ΚΕΙΜΗΛΙΑ 'ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤ …

ΚΕΙΜΗΛΙΑ 'ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΑ.

THE HISTORICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS Of the Reverend and Learned Peter Heylyn. D. D.

Now Collected into one Volume:

  • I. Ecclesia Vindicata: Or, The Church of ENGLAND Justified,
    • 1. In the Way and Manner of her Reformation.
    • 2. In Officiating by a Publick Liturgy.
    • 3. In prescribing a set Form of Prayer to be used by Preachers before their Sermons.
    • 4. In her Right and Patrimony of Tythes.
    • 5. In retaining the Episcopal Government,
    • 6. And the Canonical Ordination of Priests and Deacons.
  • II. The History of the SABBATH: in two Parts.
  • III. Historia Quinquarticularis: Or, A Historical Declaration of the Judgment of the Western Churches, and more particularly of the Church of England, in the Five Controverted Points reproach'd in these last times with the Name of Arminianism.
  • IV. The Stumbling-Block of Disobedience and Rebellion, proving the Kingly Power to be neither Co-ordinate nor Subordinate to any other upon Earth.
  • To which are Added V. A Treatise de jure Paritatis Episcoporum: Or, A Defence of the Right of Peerage of the English Bishops.

AND An Account of the Life of the AUTHOR: Never before Published.

With an exact Table to the whole.

LONDON, Printed by M. Clark, for Charles Harper at the Flower-de-luce over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet, 1681.

THE LIFE OF The most Learned and Reverend, Dr. PETER HEYLYN.

TO Write the Lives of worthy Personages was ever ac­counted a most laudable custom amongst the Hea­thens: For to perpetuate the memory of the Dead, who were eminent in Vertue, did manifestly con­duce to the publique benefit of the Living; much more the Ancient Christians in their time, both so­lemnly retained this practice, and adjudged it an act of Piety and Justice to the Deceased. If they were Men of Fame for Learning, or other Virtues, to Celebrate their praises to Posterity, and by this means stir up Emulation in others, to follow so noble precedents before them. For which cause S. Jerom writ his Catalogus illustrium Vi­rorum; before whom also Eusebius, with others, in short recorded to future Ages, the holy Lives of those Primitive Fathers, who were sig­nally active or passive for the Christian Faith.Tacit. lib. 4. Suum cuique decus poste­ritas rependit, saith the Historian: Posterity doth render to every man the Commendation he deserves.

Therefore for the Reverend Authors sake, and in due Veneration of his Name, which I doubt not is honoured by all true Sons of the Church of England, both for his Learned Writings and constant Sufferings in de­fence of her Doctrine and Discipline established by Law, here is faithfully presented to them a true and compleat Narrative of his Life, before his Elaborate Works Reprinted; to answer the common expectation of men in this case, who would read his Person (together with the ordi­nary and extraordinary occurrences of Providence that befel him) as well as his Books that were long before published to the World. To give satisfaction in the former, here is nothing inserted but the Relations of truth, which hath been often heard from his own mouth spoken to his dearest Friends, or written by his Pen in some loose fragments of Paper that were found left in his Study after his death; upon which, as on a sure foundation, the whole Series and Structure of the following Discourse is laid together, but would have been more happily done, if he had left larger Memoirs for it. Nothing was more usual in ancient times, than for good men, saith Tacitus, to describe their own Lives. Suam [Page ii]ipsi vitam narrare, In vita Jul. Agric. fiduciam potius morum, quam arrogantiam arbitrati sunt. Upon a confidence of their right behaviour, rather than to be supposed any arrogancy or presumption in them.

First of all I shall begin with his Birth. In that Country above all other, enobled with the famous seat of the Muses, to which he was a constant Votary;Cambd. Britt. by Cambden, Oxford is called the Sun, Eye and Soul of Great Britain; by Matthew Paris, the second School of the Church; the present Author saith, co-eval to Paris, if not before it, the glory of this Island, and of the Western parts; near which place, or noble Athens, Peter Heylyn was Born at Burford, an ancient Town, of good Note in the County of Oxford, upon the 29th. day of Novemb. An. Dom. 1600. in the same year with the Celebrated Historian,Quensted. Dialog. de pat. illust. vir. Jacobus Aug. Thuanus, on both whom the Stars poured forth the like benign influences; But the former, viz. Peter Heylyn had not only the faculty of an Historian, but the gift of a general Scholar in other Learning, [...], as will appear to any one that reads his labo­rious Writings.

He was second Son of Henry Heylyn Gentleman, Descended from the Ancient Family of the Heylyns, of Pentre-Heylyn in Moungomery-Shire, then part of Powis-Land, from the Princes whereof they were derived, and unto whom they were Hereditary Cup-Bearers; for so the word Heylyn doth signifie in the Welsh or Brittish Language: An Honourable Office in most Nations, which we find in Divine as well as Profane History, Neh. 1.11. Magni honoris erat Pincernae munus apud Persás, saith Alex. ab. Alex. And if Cambden Clarencieux be of good Authority, the Reverend Doctor deriveth his Pedegree from Greno ap Heylyn, who de­scended from Brockwell Skythrac, one of the Princes of Powis-Land, a man of so great Authority with the Princes of North-Wales, that Llewellyn the last Prince of that Country made choice of the said Grono-ap-Heylyn to treat with the Commissioners of Edward I. King of England, for the concluding a final Peace between them; which afterwards being broken by L'lewellyn, in him ended all the Princes of North-Wales, after they had Reigned for the space of 405. years; a goodly time, that scarcely the greatest Monarchies in the World have withstood their fatal period and dissolution. Yet the Family of Pentre Heylyn, from whom the said Grono-ap-Heylyn descended in a direct Line, continued their Seat, until the year Anno Dom, 1637. at which time Rowland Heylyn, Alderman and Sheriff of London, and Cousin-german to Dr. Heylyn's Father, dying without Issue-Male, the Seat was transferred into another Family, into which the Heiresses Married; but if the Doctor had lived a little longer, he intended to have repurchased that Seat, and bring it back again into the Name and Family. His Cousin Mr. Rowland Heylyn, before his death, caused the Welch and Brittish Bible to be Printed at his own Charges, in a portable Volume, for the benefit of his Country-men, which was be­fore in a large Church Folio; also the Practice of Piety in Welch, a Book, though common, not to be despised; besides, a Welch Dictionary for the better understanding of that Language. One thing of chief remark is, a Tradition among the Heylyns, deriving their Pedigree from Brockwell Skythrac, in whose Family was ever observed that one of them had a gag Tooth, and the same a notable Omen of good Fortune, which mark of the Tooth is still continued in the Doctors Family. These and such like signatures of more wonderful form, are indeed very rare, yet not without example: So Seleucus, and his Children after him, were Born [Page iii]with the figure of an Anchor upon their Thigh, as an infallible mark of their true Geniture, saith Justin. Origenis hujus argumentum etiam po­steris mansit. Si quidem filii, nepotes (que) ejus anchoram in semore veluti notam generis naturalem habuere. Just. Hist. lib. 15.

The Mother of Dr. Heylyn was Eliz. Clampard, Daughter of Francis Clampard, of Wrotham in Kent, Gent. and of Mary Dodge, his Wife, de­scended in a direct Line from Peter Dodge, of Stopworth in Cheshire, unto whom King Edw. I. gave the Seigniory or Lordship of Padenhugh, in the Barony of Coldingham, in the Realm of Scotland, as well for his special Services that he did in the Sieges of Barwick and Dunbar, as for his Va­lour shewed in divers Battels, encontre son grand Enemy & Rebelle le Baillol Roy d'Escose & Vasial d'Angleterre; as the words are in the ori­ginal Charter of Arms, given to the said Peter Dodge by Guyen King of Arms, at the Kings command, dated April the 8th. in the 34th. year of the said K. Edw. I. one of the Descendants from the said Peter Dodge, was Uncle to Dr. Heylyns Mother, and gave the Mannor of Lechlade in Glo­cestershire, worth 1400 l. per annum, to Robert Bathurst Esq Uncle to the Doctor, and Grand-father to that honest and loyal Gentleman, Sir Edw. Bathurst now living.

In the sixth year of his Age, he was committed to the Tuition of Mr. North, School-master of Burford; under whose instructions he pro­fited so well, that in a short time he could make true Latin, and arrived to an ability of making Verses; to which excellency, together with History, his genius was so naturally addicted, that at the Age of ten years he framed a story in Verse and Prose, which he composed in imitati­on of the destruction of Troy with some other Books of Chivalry, upon which he was then very studious and intent. I presume to mention it as an argument of the prodigious pregnancy of those endowments which God had bestowed on him; for he may be truly accounted one of the praecoces fructus, the forward fruits of his Age, that was soon ripe and contrary to the Proverb, was of lasting duration. It may be affirmed of him as it was of Lipsius, Ingenium habuit docile & omnium capax: memoria non sine praeceptorum miraculo, etiam in puero quae in senectute non defecit.

His old Master North dying, he was committed to another, who suc­ceeded in the same School, viz. Mr. Davis, a right Reverend and good man, by whom he was sent to Oxford, in the beginning of Decemb. 1613. at the 14th. year of his Age, and placed under the Tuition of Mr. Joseph Hill, an ancient Batchelor in Divinity, once one of the Fellows of Corpus Christi Coll. but then a Commoner of Hart-Hall; Mr. Walter Newbery, (afterward a Zealous Puritan) was made choice of to instruct him in Logick, and other Academical Studies, wherein he made such good progress, that upon the 22 of July, 1614. he stood to be Demy of Mag­dalen College, which he missed of at the first Election; but in the year after succeeded, having endeared himself to the President Dr. Langton, and Fellows of the same Colledge, by the pleasantness of a Latin Poem upon a Journey that he made with his two Tutors unto Woodstock. After his admission into that noble Foundation, within the space of a twelve month, he was made Impositor of the Hall; in which Office he acquitted himself so excellently, that the Dean of the College continued him lon­ger in it, than any ever before; for which reason, he was called by those Scholars of his own standing, Perpetual Dictator. He then composed an English Tragedy, celled Spurius, which was so well approved by some Learned Persons in the College, that the President caused it to be pri­vately Acted in his own Lodgings.

In July 1617. he obtained his grace for the Degree of Batchelor of Arts, according to the College Statutes, which requiring some exercise to be performed by a Batchelor of Arts in the long Vacation, he began his Cosmographical Lectures, and finished them in the end of the next Au­gust. His performance of this exercise drew that whole Society into a profound admiration of his great Learning and Abilities; insomuch, that before he had done reading those Lectures, he was admitted Fellow upon probation, in the place of Mr. Love. And that he might give a testimony of his grateful mind to them, he writ a Latin Comedy, which he called Theomachia, which he finished and transcribed in a fortnight space, on July the 19th. 1619. He was admitted in verum & perpetuum socium, and not long before was made Moderator of the Senior Form, which he retained above two years; and within that compass of time, he began to write his Geography, accordingly as he design'd when he read his Cosmography Lectures; which Book he finished in little more than two months, beginning at Feb. 22. and compleating it on the 29th. of April following. At the next Act, which was Anno Dom. 1620. he was admitted Master of Arts, the honour of which degree was more re­markable, because that very year, the Earl of Pembroke, Chancellor of the University, signified his pleasure by special Letters, That from that time forward the Masters of Arts, who before sate bare, should wear their Caps in all Congregations and Convocations.

