of the Republic, so is the Doctrine to be permitted or restrained, and the men that preach it according as they are good Subjects, and right Commonwealth's men: For Religion is a thing superinduced to temporal Government, and the Church is an addition of a capacity to a Commonwealth, and therefore is in no sense to disserve the necessity and just interests of that to which it is superadded for its advantage and conservation.  
And thus by a proportion to the Rules of these instances, all 
Numb. 2.  their other Doctrines are to have their judgement, as concerning Toleration or restraint; for all are either speculative, or practical, they are consistent with the Public ends or inconsistent, they teach impiety or they are innocent, and they are to be permitted or rejected accordingly. For in the Question of Toleration, the foundation of Faith, good life and Government is to be secured; in all others cases, the former considerations are effectual.   

SECT. XX.  
How fare the Religion of the Church of Rome is Tolerable.  
But now concerning the Religion of the Church of Rome (which was the other instance I promised to consider) we 
Numb. 1.  will proceed another way, and not consider the truth or falsity of the Doctrines; for that is not the best way to determine this Question concerning permitting their Religion or Assemblies; because that a thing is not true, is not Argument sufficient to conclude that he that believes it true is not to be endured; but we are to consider what inducements there are that possess the understanding of those men; whether they be reasonable and innocent, sufficient to abuse or persuade wise and good men, or whether the Doctrines be commenced upon design, and managed with impiety, and then have effects not to be endured.  
And here first, I consider that those Doctrines that have 
Numb. 2.  had long continuance and possession in the Church, cannot easily be supposed in the present Professors to be a design, since they have received it from so many Ages, and it is not likely that all Ages should have the same purposes, or that the same Doctrine should serve the several ends of divers Ages. But however; long prescription is a prejudice, oftentimes so insupportable, that it cannot with many Arguments be retrenched, as relying upon these grounds, that truth is more ancient than falsehood, that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church, and leave her in an error; that whatsoever is new, is not only suspicious, but false; which are suppositions, pious and plausible enough. And if the Church of Rome had communicated Infants so long as she hath prayed to Saints, or baptised Infants, the communicationg would have been believed with as much confidence, as the other Articles are, and the dissentients with as much impatience rejected. But this consideration is to be enlarged upon all those particulars, which as they are apt to abuse the persons of the men and amuse their understandings, so they are instruments of their excuse, and by making their errors to be invincible, and their opinions, though false, yet not criminal, make it also to be an effect of reason and charity, to permit the men a liberty of their Conscience, and let them answer to God for themselves and their own opinions: Such as are the beauty and splendour of their Church; their pompous Service; the stateliness and solennity of the Hierarchy; their name of Catholic, which they suppose their own due, and to concern no other Sect of Christians; the Antiquity of many of their Doctrines; the continual Succession of their Bishops; their immediate derivation from the Apostles; their Title to succeed S. Peter; the supposal and pretence of his personal Prerogatives; the advantages which the conjunction of the Imperial Seat with their Episcopal hath brought to that Sea; the flattering expressions of minor Bishops, which by being old Records, have obtained credibility; the multitude and variety of people which are of their persuasion; apparent consent with Antiquity in many ceremonials which other Churches have rejected; and a pretended, and sometimes an apparent consent with some elder Ages in many matters doctrinal; the advantage which is derived to them by entertaining some personal opinions of the Fathers, which they with infinite clamours see to be cried up to be a Doctrine of the Church of that time; The great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affim to be de fide; the great differences which are commenced amongst their Adversaries, abusing the Liberty of Prophesying unto a very great licentiousness; their happiness of being instruments in converting divers Nations; the advantages of Monarchical Government, the benefit of which as well as the inconveniences (which though they feel they consider not) they daily do enjoy; the piety and the austerity of their Religious Orders of men and women; the single life of their Priests and Bishops; the riches of their Church; the severity of their Fasts and their exterior observances; the great reputation of their first Bishops for Faith and sanctity; the known holiness of some of those persons whose Institutes the Religious Persons pretend to imitate; their Miracles false or true, substantial or imaginary; the casualties and accidents that have happened to their Adversaries, which being chances of humanity are attributed to several causes according as the fancies of men and their Interests are pleased or satisfied; the temporal selicity of their Professors; the obliqne arts & indirect proceed of some of those who departed from them; and amongst many other things, the names of Heretic and Schismatic, which they with infinite pretinacy fasten upon all that disagree from them; These things and divers others may very easily persuade persons of much reason and more piety, to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their forefather's, which had actual possession and seizure of men's understandings before the opposite professions had a name; And so much the rather because Religion hath more advantages upon the fancy and affections, than it hath upon Philosophy and severe discourses, and therefore is the more easily persuaded upon such grounds as these, which are more apt to amuse then to satisfy the understanding.  
Secondly, If we consider the Doctrines themselves, we shall 
Numb. 3.  find them to be superstructures ill built, and worse managed, but yet they keep the foundation, they build upon God in Jesus Christ, they profess the Apostles Creed, they retain Faith and Repentance as the supporters of all our hopes of Heaven, and believe many more truths than can be proved to be of simple and original necessity to salvation: And therefore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of salvation, whilst their errors are not faults of their will, but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding. So that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith, that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted: The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vain and unhandsome superstructures.  
But then on the other side, if we take account of their Doctrines as they relate to good life, or are consistent or inconsistent with civil Government, we shall have other considerations.  
Thirdly, For I consider, that many of their Doctrines do 
Numb. 4.  accidentally teach or lead to ill life, and it will appear to any man that considers the result of these propositions: Attrition (which is a low and imperfect degree of sorrow for sin, or as others say a sorrow for sin commenced upon any reason of temporal hope, or fear or desire or any thing else) is a sufficient disposition for a man in the Sacrament of penance to receive absolution, and be justified before God, by taking away the guilt of all his sins, and the obligation to eternal pains. So that already the fear of Hell is quite removed upon conditions so easy, that many men take more pains to get a groat, then by this Doctrine we are obliged to, for the curing and acquitting all the greatest sins of a whole life, of the most vicious person in the world: And but that they affright their people with a fear of Purgatory, or with the severity of Penances in case they will not venture for Purgatory (for by their Doctrine they may choose or refuse either) there would be nothing in their Doctrine or Discipline to impede and slacken their proclivity to sin; but then they have as easy a cure for that too, with a little more charge sometimes, but most commonly with less trouble: For there are so many confraternities, so many privileged Churches, Altars, Monasteries, Coemeteries, Offices, Festivals, and so free a concession of Indulgences appendent to all these, and a thousand fine devices to take away the fear of Purgatory, to commute or expiate Penances, that in no sect of men, do they with more ease and cheapness reconcile a wicked life with the hopes of heaven, then in the Roman Communion.  
And indeed if men would consider things upon their true 
Numb. 5.  grounds, the Church of Rome should be more reproved upon Doctrines that infer ill life, then upon such as are contrariant to Faith. For false superstructures do not always destroy: Faith; but many of the Doctrines they teach if they were prosecuted to the utmost issue would destroy good life: And therefore my quarrel with the Church of Rome is greater and stronger upon such points which are not usually considered, than it is upon the ordinary disputes, which have to no very great purpose so much disturbed Christendom: And I am more scandalised at her for teaching the sufficiency of Attrition in the Sacrament, for indulging Penances so frequently, for remitting all Discipline, for making so great a part of Religion to consist in externals and ceremonials, for putting more force and Energy and exacting with more severity the commandments of men than the precepts of Justice, and internal Religion: Lastly, besides many other things, for promising heaven to persons after a wicked life upon their impertinent cries and Ceremonialls transacted by the Priest and the dying Person: I confess I wish the zeal of Christendom were a little more active against these and the like Doctrines, and that men would write and live more earnestly against them then as yet they have done.  
But than what influence this just zeal is to have upon the 
Numb. 6.  persons of the Professors is another consideration: For as the Pharisees did preach well and lived ill, and therefore were to be heard not imitated: So if these men live well though they teach ill, they are to be imitated not heard: their Doctrines by all means, Christian and humane, are to be discountenanced, but their persons tolerated eatenùs; their Profession and Decrees to be rejected and condemned, but the persons to be permitted, because by their good lives they confute their Doctrines, that is, they give evidence, that they think no evil to be consequent to such opinions, and if they did, that they live good lives, is argument sufficient that they would themselves cast the first stone against their own opinions, if they thought them guilty of such misdemeanours.  
Fourthly, But if we consider their Doctrines in relation to 
Numb. 7.  Government, and Public societies of men, then if they prove faulty, they are so much the more intolerable by how much the consequents, are of greater danger and malice: Such Doctrines as these, The Pope may dispense with all oaths taken to God or man: He may absolve Subjects from their Allegiance to their natural Prince: Faith is not to be kept with Heretics, Heretical Princes may be slain by their Subjects. These Propositions are so depressed, and do so immediately communicate with matter, and the interests of men, that they are of the same consideration with matters of fact, and are to be handled accordingly. To other Doctrines ill life may be consequent; but the connexion of the antecedent and the consequent is not (peradventure) perceived or acknowledged by him that believes the opinion with no greater confidence than he disavows the effect, and issue of it. But in these, the ill effect is the direct profession and purpose of the opinion, and therefore the man and the man's opinion is to be dealt withal, just as the matter of fact is to be judged; for it is an immediate, a perceived, a direct event, and the very purpose of the opinion. Now these opinions are a direct overthrow to all humane society, and mutual commerce, a destruction of Government, and of the laws and duty and subordination which we own to Princes; and therefore those men of the Church of Rome that do hold them, and preach them, cannot pretend to the excuses of innocent opinions, and hearty persuasion, to the weakness of humanity, and the difficulty of things; for God hath not left those truths which are necessary for conservation of public societies of men, so intricate and obscure, but that every one that is honest and desirous to understand his duty, will certainly know that no Christian truth destroys a man's being sociable and a member of the body Politic, co-operating to the conservation of the whole as well as of itself. However, if it might happen that men should sincerely err in such plain matters of fact (for there are fools enough in the world) yet if he hold his peace, no man is to persecute or punish him, for than it is mere opinion which comes not under Political Cognisance, that is, that Cognisance which only can punish corporally; but if he preaches it, he is actually a Traitor, or Seditious, or Author of Perjury, or a destroyer of humane Society, respectively to the nature of the Doctrine; and the preaching such Doctrines cannot claim the privilege and immunity of a mere opinion, because it is as much matter of fact, as any the actions of his disciples and confidents, and therefore in such cases is not to be permitted, but judged according to the nature of the effect it hath or may have upon the actions of men.  
Fifthly: But lastly, In matters merely speculative, the case is wholly altered, because the body Politic which only may lawfully 
Numb. 8.  use the sword, is not a competent Judge of such matters which have not direct influence upon the body Politic, or upon the lives and manners of men as they are parts of a Community (not but that Princes or Judges Temporal may have as much ability as others, but by reason of the incompetency of the Authority;) And Gallio spoke wisely, when he discoursed thus to the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or 
Act. 18. 14.  wicked lewdness o ye Jews, reason would that I should hear you; But if it be a question of words, and names, and of your Law, look ye to it, for I will be no Judge of such matters: The man spoke excellent reason; for the Cognisnance of these things did appertain to men of the other robe: but the Ecclesiastical power, which only is competent to take notice of such questions, is not of capacity to use the Temporal sword or corporal inflictions: The mere doctrines and opinions of men are things Spiritual, and therefore not Cognoscible by a temporal Authority; and the Ecclesiastical Authority, which is to take Cognisance is itself so Spiritual, that it cannot inflict any punishment corporal.  
And it is not enough to say that when the Magistrate restrains 
Numb. 9  the preaching such opinions, if any man preaches them he may be punished (and then it is not for his opinion but his disobedience that he is punished) for the temporal power ought not to restrain prophesyings, where the public peace and interest is not certainly concerned. And therefore it is not sufficient to excuse him, whose Law in that case being by an incompetent power made a scruple where there was no sin.  
And under this consideration, come very many Articles of the Church of Rome, which are wholly speculative, which do 
Numb. 10.  not derive upon practice, which begin in the understanding and rest there, and have no influence upon life and government, but very accidentally, and by a great many removes, and therefore are to be considered only so fare as to guide men in their persuasions, but have no effect upon the persons of men, their bodies, or their temporal condition: I instance in two; Prayer for the dead, and the Doctrine of Transubstantion, these two to be instead of all the rest.  
For the first, This Discourse is to suppose it false, and we are 
Numb. 11.  to direct our proceed accordingly: And therefore I shall not need to urge with how many fair words and gay pretences, this Doctrine is set off, apt either to conzen or instruct the conscience of the wisest according as it is true or false respectively. But we find (says the Romanist) in the History of the Maccabees, that the Jews did pray and make offerings for the dead (which also appears by other Testimonies, and by their form of prayers still extant which they used in the Captivity) it is very considerable, that since our blessed Saviour did reprove all the evil Doctrines and Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, and did argue concerning the dead and the Resurrection against the Sadduces, yet he spoke no word against this public practice, but left it as he found it, which he who came to declare to us all the will of his Father would not have done, if it had not been innocent, pious and full of charity. To which by way of consociation, if we add that S. Paul did pray for Onesiphorus, That God would show him a mercy in that day, 
2 Tim. 1. 18.  that is, according to the stile of the New Testament, the day of Judgement: The result will be, that although it be probable, that Onesiphorus at that time was dead (because in his salutations he salutes his household, without naming him who was the Major domo, against his custom of salutitions in other places:) Yet besides this, the prayer was for such a blessing to him whose demonstration and reception could not be but after death; which implies clearly, that then there is a need of mercy, and by consequence the dead people even to the day of Judgement inclusively are the subject of a misery, the object of God's mercy, and therefore fit to be commemorated in the duties of our piety and charity, and that we are to recommend their condition to God, not only to give them more glory, in the reunion, but to pity them to such purposes in which they need; which because they are not revealed to us in particular, it hinders us not in recommending the persons in particular to God's mercy, but should rather excite our charity and devotion: For it being certain that they have a need of mercy, and it being uncertain how great their need is, it may concern the prudence of charity to be the more earnest as not knowing the greatness of their necessity.  
And if there should be any uncertainty in these Arguments, 
Numb. 12.  yet its having been the universal practice of the Church of God in all places, and in all Ages till within these hundred years, is a very great inducement for any member of the Church to believe that in the first Traditions of Christianity, and the Institutions Apostolical, there was nothing delivered against this practice, but very much to insinuate or enjoin it; because the practice of it was at the first, and was universal. And if any man shall doubt of this, he shows nothing but 
De corona milit. c. 3. & de monogam. c. 10.  that he is ignorant of the Records of the Church, it being plain in Tertullian and S. 
* Ep. 66.  Cyprian (who were the eldest Writers of the Latin Church) that in their times it was ab antiquo, the custom of the Church to pray for the Souls of the Faithful departed, in the dreadful mysteries: And it was an Institution Apostolical (says one of them) and so transmitted to the following Ages of the Church, and when once it began upon slight and discontent to be contested against by Aërius, the man was presently condemned for a Heretic, as appears in Epiphanius.  
But I am not to consider the Arguments for the Doctrine 
Numb. 13.  itself, although the probability and fair pretence of them may help to excuse such persons who upon these or the like grounds do hearty believe it. But I am to consider that whether it be true or false, there is no manner of malice in it, and at the worst, it is but a wrong error upon the right side of charity, and concluded against by its Adversaries upon the confidence of such Arguments, which possibly are not so probable as the grounds pretended for it.  
And if the same judgement might be made of any more of 
Numb. 14.  their Doctrines, I think it were better men were not furious, in the condemning such Questions which either they understood not upon the grounds of their proper Arguments, or at least consider not, as subjected in the persons, and lessened by circumstances, by the innocency of the event, or other prudential considerations.  
But the other Article is harder to be judged of, and hath made greater stirs in Christendom, and hath been dashed at 
Numb. 15.  with more impetuous objections, and such as do more trouble the Question of Toleration. For if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false (as upon much evidence we believe it is) then 'tis accused of introducing Idolatry, giving Divine worship to a Creature, adoring of bread and wine, and then comes in the precept of God to the Jews, that those Prophets who persuaded to Idolatry should be slain.  
But here we must deliberate, for it is concerning the lives 
Deut. 13.  of men, and yet a little deliberation may suffice: For Idolatry 
Numb. 16.  is a forsaking the true God, and giving Divine Worship to a Creature or to an Idol, that is, to an imaginary god, who hath no foundation in essence or existence: And is that kind of superstition which by Divines is called the superstition of an undue object: Now it is evident that the Object of their Adoration (that which is represented to them in their minds, their thoughts, and purposes, and by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions) in the blessed Sacrament, is the only true and eternal God, hypostatically joined with his Holy humanity, which humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the Sacramental signs: And if they thought him not present, they are so fare from worshipping the bread in this case, that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so, which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is idololatrical. If their confidence and fancyfull opinion hath engaged them upon so great mistake (as without doubt it hath) yet the will hath nothing in it, but what is a great enemy to Idolatry, Et nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas: And although they have done violence to all Philosophy, and the reason of man, and undone and canceled the principles of two or three Sciences, to bring in this Article, yet they have a Divine Revelation whose literal and Grammatical sense, if that sense were intended, would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle; and indeed that, Transubstantiation is openly and violently against natural reason, is an Argument to make them disbelieve, who believe the mystery of the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the School (and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church) with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy, as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation.  
1. But for the Article itself, we all say that Christ is there 
Numb. 17.  present some way or other extraordinary; and it will not be amiss to worship him at that time, when he gives himself to us in so mysterious a manner, and with so great advantages; especially since the whole Office is a Consociation of divers actions of Religion and Divine Worship. Now in all opinions of those men who think it an act of Religion to communicate and to offer; a Divine Worship is given to Christ, and is transmitted to him by mediation of that action and that Sacrament, and it is no more in the Church of Rome, but that they differ and mistake infinitely in the manner of his presence; which error is wholly seated in the Understanding, and does not communicate with the will; for all agree that the Divinity and the Humanity of the Son of God is the ultimate and adequate object of Divine Adoration, and that it is incommunicable to any creature whatsoever, and before they venture to pass an Act of Adoration, they believe the bread to be annihilated or turned into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped; and they who have these thoughts, are as much enemies of Idolatry, as they that understand better how to avoid that inconvenience which is supposed to be the crime, which they formally hate, and we materially avoid: This consideration was concerning the Doctrine itself.  
2. And now for any danger to men's persons for suffering 
Numb. 18.  such a Doctrine, this I shall say, that if they who do it, are not formally guilty of Idolatry, there is no danger that they whom they persuade to it should be guilty; and what persons soever believe it to be Idolatry, to worship the Sacrament, while that persuasion remains will never be brought to it, there is no fear of that: And he that persuades them to do it by altering their persuasions and beliefs, does no hurt but altering the opinions of the men, and abusing their understandings; but when they believe it to be no Idolatry, than their so believing it is sufficient security from that crime which hath so great a tincture and residency in the will, that from thence only it hath its being criminal.  
3. However, if it were Idolatry, I think the Precept of God 
Numb. 19  to the Jews of killing false and Idolatrous Prophets will be no warrant for Christians so to do: For in the case of the Apostles and the men of Samaria, when James and John would have called for fire to destroy them even as Elias did under Moses Law, Christ distinguished the spirit of Elias from his own Spirit, and taught them a lesson of greater sweetness, and consigned this truth to all Ages of the Church, that such severity is not consistent with the meekness which Christ by his example and Sermons hath made a precept Evangelicall: At most it was but a judicial Law and no more of Argument to make it necessary to us, than the Mosaical precepts of putting Adulterers to death, and trying the accused persons by the waters of jealousy.  
And thus in these two Instances, I have given account what 
Numb. 20.  is to be done in Toleration of diversity of opinions: The result of which is principally this: Let the Prince and the Secular Power have a care the Commonwealth be safe. For whether such or such a Sect of Christians be to be permitted is a question rather Political then Religious; for as for the concernments of Religion, these instances have furnished us with sufficient to determine us in our duties as to that particular, and by one of these all particulars may be judged.  
And now it were a strange inhumanity to permit Jews in 
Numb. 21.  a Commonwealth, whose interest is served by their inhabitation, and yet upon equal grounds of State and Policy, not to permit differing Sects of Christians: For although possibly there is more danger, men's persuasions should be altered in a commixture of divers Sects of Christians, yet there is not so much danger when they are changed from Christian to Christian, as if they be turned from Christian to jew, as many are daily in Spain and Portugal.  
And this is not to be excused by saying the Church hath no 
Numb. 22.  power over them qui foris sunt as jews are: For it is true the Church in the capacity of Spiritual regiments hath nothing to do with them, because they are not her Diocese: Yet the Prince hath to do with them, when they are subjects of his regiment: They may not be Excommunicate any more than a stone may be killed, because they are not of the Christian Communion, but they are living persons parts of the Commonwealth, infinitely deceived in their Religion, and very dangerous if they offer to persuade men to their opinions, and are the greatest enemies of Christ whose honour and the interest of whose Service a Christian Prince is bound with all his power to maintain. And when the Question is of punishing disagreeing persons with death, the Church hath equally nothing to do with them both, for she hath nothing to do with the temporal sword, but the Prince whose Subjects equally Christians and jews are, hath equal power over their persons; for a Christian is no more a subject then a jew is, The Prince hath upon them both the same power of life and death, so that the jew by being no Christian is not foris, or any more an exempt person for his body, or his life then the Christian is: And yet in all Churches where the secular power hath temporal reason to tolerate the jews, they are tolerated without any scruple in Religion; which thing is of more consideration, because the jews are direct Blasphemers of the Son of God, and Blasphemy by their own Law the Law of Moses is made capital; And might with greater reason be inflicted upon them, who acknowledge its obligation than urged upon Christians as an Authority, enabling Princes to put them to death, who are accused of accidental and consecutive Blasphemy and Idolatry respectively, which yet they hate and disavow with much zeal and heartiness of persuasion. And I cannot yet learn a reason why we shall not be more complying with them, who are of the household of Faith; for at least they are children though they be but rebellious children (and if they were not, what hath the Mother to do with them any more than with the jews?) they are in some relation or habitude of the Family, for they are consigned with the same Baptism, profess the same Faith delivered by the Apostles, are erected in the same hope, and look for the same glory to be reaveled to them, at the coming of their Common Lord and Saviour, to whose Service according to their understanding they have vowed themselves: And if the disagreeing persons be to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans, yet not worse, Have no company with them, that's the worst that is to be done to such a man in S. Paul's judgement, Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.   

SECT. XXI.  
Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion.  
FRom these premises, we are easily instructed concerning the lawfulness or duty respectively of Christian Communion, 
Numb. 1.  which is differently to be considered in respect of particular Churches to each other, and of particular men to particular Churches: For as for particular Churches, they are bound to allow Communion to all those that profess the same Faith upon which the Apostles did give Communion; For whatsoever preserves us as Members of the Church, gives us title to the Communion of Saints, and whatsoever Faith or belief that is to which God hath promised Heaven, that Faith makes us Members of the Catholic Church: Since therefore the judicial Acts of the Church are then most prudent and religious when they nearest imitate the example and piety of God: To make the way to Heaven straighter than God made it, or to deny to communicate with those whom God will vouchsafe to be united, and to refuse our charity to those who have the same Faith, because they have not all our opinions, and believe not every thing necessary which we over-value; is impious and Schismatical, it infers Tyranny on one part, and persuades and tempts to uncharitableness and animosities on both; It dissolves Societies, and is an enemy to peace, it busies men in impertinent wranglings, and by names of men and titles of factions it consignes the interessed parties to act their differences to the height, and makes them neglect those advantages which piety and a goodlife bring to the reputation of Christian Religion and Societies.  
And therefore Vincentius Lirinensis, and indeed the whole 
Numb. 2.  Church accounted the Donatists' Heretics upon this very ground, 
Cap. 11. Vid. Pacian. Epist. ad Sempron. 2.  because they did imperiously deny their Communion to all that were not of their persuasion; whereas the Authors of that opinion for which they first did separate, and make a Sect, because they did not break the Church's peace nor magisterially prescib d to others, were in that disagrecing and error accounted Catholics, Divisio enim & disunio facit vos haereticos, pax & unit as 
L. 2. c. 95. contra litter. Petilian.  faciunt Catholicos said S. Austin; and to this sense is that of S. Paul, If I had all faith and had not charity, I am nothing: He who upon confidence of his true belief denies a charitable Communion to his brother, loses the reward of both. And if Pope Victor had been as charitable to the asiatics as Pope Anicetus, and S. Polycarp were to each other in the same disagreeing concerning Easter, Victor had not been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so bitterly reproved and condemned as he was for the uncharitable managing of his disagreeing by Polycrates and 
Euseb. l. 5. c. 25, 26.  Irenaeus; Concordia enim quae est charitat is effectus est unio voluntatum non opinionum. True Faith which leads to charity 
Aquin. 22ae. q 37 a 1.  leads on to that which unites wills and affections, not opinions.  
Upon these or the like considerations, the Emperor Zeno 
Numb. 3.  published his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which he made the Nicene Creed to be the medium of Catholic Communion, and although he lived after the Council of Chalcedon, yet he made not the Decrees of that Council an instrument of its restraint and limit, as preferring the peace of Christendom, and the union of charity fare before a forced or pretended unity of persuasion, which never was or ever will be real and substantial; and although it were very convenient if it could be had, yet it is therefore not necessary because it is impossible; and if men please, whatever advantages to the public would be consequent to it, may be supplied by a charitable compliance and mutual permission of opinion, and the offices of a brotherly affection prescribed us by the Laws of Christianity: And we have seen it, that all Sects of Christians, when they have an end to be served upon a third, have permitted that liberty to a second, which we now contend for, and which they formerly denied but now grant, that by joining hands, they might be the stronger to destroy the third. The Arrians and Meletians joined against the Catholics: The Catholics and Novatians joined against the Arrians. Now if men would do that for charity which they do for interest, it were handsomer and more ingenuous; For that they do permit each others disagreings for their interest's sake, convinces them of the lawfulness of the thing, or else the unlawnesse of their own proceed, and therefore it were better they would serve the ends of charity then of faction, for then that good end would hollow the proceeding and make it both more prudent and more pious, while it serves the design of religious purposes.   

SECT. XXII.  
That particular men may communicate with Churches of different persuasions, and how fare they may do it.  
AS for the duty of particular men in the Question of communicating with Churches of different persuasions, it is 
Numb. 1.  to be regulated according to the Laws of those Churches; for if they require no impiety, or any thing unlawful as the condition of their Communion, than they communicate with them as they are Servants of Christ, as Disciples of his Doctrine and subjects to his Laws, and the particular distinguishing Doctrine of their Sect hath no influence or communication with him who from another Sect is willing to communicate with all the Servants of their Common Lord: For since no Church of one name is infallible, a wise man may have either the misfortune or a reason to believe of every one in particular, that she errs in some Article or other, either he cannot communicate with any, or else he may communicate with all, that do not make a sin or the profession of an error to be the condition of their Communion. And therefore, as every particular Church is bound to Tolerate disagreeing persons in the senses and for the reasons above explicated; so every particular person is bound to Tolerate her, that is, not to refuse her Communion when he may have it upon innocent conditions: For what is it to me if the Greek Church denies Procession of the third Person from the second, so she will give me the right hand of Fellowship, (though I affirm it) therefore because I profess the Religion of Jesus Christ, and retain all matters of Faith and necessity? But this thing will scarce be reduced to practise, for few Churches that have framed bodies of Confession, and Articles, will endure any person that is not of the same confession; which is a plain demonstration that such bodies of Confession and Articles do much hurt, by becoming instruments of separating and dividing Communions, and making unnecessary or uncertain propositions a certain means of Schism and disunion: But than men would do well to consider whether or no such proceed do not derive the guilt of Schism upon them who least think it, and whether of the two is the Schismatic? he that makes unnecessary and (supposing the state of things) inconvenient impositions, or he that disobeyes them, because he cannot without doing violence to his conscience believe them? He that parts Communion, because without sin he could not entertain it, or they that have made it necessary for him to separate, by requiring such conditions which to man are simply necessary, and to his particular are either sinful or impossible?  
The Sum of all is this, There is no security in any thing 
Numb. 2.  or to any person, but in the pious and hearty endeavours of a good life, and neither sin nor error does impede it from producing its proportionate and intended effect: because it is a direct deletery to sin and an excuse to errors, by making them innocent, and therefore harmless. And indeed this is the intendment and design of Faith: For (that we may join both ends of this Discourse together) therefore certain Articles are prescribed to us, and propounded to our understanding, that so we might be supplied with instructions, with motives and engagements to incline and determine our wills to the obedience of Christ. So that obedience is just so consequent to Faith, as the acts of will are to the dictates of the understanding: Faith therefore being in order to obedience, and so fare excellent as itself is a part of obedience or the promoter of it, or an engagement to it; it is evident that if obedience and a good life be secured upon the most reasonable and proper grounds of Christianity, that is, upon the Apostles Creed, than Faith also is secured. Since whatsoever is beside the duties, the order of a good life, cannot be a part of Faith, because upon Faith, a good life is built; all other Articles by not being necessary, are not otherwise to be required, but as they are to be obtained and fourd out, that is, morally, and fallibly, and humanely; It is fit all truths be promoted fairly and properly, and yet but few Articles prescribed Magisterially, nor framed into Symbols and bodies of Confession; lest of all after such composures, should men proceed so furiously as to say all disagreeing after such declarations to be damnable for the future, and capital for the present. But this very thing is reason enough to make men more limited in their prescriptions, because it is more charitable in such suppositions so to do.  
But in the thing itself, because few kinds of errors are damnable, it is reasonable as few should be capital. And because 
Numb. 3.  every thing that is damnable in itself and before God's Judgement Seat, is not discernible before men (and questions disputable are of this condition) it is also very reasonable that fewer be capital than what are damnable, and that such Questions should be permitted to men to believe because they must be left to God to judge. It concerns all persons to see that they do their best to find out truth, and if they do, it is certain that let the error be never so damnable, they shall escape the error or the misery of being damned for't. And if God will not be angry at men for being invincibly deceived, why should men be angry one at another? For he that is most displeased at another man's error, may also be tempted in his own will, and as much deceived in his understanding: For if he may fail in what he can choose, he may also fail in what he cannot choose: His understanding is no more secured than his will, nor his Faith more than his obedience. It is his own fault if he offends God in either but whatsoever is not to be avoided; as errors, which are incident oftentimes even to the best and most inquisitive of men, are not offences against God, and therefore not to be punished, or restrained by men; but all such opinions▪ in which the public interests of the Commonwealth, and the foundation of Faith, and a good life, are not concerned, are to be permitted freely, Quisque abundet in sensu suo was the Doctrine of S. Paul, and that is Argument and Conclusion too; and they were excellent words which S. Ambrose said in attestation of this great truth, Nec Imperiale est libertatem dicendi negare, nec sacerdotale quod sentias non dicere.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
THE END.   

A DISCOURSE CONCERNING PRAYER Ex tempore, OR, By pretence of the Spirit, In justification of Authorized and Set-forms of LITURGY.  1 COR. 14. 32. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets.  
For God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints.  
Printed for Richard Royston, 1647.   

A Discourse concerning PRAYER Ex tempore, etc.  
I Have read over this Book which the Assembly of Divines is pleased to call The Directory for Prayer; I confess I came to it with much expectation, and was in some measure confident I should have found it an exact and unblameable model of Devotion, free from all those objections which men of their own persuasion had obtruded against the public Liturgy of the Church of England; or at least, it should have been composed with so much artifice and fineness, that it might have been to all the world an Argument of their learning and excellency of spirit, if not of the goodness and integrity of their Religion and purposes. I shall give no other character of the whole, but that the public disrelish which I find amongst persons of great piety, of all qualities, not only of great, but even of ordinary understandings, is to, me some argument that it lies so open to the objections even of common spirits, that the Compilers of it did intent more to prevail by the success of their Armies, than the strength of reason, and the proper grounds of persuasion, which yet most wise and good men believe to be the more Christian way of the two. But Sir, you have engaged me to say something in particular to satisfy your conscience. In which also I desire I may reserve a leave to myself to conceal much, if I may in little do you satisfaction.  
I shall therefore decline to speak of the Efficient cause of this Directory, and not quarrel at it that is was composed, against 
Numb. 2.  the Laws both of England and all Christendom. If the thing were good and pious, I should learn to submit to the imposition, and never quarrel at the incompetency of his authority that engaged me to do pious and holy things. And it may be when I am a little more used to it, I shall not wonder at a Synod, in which not one Bishop sits (in the capacity of a Bishop) though I am most certain this is the first example in England, since it was first Christened. But for present it seems something hard to digest it, because I know so well that all Assemblies of the Church have admitted Priests to consultation and dispute, but never to authority and decision, till the Pope enlarging the phylacteries of the Archimandrites and Abbots, did sometimes by way of privilege and dispensation give to some of them decisive voices in public Counsels. But this was one of the things in which he did innovate and invade against the public resolutions of Christendom, though he durst not do it often, and when he did it, it was in very small and inconsiderate numbers.  
I said I would not meddle with the Efficient, and I cannot meddle with the Final cause, nor guess at any other ends and 
Numb. 3.  purposes of theirs then at what they publicly profess, which is the abolition and destruction of the Book of Common-Prayer; which great change, because they are pleased to call Reformation, I am content in charity to believe they think it so, and that they have Zelum Dei, but whether secundum scientiam, according to knowledge or no, must be judged by them who consider the matter and the form.  
But because the matter is of so great variety and minute consideration, every part whereof would require as much scrutiny 
Numb. 4.  as I purpose to bestow upon the whole, I have for the present chosen to consider only the form of it; and because it pretends against the form of set Lyturgy; and that ex tempore forms do succeed in room of the established and determined services, I shall give you my judgement of it, without any sharpness or bitterness of spirit, for I am resolved not to be angry with any man of another persuasion, as knowing that I differ just as much from them as they do from me.  
And first, I consider that the true state of the Question is only this, Whether it is better to pray to God with consideration 
Numb. 5.  or without? whether is the wiser man of the two, he who thinks, and deliberates what to say, or he that utters his mind as fast as it comes? Whether is the better man, he who out of reverence to God is most careful and curious that he offend not in his tongue, and therefore he himself deliberates and takes the best guides he can, or he who out of the confidence of his own abilities or other exterior assistances, speaks what ever comes uppermost?  
And here I have the advice and council of a very wise man, no less than Solomon, Eccles. 5. 2. Be not rash with thy mouth, 
Numb. 6.  and let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God, for God is in heaven and thou upon earth, therefore, let thy words be few. The consideration of the vast distance between God and us, Heaven and Earth, should create such apprehensions in us, that the very best and choicest of our offertoryes are not acceptable but by God's gracious vouchsafeing and condescension: and therefore since we are so much indebted to God for accepting our best, it is not safe ventured to present him with a dowbaked sacrifice, and put him off with that which in nature and humane consideration is absolutely the worst; for such is all the crude and imperfect utterance of our more imperfect conceptions. But let Solomon's reason be what it will, good we are sure it is. Let us consider who keeps the precept best; He that deliberates, or he that considers not but when he speaks: What man in the world is hasty to offer any thing before God, if he be not who prays ex tempore? And then add to it but the weight of Solomon's reason, and let any man answer me if he thinks it can well stand with that reverence we own to the Immense, the infinite, and to the eternal God, the God of wisdom, to offer him a sacrifice which we durst not present to a Prince, or a prudent Governor in re seriâ, such as our prayers ought to be.  
And that this may not be dashed with a pretence it is carnal 
Numb. 7.  reasoning I desire it may be remembered, that it is the argument God himself uses against lame, maimed, and imperfect sacrifices, Go and offer this to thy Prince, see if he will accept it: Implying, that the best person is to have the best present; and what the Prince will slight as truly unworthy of him, much more is it unfit for God. For God accepts not of any thing we give or do, as if he were bettered by it: for therefore its estimate is not taken by its relation or natural complacency to him, it is all alike to him, for in itself it is to him as nothing. But God accepts it by its proportion, and commensuration to us. That which we call our best, and is truly so in humane estimate, that pleases God, for it declares that if we had better, we would give it him. But to reserve the best, says too plainly, that we think any thing is good enough for him. As therefore God in the Law would not be served by that which was imperfect in genere naturae: so neither now nor ever will that please him which is imperfect in genere morum, or materiâ intellectuali, when we can give a better.  
Well then, in the nature of the thing, ex tempore forms have much the worse of it. But it is pretended that there is such 
Numb. 8.  a thing as the gift of Prayer, a praying with the Spirit, Et nescit tarda molimina spiritus sancti gratia. God's Spirit (if he pleases) can do his work as well in an instant, as in long premeditation. And to this purpose are pretended those places of Scripture which speak of the assistance of God's Spirit in our prayers, Zech. 12. 10. And I will pour upon the house of David, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplication. But especially Rom. 8. 26. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groan that cannot be uttered, etc. From whence the Conclusion that is inferred is in the words of Saint Paul, That we must pray with the spirit, therefore not with set forms, therefore ex tempore.  
The Collection is somewhat wild; for there is great independence in the several parts, and much more is in the Conclusion, 
Numb. 9  than was virtually in the premises. But such as it is, the Authors of it I suppose will own it. And therefore we will examine the main design of it and then consider the particular means of its persuasion, quoted in the objection.  
It is one of the privileges of the Gospel, and the benefit of 
Numb. 10.  Christ's ascension, that the holy Ghost is given unto the Church, and is become to us the fountain of gifts and graces. But these gifts and graces are improvements and helps of our natural faculties, of our art and industry not extraordinary, miraculous, and immediate infusions of habits and gifts. That without God's Spirit we cannot pray aright; that our infirmities need his help; that we know not what to ask of ourselves, is most true: and if ever any Heretic was more confident of his own naturals, or did ever more undervalue God's grace then ever the Pelagians did, yet he denies not this. But what then? Therefore without study, without art, without premeditation, without learning, the spirit gives the gift of prayer, and it is his grace, that without any natural or artificial help makes us pray ex tempore? No such thing: The Objection proves nothing of this.  
Here therefore we will join issue, whether the gifts and helps 
Numb. 11.  of the Spirit be immediate infusions of the Faculties, and powers, and perfect abilities? Or that he doth assist us only by his aids external and internal, in the use of such means which God and nature hath given to man, to ennoble his soul, better his Faculties, and to improve his understanding? That the aids of the holy Ghost are only assistances to us in the use of natural and artificial means, I will undertake to prove, and from thence it will evidently follow, that labour, and hard study, and premeditation will soon purchase the gift of prayer, and ascertain us of the assistance of the spirit; and therefore set forms of prayer, studied and considered of are in a true and proper sense, and without enthusiasm, the fruits of the spirit.  
1. God's Spirit did assist the Apostles by ways extraordinary, 
Numb. 12.  and fit for the first institution of Christianity: but doth assist us now by the expresses of those first assistances which he gave to them immediately. So that the holy Ghost is the author of our saith, and we believe with the spirit (it is Saint Paul's expression) and yet our belief comes by hearing and reading the holy Scriptures and their interpretations. Now reconcile these two together, Faith comes by hearing, and yet is the gift of the Spirit, and it says, that the gifts of the Spirit are not ecstasies, and immediate infusions of habits, but helps from God to enable us upon the use of the means of his own appointment to believe, to speak, to understand, to prophesy, and to pray.  
2. And that these are for this reason called gifts, and graces, and issues of the Spirit, is so evident and notorious, that the 
Numb. 13.  speaking of an ordinary revealed truth, is called in Scripture a speaking by the Spirit, 1 Cor. 12. 8. No man can say that Jesus 
Vid. Act. 19 21. Act. 16. 7, 8, 9 10.  is the Lord, but by the holy Ghost. For if the holy Ghost supplies us with materials, and fundamentals for our building, it is then enough to denominate the whole edifice to be of him, although the labour and the workmanship be ours, upon another's stock. And this is it which the Apostles speaks, 1 Cor. 2. 13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. The holy Ghost teaches, yet it is upon our co-operation, our study and endeavour, while we compare spiritual things with spiritual; the holy Ghost is said to teach us, because these spirituals were of his suggestion and revelation.  
3. For it is a rule of the Schools, and there is much reason 
Numb. 14.  in it. Habitus infusi infunduntur per modum acquisitorum, whatsoever is infused into us, is in the same manner infused as other things are acquired, that is, step by step, by humane means and co-operation, and grace does not give us new faculties, and create another nature, but meliorates and improves our own. And what S. Paul said in the Resurrection, is also true in this Question. That is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and then that which is spiritual. The graces and gifts of the Spirit are postnate, and are additions to art and nature. God directs our counsels, opens our understandings, regulates our will, order our affections, supplies us with Objects, and Arguments, and opportunities, and revelations in scriptis, and then most when we most employ our own endeavours, God loving to bless all the means, and instruments of his service, whether they be natural or acquisite.  
But whosoever shall look for any other gifts of the spirit besides 
Numb. 15.  the parts of nature helped by industry and God's blessing upon it, and the revelations or the suppplyes of matter in holy Scripture, will be very fare to seek, having neither reason, promise, nor experience of his side. For why should the spirit of Prayer be any other than as the gift and spirit of saith (as S. Paul calls it, 2 Cor. 4. 13) acquired by humane means using divine aids? that is, by our endeavours in hearing, reading, Catechising, desires to obey, and all this blessed and promoted by God, this produces faith. And if the spirit of Prayer be of greater consequence, and hath a promise of a special prerogative, let the first be proved, and the second be shown in any good record, and then I will believe it too.  
4. And the parallel of this Argument I the rather urge, because 
Numb. 16.  I find praying in the holy Ghost joined with graces, which are as much God's gifts and productions of the spirit as any thing in the world, and yet which the Apostle presses upon us as duties and things put into our power, and to be improved by our industry, and those are faith (in which I before instanced) and charity, Epist. Jud. ver. 20. But ye (beloved) building up yourselves on your most holy Faith, praying in the holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God. All of the same consideration, Faith, and Prayer and Charity, all gifts of the Spirit, and yet build up yourselves in faith, and keep yourselves in love and therefore by a parity of reason, improve yourselves in the spirit of prayer, that is, God by his Spirit having supplied us with matter, let our industry and co-operations per modum naturae, improve these gifts, and build upon this foundation.  
So that in effect, praying in the holy Ghost or with the Spirit, 
Numb. 17.  is nothing but prayer for such things and in such manner which God by his Spirit hath taught us in holy Scripture. Holy prayers, spiritual songs, so the Apostle calls one part of prayer, viz. Eucharistical or thanksgiving, that is, prayers or songs which are spiritual in materiâ. And if they be called spiritual for the efficient cause too, the holy Ghost being the Author of them, it comes all to one, for therefore he is the cause and giver of them, because he hath in his word revealed, what things we are to pray for, and there also hath taught us the manner.  
And this is exactly the Doctrine I plainly gather from the objected 
Numb. 18.  words of Saint Paul, (The spirit helpeth our infirmities) How so? it follows immediately, For we know not what we should pray for as we ought: So that therefore he is the Spirit of supplication and prayer, because he teaches us what to ask, and how to pray, so he helps our infirmities, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is in the Greek Collaborantem adjuvat. It is an ingeminate expression of helping us in our labours together with him. Now he that shall say this is not sufficiently done by God's Spirit in Scripture by Prayers, and Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, and precepts concerning prayer, set down in that holy repository of truth and devotion, undervalues that inestimable treasure of the Spirit; and if it be sufficiently done there, he that will multiply his hopes farther, than what is sufficient, may possibly deceive himself, but never deceive God, and make him multiply and continue miracles, to justify his fancy.  
5. Better it is to follow the Scriptures for our guide, as in all 
Numb. 19  things else, so in this particular, Ephes. 6. 17, 18. Take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the spirit. The Word of God is the sword of the Spirit; praying in the Spirit is one way of using it, indeed the only way that he here specifies. Praying in the Spirit then being the using of this Sword, and this Sword being the Word of God, it follows evidently, that praying in the Spirit, is praying in or according to the Word of God, that is, in the directions, rules and expresses of the Word of God, that is, of the holy Scriptures.  
The sum is this. Whatsoever this gift is, or this spirit of 
Numb. 20.  Prayer, it is to be acquired by humane industry, by learning of the Scriptures, by reading, by conference, and by whatsoever else faculties are improved, and habits enlarged. God's Spirit hath done his work sufficiently this way, and he loves not either in nature or grace (which are his two great sanctions) to multiply miracles when there is no need.  
6. So that now I demand, Whether or no, since the expiration 
Numb. 21.  of the Age of Miracles, does not God's Spirit most assist us, when we most endeavour and most use the means? He that says, No, discourages all men from reading the Scriptures, from industry, from meditation, from conference, from humane Arts and Sciences, and from whatsoever else God and good Laws provoke us to by proposition of rewards: But if, Yea, (as most certainly God will best crown the best endeavours) than the spirit of Prayer is greatest in him, who (supposing the like capacities and opportunities) studies hardest, reads most, practices most religiously, deliberates most prudently; and then by how much want of means is worse than the use of means, by so much ex tempore Prayers are worse than deliberate and studied. Excellent therefore is the council of S. Peter, 1 Ep. Chap. 4. ver. 11. If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God, (not lightly then and inconsiderately) If any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: (great reason then to put all his abilities and faculties to it) and whether of the two does most likely do that, he that takes pains, and considers, and discusses, and so approves and practices a form, or he that never considers what he says, till he says it, needs not much deliberation to pass a sentence.  
7. Lastly, did not the Penmen of the Scripture, writ the Epistles and Gospels respectively all by the Spirit? Most certainly, 
Numb. 22.  holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost, saith Saint Peter. And certainly they were moved by a more immediate motion, and a motion nearer to an Enthusiasm, than now adays in the gift and spirit of Prayer. And yet in the midst of those great assistances and motions they did use study, art, industry, and humane abilities. This is more than probable in the different styles of the several Books, some being of admirable art, others lower and plain. The words were their own, at least sometimes, not the holy Ghosts. And if the Fathers and Grammarians were not deceived by false Copies, but that they truly did observe, sometimes to be propriety of expression in the language, sometimes not true Greek, who will think those errors or imperfections in Grammar, were (in respect of the words I say precisely) immediate inspirations and dictates of the holy Ghost, and not rather their own productions of industry and humanity? But clearly some of their words were the words of Aratus, some of Epimenides, some of Menander, some of Saint Paul, [This speak I, not the Lord, 1 Cor. 7.] and yet because the holy Ghost renewed their memory, improved their understanding, supplied to some their want of humane learning, and so assisted them that they should not commit an error in fact or opinion, neither in the narrative nor dogmatic parts, therefore they writ by the Spirit. Since than we cannot pretend upon any grounds of probability to an inspiration so immediate as theirs, and yet their assistances which they had from the Spirit did not exclude humane arts, and industry, but that the ablest Scholar did write the best, much rather is this true in the gifts and assistances we receive, and particularly in the gift of Prayer, it is not an ex tempore and an inspired faculty, but the faculties of nature and the abilities of art and industry are improved and ennobled by the supervening assistances of the Spirit.  
And now let us take a man that pretends he hath the gift of 
Numb. 23.  Prayer, and loves to pray ex tempore, I suppose his thoughts go a little before his tongue; I demand then, Whether cannot this man, when it is once come into his head, hold his tongue, and write down what he hath conceived? If his first conceptions were of God, and God's Spirit, than they are so still, even when they are written. Or is the Spirit departed from him, upon the sight of a pen and Ink-horn? It did use to be otherwise among the old and new Prophets, whether they were Prophets of Prediction, or of ordinary Ministry. But if his conception may be written, and being written is still a production of the Spirit, than it follows that set-forms of Prayer deliberate and described, may as well be a praying with the Spirit, as sudden forms and ex tempore out lets.  
Now the case being thus put, I would feign know what the difference is between deliberate and ex tempore Prayers, save 
Numb. 24.  only that in these there is less consideration and prudence; for that the other are (at least as much as them) the productions of the Spirit, is evident in the very case put in this very Argument: and whether to consider and to weigh them, be any disadvantage to our devotions, I leave it to all wise men to determine. So that in effect, since after the pretended assistance of the Spirit in our Prayers, we may write them down, consider them, try the spirits, and ponder the manner, the reason and the religion of the address; let the world judge whether this sudden utterance and ex tempore forms be any thing else, but a direct resolution not to consider beforehand what we speak.  
But let us look a little further into the mystery, and see what 
Numb. 25.  is meant in Scripture by praying with the Spirit. In what sense the holy Ghost is called the spirit of Prayer, I have already shown, viz. by the same reason, as he is the spirit of faith, of prudence, of knowledge, of understanding, and the like. But praying with the spirit hath besides this other senses also in Scripture. I find in one place, that then we pray with the Spirit, when the holy Ghost does actually excite us to desires and earnest tendencies to the obtaining our holy purposes, when he gives us zeal and devotion, charity and fervour, spiritual violence and holy importunity. This sense is also in the latter part of the objected words of Saint Paul, Rom. 8. The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groan, etc. Indeed this is truly a praying in the spirit; but this will do our reverend Brethren of the Assembly little advantage as to the present Question. For this spirit is not a spirit of utterance; not at all clamorous in the ears of the people, but cries loud in the ears of God with [groans unutterable] so it follows, and only [He that searcheth the heart, he understandeth the meaning of the spirit.] This is the spirit of the Son, which God hath sent into our hearts, (not into our tongues) whereby we cry, Abba, Father, Gal. 4. 6. And this is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for mental Prayer, which is properly and truly praying by the Spirit.  
Another praying with the Spirit I find in that place of S Paul, 
Numb. 26.  from whence this expression is taken, and commonly used, I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also. Here they are opposed, or at least declared to be things several and disparate: where by the way observe, that praying with the spirit, even in sense of Scripture, is not always most to edification of the people. Not always with understanding. And when these two are separated, St Paul prefers five words with understanding, before ten thousand in the spirit. For this praying with the spirit was indeed then a gift extraordinary and miraculous, like as prophesying with the spirit, and expired with it. But while it did last, it was the lowest of gifts, Inter dona linguarum, it was but a gift of the tongue, and not to be the benefit of the Church directly or immediately.  
By the way only. If Saint Paul did so undervalve the praying 
Numb. 27.  with the Spirit, that he preferred edifying the Church a thousand degrees beyond it. I suppose he would have been of the same mind, if this Question had been between praying with the Spirit and obeying our superiors, as he was when it was between praying with the Spirit and edification of the Church, because (if I be not mistaken) it is matter of great concernment towards the edification of the Church to obey our superiors, not to innovate in public forms of worship, especially with the scandal and offence of very wise and learned men, and to the disgrace of the dead Martyrs, who sealed our Liturgy with their blood.  
But to return. In this place praying with the Spirit, is no 
Numb. 28.  more than my spirit praying. For so S. Paul joins them as terms identical, and expressive one of another's meaning, as you may please to read ver. 14. and 15. 1 Cor. 14. I will pray with the Spirit, and my Spirit truly prayeth. It is the act of our inner man, praying holy and spiritual Prayers. But then indeed at that time there was something extraordinary joined, for it was in an unknown tongue, the practice of which S. Paul there dislikes. This also will be to none of their purposes. For whether it were ex tempore, or by premeditation, is not here expressed; or if it had, yet that assistance extraordinary in prayer, if there was any beside the gift of tongues (which I much doubt) is no more transmitted to us, than the speaking tongues in the spirit, or prophesying ex tempore and by the spirit.  
But I would add also one experiment which S. Paul also there adds by way of instance. If praying with the spirit in this place 
Numb. 29.  be praying ex tempore, then so is singing too. For they are expressed in the same place, in the same manner, to the same end, and I know no reason why there should be differing senses put upon them to serve purposes. And now let us have some Church-music too, though the Organs be pulled down, and let any the best Psalmist of them all, compose a hymn in metrical form, and sing it to a new tune with perfect and true music, and all this ex tempore. For all this the holy Ghost can do if he pleases. But if it be said that the Corinthian Christians composed their songs and hymns according to art and rules of music, by study and industry, and that to this they were assisted by the Spirit; and that this together with the devotion of their spirit, was singing with the spirit, then say I, so composing set forms of Lyturgy by skill and prudence, and humane industry, may be as much praying with the spirit as the other is singing with the spirit. Plainly enough. In all the senses of praying with the spirit, and in all its acceptations in Scripture, to pray or sing with the spirit, neither of them of necessity implies ex tempore.  
The sum or Collecta of the premises is this, Praying with 
Numb. 30.  the spirit, is either when the spirit stirs up our desires to pray, Per motionem actualis auxilii, or when the spirit teaches us what, or how to pray, telling us the matter, and manner of our prayers. Or lastly, dictating the very words of our prayers. There is no other way in the world to pray with the spirit, or in the holy Ghost, that is pertinent to this Question. And of this last manner the Scripture determines nothing, nor speaks any thing expressly of it, and yet suppose it had, we are certain the holy Ghost hath supplied us with all these, and yet in set forms of prayer best of all, I mean there where a difference can be. For as for the desires, and actual motions or incitements to pray, they are indifferent to one or the other, to set-forms or to ex tempore. 2. But as to the matter and manner of prayer, it is clearly contained in the expresses, and set forms of Scriptures, and it is supplied to us by the spirit, for he is the great Dictator of it.  
Now then for the very words. No man can assure me that the 
Numb. 31.  words of his ex tempore prayer are the words of the holy Spirit: it is not reason nor modesty to expect such immediate assistances to so little purpose, he having supplied us with abilities more then enough to express our desires aliunde, otherwise then by immediate dictate. But if we will take David's Psalter, or the other hymns of holy Scripture, or any of the Prayers which are respersed over the Bible, we are sure enough that they are the words of God's Spirit, mediately or immediately, by way of infusion or ecstasy, by vision, or at least by ordinary assistance. And now then, what greater confidence can any man have for the excellency of his Prayer, and the probability of their being accepted, then when he prays his Psalter, or the Lord's Prayer, or another office which he finds consigned in Scripture? When God's Spirit stirs us up to an actual devotion, and then we use the matter he hath described and taught, and the very words which Christ, and Christ's Spirit, and the Apostles, and other persons full of the holy Ghost did use; if in the world there be any praying with the Spirit, (I mean in vocal prayer) this is it.  
And thus I have examined the entire and full scope of this Question, and rifled their Objection. Now I shall proceed to some few Arguments which are more extrinsecall to the nature of the thing.  
It is a practice prevailing among those of our Brethren that are 
Numb. 32.  zealous for ex tempore prayers, to pray their Sermons over, to reduce their doctrine into Devotion and Lyturgy. I mislike it not for the thing itself, if it were done regularly for the manner, and the matter were always pious and true. But who shall assure me when the preacher hath disputed, or rather dogmatically decreed a point of predestination, or of prescience, of contingency, or of liberty, or any of the most mysterious parts of Divinity, and then prays his Sermon over, that he than prays with the Spirit? Unless I be sure that he also preached with the Spirit, I cannot be sure that he prays with the spirit, for all he prays ex tempore. Nay, if I hear a Protestant preach in the morning, and an Anabaptist in the afternoon, to day a Presbyterian, to morrow an Independent, am I not most sure that when they have preached Contradictories, and all of them pray their Sermons over, that they do not all pray with the spirit? More than one in this case cannot pray with the spirit, possibly all may pray against him.  
2. From whence I thus argue in behalf of set forms of 
Numb. 33.  prayer. That in the case above put, how shall I or any man else say Amen to their prayers that preach and pray contradictories? At least I am much hindered in my devotion. For besides that, it derives our opinions into our devotions, makes every school point become our religion, and makes God a party, (so fare as we can) intitling him to our impertinent wranglings. Besides this, I say, while we should attend to our addresses towards God, we are to consider whether the point be true or no, and by that time we have tacitly discoursed it, we are upon another point which also perhaps is as Questionable as the former, and by this time our spirit of devotion is a little discomposed and something out of countenance, there is so much other employment for the spirit, the spirit of discerning and judging. All which inconveniences are avoided in set forms of Liturgy. For we know before hand the conditions of our Communion, and to what we are to say Amen, to which if we like it we may repair; if not, there is no harm done; your devotion shall not be surprised, nor your Communion invaded, as it may be and often is in your ex tempore prayers. And this thing hath another collateral inconvenience, which is of great consideration; for upon what confidence can we solicit any Recusants to come to our Church, where we cannot promise them that the devotions there to be used, shall be innocent, nor can we put him into a condition to judge for himself? If he will venture he may, but we can use no Argument to make him choose our Churches, though he should quit his own.  
3. But again, let us consider with sobriety. Are not those 
Numb. 34.  prayers and hymns in holy Scripture, excellent compositions, admirable instruments of devotion, full of piety, rare and incomparable addresses to God? Dare any man with his gift of prayer pretend, that he can ex tempore or by study make better? Who dares pretend that he hath a better spirit than David had, or then the Apostles and Prophets, and other holy persons in Scripture, whose Prayers and Psalms are by God's Spirit consigned to the use of the Church for ever? Or will it be denied but that they also are excellent directories and patterns for prayer? And if patterns, the nearer we draw to our example, are not the imitations and representments the better? And what then if we took the samplers themselves, is there any imperfection in them, and can we mend them and correct Magnificat?  
In a just porportion and commensuration, I argue so concerning the primitive and ancient forms of Church service, which are composed 
Numb. 35.  according to those so excellent patterns, which if they had remained pure as in their first institution, or had always been as they have been reform by the Church of England, they would against all defiance put in for the next place to those forms or Liturgy which Mutatis mutandis are nothing but the Words of Scripture. But I am resolved at this present not to enter into Question concerning the matter of prayers. But for the form this I say further.  
4. That the Church of God hath the promise of the spirit made to her in general, to her in her Catholic and united capacity, 
Numb. 36.  to the whole Church first, then to particular Churches, then in the lowest seat of the Category to single persons. Now than I infer, if any single persons will have us to believe without all possibility of proof (for so it must be) that they pray with the Spirit, (for how shall they be able to prove the spirit actually to abide in those single persons) than much rather must we believe it of the Church, which by how much the more general it is, so much the more of the spirit she is likely to have; and than if there be no errors in the matter, the Church hath the advantage and probability on her side, and if there be an error in matter in either of them, they fail of their pretences, neither of them have the spirit. But the public spirit in all reason is to be trusted before the private, when there is a contestation, the Church being Prior & potior in premissis, she hath a greater and prior title to the spirit. And why the Church hath not the spirit of prayer in her compositions as well as any of her children, I desire once for all to be satisfied upon true grounds either of reason or revelation.  
5. Or if the Church shall be admitted to have the gift, and the spirit of prayer given unto her by virtue of the great promise 
Numb. 37.  of the spirit, to abide with her for ever, yet for all this she is taught to pray in a set form of prayer, and yet by the spirit too. For what think we? When Christ taught us to pray in that incomparable model, the Lords Prayer, if we pray that prayer devoutly, and with pious and actual intention, do we not pray in the Spirit of Christ, as much as if we prayed any other form of words pretended to be taught us by the Spirit? We are sure that Christ and Christ's Spirit taught us this Prayer; they only gather by conjectures and opinions, that in their ex tempore forms the spirit of Christ teaches them. So much then as certainties are better than uncertaines, and God above man, so much is this set form (besides the infinite advantages in the matter) better than their ex tempore forms in the form itself.  
6. If I should descend to minutes and particulars, I could instance 
Numb. 38.  in the behalf of set forms, that God prescribed to Moses a set form of prayer and benediction to be used when he did bless the people. 7. That Moses composed a song or hymn for the children of Israel to use to all their generations. 8. That David composed many for the service of the tabernacle. 9 That Solomon and the holy Kings of Judah brought them in and continued them in the ministration of the temple. 10. That all Scripture is written for our learning, and since all these and many more set forms of prayer are left there upon record, it is more than probable that they were left there for our use and devotion. 11. That S. John Baptist taught his Disciples a form of prayer. 12. And that Christ's Disciples begged the same favour, and it was granted as they desired it. 13. And that Christ gave it not only in massâ materiae, but in forma verborum; not in a confused heap of matter, but in an exact composure of words, it makes it evident, he intended it not only pro regula petendorum, for a direction of what things we are to ask, but also pro forma orationis, for a set form of Prayer. In which also I am most certainly confirmed (besides the universal testimony of God's Church so attesting it) in the precept which Christ added, When ye pray, pray after this manner: and indeed it points not the matter only of our prayers, but the form of it, the manner and the matter of the address both. But in the repetition of it by Saint Luke, the preceptive words seem to limit us, and direct us to this very form of words, when ye pray, say, Our Father, etc. 14. I could also add the example of all the Jews, and by consequence of our blessed Saviour, who sung a great part of David's Psalter in their feast of Passeover, which part is called by the jews the great Hallelujah, it gins at the 113 Psalms, and ends at the 118 inclusively. And the Scripture mentions it as part of our blessed Saviour's devotion, and of his Disciples, that they sung a Psalm. 15. That this afterward became a Precept Evangelicall, that we should praise God in Hymns, Psalms, and spiritual Songs, which is a form of Liturgy, in which we sing with the spirit, but yet cannot make our Hymns ex tempore, (it would be wild stuff if we should go about it.) 16. And lastly, that a set form of worship and address to God was recorded by Saint John, and sung in heaven, and it was 
Apoc. 15.  composed out of the songs of Moses, (Exod. 15.) of David, Psal. 145.) and of Jeremy, (Chap. 10. 6, 7.) which certainly is a very good precedent for us to imitate, although but revealed to Saint John by way of vision and ecstasy. All which and many more are to me as so many Arguments of the use, excellency, and necessity of set forms of Prayer for public Liturgies, and of greatest conveniency, even for private devotions.  
17. And so the Church of God in all Ages did understand it. 
Numb. 39  I shall not multiply Authorities to this purpose, for they are too many and various; but shall only observe two great instances of their belief and practice in this particular. 1. The one is the perpetual use and great Eulogies of the Lords Prayer, assisted by the many Commentaries of the Fathers upon it. 2. The other is that solemn form of benediction and mystical prayer (as Saint Augustine calls it, Lib. 3. de Trinit. c. 4.) which all Churches (and themselves said it was by Ordinance Apostolical) used in the Consecration of the blessed Sacrament. But all of them used the Lords Prayer in the Canon, and office of Consecration, and other prayers taken from Scripture, (so Justin Martyr testifies, that the Consecration is made per preces verbi Dei, by the prayers taken from the Word of God) and the whole Canon was short, determined and mysterious.  
Who desires to be further satisfied in this particular, shall 
Numb. 40.  find enough in Walafridus Strabo, Aymonius, Cassander, Elacius Illyrious, Josephus Vicecomes, and the other Ritualists, and the other Ritualists, and in the old offices themselves. So that I need not put you in mind of that famous doxology of Gloria Patria, etc. nor the Trisagion, nor any of those memorable hymns used in the Ancient Church, so knownly and frequently, that the beginning of them came to be their name, and they were known more by their own words, than the Author's inscription.  
At last when some men that thought themselves better gifted 
Numb. 41.  would be venturing at conceived forms of their own, there was a timely restraint made in the Council of Milevis in Africa, Placuit ut preces quae probatae fuerint in Concilio ab omnibus celebrentur, nec aliae omnino dicantur in Ecclesia, nisi quae à prudentioribus factae fuerint in Synodo. That's the restraint and prohibition, public prayers must be such as are publicly appointed, and prescribed by our Superiors; and no private forms of our conceiving must be used in the Church. The reason follows, Ne forte aliquid contra fidem, vel per ignorantiam, vel per minus studium sit compositum: Lest through ignorance or want of deliberation any thing be spoken in our prayers against faith [and good manners.] The reason is good, and they are eare-witnesses of it that hear the variety of prayers before and after Sermons, there, where the Directory is practised, where (to speak most modestly) not only their private opinions, but also humane interests, and their own personal concernments, and wild fancies, born perhaps not two days before, are made the objects of the people's hopes, of their desires, and their prayers, and all in the mean time pretend to the holy Spirit.  
I will not now instance in the vainglory that is appendent 
Numb. 42.  to these ex tempore forms of prayer, where the gift of the man is more than the devotion of the man: nor will I consider that then his gift is best, when his prayer is longest: and if he take a complacency in his gift (as who is not apt to do it?) he will be sure to extend his Prayer, till a suspicious and scrupulous man would be apt to say, his prayer pressed hard upon that which our blessed Saviour reprehended in the Pharisees, who thought to be heard for their much babbling. But these things are accidental to the nature of the thing. And therefore though they are too certainly consequent to the person, yet I will not be too severe, but preserve myself on the surer side of charitable construction, which truly I desire to keep, nor only to their persons whom I much reverence, but also to their actions. But yet I durst not do the same thing, even for these last reasons, though I had no other.  
But it is objected, that in set forms of Prayer, we restrain and 
Numb. 43.  confine the blessed Spirit; and in conceived forms, when every man is left to his liberty, than the Spirit is free, unlimited and unconstrained.  
I answer, either their conceived forms (I use their own words, 
Numb. 44.  though indeed the expression is very inartificial) are premeditate and described or they are ex tempore. If they be premeditate and described, than the Spirit is as much limited in their conceived forms as in the Churches conceived forms. For as to this particular, it is all one who describes and limits the form, whether the Church, or a single man does it, still the Spirit is in constraint and limit. So that in this case they are not angry at set forms of Prayer, but that they do not make them. And if it be replied, that if a single person composes a set form, he may alter it if he please, and so his spirit is at liberty. I answer, so may the Church, if she see cause for it: and unless there be cause the single person will not alter it, unless he do things unreasonable and without cause. So that it will be an unequal and a peevish quarrel to allow of set forms of prayer made by private persons, and not of set forms made by the public spirit of the Church. It is evident, that the Spirit is limited in both alike.  
But if by [Conceived forms] in this objection they mean 
Numb. 45.  ex tempore prayers (for so they most generally practise it) and that in the use of these the liberty of the spirit is best preserved. To this I answer, that the being ex tempore or premeditate will be wholly impertinent to this Question of limiting the spirit. For there may be great liberty in set forms, even when there is much variety; and there may be great restraint in ex tempore prayers, even then when it shall be called unlawful to use set forms. That the spirit is restrained, or that it is free in either, is accidental to them both; for it may be either free or not free in both as it may happen.  
But the restraint is this, that every one is not left to his liberty 
Numb. 46.  to pray how he list, (with premeditation or without, it makes not much matter) but that he is prescribed unto by the spirit of another. But if it be a fault thus to restrain the spirit, I would feign know, is not the spirit restrained when the whole Congregation shall be confined to the form of this one man's composing? or it shall be unlawful, or at least a disgrace and disparagement to use any set forms, especially of the Church's composition. More plainly thus.  
2. Doth not the Minister confine and restrain the spirit of the Lords People, when they are tied to his form? It would 
Numb. 47.  sound of more liberty to their spirits, that every one might make a prayer of his own and all pray together; and not be forced or confined to the Ministers single dictate, and private spirit. It is true, it would breed confusions, and therefore they might pray silently till the Sermon began, and not for the avoiding one inconvenience run into a greater, and to avoid the disorder of a popular noise restrain the blessed Spirit; for even in this case as well as in the other, Where the spirit of God is, there must be liberty.  
3. If the spirit must be at liberty, who shall assure us this liberty must be in forms of prayer? And if so, whether also it 
Numb. 48.  must be in public prayer, and will it not suffice that it be in private? And if in public prayers, is not the liberty of the spirit sufficiently preserved in that the public spirit is free? That is, the Church hath power upon occasion to alter and increase her Litanyes. By what Argument shall any man make it so much as probable, that the holy Ghost is injured, if every private Ministers private spirit shall be guided (and therefore by necessary consequence limited) by the Authority of the Churches public spirit?  
4. Does not the Directory that thing which is here called restraining 
Numb. 49.  of the spirit? Does it not appoint every thing but the words? And after this is it not a goodly Palladium that is contended for, and a princely liberty that they leave unto the Spirit, to be free only in the supplying the place of a Vocabulary and a Copia Verborum? For as for the matter, it is all there described and appointed, and to those determined senses the spirit must assist or not at all only for the words he shall take his choice. Now I desire it may be considered sadly and seriously: Is it not as much injury to the spirit to restrain his matter, as to appoint his words? Which is the more considerable of the two, sense or Language, Matter or Words? I mean when they are taken singly and separately. For so they may very well be (for as if men prescribe the matter only, the spirit may cover it with several words and expressions, so if the spirit prescribe the words, I may still abound in variety of sense, and preserve the liberty of my meaning; we see that true in the various interpretations of the same words of Scripture.) So that in the greater of the two, the Spirit is restrained, when his matter is appointed, and to make him amends, for not trusting him with the matter without our directions and limitations, we trust him to say what he pleases, so it be to our sense, to our purposes. A goodly compensation surely!  
5. Did not Christ restrain the spirit of his Apostles, when he 
Numb. 50.  taught them to pray the Lords Prayer, whether his precept to his Disciples concerning it, was Pray this, or Pray thus, Pray these words, or pray after this manner? or though it had been less then either, and been only a Directory for the matter, still it is a thing which our Brethren in all other cases of the same nature are resolved perpetually to call a restraint. Certainly then this pretended restraint, is no such formidable thing. These men themselves do it by directing all the matter, and much of the manner, and Christ himself did it, by prescribing both the matter, and the words too.  
6. These restraints (as they are called) or determinations of the Spirit are made by the Spirit himself. For I demand, when 
Numb. 51.  any Assembly of Divines appointed the matter of Prayers to all particular Ministers as this hath done, is that appointment by the Spirit or no? If not, then for aught appears, this Directory not being made by God's Spirit, may be an enemy to it. But if this appointment be by the Spirit, than the determination and limitation of the Spirit, is by the Spirit himself, and such indeed is every pious and prudent constitution of the Church in matters spiritual: Such as was that of S. Paul to the Corinthians, when he prescribed orders for public prophesying, and interpretation, and speaking with tongues. The spirit of some he so restrained, that he bond them to hold their peace, he permitted but two or three to speak at one meeting, the rest were to keep silence, though possibly six or seven might at that time have the Spirit.  
7. Is it not a restraint of the Spirit to sing a Psalm in meeter by appointment? Clearly as much as appointing forms of 
Numb. 52.  prayer or Eucharist. And yet that we see done daily, and no scruple made. Is not this to be partial in judgement, and inconsiderate of what we do?  
8. And now after all this strife, what harm is there in restraining the spirit in the present sense? What prohibition, what law, 
Numb. 53.  what reason or revelation is against it? What inconvenience in the nature of the thing? For can any man be so weak as to imagine a despite is done to the spirit of grace, when those gifts to his Church are used regularly and by order? As if prudence were no gift of God's spirit, as if helps in Government, and the ordering spiritual matters were none of those graces which Christ when he ascended up on high gave unto Men. But this whole matter is wholly a stranger to reason, and never seen in Scripture.  
For Divinity never knew any other vicious restraining of the Spirit, but either suppressing those holy incitements to virtue and 
Numb. 54.  good life, which Gods Spirit ministers to us externally or internally, or else a forbidding by public Authority the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, to speak such truths as God hath commended, and so taking away the liberty of Prophesying. The first is directly vicious In materia speciale, the second is tyrannical and Antichristian. And to it persecution of true Religion is to be reduced. But as for this pretended limiting or restraining the spirit, viz. by appointing a regular form of prayer, it is so very a Chimaera, that it hath no footing or foundation upon any ground where a wise man may build his confidence.  
9 But lastly, how if the spirit must be restrained, and that by 
Numb. 55.  precept Apostolical? That calls us to a new account. But if it be not true, what means S. Paul, by saying The spirits of the Prophets must be subject to the Prophets? What greater restraint than subjection? If subjected, than they must be ruled; if ruled, then limited, prescribed unto, and as much under restraint as the spirits of the superior Prophets shall judge convenient. I suppose by this time this objection will trouble us no more. But perhaps another will.  
For why are not the Ministers to be left as well to their liberty in making their Prayers as their Sermons? I answer, the 
Numb. 56.  Church may if she will, but whether she doth well or no, let her consider. This I am sure, there is not the same reason, and I fear the experience the world hath already had of it, will make demonstration enough of the inconvenience. But however the differences are many.  
1. Our prayers offered up by the Minister, are in behalf and in the name of the people, and therefore great reason they should know beforehand, what is to be presented, that if they like not the message, they may refuse to communicate; especially since people are so divided in their opinions, in their hopes, and in their faiths: it being a duty to refuse Communion with those prayers which they think to have in them the matter of sin or doubting. Which reason on the other part ceases, for the Minister being to speak from God to the people, if he speaks what he ought not, God can right himself, however is not partner of the sin, as in the other case, the people possibly may be.  
2. It is more fit a liberty be left in preaching then praying, 
Numb. 58.  because the address of our discourses and exhortations are to be made according to the understanding and capacity of the audience, their prejudices are to be removed, all advantages to be taken, and they are to be surprised that way they lie most open [But being crafty I caught you, saith Saint Paul to the Corinthians] and discourses and arguments ad hominem, upon their particular principles and practices may more move them then the most polite and accurate that do not comply and wind about their fancies and affections. S. Paul from the absurd practice of being baptised for the dead, made an excellent Argument to convince the Corinthians of the Resurrection. But this reason also ceases in our prayers. For God understandeth what we say sure enough, he hath no prejudices to be removed, no infirmities to be wrought upon, and a fine figure of Rhetoric, a pleasant cadence, and a curious expression, move not him at all; no other twine and compliances stir him but charity, and humility, and zeal, and importunity, which all are things internal and spiritual. And therefore of necessity there is to be great variety of discourses to the people, and permissions accordingly, but not so to God, with whom a Deus miserere prevails as soon as the great office of 40 hours not long since invented in the Church of Rome, or any other prayers spun out to a length beyond the extension of the office of a Pharisee.  
3. I fear it cannot stand with our reverence to God, to permit 
Numb. 59  to every spirit a liberty of public address to him in behalf of the people. Indeed he that is not fit to pray, is not always fit to preach; but it is more safe to be bold with the people then with God, if the persons be not so fit. In that there may be indiscretion, but there may be impiety and irreligion in this The people may better excuse and pardon an indiscretion or a rudeness (if any such should happen) than we may venture to offer it to God.  
4. There is a latitude of Theology, much whereof is left to 
Numb. 60.  us, so, without precise and clear determination, that without breach either of faith or charity, men may differ in opinion: and if they may not be permitted to abound in their own sense, they will be apt to complain of tyranny over consciences, and that men Lord it over their faith. In Prayer this thing is so different, that it is imprudent and full of inconvenience to derive such things into our prayers, which may with good profit be matter of Sermons. Therefore here a liberty may well enough be granted, when there it may better be denied.  
5. But indeed, if I may freely declare my opinion, I think 
Numb. 61.  it were not amiss if the liberty of making Sermons were something more restrained than it is, and that either such persons only were entrusted with liberty for whom the Church herself may safely be responsal, that is, to men learned and pious, and that the other part, the Vulgus Cleri, should instruct the people out of the fountains of the Church, and upon the public stock, till by so long exercise and discipline in the Schools of the Prophets, they may also be entrusted to minister of their own unto the people. This I am sure was the practice of the Primitive Church when Preaching was as ably and religiously performed as now it is. But in this I prescribe nothing. But truly I think the reverend Divines of the Assembly are many of my mind in this particular, and that they observe a liberty indulged to some persons to preach, which I think they had rather should hold their peace, and yet think the Church better edified in your silence then their Sermons.  
6. But yet me thinks the Argument objected, if it were 
Numb. 62.  turned with the edge the other way would have more reason in it: and instead of arguing [Why should not the same be allowed in praying as in preaching] it were better to substitute this. If they can pray with the spirit, why also do they not preach with the spirit? and if praying with the spirit be praying ex tempore, why shall they not preach ex tempore too, or else confess that they preach without the spirit, or that they have not the gift of Preaching? For to say that the gift of prayer, is a gift ex tempore, but the gift of Preaching is with study and deliberation, is to become vain and impertinent. Quis enim discrevit? Who hath made them of a different consideration? I mean as to this particular, as to their efficient cause. Nor reason, nor revelation, nor God, nor man.  
To sum up all. If any man hath a mind to exercise his 
Numb. 63.  gift of Prayer, let him set himself to work, and compose Books of Devotion, (we have great need of them in the Church of England, so apparent need, that the Papists have made it an objection against us) and this his gift of Prayer will be to edification. But otherwise, I understand it is more fit for ostentation, than any spiritual advantage. For God hears us not the sooner for our ex tempore, long, or conceived prayers; possibly they may become a hindrance, as in the cases before instanced. And I am sure if the people be intelligent, and can discern, they are hindered in their Devotion, for they dare not say Amen till they have considered; and many such cases will occur in ex tempore prayers, that need much considering before we attest them. But if the people be not intelligent, they are apt to swallow all the inconveniencies which may multiply in so great a licence; and therefore it were well that the Governors of the Church who are to answer for their souls, should judge for them, before they say Amen, which judgement cannot be without set-forms of Liturgy. My sentence therefore is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let us be as we are already. Few changes are for the better.  
For if it be pretended, that in the Liturgy of the Church of 
Numb. 64.  England, which was composed with much art and judgement by a Church that hath as much reason to be confident she hath the Spirit and gifts of Prayer, as any single person hath, and each learned man that was at its first composition, can as much prove that he had the Spirit, as the objectors now adays: (and he that boasts most, certainly hath the least.) If I say it be pretended, there are many errors and inconveniences both in the order and the matter of the Common-Prayer Book, made by such men, with so much industry: How much more, and with how much greater reason may we all dread the inconveniencies and disorders of ex tempore prayers? where there is neither conjunction of heads, nor premeditation, nor industry, nor method, nor art, nor any of those things (or at least not in the same degree) which were likely to have exempted the Common-Prayer Book from errors and disorders. If these things be in the green tree, what will be done in the dry?  
But if it be said, the ex tempore and conceived prayers will 
Numb. 65.  be secured from error by the Directory, because that chalks them out the matter. I answer, it is not sufficient, because if when men study both the matter and the words too, they may be (and it is pretended are actually) erroneous; much more may they when the matter is left much more at liberty, and the words under no restraint at all. And no man can avoid the pressure and the weight of this, unless the Compilers of the Directory were infallible, and that all their followers were so too, of the certainty of which I am not yet fully satisfied.  
And after all this I would fain know, what benefit and advantages 
Numb. 66.  shall the Church of England in her united capacity, and every particular in the diffused capacity receive by this new device? For the public it is clear, that whether the Ministers pray before they study, or study before they pray, there must needs be infinite deformity in the public worship, and all the benefits which were before the consequents of conformity and unity, will be lost, and if they be not valuable, I leave it to all them to consider, who know the inconveniences of public disunion, and the public disunion that is certainly consequent to them who do not communicate in any common forms of worship. And to think that the Directory will bring conformity, is as if one should say, that all who are under the same Hemisphere are joined in communi patriâ, and will love like Countrymen; for under the Directory there will be as different Religions, and as different desires, and as differing forms as there are several varieties of men and manners under the one half of heaven, who yet breath under the same half of the Globe. But I ask again, what benefit can the public receive by this form, or this no form, for I know not whether to call it. Shall the matter of prayers be better in all Churches? shall God be better served? shall the word of God and the best patterns of prayers be always exactly followed? It is well if it be. But there is security given us by the Directory; for the matter is left at every man's dispose for all that, and we must depend upon the honesty of every particular for it; and if any man proves a Heretic, or a Knave, than he may introduce what impiety he please, into the public forms of God's worship; and there is no law made to prevent it, and it must be cured afterwards if it can; but beforehand it is not prevented at all by the Directory, which trusts every man. But I observe, that all the benefit which is pretended, is, that it will make an able Ministry, which I confess I am very much from believing, and so will every man be that considers what kind of men they are that have been most zealous for that way of conceived prayer. I am sure that very few of the learnedst, very many ignorants, most those who have made least abode in the Schools of the Prophets. And that I may disgrace no man's person, we see Tradesmen of the most illiberal arts, and women pretend to it, and do it with as many words (and that's the main thing) with as much confidence, and speciousness, and spirit, as the best among them. And it is but a small portion of learning that will serve a man to make conceived forms of prayer, which they have easily upon the stock of other men, or upon their own fancy, or upon any thing in which no learning is required. He that knows nothing of the craft may be in the Preachers trade. But what? Is God better served? I would feign see any Authority, or any reason, or any probability for that. I am sure ignorant men offer him none of the best sacrifices ex tempore, and learned men will be sure to deliberate, and know. God is then better 〈◊〉 when he served by a public, then when by a private 〈◊〉 I cannot imagine what accruements will hence come to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: it may be some advantages may be to the private 〈…〉. For there are a sort of men whom our blessed 〈…〉 do devour widow's houses, and for a pre〈…〉. They make prayers, and they make 〈…〉 means they receive double advantages, for 〈…〉 to their ability, and to their piety. And although the Common-prayer Book in the Preface to the Directory be charged with unnecessary length, yet we see that most of these men, they that are most eminent or would be so, make their prayers longer, and will not lose the benefits which their credit gets, and they by their credit, for making their prayers.  
Add to this that there is no promise in Scripture, that he who prays ex tempore shall be heard the better, or that he shall be assisted at all to such purposes; and therefore to innovate in so high a matter without a warrant to command us, or a promise to warrant us, is no better than vanity in the thing, and presumption in the person. He therefore that considers that this way of prayer is without all manner of precedent in the Primitive Church, against the example of all famous Churches in all Christendom in the whole descent of 15. Ages, without all command and warrant of Scripture, that it is unreasonable in the nature of the thing, against prudence and the best wisdom of humanity, because it is without deliberation, that it is innovation in a high degree without that Authority which is truly and by inherent and ancient right to command and prescribe to us in external forms of worship, that it is much to the disgrace of the first reformers of our Religion, that it gives encouragement to the Papists, to quarrel with some reason and more pretence against our Reformation, as being by the Directory confessed to have been done in much blindness, and therefore might err in the excess as well as in the defect, in the throwing out too much, as casting off too little, which is the more likely, because they wanted zeal to carry it fare enough. He that considers the universal deformity of public worship and the no means of union, no Symbol of public communion being publicly consigned, that all Heresies may with the same Authority be brought into our prayers, and offered to God in behalf of the people, with the same Authority that any truth may all the matter of our prayers being left to the choice of all men, of all persuasions, and then observes that actually there are in many places, heresy, and blasphemy, and impertinency, and illiterate rudenesses put into the devotions of the most Solemn days, and the most public meetings; and then lastly, that there are divers parts of Lyturgy, for which no provisions at all is made in the Directory, and the very administration of the Sacraments left so loosely, that if there be any thing essential in the forms of Sacraments the Sacrament may come ineffectual by want of due words, and due ministration. I say, he that considers all these things (and many more he may consider) will find that particular men are not fit to be entrusted to offer in public with their private spirit, to God, for the people, in such solemnities, in matters of so great concernment, where the honour of God, the benefit of the people, the interest of Kingdoms, the being of a Church, the unity of minds, the conformity of practice, the truth of persuasions, and the salvation of souls, are so very much concerned, as they are in the public prayers of a whole Nationall Church. An unlearned man is not to be trusted, and a wise man dare not trust himself; he that is ignorant cannot, he that is knowing will not.  
The End.   

OF THE SACRED ORDER AND OFFICES OF EPISCOPACY, By Divine Jnstitution, Apostolical Tradition, and Catholic Practice. TOGETHER WITH Their Titles of Honour, Secular Employment, Manner of Election, Delegation of their Power, and other appendent questions, asserted against the Aerians, and Acephali, new and old.  
By IER: TAYLOR, D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAJESTY Published by His MAJESTY'S Command.  ROM. 13. 1. 
There is no power but of God. The Powers that be, are ordained of God.  CONCIL. CHALCED. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
LONDON, Printed for RICHARD ROYSTON, at the Angel in Ivy-lane. 1647.   