He committed his Geography to the perusal of some Learned Friends, which being by them well approved, he obtained his Fathers consent for the Printing of it, which was done accordingly, Novemb. 7. 1621. The first Copy of it was by him presented to King Charles the First, then Prince of Wales, unto whom he Dedicated it, and by whom, together with its Author, it was very graciously received, being introduced into the Princes presence by Sir Robert Carre, since Earl of Ancram, one of the Gentlemen of his Highnesses Bed-Chamber. In some months after his Father died at Oxon, with an Ulcer in his Bladder, occasioned by the Stone, with which he had been many years grievously afflicted. He was conveyed to Lechlade in Glocestershire, where he was buried near his Wife, who departed this life six years before him, and was solemnly bu­ried in the Chancel of that Parish Church.

Septemb. the 15th. 1622. he received Confirmation from the hands of Bishop Lake, in the Parish Church of Wells, and in a short time after exhibited a Certificate to Dr. Langton, concerning his Age; by which means he obtained a Dispensation, notwithstanding any local Statutes to the contrary, that he should not be compell'd to enter into holy Orders till he was 24 years of Age, according to the time appointed, both by the Canons of the Church, and the Statutes of the Realm. His fear was then very great, to enter upon the study of Divinity, as well as under­take the profession of it; but afterward persuaded thereto by a Right Reverend and Learned Person, Mr. Buckner, he seriously applied himself to this Study, and holy Profession, receiving the Orders of Deacon and Priest, (but at distinct times) in S. Aldates Church in Oxon, from the Right Reverend Bishop Howson. And when he was Ordained Priest, he Preach'd the Ordination Sermon upon these words of our Blessed Saviour to S. Peter, Luk. 22.32. And when thou art Converted, strengthen thy Bre­thren: What course and method he observed in his Theological Studies, he informs us with his own Pen,Theol. Vit. praef. to the Rea­der. When I began my Studies in Divinity, I thought no course so proper and expedient for me, as the way commended by [Page v]King James, which was, that young Students in Divinity should be excited to study such Books as were most agreeable in Doctrine and Discipline to the Church of England, and to bestow their time in the Fathers and Coun­cils, School-men, Histories, and Controversie, and not to insist too long upon Compendiums and Abbreviators.

His Geography was in less than three years Reprinted: And in this se­cond Edition was enlarged, and again presented by him to the Prince of Wales, and by him graciously received, with most affectionate commen­dations of the Author. But it met with another kind of entertainment from King James; for the Book being put into the hands of that Learned Monarch, by Dr. Young, then Dean of Winton, (who design'd nothing but the highest kindness to Mr. Heylyn thereby) the King at first ex­prest his great value he had for the Author; but unfortunatly falling on a passage, wherein Mr. Heylyn gave Precedency to the French King, and called France the more famous Kingdom; King James became very much offended, and ordered the Lord Keeper to call the Book in. The Dean gave notice to Mr. Heylyn of his Majesties displeasure, and advised him to repair to Court, and make use of the Princes Patronage, as the best lenitive to prevent the rankling of this wound. But he rather chose to abide in Oxford; and acquainting the Lord Danvers with the business, afterward sent an Apology and Explanation of his meaning: That the burden under which he suffered, was rather a mistake than a crime, and that mistake not his own, but the Printers, which was after corrected and amended.

In the year 1625. he took a Journey with Mr. Levet of Lincolns-Inn, into France, where he visited more Cities, and made more observations in five weeks time, for he stayed no longer, than many others have done in so many years. The particulars of this Journey he reduced into writing, and some years after gratifi'd his Countrey with the publication of it, together with some other excellent remarks made by him, when he went in attendance upon the Earl of Danby to the Isle of Gernsey and Jersey, Anno Dom. 1628. Had King James lived to have perused that Book, Mr. Heylyn had needed no other Advocate to have restored him to his Princely favour and protection: For never was the vanity and levity of the Monsieurs, and deformity and sluttishness of their Madams more ingeniously exposed both in Verse and Prose, than in the account that he gives of his Voyage into France.

On April the 18th. 1627. he opposed in the Divinity-School; and on Tuesday the 24th. following, he answered pro formâ upon these two Questions, viz.

An Ecclesia unquam fuerit invisibilis?
An Ecclesia possit errare?

Both which he determined in the Negative. Upon occasional discourse with him, he was pleased once to shew me his Supposition, which I read over in his House at Lacies-Court in Abingdon; but I had not then either the leisure or good luck to transcribe a Copy of it, which would have been worth my pains, and more worthy of the Press, to the great satis­faction of others: For my part, I can truly say, that I never read any thing with more delight, for good Latin, Reason, and History, which that Exercise was full of; but since, both it and many other choice Pa­pers in his Study, through the carelesness of those, to whose custody [Page vi]they are committed, I suppose are utterly lost and gone, ad blattarum & tinearum Epulas. In stating of the first Question, that caused the heats of that day, he fell upon a quite different way from that of Dr. Pri­deaux, the Professor, in his Lecture De Visibilitate Ecclesiae, and con­trary to the common opinion of other Divines, who generally prove the visibility of the Protestant Church from the poor persecuted Christians, dispersed in several places, as the Berengarians in Italy, the Waldenses in France, the Wicklifists in England, and the Hussiets in Bohemia; which manner of proceeding being disliked by Mr. Heylyn, as that which utterly discontinued the Succession of the Hierarchy, which the Church of Eng­land claims from the very Apostles and their immediate Successors: He rather chose to find out a continual visible Church in Asia, Ethiopia, Greece, Italy, yea and Rome it self; as also in all the Western Provinces then subject to the power of the Roman Bishop, when he was the chief Patriarch, which Mr. Heylyn from his great knowledge, and more than ordinary abilities in History, strenuously asserted and proved, to which the Professor could make but weak replies, (as I have heard from know­ing persons, who were present at that Disputation) because he was drawn out of his ordinany byass from Scholastical Disputation to forein Histo­ries, in which encounter Mr. Heylyn was the invincible Ajax—Nec quisquam Ajacem superare possit nisi Ajax. But chiefly the quarrel did arise for two words in Mr. Heylyns Hypothesis, after he had proved the Church of England received no Succession of Doctrine or Government from the Berengarians, Wicklifists, &c. who held many Heterodoxies in Religion, as different from the established Doctrine of our Church, as any point which was maintained at that time in the Church of Rome; that the Writers of that Church, Bellarmin himself hath stood up, as cordially in maintenance of some fundamental points of the Christian Faith against Anti-Trinita­rians, Anabaptists, and other Heretiques of these last Ages, as any our Divines, and other Learned men of the Protestant Churches, which point Mr. Heylyn closed up with these words, Ʋtinam quod ipse de Calvino sic semper errasset nobilissimus Cardinalis; at which words the Reverend Doctor was so impatient in his Chair, that he fell upon the Respondent in most vile terms, calling him Papicola, Bellarminianus, Pontificius, &c. to draw the hatred of the University upon him, according to the saying, Fortiter calumniare & aliquid adhaerebit, grievously complaining to the younger sort of his Auditors, unto whom he made his chiefest addresses, of the unprofitable pains he took among them, if Bellarmin, whom he had la­boured to confute for so many years, should be honoured with the Title of Nobilissimus. Notwithstanding the Respondent acquitted himself bravely before the Company, ascribing no more honour to Bellarmin than for his deserts in Learning, and Integrity in that particular point before spoken of, which any generous man would give to his Learned Antagonist. For many Lutherans and Calvinists I may say (pace tanti viri) so angry at a word, have not grudged, much less judged it any crime to praise the Cardinals Learning. Doctrinam & nos in ipso commen­damus, saith a rigid Lutheran. Joh. Andr. Quenstedt. in his Dial. de pal. illust. Vir. S. Paul would not stick to call him who was an inveterate Ene­my of the Christians, Most Noble Festus. And though Cardinals we know were originally but Parish-Priests, by Pride and Usurpation have made themselves Compeers to Kings; that which is unjustly once obtained, by time groweth common and familiar, that none will refuse to give such their ordinary Titles of honour, although they come by indirect means, [Page vii]and not by merit to them. Bellarmin also was of no poor and base ex­traction, but better than his fellows; for which reason he was created Cardinal by Clement the VIII. Hunc eligimus (saith he) quia est nepos optimi & sanctissimi pontificis, Quenstedt. pag. 327. because he was the Nephew of Marcellus the II. who said, That he could not see how any one can be saved who sate in the Pontifical Chair: Onuph. in vit. Marc. Non video quomodo qui locum hunc altissimum tenent salvari possunt.

After these heats of Disputation were over, Mr. Heylyn took a Jour­ney to London, where he waited on Archbishop Laud, then Bishop of Bath and Wells, who had heard of all the passages that had happened at Oxford, of which Mr. Heylyn gave a more perfect account to his Lord­ship, who was pleased to read over the Supposition, at which Dr. Prideaux was so highly offended; but the good Bishop of the other side commend­ed it, and encouraged Mr. Heylyn in his Studies; saying, That he himself had in his younger days maintained the same Positions in a Disputation, in S. Johns Colledge, that Mr. Heylyns Hypothesis could not be overthrown in a fair way, exhorting him to continue in that moderate course: and that as God had given him more than ordinary gifts, so he would pray to God that he and others might employ them in such a way and manner, as might make up the breaches in the Walls of Christendom. He being now admitted Chaplain to his Majesty, the good Bishop instructed him with Counsel and wise cautions, how to behave himself in all circum­stances suitably to the calling and dignity of his place; telling him amongst other things, That the King did not love Silk nor Sattin Chaplains, which Mr. Heylyn ever observed both young and old, never ru [...]fling in Silks, like some of his Brotherhood, but went alway in a plain, grave, and decent habit. In November next following, he Preached in his course before the King, on those words, Joh. 4. v. 20. Our Fathers Worshipped on this Mountain, &c. In which Sermon he declared himself with such smart zeal, and with as quick judgment against several errors and corruptions in the Church of Rome, that his Sermon was better resented by the King than his Supposition by the Kings Professor in Oxon; who though a Right Learned man for his place, yet so dogmatical in his own points, that he would not abide to be touch'd, much less contradicted by Mr. Heylyn— Non aliam ob causam, nisi quod Virtus in utro (que) summa fuit — Hor. More especially being a great man, at that time very popular in the University, profoundly admired by the Junior Masters, and some of the Seniors in­clined to Puritanism, his own College then observed to be the Nurse of West-Countrey-men in Puritan principles, Mr. Heylyn could expect no favour, nor fair dealing in the way of Disputation, when it ran contrary to the Professors humour.