TO THE TRULY WORTHY AND MOST ACCOMPLISHED Sr CHRISTOPHER HATTON Knight of the Honourable Order of the BATH.  
SIR,  
I AM engaged in the defence of a Great Truth, and I would willingly find a shroud to cover myself from danger, and calumny; and although the cause both is & aught to be defended by Kings, yet my person must not go thither to Sanctuary, unless it be to pay my devotion, and I have now no other left for my defence, I am robbed of that which once did bless me, and indeed still does, (but in another manner) and I hope will do more; but those distillations of celestial dews are conveyed in Channels not pervious to an eye of sense, and now adays we seldom look with other, be the object never so beauteous or alluring. You may then think, Sir, I am forced upon You; may that beg my pardon and excuse, but I should do an injury to Your Nobleness, if I should only make You a refuge for my need, (pardon this truth) you are also of the fairest choice, not only for Your love of Learning, (for although that be eminent in You, yet it is not Your eminence) but for Your duty to H. Church, for Your loyalty to His sacred Majesty. These did prompt me with the greatest confidence to hope for Your fair encouragement, and assistance in my plead for Episcopacy, in which cause Religion, and Majesty, the King, and the Church are interested as parties of mutual concernment.  
There was an odd observation made long ago, and registered in the Law to make it authentic, Laici sunt infensi Clericis. Now the Clergy pray, but fight not, and therefore if not specially protected by the King contra Ecclesiam Malignantium, they are made obnoxious to all the contumelies, and injuries, which an envious multitude will inflict upon them. It was observed enough in King Edgar's time, Quamvis decreta 
In Charten Edgar. Regis. A. D. 485. apud Hen. Spelman.  Pontificum, & verba Sacerdotum in convulsis ligaminibus velut fundamenta montium fixa sunt, tamen plerumque tempestatibus, & turbinibus saecularium rerum Religio S. Matris Ecclesiae maculis reproborum dissipatur, acrumpitur. Idcirco Decrevimus Nos etc. There was a sad example of it in K. John's time. For when he threw the Clergy from his Protection, it is incredible what injuries, what affronts, what robberies, yea what murders were committed upon the Bishops, and Priests of H. Church, whom neither the sacredness of their persons, nor the Laws of God, nor the terrors of Conscience, nor fears of Hell, nor Church-censures, nor the Laws of Hospitality could protect from Scorn, from blows, from slaughter. Now there being so near a tye as the necessity of their own preservation in the midst of so apparent danger, it will tie the Bishop's hearts, and hands to the King faster than all the ties of Lay-Allegiance, (all the Political ties I mean,) all that are not precisely religious, and obligations in the Court of Conscience.  
2. But the interest of the Bishops is conjunct with the prosperity of the King, besides the interest of their own security; by the obligation of secular advantages. For they who have their livelihood from the King, and are in expectance of their fortune from him are more likely to pay a tribute of exacter duty, than others, whose fortunes are not in such immediate dependency on His Majesty. Aeneas Silvius once gave a merry reason why Clerks advanced the Pope above a Council, viz. because the Pope gave spiritual promotions, but the Counsels gave none. It is but the Common expectation of gratitude, that a Patron Paramount shall be more assisted by his Beneficiaries in cases of necessity, then by those, who receive nothing from him but the common influences of Government.  
3. But the Bishop's duty to the King derives itself from a higher fountain. For it is one of the main excellencies in Christianity, that it advances the State, and well being of Monarchies, and Bodies Politic. Now than the Fathers of Religion the Reverend Bishops, whose peculiar office it is to promote the interests of Christianity, are by the nature and essential requisites of their office bound to promote the Honour and Dignity of Kings, whom Christianity would have so much honoured, as to establish the just subordination of people to their Prince, upon better principles than ever, no less than their precise duty to God, and the hopes of a blissful immortality. Here then is utile, honestum, and necessarium, to tie Bishops in duty to Kings, and a threefold Cord is not easily broken.  
In pursuance of these obligations Episcopacy pays three returns of tribute to Monarchy.  
1. The first is the Duty of their people. For they being by God himself set over souls, judges of the most secret recesses of our Consciences, and the venerable Priests under them, have more power to keep men in their duteous subordination to the Prince, then there is in any secular power, by how much more forcible the impressions of the Conscience are, than all the external violence in the world. And this power they have fairly put into act, for there was never any Protestant Bishop yet in Rebellion, unless he turned recreant to his Order, and it is the honour of the Church of England, that all her Children, and obedient people are full of indignation against Rebels, be they of any interest, or party whatsoever. For here (& for it wethanke God and good Princes) Episcopacy hath been preserved in fair privileges and honour, and God hath blest and honoured Episcopacy with the conjunction of a loyal people. As if because in the law of Nature the Kingdom and Priesthood were joined in one person, it were natural, and consonant to the first justice, that Kings should defend the rights of the Church, and the Church advance the honour of Kings. And when I consider that the first Bishop that was exauctorated was a Prince too, Prince, and Bishop of Geneva, me thinks it was an ill Omen, that the cause of the Prince, and the Bishop should be in Conjunction ever after.  
2. A second return that Episcopacy makes to Royalty is that which is the Duty of all Christians, the paying tributes, and impositions. And though all the King's Liege people do it, yet the issues of their duty, and liberality are mightily disproportionate if we consider their unequal Number, and Revenues. And if Clergy-subsidies be estimated according to the smallness of their revenue, and paucity of persons, it will not be half so short of the number, and weight of Crowns from Lay Dispensation, as it does fare exceed in the proportion of the Donative.  
3. But the assistance that the Kings of England had in their Counsels, and affairs of greatest difficulty, from the great ability of Bishops, and other the Ministers of the Church, I desire to represent in the words of K. Allured to Walfsigeus the Bishop, in an Epistle where he deplores the misery of his own age by comparing it with the former times, when the Bishops were learned, and exercised in public Counsels. Faelicia tum tempora fuerunt inter omnes Angliae populos; Reges Deo, & scriptae ejus voluntati obsecundârunt in suâ pace, & bellicis expeditionibus, atque regimine domestico domi se semper tutati fuerint, atque etiamforis nobilitatem suam dilataverint. The reason was, as he insinuates before, Sapientes extiterunt in Anglicâ gente de spirituali gradu etc. The Bishops were able by their great learning, and wisdom to give assistance to the King's affairs. And they have prospered in it, for the most glorious issues of Divine Benison upon this Kingdom were conveyed to us by Bishop's hands, I mean the Union of the houses of York & Lancaster, by the Counsels of 
a john Speeds Hist. l. 9 c. 19 n. 23. p. 716.  Bishop Morton, and of England & Scotland by the treaty of 
b Ibid. c. 20. n. 64. p. 747.  Bishop Fox, to which if we add two other in Materia religionis, I mean the conversion of the Kingdom from Paganism, by St Augustine Archbishop of Canterbury; and the reformation, begun and promoted by Bishops, I think we cannot call to mind four blessings equal to these in any age or Kingdom, in all which God was pleased by the mediation of Bishops, as he useth to do, to bless the people. And this may not only be expected in reason, but in good Divinity, for amongst the gifts of the spirit, which God hath given to his Church, are reckoned Doctors Teachers, and 
* 1. Cor. ca 12. v. 28.  helps in government. To which may be added this advantage, that the services of Churchmen are rewardable upon the Church's stock; no need to disimprove the Royal Banks to pay thanks to Bishops.  
But, Sir, I grow troublesome. Let this discourse have what ends it can; the use I make of it, is but to pretend reason for my Boldness, and to entitle You to my Book: for I am confident you will own any thing that is but a friend's friend to a cause of Loyalty. I have nothing else to plead for your acceptance, but the confidence of your Goodness, and that I am a person capable of your pardon, and of a fair interpretation of my address to you, by being  
SIR Your most affectionate Servant J. TAYLOR.   

Syllabus Paragraphorum.  

§, 1. Christ did institute a government in his Church. p. 7  
2. This government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ, p. 12  
3. With a power of joining others and appointing Successors in the Apostolate, p. 13  
4. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops, p. 15.  
For the Apostle and the Bishop are all one in name and person,  
5. And office, p. 20.  
6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters, p. 22  
7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary, which to others he gave not, p. 23  
As of Ordination,  
8. And Confirmation, p. 28  
9 And superiority of jurisdiction. p. 35  
10. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship, according to the general tenant of antiquity, p. 49  
11 And particularly of S. Peter, p. 54  
12 And the institution of Episcopacy as well as of the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by primitive authority. p. 62  
13 In pursuance of the Divine institution, the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches, p. 68  
As St james at jerusalem,  
S. Simeon to he his successor,  
14 S. Timothy at Ephesus, p 75  
15 S. Titus at Crect, p. 85  
16 S. Mark at Alexandria, p. 93  
17 S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome, p. 96  
18 S. Polycarp at Smyrna, and divers others. p. 97  
19 So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical Ordinance, of the same authority with many other points generally believed, p. 100  
20 And was an office of power and great authority, p. 102  
21 Not lessened by the assistance and Council of Presbyters, p. 104  
22 And all this hath been the faith and practice of Christendom, p. 125  
23 Who first distinguished names used before in common, p. 128  
24 Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the supreme Church Officer, p. 139  
25 Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church, p. 145  
26 And Doctor, p. 149  
27 And Pontifex, And Sacerdos. p. 150  
28 And these were a distinct order from the rest, p. 156  
29 To which the Presbyterate was but a degree, p. 160  
30 There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishopric, p. 161  
31 To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands. p. 164  
32 Bishops had a power distinct, and superior to that of Presbyters, p. 175  
33 Power of Confirmation, p. 198  
34 Power of jurisdiction, p. 209  
Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power.  
35 Universal obedience given to Bishops by Clergy and Laity. p. 214  
36 Bishops were appointed judges of the Clergy, and spiritual causes of the Laity. p. 220  
37 Presbyters forbidden to officiate without Episcopal licence. p. 251  
38 church-good reserved to Episcopal dispensation. 264  
39 Presbyters forbidden to leave their own Diocese, or to travel without leave of the Bishop. p. 266  
40 The Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased. p. 267  
41 Bishops only did vote in Counsels, and neither Presbyters, nor People. p. 282  
42 The Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks. p. 292  
43 The Bishop's jurisdiction was over many Congregations, or Parishes. p. 295  
44 Their jurisdiction was aided by Presbyters, but not impaired. p. 311  
45 The government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary. p. 323  
46 They are Schismatics that separate from their Bishop, p. 327  
47 And Heretics. p. 329  
48 Bishops were always in the Church men of great honour, p. 335  
49 And trusted with affairs of Secular interest, p. 351  
50 And therefore were enforced to delegate their power and put others in substitution, p. 371  
51 But they were ever Clergymen, for there never was any lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church. p. 375    

ERRATA.  
PAg. 21. line 8. insert, except S. John. Pag. 141. l. 15. Presbyters, read Bishops. Pag. 243. line 14. after Episcopacy, insert etc. & l. 15. after Bishops insert Clerk. Pag. 354. l. 11. read were Farmers.   