After these Academical contests, growing weary of Obs and Sols in Scholastical Disputations, which was ever opposite to his genius, and for this purpose unwilling to be always Cloystred up within the Walls of his College, where he must be tied to such Exercises; besides a man of an airy and active spirit, though studious and contemplative, would not per­petually be devoted to a melancholy recluse life. Therefore he resolved to Marry, and try his fortune in the World, Neque aliud probis quam ex matrimonio solatium esse, saith the good Author,Tacit. Hist. lib. 4. Marriage is the only com­fort of minds honestly given; accordingly a fair Fortune was offered to him, viz. A Wife with a thousand pounds Portion, a Gentlewoman of a very Ancient Family, and of as excellent Education, Mrs. Leticia High-gate, third Daughter of Thomas High-gate of Heyes, Esq one of his Ma­jesties [Page viii]Justices of Peace for the County of Middlesex (who in his younger days, whilst his Elder Brother was alive, had been Provost-Marshal-General of the Army, under the Earl of Essex, at the action of Cales) and of Margery Skipwith his Wife, one of the Daughters of that Ancient Family of the Skipwiths, in the County of Leicester; which said Thomas Heygate the Father, was second Son of that Thomas Heygate, who was Field-Marshal-General of the English Forces, before S. Quintins, under the command of the Earl of Pembroke, Anno Dom. 1557. and of Eliz. Stoner his Wife, a Daughter of the Ancient Families of the Stoners in Oxfordshire. To this Marriage Mr. Heylyn was induced, because he could not make better choice for the excellency of her Person, Wit, and Friends, besides a considerable Portion, all concentring together for his more happy contentment; and because Mr. Edward Heylyn, his Elder Brother, had before Married a Sister of this Lady, another of the Daugh­ters of the said Thomas Heygate: His Seat was at Minster Lovel, in the County of Oxford, where his Son (to whom Dr. Heylyn was Uncle) now liveth, viz. Hen. Heylyn Esq one of his Majesties Justices of the Peace for that County, an ancient Colonel and excellent Commander in the Army of King Charles the First, and a most accomplisht Gentleman in all respects, to the honour of his Family.

Near which place of Minster, he had the Advouson of Bradwell, a very good Living in Glocestershire, together with a Rent-charge of Inheritance, paid him out of the Mannor of Lechlad: He parted with his Title to Bradwell, resolving to lay the foundation of his following Fortune by his own Industry, and not to bury himself in the unimprovable way of a rural life, He found out an honest Art, by which he might recommend him­self to the Patronage of some noble mind, and that was to assert the History of St. George, Patron of the most Noble Order of the Garter; a business as he tells the King in his Epistle Dedicatory, of so intricate and involv'd a nature, that he had no guide to follow, nor any path to tread, but what he made unto himself. And it had never come to perfection, had not so able an hand as Mr. Heylyn's undertaken it, whose accomplish­ments and industry were superior to every thing but themselves. Against this History Dr. Hackwel appeared in Print; of which the King hearing, sent for Mr. Heylyn, commanding him to consider the Arguments of his Antagonist, and withal sent him to Windsor to search the Records of the Order. This occasioned a second Edition of the History, wherein were answered all Dr. Hackwels Arguments and Allegations, to which there was never made a reply; but on the contrary, in his Book about the supposed Decay of Nature, a Retractation of the passages relating to S. George.

About this time he had a presentation given him by one Mr. Bridges to the Parsonage of Meysie-Hampton, in the Diocess of Glocester, unto the Bishop whereof he made his Application, but found him already pre­ingaged to further the pretended Title of Corpus Christi Coll. in Oxon. However his Lordship promised not to give Institution to any person till the title was cleared, and therefore advised Mr. Heylyn to leave his pre­sentation with him, and to enter a Caveat in his Court. But he who was false to God, and his Mother-church, could never be faithful to the en­gagements which he made to Man: The one he deserted by turning Pa­pist, being the only Bishop of the English Hierarchy, that renounced a persecuted Church to embrace the Idolatries and Errors of the Roman Com­munion. And the other he violated by giving one Mr. Jackson (who [Page ix]came from C.C.C.) Institution so soon as ever he requested it, which oc­casioned a tedious suit at Law after.

Neither was this the only disappointment he met with in the way of his Preferment. For not long after, Preaching at Court in his second Attendance, his Majesty express'd a very high opinion of him to many noble Lords about him, and in a few months after gave him a Presenta­tion to the Rectory of Hemingford, in the County of Huntingdon. But this also missed of the desired effect, which his Majesties bounty designed, and Mr. Heylyns necessity after a long suit of Law for the other Living, required. For the Bishop of Lincoln, unto whom he made Application with his Presentation, would not allow the King to have any title to the Living, so he was constrained to return back to London, re infecta. The Bishop was much offended that a young Divine should have so great knowledge in Law, (which was the beginning of all the following Diffe­rences between them) for Mr. Heylyn made good the Kings Right upon the passages of the conveyances of the other party. His Majesty pre­sently understood the entertainment he met with at Bugden, and sent him this gracious Message, That he was sorry he had put him to so much charge and trouble, but it should not be long before he would be out of his debt. And he soon performed his Royal promise, for within a week after, he bestowed upon him a Prebendship of Westminster, void by the death of Mr. Danel, to the extream vexation of his Lordship, who was then Dean of the same Church. And that which added to the honour of this preferment, was not only his being initiated the very same day into the acquaintance and friendship with the Attorney-General, Mr. Noye; but the gracious Message that came along with the Royal gift, viz. That he bestowed that Prebendship on him, to bear the charges of his last Jour­ney, but still he was in debt for the Living.

Being possessed of this Preferment, the first honourable Visit that he received in his new Habitation, was from the Learned Lord Falkland, who brought along with him one Capt. Nelson, that pretended to find out a way for the discovery of the Longitude of the Sea; the Captain had imparted his design to many learned Mathematicians, who by no means could approve of or subscribe to his demonstrations. But the King refer'd him to Mr. Heylyn, who told that noble Lord, That his Ma­jesty was mistaken in him, his skill and knowledge lying more in the Historical than the Philosophical part of Geography; yet notwithstand­ing he gave a full account thereof in writing, according to the best of his judgment, which is too long to set down here.

His mind being intent rather upon useful than notional Learning, there­fore about this time he began with great diligence to read over the Sta­tute Laws of the Nation, and to compare them with the time and cir­cumstances that occurr'd in story, which he carefully perused, the bet­ter to inable himself for his Majesties Service, who then had the Small-pox appearing on him, but he soon recovered from that distemper: Mr. Heylyn to testifie his joy, turn'd Poet, making a Copy of English Verses, which one of his Friends presented to the King; and they were so well lik'd, that both their Majesties gave him the honour of their thanks.

But his Majesty found employment rather for the judgment, than fancy of the Chaplain; and therefore upon Jan. 27. 1632. sent for him to the Council Table, where he received his Royal commands to read over that Book of Mr. Pryns, called Histriomastix, and to collect thence all such [Page x]passages as were scandalous or dangerous to the King or State, and to reduce them into method. The Book was delivered to him, and a fortnights time assigned him to perform that Task imposed. But he had learned from the wisest of men, that diligence in business, and a quick dispatch of it, would qualifie him for the service of Kings, and not mean Persons. And therefore he finished what was expected from him, and carried it to the Secretary of State in less than four days; for which he had his Majesties thanks, as also new commands to revise his Papers, and to write down such Logical Inferences as might naturally arise from the premises of Mr. Pryn: About this time, and upon this occasion he wrote a small Tract touching the punishments due by Law, and in point of practice, unto such offenders as Mr. Pryn. And this was observable in the tryal of that Person, that nothing was urged by the Council to aggravate his faults, than what was contained in Mr. Heylyns Collections.

For the reward of which, and other good services, that with won­derful prudence, as well as diligence, he faithfully performed; His Ma­jesty was graciously pleased to requite him, by bestowing on him the Parsonage of Houghton, in the Bishoprick of Durham, worth near 400 l. per annum, which afterward he exchanged with Dr. Marshal, for the Par­sonage of Alresford in Hampshire, that was about the same value; to which exchange he was commanded by his Majesty, that he might live nearer the Court, for readiness to do his Majesties Service. Neither was he envied for this, or his other Preferments, because every one knew his merits, the only cause of his promotion. Into this Living he was no sooner Instituted and Inducted, but he took care for the Service of God to be constantly performed by reading the Common Prayers in his Church every Morning, that gave great satisfaction to the Parish, being a populous Market Town; and for the Communion Table, where the blessed Sacrament is Consecrated, he ordered that it should be placed ac­cording to ancient custom, at the East end of the Chancel, and railed about decently, to prevent base and profane usages; and where the Chancel wanted any thing of repairs, or the Church it self, both to be amended.

Having thus shewed his care first for the House of God, to set it in good order, the next work followed, was to make his own dwelling House a fit and convenient Habitation; that to the old Building he added a new one, which was far more graceful, and made thereto a Chappel next to the Dining-room, that was beautified and adorned with silk Hangings about the Altar; in which Chappel, himself or his Curate read Morning and Evening Prayer to the Family, calling in his Labourers and Workfolks, for he was seldom without them while he liv'd, saying, that he loved the noise of a Work-mans hammer: for he thought it a deed of Charity, as well as to please his own fancy, by often building & repairing, to set poor People a work, and encourage painful Artificers and Trades­men in their honest Callings. Yet after his death, his Eldest Son was sued for Dilapidations in the Court of Arches, by Dr. Beamont, his Fathers Successor; but the ingenious Gentleman pleaded his cause so notably, before Sir Giles Swet, then Judge of the Court, that he was discharged; there being no reason or justice he should be troubled for Dilapidations, occasioned by the long War, when his Father was unjustly turn'd out of his House and Living.

In July 1630. he took his Degree of Batchelor in Divinity. His Latin Sermon was upon these words, Mal. 4.19. Facim vos fieri piscatores [Page xi]hominum. Upon the Sunday following, being the time of the Act, he Preach'd in the Afternoon on Matth. 13.25.

In Feb. 13. A. D. 1633. He took his Degree of Dr. in Divinity, an honour not usually in those days conferr'd upon men of such green years, but our young Doctor verified those excellent words of the Son of Syrach, That honourable Age is not that which standeth in length of time, nor that is measured by number of years, but Wisdom is the grey unto men, and an unspotted life is an old Age, Wisd. 4.8, 9. He entertain'd some hopes that Dr. Prideaux his animosities in so long a Tract of time, as from 1627. to 1633. might have cooled. In his first Disputation he had insisted on the Churches Visibility, and now he resolved to assert and establish its Autho­rity, and to that purpose made choice to answer for his Degree upon these three questions, viz.

  • An Ecclesia habeat Authoritatem In determinandis fidei controversus.
  • An Ecclesia habeat Authoritatem Interpretandi S. scripturas.
  • An Ecclesia habeat Authoritatem Decernendi Ritus & Caeremonias.

All which he held in the Affirmative, according to the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the 20th. Article. But Dr. Prideaux was as little pleased with these questions, and the Respondents stating of them as he was with the former. And therefore to create unto the Respondent a greater odium, he openly declared that the Respondent had falsified the publick Doctrine of the Church, and changed the Article with that sen­tence, viz. Habet Ecclesia ritus sive caeremonias, &c. which was not to be found in the whole body of it; and for the proof thereof, he read the Article out of a Book which lay before him, beginning thus, Non licet Ecclesiae quicquam instituere quod verbo Dei scripto adversetur, &c. To which the Respondent readily answered, That he perceived by the big­ness of the Book, which lay on the Doctors Cushion, that he had read that Article out of the harmony of Confessions, published at Geneva, A. D. 1612. which therein followed the Edition of the Articles in the time of King Edward VI. A.D. 1552. in which that sentence was not found, but that it was otherwise in the Articles agreed on in the Convocation, A. D. 1562. The Respondent caused the Book of Articles to be sent for out of the Book-sellers shop, which being observed by the Doctor, he declared himself very willing to decline any further prosecution of that particular. But Dr. Heylyn was resolved to proceed on no further, Ʋsquedum libera­verit animam suam ab ista calumnia, as his own words were. At the coming in of the Book, the Respondent read the Article in the English Tongue, viz. The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and Authority in Controversies of Faith, &c. Which done, he delivered the Book to one of the Standers by, who desired it of him, the Book passing from one hand to another, till all men were satisfied. The Regius Pro­fessor had no other subterfuge but this, He went to prove that not the Convocation, but the High Court of Parliament had power of ordering matters in the Church, in making Canons, ordaining Ceremonies, and de­termining Controversies in Religion. And he could find no other medium to make it good, but the Authority of Sir Edward Coke, in one of the Books of his Reports. An Argument that Dr. Heylyn gratified with no better answer than, Non Credendum est cuique extra suam artem. For these things, and the Professors ill words in the former Disputation, Dr. Heylyn caused him to be brought before the Council Table at [Page xii] Woodstock, where he was publickly reprehended. And upon the coming out of the Kings Declaration concerning lawful sports, Dr. Heylyn translated the Regius Professors Lecture upon the Sabbath into English; and putting a Preface before it, caused it to be Printed; a performance which did not only justifie his Majesties proceedings, but took off much of that opinion, which Dr. Prideaux had amongst the Puritanical Faction in those days.