OF THE Sacred Order, and Offices of EPISCOPACY BY DIVINE INSTITUTION, APOSTOLICAL TRADITION, & Catholic practise etc.  
IN all those accursed machinations, which the device, and artifice of Hell hath invented, for the supplanting of the Church, Inimicus homo, that old superseminator of heresies, and crude mischiefs, hath endeavoured, to be curiously compendious, and with Tarquin's device, put are sum a papaverum. And therefore in the three ages of Martyrs, it was a ruled case in that Burgundian forge, Qui prior erat dignitate prior trahebatur ad Martyrium. The Priests, but to be sure the Bishops must pay for all. Tolleimpios, Polycarpus requiratur. Away with these peddling persecutions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lay the axe at the root of the tree. Insomuch that in Rome from S. Peter, and S. Paul to S. Sylvester, thirty three Bishops of Rome, in immediate succession, suffered an Honourable, and glorious Martyrdom, unless 
* Maximini jussu Martyrio coronatur. Saith Platina, but that is wholly uncertain.  Meltiades be perhaps excepted, whom Eusebius, and Optatus report to have lived till the time of the third Consulship of Constantine and Licinius. Conteret caput ejus, was the glorious promise, Christ should break the Devil's head, and though the devil's active part of the Duel was fare less, yet he would venture at that too, even to strike at the heads of the Church, capita vicaria, for the head of all was past his striking now; And this, I say, he offered to do by Martyrdom, but that instead of breaking, crowned them.  
His next onset was by julian, and occidere Presbyterium, that was his Province. To shut up public Schools, to force Christians to ignorance, to impoverish, and disgrace the Clergy, to make them vile, and dishonourable, these were his arts; and he did the Devil more service in this fineness of undermining, than all the open battery of the ten great Rams of persecution. But this would not take. For, that which is without cannot defile a man. So it is in the Church too. Cedunt in bonum, all violences ab extrà.  
But therefore besides these he attempted by heresies to rend the Church's bowels all in pieces; but the good Bishops gathered up the scattered pieces & reunited them at Nice, at Constantinople, at Ephesus, at Chalcedon, at Carthage, at Rome, and in every famous place of Christendom, and by God's goodness, and the Bishop's industry Catholic religion was conserved in Unity, and integrity. Well! however it is, Antichrist must come at last, and the great Apostasy foretold must be, and this, not without means proportionable to the production of so great declensions of Christianity. When ye hear of wars, and rumours of wars, be not afraid (said our B. Saviour,) the end is not yet. It is not war that will do this great work of destruction, for than it might have been done long 'ere now. What then will do it? We shall know when we see it. In the mean time when we shall find a new device, of which indeed the platform was laid, in Aërius, and the Acephali, brought to a good possibility of completing, a thing that whosoever shall hear, his ears shall tingle, an abomination of desolation standing where it ought not, in sacris, in holy persons, and places, and offices, it is too probable that this is the praeparatory for the Antichrist, and grand Apostasy.  
For if Antichrist shall exalt himself above all that is called God, and in Scripture none but Kings, and Priests are such, Dii vocati, Dii facti, I think we have great reason to be suspicious, that he that devests both of their power (and they are, if the King be Christian, in very near conjunction,) does the work of Antichrist for him; especially if the men, whom it most concerns, will but call to mind, that the discipline, or Government, which Christ hath instituted, is that Kingdom, by which he governs all Christendom (so themselves have taught us) so that, in case it be proved, that Episcopacy is that government, than they (to use their own expressions) throw Christ out of his Kingdom; and then, either they leave the Church without a head, or else put Antichrist in substitution.  
We all wish, that our fears in this, and all things else, may be vain, that what we fear, may not come upon us; but yet that the abolition of Episcopacy is the forerunner, and praeparatory to the great Apostasy, I have these reasons to show, at least the probability. First, Because here is a concourse of 
1.  times; for now after that these times have been called the last times, for 1600 years together, our expectation of the Great revelation is very near accomplishing; & what a Grand innovation of Ecclesiastical government, contrary to the faith, & practice of Christendom, may portend now in these times, when we all expect Antichrist to be revealed is worthy of a jealous man's inquiry. Secondly, Episcopacy, 
2.  if we consider the final cause, was instituted as an obstructive to the diffusion of Schism and Heresy. So 
in 1. ad Titum  S. Hierome. In toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur coeteris, VT SCHISMATVM SEMINA TOLLERENTUR. And therefore if Unity and division be destructive of each other, than Episcopacy is the best deletery in the world for Schism: and so much the rather because they are in eâdem materiâ; for Schism is a division for things either personal, or accidental, which are matters, most properly the subject of government, and there to be tried, there to receive their first, and last breath, except where they are starved to death by a desuetude; and Episcopacy is an Unity of person governing, and ordering persons, and things, accidental, and substantial; and therefore a direct confronting of Schism, not only in the intention of the author of it, but in the nature of the institution, Now then, although Schisms always will be, and this by divine prediction (which clearly shows the necessity of perpetual Episcopacy, and the intention of its perpetuity, either by Christ himself ordaining it, who made the prophecy, or by the Apostles and Apostolic men at least, who knew the prophecy:) yet to be sure, these divisions, and dangers shall be greater about, and at the time of the Great Apostasy; for then, were not the hours turned into minutes, an universal ruin should seize all Christendom [No flesh should be saved if those days were not shortened.] is it not next to an evidence of fact, that this multiplication of Schisms must be removendo prohibens? and therefore that must be by invalidating Episcopacy, ordained as the remedy and obex of Schism, either tying their hands behind them, by taking away their coercion, or by putting out their eyes, by denying them cognisance of causes spiritual, or by cutting off their heads, and so destroying their order. How fare these will lead us, I leave to be considered. This only; Percute pastors, atque oves despergentur; and I believe it will be verified at the coming of that wicked one, I saw all Israel scattered upon the Mountains as sheep having no shepherd.  
I am not new in this conception, I learned it of S. Cyprian; Christi adversarius, & Ecclesiae ejus inimicus 
Epist. 55.  ad hoc, ECCLESIae PRAEPOSITUM suâ infestatione persequitur, ut, Gubernatore sublato, atrociùs, atque violentiùs circà Ecclesiae naufragin grassetur. The adversary of Christ and enemy of his Spouse therefore persecutes the Bishop, that having taken him away, he may without check pride himself in the ruins of the Church; and a little after speaking of them, that are enemies to Bishops, he says, that, Antichristi jam propinquantis adventum imitantur, their deportment is just after the guise of Antichrist who is shortly to be revealed.  
But be this conjecture vain, or not, the thing, of itself is of deep consideration, and the Catholic practice of Christendom for 1500 years is so insupportable a prejudice against the enemies of Episcopacy, that they must bring admirable evidence of Scripture, or a clear revelation proved by Miracles, or a contrary undoubted tradition Apostolical for themselves, or else hope for no belief against the prescribed possession of so many ages.  
But before I begin, me thinks in this contestation, ubi potior est conditio possidentis, it is a considerable Question; what will the Adversaries stake against it? For if Episcopacy cannot make its title good, they lose the benefit of their prescribed possession. If it can; I fear they will scarce gain so much, as the obedience of the adverse party by it, which yet already is their due. It is very unequal; but so it is ever, when Authority is the matter of the Question. Authority never gains by it; for although the cause go on its side, yet it loses costs, and damages; for it must either by fair condescension to gain the adversaries, lose something of itself, or, if it asserts itself to the utmost, it is but where it was; but that seldom or never happens, for the very questioning of any authority, hoc ipso, makes a great entrenchment even to the very skirts of its clothing.  
But hûc deventumest. Now we are in, we must go over.  
FIrst then, that we may build upon a Rock. 
§. 1. Christ did institute a government in his Church.  Christ did institute a government to order and rule his Church by his authority, according to his laws, and by the assistance of the B. Spirit.  
1. If this were not true, how shall the Church be governed? For I hope the adversaries of Episcopacy, that are so punctual to pitch all upon Scripture ground, will be sure to produce clear Scripture for so main a part of Christianity, as is the form of the Government of Christ's Church. And, if for our private actions; and duties Economical, they will pretend a text, I suppose, it will not be thought possible, Scripture should make default in assignation of the public Government, insomuch as all laws intent the public, and the general directly; the private, and the particular, by consequence only, and comprehension within the general.  
2. If Christ himself did not take order for a government, than we must derive it from humane prudence, and emergency of conveniences, and concourse of new circumstances, and then the Government must often be changed, or else time must stand still, and things be ever in the same state and possibility. Both the consequents are extremely full of inconvenience. For if it be left to humane prudence, then either the government of the Church is not in immediate order to the good, and benison of souls, or if it be, that such an institution, in such immediate order to eternity, should be dependant upon humane prudence, it were to trust such a rich commodity in a cockboat, that no wise Pilot will be supposed to do. But if there be often changes in government Ecclesiastical (which was the other consequent) in the public frame I mean, and constitution of it; either the certain infinity of Schisms will arise, or the dangerous issues of public inconsistence, and innovation, which, in matters of religion, is good for nothing, but to make men distrust all; and, come the best that can come, there will be so many Church governments, as there are humane Prudences. For so (if I be not misinformed) it is abroad in some towns that have discharged 
Simler: de rep: Helvet: fol. 148. & 172.  Episcopacy. At St Galls in Switzerland there the Ministers, and Laymen rule in Common, but a Layman is precedent. But the Consistories of Zurick and Basil are wholly consistent of Laymen, and Ministers are joined as assistants only, and Counsellors, but at Schaffhausen the Ministers are not admitted to so much, but in the Huguenot Churches of France, the Ministers do all.  
3. In such cases, where there is no power of the sword for a compulsory (and confessedly of all sides there can be none in causes & Courts Ecclesiastical) if there be no opinion of Religion, no derivation from a divine authority, there will be sure to be no obedience, and indeed nothing but a certain, public, calamitous irregularity. For why should they obey? Not for Conscience, for there is no derivation from divine authority. Not for fear, for they have not the power of the sword.  
4. If there be such a thing as the power of the keys, by Christ concredited to his Church, for the binding and losing delinquents, and penitents respectively on earth, than there is clearly a Court erected by Christ in his Church, for here is the delegation of judges, Tu Petrus, vos Apostoli, whatsoever ye shall bind. Here is a compulsory, ligaveritis; Here are the causes of which they take cognisance, Quodcunque; viz. in materiâ scandali. For so it is limited Matth. 18. but it is indefinite Matth. 16. and Universal, john. 20. which yet is to be understood secundùm materiam subjectam, in causes, which are emergent from Christianity, ut sic, that secular jurisdictions may not be entrenched upon. But of this hereafter. That Christ did in this place erect a jurisdiction, and establish a government (besides the evidence of fact) is generally asserted by primitive exposition of the Fathers, affirming, that to S. Peter the Keys were given, that to the Church of all ages a power of binding and losing might be communicated. Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae, ut quae solveret interrâ soluta essent in coelo; scil. ut quisquis in Ecclesiâ ejus dimitti sibi peccata crederet, seque ab iis correctus averteret in ejusdem Ecclesiae gremio constitutus eâdem fide atque correctione sanaretur. So 
* De doctr. Christ. lib. 1. 6. 18. tract. 118. in johan. vide etiam tract. 124. & tract. 50. in joh. de Agon. Christ. cap. 30 the bapt. contr. Donatist. lib. 3. c. 17.  S. Austin. And again, Omnibus igitur sanctis ad Christi corpus inseparabilitèr pertinentibus propter hujus vitae procellosissima gubernaculum ad liganda & solvenda peccata claves regni coelorum primus Apostolorum Petrus accepit; Quoniam nec ille solus, sed universa Ecclesia ligat, solvitque peccata. S. Peter first received the government in the power of binding and losing. But not he alone but all the Church, to wit, all succession, and ages of the Church. Vniversa Ecclesia, viz. in Pastoribus solis, as 
* De Sacerd. lib. 3.  S. Chrysostom, In Episcopis & Presbyteris as 
† In 16. Matt.  S. Jerome. The whole Church, as it is represented in the Bishops and Presbyters. The same is affirmed by 
a Lib. de pudicit.  Tertullian, 
b Epist. 27.  S. Cyprian, 
c Lib. qd Christus est Deus.  S. chrysostom, 
d Lib. 6. de. Trinit.  S. Hilary, 
e Lib. 3. in Apocal. Luke, 12. 42.  Primasius, and generally by the Fathers of the elder, and Divines of the middle ages.  
5. When our blessed Saviour had spoken a parable of the sudden coming of the son of Man, & commanded them therefore with diligence to stand upon their watch, the Disciples asked him, speakest thou this parable to us, or even to all? And the Lord said, who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler over his household to give them their portion of meat in due season? As if he had said, I speak to You, for to whom else should I speak and give caution for the looking to the house in the Master's absence? You are by office and designation my stewards, to feed my servants, to govern my house.  
6. In Scripture, and other writers, to Feed, and to Govern, is all one when the office is either Political or Economical, or Ecclesiastical. So he 
Psal: 78.  FED them with a faithful and true heart, and RULED them prudently with all his power. And S. Peter joins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together. 
1. Pet. 5. 2. Acts. 20.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So does S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rulers or overseers in a flock. Pastors. It is ordinary. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Homer. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euripides calls the Governors and guides of Chariots, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And our blessed Saviour himself is called the Great shepherd of our souls; and that we may know the intentum of that compellation, it is in conjunction also with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He is therefore our shepherd, for he is our Bishop, our Ruler, and Overseer. Since than Christ hath left Pastors or Feeders in his Church, it is also as certain he hath left Rulers, they being both one in name, in person, in office. But this is of a known truth to all that understand either laws or languages: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith 
* in lib: de eo quod deterior potiori insidiatur.  Philo, they that feed have the power of Princes and rulers; the thing is an undoubted truth to most men, but because all are not of a mind something was necessary for confirmation of it.  
THis government was by immediate substitution 
§ 2. This government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ  delegated to the Apostles by Christ himself, in traditione clavium, in spiratione Spiritûs, in missione in Pentecoste. When Christ promised them the Keys, he promised them power to bind and lose; when he breathed on them the holy Ghost, he gave them that actually, to which by the former promise they were entitled; and in the octaves of the Passion, he gave them the same authority, which he had received from his Father, and they were the faithful and wise stewards whom the Lord made RULERS over his Household. 
* vide Hilarium in hunc locum & pp. communitèr,  But I shall not labour much upon this. Their founding all the Churches from East to West, and so, by being Fathers, derived their authority from the nature of the thing, their appointing rulers in every Church, their Synodall decrees de Suffocato & Sanguine, and letters missive to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, their excommunications of Hymeneus, Alexander, and the incestuous Corinthian, their commanding, and requiring obedience of their people in all things, as S. Paul did of his subjects of Corinth, and the Hebrews by precept Apostolical, their threatening the Pastoral rod, their calling Synods and public assemblies, their ordering rites and ceremonies, composing a Symbol as the tessera of Christianity, their public reprehension of delinquents, and indeed the whole execution of their Apostolate is one continued argument of their superintendency, and superiority of jurisdiction.  
THis power so delegated was not to expire with 
§ 3. With a power of joining others and appointing successors in the Apostolate  their Persons; For when the Great shepherd had reduced his wand'ring sheep into a fold, he would not leave them without guides to govern them, so long as the wolf might possibly pray upon them, and that is, till the last separation of the Sheep from the Goats. And this Christ intimates in that promise, Ero vobiscum (Apostolis) usque ad consummationem saeculi. Vobiscum; not with your persons, for they died long ago, but vobiscum & vestri similibus, with Apostles to the end of the world. And therefore that the Apostolate might be successive and perpetual, Christ gave them a power of ordination, that by imposing hands on others they might impart that power which they received from Christ. For in the Apostles there was something extraordinary; something ordinary. Whatsoever was extraordinary, as immediate mission, unlimited jurisdiction, and miraculous operations, that was not necessary to the perpetual regiment of the Church, for then the Church should fail when these privileges extraordinary did cease. It was not therefore in extraordinary powers and privileges that Christ promised his perpetual assistance; not in speaking of tongues, not in doing miracles, whether in Materiâ censurae, as delivering to Satan; or, in materiâ misericordiae, as healing sick people; or in re Naturali, as in resisting the venom of Vipers, and quenching the violence of flames; in these Christ did not promise perpetual assistance, for than it had been done, and still these signs should have followed them that believe. But we see they do not. It follows then, that in all the ordinary parts of power and office Christ did promise to be with them to the end of the world, and therefore there must remain a power of giving faculty, and capacity to persons successively for the execution of that, in which Christ promised perpetual assistance. For since this perpetual assistance could not be meant of abiding with their persons, who in few years were to forsake the world, it must needs be understood of their function, which either it must be succeeded to, or else it was as temporary as their persons. But in the extraordinary privileges of the Apostles they had no successors, therefore of necessity a succession must be constituted in the ordinary office of Apostolate. Now what is this ordinary office? Most certainly since the extraordinary (as is evident) was only a help for the founding and beginning, the other are such as are necessary for the perpetuating of a Church. Now in clear evidence of sense, these offices and powers are Preaching, Baptising, Consecrating, Ordaining, and Governing. For these were necessary for the perpetuating of a Church, unless men could be Christians that were never Christened, nourished up to life without the Eucharist, become Priests without calling of God and Ordination, have their sins pardoned without absolution, be members and parts and sons of a Church whereof there is no coadunation, no authority, no Governor. These the Apostles had without all Question, and whatsoever they had, they had from Christ, and these were eternally necessary, these than were the offices of the Apostolate, which Christ promised to assist for ever, and this is that which we now call the Order and Office of Episcopacy.  
FOR although Deacons and Priests have part of 
§ 4. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops  these offices, and therefore (though in a very limited sense) they may be called successores Apostolorum, to wit, in the power of Baptising, consecrating the Eucharist, and Preaching (an excellent example whereof, though we have none in Scripture, yet if I mistake him not we have in Ignatius. calling the College of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Combination of Apostles) yet the Apostolate and Episcopacy which did communicate in all the power, and offices which were ordinary and perpetual, are in Scripture clearly all one in ordinary ministration, and their names are often used in common to signify exactly the same ordinary function.  
1. The name was borrowed from the Prophet 
For the Apostle and the Bishop are all one in name & person.  David in the prediction of the Apostasy of judas, and Surrogation of S. Mathias; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. His Bishopric, that is, his Astolate let another take. The same word according to the translation of the 70. is used by the Prophet Isaiah, in an Evangelicall prediction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will give thy Princes in peace, and thy Bishops in righteousness. Principes Ecclesiae vocat futuros Episcopos, saith 
* In cap. 60. Isai. v. 17.  S. Hierome, herein admiring God's Majesty in the destination of such Ministers whom himself calls Princes. And to this issue it is cited by S. Clement in his famous epistle to the Corinthians. But this is no ways unusual in Scripture. For,  
2. S. james the Brother of our Lord is called an Apostle, and yet he was not in the number of the twelve, but he was Bishop of jerusalem. 1. That S. james was called an Apostle appears by the testimony of S. Paul, [But other Apostles saw I none, 
1. Galat. 19  save james the Lord's Brother.] 1. That he was none of the twelve, appears also because among the twelve Apostles, there were but two James'. The son of Alpheus, and james the son of Zebedee, the Brother of john. But neither of these was the james whom S. Paul calls the Lord's brother. And this S. Paul intimates in making a distinct enumeration 
1. Corin. 15.  of all the appearances which Christ made after the resurrection. First to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to the 500 Brethren, then to james, then to all the Apostles. So that here S. james is reckoned distinctly from the twelve, and they from the whole College of the Apostles, for there were (it seems) more of that dignity than the twelve. But this will also safely rely upon the concurrent testimony of 
* Vide Carol. Bovium in con it. Apost. Scholar Hieron. de Script. Eccl. in Jacobo. & in 1. Galat. Epiphan. haeres. 78, 79.  Hegesippus, 
* Vide Carol. Bovium in constit. Apost. Scholar Hieron. de Script. Eccl. in Jacobo. & in 1. Galat. Epiphan. haeres. 78, 79.  S. Clement, Eusebius, Epiphanius, S. Ambrose, and S. Hierome. 3. That S. james was Bishop of jerusalem, and therefore called an Apostle, appears by the often commemoration of his presidency, and singular eminency in holy Scripture. Priority of order is mentioned, Galat. 2. even before S. Peter, who yet was primus Apostolorum, naturâ unus homo, Gratiâ unus Christianus, abundantiore gratiâ unus idemque primus Apostolus; (as S. Austin) yet in his own diocese S. james had priority of 
Tract. 124. in johan.  order before him. v. 9 And when 1 james, 2 Cephas, and 3 john, etc. First james before Cephas i e. S. Peter. S. james also was precedent of that Synod which the Apostles convocated at jerusalem about the Question of circumcision; as is to be seen 
* Vide pag.  Act. 15. to him S. Paul made his address, Act. 21. to him the brethren carried him, where he was found sitting in his College of Presbyters, there he was always resident, and his seat fixed, and that he lived Bishop of jerusalem for many years together, is clearly testified by all the faith of the Primitive Fathers and Historians. But of this hereafter.  
3. Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians. I have sent unto you Epaphroditus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, My compeer 
Philip. 2. 25.  and your Apostle. Gradum Apostolatus recepit Epaphroditus, saith Primasius, and what that is 
In hunc locum uterque & Theod. in 1. Tim 3.  we are told by Theodoret, dictus Philippensium Apostolus à S. Paulo, quid hoc aliud nisi Episcopus? Because he also had received the office of being an Apostle among them, saith S. Jerome upon the same place; and it is very observable, that those Apostles to whom our blessed Saviour gave immediate substitution are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostles of jesus Christ, but those other men which were Bishops of Churches, and called Apostles by Scripture, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostles of Churches, or sometime Apostles, alone, but never are entitled of jesus Christ. Other of the Apostles saw I none but james the Lord's Brother, Gal. 1. There S. james the Bishop of jerusalem is called an Apostle indefinitely. But S. Paul calls himself often the Apostle of jesus Christ, not of man, neither by man, but by jesus Christ. So, Peter an Apostle of jesus Christ, but S. james in his Epistle to the jews of the dispersion, writes not himself the Apostle of jesus Christ, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. james the servant of God and of the Lord jesus Christ.  
Further yet: S. Paul, although as having an immediate calling from Christ to the office of Apostolate at large, calls himself the Apostle of jesus Christ, yet when he was sent to preach to the Gentiles by the particular direction indeed of the holy 
Acts. 13. v. 2, 3.  Ghost, but by Humane constitution, and imposition of hands; in relation to that part of his office, and his cure of the uncircumcision, he limits his Apostolate to his Diocese and calls himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Rom. 11. 13.  The Apostle of the Gentiles; as S. Peter for the same reason, and in the same modification is called 
Galat. 2. 8.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the Apostle of those who were of the Circumcision. And thus Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians, who clearly was their Bishop (as I shall show in the sequel) that is, he had an Apostolate limited to the Diocese of Philippi. Paulatim verò tempore procedente, & aliè ab his quos Dominus eleger at ordinati sunt Apostoli, sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat, dicens, necessarium 
In 1. cap. Galat.  autem existimo Epaphroditum, etc. So S. Jerome. In process of time others besides those whom the Lord had chosen, were ordained Apostles; and particularly he instances in Epaphroditus from the authority of this instance, adding also that by the Apostles themselves judas and Silas were called Apostles.  
4. Thus Titus, and some other with him, who came to jerusalem with the Corinthian benevolence, 
2. Corinth. 8. 23.  are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Apostles of the Churches. Apostles, I say, in the Episcopal sense. They were none of the twelve, they were not of immediate divine mission, but of Apostolic ordination, they were actually Bishops as I shall show hereafter. Titus was Bishop of Crete, and Epaphroditus of Philippi, and these were the Apostles, for Titus came with the Corinthian, Epaphroditus with the Colossian liberality. Now these men were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, called, Messengers in respect of these Churches sending them with their contributions. 1. Because they are not called the Apostles of these Churches, to wit, whose alms they carried, but simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Churches, viz. of their own of which they were Bishops. For if the title of [Apostle] had related to their mission from these Churches, it is unimaginable that there should be no term of relation expressed. 2. It is very clear that although they did indeed carry the benevolence of the several Churches, yet S. Paul, not those Churches sent 
Vers. 22.  them, And we have sent with them our Brother, etc. 3. They are called Apostles of the Churches, not going from Corinth with the money, but before they came thither from whence they were to be dispatched in legation to jerusalem. [If any inquire of 
V 23.  Titus .... or the Brethren, they are the Apostles of the Church, and the glory of Christ] So they were Apostles before they went to Corinth, not for their being employed in the transportation of their charity. So that it is plain, that their Apostolate being not relative to the Churches whose benevolence they carried, and they having Churches of their own, as Titus had Crete, Epaphroditus had Philippi, their Apostolate was a fixed residence, and superintendency of their several Churches.  
But in holy Scripture the identity of the ordinary 
§ 5. And office,  office of Apostleship and Episcopacy, is clearer yet. For when the holy Spirit had sent seven letters to the seven Asian Bishops, the Angel of the Church 
Apocal. 2.  of Ephesus is commended for trying them, which say they are Apostles and are not, and hathfound themlyars. This Angel of the Church of Ephesus, as Antiquity hath taught us, was at that time Timothy, or 
* Doroth. Synops.  Gajus, the first a Disciple, the other had been an entertainer of the Apostles, and either of them knew them well enough; it could not be that any man should dissemble their persons & counterfeit himself S. Paul, or S. Peter. And if they had, yet little trying was needful to discover their folly in such a case, and whether it was Timothy or Gajus he could deserve but small commendations for the mere believing of his own eyes and memory. Besides the Apostles all were then dead, and he known to live in Patmos, known by the public attestation of the sentence of relegation ad insulam. These men therefore dissembling themselves to be Apostles, must dissemble an ordinary function, not an extraordinary person. And indeed by the concourse of of story, place, and time, Diotrephes was the Man S. john chiefly pointed at. For he seeing that of Ephesus there had been an Episcopal chair placed, and Timothy a long while possessed of it, and 
* Vide Constit. Apost. per Clement. ubt quidam johannes in Epheso Episc. post Timoth. collocatur.  perhaps Gajus after him, if we may trust Dorotheus, and the like in some other Churches, and that S. john had not constituted Bishops in all the other Churches of the lesser Asia, but kept the jurisdiction to be ministered by himself, would arrogantly take upon him to be a Bishop without Apostolical ordination, obtruding himself upon the Church of Ephesus, so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a busy man in another's Diocese. This, and such impostors as this the Angel of the Church of Ephesus did try, and discover, and convict, and in it he was assisted by S. john himself, as is intimated in S. john's third Epistle written to this Gajus [v. 9] I wrote unto the Church (to wit of Asia) but Diotrephes who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them receiveth us not.] Clearly this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have been a Bishop. It was a matter of ambition, a quarrel for superintendency and pre-eminence that troubled him; and this also appears further in that he exercised jurisdiction, and excommunication where he had nothing to do, [v. 10.] He forbids them that would receive the Brethren, and casteth them out of the Church. So that here it is clear, this false Apostolate, was his ambitious seeking of Episcopal pre-eminence and jurisdiction without lawful ordination. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that was his design, He loved to be the first in the Church, esse Apostolum, esse Episcopum, to be an Apostle, or a Bishop.  
But this office of the ordinary Apostleship or Episcopacy, 
§ 6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters  derives its fountain from a Rock; Christ's own distinguishing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters. For when our blessed Saviour had gathered many Disciples who believed him at his first preaching, Vocavit Discipulos suos, & elegit duodecem ex ipsis quos & Apostolos nominavit, saith S. Luke. He called his Disciples, and out 
Luke 10.  of them chose twelve, and called them Apostles. That was the first election. Post haec autem designavit Dominus & alios septuaginta duos. That was his second election; the first were called Apostles, the second were not, and yet he sent them by two and two.  
We hear but of one commission granted them, which when they had performed and returned joyful at their power over Devils, we hear no more of them in the Gospel, but that their Names were written in heaven. We are likely therefore to hear of them after the passion, if they can but hold their own. And so we do. For after the Passion the Apostles gathered them together, and joined them in clerical commission by virtue of Christ's first ordination of them, for a new ordination we find none in holy Scripture recorded, before we find them doing clerical offices. Ananias we read baptising of Saul, Philip the Evangelist we find preaching in Samaria, and baptising his Converts; Others also we find, Presbyters at jerusalem, especially at the first Council, for there was judas surnamed justus, and Silas, and S. Mark, and john (a Presbyter, not an Apostle as Eusebius 
Lib. 3. cap. 3.  reports him) and Simeon Cleophas who tarried there till he was made Bishop of jerusalem, these and divers others, are reckoned to be of the number of the 72, by Eusebius and Dorotheus.  
Here are plainly two offices of Ecclesiastical Ministeries. Apostles and Presbyters, so the Scripture calls them. These were distinct, and not temporary, 
§ 7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary, which to others he gave not.  but succeeded to, and if so, then here is clearly a Divine institution of two Orders, and yet Deacons neither of them. Here let us fix a while.  
1. THen; It is clear in Scripture that the Apostles did some acts of Ministry which were necessary to be done for ever in the Church, and therefore to be committed to their Successors, which acts the seventy Disciples or Presbyters could not do. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. Denis 
Eccles. hierarch. c. 5.  of the Highest Order of the Hierarchy. The law of God hath reserved the Greater and Diviner Offices to the Highest Order.  
First, the Apostles imposed hands in Ordinations, 
As of Ordination,  which the 72 did not, the case is known, Act. 6. The Apostles called the Disciples, willing them to choose seven men whom they might constitute in the ministration and oversight of the poor, They did so, and set them before the twelve Apostles, so they are specified and numbered vers. 2. cum 6. and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. They, not the Disciples, not the 72 who were there actually present, and seven of them were then ordained to this Ministry, for they were not now ordained to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the 
* In Trullo. can. 16.  Council of Constantinople calls them, and that these were of the number of the 72. Disciples, Epiphanius bears witness. He sent other 72. to 
Haeres. 20.  preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which Number were those seven ordained and set over the widows. And the same is intimated by S. chrysostom, if I understand him right, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Homil. 14. in Act. 6.  What dignity had these seven here ordained? of Deacons? No; for this dispensation is made by Priests not Deacons; and Theophylact more clearly repeating the 
In hunc locum.  words of S. chrysostom, promore suo, adds this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The name and dignity of these seven was not less, but even the dignity of Presbyters, only for the time they were appointed to dispense the goods of the Church for the good of the faithful people. Presbyters they were say S. chrysostom and Theophylact; of the number of the 72. saith Epiphanius. But however, it is clear that the 72. were present, for the whole multitude of the Disciples was as yet there resident, they were not yet sent abroad, they were not scattered with persecution till the Martyrdom of S. Stephen, [but the twelve called the whole multitude of the Disciples] to them about this affair. vers. 2. But yet themselves only did ordain them.  
2. An instance parallel to this, is in the imposition of hands upon S. Paul and Barnabas, in the 
Acts. 13.  first ordination that was held at Antioch. [Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers, as Barnabas and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manäen, and Saul. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, while these men were Ministering, the holy Ghost said to them, separate me Barnabas and Saul.] They did so, they [fasted, they prayed, they laid their hands on them, and sent them away. So they being sent forth by the holy Ghost, departed into Seleucia.] This is the story, now let us make our best on't. Here then was the ordination and imposition of hands complete, and that was said to be done by the holy Ghost which was done by the Prophets of Antioch. For they sent them away, and yet the next words are, so they being sent forth by the holy Ghost. So that here was the thing done, and that by the Prophet's alone, and that by the command of the Holy Ghost, and said to be his act. Well! but what were these Prophets? They were Prophets in the Church of Antioch, not such as 
Prophetas duplici genere intelligamus, & futura dicentes & Scripturas revelantes. S. Ambros: in 1. Corinth. 12.  Agabus, and the daughters of Philip the Evangelist, Prophets of prediction extraordinary, but Prophets of ordinary office and ministration, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prophets and Teachers and Ministers. More than ordinary Ministers, for they were Doctors or Teachers, and that's not all, for they were Prophets too. This even at first sight is more than the ordinary office of the Presbytery. We shall see this clear enough in S. Paul 
* Ephes. 4.  where the ordinary office of Prophets is reckoned before Pastors, before Evangelists, next to Apostles, that is next to such Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. Paul there expresses it, next to those Apostles to whom Christ hath given immediate mission. And these are therefore Apostles too, Apostles secundi ordinis, none of the twelve, but such as S. james, and Epaphroditus, and Barnabas and S. Paul himself. To be sure they were such Prophets as S. Paul and Barnabas, for they are reckoned in the number by S. Luke, for here it was that S. Paul although he had immediate vocation by Christ, yet he had particular ordination to this Apostolate or Ministry of the Gentiles. It is evident than what Prophets these were, they they were at the least more than ordinary Presbyters, and therefore they imposed hands, and they only. And yet to make the business up complete, S. Mark was amongst them, but he imposed no hands, he was there as the Deacon and Minister [vers. 5.] but he meddled not, S. Luke fixes the whole action upon the Prophets, such as S. Paul himself was, and so did the Holy Ghost too, but neither did S. Mark who was an Evangelist, and one of the 72 Disciples (as he is reckoned in the Primitive Catalogues by Eusebius and Dorotheus) nor any of the College of the Antiochian Presbyters, that were less than Prophets, that is, who were not more than mere Presbyters.  
The sum is this: Imposition of hands is a duty & office necessary for the perpetuating of a Church, ne Gens sit Vnius aetatis, lest it expire in one age: this power of imposition of hands for Ordination was fixed upon the Apostles and Apostolic men, and not communicated to the 72 Disciples or Presbyters; for the Apostles, and Apostolic men, did so the facto, and were commanded to do so, and the 72 never did so, therefore this office and Ministry of the Apostolate is distinct, and superior to that of Presbyters, and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the Church, for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession, and therefore as perpetual as the Clergy, as the Church itself.  
2. THe Apostles did impose hands for confirmation 
§ 8. And Confirmation,  of Baptised people, and this was a perpetual act of a power to be succeeded to, and yet not communicated, nor executed by the 72, or any other mere Presbyter. That the Apostles did confirm Baptised people, and others of the inferior Clergy could not, is beyond all exception clear in the case of the Samaritan Christians. Acts. 8. For when S. Philip had converted, and Baptised the Men of Samaria, the Apostles sent Peter and john to lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. S. Philip he was an Evangelist, he was one of the 72 Disciples, 
* S. Cyprian: ad jubajan.  a Presbyter, and appointed to the same ministration that S. Stephen was about the poor Widows, yet he could not do this, the Apostles must and did. This giving of the Holy Ghost by imposition of the Apostles hands, was not for a miraculous gift, but an ordinary Grace. For S. Philip could, and did do miracles enough, but this Grace he could not give, the Grace of consigning or confirmation. The like case is in Acts. 19 where some people having been Baptised at Ephesus, S. Paul confirmed them, giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands. The Apostles did it; not the twelve only, but Apostolic men, the other Apostles. S. Paul did it. S. Philip could not, nor any of the 72, or any other mere Presbyters ever did it, that we find in Holy Scripture.  
Yea; but this imposition of hands, was for a Miraculous issue, for the Ephesine Christians received the Holy Ghost, and spoke with tongues and prophesied, which effect because it is ceased, certainly the thing was temporary and long ago expired. 1. Not for this reason to be sure. For extraordinary effects may be temporary, when the function which they attest may be eternal, and therefore are no signs of an extraordinary Ministry. The Apostles preaching was attended by Miracles, and extraordinary conversions of people [ut in exordio, Apostolos divinorum signorum comitabantur effectus & Spiritûs Sancti gratia, itdut videres unâ alloquutione integros simul populos ad cultum divinae religionis adduci, & praedicantium verb is non esse tardiorem audientium fidem,] as 
* lib: 3 hist: cap. 37.  Eusebius tells of the success of the preaching of some Evangelists; yet I hope preaching must not now cease because no Miracles are done, or that to convert one man now would be the greatest Miracle. The Apostles when they cursed and anathematised a delinquent, he died suddenly, as in the case of Ananias and Saphira, whom S. Peter flew with the word of his Ministry, and yet now although these extraordinary issues cease, it is not safe venturing upon the curses of the Church. When the Apostles did excommunicate a sinner, he was presently delivered over to Satan to be buffeted, that is, to be afflicted with corporal punishments, and now although no such exterminating Angels beat the bodies of persons excommunicate, yet the power of excommunication I hope still remains in the Church, and the power of the Keys is not also gone: So also in the power of confirmation, 
* vide August. tract. 6. in 1. Epict. johan.  which however attended by a visible miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost in gifts of languages and healing, yet like other miracles in respect of the whole integrity of Christian faith, these miracles at first did confirm the function, and the faith for ever.  
Now than that this right of imposing hands for confirming of baptised people, was not to expire with the persons of the Apostles, appears from these considerations.  
1. Because Christ made a promise of sending Vicarium suum Spiritum, the Holy Ghost in his stead; and this by way of appropriation is called the promise of the Father; This was pertinent to all Christendom. Effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem, so it was in the Prophecy. For the promise is to you and to your Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to all them that are a 
Act. 2. 39  fare off, even to as many as the Lord shall call. So it was in the first accomplishing. To all. and this for ever, for [I will send the Holy Ghost unto you, and he shall abide with you for ever] for it was in subsidium, to supply the comforts of his desired presence, and must therefore ex vi intentionis be remanent till Christ's coming again. Now than this promise being to be communicated to all, and that for ever, must either come to us by ¹ extraordinary and miraculous mission, or by ² an ordinary Ministry. No● the first; for we might as well expect the gift of Miracles. If the second (as it is most certain so) than the main Question is evicted, viz: that something perpetually necessary was in the power of the Apostles, which was not in the power of the inferior Ministers, nor of any, but themselves and their Colleagues, to wit, Ministerium S. Spiritûs, or the ordinary office of giving the holy Ghost by imposition of hands. For this promise was performed to the Apostles in Pentecost, to the rest of the faithful after Baptism, Quodn. nunc in confirmandis Neophyt is manûs impositio tribuit singulis, hoc tunc spiritûs sancti descensio, in credentium populo donavit Vniversis, saith Eusebius Emissenus. Now we find no other way of performing it, nor 
Serm. de Penticoste.  any ordinary conveyance of the Spirit to all people, but this; and we find that the H. Ghost actually was given this way. Therefore the effect, to wit, the H. Ghost being to continue forever, and the promise of Universal concernment, this way also of its communication, to wit, by Apostolical imposition of hands, is also perpetuum ministerium, to be succeeded to and to abide for ever.  
2 This Ministry of imposition of hands for confirmation of baptised people is so fare from being a temporary Grace, and to determine with the persons of the Apostles, that it is a fundamental point of Christianity, an essential ingredient to its composition. S. Paul is my Author. [Therefore leaving 
Hebr. 6. 2.  the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works, faith to wards God, the doctrine of baptism, and of laying on of hands. etc. Here is imposition of hands reckoned as part of the foundation and a principle of Christianity in S. Paul's Catechism. Now, imposition of hands is used by Name in Scripture but for two Ministrations. ¹ For ordination, & ² for this whatsoever it is. Imposition of hands for ordination does indeed give the Holy Ghost, but not as he is that promise which is called the promise of the Father. For the Holy Ghost for ordination was given before the ascension. john. 20. But the promise of the H. Ghost the comforter [the Paraclete, I say, not the maintainer or fountain of Priestly order, that] was not given till the day of Pentecost; and besides, it was promised to all Christian people, and the other was given only to the Clergy.  
* Add to this, that S. Paul having laid this in the foundation makes his progress from this to perfection (as he calls it) that is to higher mysteries, and then his discourse is immediately of the Priesthood Evangelicall, which is Originally in Christ, ministerially in the Clergy; so that unless we will either confound the terms of his progress, or imagine him to make the Ministry of the Clergy, the foundation of Christ's Priesthood, and not rather contrary, it is clear that by imposition of hands, S. Paul means not ordination, and therefore confirmation, there being no other ordinary Ministry of imposition of hands but these two specified in Holy Scripture. For, as for benediction in which Christ used the ceremony, and as for healing in which Ananias and the Apostles used it; the first is clearly no Principle or fundamental point of Christianity; and the Second is confessedly extraordinary, therefore the argument is still firm upon its first principles.  
3. Lastly, the Primitive Church did the facto, and believed themselves to be tied de jure to use this rite of Confirmation and giving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism.  
S. Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius tells a story 
lib: 3. hist: cap. 17.  of a young man whom S. john had converted and committed to a Bishop to be brought up in the faith of Christendom, Qui (saith S. Clement) eum baptismi Sacramento illuminavit, posteà verò sigillo Domini tanquam perfectâ & tutâ ejus animi custodiâ obsignavit. The Bishop first baptised him, than consigned him. justin Martyr says (speaking pro more 
Quaest 137. ad Orthod:  Ecclesiae, according to the Custom of the Church) that when the mysteries of baptism were done, than the faithful are consigned, or confirmed.  
S. Cyprian relates to this story of S. Philip and 
Epist: 73 ad jubajan:  the Apostles, and gives this account of the whole affair, Et idcircò quia legitimum & Ecclesiasticum baptismum consecuti fuerant, baptizari eos ultrà non oportebat; Sed tantummodò id quod deerat, id à Petro & johanne factum erat, ut oratione pro eis habitâ & manu impositâ invocaretur, & infunderetur super eos Spiritus S. Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur, Praeposit is Ecclesiae offerantur, ut per nostram orationem ac manûs impositionem Spiritum S. consequantur, & signaculo Dominico confirmentur. S. Peter and S. john by imposing their hands on the Converts of Samaria, praying over them, and giving them the Holy Ghost, made supply to them of what was wanting after Baptism: and this is to this day done in the Church, for new baptised people are brought to the Bishops, and by imposition of their hands obtain the Holy Ghost.  
But for this who pleases to be farther satisfied in the Primitive faith of Christendom, may see it in the decretal Epistles of Cornelius the Martyr to Faebianus recorded by Eusebius; in the 
* Lib. 6. hist. cap: 33.  Epistle written to julius and julianus Bishops, under the name of S. Clement, in the 
* in 1. tom. Council:  Epistle of Vrban P. and Martyr, 
a lib. de baptismo. c. 8.  in Tertullian, in 
b lib: 2. contra lit: Petil: cap. 104, & lib. 15. de Trinit: c 26. vide etiam S Hieron: contra Luciferianos. S. Ambros: lib. 2. c. 2. de Sacramentis Epist: 3. Eusebij P. & M. ad Episc. Tusciae & Campon: I sidor: Hispal de eccles: offic. lib. 2. c. 26.  S. Austen, and in S. Cyrill of jerusalem whose whole third Mistagogique Catechism is concerning Confirmation. This only. The Catholics, whose Christian prudence it was, in all true respects to disadvantage Heretics, lest their poison should infect like a Pest, laid it in Novatus dish as a crime, He was baptised in his bed, and was not confirmed, Vnde nec Spiritum sanctum unquam potuerit promereri, therefore he could never receive the gift of the holy Ghost. So Cornelius in the forequoted Epistle. Whence it is evident, that then it was the belief of Christendom, that the holy Ghost was by no ordinary ministry given to faithful people after Baptism, but only by Apostolical, or Episcopal consignation and imposition of hands.  
What also the faith of Christendom was concerning the Minister of confirmation, and that Bishops only could do it, I shall make evident in the descent of this discourse. Here the scene lies in Scripture, where it is clear that S. Philip, one of the 72. Disciples, as antiquity reports him, and an Evangelist and a Disciple, as Scripture also expresses him, could not impose hands for application of the promise of the Father, and ministerial giving of the holy Ghost, but the Apostles must go to do it; and also there is no example in Scripture of any that ever did it but an Apostle, and yet this is an ordinary Ministry which the jure aught, & de facto always was continued in the Church. Therefore there must always be an ordinary office of Apostleship in the Church to do it, that is, an office above Presbyters, for in Scripture they could never do it, and this is it which we call Episcopacy.  
3. THe Apostles were rulers of the whole 
§ 9 And Superiority of jurisdiction,  Church, & each Apostle respectively of his several Diocese, when he would fix his chair; & had superintendency over the Presbyters, and the people, and this by Christ's donation, the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this. Sicut misit me Pater, 
john. 20. 21.  sic ego mitto vos. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Manifesta enim est sententiae Domini nostri jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis, 
Lib. 7. the baptism. Contra Donatist. c. 43. vide etiam S. Cyprian, de Unit. Eccles. & S. Cyrill. in joh. lib. 12. c. 55.  & ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes, said Clarus à Musculâ, the Bishop in the Council of Carthage related by S. Cyprian and S. Austin. But however it is evident in Scripture, that the Apostles had such superintendency over the inferior Clergy (Presbyters I mean and Deacons) and a superiority of jurisdiction, and therefore it is certain that Christ gave it them, for none of the Apostles took this honour, but he that was called of God as was Aaron.  
1. Our blessed Saviour gave to the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis. It was sicut misit me Pater, etc. As my Father sent, so I send. You, my Apostles whom I have chosen. This was not said to Presbyters, for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ, but at their first mission to preach repentance, I say no commission at all, they were not spoken to, they were not present. Now then consider. Suppose that as Aërius did deny the Divine institution of Bishops over the Presbyters cum grege, another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of Presbyters, what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to show the Divine institution of them as a distinct order from Apostles or Bishops. Indeed Christ selected 72. and gave them commission to preach, but that commission was temporary and expired before the crucifixion for aught appears in Scripture. If it be said the Apostles did ordain Presbyters in every City, it is true, but not sufficient, for so they ordained Deacons at jerusalem, and in all established Churches, and yet this will not tant' amount to an immediate Divine institution for Deacons, and how can it then for Presbyters? If we say a constant Catholic traditive interpretation of Scripture, does teach us, that Christ did institute the Presbyterate together with Episcopacy, and made the Apostles Presbyters as well as Bishops; this is true. But then 1. We recede from the plain words of Scripture, and rely upon tradition, which in this question of Episcopacy will be of dangerous consequence to the enemies of it, for the same tradition, if that be admitted for good probation, is for Episcopal pre-eminence over Presbyters, as will appear in the sequel. 2. Though no use be made of this advantage, yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered, that it can never be proved from Scripture, that Christ made the Apostles Priests first, and then Bishops or Apostles, but only that Christ gave them several commissions, and parts of the office Apostolical, all which being in one person, cannot by force of Scripture prove two orders. Truth is, if we change the scene of war, and say that the Presbyterate, as a distinct order from the ordinary office of Apostleship, is not of Divine institution, the proof of it would be harder than for the Divine institution of Episcopacy. Especially if we consider, that in all the enumerations of the parts of clerical 
Ephes. 4. 1. Corinth. 12.  offices, there is no enumeration of Presbyters, but of Apostles there is; and the other members of the induction are of gifts of Christianity, or parts of the Apostolate, and either must infer many more orders, than the Church ever yet admitted of, or none, distinct from the Apostolate, insomuch as Apostles were Pastors, and Teachers, and Evangelists, and Rulers, and had the gift of tongues, of healing, and of Miracles. This thing is of great consideration, and this use I will make of it: That either Christ made the 72 to be Presbyters, and in them instituted the distinct order of Presbyterate, as the ancient Church always did believe, or else he gave no distinct commission for any such distinct order. If the second be admitted, than the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution, but of Apostolical only, as is the Order of Deacons, and the whole plenitude of power is in the order Apostolical alone, and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power, as they did Deacons with a less. But if the first be said, than the commission to the 72 Presbyters being only of preaching that we find in Scripture, all the rest of their power which now they have is by Apostolical ordinance, and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis, yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis, for than they must have made them Apostles, and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolical institution neither.  
I care not which part be chosen, one is certain; but if either of them be true, then since to the Apostles only, Christ gave a plenitude of power, it follows, that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction, as affixed to a distinct order, and then the Apostles are to rule them by virtue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolical; or if they have jurisdiction they do derive it à fonte Apostolorum, and then the Apostles have superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters, because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolical. And that I say truth (besides that there is no possibility of showing the contrary in Scripture, by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters, than what I have specified,) I will hereafter show it to have been the faith and practise of Christendom not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops (which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship) but that Presbyters have no jurisdiction essential to their order, but derivative only from Apostolical pre-eminence.  
2. Let us now see the matter of fact. They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters, for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest, saith the Law. Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter, and a Bishop Would be, that for his peremptory rejection of some faithful people from the Catholic communion without cause, and without authority, S. john the Apostle threatened him in his Epistle to Gajus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & c. Wherefore when I come I will remember him, and all that would have been to very little purpose, if he had not had coercitive jurisdiction to have punished his delinquency.  
3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new ordination, as Mathias succeeded judas, who before his new ordination was one of the 72. as 
a Lib. 1. hist. c 12. & l. 2. c. 9  Eusebius, 
b Haeres. 20.  Epiphanius, and 
c De script. Eccles. in Matth. vide Irenaeum l. 4. c. 63. Tertul de prescript.  S. Jerome affirm, and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with jesus; S. Clement succeeded S. Peter at Rome, S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. james at jerusalem, S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea, & divers others of the 72, reckoned by Dorotheus, Eusebius, & others of the Fathers, did govern the several Churches after the Apostles death which before they did not. Now it is clear that he that receives no more power after the Apostles, than he had under them, can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge, or Churches. It follows then, since (as will more fully appear anon) Presbyters did succeed the Apostles, that under the Apostles they had not such jurisdiction as afterwards they had. But the Apostles had the same to which the Presbyters succeeded to, therefore greater than the Presbyters had before they did succeed. When I say Presbyters succeeded the Apostles, I mean, not as Presbyters, but by a new ordination to the dignity of Bishops, so they succeeded, and so they prove an evidence of fact, for a superiority of jurisdiction in the Apostolical Clergy. *** Now that this superiority of jurisdiction was not temporary, but to be succeeded in, appears from Reason, and from ocular demonstration, or of the thing done.  
1. If superiority of jurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolical for the regiment of the Church, there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession, since upon the emergency of Schisms and Heresies which were foretold should multiply in descending ages, government and superiority of jurisdiction, unity of supremacy, and coërtion was more necessary then at first, when extraordinary gifts might supply, what now we expect to be performed by an ordinary authority.  
2. Whatsoever was the regiment of the Church in the Apostles times that must be perpetual (not so as to have 
* Ut puta, viduarum collegium, & Diaconorum, & coenobium fidelium. &c:  all that which was personal, and temporary, but so as to have no other) for that, and that only is of Divine institution which Christ committed to the Apostles, and if the Church be not now governed as then, We can show no Divine Authority for our government, which we must contend to do, and do it too, or be called usurpers. For either the Apostles did govern the Church as Christ commanded them, or not. If not, than they failed in the founding of the Church, and the Church is not built upon a Rock. If they did (as most certainly they did) then either the same disparity of jurisdiction must be retained, or else we must be governned with an Unlawful and unwarranted equality, because not by that which only is of immediate divine institution; and than it must needs be a fine government, where there is no authority, and where no man is superior.  
3. We see a disparity in the Regiment of Churches warranted by Christ himself, and confirmed by the Holy Ghost in fairest intimation. I mean the seven Angel-Presidents of the seven Asian Churches. If these seven Angels were seven Bishops, that is, Prelates or Governors of these seven Churches, in which it is evident and confessed of all sides, there were many Presbyters, than it is certain that a Superiority of jurisdiction was intended by Christ himself, and given by him, insomuch as he is the fountain of all power derived to the Church; For Christ writes to these seven Churches, and directs his Epistles to the seven Governors of these Churches calling them Angels, which it will hardly be supposed he would have done, if the function had not been a ray of the Sun of righteousness, they had not else been Angels of light, nor stars held in Christ's own right hand.  
This is certain, that the function of these Angels (whatsoever it be) is a Divine institution. Let us then see what is meant by these stars and Angels. [The seven stars are the Angels of the seven 
Revel. 1. vers. 20.  Churches, and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches.]  
1. Then it is evident, that although the Epistles were sent with a final intention for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocese, with an [Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesijs] yet the personal direction was not to the whole Church, for the whole Church is called the Candlestick, and the superscription of the Epistles is not to the seven Candlesticks, but to the seven stars which are the Angels of the seven Churches, viz. the lights shining in the Candlesticks. By the Angel therefore is not, cannot be meant the whole Church.  
2. It is plain that by the Angel is meant the Governor of the Church, ¹. Because of the title of eminency, The Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the Messenger, the Legate, the Apostle of the Church. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For these words, Angel, or Apostle, although they signify Mission or Legation, yet in Scripture they often relate to the persons to whom they are sent. As in the examples before specified. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Their Angels. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Apostles of the Churches. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Angel of the Church of Ephesus, and divers others. Their compellation therefore being a word of office in respect of him that sends them, and of Eminence in relation to them to whom they are sent, shows that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively. ². Because acts of jurisdiction are concredited to him; as, not to suffer false Apostles; So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, which is clearly a power of cognisance and coërtion in causis Clericorum: to be watchful and strengthen the things that remain; as to the Angel of the Church in Sardis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The first is the office of Rulers, for they Watch for your Souls; And the 
Hebr. 13.  second, of Apostles, and Apostolic men. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, judas and Silas confirmed the Brethren, for these men, although they were but of the 72 at first, yet by this time were made Apostles and [chief men among the Brethren.] S. Paul also was joined in this work, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Act. 15.  He went up and down confirming the Churches. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Paul. To confirm 
1. Cor. 11.  the Churches, and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government, these were offices of power and jurisdiction, no less than Episcopal or Apostolical; and besides the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Diocese [Thou hast a few names even in Sardis] they were the Bishop's people, the Angel had a right to them. And good reason that the people should be his, for their faults are attributed to him, as to the Angel of Pergamus, and divers others, and therefore they are deposited in his custody, He is to be their Ruler and Pastor, and this is called his Ministry. To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have known thy Ministry. His office therefore was clerical, it was an Angel-Minister, and this his office must make him the guide and superior to the Rest, even all the whole Church, since he was charged with all.  
3. By the Angel is meant a singular person, for the reprehensions and the commendations respectively imply personal delinquency, or suppose personal excellencyes. Add to this that the compellation is singular, and of determinate number, so that we may as well multiply Churches as persons, for the seven Churches had but seven stars, and these seven stars were the Angels of the seven Churches. And if by seven stars they may mean 70 times seven stars (for so they may if they begin to multiply) then by one star they must mean many stars, and so they may multiply Churches too, for there were as many Churches as stars, and no more Angels than Churches, and it is as reasonable to multiply these seven Churches into 7000, as every star into a Constellation, or every Angel into a Legion.  
But besides the Exigency of the thing itself, these seven Angels are by Antiquity called the seven Governors or Bishops of the seven Churches, & their very names are commemorated. Unto these seven Churches S. john, saith Arethas, reckoneth 
in 1. Apocal.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an equal number of Angel-Governours, and Oecumenius in his scholia upon this place, saith the very same words. Septem igitur Angelos Rectores septem Ecclesiarum debemus intelligere, 
ibid.  eò quòd Angelus Nuntius interpretatur, saith S. Ambrosc, and again, Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi johannis. Let the woman 
in 1. Cor. 11.  have a covering on her head because of the Angels, that is, in reverence and subjection to the Bishop of the Church, for Bishops are the Angels as is taught in the Revelation of S. john. Divinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae so S. Austin. By the voice of God the Bishop 
Epist. 162. & in Apocal.  of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel. Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Precedents and actually Bishops of these Churches. S. Policarpe was one to be sure, apud Smyrnam & Episcopus & Martyr, saith Eusebius, 
lib. 5. c. 24.  He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna; And he had good authority for it, for he reports it out of Polycrates who a little after, was himself an Angel of the Church of Ephesus, and he also 
lib. 4 c. 10.  quotes S. Irenaeus for it, & out of the encyclical Epistle of the Church of Smyrna itself, and besides 
lib. 4. cap. 15.  these authorities it is attested by S. 
† Epist. ad Policarp.  Ignatius, and 
* de praescrip.  Tertullian. S. Timothy was another Angel, to wit, of the Church of Ephesus; to be sure had been, and most likely was still surviving. Antipas is reckoned by Name in the Revelation, and he had been the Angel of Pergamus, but before this book written 
vide Aretha. in 1. Apoc.  he was turned from an Angel to a Saint. Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis. Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes, & Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ecclesiam regens celeberrimi inter caeteros habebantur, saith Eusebius. These men were actually living when S. john writ 
lib. 4. cap. 26.  his Revelation, for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia, and writ after the Revelation, for he writ a treatise of it, as saith Eusebius. However, at least some of these were then, and all of these about that time were Bishops of these Churches, and the Angels S. john speaks of were such who had jurisdiction over their whole Diocese, therefore these, or such as these were the Angels to whom the Spirit of God writ hortatory and commendatory letters, such whom Christ held in his Right hand and fixed them in the Churches like lights set on a Candlestick that they might give shine to the whole house.  
The Sum of all is this; that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters or 72 Disciples. To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power, for the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable, for by virtue of it, they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation, and of giving his grace in the collation of holy Orders, a power of jurisdiction and authority to govern the Church: and this power was not temporary, but successive and perpetual, and was intended as an ordinary office in the Church, so that the successors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had, and though the personal mission was not immediate, as of the Apostles it was, yet the commission and institution of the function was all one. But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but of preaching, which was a very limited commission. There was all the immediate Divine institution of Presbyterate as a distinct order, that can be fairly pretended. But yet farther, these 72 the Apostles did admit in partem sollicitudinis, and by new ordination or delegation Apostolical, did give them power of administering Sacraments, of absolving sinners, of governing the Church in conjunction and subordination to the Apostles, of which they had a capacity by Christ's calling them at first in sortem Ministerii, but the exercise, and the actuating of this capacity they had from the Apostles. So that not by Divine ordination, or immediate commission from Christ, but by derivation from the Apostles (and therefore in minority and subordination to them) the Presbyters did exercise acts of order and jurisdiction in the absence of the Apostles or Bishops, or in conjunction consiliary, and by way of advice, or before the consecration of a Bishop to a particular Church. And all this I doubt not, but was done by the direction of the Holy Ghost, as were all other acts of Apostolical ministration, and particularly the institution of the other order, viz. of Deacons. This is all that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the commission given in the institution of Presbyters, and this I shall afterwards confirm by the practice of the Catholic Church, and so vindicate the practices of the present Church, from the common prejudices that disturb us, for by this account, Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution, but the only order that derives immediately from Christ.  
For the present only, I sum up this with that saying of Theodoret speaking of the 72 Disciples. 
In Lucae cap. 10.  Palmae sunt isti qui nutriuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apostolis. Nam quanquam Christus hos etiam elegit, erant tamen duodecem illis inferiores, & posteàillorum Discipuli & sectatores. The Apostles are the twelve fountains, and the 72 are the palms that are nourished by the waters of those fountains. For though Christ also ordained the 72, yet they were inferior to the Apostles, and afterwards were their followers and Disciples.  
I know no objection to hinder a conclusion; only two or three words out of Ignatius, are pretended against the main question, viz. to prove that he, although a Bishop, yet had no Apostolical authority, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I do not command 
Epist. ad Philadelph.  this as an Apostle; (for what am I, and what is my Father's house, that I should compare myself with them) but as your fellow soldier and a Monitor. But this answers itself, if we consider to whom he speaks it. Not to his own Church of Antioch, for there he might command as an Apostle, but to the Philadelphians he might not, they were no part of his Diocese, he was not their Apostle, and then because he did not equal the Apostles in their commission extraordinary, in their personal privileges, and in their universal jurisdiction, therefore he might not command the Philadelphians, being another Bishop's charge, but admonish them with the freedom of a Christian Bishop, to whom the souls of all faithful people were dear and precious. So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office, this hinders not, and I know nothing else pretended, and that Antiquity is clearly on this side, is the next business.  
For, hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episcopacy, by arguments derived from Scripture; I shall only add two more from Antiquity, and so pass on to tradition 
§ 10. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship, according to the general tenant of Antiquity.  Apostolical.  
1. THE belief of the primitive Church is, that Bishops are the ordinary successors of the Apostles, and Presbyters of the 72, and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine institution as the Apostolate, for the ordinary office both of one and the other is the same thing. For this there is abundant testimony. Some I shall select, enough to give fair evidence of a Catholic tradition.  
S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this 
Lib. 3. cap. 3.  particular, Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, ET SUCCESSORES EORUM usque ad nos ... Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent Apostoli ... his vel maximè traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant ... quos & SUCCESSORES relinquebant SUUM IPSORUM LOCUM MAGISTERII tradentes. We can name the men the Apostles made Bishops in their several Churches, appointing them their successors, and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which themselves knew; they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches, and left to be their successors in the same power and authority themselves had.  
Tertullian reckons Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolical, 
Lib. de prescript. c. 36.  apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis president. Apostolical they are from their foundation, and by their succession, for Apostles did found them, and Apostles, or men of Apostolic authority still do govern them.  
S. Cyprian; Hoc enim vel maximè Frater, & laboramus & laborare debemus ut Vnitatem à Domino, & 
Epist. 42. ad Cornelium.  per Apostolos NOBIS SUCCESSORIBUS traditam quantùm possumus obtinere curemus. We must preserve the Unity commanded us by Christ, and delivered by his Apostles to us their Successors. To us Cyprian and Cornelius, for they only were then in view, the one Bishop of Rome, the other of Carthage. And in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum; Nec haec jacto, 
Epist. 69.  sed dolens profero, cum te judicem Dei constituas & Christi, qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc adomnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt, quivos audit, me audit, etc. Christ said to his Apostles, and in them to the Governors or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence, he that heareth you heareth me.  
Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop, spoken in the Council of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin, Manifesta est sententia Domini 
Lib. 7. c. 43. de baptis. count. Donatist.  nostri jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis & ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes. Nos successimus. We succeed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power. He spoke it in full Council in an assembly of Bishops, and himself was a Bishop.  
The Council of Rome under S. Sylvester speaking of the honour due to Bishops expresses it thus, Non oportere quenquam Domini Discipulis, id est, Apostolorum successoribus detrahere. No man must detract from the Disciples of our Lord, that is, from the Apostles successors.  
S. Hierome speaking against the Montanists for 
Epist. 54.  undervaluing their Bishops, shows the difference of the Catholics honouring, and the Heretics disadvantaging that sacred order. Apud nos (saith he) Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent, apud eos Episcopus tertius est. Bishops with us [Catholics] have the place or authority of Apostles, but with them [Montanists] Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist, pro Patribus nati sunt tibi filii, S. Hierome, and divers others of the Fathers make this gloss, Pro Patribus Apostolis filii Episcopi ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant; The Apostles are Fathers, instead of whom Bishops do succeed, whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands. So S. Hierome, S. Austin, and Euthymius upon the 44. Psal. alias 45.  
But S. Austin for his own particular makes good 
De verbis Dom, serm. 24  use of his succeeding the Apostles, which would do very well now also to be considered. Si solis Apostolis dixit, qui vos spernit me spernit, spernite nos: si autem sermo ejus pervenit ad nos, & vocavit nos, & in eorum loco constituit nos, videte ne spernatis nos. It was good counsel not to despise Bishops, for they being in the Apostles places and offices are concerned and protected by that saying, he that despiseth you, despiseth me. I said it was good counsel, especially if besides all these, we will take also S. Chrysostom's testimony, Potestas anatthematizandiab Apostolis ad successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transiit. A power of anathematising delinquents is derived from the Apostles to their successors, even to Bishops.  
S. Ambrose upon that of S. Paul Ephes. 4. Quosdam 
In Ephes. 4.  dedit Apostolos, Apostoli Episcopi sunt, He hath given Apostles, that is, he hath given some Bishops. 
In 1. Corinth. 12. 28.  That's down right, and this came not by chance from him; he doubles his assertion. Caput itaque in Ecclesi â Apostolos posuit, qui legati Christi sunt, sicut dicit idem Apostolus [pro quo legatione fungimur.] Ipsisunt Episcopi, firmante istud Petro Apostolo, & dicente inter caetera de judâ, & Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter. And a third time. Numquid omnes Apostoli? 
In vers. 29. ibid.  verum est; Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episcopus. Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Ambrose, when he spoke of their ordinary offices; which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycrates 
Biblioth. Phot. n. 254.  of the Martyrdom of Timothy in Photius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Apostle Timothy was ordained Bishop in the Metropolis of Ephesus by S. Paul, and there enthroned. To this purpose are those compellations and titles of Bishoprics usually in antiquity. S. Basil calls a Bishopric, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Theodoret. An Apostolical presidency. 
Lih. 4. c. 18.  The sum is the same which S. Peter himself taught the Church, as S. Clement his Scholar, or some other primitive man in his name reports of him. Epis●●pos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Dominum 
Epist. 1.  docuisse dicebat, & reliquorum Discipulorum vicem tenere Presbyteros debere insinuabat. He [Peter] said that our Lord taught that Bishops were to succeed in the place of the Apostles, and Presbyters in the place of the Disciples. Who desires to be farther satisfied concerning Catholic consent, for Bishop's succession to Apostles in their order and ordinary office, he may see it in 
Epist. 1. ad Simpron.  Pacianus the renowned Bishop of Barcinona, in 
b Homil. 26. in Evang.  S. Gregory, 
c Orat. 2. the imagine.  S. john Damascen, in S. Sixtus the first his second decretal Epistle, and most plentifully in 
d Epist. 7.  S. Celestine writing to the Ephesine Council, in the Epistle of 
e Habetur Can. in Novo distinct. 21.  Anacletus de Patriarchis & Primatibus &c. In 
f In synod. Hispal.  Isidore, and in 
g Lib. 3. c. 15. super Lucam.  Venerable Bede. His words are these, sicut duodecem Apostolos formam Episcoporum exhibere simul & demonstrare nemo est qui dubitet: sic & 72 figuram Presbyterorum gessisse sciendum est, tametsi primis Ecclesiae temporibus, ut Apostolica Scriptura testis est, utrique Presbyteri, & utrique vocabantur Episcopi, quorum unum scientiae maturitatem, aliud industriam curae Pastoralis significat. Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti. As no man doubts but Apostles were the order of Bishops; so the 72 of Presbyters, though at first they had names in common. Therefore Bishops by Divine right are distinct from Presbyters, and their Prelates or Superiors.  
TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of 
§ 11. And particularly of S. Peter,  Antiquity that call all Bishop's ex aequo successors of S. Peter. So S. Cyprian. Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere & observare debemus, Episcopi honorem & Ecclesiae suaerationem disponens in Evangelio, loquitur & dicit Petro, ego tibi dico, Quia tu es Petrus, etc. Ind per temporum & successionum vices, 
Epist. 27. ad Lapsos.  Episcoporum ordinatio & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur, etc. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and instituting Episcopal dignity, he said to Peter, thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church. Hence comes the order of Bishops, and the constitution or being of the Church, that the Church be founded upon Bishops. etc.  
The same also S Jerome intimates, Non est facilè 
Epist. 1.  stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri. It is not a small thing, to stand in the place of Paul, to obtain the degree of Peter, so he, while he dissuades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Episcopal office. Pasceoves meas, said Christ to Peter, and feed the flock of God which is amongst you said S. Peter to the Bishops of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia. Similia enim Successoribus suis Petrus scripsit praecepta, saith Theodoret, S. Peter gave the same precepts to his successors which 
Lib. 12. thes. cap. 13. Orat. de laud. Basil:  Christ gave to him; And S. Ephrem speaking of S. Basil the Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia, & sicut rursus Petrus Ananiam & Saphiram fraudantes de precio agri enecavit: ita & Basilius, locum Petri obtinens ejusque paritèr authoritatem libertatemque participans, suam ipsius promissionem fraudantem Valentem redarguit ejusque filium morte mulctavit. As S. Peter did to Ananias and Saphira, So Basil did to Valens and his Son for the same delinquency, for he had the place, liberty, and authority of S. Peter.  
Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the 
tract. primâ die suae ordinat.  Successor of S. Peter, and Gildas surnamed the wise, saith that all evil Bishops whatsoever do with unhallowed and unclean feet usurp the seat of S. Peter. But this thing is of Catholic belief, and of this use. If the order and office of the Apostolate 
Biblioth, S S. P P. tun. 5 in Eccles. ord. crepat.  be eternal & to be succeeded in, and this office Superior to Presbyters, and not only of Divine institution, but indeed the only order which can clearly show an immediate Divine commission for its power and authority (as I have proved of the function Apostolical) then those which do succeed the Apostles in the ordinary office of Apostolate, have the same institution and authority the Apostles had, as much as the successors of the Presbyters have with the first Presbyters, and perhaps more.  
For in the Apostolical ordinations, they did not proceed as the Church since hath done. Themselves had the whole Priesthood, the whole commission of the Ecclesiastical power and all the offices. Now they in their ordaining assistant Ministers, did not in every ordination give a distinct order, as the Church hath done since the Apostles. For they ordained some to distinct offices, some to particular places, some to one part, some to another part of clerical employment, as S. Paul who was an Apostle yet was ordained by imposition of hands to go to the Churches of the Uncircumcision, so was Barnabas: S. john, and james, and Cephas to the Circumcision, and there was scarce any public design or Grand employment but the Apostolic men had a new ordination to it, a new imposition of hands as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles. So that the Apostolical ordinations of the inferior Clergy were only a giving of partilar commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolical calling as they would please to employ them in. Nay sometimes their ordinations were only a delivering of jurisdiction when the persons ordained had the order before, as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas. Of 
Acts, 13.  the same consideration is the institution of Deacons to spiritual offices, and it is very pertinent to this Question. For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher than Apostolical ordinance; and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authorised; for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now, and sometimes more, as to judas and Silas, and divers others, who therefore were more than mere Presbyters as the word is now used.  
* The result is this. The office and order of a Presbyter is but part of the office and order of an Apostle, so is a Deacon, a lesser part, so is an Evangelist, so is a Prophet, so is a Doctor, so is a helper, or a Surrogate in Government, but these will not be called orders, every one of them will not I am sure, atleast not made distinct orders by Christ, for it was in the Apostles power to give any one or all these powers to any one man, or to distinguish them into so many men, as there are offices, or to unite more or fewer of them. All these I say, clearly make not distinct orders, and why are not all of them of the same consideration? I would be answered from Grounds of Scripture. For there we fix as yet.  
* Indeed the Apostles did ordain such men, and scattered their power at first, for there was so much employment in any one of them, as to require one man for one office; but a while after they united all the lesser parts of power into two sorts of men whom the Church hath since distinguished by the Names of Presbyters and Deacons, and called them two distinct orders. But yet if we speak properly & according to the Exigence of Divine institution, there is Vnum Sacerdotium, one Priesthood appointed by Christ, and that was, the commission given by Christ to his Apostles, and to their Successors precisely, and those other offices of Presbyter and Deacon are but members of the Great Priesthood, and although the power of it, is all of Divine institution, as the power to baptise, to preach, to consecrate, to absolve, to Minister, yet that so much of it should be given to one sort of men, so much less to another, that is only of Apostolical ordinance. For the Apostles might have given to some only a power to absolve, to some only to consecrate, to some only to baptise. We see that to Deacons they did so. They had only a power to baptise and preach, whether all Evangelists had so much or no, Scripture does not tell us.  
* But if to some men they had only given a power to use the Keys, or made them officers spiritual to restore such as are overtaken in a fault, and not to consecrate the Eucharist, (for we see these powers are distinct, and not relative and of necessary conjunction, no more than baptising and consecrating) whether or no had those men who have only a power of absolving or consecrating respectively, whether (I say) have they the order of a Presbyter? If yea, then now every Priest hath two orders besides the order of Deacon, for by the power of Consecration he hath the power of a Presbyter, and what is he then by his other power? But if such a man ordained with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter, then let any man show me where it is ordained by Christ, or indeed by the Apostles, that an order of Clerks should be constituted with both these powers, and that these were called Presbyters. I only leave this to be considered.  
* But all the Apostolical power we find instituted by Christ, and we also find a necessity, that all that power should be succeeded in, and that all that power should be united in one order, for he that hath the highest, viz. a power of ordination, must needs have all the other, else he cannot give them to any else, but a power of ordination I have proved to be necessary and perpetual.  
So that, we have clear evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetual order of Apostleship, marry for the Presbyterate I have not so much either reason or confidence for it, as now it is in the Church; but for the Apostolate, it is beyond exception. And to this Bishops do succeed. For that it is so, I have proved from Scirpture, and because [no Scripture is of private interpretation] I have attested it with the Catholic testimony of the Primitive Fathers, calling Episcopacy, the Apostolate, and Bishops successors of S. Peter in particular, and of all the Apostles in general in their ordinary offices in which they were Superior to the 72, the Antecessors of the Presbyterate.  
One objection, I must clear. For sometimes Presbyters are also called Apostles, and Successors of the Apostles, as in Ignatius, in Irenaeus, in S. Hierome. I answer,  
1. They are not called Successores Apostolorum by any dogmatic resolution or interpretation of Scripture, as the Bishops are in the examples above alleged; but by allusion, and participation at the most. For true it is that they succeed the Apostles in the offices of baptising, consecrating, and absolving in privato foro, but this is but part of the Apostolical power, and no part of their office as Apostles were superior to Presbyters.  
2. It is observable that Presbyters are never affirmed to succeed in the power and regiment of the Church, but in subordination, and derivation from the Bishop, and therefore they are never said to succeed in Cathedris Apostolorum, in the Apostolic Sees.  
3. The places which I have specified, and they are all I could ever meet with, are of peculiar answer. For as for Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis, 
* Jdem ferè habet in Epist. ad Magnes: & Smyrnens.  he calls the Presbytery or company of Priests, the College, or combination of Apostles. But here S. Ignatius as he lifts up the Presbyters to a comparison with Apostles, so he also raises the Bishop to the similitude and resemblance with God. Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit, Presbyteri verò sunt conjunctus Apostolorum caetus. So that although Presbyters grow high yet they do not overtake the Bishops, or Apostles, who also in the same proportion grow higher than their first station. This then, will do no hurt.  
As for S. Irenaeus, he indeed does say that Presbyters succeed the Apostles, but what Presbyters he means, he tells us, even such Presbyters as were also Bishops, such as S. Peter and S. john was, who call themselves Presbyters, his words are these. Proptereà 
Lib. 4. c. 43.  eyes qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris abaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundùm placitum Patris acceperunt. And a little after, 
Cap. 44.  Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia, de quibus & Propheta ait, & dabo Principes tuos in pace, & Episcopos tuos in justitiâ. So that he gives testimony for us, not against us. As for S. Hierome, the third man, he in the succession to the honour of the Apostolate joins Presbyters with Bishops, and that's right enough, for if the Bishop alone does succeed in plenitudinem potestatis Apostolicae ordinariae, as I have proved he does, than also it is as true of the Bishop together with his consessus Presbyterorum. 
Epist. 13.  Episcopi & Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos & Apostolicos viros, quorum honorem possidentes, habere nitantur & meritum, those are his words, and enforce not so much as may be safely granted, for reddendo singula singulis, Bishops succeed Apostles, and Presbyters Apostolic men, and such were many that had not at first any power Apostolical, and that's all that can be inferred from this place of S. Hierome. I know nothing else to stay me, or to hinder our assent to those authorities of Scripture I have alleged, and the full voice of traditive interpretation.  
THE second argument from Antiquity is the 
§ 12. And the institution of Episcopacy as well as of the Apostolate expressed to be Divine, by primitive authority, Epist. 27.  direct testimony of the Fathers for a Divine institution. In this S. Cyprian is most plentiful. Dominus noster. ** Episcopi honorem & Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio, dicit Petro &c: Ind per temporum & successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur. Cùm hoc itaque Divinâ lege fundatum sit &c: Our Lord did institute in the Gospel the honour of a Bishop. Hence comes the ordination of Bishops, and the Church is built upon them, and every action of the Church is to be governed by them, and this is founded upon a Divine law. Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam 
Epist. 65. ad Rogatian.  Apostolos, i. e. Episcopos, & praepositos Dominus elegit. Our Lord hath chosen Apostles, that is, Bishops and Church-governors'. And a little after. Quod si nos aliquid audere contrà Deum possumus qui Episcopos facit, possunt & contranos audere Diaconi, à quibus fiunt. We must not attempt any thing against God who hath instituted Bishops. The same Father in his Epistle to Magnus disputes against Novatianus his being a Bishop. Novatianus in Ecclesiâ non 
Epist. 76.  est, nec Episcopus computari potest, qui Evangelicâ & Apostolicâ traditione contemptâ, nemini succedens à seipso ordinatus est. If there was both an Evangelicall, and an Apostolic tradition, for the successive ordination of Bishops, by other Bishops, (as S. Cyprian affirms there is, by saying Novatianus contemned it,) then certainly the same Evangelicall power did institute that calling, for the modus of whose election, it took such particular order.  
S. Ignatius long before him, speaking concerning his absent friend Sotion the Deacon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Epist, ad Magnes.  He wishes for the good man's company, because by the grace of God, and according to the law of jesus Christ, he was obedient to the Bishop and his Clergy. And a little after. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is home enough. Ye ought to obey your Bishop, and to contradict him in nothing. It is a fearful thing to contradict him: For whosoever does so, does not mock a visible man, but the invisible, undeceiveable God. For this contumely relates not to man but to God. So S. Ignatius, which could not be true, were it a humane constitution and no Divine ordinance. But more full are those words of his in his Epistle to the Ephesians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that obeys the Bishop and Clergy obeys Christ, who did constitute and ordain them. This is plain and dogmatic, I would be loath to have two men so famous, so Ancient, and so resolute, speak half so much against us.  
But it is a general resolve, and no private opinion. 
Quaest Vet. & N. Testam. qu. 97.  For S. Austin is confident in the case with a Nemo ignorat Episcopos Salvatorem Ecclesiis instituisse. Ipse enim priusquam in coelos ascenderet, imponens manum Apostolis, ordinavit eos Episcopos. No man is so ignorant but he knows that our blessed Saviour appointed Bishops over Churches, for before his ascension into Heaven, he ordained the Apostles to be Bishops. But long before him,  
Hegesippus going to Rome, and by the way calling 
Euseb. lib. 4. c. 22.  in at Corinth, and divers other Churches, discoursed with their several Bishops, and found them Catholic and Holy, and then stayed at Rome three successions of Bishops, Anicetus, Soter, and Eleutherius. Sed in omnibus ist is ordinationibus, vel in caeteris quas per reliquas urbes videram ita omnia habebantur, sicut lex antiquitùs tradidit, & Prophetae indicaverunt, ET DOMINUS STATUIT. All things in these ordinations or successions were as our Lord had appointed. All things, therefore both of doctrine and discipline, and therefore the ordinations themselves too. Further yet, and it is worth observing, there was never any Bishop of Rome from S. Peter to S. Sylvester, that ever writ decretal Epistle now extant and transmitted to us, but either professedly or accidentally he said or intimated, that the order of Bishops did come from God.  
S. Irenaeus speaking of Bishop's successors to the 
Lib. 4. c. 43.  Apostles, saith that with their order of Bishopric, they have received charisma veritatis certum, a true, and certain or indelible character; secundùm placitum Patris, according to the will of God the Father. And this also is the doctrine of S. Ambrose, Ideò quanquam melior 
In 1. Corinth. 12.  Apostolus aliquando tamen eget Prophetis, & quià ab uno Deo Patre sunt omnia, singulos Episcopos singulis Ecclesiis praeesse decrevit. God from whom all good things do come, did decree that every Church should be governed by a Bishop. And again, 
De dignit. Sacerd. cap. 2.  Honorigitur, Fratres, & sublimit as Episcopalis, nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari; Si Regum fulgori compares &c: and a little after, Quid jam de plebeiâ dixerim multitudine, cui non solùm praeferri à Domino meruit, sed ut eam quoque jure tueatur patrio, praeceptis imperatum est Evangelicis. The honour and sublimity of the Bishop is an incomparable pre-eminence and is by God set over the people, and it is commanded by the precept of the holy Gospel that he should guide them by a Father's right. And in the close of his discourse, Sic certè à Domino ad B. Petrum dicitur, Petre amas me? .... repetitum est à Domino tertiò, Pasce oves meas. Quas oves, & quem gregem non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus, sed & cum illo nos suscepimus omnes. Our blessed Lord committed his sheep to S. Peter to be fed, and in him we (who have Pastoral or Episcopal authority) have received the same authority and commission. Thus also divers of the Father's speaking of the ordination of S. Timothy to be Bishop, and of S. Paul's intimation, that it was by Prophecy, affirm it to be done by order of the Holy Ghost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. chrysostom he was ordained by Prophecy, 
Homil. 4. Graec. 5. lat. in 1. Tim. 1. cap. In 1. Tit.  that is by the Holy Ghost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou wert not made Bishop by humane constitution. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Oecumenius, By Divine revelation, saith Theodoret. By the command of the Holy Ghost, so Theophylact; and indeed so S. Paul, to the assembly of Elders and Bishops met at Miletus, Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos, 
Acts 20.  the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops: & to be sure S. Timothy was amongst them, and he was a Bishop, and so were divers others there present; therefore the order itself is a ray streaming from the Divine beauty, since a single person was made Bishop by revelation. I might multiply authorities in this particular, which are very frequent and confident for the Divine institution of Episcopacy, in 
† Hom. 32. in johan.  Origen, in the Council of Carthage recorded by S. Cyprian, in the collection of the 
* Can. 6.  Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis: in the Counsels of 
a C. 25.  Aquisgrane, and 
b Octawm Can. 7.  Toledo, and many more. The sum is that which was taught by 
c Epist. 2.  S. Sixtus, Apostolorum dispositione, ordinante Domino Episcopi primitùs sunt constituti. The Lord did at first ordain, and the Apostles did so order it, and so Bishops at first had their Original constitution.  
These and all the former who affirm Bishops to be successors of the Apostles, & by consequence to have the same institution, drive all to the same issue, and are sufficient to make faith, that it was the do-doctrine Primitive, and Catholic that Episcopacy is a divine institution, which Christ Planted in the first founding of Christendom, which the Holy Ghost Watered in his first descent on Pentecost, and to which we are confident that God will give an increase by a never failing succession, unless where God removes the Candlestick, or which is all one, takes away the star, the Angel of light from it, that it may be invelop'd in darkness, usque ad consummationem saeculi & aperturam tenebrarum. The conclusion of all, I subjoin in the words of Venerable Bede before quoted, sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi 
Lib. 3. in Lucam. c. 15.  à Presbyter is praelatione distincti. Bishops are distinct from Presbyters, and Superior to them by the law of God.  
THE second Basis of Episcopacy is Apostolical tradition. We have seen what Christ did, now we shall see what was done by his Apostles. And since they knew their Master's mind so well, we can never better confide in any argument to prove Divine institution of a derivative authority than the practise Apostolical. Apostoli enim Discipuli 
Lib. 3. cap. 5.  veritatis existentes, extra omne mendacium sunt, non enim communicat mendacium veritati, sicut non communicant tenebraeluci, sed praesentia alterius 
§ 13. In pursuance of the Divine institution, the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches,  excludit alterum. saith S. Irenaeus.  
FIrst, then, the Apostles did presently after the ascension fix an Apostle or a Bishop in the chair of jerusalem. For they knew that jerusalem was shortly to be destroyed, they themselves foretold of miseries and desolations to ensue, (Petrus & Paulus praedicunt cladem Hierosolymitanam, saith Lactantius l. 4. inst.) famines and wars, and not a stone left upon another was the fate of that Rebellious City by Christ's own prediction, which themselves recorded in Scripture. And to say they understood not what they writ, is to make them Enthusiasts, and neither good Doctors nor wise seers. But it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the holy Spirit which was promised to lead them into all truth would instruct them in so concerning an issue of public affairs, as was so Great desolation, and therefore they began betimes to establish that Church, and to fix it upon its perpetual base. 2ly The Church of jerusalem was to be the precedent and platform for other Churches. [The word of God went forth into all the world, beginning first at jerusalem], and therefore also it was more necessary a Bishop should be there placed betimes, that other Churches might see their government from whence they received their doctrine, that they might see from what stars their continual flux of light must stream. 3ly The Apostles were actually dispersed by persecution, and this to be sure they looked for, and therefore (so implying the necessity of a Bishop to govern in their absence or decession any ways) they ordained S. james the first Bishop of jerusalem; there he fixed 
As S. james at Jerusalem.  his chair, there he lived Bishop for 30 years, and finished his course with glorious Martyrdom. If this be proved we are in a fair way for practise Apostolical.  
First, let us see all that is said of S. james in Scripture, that may concern this affair. Acts. 15. We find S. james in the Synod at jerusalem, not disputing, but giving final determination to that Great Qu: about Circumcision. [And when there had been much disputing, Peter risen up and said &c:] He first drove the question to an issue, and told them what he believed concerning it, with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we trust it will go as well with us without circumcision, as with our Forefathers who used it. But S. james when he had summed up what had been said by S. Peter, gave sentence and final determination. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore I judge or give sentence. So he. The Acts of Council which the Brethren or Presbyters did use were deliberative, they disputed, v. 7. S. Peter's act was declarative, but S. james his was decisive; which proves him clearly (if by reasonableness of the thing and the successive practice of Christendom in imitation of this first Council Apostolical we may take our estimate) that S. james was the Precedent of this Synod, which considering that he was none of the twelve (as I proved formerly) is unimaginable, were it not for the advantage of the place, it being held in jerusalem, where he was Hierosolymorum Episcopus (as S. Clement calls him) especially in the presence of S. Peter, who was primus Apostolus, and decked with many personal privileges and prerogatives.  
* Add to this, that although the whole Council did consent to the sending of the Decretal Epistle, and to send judas and Silas, yet because they were of the Presbytery, and College of jerusalem, S. james his Clergy, they are said, as by way of appropriation to come from S. james. Gal. 2. v. 12. Upon which place S. Austin saith thus, Cùm vidisset quosdam venisse à jacobo, i. e. à judaeâ, nam Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae jacobus praefuit. To this purpose that of Ignatius is very pertinent calling S. Stephen the Deacon of S. james, and in his Epistle to 
Epist. ad Trall,  Hero, saying that he did Minister to S. james and the Presbyters of jerusalem, which if we expound according to the known discipline of the Church in Ignatius time (who was Suppar Apostolorum, only not a contemporary Bishop) here is plainly the eminency of an Episcopal chair, and jerusalem the seat of S. james, and the Clergy his own, of a College of which he was the praepositus Ordinarius, he was their Ordinary.  
* The second evidence of Scripture is [Acts. 21. And when we were come to jerusalem the Brethren received us gladly, and the day following Paul went in with us unto james, and all the Elders were present.] Why unto james? Why not rather into the Presbytery, or College of Elders, if james did not eminere, were not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Praepositus or Bishop of them all?  
Now that these conjectures are not vain and impertinent, see it testified by Antiquity, to which in matter of fact, and Church-story, he that will not give faith upon concurrent testimonies, and uncontradicted by Antiquity is a mad man, and may as well disbeleive every thing that he hath not seen himself, and can no way prove that himself was Christened, and to be sure, after 1600 years there is no possibility to disprove a matter of fact that was never questioned or doubted of before, and therefore can never obtain the faith of any man to his contradictory, it being impossible to prove it.  
Eusebius reports out of S. Clement. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
lib. 2. hist. cap. 1.  S. Peter and S. john although they were honoured of our Lord, yet they would not themselves be, but made james surnamed the Just, Bishop of jerusalem; And the reason is that which is given by Hegesippus in Eusebius for his successor Simeon Cleophae, for when S. james was crowned with Martyrdom, and immediately the City destroyed, Traditur Apostolos qui supererant in 
lib. 3. c. 11.  common consilium habuisse quem oportere dignum SUCCESSIONE JACOBI Judicari. It was concluded for Simeon, because he was the Kinsman of our Lord as S. james also his Predecessor. The same concerning S. james is also repeated by Eusebius. judaeiergo cùm Paulus provocasset ad Caesarem ..... In jacobum fratrem Domini cur AB APOSTOLIS SEDES 
lib. 2. c. 22.  HIEROSOLYMITANA DELATA FUIT, Omnem suam malevolentiam convertunt.  
In the Apostolical constitutions under the name of S. Clement the Apostles are brought in speaking 
lib. 7. c. 46. & lib. 8. cap. ult:  thus. De ordinatis autem à nobis Episcopis in vitâ nostrâ, significamus vobis quòd hi sunt; Hierosolymis ordinatus est Iacobus Frater Domini. S. james the Brother of our Lord was ordained Bishop of jerusalem by us [Apostles.] The same is witnessed by Anacletus. Porrò & Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus 
Epist. 2.  B. jacobus qui justus dicebatur, & secundùm carnem Domini nuncupatus est frater, à Petro, jacobo, & johanne Apostolis est ordinatus. And the same thing in terms is repeated by Anicetus, with a Scimus enim Beatissimum jacobum &c: Just as Anacletus before. 
Epist. decret. Unic:  S. james was Bishop of jerusalem, and Peter, james, and john were his maintainers.  
But letus see the testimony of one of S. james his Successors in the same Chair, who certainly was the best witness of his own Church Records. S. cyril of jerusalem is the man. Nam de his non mihi solùm, sed etiam Apostolis, & JACOBO HUIUS ECCLESIae 
Catech. 4.  OLIM EPISCOPO curae fuit, speaking of the question of circumcision, and things sacrificed to Idols, and again, he calls S. james, primum hujus parochiae 
Catech. 16.  Episcopum, the first Bishop of this Diocese. S. Austin also attests this story. Cathedratibi quid 
lib: 2. cont. lit: Petilic. 51. & lib: 2. cont: Crescon: c. 37.  fecit Ecclesiae Romanae, in quâ Petrus sedit, & in quâ hodiè Anastasius sedet? Vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae IN QUARLOUS JACOBUS SEDIT, & in quâ hodiè Iohannes sedet? I must not omit the testimony of S. Jerome, for it will be of great use in the sequel, jacobus 
lib: de Script. Eccles. in lacobo.  (saith he) post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus, and the same also he repeats out of Hegesippus. * There are many more testimonies to this purpose, as of S. 
a homil: 38. in 1. Cor. 15. & 33. hom: in 15. Act.  chrysostom, 
b haeres. 66.  Epiphanius, S. 
c in 1. Galat.  Ambrose, the Council of 
d cap. 33.  Constantinople in Trullo. But Gregorius Turonensis rises a little higher, jacobus Frater Domini vocitatus, ab ipso Domino nostro jesu Christo Episcopus dicitur ordinatus. S. james the Brother of our Lord is said to have been ordained Bishop by our Lord jesus Christ himself. If by [Ordinatus] he means [designatus] he agrees with S. chrysostom: But either of them both will serve the turn for the present. 
homil. 3. in Act.  But either in one sense or the other it is true, and attested also by Epiphanius, & primus hic accepit Cathedram Episcopatûs, cui concredidit Dominus 
haeres. 78.  thronum suum in terrâ primò. S. james had first the Episcopal chair, for our Lord first entrusted his earthly throne to him. And thus we are encircled with a cloud of witnesses, to all which if we add what I before observed, that S. james is in Scripture called an Apostle, and yet he was none of the twelve, and that in the sense of Scripture and the Catholic Church, a Bishop and an Apostle is all one, it follows from the premises, (and of them already there is faith enough made) that S. james was by Christ's own designation, and ordination Apostolical made Bishop of the Church of jerusalem, that is, had power Apostolical concredited to him which Presbyters had not, and this Apostolate was limited and fixed, as his Successors since have been.  
But that this also was not a temporary business, and to expire with the persons of S. james and the 
S. Simeon to be his successor,  first Apostles, but a regiment of ordinary and successive duty in the Church, it appears by the ordination of S. Simeon the son of Cleophas to be his Successor. It is witnessed by Eusebius, Post martyrium lacobi .... traditur Apostolos etc. habuisse in common 
lib. 3. hist. cap. 11.  Concilium quem oporteret dignum successione jacobi judicari; omnesque uno consilio, atque uno consensu Simeonem Cleophae filium decrevisse ut Episcopatûs sedem susciperet. The same also he transcribes out of Hegesippus, Posteaquam jacobus Martyr effectus est 
lib 4. cap. 22.  .... electione divinâ Simeon Cleophae filius Episcopus ordinatur, electus ab omnibus pro eo quòd esset consobrinus Domini. S. Simeon was ordained Bishop by a Divine election; And Epiphanius in the Catalogue of the Bishops of jerusalem, reckons first 
haeres. 66.  james, and next Simeon, qui sub Trajano crucifixus est.  
THe next Bishop we find ordained by the Apostles 
§ 14. S. Timothy at Ephesus,  was Timothy at Ephesus. That he was ordained by an Apostle appears in Scripture. For S. Paul imposed hands on him, that's certain, Excita Gratiam quae in te est per impositionem manuum mearum, by the laying on of MY HANDS. That he was there a Bishop is also apparent, from the power and 
2. Tim. 1. 6.  offices concredited to him. 1. He was to be 
* 1. Tim. 1. 3.  resident at Ephesus. And although for the public necessities of the Church, and for assistance to S. Paul he might be called sometimes from his Charge, yet there he lived and died as the Church story writes, there was his ordinary residence, and his avocations were but temporary and occasional, and when it was, his Cure was supplied by Tychicus, whom S. Paul sent to Ephesus as his Vicar, as I shall show hereafter.  
2. S. Paul in his epistles to him, gave directions to him for Episcopal deportment as is plain. A Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, etc. 
1. Tim. 3.   
3. S. Paul concredits jurisdiction to S. Timothy. Over the people; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of as great extent in S. Timothy's commission as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Commanding as teaching. Over Presbyters; but yet so as to make difference between them and the neoterics in Christianity, the one as Fathers, the other as Brethren. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is denied to be used towards 
1. Tim. 5. 1.  either of them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas, a dishonourable upbraiding or objurgation. Nay it is more; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is castigo, plagam infero, saith Budaeus: so that, that kind of Rebuking the Bishop is forbidden to use, either toward Priest or Deacon, Clergy or Laity, Old or Young. [for a Bishop must be no striker.] but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that's given him in commission both to old and young, Presbyters and Catechumen, that is, Require them; postula, provoca, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Synesius. To be provoked to a Duel, to be challenged. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chrysostom. Ad precandum vos provoco. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eurip. Thou makest me, or compelest me to shed tears. Suavitèr omnia. That's the way S. Paul takes. Meekly; but yet so as to do his office, to keep all in their several duties, and that is by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, command these things, for so he sums up the Bishop's duty towards Presbyters, Neophytes, and Widows. Give all these things in charge. Command all to do 
1. Tim. 5. 7.  their duty. Command, but not objurgate. Et quid negotii esset Episcopo ut Presbyterum non objurgaret si super Presbyterum non haberet potestatem. So Epiphanius urges this argument to advantage. For indeed, 
haeres. 7 5.  it had been to little purpose for S. Paul to have given order to Timothy, how he should exercise his jurisdiction over Presbyters and people, if he had had no jurisdiction and coercitive authority at all. Nay, and howsoever S. Paul forbids to Timothy to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet S. Paul in his second Epistle bids him use it, intimating, upon great occasion. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To be sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if it be but an urging, or an exhortation, 
2. Tim. 4. 2.  is not all, for S. Paul gives him coercitive jurisdiction, as well as directive. Over Widows. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Reject the younger Widows, viz. à collegio viduarum, ab eleemosynis Ecclesiae. Over Presbyters. for he commands him to have sufficient probate in the accusation of Presbyters, of which if he was not to take cognisance, it was to no purpose to number witnesses. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Receive not a public accusation [in foro externo] against a Priest, Non vocabis in jus nisi in testimonio duorum, etc. to wit, in causes criminal. That is sufficient intimation of the Bishop's power TO TAKE COGNISANCE in causes criminal; then for his punishing in such causes, it follows in the next words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
1. Tim. 5. 20.  Reprehend them publicly, that is, disgrace them. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, indecorus. .... 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Homer Iliad. γ. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul, is to call them to public account; that's one part of the jurisdiction. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is to examine. Plato Epist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to give an account of one's life. idem in Apolog. And then also it implies punishment upon conviction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. c. Iliad. But the words in S. Paul will clear this business. Let them that sin be publicly shamed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the rest may fear; A punishment most certainly, something that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Malum in genere poenae. What else should they fear? to sin? Most true. But why upon this reprehension, if not for fear of being punished?  
Add to all this, that here is in this chapter the plain giving of a jurisdiction, an erection of a judicatory, and is all the way, direction for his proceeding in causes criminal, appears most evidently, v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord jesus Christ and the elect Angels, that thou observe these things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without prejudging the cause of any man before it comes in open contestation under public test of witnesses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doing nothing for favour or partiality. Nothing in the world is plainer for the erection of a Consistory then these mandates of S. Paul.  
Lastly, to make up his Episcopal function complete S. Paul gives him also direction concerning giving of orders. [Lay hands suddenly on no man.] sub testatione ergo ea quae ad ordinationem Ecclesiae mandat 
Vers. 22.  custodiri .... Ne facilè aliquis accipiat Ecclesiasticam dignitatem .... peccat enim si non probat & sic ordinet. Melior enim caeteris debet probari qui ordinandus est. Haec Episcopus custodiens, castum se exhibebit religioni, cujus rei in futuro praemium consequetur. So S. Ambrose upon the place, who is so fare from exempting Presbyters from being submitted to the Bishop's consistory, that he does appropriate all his former cautions concerning the judicature, and coercitive jurisdiction to causes of the Clergy.  
Add to this evidence of Scripture the testimony of Catholic and unquestioned Antiquity affirming S. Timothy to have been ordained Bishop of Ephesus by S. Paul. Eusebius speaking of the successions to S. Paul, sed & Lucas (saith he) in actibus Apostolorum 
Lib. 3. c. 4.  plurimos ejus socios memorat, sicut Timothei & Titi, quorum alter in Ephesi Episcopus ... ab eo ordinatus praeficitur. S. Ambrose affirms that S. Paul having 
Praefat. in 1. Tim.  ordained him Bishop writes his first Epistle to him to instruct him in his Episcopal office. Hunc igitur jam creatum Episcopum instruit per Epistolam quomodo deberet Ecclesiam ordinare. And that this Epistle was written to instruct S. Timothy for his own person, and all Bishops in him for their deportment in the office of a Bishop is the united, concurrent testimony of S. 
a Contrhaeres.  Vincentius, 
b contr. Martion. l. 5.  Tertullian, S. 
c hom. ●0 in 1. Timoth.  chrysostom, S. 
d in 6. cap. in 1. Tim.  Ambrose, 
e in 1. Tim. 4. c. & 5. c.  Oecumenius, 
f hoeres. 75.  Epiphanius, 
g ad Timoth. cap. 4.  Primasius, and S. 
h in Pastor. part. 2. c. 11. Acts. 11.  Gregory. As for Epiphanius in the place now quoted he uses it as an argument against the madness and stupidity of Aërius contending a Bishop and a Presbyter to be all one; docet Divinus Apostoli sermo quis sit Episcopus & quis Presbyter quum dicit ad Timotheum qui erat Episcopus, Presbyterum ne objurges, etc. I shall transcribe no more testimonies for this particular but that of the general Council of Chalcedon in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus; Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spoke it in full Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. From S. Timothy until now there have been 27 Bishops or dayned in Ephesus. Who desires a multitude of testimonies (though enough already have deposed in the cause, beside the evidence of Scripture) may to these add that saying of S. chrysostom, that to Timothy was committed 
In Titum. & 1. Philip. In 1. Tim. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; of Theodoret, calling him Episcopum Asianorum; the subscription to the first Epistle to Timothy, (which if it were not writ by S. Paul, yet at least, will prove a primitive record, and very Ancient,) the fragment of the Martyrdom of S. Timothy in Photius, 
i De script. Eccles.  S. Jerome, 
k In praefat. in 1. Timoth.  Theophylact, 
Biblioth: Photij. n. 254.  
l De vitâ & morte 88 87, & 88  Isidore, and 
m Lib. 2. c. 34. 2. Tim. 4. 5.  Nicephorus.  
And now all is well if after all this Timothy do not prove an Evangelist, for this one objection will be sufficient to catch at to support a drowning cause, and though neither pertinent nor true, yet shall be laid in the balance against all the evidence of Scripture and Catholic antiquity. But [do the work of an Evangelist] (saith S. Paul) therefore it is clear S. Timothy was no Bishop. No, was not? That's hard. But let us try however.  
1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those are the next words, fulfil thy Deaconship. And therefore he was no Bishop? As well this as the other, for if Deaconship do not exclude Episcopacy, why shall his being an Evangelist exclude it? Or why may not his being a Deacon exclude his being an Evangelist, as well as his being an Evangelist, exclude his being a Bishop? Whether is higher, a Bishopric, or the office of an Evangelist? If a Bishop's office be higher, and therefore cannot consist with an Evangelist, than a Bishop cannot be a Priest, and a Priest cannot be a Deacon, and an Evangelist can be neither, for that also is thought to be higher than them both. But if the office of an Evangelist be higher, then as long as they are not disparate, much less destructive of each other, they may have leave to consist in subordination. For as for the pretence that an Evangelist is an office of a movable employment, and a Bishopric of fixed residence, that will be considered by and by.  
2. All the former discourse is upon supposition, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, implies the office of a Deacon, and so it may as well as S. Paul's other phrase implies S. Timothy to be an Evangelist. For if we mark it well it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do the work, not the office of an Evangelist. And what's that? We may see it in the verses immediately going before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And if this be the work of an Evangelist which S. Paul would have Timothy perform, viz. to preach, to be instant in season, and out of season, to reprove, to rebuke, to exhort, there is no harm done, a Bihop may, nay he must do all this.  
3. Consider we what an Evangelist is, and thence take our estimate for the present. 1. He that writes the story of the Gospel is an Evangelist, so the Greek Scholiast calls him. And in this sense indeed. S. Timothy was not an Evangelist, but yet if he had, he might have been a Bishop, because S. Mark was an Evangelist to be sure, and perhaps as sure that he was a Bishop; sure enough; for they are both delivered to us by the Catholic testimony of the Primitive Church, as we shall see hereafter, so fare as concerns our Question. But then again; an Apostle might be an Evangelist, S. Matthew was, and S. john was, and the Apostolical dignity is as much inconsistent with the office of an Evangelist, as Episcopal pre-eminence, for I have proved these two names Apostle and Bishop to signify all one thing. 2. S. Ambrose gives another exposition of 
In 4. Ephes.  [Evangelists.] Evangelistae Diaconi sunt sicut fuit Philippus. S. Philip was one of the seven, commonly called Deacons, and he was also a Presbyter, and yet an Evangelist, and yet a Presbyter in its proportion is an office of as necessary residence as a Bishop, or else why are Presbyters cried out against so bitterly in all cases, for nonresidence, and yet nothing hinders, but that S. Timothy, as well as S. Philip, might have been a Presbyter and an Evangelist together, and then why not a Bishop too, for why should a Deaconship, or a Presbyterate consist with the office of an Evangelist, more than a Bishopric? 3. Another acceptation of [Evangelist] is also in Eusebius. Sed & alii plurimi per idem 
Lib. 3. hist. cap. 37.  tempus Apostolorum Discipuli superstites erant .... Nonnulli ex his ardentiores Divinae Philosophiae .... animas suas verbo Dei consecrabant .... ut si quibus fortè provinciis nomen fidei esset incognitum praedicarent, primaque apud eos Evangelii fundamenta collocantes .... Evangelistarum fungebantur officio. They that planted the Gospel first in any Country, they were Evangelists. S. Timothy might be such a one, and yet be a Bishop afterwards. And so were some of this sort of Evangelists. For so Eusebius, Primaque apudeos fundamenta Evangelii collocantes, atque ELECTIS QUIBUS QUE EX IPSIS officium regendae Ecclesiae quam fundaverant committentes, ipsi rursùm ad alias gentes properabant. So that they first converted the Nation, and then governed the Church, first they were Evangelists and afterwards Bishops; and so was Austin the Monk that converted England in the time of S. Gregory and Ethelbert, he was first our Evangelist, and afterwards Bishop of Dover. Nay why may they not in this sense be both Evangelists and Bishops at the same time, insomuch as many Bishops have first planted Christianity in divers Countries, as S. chrysostom 
Lib. 10. tripart. hist. cap. 5. Theodoret.  in Scythia, S. Trophimus, S. Denis, S. Mark, and many more. By the way only, according to all these acceptations of the word [Evangelist] this office does not imply a perpetual motion. Evangelists many of them did travel, but they were never the more Evangelists for that, but only their office was writing or preaching the Gospel, and thence they had their name.  
4. The office of an Evangelist was but temporary, and take it in either of the two senses of Eusebius or Oecumenius, which are the only true and genuine, was to expire when Christianity was planted every where, and the office of Episcopacy, if it was at all was to be succeeded in, and therefore in no respect could these be inconsistent, at least, not always. * And how S. Paul should intent that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him, [to the coming of our Lord jesus Christ,] if the office for the execution of which he gave him the rules, 
1. Tim. 6. 14.  was to expire long before, is not so easily imagined. For if S. Paul did direct him in a temporary and expiring office, then in no sense, neither in person, nor in succession could those rules of S. Paul be kept till Christ's coming, to wit, to judgement. But if he instructed him in the perpetual office of Episcopacy, than it is easy to understand that S. Paul gave that caution to Timothy, to intimate that those his directions were not personal, but for his successors in that charge, to which he had ordained him, viz. in the sacred order and office of Episcopacy.  
5. Lastly, After all this stir, there are some of the Fathers, that will by no means admit S. Timothy to have been an Evangelist. So S. chrysostom, so Theophylact, so the Greek Scholiast, now though we have no need to make any use of it, yet if it be 
In Ephes. 4.  true, it makes all this discourse needless, we were safe enough without it, if it be false, than itself we see is needless, for the allegation of S. Timothy's being an Evangelist, is absolutely impertinent, though it had been true.  
But now I proceed.  
Titus' was also made a Bishop by the Apostles. S. Paul also was his ordainer. 1. Reliqui te 
§ 15. S. Titus at Crete,  Cretae. There S. Paul fixed his seat for him, at Crete. 2. His work was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to set in order things that are wanting, viz. to constitute rites and forms of public Liturgy, to erect a Consistory for cognisance of causes criminal, to dedicate houses for prayer by public destination for divine Service, and in a word, by his authority to establish such Discipline and rituals, as himself did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God. For he that was appointed by S. Paul, to rectify, and set things in order, was most certainly by him supposed to be the judge of all the obliquities which he was to rectify. 2. The next work is Episcopal too, and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every City. Not Presbyters collectively in every City, but distributively, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, City by City, that is Elders in several Cities, one in one City, Many in many. For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops. Of the identity of Names I shall afterwards give an account, but here it is plain S. Paul expounds himself to mean Bishops.  
1. In terms and express words. [To ordain Elders in every City; If any be the husband of one wife, etc. For a Bishop must be blameless.] That is, the elders that you are to ordain in several Cities must be blameless, for else they must not be Bishops. 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot hinder this exposition, for S. Peter calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and S. john, Presbyter electae Dominae, and Presbyter dilectissimo Gajo. Such Presbyters as these were Apostolical, and that's as much as Episcopal to be sure. 3. S. Paul adds farther [a Bishop must be blameless As THE STEWARD OF GOD. Who then is that faithful and wise Steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler?] S. Paul's Bishop is God's steward, 
Titus. 1.  and God's steward is the ruler of his household, says our blessed Saviour himself, and therefore not a mere Presbyter, amongst whom indeed there is a parity, but no superintendency of Gods making. 4. S. Paul does in the sequel still qualify his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of rulers. A Bishop must be no striker, not given to wine. They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts. [If the Steward of the house will drink and be DRUNK, and BEAT his fellow servants, than the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers.] The steward of the household, this Ruler, must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no more must a Bishop, he must not be given to wine, no striker; Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus, sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat, saith S. Hierome: still then, these are the Rulers of the Church, which S. Titus was to ordain, and 
Advers: jovinian.  therefore it is required should Rule well his own house, for how else shall he take charge of the Church of God, implying that this his charge is to Rule the house of God. 5. The reason why S. Paul appointed him to ordain these Bishops in Cities is in order to coercitive jurisdiction, because [many unruly and vain talkers were crept in, verse. 10.] and they were to be silenced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Their mouths must be stopped. Therefore they must be such Elders as had superiority of jurisdiction over these impertinent Preachers, which to a single Presbyter, either by Divine or Apostolical institution no man will grant, and to a College of Presbyters S. Paul does not intent it, for himself had given it singly to S. Titus. For I consider,  
Titus alone had coercitive jurisdiction before he ordained these Elders, be they Bishops, be they Presbyters. The Presbyters which were at Crete before his coming had not Episcopal power, or coercitive jurisdiction, for why then was Titus sent? As for the Presbyters which Titus ordained, before his ordaining them, to be sure they had no power at all, they were not Presbyters. If they had a coercitiv jurisdiction afterwards, to wit, by their ordination, than Titus had it before in his own person, (for they that were there before his coming had not, as I shown) and therefore he must also have it still, for he could not lose it by ordaining others, or if he had it not before, how could he give it unto them whom he ordained? For plus juris in alium transferre nemo potest, quàm ipse habet.  
Howsoever it be then, to be sure, Titus had it in his own person and then it follows Undeniably, that either this coercitive jurisdiction was not necessary for the Church (which would be either to suppose men impcccable, or the Church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of Schism and tumutuary factions without possibility of relief) or if it was necessary, then because it was in Titus not as a personal prerogative, but a power to be succeeded to; he might ordain others, he had authority to do it, with the same power he had himself, and therefore since he alone had this coërtion in his own person, so should his Successors, and then because a single Presbyter, could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides, nor the College of Presbyters which were there before his coming had it not, for why then was Titus sent with a new commission, nor those which he was to ordain if they were but mere Presbyters could not have it, no more than the Presbytes that were there before his coming, it follows that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordain being such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false Doctors and prating Preachers, and with authority to silence them, (as is evident in the first chapter of that Epistle) these Elders (I say) are verily, and indeed such as himself calls Bishops in the proper sense, and acceptation of the word.  
6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there before S. Titus coming, had not power to ordain others, that is, had not that power which Titus had. For Titus was sent thither for that purpose, therefore to supply the want of that power. And now, because to ordain others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the Church, that is, because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world, and mere Presbyters could not do it, and yet this must be done, not only by Titus himself, but after him, it follows undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordain men with the same power that himself had, that is with more than his first Cretan Presbyters, that is Bishops, and he means them in the proper sense.  
7. That by Elders in several Cities he means Bishops is also plain from the place where they were to be ordained, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In populous Cities, not in village Towns, For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in village Towns, as is to be seen in the Council of 
a cap. 6.  Sardis, of 
b can. 17.  Chalcedon, and S. 
c Epist 87. add Episc. Afric.  Leo, the Cities therefore do at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordained were not mere Presbyters.  
The issue of this discourse is, that since Titus was sent to Crete to ordain Bishops, himself was a Bishop to be sure, at least. If he had ordained only Presbyters, it would have proved that. But this infers him to be a Metropolitan, forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete, and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him, of his own constitution, and yet of proper dioceses. However, if this discourse concludes nothing peculiar, it frees the place from popular prejudice and mistakes, upon the confusion of Episcopus, and Presbyter; and at least infers his being a Bishop, if not a great deal more.  
Yea; but did not S. Titus ordain no mere Presbyters? yes most certainly. But, so he did Deacons too, and yet neither one nor the other are otherwise mentioned in this Epistle but by consequence and comprehension within the superior order. For he that ordains a Bishop, first makes him a Deacon, (and then he obtains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree) and then a Presbyter, and then a Bishop. So that those inferior orders are presupposed in the authorising the Supreme, and by giving direction for the qualifications of Bishops, he sufficiently instructs the inferior orders in their deportment, insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher.  
2. Add to this, that he that ordains Bishops in Cities sets there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordinem generativum Patrum, as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy, and therefore most certainly with intention, not that it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus Mortua, but, to produce others, and therefore Presbyters and Deacons.  
3. S. Paul made no express provision for villages, and yet most certainly did not intent to leave them destitute, and therefore he took order that such ordinations should be made in Cities which should be provisionary for Villages, and that is, of such men as had power to ordain and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased. For since Presbyters could not ordain other Presbyters, as appears by S. Paul's sending Titus to do it there, where, most certainly, many Presbyters before were actually resident, if Presbyters had gone to Villages they must have left the Cities destitute, or if they stayed in Cities the Villages would have perished, and atlast, when these men had died both one and the other, had been made a prey to the wolf, for there could be no shcapheard after the decay of the first generation.  
But let us see further into S. Titus his commission and letters of orders, and institution. [A man 
Tit. 3. 10.  that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.] Cognisance of heretical pravity, and animadversion against the heretic himself is most plainly concredited to S. Titus. For first he is to admonish him, then to reject him upon his pertinacy, from the Catholic communion. Cogere autem illos videtur qui saepe corripit, saith S. Ambrose, upon the establishing acoactive, or coërcitive jurisdiction over the Clergy and whole Diocese.  
But I need not specify any more particulars, for S. Paul committed to S. Titus' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all authority 
2. Titus. 15.  and power. The consequence is that which S. Ambrose prefixes to the Commentary on this Epistle. Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum, & ideò commonet eum ut sit sollicitus in Ecclesiasticâ ordinatione, id est, ad quosdam qui simulatione quâdam dignos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent, simulque & haereticos ex circumcisione corripiendos.  
And now after so fair preparatory of Scripture we may hear the testimonies of Antiquity witnessing that Titus was by S. Paul made Bishop of Crete. Sed & Lucas (saith Eusebius) in actibus Apostolorum .... Timothei meminit & Titi quorum alter in Epheso 
lib. 3. c. 4.  Episcopus: alter ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis ab eo ordinatus praeficitur. That is it which S. 
ubi suprà.  Ambrose expresses something more plainly, Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum, The Apostle consecrated Titus Bishop; and Theodoret, calling Titus, Cretensium Episcopum. The Bishop of the Cretians. And 
in 1. Tim. 3.  for this reason saith S. Chrysost. S. Paul did not write to Sylvanus, or Silas, or Clemens, but to Timothy and Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because to these he had already committed the government of Churches. But a fuller testimony of S. Titus being a Bishop who please may see in S. 
a de Script: Eccl. in Tito.  Hierome, in 
b in Sinopsi.  Dorotheus, in 
c de vitâ & morte. SSanct.  Isidore, in 
d lib. 38. c. 10.  Vincentius, in 
e apud Oecumen in praefat. in Tit. & in. 1 Timoth. 3.  Theodoret, in 
f in pastor. part. 2. c. 11.  S. Gregory, in 
g praefat: in 1. Tim. & in 2. Tim. 1.  Primatius, 
h in 1. Tim. 1. & in 2. Tim. 1. 6.  Sedulius, 
i in 1. Tit.  Theophilact and 
k lib. 2. c. 34.  Nicephorus. To which if we add the subscription of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent objections by the clearer testimony of S. 
l In Synop si Sacr. Script.  Athanasius, S 
m ad Paulam & Eustoch.  Jerome, the Syriack translation, 
n Comment. ad Titum.  Oecumenius and 
o ibid.  Theophylact, no confident denial can ever break through, or scape conviction.  
And now I know not what objection can fairly be made here; for I hope S. Titus was no Evangelist, he is not called so in Scripture, and all Antiquity calls him a Bishop, and the nature of his offices, the eminence of his dignity, the superiority of jurisdiction, the cognisance of causes criminal, and the whole exigence of the Epistle proclaim him Bishop. But suppose a while Titus had been an Evangelist, I would feign know who succeeded him? Or did all his office expire with his person? If so, than who shall reject Heretics when Titus is dead? Who shall silence factious Preachers? If not, then still who succeeded him? The Presbyters: How can that be? For if they had more power after his death then before, and governed the Churches which before they did not, then to be sure their government in common, is not an Apostolical Ordinance, much less is it a Divine right, for it is postnate to them both. But if they had no more power after Titus than they had under him, how then could they succeed him? There was indeed a dereliction of the authority, but no succession. The succession therefore both in the Metropolis of Crete, and also in the other Cities was made by singular persons, not by a College, for so we find in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recorded by Eusebius that in Gnossus of Crete, Pinytus was a most eminent Bishop, and that Philip was the Metropolitan at Gortyna. Sed & Pinytus nobilissimus apud Cretam in Episcopis fuit, saith Eusebius. But of this, 
lib. 4. c. 21.  enough.  
MY next instance shall be of one that was an Evangelist 
§. 16. S. Mark at Alexandria,  indeed, one that writ the Gospel, and he was a Bishop of Alexandria. In Scripture we find nothing of him but that he was an Evangelist, and a Deacon, for he was Deacon to S. Paul & Barnabas, when they went to the Gentiles, by ordinanation and special designment made at Antioch; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Acts. 12. & Acts. 13.  They had john to be their Minister; viz: john whose surname was Mark. * But we are not to expect all the ordinations made by the Apostles in their acts written by S. Luke, which end at S. Paul's first going to Rome; but many other things, their founding of divers Churches, their ordination of Bishops, their journeys, their persecutions, their Miracles and Martyrdoms are recorded, & rely upon the faith of the primitive Church. And yet the ordination of S. Mark was within the term of S. Luke's story, for his successor Anianus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the eight year of Nero's reign, five or six years before the death of S. Paul. Igitur Neronis PRIMO Imperij anno post Marcum Evangelistam Ecclesiae apud Alexandriam Anianus Sacerdotium suscepit. So the Latin of Ruffinus reads it, in stead of octavo. Sacerdotium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is the Bishopric, for else there were many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Priests in Alexandria besides him, and how then he should be S. Marks successor more than the other Presbyters, is not so soon to be contrived. But so the Collecta of the Chapter runs. Quòd post Marcum primus Episcopus Alexandrinae Ecclesiae ordinatus sit Anianus, Anianus was consecrated the first Bishop of Alexandria after S. Mark. * And Philo the Iew telling the story of the Christians in Alexandria, called by the inhabitants, Cultores, and Cultrices, The worshippers, Addit autem adhuc his (saith Eusebius) quomodò sacerdotes vel Ministri exhibeant officia sua, vel quae sit suprà 
lib. 2 hist. cap. 17.  omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes, intimating that beside the offices of Priests and Ministers, there was an Episcopal dignity which was apex super omnia, a height above all employments, established at Alexandria; and how soon that was, is soon computed, for Philo lived in our blessed Saviour's time, and was Ambassador to the Emperor Cajus, and survived S. Mark a little.  
But S. Jerome will strike up this business, A Marco 
Epist. ad Evagr.  Evangelistâ ad Heraclam usque, & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri Egypti semper unum ex se electum in celsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant. And again, Marcus interpres Apostoli Petri, & Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus Episcopus. The same is 
de Script: Eccles. & in proëm in Matth.  witnessed by 
a lib. 6. Epist. 371.  S. Gregory, 
b lib 14. cap 39  Nicephorus, and divers others.  
Now although the ordination of S. Mark is not specified in the Acts, as innumerable multitudes of things more, and scarce any thing at all of any of the twelve but S. Peter, nothing of S. james the son of Thaddaeus, nor of Alpheus, but the Martyrdom of one of them, nothing of S. Bartholomew, of S. Thomas, of Simon zelotes, of S. jude the Apostle, scarce any of their names recorded, yet no wise man can distrust the faith of such records, which all Christendom hitherto, so fare as we know, hath acknowledged as authentic, and these ordinations cannot possibly go less than Apostolical, being done in the Apostles times, to whom the care of all the Churches was concredited, they seeing and beholding several successions in several Churches before their death, as here at Alexandria, first Saint Mark, than Anianus, made Bishop five or six years before the death of S. Peter and S. Paul. But yet who it was that ordained S. Mark Bishop of Alexandria (for Bishop he was most certainly) is not obscurely intimated by the most excellent man S. Gelasius in the Roman Council, Marcus à Petro Apostolo in Aegyptum directus verbum veritatis praedicavit, 
In decret. de lib. authent. & apocryph.  & gloriosè consummavit Martyrium. S. Peter sent him into Egypt to found a Church, and therefore would furnish him with all things requisite for so great employment, and that could be no less, than the ordinary power Apostolical.  
BUt in the Church of Rome, the ordination of 
§ 17. S. Linus, and s. Clement at Rome.  Bishops by the Apostles, and their successions during the times of the Apostles, is very manifest by a concurrent testimony of old writers. Fundantes igitur, & instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt. Hujus Lini Paulus in his quae sunt ad Timotheum Epistolis meminit. Succedit autem ei Anacletus, post eum tertiò loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum sortitur Clemens, qui & vidit ipsos Apostolos, & con●ulit cum eyes, cùm adhuc insonantem praedicationem Apostolorum, & traditionem ante oculos haberet. So S. Irenaeus. 
lib. 3. cap. 3.  
* Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4.  Memoratur autem ex comitibus Pauli Crescens quidam ad Gallias esse praefectus. Linus vero & Clemens in urbe Româ Ecclesiae praefuisse. Many more testimonies there are of these men's being ordained Bishops of Rome by the Apostles, as of 
a de prescript.  Tertullian, 
b lib, 2. contr. Parmen.  Optatus, 
c Epist. 165.  S. Austin, and 
d de Script. Eccles.  S. Hierome. But I will not cloy my Reader with variety of one dish, and be tedious in a thing so evident and known.  
S. john ordained S. Polycarpe Bishop at Smyrna .... sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum 
§ 18. S. Polycarpe at Smyrna, & divers others.  ab Iohanne conlocatum refert; sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit, proinde utique & caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici scminis traduces habeant. So Tertullian. The Church of Smyrna saith that Polycarpe 
De prescript.  was placed there by S. john, as the Church of Rome saith that Clement was ordained there by S. Peter, and other Churches have those whom the Apostles made to be their Bishops. Polycarpus autem 
De Script. Eccles. lib. 3. c. 35.  non solùm ab Apostolis edoctus .... sed etiam ab Apostolis in Asiâ, in eâ quae est Smyrnis Ecclesiâ constitutus Episcopus .... & testimonium his perhibent quae sunt in Asiâ Ecclesiae omnes, & qui usque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo etc. The same also is witnessed by S. Jerome, and 
* In Martyrologio Roman:  Eusebius: Quoniam autem valdè longum est in tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum successiones enumerare, to use S. Irenaeus his expression; It were an infinite labour to reckon up all those whom the Apostles made Bishops with their own hands, as 
a Euseb. l. 4. c. 23. & lib. 3. c. 4.  S. Dionysius the Areopagite at Athens, 
b Origen. lib. 10. in 16. Rom.  Cajus at Thessalonica, 
c S. Ambros. in 4 Coloss.  Archippus at Colosse, 
d Jgnatius Epist. ad Ephes. & Euseb. lib. 3. c. 35.  Onesimus at Ephesus, 
e Arethas in 1. Apocal.  Antipas at Pergamus, 
f Epist. ad Philip. & Theodoret. ib. & in 1. Tim. 3.  Epaphroditus at Philippi, 
g Euseb. l. 3. c. 4. apud Galtias. So Ruffinus reads it. In Galatia, so is intimated in Scripture, and so the Roman Martyrol.  Crescens among the Gauls, 
h Ignatius Epist. ad Antioch. & Euseb. lib 3. c. 22.  Evodias at Antioch, 
* In Martyrologio Roman:  Sosipater at Iconium, Erastus in Macedonia, Trophimus at Arles, jason at Tarsus, Silas at Corinth, Onesiphorus at Colophon, Quartus at Berytus, Paul the Proconsul at Narbona, besides many more whose names are not recorded in Scripture, as these forecited are, so many as 
* lib. 3. cap. 37.  Eusebius counts impossible to enumerate; it shall therefore suffice to sum up this digest of their acts and ordinations in those general foldings used by the Fathers, saying that the Apostles did ordain Bishops in all Churches, that the succession of Bishops down from the Apostles first ordination of them was the only argument to prove their Churches Catholic, and their adversaries who could not do so, to be Heretical; This also is very evident, and of great consideration in the first ages while their tradition was clear, and evident, and not so be pudled as it since hath been with the mixture of Heretics, striving to spoil that which did so much mischief to their causes.  
Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquemex Apostolis, aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem & antecessorem, hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt, etc. And when S. Irenaeus had reckoned 
Lib. 3. cap. 3.  twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles, nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum habet Eleutherius. Hâc ordinatione (saith he) & successione, & ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ traditio & veritat is praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos; & est plenissima haec ostensio unam & eandem vivatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, & tradita in veritate. So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination, must of itself be a very certain thing, when the Church made it a main probation of their faith; for the books of Scripture were not all gathered together, and generally received as yet. Now then, since this was a main pillar of their Christianity, viz. a constant reception of it from hand to hand, as being delivered by the Bishops in every chair, till we come to the very Apostles that did ordain them, this (I say) being their proof, although it could not be more certain than the thing to be proved, which in that case was a Divine revelation, yet to them it was more evident as being matter of fact, and known almost by evidence of sense, and as verily believed by all, as it was by any one, that himself was baptised, both relying upon the report of others. * Radix Christianae societatis 
Epist. 42.  per sedes Apostolorum, & successiones Episcoporum, certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur, saith S. Austin. The very root and foundation of Christian communion is spread all over the world, by the successions of Apostles and Bishops.  
And is it not now a madness to say there was no such thing, no succession of Bishops in the Churches Apostolical, no ordination of Bishops by the Apostles, and so (as S. Paul's phrase is) overthrew the faith of some, even of the Primitive Christians, that used this argument as a great weapon of offence against the invasion of heretics and factious people? It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus, Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis 
Ubi supra  postolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos. We can reckon those who from the Apostles until now were made Bishops in the Churches; and of this we are sure enough, if there be any faith in Christians.  
THe sum is this. Although we had not proved 
§ 19 So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical ordinance: of the same authority with many other points generally believed.  the immediate Divine institution of Episcopal power over Presbyters and the whole flock, yet Episcopacy is not less than an Apostolical ordinance, and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lord's day is. For, for that in the new Testament we have no precept, and nothing but the example of the Primitive Disciples meeting in their Synaxes upon that day, and so also they did on the saturday in the jewish Synagogues, but yet (however that at Geneva, they were once in meditation to have changed it into a Thursday meeting to have shown their Christian liberty) we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday-Festivall less than an Apostolical ordinance, and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed.  
* Baptism of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance, and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried, and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles; and wise men do easily observe that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of Scripture enforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us, as we do of baptising infants upon them, if we speak of immediate Divine institution, or of practise Apostolical recorded in Scripture, and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists, was forced to fly to Apostolicail traditive ordination, and therefore the institution of Bishops, must be served first, as having fairer plea, and clearer evidence in Scripture, than the baptising of infants, and yet they that deny this, are by the just anathema of the Catholic Church, confidently condemned for Heretics.  
* Of the same consideration are divers other things in Christianity, as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist; for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church, Clergy and Laity, when Christ said [Hoc facite, Do this] then why may not every Christian man there represented, do that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to do? If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church, why then do all communicate? Or what place, or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the four Gospels, limiting [Hoc facite, id est, benedicite] to the Clergy, and extending [Hoc facite, id est, accipite & manducate] to the Laity? This also rests upon the practice Apostolical and traditive interpretation of H. Church, and yet cannot be denied that so it ought to be, by any man that would not have his Christendom suspected.  
* To these I add the communion of Women, the distinction of books Apocryphal, from Canonical, that such books were written by such Evangelists, and Apostles, the whole tradition of Scripture itself, the Apostles Creed, the feast of Easter (which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution, must needs prevail as Caput institutionis, it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated.) These and divers others of greater consequence (which I dare not specify for fear of being misunderstood) rely but upon equal faith with this of Episcopacy (though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance) and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity, which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian, whose Master is truth itself.  
What their power and eminence was, and 
§ 20. And was an office of power and great authority,  the appropriates of their office so ordained by the Apostles, appears also by the testimonies before alleged, the expressions whereof run in these high terms. Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino. Linus his Bishopric was the administration of the whole Church. Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens, they were both Prefects of the Church, or Prelates, that's the Church-word. Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur, so Titus, he is set over all the affairs of the new-founded Churches in Crete. In celsiori gradu collocatus, placed in a higher order or degree, so the Bishop of Alexandria, chosen ex Presbyteris, from amongst the Presbyters. Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes, so Philo of that Bishopric, The seat of Episcopal height above all things in Christianity. These are its honours. Its offices these. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. To set in order whatsoever he sees wanting, or amiss; to silence vain prating Preachers, that will not submit to their superiors, to ordain elders, to rebuke delinquents, to reject Heretics, viz. from the communion of the faithful (for else why was the Angel of the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating the Nicolaitan heretics, but that it was in his power to eject them? And the same is the case of the Angel of Thyatir a in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people) but to the Bishop was committed the cognisance of causes criminal and particular of Presbyters, (so to Timothy in the instance formerly alleged) nay, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all authority, so in the case of Titus, and officium regendae Ecclesiae, the office of ruling the Church, so to them all whom the Apostles left in the several Churches respectively which they had new founded. So Eusebius. 
Vbi supra. apud Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 23.  For the Bishop was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, set over all, Clergy and Laity, saith S. Clement.  
This was given to Bishops by the Apostles themselves, and this was not given to Presbyters, as I have already proved, and for the present, it will sufficiently appear in this, that Bishops had power over Presbyters, which cannot be supposed they had over themselves, unless they could be their own superiors.  
BUt a Council, or College of Presbyters 
§. 21. Not lessened by the assistance and Council of Presbyters,  might have jurisdiction over any one, and such Colleges there were in the Apostles times, and they did in communi Ecclesiam regere, govern the Church in common with the Bishop, as saith S. Hierom, viz. where there was a Bishop, and where there was none they ruled without him. * This indeed will call us to a new account, and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierome which I will set down here, that we may leave the sun without a cloud. S. Ierom's words are these. 
Comment. in ep. ad Titum.   
Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus, & antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, ego sum Pauli ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi Presbyterorum consitio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos put abat esse, non Christi, in toto or be decretum est, ut unus de Presbyter is electus superponeretur caeteris ut Schismatum semina tollerentur.  
Then he brings some arguments to confirm his saying, and sums them up thus.  
Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos, & ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quàm Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores: & in communi debere Ecclesiam regere, etc.  
The thing S. Hierome aims to prove, is the identity of Bishop, Presbyter, and their government of the Church in common. * For their identity, It is clear that S. Hierome does not mean it in respect of order, as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia, one power; for else he contradicts himself most apertly, for in his Epistle ad Evagrium, Quid facit (saith he) Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat? A Presbyter may not ordain, a Bishop does, which is a clear difference of power, and by S. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact, but of right [quod Presbyter non FACIAT] not [non facit;] that a Priest may not, must not do, that a Bishop does, viz. he gives holy orders. * And for matter of fact S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not govern in common, but because he conceived it was fit he should be joined in the common regiment and care of the Diocese, therefore he asserted it as much as he could; And therefore if S. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination, had been only customary, & by actual indulgence, or encroachment, or positive constitution, and no matter of primitive and original right, S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should, come what would have come. And suppose S. Hierome, in this distinct power of ordination had intended it only to be a difference in fact, not in right (for so some of late have muttered) then S. Hierome had not said true according to his own principles, for [Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat?] had been quickly answered, if the Question had only been de facto; For the Bishop governed the Church alone, and so in jurisdiction was greater than Presbyters, and this was by custom, and in fact at least, S. Hierome says it, and the Bishop took so much power to himself, that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to do any thing sine literis Episco▪ palibus, without leave of the Bishop, and this S. Hierome complained of; so that de facto the power of 
Ad Nepotian. & the 7. ordin. Eccles.  ordination was not the only difference: That then (if S. Hierome says true) being the only difference between Presbyter and Bishop, must be meant de jure, in matter of right, not humane positive, for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction which the facto, and at least by a humane right the Bishop had over Presbyters, but Divine, and then this identity of Bishop and Presbyter by S. Hierom's own confession cannot be meant in respect of order, but that Episcopacy is by Divine right a superior order to the Presbyterate.  
* Add to this that the arguments which S. Hierome uses in this discourse are to prove that Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters. To this purpose he urges Act. 20. And Philippians 1. and the Epistles to Timothy, and Titus, and some others, but all driving to the same issue. To what? Not to prove that Presbyters are sometimes called Presbyters; For who doubts that? But that Bishops are so may be of some consideration and needs a proof, and this he Undertook. Now that they are so called must needs infer an identity and a disparity in several respects. An identity, at least of Names, for else it had been wholly impertinent. A disparity, or else his arguments were to prove idem affirmari de eodem, which were a business next to telling pins. Now than this disparity must be either in order, or jurisdiction. By the former probation it is sure that he means the orders to be disparate; If jurisdiction too, I am content, but the former is most certain, if he stand to his own principles.  
This identity then which S. Hierome expresses of Episcopus and Presbyter, must be either in Name or in jurisdiction. I know not certainly which he means, for his arguments conclude only for the identity of Names, but his conclusion is for identity of jurisdiction, & in communi debere Ecclesiam regere, is the intent of his discourse. If he means the first, viz: that of Names, it is well enough, there is no harm done, it is in confesso apud omnes, but concludes nothing (as I shall show hereafter) but because he intends (so fare as may be guessed by his words) a parity and concurrence of jurisdiction, this must be considered distinctly.  
1. Then; in the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters, and inferior Ministers with a power of baptising, preaching, consecrating and reconciling in privato foro, but did not in every Church at the first founding it, constitute a Bishop. This is evident in Crete, in Ephesus, in Corinth, at Rome, at Antioch.  
2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their own hands [There comes upon me (saith S. Paul) daily the care or Supravision of all the Churches] Not all absolutely, for not all of the Circumcision, but all of his charge, with which he was once charged, and of which he had not exonerated himself by constituting Bishops there, for of these there is the same reason. And again [If any man obey not our word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
2. Thess. 3. 14.  signify him to me by an Epistle] so he charges the Thessalonians, and therefore of this Church, S. Paul as yet, clearly kept the power in his own hands. So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it, governed by Episcopal, or Apostolical authority.  
3. For aught appears in Scripture, the Apostles never gave any external, or coercitive jurisdiction in public, and criminal causes, nor yet power to ordain Rites or Ceremonies, or to inflict censures, to a College of mere Presbyters. * The contrary may be greedily swallowed, and I know not with how great confidence, and prescribing prejudice; but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ, any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter, or College of Presbyters without a Bishop, or express delegation of Apostolical authority (tanquam vicario suo, as to his substitute in absense of the Bishop or Apostle) to inflict any censures, or take cognisance of persons and causes criminal. Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis, but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by virtue of their ordination, or any commission, from Christ or his Apostles.  
This we may best consider by induction of particulars.  
1. There was a Presbytery at jerusalem, but they had a Bishop always, and the College of the Apostles sometimes, therefore whatsoever act they did, it was in conjunction with, and subordination to the Bishop & Apostles. Now it cannot be denied both that the Apostles were superior to all the Presbyters in jerusalem, and also had power alone to govern the Church. I say they had power to govern alone, for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordained the first Presbyters, that is before there were any of capacity to join with them, they must do it themselves, and then also they must retain the same power, for they could not lose it by giving Orders. Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction, than the Presbyters being in some public acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order, they only assisting in subordination, and by dependency.  
This only by the way; In jerusalem the Presbyters were some thing more than ordinary, and were not mere Presbyters in the present, and limited sense of the word. For Barnabas, and judas, and Silas [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them] were of that Presbytery. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They were Rulers, and Prophets, Chief men amongst the 
Act. 15.  Brethren, & yet called Elders, or Presbyters though of Apostolical power and authority, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius. For truth is, 
in Act. Apost.  that divers of them were ordained Apostles with an Unlimited jurisdiction, not fixed upon any See, that they also might together with the twelve, exire in totum mundum. * So that in this Presbytery either they were more than mere Presbyters, as Barnabas, and judas, and Silas, men of Apostolical power, and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve, and with the Bishop, they were of equal power, not by virtue of their Presbyterate, but by their Apostolate; or if they were but mere Presbyters, yet because it is certain, and proved, and confessed that the Apostles had power to govern the Church alone, this their taking mere Presbyters in partem regiminis, was a voluntary act, and from this example was derived to other Churches, and then it is most true, that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere, was rather, consuetudine Ecclesiae, then dominicae dispositionis veritate, (to use S. Hierom's own expression) for this is more evident than that Bishops, do eminere caeteris, by custom rather than Divine institution. For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone, then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles, and although fitting to be retained where the same reasons do remain, and circumstances concur, yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order; not, Dominicae dispositionis veritate, and not laudable when those reasons cease, and there is an emergency of contrary causes.  
2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch, but there we find no acts either of concurrent, or single jurisdiction, but of ordination indeed we do, 
Act. 13.  and that performed by such men as S. Paul was, and Barnabas, for they were two of the Prophets reckoned in the Church of Antioch, but I do not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place, to be sure they were not mere Presbyters as we now Understand the word; as I proved formerly.  
3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a College of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit 
Act. 20.  of God called Bishops, and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God. This must do it or nothing. In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos, In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops. There must lay the exigence of the argument, and if we can find who is meant by [Vos] we shall, I hope, gain the truth. * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters, or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus, and to them he spoke. ** It's true, but that's not all the [vos], For there were present at that Sermon, Sopater, and Aristarchus, and Secundus, and Gaius, and Timothy, and Tychicus, and Trophimus; 
Act. 20. 4.  And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis, and there many Elders were either accidentally, or by ordinary residence, yet those were not all Elders of that Church, but of all Asia, in the Scripture sense, the lessar Asia. For so in the preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates [ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have 
vers. 18.  been with you at all seasons] His whole conversation in Asia was not confined to Ephesus, and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all, and therefore were of dispersed habitation, and so it is more clearly inferred from vers. 25. And now behold I know that YE ALL AMONG WHOM I HAVE GONE preaching the Kingdom of God &c: It was a travail to preach to all that were present, and therefore most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant.  
Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations.  
1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture, particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter, as it is contended for, on one side, and granted on all sides, then where both the words are used, what shall determine the signification? For whether (to instance in this place) shall Presbyter limit Episcopus, or Episcopus extend Presbyter? Why may not Presbyter signify one that is verily a Bishop, as Episcopus signify a mere Presbyter? For it is but an ignorant conceit, where ever Presbyter is named, to fancy it in the proper and limited sense, and not to do so with Episcopus, and when they are joined together, rather to believe it in the limited and present sense of Presbyter, then in the proper and present sense of Episcopus. So that as yet we are indifferent upon the terms. These men sent for from Ephesus, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders or Presbyters of the Church, but at Miletus, Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos, there they are called Bishops or overseers. So that I may as well say here were properly so called Bishops, as another may say, here were mere Presbyters. * And lest it be objected in prejudice of my affirmative, that they could not be Bishops, because they were of Ephesus, there never being but one Bishop in one Church. I answer, that in the Apostles times this was not true. For at jerusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopal, and Apostolical authority, and so at Antioch; as at jerusalem, where james, and judas, and Silas, and the Apostles, and Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, and at Rome, at the same time Peter and Paul, and Linus, and Clemens, but yet but one of them was fixed, and properly the Bishop of that place. But 2ly All these were not of Ephesus, but the Elders of all Asia, but some from other countries as appears vers. 4. So that although they were all Bishops, we might easily find distinct Dioceses for them, without encumbering the Church of Ephesus with a multiplied incumbency. Thus fare then we are upon even terms, the community of compellations used here, can no more force us to believe them all to be mere Presbyters, than Bishops in the proper sense.  
2. It is very certain that they were not all mere Presbyters at his farewell Sermon, for S. Timothy was there, and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony, and many of those which are reckoned v. 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey, and employed in mission Apostolical for the founding of Churches, and particularly, Sosipater was there, and he was Bishop of Iconium, and Tychicus of Chalcedon in Bythinia, as Dorotheus and Eusebius witness; and Trophimus of Arles in France, 
Vbi supra.  for so is witnessed by the suffragans of that province in their Epistle to S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presbyters, for besides the premises we have a witness beyond exception, the ancient S. Irenaeus, In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis, & Presbyteris qui erant ebb 
Lib. 3. cap. 14.  Epheso, & à reliquis proximis civitatibus, quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere, etc. S. Paul making haste to keep his Pentecost at jerusalem, at Miletus, did call together the Bishops and Presbyters, from Ephesus, and the neighbouring Cities. * Now to all these in conjunction S. Paul spoke, and to these indeed the Holy Ghost had concredited his Church to be fed, and taught with Pastoral supravision, but in the mean while here is no commission of power, or jurisdiction to Presbyters distinctly, nor supposition of any such preaexistent power,  
3. All that S. Paul said in this narration, was spoken in the presence of them all, but not to them all. For that of v. 18. [ye know how I have been with you in Asia in all seasons,] that indeed was spoke to all the Presbyters that came from Ephesus and the voisinage, viz. in a collective sense, not in a distributive, for each of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travails; but this was not spoken to Sopater the Beraean, or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian, but to Tychicus, and Trophimus, who were Asians it might be addressed. And for that of v. 25. [ye all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more,] this was directed only to the Asians, for he was never more to come thither; but Timothy to be sure, saw him afterwards, for S. Paul sent for him, a little before his death, to Rome, and it will not be supposed he neglected to attend him. So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops, and Presbyters at this meeting, as most certainly there was, and of Evangelists, and Apostolical men besides, how shall it be known, or indeed with any probability suspected that, that clause of vers. 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei, does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters, and not particularly to Timothy, who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus, and to Gajus, and to the other Apostolical men who had at least Episcopal authority, that is, power of founding, and ordering Churches without a fixed and limited jurisdiction?  
4. Either in this place is no jurisdiction at all intimated de antiquo, or concredited de novo, or if there be, it is in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 28. Bishops, and Feeders; and than it belongs either to the Bishops alone, or to the Presbyters in conjunction with, and subordination to the Bishops, for to the mere Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertain, by any intination of that place.  
5. How and if these Presbyters, which came from Ephesus and the other parts of Asia were made Bishops at Miletus? Then also this way all difficulty will be removed. And that so it was is more than probable; for to be sure, Timothy was now entering, and fixing upon his See; and it was consonant to the practice of the Apostles, and the exigence of the thing itself, when they were to leave a Church to fix a Bishop in it; for why else was a Bishop fixed in jerusalem, so long before in other Churches, but because the Apostles were to be scattered from thence, and there the first bloody field of Martyrdom was to be fought. And the case was equal here, for S. Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more, and he foresaw that ravening wolves would enter into the folds, and he had actually placed a Bishop in Ephesus, and it is unimaginable, that he would not make equal provision for other Churches, there being the same necessity from the same danger, in them all, and either S. Paul did it now, or never; and that about this time the other six Asian Churches had Angels, or Bishops set in their candlesticks, is plain, for there had been a succession in the Church of Pergamus, Antipas was dead, and S. Timothy had sat in Ephesus, and S. Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before S. john writ his Revelation.  
6. Lastly, that no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters, except a delegate, and subordinate, appears beyond all exception, by S. Paul's first epistle to Timothy, establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters, and ordination in him alone, without the conjunction of any in commission with him, for aught appears either there, or elsewhere.  
* 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is clear. For what power had they of jurisdiction? For that is it, we now speak of. If they had none before S. Titus came, we are well enough at Crete. If they had, why did S. Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it? Or if he did not, to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned? For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminal equal to Titus after his coming, or they had not. If they had, than what did Titus do there? If they had not, then either they had no jurisdiction at all, or whatsoever it was, it was in subordination to him, they were his inferiors, and he their ordinary judge and Governor.  
5. One thing more before this be left, must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth, for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop, for they had none of divers years after the founding of the Church, and yet S. Paul reproves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church.  
* This is it that I said before, that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church, and placed no Bishop. For in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himself the sole judge. [For I verily as 
1. Cor. 5. 3.  absent in body but present in spirit have judged already] and then secondly, S. Paul gives the Church 
V 4.  of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause [In the name of our Lord jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and MY SPIRIT, that is, My power, My authority, for so he explains himself, MY SPIRIT, WITH THE POWER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, to deliver him over to Satan. And 3. As all this power is delegate, so it is but declarative in the Corinthians, for S. Paul had given sentence before, and they of Corinth were to publish it. 4. This was a commission given to the whole assembly, and no more concerns the Presbyters, than the people, and so some have contended; but so it is, but will serve neither of their turns, neither for an independent Presbytery, nor a conjunctive popularity. As for S. Paul's reproving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant, I have often heard it confidently averred, but never could see ground for it. The suspicion of it is v. 2. [And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be TAKEN AWAY FROM AMONG YOU] Taken away. But by whom? That's the Question. Not by them, to be sure. For TAKEN AWAY FROM You, implies that it is by the power of another, not by their act, for no man can take away any thing from himself. He may put it away, not take it, the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning. * Well then: In all these instances, viz. of jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Crete, and Corinth (and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question) all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop, or in the Bishop when there was any; And yet that the Presbyters were joined in the ordering Church affairs I will not deny, to wit, by voluntary assuming them, in partem sollicitudinis, and by delegation of power Apostolical, or Episcopal, and by way of assistance in acts deliberative, and consiliary, though I find this no where specified but in the Church of jerusalem, where I proved that the Elders were men of more power then mere Presbyters, men of Apostolical authority. But here lies the issue, and strain of the Question.  
Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminal, and pertaining to the public regiment of the Church, by virtue of their order, or without particular substitution, and delegation. For there is not in all Scripture any commission given by Christ to mere Presbyters, no divine institution of any power of regiment in the Presbytery; no constitution Apostolical, that mere Presbyters should either alone, or in conjunction with the Bishop govern the Church; no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any mere Presbyters, either upon Clergy or Laity; no specification of any power that they had so to do; but to Churches where Colleges of Presbyters were resident, Bishops were sent by Apostolical ordination; not only with power of imposition of hands, but of excommunication, of taking cognisance even of causes, and actions of Presbyters themselves, as to Titus, and Timothy, the Angel of the Church of Ephesus; and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fixed, as in the case of the Corinthian delinquent before specified, which delegation was needless, if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter, or a whole College of them.  
Now then, return we to the consideration of S. Hieromes saying: The Church was governed (saith he) communi Presbyterorum consilio, by the common Counsel of the Presbyters. But,  
1. Quo jure was this? That the Bishops were Superior to those which were then called Presbyters, by custom rather than Divine disposition S. Hierome affirms; but that Presbyters were joined with the Apostles and Bishops at first, by what right was that? Was not that also by custom and condescension rather than by Divine disposition? S. Hierome does not say but it was. For he speaks only of matter of fact, not of right, It might have been otherwise, though de facto it was so in some places.  
* 2. [Communi Presbyterorum consilio] is true in the Church of jerusalem, where the Elders were Apostolical men, and had Episcopal authority and something superadded, as Barnabas, and judas and Silas, for they had the authority and power of Bishops, and an unlimited Diocese besides, though afterwards Silas was fixed upon the See of Corinth. But yet even at jerusalem they actually had a Bishop, who was in that place superior to them in jurisdiction, and therefore does clearly evince, that the common-counsel of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them.  
* 3. [Communi Presbyterorum consilio] is also true, because the Apostles called themselves Presbyters, as S. Peter, and S. john, in their Epistles. Now at the first, many Prophets, many Elders (for the words are sometimes used in common) were for a while resident in particular Churches, and did govern in common; As at Antioch were Barnabas, and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, and Paul. Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed; for all these were Presbyters, in the sense that S. Peter and S. john were, and the Elders of the Church of jerusalem.  
* 4. Suppose this had been true in the sense that any body please to imagine, yet this not being by any divine ordinance, that Presbyters should by their Counsel assist in external regiment of the Church, neither by any intimation of Scripture, nor by affirmation of S. Hierome, it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose, Postquàm omnibus 
in Ephes. 4.  locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae, & officia ordinata, alitèr composita res est quàm caperat. It might be so at first de facto, and yet no need to be so neither then, nor after. For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of it's own, nor Crete, and there was no need, for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them, and S. john, and other of the Apostles, but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither; for when themselves were to go away, the power must be concredited to another; And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had entrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters, yet it was but in dependence on the Apostles, and by substitution, not by any ordinary power, and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle, or the sending of a Bishop to reside. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Epist. ad Antioch.  So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a business of being persecuted, he writ to his Presbyters, Do you feed the flock amongst you, till God shall show you who shall be your Ruler, viz. My Successor. No longer. Your commission expires when a Bishop comes.  
* 5. To the conclusion of S. Hieromes discourse, viz. That Bishops are not greater than Presbyters by the truth of divine disposition; I answer, that this is true in this sense, Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater than all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters, such as were the Elders in the Council at jerusalem, such as were they of Antioch, such as S. Peter and S. john, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all, and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sense, that is of a fixed and particular Diocese, and jurisdiction.  
* 2ly S. Hieromes meaning is also true in this sense, [Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater than Presbyters,] viz. quoad exercitium actûs, that is, they are not tied to exercise jurisdiction solely in their own persons, but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in common consilium, they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters; and that they did not so, but kept the exercise of it only in their own hands in S. Hieromes time, this is it, which he saith is rather by custom, then by Divine dispensation, for it was otherwise at first, viz. de facto, and might be so still, there being no law of God against the delegation of power Episcopal. * As for the last words in the objection, [Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere,] it is an assumentum of S. Hieromes own; for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names, and common regiment de facto, not the jure, and from a fact to conclude with a Debere, is a Non sequitur, unless this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former arguments, that is, THEY OUGHT, not by God's law, but in imitation of the practice Apostolical; to wit, when things are as they were then, when the Presbyters are such as then they were; THEY OUGHT, for many considerations, and in Great cases, not by the necessity of a Divine precept.  
* And indeed to do him right he so explains himself, [Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere, imitantes Moysen qui cùm haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel, septuaginta elegit, cum quibus populum judicaret.] The Presbyters ought to judge in common with the Bishop, for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses, who might have ruled alone, yet was content to take others to him, and himself only to rule in chief. Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops do, but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them, and therefore though his Council perhaps might be good then, yet it is necessary at no time, and was not followed then, and to be sure is needless now. * For the arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this his intention what ever it is, I have and shall else where produce, for they yield many other considerations than this collection of S. Hierome, and prove nothing less than the equality of the offices of Episcocy and Presbyterate. The same thing is per omnia respondent to the parallel place of 
a In 1. Tim. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Homil. 11.  S. chrysostom, It is needless to repeat either the objection, or answer.  
* But however this saying of S. Hierome, and the parallel of S. chrysostom is but like an argument against an Evident truth, which comes forth upon a desperate service, and they are sure to be killed by the adverse party, or to run upon their own Swords; For either they are to be understood in the senses above explicated, and then they are impertinent, or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Catholic antiquity, and so are false, and die within their own trenches.  
I end this argument of tradition Apostolical with that saying of S. Hierome in the same place. Postquam Vnusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse, non Christi, & diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, Ego Apollo, Ego autem Cephae, in toto orbe decretum est ut Vnus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ut schismatum semina tollerentur. That is, a public decree issued out in the Apostles times, that in all Churches one should be chosen out of the Clergy, and set over them, viz. to rule and govern the flock committed to his charge. This I say was in the Apostles times, even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schism, for than they said I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and then it was, that he that baptised any Catechumen, took them for his own not as Christ's disciples. So that it was, tempore Apostolorum, that this decree was made, for in the time of the Apostles S. james, and S. Mark, and S. Timothy, and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieromes express attestation; It was also [toto orbe decretum] so that if it had not been proved to have been an immediate Divine institution, yet it could not have gone much less, it being, as I have proved, and as S. Hierome acknowledges CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC. *  
Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ, is an Apostolical precept. We have 
§ 22. And all this hath been the faith & practise of Christendom.  seen how the Apostles have followed Christ, how their tradition is consequent of Divine institution; Next let us see, how the Church hath followed the Apostles, as the Apostles have followed Christ. CATHOLIC PRACTICE is the next Basis of the power and order of Episcopacy. And this shall be in subsidium to them also that call for reduction of the state Episcopal to a primitive consistence, and for the confirmation of all those pious sons of Holy Church, who have a venerable estimate of the public and authorised facts of Catholic Christendom.  
* For Consider we, Is it imaginable, that all the world should immediately after the death of the Apostles conspire together to seek themselves, and not, ea quae sunt jesu Christi; to erect a government of their own devising, not ordained by Christ, not delivered by his Apostles, and to relinquish a Divine foundation, and the Apostolical superstructure, which if it was at all, was a part of our Masters will, which whosoever knew, and observed not, was to be beaten with many stripes? Is it imaginable, that those gallant men who could not be brought off from the prescriptions of Gentilism to the seeming impossibilities of Christianity, without evidence of Miracle, and clarity of Demonstration upon agreed principles, should all upon their first adhesion to Christianity, make an Universal dereliction of so considerable a part of their Masters will, and leave Gentilism to destroy Christianity, for he that erects another Oeconomy then what the Master of the family hath ordained, destroys all those relations of mutual dependence which Christ hath made for the coadunation of all the parts of it, and so destroys it in the formality of a Christian congregation or family?  
* Is it imaginable, that all those glorious Martyrs, that were so curious observers of Divine Sanctions, and Canons Apostolical, that so long as that ordinance of the Apostles concerning abstinence from blood was of force, they would rather die then eat a strangled hen, or a pudding, (for so Eusebius relates of the Christians in the particular instance of Biblis and Blandina) that they would be so sedulous in the contemning the government that Christ left for his family, and erect another?  
* To what purpose were all their watch, their banishments, their fears, their fastings, their penances and formidable austerities, and finally their so frequent Martyrdoms, of what excellency or avail, if after all, they should be hurried out of this world and all their fortunes and possessions, by untimely, by disgraceful, by dolorous deaths, to be set before a tribunal to give account of their universal neglect, and contemning of Christ's last testament, in so great an affair, as the whole government of his Church?  
* If all Christendom should be guilty of so open, so united a defiance against their Master, by what argument, or confidence can any misbeliever be persuaded to Christianity, which in all its members for so many ages together is so unlike its first institution, as in its most public affair, and for matter of order of the most general concernment, is so contrary to the first birth?  
* Where are the promises of Christ's perpetual assistance, of the impregnable permanence of the Church against the gates of Hell, of the Spirit of truth to lead it into all truth, if she be guilty of so grand an error, as to erect a throne where Christ had made all level, or appointed others to sit in it, than whom he suffers. * Either Christ hath left no government, or most certainly the Church hath retained that Government whatsoever it is, for the contradictory to these would either make Christ improvident, or the Catholic Church extremely negligent (to say no worse) and incurious of her depositum. * But upon the confidence of all * Christendom (if there were no more in it) I * suppose we may fairly venture. Sit anima mea * cum Christianis.  
THE first thing done in Christendom, upon the 
§ 23. Who first distinguished Names used before in common.  death of the Apostles in this matter of Episcopacy, is the distinguishing of Names, which before were common. For in holy Scripture all the names of clerical offices were given to the superior order, and particularly all offices, and parts, and persons designed in any employment of the sacred Preisthood, were signified by Presbyter and Presbyterium. And therefore lest the confusion of Names might persuade an identity and indistinction of office, the wisdom of H. Church found it necessary to distinguish and separate orders, and offices by distinct and proper appellations. [For the Apostles did know by our Lord jesus Christ that contentions would arise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, about the name of Episcopacy,] saith S. Clement, and so it did in the Church of Corinth, as soon as their Apostle had expired his 
Epist. ad Corinth.  last breath. But so it was.  
1. The Apostles, which I have proved to be the supreme ordinary office in the Church, and to be succeeded in, we called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders or Presbyters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. Peter the Apostle, the Elders, 
1. Pet. 5. 1.  or Presbyters that are among you, I also who am an Elder, or Presbyter do entreat. Such elders S. Peter spoke to, as he was himself, to wit, those to whom the regiment of the Church was committed; the Bishops of Asia, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bythinia, that is to Timothy, to Titus, to Tychicus, to Sosipater, to the Angels of the Asian Churches, and all others whom himself in the next words points out by the description of their office, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Feed the flock of God as Bishops, or being Bishops and overseers over it; And that to rulers he then spoke is evident by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for it was impertinent to have warned them of tyranny, that had no rule at all. * The mere Presbyters, I deny not, but are included in this admonition; for as their office is involved in the Bishop's office, the Bishop being Bishop and Presbyter too, so is his duty also in the Bishops; so that pro ratâ the Presbyter knows what lies on him by proportion and intuition to the Bishop's admonition. But again. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. john the Apostle; and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Presbyter to Gajus; the Presbyter to the elect Lady.  
2. * If Apostles be called Presbyters, no harm though Bishops be called so too, for Apostles, and Bishops are all one in ordinary office as I have proved formerly. Thus are those Apostolical men in the College at jerusalem called Presbyters, whom yet the Holy Ghost calleth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, principal men, ruling men, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Presbyters that rule well. By Presbyters are meant Bishops, to whom only according to the intention, and exigence of Divine institution the Apostle had concredited the Church of Ephesus, and the neighbouring Cities, ut solus quisque Episcopus praesit omnibus, as appears in the former discourse. The same also is Acts 20. The Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, and yet the same men are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The one place expounds the other, for they are both ad idem, and speak of Elders of the same Church.  
* 3. Although Bishops be called Presbyters, yet even in Scripture names are so distinguished, that mere Presbyters are never called Bishops, unless it be in conjunction with Bishops, and then in the General address, which, in all fair deportments, is made to the more eminent, sometimes Presbyters are, or may be comprehended. This observation if it prove true, will clearly show, that the confusion of names of Episcopus, and Presbyter, such as it is in Scripture, is of no pretence by any intimation of Scripture, for the indistinction of offices, for even the names in Scripture itself are so distinguished, that a mere Presbyter alone is never called a Bishop, but a Bishop an Apostle is often called a Presbyter, as in the instances above. But we will consider those places of Scripture, which use to be pretended in those impertinent arguings from the identity of Name, to confusion of things, and show that they neither enterfere upon the main Question, nor this observation. * Paul and Timotheus to all the saints which are in Christ jesus which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons. I am willinger to choose this instance, because the place is of much consideration in the whole Question, and I shall take this occasion to clear it from prejudice and disadvantage.  
* By Bishops are here meant Presbyters, because * many Bishops in a Church could not be, and yet * S. Paul speaks plurally of the Bishops of the * Church of Philippi, and therefore must mean * mere Presbyters * so it is pretended.  
1. Then; By [Bishops] are, or may be meant the whole superior order of the clergy, Bishops and Priests, and that he speaks plurally, he, may besides the Bishops in the Church, comprehend under their name the Presbyters too; for why may not the name becomprehended as well as the office, and order, the inferior under the superior, the lesser within the greater; for since the order of Presbyters is involved in the Bishop's order, and is not only inclusively in it, but derivative from it; the same name may comprehend both persons, because it does comprehend the distinct offices and orders of them both. And in this sense it is (if it be at all) that Presbyters are sometimes in Scripture called Bishops.  
* 2. Why may not [Bishops] be understood properly; For there is no necessity of admiitting that there were any mere Presbyters at all at the first founding of this Church, It can neither be proved from Scripture, nor antiquity, if it were denied: For indeed a Bishop or a company of Episcopal men as there were at Antioch, might do all that Presbyters could, and much more. And considering that there are some necessities of a Church which a Presbyter cannot supply, and a Bishop can, it is more imaginable that there was no Presbyter, then that there was no Bishop. And certainly it is most unlikely, that what is not expressed, to wit, Presbyters should be only meant, and that which is expressed should not be at all intended.  
* 3. [With the Bishops] may be understood in the proper sense, and yet no more Bishops in one Diocese than one, of a fixed residence; for in that sense is S. chrysostom and the fathers to be understood 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. in 1. Phil.  in their commentaries on this place, affirming that one Church could have but one Bishop; but then take this along, that it was not then unusual in such great Churches, to have many men who were temporary residentiaries, but of an Apostolical and Episcopal authority, as in the Churches of jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, there was as I have proved in the premises. Nay in Philippi itself, If I mistake not, as instance may be given, full, and home to this purpose. Salutant te Episcopi One simus, Bitus, Demas, Polybius, & omnes qui sunt Philippis in Christo, unde & haec vobis Scripsi, saith Ignatius in his Epistle to Hero his Deacon. So that many Bishops (we see) might be at Philippi, and many were actually there long after S. Paul's dictate of the Epistle.  
* 4. Why may not [Bishops] be meant in the proper sense? Because there could not be more Bishops than one, in a Diocese. No? By what law? If by a constitution of the Church after the Apostles times, that hinders not, but it might be otherwise in the Apostles times. If by a Law in the Apostles times, than we have obtained the main question by the shift, and the Apostles did ordain that there should be one, and but one Bishop in a Church, although it is evident they appointed many Presbyters. And then let this objection be admitted how it will, and do its worst, we are safe enough.  
* 5. [With the Bishops] may be taken distributively, for Philippi was a Metropolis, and had divers Bishoprics under it, and S. Paul writing to the Church of Philippi, wrote also to all the daughter Churches within its circuit, and therefore might well salute many Bishops, though writing to one Metropolis, and this is the more probable, if the reading of this place be accepted according to Oecumenius, for he reads it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Coepiscopis, & Diaconis, Paul and Timothy to the Saints at Philippi, and to our fellow Bishops.  
* 6. S. Ambrose refers this clause of [Cum Episcopis, & Diaconis,] to S. Paul and S. Timothy, intimating 
In 1. Philip.  that the benediction, and salutation was sent to the Saints at Philippi from S. Paul and S. Timothy with the Bishops and Deacons, so that the reading must be thus; Paul, and Timothy with the Bishops and Deacons, to all the Saints at Philippi etc. Cum Episcopis & Diaconis, hoc est, cum Paulo, & Timotheo, qui utique Episcopi erant, simul & significavit Diaconos qui ministrabant ei. Ad plebem enim scribit. Nam si Episcopis scriberet, & Diaconi, ad personas eorum scriberet, & loci ipsius Episcopo scribendum erat, non duobus, vel tribus, sicut & ad Titum & Timotheum.  
* 7. The like expression to this is in the Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians, which may give another light to this; speaking of the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Pag. 54.  They delivered their first fruits to the Bishops and Deacons. Bishop's here indeed may be taken distributively, and so will not infer that many Bishops were collectively in any one Church, but yet this gives intimation for another exposition of this clause to the Philippians. For here either Presbyters are meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ministers, or else Presbyters are not taken care of in the Ecclesiastical provision, which no man imagines, of what interest soever he be; it follows then that [Bishops and Deacons] are no more but Majores, and Minores Sacerdotes in both places; for as Presbyter, and Episcopus were confounded, so also Presbyter and Diaconus; And I think it will easily be shown in Scripture, that the word [Diaconus,] is given oftener to Apostles, and Bishops, and Presbyters, then to those ministers which now by way of appropriation we call Deacons. But of this anon. Now again to the main observation.  
* Thus also it was in the Church of Ephesus, for S. Paul writing to their Bishop, and giving order for the constitution and deportment of the Church orders 
1. Timoth. 3.  and officers, gives directions first for Bishops, then for Deacons. Where are the Presbyters in the interim? Either they must be comprehended in Bishops or in Deacons. They may as well be in one as the other; for [Diaconus] is not in Scripture any more appropriated to the inferior Clergy, then Episcopus to the Superior, nor so much neither. For Episcopus was never used in the new Testament for any, but such, as had the care, regiment, and supra-vision of a Church, but Diaconus was used generally for all Ministeries.  
But yet supposing that Presbyters were included under the word Episcopus, yet it is not because the offices and orders are one, but because that the order of a Presbyter is comprehended within the dignity of a Bishop. And then indeed the compellation is of the more principal, and the Presbyter is also comprehended, for his conjunction, and involution in the Superior, which was the principal observation here intended. Name in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus Sacerdos est, hoc est, Princeps est Sacerdotum, & Propheta & Evangelista, & caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in Ministerio Fidelium. saith S. Ambrose. * So that if in the description of 
in Ephis. 4. * Idem ait S. Dionysius Eccles. hierarch. cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the qualifications of a Bishop, he intends to qualify Presbyters also, than it is Principally intended for a Bishop, and of the Presbyters only by way of subordination and comprehension. This only by the way, because this place is also abused to other issues; To be sure it is but a vain dream that because Presbyter is not named, that therefore it is all one with a Bishop, when as it may be comprehended under Bishop as a part in the whole, or the inferior, within the superior, (the office of a Bishop having in it the office of a Presbyter and something more) or else it may be as well intended in the word [Deacons,] and rather than the word, [Bishop] 1. Because [Bishop] is spoken of in the singular number, [Deacons] in the Plural, and so liker to comprehend the multitude of Presbyters. 2. Presbyters, or else Bishops, and therefore much more Presbyters, are called by S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ministers, Deacons is the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deacons by whose Ministration ye believed; and 3. By the same argument Deacons may be as well one with the Bishop too, for in the Epistle to Titus, S. Paul describes the office of a Bishop, and says not a word more either of Presbyter or Deacons office; and why I pray, may not the office of Presbyters in the Epistle to Timothy be omitted, as well as Presbyters, and Deacons too in that to Titus? or else why may not Deacons be confounded, and be all one with Bishop, as well as Presbyter? It will, it must be so, if this argument were any thing else but an aery and impertinent nothing.  
After all this yet, it cannot be shown in Scripture that any one single, and mere Presbyter is called a Bishop, but may be often found that a Bishop, nay an Apostle is called a Presbyter, as in the instances above, and therefore since this communication of Names is only in descension, by reason of the involution, or comprehension of Presbyter within (Episcopus), but never in ascension, that is, an Apostle, or a Bishop, is often called Presbyter, and Deacon, and Prophet, and Pastor, and Doctor, but never retrò, that a mere Deacon or a mere Presbyter, should be called either Bishop, or Apostle, it can never be brought either to depress the order of Bishops below their throne, or erect mere Presbyters above their stalls in the Quire. For we may as well confound Apostle, and Deacon, and with clearer probability, then Episcopus, and Presbyter. For Apostles, and Bishops, are in Scripture often called Deacons. I gave one instance of this before, but there are very many. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was said of S. Mathias when he succeeded judas in the Apostolate. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, said S. Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus. S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
2 Cor. 6. 4.  A Deacon of the New Testament, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1. Cor. 3. 5.  is said of the first founders of the Corinthian Church; Deacons by whom ye believed. Paul and Apollo's were the men. It is the observation of S. chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
in 1. Philip:  And a Bishop was called a Deacon, wherefore writing to Timothy he saith to him being a Bishop, Fulfillthy Deaconship.  
* Add to this, that there is no word, or designation of any clerical office, but is given to Bishops, and Apostles. The Apostles are called [Prophet's] Acts 13. The Prophets at Antioch, were Lucius and Manaën, and Paul and Barnabas; and then they are called [Pastor's] too; and indeed, hoc ipso that they are Bishops, they are Pastors. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos PASCERE ECCLESIAM DEI. Whereupon trhe Geeke Scholiast expounds the word [Pastor's] to signify Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And ever since that S. Peter set us a copy in the compellation of the Prototype calling him the Great Shepherd, and Bishop of our souls, it hath obtained in all antiquity, that Pastors and Bishops are coincident, and we shall very hardly meet with an instance to the contrary.  
* If Bishops be Pastors, than they are Doctors also, for these are conjunct, when other offices which may in person be united, yet in themselves are made disparate. For [God hath given some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some PASTORS AND 
Ephes. 4.  TEACHERS,] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If Pastors, than also Doctors, and Teachers. And this is observed by S. Austin. Pastors, & Doctors whom you would 
Epist. 59 ad Paulinum.  have me to distinguish, I think are one and the same. For Paul doth not say; some Pastors, some Doctors, but to Pastors he joineth Doctors, that Pastors might understand it belongeth to their office to teach. The same also is affirmed by Sedulius upon this place.  
Thus it was in Scripture; But after the Churches were settled & Bishops fixed upon their several Sees, than the Names also were made distinct, only those names which did design temporary offices did expire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. chrysostom, Thus fare the names were common, viz. in the sense above explicated, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But immediately the names were made proper and distinct, and to every order it's own Name is left, of a Bishop to a Bishop, of a Presbyter to a Presbyter. * This could not be supposed at first, for when they were to borrow words from the titles of secular honour, or offices, and to transplant them to an artificial, and imposed sense, USE, which is the Master of language, must rule us in this affair, and USE is not contracted but in some process, and descent of time. * For at first, Christendom itself wanted a Name, and the Disciples of the Glorious Nazarene were Christened first in Antioch, for they had their baptism some years before they had their Name. It had been no wonder then, if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the offices and orders of the Church.  
But immediately after the Apostles, and still more 
§ 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreme Church-officer,  in descending ages Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the Church, the Bishop in the present, & vulgar conception. Some few examples I shall give instead of Myriad. In the Canons of the Apostles the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Bishop is used 36 times in appropriation to him that is the Ordinary Ruler & precedent of the Church above the Clergy and the Laity, being 24 times expressly distinguished from Presbyter, and in the other 14 having particular care for government, jurisdiction, censures and Ordinations committed to him as I shall show hereafter, and all this is within the verge of the first 50 which are received as Authentic, by the Council of 
a Can. 15. & 16.  Nice; of 
b c. 9 & alibi.  Antioch, 25 Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles: the Council of Gangra calling them Canon's Ecclesiasticos, and Apostolicas traditiones; by the Epistle of the first Council of Constantinople to Damasus, which Theodoret hath inserted into his story; by the 
c post advent. Episc. Cypri.  Council of Ephesus; by 
d advers. Praxeam.  Tertullian; by 
e lib. 3. c. 59 de vitâ Const.  Constantine the Great; and are sometimes by way of eminency called THE CANONS, sometimes, THE ECCLESIASTICAL CANONS, sometimes, the ancient and received Canons of our Fathers, sometimes the Apostolical Canons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, said the Fathers of the Council in 
Ca 4. cap. 18. de Ortbod: fide  Trullo: and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture: so in effect does I sidore in his preface to the work of the Counsels, for he sets these Canons in front, because Sancti Patres eorum sententias authoritate Synodali roborarunt, & inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones. The H. Father's have established these Canons by the authority of Counsels, and have put them amongst the Canonical Constitutions. And great reason, for in Pope Stephen's time, they were translated into Latin by one Dionysius at the entreaty of Laurentius, because then 
Anno Dom: 257.  the old Latin copies were rude and barbarous. Now than this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephen's time, who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian, the old copy, elder than this, and yet after the Original to be sure, shows them to be of prime antiquity, and they are mentioned by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bishop Hilarius, where he is severe in censure of them who do prevaricate these Canons.  
* But for farther satisfaction I refer the Reader to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Moderators of the City of Norimberg. I deny not but they are called Apocryphal by Gratian, and some others, viz. in the sense of the Church, just as the wisdom of Solomon, or Ecclesiasticus, but yet by most, believed to be written by S. Clement, from the dictate of the Apostles, and without all Question, are so fare Canonical, as to be of undoubted Ecclesiastical authority, and of the first Antiquity.  
Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in authority. 
Epist. ad Trall.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Father of all. And a little after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. What is the Bishop, but he that hath all authority and rule? What is the Presbytery, but a sacred College, Counsellors and helpers or assessors to the Bishop? what are Deacons &c: So that here is the real, and exact distinction of dignity, the appropriation of Name, and intimation of office. The Bishop is above all, the Presbyters his helpers, the Deacons his Ministers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imitators of the Angels who are Ministering Spirits. But this is of so known, so evident a truth, that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it. Himself in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in distinct enumeration, viz. to the Trallians, to the Philadelphians, to the Philippians. * And now I shall insert these considerations.  
1. Although it was so that Episcopus, and Presbyter were distinct in the beginning after the Apostles death, yet sometimes the names are used promiscuously, which is an evidence, that confusion of names is no intimation, much less an argument for the parity of offices, since themselves, who sometimes though indeed very seldom, confound the names, yet distinguish the offices frequently, and dogmatically. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Epist. ad Heron.  Where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he means the Presbyters of the Church of Antioch, so indeed some say, and though there be no necessity of admitting this meaning, because by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may mean the suffragan Bishops of Syria, yet the other may be fairly admitted, for himself their Bishop was absent from his Church, and had delegated to the Presbytery Episcopal jurisdiction to rule the Church till he being dead another Bishop should be chosen, so that they were Episcopi Vicarii, and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishop's power by delegation were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and this was done lest the Church should not be only without a Father, but without a Guardian too; & yet what a Bishop was, and of what authority no man more confident and frequent than Ignatius. * Another example of this is in Eusebius, speaking of the youth whom S. john had converted and commended to a Bishop. Clemens, whose story this was, proceeding in the relation says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. But the Presbyter; unless by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here S. Clement means not the Order, but age of the Man, as it is like enough he did, for a little after, he calls him [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] The old man, Tum verò PRESBYTER in domum suam suscipit adolescentem. Red depositum, O EPISCOPE, saith S. john to him. Tunc graviter suspirans SENIOR etc. So S. Clement. * But this, as it is very unusual, so it is just as in Scripture, viz. in descent and comprehension, for this Bishop also was a Presbyter, as well as Bishop, or else in the delegation of Episcopal power, for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius.  
2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was chosen to be appropriate to the supreme order of the Clergy, was done with fair reason and design. For this is no fastuous, or pompous title, the word is of no dignity, and implies none but what is consequent to the just and fair execution of its offices. But Presbyter is a name of dignity and veneration, Rise up to the grey head, and it transplants the honour and Reverence of age to the office of the Presbyterate. And yet this the Bishops left, and took that which signifies a mere supra-vision, and overlooking of his charge, so that if we take estimate from the names, Presbyter is a name of dignity, and Episcopus, of office and burden. * [He that desires the office of a Bishop, desires a good work.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Saith S. chrysostom. Nec dicit si quis Episcopatum desider at, bonum desider at gradum, sed bonum opus desider at, quoth in majore ordine constitutus possit si velit occasionem habere exercendarum virtutum. So S. Hierome. It is not an honourable title, but a good office, and a great opportunity of the exercise of excellent virtues. But for this we need no better testimony then of S. Isidore. Episcopatus autem vocabulum inde dictum, quòd ille qui superefficitur 
Lib. 7. etymolog. c. 12.  superintendat, curam scil. gerens subditorum. But, Presbyter Grecè, latinè senior interpretatur, non pro aetate, vel decrepitâ senectute, sed propter honorem & dignitatem quam acceperunt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith julius Pollux.  
3. Supposing that Episcopus and Presbyter had been often confounded in Scripture, and Antiquity, and that, both in ascension and descension, yet as Priests may be called Angels, and yet the Bishop be THE ANGEL of the Church, [THE ANGEL,] for his excellency, [OF THE CHURCH,] for his appropriate pre-eminence, and singularity, so though Presbyters had been called Bishops in Scripture (of which there is not one example but in the senses above explicated, to wit, in conjunction and comprehension;) yet the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminence, THE BISHOP: and in descent of time, it came to pass, that the compellation, which was always his, by way of eminence was made his by appropriation. And a fair precedent of it we have from the compellation given to our blessed Saviour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The great shepherd, and Bishop of our souls. The name [Bishop] was made sacred by being the appellative of his person, and by fair intimation it does more immediately descend upon them, who had from Christ more immediate mission, and more ample power, and therefore [Episcopus] and [Pastor] by way of eminence are the most fit appellatives for them who in the Church have the greatest power, office and dignity, as participating of the fullness of that power and authority for which Christ was called the Bishop of our souls. * And besides this so fair a Copy; besides the useing of the word in the prophecy of the Apostolate of Mathias, and in the prophet Isaiah, and often in Scripture, as I have shown before; any one whereof is abundantly enough, for the fixing an appellative upon a Church officer; this name may also be intimated as a distinctive compellation of a Bishop over a Priest, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed often used for the office of Bishops, as in the instances above, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the office of the inferiors, for S. Paul writing to the Romans, who then had no Bishop fixed in the chair of Rome, does command them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Rom. 16. 17.  not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this for the Bishop, that for the subordinate Clergy. So then, the word [Episcopus] is fixed at first, and that by derivation, and example of Scripture, and fair congruity of reason.  
But the Church used other appellatives for Bishops, 
§ 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church,  which it is very requisite to specify, that we may understand divers authorities of the Father's useing those words in appropriation to Bishops, which of late have been given to Presbyters, ever since they have begun to set Presbyters in the room of Bishops.  
And first, Bishops were called [Pastor's] in antiquity, in imitation of their being called so in Scripture. Eusebius writing the story of S. Ignatius, 
lib. 3. hist. c. 36.  Denique cùm Smyrnam venisset, ubi Polycarpus erat, scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios, eorumque Pastorem, that is, Onesimus, for so follows, in quâmeminit Onesimi. Now that Onesimus was their Bishop, 
Epist. ad Ephes.  himself witnesss in the Epistle here mentioned, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Onesimus was their Bishop, and therefore their Pastor, and in his Epistle ad Antiochenos himself makes mention of Evodius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your most Blessed and worthy PASTOR.  
* When Paulus Samosatenus first broached his heresy against the divinity of our blessed Saviour, presently a Council was called where S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria could not be present, Caeteri verò Ecclesiarum pastors diversis è locis & urbibus .... convenerunt Antiochiam. In quibus in signs & caeteris praecellentes erant Firmilianus à Caesareá Cappadociae, Gregorius, & Athenodorus Fratres .... & 
Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 24.  Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus .... Sed & Maximus Bostrensis Episcopus dignus eorum consortio cohaerebat. These Bishops, Firmilianus, and Helenus, and Maximus were the PASTORS; and not only so, but Presbyters were not called PASTORS, for he proceeds, sed & Prebyteri quamplurimi, & Diaconiad supradictam Vrbem .... conventrunt. So that these were not under the general appellative of Pastors. * And the Council of Sardis 
Can. 6.  making provision for the manner of election of a Bishop to a Widdow-Church, when the people is urgent for the speedy institution of a Bishop, if any of the Comprovincialls be wanting he must be certified by the Primate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the multitude require a Pastor to be given unto them. * The same expression is also in the Epistle of julius' Bishop of Rome to the Presbyters, Deacons, and People of Alexandria in behalf of their Bishop Athanasius, Suscipite itaque Fratres 
hist. tripartlib. 4. c. 29.  charissimi cumomni divinâ gratiâ PASTOREM VESTRUM ACPRAESULEM tanquam verè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And a little after, & gaudere fruentes orationibus qui PASTOREM VESTRUM esuritis & sititis &c: The same is often used in S. Hilary and S. Gregory Nazianzen, where Bishops are called pastors MAGNI, Great shepherd's, or PASTORS; * When Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata was banished, Vniversi lachrymis prosecuti sunt ereptionem PASTORIS sui, saith Theodoret, they wept for the loss of their PASTOR. And 
lib. 4. cap. 14.  Eulogius a Presbyter of Edessa when he was arguing with the Perfect in behalf of Christianity, & PASTOREM (inquit) habemus, & nutus illius sequimur, we have a PASTOR (a Bishop certainly for himself was a Priest) and his commands we follow. But, I 
Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 18.  need not specify any more particular instances; I touched upon it before. * He that shall consider, that to Bishops the regiment of the whole Church was concredited at the first, and the Presbyters were but his assistants in Cities and Villages, and were admitted in partem sollicitudinis, first casually and cursorily, & then by station and fixed residency when Parishes were divided, and endowed, will easily see, that this word [Pastor] must needs be appropriated to Bishops to whom according to the conjunctive expression of S. Peter, and the practice of infant Christendom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was entrusted, first solely, then in communication with others, but always principally.  
* But now of late, especially in those places where Bishops are exauctorated, and no where else, that I know, but amongst those men that have complying designs, the word [Pastor] is given to Parish Priests against the manner and usage of Ancient Christendom; and though Priests may be called Pastors in a limited, subordinate sense, and by way of participation (just as they may be called Angels, when the Bishop is the Angel, and so Pastors when the Bishop is the Pastor, and so they are called pastors ovium in S. Cyprian) but never are they called pastors simply, or pastors Ecclesiae for above 600 
Epist. 11.  years in the Church, and I think 800 more. And therefore it was good counsel which S. Paul gave, to avoid vocum Novitates, because there is never any affectation of New words contrary to the Ancient voice of Christendom, but there is some design in the thing too, to make an innovation: and of this we have had long warning, in the New use of the word [Pastor].  
IF Bishops were the Pastors, than Doctors also; it 
§ 26. And Doctor.  was the observation which S. Austin made out of Ephes. 4. as I quoted him even now, [For God hath given some Apostles, some Prophet's .... some Pastors and Doctors]. So the Church hath learned to speak. In the Greeks Council of Carthage it was decreed, that places which never had a Bishop of their own should not now have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a DOCTOR of their own, that is a Bishop, but still be subject to the Bishop of the Diocese to whom formerly they gave obedience; and the title of the chapter is, that the parts of the Diocese without the Bishop's consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must not have another Bishop. He who in the title is called Bishop, in the chapter is called the DOCTOR. And thus also, Epiphanius 
haeres. 75.  speaking of Bishops calleth them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fathers and DOCTORS, Gratia enim Ecclesiae laus DOCTORIS est, saith S. Ambrose, speaking of the eminence of the Bishop, over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy. The same also is to be seen in S. 
* Epist 59  Austin, Sedulius, and divers others. I deny not but it is in this appellative, as in divers of the rest, that the Presbyters may in subordination be also called DOCTORS, for every Presbyter must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apt to teach (but yet this is expressed as a requisite in the particular office of a Bishop) and not 
1. Tim. 3.  where expressly of a Presbyter that I can find in Scripture, but yet because in all Churches, it was by licence of the Bishop, that Presbyters did Preach, if at all, and in some Churches the Bishop only did it, particularly of Alexandria (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Sozomen) therefore it was that the 
lib. 7. c. 19  Presbyter, in the language of the Church was not, but the Bishop, was often called, DOCTOR of the Church.  
THe next word which the Primitive Church 
§ 27. And Pontifex.  did use as proper to express the offices and eminence of Bishops, in PONTIFEX, and PONTIFICATUS for Episcopacy. Sed à Domino edocti consequentiam rerum, Episcopis PONTIFICATUS munera assignavimus, said the Apostles, as 
1 lib. 8. c. ult. Apost. constitut. . S. Clement reports. PONTIFICALE 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. john the Apostle wore in his forehead, as an Ensign of his Apostleship, a gold plate or medal, when he was IN PONTIFICALIBUS, in his pontifical or Apostolical habit, saith Eusebius. 
2 lib. 3. hist. cap. 31. . * De dispensationibus Ecclesiarum Antiqua sanctio tenuit & definitio SS. Patrum in Nicaeâ convenientium .... & si PONTIFICES voluerint, ut cum cis vicini propter utilitatem celebrent ordinationes. Said the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople. 
3 lib. 9 c. 14. hist. tripart. . * Quâ tempestate in urbe Romá Clemens quoque tertius post Paulum & Petrum, PONTIFICATUM tenebat, saith 
4 lib. 3. c. 21.  Eusebius according to the translation of Ruffinus. * Apud Antiochiam verò Theophilus per idem tempus sextus ab Apostolis Ecclesiae PONTIFICATUM tenebat, saith the same Eusebius. 
5 lib. 4. c. 20. . * And there is a famous story of Alexander Bishop of Cappadocia, that when Narcissus' Bishop of jerusalem, was invalid and unfit for government by reason of his extreme age, he was designed by a particular Revelation and a voice from Heaven, Suscipite Episcopum qui vobis à Deo destinatus est; Receive your Bishop whom God hath appointed for you, but it was when Narcissus jam senio fessus PONTIFICATUS Ministerio sufficere non posset, saith the story. 
6 Euseb. lib. 6. c 9 . * Eulogius the confessor discoursing with the Perfect, that wished him to comply with the Emperor, asked him; Numquid ille unà cum Imperio etiam PONTIFICATUM est consecutus? He hath an Empire, but hath he also a Bishopric? PONTIFICATUS is the word. * But 
7 Eccles. hierarch.  S. Dionysius is very exact in the distinction of clerical offices, and particularly gives this account of the present. Est igitur PONTIFICATUS ordo qui praeditus vi perficiente munera hierarchiae quae perficiunt etc. And a little after, Sacerdotum autem ordo subjectus PONTIEICUM ordini etc. To which agrees 
8 Lib. 7. 12.  S. Isidore in his etymologies, Ideo autem & Presbyteri Sacerdotes vocantur, quia sacrum dant sicut & Episcopi, qui licet Sacerdotes sint, tamen PONTIFICATUS apicem non habent, quia nec Chrismate frontem signant, nec Paracletum spiritum daunt, quod solis deberi Episcopis lectio actuum Apostolicorum demonstrat; and in the same chapter, PONTIFEX Princeps Sacerdotum est.  
One word more there is often used in antiquity 
And Sacerdos.  for Bishops, and that's SACERDOS. Sacerdotum autem bipartitus est ordo, say S. Clement and Anacletus, for they are Majores and Minores. The Majores, Bishops, the Minores, Presbyters, for so it is in the Apostolical Constitutions attributed to 
a Lib. 8. c. 46.  S. Clement, Episcopis quidem assignavimus, & attribuimus quae ad PRINCIPATUM SACERDOTII pertinent, Presbyteris verò quae ad Sacerdotium. And in 
b Lib. 3. Ep. 1.  S. Cyprian, Presbyteri cum Episcopis Sacerdotali honore conjuncti. But although in such distinction and subordination & in concretion a Presbyter is sometimes called Sacerdos, yet in Antiquity Sacerdotium Ecclesiae does evermore signify Episcopacy, and Sacerdos Ecclesiae the Bishop. Theotecnus SACERDOTIUM Ecclesiae tenens in Episcopatu, saith 
c Lib. 7. c. 28.  Eusebius, and summus Sacerdos, the Bishop always, Dandi baptismum jus habet summus SACERDOS, qui est Episcopus, saith 
d Lib. de baptism.  Tertullian: and indeed Sacerdos alone is very seldom used in any respect but for the Bishop, unless when there is some distinctive term, and of higher report given to the Bishop at the same time.  
Ecclesia est plebs SACERDOTI adunata, & Grex pastori suo adhaerens, saith S. 
e Epist. 69.  Cyprian. And that we may know by [Sacerdos] he means the Bishop, his next words are, Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesiâ esse, & Ecclesiam in Episcopo. And in the same Epistle, qui ad Cyprianum Episcopum in carcere literas direxerunt, SACERDOTEM Dei agnoscentes, & contestantes. * 
f Euseb. lib. 3. c. 21.  Eusebius reckoning some of the chief Bishops assembled in the Council of Antioch, In quibus erant Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus, & Nicomas ab Iconio, & Hierosolymorum PRAECIPUUS SACERDOS Hymenaeus, & vicinae huic urbis Caesareae Theotecnus; and in the same place the Bishops of Pontus are called Ponti provinciae SACERDOTES. Abilius apud Alexandriam tredecem annis SACERDOTIO, ministrato diem obiit, for so long he was Bishop, cui succedit Cerdon tertius in SACERDOTIUM. Et Papias similiter apud Hierapolim SACERDOTIUM gerens, for he was Bishop of Hierapolis saith 
g Lib. 3. c. 35.  Eusebius, and the 
h Epist. Comprovinc. ad S. Leonem.  Bishops of the Province of Arles, speaking of their first Bishop Trophimus, ordained Bishop by S. Peter, say, quod prima inter Gallias Arelatensis civet as missum à Beatissimo Petro Apostolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit SACERDOTEM. *** The Bishop also was ever designed when ANTISTES Ecclesiae was the word. Melito 
Lib. 4. c. 26.  quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae ANTISTES, saith Eusebius out of Irenaeus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the name in Greek, and used for the Bishop by justin Martyr (and is of the same authority and use with PRAELATUS and praepositus Ecclesiae.) ANTISTES autem SACERDOS dictus, ab eo quod antestat. Primus est enim in ordine Ecclesiae: & suprase nullum habet, saith S. Isidore. 
Lib 7. Etymol c. 12.   
*** But in those things which are of no Question, I need not insist. One title more I must specify to prevent misprision upon a mistake of theirs of a place in S. Ambrose. The Bishop is sometimes called PRIMUS PRESBYTER. Name & Timotheum Episcopum 
Comment. in 4. Ephes.  à secreatum Presbyterum vocat: quia PRIMI PRESBYTERI Episcopi appellabantur, ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet. Elections were made of Bishops out of the College of Presbyters (Presbyteri unum ex se electum Episcopum nominabant, saith S. Hierome) but at first this election was made not according to merit, but according to seniority, and therefore Bishops were called PRIMI PRESBYTERI, that's S. Ambrose his sense. But S. Austin gives 
Quast. Vet. et N. Testam. Qu. 101.  another, PRIMI PRESBYTERI, that is chief above the Presbyters. Quid est Episcopus nisi PRIMUS PRESBYTER, h. e. summus Sacerdos (saith he) And S. Ambrose himself gives a better exposition of his words, then is intimated in that clause before, Episcopi, & Presbyteri una ordinatio est? Vterque enim Sacerdos est, sed Episcopus PRIMUS est, ut omnis Episcopus 
In 1. Tim. 3.  Presbyter sit, non omnis Presbyter Episcopus. Hic enim Episcopus est, qui inter Presbyteros PRIMUS est. The bishop is PRIMUS PRESBYTER, that is, PRIMUS SACERDOS, h. e. PRINCEPS EST SACERDOTUM, so he expounds it, not Princeps, or Primus INTER 
In 4. Ephes.  PRESBYTEROS, himself remaining a mere Presbyter, but PRINCEPS PRESBYTERORUM; for PRIMUS PRESBYTER could not be Episcopus in another sense, he is the chief, not the signior of the Presbyters. Nay Princeps Presbyterorum is used in a sense lower than Episcopus, for Theodoret speaking of S. john chrysostom, saith, that having been the first Presbyter at Antioch, yet refused to be made Bishop, for a long time. johannes enim qui diutissimi Princeps fuit Presbyterorum Antiochiae, ac saepe electus praesul perpetuus vitator dignitatis illius de hoc admirabili solo pullulavit.  
*** The Church also in her first language when she spoke of Praepositus Ecclesiae, meant the Bishop of the Diocese. Of this there are innumerable examples, but most plentifully in S. Cyprian in his 3, 4, 7, 11, 13, 15, 23, 27 Epistles; and in Tertullian his book ad Martyrs; and infinite places more. Of which this advantage is to be made, that the Primitive Church did generally understand those places of Scripture which speak of Prelates, or Praepositi, to be meant of Bishops; Obedite praepositis, Heb. 13. saith S. Paul, Obey your Prelates, or them that are set over you. Praepositi autem Pastores sunt, saith S. Austin, Prelates are they that are Pastors. But S. Cyprian sums up many of them together, and insinuates the several relations, expressed in the several compellations of Bishops. For writing against Florentius 
Epist. 69.  Pupianus, ac nisi (saith he) apud te purgati fuerimus .... eccejam sex annis nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum, nec plebs praepositum, nec grex Pastorem, nec Ecclesia gubernatorem, nec Christus antistatem, nec Deus Sacerdotes; and all this he means of himself, who had then been six years' Bishop of Carthage, a Prelate of the people, a governor to the Church, a Pastor to the flock, a Priest of the most high God, a Minister of Christ.  
The sum is this; When we find in antiquity any thing asserted of any order of the hierarchy, under the names of Episcopus, or Princeps Sacerdotum, or Presbyterorum primus, or Pastor, or Doctor, or Pontifex, or Major, or Primus Sacerdos, or Sacerdotium Ecclesiae habens, or Antistes Ecclesiae, or Ecclesiae sacerdos; (unless there be a specification, and limiting of it to a parochial, and inferior Minister) it must be understood of Bishops in its present acceptation. For these words are all by way of eminency, and most of them by absolute appropriation, and singularity the appellations, and distinctive names of Bishops.  
BUT, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith the Philosopher) 
§ 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest.  and this their distinction of Names did amongst the Fathers of the Primitive Church denote a distinction of calling, and office, supereminent to the rest.  
For first Bishops are by all Antiquity reckoned as a distinct office of Clergy. Si quis Presbyter, aut Diaconus, aut quilibet de Numero Clericorum .... pergat ad alienam parochiam praeter Episcopi sui conscientiam, etc. So it is in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles, and so it is there plainly distinguished as an office different from Presbyter, and Deacon, above thirty times in those Canons, and distinct powers given to the Bishop, which are not given to the other, and to the Bishop above the other. * The Council of Ancyra inflicting censures upon Presbyters first, than Deacons which had fallen in time of persecution, gives leave to the Bishop to mitigate 
Can. 1. & 2.  the pains as he sees cause. Sed si ex Episcopis aliqui in iis vel afflictionem aliquam .... viderint, in eorum potestate id esse. The Canon would not suppose any Bishops to fall, for indeed they seldom did, but for the rest, provision was made both for their penances, and indulgence at the discretion of the Bishop. And yet sometimes they did fall; Optatus bewails it, but withal gives evidence of their distinction of order. Quid commemorem Laicos qui 
Lib. 1. ad Parmen.  tunc in Ecclesiâ nullâ fuerant dignitate suffulti? Quid Ministros plurimos, quid Diaconos in tertio, quid Presbyteros in secundo Sacerdotio constitutos? Ipsi apices, & Principes omnium aliqui Episcopi aliqua instrumenta Divinae Legis impiè tradiderunt. The Laity, the Ministers, the Deacons, the Presbyters, nay the Bishops themselves, the Princes and chief of all, proved traditors. The diversity of order is herefairely intimated, but dogmatically affirmed by him in his 2d book adv. Parmen. Quatuor genera capitum sunt in Ecclesiâ, Episcoporum, Presbyterorum, Diaconorum, & fidelium. There are four sorts of heads in the Church, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and the faithful Laity. And it was remarkable that when the people of Hippo had as it were by violence carried S. Austin to be made Priest by their Bishop Valerius, some seeing the good man weep in consideration of the great hazard and difficulty accrueing to him in his ordination to such an office, thought he had wept because he was not Bishop, they pretending comfort told him, quia locus Presbyterii 
De vitâ August. c. 4.  licet ipse majore dignus esset appropinquaret tamen Episcopatui. The office of a Presbyter though indeed he deserved a greater, yet was the next step in order to a Bishopric. So Possidonius tells the story. It was the next step, the next in descent, in subordination, the next under it. So the Council of Chalcedon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is sacrilege to bring down a Bishop to the degree 
Can. 29.  and order of a Presbyter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so the Council permits in case of great delinquency, to suspend him from the execution of his Episcopal order, but still the character remains, and the degree of itself is higher.  
* Nos autem idcirco haec scribimus (Fratres chariss.) quia novimus quàm Sacrosanctum debeat esse Episcopale Sacerdotium, quod & clero, & plebi debet esse exemplo, said the Fathers of the Council of Antioch, in Eusebius, The office of a Bishop is sacred, 
Lib. 7. c. 26.  and exemplary both to the Clergy, and the People. Inter dixit per omnia, Magna Synodus, non Episcopo, non Presbytero, non Diacono licere, etc. And it was 
Can. 3. Nicen. Council.  a remarkable story that Arius troubled the Church for missing of a Prelation to the order and dignity of a Bishop. Post Achillam enim Alexander .... ordinatur Episcopus. Hoc autem tempore Arius in ordine Presbyterorum fuit, Alexander was ordained a Bishop, and Arius still left in the order of mere Presbyters. * Of the same exigence are all those clauses of commemoration of a Bishop and Presbyters of the same Church. julius' autem Romanus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit, erantque pro eo praesentes Vitus, & Vincentius Presbyteriejusdem Ecclesiae. They were his Vicars, and deputies for their Bishop in the Nicene Council, saith Sozomen. But most pertinent is that of the Indian 
Lib. 2. c. 1. hist. tripart.  persecution related by the same man. Many of them were put to death. Erant autem horum alii quidem 
Lib. 3. tripart. c. 2.  Episcopi, alii Presbyteri, alii diversorum ordinum Clerici. * And this difference of Order is clear in the Epistle of the Bishops of Illyricum to the Bishops of the Levant, De Episcopis autem constituendis, vel comministris jam constitutis si permanserint usque ad finem sani, bene .... Similitèr Presbyteros atque Diaconos in Sacerdotali ordine definivimus, etc. And of Sabbatius it is said, Nolens in suo ordine Manere Presbyteratus, desiderabat Episcopatum; he would not stay in the order of a Presbyter, but desired a Bishopric. Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est, in Patriarchis, 
Hist. tripart. l. 11. c. 5.  Archiepiscopis, Metropolitanis, & Episcopis, faith S. Isidore; Omnes autem superiùs disignati ordines uno eodemque vocabulo Episcopi Nominantur. 
Lib. 7. etymol. c. 12.  But it were infinite to reckon authorities, and clauses of exclusion for the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; we cannot almost dip in any tome of the Counsels but we shall find it recorded: And all the Martyr Bishops of Rome did ever acknowledge, and publish it, that Episcopacy is a peculiar office, and order in the Church of God; as is to be seen in their decretal Epistles, in the first tome of the Counsels. * I only sum this up with the attestation of the Church of England, in the 
Per Binium Paris.  preface to the book of ordination. It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors, that from the Apostles times, there have been these ORDERS of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. The same thing exactly that was said in the second Council of Carthage, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Can. 2.  But we shall see it better, and by more real probation, for that Bishops were a distinct order appears by this;  
1. THe Presbyterate was but a step to Episcopacy, 
§ 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree. Can. 10.  as Deaconship to the Presbyterate, and therefore the Council of Sardis decreed, that no man should be ordained Bishop, but he that was firsta Reader, and a Deacon, and a Presbyter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ That by every degree he may pass to the sublimity of Episcopacy. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. But the degree of every order must have the permanence and trial of no small time. Here there is clearly a distinction of orders, and ordinations, and assumptions to them respectively, all of the same distance and consideration; And Theodoret out of the Synodical Epistle of the 
Lib. 5. c. 8.  same Council, says that they complained that some from Arrianisme were reconciled, and promoted from Deacons to be Presbyters, from Presbyters to be Bishops, calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a greater degree, or Order: And S. Gregory Nazianz. in his Encomium of S. Athanasius, speaking of his Canonical Ordination, and election to a Bishopric, says that he was chosen being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most worthy, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, coming through all the inferior Orders. The same commendation S. Cyprian 
Epist. 52.  gives of Cornelius. Non iste ad Episcopatum subito pervenit, sed per omnia Ecclesiastica officia promotus, & in divinis administrationibus Dominum sepè promeritus ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit .... & factus est Episcopus à plurimis collegiis nostris qui tunc in Vrbe Româ aderant, qui ad nos litter as .... de ejus ordinatione miserunt. Here is evident, not only a promotion, but a new Ordination of S. Cornelius to be Bishop of Rome; so that now the chair is full (saith S. Cyprian) & quis quis jam Episcopus fieri voluerit for is fiat necesse est, nec habeat Ecclesiasticam ordinationem etc. No man else can receive ordination to the Bishopric.  
2. THe ordination of a Bishop to his chair was 
§ 30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishopric. Can. Apost. 1, & 2.  done de Novo after his being a Presbyter, and not only so, but in another manner than he had when he was made Priest. This is evident in the first Ecclesiastical Canon that was made after Scripture. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Priest and Deacon must be ordained of one Bishop, but a Bishop must be ordained by two or three at least. And that we may see it yet more to be Apostolical, S. Anacletus in his second Epistle reports, Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. jacobus à Petro, jacobo, & johanne Apostolis est ordinatus. Three Apostles went to the ordaining of S. james to be a Bishop, and the self same thing is in words affirmed by Anicetus; ut in ore duorum, veltrium stet omnis veritas; And S. Cyprian observes that when Cornelius was made Bishop of Rome, there happened 
Epist. Vnica,  to be many of his fellow Bishops there, & factus est Episcopus à plurimis collegis nostris qui tunc in urbe Româ aderant. These Collegae could not be mere Priests, for then the ordination of Novatus had been more Canonical, then that of Cornelius, and all Christendom had been deceived, for not Novatus who was ordained by three Bishops, but Cornelius had been the Schismatic, as being ordained by Priests, against the Canon. But here I observe it for the word [plurimis,] there were many of them ordination.  
* In pursuance of this Apostolical ordinance, Nicene Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be ordained, 
Can. 4.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by all the Bishops in the Province, unless it be in case of necessity, and then it must be done by three being gathered together, and the rest consenting; so the ordination to be performed. * The same is ratified in the Council of Antiech, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Can. 19  A Bishop is not to be ordained without a Synod of Bishops, and the presence of the Metropolitan of the province. But if this cannot be done conviniently, yet however it is required 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the ordinations must be performed by many. The same was decreed in the Council of Laodicea, can: 12. in the 13. Canon of the African Code, in the 22th Canon of the first Council of Arles, and the 
Can. 12.  fifth Canon of the second Council of Arles, and was ever the practice of the Church; and so we may see it descend through the bowels of the fourth Council of Carthage to the inferior ages. Episcopus 
Can. 4.  qunm ordinatur, duo Episcopi ponant, & teneant Evangeliorum codicem super caput, & cervicem ejus, & uno super eum fundente benedictionem, reliquiomnes Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis caput ejus tangant.  
The thing was Catholic, and Canonical. It was prima, & immutabilis constitutio, so the first Canon of the Council of 
* A. D. 509.  Epaunum calls it; And therefore after the death of Meletius Bishop of Antioch, a schism was made about his successor, & Evagrius his ordination 
Theodoret. l. 9 cap 44.  condemned; because, praeter Ecclesiasticam regulam fuerit ordinatus, it was against the rule of Holy Church. Why so? Solus enim Paulinus eum instituerat plurimas regulas praevaricatus Ecclesiasticas. Non enim praecipiunt ut per se quilibet ordinare possit, sed convocare Vniversos provinciae Sacerdotes, & praeter tres Pontifices ordinationem penitùs fieri, interdicunt. Which because it was not observed in the ordination of Evagrius who was not ordained by three Bishops, the ordination was cassated in the Council of Rhegium. And we read that when Novatus would feign be made a Bishop in the schism against Cornelius, he did it tribus adhibitis Episcopis 
Cap. 1. 2.  (saith Eusebius,) he obtained three Bishops, for performance 
lib. 6. hist. cap. 33.  of the action.  
Now besides these Apostolical, and Catholic Canons, and precedents, this thing according to the constant, and United interpretation of the Greek Fathers was actually done in the ordination of S. Timothy to the Bishopric of Ephesus. [Neglect not the grace that is in thee by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.] The Latin Fathers expound it abstractly, viz. to signify the office of Priesthood, that is, neglect not the grace of Priesthood that is in thee by the imposition of hands, and this Erasmus helps by making [Presbyterij] to pertain to [Gratiam] by a new inter-punction of the words; but however, Presbyterij with the Latin Fathers signifies Presbyteratûs, not Presbyterorum, and this Presbyteratus is in their sense used for Episcopatus too. But the Greek Fathers understand it collectively, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not simply such, but Bishops too, all agree in that, that Episcopacy is either meant in office, or in person. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Oecumenius; and S. chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Theophilact, So Theodoret. The probation of this lies upon right reason, and Catholic tradition; For,  
3. THE Bishop's ordination was peculiar in 
§ 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands,  this respect above the Presbyters, for a Presbyter did never impose hands on a Bishop. On a Presbyter they did ever since the fourth Council of Carthage; but never on a Bishop. And that was the reason of the former exposition. By the Presbytery S. Paul means Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Presbyters did not impose hands on a Bishop, and therefore Presbyterium is not a College of mere Presbyters, for such could never ordain S. Timothy to be a Bishop. The same reason is given by the Latin Fathers why they expound Presbyterium to signify Episcopacy. For (saith S. Ambrose) S. Paul had ordained Timothy to be a Bishop, Vnde & quemadmodum Episcopum ordinet ostendit. Neque enim fas erat, aut licebat, ut inferior ordinaret Majorem. So he; and subjoins this reason, Nemo n. tribuit quodnon accepit. The same is affirmed by S. chrysostom, and generally by the authors of the former expositions, that is, the Fathers both of the East, and West. For it was so General and Catholic a truth, that Priests could not, might not lay hands on a Bishop, that there was never any example of it in Christendom till almost 600 years after Christ, and that but once, and that 
A. D. 555.  irregular, and that without imitation in his Successors, or example in his Antecessors. It was the case of Pope Pelagius the first, & dum non essent Episcopi, qui eum ordinarent, inventi sunt duo Episcopi, johannes de Perusio, & Bonus de Ferentino, & Andraeas' Presbyter de O stiâ, & ordinaverunt eum Pontificem. Tunc enim non erant in Clero qui eum possent promovere. Saith Damasus. It was in case of necessity, 
in libr. Pontificali. vit. Pelag. 1.  because there were not three Bishops, therefore he procured two, and a Priest of O stia to supply the place of the third, that three, according to the direction Apostolical, and Canons of Nice, Antioch, and Carthage, make Episcopal ordination. * The Church of Rome is concerned in the business to make fair this ordination, and to reconcile it to the Council of Rhegium, and the others before mentined, who if asked would declare it to be invalid.  
* But certainly as the Canons did command three to impose hands on a Bishop, so also they commanded that those three, should be three Bishops, and Pelagius might as well not have had three, as not three Bishops; and better, because, so they were Bishops the first Canon of the Apostles, approves the ordination if done by two, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the Nicene Canon is as much exact, in requiring the capacity of the person, as the Number of the Ordainers. But let them answer it. For my part, I believe that the imposition of hands by Andreas, was no more in that case than if a lay man had done it; it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and though the ordination was absolutely Un-canonicall, yet it being in the exigence of Necessity, and being done by two Bishops according to the Apostolical Canon, it was valid in naturâ rei, though not in formâ Canonis, and the addition of the Priest was but to cheat the Canon, and cousin himself into an impertinent belief of a Canonical ordination. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Can. 6. Concil. Sardic.  saith the Council of Sardis. Bishop's must ordain Bishops; It was never heard that Priests did, or de jure might.  
These premises do most certainly infer a real difference, between Episcopacy, and the Presbyterate. But whether or no they infer a difference of order, or only of degree; or whether degree, and order be all one, or no, is of great consideration in the present, and in relation to many other Questions.  
1. Then it is evident, that in all Antiquity, Ordo, and Gradus were used promiscuously. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] was the Greek word, and for it the Latins used [Ordo] as is evident in the instances above mentioned, to which, add, that Anacletus says, that 
Epist. 3.  Christ did instituere duos Ordines, Episcoporum, & Sacerdotum. And S. Leo affirms; Primum ordinem 
Epist. 84. c. 4.  esse Episcopalem, secundum Presbyteralem, tertium Leviticum; And these among the Greeks' are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, three degrees. So the order of Deaconship in S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a good degree; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c: is a censure used alike in the censures of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. They are all of the same Name, and the same consideration, for order, distance, and degree, amongst the Fathers; Gradus, and ordo are equally affirmed of them all; and the word gradus is used sometimes for that which is called Ordo most frequently. So Felix writing to S. 
Lib. 1 c. 12. the act is cum Felice Manich.  Austin, Non tantùm ego possum contràtuam virtutem, quià mira virtus est GRADUS EPISCOPALIS; and S. Cyprian of Cornelius, Ad Sacerdotij sublime 
lib 4. Epist. 2.  fastigium cunctis religionis GRADIBUS ascendit. Degree, and Order, are used in common, for he that speaks most properly will call that an Order in persons, which corresponds to a degree in qualities, and neither of the words are wronged by a mutual substitution.  
2. The promotion of a Bishop ad Munus Episcopale, was at first called ordinatio Episcopi. Stir up the Grace that is in the, juxta ORDINATIONEM tuam in Episcopatum, saith Sedulius; And S. Hierome; Prophetiae gratiam habebat cum ORDINATIONE Episcopatûs. *. Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior ORDINARET majorem, saith S. Ambrose, 
in 1. Tim. 3.  proving that Presbyters might not impose hands on a Bishop. * Romanorum Ecclesia Clementem à Petro ORDINATUM edit, saith Tertullian; and S. Hierome affirms that S. james was ORDAINED Bishop 
de prescript. cap. 32.  of jerusalem immediately after the Passion of our lord [Ordinatus] was the word at first, and afterwards [CONSECRATUS] came in conjunction with it, When Moses the Monk was to be ordained, to wit, a Bishop, for that's the title of the story in Theodoret, and spied that Lucius was there ready to impose hands on him, absit (says he) ut manus tua 
lib. 4. cap. 23.  me CONSECRET.  
3. In all orders, there is the impress of a distinct Character; that is, the person is qualified with a new capacity to do certain offices, which before his ordination he had no power to do. A Deacon hath an order or power  
— Quo pocula vitae  
Misceat, & latices, cum Sanguine porrigat agni,  
as Arator himself a Deacon expresses it. A Presbyter hath an higher order, or degree in the office or ministry of the Church, whereby he is enabled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Council of Ancyra does intimate. But a Bishop hath a higher yet; for besides all the offices communicated to Priests, and Deacons; he can give 
cap. 1.  orders, which very one thing makes Episcopacy to be a distinct order. For, Ordo, is defined by the Schools to be, traditio potestatis spiritualis, & collatio gratiae, ad obeunda Ministeria Ecclesiastica; a giving a spiritual power, and a conferring grace for the performance of Ecclesiastical Ministrations. Since than Episcopacy hath a new ordination, and a distinct power (as I shall show in the descent) it must needs be a distinct order, both according to the Name given it by antiquity, and according to the nature of the thing in the definitions of the School.  
There is nothing said against this but a fancy of some of the Church of Rome, obtruded indeed upon no grounds; for they would define order to be a special power in relation to the Holy Sacrament, which they call corpus Christi naturale; and Episcopacy indeed to be a distinct power in relation ad corpus Christi Mysticum, or the regiment of the Church, and ordaining labourers for the harvest, and therefore not to be a distinct order.  
But this to them that consider things sadly, is true or false according as any man list. For if these men are resolved they will call nothing an order but what is a power in order to consecration of the Eucharist, who can help it? Then indeed, in that sense, Episcopacy is not a distinct order, that is, a Bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the Venerable Eucharist, more than a Presbyter hath. But then why these men should only call this power [an order] no man can give a reason. For, 1. in Antiquity the distinct power of a Bishop was ever called an Order, and I think, before Hugo de S. Victore, and the Master of the Sentences, no man ever denied it to be an order. 2. According to this rate, I would feign know how the office of a Sub-deacon, and of an Ostiary, and of an Acolouthite, and of a Reader, come to be distinct Orders; for surely the Bishop hath as much power in order to consecration de Novo, as they have de integro. And if I mistake not; that the Bishop hath a new power to ordain Presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the Eucharist, is more a new power in order to consecration, than all those inferior officers put together have in all, and yet they call them Orders, and therefore why not Episcopacy also, I cannot imagine, unless because they will not.  
*** But however in the mean time, the denying the office and degree of Episcopacy to be a new and a distinct order is an Innovation of the production of some in the Church of Rome, without all reason, and against all antiquity. This only by the way.  
The Enemies of Episcopacy call in aid from all places for support of their ruinous cause, and therefore take their main hopes from the Church of Rome by advantage of the former discourse. For since (say they) that consecration of the Sacrament is the Greatest work, of the most secret mystery, 
S. Hieron: ad Rusticum Narbonens: apud Gratian. dist: 95. can: ecce ego. casus, ibid.  greatest power, and highest dignity that is competent to man, and this a Presbyter hath as well as a Bishop, is it likely that a Bishop should by Divine institution be so much Superior to a Presbyter, who by the confession of all sides communicates with a Bishop in that which is his highest power? And shall issues of a lesser dignity distinguish the Orders, and make a Bishop higher to a Presbyter, and not rather the Greater raise up a Presbyter to the Counter-poise of a Bishop? Upon this surmise the men of the Church of Rome, would infer an identity of order, though a disparity of degree, but the Men of the other world would infer a parity both of order and degree too. The first are already answered in the premises. The second must now be served.  
1. Then, whether power be greater, of Ordaining Priests, or Consecrating the Sacrament is an impertinent Question; possibly, it may be of some danger; because in comparing Gods ordinances, there must certainly be a depression of one, and whether that lights upon the right side or no, yet peradventure it will not stand with the consequence of our gratitude to God, to do that, which in God's estimate, may tant' amount to a direct undervaluing; but however it is unprofitable, of no use in case of conscience either in order to faith, or manners, and besides, cannot fix itself upon any basis, therebeing no way of proving either to be more excellent than the other.  
2. The Sacraments, and mysteries of Christianity if compared among themselves, are greater, and lesser in several respects. For since they are all in order to several ends, that is, productive of several effects, and they all are excellent, every rite, and sacrament in respect of its own effect, is more excellent than the other not ordained to that effect. For example. Matrimony is ordained for a means to preserve chastity, and to represent the mystical union of Christ and his Church, and therefore in these respects is greater than baptism, which does neither. But 
* The Nicene Creed.  baptism is for remission of sins and in that is more excellent than Matrimony; the same may be said for ordination, and consecration, the one being in order to Christ's natural body (as the Schools speak) the other in order to his mystical body, and so have their several excellencies respectively; but for an absolute pre-eminence of one above the other, I said there was no basis to fix that upon, and I believe all men will find it so that please to try. But in a relative, or respective excellency, they go both before, and after one another. Thus Wool, and a jewel, are better than each other; for wool is better for warmth, and a jewel for ornament. A frog hath more sense in it, than the Sun; and yet the Sun shines brighter.  
3. Suppose consecration of the Eucharist were greater than ordaining Priests, yet that cannot hinder, but that the power of ordaining may make a higher and distinct order, because the power of ordaining, hath in it the power of consecrating and something more; it is all that which makes the Priest, and it is something more besides, which makes the Bishop. Indeed if the Bishop had it not, and the Priest had it, then supposing consecration to be greater than ordination, the Priest would not only equal, but excel the Bishop, but because the Bishop hath that, and ordination besides, therefore he is higher both in Order, and Dignity.  
4. Suppose that Consecration were the greatest clerical power in the world, and that the Bishop, and the Priest, were equal in the greatest power, yet a lesser power than it, superadded to the Bishop's, may make a distinct order, and superiority. Thus it was said of the son of Man. Constituit eum paulò minorem Angelis, he was made a little lower than the Angels. It was but a little lower, and yet so much as to distinguish their Natures, for he took not upon him the NATURE of Angels, but the seed of Abraham. So it is in proportion between Bishop, and Priest; for though a Priest communicating in the greatest power of the Church, viz. consecration of the venerable Eucharist, yet differing in a less is paulò minor Angelis, a little lower than the Bishop, the Angel of the Church, yet this little lower, makes a distinct order, and enough for a subordination. * An Angel, and a man communicate in those great excellencies of spiritual essence, they both discourse, they have both election, and freedom of choice, they have will, and understanding, and memory, impresses of the Divine image, and loco-motion, and immortality. And these excellencies are (being precisely considered) of more real and eternal worth, than the Angelical manner of moving so in an instant, and those other forms and modalities of their knowledge and volition, and yet for these superadded parts of excellency, the difference is no less than specifical. If we compare a Bishop and a Priest thus, what we call difference in nature there, will be a difference in order here, and of the same consideration.  
5. Lastly it is considerable, that these men that make this objection, do not make it because they think it true, but because it will serve a present turn. For all the world sees, that to them that deny the real presence, this can be no objection; and most certainly the anti-episcopal men do so, in all senses; and than what excellency is there in the power of consecration, more than in ordination? Nay is there any such thing as consecration at all? This also would be considered from their principles. But I proceed.  
One thing only more is objected against the main Question. If Episcopacy be a distinct order, why may not a man be a Bishop that never was a Priest, as (abstracting from the laws of the Church) a man may be a Presbyter that never was a Deacon, for if it be the impress of a distinct character, it may be imprinted per saltum, and independantly, as it is in the order of a Presbyter.  
To this I answer, It is true if the powers and characters themselves were independent; as it is in all those offices of humane constitution, which are called the inferior orders; For the office of an Acolouthite, of an Exorcist, of an Ostiary, are no way dependant on the office of a Deacon, and therefore a man may be Deacon, that never was in any of those, and perhaps a Presbyter too, that never was a Deacon, as it was in the first example of the Presbyterate in the 72. Disciples. But a Bishop though he have a distinct character, yet it is not disparate from that of a Presbyter, but supposes it ex vi ordinis. For since the power of ordination (if any thing be) is the distinct capacity of a Bishop, this power supposes a power of consecrating the Eucharist to be in the Bishop, for how else can he ordain a Presbyter with a power, that himself hath not? can he give, what himself hath not received?  
* I end this point with the saying of Epiphanius, 
Haeres 75.  Vox est Aerii haeretici unus est ordo Episcoporum, & Presbyterorum, una dignitas. To say that Bishops are not a distinct order from Presbyters, was a heresy first broached by Aerius, and hath lately been (at least in the manner of speaking) countenanced by many of the Church of Rome.  
FOR to clear the distinction of order, it is evident 
§ 32. For Bishops had a power distinct, and Superior to that of Presbyters.  in Antiquity, that Bishops had a power of imposing hands, for collating of Orders, which Presbyters have not. * What was done in this affair in the times of the Apostles I have already explicated; but now the inquiry is, what the Church did in pursuance of the practice, and tradition Astolicall. 
As of Ordination.  The first, and second Canons of the Apostles command that two, or three Bishops should ordain a Bishop, and one Bishop should ordain a Priest, and a Deacon. A Presbyter is not authorized to ordain, a Bishop is. * S. Dionysius affirms, Sacerdotem 
Eccles. hier. c. 5.  non posse initiari, nisi per invocationes Episcopales, and acknowledges no ordainer but a Bishop. No more did the Church ever; Insomuch that when Novatus the Father of the old Puritans, did ambire Episcopatum, he was feign to go to the utmost parts of Italy, and seduce or entreat some Bishops to impose hands on him, as Cornelius witnesses in his Epistle to Fabianus, in Eusebius. * To 
Lib. 6. cap. 33.  this we may add as so many witnesses, all those ordinations made by the Bishops of Rome, mentioned in the Pontifical book of Damasus, Platina, and others. Habitis de more sacris ordinibus Decembris mense, Presbyteros decem, Diaconos duos, etc. create (S. Clemens) Anacletus Presbyteros quinque, Diaconos tres, Episcopos diversis in locis sex numero creavit, and so in descent, for all the Bishops of that succession for many ages together.  
But let us see how this power of ordination went in the Bishop's hand alone, by Law and Constitution; for particular examples are infinite.  
In the Council of Ancyra it is determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Can. 13.  That Rural Bishops shall not ordain Presbyters or Deacons in another's diocese without letters of licence from the Bishop. Neither shall the Priests of the City attempt it. * First not Rural Bishops, that is, Bishops that are taken in adjutorium Episcopi Principalis, Vicars to the Bishop of the diocese, they must not ordain Priests and Deacons. For it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is another's diocese, and to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is prohibited by the Canon of Scripture. But then they may with licence? Yes; for they had Episcopal Ordination at first, but not Episcopal jurisdiction, and so were not to invade the territories of their neighbour. The tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch clears this part. The words are these as they are rendered by Dionysius Exiguus. Qui in villis, & vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi tametsi manûs impositionem ab Episcopis susceperunt, [& ut Episcopi sunt consecrati] tamen oportet eos modum proprium retinere, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the next clause [& ut Episcopi consecrati sunt] although it be in very ancient Latin copies, yet is not found in the Greek, but is an assumentum for exposition of the Greek, but is most certainly employed in it; for else, what description could this be of Chorepiscopi, above Presbyteri rurales, to say that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for so had country Priests, they had received imposition of the Bishop's hands. Either then the Chorepiscopi had received ordination from three Bishops, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken collectively, not distributively, to wit, that each Country Bishop had received ordination from Bishops, many Bishops in conjunction, and so they were very Bishops, or else they had no more than Village Priests, and then this caution had been impertinent.  
* But the City Priests were also included in this prohibition. True it is, but it is in a Parenthesis, with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the midst of the Canon, and there was some particular reason for the involving them, not that they ever did actually ordain any, but that since it was prohibited to the chorepiscopi to ordain (to them I say who though for want of jurisdiction they might not ordain without licence, it being in alienâ Parochiâ, yet they had capacity by their order to do it) if these should do it, the City Presbyters who were often dispatched into the Villages upon the same employment, by a temporary mission, that the Chorepiscopi were by an ordinary, and fixed residence might perhaps think that their commission might extend farther than it did, or that they might go beyond it, as well as the Chorepiscopi, and therefore their way was obstructed by this clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
* Add to this; The Presbyters of the City were of great honour, and peculiar privilege, as appears in the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Neo-Caesarea, and therefore might easily exceed, if the Canon had not been their bridle.  
The sum of the Canon is this. With the Bishop's licence the Chorepiscopi might ordain, for themselves had Episcopal ordination, but without licence they might not, for they had but delegate, and subordinate jurisdiction; And therefore in the fourteenth Canon of Neo-Caesarea are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, like the 70 Disciples, that is, inferior to Bishops, and the 70 were to the twelve Apostles, viz. in hoc particulari, not in order, but like them in subordination and inferiority of jurisdiction: but the City Presbyters might not ordain, neither with, nor without licence; for they are in the Canon only by way of parenthesis, and the sequence of procuring a faculty from the Bishops to collate orders, is to be referred to Chorepiscopi, not to Presbyteri Civitatis, unless we should strain this Canon into a sense contrary to the practice of the Catholic Church. Res enim ordinis non possunt delegari, is a most certain rule in Divinity, and admitted by men of all sides, and most different interests.  
* However we see here, that they were prohibited, and we never find before this time, that any of them actually did give orders, neither by ordinary power, nor extraordinary dispensation; and the constant tradition of the Church, and practise Apostolical is, that they never could give orders; therefore this exposition of the Canon is liable to no exception, but is clear for the illegality of a Presbyter giving holy orders, either to a Presbyter, or a Deacon, and is concluding for the necessity of concurrence both of Episcopal order, and jurisdiction for ordinations, for, reddendo singula singulis, and expounding this Canon according to the sense of the Church, and exigence of Catholic Custom, the Chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders for want of jurisdiction, and the Priests of the City for want of order; the first may be supplied by a delegate power in litter is Episcopalibus, the second cannot, but by a new ordination, that is, by making the Priest a Bishop. For if a Priest of the City have not so much power as a Chorepiscopus, as I have proved he hath not, by showing that the Chorepiscopus then had Episcopal ordination, and yet the Chorepiscopus might not collate orders without a faculty from the Bishop, the City Priests might not do it, unless more be added to them, for their want was more. They not only want jurisdiction, but something besides, and that must needs be order.  
* But although these Chorepiscopi at the first had Episcopal Ordination, yet it was quickly taken from them for their encroachment upon the Biships' Diocese, and as they were but Vicarij, or visitatores Episcoporum in villis, so their ordination was but to a mere Presbyterate. And this we find, as soon as ever we hear that they had had Episcopal Ordination. For those who in the beginning of the 10th Canon of Antioch we find had been consecrated as Bishops, in the end of the same Canon, we find it decreed de novo: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Chorepiscopus or. Country Bishop must be ordained by the Bishop of the City, in whose jurisdiction he is; which was clearly ordination to the order of a Presbyter, and no more. And ever after this all the ordinations they made were only to the inferior Ministeries, with the Bishop's Licence too, but they never ordained any to be Deacons, or Priests; for these were Orders of the Holy Ghost's appointing, and therefore were gratiae Spiritûs Sancti, and issues of order; but the inferior Ministeries, as of a Reader, an Ostiary etc. were humane constitutions, and required not the capacity of Episcopal Order to collate them; for they were not Graces of the Holy Ghost, as all Orders properly so called are, but might by humane dispensation be bestowed, as well as by humane Ordinance, they had their first constitution. *  
* The Chorepiscopi lasted in this consistence till they were quite taken away by the Council of Hispalis: save only, that such men also were called Chorepiscopi who had been Bishops of Cities, but had fallen from their honour by communicating in Gentile Sacrifices, and by being traditors, but in case they repent and were reconciled, they had not indeed restitution to their See, but, because they had the indelible character of a Bishop, they were allowed the Name, and honour, and sometime the execution of offices Chorepiscopall. Now of this sort of Chorepiscopi no objection can be pretended, if they had made ordinations; and of the other nothing pertinent, for they also had the ordination, and order of Bishops. The former was the case of Meletius in the Nicene Council, as is to be seen in the Epistle of the Fathers to the Church of Alexandria. 
tripart hist. lib. 2. c. 12. ex Theodoret.  * But however all this while, the power of ordination is so fast held in the Bishop's hand, that it was communicated to none though of the greatest privilege.  
* I find the like care taken in the Council 
Can: 19  of Sardis, for when Musaeus, and Eutychianus had ordained some Clerks, themselves not being Bishops, Gaudentius (one of the moderate men, 'tis likely) for quietness sake, and to comply with the times, would feign have had those Clerks received into clerical communion; but the Council would by no means admit that any should be received into the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as Balsamon expresses upon that Canon,) but such as were ordained by them who were Bishops verily, and indeed. But with those who were ordained by Musaeus and Eutychianus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we will communicate as with Laymen: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for they were no Bishops that imposed hands on them; and therefore the Clerks were not ordained truly, but were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dissemblers of ordination. Quae autem de Musaeo & Eutychiano dicta sunt, trahe etiam ad alios qui non ordinati fuerunt, etc. Saith Balsamon, intimating, that it is a ruled case and of public interest.  
* The same was the issue of those two famous cases, the one of Ischiras ordained of Colluthus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that dreamed only he was a Bishop. Ischiras being ordained by him could be no Priest, nor any else of his ordaining, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Ischyras himself was reduced into lay communion, being deposed by the Synod of Alexandria, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, falling from the imagination of his Presbyterate, say 
Apud Athanas. Apolog. 2. epist, Presb. & Diacon: Mareotic: ad Curiosum & Philagrium.  the Priests and Deacons of Mareotis; And of the rest that were ordained with Ischiras, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Athanasius, and this so known a business, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, No man made scruple of the Nullity. ** The parallel case is of the Presbyters ordained by Maximus, who was another Bishop in the air too; all his ordinations were pronounced null, by the Fathers of the Council in Constantinople. A third is of the blind Bishop of Agabra imposing hands while his Presbyters read 
Cap. 4.  the words of ordination, the ordination was pronounced invalid by the first Council of Sevill. These cases are so known, I need not insist on them. 
Cap. 5.  This only,  
In divers cases of Transgression of the Canons, Clergy men were reduced to lay communion, either being suspended, or deposed; that is, from their place of honour, and execution of their function, with, or without hope of restitution respectively; but then still they had their order, and the Sacraments conferred by them were valid, though they indeed were prohibited to Minister; but in the cases of the present instance, the ordinations were pronounced as null, to have bestowed nothing, and to be merely imaginary.  
* But so also it was in case that Bishops ordained without a title, or in the diocese of another Bishop, as in the Council of 
† Can. 6.  Chalcedon, and of 
* Can, 13.  Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And may be it was so in case of ordination by a Presbyter, it was by positive constitution pronounced void, and no more, and therefore may be rescinded by the Countermand of an equal power; A Council at most may do it, and therefore without a Council, a probable necessity will let us lose. But to this the answer is evident.  
1. The expressions in the several cases are several, & of divers issue, for in case of those nullities which are merely Canonical, they are expressed as then first made, but in the case of ordination by a Non-Bishop, they are only declared void ipso facto. And therefore in that decree of Chalcedon against Sinetitular ordinations, the Canon saith; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, IRRITAM EXISTIMARI manûs impositionem, to be esteemed as null, that is, not to have Canonical approbation, but is not declared thursdays, in Naturâ rei, as it is in the foregoing instances.  
2. In the cases of Antioch, and Chalcedon, the decree is pro futuro, which makes it evident that those nullities are such as are made by Canon, but in the cases of Colluthus, and Maximus, there was declaration of a past nullity and that before any Canon was made; and though Synodall declarations pronouned such ordinations invalid, yet none decreed so for the future, which is a clear evidence, that this nullity, viz: in case of ordination by a Non-Presbyter, is not made by Canon, but by Canon declared to be invalid in the nature of the thing.  
3. If to this be added, that in antiquity it was dogmatically resolved that by the Nature, and institution of the Order of Bishops; ordination was appropriate to them, than it will also from hence be evident, that the nullity of ordination without a Bishop is not dependant upon positive constitution, but on the exigence of the institution. ** Now that the power of ordination was only in the Bishop, even they, who to advance the Presbyters, were willing enough to speak less for Episcopacy, give testimony; making this the proper distinctive cognisance of a Bishop from a Presbyter, that the Bishop hath power of ordination, the Presbyter hath not. So S. Jerome, Quid facit Episcopus (except â ordinatione) quod Presbyter non faciat. All things (saith 
ad Evagrium.  he) [to wit all things of precise order] are common to Bishops with Priests, except ordination, for that is proper to the Bishop. And S. chrysostom, Solâ 
homil. 2. in. 1. Tim. 2.  lâ quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt [Episcopi] atque hoc tantùm plusquam Presbyteri habere videntur. Ordination is the proper, and peculiar function of a Bishop; and therefore not given him by positive constitution of the Canon.  
4. No man was called an heretic for breach of Canon, but for denying the power of ordination to be proper to a Bishop: Aërius was by Epiphanius, Philastrius, and S. Austin condemned, and branded for heresy, and by the Catholic Church saith Epiphanius. This power therefore came from a higher spring, then positive and Canonical Sanction. But now proceed.  
The Council held in Trullo, complaining that 
Can. 37.  the incursion of the barbarous people upon the Church's inheritance, saith that it forced some Bishops from their residence, & made that they could not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the guise of the Church, give Orders and do such things as DID BELONG TO THE BISHOP; and in the sequel of the Canon they are permitted in such cases, ut & diversorum Clericorum ordinationes canonicè faciant, to make Canonical ordinations of Clergy men. Giving of Orders is proper, it belongs to a Bishop. So the Council. And therefore Theodoret expounding that place of S. Paul [by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery] interprets it of Bishops; for this reason, because Presbyters did not impose hands. * There is an imperfect Canon in the Arausican Council that hath an expression very pertinent to 
Can. 20.  this purpose, Ea quae non nisi per Episcopos geruntur, those things that are not done, but by Bishops, they were decreed still to be done by Bishops, though he that was to do them regularly, did fall into any infirmity whatsoever, yet non sub praesentiâ suâ Presbyteros agere permittat, sed evocet Episcopum. Here are clearly by this Canon some things supposed to be proper to the Bishops, to the action of which Presbyters must in no case be admitted. The particulars, what they are, are not specified in the Canon, but are named before, viz: Orders, and Confirmation, for almost the whole Council was concerning them, and nothing else is properly the agendum Episcopi, and the Canon else is not to be Understood. * To the same issue is that circum-locutory description, or name of a Bishop, used by S. chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The man that is to ordain Clerks.  
* And all this is but the doctrine of the Catholic Church which S. Epiphanius opposed to the 
haeres. 75.  doctrine of Aërius, denying Episcopacy to be a distinct order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (speaking of Episcopacy) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, speaking of Presbytery. The order of Bishops begets Fathers to the Church of God, but the order of Presbyters begets sons in baptism, but no Fathers or Doctors by ordination. * It is a very remarkable passage related by Eusebius in the ordination of Novatus to be Presbyter, the Bishop did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all the whole 
Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33.  Clergy was against it, yet the Bishop did ordain him, and then certainly scarce any conjunction of the other Clergy can be imagined; I am sure none is either expressed or intimated. For it was a ruled case, and attested by the Uniform practice of the Church, which was set down in the third Council of Carthage, Episcopus unus esse potest per quem 
Can. 45.  dignatione Divinâ Presbyteri multi constitui possunt. This case I instance the more particularly, because it is an exact determination of a Bishops sole power of ordination. Aurelius made a motion, that, if a Church wanted a Presbyter to become her Bishop, they might demand one from any Bishop. It was granted; But Posthumianus the Bishop put this case. Deinde qui unum habuerit, numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri? How if the Bishop have but one Priest, must his Bishop part with him to supply the necessity of the Neighbour widdow-Church? Yea, that he must. But how then shall he keep ordinations when he hath never a Presbyter to assist him? That indeed would have been the objection now, but it was none then. For Aurelius told them plainly, there was no inconvenience in it, for though a Bishop have never a Presbyter, no great matter, he can himself ordain many (and then I am sure, there is sole ordination) but if a Bishop be wanting to a Church, he is not so easily found.  
** Thus it went ordinarily in the stile of the Church, ordinations were made by the Bishop, and the ordainer spoken of as a single person. So it is in the Nicene Council, the Council of 
a Cap. 9  Antioch, the 
Cap. 19  Council of 
b Cap. 2. & 6.  Chalcedon, and S. Jerome who writing to Pammachius against the errors of john of jerusalem; If thou speak (saith he) of Paulinianus, he comes now and then to visit us, not as any of your Clergy, but ejus à quo ordinatus est, that Bishop's who ordained him.  
* So that the issue of this argument is this. The Canons of the Apostles, and the rules of the Ancient Counsels appropriate the ordination of Bishops to Bishops, of Presbyters to one Bishop, (for I never find a Presbyter ordained by two Bishops together, but only Origen by the Bishops of jerusalem, and Caesarea) Presbyters are never mentioned in conjunction with Bishops at their ordinations, and if alone they did it, their ordination was pronounced invalid and void ab initio.  
* To these particulars add this, that Bishops alone were punished if ordinations were Vncanonicall, which were most unreasonable if Presbyters did join in them, and were causes in conjunction. But unless they did it alone, we never read that they were punishable; indeed Bishops were pro toto, & integro, as is reported by Sozomen in the case of Elpidius, Eustathius, Basilius of Ancyra, and Eleusius. Thus also it was decreed in the second, and sixth Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon, and in the Imperial constitutions. Since therefore we neither find Presbyters joined with Bishops in commission, or 
Novel: constit: 6. & 1. 223. cap. 16.  practise, or penalty all this while. I may infer from the premises the same thing which the Council of Hispales expresses in direct, and full sentence, Episcopus Sacerdotibus, ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest, solus auferre non potest. The Bishop alone 
Cap. 6.  loan may give the Priestly honour, he alone is not suffered to take it away. * This Council was held in the year 657, and I set it down here for this purpose to show that the decree of the fourth Council 
Can: 2, & 3.  of Carthage which was the first that licenced Priests to assist Bishops in ordinations yet was not obligatory in the West; but for almost 300 years after, ordinations were made by Bishops alone. But till this Council no pretence of any such conjunction, and after this Council sole ordination did not expire in the West for above 200 years together; but for aught I know, ever since then, it hath obtained, that although Presbyters join not in the consecration of a Bishop, yet of a Presbyter they do; but this is only by a positive subintroduced constitution first made in a Provincial of Africa, and in other places received by insinuation and conformity of practice.  
* I know not what can be said against it. I only find a piece of an objection out of S. Cyprian, who was a Man so complying with the Subjects of his Diocese, that if any man, he was like to furnish us with an Antinomy. * Hunc igitur (Fratres Dilectissimi) 
Epist. 33.  à me, & à Collegis qui praesentes aderant ordinatum sciatis. Here either by his Colleagues he means Bishops, or Presbyters. If Bishops, than many Bishops will be found in the ordination of one to an inferior order, which because it was (as I observed before) against the practice of Christendom, will not easily be admitted to be the sense of S. Cyprian. But if he means Presbyters by [Collegae] then sole ordination is invalidated by this example, for Presbyters joined with him in the ordination of Aurelius.  
I answer, that it matters not whether by his Colleagues he means one, or the other, for Aurelius the Confessor who was the man ordained, was ordained but to be a Reader, and that was no Order of Divine institution, no gift of the Holy Ghost, and therefore might be dispensed by one, or more; by Bishops, or Presbyters, and no way enters into the consideration of this question concerning the power of collating those orders which are gifts of the Holy Ghost, and of divine ordinance; and therefore, this, although I have seen it once pretended, yet hath no validity to impugn the constant practice of Primitive antiquity.  
But then are all ordinations invalid which are done by mere Presbyters without a Bishop? What think we of the reformed Churches?  
1. For my part I know not what to think. The question hath been so often asked with so much violence, and prejudice; and we are so bound by public interest to approve all that they do, that we have disabled ourselves to justify our own. For we were glad at first of abettors against the Errors of the Roman Church, we found these men zealous in it, we thanked God for it (as we had cause) and we were willing to make them recompense, by endeavouring to justify their ordinations; not thinking what would follow upon ourselves. But now it is come to that issue, that our own Episcopacy is thought not necessary, because we did not condemn the ordinations of their Presbytery.  
2. Why is not the question rather, what we think of the Primitive Church, than what we think of the reformed Churches? Did the Primitive Counsels, and Fathers do well in condemning the ordinations made by mere Presbyters? If they did well, what was a virtue in them, is no sin in us. If they did ill, from what principle shall we judge of the right of ordinations? since there is no example in Scripture of any ordination made but by Apostles, and Bishops, and the Presbytery that imposed hands on Timothy, is by all antiquity expounded either of the office, or of a College of Presbyters; and S. Paul expounds it to be an ordination made by his own hands, as appears by comparing the two epistles to S. Timothy together; and may be so meant by the principles of all sides, for if the names be confounded, than Presbyter may signify a Bishop, and that they of this Presbytery were not Bishops, they can never prove from Scripture, where all men grant that the Names are confounded.  
* So that whence will men take their estimate for the rites of ordinations? From Scripture? That gives it always to Apostles, and Bishops (as I have proved) and that a Priest did ever impose hands for ordination can never be shown from thence. From whence then? From Antiquity? That was so fare from licensing ordinations made by Presbyters alone, that Presbyters in the primitive Church did never join with Bishops in Collating holy Orders of Presbyter, and Deacon, till the 4th Council of Carthage; much less do it alone, rightly, and with effect. So that, as in Scripture there is nothing for Presbyters ordaining, so in Antiquity there is much against it; And either in this particular we must have strange thoughts of Scripture, and Antiquity, or not so fair interpretation of the ordinations of reformed Presbyteries. But for my part I had rather speak a truth in sincerity, then err with a glorious correspondence.  
But will not necessity excuse them who could not have orders from Orthodox Bishops? shall we either sin against our consciences by suscribing to heretical, and false resolutions in materiâ fidei, or else lose the being of a Church, for want of Episcopal ordinations? * Indeed if the case were just thus it was very hard with the good people of the transmarine Churches; but I have here two things to consider.  
1. I am very willing to believe that they would not have done any thing either of error, or suspicion, but in cases of necessity. But then I consider that M. Du Plessis, a man of honour, and Great learning 
de Eccles. cap. 11.  does attest, that at the first reformation there were many Arch-Bishops and Cardinals in Germany, England, France, and Italy that joined in the reformation, whom they might, but did not employ in their ordinations; And what necessity then can be pretended in this case, I would feign learn that I might make their defence. But, which is of more, and deeper consideration; for this might have been done by inconsideration, and irresolution, as often happens in the beginning of great changes, but, it is their constant and resolved practice at least in France, that if any returns to them they will reordayne him by their Presbytery, though he had before Episcopal 
Danaeus part. 2. Isagog, lib. 2. cap. 22. Perron. repl. fol: 92. impress. 1605.  Ordination, as both their friends and their enemies bear witness.  
2. I consider that necessity may excuse a personal delinquency; but I never heard that necessity did build a Church. Indeed no man is forced for his own particular to commit a sin, for if it be absolutely a case of necessity, the action ceases to be a sin; but indeed if God means to build a Church in any place, he will do it by means proportionable to that end; that is, by putting them into a possibility of doing, and acquiring those things which himself hath required of necessity to the constitution of a Church. * So that, supposing that Ordination by a Bishop is necessary for the vocation of Priests, and Deacons (as I have proved it is) and therefore for the founding, or perpetuating of a Church, either God hath given to all Church's opportunity and possibility of such Crdinations, and then, necessity of the contrary, is but pretence and mockery, or if he hath not given such possibility, than there is no Church there to be either built, or continued, but the Candlestick is presently removed.  
There are divers stories in Ruffinus to this purpose. 
Eccles. hist: lib. 10. cap. 9 per Ruffinum.  When Aedesius and Frumentius were surprised by the Barbarous Indians, they preached Christianity, and baptised many, but themselves being but Laymen could make no Ordinations, and so not fix a Church. What then was to be done in the case? Frumentius Alexandriam pergit .... & rem omnem, ut gesta est, narrat EPISCOPO, ac monet, ut provideat virum aliquem dignum quem congregatis jam plurimis Christianis in Barbarico solo Episcopum mittat. Frumentius comes to Alexandria to get a Bishop. Athanasius being then Patriarch ordained Frumentius their Bishop, & tradito ei Sacerdotio, redire eum cum Domini Gratiâ unde venerat jubet .... ex quo (saith Ruffinus) in Indiae partibus, & populi Christianorum & Ecclesiae factae sunt, & Sacerdotium caepit.  
The same happened in the case of the Iberians 
Ibidem c. 10. & apud Theodoret. l. 1.  converted by a Captive woman; posteà verò quàm Ecclesia magnificè constructa est, & populi fidem Dei majore ardore sitiebant, captivae monitis ad Imperatorem Constantinum totius Gentis legatio mittitur: Res gesta exponitur: SACERDOTES mittere oratur qui caeptum ergà se Dei munus implerent. The work of Christianity could not be completed, nor a Church founded without the Ministry of Bishops.  
* Thus the case is evident, that the want of a Bishop will not excuse us from our endeavours of acquiring one; and where God means to found a Church there he will supply them with those means, and Ministeries which himself hath made of ordinary and absolute necessity. And therefore if it happens that those Bishops which are of ordinary Ministration amongst us, prove heretical, still God's Church is Catholic, and though with trouble, yet Orthodox Bishops may be acquired. For just so it happened when Mauvia Queen of the Saracens was so earnest to have Moses the Hermit made the Bishop of her Nation, and offered peace to the Catholics upon that condition; Lucius an Arrian troubled the affair by his interposing and offering to ordain Moses; The Hermit discovered his vileness, & it a 
Eccles: hist. lib. 11. cap. 6. per Ruffinum.  majore dedecore deformatus compulsus est acquiescere. Moses refused to be ordained by him that was an Arrian. So did the reformed Churches refuse ordinations by the Bishops of the Roman communion. But what then might they have done? Even the same that Moses did in that necessity; compulsus est ab Episcopis quos in exilium truserat (Lucius) sacerdotium sumere. Those good people might have had orders from the Bishops of England, or the Lutheran Churches, if at least they thought our Church's Catholic, and Christian.  
If an ordinary necessity will not excuse this, will not an extraordinary calling justify it? Yea, most certainly, could we but see an ordinary proof for an extraordinary calling, viz: an evident prophecy, demonstration of Miracles, certainty of reason, clarity of sense, or any thing that might make faith of an extraordinary mission.  
But shall we then condemn those few of the Reformed Churches whose ordinations always have been without Bishops? No indeed. That must not be. They stand, or fall to their own Master. And though I cannot justify their ordinations, yet what degree their Necessity is of, what their desire of Episcopal ordinations may do for their personal excuse, and how fare a good life, and a Catholic belief may lead a man in the way to heaven, (although the forms of external communion be not observed) I cannot determine. * For ought I know, their condition is the same with that of the Church of Pergamus [I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is, and thou heldest fast my FAITH, and hast not denied my Name; Nihilominus habeo adversus te pauca, some few things I have against thee;] and yet of them, the want of Canonical ordinations is a defect which I trust themselves desire to be remedied; but if it cannot be done, their sin indeed is the less, but their misery the Greater. * I am sure I have said sooth, but whether or no it will be thought so, I cannot tell; and yet why it may not I cannot guess, unless they only be impeccable, which I suppose will not so easily be thought of them, who themselves think, that all the Church possibly may fail. But this I would not have declared so freely, had not the necessity of our own Churches required it, and that the first pretence of the legality, and validity of their ordinations been boyed up to the height of an absolute necessity; for else why shall it be called Tyranny in us to call on them to conform to us, and to the practice of the Catholic Church, and yet in them be called a good and a holy zeal to exact our conformity to them; But I hope it will so happen to us, that it will be verified here, what was once said of the Catholics under the fury of justina, sed tanta fuit persever antia fidelium populorum, ut animas priùs amittere, quàm Episcopum mallent; If it were put to our choice, rather to die (to wit the death of Martyrs, not rebels) then lose the sacred order, and offices of Episcopacy, without which no Priest, no ordination, no consecration of the Sacrament, no absolution, no rite, or Sacrament legitimately can be performed in order to eternity.  
The sum is this. If the Canons, and Sanctions Apostolical, if the decrees of eight famous Counsels in Christendom, of Ancyra, of Antioch, of Sardis, of Alexandria, two of Constantinople, the Arausican Council, and that of Hispalis; if the constant successive Acts of the famous Martyr Bishops of Rome making ordinations, if the testimony of the whole Pontifical book, if the dogmatic resolution of so many Fathers, S. Denis, S. Cornelius, S. Athanasius, S. Hierome, S. chrysostom, S. Epiphanius, S. Austin, and divers others, all appropriating ordinations to the Bishop's hand: if the constant voice of Christendom, declaring ordinations made by Presbyters, to be null, and void in the nature of the thing: and never any act of ordination by a Non-Bishop, approved by any Council, decretal, or single suffrage of any famous man in Christendom: if that ordinations of Bishops were always made, and they ever done by Bishops, and no pretence of Priests joining with them in their consecrations, and after all this it was declared heresy to communicate the power of giving orders to Presbyters either alone, or in conjunction with Bishops, as it was in the case of Aërius: if all this, that is, if whatsoever can be imagined, be sufficient to make faith in this particular; than it is evident that the power, and order of Bishops is greater than the power, and order of Presbyters, to wit, in this Great particular of ordination, and that by this loud voice, and united vote of Christendom.  
* BUT this was but the first part of the power 
§ 33. And Confirmation,  which Catholic antiquity affixed to the order of Episcopacy. The next is of Confirmation of baptised people. And here the rule was this, which was thus expressed by Damascen: Apostolorum, & Successorum eorum est per manûs impositionem donum 
Epist. de Chorepisc.  Spiritus sancti tradere. It belongs to the Apostles and their successors to give the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands. But see this in particular instance.  
The Council of Eliberis giving permission to faithful people of the Laity to baptise Catechumen in cases of necessity, and exigence of journey; it a tamen ut si supervixerit [baptizatus] ad Episcopum eum perducat, ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit. Let him be carried to the Bishop to be improved by imposition of the BISHOP'S hands. This was Law.  
It was also custom saith S. Cyprian, Quod nunc 
Epist. add jubaian.  quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur, per Praepositos Ecclesiae offerantur, & per nostram orationem, & manûs impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur, & signaculo Dominico consummentur. And this custom was Catholic too, and the Law was of Universal concernment. OMNES Fideles per manuum impositionem EPISCOPORUM Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent, ut pleni Christiani accipere debent. So S. Vrbane in his decretal Epistle; And, Omnibus festinandum est sine 
Apud Seu. Binium in 1. tom. Council.  morâ renasci, & demùm CONSIGNARI AB EPISCOPO Et septiformem Spiritûs sanctigratiam recipere; so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle under the name of S. Clement. ALL FAITHFUL baptised people must go to the Bishop to be consigned, and so by imposition of the Bishop's hands to obtain the seven fold gifts of the Holy Ghost.  
Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain affirms confirmation in this, to have a special excellency besides baptism, quòd solùm à summis Sacerdotibus confertur, because Bishops only can give confirmation; And the same is said, & proved by S. Eusebius in his third Epistle enjoining great veneration to this holy mystery, quod ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus. It cannot, it may not be performed by any, but by the Bishops.  
Thus S. chrysostom speaking of S. Philip converting 
Homil. 18. in Act.  the Samaritans, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philip baptising the men of Samaria, gave not the Holy Ghost to them whom he had baptised. For HE HAD NOT POWER. For this gift was only of the twelve Apostles. And a little after: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This was PECULIAR to the Apostles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence it comes to pass, that the principal and chief of the Church do it, and none else. And George Pachymeres, the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
In cap. 5. de Eccles. hierarch.  It is required that a Bishop should consign faithful people baptised. For this was the Ancient practice.  
I shall not need to instance in too many particulars, for that the Ministry of confirmation was by Catholic custom appropriate to Bishops in all ages of the Primitive Church is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Counsels, & Fathers; particularly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in 
* Lib. 3. hist. cap. 17.  Eusebius, 
a De Baptismo.  Tertullian, S. 
b Epist. 1. cap. 3. ad Decent.  Innocentius the first, 
c Epist. 4.  Damasus, 
d Epist. 88  S. Leo, in 
e Epist. ad Episc. German.  john the third, in S. 
f Lib. 3. ep. 9  Gregory, Amphilochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius, and Eubulus, the 
g Apud Gratian. de consecrat. dist. 5. can. ut jejuni.  Council of Orleans, and of 
h Ibid. Can. ut Episcopi.  Melda, and lastly of 
i Concil. Hispal. can. 7.  Sevill which affirms, Non licere Presbyteris .... per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptizandis paracletum spiritum tradere. It is not lawful for Presbyters to give confirmation, for it is properly an act of Episcopal power .... Chrismate spiritus S. superinfunditur. Vtraque verò ista manu, & ore Antistitis impetramus. These are enough for authority, and dogmatic resolution from antiquity. For truth is, the first that ever did communicate the power of confirming to Presbyters was Photius, the first author of that unhappy and long lasting schism between the Latin, and Greek Churches, and it was upon this occasion too. For when the 
vide Anastabiblioth praefat. in Can. 8. Synodi.  Bulgarians were first converted, the Greeks' sent Presbyters to baptise, and to confirm them. But the Latins sent again to have them re-confirmed, both because (as they pretended) the Greeks' had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria, nor the Presbyters a capacity of order to give confirmation.  
The matters of fact, and acts Episcopal of confirmation are innumerable, but most famous are those confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of 
vide Optatum. lib. 2. S. Bernard. in vitâ S Malachiae. Surium. tom. 1. in Febr.  Brema, and of S. Malchus attested by S. Bernard, because they were ratified by miracle, saith the Ancient story. I end this with the saying of S. Hierome, Exigis ubi scriptum sit? In Actibus Apostolorum. Sed etiamsi Scripturae authoritas non subesset, totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti 
dial. adv. Lucifer.  obtineret. If you ask where it is written? (viz. that Bishops alone should confirm) It is written in the Acts of the Apostles (meaning, by precedent, though not express precept) but if there were no authority of Scripture for it, yet the consent of all the world upon this particular is instead of a command. *** It was fortunate that S. Hierome hath expressed himself so confidently in this affair, for by this we are armed against an objection from his own words, for in the same dialogue, speaking of some acts of Episcopal privilege and peculiar ministration, particularly, of Confirmation, he says, it was ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quàm ad legis necessitatem. For the honour of the Priesthood, rather than for the necessity of a law.  
To this the answer is evident from his own words: That Bishops should give the Holy Ghost in confirmation, is written in the Acts of the Apostles; and now that this is reserved rather for the honour of Episcopacy, than a simple necessity in the nature of the thing makes no matter. For the question here that is only of concernment, is not to what end this power is reserved to the Bishop, but by whom it was reserved? Now S. Hierome says it was done apud Acta, in the Scripture, therefore by God's Holy Spirit, and the end he also specifies, viz. for the honour of that sacred order, non propter legis necessitatem, not that there is any necessity of law, that confirmation should be administered by the Bishop. Not that a Priest may do it, but that, as S. Hierome himself there argues, the Holy Ghost being already given in baptism, if it happens that Bishops may not be had (for he puts the case concerning persons in bondage, and places remote, and destitute of Bishops) then in that case there is not the absolute necessity of a Law, that Confirmation should be had at all: A man does not perish if he have it not; for that this thing was reserved to a Bishops peculiar ministration, was indeed an honour to the function, but it was not for the necessity of a Law tying people in all cases actually to acquire it. So that this [non necessarium] is not to be referred to the Bishop's ministration, as if it were not necessary for him to do it when it is to be done, not that a Priest may do it if a Bishop may not be had; but this non necessity is to be referred to confirmation itself; so that if a Bishop cannot be had, confirmation, though with much loss, yet with no danger, may be omitted. This is the sum of S. Hieroms discourse, this reconciles him to himself, this makes him speak conformably to his first assertions, and consequently to his arguments; and to be sure, no exposition can make these words to intent that this reservation of the power of confirmation to Bishops, is not done by the spirit of God, and then let the sense of the words be what they will, they can do no hurt to the cause; and as easily may we escape from those words of his, to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona. Sed quia scriptum est, Presbyteri duplici honore honorentur .... praedicare eos decet, utile est benedicere, congruum confirmare, etc. It is quoted by Gratian didst. 95. can. ecce ego. But the gloss upon the place expounds him thus, i. e. in fide, the Presbyters may preach, they may confirm their Auditors, not by consignation of Chrism, but by confirmation of faith; and for this, quotes a parallel place for the use of the word [Confirmare] by authority of S. Gregory, who sent Zachary his legate 
Caus. 11. q. 3. can. Quod praedecessor.  into Germany from the See of Rome, ut Orthodoxos Episcopos, Presbyteros, vel quoscunque reperire potuisset in verbo exhortationis perfectos, ampliùs confirmaret. Certainly S. Gregory did not intent that his legate Zachary should confirm Bishops & Priests in any other sense but this of S. Hieroms in the present, to wit, in faith and doctrine, not in rite, and mystery, and neither could S. Hierome himself intent that Presbyters should do it at all but in this sense of S. Gregory, for else he becomes an Antistrephon, and his own opposite.  
* Yea, but there is a worse matter than this. S. 
in Ephes. 4.  Ambrose tells of the Egyptian Priests, that they in the absence of the Bishop do confirm. Denique apud Egyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus. But,  
1. The passage is suspicious, for it interrupts a discourse of S. Ambrose's concerning the Primitive Order of election to the Bishopric, and is no way pertinent to the discourse, but is encircled with a story of a fare different consequence, which is not easily thought to have been done by any considering and intelligent Author.  
2. But suppose the clause is not surreptitious, but natural to the discourse, and borne with it, yet it is matter of fact, not of right, for S. Ambrose neither approves, nor disproves it, and so it must go for a singular act against the Catholic practice and Laws of Christendom.  
3. If the whole clause be not surreptitious, yet the word [Consignant] is, for S. Austin who hath the same discourse, the same thing, viz: of the dignity of Presbyters, tells this story of the Act and honour of Presbyters in Alexandria, and all Egypt, almost in the other words of his Master S. Ambrose, but he tells it thus, Nam & in Alexandriâ & per totum Aegyptum si desit Episcopus, Consecrat Presbyter. So that it should not be consignat, but consecrat; 
Quaest 101. Vet. & N. Testam. Basileae.  for no story tells of any confirmations done in Egypt by Presbyters, but of consecrating the Eucharist in cases of Episcopal absence, or commission I shall give account in the Question of jurisdiction; that was indeed permitted in Egypt, and some other places, but Confirmation never, that we can find else where, and this is too improbable to bear weight against evidence and practise Apostolical, and four Counsels, and 16 ancient Catholic Fathers, testifying that it was a practice and a Law of Christendom that Bishops only should confirm, and not Priests, so that if there be no other scruple, this Question is quickly at an end.  
** But S. Gregory is also pretended in objection; for he gave dispensation to the Priests of Sardinia, ut baptizatos Vguant, to aneale baptised 
lib. 3. eist p. 26.  people. Now anointing the forehead of the baptised person, was one of the solemnities of confirmation, so that this indulgence does arise to a power of Confirming; for Vnctio and Chrismatio in the first Arausican Council, and since that time Sacramentum Chrismatis hath been the usual word for confirmation. But this will not much trouble the business.  
Because it is evident that he means it not of confirmation, but of the Chrism in those times by the rites of the Church used in baptism. For in his 9th Epistle he forbids Priests to anoint baptised people, now here is precept against precept, therefore it must be understood of several anointings, and so S. Gregory expounds himself in this 9th Epistle, Presbyteri baptizatos infantes signare bis in front Chrismate non praesumant. Presbyters may not anoint baptised people twice, oncethey might; now that this permission of anointing was that which was a ceremony of baptism, not an act of confirmation, we shall see by comparing it with other Canons. * In the collection of the Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis, It is decreed thus, [Presbyter 
Can. 52.  praesente Episcopo non SIGNET infants, nisi forte ab Episcopo fuerit illi praeceptum. A Priest must not sign infants without leave of the Bishop if he be present. Must not sign them] that is with Chrism in their foreheads, and that in baptism; for the circumstant Canons do expressly explicate, and determine it; for they are concerning the rites of baptism, and this in the midst of them. And by the way this may answer S. Ambrose his [Presbyteri consignant absente Episcopo] in case it be so to be read; for here we see a consignation permitted to the presbyters in the Eastern Churches to be used in baptism, in the absence of the Bishop, and this an act of indulgence and favour, and therefore extraordinary, and of use to S. Ambrose his purpose of advancing the Presbyters, but yet of no objection in case of confimation. * And indeed [Consignari] is used in Antiquity for any signing with the Cross, and anealing. Thus it is used in the first Arausican Council for extreme Unction, which is there in case of extreme necessity permitted to Presbyters: Haereticos 
Can. 2.  in mortis discrimine positos, Si Catholici esse desiderent, si desit Episcopus à Presbyteris cam Chrismate, & benedictione CONSIGNARI placet. Consigned is the word, and it was clearly in extreme Unction, for that rite was not then ceased, and it was in anealing a dying body, and a part of reconciliation, and so limited by the sequent Canon and not to be fancied of any other consignation. But I return. *** The first Council of Toledo prohibits 
Can. 20.  any from making Chrism, but Bishops only, and takes order, ut de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum ante diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur, ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere; that the Chrism be fetched by the Deacons from the Bishop to be used in all Churches. But for what use? why, it was destinatum ad diem Paschae says the Canon, against the Holy time of Easter, and then, at Easter was the solemnity of public baptisms, so that it was to be used in baptism. And this sense being premised, the Canon permits to Presbyters to sign with Chrism, the same thing that S. Gregory did to the Priests of Sardinia. Statutum verò est, Diaconum non Chrismare, sed Presbyterum absente Episcopo, praesente verò, si ab ipso fuerit praeceptum. Now although this be evident enough, yet it is something clearer in the first Arausican Council, Nullus ministrorum qui BAPTIZANDI recipit officium sine Chrismate usquam debet 
Can. 1.  progredi, quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate Chrismari. The case is evident that Chrismation or Consigning with ointment was used in baptism, and it is as evident that this Chrismation was it which S. Gregory permitted to the Presbyters, not the other, for he expressly forbade the other and the exigence of the Canons, and practise of the Church expound it so, and it is the same which S. Innocent the first decreed in more express and distinctive terms, Presbyteris Chrismate baptizatos ungere licet, sed quod ab Episcopo fuerit Consecratum; 
Epist. 1. ad Decent. Cap. 3.  there is a clear permission of consigning with Chrism in baptism, but he subjoins a prohibition to Priests for doing it in confirmation; non tamen frontem eodem oleo signare, quod solis debetur Episcopis cùm tradunt Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum.  
By the way; some, that they might the more clearly determine S. Gregory's dispensation to be only in baptismal Chrism, read it, [Vt baptizandos ungant] not [baptizatos] so Gratian, so S. Thomas, but it is needless to be troubled with that, for Innocentius in the decretal now quoted useth the word [Baptizatos] and yet clearly distinguishes this power from the giving the Chrism in Confirmation.  
I know no other objection, and these we see hinder not but that having such evidence of fact in Scripture of confirmations done only by Apostles, and this evidence urged by the Fathers for the practice of the Church, and the power of cofirmation by many Counsels, and Fathers appropriated to Bishops, and denied to Presbyters, and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their own opinion, but witnesses of a Catholic practice, and do actually attest it as done by a Catholic consent; and no one example in all antiquity ever produced of any Priest that did, no law that a Priest might impose hands for confirmation; we may conclude it to be a power Apostolical in the Original, Episcopal in the Succession, and that in this power, the order of a Bishop is higher than that of a Presbyter, and so declared by this instance of Catholic Practice.  
THus fare I hope we are right. But I call to 
§ 34. And jurisdiction,  mind, that in the Nosotrophium of the old Philosopher that undertook to cure all Calentures by Bathing his Patients in water; some were up to the Chin, some to the Middle, some to the Knees; So it is amongst the enemies of the Sacred Order of Episcopacy; some endure not the Name, and they indeed deserve to be over head and ears; some will have them all one in office with Presbyters, as at first they were in Name; and they had need bathe up to the Chin; but some stand shallower, and grant a little distinction, a precedency perhaps for order sake, but no pre-eminence in reiglement, no superiority of jurisdiction; Others by all means would be thought to be quite thorough in behalf of Bishop's order, and power such as it is, but call for a reduction to the primitive state, and would have all Bishops like the Primitive, but because by this means they think to impair their power, they may well endure to be up to the ankles, their error indeed is less, and their pretence fairer, but the use they make of it, of very ill consequence. But curing the mistake will quickly cure this distemper, That then shall be the present issue, that in the Primitive Church Bishops had more power, and greater exercise of absolute jurisdiction, than now Men will endure to be granted, or then themselves are very forward to challenge.  
1. Then; The Primitive Church expressing 
Which they expressed in attributes of authority, and great power,  the calling and offices of a Bishop, did it in terms of presidency and authority. Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit, saith S. Ignatius; The Bishop carries the representment of God the Father, that is, in power and authority to be sure, (for how else:) so as to be the supreme in suo ordine, in offices Ecclesiastical. And again, Quid enim aliud est Episcopus quàm is quiomni Prineipatu, & potestate superior 
Epist. ad Trallian.  est? Here his superiority and advantage is expressed to be in his power; A Bishop is greater and higher than all other power, viz: in materiâ, or gradu religionis. And in his Epistle to the Magnesians; Horror ut hoc sit omnibus studium in Dei concordiâ omnia agere EPISCOPO PRESIDENTE LOCO DEI. Do all things in Unity, the Bishop being PRECEDENT IN THE PLACE OF GOD. Precedent in all things. And with a fuller tide yet, in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, Honora Episcopum ut PRINCIPEM SACERDOTUM imaginem Dei referentem, Dei quidem propter Principatum, Christi verò propter Sacerdotium. It is full of fine expression both for Eminency of order, and jurisdiction. The Bishop is the PRINCE OF THE PRIESTS bearring the image of God for his Principality (that's his jurisdiction and power) but of Christ himself for his Priesthood, (that's his Order.) S. Ignatius hath spoken fairly, and if we consider that he was so primitive a man that himself saw Christ in the flesh, and lived a man of exemplary sanctity, and died a Martyr, and hath been honoured as holy Catholic by all posterity, certainly these testimonies must needs be of Great pressure, being Sententiae repetiti dogmatis, not casually slipped from him, and by incogitancy, but resolutely and frequently.  
But this is attested by the general expressions of after ages. Fungaris circa eum POTESTATE HONORIS tui, saith S. Cyprian to Bishop Rogatianus. Execute 
lib. 3. epist. 9  the POWER OF THY DIGNITY upon the refractory Deacon; And VIGOUR EPISCOPALIS, and AUTHORITAS CATHEDRae are the the words expressive of that power whatsoever it be which S. Cyprian calls upon him to assert, in the same Epistle. This is high enough. So is that which he presently subjoins, calling the Bishop's power Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimem ac divinam potestatem, a high and a divine power and authority in regiment of the Church. * Locus Magisterij traditus ab Apostolis, So S. Irenaeus calls Episcopacy; A place of Mastership 
lib. 4. cap. 63.  or authority delivered by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors. * Eusebius speaking of Dionysius, who succeeded Heraclas, he received (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The 
lib. 6. hist. cap. 26.  Bishopric of the PRECEDENCY over the Churches of Alexandria. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith the 
Can. 10.  Council of Sardis; to the TOP or HEIGHT of Episcopacy. APICES & PRINCIPES OMNIUM, so Optatus calls Bishops; the CHIEF, and HEAD of all; and S. Denys of Alexandria, Scribit ad Fabianum 
lib. 2. adv. Parmen.  Vrbis Romae Episcopum, & ad alios quamplurimos ECCLESIARUM PRINCIPES de fide Catholicâ suâ, saith Eusebius. And Origen calls the Bishop, eum qui 
lib. 6. hist. cap. 26. Homil. 7. in jerem.  TOTIUS ECCLESIae ARCEM obtinet, He that hath obtained the TOWER ORHEIGHT of the Church.  
The Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in Trullo ordained that the Bishops dispossessed of their Churches by encroachments of Barbarous people upon the Church's pale, so as the Bishop had in effect no Diocese, yet they should enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority of their PRESIDENCY according to their proper state; their appropriate presidency. And the same Council calls the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the PRELATE or PERFECT of the Church; I know not how to expound it better. But it is something more full in the Greeks Council of Carthage Commanding that the convert 
Can. 69.  Donatists should be received according to the will and pleasure of the Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that GOVERNS the Church in that place. * And in the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Can. 25.  The Bishop hath POWER OVERDO the affairs of the Church. * Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacula gubernabat. S. Sylvester [the Bishop] held the reins or the stern of the Roman Church, saith Theodoret. 
hist: tripart: lib. 1. cap. 12.   
But the instances of this kind are infinite, two may be as good as twenty, and these they are. The first is of S. Ambrose; HONOUR, & SUBLIMITAS Episcopalis 
de dignit. sacerdot. c. 2.  nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. The HONOUR and SUBLIMITY of the Episcopal Order is beyond all comparison great. And their commission he specifyes to be in Pasce oves meas; Vnde regendae Sacerdotibus contraduntur, meritò RECTORIBUS suis subdi dicuntur &c: The sheep are delivered to Bishops, as to RULERS and are made their Subjects; And in the next chapter, Haec verò cuncta, Fratres, 
Cap. 3.  ideò nos praemisisse cognoscere debetis, ut ostenderemus nihil esse in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdotibus, nihil SUBLIMIUS EPISCOPIS reperiri ut cùm dignitatem Episcopatûs Episcoporum oraculis demonstramus, & dignè noscamus quid sumus .... actione potius, quàm Nomine demonstremus. These things I have said that you may know nothing is higher, nothing more excellent than the DIGNITY, AND EMINENCE OF A BISHOP, & C. * The other is of S. Hierome, CURA TOTIUS ECCLESIAE AD EPISCOPUM PERTINET, The care of the whole Church appertains to the Bishop. But more confidently spoken is that in his dialogue adversus Luciferianos; Ecclesiae salus in SUMMI SACERDOTIS DIGNITATE pendet, cuisi non exors quaedam & ab 
Cap. 4.  omnibus EMINENS DETUR POTESTAS, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot Sacerdotes, The safety of the Church consists in the DIGNITY OF A BISHOP, to whom unless an EMINENT and UNPARALLELED POWER be given by all, there will be as many Schisms as Priests.  
Here is dignity, and authority, and power enough expressed; and if words be expressive of things, (and there is no other use of them) than the Bishop is SUPERIOR IN A PEERLESS, AND INCOMPARABLE AUTHORITY, and all the whole Diocese are his subjects, viz: in regimine Spirituali.  
BUT from words let us pass to things. For the 
§ 35. Requiring Universal obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergy and Laity.  Faith and practice of Christendom requires obedience, Universal obedience, to be given to Bishops. I will begin again with Ignatius, that these men who call for reduction of Episcopacy to Primitive consistence, may see what they gain by it, for the more primitive the testimonies are, the greater exaction of obedience to Bishops; for it happened in this, as in all other things; at first, Christians were more devout more pursuing of their duties, more zealous in attestation of every particle of their faith; and that Episcopacy is now come to so low an ebb, it is nothing, but that it being a great part of Christianity to honour, and obey them, it hath the fate of all other parts of our Religion, and particularly of Charity, come to so low a declension, as it can scarce stand alone; and faith, which shall scarce be found upon earth at the coming of the Son of Man.  
But to our business.  
S. Ignatius in his epistle to the Church of Trallis, Necesse itaque est (saith he) quicquid facitis, ut sine EPISCOPO NIHIL TENTETIS. So the Latin of Vedelius, which I the rather choose, because I am willing to give all the advantage I can. It is necessary (saith the good Martyr) that whatsoever ye do, you should attempt nothing without your BISHOP. And to the Magnesians, Decet itaque vos obedire EPISCOPO, ET IN NULLO ILLI REFRAGARI. It is sitting that ye should obey your BISHOP, and in NOTHING to be refractory to him. Here is both a Decet, and a Necesse est, already. It is very fitting, it is necessary. But if it be possible, we have a fuller expression yet, in the same Epistle; Quemadmodum enim Dominus sine Patre nihil facit, nec enim possum facere à me ipso quicquam: sic & vos SINE EPISCOPO, nec Presbyter, nec Diaconus, nec Laicus. Nec QUICQUAM videatur VOEIS CONSENTANEUM quod sit PRAETER ILLIUs JUDICIUM, quod enim tale est, iniquum est, & Deo inimicum. Here is obedience Universal, both in respect of things, and persons; and all this no less than absolutely necessary. For as Christ obeyed his Father in all things, saying, of myself I can do nothing: so nor you without your BISHOP; whoever you be, whether Priest, or Deacon, or Layman. Let nothing please you, which the Bishop mislikes, for all such things are wicked, and in enmity with God. * But it seems S. Ignatius was mightily in love with this precept, for he gives it to almost all the Churches he writes to. We have already reckoned the Trallians, and the Magnesians. But the same he gives to the Priests of Tarsias, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ye Presbyters be subject to your Bishop. The same to the Philadelphians. Sine EPISCOPO nihil facite, Do nothing without your BISHOP. But this is better explicated in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna. Sine EPISCOPO NEMO QUICQUAM FACIAT eorum quae ad Ecclesiam spectant. No man may do ANY THING WITHOUT THE BISHOP, viz. of those things which belong to the Church. So that this saying expounds all the rest, for this universal obedience is to be understood according to the sense of the Church, viz. to be in all things of Ecclesiastical cognizance, all Church affairs. And therefore he gives a charge to S. Polycarpe their Bishop; that he also look to it, that nothing be done without his leave. Nihil sine TUO ARBITRIO agatur, nec item tu quicquam praeter Dei facies voluntatem. As thou must do nothing against God's will, so let nothing (in the Church) be done without thine. By the way, observe, he says not, that as the Presbytery must do nothing without the Bishop, so the Bishop nothing without them; But, so the Bishop nothing without God. But so it is. Nothing must BE DONE without the Bishop; And therefore although he incourages them that can, to remain in Virginity, yet this, if it be either done with pride, or without the Bishop, it is spoiled. For, si gloriatus fuerit, periit, & si id ipsum statuatur SINE EPISCOPO, corruptum est. His last dictate in this Epistle to S. Polycarpe, is with an [Episcopo attendite, sicut & Deus vobis] The way to have God to take care of us, is to observe our Bishop. Hinc & vos decet accedere SENTENTIAE EPISCOPI, qui secundùm Deum vos pascit, quemadmodum 
Episl. ad Ephes.  & facitis, edocti à spiritu; you must therefore conform to the sentence of the BISHOP, as indeed ye do already, being taught so to do by God's holy Spirit.  
There needs no more to be said in this cause, if the authority of so great a man will bear so great a burden. What the man was, I said before: what these Epistles are, and of what authority, let it rest upon 
* Apologiae pro Ignatio.  Vedelius, a man who is no ways to be suspected as a party for Episcopacy, or rather upon the credit of 
a Lib. 3. hist. c. 30.  Eusebius, 
b De Script. Eccles.  S. Hierome, and 
c Apud Eusebquem Latine reddidit.  Ruffinus who reckon the first seven out of which I have taken these excerpta, for natural and genuine. And now I will make this use of it; Those men that call for reduction of Episcopacy to the Primitive state, should do well to stand close to their principles, and count that the best Episcopacy which is first; and then consider but what S. Ignatius hath told us for direction in this affair, and see what is gotten in the bargain. For my part, since they that call for such a reduction hope to gain by it, and then would most certainly have abidden by it, I think it not reasonable to abate any thing of Ignatius his height, but expect such subordination and conformity to the Bishop as he then knew to be a law of Christianity. But let this be remembered all along, in the specification of the parts of their jurisdiction. But as yet I am in the general demonstration of obedience.  
The Council of Laodicea having specified some 
Can. 56.  particular instances of subordination, and dependence to the Bishop, sums them up thus, 
* Idem videre est apud Damasum. Epist. de Chorepiscopis.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So likewise the Presbyters let them do nothing without the precept and counsel of the Bishop, so is the translation of Isidore, ad verbum. This Council is ancient enough, for it was before the first Nicene. So also was that of Arles commanding the same thing exactly. * Vt Presbyteri sine conscientiâ Episcoporum 
Can. 19  nihil faciant. Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare, vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in Vnaquaque parochiâ aliquid agere, says the thirteenth Canon of the Ancyran Council according to the Latin of Isidore. The same thing is in the first Council of Toledo, the very 
Can. 20.  same words for which I cited the first Council of Arles, viz. That Presbyters do nothing without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop. * Esto SUBIECTUS 
Epist. add Nepotian.  PONTIFICI Tuo, & quasi animae parentemsuscipe. It is the counsel of S. Hierome. Be subject to thy Bishop and receive him as the Father of thy soul.  
I shall not need to derive hither any more particular instances of the duty, and obedience owing from the Laity to the Bishop. For this account will certainly be admitted by all considering men. God hath entrusted the souls of the Laity to the care of the Ecclesiastical orders; they therefore are to submit to the government of the Clergy in matters Spiritual with which they are entrusted. For either there is no Government at all, or the Laity must govern the Church, or else the Clergy must. To say there is no Government, is to leave the Church in worse condition than a tyranny. To say that the Laity should govern the Church, when all Ecclesiastical Ministeries are committed to the Clergy, is to say, Scripture means not what it says; for it is to say, that the Clergy must be Praepositi, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and praelati, and yet the prelation, and presidency, and rule is in them who are not ever by God's spirit called Precedents or Prelates, and that it is not in them who are called so. * In the mean time if the Laity in matters Spiritual are inferior to the Clergy, and must in things pertaining to the Soul be ruled by them, with whom their Souls are entrusted; then also much rather they must obey those of the Clergy, to whom all the other Clergy themselves are bound to be obedient. Now since by the frequent precept of so many Counsels, and Fathers, the Deacons and Presbyters must submit in all things to the Bishop, much more must the Laity, and since the Bishop must rule in chief, and the Presbyters at the most can but rule in conjunction, and assistance, but ever in subordination to the Bishop, the Laity must obey de integro. For that is to keep them in that state, in which God hath placed them.  
But for the main, S. Clement in his Epistle to S. james translated by Ruffinus, saith it was the doctrine of Peter, according to the institution of Christ, that Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishop in all things; and in his third Epistle; that Presbyters, and Deacons and others of the Clergy must take heed that they do nothing without the licence of the Bishop. * And to make this business up complete, all these authorities of great antiquity, were not the prime constitutions in those several Churches respectively, but mere derivations from tradition Apostolical, for not only the thing, but the words so often mentioned are in the 40th Canon of the Apostles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the same is repeated in the twenty fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Presbyters and Deacons must do nothing without leave of the Bishop, for to him the Lords people is committed, and he must give an account for their souls. * And if a Presbyter shall contemn his own Bishop making conventions apart, and erecting another altar, he is to be deposed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith the 32. Canon) as a lover of Principality: intimating, that he arrogates Episcopal dignity, and so is ambitious of a Principality. The issue than is this. * The Presbyters, and Clergy, and Laity must obey, therefore the Bishop must govern and give them laws. It was particularly instanced in the case of S. chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret, He adorned, and instructed Pontus with these Laws, so he, reckoning up the extent 
Lib. 5. cap. 28.  of his jurisdiction.  
* But now descend we to a specification of the power and jurisdiction * of Bishops.  