A. D. 1634. The grievances which the Collegiate Church of Westmin­ster suffered under the Government of John Lord Bishop of Lincoln, then Commendatory Dean thereof, became so intolerable, that Dr. Heylyn, with Dr. Tho. Wilson, Dr. Gabriel Moor, and Dr. Lud. Wemys, with other of the Prebends, drew up a Charge of no less than 36 Articles against the Bishop, and by way of complaint humbly Petitioned his Majesty for re­dress of these grievances. Whereupon a Commission was issued out to the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York, the Earl of Manchester, Earl of Portland, the Lord Bishop of London, and the two Secretaries of State; Authorizing them to hold a Visitation of the Church of Westminster to examine the particular Charges made against John Lord Bishop of Lincoln, who afterwards calling the Prebends to meet him in the Jerusalem-Chamber, desired to know of them what these things were, that were amiss, that so he might presently redress them. But to that Dr. Heylyn replied, that seeing they had put the business into his Majesties hands, it would but ill become them, to take the matters out of his into their own. Amongst other grievances, the Bishop had most disgracefully turned out the Prebends of the great Seat or Pew under the Pulpit. Dr. Heylyn being chosen Advocate for his Brothren, did prove before the Lord Com­missioners the Right of Sitting there. 1. The Prebends Original Right. 2. Their Derivative Right; and lastly, their Possessory Right. Upon hearing the proofs on both sides, it was ordered by general consent of the Lord Commissioners. That the Prebends should be restored to their old Seat, and that none should sit there with them but Lords of the Parliament, and Earls eldest Sons, according to the ancient custom. After this, there was no Bishop of Lincoln to be seen at any Morning-Prayer, and seldom at Evening.

At this time came out the Doctor's History of the Sabbath, the Argu­mentative or Scholastick part of which subject was referred to White Bishop of Eli, the Historical part to the Doctor. And no sooner had the Doctor perfected his Book of the Sabbath, but the Dean of Peterborough engages him to answer the Bishop of Lincoln's Letter to the Vicar of Grantham. He received it upon good Friday; and by the Thursday fol­lowing discovered the sophistry, mistakes, and falshoods of it. It was ap­proved by the King, and by him given to the Bishop of London to be Licens'd and Publish'd under the title of a Coal from the Altar. In less than a twelve-month the Bishop of Lincoln writ an Answer to it, En­tituled The Holy Table, Name, and Thing; but pretended that it was writ long ago by a Minister in Lincolnshire, against Dr. Cole, a Divine in the days of Queen Mary. Dr. Heylyn receiv'd a Message from the King to return a reply to it, and not in the least to spare him. And he did it in the space of seven weeks, presenting it ready Printed to his Majesty, and called it Antidotum Lincolniense. But before this, he answered Mr. Burtons Seditious Sermon, being thereunto also appointed by the King.

In July 1637. the Bishop of Lincoln was censured in the Star-Chamber, for tampering with Witnesses in the Kings Cause; suspended à Beneficio & [Page xiii]officio, and sent to the Tower, where he continued three years, and did not in all that space of time hear either Sermon or publick Prayers.

The College of Westminster, about this time, presented the Doctor to the Parsonage of Islip, now void by the death of Dr. King. By reason of its great distance from Alresford, the Doctor exchanged it for South­warnborough, that was more near and convenient. At which time, re­covering from an ill fit of Sickness, he studiously set on writing the History of the Church of England since the Reformation; in order to which he obtained the freedom of Sir Robert Cottons Library, and by Arch-bishop Laud's commendation, had liberty granted him to carry home some of the Books, leaving 200 l. as a Pawn behind him. The Commotions in Scotland now began, and the Arch Bishop of Canterbury intending to set out an Apology for vindicating the Liturgy which he had commended to that Kirk, desired the Doctor to translate the Scottish Liturgy into Latin, that being Published with the Apology, all the World might be satisfied in his Majesties piety, as well as the Arch-Bishops care; as also that the perverse and rebellious temper of the Scots might be ap­parent to all, who would raise such troubles upon the Recommendation of a book that was so Venerable and Orthodox. Dr. Heylyn undertook and went through with it, but the distemper and trouble of those times put a period to the undertaking, and the Book went no farther than the hands of that Learned Martyr.

In Feb. 1639. the Doctor was put into Commission of Peace for the County of Hampshire, residing then upon this Living; into which place he was no sooner admitted, but he occasioned the discovery of a horrid Murther that had been committed many years before in that Countrey. In the April following he was chosen Clerk of the Convocation for the College of Westminster, at which time the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury sending a Canon to them for suppressing the farther growth of Popery, and reducing Papists to the Church, our Doctor moved his Grace that the Canon might be enlarged for the Peoples farther satisfaction, as well as the Churches benefit; what was done therein, and many other notable things by that Convocation, may be seen at large in the History of the Arch-Bishops Life. Friday being May the 29th. the Canons were for­mally subscribed unto by the Bishops and Clergy, no one dissenting ex­cept the Bishop of Glocester, who afterward turn'd Papist and died in the Communion of the Romish Church, and was all that time of his Life, in which he revolted from the Church of England, a very great Servant of Oliver Cromwel, unto whom he dedicated some of his Books. But for his Contumacy in refusing to subscribe the Articles, he was voted worthy of Suspension in the Convocation, and was actually Suspended by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury; which being done the Convocation was ended.

In Novemb. 3. A.D. 1640. began the Session of the long Parlia­ment, At the opening of which, a general Rumor was spread abroad that Dr. Heylyn was run away for fear of an approaching storm that was like to fall upon his head, as well as on his Grace the Arch-Bishop of Cauterbury; but he who was ever of an undaunted spirit would not pusillanimously desert the Cause of the King and Church then in question, but speedily hastned up to London from Alresford, to confute the common calumny and false report raised on him by the Puritan faction, that he appeared the next day in his Gown and Tippet at Westminster-Hall, and in the Church with the accustomed formalities of his Cap, Hood and [Page xiv]Surplice, employed then his Pen boldly in defence of the Bishops Rights, when the Lords began to shake the Hierarchy, in passing a Vote, That no Bishop should be of the Committe for Examination of the Earl of Strafford, being Causa sanguinis; upon which the Doctor drew up a brief and excellent Discourse, entituled De jure paritatis Episcopum, wherein he asserted all the Bishops Rights of Peerage, and principally of this as well as the rest, That they ought to sit in that Committee, with other Priviledges and Rights maintained by him, which either by Law or ancient custom did belong unto them. A rare Commendation at this juncture of time, for which the Doctor is to be admired, that he could command his Parts and Pen of a sudden, to write on this subject, or any other, if there was need, that did conduce to the publick good, and above all, make a quick dispatch in accomplishing what he had once under­taken and begun.

But for those quick dispatches the Doctor afterward endured many tedious waitings at the backs of Committe-men in that Parliament, espe­cially in the business of Mr. Pryn, about his Histriomastix, for which he was kept four days under examination, because he had furnished the Lords of the Privy Council with matters out of that Book, which Mr. Pryn alledged was the cause of all his sufferings. Great hopes had the Committee by his often dancing attendance after them, to sift the Doctor if they could gather any thing by his speeches, whether the Arch-Bishop had moved him to draw up those exceptions against Pryns Book, which he denied, or at least was not bound to confess; that as he was faithful to his Sovereign, so he would never prove himself unfaithful to his chief Minister both in Church and State.

But now John Lord Bishop of Lincoln, at this Session of Parliament, returned from the Tower to the Church (after so long a time of his Suspen­sion and Indevotion) to say his Prayers, and hear his Brother Peter Heylyn Preach in his course at the Abby in Westminster, where notwith­standing the Holiness of that place, (to which his Lordship had no re­gard or reverence, but only to the Name and Thing of it) he was re­solved publickly to revenge himself for old-done deeds that ought to have been forgotten, by disturbing the Doctor in his Sermon, before all the Congregation, contrary to the Laws of this Realm, and with Reve­rence to his Lordship, against all good manners, and the common rules of civility.

— Mala mens furor (que) vecors,
In tantam impulerit culpam. Catull.

Strange! That a Bishop could not rule his passions for one hour, when no provocation was given by the Doctor, whose Sermon from the begin­ning to the end of it, throughout the whole discourse was pacificatory, ex­horting Christians to Moderation, Love, and Charity among themselves, for the preservation of the publique peace, although they differed in some opinions. For satisfaction of the Reader, I will set down the Doctors own words, viz. Is it not that we are so affected with our own Opinions, that we condemn whosoever shall opine the contrary; and so far wedded to our own wills, that when we have espoused a quarrel, neither the Love of God, not the God of Love shall divorce us from it: Instead of hearkning to the voice of the Church, every man hearkens to himself, and cares not if the whole miscarry, so that himself may bravely carry out his own devices. Ʋpon which stubborn height of Pride, what quarrels have been rais'd, what Schisms in every [Page xv]corner of this our Church (to enquire no further) some rather putting all into open tumult, than that they would conform to a Lawful Government, de­rived from Christ and his Apostles to these very Times. At the speaking of which words, the Bishop of Lincoln sitting in the great Pew (which was before the Seat of Contention) knocked aloud with his Staff upon the Pulpit, saying, No more of that point, No more of that point, Peter: To whom the Doctor readily answered, without haesitation, or the least sign of being dashed out of countenance, I have a little more to say, my Lord, and then I have done, which was as followeth, viz. Others com­bining into close and dangerous Factions, because some points of speculative Divinity, are otherwise maintained by some than they would have them. Also regardless of the common peace, that rather than be quiet, we will quarrel with our blessed Peace-maker for seeking to compose the differences, though to the prejudice of neither party. Thus do we foolishly divide our Saviour, and rent his Sacred Body on the least occasion, vainly conceiving that a difference in point of Judgment, must needs draw after it a dis-joyning of the affections also, and that conclude at last in an open Schism. Whereas diversity of opinions, if wisely managed, would rather tend to the discovery of the Truth, than the disturbance of the Church, and rather whet-our Industry than excite our passions. It was St. Cyprians resolution, Neminem, licet aliter senserit, à Commu­nione amovere, not to suspend any man from the Communion of the Church, although the matter then debated, was (as I take it) of more weight than any of the points now controverted; which moderation, if the present Age had at­tained unto, we had not then so often torn the Church in pieces, nor by our frequent broils offered that injury and inhumanity to our Saviours Body, which which was not offered to his Garments. At this, and all the other part of his Sermon, the Auditory was highly pleased, but the Bishop in so great wrath, that his voice, and the noise of his Pastoral Staff (if I may so call it) had like to have frighted the whole Flock or Congregation out of the Fold. Considering the ill posture of affairs in which the Nation then stood, overflowing with Seditions and Schisms, I think a more seasonable Sermon could not have been Preached than to move men of different per­suasions unto Peace and Unity one with another, which is a most Christian Doctrine. After the Sermon was ended, he took Sir Robert Filmore his Learned Friend, with some Gentlemen of Quality that were his Auditors, out of the Church along with him to his House, where he immediately Sealed up the Book that contained this Sermon, and other Notes, to which they also set their Seals, that so there might not be the least altera­tion made in the Sermon, nor any ground to suspect it, which was pre­sently after sent to the Bishop, who kept it in his hands for some days; in which time his passions allayed, being more calm at home than in Church, he sent the Book untouched back again to Dr. Heylyn, in whose Study it had lain dormant for the space of fifteen years, (when the danger of an old Sermon, of being called in question, must needs be over) by my persuasion, and his consent, he was pleased to give me leave to open that Apocalyptical Book, that I might read and see the mystery that lay hid under the Seals for so many years, which indeed proved only a pious and practical Sermon for Edification, to moderate the heats of those fiery spirits that were like to make a Combustion in the whole Kingdom. The Bishop deserved a sharper rebuke for his own Sermon, which about that time he Preached before the King, when he made a strange Apostrophe from his Text to the Sabbath, falling down upon his knees in the Pulpit at the middle of his Sermon, beseeching his Majesty in most humble manner, [Page xvi]that greater care might be taken for the better observation of the Sabbath day, which was looked upon by many as a piece of most grand Hypocrisie, who knew his opinion well by his practice; for he did ordinarily play at Bowls on Sundays, after Evening Service, shoot with Bow and Arrows, and used other exercises and recreations according to his Lordships plea­sure. The Bishop restored to his Dignities by means of that unhappy Par­hament, with whom he was in high favour, expected that the Doctor should have submitted himself to his Lordship, and particularly acknow­ledge his error in putting out the Antidotum Lincolniense, which he com­manded him to call in; to which Dr. Heylyn replied, that he received his Majesties Royal Command for the Writing and Printing of that Book, in which he had asserted nothing but what he was still ready to justifie and defend against the opposers of it.