§ 36. Appointing them to be judges of the Clergy and spiritual causes of the Laity.  THe Bishops were Ecclesiastical judges over the Presbyters, the inferior Clergy and the Laity. What they were in Scripture who were constituted in presidency over causes spiritual, I have already twice explicated; and from hence it descended by a close succession that they who watched for souls they had the rule over them, and because no regiment can be without coërtion, therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of causes, and coërtion of persons. * The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on delinquent person's makes the Bishop's hand to do it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Can. 33.  If any Presbyter or Deacon be excommunicated BY THE BISHOP he must not be received by any else, but by him that did so censure him, unless the BISHOP THAT CENSURED HIM be dead. The same is repeated in the Nicene Council; only it is 
Can. 5.  permitted that any one may appeal to a Synod of BISHOPS, si fortè aliquâ indignatione, aut contentione aut qualibet commotione Episcopi sui, excommunicati sint, if he thinks himself wronged by prejudice or passion; and when the Synod is met, hujusmodi examinent Quaestiones. But by the way it must be Synodus Episcoporum, so the Canon; ut ita demum hi qui ob culpas suas EPISCOPORUM SUORUM OFFENSAS meritò contraxerunt dignè etiam à caeteris excommunicati habeantur, quousque in communi, vel IPSI EPISCOPO SUO UISUM FUERIT humaniorum circà eos ferre sententiam. The Synod of Bishops must ratify the excommunication of all those who for their delinquencies have justly incurred the displeasure of their Bishop, and this censure to stick upon them till either the Synod, or their own Bishop shall give a more gentle sentence. ** This Canon we see, relates to the Canon of the Apostles, and affixes the judicature of Priests, and Deacons to the Bishops: commanding their censures to be held as firm and valid; only as the Apostles Canon names Presbyters, and Deacons particularly; so the Nicene Canon speaks indefinitely and so comprehends all of the Diocese and jurisdiction.  
The fourth Council of Carthage gives in express terms the cognisance of Clergy-causes to the Bishop, 
Can. 59  calling aid from a Synod in case a Clergyman prove refractory, and disobedient. Discordantes Clericos Episcopus vel ratione, vel potestate ad concordiam trahat, inobedientes Synodus per audientiam damnet. If the Bishop's reason will not end the controversies of Clergymen, his power must; but if any man list to be contentious, intimating (as I suppose out of the Nicene Council) with frivolous appeals, and impertinent protraction, the Synod [of Bishops] must condemn him, viz. for his disobeying his Bishop's sentence. * The Council of Antioch is yet more particular in its Sanction for this affair, intimating a clear distinction of proceeding in the causes of a Bishop, and the other of Priests, and Deacons. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Can. 4.  etc. If a Bishop shall be deposed by a Synod (viz. of Bishops, according to the exigence of the Nicene Canon) or a PRIEST, OR DEACON BY HIS OWN BISHOP, if he meddles with any Sacred offices he shall be hopeless of absolution. But here we see that the ordinary judge of a Bishop is a Synod of Bishops; but of Priests and Deacons the Bishop alone: And the sentence of the Bishop is made firm omnimodò in the next Canon; Si quis Presbyter, vel Diaconus proprio contempto Episcopo .... privatim congregationem effecerit, & altar erexerit, & Episcopo accersente non obedierit nec velit ei parere, nec morem gerere primò & secundò vocanti, hic damnetur omni modo ..... Quod si Ecclesiam conturbare, & sollicitare persistat tanquam seditiosus per potestates exter as opprimatur. What Presbyter soever refuses to obey his Bishop and will not appear at his first, or second Summons, let him be deposed, and if he shall persist to disturb the Church, let him be given over to the secular powers. * Add to this the first Canon of the same Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c: If any one be excommunicate by his own Bishop &c: as it is in the foregoing Canons of Nice and the Apostles. The Result of these Sanctions is this. The Bishop is the judge: the Bishop is to inflict censures; the Presbyters, and Deacons are either to obey, or to be deposed: No greater evidence in the world of a Superior jurisdiction, and this established by all the power they had; and this did extend, not only to the Clergy, but to the Laity; for that's the close of the Canon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This constitution is concerning the Laity, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons, and all that are within the rule, viz: that if their Bishop have sequestered them from the holy Communion, they must not be suffered to communicate elsewhere.  
But the AUDIENTIA EPISCOPALIS, The Bishop's Audience-Court is of larger power in the Council of Chalcedon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Can. 9  If any Clergy man have any cause against a Clergy man, let him by no means leave his own Bishop and run to SECULAR COURTS, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But first let the cause be examined before their own BISHOP, or by the BISHOPS LEAVE before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer under the censures of the Church. Here is not only a subordination of the Clergy in matters criminal, but also the civil causes of the Clergy must be submitted to the Bishop, under pain of the Canon. * I end this with the at estation of the Council of Sardis, exactly of the same Spirit, the same injunction, and almost the same words with the former Canons. Hosius the Precedent said; If any Deacon, or Priest, or 
Can. 13. & 14.  of the inferior Clergy being excommunicated shall go to another Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, knowing him to be excommunicated by his own BISHOP, that other Bishop, must by no means receive him into his communion.  
Thus fare we have matter of public right, and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary judge of the causes, and persons of Clergy men; and have power of inflicting censures both upon the Clergy, and the Laity. And if there be any weight in the concurrent testimony of the Apostolical Canons, of the General Counsels of Nice, and of Chalcedon, of the Counsels of Antioch, of Sardis, of Carthage; than it is evident, that the Bishop is the Ordinary judge in all matters of Spiritual cognisance, and hath power of censures, and therefore a Superiority of jurisdiction.  
This thing only by the way; in all these Canons there is no mention made of any Presbyters assistant with the Bishop in his Courts. For though I doubt not but the Presbyters were in some Churches, and in sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Ignatius calls them; counsellors and assessors with the Bishop; yet the power, and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop, and no concurrent jurisdiction mentioned in the Presbytery: but of this hereafter more particularly.  
* Now we may see these Canons attested by practice, and dogmatic resolution. S. Cyprian is the man whom I would choose in all the world to depose in this cause; because he, if any man, hath given all deuce to the College of Presbyters: and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop, and that absolutely, and independently of conjunction with the Presbytery, we are all well enough, and without suspicion. * Diù patientiam meam tenui (Fratres Charissimi) saith he, writing 
Epist. 10.  to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church. He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent; and though he was as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy, and people of his Diocese, yet he also must assert his own privileges, and peculiar. Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensâ Domini, quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelij nec loci sui memores, sed neque futurum Domini judicium, neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes, quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum contumeliâ & contemptu Praepositi totum sibi vendicent. The matter was, that certain Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon; and this was done without the Bishop's leave, by the Presbyters [Forgetting their own place and the GOSPEL and their BISHOP set over them] a thing that was never heard of, till that time. Totum sibi vendicabant, They that might do nothing without the Bishop's leave, yet did this whole affair of their own heads. Well! Upon this S. Cyprian himself, by his own authority alone, suspends them till his return, and so shows that his authority was independent, theirs was not, and then promises they shall have a fair hearing before him, in the presence of the Confessors, and all the people. Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me uti Dominus jubet, ut interim prohibeantur offer, acturi & apud nos, & apud Confessores ipsos, & apud plebem Vniversam causam suam. * Hear it is plain that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters, by his own authority, in absence from his Church, and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See.  
But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate; saying, they ought to have asked the Bishop's leave, Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est, for so was the Catholic custom ever, that nothing should be done without the Bishop's leave; but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandment, and dishonour the Bishop. Yea, 
Epist. 11.  but the Confessors interceded for the lapsi, and they seldom were discountenanced in their requests. What should the Presbyters do in this case? S. Cyprian tells them, writing to the Confessors. Petitiones itaque & desideria vestra EPISCOPO servant. Let them ketpe your petitions for the BISHOP to consider of. But they did not, therefore he suspended 
Epist. 12.  them, because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui, & cathedrae; Preserve the honour of the Bishop's chair, and the Episcopal authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishop's leave.  
The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus 
Epist. 65.  resolves this affair; for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abused his Bishop, he complained to S. Cyprian who was an Archbishop, and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the business that he would complain to him, cum pro EPISCOPATUS VIGORE, & CATHEDRAE AUTHORITATE haberes potestatem quâ possess de illo statim vindicari; When as he had power Episcopal and sufficient authority himself to have punished the Deacon for his petulancy. The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question, and is clear evidence for the great authority of Episcopal jurisdiction, the sum whereof is in this encouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian; Fungaris circa eum POTESTATE HONORIS TUI, ut eum vel deponas, vel abstineas. Exercise the power of your honour upon him, and either suspend him, or depose him. * And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Felicissimus the Schismatic from 
Epist. 55.  the Church▪ vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet, with full authority, as becomes a Bishop.  
Socrates telling of the promotion, and qualities of S. john chrysostom, says, that in reforming the lives of the Clergy, he was too fastuous and severe. Mox 
Tripart. hist. lib. 10. cap. 3.  igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae, erat plurimis exosus, & veluti furiosum universi declinabant. He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergy, that he was hated by them; which clearly shows that the Bishop had jurisdiction, and authority over them; for tyranny is the excess of power, & authority is the subject matter of rigour, and austerity. But this power was intimated in that bold speech of his Deacon Serapio, nunquam poteris, o Episcope, hos corrigere, nisi uno baculo percusseris Vniversos. Thou canst not amend the Clergy unless thou strikest them all with thy Pastoral rod. S. john chrysostom did not indeed do so; but non multum post temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis. He deprived, and suspended most of the Clergy men for divers causes: and for this his severity he wanted no slanders against him; for the delinquent Ministers set the people on work against him.  
* But here we see that the power of censures was clearly, and only in the Bishop, for he was incited to have punished all his Clergy, [Vniversos;] And he did actually suspend most of them, [plurimos:] and I think it will not be believed the Presbytery of his Church should join with their Bishop to supend themselves. Add to this that Theodoret 
Ibid. cap. 4.  also affirms that chrysostom entreated the Priests to live Canonically according to the sanctions of the Church, quas quicunque praevaricari praesumerent eos ad templum prohibebat accedere, ALL them that transgressed the Canons he forbade them entrance into the Church.  
*** Thus S. Hierome to Riparius, Miror sanctum 
Advers. Vigilant. Epist. 53.  Episcopum, in cujus Parochiâ esse Presbyter dicitur, acquiescere furori ejus, & non virgâ APOSTOLICA, virgâque ferreâ confringere vas inutile, & tradere in interitum carnis, ut spiritus salvus fiat. I wonder (saith he) that the holy Bishop is not moved at the fury of Vigilantius, and does not break him with his APOSTOLICAL rod, that by this temporary punishment his soul might be saved in the day of the Lord.  
* Hither to the Bishop's Pastoral staff is of fair power and coërtion.  
The Council of Aquileia convoked against the Arians, is full and mighty in asserting the Bishop's power over the Laity, and did actually exercise censures upon the Clergy, where S. Ambrose was the Man that gave sentence against Palladius the Arian. Palladius would have declined the judgement of the Bishops, for he saw he should certainly be condemned and would feign have been judged by some honourable personages of the Laity. But S. Ambrose said, Sacerdotes de Laicis judicare debent, non Laici de Sacerdotibus. Bishop's must judge of the Laity, not the Laity of Bishops. That's for the jus; and for the factum it was the shutting up of the Council; S. Ambrose Bishop of Milan gave sentence [Pronuncio illum indignum Sacerdotio, & carendum, & in loco ejus Catholicus ordinetur.] * The same also was the case of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia whom for heresy the Bishops at Constantinople deposed, Eusebius giving sentence, and chose Basilius in his 
Tripart. hist. lib. 3. cap. 9  Room.  
* But their Grandfather was served no better. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria served him neither better nor worse. So Theodoret. Alexander 
Tripart. hist. lib. 1. c. 12.  autem Apostolicorum dogmatum praedicator, priùs quidem revocare eum admonitionibus, & consilijs n●tebatur. Cùm verò eum superbire vidisset, & apertè impietatis facinora praedicare, ex ordine Sacerdotali removit. The Bishop first admonished the heretic, but when to his false doctrine he added pertinacy he deprived him of the execution of his Priestly function.  
This crime indeed deserved it highly. It was for a less matter that Triferius the Bishop excommunicated Exuperantius a Presbyter, viz. for a personal misdemeanour, and yet this censure was ratified by the Council of Taurinum, and his restitution was 
Can. 4. Ann. Dom. 397.  left arbitrio Episcopi, to the good will and pleasure of the Bishop who had censured him. Statuit quoque de Exuperantio Presbytero sancta Synodus, qui ad injuriam sancti Episcopi sui Triferii gravia & multa congesserat, & frequentibus eum contumeliis provocaverat .... propter quam causam ab eo fuerat Dominicâ communione privatus, ut in ejus sit arbitrio restitutio ipsius, in cujus potestate ejus fuit abjectio. His restitution was therefore left in his power, because originally his censure was. * The like was in the case of Palladius a Laic in the same Council, qui à Triferio Sacerdote fuerat mulctatus, who was punished by Triferius the Bishop; hoc ei humanitate Concilii reservato, ut ipse Triferius in potestate habeat, quando voluerit eirelaxare.  
Here is the Bishop censuring Palladius the Laic, and excommunicating Exuperantius the Priest, and this having been done by his own sole authority was ratified by the Council, and the absolution reserved to the Bishop too, which indeed was an act of favour; for they having complained to the Council, by the Council might have been absolved, but they were pleased to reserve to the Bishop his own power.  
These are particular instances, and made public by acts conciliary intervening. But it was the General Canon and Law of H Church.  
Thus we have it expressed in the Council of Agatho. 
Cap. 2.  Contumaces verò Clerici prout dignitatis ordo permiserit ab Episcopis corrigantur. Refractory Clerks must be punished by their Bishops, according as the order of their dignity allows. I end this particular with some Canons commanding Clerks to submit to the judgement and censures of their Bishop, under a Canonical penalty; and so go on ad alia.  
In the second Council of Carthage, Alypius Episcopus 
Ca 8.  dixit, nec illud praetermittendum est, ut si quis fortè Presbyter ab Episcopo suo correptus, aut excommunicatus, rumore vel superbiâ inflatus, putaverit separatim Deosacrificia offerenda, vel aliud erigendum altare contra Ecclesiasticam fidem disciplinamque crediderit, non exeat impunitus. And the same is repeated in the Greek Code of the African Canons. If any Presbyter being excommunicated, or 
Can. 10.  otherwise punished by his Bishop, shall not desist, but contest with his Bishop, let him by no means go unpunished. * The like is in the Council of Chalcedon, 
Act. 4. can. 83.  the words are the same that I before cited out of the Canons of the Council of Antioch, and of the Apostles. But Carosus the Archimandrite spoke home in that action. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Post epist. Archimandritarum ad Concilium pro Dioscori rehabilitatione.  The faith of the 318 Fathers of the Council of Nice into which I was baptised I know, Other faith I know not. They are Bishops; They have power to excommunicate and condemn, and they have power to do what they please: other faith then this I know none.  
* This is to purpose, and it was in one of the four great Counsels of Christendom which all ages since have received, with all veneration and devout estimate.  
Another of them was that of Ephesus convened 
Concil. Ephes. c. 5.  against Nestorius, and this ratifies those acts of condemnation which the Bishops had passed upon delinquent Clerks. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. They who are for their unworthy practices condemned by the Synod or by their OWN BISHOPS; although Nestorius did endeavour to restore them, yet their condemnation should still remain vigorous and confirmed. Upon which Canon Balsamon makes this observation, which indeed of itself is clear enough in the Canon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hence you have learned that Metropolitans and Bishops can judge their Clergy, and suspend them, and sometimes depose them. Nay, they are bound to it, Pastoralis tamen necessitas habet (ne per plures serpant dira contagia) separare ab ovibus sanis morbidam. It is necessary that the BISHOP should separate the scabbed sheep from the sound, lest their infection scatter, so S. Austin. 
* Can. 55.  And therefore 
Cap. 15. the corrept. & gratiâ.  the fourth Council of 
* Can. 55.  Carthage commands, ut Episcopus accusatores Fratrum excommunicet, That the Bishop excommunicate the accuser of their Brethren (viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholic doctrine, to be punished in secular tribunals;) For Excommunication is called by the Father's Mucro Episcopalis, the Bishop's sword to cut offenders off from the Catholic communion. I add no more but that excellent saying of S. Austin, which doth freely attest both the preceptive, 
ubi suprà. cap. 3.  and vindictive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocese. Ergo praecipiant tantummodò nobis quid facere debeamus qui nobis praesunt, & faciamus orent pro nobis, non autem nos corripiant, & arguant, si non fecerimus. Imò omnia fiant, quoniam Doctores Ecclesiarum Apostoli omnia faciebant, & praecipiebant quae fierent, & corripiebant si non fierent etc. And again; Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus pro culparum, 
Cap. 15 ibid.  diversitate diversis, vel minoribus, vel amplioribus, quia & ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium, quâ poenâ in Ecclesiâ nulla major est, potest, si Deus voluerit, in correptionem saluberrimam cedere, atque proficere. Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocese, and to punish the disobedient, and of excommunication by way of proper Ministry, [damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium] a condemnation of the Bishop's infliction.  
Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendom, by the Canons of three General Counsels, and divers other Provincial, which are made Catholic by adoption, and inserting them into the Code of the Catholic Church, that the Bishop was judge of his Clergy, and of the Lay-people of his Diocese; that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of delinquency; that his censures were firm and valid; and as yet we find no Presbyters joining either in commission, or fact; in power, or exercise: but excommunication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops and to be only dispatched by them, either in full Council, if it was a Bishop's cause, or in his own Consistory, if it was the cause of a Priest, or the inferior Clergy, or a Laic, unless in cases of appeal; and than it was in pleno Concilio Episcoporum, in a Synod of Bishops; And all this was confirmed by secular authority, as appears in the Imperial Constitutions. 
Novel. constit. 123. c. 11.   
For the making up this Paragraph complete, I must insert two considerations. First concerning universality of causes within the Bishop's cognisance. And secondly of Persons.  
The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishop's power in Cognition causarum speak in most large, and comprehensive terms. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They have power to do what they list. Their power is as large as their will. So the Council of Chalcedon before cited. It was no larger though, then S. Paul's expression, [for to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient 
2. Corinth. 2. 9  IN ALL THINGS.] A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedience. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so the stile of the Church run in descension, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Ignatius, ye must do NOTHING without your BISHOP, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to contradict him in NOTHING. 
Vbi suprà.  The expression is frequent in him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to comprehend all things in his judgement, or cognisance, so the Council of Antioch. 
Ca 9   
* But these Universal expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam, so S. Ignatius expresses himself. Ye must without your Bishop do nothing; nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of things pertaining to the Church. So also the Council of Antioch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The things of the Church, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is entrusted. They are Ecclesiastical persons, it is an Ecclesiastical power they are endowed with, it is for a spiritual end, viz. the regiment of the Church, and the good of souls, and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognisance. And what things are those:  
1. Then, it is certain that since Christ hath professed, his Kingdom is not of this world, that government which he hath constituted the novo does no way in the world make any entrenchment upon the Royalty.  
Host is Herodes impie  
Christum venire quid times?  
Non eripit mortalia  
Qui regna dat Coelestia.  
So the Church used to sing. Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunal did take cognisance of before it was Christian, the same it takes notice of after it is Christened. And these are; all actions civil, all public violations of justice, all breach of Municipal laws. These the Church hath nothing to do with, unless by the favour of Princes and commonwealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei & S. Matris Ecclesiae; but then when it is once indulged, that act which does annul such pious vows, is just contrary to that religion which first gave them, and then unless there was sin in the donative, the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei & S. Matris Ecclesiae. But this it may be is impertinent.  
2. The Bishops ALL, comes in after this; And he is judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock, by its new distinctive Principles. I say, by its new Principles; for there where it extends justice, and pursues the laws of nature, there the secular tribunal is also extended if it be Christian; The Bishop gets nothing of that: But those things which Christianity (as it prescinds from the interest of the republic) hath introduced all them, and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is judge of. Such are causes of faith, Ministration of Sacraments, and Sacramentals, subordination of inferior Clergy to their Superior, censures, irregularities, Orders hierarchical, rites and ceremonies, liturgyes, and public forms of prayer, (as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologyes, 
tripart. hist. lib. 10. cap. 9  and thence was derived to all Churches of Christendom) and all such things as are in immediate dependence of these, as dispensation of Church Vessels, and Ornaments, and Goods, receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church, and whatsoever is of the same consideration, according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles. Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat. Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church; adding this reason. Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint creditae, multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere. He that is entrusted with our precious souls, may much more be entrusted with the offertoryes of faithful people.  
3. There are somethings of a mixed nature; and something of the secular interest, and something of the Ecclesiastical concur to their constitution, and these are of double cognisance: the secular power, and the Ecclesiastical do both in their several capacities take knowledge of them. Such are the delinquencyes of Clergymen, who are both Clergy, and subjects too; Clerus Domini, and Regis subditi; and for their delinquencyes which are in materiâ justitiae the secular tribunal punishes as being a violation of that right which the State must defend, but because done by a person who is a member of the sacred hierarchy, and hath also an obligation of special duty to his Bishop, therefore the Bishop also may punish him; And when the commonwealth hath inflected a penalty, the Bishop also may impose a censure, for every sin of a Clergyman is two. But of this nature also are the convening of Synods, the power whereof is in the King, and in the Bishop severally, insomuch as both the Church and the commonwealth in their several respects have peculiar interest; The commonwealth for preservation of peace and charity, in which religion hath the deepest interest; and the Church, for the maintenance of faith. And therefore both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages, upon the exigence of several occasions, and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience, and attendance upon such solemnities.  
4. Because Christianity is after the commonwealth, and is a capacity superadded to it, therefore those things which are of mixed cognisance are chief in the King; The Supremacy here is his, and so it is in all things of this nature, which are called [Ecclesiastical] because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae, ad finem religionis, but they are of a different nature, and use from things [Spiritual] because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduced the integro, and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in its particular capacity, for such things only, are properly spiritual.  
5. The Bishop's jurisdiction hath a compulsory derived from Christ only, viz. infliction of censures by excommunications, or other minores plagae which are in order to it. But yet this internal compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God, and their favour to the Church, is assisted by thesecular arm, either superadding a temporal penalty in case of contumacy, or some other way abetting the censures of the Church, and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then, Episcopal jurisdiction hath a double part; an external, and an internal; this is derived from Christ, that from the King, which because it is concurrent in all acts of jurisdiction, therefore it is, that the King is supreme of the jurisdiction, viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory.  
* And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperor, or his Perfect, or any man of consular dignity sit judge when the Question is of Faith, not that the Perfect was to judge of that, or that the Bishops were not; But in case of the pervicacy of a peevish heretic who would not submit to the power of the Church, but flew to the secular power for assistance, hoping by taking sanctuary there, to engage the favour of the Prince: In this case the Bishops also appealed thither, not for resolution, but assistance, and sustentation of the Church's power.  
* It was so in the case of Aëtius the Arian, & Honoratus the Perfect, Constantius being Emperor. For, all that the Perfect did, or the Emperor in this case, 
Tripart. hist. lib. 5. c. 35.  was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties, and to encourage the Catholics; but the precise act of judicature even in this case was in the Bishops, for they deposed Aëtius for his heresy, for all his confident appeal, and Macedonius, Eleusius, Basilius, Ortasius, and Dracontius for personal delinquencyes. * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution, and assertion of S. Ambrose, who refused to be tried in a cause of faith by Lay-Iudges, though Delegates of the Emperor. Quando audisti (Clementissime Imperator 
S. Ambros. Epist. lib. 2. Epist. 13. ) in causâ fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse? When was it ever known that Laymen in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop? To be sure, it was not in the case of Honoratus the Perfect; for if they had appealed to him, or to his Master Constantius for judgement of the Article, and not for encouragement and secular assistance, S. Ambrose his confident Question of [Quando audisti?] had quickly been answered, even with saying; presently after the Council of Ariminum in the case of Aëtius, and Honoratus.  
* Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Council of Aquileia, because he refused to answer, except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity. And it is observable that the Arians were the first (and indeed they offered at it often) that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith, for they despairing of their cause in a Conciliary trial, hoped to engage the Emperor on their party, by making him Umpire. But the Catholic Bishops made humble, and fair remonstrance of the distinction of powers, and jurisdictions; and as they might not entrench upon the Royalty, so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the encroachment of an exterior jurisdiction and power. It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripoli in Lydia, 
In verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  a man so famous and exemplary, that he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperor did preside amongst the Bishops, and undertook to determine causes of mere spiritual cognisance, instead of a Placet, he gave this answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I wonder that thou being set over things of a different nature, meddlest with those things that only appertain to Bishops. The MILITIA, and the POLITIA are thine, but matters of FAITH, and SPIRIT, are of EPISCOPAL cognisance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Such was the freedom of the ingenuous Leontius. Answerable to which, was that Christian and fair acknowledgement of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bythinia & the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their legate to desire him, ut dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interest, that he would be pleased to mend the Article. Respondens Valentinianus, ait, Mihi quidem quum unus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari. Verùm Sacerdotes apud se ipsos congregentur ubi voluerint. Cumque haet respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi. So Sozomen reports the story. The Emperor would not meddle with matters of faith, but 
hist. tripart. lib. 7. c. 12.  referred the deliberation, and decision of them to the Bishops to whom by God's law they did appertain; Upon which intimation given, the Bishops convened in Lampsacum. And thus a double power met in the Bishops. A divine right to decide the article. Mihi fas non est, (saith the Emperor) it is not lawful for me to meddle; And then a right from the Emperor to assemble, for he gave them leave to call a Council. These are two distinct powers, One from Christ, the other from the Prince. ***  
And now upon this occasion, I have fair opportunity to insert a consideration, The Bishops have power over all causes emergent in their dioceses; all, (I mean) in the sense above explicated; they have power to inflict censures, excommunication is the highest, the rest are parts of it, and in order to it. Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognisance of, or may not the secular power find out some external compulsory instead of it, and forbidden the Church to use excommunication, in certain cases?  
1. To this, I answer, that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may, or such in which they must use excommunication, then, in these cases no power can forbid them. For what power Christ hath given them, no man can take away.  
2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication; so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory. For if the Church be not capable of a jus gladij, as most certainly she is not, the Church cannot receive power to put men to death, or to inflict lesser pains in order to it, or any thing above a salutary penance; I mean in the formality of a Church-tribunall, than they give the Church what she must not, cannot take. I deny not but Clergy men are as capable of the power of life and death, as any men; but not in the formality of Clergymen. A Court of life and death, cannot be an Ecclesiastical tribunal; and than if any man, or company of Men should persuade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents, in some cases in which she might lawfully inflict them, and pretend to give her another compulsory; they take away the Church-consistory, and erect a very secular Court, dependant on themselves, and by consequence to be appealed to from themselves, and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for. * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power, is traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat, he betrays the individual, and inseparable right of holy Church. For her censures she may inflict upon her delinquent children without ask leave. Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that, he is her warrant and security. The other is begged, or borrowed, none of her own, nor of a fit edge to be used in her abscissions, and coërtions. * I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of 
Can. 39  so frequent use in this Question, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affairs of the Church, and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God, to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocese.  
The next Consideration concerning the Bishop's jurisdiction is of what persons he is judge? And because our Scene lies herein Church-practice I shall only set down the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affair, and leave it under that representation.  
Presbyters, and Deacons, and inferior Clerks, and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons; No man there, was exempted of whose soul any Bishop had charge. And all Christ's sheep hear his voice, and the call of his sheap-heard-Ministers. * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperor for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of milan, the Emperor wished them to be careful in the choice of a Bishop, in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 5.  Set such an one in the archiepiscopal throne, that we who rule the Kingdom may sincerely submit our head unto him, viz: in matters of spiritual import. * And since all power is derived from Christ, who is a King, and a Priest, and a Prophet, Christian Kings are Christi Domini, and Vicars in his Regal power, but Bishops in his Sacerdotal, and Prophetical. * So that the King hath a Supreme Regal power in causes of the Church, ever since his Kingdom became Christian, and it consists in all things, in which the Priestly office is not precisely by God's law employed for regiment, and cure of souls, and in these also, all the external compulsory and jurisdiction in his own. For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects, himself also upon the same terms becomes a Christian Ruler, and in both capacities he is to rule, viz: both as Subjects, and as Christian Subjects, except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotal authority. And therefore the Kingdom, and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their several capacities. For superiority is usually expressed in three words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Excellency, Empery, and Power. The King is supreme to the Bishop in Empery; The Bishop hath an Excellency, viz. of Spiritual Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King; but in Power, both King, and Bishop have it distinctly in several capacity; the King in potentiâ gladii, the Bishop in potestate clavium. The Sword, and the Keys are the emblems of their distinct power. Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus. Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophet â gloriosius, Pontifice clarius, Rege sublimius? King, and Priest, and Prophet, are in their several excellencies, the Highest powers under heaven. *** In this sense it is easy to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity, which might seem to make entrenchment upon the sacredness of Royal prerogatives; were not both the piety, and sense of the Church sufficiently clear in the issues of her humblest obedience. * And this is the sense of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr, and 
Epist. ad Philadelph.  disciple of the Apostles: Diaconi, & reliquus Clerus, unà cum populo Vniverso, Militibus, Principibus, & Caesare, ipsi Episcopopareant. Let the Deacons and all the Clergy, and all the people, the Soldiers, the Princes, and Caesar himself obey the Bishop. * This is it, which S. Ambrose said; Sublimitas Episcopalis 
Lib. de dignit. Sacerd, cap. 2.  nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. Si Regum fulgori compares, & Principum diademati, erit inferius etc. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine, that most blessed Prince, Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes, & potestatem vobis dedit, de nobis quoque judicandi, & ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur. Vos autem non potest is ab hominibus judicari, [viz. saecularibus, and incausis simplicis religionis.] So that good Emperor in his oration to 
Lib. 10. Eccles hist. c. 2.  the Nicene Fathers.  
It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocese to the Arians. His answer was, that Palaces belonged to the Emperor, but Churches to the Bishop; and so they did, by all the laws of Christendom. The like was in the case of S. Athanasius, and Constantius the Emperor, exactly the same per omniae, as it is related by Ruffinus. * S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperor, 
Lib. 10. Eccles hist. cap. 19  to desire him to go forth of the Cancelli, in his Church at Milan, shows that then the powers were so distinct, that they made no entrenchment upon each other. * It was no greater power, but a more considerable act, and higher exercise, the forbidding the communion to Theodosius, till he had 
Theodor. lib. 5 c. 18.  by repentance, washed out the blood that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica. It was a wonderful concurrence of piety in the Emperor, and resolution and authority in the Bishop. But he was not the first that did it; For Philip the Emperor was also guided by the Pastoral rod, and the severity of the Bishop. De hoc traditum est nobis, 
Euseb lib. 6. cap. 25.  quod Christianus fuerit, & in die Paschae, i. e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluerit, & communicare mysteriis, ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum, nisi confiteretur peccata, & inter poenitentes staret, nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam, culpas quae de eo ferebantur plurimae, deluisset. The Bishop of the place would not let him communicate till he had washed away his sins by repentance. And the Emperor did so. Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuer at, suscepisse. He did it willingly, undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop.  
I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments entirely to belong to Ecclesiastical Ministry. It was S. Chrysostom's command 
Homil. 83. in 26. Matth.  to his Presbyters, to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion. If he be a Captain, a Consul, or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily, forbidden him and keep him off, thy power is greater than his. If thou darest not remove him, tell it me, I will not suffer it, etc. And had there never been more error in the managing Church-censures, then in the foregoing instances, the Church might have exercised censures, and all the parts of power that Christ gave her, without either scandal or danger to herself, or her penitents. But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new ingredient put, a great proportion of secular inconveniences, and humane interest, when excommunications, as in the Apostles times they were deliver over to Satan, so now, shall be deliver over to a foreign enemy, or the people's rage; as then, to be buffeted, so now to be deposed, or disinterest in the allegiance of subjects; in these cases, excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorised, and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution, but to an end of private designs, and rebellious interest, Bishops have no power of such censures, nor is it lawful to inflict them, things remaining in that consistence, and capacity. And thus is that famous saying to be understood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's, 
In 3. partis Supplem. q. 22 a. 5. Vide Aug. ep. 75. & Gratian. didst. 24. q. 2. c. Sihabet. sed ibi [Princeps] non inseritur, sed tantùm in glossâ ordinariâ.  but is indeed found in the Ordinary Gloss upon Matth. 13. Princeps & multitudo non est excommunicanda. A Prince or a Common wealth are not to be excommunicate.  
Thus I have given a short account of the Persons, and causes of which Bishops according to Catholic practice did, and might take cognisance. This use only I make of it. Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of souls, such a power, quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari, yet it hath its limits, and a proper cognisance, viz. things spiritual, and the emergencies, and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced the novo, and superadded, as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Commonwealth; And this I the rather noted, to show how those men would mend themselves that cry down the tyranny (as they list to call it) of Episcopacy, and yet call for the Presbytery. *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognisance of all causes whatsoever, which are either sins directly, or by reduction. * [All crimes which 
Vide the book of Order of Excomm. in Scotland. & the Hist. of Scotland. Admonit. 2. p. 46. Knox his exhortation to England.  by the Law of God deserve death.] There they bring in Murders, Treasons, Witchcrafts, Felonies. Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of [Scandalous and offensive] Nay [Quodvis peccatum,] saith Snecanus, to which if we add this consideration, that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable sin, there is nothing in the world, good or bad, vicious or suspicious; scandalous, or criminal; true, or imaginary; real actions, or personal, in all which, and in all contestations, and complaints one party is delinquent, either by false accusation, or real injury; but they comprehend in their vast gripe, and then they have power to nullify all Courts, and judicatories, besides their own: and being, for this their cognisance they pretend Divine institution, there shall be no causes IMPERFECT in their Consistory, no appeal from them, but they shall hear, and determine with final resolution, and it will be sin, and therefore punishable, to complain of injustice and illegality. * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy, and the Modesty of their several demands, and the reasonableness, and divinity of each vindication examined, I suppose, were there nothing but prudential motives to be put into balance to weigh down this Question, the cause would soon be determined, and the little finger of Presbytery, not only in its exemplary, and tried practices, but in its dogmatic pretensions, is heavier than the loins, nay then the whole body of Episcopacy; but it seldom happens otherwise, but that they who usurp a power, prove tyrants in the execution, whereas the issues of a lawful power are fair and moderate.  
BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances 
§ 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal licence,  of Episcopal jurisdiction. The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sacraments was in the Bishop by prime authority, and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation, insomuch that they might not exercise any ordinary ministration without licence from the Bishop. They had power and capacity by their order to Preach, to Minister, to Offer, to Reconcile, and to Baptise. They were indeed acts of order, but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts, without licence from the Bishop, that is an act or issue of jurisdiction, and shows the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters, by the practice of Christendom.  
S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question, and here also he brings in succour. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Epist. ad Smyrn.  It is not lawful without the Bishop (viz. without his leave) either to baptise, or to offer Sacrifice, or to make oblation, or to keep feasts of charity: and a little before; speaking of the B. Eucharist, and its ministration, and having premised a general interdict for doing any thing without the Bishop's consent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But let that Eucharist (saith he) be held valid which is celebrated under the Bishop, or under him, to whom the Bishop shall permit. ***  
* I do not here dispute the matter of right, and whether or no the Presbyters might the jure do any offices without Episcopal licence, but whether or no the facto it was permitted them in the primitive Church? This is sufficient to show, to what issue the reduction of Episcopacy to a primitive consistence will drive; and if I mistake not, it is at least a very probable determination of the question of right too. For who will imagine that Bishops should at the first in the calenture of their infant devotion, in the new spring of Christianity, in the times of persecution, in all the public disadvantages of state and fortune, when they anchored only upon the shore of a Holy Conscience, that then they should have thoughts ambitious, encroaching, of usurpation and advantages, of purpose to divest their Brethren of an authority entrusted them by Christ, and then too when all the advantage of their honour did only set them upon a hill to feel a stronger blast of persecution, and was not, as since it hath been, attested with secular assistance, and fair arguments of honour, but was only in a mere spiritual estimate, and ten thousand real disadvantages. This will not be supposed either of wise or holy men. But however. Valeat quantum valere potest. The question is now of matter of fact, and if the Church of Martyrs, and the Church of Saints, and Doctors, and Confessors now regnant in heaven, be fair precedents for practices of Christianity, we build upon a rock, though we had digged no deeper than this foundation of Catholic practice.  
Upon the hopes of these advantages, I proceed. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Can. Apost. 32  If any Presbyter disrespecting his own Bishop shall make conventions apart, or erect an altar (viz. without the Bishop's licence) let him be deposed; clearly intimating that potestas faciendi concionem, the power of making of Church-meetings and assemblies, for preaching or other offices is derived from the Bishop; and therefore the Canon adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He is a lover of Rule, he is a Tyrant, that is, an usurper of that power & government which belongs to the Bishop. The same thing is also decreed in the Council of Antioch, and in the Council of Chalcedon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ca 5. Act. 4.  All the most Reverend Bishops cried out, this is a righteous law, this is the Canon of the holy Fathers. [This] viz. The Canon Apostolical now cited. * Tertullian is something 
De baptism.  more particular, and instances in Baptism. Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus. Dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate, propter honorem Ecclesiae, quo salvo salva pax est; alioquin etiam Laicis jus est. The place is of great consideration, and carries in it its own objection and its answer. The Bishop hath the right of giving baptism. Then after him, Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the authority of the Bishop. (So fare the testimony is clear) and this is for the honour of the Church. * But does not this intimate it was only by positive constitution, and neither by Divine nor Apostolical ordinance? No indeed. It does not. For it might be so ordained by Christ or his Apostles propter honorem Ecclesiae; and no harm done. For it is honourable for the Church, that her Ministrations should be most ordinate, and so they are when they descend from the superior to the subordinate. But the next words do of themselves make answer, [Otherwise lay-men have right to baptise] That is, without the consent of the Bishop Laymen can do it as much as Presbyters and Deacons. For indeed baptism conferred by Laymen is valid and not to be repeated, but yet they ought not to administer it, so neither ought Presbyters without the Bishop's licence: so says Tertullian, let him answer it. Only the difference is this, Laymen cannot jure ordinario receive a leave or commission to make it lawful in them to baptise any; Presbyters and Deacons may, for their order is a capacity or possibility. ** But besides the Sacrament of Baptism, Tertullian affirms 
De coronâ milit. c. 3. vide S. Chrysost. hom. 11. in 1. Tim. & S. Hieron. dial. adv. Lucifer.  the same of the venerable Eucharist. Eucharistiae Sacramentum non de aliorum manu quàm Praesidentium sumimus. The former place will expound this, if there be any scruple in [Praesidentium] for clearly the Christians receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist from none but Bishops. I suppose he means [without Episcopal licence.] whatsoever his meaning is, these are his words.  
The Council of Gangra, forbidding conventicles, 
Can. 6.  expresses it with this intimation of Episcopal authority. If any man shall make assemblies privately, & out of the Church, so despising the Church, or shall do any Church-offices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the presence of a Priest by THE DECREE OF A BISHOP, let him be anathema. The Priest is not to be assistant at any meeting for private offices without the Bishop's licence. If they will celebrate Synaxes privately, it must be by a Priest, and he must be there by leave of the Bishop, & then the assembly is lawful.  
* And this thing was so known, that the Fathers of the second Council of Carthage call it ignorance or hypocrisy in Priests to do their offices without a 
Ca 9  licence from the Bishop. Numidius Episcopus Massilytanus dixit, In quibusdam locis sunt Presbyteri qui aut ignorantes simplicitèr, aut dissimulantes audactèr, praesente, & inconsulto Episcopo complurimis in domicilijs agunt agenda, quod disciplinae incongruum cognoscit esse Sanctitas vestra. In some places there are Priests that in private houses do offices (houseling of people is the office meant, communicating them at home) without the consent or leave of the Bishop, being either simply ignorant, or boldly dissembling; Implying, that they could not else but know their duties to be, to procure Episcopal licence for their ministrations. Ab Vniversis Episcopis dictum est. Quisquis Presbyter inconsulto Episcopo agenda in quolibet loco voluërit celebrare, ipse honroi suo contrarius existit. All the Bishops said, if any Priest without leave of his Bishop shall celebrate the mysteries, be the place what it will be, he is an Enemy to the Bishop's dignity.  
After this in time, but before in authority is the great Council of Chalcedon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Can. 8. part. 2. Act. 14.  Let the Clergy according to the tradition of the Fathers, remain under the power of the Bishops of the City. So that they are for their offices in dependence of the authority of the Bishop. The Canon instances particularly to Priest's officiating in Monasteries and Hospitals, but extends itself to an indefinite expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They must not descent or differ from their Bishop. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c: All they that transgress this Constitution in ANY WAY, not submitting to their Bishop, let them be punished canonically. So that now these general expressions of obedience and subordination to the Bishop being to be Understood according to the exigence of the matter, to wit, the Ministeries of the Clergy in their several offices, the Canon extends its prohibition to all ministrations without the Bishop's authority.  
But it was more clearly and evidently law and practice in the Roman Church, we have good witness for it; S. Leo the Bishop of that Church is my author. Sed neque coram Episcopo licet Presbyter is in baptisterium introire, nec praesente Antistite infantem 
Epist. 86.  tingere, aut fignare, nec poenitentem sine praeceptione Episcopi sui reconciliare, nec eo praesente nisi illo jubente Sacramentum corporis & Sanguinis Christi conficere, nec eo coràm posito populum docere, vel benedicere etc. It is not lawful for the Presbyters to enter into the baptistery, nor to baptise any Catechumen, nor to consecrate the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood in the presence of the Bishop without his command. From this place of S. Leo, if it be set in conjunction with the precedent, we have fair evidence of this whole particular. It is not lawful to do any offices without the Bishop's leave; So S. Ignatius, so the Canons of the Apostles, so Tertullian, so the Counsels of Antioch and Chalcedon. It is not lawful to do any offices in the Bishop's presence without leave, so S. Leo. The Council of Carthage joins them both together, neither in his presence, nor without his leave in any place.  
Now against this practice of the Church, if any man should discourse as S. Hierome is pretended to do by Gratian, Qui non vult Presbyteros facere quae jubentur à Deo, dicat quis major est Christo. He 
dist. 95. cap. Ecce ego.  that will not let Presbyters do what they are commanded to do by God, let him tell us if any man be greater than Christ, viz: whose command it is, that Presbyters should preach. Why then did the Church require the Bishop's leave? might not Presbyters do their duty without a licence? This is it which the practice of the Church is abundantly sufficient to answer. * For to the Bishop is committed the care of the whole diocese, he it is that must give the highest account for the whole charge, he it is who is appointed by peculiar designation to feed the flock, so the Canon of the 
1 Can. 40.  Apostles, so 
2 Epist. ad Ephes.  Ignatius, so the Council of 
3 Cap. 24.  Antioch, so every where; The Presbyters are admitted in partem sollicitudinis, but still the jurisdiction of the whole Diocese is in the Bishop, and without the Bishop's admission to a part of it per traditionem subditorum, although the Presbyter by his ordination have a capacity of preaching and administering Sacraments, yet he cannot exercise this without designation of a particular charge either temporary or fixed. And therefore it is, that a Presbyter may not do these acts without the Bishop's leave, because they are actions of relation, and suppose a congregation to whom they must be administered, or some particular person; for a Priest must not preach to the stones as some say Venerable Bede did, nor communicate alone, the word is destructive of the thing, nor baptise unless he have a Chrism Child, or a Catechumen; So that all of the Diocese being the Bishop's charge, the Bishop must either authorise the Priest, or the Priest must not meddle, lest he be (what S. Peter blamed) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Bishop in another's Diocese: Not that the Bishop did licence the acts precisely of baptising, of consecrating etc. For these he had by his ordination, but that in giving licence he did give him a subject to whom he might apply these relative actions, and did quoad hoc take him in partem sollicitudinis and concredit some part of his diocese to his administration cum curâ animarum.  
But then on the other side because the whole cure of the Diocese is in the Bishop, he cannot exonerate himself of it, for it is a burden of Christ's imposing, or it is not imposed at all, therefore this taking of Presbyters into part of the regiment and care does not divest him of his own power, or any part of it, nor yet ease him of his care, but that as he must still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, visit and see to his Diocese, so he hath authority still in all parts of his Diocese, and this appears in these places now quoted; insomuch as when the Bishop came to any place, there the Vicaria of the Presbyters did cease. In praesentiâ Majoris cessat potest as minoris. And, though because the Bishop could not do all the Minor and daily offices of the Priesthood in every congregation of his Diocese, therefore he appointed Priests severally to officiate, himself looking to the Metropolis and the daughter Churches by a general supravision; yet when the Bishop came into any place of his Diocese, there he being present might do any office, because it was in his own charge, which he might concredit to another, but not exonerate himself of it; And therefore praesente Episcopo (saith the Council of Carthage, and S. Leo) if the Bishop be present, the Presbyter without leave might not officiate; For he had no subjects of his own, but by trust and delegation, and this delegation was given him to supply the Bishop's absence, who could not simul omnibus interest, but then, where he was present, the cause of delegation ceasing, the jurisdiction also ceased, or was at least absorbed in the greater, and so without leave might not be exercised; like the stars which in the noon day have their own natural light, as much as in the night, but appear not, shine not in the presence of the Sun.  
This perhaps will seem uncouth to those Presbyters, who (as the Council of Carthag's expression is) are contrarii honori Episcopali; but yet if we keep ourselves in our own form, where God hath placed us, and where we were in the Primitive Church, we shall find all this to be sooth, and full of order. For Consider. The elder the prohibition was, the more absolute & indefinite it runs. [Without the Bishop it is not lawful to baptise, to consecrate] etc. So Ignatius. The prohibition is without limit. But in descent of the Church it runs, [praesente Episcopo] the Bishop being present they must not without leave. The thing is all one, and a derivation from the same original, to wit, the Universality of the Bishop's jurisdiction, but the reason of the difference of expression is this. At first Presbyters were in Cities with the Bishop, and no parishes at all concredited to them. The Bishops lived in Cities, the Presbyters preached and offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from house to house according as the Bishop directed them. Here they had no ordinary charge, and therefore the first prohibitions run indefinitely, they must not do any clerical offices sine Episcopo, unless the Bishop sends them. But then afterwards when the Parishes were distinct, and the Presbyters fixed upon ordinary charges, than it was only, praesente Episcopo, if the Bishop was present, they might not officiate without leave. For in his absence they might do it, I do not say without leave, but I say they had leave given them, when the Bishop sent them to officiate in a Village with ordinary or temporary residence; as it is to this day, when the Bishop institutes to a particular charge, he also gives power hoc ipso, of officiating in that place. So that at first when they did officiate in places by temporary missions, than they were to have leave, but this licence was also temporary; but when they were fixed upon ordinary charges they might not officiate without leave, but then they had an ordinary leave given them in traditione sub ditorum, and that was done in subsidium Muneris Episcopalis, because it was that part of the Bishop's charge, which he could not personally attend for execution of the Minor offices, and therefore concredited it to a Presbyter, but if he was present, a new leave was necessary, because as the power always was in the Bishop, so now the execution also did return to him when he was there in person, himself if he listed, might officiate.  
All this is excellently attested in the example of S. Austin, of whom Possidonius in his life reports that being but a Presbyter, Valerius the Bishop being a Greek borne, and not well spoken in the Latin tongue, and so unfit for public orations, eidem Presbytero (viz. to Austin) potestatem dedit coram se in Ecclesiâ Evangelium praedicandi, ac frequentissimè tractandi contra USUM quidem, & CONSUETUDINEM Africanarum Ecclesiarum. He gave leave to Austin then but Presbyter, to preach in the Church, even while himself was present, indeed against the USE and CUSTOM of the African Churches. And for this act of his he suffered sound in his report.  
* For the case was thus. In all Africa ever since the first spring of the Arian heresy, the Church had then suffered so much by the preaching of Arius the Presbyter, that they made a Law not to suffer any Presbyter to preach at all, at least in the Mother Church, and in the Bishop's presence. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith Socrates.) 
Lib. 5. c. 22.  Thence came this Custom in the African Churches. But because Valerius saw S. Austin so able, and himself for want of Latin so unfit, he gave leave to Austin to preach before him, against the Custom of the African Churches. But he adds this reason for his excuse too; it was not indeed the custom of Africa, but it was of the Oriental Churches. For so Possidonius proceeds, sed & ille vir venerabilis, ac providus, in orientalibus Ecclesiis id ex more fieri sciens, in the Levant it was usual for Bishops to give Presbyters leave to preach, dummodò factitaretur à Presbytero quod à se Episcopo impleri minimè posse cernebat, which determines us fully in the business. For this leave to do offices was but there to be given where the Bishop himself could not fulfil the offices, which shows the Presbyters in their several charges, whether of temporary mission, or fixtt residence, to be but Delegates, and Viears of the Bishop admitted in partem Sollicitudinis, to assist the Bishop in his great charge of the whole Diocese.  
Against this it is objected out of S. Hierome, and 
Ad 〈◊〉 Narbon. didst. 95. can. Ecce ego.  it is recorded by Gratian, Ecce ego dico praesentibus Episcopis suis, atque adstantibus in altari Presbyteros posse Sacramenta conficere. Behold, I say that Presbyters may minister Sacraments in presence of the Bishop. So Gratian quotes it indeed, but S. Hierome says the express contrary, unless we all have false copies. For in S. Hierome it is not [Ecce ego dico] but [Nec ego dico.] He does not say it is lawful for Presbyters to officiate in the presence of their Bishop. Indeed S. Hierome is angry at Rusticus Bishop of Narbona because he would not give leave to Presbyters to preach, nor to bless etc. This, perhaps it was not well done, but this makes not against the former discourse; for though it may be fit for the Bishop to give leave, the Church requiring it still more and more in descent of ages, and multiplication of Christians, and Parishes, yet it is clear that this is not to be done without the Bishop's leave, for it is for this very thing that S. Hierome disputes against Rusticus, to show he did amiss, because he would not give his Presbyters licence. * And this he also reprehends in his epistle ad Nepotianum, Pessimae consuetudinis est in quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros, & praesentibus Episcopis non loqui. That Presbyters might not be suffered to preach in presence of the Bishop, that was an ill custom, to wit, as things than stood, and it was mended presently after, for Presbyters did preach in the Bishop's presence, but it was by licence from their Ordinary. For so Possidonius relates, that upon this act of Valerius before mentioned, Posteà currente & volante hujusmodi famâ, bono praecedente exemplo, ACCEPTA AB EPISCOPIS POTESTATE Presbyteri nonnulli coram Episcopis, populis tractare caeperunt verbum Dei. By occasion of this precedent it came to pass, that some Presbyters did preach to the people in the Bishop's presence, having first obtained faculty from the Bishop so to do. And a little after it became a custom from a general faculty and dispensation indulged to them in the second Council of Vase. 
Can. 12.  Now if this evidence of Church practise be not sufficient to reconcile us to S. Hierome, let him then first be reconciled to himself, and then we are sure to be helped. For in his dialogue against the Luciferians, his words are these, Cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus eminens detur potest as, tot efficientur Schismata quot sunt Sacerdotes. Ind venit ut sine Episcopi missione neque Presbyter, neque Diaconus jus habeant baptizandi. Because the Bishop hath an eminent power, and this power is necessary, thence it comes that neither Presbyter nor Deacon may so much as baptise without the Bishop's leave.  
** This whole discourse shows clearly not only the Bishops to be superior in jurisdiction, but that they have sole jurisdiction, and the Presbyters only in substitution and vicarage.  
** 
§ 38. Reserving Church goods to Episcopal dispensation,  DIvers other acts there are to attest the superiority of the Bishop's jurisdiction over Priests and Deacons, as, that all the goods of the Church were in the Bishop's sole disposing, and as at first they were laid at the Apostles feet, so afterwards, at the Bishops. So it is in the 41. Canon of the Apostles, so it is in the Council of Gangra, and all the world are excluded from intervening in the dispensation, without express delegation from the Bishop, as appears in the seventh and eight Canons, and that under pain of an anathema by the holy Council. * And therefore when in success of time, some Patrons that had founded Churches and endowed them, thought that the dispensation of those lands did not belong to the Bishop; of this the third Council of Toledo complains, and makes remedy, 
An. Dom. 589.  commanding, ut omnia SECUNDUM CONSTITUTIONEM ANTIQUAM, ad Episcopi ordinationem & potestatem pertineant. The same is reniewed in the fourth Council of Toledo. Noverint autem 
Cap. 32.  conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conferunt, nullam se potestatem habere, SED JUXTA CANONUM INSTITUTA, sicut Ecclesiam, ita & dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere. These Counsels I produce not as judges, but as witnesses in the business, for they give concurrent testimony that as the Church itself, so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishop's disposition by the Ancient Canons. For so the third Council of Toledo calls it, antiquam Constitutionem, and itself is almost 1100. years old, so that still I am precisely within the bounds of the Primitive Church though it be taken in a narrow sense. For so it was determined 
Can. 26. vide Zonaram in hunc Canonem.  in the great Council of Chalcedon, commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Videatur Concil. Carthag. Graec. can. 36. 38. & 41. & Balsam. ibid. & apologia 2. justini Martyris.  according to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop.  
Add to this, that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not go to another Diocese. So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles, under pain of suspension or deposition, 
§ 39 Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocese, or to travel without leave of the Bishop.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the censure; and that especially, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if he would not return when his Bishop calls him. The same is renewed in the Council of Antioch, cap. 3. and in the Council of Constantinople in Trullo, cap. 17. the censure there is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fix himself in the Diocese of another Bishop. But with licence of his Bishop, he may. Sacerdotes, vel alii Clerici concessione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare. But this is frequently renewed 
Vide Concil. Epaun. c. 5. & venet. c. 10.  in many other Synodall decrees, these may suffice for this instance.  
* But this not leaving the Diocese is not only meant of promotion in another Church, but Clergy men might not travail from City to City, without the Bishop's licence; which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico, but extends it almost to a despotic; But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of duty, and clerical subordination to their Bishop. The Council of Laodicea commands a Priest, or Clergy 
Can. 41.  man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to travail without Canonical, or dimissory letters. And who are to grant these letters, is expressed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition, 
Can. 42.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Priest or a Clerk must not travail without the command of his Bishop; and this prohibition is inserted into the body of the Law, de consecrat. didst 5. can. non oportet, which puts in the clause of [Neque etiam Laicum,] but this was beyond the Council. The same is in the Council of 
a Can. 38.  Agatho. The Council of 
b Can. 5.  Venice adds a censure, that those Clerks should be like persons excommunicate in all those places whither they went, without letters of licence from their Bishop. The same penalty is inflicted by the Council of Epaunum, Presbytero, vel Diacono 
Can. 6.  sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat. The first Council of Tourayne in France, and the third Council of Orleans attest the self same power in the Bishop, and duty in all his Clergy.  
BUT a Coërcitive authority makes not a complete 
§ 40. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased,  jurisdiction, unless it be also remunerative, & [the Princes of the Nations are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors] for it is but half a tye to endear obedience, when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit, that which cannot profit. And therefore the primitive Church, to make the Episcopal jurisdiction up entire, gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocese to the higher Orders and nearer degrees of approximation to himself, and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted. Item placuit ut quicunque Clerici vel Diaconi pro necessitatibus Ecclesiarnm non obtemperaverint EPISCOPIS SUIS VOLENTIBUS EOS AD HONOREM AMPLIOREM IN SUA ECCLESIA PROMOVERE, nec illic ministrent in gradu suo unde recedere noluerunt. So it is decreed in the African Code, They that will not by their Bishop be promoted to a Greater honour 
Can. 31.  in the Church, must not enjoy what they have already.  
But it is a question of great consideration, and worth a strict inquiry, in whom the right and power of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church: for the right and the power did not always go together, and also several Orders had several manner of election; Presbyters and inferior Clergy were chosen by the Bishop alone, the Bishop by a Synod of Bishops, or by their Chapter; And lastly, because of late, strong outcries are made upon several pretensions, amongst which the people make the biggest noise, though of all, their title to election of Clerks be most empty, therefore let us consider it upon all its grounds.  
1. In the Acts of the Apostles, which are most certainly the best precedents for all acts of holy Church we find that [Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church] and [they passed through Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, and Derbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, appointing them Elders. * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and he says of himself and Titus, [For this cause I SENT thee to Crete, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that thou shouldest oppoint Presbyters, or Bishops (be they which they will) in every City]. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies that the whole action was his. For that he ordained them no man questions, but he also APPOINTED THEM, and that was, saith S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1. Titus. V: 5.  as I commanded thee. It was therefore an Apostolical ordinance, that the BISHOP SHOULD APPOINT PRESBYTERS. Let there be half so much shown for the people, and I will also endeavour to promote their interest. **** There is only one pretence of a popular election in Scripture; It is of the seven that were set over the widows. * But first, this was no part of the hierarchy: This was no cure of souls: This was no divine institution: It was in the dispensation of monies: it was by command of the Apostles the election was made, and they might recede from their own right: it was to satisfy the multitude: it was to avoid scandal, which in the dispensation of monies might easily arise: it was in a temporary office: it was with such limitations, and conditions as the Apostles prescribed them: it was out of the number of the 70 that the election was made, if we may believe S. Epiphanus, so that they were Presbyters before this choice: and lastly, it was only a Nomination of seven Men, the determination of the business, and the authority of rejection was still in the Apostles, and indeed the whole power [Whom WE MAY APPOINT over this business] & after all this, there can be no hurt done by the objection, especially since clearly and indubiously the election of Bishops, and Presbyters was in the Apostles own persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. Ignatius of Evodias; Evodias was first APPOINTED to be your Governor, or Bishop, by the APOSTLES) and themselves did commit 
Epist. ad Antioch.  it to others that were Bishops, as in the instances before reckoned. Thus the case stood in Scripture.  
2. In the practice of the Church it went according to the same law, and practise Apostolical. The People did not, might not choose the Ministers of holy Church. So the Council of Laodicea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Can. 13.  The people must not choose those that are to be promoted to the Priesthood. The prohibition extends to their Nonelection of all the Superior Clergy, Bishops and Presbyters. But who then must elect them? The Council of Nice determines that, for in 16 and 17 Canons the Council forbids any promotion of Clerks to be made, but by the Bishop of that Church where they are first ordained, which clearly reserves to the Bishop the power of retaining, or promoting all his Clergy.  
* 3. All Ordinations were made by Bishops alone, (as I have already proved.) Now let this be confronted with the practice of Primitive Christendom, that no Presbyter might be ordained sine titulo without a particular charge, which was always custom, and at last grew to be a law in the Council of Chalcedon, and we shall perceive that the ordainer was the only chooser; for then to ordain a Presbyter was also to give him a charge; and the Patronage of a Church was not a lay inheritance, but part of the Bishop's cure, for he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the care of the Churches in all the Diocese; as I have already shown. And therefore when S. Jerome, according to the custom of Christendom, had specified some particular ordinations or election of Presbyters by Bishops, 
Epist. 61. & 62.  as how himself was made Priest by Paulinus, and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus, Gaudeat Episcopus judicio suo, cùm tales Christo elegerit Sacerdotes, 
Hieron. ad Nepotian.  let the Bishop rejoice in his own act, having chosen such worthy Priests for the service of Christ.  
Thus S. Ambrose gives intimation that the dispensing all the offices in the Clergy was solely in the Bishop. Haec spectet Sacerdos, & quod cuique congruat, 
lib. 1. offic. cap. 44.  id officij deputet. Let the Bishop observe these rules, and appoint every one his office as is best answerable to his condition and capacity. And Theodoret reports of Leontius the Bishop of Antioch, how being an Arian, adversarios recti dogmatis suscipiens, licèt turpem 
Tripart. hist. lib. 5. cap. 32.  habentes vitam, ad Presbyteratûs tamen ordinem, & Diacontûs evexit. Eos autem qui Vniversis virtutibus ornabantur, & Apostolica dogmata defendebant, absque honore deseruit. He advanced his own faction, but would not promote any man that was Catholic and pious. So he did. The power therefore of clerical promotion was in his own hands. This thing is evident and notorious; And there is scarce any example in Antiquity of either Presbyters, or people choosing any Priest, but only in the case of S. Austin whom the People's haste snatched, and carried him to their Bishop Valerius entreating him to ordain him Priest. This indeed is true, that the testimony of the people, for the life of them that were to be ordained was by S. Cyprian ordinarily required; In ordinandis Clericis (Fratres Charissimi) solemus vos ante consulere, & mores, ac merita singulorum 
lib. 1. Epist. 5.  communi consilio ponderare. It was his custom to advise with his people concerning the public fame of Clerks to be ordained; It was usual (I say) with him, but not perpetual, for it was otherwise in the case of Celerinus, and divers others, as I shown elsewhere.  
4. In election of Bishops (though not of Priests) the Clergy and the people had a greater actual interest, and did often intervene with their silent consenting suffrages, or public acclamations. But first; This was not necessary. It was otherwise among the Apostles, and in the case of Timothy, of Titus, of S. james, of S. Mark, and all the Successors whom they did constitute in the several chairs. 2ly. This was not by law, or right, but in fact only. It was against the Canon of the Laodicean Council, and the 31th Canon of the Apostles, which under pain of deposition commands that a Bishop be not promoted to his Church by the intervening of any lay power.  
Against this discourse S. Cyprian is strongly pretended. Quando ipsa [plebs] maximè habeat potestatem 
Epist. 68  vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. Quod & ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere etc. Thus he is usually cited. The people have power to choose, or to refuse their Bishops, and this comes to them from Divine authority. No such matter. The following words expound him better, [Quod & ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere, ut Sacerdos PLEBE PRaeSENTE sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus, atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur: that the Bishop is chosen publicly, in the presence of the people, and he only be thought fit who is approved by public judgement, and testimony; or as S. Paul's phrase is [he must have a good report of all men] that is indeed a divine institution, and that to this purpose, and for the public attestation of the act of election and ordination the people's presence was required, appears clearly by S. Cyprian's discourse in this Epistle. For what is the divine authority that he mentions? It is only the example of Moses whom God commanded to take the Son of Eleazar and clothe him with his Father's robes coram omni Synagogâ, before all the congregation. The people chose not, God chose Eleazar, and Moses consecrated him, and the people stood, and looked on; that's all that this argument can supply. * Just thus Bishops are, and ever were ordained, non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientiâ, in the sight of the people standing by; but to what end? Vt plebe praesente detegantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedicentur. All this while the election is not in the people, nothing but the public testimony, and examination, for so it follows, & sit ordinatio justa & legitima quae omnium suffragio, & judicio fuerit examinata.  
** But S. Cyprian hath two more proofs whence we may learn either the sense, or the truth of his assertion. The one is of the Apostles ordaining the seven Deacons (but this we have already examined,) the other of S. Peter choosing S. Mathias into the Apostolate; it was indeed done in the presence of the people. * But here it is considerable that at this surrogation of S. Mathias the Number of the persons present was but 120, of which eleven were Apostles, and 72 were Disciples and Presbyters, they make up 83, and then there remains but 37 of the Laity, of which many were women, which I know not yet whether any man would admit to the election of an Apostle, and whether they do or do not, the Laity is a very inconsiderable Number if the matter had been to be carried by plurality of voices; so that let the worst come that is imaginable, the whole business was in effect carried by the Clergy, whom in this case we have no reason to suspect to be divided, and of a distinct, or disagreeing interest. * 2. Let this discourse be of what validity it will, yet all this whole business was miraculous, and extraordinary; For though the Apostles named two Candidates yet the holy Ghost chose them by particular revelation. And yet for all this, it was lawful for S. Peter alone to have done it without casting lots. An non licebat ipsi [Petro] eligere? licebat, & quidem maximè; verùm id non facit ne cui videretur gratificari. Quanquam alioqui non erat particeps Spiritûs. For all, he had not as yet received the holy Ghost, yet he had power himself to have completed the election. So S. 
homil. 3. in Act.  chrysostom.  
So that now, if S. Cyprian means more than the presence of the people for suffrage of public testimony, & extends it to a suffrage of formal choice, his proofs of the divine authority are invalid, there is no such thing can be deduced from thence, and then this is his complying so much with the people (which hath been the fault of many a good man) may be reckoned together with his rebaptisation. But truth is, he means no more than suffrage of testimony, viz: That he who is to be chosen Bishop be for his good life a man of good fame, and approved of before God and all the people, and this is all the share they have in their election. * And so indeed himself sums up the whole business and tells us of another jus Divinum too. [Propter quod diligentèr de traditione Divinâ, & Apostolicâ observatione, observandum est & tenendum, quod apud nos quoque, & ferè apud Provincias Vniversas tenetur, ut ad ordinationes ritè celebrandas ad eam plebem cui Praepositus ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quique conveniant, & Episcopus deligatur plebe praesente quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit. It is most diligently to be observed, for there is a Divine tradition, and an Apostolical ordinance for it, and it is used by us and almost by all Churches, that all the Bishops of the Province assemble to the making of right ordinations, and that a Bishop be chosen in the face of the people who best know their life and conversation.] So that the Bishops were to make the formal election, the people to give their judgement of approbation in this particular, and so much as concerned the exemplary piety, and good life of him that was to be their Bishop. Here we see in S. Cyprian is a jus Divinum for the Bishops choosing a Colleague, or a Brother - Bishop, as much as for the presence of the people, and yet the presence was all. And howsoever the people were present to give this testimony, yet the election was clearly in the Bishops, and that by Divine tradition, and Apostolical observation saith S. Cyprian; And thus it was in all Churches almost.  
In Africa this was, and so it continued till after S. Augustine's time, particularly in the choice of Eradius 
Epist. 120. lib. 3. de Sacerd.  his successor. It was so in the Greek Church as S. chrysostom tells us. It was so in Spain, as S. 
† lib. 2. the office.  Isidore tells us; and in many other places, that the people should be present, and give acclamation, and tumultuary approbation; but to the formal election of the Clergy, made by enumeration of votes and subscription, the people never were admitted.  
5. Although that in times of persecution, at first, and to comply with the people who were in all respects to be sweetened, to make them with easier appetite swallow the bitter pill of persecution, and also to make them more obedient to their Bishop; if they did, though but in a tumult and noise cry him up in his ordination, ne plebs invita Episcopum non optatum, aut contemnat, aut oderit, & fiat minùs religiosa quàm convenit, cui non licuerit habere quem voluit, (for so S. Leo expresses the cause) yet the formality, 
Epist. 84. c. 5.  and right of proper election was in the Clergy, and often so practised without any consent at all, or intervening act of the people. The right, I say, was in the Bishops, so it was decreed in the Nicene Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Can. 4.  The Bishop must be appointed or constituted by all the BISHOPS of the province, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It must be confirmed, and established by the METROPOLITAN. No Presbyters here all this while, no people. * But the exercise of this power is more clearly seen in the Acts of some Counsels, where the Fathers degraded some Bishops, and themselves appointed others in their Rooms. * The Bishops in the Council of Constantinople deposed Marcellus. In cujus locum Basilium in Ancyram miserunt. They sent Basilius' Bishop in his room, saith Sozomen. 
Tripart. hist. lib. 3. cap. 9  * Ostendat Bassianus si per Synodum Reverendissimorum Episcoporum, & consuetâ lege Episcopus Ephesiorum Metropolis est constitutus, (said the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedom.) Let Bassianus show that 
Act. 11.  he was made BISHOP OF EPHESUS BY A SYNOD OF BISHOPS, and according to the accustomed Law. The Law I shown before, even the Nicene Canon. The fathers of which Council sent a Synodall Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, to tell them they had deposed Militius from the office of a Bishop, only left him the name, but took from him all power, nullam verò omnimodò habere potestatem, neque 
Tripart. hist. lib. 2. cap. 12.  ELIGENDI, NEQUE ORDINANDI: etc. Neither suffering him to choose nor to ordain Clerks. It seems then that was part of the Episcopal office in ordinary, placitos sibi eligere, as the Epistle expresses it in the sequel, to choose whom they listed. But the Council deposed Melitius, and sent Alexander their Bishop, and Patriarch to rule the Church again. ** And particularly to come home to the case of the present question, when Auxentius Bishop of Milan was dead, and the Bishops of the Province; and the Clergy of the Church, and the people of the City, were assembled at the choosing of another, the Emperor makes a speech to the 
Theodor. lib. 4. c. 5.  Bishops only, that they should be careful in their choice. So that although the people were present, quibus pro fide, & religione etiam honor deferendus est (as S. Cyprians phrase is) to whom respect is to be had, and fair complyings to be used so long as they are pious, catholic, and obedient, yet both the right of electing, and solemnity of ordaining was in the Bishops, the people's interest did not arrive to one half of this.  
6. There are in Antiquity divers precedents of Bishops, who chose their own successors; it will not be imagined the people will choose a Bishop over his head, and proclaim that they were weary of him. In those days they had more piety. * Agelius did so, he chose Sisinnius, and that it may appear it was without the people, they came about him, and entreated him to choose Marcian, to whom they had been beholding in the time of Valens the Emperor; he complied with them, and appointed Marcian to be his successor, and Sisinnius 
Socrat. lib. 5. c. 21.  whom he had first chosen, to succeed Marcian. * Thus did Valerius choose his successor, S. Austin; for though the people named him for their Priest, and carried him to Valerius to take Orders, yet Valerius chose him Bishop. And this was usual; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as Epiphanius expresses this case,) it was ordinary to do so in many Churches.  
7. The manner of election in many Churches was various, for although indeed the Church had commanded it, and given power to the Bishops to make the election, yet in some times and in some Churches the Presbyters, or the Chapter, chose one out of themselves. S. Hierome says they always did so in Alexandria, from S. Marks time to Heraclas and Dionysius. * S. Ambrose says that at the first, 
In Ephes. 4.  the Bishop was not, by a formal new election promoted, but recedente uno sequens ei succedebat. As one died so the next signior did succeed him. In both these cases no mixture of the people's votes.  
8. In the Church of England the people were never admitted to the choice of a Bishop from its first becoming Christian to this very day, and therefore to take it from the Clergy, in whom it always was by permission of Princes, and to interest the people in it, is to recede à traditionibus Majorum, from the religion of our forefathers, and to INNOVATE in a high proportion.  
9 In those Churches where the people's suffrage (by way of testimony, I mean, and approbation) did concur with the Synod of Bishops in the choice of a Bishop, the people at last according to their usual guise grew hot, angry, and tumultuous, and then were engaged by divisions in religion to Name a Bishop of their own sect; and to disgrace one another by public scandal, and contestation, and often grew up to Sedition, and Murder; and therefore although they were never admitted, (unless where themselves usurped) farther then I have declared, yet even this was taken from them, especially, since in tumultuary assemblies, they were apt to carry all before them, they knew not how to distinguish between power, and right, they had not well learned to take denial, but began to obtrude whom they listed, to swell higher like a torrent when they were checked; and the soleship of election, which by the Ancient Canons was in the Bishops, they would have asserted wholly to themselves both in right, and execution.  
* I end this with the annotation of Zonaras upon the twelfth Canon of the Laodicean Council. Populi suffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur (understand him in the senses above explicated) Sed cùm multae inde seditiones existerent, hinc factum est ut Episcoporum Vnius cujusque provinciae authoritate eligi Episcopum quemque oportere decreverint Patres: of old time Bishops were chosen, not without the suffrage of the people (for they concurred by way of testimony and acclamation) but when this occasioned many seditions and tumults, the Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be chosen by the authority of the Bishops of the Province. And he adds that in the election of Damasus 137 men were slain, and that six hundred examples more of that nature were producible.  
Truth is, the Nomination of Bishops in Scripture was in the Apostles alone, and though the Kindred of our Blessed Saviour were admitted to the choice of Simeon Cleophae, the Successor of S. james to the Bishopric of jerusalem, as Eusebius witnesses; it was 
lib. 3. hist. cap. 11.  propter singularem honorem, an honorary, and extraordinary privilege indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our Blessed Lord the fountain of all benison to us; and for that very reason Simeon himself was chosen Bishop too. Yet this was praeter regulam Apostolicam. The rule of the Apostles, and their precedents were for the sole right of the Bishops to choose their Colleagues in that Sacred order. * And then in descent, even before the Nicene Council the people were forbidden to meddle in election, for they had no authority by Scripture to choose; by the necessity oftimes and for the reasons before asserted they were admitted to such a share of the choice as is now folded up in a piece of paper, even to a testimonial; and yet I deny not but they did often take more as in the case of Nilammon, quem cives elegerunt, saith the story out of Sozomen, they chose him alone, 
Tripart. hist. lib. 10. c. 14.  (though God took away his life before himself would accept of their choice) and then they behaved themselves oftentimes with so much insolency, partiality, faction, sedition, cruelty, and Pagan baseness that they were quite interdicted it, above 1200 years ago. * So that they had their little in possession but a little while, and never had any due, and therefore now, their request for it is no petition of right, but a popular ambition and a snatching at a sword to hue the Church in pieces. 
vide didst. 63. per tot. Gratian.   
But I think I need not have troubled myself half so fare, for they that strive to introduce a popular election, would as feign have Episcopacy out, as popularity of election let in. So that all this of popular election of Bishops, may seem superfluous. For I consider, that if the people's power of choosing Bishops be founded upon God's law, as some men pretend from S. Cyprian (not proving the thing from God's law, but God's law from S. Cyprian) than Bishops themselves must be by God's law: For surely God never gave them power to choose any man into that office which himself hath no way instituted. And therefore I suppose these men will desist from their pretence of Divine right of popular election, if the Church will recede from her divine right of Episcopacy. But for all their plundering, and confounding, their bold pretences have made this discourse necessary.  
IF we add to all these foregoing particulars the 
§ 41.  
Bishops only did Vote in Counsels and neither Presbyters, nor People.  power of making laws to be in Bishops, nothing else can be required to the making up of a spiritual Principality. Now as I have shown that the Bishop of every Diocese did give laws to his own Church for particulars, so it is evident that the laws of Provinces and of the Catholic Church, were made by conventions of Bishops without the intervening, or concurrence of Presbyters, or any else for sentence and decision.  
The instances of this are just so many as there are Counsels. S. Athanasius reprehending Constantius the Arian for interposing in the Conciliary determinations of faith, si judicium Episcoporum est (saith 
Epist. ad Solitar.  he) quid cum eo commune habet Imperator? It is a judgement to be passed BY BISHOPS, (meaning the determination of the article,) and not proper for the Emperor. And when Hosius of Corduba reproved him for sitting Precedent in a Council, Quis enim videns eum IN DECERNENDO PRINCIPEM SE, FACERE EPISCOPORUM, non meritò dicat illum eam ipsam abhominationem desolationis? He that sits Precedent, makes himself chief of the Bishops, etc. intimating Bishops only to preside in Counsels, and to make decision. And therefore conventus Episcoporum, and Concilium Episcoporum are the words for General, and Provincial Counsels. Bis in anno Episcoporum Concilia celebrentur, said the 38th Canon of the Apostles; and Congregatio Episcopalis the Council of Sardis is called by Theodoret. And when 
lib. 2. cap. 7.  the Question was started in the time of Pope Victor about the celebration of Easter, ob quam causam (saith Eusebius) conventus Episcoporum, & Concilia 
lib. 5. cap. 23.  per singulas quasque provincias convocantur. Where by the way, it is to be observable, that at first, even provincial Synods were only held by Bishops, and Presbyters had no interest in the decision; however we have of late sat so near Bishops in Provincial assemblies, that we have sat upon the Bishop's skirts. But my Lords the Bishops have a concerning interest in this. To them I leave it; And because the four general Counsels are the Precedents and chief of all the rest, I shall only instance in them for this particular.  
1. The title of the Nicene Council runs thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Canons of the 318 Fathers met in Nice. These Fathers were all that gave suffrage to the Canons, for if there had been more, the title could not have appropriated the Sanction to 318. And that there were no more S. Ambrose gives testimony in that he makes it to be a mystical number; 
proëm. in lib. de fide.  Nam & Abraham trecentos decem & octo duxit ad bellum .... De Concilijs id potissimùm sequor quod trecenti decem & octo Sacerdotes .... velut trophaeum extulerunt, ut mihi videatur hoc esse Divinum, quod eodem numero in Concilijs, fidei habemus oraculum, quo in historiâ, pietatis exemplum. Well! 318 was the Number of the judges, the Nicene Fathers, and they were all Bishops, for so is the title of the subscriptions, Subscripserunt trecenti decem & octo EPISCOPI qui in eodem Concilio convenerunt; 13. whereof were Chorepiscopi, but not one Presbyter, save only that Vitus, and Vincentius subscribed as legates of the Bishop of Rome, but not by their own authority.  
2. The great Council of Constantinople was celebrated by 150 Bishops: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That's the title of the Canons. The Canons of 150 holy Fathers who met in C. P. and that these were all Bishops appears by the title of S. Gregory Nazianzen's oration in the beginning of the Council. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The oration of S. Gregory Nazianzen in the presence of 150 Bishops. And of this Council it was that Socrates speaking, Imperator (saith he) nullâ morâ interpositâ Concilium EPISCOPORUM 
lib. 5. cap. 8.  convocat. Here indeed some few Bishops appeared by Proxy as Montanus Bishop of Claudiopolis by Paulus a Presbyter, and Atarbius Bishop of Pontus by Cylus a Reader, and about some four or five more. * This only, amongst the subscriptions I find Tyrannus, Auxanon, Helladius, and Elpidius calling themselves Presbyters. But their modesty hinders not the truth of the former testimonies; They were Bishops, saith the title of the Council, and the Oration, and the Canons, and Socrates; And lest there be scruple concerning Auxanon Presbyter Apameae, because before, johannes Apameensis subscribed, which seems to intimate that one of them was the Bishop, and the other but a Presbyter indeed, without a subterfuge of modesty, the titles distinguishes them. For john was Bishop in the Province of Caele Syria, and Auxanon of Apamea in Pisidia.  
3. The third was the Council of Ephesus, Episcoporum plurium quàm ducentorum, as is often said in the acts of the Council [of above 200 Bishop's] But no Presbyters, for, Cùm Episcopi supra ducentos extiterint qui Nestorium deposuerunt, horum subscriptionibus contenti fuimus. We were content with the subscription of the 200 and odd Bishops, saith the Council; and Theodosius junior, in his Epistle 
Epist Synod. ad Clerum C. Ptanum. part. 2. act. 3. part. 1. c. 32. Vide §. 36. de simil. ferè quaestione in fine.  to the Synod, Illicitum est (saith he) eum qui non sit in ordine sanctissimorum Episcoporum Ecclesiasticis immisceri tractatibus. It is unlawful for any but them who are in the order of the most holy Bishops, to be in. terest in Ecclesiastical assemblies.  
4. The last of the four great conventions of Christendom was, sexcentorum triginta Episcoporum, of 630 Bishops at Chalcedon in Bythinia. But in all these assemblies, no mere Presbyters gave suffrage except by legation from his Bishop, and delegation of authority. And therefore when in this Council some Laics, and some Monks, and some Clergymen, not Bishops, would interest themselves Pulcheria the Empress sent letters to Consularius to repel them by force; si praeter nostram evocationem, aut permissionem suorum Episcoporum ibidem commorantur, who come without command of the Empress, or the Bishop's permission. Where it is observable that the Bishops might bring Clerks with them to assist, to dispute, and to be present in all the action; And thus they often did suffer Abbots, or Archimandrites to be there, and to subscribe too, but that was praeter regulam, and by indulgence only, and condescension; For when Martinus the Abbot was requested to subscribe he answered, Nec 
Action. 1. Concil. Chalced.  suum esse, sed Episcoporum tantùm subscribere, it belonged only to Bishops to subscribe to Counsels. For this reason the Fathers themselves often called out in the Council, Mitte for as superfluos, Concilium Episcoporum est.  
But I need not more particular arguments, for till the Council of Basil, the Church never admitted Presbyters as in their own right to voice in Counsels, and that Council we know savourd too much of the Schismatic, but before this Council, no example, no precedent of subscriptions of the Presbyters either to Ecumenical, or Provincial Synods. Indeed to a Diocesan Synod, viz. that of Auxerre in Burgundy, I find 32 Presbyters subscribing. This Synod was neither Ecumenical nor Provincial, but merely the Convocation of a Diocese. For here was but one Bishop, and some few Abbots, and 32 Presbyters. It was indeed no more than a visitation, or the calling of a Chapter, for of this we receive intimation in the seaventh Canon of that assembly, ut in medio Maio omnes Presbyteri ad 
Concil. Antisiodor. can. 7.  Synodum venirent, that was their summons, & in Novembri omnes Abbates ad Concilium: so that here is intimation of a yearly Synod besides the first convention, the greatest of them but Diocesan, and therefore the lesser but conventus Capitularis, or however not enough to give evidence of a subscription of Presbyters to so much as a Provincial Council. For the guise of Christendom was always otherwise, and therefore it was the best argument that the Bishops in the Arian hurry used to acquit themselves from the suspicion of heresy, Neque nos sumus Arii sectatores; Quî namque fieri potest, ut cùm simus Episcopi Ario Presbytero auscultemus? 
Socrat. lib. 2. c. 7.  Bishop's never receive determination of any article from Priests, but Priests do from Bishops. Nam vestrum est eos instruere (saith S. Clement speaking 
Epist. 3. per Ruffinum.  of the Bishop's office and power over Priests and all the Clergy, and all the Diocese) eorum est vobis obedire, ut Deo cujus legatione fungimini. And a little after; Audire ergo eum attentiùs oportet, & ab ipso suscicere doctrinam fidei, monita autem vitae à Presbyteris inquirere. Of the Priests we must inquire for rules of good life, but of the Bishop receive positions and determinations of faith.  
Against this if it be objected, Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet, That which is of general concernment, must also be of general Scrutiny. I answer, it is true, unless where God himself hath entrusted the care of others in a body, as he hath in the Bishops, and will require the souls of his Diocese at his hand, and commanded us to require the Law at their mouths, and to follow their faith, 
Hebr. 13. 7. & 17. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Act. 20.  whom he hath set over us. And therefore the determination of Counsels pertains to all, and is handled by all, not in diffusion but in representation. For, Ecclesia est in Episcopo, & Episcopus in Ecclesiâ, (saith S. Cyprian) the Church is in the Bishop (viz. by representment) and the Bishop is in the Church 
Epist. 69.  (viz. as a Pilot in a ship, or a Master in a family, or rather as a steward, and Guardian to rule in his Master's absence) and for this reason the Synod of the Nicene Bishops is called (in Eusebius) conventus orbis 
Lib. 3. de vitâ Constant. lib. de baptis. cap. 18.  terrarum, and by S. Austin, consensus totius Ecclesiae, not that the whole Church was there present in their several persons, but was there represented by the Catholic Bishops, and if this representment be not sufficient for obligation to all, I see no reason but the Ladies too, may vote in Counsels, for I doubt not, but they have souls too.  
But however, if this argument were concluding in itself, yet it loses its force in England, where the Clergy are bound by Laws of Parliament, and yet in the capacity of Clergymen are allowed to choose neither Procurators to represent us as Clergy, nor Knights of the shire to represent us as Commons. * In conclusion of this I say to the Presbyters as S. Ambrose said of the Lay-judges, whom the Arians would have brought to judge in Council (it was an old heretical trick.) Veniant planè si qui sunt ad Ecclesiam, audiant cum populo, non ut 
Epist. 32.  QUIS QUAM JUDEX resideat, sed unus quisque de suo affectu habeat examen, & eligat quem sequatur. So may Presbyters be present, so they may judge, not for others, but for themselves. And so may the people be present, and anciently were so; and therefore Counsels were always kept in open Churches, [ubi populus judicat] not for others, but for themselves, not by external sentence, but internal conviction, so S. Ambrose expounds himself in the forecited allegation.  
There is no considerable objection against this discourse but that of the first Council of jerusalem; where the Apostles, and ELDERS did meet together to DETERMINE of the question of circumcision. For although in the story of celebration of it, we find no man giving sentence but Peter, and james; yet in 16. Acts, they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, decrees JUDGED by the Apostles, and Elders. But first, in this the difficulty is the less, because [Presbyter] was a general word for all that were not of the number of the twelve, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Doctors. And then secondly, it is none at all, because Paul, and Barnabas are signally, and by name reckoned as present in the Synod, and one of them Prolocutor, or else both. So that such Presbyters may well define in such conventual assemblies. 3. If yet there were any difficulty latent in the story, yet the Catholic practice of God's Church, is certainly the best expositor of such places where there either is any difficulty, or where any is pretended. And of this, I have already given account.  
* I remember also that this place is pretended for the people's power of voicing in Counsels. It is a pretty pageant; only that it is against the Catholic practice of the Church, against the exigence of Scripture, which bids us require the law at the Mouth of our spiritual Rulers, against the gravity of such assemblies, for it would force them to betumultuous, and at the best, are the worst of Sanctions, as being issues of popularity, and to sum up all, it is no way authorised by this first copy of Christian Counsels. The pretence is, in the Synodall 
* Acts 15. 23.  letter written in the name of [the Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren] that is, (says Geta,) The Apostles, and Presbyters, and People. But why not BRETHREN, that is, all the Deacons, and Evangelists, and Helpers in Government, and Ministers of the Churches? There is nothing either in words, or circumstances to contradict this. If it be asked who then are meant by Elders, if by [Brethren] S. Luke understands these Church officers? I answer, that here is such variety, that although I am not certain which officers he precisely comprehends under the distinct titles of Elders, and Brethren, yet here are enough to furnish both with variety, and yet neither to admit mere Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word, nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question, nor authorising the decretal. For besides the twelve Apostles, there were Apostolical men which were Presbyters, and something more, as Paul and Barnabas, and Silas; and Evangelists, and Pastors besides, which might furnish out the last appellative sufficiently. But however without any further trouble it is evident, that this word [Brethren] does not distinguish the Laity from the Clergy. [Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto PETER, and to the rest of the APOSTLES, Men and BRETHREN what shall we do. judas and Silas who were Apostolical men, are called in Scripture, chief men among the BRETHREN. But this is too known, to need a contestation.  
I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperor in the 8th Synod. De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus, quàm qui absolutè versamini quid ampliùs dicam non habeo, quàm quòd nullo modo vobis licet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere, neque penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae, & universali Synodo adversari. Laymen (says the Emperor) must by no means meddle with causes Ecclesiastical, nor oppose themselves to the Catholic Church, or Counsels Ecumenical. They must not meddle, for these things appertain to the cognisance of Bishops and their decision. * And now after all this, what authority is equal to this LEGISLATIVE of the Bishops? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (saith Aristotle,) 
Lib. 4. polit. c. 15.  They are all evidences of power and authority, to deliberate, to determine, or judge, to make laws. But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable. The first may belong fairly enough to Presbyters, but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops.  
LAstly, as if all the acts of jurisdiction, and every 
§ 42.  imaginable part of power were in the Bishop, over 
And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks,  the Presbyters & subordinate Clergy, the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri, the Bishop's Presbyters; as having a propriety in them, and therefore a superiority over them, and as the Bishop was a dispenser of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae, so he was of the persons too, a Ruler in propriety. * S. Hilary in the book which himself delivered to Constantine, Ecclesiae adhuc (saith he) per Presbyteros MEOS communionem distribuens, I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by MY Presbyters. And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop, to be promoted in another Church, .... Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri? (saith Posthumianus.) If the Bishop have 
Can. 45. Concil. Carthag. 3.  but one Presbyter must that one be taken from him? Idsequor (saith Aurelius) ut conveniam Episcopum ejus, atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur. And it was resolved, ut Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo. No man shall retain another Bishop's without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is.  
* When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the heretics his adversaries, and entered to purge himself, Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero 
Eccles. hist. lib. 10. cap. 17.  Suo. He comes in with Timothy HIS Presbyter; and, Arsenius, cujus brachium dicebatur excisum, lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii. Arsenius was Athanasius HIS Reader. Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii, etc. Macarius was another of Athanasius HIS Priests. So Theodoret. Peter, and Irenaeus were two 
Lib. 2. cap. 8.  more of his Presbyters, as himself witnesses. Paulinianus comes sometimes to visit us (saith S. Hierome to Pammachius) but not as your Clerk, sed 
Athanas. Epist. a● vitam solitar: agentes.  ejus à quo ordinatur. His Clerk who did ordain him. But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances.  
The sum is this. The question was, whether or no, and how fare the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church. Their doctrine, and practice have furnished us with these particulars. The power of Church goods, and the sole dispensation of them, and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop. For the Clergy, and Church possessions were in his power, in his administration: the Clergy might not travail without the Bishop's leave: they might not be preferred in another Diocese without licence of their own Bishop: in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to prefer them, and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it: without him they might not baptise, not consecrate the Eucharist, not communicate, not reconcile penitents, not preach; not only, not without his ordination, but not without a special faculty besides the capacity of their order: The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions, and canonical impositions, even by the decrce of the Apostles themselves, and the doctrine of Ignatius, and the constitution of S. Clement, of the Fathers in the Council of Arles, Ancyra, and Toledo, and many others: The Bishops were declared to be judges in ordinary of the Clergy, and people of their Diocese by the concurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon, in Carthage, Antioch, Sardis, Aquileia, Taurinum, Agatho, and by the Emperor, and by the Apostles; and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents, and absolving them as they saw cause, and by the dogmatic resolution of the old Catholics declaring in their attributes, and appellatives of the Episcopal function that they have supreme, and universal spiritual power, (viz. in the sense above explicated) over all the Clergy and Laity of their Diocese, as [that they are higher than all power, the image of God, the figure of Christ, Christ's Vicar, Precedent of the Church, Prince of Priests, of authority incomparable, unparalleled power] and many more, if all this be witness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction, we have their depositions, we may proceed as we see cause for, and reduce our Episcopacy to the primitive state, for that is truly a reformation [id Dominicum quod primum, id haereticum quod posterius] and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations.  
BUT against the cause, it is objected super totam 
§. 43.  
Their jurisdiction was over many congregations, or Parishes,  Materiam, that Bishops were not Diocesan, but Parochial, and therefore of so confined a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village, or City Priests shall advance their Pulpit, as high as the Bishop's throne.  
* Well! put case they were not Diocesan, but parish Bishops, what then? yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters, and Deacons in subordination to them, in all the particular advantages of the former instances.  
2. If the Bishops had the Parishes, what cure had the Priests? so that this will debase the Priests as much as the Bishops, and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish, it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest. If it brings a Bishop lower than a Diocese, it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish. For set a Bishop where you will, either in a Diocese, or a Parish, a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination, the same distance still. So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse, will no way mend the matter for any side, but make it fare worse, it will not advance the Presbytery, but it will depress the whole hierarchy, and all the orders of H. Church.  
* But because, this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy, I will consider it in little, and besides that it does no body any good advantage, I will represent it in its fucus and show the falsehood of it.  
1. Then. It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes. For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus, who lived almost 100 years after Christ, and divided Rome into seven parishes, assigning to every one a Presbyter. So Damasus reports of him in the Pontifical book. Hic titulos in urbe Româ divisit Presbyteris, & septem Diaconos ordinavit qui custodirent Episcopum praedicantem propter stylum veritatis. He divided the Parishes, or titles in the City of Rome to Presbyters. The same also is by Damasus reported of Dionysius in his life, hic Presbyteris Ecclesias divisit, & caemiteria, parochiasque & dioeceses constituit. Marcellus increased the number in the year 305. Hic fecit caemiterium viâ Salariâ, & 25 Titulos in urbe Roma constituit quasi dioeceses propter baptismum, & poenitentiam multorum qui convertebantur ex Paganis, & propter sepulturas Martyrum. He made a Sepulture, or caemitery for the burial of Martyrs, and appointed 25. Titles or Parishes: but he adds [quasi Dioeceses] as it had been dioceses, that is, distinct and limited to Presbyters, as dioceses were to Bishops; and the use of parishes which he subjoins, clears the business; for he appointed them only propter baptismum, & poenitentiam multorum & sepulturas, for baptism, and penance, and burial; for as yet there was no preaching in Parishes, but in the Mother-Church. Thus it was in the West.  
* But in Egypt we find Parishes divided something sooner than the earliest of these, for Eusebius reports out of Philo that the Christians in S. Marks 
Lib. 2. hist. cap. 17.  time had several Churches in Alexandria. Etiàm DE ECCLESIIS quae apud eos sunt, it a dicit. Est autem in singulis locis consecrata orationi domus &c: But even before this, there were Bishops. For in Rome there were four Bishops before any division of Parishes, though S. Peter be reckoned for none. And before Parishes were divided in Alexandria, S. Mark himself who did it was the Bishop, and before that time S. james was Bishop of jerusalem, and in divers other places where Bishops were, there were no distinct Parishes of a while after Evaristus time, for when Dionysius had assigned Presbyters to several Parishes, he writes of it to Severus Bishop of Corduba, & desires him to do so too in his Diocese, as appears in his Epistle to him.  
* For indeed necessity required it, when the 
* Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. Apolog. c. 37.  Christians multiplied and grew to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 
apud Binium. tom. 1. Council  Cornelius called the Roman Christians, a great and innumerable people; and did implere omnia, as Tertullia's phrase is, filled all places, and public and great assemblies drew danger upon themselves, and increased jealousies in others, and their public offices could not be performed with so diffused and particular advantage, than they were forced to divide congregations, and assign several Presbyters to their cure, in subordination to the Bishop, and so we see, the elder Christianity grew, the more Parishes there were. At first in Rome there were none, Evaristus made seven, Dionysius made some more, and Marcellus added 15, and in Optatus 
lib. 2. contr. Parmenian.  time there were 40.  
Well then! The case is thus. Parishes were not divided at first, therefore to be sure they were not of Divine institution. Therefore it is no divine institution that a Presbyter should be fixed upon a Parish, therefore also a Parish is not by Christ's ordinance an independent body, for by Christ's ordinance there was no such thing at all, neither absolute, nor in dependence neither; and then for the main issue, since Bishops were before Parishes (in the present sense) the Bishops in that sense could not be Parochial.  
* But which was first, a private congregation, or a Diocese? If a private congregation, than a Bishop was at first fixed in a private congregation, and so was a Parochial Bishop. If a Diocese was first, than the Question will be, how a Diocese could be without Parishes, for what is a Diocese but a jurisdiction over many Parishes?  
* I answer, it is true that DIOCESE and PARISH are words used now in contradistinction; And now, a Diocese is nothing but the multiplication of of many Parishes: Sed non fuit sic ab initio. For at first, a Diocese was the City and the Regio suburbicaria, the neighbouring towns, in which there was no distinction of Parishes: That which was a Diocese in the secular sense, that is, a particular Province, or division of secular prefecture, that was the assignation of a Bishop's charge. * Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Laodicea, were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heads of the Dioceses, (saith Pliny,) meaning in respect of secular 
lib. 5. cap. 29. & 30. Vide Baron. A. D. 39 n. 10. & B. Rhenan. in notit. provinc. Imperial. in descript. Illyrici.  jurisdiction; and so they were in Ecclesiastical regiment. And it was so upon great reason, for when the regiment of the Church was extended just so as the regiment of the Commonwealth, it was of less suspicion to the secular power, while the Church regiment was just fixed together with the political, as if of purpose to show their mutual consistence, and it's own subordination. ** And besides this, there was in it a necessity; for the subjects of another Province, or Diocese, could not either safely, or conveniently meet where the duty of the Commonwealth did not engage them; but being all of one prefecture, and Diocese, the necessity of public meetings in order to the Commonwealth would be fair opportunity for the advancement of their Christendom. And this, which at first was a necessity in this case, grew to be a law in all, by the sanction of the Council of 
* Can. 17.  Chalcedon, and of Constantinople in 
† Can. 38.  Trullo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the order of the Church, follow the order and guise of the Common wealth, viz. in her regiment, and prefefecture.  
* But in the modern sense of this division a Bishop's charge was neither a Parish, nor a Diocese, as they are taken in relation; but a Bishop had the supreme care of all the Christians which he by himself, or his Presbyters had converted, and he also had the charge of endeavouring the conversion of all the Country. So that although he had not all the Diocese actually in communion and subjection, yet his charge, his Diocese was so much. Just as it was with the Apostles, to whom Christ gave all the world for a Diocese, yet at first they had but a small congregation that did actually obey them.  
And now to the Question. Which was first, a particular congregation or a Diocese? I answer, that a Diocese was first, that is, the Apostles had a charge before they had a congregation of converts; And S. Mark was sent Bishop to Alexandria by S. Peter before any were converted. * But ordinarily the Apostles, when they had converted a City or Nation, than fixed Bishops upon their charge, and there indeed the particular congregation was before the Bishop's taking of the Diocese; But then, this City, or Nation although it was not the Bishop's Diocese before it was a particular congregation, yet it was part of the Apostles Diocese, and this they concredited to the Bishops respectively.  
S. Paul was ordained by the Prophets at Antioch, Apostle of the Uncircumcision; All the Gentiles was his Diocese, and even of those places he then received power which as yet he had not converted. So that, absolutely, a diocese was before a particular congregation. But if a diocese be taken collectively, as now it is, for a multitude of Parishes united under one Bishop, than one must needs be before 20, and a particular congregation before a diocese; but then that particular congregation was not a parish, in the present sense, for it was not a part of a Diocese taking a Diocese for a collection of Parishes; but that particular Congregation was the first fruits of his Diocese, and like a Grain of Mustardseed that in time might, and did grow up to a considerable height, even to a necessity of distinguishing titles, and parts of the Diocese, assigning several parts, to several Priests.  
2. We see that the Primitive Bishops, before the division of parishes, had the City, and Country; and after the division of parishes, had them all under his jurisdiction, and ever, even from the Apostles times had several provinces (some of them I mean) within their limits and charges. * The 35 Canon of the Apostles gives power to the Bishop to dispose only of those things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are under his Diocese & the Neighbour-villages, and the same thing is repeated in the ninth and tenth Canons of the Council of Antioch calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Ancient Canon of our forefathers; and yet itself is elder than three of the general Counsels, and if then it was an Ancient Canon of the Fathers, that the City and Villages should be subject to the Bishop, surely a Primitive Bishop was a Diocesan.  
But a little before this was the Nicene Council, 
Can. 6.  and there I am sure we have a Bishop that is at least a Diocesan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the old Customs be kept. What are those? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over ALL Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis: It was a good large Parish; And yet this parish if we have a mind to call it so, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the old custom of their forefathers, and yet that was so early that S. Anthony was then alive, who was borne in S. Irenaeus his time, who was himself but second from the Apostles.  
It was also a good large parish that Ignatius was Bishop of, even all Syria, Caelesyria, Mesopotamia, and both the Ciliciae. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Bishop of Syria he calls himself in his epistle to the Romans, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Theodoret: and besides 
lib. 5. ca 23.  all these, his Successors, in the Council of Chalcedon, had the two Phaeniciae, and Arabia yielded 
Action. 7.  to them by composition. These alone would have made two or three reasonable good parishes, and would have taken up time enough to perambulate, had that been then the guise of Christendom. * But examples of this kind are infinite. Theodorus Bishop 
Epist. ad Leon. 1. Episc. Rom. Haeres. 68  of Cyrus was Pastor over 800 parishes, Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, Thebais, Mareotis, Libya, Ammoniaca, and Pentapolis, saith S. Epiphanius; And his predecessor julianus, successor of Agrippinus, was Bishop 
* Council Chalced. act. 16.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Churches about Alexandria. Either it was a Diocese, or at least a plurality. * 
† Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 28.  S. chrysostom had Pontus, Asia, and all Thrace in his parish, even as much as came to sixteen prefectures; a fair bounds surely; and so it was with all the Bishops, a greater, or a lesser Diocese they had; but all were Diocesan; for they had several parishes, singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi habent sub se Ecclesias, saith Epiphanius in his epistle to john of jerusalem, and in his 
Apud. S. Hieron. haeres. 69.  book contra haereses, Quotquot enim in Alexandriâ Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt, sub uno Archiepiscopo sunt, privatimque ad has destinati sunt Presbyteri propter Ecclesiasticas necessitates, it aut habitatores vicini sint uniuscujusque Ecclesiae. * All Italy was the parish of 
Lib. 4. c. 12. Encom. Cyprian. Sozom. lib. 5. c. 18. Vide apud Euseb. lib. ●. c. 22.  Liberius (saith Socrates.) Africa was S. Cyprians parish, saith S. Gregory Nazianzen, and S. Basil the Great was parish-Priest to all Cappadocia. But I rather believe if we examine their several stories they will rather prove Metropolitans, then mere parochians.  
3ly The ancient Canons forbade a Bishop to be ordained in a Village, Castle, or Town. It was so decreed in the Council of Laodicea before the first Nicene. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Can. 56.  In the Villages, or Countries, Bishops must not be constituted. And this was renewed in the Council of Sardis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Can. 6.  It is not lawful to ordain Bishops in Villages or little Towns to which one Presbyter is sufficient, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but Bishops must ordain Bishops in those Cities where Bishops formerly have been. * So that this Canon does not make a new Constitution, but perpetuates the old sanction. Bishops ab antiquo were only ordained in great Cities, and Presbyters to little Villages. Who then was the Parish Curate? the Bishop or the Priest? The case is too apparent.  
Only, here it is objected that some Bishops were of small Towns, and therefore these Canons were not observed, and Bishops might be, and were parochial, as S. Gregory of Nazianzum, Zoticus of Comana, Maris in Dolicha. The one of these is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 
* Lib. y. c. 16.  Eusebius; and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 
† Lib. 5. cap. 4.  Theodoret, a little Town. This is all is pretended for this great Scarecrow of parochial Bishops.  
* But, first, suppose these had been parishes, and these three parochial Bishops, it follows not that all were; not those to be sure, which I have proved to have been Bishops of Provinces, and Kingdoms. 2ly It is a clear case, that Nazianzum though a small City, yet was the seat of a Bishop's throne, so it is reckoned in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made by Leo the Emperor, where it is accounted inter thronos 
Ius Graecc-Rom. p. 89.  Ecclesiarum Patriarchae Constantinopolitano subjectarum, & is in the same account with Caesarea, with Ephesus, with Crete, with Philippi, and almost fourscore more. * As for Zoticus, he indeed came from 
Vide Baron. An. Dom. 205 n. 27.  Comana, a Village town, for there he was born, but he was Episcopus Otrenus, Bishop of Otrea in Armenia, saith 
† Lib. 4. c. 25.  Nicephorus. * And for Maris the Bishop of Dolicha, it was indeed such a small City as Nazianzus was, but that proves not but his Diocese and territory was large enough. Thus was Asclepius 
Gennad. apud Hieron. johan. de Trittenheim de script. Eccles.  vici non grandis, but yet he was Vagensis territorii Episcopus. His seat might usually be in a little City, if it was one of those towns in which according to the exigence of the Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which Bishops anciently were ordained, and yet the appurtenances of his Diocese large, and extended, and too great for 100 Parish Priests.  
4ly. The institution of Chorepiscopi proves most evidently that the Primitive Bishops were Diocesan, not Parochial: for they were instituted to assist the Bishop in part of his Country-charge, and were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Visiters, (as the Council of Laodicea calls them.) But what need such Suffragans, such coadjutors to the managing of a Parish. Indeed they might possibly have been needful for the managing of a Citty-parish, especially if a whole City was a Parish, as these objectors must pretend, or not say Primitive Bishops were Parochial. But being these Chorepiscopi were Suffragans to the Bishop, and did their offices in the country, while the Bishop was resident in the City, either the Bishop's parish extended itself from City to Country; and than it is all one with a Diocese, or else we can find no employment for a Chorepiscopus, or Visitor. * The tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch, describes their use and power. Qui in villis & vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi .... placuit sanctae Synodo ut modum proprium recognoscant, ut gubernent sibi subjectas Ecclesias. They were to govern the Church's delegated to their charge. It seems they had many Churches under their provision, and yet they were but the Bishop's Vicars, for so it follows in the Canon; he must not ordain any Presbyters, and Deacons absque urbis Episcopo cui ipse subjicitus, & Regio; Without leave of the Bishop of the City to whom both himself, and all the Country is subordinate.  
5. The Bishop was one in a City wherein were many Presbyters. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. Ignatius. There is one Altar in every Church, and 
Epist. ad Philadelph.  ONE BISHOP together with the Presbytery, and the Deacons. Either then a whole City, such as Rome, or jerusalem (which as josephus reports had 400 Synagogues,) must be but one Parish, and then they had as good call a Bishops charge a Diocese, as a Parish in that latitude; or if there were many Parishes in a City, and the Bishop could have but one of them, why, what hindered but that there might in a City be as many Bishops, as Presbyters? For if a Bishop can have but one Parish, why may notevery Parish have a Bishop? But by the ancient Canons, a City though never so great, could have but one for itself and all the Country, therefore every parish-Priest was not a Bishop, nor the Bishop a mere parish-Priest.  
Ne in unâ civitate duo sint Episcopi, was the Constitution 
Lib. 10. Eccles. hist.  of the Nicene Fathers as saith Ruffinus; and long before this, it was so known a business that one City should have but one Bishop, that Cornelius exprobrates to Novatus his ignorance, is ergo qui 
Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33.  Evangelium vendicabat, nesciebat in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ unum Episcopum esse debere, ubi videbat esse Presbyteros quadraginta & sex. Novatus (the Father of the old Puritans) was a goodly gospeler that did not know that in a Catholic Church there should be but one Bishop wherein there were 46 Presbyters; intimating clearly that a Church that had two Bishops is not Catholic, but Schismatic at least, (if both be pretended to be of a fixed residence) what then is he that would make as many Bishops in a Church as Presbyters? He is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he fights against God, if S. Ambrose say true. Deus enim singulis 
In 1. Cor. 12.  Ecclesiis singulos Episcopos praeesse decrevit. God hath decreed that one Bishop should rule in one Church; and of what extent his ONE CHURCH was, may easily be guessed by himself who was the Ruler, and Bishop of the great City, and province of Milan. * And therefore when Valerius 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiphan. haeres. 66. n. 6. Possidon. in vitâ S. Aug. cap. 8.  as it was then sometimes used in several Churches had ordained S. Austin to be Bishop of Hippo, whereof Valerius was also Bishop at the same time, S. Austin was troubled at it as an act most uncanonical, and yet he was not ordained to rule in common with Valerius, but to rule in succession and after the consummation of Valerius. It was the same case in Agelius, a Novatian Bishop ordaining Marcian 
Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 21▪  to be his successor, and Sisinnius to succeed him, the acts were indeed irregular, but yet there was no harm in it to this cause, they were ordained to succeed, not in conjunction. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (saith Sozomen) It is a 
Lib. 4. cap. 15.  note of Schism, and against the rule of H. Church to have two Bishops in one chair. Secundus Episcopus nullus est (saith S. 
† Lib. 4. Epist. 2.  Cyprian) And as Cornelius reports it in his epistle to S. Cyprian, it was the voice of the Confessors that had been the instruments and occasions of the Novatian Schism by erecting another Bishop; Nec non ignoramus unum Deum esse, unum Christum esse Dominum quem confessi sumus, unum spiritum sanctum, unum Episcopum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse debere. And these very words the people also used in the contestation about Liberius, and Faelix. For when the Emperor was willing that Liberius should return to his See, on condition that Faelix the Arian might be Bishop there too, they derided the suggestion, crying out, One God, one Christ, one Bishop. So Theodoret reports. But who lists to see more of this, may be satisfied 
Lib. 2. c. 11.  (if plenty will do it) in 
a In 1. Philip.  S. chrysostom, 
b in 1. Philip.  Theodoret, S. 
c in 1. Philip.  Hierom, 
d in 1. Philip.  Oecumenius, 
e lib. 2. contr, Parmen.  Optatus, S. 
f in 1. Tim. 3. & in 1. Phil.  Ambrose, and if he please he may read a whole book of it written by S. Cyprian, de Vnitate Ecclesiae, sive de singularitate Prelatorum.  
6ly. Suppose the ordinary Dioceses had been parishes, yet what were the Metropolitans, and the Primates, were they also parish-Bishops? Surely if Bishops were parochial, than these were at least diocesan by their own argument, for to be sure they had many Bishops under them. But there were none such in the Primitive Church? yes most certainly. The 35 Canon of the Apostles tells us so, most plainly, and at the worst, they were a very primitive record. Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos PRIMUS HABEATUR, quem velut caput existiment, & nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant, quàm ea sola quae parochiae propriae, & villis quae sub eâ sunt, competunt. The Bishops of every Nation must know who is their PRIMATE, and esteem him as their HEAD, and do NOTHING without his consent, but those things that appertain to their own Diocese. And from hence the Fathers of the Council of Antioch derived their sanction, per singulas regiones Episcopos convenit nosse METROPOLITANUM 
Concil. Antioch. ca 9  Episcopum sollicitudinem totius provinciae gerere etc. The Bishops of every province must know that their METROPOLITAN. Bishop does take cure of all the province. For this was an Apostolical Constitution (saith S. Clement) that in the conversion of Gentile 
Epist. 1. ad jacobum Fratrem Domini.  Cities in place of the Archflamines, Archbishops, Primates, or Patriarches should be placed, qui reliquorum Episcoporum judicia, & majora (quoties necesse foret) negotia in fide agitarent, & secundùm Dei voluntatem, sicut constituerunt Sancti Apostoli, definirent. * Alexandria was a Metropolitical See long before the Nicene Council, as appears in the sixth Canon before cited; Nay, Dioscorus the Bishop of 
vide Concil. Chalced. act. 1. in epist. Theod. & Valentin. Imp.  that Church was required to bring ten of the METROPOLITANS that he had UNDER HIM to the Council of Ephesus, by Theodosius and Valentinian Emperors, so that it was a PATRIARCHAT.  
These are enough to show that in the Primitive Church there were Metropolitan Bishops. Now than either Bishops were Parochial, or no: If not, than they were Diocesan; if yea, then at least many of them were Diocesan, for they had (according to this rate) many Parochial Bishops under them.  
* But I have stood too long upon this impertinent trifle, but as nowadays it is made, the consideration of it is material to the main Question. Only this I add; That if any man should trouble the world with any other fancy of his own, and say that our Bishops are nothing like the Primitive, because all the Bishops of the Primitive Church had only two towns in their charge, and no more, and each of these towns had in them 170 families, and were bound to have no more, how should this man be confuted? It was just such a device as this in them that first meant to disturb this Question, by pretending that the Bishops were only parochial, not diocesan, and that there was no other Bishop but the Parish-Priest. Most certainly, themselves could not believe the allegation, only they knew it would raise a dust. But by God's providence, there is water enough in the Primitive fountains to allay it.  
ANother consideration must here be interposed 
§. 44.  concerning the intervening of Presbyters in 
And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired.  the regiment of the several Churches. For though I have twice already shown that they could not challenge it of right either by Divine institution, or Apostolical ordinance, yet here also it must be considered how it was in the practice of the Primitive Church, for those men that call the Bishop a Pope, are themselves desirous to make a Conclave of Cardinals too, & to make every Diocese a Roman Consistory.  
1. Then, the first thing we hear of Presbyters (after Scripture I mean, for of it I have already given account) is from the testimony of S. Hierome, 
in Epist. ad Titum. cap. 1.  Antequam studia in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli &c: communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Before factions arose in the Church, the Church was governed by the common Counsel of Presbyters. Here S. Hierome either means it of the time before Bishops were constituted in particular Churches, or after Bishops were appointed. If, before Bishops were appointed, no hurt done, the Presbyters might well rule in common, before themselves had a ruler appointed to govern both them and all the diocese beside. For so S. Ignatius writing to the Church of Antioch 
Epist. ad Antioch.  exhorts the Pres byters to feed the flock until God should declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he would make their ruler. And S. Cyprian speaking of Etecusa 
Epist. 2. 1.  and some other women that had made defaillance in time of persecution, and so were put to penance, praeceperunt eas Praepositi tantispèr sic esse, donec Episcopus constituatur. The Presbyters, whom seed vacant he praeter morem suum calls Praepositos, they gave order that they should so remain till the Consecration of a Bishop. * But, if S. Hierome means this saying of his, after Bishops were fixed, than his expression answers the allegation, for it was but communi CONSILIO Presbyterorum, the JUDICIUM might be solely in the Bishop, he was the JUDGE, though the Presbyters were the COUNSELLORS, For so himself adds, that upon occasion of those first Schisms in Corinth, it was DECREED in ALL THE WORLD, ut omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertineret, all the care of the diocese was in the Bishop, and therefore all the power, for it was unimaginable that the burden should be laid on the Bishop, and the strength put into the hands of the Presbyters. * And so S. Ignatius styles them, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] Assessors, and Counsellors to the Bishop. But yet if we take our estimate from Ignatius, The Bishop is THE RULER, without him though all concurred, yet nothing could be done, nothing attempted; The Bishop was Superior in ALL POWER and AUTHORITY, He was to be obeyed in ALL THINGS, and contradicted in NOTHING; The Bishop's judgement was to sway, and nothing must seem 
Ad Trallian. Ad Magnes.  pleasing to the Presbyters that was cross to the Bishop's sentence: this, and a great deal more which I have formerly made use of, is in Ignatius; And now let their assistance and Counsel extend as fare as it will, the Bishop's authority is invulnerable. But I have already enough discussed this instance of S. Hierome's. §. thither I refer the Reader.  
2. But S. Cyprian must do this business for us, if any man, for of all the Bishops, he did acts of the greatest condescension, and seeming declination of Episcopal authority. But let us see the worst. Ad id verò quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri 
Epist. 6.  .... solus rescribere nihil potui, quando à primordio Episcopatûs mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro, & sine consensu plebis meae privatâ sententiâ gerere. And again, quamvis mihi videantur debere 
Epist. 19  pacem accipere, tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi, ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere. And a third time, Quae res cùm omnium nostrum consilium 
Epist. 18.  & sententiam spectet, praejudicare ego & soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo. These are the greatest steps of Episcopal humility that I find in materiâ juridicâ, The sum whereof is this, that S. Cyprian did consult his Presbyters and Clergy in matters of consequence, and resolved to do nothing without their advice. But then, consider also, it was, statui apud me, I have resolved with myself to do nothing without your Counsel. It was no necessity ab extrà, no duty, no Sanction of holy Church that bond him to such a modesty, it was his own voluntary act. 2. It was as well Diaconorum, as Presbyterorum consilium that he would have in conjunction, as appears by the titles of the sixth and eighteenth Epistles; Cyprianus Presbyter is, ac DIACONIS fratribus salutem: So that here the Presbyters can no more challenge a power of regiment in common, than the Deacons, by any Divine law, or Catholic practice. 3. S. Cyprian also would actually have the consent of the people too, and that will as well disturb the Ius Divinum of an independent Presbytery, as of an independent Episcopacy.  
But indeed neither of them both need to be much troubled, for all this was voluntary in S. Cyprian, like Moses, qui cùm in potestate suâ habuit ut solus possit praeesse populo, seniores elegit (to use S. Hierome's expression) who when it was in his power alone to rule the people, yet chose seaventy Elders for 
in 1. ad Titum.  assistants. For as for S. Cyprian, this very Epistle clears it that no part of his Episcopal authority was impaired. For he shows what himself alone could do. Fretus igitur dilectione vestrâ, & religione, quam satis novi, his literis & horror & mando &c. I entreat and COMMAND you .... vice meâ fungamini circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit, Be my substitutes in the administration of Church affairs. He entreats them pro dilectione, because they loved him, he COMMANDS THEM PRO RELIGIONE, by their religion; for it was a piece of their religion to obey him, and in him was the government of his Church, else how could he have put the Presbyters, and Deacons in substitution?  
* Add to this; It was the custom of the Church that although the Bishop did only impose hands in the ordination of Clerks, yet the Clergy did approve, & examine the persons to be ordained, and it being a thing of public interest, it was then not thought fit to be a personal action both in preparation, and ministration too (and for this S. chrysostom was accused in Concilio nefario [as the title of the edition of it, expresses it] that he made ordinations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) yet when S. 
Ius Graecc Rom. pag. 556.  Cyprian saw occasion for it, he did ordain without the consent of the Clergy of his Church, for so he ordained Celerinus, so he ordained Optatus, and Satyrus', when himself was from his Church, and in great want of Clergymen to assist in the ministration of the daily offices. *** He did as much in jurisdiction too, and censures; for HIMSELF did excommunicate Felicissimus and Augendus, and Repostus, and Irene, and Paula, as appears in his 38, and 39 epistles; and tells 
* Epist. 65.  Rogatianus that he might have done as much to the petulant Deacon that abused him by virtue of his Episcopal authority. And the same power singly, and solely, he exercised in his acts of favour and absolution; Vnus atque alius 
Epist. 55.  OBNITENTE PLEBE ET CONTRADICENTE, MEA tamen FACILITATE suscepti sunt. Indeed here is no contradiction of the Clergy expressed, but yet the absolution said to be his owneact, against the people and without the Clergy. For he alone was the JUDGE, insomuch that he declared that it was the cause of Schism and heresy that the Bishop was not obeyed, nec UNUs in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus JUDEX VICE CHRISTI COGITATUR, 
ibidem.  and that ONE high Priest in a Church, and JUDGE INSTEAD OF CHRIST is not admitted. So that the Bishop must be ONE, and that ONE must be JUDGE, and to acknowledge more, in S. Cyprians Lexicon is called schism and heresy. Farther yet, this judicatory of the Bishop is independent, and responsive to none but Christ. Actum suum disponit, & dirigit Vnusquisque Episcopus rationem propositi sui Domino 
Epist. 52.  redditurus, and again, habetin Ecclesiae administratione 
Epist. 72.  voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque Praepositus: rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus. The Bishop is Lord of his own actions, and may do what seems good in his own eyes, and for his actions he is to account to Christ.  
This general account is sufficient to satisfy the allegations out of the 6th, and 18th epistles, and indeed, the whole Question. But for the 18th epistle, there is something of peculiar answer. For first, It was a case of public concernment, and therefore he would so comply with the public interest as to do it by public counsel. 2ly, It was a necessity of times that made this case peculiar. NECESSITAS TEMPORUM facit ut non temerè pacem demus, they are the first words of the next epistle, which is of the same matter; for if the lapsi had been easily, and without a public and solemn trial reconciled, it would have made Gentile Sacrifices frequent, and Martyrdom but seldom. 3ly, The common counsel which S. Cyprian here said he would expect, was the Council of the Confessors, to whom for a peculiar honour it was indulged that they should be interested in the public assoiling of such penitents who were overcome with those fears which the Confessors had overcome. So that this is evidently an act of positive, and temporary discipline; and as it is no disadvantage to the power of the Bishop, so to be sure, no advantage to the Presbyter.  
* But the clause of objection from the 19th epistle is yet unanswered, and that runs something higher, .... tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere. It is called presumption to reconcile the penitents without the advice of those to whom he writ. But from this we are fairly delivered by the title. Cypriano, & Compresbyteris Carthagini consistentibus; Caldonius, salutem. It was not the epistle of Cyprian to his Presbyters, but of Caldonius one of the suffragan Bishops of Numidia to his Metropolitan; and now, what wonder if he call it presumption to do an act of so public consequence without the advice of his Metropolitan. He was bound to consult him by the Canon's Apostolical, and so he did, and no harm done to the present Question, of the Bishop's sole and independent power, and unmixed with the conjunct interest of the Presbytery, who had nothing to do beyond ministry, counsel, and assistance.  
3. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was, there were not always a College of Presbyters, but only in the greatest Churches; for sometimes in the lesser Cities there were but two. Esse oportet, & aliquantos Presbyteros, ut bini sint per Ecclesias, & unus incivitate Episcopus. So S. Ambrose, sometimes there was but one in a Church. Posthumianus in 
In 1. Timoth. 3.  the third Council of Carthage put the case. Deinde qui unum [Presbyterum] habuerit, numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri? The Church of Hippo had but one. Valerius was the Bishop, and Austin was the Priest; and after him Austin was the Bishop, & Eradius the Priest. Sometimes not one, as in the case Aurelius put in the same Council I now cited, of a Church that had never a Presbyter to be consecrated Bishop in the place of him that died; & once at Hippo they had none, even then when the people snatched S. Austin and carried him to Valerius to be ordained. In these cases I hope it will not be denied but the Bishop was judge alone, I am sure he had but little company, sometimes none at all.  
4. But suppose it had been always done that Presbyters were consulted in matters of great difficulty, and possibility of Scandal, for so S. Ambrose intimates, Ecclesia seniores habuit sine quorum Consilio nihil gerebatur in Ecclesiâ (understand, in these 
1. Tim. 1.  Churches where Presbyteries were fixed) yet this might be necessary, and was so indeed in some degree at first, which in succession as it proved troublesome to the Presbyters; so unnecessary and impertinent to the Bishops. At first I say it might be necessary. For they were times of persecution, and temptation, and if both the Clergy and people too were not complied withal in such exigence of time, and agonies of spirit, it was the way to make them relapse to Gentilism; for a discontented spirit will hid itself, and take sanctuary in the reeds and mud of Nilus, rather than not take complacence in an imaginary security and revenge. 2. As yet there had been scarce any Synods to determine cases of public difficulty, and what they could not receive from public decision, it was fitting they should supply by the maturity of a Consiliary assistance, and deliberation. For although, by the Canons of the Apostles, Bishops were bound twice a year to celebrate Synods, yet persecution intervening, they were rather twice a year a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a dispersion then a Synod. 3. Although Synods had been as frequently convened as was intended by the Apostles, yet it must be length of time, and a successive experience that must give opportunity and ability to give general rules for the emergency of all particulars, and therefore till the Church grew of some considerable age, a fixed standing College of Presbyters was more requisite then since it hath been, when the frequency of General Counsels, and Provincial Synods, and the peace of the Church, and the innumerable volumes of the Fathers, and decretals of Bishops, and a digest of Ecclesiastical Constitutions, hath made the personal assistance of Presbyters unnecessary. 4. When necessity required not their presence and Counsel, their own necessity required that they should attend their several cures. For let it be considered; they that would now have a College of Presbyters assist the Bishop whether they think of what follows. For either they must have Presbyters ordained without a title, which I am sure they have complained of these threescore years, or else they must be forced to Nonresidence. For how else can they assist the Bishop in the ordinary, and daily occurrences of the Church, unless either they have no cure of their own, or else neglect it? And as for the extraordinary, either the Bishop is to consult his Metropolitan, or he may be assisted by a Synod, if the Canons already constitute do not aid him, but in all these cases the Presbytery is impertinent.  
5. As this assistance of Presbyters was at first for necessity, and after by Custom it grew a Law; so now retrò, first the necessity failed, and then the desuetude abrogated the Law, which before, custom had established. [quod quâ negligentiâ obsolever 
Vbi suprà.  it nescio] saith S. Ambrose, he knew not how it came to be obsolete, but so it was, it had expired before his time. Not but that Presbyters were still in Mother-Churches (I mean in Great ones) In Ecclesiâ enim habemus Senatum nostrum, actum Presbyterorum, 
In Isaiae c. 3.  we have still (saith S. Hierome) in the Church our Senate, a College, or Chapter of Presbyters, (he was then at Rome, or jerusalem) but they were not consulted in Church affairs, & matter of jurisdiction, that was it, that S. Ambrose wondered how it came to pass. And thus it is to this day. In our Mother Churches we have a Chapter too, but the Bishop consults them not in matters of ordinary jurisdiction, just so it was in S. Ambrose his time, and therefore our Bishops have altered no custom in this particular, the alteration was pregnant even before the end of the four general Counsels, and therefore is no violation of a divine right, for then most certainly a contrary provision would have been made in those conventions, wherein so much sanctity, and authority, and Catholicism and severe discipline were conjunct; and then besides, it is no innovation in practice which pretends so fair antiquity, but however it was never otherwise then voluntary in the Bishops, and positive discipline in the Church, and conveniency in the thing for that present, and Council in the Presbyters, and a trouble to the Presbyters persons, and a disturbance of their duties when they came to be fixed upon a particular charge.  
* One thing more before I leave. I find a Canon of the Council of Hispalis objected. Episcopus Presbyteris solus honorem dare potest, solus autem auferre 
Can. 6.  non potest. A Bishop may alone ordain a Priest, a Bishop may not alone depose a Priest. Therefore in censures there was in the Primitive Church a necessity of conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in imposition of censures.  
* To this I answer, first it is evident, that he that can give an honour, can also take it away, if any body can; for there is in the nature of the thing no greater difficulty in pulling down, then in raising up. It was wont always to be accounted easier; therefore this Canon requiring a conjunct power in deposing Presbyters is a positive constitution of the Church, founded indeed upon good institution, but built upon no deeper foundation, neither of nature or higher institution, than its own present authority.  
But that's enough, for we are not now in question of divine right, but of Catholic and Primitive practice. To it therefore I answer, that the conjunct hand required to pull down a Presbyter, was not the Chapter, or College of Presbyters; but a company of Bishops, a Synodall sentence, and determination, for so the Canon runs, qui profecto nec ab uno damnari, nec uno judicante poterunt honoris sui privilegiis exui: sed praesentati SYNODALI JUDICIO, quod canon de illis praeceperit definiri. And the same thing was determined in the Greeks' Council of Carthage. If a Presbyter or a Deacon be accused, 
Can. 20.  their own Bishop shall judge them, not alone, but with the assistance of six Bishops more, in the case of a Presbyter; three, of a Deacon; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But the causes of the other Clergy the Bishop of the place must ALONE hear and determine them. So that by this Canon, in some things the Bishop might not be alone, but then his assistants were Bishops, not Presbyters, in other things he alone was judge without either, and yet his sentences must not be clancular, but in open Court, in the full Chapter; for his Presbyters must be present; and so it is determined for Africa in the fourth Council of Carthage, Vt Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentiâ 
Can. 23.  Clericorum suorum: alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nisi praesentiâ Clericorum confirmetur. Here is indeed a necessity of the presence of the Clergy of his Church where his Consistory was kept, lest the sentence should be clandestine, and so illegal, but it is nothing but praesentia Clericorum, for it is sententia Episcopi, the Bishop's sentence, and the Clerks presence only; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishop ALONE might give sentence in the causes of the inferior Clergy, even by this Canon itself, which is used for objection against the Bishop's sole jurisdiction.  
*** I know nothing now to hinder our process; for the Bishop's jurisdiction is clearly left in his own hand, and the Presbyters had no share in it, but by delegation and voluntary assumption. Now I proceed in the main question.  
WE have seen what Episcopacy is in itself, 
§ 45. So that the government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary.  now from the same principles let us see what it is to us. And first; Antiquity taught us it was simply necessary, even to the being and constitution of a Church. That runs high, but we must follow our leaders. * S. Ignatius is express in this question. Qui intra altare est, mundus est, quare & obtemperat Episcopo, & Sacerdotibus. Qui verò foris 
Epist. ad Tral.  est hic is est▪ qui sine Episcopo, Sacerdote, & Diacono quicquam agit, & ejusmodi inquinatam habet conscientiam, & infideli deterior est. He that is within the Altar, that is, within the Communion of the Church, he is pure, for he obeys the Bishop, and the Priests. But he that is without, that is, does any thing without his Bishop and the Clergy, he hath a filthy conscience and is worse than an infidel. NECESSE itaque est, quicquid facitis, ut SINE EPISCOPO NIHIL faciatis. It is NECESSARY that what ever ye do, ye be sure to do nothing without the Bishop. Quid enim aliud est Episcopus, etc. For what else is a Bishop but he that is greater than all power? So that the obeying the Bishop is the necessary condition of a Christian, and Catholic communion; he that does not, is worse than an infidel. The same also he affirms again. Quotquot enim Christi sunt partium Episcopi, 
Epist. ad Philadelph.  qui verò ab illo declinant, & cum maledict is communionem amplectuntur, high cum illis excidentur. All them that are on Christ's side, are on the Bishop's side, but they that communicate with accursed Schismatics, shall be cut off with them. * If then we will be Christ's servants, we must be obedient and subordinate to the Bishop. It is the condition of Christianity. We are not Christians else. So is the intimation of S. Ignatius. * As full and pertinent is the peremptory resolution of S. Cyprian in that admirable epistle of his ad Lapsos, where after he had 
Epist. 27. alibi.  spoken how Christ instituted the honour of Episcopacy in concrediting the Keys to Peter and the other Apostles, Ind (saith he) per temporum & successionum vices, Episcoporum ordinatio, &. ECCLESIAE RATIO decurrit, VT ECCLESIA SUPER EPISCOPOS CONSTITUATUR, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per EOSDEM PRAEPOSITOS gubernetur. Hence is it, that by several succession of Bishops the Church is continued, so that the CHURCH HATH IT'S BEING, OR CONSTITUTION BY BISHOPS, and every act of Ecclesiastical regiment is to be disposed by them. Cùm hoc itaque divinâ lege fundatum sit, miror etc. Since therefore this is so ESTABLISHED BY THE LAW OF GOD, I wonder any man should question it, etc. And therefore as in all buildings, the foundation being gone, the fabric falls, so IF YE TAKE AWAY BISHOPS, the Church must ask a writing of divorce from God, for it can no longer be called a Church. This account we have from S. Cyprian, and he reenforces again upon the same charge in his 
* Epist. 69.  Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum, where he makes a Bishop to be ingredient into the DEFINITION of a Church. [Ecclesia est plebs sacerdoti adunata, & Pastori suo Grex adhaerens, The Church is a flock adhering to its Pastor, and a people united to their Bishop] for that so he means by Sacerdos, appears in the words subjoined, Vnde & scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesiâ esse, & Ecclesiam in Episcopo, & si qui Cum EPISCOPO NON SIT IN ECCLESIA NON ESSE, & frustrà sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sacerdotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt, & latentèr apud quosàam communicarese credunt etc. As a Bishop is in the Church, so the Church is in the Bishop, and he that does not communicate with the Bishop is not in the Church; and therefore they vainly flatter themselves that think their case fair and good, if they communicate in conventicles, and forsake their Bishop.  
And for this cause the holy Primitives were so confident, and zealous for a Bishop, that they would rather expose themselves and all their tribes to a persecution, then to the greater misery, the want of Bishops. Fulgentius tells an excellent story to this purpose. When Frasamund King of Byzac in Africa 
vide Concil. Byzacenum. An. Dom. 504. & Surium die 1. januar. & Baron. in A. D. 504.  had made an edict that no more Bishops should be consecrate; to this purpose that the Catholic faith might expire (so he was sure it would, if this device were perfected) ut arescentibus truncis absque palmitibus omnes Ecclesiae desolarentur, the good Bishops of the Province met together in a Council, and having considered of the command of the tyrant, Sacra turba Pontificum qui remanser antony's communicato inter se consilio definierunt adversus praeceptum Regis in omnibus locis celebrare ordinationes Pontificum, cogitantes aut Regis iracundiam, si qua forsan existeret, mitigandam, quò faciliùs ordinatiin suis plebibus viverent, aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur, coronandos etiam fidei confession, quos dignos inveniebant promotione. It was full of bravery, and Christian spirit. The Bishops resolved for all the edict against new ordination of Bishops to obey God, rather than man, and to consecrate Bishops in all places, hoping the King would be appeased, or if not, yet those whom they thought worthy of a Mitre were in a fair disposition to receive a Crown of Martyrdom. They did so. Fit repentè communis assumptio, and they all strived who should be first, and thought a blessing would outstrip the hindmost. They were sure they might go to heaven (though persecuted) under the conduct of a Bishop, they knew, without him the ordinary passage was obstructed.  
Pius the first, Bishop of Rome, and Martyr, speaking of them that calumniate, and disgrace their Bishops 
Epist. 2.  endeavouring to make them infamous, they add (saith he) evil to evil, and grow worse, non intelligentes quòd Ecclesia Dei in Sacerdotibus consistit, & crescit in templum Dei; Not considering that THE CHURCH OF GOD DOTH CONSIST, or is established in BISHOPS, and grows up to a holy Temple? To him I am most willing to add S. Hierome, because he is often obtruded in defiance of 
advers. Lucifer. cap. 4.  the cause. Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacer dot is dignitate pendet, The safety of the Church depends upon the Bishop's dignity.  
THE Reason which S. Hierome gives, presses this 
§ 46. For they are schismatics that separate from their Bishop.  business to a further particular. For if an eminent dignity, and an Unmatchable power be not given to him, tot efficientur schismata, quot Sacerdotes. So that he makes Bishops therefore necessary because without them the Unity of a Church cannot be preserved; and we know that unity, and being, are of equal extent, and if the Unity of the Church depends upon the Bishop, then where there is no Bishop, no pretence to a Church; and therefore to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatic; For Unity which the Fathers press so often, they make to be dependant on the Bishop. Nihil sit in vobis quod possit vos dirimere, sed Vnimini Episcopo, subjecti Deo per illum in Christo (saith S. Ignatius.) Let nothing divide you, but be united to your Bishop, 
Epist. ad Magnes.  being subject to God in Christ through your Bishop. And it is his congè to the people of Smyrna to whom he writ in his epistle to Polycarpus, opto vos semper valere in Deo nostro jesu Christo, in quo manete per Vnitatem Dei & EPISCOPI, Farewell in Christ jesus, in whom remain by the Unity of God and of the BISHOP. * Quantò vos beatiores judico qui dependetis ab illo [Episcopo] ut Ecclesia à Domino jesu,;; 
Ad Ephes.  & Dominus à Patre suo, ut omnià per Vnitatem consentiant. Blessed people are ye that depend upon your Bishop, as the Church on Christ, and Christ on God, that all things may consent in Unity.  
* Neque enim aliundè haereses obortae sunt, aut nata sunt schismata, quàm inde quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, 
S. Cyprian. ep. 55.  nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur. Hence come SCHISMS, hence spring heresies that the Bishop is not obeyed, and admitted alone to be the high Priest, alone to be the judge. The same, S. Cyprian 
Epist. 69.  repeats again, and by it, we may see his meaning clearer. Qui vos audit, me audit &c: Indeenim haereses & schismata obortae sunt & oriuntur, dum Episcopus qui unus est, & Ecclesiae praeest superbâ quorundam praesumptione contemnitur, & homo dignatione Dei honoratus, indignus hominibus judicatur. The pride and peevish haughtiness of some factious people that contemn their Bishops is the cause of all heresy and Schism. And therefore it was so strictly forbidden by the Ancient Canons, that any Man should have any meetings, or erect an Altar out of the communion of his Bishop, that if any man proved delinquent in this particular, he was punished with the highest censures, as appears in the 32 Canon of the Apostles, in the 6th Canon of the Council of Gangra, the 5th Canon of the Council of Antioch, and the great Council of Chalcedon, all 
Act. 4.  which I have before cited. The sum is this, The Bishop is the band, and ligature of the Church's Unity; and separation from the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Theodoret's expession is; a Symbol of faction, and he that separates is a Schismatic.  
But how if the Bishop himself be a heretic, or schismatic? May we not then separate? Yes, if he be judged so by a Synod of Bishops, but then he is sure to be deposed too, and then in these cases no separation from a Bishop. For till he be declared so, his communion is not to be forsaken by the subjects of his diocese, lest they by so doing become their judge's judge, and when he is declared so, no need of withdrawing from obedience to the Bishop, for the heretic, or schismatic must be no longer Bishop. * But let the case be what it will be, no separation from a Bishop, ut sic, can be lawful; and yet if there were a thousand cases in which it were lawful to separate from a Bishop, yet in no case is it lawful to separate from Episcopacy; That is the quintessence, and spirit of schism, and a direct overthrow to Christianity, and a confronting of a Divine institution.  
* BUt is it not also heresy? Aerius was condemned 
§. 47. And Heretics,  for heresy by the Catholic Church. The heresy from whence the Aërians were denominated was, sermo furiosus magis quàm humanae conditionis, & dicebat, Quid est Episcopus ad Presbyterum, nihil differt hic ab illo. A mad, and an unmanly heresy, to say that a Bishop, and a Priest are all one. So Epiphanius. Assumpsit autem Ecclesia, & IN TOTO 
haeres. 75.  MUNDO ASSENSUS FACTUS EST, antequam esset Aërius, & qui ab ipso appellantur Aëriani. And the good Catholic Father is so angry at the heretic Aërius, that he thinks his name was given him by Providence, and he is called Aërius, ab aërijs spiritibus pravitatis, for he was possessed with an unclean spirit, he could never else been the inventor of such heretical pravity. S. Austin also reckons him in the accursed roll of heretics, and adds at the conclusion of his Catalogue, that he is NO CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN that assents to any of the foregoing Doctrines, amongst which, this is one of the principal. Philastrius does as much for him.  
But against this it will be objected. first, That heresies in the Primitive Catalogues are of a large extent, and every dissent from a public opinion, was esteemed heresy. 2ly, Aërius was called heretic, for denying prayer for the dead. And why may he not be as blameless in equalling a Bishop, and a Presbyter, as in that other, for which he also is condemned by Epiphanius, and S. Austin. 3ly, He was never condemned by any Council, and how then can he be called heretic?  
I answer; that dissent from a public, or a received opinion was never called heresy, unless the contrary truth was indeed a part of Catholic doctrine. For the Fathers many of them did so, as S. Austin from the Millenary opinion; yet none ever reckoned them in the Catalogues of heretics; but such things only set them down there, which were either directly opposite to Catholic belief, though in minoribus articulis, or to a holy life. 2ly, It is true that Epiphanius and S. Austin reckon his denying prayer for the dead to be one of his own opinions, and heretical. But I cannot help it if they did, let him and them agree it, they are able to answer for themselves. But yet they accused him also of Arianism; and shall we therefore say that Arianism was no heresy, because the Fathers called him heretic in one particular upon a wrong principal? We may as well say this, as deny the other. 3ly, He was not condemned by any Council. No. For his heresy was ridiculous, and a scorn to all wise men; as Epiphanius observes, and it made no long continuance, neither had it any considerable party. * But yet this is certain, that Epiphanius, & Philastrius, & S. Austin called this opinion of Aërius a heresy and against the Catholic belief. And themselves affirm that the Church did so; and than it would be considered, that it is but a sad employment to revive old heresies, and make them a piece of the New religion.  
And yet after all this, if I mistake not, although Aërius himself was so inconsiderable as not to be worthy noting in a Council, yet certainly the one half of his error is condemned for heresy in one of the four General Counsels, viz. the first Council of Constantinople. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Can. 6.  We call all them heretics whom the Ancient Church hath condemned, and whom we shall anathematise. Will not Aërius come under one of these titles for a condemned heretic? Then see forward. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Here is enough for Aërius and all his hyperaspists, new and old; for the holy Council condemns them for heretics who do indeed confess the true faith, but separate from their Bishops, and make conventicles apart from his Communion. Now this I the rather urge because an Act of Parliament made Iᵒ of Elizabeth does make this Council, and the other three of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, the rule of judging heresies.  
I end this particular with the saying of the Council of Paris against the Acephali (who were the branch of a Crabstock and something like Aërius,) cited by Burchard; Nullâ ratione Clerici aut Sacerdotes 
lib. 2. decret. cap. 226.  habendi sunt, qui sub nullius Episcopi disciplina & providentiâ gubernantur. Tales enim Acephalos, id est sine capite Priscae Ecclesiae consuetudo nuncupavit. They are by no means to be accounted Clergymen, or Priests, that will not be governed by a Bishop. For such men the Primitive Church called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, headless, wittlesse people.  
This only. Acephali was the title of a Sect, a formal heresy, and condemned by the Ancient Church, say the Fathers of the Council of Paris. Now if we can learn exactly what they were, it may perhaps be another conviction for the necessity of Episcopal regiment. Nicephorus can best inform us. 
lib. 18. ca 45 Eccles. hist.  Eodem tempore, & Acephali, quorum dux Severus Antiochenus fuit &c: Severus of Antioch was the first broacher of this heresy. But why were they called Acephali? id est, sine capite, quem sequuntur haeretici; Nullus enim eorum reperitur author à quo exorti sunt (saith Isidore). But this cannot be, for their 
lib. 8. cap. 5. Etymol.  head is known, Severus was the heresiarch. But then why are they called Acephali? Nicephorus gives this reason, and withal a very particular account of their heresy, Acephali autem ob eam causam dicti sunt, quòd sub Episcopis non fuerint. They refused to live under Bishops. Thence they had their Name. what was their heresy? They denied the distinction of Natures in Christ. That was one of their heresies, but they had more; for they were trium capitulorum in Chalcedone impugnatores, saith Isidore, they opposed three Canons of the Council of Chalcedon. One we have heard, what their other 
ubi suprà.  heresies were, we do not so well know, but by the Canon of the Council of Paris, and the intimation of their name we are guided to the knowledge of a second; They refused to live under the government of a Bishop. And this also was impugnatio unius articuli in Chalcedone, for the eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon commands that the Clergy should be under Episcopal government. But these Acephali would not, they were antiepiscopal men, and therefore they were condemned heretics; condemned, In the Council of Paris, of Sevill, and of Chalcedon.  
But the more particular account that Nicephorus gives of them I will now insert, because it is of great use. Proinde Episcopis, & Sacerdotibus apud eos defunctis, neque baptismus juxtà solennem, atque receptum Ecclesiae morem apud eos administratur, neque oblatio, autres aliqua divina facta, ministeriumué Ecclesiasticum, sicuti mos est, celebratum est. Communionem verò illi à plurimo tempore asservatam habentes ferijs pascalibus in minutissimas incisam partes convenientibus adse hominibus dederunt. Quo temport quam quisque voluisset placitam sibi sumebat potestatem. Et proptere à quod quilibet, quod si visum essct, fidei insertum volebat, quamplurima defectorum, atque haereticorum turba exortaest. It is a story worthy observation. When any Bishop died they would have no other consecrated in succession, and therefore could have no more Priests when any of them died. But how then did they to baptise their Children? Why, they were feign to make shift, and do it without any Church-solemnity. But, how did they for the Holy Sacrament, for that could not be consecrated without a Priest, and he not ordained without a Bishop? True, but therefore they, while they had a Bishop, got a great deal of bread consecrated, and kept a long time, and when Easter came, cut it into small bits, or crumbs rather, to make it go the farther, and gave it to their people. And must we do so too? God forbidden. But how did they when all that was gone? For crumbs would not last always. The story specifies it not, but yet I suppose they then got a Bishop for their necessity to help them to some more Priests, and some more crumbs; for I find the Council of Sevill the Father's saying, Ingressus est ad nos quidem ex haeresi 
Can. 12.  Acephalorum Episcopus; They had then it seems got a Bishop, but this they would seldom have, and never but when their necessity drove them to it. But was this all the inconvenience of the want of Bishops? No. For every man (saith Nicephorus) might do what he list, & if he had a mind to it, might put his fancy into the Creed, and thence came innumerable troops of Schismatics and Heretics. So that this device was one simple heresy in the root, but it was forty heresies in the fruit, and branches; clearly proving that want of Bishops is the cause of all Schism, & recreant opinions that are imaginable.  
I sum this up with the saying of S. Clement 
Epist. 3.  the Disciple of S. Peter, Si autem vobis Episcopis non obedierint omnes Presbyteri, etc. tribus, & linguae non obtemperaverint, non solùm infames, sed & extorres à regno Dei, & consortio fidelium, ac à limitibus Sancti Dei Ecclesiae alieni erunt. All Priests, and Clergymen, and People, and Nations, and Languages that do not obey their Bishop shall be shut forth of the communion of Holy Church here, and of Heaven hereafter. It runs high, but I cannot help it, I do but translate Ruffinus, as he before translated S. Clement. 
§. 48. And Bishops were always in the Church, men of great Honour.   
IT seems then we must have Bishops. But must we have Lord Bishops too? That is the question now, but such an one as the Primitive piety could never have imagined. For, could they, to whom Bishops were placed in a right and a true light, they who believed, and saw them to be the Fathers of their souls, the Guardian of their life and manners (as King Edgar called S. Dunstan) the guide of their consciences, the instruments and conveyances of all the Blessings heaven uses to pour upon us, by the ministration of the holy Gospel; would they, that thought their lives a cheap exchange for a free, and open communion with a Catholic Bishop; would they have contested upon an aery title, and the imaginary privilege of an honour, which is fare less than their spiritual dignity, but infinitely less than the burden, and charge of the souls of all their Diocese? Charity thinks nothing too much, and that love is but little, that grudges at the good words a Bishopric carries with it.  
However; let us see whether titles of honour be either unfit in themselves to be given to Bishops, or what the guise of Christendom hath been in her spiritual heraldry.  
1. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna gives them this command. Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum, imaginem Dei referentem. Honour the Bishop as the image of God, as the PRINCE OF PRIEST'S. Now since honour, and excellency are terms of mutual relation, and all excellency that is in men, and things, is but a ray of divine excellency; so fare as they participate of God, so fare they are honourable. Since then the Bishop carries the impress of God upon his forehead, and bears God's image, certainly this participation of such perfection makes him very honourable. And since honour est in honorante, it is not enough that the Bishop is honourable in himself, but it tells us our duty, we must honour him, we must do him honour: and of all the honours in the world, that of words is the cheapest, and the least.  
S. Paul speaking of the honour due to the Prelates of the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let them be accounted worthy of double honour. And one of the honours that he there means is a costly one, an honour of Maintenance, the other must certainly be an honour of estimate, and that's cheapest. * The Council of Sardis 
Can. 10. Graec.  speaking of the several steps and capacities of promotion to the height of Episcopacy, uses this expression, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that shall be found worthy of so Divine a Priesthood, let him be advanced to the HIGHEST HONOUR. * Ego procidens ad pedes ejus rogabam, excusans me, & declinans HONOREM CATHEDRAE, & potestatem, (saith S. Clement, when S. Peter 
Epist. 1. ad jacobum.  would have advanced him to the Honour and power of the Bishop's chair.) But in the third epistle speaking of the dignity of Aaron the Highpriest, and then by analogy, of the Bishop, who although he be a Minister in the order of Melchisedek, yet he hath also the honour of Aaron, Omnis enim Pontifex sacro crismate perunctus, & in civitate constitutus, & in Scriptures sacris conditus, charus & preciosus hominibus oppidò esse debet. Every High Priest ordained in the City (viz. a Bishop) ought forthwith to be Dear, and Precious in the eyes of men. Quem quasi Christi locum tenentem honorare omnes debent, eique servire, & obedientes ad salutem suam fidelitèr existere, scientes quòd sive honour, sive injuria quae ei desertur, in Christum redundat, & a Christo in Deum. The Bishop is Christ's vicegerent, and therefore he is to be obeyed, knowing that whether it be honour, or injury that is done to the Bishop, it is done to Christ, and so to God. * And indeed what is the saying of our blessed Saviour himself? He that despiseth you, despiseth me. If Bishops be Gods Ministers and in higher order than the rest, then although all discountenance, and disgrace done to the Clergy reflect upon Christ, yet what it done to the Bishop is fare more, and then there is the same reason of the honour. And if so, than the Question will prove but an odd one; even this, whether Christ be to be honoured or no, or depressed to the common estimate of Vulgar people? for if the Bishops be, than he is. This is the condition of the Question.  
2. Consider we, that all Religions, and particularly all Christianity did give titles of honour to their High-Priests, and Bishops respectively. * I shall not need to instance in the great honour of the Priestly tribe among the jews, and how highly Honourable Aaron was in proportion. Prophets were called [Lords] in holy Scripture. [Art not thou MY LORD Elijah?] said Obed Edom to the Prophet. [Knowest thou not that God will take THY LORD from thy head this day?] said the children in the Prophet's Schools. So it was then. And in the New Testament we find a Prophet HONOURED every where, but in his own Country. And to the Apostles and Precedents of Churches greater titles of honour given, then was ever given to man by secular complacence and insinuation. ANGELS, and 
Apocal. 1. 1. Corinth. 9  GOVERNORS, and FATHERS OF OUR FAITH, and STARS, LIGHT OF THE WORLD, the CROWN OF THE CHURCH, APOSTLES OF 
john 10.  JESUS CHRIST, nay, GOD'S, viz. to whom the word of God came; and of the compellation of Apostles, particularly, S. Hierom saith, that when S. Paul called himself the Apostle of jesus Christ, it was as Magnifically spoken, as if he had said, Praefectus 
In Titum.  praetorio Augusti Caesaris, Magister exercitûs Tiberii Imperatoris; And yet Bishops are Apostles, and so called in Scripture. I have proved that already.  
Indeed our blessed Saviour in the case of the two sons of Zebedee, forbade them to expect by virtue of their Apostolate any Princely titles, in order to a Kingdom, and an earthly Principality. For that was it which the ambitious woman sought for her sons, viz. fair honour, and dignity in an earthly Kingdom; for such a Kingdom they expected with their Messiah. To this their expectation, our Saviour's answer is a direct antithesis; And that made the Apostles to be angry at the two Petitioners, as if they had meant to supplant the rest, and yet the best preferment from them, to wit, in a temporal Kingdom. No; (saith our blessed Saviour) ye are all deceived. [The Kings of the Nations indeed do exercise authority, and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Benefactors 
Matth. 20. Mark 10. ] so the word signifies, [Gracious Lords] so we read it, [But it shall not be so with you.] what shall not be so with them? shall not they exercise authority? 
Luke 22.  [Who then is that faithful and wise steward whom his Lord made ruler over his Household?] Surely the Apostles, or no body. Had Christ authority? Most certainly. Then so had the Apostles, for Christ gave them his, with a sicut misit me Pater, etc. Well! the Apostles might, and we know they did exercise authority. What then shall not be so with them? shall not they be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Indeed if S. Mark had taken that title upon him in Alexandria, the Ptolemy's, whose Honourary appellative that was, would have questioned him Highly for it. But if we go to the sense of the word, the Apostles might be Benefactors, and therefore might be called so. But what then? Might they not be called Gracious Lords? The word would have done no hurt if it had not been an ensign of a secular Principality.  
For as for the word [Lord] I know no more prohibition for that, then for being called RABBI, or MASTER, or DOCTOR, or FATHER. What shall we think now? May we not be called DOCTORS? 
Matth. 23. 8, 9 10. Ephes. 4.  [God hath constituted in his Church Pastors, and Doctors, saith S. Paul.] Therefore we may be called so. But what of the other, the prohibition runs alike for all, as is evident in the several places of the Gospels, and may no man be called MASTER, or FATHER? let an answer be thought upon for these, and the same will serve for the other also without any sensible error. It is not the word, it is the ambitious seeking of a temporal principality as the issue of Christianity, and an affix of the Apostolate that Christ interdicted his Apostles. * And if we mark it, our B. Saviour points it out himself. [The Princes of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exercise authority over them, and are called Benefactors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It shall not be so with you. Not so how? Not as the Princes of the Gentiles, for theirs is a temporal regiment, your Apostolate must be Spiritual. They rule as Kings, you as fellow servants, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that will be first amongst you, let him be your Minister, or servant; It seems then among Christ's Disciples there may be a Superiority, when there is a Minister or servant; But it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this greatness doth consist, it must be in doing the greatest service and ministration that the superiority consists in. But more particularly, it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It must not be [as the Princes of the Gentiles] but it must be [as the son of man] so 
Luke 22.  Christ says expressly. And how was that? why, he came to Minister and to serve, and yet in the lowest 
John 13.  act of his humility (the washing his Disciples feet) he told them, [ye call me Lord, and Master, and ye say well, for so I am] It may be so with you. Nay it must be as the son of Man; But then, the being called Rabbi, or Lord, nay the being Lord in spirituali Magisterio & regimine, in a spiritual superintendency, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may stand with the humility of the Gospel, and office of Ministration.  
So that now I shall not need to take advantage of the word 
* In locis ubi suprà.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies to rule with more than a political regiment, even with an absolute, and despotic, and is so used in holy Scripture, viz. in sequiorem partem. God gave authority to Man over the creatures, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word in the septuagint, and we know the power that man 
Gen. 1.  hath over beasts, is to kill, and to keep alive. And thus to our blessed Saviour, the power that God gave him over his enemies is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Psal. 110.  And this we know how it must be exercised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a rod of iron, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He shall 
Psal. 2.  break them in pieces like a potter's vessel. That's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But it shall not be so with you.  
But let this be as true as it will. The answer needs no way to rely upon a Criticism. It is clear, that the form of Regiment only is distinguished, not all Regiment, and authority taken away. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Not as the Kings of the Gentiles, but as the son of man; so must your regiment be, for sicut misit me Pater, etc. As my father hath sent me, even so send I you. It must be a government, not for your Empery, but for the service of the Church. So that it is not for your advancement, but the public ministry that you are put to rule over the Household.  
* And thus the Fathers express the authority and regiment of Bishops. * Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum non ad Principatum vocatur, sed ad servitutem totius siae (saith Origen.) And S. Hierom; Episcopi Sacer dotes se esse noverint, non Dominos; And yet S. Hierom 
homil. 6. in Isai.  himself writing to S. Austin, calls him, Domine verè sancte, & suscipiende Papa. * Forma Apostolica haec est, Dominatio interdicitur, indicitur Ministratio. 
S. Bernard. lib. 10. the considerate.  It is no Principality that the Apostles have, but it is a Ministry; a Ministry in chief, the officers of which Ministration must govern, and we must obey. They must govern not in a temporal regiment by virtue of their Episcopacy, but in a spiritual, not for honour to the Rulers, so much as for benefit and service to the subject. So S. Austin. Nomen est operis, non honoris, ut intelligat se non esse 
lib. 19 the civet. Dei. cap. 19  Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit, non prodesse. And in the fourteenth chapter of the same book, Qui imperant serviunt ijs rebus quibus videntur Imperare. Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant, sed officio confulendi, nec principandi superbiâ, sed providendi misericordiâ. And all this is intimated in the Prophetical visions, where the regiment of Christ is designed by the face of a man; and the Empire of the world, by Beasts. The first is the regiment of a Father, the second of a King. The first spiritual, the other secular. And of the Fatherly authority it is that the Prophet says, Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children, whom thou mayst make Princes in all lands. This (say the Fathers) is spoken of the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops, who may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Princes or Rulers of Churches, not Princes of Kingdoms by virtue or challenge of their Apostolate. But if this Ecclesiastical rule, or cheifty be interdicted, I wonder how the Precedents of the Presbyters, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Reformed Churches will acquit themselves? How will their Superiority be reconciled to the place, though it be but temporary? For is it a sin, if it continues, and no sin if it lasts but for a week? or is it lawful to sin, and domineer, and Lord it over their Brethren for a week together? * But suppose it were, what will they say, that are perpetual Dictator's? Calvin was perpetual precedent, and Beza, till Danaeus came to Geneva, even for many years together? * But beyond all this how can the Presbytery which is a fixed lasting body rule and govern in causes Spiritual and consistorial, and that over all Princes, and Ministers, and people, and that for ever? For is it a sin in Episcopacy to do so, and not in the Presbytery? If it be lawful here, than Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles, for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domineer, and (as they call it now a days) to Lord it over their Brethren, when a College of Apostles shall not be suffered to govern? but if the Apostles may govern, than we are brought to a right understanding of our Saviour's saying to the sons of Zebedee, and then also, their successors, the Bishops may do the same.  
If I had any further need of answer or escape, it were easy to pretend, that this being a particular directory to the Apostles, was to expire with their persons. So S. Cyprian intimates. Apostoli pari fuêre 
De Vnitat. Eccles.  consortio praediti, & honoris, & dignitatis; and indeed this may be concluding against the Supremacy of S. Peter's Successors, but will be no ways pertinent to impugn Episcopal authority. For inter se they might be equal, and yet Superior to the Presbyters, and the people.  
Lastly, [It shall not be so with you] so Christ said, non designando officium, but Sortem; not their duty, but their lot; intimating that their future condition should not be honorary, but full of trouble, not advanced, but persecuted. But I had rather insist on the first answer; in which I desire it be remembered, that I said, seeking temporal Principality to be forbidden the Apostles, as an Appendix to the office of an Apostle. For in other capacities Bishops are as receptive of honour and temporal principalities as other men. Bishops ut sic are not secular Princes, must not seek for it; But some secular Princes may be Bishops, as in Germany, and in other places to this day they are. For it is as unlawful for a Bishop to have any Land, as to have a Country, and a single acre is no more due to the Order, than a Province; but both these may be conjunct in the same person, though still by virtue of Christ's precept, the functions and capacities must be distinguished; according to the saying of Synesius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To confound and intermix the Kingdom and the Priesthood, is to join things incompossible and inconsistent, Inconsistent (I say) not in person, but absolutely discrepant in function.  
3. Consider we, that S. Peter, when he speaks of the duteous subordination of Sarah to her Husband Abraham, he propunds her as an example to all married women, in these words [she obeyed Abraham, and called him Lord] why was this spoken to Christian women, but that they should do so too? And is it imaginable that such an Honourable compellation as Christ allows every woman to give to her husband, a Mechanic, a hardhanded artisan, he would forbid to those eminent pillars of his Church, those lights of Christendom whom he really endued with a plenitude of power for the regiment of the Catholic Church. Credat Apella.  
4. PASTOR, and FATHER, are as honourable titles as any. They are honourable in Scripture. Honour thy Father &c: Thy Father, in all senses. They are also made sacred by being the appellatives of Kings, and Bishops, and that not only in secular addresses, but even in holy Scripture, as is known.  
* Add to this; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are 
Acts. 15. Rom. 12. Hebr. 13.  used in Scripture for the Prelates of the Church, and I am certain, that, Duke, and Captain, Rulers, and Commanders are but just the same in English, that the other are in Greek, and the least of these is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Lord. And then if we consider that since Christ erected a spiritual regiment, and used words of secular honour to express it, as in the instances above, although Christ did interdict a secular principality, yet he forbade not a secular title; He used many himself.  
5. The voice of the Spouse, the holy Church hath always expressed their honourable estimate in reverential compellations and Epithets of honour to their Bishops, and have taught us so to do. * Bishop's were called Principes Ecclesiarum, Princes of the Churches. I had occasion to instance it in the question of jurisdiction. Indeed the third Council of Carthage forbade the Bishop of Carthage to be called Princeps Sacerdotum, or summus Sacerdos, or aliquid hujusmodi, but only primae sedis Episcopus. I know not what their meaning was, unless they would dictate a lesson of humility to their Primate, that he might remember the principality not to be so much in his person, as in the See, for he might be called Bishop of the prime See. But whatsoever fancy they had at Carthage, I am sure it was a guise of Christendom, not to speak of Bishop's sine praefatione honoris, but with honourable mention. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To our most blessed LORD. So the letters were superscribed to julius' Bishop of Rome from some of his Brethren; in Sozomen. Let no man 
lib. 3. cap. 23.  speak Untruths of me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Epist. ad Greg. Nyssen.  Nor of MY LORDS THE BISHOPS, said S. Gregory Nazianzen. The Synodical book of the Council of Constantinople is inscribed DOMINIS REVERENDISSIMIS, 
Theodoret. lib. 5. ca 9  ac pijssimis Fratribus ac Collegis, Damaso, Ambrosio &c: To our most Reverend LORDS, and holy Brethren &c: And the Council of Illyricum sending their Synodall letters to the Bishops of Asia, by Bishop Elpidius, Haec pluribus (say they) persequi non est visum, quòd miserimus unum ex omnibus, DOMINUM, & Collegam nostrum Elpidium, 
Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 9  qui cognosceret, esset ne sicut dictum fuerat à DOMINO, & Collegâ nostro Eustathio. Our Lord, and Brother Elpidius. Our Lord and Brother Eustathius. * The oration in the Council of Epaunum gins thus. Quod praecipientibus tantis DOMINIS MEIS ministerium proferendi sermonis assumo &c: The Prolocutor took that office on him, at the command of so many GREAT LORDS THE BISHOPS. * When the Church of Spain became Catholic, and abjured the Arian heresy, King Recaredus in the third Council of Toledo made a speech to the Bishops, Non incognitum reor esse vobis, REVERENDISSIMI Sacerdotes &c: Non credimus vestram latere SANCTITATEM &c: vestra Cognovit BEATITUDO &c: VENERANDI PATRES &c: And these often. Your Holiness, your Blessedness, Most Reverend, Venerable Fathers; Those were the addresses the King made to the Fathers of the Synod. Thus it was when Spain grew Catholic; But not such a Speech to be found in all the Arian records. They amongst them used but little Reverence to their Bishops. But the instances of this kind are innumerable. Nothing more ordinary in Antiquity then to speak of Bishops with the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Domine verè Sancte, & suscipiende 
Thedor. lib. 1. c. 4. etc. 5. Athanas. Apolog. 2.  Papa, So S. Hierome a Presbyter, to S. Austin a Bishop. Secundùm enim honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est, saith S. Austin. Episcopacy is Greater than the office 
Epist. 17. 18. 19 apud. S. Augustin.  and dignity of a Presbyter according to the TITLES OF HONOUR which the custom of the Church hath introduced. * But I shall sum up these particulars in a total, which is thus expressed by S. chrysostom. Haeretici à Diabolo HONORUM VOCABULA 
in Psal. 13. apud Baron. An. Dom. 58. n. 2.  Episcopis non dare didicerunt. Heretics have learned of the Devil not to give due titles of honour to Bishops. The good Patriarch was angry surely when he said so. * For my own particular, I am confident that my Lords the Bishops do so undervalue any fastuous, or pompous title, that were not the duty of their people in it, they would as easily reject them, as it is our duties piously to use them. But if they still desire appellatives of honour, we must give them, they are their due, if they desire them not, they deserve them much more. So that either for their humility, or however for their works sake we must [highly honour them that have the rule 
1. Thessaly. 5. 13.  over us] It is the precept of S. Paul, and S. Cyprian observing how Curious our blessed Saviour was that he might give honour to the Priests of the jews, even then when they were reeking in their malice hot as the fire of Hell; he did it to teach us a duty. Docuit enim Sacerdotes veros LEGITIME 
Epist. 65.  ET PLENE HONORARI dum circa falsos Sacerdotes ipse talis extitit. It is the argument he uses to procure a full honour to the Bishop.  
* To these I add; If fitting in a THRONE even above the seat of Elders be a title of a great dignity, than we have it confirmed by the voice of all Antiquity calling the Bishop's chair, A THRONE, and the investiture of a Bishop in his Church AN INTHRONIZATION. Quando INTHRONIZANTUR propter communem utilitatem Episcopi &c: saith P. Anterus in his decretal Epistle to the Bishops of Boetica and Toledo. INTHRONING is the Primitive word for the consecration of a Bishop. Sedes in Episcoporum Ecclesi is excelsae constitutae & praeparatae, UT THRONUS speculationem & potestatem judicandi à Domino sibi datam materiam docent, (saith Vrban). And S. Ignatius to his Deacon Hero, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Epist. decret.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I trust that the Father of our Lord jesus Christ will show to me Hero sitting upon my 
Epist. ad Hero●.  THRONE.  
** The sum of all is this. Bishops if they must be at all, most certainly must be beloved, it is our duties, and their work deserves it. S. Paul was as dear to the Galathians, as their eyes, and it is true eternally, Formosipedes Evangelizantium, the feet of the Preachers of the Gospel are beauteous, and then much more of the chief. Ideo ista praetulimus (charissimi) ut intelligatis potestatem Episcoporum vestrorum, in eisque Deum veneremini, & eos UTANIMAS 
Urban. ibid.  VESTRAS diligatis, ut quibus illi non communicant, non communicetis &c: Now, love to our Superiors is ever honourable, for it is more than amicitia, that's amongst Peers, but love to our Betters, is Reverence, Obedience, and high Estimate. And if we have the one, the dispute about the other would be a mere impertinence. I end this with the saying of S. Ignatius, & vos decet non contemnere aetatem Episcopi, sed juxta Dei Patris arbitrium OMNEM 
Epist. ad Magnes.  ILLI IMPERTIRI REVERENTIAM. It is the WILL OF GOD the Father, that we should give all REVERENCE, HONOUR, or veneration to our Bishops.  
WELL! However things are now, It was 
§. 49. And trusted with affairs of Secular interest.  otherwise in the Old Religion; for no honour was thought too great for them whom God had honoured with so great degrees of approximation to himself in power, and authority. But then also they went further. For they thought whom God had entrusted with their souls, they might with an equal confidence trust with their personal actions, and employments of greatest trust.  
For it was Great Consideration that they who were Antistites religionis the Doctors, and great Dictator's of Faith and conscience, should be the composers of those affairs in whose determination, a Divine wisdom, and interests of conscience and the authority of religion were the best ingredients.  
But, it is worth observing how the Church and the Commonwealth did actions contrary to each other, in pursuance of their several interests. The Commonwealth still enabled Bishops to take cognisance of causes, and the confidence of their own people would be sure to carry them thither where they hoped for fair issue, upon such good grounds as they might fairly expect from the Bishop's abilities, authority, and religion; But on the other side, the Church did as much decline them as she could, and made sanctions against it so fare as she might without taking from themselves all opportunities both of doing good to their people, and engaging the secular arm to their own assistance. But this we shall see by consideration of particulars.  
1. It was not in Naturâ rei unlawful for Bishops to receive an office of secular employment. S. Paul's tentmaking was as much against the calling of an Apostle, as sitting in a secular tribunal is against the office of a Bishop. And it is hard, if we will not allow that to the conveniences of a Republic which must be indulged to a private, personal necessity. But we have not S. Paul's example only, but his rule too, according to Primitive exposition. [Dare any of you having a matter before another go to law 
1. Cor. 6.  before the unjust, and not before the Saints? If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church] who are they? The Clergy I am sure, now adays. But S. Ambrose also thought that to 
In hunc locum.  be his meaning seriously. Let the Ministers of the Church be the judges. For by [least esteemed] he could not mean the most ignorant of the Laity, they would most certainly have done very strange justice, especially in such causes which they Understand not. No, but set them to judge who by their office are Servants, and Ministers of all, and those are the Clergy who (as S. Paul's expression is) Preach not themselves, but jesus to be the Lord, and themselves your servants for jesus sake. Meliùs dicit apud Dei Ministros agere causam. Yea but S. Paul's expression seems to exclude the Governors of the Church from intermeddling. [Is there not one wise man among you that is able to judge between his Brethren?] Why Brethren, if Bishops and Priests were to be the judges, they are Fathers? The objection is not worth the noting, but only for S. Ambrose his answer to it. Ideò autem Fratrem judicem eligendum dicit, quià adhuc Rector Ecclesiae illorum non erat ordinatus. S. Paul used the word [Brethren] for as yet a Bishop was not ordained amongst them of that Church, intimating that the Bishop was 
Vide etiam August. de opere Monach. ca 29.  to be the man, though till then, in subsidium any prudent Christian man might be employed.  
2. The Church did always forbid to Clergymen A VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION of engagements in REBUS SAECULI. So the sixth Canon of the Apostles, 
Can. 7. Latin.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Bishop, and a 
Vide Zonarin Can. Apostol.  Priest, and a Deacon, must not assume, or take on himself worldly cares. If he does, let him be deposed. Here the Prohibition is general. No worldly cares. Not domestic. But how if they come on him by Divine imposition, or accident? That's nothing, if he does not assume them; that is, by his voluntary act acquire his own trouble. So that if his secular employment be an act of obedience, indeed it is trouble to him, but no sin. But if he seeks it, for itself, it is ambition. In this sense also must the following Canon be understood. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Clerk must not be a Tutor, or Guardian, viz: of secular trust, that is must not seek a diversion from his employment by voluntary Tutorship,  
3. The Church also forbade all secular negotiation for base ends, not precisely the employment itself, but the illness of the intention, and this indeed she expressly forbids in her Canons. * Pervenit ad Sanctam Synodum quòd quidam qui in Clero sunt allecti PROPTER LUCRA TURPIA conductores alienarum 
Concil. Chalced. Act. 15. can. 3.  possessionum fiant, & saecularia negotia sub curâ suâ suscipiant, Dei quidem Ministerium parvipendentes, Saecularium verò discurrentes domos & PROPTER AVARITIAM patrimoniorum sollicitudinem sumentes. Clergy men farmers of lands, and did take upon them secular employment FOR COVETOUS DESIGNS, and with neglect of the Church. These are the things the Council complained of, and therefore according to this exigence the following Sanction is to be understood. Decrevit itaque hoc Sanctum magnumque Concilium, nullum deinceps, non Episcopum, non Clericum vel Monachum aut possessiones conducere, aut negotijs saecularibus se immiscere. No Bishop, No Clergy man, No Monk must farm grounds, nor engage himself in secular business. What in none? No, none, praeter pupillorum, si fortè leges imponant inexcusabilem curam, aut civitatis Episcopus Ecclesiasticarum rerum sollicitudinem habere praecipiat, aut Orphanorum, & viduarum earum quae sine ullâ defensione sunt, ac personarum quae maximè Ecclesiastico indigent adjutorio, & propter timorem Domini causa deposcat. This Canon will do right to the Question.  
All secular affairs, and bargains either for covetousness, or with considerable disturbance of Church offices are to be avoided. For a Clergy man must not be covetous, much less for covetise must he neglect his cure. To this purpose is that of the second Council of Arles, Clericus turpis lucri 
Can. 14.  gratiâ aliquod genus negotiationis non exerceat. But nor here, nor at Chalcedon is the prohibition absolute, nor declaratory of an inconsistence and incapacity; for, for all this, the Bishop or Clerk may do any office that is in piâ curâ. He may undertake the supravision of Widows, and Orphans. And though he be forbid by the Canon of the Apostles to be a guardian of pupils, yet it is expounded here by this Canon of Chalcedon, for a voluntary seeking it is forbidden by the Apostles, but here it is permitted only with, si fortè leges imponant, if the Law, or Authority commands him, than he may undertake it. That is, if either the Emperor commands him, or if the Bishop permits him, than it is lawful. But without such command or licence it was against the Canon of the Apostles. And therefore S. Cyprian did himself severely punish Geminius Faustinus, one of the Priests of Carthage, for undertaking the executorship of the Testament of Geminius Victor: he 
Epist. 66.  had no leave of his Bishop so to do, and for him of his own head to undertake that which would be an avocation of him from his office, did in S. Cyprians Consistory, deserve a censure. 3. By this Canon of Chalcedon, any Clerk may be the Oeconomus or steward of a Church, and dispense her revenue if the Bishop command him. 4. He may undertake the patronage, or assistance of any distressed person that needs the Church's aid. * From hence it is evident that all secular employment did not hoc ipso avocate a Clergyman from his necessary office and duty; for some secular employments are permitted him, all causes of piety, of charity, all occurrences concerning the revenues of the Church, and nothing for covetousness, but any thing in obedience, any thing 
Vide Synod. Roman. sub Sylvestr. c. 4. Concil. Chalced. c. 26. & Zonar. ibid.  I mean of the forenamed instances. Nay the affairs of Church revenues, and dispensation of Ecclesiastical Patrimony was imposed on the Bishop by the Canon's Apostolical, and then considering how many possessions were deposited first at the Apostles feet, and afterwards in the Bishop's hands, we may quickly perceive that a case may occur in which something else may be done by the Bishop and his Clergy besides prayer and preaching. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. saith Ignatius to S. Polycarpe of Smyrna. Let not the Widows be neglected: after God, do thou take care of them. * Qui locupletes sunt, & volunt, pro arbitrio 
Justin. Martyr. Apolog. 2.  quisque suo quod libitum est contribuit; & quod collectum est apud Praesidem deponitur, atque is inde opitulatur Orphanis, & viduis, iisque qui vel morbo, vel aliâ de causâ egent: tum iis qui vincti sunt, & peregrè advenientibus hospitibus: & ut uno verbo dicam, omnium indigentium Curator est. All the Collects and Offerings of faithful people are deposited with the Bishop, and thence he dispenses for the relief of the widows, and Orphans, thence he provides for travellers, and in one word, he takes care of all indigent, and necessitous people. So it was in justin Martyrs time and all this, a man would think, required a considerable portion of his time, besides his studies and prayer and preaching.  
This was also done even in the Apostles times, for first they had the provision of all the Goods, and persons of the coenobium, of the Church at jerusalem. This they themselves administered till a complaint arose, which might have proved a Scandal; then they chose seven men, men full of the holy Ghost; men that were Priests, for they were of the 70 Disciples saith Epiphanius, and such men as Preached, and Baptised, so S. Stephen, and S. Philip, therefore to be sure they were Clergymen, and yet they left their preaching for a time, at least abated of the height of the employment, for therefore the Apostles appointed them, that themselves might not leave the word of God and serve Tables; plainly implying that such men who were to serve these Tables, must leave the Ministry of the word, in some sense or degree, and yet they chose Presbyters, and no harm neither, and for a while themselves had the employment. I say there was no harm done, by this temporary office, to their Priestly function and employment. For to me it is considerable. If the calling of a Presbyter does not take up the whole man, than what inconvenience though his employment be mixed with secular allay. But if it does take up the whole man, than it is not safe for any Presbyter ever to become a Bishop, which is a dignity of a fare greater burden, and requires more than a Man's all, if all was required to the function of a Presbyter. But I proceed.  
4. The Church prohibiting secular employment to Bishops and Clerks, do prohibit it, only in gradu impedimenti officii Clericalis; and therefore when the offices are supplied by any of the Order, it is never prohibited but that the personal abilities of any man may be employed for the fairest advantages either of Church, or Commonwealth. And therefore it is observable that the Canons provide that the Church be not destitute, not that such a particular Clerk should there officiate. Thus the Council of Arles decreed, ut Presbyteri SICUT HACTENUS FACTUM EST, INDISCRETE per diver 
Apud Burchard. lib. 2. decret. cap. 99  sa non mittantur loca .... ne fortè propter eorum absentiam, & animarum pericula, & Ecclesiarum in quibus constituti sunt, negligantur officia. So that here we see, 1. That it had been usual to send Priests on Embassyes' [sicut hactenus factum est] 2. The Canon forbids the indiscreet or promiscuous doing of it; not that men of great ability & choice be not employed, but that there be discretion, or discerning in the choice of the men. viz. that such men be chosen whose particular worth did by advancing the legation, make compensation for absence from their Churches; and then I am sure there was no indiscretion in the Embassy, quoad hoc at least; for the ordinary offices of the Church might be dispensed by men of even abilities, but the extraordinary affairs of both states require men of an heightened apprehension. 3. The Canon only took care that the cùre of the souls of a Parish be not relinquished, for so is the title of the Canon, Ne Presbyteri causâ legationis per diversa mittantur loca, curâ animarum relictâ. But then if the cure be supplied by delegation, the fears of the Canon are prevented.  
* In pursuance of this consideration the Church forbade Clergymen to receive honour, or secular preferment; and so it is expressed where the prohibition is made. It is in the Council of Chalcedon. Qui semel in clero deputati sunt, aut Monachorum 
Part. 2. Act. 15. Can. 7.  vitam expetiverunt, statuimus neque ad militiam, neque ad dignitatem aliquam venire mundanam. That's the inhibition; But the Canon subjoins a temper; aut hoc tentantes, & non agentes poenitentiam, quo minùs redeant ad hoc quod propter Deum primitùs elegerunt, anathematizari, they must not turn Soldiers, or enter upon any worldy dignity to make them leave their function, which for the honour of God they have first chosen: for then, it seems, he that took on him military honours, or secular prefectures, or consular dignity, could not officiate in holy Orders, but must renounce them to assume the other; It was in obstruction of this abuse that the Canon directed its prohibition, viz. in this sense clearly, that a Clerk must not so take on him secular offices, as to make him redire in saeculum, having put his hand to the plough, to look back, to change his profession, or to relinquish the Church, and make her become a Widow. The case of S. Matthew and S. Peter, distinguish, and clear this business. Ecce reliquimus omnia, was the profession of their clerical office. S. Matthew could not return to his trade of Publican at all, for that would have taken him from his Apostolate. But S. Peter might and did return to his nets, for all his reliqui omnia. Plainly telling us that a SECULAR CALLING, a CONTINUED FIXED ATTENDANCE on a business of the world is an impediment to the clerical office, and ministration, but not a temporary employment or secession.  
5. The Canons of the Church do as much for bid the cares of household, as the cares of public employment to Bishops. So the fourth Council of Carthage decrees. Vt Episcopus nullam rei familiaris curam adserevocet, sed lectioni, & orationi, 
Can. 20.  & verbi Dei praedicationi tantummodò vacet. Now if this Canon be confronted with that saying of S. Paul [He that provides not for them of his own household is worse than an infidel] it will easily inform us of the Church's intention. For they must provide, saith S. Paul, But yet so provide as not to hinder their employment, or else they transgress the Canon of the Council; but this caveat may be as well entered, and observed in things Political, as Economical.  
Thus fare we have seen what the Church hath done in pursuance of her own interest, and that was that she might with sanctity, and without distraction, tend her Grand employment; but yet many cases did occur in which she did canonically permit an alienation of employment, and revocation of some persons from an assiduity of Ecclesiastical attendance, as in the case of the seven set over the widows, and of S. Peter, and S. Paul, and all the Apostles and the Canon of Chalcedon.  
Now let us see how the Commonwealth also pursued her interest, and because she found Bishops men of Religion and great trust, and confident abilities, there was no reason that the Commonwealth should be disserved in the promotion of able men to a Bishop's throne. * Who would have made recompense to the Emperor for depriving him of Ambrose his perfect, if Episcopal promotion had made him incapable of serving his Prince in any great Negotiation? It was a remarkable passage in Ignatius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Epist. ad Ephes.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As our Lord is to be observed so also must we observe the BISHOP, because he assists and serves the Lord. And wisemen, and of great understanding must SERVE KINGS, for he must not be served with men of small parts. Here either Ignatius commends Bishops to the service of Kings, or else propounds them as the fittest men in the world to do them service. For if only men of great abilities are fit to serve Kings, surely as great abilities are required to enable a man for the service of God in so peculiar manner of approximation. He than that is fit to be a Bishop, is most certainly fit for the service of his King. This is the sense of Ignatius his discourse.  
For consider. Christianity might be suspected for a design; and if the Church should choose the best, and most pregnant Understandings for her employment, and then these men become incapable of aiding the Republic, the promotion of these men, would be an injury to those Princes whose affairs would need support. * The interest of the Subjects also is considerable. For we find by experience, that no authority is so full of regiment, and will so finely force obedience, as that which is seated in the Conscience; And therefore Numa Pompilius made his laws, and imposed them with a face of religious solemnity. For the people are stronger than any one Governor, and were they not awed by Religion, would quickly miscere Sacra prophanis, jumble heaven and earth into a miscellany, and therefore not only in the Sanction of laws, but in the execution of them, the Antistites religionis are the most competent instruments; and this was not only in all religions that ever were, and in ours ever till now, but even now we should quickly find it, were but our Bishops in that Veneration, and esteem that by the law of God they ought, and that actually they were in the Calenture of primitive devotion, and that the Doctors of Religion were ever even amongst the most barbarous and untaught Pagans.  
Upon the confidence of these advantages, both the Emperors themselves when they first became Christian allowed appeals from secular tribunals to the * Bishops Consistory, even in causes of secular 
Sozom. lib. cap. 9  interest, and the people would choose to have their difficulties there ended whence they expected the issues of justice, and religion. * I say this was done as soon as ever the Emperors were Christian. Before this time, Bishops, and Priests (to be sure) could not be employed in state affairs, they were odious for their Christianity; and then no wonder if the Church forbade secular employment in meaner offices, the attendance on which could by no means make recompense for the least avocation of them from their Church employment. So that it was not only the avocation but the sordidness of the employment that was prohibited the Clergy in the Constitutions of holy Church. But as soon as ever their employment might be such as to make compensation for a temporary secession, neither Church nor State did then prohibit it; And that was as soon as ever the Princes were Christian, for then immediately the Bishops were employed in honorary negotiations. It was evident in the case of S. Ambrose. For the Church of Milan had him for their Bishop, and the Emperor had him one of his prefects, and the people their judge in causes of secular cognisance. For when he was chosen Bishop the Emperor who was present at the election cried out, Gratias tibi ago Domine ... quoniam huic viro ego quidem commisi corpora; tu autem animas, 
Tripart. hist. lib. 7. cap. 8.  & meam electionem ostendisti tuae justitiae convenire. So that he was Bishop, and Governor of Milan at the same time; And therefore by reason of both these offices S. Austin was forced to attend a good while before he could find him at leisure. Non enim 
S. August. lib. 6. Confess. cap. 4.  quaerere ab eo poteram quod volebam sicut volebam, secludentibus me ab ejus aure, atque ore catervis negotiosorum hominum, quorum infirmitatibus serviebat. And it was his own condition too, when he came to sit in the chair of Hippo; Non permittor 
Epist. 110.  ad quod volo vacare ante meridiem; post meridiem occupationibus hominum teneor. And again, & homines quidam causas suas saeculares apuà nos finire cupientes, quando eis necessarij fuerimus, sic nos Sanctos, 
Epist. 147.  & Dei servos appellant, ut negotiaterrae suae peragant. Aliquando & agamus negotium salutis nostrae & salutis ipsorum, non de auro, non de argento non de fundis, & pecoribus, pro quibus rebus quotidiè submisso capite salutamur ut dissensiones hominum terminemus. It was almost the business of every day to him, to judge causes concerning Gold, and Silver, Cattell, and glebe, and all appertenances of this life. This S. Austin would not have done, if it had not been lawful, so we are to suppose in charity; but yet this we are sure of, S. Austin thought it not 
de●pare Monach. cap: 29.  only lawful, but a part of his duty, [quibus nos molestijs idem affixit Apostolus, and that by the authority, not of himself, but of him that spoke within him, even the H. Ghost:] so he.  
Thus also it was usual for Princes in the Primitive Church to send Bishops their Ambassadors. Constans the Emperor sent two Bishops chosen out of the Council of Sardis together with Salianus 
Tripart. hist: lib: 4. cap. 25.  the Great Master of his Army to Constantius * S. Chrysostom was sent Ambassador to Gainas. Maruthus the Bishop of Mesopotamia was sent Ambassador 
lib: 10. cap; 6. ibid. 11. cap. 8. ibid.  from the Emperor to Isdigerdes the King of Persia. S. Ambrose from Valentinian the younger 
lib. 5. Epist. Ambros. 33. Euseb: lib. 8. cap. 1.  to the Tyrant Maximus. * Dorotheus was a Bishop and a chamberlain to the Emperor. Many more examples there are of the concurrence of the Episcopal office, and a secular dignity or employment. Now then Consider. * The Church did not, might not challenge any secular honour, or employment by virtue of her Ecclesiastical dignity precisely. 2. The Church might not be ambitious, or indagative of such employment. 3. The Church's interest abstractly considered was not promoted by such employment, but where there was no greater way of compensation was interrupted and depressed. 4. The Church (though in some cases she was allowed to make secession, yet) might not relinquish her own charge, to intervene in another's aid. 5. The Church did by no means suffer her Clerks, to undertake any low secular employment, much more did she forbid all sordid ends, and Covetous designs. 6. The Bishop, or his Clerks might ever do any action of piety, though of secular burden. Clerks were never forbidden to read Grammar, or Philosophy to youth, to be Masters of Schools, of Hospitals, they might reconcile their Neighbours that were fall'n out, about a personal trespass, or real action, and yet since now adays a Clergy-man's employment and capacity is bounded within his Pulpit, or reading desk, or his study of Divinity at most, these that I have reckoned are as verily secular as any thing, and yet no law of Christendom ever prohibited any of these or any of the like Nature to the Clergy, nor any thing that is ingenuous, that is fit for a Scholar, that requires either fineness of parts, or great learning, or overruling authority, or exemplary piety. 7. Clergymen might do any thing that was imposed on them by their Superiors. 8. The Bishops, and Priests were men of Great ability and surest confidence for determinations of justice, in which, religion was ever the strongest binder. And therefore the Princes and People sometimes forced the Bishops from their own interest to serve the Commonwealth, & in it they served themselves directly, and by consequence too, the Church had not only a sustentation from the secular arm, but an addition of honour, and secular advantages, and all this warranted by precedent of Scripture, and the practice of the Primitive Church, and particularly of men whom all succeeding ages have put into the Calendar of Saints. * So that it would be considered, that all this while, it is the king's interest, and the People's that is pleaded, when we assert a capacity to the Bishops to undertake charges of public trust. It is no addition to the calling of Bishops. It serves the King, it assists the republic, and in such a plethory, and almost a surfeit of Clergymen as this age is supplied with, it can be no disservice to the Church, whose daily offices may be plentifully supplied by Vicars, and for the temporary avocation of some few, abundant recompense is made to the Church (which is not at all injured) by becoming an occasion of endearing the Church, to those whose aid she is.  
* There is an admirable epistle written by Petrus Blesensis in the name of the Arch bishop of Canterbury 
Epist. 84.  to P. Alexander the third in the defence of the Bishop of Ely, Winchester & Norwich that attended the Court upon service of the King. Non est novum (saith he) quòd Regum Consiliis intersint Episcopi. Sicut enim honestate, & sapientiâ caeteros antecedunt, sic expeditiores, & efficaciores in reip administratione censentur. Quia sicut Scriptum est [minús salubritèr disponitur regnum, quod non regitur consilio sapientum] In quo not atur eos consiliis Regum debere assistere, qui sciant & velint, & possint patientibus compati, paciterrae, ac populi saluti prospicere, crudire adjustitiam Reges, imminentibus occursare periculis, vitaeque maturioris exemplis informare subditos & quâdam authoritate potestatiuâ praesumptionem malignantium cohibere. It is no new thing for Bishops to be Counsellors to Princes (saith he) their wisdom and piety that enables them for a Bishopric proclaims them fit instruments to promote the public tranquillity of the Commonwealth. They know how to comply with oppressed people, to advance designs of peace, and public security; It is their office to instruct the King to righteousness, by their sanctity to be a rule to the Court, and to diffuse their exemplary piety over the body of the Kingdom, to mix influences of religion with designs of state, to make them have as much of the dove as of the serpent, and by the advantage of their religious authority to restrain the malignity of accursed people in whom any image of a God, or of religion is remaining. * He proceeds in the discourse and brings the examples of Samuel, Isaiah, Elisha, jojada, Zecharias, who were Priests and Prophets respectively, and yet employed in Prince's Courts, and Counsels of Kings, and adds this; Vnum noveritis, quia nisi familiares, & Consiliarii Regis essent Episcopi, suprà dorsum Ecclesiae hodiè fabricarent peccatores, & immanitèr, ac intolerabilitèr opprimeret Clerum praesumptio Laicalis. That's most true. If the Church had not the advantage of additional honorary employments, the plowers would blow upon the Church's back, & make long furrows. * The whole Epistle is worth transcribing, But I shall content myself with this summary of the advantages which are acquired both to policy and Religion by the employment of Bishops in Princes Courts. Is't is me diantibus mansuescit circa simplices judiciarius rigour, admittitur clamor pauperum, Ecclesiarum dignitas erigitur, relevatur pauperum indigentia, firmatur in clero libertas, pax in populis, in Monasteriis quies, justitia liberè exercetur, superbia opprimitur, augetur Laicorum devotio, religio fovetur, diriguntur judicia, etc. When pious Bishops are employed in Prince's Counsels, than the rigour of Laws is abated, equity introduced, the cry of the poor is heard, their necessities are made known, the liberties of the Church are conserved, the peace of Kingdoms laboured for, pride is depressed, religion increaseth, the devotion of the Laity multiplies, and tribunals are made just, and incorrupt, and merciful. Thus fare Petrus Blesensis. * These are the effects which though perhaps they do not always fall out, yet these things may in expectation of reason be looked for from the Clergy, their principles and calling promises all this, & quia in Ecclesiâ magis lex est, ubi Dominus legis timetur, meliùs dicit apud Dei Ministros agere causam. Faciliùs enim Dei timore sententiam legis veram promunt; (saith S. Ambrose,) 
In 1. Corinth. 6.  and therefore certainly the fairest reason in the world that they be employed. But if personal defaillance be thought reasonable to disimploy the whole calling, than neither Clergy nor Laity should ever serve a Prince.  
And now we are easily driven into an understanding of that saying of S. Paul [No man that 
2. Timoth. 2. 4.  warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life.] For although this be spoken of all Christian people, and concerns the Laity in their proportion as much as the Clergy, yet nor one, nor the other is interdicted any thing that is not a direct hindrance to their own precise duty of Christianity. And such things must be pared away from the fringes of the Laity, as well as the long robe of the Clergy. But if we should consider how little we have now left for the employment of a Bishop, I am afraid a Bishop would scarce seem to be a necessary function, so fare would it be from being hindered by the collateral intervening of a Lay-judicature. I need not instance in any particulars; for if the judging matters and questions of religion be not left alone to them, they may well be put into atemporall employment, to preserve them from suspicion of doing nothing.  
I have now done with this; only entreating this to be considered. Is not the King fons utriusque jurisdictionis? In all the senses of Common-law, and external compulsory he is. But if so, then why may not the King as well make Clergy-Iudges, as Lay-Delegates? For (to be sure) if there be an incapacity in the Clergy of meddling with secular affairs, there is the same at least in the Laity of meddling with Church affairs. For if the Clergy be above the affairs of the World, than the Laity are under the affairs of the Church; or else, if the Clergy beincapable of Lay-businesse, because it is of a different and disparate nature from the Church, does not the same argument exclude the Laity from intervening in Church affairs? For the Church differs no more from the commonwealth, than the commonwealth differs from the Church. And now after all this, suppose a King should command a Bishop to go on Embassy to a foreign Prince, to be a Commissioner in a treaty of pacification, if the Bishop refuse, did he do the duty of a Subject? If yea, I wonder what subjection that is which a Bishop owes to his Prince, when he shall not be bound to obey him in any thing but the saying, and doing of his office, to which he is obliged, whether the Prince commands him yea or no. But if no, than the Bishop was tied to go, and then the calling makes him no way incapable of such employment, for no man can be bound to do a sin.  
BUt then did not this employment, when the occasions 
§. 50. And therefore were enforced to delegate their power and put others in substitution.  were great, and extraordinary, force the Bishops to a temporary absence? And what remedy was there for that? For the Church is not to be left destitute, that's agreed on by all the Canons. They must not be like the Sicilian Bishops whom Petrus Blesensis complains of, that attended the Court, and never visited their Churches, or took care either of the cure of souls, or of the Church possessions. What then must be done? The Bishops in such cases may give delegation of their power, and offices to others, though now adays they are complained of for their care. I say, for their care; For if they may intervene in secular affairs, they may sometimes be absent, and then they must delegate their power, or leave the Church without a Curate. *** But for this matter the account need not be long. For since I have proved that the whole Diocese is in curâ Episcopali, and for all of it, he is responsive to God Almighty, and yet, that instant necessity and the public act of Christendom hath ratified it, that Bishops have delegated to Presbyters so many parts of the Bishop's charge as there are parishes in his Diocese, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is pretended for delegation of Episcopal charge, is no less than the act of all Christendom. For it is evident at first, Presbyters had no distinct cure at all, but were in common assistant to the Bishop, and were his emissaries for the gaining souls in City, or Suburbs; But when the Bishops divided parishes, and fixed the Presbyters upon a cure, so many Parishes as they distinguished, so many delegations they made; And these we all believe to be good both in law, and conscience. For the Bishop per omnes divinos ordines propriae hierarchiae exercet mysteria (saith S. Denis, 
Eccles. hierar. c. 5. ) he does not do the offices of his order by himself only, but by others also, for all the inferior orders do so operate, as by them he does his proper offices.  
* But besides this grand act of the Bishop's first, and then of all Christendom in consent, we have fair precedent in S. Paul; for he made delegation of a power to the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person. It was a plain delegation; for he commanded them to do it, and gave them his own spirit, that is, his own authority; and indeed without it, I scarce find how the delinquent should have been delivered over to Satan in the sense of the Apostolic Church, that is, to be buffeted, for that was a miraculous appendix of power Apostolic.  
* When S. Paul sent for Timothy from Ephesus, he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar. [Doethy diligence 
2. Timoth. 4. v. 9 & 12.  to come unto me shortly, for Demas hath forsaken me etc. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus] Here was an express delegation of the power of jurisdiction to Tychicus, who for the time was Curate to S. Timothy. Epaphroditus for a while attended on S. Paul, although he was then Bishop of Philippi, and either S. Paul, or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution, or the Church was relinquished, 
Philip. 2. v. 25. 26.  for he was most certainly nonresident.  
* Thus also we find that S. Ignatius did delegate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdom. Presbyteri pascite gregem qui inter 
Epist. ad Antioch.  vos est, donec Deus designaverit eum qui principatum in vobis habiturus est. Ye Presbyters do you feed the flock till God shall design you a Bishop. Till then. Therefore it was but a delegate power, it could not else have expired in the presence of a Superior. * To this purpose is that of the Laodicean 
Can. 56.  Council. Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi, & sedere in tribunalibus, nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus, aut in peregrinis eum esse constiterit. Presbyters must not sit in Consistory without the Bishop, unless the Bishop be sick, or absent. So that it seems what the Bishop does when he is in his Church, that may be committed to others in his absence. And to this purpose S. Cyprian sent a plain commission to his Presbyters. Fretus ergo dilectione & religione vestrâ .... his literis horror, & 
Epist. 9  Mando ut vos .... VICE MEA FUN GAMINI circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit. I entreat and command you, that you do my office in the administration of the affairs of the Church; and another time he put Herculanus, and Caldonius, two of his Suffragans, together with Rogatianus, and Numidicus, two Priests, in substitution for the excommunicating 
Epist. 38. & 39  Faelicissimus and four more. [Cùm ego vos pro me VICARIOS miserim.] So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and 
haeres. 68  Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius. Videbatur autem & Melitius praeminere &c: ut qui secundum locum habebat post Petrum in Archiepiscopatu, velut adjuvandi ejus gratiâ sub ipso existens, & sub ipso Ecclesiastica curans. He did Church offices under, and for Hierocles; And I could never find any Canon or personal declamatory clause in any Council, or Primitive Father against a Bishop's giving more or less of his jurisdiction by way of delegation.  
* Hitherto also may be referred, that when the goods of all the Church which then were of a perplex and buisy dispensation, were all in the Bishop's hand as part of the Episcopal function, yet that part of the Bishop's office, the Bishop by order of the Council of Chalcedon might delegate to a steward; provided he were a Clergyman; and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Council of Sevill forbidden any lay-men to be stewards for the Church. Elegimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundùm Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta 
Concil. Hispal. cap. 6.  ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat. But the reason extends the Canon further. Indecorum est enim laicum VICARIUM esse Episcopi, & Saeculares in Ecclesiâ judicare. VICARS OF BISHOPS the Canon allows, only forbids lay-men to be Vicars. In uno enim eodemque officio non decet dispar professio, quod etiam in divinâ lege prohibetur, &c: In one and the same office the law of God forbids to join men of disparate vapacities. This than would be considered. For the Canon pretends Scripture, Precepts of Fathers, and Tradition of antiquity for its Sanction.  
* FOR although antiquity approves of Episcopal 
§. 51. But they were ever Clergymen, for there never was any lay Elders in any Church office heard of in the Church. Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 37.  delegations of their power to their Vicars, yet these Vicars and delegates must be Priests at least. Melitius was a Bishop, and yet the Chancellor of Hierocles Patriarch of Alexandria, So were Herculanus, and Caldonius to S. Cyprian. But they never delegated to any layman any part of their Episcopal power precisely. Of their lay-power or the cognisance of secular causes of the people, I find one delegation made to some Gentlemen of the Laity, by Sylvanus Bishop of Troas, when his Clerks grew covetous, he cured their itch of gold, by trusting men of another profession so to shame them into justice, and contempt of money. * Si quis autem Episcopus posthâc Ecclesiasticam rem aut LAICALI PROCURATIONE administrandam elegerit 
Concil. Hispal. ubi suprà.  .... non solùm a Christo derebus Pauperum judicatur reus, sed etiàm & Concilio manebit obnoxius. If any Bishop shall hereafter concredit any Church affairs to LAY ADMINISTRATION, he shall be responsive to Christ, and in danger of the Council. But the thing was of more ancient constitution. For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of S. Clement, 
Epist. ad jacob. Fratr. Dom.  which is most certainly very ancient whoever was the author of it, it is decreed, Si qui ex Fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores saeculi non judicentur, sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur. If Christian people have causes of difference and judicial contestation, let it be ended before the PRIESTS. For so S. Clement expounds [Presbyteros] in the same Epistle, reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy. * To this or some parallel constitution S. Hierome relates, saying that [Priests from the beginning were appointed judges of 
de 7. Ordin. Eccles.  causes]. He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops, and they were judges ab initio, from the beginning (saith S. Hierom). So that this saying of the Father may no way prejudge the Bishop's authority, but it excludes the assistance of lay-men from their Consistories. Presybter, and Episcopus was instead of one word to S. Hierom, but they are always Clergy, with him and all men else,  
* But for the main Question, S. Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Emperor with 
Epist. 13. ad Valent.  confidence, and humility, In causâ fidei, vel Ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere, qui nec Munere impar sit, nec jure dissimilis. The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose, Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare, that Clergymen must only judge of Clergy-causes; and this S. Ambrose there calls judicium Episcopale. The Bishop's judicature. Si tractandum est, tractare in Ecclesiâ didici, quod Majores feceruntmei. Si conferendum de fide, Sacerdotum debet esse ista collatio, sicut factum est sub Constantino Aug. memoriae Principe. So that, both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiastical Order are to be handled in the Church, and that by Bishops, and that sub Imperatore, by permission and authority of the Prince. For so it was in Nice, under Constantine. Thus fare S. Ambrose.  
* S. Athanasius reports that Hosius Bishop of 
Epist. ad Solitar.  Corduba, precedent in the Nicene Council, said, it was the abomination of delolation that a layman should be judge in Ecclesiasticis judicijs, in Church-causes; And Leontius calls Church-affayres, Res 
Suidas in vitâ Leontij.  alienas à Laicis, things of another Court, of a distinct cognisance from the Laity. * To these add the Council of Venice, for it is very considerable in 
Can. 9 A. D. 453.  this Question. Clerico nisi ex permissu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat. Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium caeperit habere suspectum, aut ipsi de proprietate aliquà adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit nata contentio, aliorum Episcoporum audientiam, NON SAECULARIUM POTESTATUM debebit ambire. Alitèr à communione habeatur alienus. Clergymen without delegation from their Bishop may not hear the causes of their servants, but the Bishop, unless the Bishop be appealed from, than other Bishops must hear the cause, but NO LAY JUDGES by any means.  
* These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperor to ratify by an Imperial edict, for so 
Novel. constit. 123.  justinian commanded that in causes Ecclesiastical, Secular judges should have no interest, SED SANCTISSIMUS EPISCOPUS SECUNDUM SACRAS REGULAS CAUSAE FINEM IMPONAT. The Bishop according to the Sacred Canons must be the sole judge of Church-matters. I end this with the decretal of S. Gregory one of the four Doctors of the Church. Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ, ne saecularibus viris, atque non sub regulâ nostrâ degentibus res Ecclesiasticae 
lib. 7. epist. 66.  committantur. Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiastical be not any ways concredited to secular persons. But of this I have twice spoken already. §. 36. and §. 41.  
The thing is so evident, that it is next to impudence to say that in Antiquity Laymen were parties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church. It was against their faith, it was against their practice; and those few pigmy objections, out of 
* Tertull. Apol. c. 33. S. Ambros. in. 1. Tim. 5. 1. & lib. 1. de offic. c. 20. S. August. lib. 3. contra Crescon. & Epist. 137.  Tertullian, S. Ambrose, and S. Austin using the word Seniores, or Elders, sometimes for Priests, as being the latin for the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes for a secular Magistrate, or Alderman, (for I think S. Austin did so in his third book against Cresconius) are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not four; for to pretend such slight, aery imaginations, against the constant, known, open, Catholic practice and doctrine of the Church, and history of all ages, is as if a man should go to fright an Imperial army with a single bulrush. They are not worth further considering.  
* But this is; That in this Question of lay-Elders the Modern Aërians and Acephali do wholly mistake their own advantages. For whatsoever they object out of antiquity for the white, and watery colours of lay-Elders is either a very misprision of their allegations, or else clearly abused in the use of them. For now adays they are only used to exclude and drive forth Episcopacy, but then they misalledge antiquity, for the men with whose Heifers they would feign plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part, and he that was not, would feign have been, it is known so of Tertullian, and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of lay-Iudges in Church matters (which they never dreamed of) yet meant them not so as to exclude Episcopacy, and if not, than the pretended allegations can do no service in the present Question.  
I am only to clear this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood, and then it cannot have any colour from any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either divine, or humane, but that Lay-Iudges of causes Ecclesiastical as they are unheard of in antiquity, so they are neither named in Scripture, nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office, and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came, even the lake of Gebenna, and so to the place of the nearest denomination. The objection is from S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. let the Elders that rule well, be 
1. Tim. 5. 17.  accounted worthy of double honour, especially they that labour in the word & doctrine. especially they— therefore all Elders do not so. Here are two sorts of Elders, Preaching Ministers, and Elders not Preachers. Therefore Lay-Elders, and yet all are governor's.  
1. But why therefore Lay-Elders? Why may there not be divers Church-officers, and yet but one, or two of them the Preacher? [Christ sent me not to Baptise but to Preach] saith S. Paul, and yet the commission of [baptizate] was as large as [predicate] and why then might not another say, Christ sent me not to Preach, but to Baptise, that is, in S. Paul's sense, not so much to do one, as to do the other, and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptism, and betook himself to the ordinary office of Preaching, then to be sure, some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer, and so, not the Preacher, for if he might be both ordinarily, why was not S. Paul both? For though their power was common to all of the same order, yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to several gifts, and that of Prophecy, or Preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure, but that some of them might be destined to the ordinary execution of other offices, and yet because the gift of Prophecy was the greatest, so also was the office, and therefore the sense of the words is this, that all Presbyters must be honoured, but especially they that Prophecy, doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministry. So no Lay-Elders yet. Add to this, that it is also plain that all the Clergy did not Preach. Valerius Bishop of Hippo could not well skill in the Latin tongue being a Greek borne, and yet a Godly Bishop, and S. Austin his Presbyter preached for him. The same case might occur in the Apostles times. For than was a concourse of all Nations to the Christian Synaxes, especially in all great Imperial Cities, and Metropolitans, as Rome, Antioch, jerusalem, Caesarea, and the like. Now all could not speak with tongues, neither could all Prophecy, they were particular gifts given severally, to several men appointed to minister in Church-offices. Some Prophesied, some interpreted; and therefore is is an ignorant fancy to think that he must needs be a Laic, whosoever in the ages Apostolical was not a Preacher.  
2. None of the Fathers ever expounded this place of Lay-Elders, so that we have a traditive interpretation of it in prejudice to the pretence of our new office.  
3. The word Presbyter is never used in the new Testament for a Layman, if a Church officer be intended. If it be said, it is used so here, that's the question, and must not be brought to prove itself.  
4. The Presbyter that is here spoken of must be maintained by Ecclesiastical revenue, for so S. Paul expounds [honour] in the next verse. Presbyters that rule well must be honoured etc. For it is written, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn. But now, the Patrons of this new devise are not so greedy of their Lay-Bishops as to be at charges with them, they will rather let them stand alone on their own rotten legs, and so perish, then fix him upon this place with their hands in their purses. But it had been most fitting for them to have kept him, being he is of their own begetting.  
5. This place speaks not of divers persons, but divers parts of the Pastoral office, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To rule, and to labour in the word. Just as if the expression had been in materiâ politicâ. All good Counsellors of State are worthy of double honour, especially them that disregarding their own private, aim at the public good. This implies not two sorts of Counsellors, but two parts of a Counsellors worth, and quality. judges that do righteousness are worthy of double honour, especially if they right the cause of Orphans, and Widows, and yet there are no righteous judges that refuse to do both.  
6. All Ministers of H. Church did not preach, at least not frequently. The seven that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, set over the Widows were Presbyters, but yet they were forced to leave the constant ministration of the word to attend that employment, as I shown 
* §. 48.  formerly; and thus it was in descent too, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
lib. 5: cap. 22.  (said Socrates) A Presbyter does not Preach in Alexandria, the Bishop only did it. And then the allegation is easily understood. For labouring in the word does not signify, only making Homilies or exhortations to the people, but whether it be by word, or writing, or travelling from place to place, still, the greater the sedulity of the person is, and difficulty of the labour, the greater increment of honour is to be given him. So that here is no Lay-Elders; for all the Presbyters S. Paul speaks of, are to be honoured, but especially those who take extraordinary pains in propagating the Gospel. For though all preach, (suppose that) yet all do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, take such great pains in it, as is intimated in, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to take bodily labour, and travail, usque adlassitudinem, (so Budaeus renders it.) And so it is likely S. Paul here means. Honour the good Presbyters, but especially them that travel for disseminating the Gospel. And the word is often so used in Scripture. S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I have traveled in the word more than they all. Not that S. Paul preached more than all the Apostles, for most certainly, they made it their business as well as he. But he traveled further and more than they all for the spreading it. And thus it is said of the good Woman that traveled with the Apostles, for supply of the necessities of their diet and household offices, [they laboured much in the Lord.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word for them too. So it is said of Persis, of Mary, of Tryphaena, of Triphosa. And 
Rom. 16.  since these women were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that traveled with the Apostolical men and Evangelists, the men also traveled to, and preached, and therefore were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is travellers in the word. [We aught therefore to receive such] (saith S. john) 
1. Epist. cap. 3.  intimating a particular reception of them, as being towards us of a peculiar merit. So that the sense of S. Paul may be this also, All the Rulers of the Church, that is, all Bishops, Apostles, and Apostolic men, are to be honoured, but especially them who, besides the former ruling, are also travellers in the word, or Evangelists.  
7. We are furnished with answer enough to infatuate this pretence for Lay-Elders, from the common draught of the new discipline. For they have some that Preach only, and some that Rule, and Preach too, and yet neither of them the Lay-Elder, viz. their Pastors, and Doctors.  
8. Since it is pretended by themselves in the Question of Episcopacy, that Presbyter, and Episcopus is all one, and this very thing confidently obtruded in defiance of Episcopacy, why may not Presbyteri in this place signify [Bishops?] And then either this must be Lay-Bishops as well as Lay-Presbyters or else this place is to none of their purposes.  
9 If both these offices of RULING and PREACHING may be conjunct in one person, than there is no necessity of distinguishing the Officers by the several employments, since one man may do both. But if these offices cannot be conjunct, than no Bishops must preach, nor no preachers be of the Consistory (take which government you list) for if they be, than the offices being united in one person, the inference of the distinct officer, the Lay-Elder, is impertinent. For the meaning of S. Paul would be nothing but this. All Church-Rulers must be honoured, Especially for their preaching. For if the offices may be united in one person (as it is evident they may) than this may be comprehended within the other, and only be a vital part and of peculiar excellency. And indeed so it is, according to the exposition of S. chrysostom, and Primasius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They rule well, that spare nothing for the care of the flock. So that this is the general charge, and preaching is the particular. For the work in general they are to receive double honour, but this of preaching, as then preaching was, had a particular excellency, and a plastic power to form men into Christianity, especially it being then attested with miracles.  
But the new office of a Lay-Elder, I confess I cannot comprehend in any reasonable proportion, his person, his quality, his office, his authority, his subordination, his commission hath made so many divisions and new emergent Questions: and they, none of them all asserted either by Scripture or Antiquity, that if I had a mind to leave the way of God and of the Catholic Church, and run in pursuit of this meteor, I might quickly be amused, but should find nothing certain but a certainty of being misguided. Therefore if not for conscience sake, yet for prudence, bonum est esse hic, it is good to remain in the fold of Christ, under the guard, and supravision of those shepherd's Christ hath appointed, and which his sheep have always followed.  
For I consider this one thing to be enough to determine the Question. [My sheep (saith our blessed Saviour) hear my voice, if a stranger, or a thief come, him they will not hear] Clea lie thus. That Christ's sheep hear not the voice of a stranger, nor will they follow him, and therefore those shepherd's whom the Church hath followed in all ages, are no strangers, but Shepherds or Pastors of Christ's appointing, or else Christ hath had no sheep; for if he hath, than Bishops are the shepherd's, for them they have ever followed. I end with that golden rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, Magnopere 
Cap. 3. adv. haereses.  curandum est ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est enim verè, proprieque Catholicum. For certainly the Catholic belief of the Church against Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, and (the worst of heretics) the Cataphrygians was never more truly received of all, and always, and every where then is the government of the Church by Bishops. Annunciare ergo Christianis Catholicis praeter id quod 
Cap. 14.  acceperunt, nunquam licuit, nunquam licet, nunquam licebit. It never was, is, nor ever shall be lawful to teach Christian people any new thing then what they have received from a primitive fountain, and is descended in the stream of Catholic, uninterrupted succession.  
* I only add, that the Church hath insinuated it to be the duty of all good Catholic Christians to pray for Bishops, and as the case now stands, for Episcopacy itself, for there was never any Church-Liturgy but said litanies for their KING, and for their BISHOP.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