No sooner was the Doctor out of the Pulpit, but he must come again before the Chair of the old Committee, to Answer unto new Articles that Mr. Pryn had drawn up against him; more especially for a Sermon that he had Preached many years ago, which Mr. Pryn (who had then Ears) heard himself, and brought along with him some other Auditors, who were a company of Butchers, to give Evidence against the Doctor, sup­posing he would come bloodily off; but contrary to their expectation, he got the victory of the day, and was dismissed with a Quietus est from that Committee. And glad was he so to be delivered out of the Lyons mouth, telling his Friends that he would now go to Alresford, with a pur­pose never more to come back to Westminster, whilst these two good Friends of his abode in it, viz. The House of Common, and the Lord of Lincoln. Accordingly he hastned down to his Family and Parishioners, to solace his soul with peace, after his so long patience under Westminster troubles.

Welcome was he to his Parishioners, who always loved him in the time of his Prosperity and Adversity, because of his affable and courteous be­haviour, his Hospitality among them, and Relief to their Poor; his readi­ness to do his Neighbours any kindness by Counsel or other assistance; his constant Preaching, during all time of his abode; and in his absence, when he was called to Court, supplied them with an able Curate; he was re­solved now to spend his days among them, and his Parishioners at South-Warnborough, from whom he had the same respect and love. But the unhappy Wars now following, that put all things into disorder and con­fusion, dispersed Families, parted nearest Relations, forced People from their Houses, and Ministers out of their Churches, necessitated him to flie for his own Preservation, as Elijah Persecuted by Ahab, being sent for by a party of Horse, under the command of Sir William Waller, to bring him Prisoner to Portsmouth, he fairly escaped their hands, but continually disturb'd with new Alarms of Drums and Trum­pets sounding about him, and every where else, that he could find no other way of safety like going to Oxford, there to take Sanctuary with his Brethren (the persecuted Clergy.) But the news of his being in Oxford, took wings to the old Committee, who forthwith Voted him a Delin­quent, and sent down an Order for Sequestration of all his Goods and Chattels: And first they fetcht away his Library (for they thought he was too great a Scholar) the plunder of which he took deeply to heart, and over accounted it the greatest of his losses. The Books were carried to Portsmouth, where they were appraised at a thousand pound, and put into a publick Library, from whence they could never be redeemed. After [Page xvii]the loss of them, those Sabeans drove away his Goods and Chattels, seized upon his Corn and Hay, and in Carts and Waggons carried away his Houshold goods, that they left him naked as Job; for immediately by order of the Committe, the Tiths of both his Livings were Sequestred, and the profits of his Prebendary in Westminster, and what temporal Estate he had within their reach, taken from him; that being asked by one of his acquaintance, how he lived? he answered him readily, By Horse­flesh and old Leather; which seeming a Riddle, he explained afterward his meaning, That he saved only his Coach and Horses which brought him to Oxford, which he was forc'd to sell, and live upon the money. But that be­ing done, he must think of some other way, first to live upon Credit, which seldom holdeth long, without an Estate to support it; and after­ward upon the Charity of Friends, which is shorter liv'd, for the heat of that love soon groweth cold.

So that being no longer able to maintain himself and Family in Oxford, he sent his Wife to London, to get what money she could amongst her Rela­tions: himself went out of Oxford A. D. 1645. walking as a poor Tra­veller through the Countrey, and disguis'd both in his Name and Habit; he somtimes went under the name of Barker, at other times took the name of Harding, by which he was well known among his Friends, and not dis­covered by his Enemies; his Habit changed from a Priest to a Lay-man, and in the likeness usually of an honest Country-man, or else of a poor de­cayed Gentleman, as indeed he was. The peril of the times made him such a Proteus in his Garb, because the Parliament was resolved, if they could take him, that he should follow his good Lord of Canterbury to ano­ther World, than that described in his Cosmography; but he happily outlived most of them, and died in honour, which they did not. He wandred like a Jew, with a Groat in his purse, and somtimes without it, till he got to some good Friends House. At his first setting out, he was betrayed by a zealous She-Puritan, one Mrs. Munday, at her House in Oxfordshire; her Husband was a true-hearted Cavalier, unto whose pro­tection he committed himself: He being one day gone from home, she Saint-like, unfaithful to her Husband and his Friend, sent Intelligence to some Parliament Soldiers, that there was a Cavalier-Doctor in her House; of which he had notice given him by two of her Husbands Sisters, who hated her pure qualities; that as soon as the Family was all in Bed, he went out at a back door, down a pair of Garden-stairs, from whence he took his march all that Night, and by the help of God Almighty, he got safely to another Friends House by Morning. Ever after, the Doctor ob­served it for a rule, never to come within the doors of a Holy Sister, whose House may be compared to that which Solomon describeth, Is the way to Hell, going down to the Chambers of death; that had not Divine Providence protected him from the treachery of that Woman, he had fallen into the hands of those Nimrods that hunted after his Life. From place to place he shifted like the old Travels of the Patriarchs; and in pity to his necessity, found a hearty entertainment amongst his Friends of the Royal party, at whose Tables he was fed, for he had none of his own: His Children disposed of into several Friends hands, his Wife among her Relations, himself depending upon the Courtesie, both of Friends and Strangers, till he grew weary and tired out with this kind of life, for Vilis amicorum annona est, it pleased God to send him afterward some supplies of moneys, that he setled himself, Wife and eldest Daughter at Winchester, in the House of a right honest man, one Mr. Lizard, with whom they [Page xviii]Tabled a good while, where he had a comfortable time of breathing and rest after his former troubles, and to his hearts delight the sweet enjoy­ment and conversation of Loyal persons; for Winchester was then a strong Garrison for the King, and being near Alresford, he would go somtimes in disguise to visit his old Neighbors, who he knew were true and faithful to him. But those Halcion days quickly vanished, as seldom Prosperity con­tinues so long a time as Adversity; for that Town and Castle especially, which was thought strong enough to resist a greater Force than came against it, were both treacherously delivered up to the hands of their Enemies in three days time; and now every House full of Soldiers quar­tered amongst them, poor Dr. Heylyn was in more danger than ever, had not Mr. Lizard taken care of him as his dearest Guest, and hid him in a private Room, as Providence ordained, to save his life; which Room for­merly was supposed to be made for the hiding of Seminary Priests and Jesuits, because the House heretofore belonged to a Papist Family; and in­deed it was so cunningly contrived, that there was no door to be seen, nor entring into it, but behind an old Beds head; and if the Bed had not been there, the door was so neatly made like the other Wainscot of the Chamber, that it was impossible for a Stranger to find it out: in which Room, instead of a Papist, a right Protestant Doctor, who was a professed Enemy both to Popery and Puritanism, was now secured from the rage and violence of the Soldiers, who sought after him with no less eagerness, than if he had been a Heretick, followed by the Spanish Inquisition, when he good man was in the very next Room to them, adjoyning to the Dining-chamber, where he could hear all their raillery and mirth, their gaming at Cards and Dice; for those idle Lurdanes spent their time only in riot and pleasure at home, and when they went abroad, they would tread the Maze near the Town. He took his opportunity on the Market-day to put on his travelling robes, with a long Staff in his hand, and so walked out of the Town confidently, with the Country croud, bidding adieu to the little Room that he left for the next distressed Gentleman; in the mean while his Wife and Daughter he entrusted to Mr. Lizard's care, his faithful Friend. And now he must again travel to seek his Fortune, which proved more kind to him, than she did before; yet he met with a hard Adventure not many miles from Winchester, where some stragling Soldiers lighting on him, and catching hold of his hand, felt a Ring un­der his Glove, which through hast of his escape, he forgot to pull off; which no sooner discover'd, but they roughly swore he was some Run­away Cavalier: the Ring being hard to get off, the poor Doctor willingly helped them; in which time came galloping by some of the Parliaments, Scouts, who said to their Fellow-soldiers, Look to your selves, the Cavaliers are coming; at which words being affrighted, they took that little money that was in his Pocket, and so rid away without further search, and he good man jog'd on to the next Friends House, with some pieces of Gold that he had hid in his high Shooes, which if the Rogues had not been so hastily frighted away, would have been undoubtedly found, and might have cost him his life by further suspicions of him. At what Friends House he was now secured from danger, though I have heard him named, indeed I have forgot, but from thence he travelled to Dr. Kingsmill, a Loyal person of great worth, an ancient Family, where he continued, and sent for his Wife and Daughter from Winchester to him; and from thence removed to Minster Lovel (in Oxfordshire) the pleasant Seat of his Elder Brother, in the year 1648. which he Farmed of his Nephew Colonel [Page xix] Heylyn, for six years: Being deprived of his Ecclesiastical preferments, he must think of some honest way for a Livelihood.