A SERMON PREACHED IN SAINT MARY'S Church in OXFORD. Upon the Anniversary of the GUNPOWDER-TREASON.  
By JEREMY TAYLOR, Fellow of Allsoules' College in OXFORD.  Nolite tangere Christos meos. 
OXFORD, Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD Printer to the University.  
M. DC. XXXVIII.   

TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD WILLIAM by Divine providence LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY His Grace, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, CHANCELLOR of the University of OXFORD, and one of his MAJESTY'S most Honourable Privy Council. My most Honourable good LORD.  
May it please your GRACE,  
IT was obedience to my Superior that engaged me upon this last Anniversary commemoration of the great Goodness of God Almighty to our King and Country in the discovery of the most damnable Powder-Treason. It was a blessing which no tongue could express, much less mine, which had scarce learned to speak, at least, was most unfit to speak in the Schools of the Prophets. Delicata autem est illao bedientia quae causas quaerit. It had been no good argument of my obedience to have disputed the inconvenience of my person, and the unaptness of my parts for such an employment. I knew God, out of the mouth of Infants, could acquire his praise, and if my heart were actually as Uotive as my tongue should have been, it might be one of God's Magnalia to perfect his own praise out of the weakness and imperfection of the Organ. So as I was able, I endeavoured to perform it, having my obedience ever ready for my excuse to men, and my willingness to perform my duty, for the assoylment of myself before God; part of which I hope was accepted, and I have no reason to think, that the other was not pardoned.  
When I first thought of the Barbarism of this Treason, I wondered not so much at the thing itself as by what means it was possible for the Devil to gain so strong a party in men's resolutions, as to move them to undertake a business so abhorring from Christianity, so evidently full of extreme danger to their lives, and so certainly to incur the highest wrath of God Almighty. My thoughts were thus rude at first; but after a strict inquisition I fond it was apprehended as a business (perhaps full of danger to their bodies, but) advantageous to their souls, consonant to the obligation of all Christians, and meritorious of an exceeding weight of Glory, for now it was come to pass which our dear Master foretold, men should kill us, and think they did God good service in it. I could not think this to be a part of any man's religion, nor do I yet believe it. For it is so apparently destructive of our dear Master his Royal laws of Charity & Obedience, that I must not be so uncharitable as to think they speak their own mind truly, when they profess their belief of the lawfulness and necessity in some cases of rebelling against their lawful Prince, and using all means to throw him from his kingdom, though it be by taking of his life. But it is but just that they who break the bonds of duty to their Prince, should likewise forfeit the laws of charity to themselves, and if they say not true, yet to be more uncharitable to their own persons, than I durst be, though I had their own warrant. Briefly (Most R. Father) I found amongst them of the Roman party such prevailing opinions, as could not consist with loyalty to their Prince, in case he were not the Pope's subject, and these so generally believed, and somewhere obtruded under peril of their souls, that I could not but point at these dangerous rocks, at which I doubt not, but the loyalty of many hath suffered shipwreck, and of thousands more might, if a higher Star had not guided them better, than their own Pilots.  
I could not therefore but think it very likely that this Treason might spring from the same Fountain, and I had concluded so in my first meditations, but that I was willing to consider, whether or no it might not be that these men were rather exasperated then persuaded, and whether it were not that the severity of our laws against them might rather provoke their intemperate zeal, than religion thus move their settled conscience. It was a material consideration, because they ever did and still do fill the world with outcries against our laws for making a rape upon their consciences, have printed Catalogues of their English Martyrs, drawn Schemes of most strange tortures imposed on their Priests, such as were unimaginable, by Nero, or Dioclesian, or any of the worst and cruelest enemies of Christianity, endeavouring thus to make us partly guilty of our own ruin, and so washing their hands in token of their own innocency, even then when they were dipping them in the blood Royal, and would have emptied the best veins in the whole Kingdom to fill their Lavatory. But I found all these to be but Calumnies, strong accusations upon weak presumptions, and that the cause did rest where I had begun, I mean, upon the pretence of the Catholic cause, and that the imagined iniquity of the Laws of England could not be made a veil to cover the deformity of their intentions, for our Laws were just, Honourable, and Religious.  
Concerning these and some other appendices to the business of the day; I expressed some part of my thoughts, which because happily they were but a just truth, and this truth not unseasonable for these last times, in which (as S. Paul prophesied) men would be fierce, Traitors, heady, and high minded, creeping into houses, leading silly women captive, it pleased some who had power to command me, to wish me to a publication of these my short and sudden meditations, that (if it were possible) even this way I might express my duty to God and the King.  
Being thus fare encouraged, I resolved to go something further, even to the boldness of a dedication to your Grace, that since I had no merit of my own to move me to the confidence of a public view, yet I might dare to venture under the protection of your Grace's favour. But since my boldness doth as much need a defence, as my Sermon a Patronage, I humbly crave leave to say, that though it be boldness, even to presumption, yet my address to your Grace is not altogether unreasonable.  
For since all know that your Grace thinks not your life your own, but when it spends itself in the service of your King, opposing your great endeavours against the zealots of both sides who labour the disturbance of the Church and State, I could not think it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to present to your Grace this short discovery of the King's enemies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and proper to your Grace who is so true, so zealous a lover of your Prince and Country. It was likewise appointed to be the public voice of thanksgiving for your University (though she never spoke weaker than by so mean an instrument) and therefore is accountable to your Grace to whom under God and the King we own the Blessing and Prosperity of all our Studies. Nor yet can I choose but hope, that my Great Obligations to your Grace's Favour may plead my pardon, (since it is better that my Gratitude should be bold, than my diffidence ingrateful) but that this is so fare from expressing the least part of them, that it lays a greater bond upon me, either for a debt of delinquency in presenting it, or of thankfulness, if your Grace may please to pardon it.  
I humbly crave your Grace's Benediction, pardon, and acceptance of the humblest duty and observance of  
Your GRACES most observant and obliged CHAPLAIN IER. TAYLOR.   

A SERMON PREACHED UPON THE Anniversary of the GUNPOWDER-TREASON.  LUK. 9 Cap. vers. 54. But when james and john saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come from Heaven and consume them even as Elias did? 
I Shall not need to strain much to bring my Text and the day together, Here is fire in the text, consuming fire, like that whose Antevorta we do this day commemorate. This fire called for by the Disciples of Christ: so was ours too; by Christ's Disciples at least, and some of them entitled to our Great Master by the compellation of his holy name of JESUS.  
I would say the parallel holds thus fare, but that the persons of my Text, however Boanerges, sons of thunder and of a reprovable spirit, yet are no way considerable in the proportion of malice with the persons of the day. For if I consider the cause that moved james and john to so inconsiderate a wrath, it bears a fair excuse: The men of Samaria 
Verse 53.  turned their Lord and Master out of doors, denying to give a night's lodging to the Lord of Heaven and Earth. It would have disturbed an excellent patience to see him, whom but just before they beheld transfigured, and in a glorious Epiphany upon the Mount, to be so neglected by a company of hated Samaritans, as to be forced to keep his vigils where nothing but the welkin should have been his roof, not any thing to shelter his precious head from the descending dew of heaven. — Quis talia fando Temperet?  
It had been the greater wonder if they had not been angry. But now if we should level our progress by the same line and guess that in the present affair there was an equal cause, because a greater fire was intended, we shall too much betray the ingenuity of apparent truth, and the blessing of this Anniversary. They had not half such a case for an excuse to a fare greater malice; it will prove they had none at all, and therefore their malice was somuch the more malicious because causeless and totally inexcusable.  
However, I shall endeavour to join their consideration in as near a parallel as I can; which if it be not exact (as certainly it cannot, where we have already discovered so much difference in degrees of malice,) yet by laying them together we may better take their estimate, though it be only by seeing their disproportion.  
The words as they lay in their own order, point out, 1. The persons that asked the question. 2. The cause that moved them. 3. The person to whom they propounded it; 4. The Question itself. 5. And the precedent they urged to move a grant, drawn from a very fallible Topick, a singular Example, in a special and different case. The persons here were Christ's Disciples; and so they are in our case, designed to us by that glorious Surname of Christianity: they will be called Catholics, but if our discovery perhaps rise higher, and that the See Apostolic prove sometimes guilty of so reprovable a spirit, than we are very near to a parallel of the persons, for they were Disciples of Christ, & Apostles. 2. The cause was the denying of toleration of abode upon the grudge of an old schism, Religion was made the instrument. That which should have taught the Apostles to be charitable, and the Samaritans hospitable, was made a pretence to justify the unhospitablenesse of the one and the uncharitableness of the other. Thus fare we are right, for the malice of this present Treason, stood upon the same base. 3. Although neither Side much doubted of the lawfulness of their proceed; yet S. james and S. john were so discreet as not to think themselves infallible, therefore they asked their Lord: so did the persons of the day, ask the question too, but not of Christ, for he was not in all their thoughts; but yet they asked of Christ's Delegates, who therefore should have given their answer ex eodem tripod, from the same spirit. They were the Father's Confessors who were asked. 4. The question is of both sides concerning a consumptive sacrifice, the destruction of a Town there, of a whole Kingdom here, but differing in the circumstance of place whence they would fetch their fire. The Apostles would have had it from Heaven, but these men's conversation was not there. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things from beneath, from an artificial hell, but breathed from the natural and proper, were in all their thoughts. 5. The example, which is the last particular, I fear I must leave quite out, and when you have considered all, perhaps you will look for no example.  
First of the persons; they were Disciples of Christ and Apostles. [But when james and john saw this,] When first I considered they were Apostles, I wondered they should be so intemperately angry; but when I perceived they were so angry, I wondered not that they sinned. Not the privilege of an Apostolical spirit, not the nature of Angels, not the condition of immortality can guard from the danger of sin, but if we be overruled by passion, we almost subject ourselves to its necessity. It was not therefore without reason altogether, that the Stoics affirmed wisemen to be void of passions, for sure I am, the inordination of any passion is the first step to folly. And although of them, as of waters of a muddy residence we may make good use, and quench our thirst, if we do not trouble them, yet upon any ungentle disturbance we drink down mud in stead of a clear stream, and the issues of sin and sorrow, certain consequents of temerarious or inordinate anger. And therefore when the Apostle had given us leave to be angry, as knowing the condition of human nature, he quickly enters a Caveat that we sinne not; he knew sin was very likely to be handmaid where Anger did domineer, and this was the reason why S. james and S. john are the men here pointed at, for the Scripture notes them for Boanerges, sons of thunder, men of an angry temper, & quid mirum est filios tonitrui fulgurâsse voluisse? said S. Ambrose. But there was more in it then thus. Their spirits of themselves hot enough, yet met with their education under the Law, (whose first tradition was in fire and thunder, whose precepts were just but not so merciful;) and this inflamed their distemper to the height of a revenge. It is the Doctrine of S. 
a Epist. ad Algas.  Hierome and 
b in Lucam.  Titus Bostrensis; The Law had been their Schoolmaster, and taught them the rules of justice both Punitive and Vindictive: But Christ was the first that taught it to be a sin to retaliate evil with evil, it was a Doctrine they could not read in the kill letter of the Law. There they might meet with precedents of revenge and anger of a high severity, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for atooth, and let him be cut off from his people: But forgiving injuries, praying for our persecutors, loving our enemies, and relieving them, were Doctrines of such high and absolute integrity, as were to be reserved for the best and most perfect Lawgiver, the bringer of the best promises, to which the most perfect actions have the best proportion; and this was to be when Shiloh came. Now than the spirit of Elias is out of date,  
— I am ferrea primum  
Desinit, ac toto surgit Gens Aurea Mundo.  
And therefore our blessed Master reproveth them of ignorance, not of the Law, but of his spirit, which had they but known or could but have guessed at the end of his coming, they had not been such Abecedarij in the School of Mercy.  
And now we shall not need to look fare for persons, Disciples professing at least in Christ's school, yet as great strangers to the merciful spirit of our Saviour, as if they had been sons of the Law, or foster-brothers to Romulus and sucked a wolse, and they are Romanists too; this day's solemnity presents them to us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & yet were that washed off, underneath they writ Christian and jesuit.  
One would have expected that such men, set forth to the world's acceptance with so merciful a cognomentum, should have put a hand to support the ruinous fabric of the world's charity, and not have pulled the frame of heaven & earth about our ears. But yet — Necredite Teucri! Give me leave first to make an Inquisition after this Antichristian pravity, and try who is of our side, and who loves the King, by pointing at those whose Sermons do blast Loyalty, breathing forth Treason, slaughters and cruelty, the greatest imaginable contrariety to the spirit and Doctrine of our Dear Master. So we shall quickly find out more than a pareil for S. james and S. john the Boanerges of my Text.  
It is an act of faith, by faith to conquer the enemies 
Sanderus de Clave David Lib. 2. c. 15.  of God and Holy Church, saith Sanders our Countryman. Hitherto nothing but well; If james and john had offered to do no more than what they could have done with the sword of the spirit and the shield of Faith, they might have been inculpable, and so had he if he had said no more; but the blood boyles higher, the manner spoils all. For it is not well done unless a warlike Captain be appointed by Christ's Vicar to bear a Crusade in a field of blood. And if the other Apostles did not proceed such an angry way as james & john, it was only discretion that detained them, not religion. For so they might, and it were no 
Ibid. cap. 14.  way unlawful for them to bear arms to propagate Religion, had they not wanted an opportunity; if you believe the same author: for fight is proper for S. Peter and his Successors, therefore because Christ gave him Commission to feed his Lambs. A strange reason!  
I had thought Christ would have his Lambs fed with the sincere milk of his word, not like to Cannibals,  
— solitisque cruentum  
Lac potare Getis, & pocula tingere venis,  
To mingle blood in their sacrifices (as Herod to the Galilaeans) and quaff it off for an auspicium to the propagation of the Christian faith. Me thinks here is already too much clashing of armour and effusion of blood for a Christian cause; but this were not altogether so unchristianlike, if the sheep, though with blood, yet were not to befed with the blood of their shepherd Cyrus, I mean their Princes. But I find many such Nutritij in the Nurseries of Rome, driving their Lambs from their folds unless they will be taught to wory the Lion. 
Tyrannicè gubernans iustè acquisitum dominium non potest spoliari sine publico iudicio: Latâ verò sententiâ quisque potest fieri executor. Potest autem à populo etiam qui iuravit ei obedientiam, simonitus non vult corrigi. Verb. Tyrannus.   
Emanuel Sà, in his Aphorisms, affirms it lawful to kill a King, indeed not every King, but such a one as rules with Tyranny, and not then, unless the Pope hath sentenced him to death, but then he may; though he be his lawful Prince. Not the necessitude which the Law of nations hath put between Prince and people, not the obligation of the oath of Allegiance, not the Sanctions of God Almighty himself, must reverse the sentence against the King when once past, but any one of his subjects, of his own sworn subjects, may kill him.  
This perfidious treasonable position of Sà, is not a single Testimony. For 1. it slipped not from his pen by inadvertency; it was not made public, until after 
Praesertim cum in hoc opus per annos serè quadraginta diligentissime incubuerim.  forty year's deliberation, as himself testifies in his Preface. 2. After such an avisament it is now the ordinary received manual for the Father's Confessors of the jesuits Order.  
This Doctrine, although — Titulo res digna sepulchri— yet is nothing if compared with Mariana. For 1. he affirms the same Doctrine in substance. 2. Then he descends to the very manner of it, ordering how 
De Rege & R. instituit. lib. 1. c. 6.  it may be done with the best convenience: He thinks poison to be the best way, but yet that for the more secrecy, it be cast upon the chairs, saddles, and garments of his Prince. It was the old laudable custom of the Moors of Spain. 3. He adds examples of 
Qui est l' artifice dont ie trouue que le Roys Mores ont sowent usè. Cap. 7.  the business, telling us that this was the device, to wit, by poisoned boots, that old Henry of Castille was cured of his sickness. 4. Lastly, this may be done, not only if the Pope judge the King a Tyrant (which was the utmost Emanuel Sà affitmed) but it is sufficient proof of his being a Tyrant if learned men, though but few, and those seditious too do but murmur it, or begin to call him so. I 
Postquam ae paucis seditiosis, sed doctis caeperit Tyrannus appellari.  hope this Doctrine was long since disclaimed by the whole Society, and condemned ad umbras Acherunticas. Perhaps so, but yet these men who use to object to us an infinity of divisions among ourselves, who boast so much of their own Union and consonancy in judgement, with whom nothing is more ordinary then to maintain some opinions quite throughout their Order (as if they were informed by some common Intellectus agens) should not be divided in a matter of so great moment, so much concerning the Monarchy of the See Apostolic, to which they are vowed liegemen. But I have greater reason to believe them United in this Doctrine, then is the greatness of this probability. For 1. There was an Apology printed in Italy, permissu superiorum, in the year 1610. that says, They were all enemies of that holy Name of jesus that condemned Mariana for any such Doctrine. I understand not why, but sure I am that the jesuits do or did think his Doctrine innocent: for in their Apology put forth in the name of the whole Society against the accusations of Anticoton, they deny that the Assasine of Henry 4. I mean Ravaillac, was moved to kill the King by reading of Mariana, and are not ashamed to wish that he had read him. Perhaps they mean it might have 
Quodamodo optandum esse ut ille Alastor Marianam legisset.  wrought the same effect upon him which the sight of a drunkard did upon the youth of Lacedaemon, else I am sure it is not very likely he should have been dissuaded from his purpose by reading in Mariana that it was lawful to do what he intended. 3. I add they not only thought it innocent, and without positive 
Cap. 6. Cum cognito à Theologis quos erat. sciscitatus, Tyrannum jure interimi posse.  hurt, but good and commendable; so that it is apparent that it was not the opinion of Mariana alone, but that the Moors of Spain had more disciples than Mariana. 1. He says it himself, for commending the young Monk that killed Henry 3. he says, he did it having been informed by several Divines that a Tyrant might lawfully be killed. 2. The thing itself speaks it, for his book was highly commended by 
a Chawesauris polit.  Gretser & 
b Amphith. honoris lib. 1. cap. 12.  Bonarscius both for stile & matter, higher yet by Petrus de Onna, provincial of Toledo who was so highly pleased with it, he was sorry he wanted 
c Iterum & tertio facturus siper otium & tempus licuisset.  leisure to read it the second and third time over, and with this censure prefixed was liceused to the Press. Further yet, for Steven Hoyedae Visitor of the jesuits for the same Province approved it not only from his own judgement, but as being 
Vt approbatos priùs a viris Doctis & gravihus ex eodem nostro Ordine.  before approved by grave and learned men of the jesuits Order, and so with a special commission from Claudius Aquaviva their general, with these approbations and other solemn Privileges it was Printed at 
a By Petras Rhodriques. 1599  Toledo and 
b By Balth. Lippius 1605  Mentz; and lastly inserted into the Catalogues of the Books of their Order by Petrus Ribadineira.  
What negligence is sufficient that such a Doctrine as this should pass so great supravisors, if in their hearts they disavow it? The children of this world are not such fools in their generations. The Fathers of the Society cannot but know how apt these things of themselves are to public mischief, how invidious to the Christian world, how scandalous to their Order; and yet they rather excuse then condemn Mariana: speaking of him at the hardest but very gently, as if his only fault had been his speaking a truth in tempore non opportuno, something out of season, or as if they were forced to yield to the current of the times, and durst not profess openly of what in their hearts they were persuaded: I speak of some of them, for others you see are of the same opinion. But I would feign learn why they are so sedulous and careful to procure the decrees of the Rector & Deputies of Paris, Rescripts of the Bishop, Revocation of Arrest of the Parliament which had been against them, and all to acquit the Fathers of the Society from these scandalous opinions; as if these laborious devices could make what they have said and done, to be unspoken and undone, or could change their opinions from what indeed they are, whereas they never went ex animo to refute these Theorems, never spoke against them in the real and serious dialect of an adversary, never condemned them as heretical, but what they have done they have been shamed to, or forced upon, as Pere Coton by the King of France, and Servin to a confutation of Mariana, (from which he desired to be excused, and after the King's death, writ his declaratory letter to no purpose;) the Apologists of Paris by the outcries of Christendom against them; and when it is done, done so coldly in their reprehensions with a greater readiness to excuse all, then condemn any, I say these things to a considering man do increase the suspicion if at least that may be called suspicion for which we have had so plain testimonies of their own.  
I add this more, to put the business past all question, that when some things of this nature were objected to them by Arnald the French Kings Advocate, they were so fare from denying them or excusing them, that they maintained them in spite of opposition, putting forth a Book entitled Veritas defensa contra actionem Antonii Arnaldi. What the things were for which they stood up patrons, hear themselves speaking, Tum enim id non solum potest 
Pag. 7. 1. edit.  Papa, sed etiam debet se ostendere superiorem illis [Principibus.] Exceptio haec stomachum tibi commovet, facit ut ringaris, sed oportet haurias, & de caetero fatearis tibi nec rationem esse, nec conscientiam. Hard words these! The Advocate is affirmed to be void both of reason and honesty for denying the Pope's dominion over Kings. The reason follows, The Pope could not keep them to their duties, unless he kept them in awe with threatening them the loss of their Kingdoms. But this is but the least part of it. 
Pag. 67. 1. edit.  They add, If the subjects had been but disposed as they should have been, there was no time but it might have been profitable to have exercised the sword upon the persons of Kings. Let them construe their meaning, those are their words. But see farther.  
The damned act of jaques Clement the Monk upon the life of Henry the third of France, of jean Chastel and Ravaillac upon Henry the fourth, are notorious in the Christian world, and yet the first of these was commended by 
* Voyez. le proces de Parliam. de Paris contre le pere Guignard presire jesuit.  F. Guignard in a discourse of purpose, & by Mariana as I before cited him. The second had two Apologies made for him, the one by 
a Vid. cap. 3.  Constantinus Veruna, the 
b Lugduni de iusta abdicatione Henr. 3. 1630.  other without a name indeed, but with the mark and cognizance of the jesuits order, and the last was publicly commended in a Sermon by a Monk of Colein, as it is reported by the excellent Thuanus.  
Not much less than this is that of Baronius, just I am sure of the same spirit with james and john, for he calls for a ruin upon the Venetians for opposing of his Holiness. Arise Peter, not to feed the sowandring sheep, but to destroy them, throw away thy Pastoral staff and take thy sword. I confess here is some more ingenuity, to oppose Murdering to Feeding then to make them all one, as Sanders doth, but yet 
De clavae David cap. 14. Vide pag. 7.  the same fiery spirit inflames them both, as if all Rome were on fire, and would put the world in a combustion.  
Farther yet. Guignard a jesuit of Clerimont College in Paris was executed by command of the Parliament for some conclusions he had writ which 
Arrest. de Parliam. 7. de Tanv. 1595.  were of a high nature treasonable, and yet as if, either there were an infallibility in every person of the Society, or as if the Parliament had done in justice in condemning Guignard, or lastly as if they approved his Doctrine, he was Apologized for by 
a Expostul. Apologet. pro Societ. jesus.  Lewes Richeome, and 
b Amphith. honour. lib. 1.  Bonarscius. I know they will not say that every jesuit is infallible, they are not come to that yet, it is plain than they are of the same mind with Guignard, or else (which I think they dare not say) the Parliament was unjust in the condemnation of him, but if they do, they thus proclaim their approbation of these Doctrines he was hanged for; for that he had such, was under his own hand, by his own confession, and of itself evident; as is to be seen in the Arrest of the Parliament against him.  
Lastly, more pertinent to the day is the fact of Garnet, who because a jesuit could have done nothing for which he should not have found an Apologist, for even for this his last act of high treason he was Apologized for, by 
a Apol. adv. R. Angliae.  Bellarmine, 
b Stigm. Misery.  Gretser, & 
c Apol. pro Garnetto.  Eudaemon johannes.  
Thus fare we have found out persons fit enough to match any malice; Boanerges all, and more than a pareil for james and john: but I shall anon discover the disease to be more Epidemical, and the pest of a more Catholic infection, and yet if we sum up our accounts, we shall already find the doctrine to be too Catholic. For we have already met with Emanuel Sà a Portugal, Mariana & Ribadineira Spaniards, Bonarscius a bas Almain, Gretser a German, Eudaemon johannes a false Greek, Guignard, Richeome and the Apologists for chastel, Frenchmen, Bellarmine and Baronius, Italians, Garnet and Sanders, English.  
The Doctrine you see they would fain make Catholic, now if it prove to be but Apostolic too, than we have found out an exact parallel for james and john, great Disciples and Apostles, and whether or no the See Apostolic may not sometime be of a fiery and consuming spirit, we have so strange examples, even in our own home, that we need seek no farther for resolution of the Quaere. In the Bull of excommunication put forth by Pius quintus against Q. Elizabeth of blessed memory, there is more than a naked encouragement, as much as comes to a Volumus & jubemus ut adversus Elizabetham Angliae Reginam subditi arma capessent. Bone jesus! in quae nos reservasti tempora? Here is a command to turn rebels, a necessity of being Traitors. Quid eo infelicius, cui iam esse malum necesse est?  
The business is put something farther homeby Catena and Gabutius, who writ the life of Pius quintus, were resident at Rome, one of them an advocate in the Roman Court; their Books both printed at Rome, con licenza, and con privilegio. And now hear 
1588. 1605.  their testimonies of the whole business between the Queen and his Holiness.  
Pius quintus published a Bull against Q. Elizabeth, declared her a Heretic, and deprived her of her Kingdom, absolved her subjects from their oath of Allegiance, 
Pio publicò una bolla & sentezza contra Elisabetta, dichiarandola heretica, & priva delregno, .... in tall forma concedendo che ciascuno andar contra le potesse etc. Girolamo Catena p. 114. Il quale .... muovesse gli animi al sollevamento per distruttione d' Elizabetta. Pag. 113. L●andare in persona, inpegnae tutte le softanze della sede Apostolica, & calici, e●i proprii vestimenti. Pag. 117.  excommunicated her, and gave power to any one to rebel against her etc. This was but the first step, he therefore thus proceeds, He procures a gentleman of Florence to move her Subjects to a rebellion against her for her destruction. Farther yet, he thought this would be such a real benefit to Christendom to have her destroyed, that the Pope was ready to aid in person, to spend the whole revenue of the See Apostolic, all the Chalices and crosses of the Church, and even his very clothes to promote so pious a business as was the destruction of Q. Elizabeth.  
The witnesses of truth usually agree in one. The same story is told by 
b De▪ vitâ & Gestis Pii 5. lib. 3. cap. 9  Antonius Gabutius, and some more circumstances added. First he names the end of the Pope's design, it was to take her life away, in case she would not turn Roman Catholic. To achieve this, because no Legate could come into England, nor any public messenger from the See Apostolic he employed a Florentine Merchant to stir her subjects to a rebellion for her perdition. Nothing but Sollevamento, 
Qui incolarum animos ad Elizabethae perditionem. rebellione factâ commoveret.  Rebellion, Perdition and destruction to the Queen could be thought upon by his Holiness.  
More yet; for when the Duke of Alva had seized upon the English Merchants goods which were at Antwerp, the Pope took the occasion, instigated the King of Spain to aid the pious attempts of those who conspired against the Queen: they are the words of Gabutius. This rebellion was intended to be under 
Efflagitabat ab Rege ut Anglorum in Elizabetham pie conspiranrium studio foveret.  the conduct of the Duke of Norfolk, Viro Catholico, a Roman Catholic, Gabutius notes it, for fear some heretic might be suspected of the design, and so the Catholics lose the glory of the action. However Pius quintus intended to use the utmost and most extreme remedies to cure her heresy, & all means to increase and strengthen the rebellion. I durst not have thought so much of his Holiness, if his own had not said it; but if this be not worse than the fiery spirit which our blessed Saviour reproved in james and john, I know not what is.  
I have nothing to do to specify the spirit of Paulus quintus in the Venetian cause; this only, Baronius propounded the example of Gregory the seaventh 
Hildebrand.  to him, of which how fare short he came, the world is witness. Our own business calls to mind the Bulls of Pope Clement the eight, in which the Catholics in England were commanded to see that however the right of succession did entitle any man to the Crown of England, yet if he were not a Catholic, they should have none of him, but with all their power they should hinder his coming in. This Bull Bellarmine doth extremely magnify, and indeed 
Apol. adv. R. Angl.  it was for his purpose, for it was (if not author) yet the main encourager of Cates by to the Powder Treason. For when Garnet would willingly have known the Pope's mind in the business, Cates by eased him of the trouble of sending to Rome, since the Pope's mind was clear. I doubt not (said Cates by) at all of 
Proced agt. Traitors.  the Pope's mind, but that he, who commanded our endeavours to hinder his coming in, is willingenough we should throw him out. It was but a reasonable collection.  
I shall not need to instance in the effects which this Bull produced; the Treason of Watson & Clerk, two English Seminaries are sufficiently known, it was as a Praeludium or warning piece to the great Fougade, the discharge of the Powder Treason. Briefly, the case was so, that after the Publication of the Bull of Pius quintus, these Catholics in England durst not be good Subjects till F. Parsons and Campian got a dispensation that they might for a while do it, and rebus sic stantibus with a safe conscience profess a general obedience in causes Temporal: and after the Bull of Clement a great many of them were not good subjects, and if the rest had not taken to themselves the Privilege which the Pope 
●●noc. Decretal de rescript cap. si quando.  sometimes gave to the Archbishop of Ravenna, either to do as the Pope bid them, or to pretend a reason why they would not: we may say as Creswell in defence of Cardinal Allen; Certainly we might have had 
Philop pag. 212. n. 306.  more bloody tragedies in England, if the moderation of some more discreetly tempered had not been interposed. However it is no thank to his Holiness, his spirit blew high enough.  
But I will open this secret no farther, if I may have but leave to instance once more. If I mistake not, it was Sixtus Quintus who sometimes pronounced 
●ep. 11. 1589  a speech in full Consistory, in which he compares the assasinat of jaques Clement upon Henry the third, to the exploits of Eleazar & judith, where after having aggravated the faults of the murdered King, concluded him to have died impenitent, denied him the solemnities of Mass, Dirge and Requiem, for his soul, at last he ends with a prayer, that God would finish what in this (bloody) manner had been begun. I will not aggravate the foulness of the thing by any circumstances (though I cannot but wonder that his Holiness should say a prayer of so much abomination,) it is of itself too bad.  
If his Holiness be wronged in the business I have no hand in it; the speech was printed at Paris three 
By Nichol. Nivelle, and Rollin Thierry.  months after the murder of the King, and avouched for authentic by the approbation of three Doctors, Boucher, Decreil, and Ancelein; let them answer it, I wash my hands of the accusation, and only consider the danger of such Doctrines, if set forth with so great authority and practised by so uncontrollable persons.  
If the Disciples of Christ, if Apostles, if the See Apostolic, if the father's Confessors prove Boutefeu's and Incendiaries, I'll no more wonder if the people call for fire to consume us, but rather wonder if they do not. And indeed although it be no rare or unusual thing for a Papist to be de facto loyal and duteous to his Prince, yet it is a wonder that he is so since such Doctrines have been taught by so great Masters, and at the best he depends but upon the Pope's pleasure for his Loyalty, which upon what security it rests, you may easily guess from the antecedents.  
Thus much for consideration of the persons who asked the Question; they were Christ's Disciples, they were james and john.  
But when james and john [saw this] Our next inquiry shall be of the cause of this their angry Question. This we must learn from the foregoing story. Christ was going to the feast at jerusalem, and passing through a Village of Samaria asked lodging for a night; but they perceiving that he was a jew 
Ver. 50.  would by no means entertain him, as being of a different Religion. For although God appointed that all of the seed of jacob should go up to jerusalem to worship, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet the 
Chrysost. in hunc locum.  Tribes of the separation first under jeroboam worshipped in Groves and High places, and after the captivity being a mixed people, half jew, half Gentile, procured a Temple to be built them by Sanballat their Precedent, near the City Sichem upon the 
josephi antiq. Lib. 11. c. 6.  mountain Gerezim, styling themselves pertinentes 
Posiellus de linguis. lib. 12 Deut. 27.  ad Montem benedictum, by allusion to the words of God by Moses, they shall stand upon the Mount Gerezim to bless the people, and these upon Mount Ebal to curse. And in case arguments should fail to make this schism plausible, they will make it good by turning their Adversaries out of doors. They shall not come near their blessed Mount of Gerezim, but fastening an Anathema on them let them go to Ebal, and curse there. And now I wonder not that these Disciples were very angry at them who had lost the true Religion, and neglected the offices of humanity to them that kept it. They might go near now to make it a cause of Religion; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Nazianzene speaks) might seem to Apologise 
Orat. 12.  for them, and so it might if it had not led them to indiscreet and uncharitable zeal. But men care not how fare they go if they do but once think they can make God a party of their Quarrel. For when Religion which ought to be the antidote of our malice, proves its greatest incentive, our uncharitableness must needs run faster to a mischief, by how much that which stopped its course before, drives it on with the greater violence. And therefore as it is ordinary for charity to be called coldness in Religion, so it is as ordinary for a pretence of Religion to make cold charity.  
The present case of the Disciples and the same spirit which, for the same pretended cause, is takenup by the persons of the day, proves all this true; with whom fire and faggot is esteemed the best argument to convince the understanding, and the Inquisitors of heretical pravity, the best Doctors and subtlest Disputants, determining all with a Viris ignem, fossan 
Decret. Carol. quinti, pro Flandris.  mulieribus. For thus we had like to have suffered, it was mistaken Religion that moved these Traitors to so damnable a Conspiracy, not for any defence of their own cause, but for extirpation of ours. For else what grievances, did they groan under? In quos 
Orat 2. in julian.  eorum populum exaestuantem sollicitavimus? quibus vitae periculum attulimus? It was Nazianzen's question to the Apostate. Give me leave to consider it as appliable to our present case, and try if can make a just discovery of the cause that moved these Traitors to so accursed a Conspiracy.  
1 Then there was no cause at all given them by us; none put to death for being a Roman Catholic nor any of them punished for his Religion. 
Vid. L. Burleighs book called Execution for Treason not religion. King james his declaration to all Christian Kings and Princes, and the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury his speech in Star-chamber in Burtons' case.   
This hath been the constant attestation of our Princes and State since the first Laws made against Recusants & the thing itself will bear them record.  
From primo of Elizabeth to undecimo, the Papists made not scruple of coming to our Churches, Recusancy was not then so much as a Chrism, not an Embryo. But when Pius quintus sent forth his Breves of Excommunication and Deposition of the Queen, than first they forbore to pray with us, or to have any religious communion. This although every where known, yet being a matter of fact and so as likely to be denied by others as affirmed by us without good evidence, see it therefore affirmed expressly by an Act of Parliament in Decimo tertio of Elizabeth, which specifies this as one inconvenience and ill consequence of the Bull. [Whereby hath grown great disobedience and boldness in many, not only to withdraw and absent themselves from divine service, now most Godly set forth and used within this Realm, but also have thought themselves discharged of all obedience etc.] Not only Recusancy, but like wise disobedience; therefore both Recusancy and disobedience.  
Two years therefore after this Bull▪ this Statute was made if it was possible to nullify the effects of it, to hinder its execution, and if it might be, by this means to keep them, as they had been before, in Communion with the Church of England, and obedience to her Majesty. This was the first Statute that concerned them in special, but yet their Religion was not meddled with; For this Statute against execution of the Pope's Bulls was no more them what had been established by Act of Parliament, in the 16th year of Richard the second, by which it was made praemunire to purchase Bulls from Rome, and the delinquents in this kind with all their [abettors, fautors, procurators, and maintainers to be referred to the King's Council for farther punishment.] There was indeed this severity expressed in the Act of 130 of the Queen, that the putting them in Execution should be Capital; and yet this severity was no more than what was inflicted upon the Bishop of Ely in Edward the thirds time, for publishing of a Bull against the Earl of Chester without the King's leave, and on the Bishop of Carlisle, in the time of Henry the fourth, for the like offence. Thus fare our Laws are innocent.  
But when this Statute did not take the good effect for which it was intended, neither keeping them in their ancient Communion not obedience, but for all this, maine, Campian, and many others, came as the Pope's Emissaries for execution of the Bull, the State proceeded to a farther severity, making Laws against Recusancy, against Seditious and Traitorous Books, and against the residence of Romish Priests in England, making the first fineable with a pecuniary mulct, the two later, Capital, as being made of a Treasonable nature. Of these in order.  
1 The mulct which was imposed for Recusancy, was not soul money, or paid for Religion; and that for these reasons. 1. Because it is plain Religion did not make them absent themselves from our Churches, unless they had changed their Religion since the Bull came over. For if Religion could consist with their Communion with us before the Bull (as it's plain it did) then why not after the Bull, unless it be part of their Religion to obey the Pope, rather than to obey God commanding us to obey our Prince? 2. Their Recusancy was an apparent mischief to our Kingdom, and it was the prevention or diversion of this that was the only or special and of these Laws.  
The mischief is apparent these two ways. 1. Because by their Recusancy they gave attestation that they held the Bull to be valid; for else why should they after the Bull deny their Communion, which before they did not? Either they must think the Queen for a just cause, and by a just power excommunicate, or why did they separate from her Communion? Now if the Queen by virtue of the Bull was excommunicate, why should they stop here? She was by the same deposed, they absolved from all Allegiance to her, and commanded to take arms against her. I confess it is no good argument of itself, to say, The Pope might excommunicate the Queen, therefore depose her from her Kingdom; But this concludes with them sufficiently, with whom excommunication not only drives from spirituals, but deprives of temporals, and is not to mend our lives but to take them away; I speak how it is in the case of Princes, (and I shall anon prove it) for they being public persons from whose Deposition more may be gotten, are like to suffer more, ui ex tunc ipse (Pontifex) vasallos ab ejus fidelitate denuntiet absolutos, & terram exponat Catholic is occupandam, as they are taught by Pope Innocent the third, in the eight Lateran Council: such is their Excommunication for matter of Heresy, as was this pretended in the Queen's case, so that in respect of them the danger was apparent.  
2 It is plain that Recusancy and disobedience came actually hand in hand, I say not that one was the issue of the other, but that they were coetaneous, for the same persons that moved them to Recusancy by virtue of the Bull, moved them to the execution of it per omnia. Now see whither this would tend! They by Recusancy were better able to judge of their forces in England, and what party they were able to make for execution of the Bull, whilst by that as by a discriminative cognisance they were pointed at, as Abettors of the Catholic cause.  
Thus fare they suffered not for their Religion or conscience, unless it were against their conscience to be good subjects, and then it was not Religion, at least not Christian, that was inconsistent with their Loyalty, & so hitherto in respect of us, their machination was altogether causeless.  
2. For the second (I mean the writing & publishing of Seditious & Traitorous Books, I shall not need to say any thing in defence of its being made Capital, though sometimes they accuse our laws for it) for 
Apud Linwood de senten. excommunicate. Item omnes illos excommunicationis innodanus sententia qui pacem & tranquillitatem Domini Regis & Regni, iniuriose perturhare praesumunt, & qui iura Domini Regis iniuslè detinere contendunt.  they were ever so, & of a high nature Treasonable, & the Publishers of them by the Canons of the Church were ipsofacto excommunicate. This I noted, because the same censure involves more, by virtue of the same Canon: I mean, not only the seditious Libelers but impugners of the King's Regalties, as also the Bringers, Publishers, and Executioners of the Bull; as is to be seen in the constitution of Archbishop Stephen, in a Council held at Oxford. But secondly, whether they were or were not, it matters nothing; this I suppose was no part of their Religion, therefore this might be made Treason, and yet their Religion and peace of conscience undistarbed. 3. But the next is the main outcry of all, the very Conclamatum est of the Catholic cause, if suffered; it was made Treason to be a Priest, or at least if any of their Priests should be found in England he should be adjudged a Traitor, and these Laws were not yet repealed, but then in execution.  
When certain Sycophants told Philip of Macedon, that some of his discontented Subjects called him Tyrant, his answer was, Rudes sunt Macedones, & scapham vocant scapham. I wish these men who object this, had the same ingenuity, and would acknowledge that the rudeness of a Macedonian tel-troth is no apparent calumny. And truly, as the case then stood, it was no worse. For consider that the statute against Priests was not made till sixteen years after the Bull of Pius quintus, and after much evidence both by the confession of some Priests themselves, and divers Lay-people, that at least, many of them came into England with this errand, that they might instigate the Queen's liege people to the Execution of it. This is very plain in the case of maine the jesuit, and M. Tregion who were executed 
1577.  at Launston for the same business.  
The state could not certainly know what would be the issue, but yet could not but think it likely to produce more and worse consequences for the future. Leges autem justae in facta constituuntur quia futura 
Tacitus lib. 3. Annal.  in incerto sunt. The Queen then providing for her safety banished these Priests out of her dominions. This was all, and this done with so much lenity and moderation as if of purpose to render good for their evil; such was her innocence, and yet to provide for her safety, such was her prudence. She gave them forty day's time of preparation for their journey, imposed no penalty for their longer stay in case that any of them were less healthful, or that the winds were cross, or that the wether served not: provided that during their stay, they gave security for their due obedience to her laws, and that they should attempt nothing against her person or government, for this was all she aimed at; but if they obeyed not the Proscription, having no just cause to the contrary, such as were expressed in the Act, than it should be adjudged their errand was not right, & therefore (not their Religion, but) their disobedience Treasonable.  
This was the highest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the severity of this state against them, now first I shall briefly show that this proscription which was the highest penalty, was for just cause as the case then stood, and deserved on their part. 2. It was but reasonable, in case they obeyed not the proscription, their stay should be made Treason. 1. Because the Priests did generally preach the Pope's power either directly over temporals, or else in order to spirituals, of which the Pope being judge it would come to the same issue, and this was dangerous to the peace of the Kingdom, and entrenched too much upon the Regalty. In particular, the case of bringing from the See of Rome, and publishing of Bulls, was by the Lords of the Parliament in the sixteenth year of Richard the second, judged to be [clearly in derogation of the King's Crown and of his Regalty, as it is well known and hath been of a long time known,] and therefore they protested [together and every one severally by himself, that they would be with the same Crown and Regalty in these cases specially, and in all other cases which shall be attempted against the same Crown and Regalty in all points with all their power,] I hope then if the State in the time of Queen Elizabeth hàving fare greater reason than ever, shall judge that these Bulls, the publishing of them, the Preaching of their validity, and reconciling by virtue of them her Subjects to the See of Rome, be derogatory to her Crown and Regalty, I see no reason She should be frighted from her just defence with the bugbear of pretended Religion, for if it was not against Religion then, why is it now? I confess there is a reason for it, to wit, because now the Pope's power is an Article of Faith (as I shall show anon) but than it was not with them, any more than now it is with us: but whether this will convince any man of reason I leave it to himself to consider.  
But one thing is observable in that Act of Parliament of Richard the second, I mean this clause [as it is well known, and hath been of a long time known.] The Pope's encroachments upon the State of England had been an old sore, and by its eld almost habituate; but yet it grieved them nevertheless, nor was the less a fever for being hectical: but so it is that I am confident upon very good grounds, it may be made as apparent as the noon Sun, for these 600 years and upwards, that the Bishops of Rome have exercised so extreme and continual Tyranny and exactions in this Kingdom, that our condition was under him worse than the State of the Athenians under their thirty Tyrants, or then our neighbours are now under their Belgic Tributes. So many greivances of the people, expilations of the Church, abuses to the State, intrenchments upon the Royalties of the Crown were continued, that it was a great blessing of Almighty God, our Kingdom was delivered from them upon so easy terms, which Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln thought would never be done, but in Oregladii cruentandi: and now to have all these mischiefs return with more strength upon us by the attempts of these Priests, had been the highest point of indiscretion and sleepiness. I said [with more strength] because what anciently at the highest was thought but a privilege of the Church began now to be an Article of Faith, and therefore if admitted would have bound stronger and without all possibility of redress.  
And now if after all this any man should doubt of the justice of these Laws against the Priest's obtruding upon the State the Pope's power, I only refer him to the Parliament of Paris, where let him hold his Plèa against those great Sages of the Law, for their just censures upon Florentinus jacobus, Thomas Blanzius, and john Tanquerell, who were all condemned 
1561.  to a solemn honorary penance and satisfaction to the State, and not without extreme difficulty escaped death, for the same cause. But this is not all. I add.  
Secondly, the Pope had his Agent in England to stir up the Subjects to rebel against the Queen, as I proved before by the testimonies of Catena and Gabutius. It is not then imaginable that he should so poorly intent his own designs, to employ one on purpose, and he but a Merchant, and that the Priests who were the men, if any, most likely to do the business, should be unemployed. I speak not of the argument from matter of fact, (for it is apparent that they were employed, as I shown but now,) but it is plain also that they must have been employed, if we had had no other argument but a presumption of the Pope's ordinary discretion.  
Things then remaining in this condition what security could the Queen or State have without the absence of those men who must be the instruments of their mischief? Thirdly, there was great reason those men might be banished who might from their own principles plead immunity from all Laws, and subordination to the Prince. But that so these Priests might, I only bring two witnesses, leading men of their own Side. Thus Bellarmine: The Pope hath exempted all Clerks from subjection to Princes 
Lib. 1. cap. 2●. de Clerical.  The same is taught by Emanuel S à in his Aphorisms, Verbo Clericus. I must not dissemble that this Aphorism however it passed the Press at first, yet in the Edition of Paris it was left out. The cause is known to every man: For that it was merely to serve their ends is apparent; for their French freedom was there taken from them, they durst not parlour tout so near the Parliament; but the Aphorism is to this day retained in the Editions of Antwerp and Colein.  
If this be their Doctrine, as it is plain it is taught by these leading Authors, I mean Sà and Bellarmine, I know no reason but it may be very just and most convenient to deny those men the Country from whose Laws they plead exemption.  
Secondly, it was but reasonable, in case they obeyed not the proscription, their disobedience should be made Capital. For if they did not obey, then either they sinned against their conscience in disobeying their lawful Prince, and so are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and inexcusable from the Law's penalty, which may be extended at the pleasure of the Lawgiver, where there is no positive injustice in the disproportion; or if they did not sin against their conscience, then of necessity must they think her to be no lawful Prince or not their lawful Prince, nor they her Subjects, & so ipso facto are guilty of high Treason, & their execution 
De simply. Pralat.  was for Treason not Religion, and so the Principal is evicted which I shall beg leave to express in S. Cyprians language, Non erat illa fidei Corona, sed poena per fidiae; nec religiosae virtutis exitus gloriosus, sed desperationis interitus.  
For if Valentius banish Eusebius from Samosata, and Eusebius obey not the edict, if Valentius puts him to death, it is not for his being a Christian that 
Theodoret. l. 4. c. 14.  he suffers death, but for staying at Samosata against the command of Valentius. Such was the case of the Priests, whom for just cause (as I have proved) and too apparent proof of seditious practices the Queen banished. Now if the Queen was their lawful Sovereign, then were they bound to obey her Decree of exile, though it had been unjust as was the case of Eusebius; or if they did not obey, not to think the Laws unjust for punishing their disobedience. I say again, their Disobedience, not their Religion: for that it was not their Religion that was struck at by the justice of these Laws, but the security of the Queen and State only aimed at, (besides what I have already said,) is apparent to the evidence of sense. For when Hart, and Bosgrave, jesuits both, came into England against the Law, they were apprehended and imprisoned: (for the Laws without just Execution were of no force for the Queen's safety;) but when these men had acknowledged the Queen's legitimate power, and put in their security for their due obedience, they obtained their pardon and their liberty. The same proceed were in the case of Horton and Rishton, all which I hope were not Apostates from their Order or Religion, but so they must have been or not have escaped death, in case that their Religion had been made Capital. Lastly, this Statute extended only to such Priests who were made Priests since Primo of Elizabeth, & were born in England. It was not Treason for a French Priest to be in England, but yet so it must have been if Religion had been the thing they aimed at. But 'tis so foul a Calumny, I am ashamed to stand longer to efute it. The proceed of the Church and State of England were just, honourable and religious, full of mercy and discretion, and unless it were that as C. Fimbria complained of Q. Scaevola, we did not open our breasts wide enough to receive the danger, there is no cause imaginable, I mean on our parts, to move them to so damned a conspiracy, or indeed to any just complaint.  
Secondly, if these were not the causes (as they would feign abuse the world into a persuasion that they were,) what was? I shall tell you, if you will give me leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to derive it from its very head, and then I will leave it to you to judge whether or no my Augury fails me.  
First, I guess that the Traitors were encouraged and primarily moved to this Treason from the prevailing opinion which is most generally received on that side of the lawfulness of deposing Princes that are Heretical. I say generally received, and I shall make my words good, or else the blame shall lay on themselves for deceiving me when they declare their own minds. I instance first in the Fathers of the Society. 
a Nec ulla eis injuria fier si deponantur. Lib. 5 de Rom. Pontif. cap. 7. Ex ipsa vi juris & ante omnem sententiam supre●i Pastor is ac judicis contra ipsum prolatam. Lugduni impres. 1593. p. 106. n 157. Amphith honour. p. 117. Sed heus Arnalde à cuius institutione hau sisti nullam posse intercidere causam quae regem cogat abire regno? Non religionis?  Bellarmine teacheth that Kings have no wrong done them if they be deprived of their Kingdoms when they prove Heretics. Creswell in his Philopater goes farther, saying, that if his Heresy be manifest he is deposed without any explicit judicial sentence of the Pope, the Law itself hath passed the sentence of deposition. And therefore  
Bonarscius is very angry at Arnald the French Kings Advocate for affirming that Religion could be no just cause to depose a lawful Prince, If he had been brought up in their Schools he might have learned another lesson; papa Potest mutare regna & uni auferre atque alteri conferre tanquam summus 
Bellar. de Pont. R. ●. ●. lib 5.  Princeps spiritualis, si id necessarium sit ad animarum salutem, saith Bellarmine. He gives his reason too, quia alioqui possent mali Principes impunè sovere Haereticos, which is a thing not to be suffered by his Holiness. 
Cap. ●.   
This Doctrine is not the private opinion of these Doctors, but est certa, definita, atque indubitata virorum clarissimorum sententia, saith F. Creswell, I suppose 
Vbi saprà p. 107.  he means in his own Order; and yet I must take heed what I say, for Eudaemon johannes is very angry with Sr Edward Cook for saying it is the Doctrine of the jesuits. Do they then deny it? No surely, but Non est jesuitarum propria, it is not theirs alone, 
Apol. pro Garnet. ●. ●.  sed ut Garnettus respondit, totius Ecclesiae, & quidem ab antiquissimis temporibus consensione recepta Doctrina nostra est, and there he reckons up seven and twenty famous Authors of the same opinion. Creswell in his Philopater says as much, if not more: Hinc etiam infert Vniversa Theologorum & juris consultorum Ecclesiasticorum Schola & est certum 
Num. 157.  & de fide, quemcunque Principem Christianum, si à religione Catholicà manifestè deflexerit, & alios avocare voluerit, excidere statim omni potestate ac dignitate ex ipsâ vi juris tum Humani tum Divini. You see how easily they swallow this great camel. Add to this that Bellarmine himself proves that the Pope's temporal power, or of disposing of Prince's Kingdoms is a Catholic Doctrine, for he reckons 
Contra Barclaium in princip. ferè.  up of this opinion, one and twenty Italians, fourteen French, nine Germans, seven English and Scotch, nineteen Spaniards, & these not è faece plebis, but è primoribus, all very famous and very leading Authors.  
You see it is good Divinity amongst them, and I have made it good that it is a general opinion received by all their Side if you will believe themselves and now let us see if it will pass for good Law as well as good Divinity.  
It is not for nothing that the Church of France protests against some of their received Canons; if they did not I know not what would become of their Princes. Their Lilies may be to day, and to morrow be cast into the oven, if the Pope either call their Prince Huguenot, as he did Henry the fourth, or Tyrant as Henry the third, or unprofitable for the Church or Kingdom, as he did King Childeric, whom Pope Zechary, de facto did depose for the same cause, and inserted his act into the body of the Law as a precedent for the future, quod etiam ex authoritate 
Can. Alius. cause. 15. q. 6.  frequenti agit sancta Ecclesia, it is impaled in a parenthesis in the body of the Canon, lest deposition of Princes should be taken for news. The law is clear for matter of fact; the lawfulness follows.  
[Haereticis licitum est auferri quae habent,] and this not only from a private man, but even from Princes, 
Cl. 1. in Summa 23. q. 7.  [nam qui in majore dignitate, est plus punitur] or take it if you please in more proper terms. [Dominus 
Gl. cap. Excōmunica●●● tit. de 〈◊〉. l. 5.  Papa Principem saecularem deponere potest propter haeresim,] & so another may be chosen like the Palatines and Castellans in Poland, just as if the King were dead, Nam per haeresim plusquam civilitèr mortuus censetur, saith Simancha, and that by virtue of a constitution of Gregory the ninth, by which every 
Cap. 45. de paenit.  man is freed from all duty, homage, allegiance or subordination whatsoever due to a Heretic, whether due by a natural, civil, or political right; [aliquo pacto, aut quâcunque firmitate vallatum.] Et sic nota (saith the gloss) quoth Papa potest absolvere La●cum de iur amento fidelitatis.  
I end those things with the attestation of Bellarmine, 
Contra Barclaiumc. ap. 3.  Est res certa & explorata a posse Pontificem maximum just is de causis temporalibus iudicare, atque ipsos Temporales Principes aliquando deponere. And again that we may be sure to know of what nature this doctrine is, he repeats it; Sic igitur de potestate in Temporalibus quod ea sit in Papa non Opinio, sed Certitudo apud Catholicos est. And now let any man say if this be not a Catholic Doctrine, and a likely antecedent to have Treason to be its consequent.  
But I fix not here, only this, it is plain that this proposition is no friend to Loyalty; but that which follows is absolutely inconsistent with it, in case our Prince be of a different persuasion in matters of Religion. For,  
2 It is not only lawful to depose Princes that are heretical, but it is necessary, and the Catholics are bound to do it sub mortali. I know not whether it be so generally, I am sure it is as confidently taught as the former, and by as great Doctors.  
Ecclesia nimis graviter erraret si admitteret allquem 
Lib. 5. de Rom. Pout c. 7.  Regem, qui vellet impunè fovere quamlibet Sectam, & defendere haereticos. So Bellarmine. And again, Non licet Christianis tolerare Regem haereticum, si conetur pertrahere subditos ad suam haeresim. But F. Creswell puts the business home to purpose, Certè 
Ibid.  non tantum licet, sed summâ etiam iuris Divini necessitate, ac praecepto, imò conscientiae vinculo arctissimo, 
Philopat p. 110 n. 162.  & extremo animarum suarum periculo ac discrimine Christianis omnibus hoc ipsum incumbit, si praestare rem possint. Under peril of their souls they must not suffer an heretical Prince to reign over them. Possunt & debent eum arcere ex hominum Christianorum 
Pag. 106. n. 157.  dominatu, ne alios inficiat etc.  
3 He that saith Subjects may and are bound to depose their Princes, and to drive them from all rule over Christians, if they be able, means something more: For what if the Prince resist? still he is bound to depose him if he be able. How if the Prince make a war? The Catholic subject must do his duty nevertheless, and war too, if he be able. He that says he may wage a war with his Prince, I doubt not but thinks he may kill him; and if the fortune of the war lights so upon him, the subject cannot be blamed, for doing of his duty.  
It is plain that killing a Prince is a certain consequent of deposing him, unless the Prince be bound in conscience to think himself a Heretic, when the Pope declares him so, and be likewise bond not to resist, and besides all this will perform these his obligations, and as certainly think himself heretical, and as really give over his Kingdom quietly, as he is bound. For in case any of these should fail, there can be but very slender assurance of his life. I would be loath to obtrude upon men the odious consequences of their opinions, or to make any thing worse which is capable of a fairer construction; but I crave pard on in this particular, the life of Princes is sacred, and is not to be violated so much as in thought, or by the most remote consequence of a public doctrine: But here indeed it is so immediate and natural a consequent of the former that it must not be dissembled. But what shall we think if even this blasphemy be taught in terminis? See this too.  
In the year 1407. when the Duke of Orleans had been slain by john of Burgundy, and the fact notorious beyond a possibility of concealment, he thought it his best way to employ his Chaplain to justify the act, pretending that Orleans was a Tyrant. This stood him in small stead; for by the procurement of Gerson, it was decreed in the Council of Constance, that Tyranny was no sufficient cause for a man to kill a Prince. But yet I find that even this decree will not stand Princes in much stead. First, because the decree runs [ut nemo privatâ Authoritate etc.] but if the Pope commands it, than it is judicium publicum, and so they are never the more secure for all this. Secondly, because Marianae tells us, that this Decree is nothing. Namque id decretum (Concilij Constantiensis) Romano Pontifici Martino quinto probatum non invenio, non Eugenio aut 
De Reg & R. instit. lib. 1. c. 6  Successoribus, quorum consensu Conciliorum Ecclesiasticorum sanctitas stat. Thirdly, because though the Council had forbidden killing of Tyrannical Princes even by public authority, though this Decree had been confirmed by the Pope, which yet it was not, yet Princes are never the more secure if they be convict of Heresy, and therefore let them but add Heresy to their Tyranny, and this Council Non obstante they may be killed by any man; for so it is determined in an Apology made for Chastel, Licitum esse privatis & singulis Reges & Principes Haereseos 
Franc. Verum. Const. p. 2. c. 2.  & Tyrannidis condemnatos occidere, non obstante Decreto Concilij Constantiensis; And the Author of the Book de iustâ abdicatione Henrici. 3. affirms it not only lawful but meritorious.  
How much less than this is that of Bellarmine? 
De Pont. R. lib. 5. c 6.  Si Temporalia obsint fini Spirituali, Spiritualis potestas potest & debet coercere Temporalem, omni ratione ac viâ. If omni ratione, than this of killing him in case of necessity or greater convenience, must not be excluded. But to confess the business openly and freely; It is known that either the Consent of the people, or the Sentence of the Pope, or Consent of learned men is with them held to be a publicum judicium, and sufficient to sentence a Prince and convict him of Heresy or Tyranny. That opinion which makes the people judge is very rare amongst them but almost generally exploded, that opinion which 
Vide 〈◊〉. Image of both Churches.  makes the learned to be their judge is I think proper to Mariana or to a few more with him, but that the sentence of the Pope is a sufficient conviction of him, and a complete judicial act, is the most Catholic opinion on that Side, as I shall show anon. Now whether the Pope, or learned men, or the people be to pass this sentence upon the Prince, it is plain that it is an Universal Doctrine amongst them that after this sentence (whosesoever it be) it is then without Question lawful to kill him, and the most that ever they say is, that it is indeed not lawful to kill a King, not lawful for a private man, of his own head, without the public sentence of his judge, but when this judge (whom they affirm to be the Pope) hath passed his sentence, than they doubt not of its being lawful. That I say true I appeal to 
a Tom. 3. disp. 5. q. 8. punct. 3.  Gregory de Valentia, 
b In sum. l. ● c. 6. Apolog. ad  Tolet, 
c R. Angl. c. 13  Bellarmine, 
d Defence fidei lib. 6 c. 4.  Suarez, 
e in 13 cap. ad Rom. disp. 5.  Salmeron, 
f Quaest p. in c. 3. jud.  Serarius, 
g De just. & iure. to m. 4. tr. 3. d. 6.  Molina, 
h Aphoris. verb. Tyrannus. 1. Instit, Moral 2. p. lib. 11. c. 5. q 10.  Emanuel Sà, ⁱ Azorius, 
k In Hercul. Furent.  Martinus Delrius, 
l de justit. & jure. c 9 dub. 4  Lessius, 
m Chawesauris polit.  Gretser, 
n in resp ad Aphoris. Calvinistarun.  Becanus, 
o Contr. Calvinist. Aphorism. c. 3. ad Aphor. 1.  Sebastan Heissius, 
p In expostul. ad Henrici. Reg. pro Societate.  Richeome, 
q in Apolog. pro Henrico Garnetto.  Eudaemon johannes, 
r Ad annum 0undi. 2669. n. 7.  Salianus, 
s Tract. 29. p. 2 de quinto praecepto Decal. n. 12.  Filliucius, 
t tom. 3. disp. 4. q 8. dub. 3 n. 32.  Adam Tanner, and their great 
u opusc. 20. & lib. 1. de regim. Praecip c. 6.  Thomas Aquinas.  
All these and many more that I have seen teach the lawfulness of kill Kings after public sentence, and then to beautify the matter profess that they deny the lawfulness of Regicidium, by a private authority. For if the Pope sentence him then he is no longer a King, and so the kill of him is not Regicidium, and if any man doth kill him after such sentence, than he kills him not privatâ Authoritate, or sinè judicio publico, which is all they affirm to be unlawful.  
And thus they hope to stop the clamour of the world against them, yet to have their opinions stand entire, the way to their own ends fair, but the Prince no jot the more secure of his life. I do them no wrong, I appeal to the Authors themselves, there. I will be tried. For that either the People, or that a Company of learned men, or to be sure the Pope may licence a man to kill the King, they speak it with one voice, and tongue. And now after all this we may better guess what manner of counsel or threatening (for I know not which to call it) that 
In lib. sub nomine Torti. edit. Colon. Agrip. 1610. pag 21.  was which Bellarmine gave sometimes to K. james of B. M. Si securus regnare velit Rex, si vitae sitae & suorum consulere cupiat, sinat Catholicos frist religione suâ! If this be good counsel, then in case the Catholics were hindered from the free profession of their Religion, at the best it was full of danger if not certain ruin. But I will no more rake this Augaean Stable, in my first Part I shown it was too Catholic a Doctrine, and too much practised by the great Cisalpine Prelate. I add no more, lest truth itself should blush, fearing to become incredible.  
Now if we put all these things together, and then we should prove to be Heretics in their account, we are in a fair case both Prince and people, if we can but guess rightly at this we shall need I think to look no further why fire was called for to consume both our King and Country, nor why we may fear it another time.  
The Author of the Epistle of comfort to the Catholics in prison printed by authority in the year of the Powder Treason, is very earnest to persuade his Catholics not to come to our Churches or communicate with us in any part of our divine service, affrighting them with the strange terriculamenta of half Christians, Hypocrites, Denyers of Christ, in case they joined with us in our Liturgy. Strange affrightments these yet not much more than what is 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 36 Can. Apost 33. Laodic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  true if they esteem us Heretics. For if they think us so, we are so to them, and they communicating with us do as much sin, as if we were so indeed.  
But if we be not Heretics what need all this stir permissu Superiorum. the Counsel of Recusancy was unreasonable, dangerous, schismatical, and as the case then stood, very imprudent. In charity to their discretion we cannot but think them uncharitable in their opinion of us.  
But there is no need we should dispute ourselves into a conjecture, themselves speak out and plain enough. Hear Bellarmine under the visor of Tortus, affirming that the King's Edict commanded the Catholics 
Apol ad ●● Angl.  to go to Heretics Churches, speaking of ours But more plain is that of Champ the Sorbonist 
Cap. 11. pag. 149 Douai. 1616.  in his Treatise of Vocation of Bishops. Therefore as Arrianisme is a condemned Heresy, & the Professors thereof be Heretics, so likewiseiss Protestantisme a condemned Heresy, and those that Profess it be also Heretics.  
By this time we see too plainly that the state of Protestant Princes is full of danger where these men have to do. They may be deposed and expelled from the Government of their Kingdoms, they must be deposed by the Catholics under peril of their souls, it may be done any way that is most convenient, they may be rebelled against, fought with, slain. For all this, it weresome ease, if here we might fix a Nonultrà. For perhaps these Princes might put in a Plea for themselves, and go near to prove themselves to be no Heretics. All's one, for though they do, yet unless they can persuade his Holiness not to judge them so, or declare them Heretics, all is to no purprse, for to him they must stand or fall. Nam iudicare an Rex pertrahat ad haeresim necne pertinet ad Pontificem. So Bellarmine They need not stay till his Heresy be of itself manifest, he is then to be used like a Heretic when by the Pope of Rome he shall be judged Heretical.  
But what matter is it if the Pope be judge, for if they may be deposed, as good he as any else. What grievance then, can this be to the state of Princes more than the former? Yes, very much. 1. Because the Pope by his order to spirituals may take away Kingdoms upon more pretences then actual heresy. It is a large title, and may do any thing. Bellarmine expresses it handsomely, and it is the doctrine 
Vbi supra.  of their great Aquinas. The Pope (saith he) by 
De regim, Princip.  his Spiritual power may dispose of the Temporalties of all the Christians in the World, when it is requisite to the end of the Spiritual power. The words are plain that he may do it for his own ends (for his is the Spiritual power) that is, for the advancement of the See Apostolic, and thus (to be sure) he did actually wish Frederick Barbarossa, john of Navarre, the Earl of Tholouse, and our own King john. 2. The Pope pretends to a power that to avoid the probable danger of the increase of heresy he may take away a Territory from the right owner, as is reported by the Cardinal D'Ossat, and this is soon pretended, for who is there that cannot make probabilities, especially when a Kingdom is at stake? 3. We find examples that the Pope hath excommunicate Princes, and declared them heretics when all the heresy hath been a not laying their crowns at the feet of S. Peter. The case of Lewis the fourth is every where known, whom john the twenty third Excommunicated. Platina tells the reason. He called himself 
In Clement. quinto.  Emperor without the Pope's leave, and aided the Italian deputies to recover Milan. Doubtless a most damnable and fundamental heresy. 4. How if it proves in the Pope's account to be a heresy to defend the immediate right of Princes to their Kingdoms, dependant only on God, not on the See Apostolic. If this be no heresy, nor like heresy to say it, I would feign learn the meaning of Baronius concerning the book of johannes de Roa, who sometimes had been a jesuit, but then changed his order, and became Augustinian, saying, it was sentenced to the 
Baron, tom. 6. Annal. An. Dom 447. n 8  fire before it had escaped the press. And good reason, Nihil enim tale à Patribus societatis didicit. Good men, they never taught him any such doctrine as is contained in that pestilent book, de iuribus principalibus defendendis & moderandis iustè. Now if this be heresy or like it, to preach such a Doctrine, then likely it will be judged heresy in Princes to do so, that is, to hold their crowns without acknowledgement of subordination to S. Peter's chair. And if it be not heresy to do so, it is in their account as bad, for so the jesuits in their Veritas defensa against the Action of Arnald the Advocate affirm in terminis, that the actions of some Kings of France against the Pope in defence of their Regalties, were but examples of rebellion, and spots to disgrace the purity of the French Lilies. 5. Put case the Pope should chance to mistake in his sentence against a Prince, for the cause of heresy, yet for all this mistake, he can secure any man to take away the Prince's life or Kingdom. His Lawyers will be his security for this point. For although in this case, the deposition of the Prince should be, and be acknowledged to be against God's law, the Prince being neither Tyrant nor heretic, yet his Holiness commanding it, takes away the unlawfulness of it, by his dispensation. So D. Marta, and for this doctrine he quotes Hostiensis, Felinus, Gratus, the Abbot, the 
De Iurisd cas. 64. n. 14.  Arch bishop of Florence, Ancharanus, johannes Andreas, Laurentius de Pinu, and some others. Indeed his Divines deny this, sed contrarium tamen observatur, as it's very well observed by the same Doctor, 
Num. 17.  for he brings the practice & example of Pope Martin the fifth, julius the second, Celestine the third, Alexander the third, and Sixtus quintus, all which dispensed in cases acknowledged to be expressly against God's law. 6. Lastly. How if the Pope should lay a claim to all the Kingdoms of the world, as belonging ro S. Peter patrimony by right of spiritual pre-eminence? I know no great security we have to the contrary. For first, It is known he hath claimed the Kingdom of England, as feudatary to the See Apostolic. Which when I considered I wondered 
a Rex Anglorū est subditus Romano Pontisici ratione directi domini● quod in Regnum Angliae & Hiberniae Romana habet Ecclesia. Bellarm. Apol. adv. R. Angl. c. 3.  not at that new and insolent title which Mosconius gives his Holiness of Desensor fidei. He might have added the title of Rex Catholicus, & Christianissimus. For D. Marta in his treatise of jurisdiction, which he dedicated to Paulus quintus, hath that for an argument why he dedicated his Book to him, because for soothe the Pope is the only Monarch of the World. But of greater authority is that of Thomas Aquinas affirming, the Pope to be the vertical top of all power Ecclesiastical 
b De Mayest, milit. Eccles. c. 1. pag. 25.  
c Tibi à quo emanat omnis iurisdictio, unicus in orbe Pontifex, Imperator & Rex, omnium Principum superior, rerumque & personarum supremus & Dominus. Epist. Dedicat.  
d 2 Scent, didst. 44. & lib. 3. de Regim. Princ.  and Civil. So that now it may be true which the Bishop of Patara told the Emperor, in behalse of Pope Sylverius. Multos esse Reges, sed nullum talem, qualis ille, qui est Papa super Ecclesiam 
Lib. erat. in Breviar. de causâ Nestorian cap. 21.  Mundi totius.  
For these reasons I think it is true enough that the constituting the Pope the judge of Princes in the matter of deposition, is of more danger than the thing itself. The sum is this. However schism or heresy may be pretended, yet it is but during the Pope's pleasure that Kings or subjects shall remain firm in their mutual necessitude. For if our Prince be but excommunicate or declared heretic, then to be a good subject will be accounted no better than irreligion and Anti-Catholicisme. If the conclusion be too hard and intolerable then so are the Premises, and yet they pass for good Catholic doctrine among themselves.  
But if truly and ex animo they are otherwise affected, they should do well to unsay what hath been said, and declare themselves by public authority against such doctrines. And say whether or no their determinations shall be de fide? If they be, than all those famous Catholic Doctors, Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, Creswell, Mariana, Emanuel Sá, etc. are heretics, and their Canons teach heresy, and Many of their Popes to be condemned as heretical, for practising and teaching deposition of Princes by an authority usurped against, and in prejudice of the Christian faith. But if their answers be not de fide, than they had as good say nothing, for the danger is not at all decreased, because if there be Doctors on both sides by their own 
* Charity maintained by Cath. cap. 7.  assertion they may without sin follow either, but yet more safely if they follow the most received and the most authorized, and whether this rule will lead them, I will be judged by any man that hath considered the premises. Briefly either this thing must remain in the same state it is, and our Princes still exposed to so extreme hazards, or else let his Holiness seat himself in his chair, condemn these doctrines, vow against their future practice, limit his or do ad spiritualia, contain himself within the limits of causes directly and merely Ecclesiastical, disclaim all power, so much as indirect over Prince's temporals, and all this with an intent to oblige all Christendom. Which when I see done, I shall be most ready to believe that nothing in Popery, doth either directly or by a necessary consequence destroy Loyalty to our lawful Prince, but not till then, having so much evidence to the contrary.  
Thus much was occasioned by consideration of the cause of the Disciples Quaere which was when they saw this, that their L. and M. for his difference in Religion was turned forth of doors, which when they saw,  
They said Lord]. It was well they asked at all, and would not too hastily act what they too suddenly had intended, but it was better that they asked Christ, it had been the best warrant they could have had, could they have obtained but a Magister dixit. But this was not likely, it was too strange a Question to ask of such a Mr. A Magistro mansuetudinis licentiam crudelitat is? Nothing could have come more cross to his disposition. His spirit never was addicted to blood, unless it were to shed his own. He was a Prince of peace and set forth to us by all the Symbols of peace and gentleness, as of a sheep, a lamb, a hen, a gentle twining vine, the healing Olive. and is it likely that such a oneshould give his placet to the utter ruin of a company of poor Villagers for denying him a night's lodging moved thereto by the foregoing scandal of a Schism? He knew better what it cost to redeem aman, and to save his life from destruction then to be so hasty for his ruin. And if the Father's Confessors who were to answer the Question of the day had but reflected upon this Gospel, they might have informed their penitents better than to have engaged them upon such Antichristian, and Treasonable practices, as to destroy an assembly of Christians, as to depose or kill a King.  
It is the proper cognisance of Mahumetanisme, by fire and sword to maintain their cause, and to propagate their Religion, by ruin of Princes and conquering their Kingdoms. But it is the excellency of Christianity, that by humility and obedience it made Prince's tributary to our Dear Master, and homagers to his Kingdom. When Valentinian sent Calligonus his Chamberlain to S. Ambrose to threaten him from his faith, his answer was, Deus permittit tibi ut impleas quod minaris. Ego patiar, quod est Episcopi, tu facies quod est spadonis. He did not stir up the numerous people of his Diocese to rebel against the Emperor, or depose him, employed no agent in his Court to undermine his security, nor assasine to take his life. He and the rest of those good Fathers, would not have lost their possibility of being Martyrs, for the world, unless it were by persuading the Emperors to the Christian faith. We pray for all our Governors, that they might have long life, a secure government, a safe house, strong armies, good subjects, quiet world. So Tertullian. 
Apologet.   
I had thought that the Doctrine and example of our B. Saviour, the practice Apostolical and primitive, had been ties enough to keep us in our obedience to God and the King, and in Christian charity to all, but I find that all these precepts come to nothing, for the Apostles and primitive Christians did not actually depose Kings, nor alter states, nor call for fire to consume their enemies: not because it was simply unlawful so to do, or any way adverse to the precepts of Christ, but because they wanted Power. So Bellarmine: The Church gave 
De Pontif. R. l. 5. c. 7.  leave that the faithful should obey julian, because than they wanted forces. And F. Creswell is very confident of the business, They might without all Question have appointed to themselves other Kings and Princes, if 
Philopater P. 107. n. 158.  the Christians had been strong enough to bring their intendments to pass. But because they could not, therefore it was not lawful for them to go about it, nor is it for us in the same case, especially if the Prince hath quiet possession, and a strong guard about him, then by no means is it lawful for a single man by 
Disp. 5. in c. 13. add Roman.  his own authority to assault his Prince that rules Tyrannically. So Salmeron. But who sees not that this way murder may be lawful. For true it is God commanded us, saying, Thou shalt not kill, that is, if thou art not able to lift up thy hand, or strike a stroke; thou shalt not blaspheme, that is, if thou be'st speechless, thou must be obedient to thy Prince, that is, if thou canst not tell how to help it. Good Doctrine this! And indeed it might possibly be something if God had commanded our subordination to Princes only for wrath, for than sivires adsint, if we can defend ourselves we are secure, we need not fear his wrath, but when he adds, also for conscience sake, I cannot sufficiently wonder that any man should obtrude so senseless, so illiterate, and so impious an interpretation upon the Christian world, under the Title of Catholic Doctrine.  
Christ when he was betrayed and seized upon by his Murderers could have commanded twelve Legions of Angels for his Guard, Non defuerunt vires; and in all humane likelihood such a Satellitium as that would have moved them to a belief in him, or else I am sure, might have destroyed the unbelievers. Shall I say more against this rude glossema? Then thus. It is false that the Primitive Christians had not power to defend themselves against their Persecutors. Hear S. Cyprian; Nemo nostrum quando apprehenditur reluctatur, nec se adversus iniustitiam, & violentiam vestram quamvis nimius & copiosus noster sit Populus, ulciscitur. They could have resisted and that to blood, but they had not so learned Christ. Prayers and tears were the arms of Christians, and then they had a defence beyond all this, when they were hard put to it, Mori potuerunt, a submission of their bodies to Martyrdom was their last refuge.  
Thus S. Agnes, Lucia, Agatha, Christina, Domitilla saved both their faith and chastity, non armis, sed ignibus & carnificis manu, the tormentors last cruelty defended them from all succeeding danger.  
I will not yet conclude, that, that which these men obtrude for Catholic Doctrine is flat and direct heresy, I will instance but once more and then I shall. In the fourth Council of Toledo which was assembled when the usurping and Tyrannising Goths did domineer in Europe, the most where of were Tyrants, Usurpers, or Arrians; the Council decreed that if any man did violate the life or person of his King, aut potestate Regni exuerit, kill him or depose him, Anathema sit etc. He should be accursed in the sight of God and his Holy Angels, and together withal the companions of his iniquity, he should be separated from the Catholic Church. And now I hope I may say that these men who either practice or advise such practices as killing or deposing Kings, are as formally condemned for heresy, and anathematised, as ever was Manichee or Cataphrygian. I know not, but perhaps this might be thought of when the jesuits were inscribed heretics upon the public pillar before the Lowre in Paris, upon their banishment: however, let them answer it as they may, it concerns them as much as their being Catholics comes to, Et considerent, quia quae praedicant tantoperè verba, aut ipsorum summorum Pontificum sunt suas fimbrias extendentium, aut illorum qui eis adulantur, as said Aeneas Silvius, but at 
De gestis council. Basil. lib. 1.  no hand can it be Christian Doctrine.  
I instanced in these things to show the Antithesis between the spirit of our B. Saviour who answered the Question of the text, and the Father's Confessors of whom was asked the Question of the day.  
But give me leave to consider them not only as mis-informing their penitents, but as concealing their intended purpose, for even this way, the persons to whom the Question was propounded made 
a Cap. quantae de senten. excom. &. c. delicto ibid. in 6. 13. q. 3. q. 3.  themselves guilty of the intended machination. For by all Law Ecclesiastical and Civil he that conceals an intended Murder or Treason makes himself 
b l. 1. occisorum ad I. c. Syllanian. & l 1. §. 1. ad l. Cornel. de falsis l. quisquis ad l lul. Mayest.  as much a party for concealing, as is the Principal for contriving.  
Ob. But these Father's Confessors could not be accused by virtue of these general Laws, as being exempt by virtue of special case, for they received notice of these things only in confession, the seal of which is so sacred and inviolable, that he is sacrilegious who in any case doth break it open, though it be to avoid the greatest evil that can happen, so Bellarmine; to save the lives of all the Kings in Christendom, 
Apol. adv. R. Angl. Casaub. ad Front. Duc. In 3. part. D. Thom. disp. 33. Sect. 1. n. 2.  so Binet; though to save a whole common wealth from damage temporal or spiritual, of body or soul, so Suarez.  
A considerable matter! On the one side we are threatened by sacrilege, on the other by danger of Princes and commonwealths, for the case may happen, that either the Prince and whole State may be suffered to perish bodily and ghostly, or else the Priest must certainly damn himself by the sacrilegious breach of the holy Seal of confession. Give me leave briefly to consider it, and, both for the acquittance of our state in its proceed against these Traitors, and for the regulating of the case itself, to say these two things.  
1 This present Treason was not revealed to these Father's Confessors in formal confession. 2. If it had, it did not bind to secrecy in the present case. Of the first, only a word.  
1 It was only propounded to them in way of Question or consultation (like this in the text) as appeared 
Vide Casaub. ep. ad Front. D. p. 133.  by their own confessions, and the attestation of then Sr Henry Montague Recorder of London to Garnet himself. It could not therefore be a formal 
D. Soto. in. 4. l. Sent. d. 18. q. 4 art. 5. concls. 5. Navar. c. 8. n. 18. Suarez. disp. 33 Sect 2. Coninck des●gil conf. dub. 1. n. 7.  confession, & therefore not bind to the seal. It is the common opinion of their own Doctors: Non enim inducitur obligatio sigilli in confession quam quis facit sine ullo animo accipiendi absolutionem, sed solum consilij petendi causâ.  
2 It was propounded to these Father's Confessors as a thing not subjicible to their penitential, judicature, because it was a fact not repent of, but then in agitation, and resolved upon for the future. How then could this be a confession, whose institution must certainly be in order to absolution, and how could this be in any such order; when it was a business of which they could not expect to be absolved unless they hoped to sin with a pardon about their necks; and on condition God would be merciful to them in its remission, would come and profess that they were resolved to anger him? In reason this could be no act of repentance, neither could it, by confession of their own side. It is the doctrine of Hostiensis: and 
b Cap Sacerdos. 3. q. n. 116.  Navarre, and 
c In lucubrat: ad Bartolum. in L. ut vim. n. 22 ff. de iustitia & iure  Cardinal Alban confess it to be most commonly received.  
3 It was not only not repent of, but by them reputed to be a good action, and so could not be a matter of confession. I appeal to any of their own Manuals and penitentiary books. It is culpable say they. I am sure it is ridiculous in any man to confess and shrive himself of a good action, and that this was such in their opinion, it's plain, by that impious answer of Garnet, affirming it a business 
See proceed. against late Traitors.  greatly meritorious, if any good might thence accrue to the Catholic cause.  
4 By this their pretended confession they endeavoured to acquire new complices, as is evident in the proceed against the Traitors. They were therefore bound to reveal it, for it neither was nor could be a proper and formal confession. That this is the common opinion of their own Schools, see it affirmed by Aegidius Coninck. 
Vbisuprà.   
The first particular then is plain. Here neither was the form of confession, nor yet could this thing be a matter of confession, therefore supposing the seal of confession to be sacredly inviolable in all cases, yet they were highly unblamable for their concealment in the present.  
2 But the truth of the second particular is more to be inquired of. That is, that though these things had been only revealed in confession, and this confession had been formal and direct, yet they were bound in the present case to reveal it, because the seal of confession is not so inviolable, as that in no case it is to be broken up, and if in any, especially it may be opened in the case of treason.  
I never knew any thing cried up with so general a voice upon so little ground, as is the Over-hallowed seal of confession.  
True it is that an ordinary secret committed to a friend in civil commerce is not to be revealed upon every cause, nor upon many, (but upon some it may as they all confess.) If thus, then much rather is this to be observed in the revelation of the secrets of our consciences, not only from the ordinary tye to secrecy, but likewise least sins should grow more frequent, if so great a remedy of them be made so odious, as to expose us to a public infamy or danger of the law. The Council therefore that first introduced this obligation was very prudent and reasonable, pleads a thousand year's prescription, and relies upon good conveniences. This is all that ever could be proved of it (as may appear anon) but these are too weak a base, to build so great a structure on it, as to make it sacrilege, or any sin at all, to reveal confessions in some cases.  
1 For first, if because it is delivered as a secret, and such a secret, it is the more closely and religiously to be kept; it is true, but concludes no more, but that it must be a greater cause that must authorise a publication of this, then of the secrets of ordinary commerce between friend and friend.  
2 If the licensing of publication of confession be a way to make confession odious, and therefore that it may not be published, I say if this concludes, then on the contrary it concludes fare more strongly, that therefore in some cases it may be published, because nothing can make a thing more odious and intolerable, then if it be made a cover for grand impieties, so as to engage a true subject, quietly & Knowingly to see his Prince murdered.  
3 If it be discouragement to the practice of confession that some sins revealed in it must be published though with peril to the delinquents fame & life, than it will be a fare greater discouragement to the sin, when that it shall by an universal judgement be so detested, that its concealment may not be permitted, though it be with the hazard of discouraging the Holy duty of confession: and when the being guilty of such a sin, shall reduce men into such straits, that either they shall want the benefit of absolution, or submit themselves to a public satisfaction, and so even in this particular the benefit is fare greater than the imaginary inconvenience.  
The conveniences of the Seal force no more than that it is convenient to be observed, not simply and absolutely in all cases necessary. And perhaps Suarez the great patron of it perceived it, however he lays the burden, super communi consensu Ecclesiae, 
In 3. Part. D. Thom. disp. 33. sect. 1. n. 2  eiusque perpetuâ traditione. If then I can show, that there is no such Catholic consent of the present Church, nor any universal tradition of the ancient Church for the inviolable Seal, but plainly the contrary, than our Church in her permission of the Priests to reveal some confessions is as inculpable as those of the present Church, who (besides herself) teach and practise it, and as the Primitive Church whose, example in this (as in other things) she strictly follows.  
Of the first. The Church of England, which observes the seal of confession as sacredly as reason or religion itself can possibly permit, yet forbids not disclosure in case of Murder or Treason, but in these particulars leaves us entire in our obedience to 
Can. 113. A. D. 1604.  the common laws of England, and these command it.  
That the Church of England gives leave in some cases to reveal confessions, is argument enough to prove that the Seal is not founded upon the consent of the present Catholic Church. For it is no more a begging of the Question (nor apparently so much) to say, the Church of England is a part of the Catholic Church, and therefore her consent is required to make a thing universal, then to say, the Church of Rome is the whole Catholic Church, therefore her consent is sufficient to make a thing Catholic. But I shall not need to proceed this way. For,  
1 It is apparent that of their own side Altisidiorensis largely and professedly proves the iawfulnesse of publication in some cases as is to be seen. Lib. 4. Summae tract. 6. cap. 3. q. 7. and Garnet himself, the man who if any had most need to stand in defence of the Seal that the pretence of it might have defended him, yet confessed of his own accord, Leges quae celare haec prohibent apprimè esse justas & salutares. He 
Actio in prodit. lat. p. 99  adds his reason, and that is more than his authority, for (saith he) it is not fitting that the life and safety of a Prince should depend upon the private niceties of any man's conscience. If two, nay if one dissent, it is enough to destroy a consent. But see farther.  
There are many cases, generally confessed amongst themselves, in which the seal of formal and (as they love to speak) Sacramental confession may be broken open. I instance but in two or three.  
First, confession may be revealed to clear a doubtful case of marriage. It is the opinion of many great 
Practic. crim. Ecclesiast. cap. 109.  Canonists, as you may see them quoted by Suarez de Paz. and Covaruvias, and the case of the Venetian 
Resol. de Matrimon▪  who married a Virgin that was both his sister and daughter: and that at Rome under Pope Paul the third almost to like purpose, were long disputed on both sides, whether they were to be revealed or not, so that at most, it is but a doubtful matter in such cases, whether the tye of secrecy doth oblige. Now if for the proof of marriage the seal may be broken up, that man and wife might live contentedly and as they ought, strange it should be unlawful to reveal confessions in case of Treason, for the safety of a Prince or State!  
2 In case of heresy the seal binds not, by their own general confession. It is a rule amongst them,  
Haeresis est crimen quod non confessio celat.  
Now I would fain learn why Treason is not as revealeable as Heresy? Is heresy dangerous to souls? Then surely, so is Treason, unless it be none, or a very small crime. May heresy infect others? So may Treason, as it did in the present. It may then as well be revealed as heresy. Now that it may something rather, I have these reasons. 1. Because it is not so certain that such an opinion is heresy as that such a fact is Treason. 2. Because although both Treason and real heresy be damnable and dangerous to souls, yet heresy kills no Kings as treason doth. I confess that heresy may, and doth teach it, but than it degenerates into Treason. Now if some heresy may be Treason, than that Treason is heresy, & so a case of Treason may occur, in which from their own confession, treason is revealeable.  
3 By the most general voice of their own side any man may licence his confessor to reveal his confession. It is the doctrine of Scotus, Durandus, Almain, Navarre, Medina, and generally of all the Thomists. I infer, if a private man may licence his Confessor to reveal his confession, than the seal of confession is not founded upon any divine commandment, for if it were, the penitent could not give the Priest licence to break it. But if the penitent may give his Confessor leave, because the tye of secrecy is a bond in which the Priest stands bound to the penitent, & he giving him leave, remits of his own right, than much rather may a whole State authorize this publication, for what ever personal right a private man hath, that the whole State hath much rather, 
L. quod Maior ff. ad Municipalem.  for he is included in it as a part of the whole, and in such cases as concern the whole commonwealth (as this of treason doth most especially) the rule of the Law holds without exception, Refertur ad universos quod publicè fit per maiorem partem, the delinquent 
ff. de regut juris. ad §. refertur. L. 7 §. ult. ff. de pact.  gives leave to the publication of confession, therefore because the whole state doth, whereof he is one member. I add, that in the case of Treason this is much rather true, for here the delinquent looseth all his right whatsoever, praedial, personal, and of privilege, & therefore the Commonwealth can the better licence the publication, and the breach of the bond of secrecy, in which the Confessor stood tied to the penitent by virtue of implicit stipulation.  
4 Lastly, even in special in the very case of Treason confessed, many of their own do actually practise a publication, when either they are loyal of themselves, or dare not be otherwise.  
In instance first in the Church of France. For this See Bodinus, who reports of a Norman Gentleman whom his Confessor discovered for having confessed 
De republs. lib. 2. cap. 5.  a Treasonable purpose he sometimes had, of killing Francis the first, of which he was penitent, did his penance, craved absolution obtained it but yet was sentenced to the axe by express commission from the 
Histoire de lapaiz.  King to the Parliament of Paris. The like confession was made by the Lord of Haulteville when he was in danger of death, which when he had escaped, he incurred it with the disadvantage of public infamy upon the Scaffold. I instance not in the case of Barriere, it is every where known as it is reported partly by Thuanus, but more fully by the Author of Histoire de la paix. Nor yet is France singular in the practice of publication of confessed Treason. For at Rome there have been examples of the like, I mean of those who confessed their purpose of killing the 
Dominic. à Soto. memb. 3. q 4. concls. 2 derat. regendi secret.  Pope, who were revealed by their Confessors, and accordingly punished.  
Thus than the first pretence proves a nullity, & either our Laws are just in commanding publication of confession in case of Treason, or themselves very culpable in teaching & practising it in the same, & in cases of less moment. The 2d is like the first for it is extremely vain to pretend that the seal of confession is founded upon Catholic tradition. judge by the sequel.  
The first word I hear of concealing confessions 
Lib 7. hist. c. 16.  is in Sozomen, relating how the Greek Church about the time of Decius the Emperor, set over the penitents 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  a public penitentiary Priest, who was bound to be Vir bonae conversationis, servansque secretum, a good man and a keeper of secrets, for indeed he was bound to conceal some crimes, in particular those which an Adulteress had confessed, I mean concerning her Adultery, as appears in the Canons of S. Basil. But yet this Priest who was so tied to a religious secrecy did publish many of them in the Congregation 
Epist. ad Amphil.  before the people, that they might reprove the delinquent and discountenance the sin. The same story is reported by Cassiodore, and Nicephorus from the same Author.  
The lawfulness and practice of publication in some cases is as clear in Origen. If (saith he) the Physician 
Homil. 2. in 37. Psal.  of thy soul perceives thy sins to be such as to need so harsh a remedy as to have them published before the assemblies of the people, that others may be admonished, & thou the better cured, he need be very deliberate, and skilful in the application of it. Hitherto no such thing as an Universal tradition for the pretended inviolable sacramental seal, for Origen plainly, and by them confessedly speaks of such sins as first were privately confessed to the Priest; how else should he deliberate of their publication? but yet he did so, and for all the seal of confession, sometimes opened many of them, to no fewer witnesses than a whole assembly. Thus it was in the Greek Church both Law and Custom. But now if we look into the Latin Church we shall find that it was taken up from example of the Greeks and some while practised, that some particular sins should be published in the Church before the Congregation, as it is confessed in the Council of Mentz, and 
Cap. 10. & 21. l. 19 c. 37.  inserted by Burchard into his Decree.  
But when the Lay piety began to cool, and the zeal of some Clergy men wax too hot, they would needs heighten this custom of publication of some sins to a Law of the publishing of all sins. This being judged to be inconvenient, expressed the first decree for the seal of confession in the Latin Church. Now see how it is uttered, and it will sufficiently inform us both of the practice and the opinion which Antiquity had of the obligation to the seal.  
Illam contra Apostolicam regulam praesumptionem, etc. that is, it was against the Apostolical ordinance that a Law should enjoin that the Priest should reveal 
Decret S. Leonis. P. M. Epist. 80. ad episc. Campan.  all those sins which had been told him in confession. It might be done so it were not required and exacted, and yet might be so required, so it were not a publication of all. Non enim omnium hujusmodi sunt peceata; saith S. Leo, some sins are inconvenient to be published, it is not fit the world should know all, therefore, some they might, or else he had said nothing. The reason which he gives makes the business somewhat clearer, for he derives it not from any simple necessity of the thing or a Divine Right, but least men out of inordinate love to themselves, should rather refuse to be washed then buy their purity with so much shame. The whole Epistle hath many things in it excellently to the same purpose.  
I say no more, the Doctrine and practice of antiquity is sufficiently evident, and that there is nothing less than an Universal tradition for the seal of confession to be observed in all cases, even of sins of the highest malignity.  
Thus these Father's Confessors are made totally inexcusable by concealing a Treason which was not revealed to them in a formal confession, and had been likewise culpable though it had, there being as I have shown, no such sacredness of the Seal as to be inviolable in all cases whatsoever.  
I have now done with the several considerations of the persons to whom the Question was propounded, they were the Father's Confessors in the day, but it was Christ the Lord in my text. The Question itself follows.  
Shall we command fire to come from heaven and consume them?  
The Question was concerning the fate of a whole Town of Samaria, in our case it was more; of the Fate of a whole Kingdom. It had been well if such a Question had been silenced by a direct negative or (as the judges of the Areopage used to do) put off ad diem longissimum, that they might have expected the answer three ages after.  De morte hominis nulla est cunctatio longa, 
No demur had been too long in a case of so much and so royal blood, the blood of a King, of a King's Children, of a King's Kingdom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, King and Kingdom should have & been made a solemn sacrifice to appease theirsolemndeliberate malice. I said deliberate, for they were loath to be malicious without good advice, and therefore they asked their question, worthy of an Oracle, even no less than Delphic, where an evil spirit was the Numen, and a Witch the Prophet. For the Question was such of which a Christian could not doubt though he had been fearfully scrupulous in his resolutions. For whoever questioned the unlawfulness of murder, of murdering innocents', of murdering them who were confessed righteous? for such was their proposal, being rather willing that Catholics should perish with those whom they thought, heretics, then that their should be no blood spilt. But to the question: it was fire they called for. The most merciless of all the Elements. No possibility of relenting when once kindled and had its object. It was the fittest instrument for merciless men, men of no bowels whose malice like their instrument did agere ad extremum suarnm virium, work to the highest of its possibility. Secondly, It was fire indeed they called for, but not like that in my text, not fire from heaven, They might have called as long and as loud as those Priests did, who contested with Elisha, no fire would have come from heaven to have consumed what they had intended for a sacrifice. God's anathemas post not so fast as ours do. Deus non est sicut homo. Man curseth often when God blesseth, men condemn whom God acquits, and therefore they were loath to trust God with their cause, they therefore take it into their own hands. And certainly if to their Anathemas they add some faggots of their own and gunpowder, 'tis odds but than we may be consumed indeed, and so did they, their fire was not from heaven.  
Lastly, it was a fire so strange, that it had no example. The Apostles indeed pleaded a mistaken precedent for the reasonableness of their demand, they desired leave to do but even as Elias did. [The Greeks' only retain this clause, it is not in the Bibles of the Church of Rome] and really these Romano-barbari could never pretend to any precedent for an act so barbarous as theirs. Adrimelech indeed killed a King, but he spared the people, Haman would have killed the people, but spared the King, but that both King and people, Princes and judges, branch, and rush and root should die at once (as if Caligula's were actuated and all England upon one head) was never known till now, that all the malice in the world met in this as in a centre. The Sicilian evensong, the matin's of S. Bartholomew, known for the pitiless and damned massacres, were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the dream of the shadow of smoke if compared with this great fire. In tam occupato saeculo fabulas Vulgaris nequitia non invenit. This was a busy age; Herostratus must have invented a more sublimed malice then the burning of one Temple, or not have been so much as spoke of since the discovery of the Powder-Treason. But I must make more haste I shall not else climb the sublimity of this impiety. Nero was sometimes the populare ●dium was popularly hated, and deserved it too, for he slew his Master, and his wife and all his family once or twice over, opened his mother's womb, fired the City, laughed at it, slandered the Christians for it, but yet all these were but principia malorum, the very first rudiments of evil. Add then to these, Herod's Masterpiece at Ramah as it was deciphred by the tears and sad threnes of the Matrons in an Universal mourning for the loss of their pretty infants, yet this of Herod will prove but an infant wickedness, and that of Nero, the evil but of one city. I would willingly have found out an example, but I see I cannot, should I put into the scale the extract of all the old Tyrants famous in Antique stories,  
Bristoni; stabulum Regis, Busiridis are as,  
Antiphatae mensas & Tauricaregna Thoantis,  
Should I take for true story the highest cruelty as it was fancied by the most hieroglyphical Egyptian, this alone would weigh them down, as if the Alps were put in scale against the dust of a balance. For had this accursed Treason prospered, we should have had the whole Kingdom mourn for the inestimable loss of its chiefest glory, its life, its present joy, and all its very hopes for the future. For such was their destined malice, that they would not only have inflicted so cruel a blow, but have made it incurable, by cutting off our supplies of joy, the whole succession of the line Royal. Not only the Vine itself but all the Gemmulae, and the tender O live branches should either have been bend to their intentions, and made to grow crooked, or else been broken.  
And now after such a sublimity of malice, I will not instance in the sacrilegious ruin of the neighbouring Temples which needs must have perished in the flame, nor in the disturbing the ashes of our entombed King's devouring their dead ruins like sepulchral dogs, these are but minutes, in respect of the ruin prepared for the living Temples.  
Stragem sed istam non tulit  
Christus cadentum Principum 
Prudent. hymn.   
Impune, ne for sansui  
Patris periret fabrica.  
Ergo quae poterit lingua retexere  
Laudes Christe tuas, qui domitum struis  
Infidum populum cum Duce perfido?  
Let us then return to God the cup of thanks giving, he having poured forth so largely to us of the cup of salvation. We cannot want where withal to fill it, here is matter enough for an eternal thankfulness, for the expressiou of which a short life is too little, but let us here begin our Hallelujahs hoping to finish them hereafter, where the many quires of Angels will fill the consort.  
Praise the Lord ye house of Levi, ye that fear the Lord, Praise the Lord. Praise the Lord out of Zion, 
Psal. 135. v. 20. 21.  which dwelleth at Jerusalem.  
FINIS.