Yet not withstanding he followed his Studies, in which was his chief delight; for though the Usurp'd Powers had silenced his Tongue from Preaching, they could not with-hold his Pen from Writing, and that in an acute and as sharp a style as formerly. At the same time he enlarged his Book of Geography into a large Folio, which was before but a little Quarto, and entituled it with the name of Cosmography; of which it may be truly said, it does contain a World of Learning in it, as well as the Descrip­tion of the World; and particularly sheweth the Authors most excellent abilities, not only in History and smoothness of its style, that maketh the whole Book delightful to the Reader; but in Chronology, Genealogy, and Heraldry, in which last any one may see that he could blazon the Arms, and describe the descent and pedigree of the greatest Families in Europe. In which pleasing study while he spent his time, his good Wife, a discreet and active Lady, looked both after her Housewifery within doors, and the Husbandry without; thereby freeing him from that care and trouble, which otherwise would have hindred his laborious Pen from going through so great a work in that short time. And yet he had several divertisements by company, which continually resorted to his House; for having (God be thanked) his temporal Estate cleared from Sequestration, by his Composition with the Commissioners at Goldsmiths-Hall, and this Estate which he Farmed besides, he was able to keep a good House, and relieve his poor Brethren, as himself had found relief from others Charity, that his House was the Sanctuary of Sequestred men, turn'd out of their Livings, and of several Ejected Fellows out of Oxford; more particularly of some worthy Persons which I can name, as Dr. Allibone, Mr. Levite, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Ashwell, who would stay for two or three months at his House; or any other Acquaintance that were suffering men, he chearfully receiv'd them, and with a hearty Welcome might tarry as long as they pleased. A vertue highly to be prais'd, and most worthy of Commenda­tion in it self. Mr. Marchamont Needham, then a zealous Loyalist, and scourge to the Rump Parliament, being violently pursued by them, was sheltered in the Doctors House while the storm was over: the good Doctor now as his Tutelary Angel, preserved him in a high Room, where he con­tinued writing his Weekly Pragmaticus; yet he afterward like Balaam the Son of Beor, hired with the Wages of Unrighteousness, corrupted with mercenary gifts and bribes, became the only Apostate of the Na­tion, and writ for the pretended Common-wealth, or rather I may say, for a base Democracy; for which the Doctor could never after endure the mention of his name, who had so disobliged his Countrey, and the Royal Party, by his shameful Tergiversation.

The good Doctors Charity also did not only extend it self to ancient Friends and Acquaintance, but to mere Strangers, by whom he had like to run himself into a praemunire; for word being carried to him in his Study, there was a Gentleman at the door, who said he was a Comman­der in the Kings Army, and earnestly desired some relief and harbour for that Night, and his Son with him; the Doctor presently went to him, and finding by his discourse, and other circumstances, what he said was true, received him into his House, and made him very Welcome: The Gentleman was a Scotch Captain, who having a Scotch Diurnal in his Pocket, they read it, fearing no harm thereby, but it proved otherwise; for one of the Doctors Servants listning at the door, went streight-way to [Page xx] Oxford, and informed the Governor, Colonel Kelsey, that his Master had received Letters from the King, whereupon the Governour sent a party of Horse to fetch him away. Strange news it was, knowing his own in­nocence, to hear that Soldiers had beset his House so early in the Morning, before he was out of bed: But go he must to appear before the Gover­nour; and when he came, that treacherous Rogue his Man did confidently affirm that he heard the Letters read, and was sure he could remember the very words, if his Master would produce the Letters: upon which the Doctor relates the whole story to the Governour, and withal shews the Diurnal, which the Governor read to the Fellow; often asking him, is this right, is this the same you heard? to whom he answered, yes Sir, yes that is the very thing, and those words I remember: upon which the Go­vernor caused him to be soundly whipt, instead of giving him a reward for Intelligence, and dismiss'd the Doctor, with some Complements, ordering the same party of Horse that fetcht him, to wait upon him home.

Being thus delivered from the Treachery of this Servant, his great care was to provide one more faithful; which the good Lady Wainman, his Neighbour, hearing of, commended to him one of her own Servants, whom Sir Francis her Husband had bred up from a Child, whose fidelity he need not fear in the worst of times, when a mans Enemies may be of his own Houshold, as Q. Vibius Serenus was betrayed by his own Son, Reus pater, accusator filius, Tac. Annal. lib. 4. idem index & testis, saith the Historian, The Son was both Accuser and Witness against the Father.

In the year 1653. he removed to Lacies-Court in Abingdon, which Seat he bought for the pleasantness of its Situation, standing next the Fields, and not distant above five miles from Oxford, where he might be fur­nished with Books at his pleasure, either from the Book-sellers Shops, or the Bodleian-Library: for such a fresh appetite to Study and Writing he still retained in his old Age, that he would give his mind no time of va­cancy and intermission for those labours in which he was continually exer­cised. When Monarchy and Episcopacy was trodden under foot, then did he stand up a Champion in defence of both, and feared not to Pub­lish The Stumbling block of Disobedience, and his Certamen Epistolare; in which Mr. Baxter fled the Field, because there was impar congressus be­twixt him, and as I may say an old Soldier of the Kings, who had been used to fiercer Combats with more famous Goliahs. Also Mr. Thomas Fuller was sufficiently chastized for his Church History, as he deserved a most sharp correction, because he had been a Son of the Church of England, in the time of her prosperity, and now deserted her in her adverse fortune, and took to the Adversaries side: And it was then my hap, having some business with Mr. Taylor, Fellow of Lincoln College in Oxon, and then Chaplain to the Lord Keeper, Mr. Nathaniel Fiennes, to see Mr. Fuller make a fawning address to my Lord, with his great Book of Church History hugged under his arm, which he presented to the Keeper after an uncouth rustical manner,Epis. 13. as Horace describeth,—Sub ala fasciculum portas Li­brorum ut rusticus agnum. The many falsities, defects, and mistakes of that Book the Doctor discovered and refuted; of which Mr. Fuller after­ward being ingeniously ashamed, came to the Doctors House in Abingdon, where he made his peace; both became very good Friends, and betwixt them for the future was kept an inviolable bond of Friendship.

In the year 1656. he Printed some Observations upon the History of the Reign of King Charles, by H. L. Esq with whom he dealt very can­didly, and modestly corrected some of his mistakes in most mild and [Page xxi]amicable terms, telling him, viz. Between us both the History will be made more perfect, and consequently the Reader will be better satisfied, Obser. Epist. Ded. which makes me somewhat confident that these few Notes will be so far from making your History less vendible than it was before, that they will very much advan­tage and promote the sale: And if I can do good to all, without wrong to any, I hope no man can be offended with my pains and industry. In answer to which, Mr. Hammond L'Estrange led by his passion, and not by reason, fell upon the Doctor in such uncivil words, unbecoming a Gentleman, that as the Doctor saith, he never was accustomed to such Billinsgate language. There was indeed a time (saith he) when my name was almost in every Libel, Extr. cap. Epist. which exercised the patience of the State for seven years together; and yet I dare confidently say, that all of them together did not vomit so much filth upon me, as hath proceeded from the mouth of the Pamphleter, whom I have in hand. Therefore the Doctor returned a quick and sharp reply in his Book, En­tituled Extraneus Vapulans, wherein with admired wit and eloquence, he gave Mr. L'Estrange a most severe, yet civil correction. In the year 1657. he put out in Print, Ecclesia Vindicata, or the Church of England justified, which he dedicated (as a grateful testimony of his mind) to his Master then living, Mr. Edward Davis, formerly School-master of Burford, and now Vicar of Shelton, in the County of Berks, to whom he ever shewed a Love and Reverence: and had the Doctors power been answerable to his will and intention, he had design'd more considerable Preferments for him; but the sudden and unexpected alteration in his own affairs preven­ted, (so soon almost as himself was preferred) that he could shew no other specimen of his gratitude. What saith the Heathen? Diis parentibus & praeceptoribus non redditur aequivalens, An amends can never be made to God, our Parents and Tutors; and certainly he hath but little of a Chri­stian in him, that can forget this lesson; yet some are so unnatural, as the Child that loveth not his Nurse.

About the same time he was harassed before Olivers Major General, for the decimation of his Estate, he thinking there had been an end of those troubles, by compounding for his Estate in Goldsmiths-Hall, he argued his Case notably with them, but all in vain, for Arguments, though never so acutely handled, are obtuse weapons against the edge of the sword. One Captain Allen formerly a Tinker, and his Wife a poor Tripe-wife, took upon him to reprove the Doctor for maintaining his Wife so highly, like a Lady; to whom the Doctor roundly replied, That he had Married a Gentlewoman, and did maintain her according to her quality, and so might he his Tripe-wife: adding withal, that this rule he always observed, For his Wife to go above his Estate, his Children according to his Estate, and himself below his Estate, so that at the years end he could make all even. Soon after these things came out the Order for Decimation against him. Notwithstanding which, the Doctor, like the Palm-Tree, Crescit sub pondere virtus, the more he was press'd with those heavy loads, did flourish and grow up in his Estate, that through the blessing of God, being neither the subject of any mans envy, nor the object of their pitty, he lived in good Credit, and kept a noble House; for I my self, being often there, can say I have seldom seen him sit down at his Table without Company; for being nigh the University, some out of a desire to be acquainted with him, and others to visit their old Friend, whom they knew rarely could be seen but at Meals, made choice of that time to converse with him: And likewise his good Neighbours at Abingdon, whom he always made welcome, and was ready to assist them in their Parish-business, or upon any other occasion, particularly in up­holding [Page xxii]upholding the Church of S. Nicholas, which otherwise would have been pulled down on pretence of uniting it to S. Ellens, but in truth to disable the sober Party of the Town, who were Loyal People, from enjoying their wonted Service and Worship of God in their own Parish Church, of which they had a Reverend and Orthodox Man, one Mr. Huish, their Minister; and in his absence, the Doctor took care to get them supplied with able men from Oxford. Great endeavors were on both sides, the one Party to preserve the Church, and the other to pull it down, because it was thronged with Malignants, who seduced others from their godly way, as Religion always hath been the pretence of factious minds, to draw on others to their Party,Ubbr Emm. Hist. Fris. as one saith well. Sua quisque arma sancta praedicat, suam causam religiosam, Deus, pietas, cultus divinus praetexuntur: Every one proclaimeth their own quarrels to be be a Holy War; the Cause Religion, God, Godliness, and Divine worship must be pretended.

Several Journeys the Doctor took to London, sparing neither his pains nor purse in so pious a Cause; for the managing of which, he employed di­vers Solicitors, somtimes before Committees, at other times before Olivers Council, where it was carried dubiously, and rather inclining to the other side; at which the Presbyterian-Party made the Bells to be rung, and Bon­fires in the Town to express their joy, triumphing in the ruin of a poor Church; but the day was not so clearly their own, as they imagined, for the Church yet stood against all its Enemies, God protecting his own House, and his Servants that were zealous for it, in a time when they could look for little favor from the Powers that then ruled, who had not so much respect for Gods House, as the Heathens had for their Idol Temples, and for those that Vindicated them,Justin. lib. 8. as Justin saith on this occasion, Diis proxi­mus habetur per quem deorum majestas vindicata sit; for which he praiseth Philip of Macedon, calling him Vindicem Sacrilegii, ultorem religionum, &c. During those troubles, Mr. Huish, Minister of the Church, durst not go on in his Ministerial duties, which the Doctor no sooner heard of, but to ani­mate and encourage him, he writ a pious Letter; a Copy of which I then transcribed, which is as followeth, and worth the inserting here.

SIR,

WE are much beholden to you for your chearful condescending unto our de­sires, so far as to the Lords-days Service, which though it be opus diei in die suo, yet we cannot think our selves to be fully Masters of our Requests, till you have yielded to bestow your pains on the other days also, We hope in reasonable time to alter the condition of Mr. Blackwels pious gift, that with­out hazarding the loss of his Donation, which would be an irrecoverable blow to this poor Parish, you may sue out your quietus est, from that daily atten­dance, unless you find some further motives and inducements to persuade you to it; yet so to alter it, that there shall be no greater wrong done to his inten­tions, than to most part of the Founders in each Ʋniversity, by changing Prayers for the souls first by them intended, into a Commemoration of their bounties, as was practised. All dispositions of this kind must vary with those changes, which befal the Church, or else be alienated and estranged to other purposes. I know it must needs be some discouagement to you, to read to Walls, or to pray in publick with so thin a Company as hardly will amount to a Congregation: But withal I desire you to consider, that magis & minus, all Logicians say, do not change the species of things; that quantities of themselves are of little efficacy (if at all of any) and that he who promised to be in the midst of two or three when they meet together in his Name, hath clearly shewed, that even [Page xxiii]the smallest Congregations shall not want his presence, and why then should we think much to bestow our pains where he vouchsafeth his presence, or think our labour ill bestowed, if some few only do partake of the present benefit? And yet no doubt the benefit extends to more than the parties present; for you know well, that the Priest or Minister is not only to pray with, but for the people, that he is not only to offer up the peoples Prayers to Almighty God, but to offer up his own Prayers for them, the benefit whereof may cha­ritably be presumed to extend to, as well as it was intended for, the absent also. And if a whole Nation may be represented in a Parliament of four hundred persons, and they derive the blessings of Peace and Comfort upon all the Land, why may we not conceive, that God will look on three or four of this little Parish, as the Representative of the whole, and for their sakes extend his Grace and Blessings unto all the rest; that he who would have saved that sinful City of Sodom, had he found but ten righteous persons in it, may not vouchsafe to bless a less sinful people upon the prayers of a like or less number of pious and religious persons. When the High-Priest went into the Sanctum Sanctorum, to make atonement for the sins of the people, went he not thither by himself? none of the people being suffered to enter into that place. Do not we read, that when Zacharias offered up Incense, which figured the Prayers of the Saints, within the Temple, the people waited all that while in the outward Courts? or find we any where that the Priest, who offered up the daily sacrifice (and this comes nearest to our case) did ever intermit that Office by reason of the slackness and indevotion of the people in repairing to it. But you will say, there is a Lion in the way, there is dan­ger in it. Assuredly I hope none at all; or if any, none that you would care for. The Sword of the Committee had as sharp an edge, and was managed with as strong a malice, as any ordinance of later Date can empower men with. Ha­ving so fortunately escaped the danger of that, why should you think of any thing but despising this, as Tully did unto Mark Antony, Catilinae gla­dios contempsi, non timebo tuos. Why may you not conclude with David in the like sense and apprehensions of Gods preservation, that he who saved him from the Bear and Lion, would also save him from the sword of that railing Philistine; and you may see that the Divine Providence is still a­wake over that poor remnant of the Regular and Orthodox Clergy, which have not yet bowed their knees to the golden Calves of late erected, by put­ting so unexpectedly a hook into the Nostrils of those Leviathans which threatned with an open mouth to devour them all. I will not say as Cle­mens of Alexandria, did in a case much like that, it is [...] to in­dulge too much to apprehensions of this nature in matters which relate to Gods publick service. All I shall add is briefly this, that having present­ed you with these Considerations, I shall with greediness expect the sounding of the Bell to morrow morning; and in the mean time make my Prayers to Almighty God, so to direct you in this business, as may be most for his glory, your own particular comfort, and the good of this people, with which expres­sions of my Soul, I subscribe my self,

Your most affectionate Friend and Brother in Christ Jesus PETER HEYLYN.

After this good Letter Mr. Huish went on in his prayers, as former­ly, and this little Church withstood all the batteries and fierce assaults of its Enemies, who were never able to demolish it, or unite it to Saint Ellens. So well had the Doctor managed the business for the publick good and benefit of the Parish: for as to his own particular, he might have spared that pains and charge, having in his house an Oratory or little Chappel, which he built after his coming thither, where he had constant Prayers and Sacraments for his own Family, and some particular Neighbors who had a desire to hear the Service and receive the Sacra­ment according to the Church of England. He was a strict keeper of Lent, save only Sundays, and an exact observer of the Holy-days. And as he was a strict observer of all the Rites and Orders of our Church, so he was a perfect abhorrer of Popery and Romish superstitions, in so much that he would not hold a correspondency with a Papist, or with one so re­puted, as I can instance an example, of one Mr. Hood, whose Family and the Doctors were very kind, when he lived at Minster, being near Neigh­bors, the Gentleman afterward turning Papist, and coming to Abingdon to give him a Visit, the Doctor sent his man Mr. Gervis to him, to bid him be gone, and shut the doors against him, saying that he heard he was turn'd Papist, for which he hated the sight of him, and so my Gentleman went away, never daring to give him another Visit.

In the Year 1658. he put forth Respondet Petrus or his Answer to Dr. Bernards Book entituled, The Judgment of the late Primate of Ireland, &c. at the same time Dr. Bernard who was before an Irish Dean, but was now Chaplain to Oliver, one of his Almoners, and Preacher in Grayes Inn, would have procured an Order from Olivers Privy Council not only for suppressing, but the burning of that Book, which caused a common report, that Dr. Heylyns Book was publickly burnt; but it was a mistake, for the Book never saw either the Fire, or any Answer. At the same time the Doctor printed an Appendix to Respondet Petrus, in answer to certain passages in Mr. Sandersons History of the Life and Reign of King Charles, in which he layeth a scandal upon the Doctor that he was an Agent for the See of Rome. The Doctor indeed in all his Writings, did ever assert the Kings Preroga­tive, and the Churches Rights, for which he incurr'd the Odium of the opposire Party, with whom 'tis ordinary to brand such persons with the ignominious name of Papists, or being Popishly affected, as abhor the other extreme of Puritanism, in which kind of Calumnies the Doctor hath sufficiently had his share, though no man hath written more sharp­ly against the Church of Rome, as appears from most of his Books, and particularly in his Theologia Veterum, and his Sermons upon the Tares: but though these have not been able to secure him from the malicious Tongues and Pens of ill men, yet his innocence hath found very worthy Advocates. Among whom I thank particularly the Reverend and Learn­ed Dr. Stillingfleet in his Answer to T.G. who would have made use of the Puritans accusation for the Papists purpose, but the worthy Doctor quickly refuted him out of the fourth Sermon of Doctor Heylyn upon the Tares, where he lays at the door of the Papists the most gross Idola­try, greater than which was never known among the Gentiles.

But against these things 'tis commonly said, and as commonly be­lieved; that some persons, and those of most illustrious quality, have been perverted from the Protestant Faith to Popery, by reading some of the Doctors Books, and particularly that which he writ about the Hi­story of the Reformation, called Ecclesia Restaurata. And Mr. Burnet in [Page xxv]his late History upon the same subject, has done all he can to confirm the world in that belief. For after a short commendation of Dr. Heylyns style and method (it being usual with some men slightly to praise those at first, whom they design to sting and lash afterward) he presumes to tell his Reader, that either the Doctor was ill inform'd, or very much led by his passions, and he being wrought on by most violent prejudices against some that were concerned in that time, delivers many things in such a man­ner, and so strangely, that one would think that he had been secretly set on to it, by those of the Church of Rome, though I donbt not but he was a sincere Protestant, but violently carried away by some particular conceits. In one thing he is not to be excused, that he never vouched any Authority for what he writ; which is not to be forgiven any who write of Transactions beyond their own time, and deliver us things not known before.

This Objection having many particular Charges contained in it, will require as many distinct Answers, which I shall give in short. And first, if it be true that any have embraced the Roman Faith, by means of that Book, he may enclude them to be very incompetent Judges in the matters of Religion, that will be prevailed upon to change it upon the perusal of one single History; and especially in the Controversies between us and the Papists, which do not depend upon matter of fact, or an Historical Narration of what Occurrences happened in this Kingdom, but upon doctrine of Faith, what we are to believe and disbelieve, in order to our serving God in this life, and being Eternally blessed with him in the next. Secondly, As for his vouching no Authority for what he writ, which is not to be forgiven him, I hope the Doctor has met with a more merciful Judge in another World, than Mr. Burnet is in this. If he had been a Factor for Papists, Mr. Burnet should have presented one particular instance, which he cannot do. As we have said before in his Life, he communicated that design of his History of Reformation to Arch-Bishop Laud, from whom he received all imaginable encouragement, by ancient Records that he perused. And what benefit could any Reader receive, to have quoted to him the pages of Manuscripts, Acts of Parlia­ment, Records of old Charters, Registers of Convocation, Orders of the Council-Table, or any of those out of the Cottonian Library, which the Doctor made use of. The Lord Bacon writ of Transactions beyond his own time, living as far distant from the Reign of K. Hen. VII. as Dr. Heylyn did from K. Hen. VIII. who laid the first foundation of the Reformation, yet I cannot find there more quotations of Authors than in Dr. Heylyns History; yet I suppose Mr. Burnet will look upon the Lord Bacons History as compleat. And if all this were made out, 'tis no more than what may be laid at the door of the Author, who lately writ the History of Duke Hamilton, Hist. D. Ham. p. 29, 30. where are reported the most abominable Scandals that were broach'd by the malicious Covenanters against the Scottish Hierarchy, and they are permitted without the least contra­diction or confutation to pass as infallible Truths, that so Posterity, as well as the present prejudiced Age might be levened with an implacable enmity and hatred against the whole Order of Episcopacy. Although the Hamiltons were the old inveterate Enemies of the Stuarts; and the Duke of whom the History is compiled, was an Enemy as treacherous to K. Charles I. as any that ever appeared against him in open Arms. He was the cause of the first Tumult raised in Edenburgh: He Authorised the Covenant with some few alterations in it, and generally imposed it on that Kingdom. He was the chief Person that prevailed with the King [Page xxvi]to continue the Parliament during the pleasure of the two Houses, and boasted how he had got a perpetual Parliament for the English, and would do the like for the Scots. He aimed at nothing less than the Crown of Scotland, and had so courted the common Soldiers, that David Ramsey openly began a health to K. James VII. yet all these things, with many others are either quite smothered, or so painted over by Mr. Burnet, that the Volume he has writ may be called an Apology or a Panegyrick, rather than a History. Of all these matters the Doctor hath acquainted the world before in the Life of Archbishop Laud, and the Observations that he wrote upon Mr. L'Estrange's History of King Charles I. I will be bold to aver, if the Doctor had employed his great Learning and Abilities to have written but one half of those things against the King and Church of England, which he wrote for them, he would have been accounted by very many persons (I will not say by Mr. Burnet) the truest Protestant, the most faithful Historian, the greatest Scholar, and in their own phrase the most pretious man, that ever yet breathed in the Nation. But he had the good luck to be a Scholar, and better luck to employ his Learning like an honest man and a good Christian, in the defence of a righteous and pious King, of an Apostolical and true Church, of a venerable and learned Clergy, and that drew upon him all the odium and malice, that two opposite Parties, Papist and Sectary, could heap upon him.

After the happy Restauration of the King, it was high time for the good Doctor to rest a while from his Labours, and bless himself with joy for the coming in of his Sovereign: for now the Sun shone more glori­ously in our Hemisphere than ever, the Tyrannical powers being dissol­ved, the King brought home to his people, the Kingdom setled in peace, the Church restored to its rights, and the true Religion established, every man returned to his own vine with joy, who had been a good Subject and a sufferer, and the Doctor came to his old habitation in Westminster, of which and of his other Preferments he had been dispossest for the space of seventeen years, and he no sooner got thither, but according to his wonted custom, he sets upon building, and erected a new Room in his Prebends house to entertain his Friends in. And seldom was he without Visitors, especially the Clergy of the Convocation, who constantly came to him for his Advice and Direction in matters relating to the Church, because he had been himself an ancient Clerk in the old Convocations. Many Persons of Quality, besides the Clergy, for the Reverence they had to his Learning, and the delight they took in his company, payed him several visits, which he never repayed, being still so devoted to his Studies, that except going to Church, it was a rare thing to find him from home. I happen'd to be there, when the good Bishop of Durham, Dr. Cousins, came to see him; who after a great deal of familiar discourse between them; said, I wonder Brother Heylyn thou art not a Bishop, but we all know thou hast deserved it. To which he answered, Much good may it do the new Bishops, I do not envy them, but wish they may do more than I have done. Now what that great Man did so readily acknow­ledge to be the Doctors due, was no more than what his true worth might justly challenge from all that were Friends to Learning and Virtue. For his knowledge was extensive as the Earth, and in his little world, the great one was so fully comprehended, that not an Island or Province, nay scarce a Rock or Shelf could escape his strict survey and exact descrip­tion. Nor was he content with that degree of knowledge which did far exceed what any other durst hope, or even wish for, viz. A perfect fami­liarity [Page xxvii]with the present State of all the Countreys in the World, but he was resolved to understand as well what they had always been, as what they then were; to be as throughly acquainted with their History, as he was with their Situation, and to leave nothing worth the knowing, undiscovered. So that what he has done in that kind, looks liker the product of the most Learned and Antient Inhabitans of their respective Countreys, than the issue of the industry of a Single Person. Yet for all this, his head was not so filled with the contemplations of this World, as to leave no room for the great concerns of the other. But on the contrary, the main of his Study was Divinity, the rest were but by the by, and subservient to that. For he having strictly viewed and examined all the various Religions and Governments upon Earth, and coming to compare them with those under which himself lived, did find the advan­tage both in respect of this life and another to lie so much on the side of these, as made him a most resolute Champion for them, and was the reason that he was often heated with great Indignation against those that were so blind or obstinate, to endeavour the interruption of such transcendent blessings: And though some have thought his zeal too ardent, yet they might consider, that it was his fortune to live in such times as made the highest expressions of it not only just but necessary: Of which he was so sensible, that forgetting all his other diverting Studies, he wholly set himself to endea­vour the defence and support of a tottering Church and Grown, which he laboured to that degree, that his body (though naturally a very strong one) not being able to keep pace with his mind, was often hurried into violent Fevers. And at last his eyes (of themselves brisk and sparkling) through continual watchings and intensness, lost their function, and refused any longer to assist his Studies. Yet could not all this abate the vigour of his mind, which as tho it had lost no outward assistance, or that it stood in need of none, still continued its action, and produced several excellent Books after their Author was neither capable of writing nor reading them. Nor was any thing but death able so much as to slacken his industry: for besides the discouragements I have named, he had all those which an Usurped Authority, (under which he was forced to live, and against which he could not forbear both to speak and write) could threaten him with; for he was thereby not only deprived of his Preferments, but often put in hazard of his life: But that merciful God, who never faileth those that trust in him, did preserve him, that he might enjoy the fruits of his pains and prayers in the Restau­ration of that Religion and Government which he so truly loved, and had so earnestly endeavoured; in the publick enjoyment of which he lived three years. And then having compleated the utmost of his wishes in the world, God was pleased to call him to the eternal Reward of another; and in so favourable a way as he might well look upon as a remarkable instance of the divine Goodness towards him. For as we read in the Scriptures that God did frequently warn his Servants of their approaching deaths, so he dealt with this good man. For on the Saturday night before he fell sick, he dreamed, That he was in an extraordinary pleasant and delightful place, where stand­ing and admiring the Beauty and Glory of it, he saw the late King his Master, who said to him, Peter, I will have you buried under your Seat at Church, for you are rarely seen but there, or at your Study. This Dream he related to his Wife next morning, told her it was a significant one, and charged her to let him be buried according to it. On the Monday he bought an House in the Almonry, Sealed the Writings and paid the Mo­ney the same day; and at night told his Wife, he had bought her an House to live in near the Abby, that she might serve God in that Church as he had done: And then re­newing his Charge of burying him according to his dream, went to bed very well, but after his first sleep, was taken with a violent Fever, which deprived him of his under­standing, till a few hours before his death; when seeing one of the Vergers of the Church in his Chamber, he called him, and said, I know it is Church time with you, and this is Ascension day, I am ascending to the Church triumphant, I go to my God and Saviour, into joys Celestial, and to Hallelujahs eternal. After which and other like expressions he died the same day, Anno Dom. 1663. in the 63 year of his Age. He had eleven Children, four of which are still living. He was buried under the Sub-Dean's Seat, according to his dream and desire, over against which, on the North-side of the Abby, stands his Mo­nument with this Inscription, composed by Dr. Earl, then Dean of that Church.

  • Depositum Mortale Petri Heylyn. S. Th. P.
  • Hujus Ecclesiae Prebendarii & Subdecani,
  • Viri planè memorabilis,
  • Egregiis dotibus instructissimi,
  • Ingenio acri & foecundo,
  • Judicio subacto,
  • Memoria ad prodigium tenaci;
  • Cui adjunxit incredibilem in studiis patien­tiam
  • Quae, cessantibus oculis non cessarunt.
  • Scripsit varia & plurima,
  • [Page xxviii]Que jam manibas hominum teruntur;
  • Et argumentis non vulgaribus
  • Stylo non vulgari suffecit.
  • Constans ubiq. Ecelesiae
  • Et majestatis Regie assertor,
  • Nec florentis magis utriusque
  • Quant afflictae:
  • Idem (que) perduellium, & Schismaticae Factionis
  • Impugnator acerrimus.
  • Contemptor invidiae.
  • Et animo infracto.
  • Plura ejusmodi meditanti
  • Mors indixit Silentium:
  • Ʋt sileatur, Efficere non potest.
  • Obiit Anno Aetat. 63.
  • Posuit hoc illi Moestissima Conjux.

A Catalogue of such Books, as were written by this Learned Doctor.

  • Spurius, a Tragedy M.S. written A. D. 1616.
  • Theomachia, a Comedy M.S. 1619.
  • Geography, printed at Oxon twice A. D. 1621, and 1624. in 4. and afterwards in 1652. inlarged into a Folio, under the Title of Cosmography.
  • An Essay, called Augustus 1631, since inserted into his Cosmography.
  • The History of St. George, Lon. 1631. reprinted 1633.
  • The History of the Sabbath, 1631, reprinted 1636.
  • Answer to the B. of Lincolns Letter to the Vicar of Grantham 1636. twice reprinted.
  • Answer to Mr. Burtons two seditious Sermons 1637.
  • A short Treatise concerning a Form of Prayer to be used according to what is en­joined in the 55 Canon, written at the request of the Bishop of Winchester, 1637.
  • Antidotum Lincolniense, or an Answer to the Bishop of Lincoln's Book, entitled, Holy Table, Name and Thing, 1637, reprinted 1638.
  • An Uniform book of Articles, fitted for Bishops & Arch-Deacons in their Visitation, 1640.
  • De Jure paritatis Episcoporum, or concerning the Peerage of Bishops, 1740, M. S.
  • A Reply to Dr. Hackwel, concerning the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, M. S. 1641.
  • The History of Episcopacy, first under the name of Theoph. Churchman, afterwards in his own name reprinted, 1657.
  • The History of Liturgies written 1642.
  • A Relation of the Lord Hoptons Victory at Bodmin.
  • A View of the proceedings in the West for a Pacification.
  • A Letter to a Gentleman in Lincolnshire about the Treaty.
  • A Relation of the proceedings of Sir John Gell.
  • A Relation of the Queens return from Holland, and the Siege of Newark.
  • The black Cross, shewing that the Londoners were the cause of the Rebellion.
  • The Rebels Catechism: All these printed at Oxon, 1644.
  • An Answer to the Papists groundless Clamor, who Nick-name the Religion of the Church of England by the name of a Parliamentary Religion, 1644.
  • A Relation of the Death and sufferings of Will. Laud Archbishop of Canterbury, 1644
  • The Stumbling-block of Disobedience removed, written 1644. printed 1658.
  • The Promised Seed in English Verse.
  • Theotogia Veterum, or an Exposition of the Creed, Fol. 1654.
  • Survey of France, with an account of the Isles of Guernsey and Jersey, 1656. 4.
  • Examen Historicum, or a Discovery and Examination of the mistakes, falsities, and defects in some modern Histories, Lond. 1659.
  • Certamen Epistolare, or the Letter-Combat managed with Mr. Baxter, Dr. Bernard, Mr. Hickman, 8. Lond. 1659. Historia Quinqu-Articularis, 4. Lond. 1660.
  • Respondet Petrus, or the Answer of Peter Heylyn, D. D. to Dr. Bernards book, enti­tuled The Judgment of the late Primate, &c. Lond. 4. 1658.
  • Observations on Mr. Hammond L' Estranges History of the Life of King Charles I. 1658.
  • Extraneus Vapulans, or a Defence of those Observations. Lond. 1658.
  • A short History of King Charles the First, from his Cradle to his Grave, 1658.
  • Thirteen Sermons, some of which are an Exposition of the Parable of the Tares, printed at London 1659, and again 1661.
  • A help to English History, containing a succession of all the Kings, Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Bishops, &c. of England and Wales, first written in the Year 1641, under the name of Robert Hall, but now enlarged and in Dr. Heylyns name.
  • Ecclesia Vindicata, or the Church of England Justified, &c. 4. 1657.
  • Bibliotheca Regia, or the Royal Library, 8.
  • Ecclesia Restaurata, or the History of the Reformation, Fol. Lond. 1661.
  • Cyprianus Anglicus, or the History of the Life and Death of William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury, Fol. Aerius Redivivus, or the History of the Presbyterians, Fol.
ECCLESIA VINDICATA: …

ECCLESIA VINDICATA: OR, THE Church of England JUSTIFIED;

  • I. In the Way and Manner of her Reformation.
  • II. In Officiating by a Publick Liturgy.
  • III. In prescribing a Set Form of Prayer to be used by Preachers before their Sermons.
  • IV. In her Right and Patrimony of Tithes.
  • V. In retaining the Episcopal Government.
  • And therewith, VI. The Canonical Ordination of Priests and Deacons.

By PETER HEYLIN, D. D.

PSAL. CXXXVI. 6, 7.

Si oblitus fuero tui, O Jerusalem, oblivioni detur dextra med:

Adhaereat lingua mea faucibus meis, si non proposuero tui in principio laeti­tiae meae.

LONDON, Printed by M. Clark for C. Harper. 1681.

A General Preface TO THE READER; CONCERNING The Design and Method of the following WORK.

  • 1. The Authors Address to those of the same persuasion with him.
  • 2. As also to those of different Opinion.
  • 3. His humble application to all such as be in Authority.
  • 4. Persecution a true note of the Church verified in the Jews, the primitive Chri­stians and the Church of England.
  • 5. The several Quarrels of the Genevians and Papists against the way and manner of our Reformation.
  • 6. The Authors Method and Design in an­swering the Clamors and Objections of ei­ther party.
  • 7. The first Quarrels against the Liturgies of King Edward the sixth, and the grounds thereof.
  • 8. The Liturgy of Queen Elizabeth ap­proved by the Pope, subscribed by the Scots; and the Church frequented by the Papists for the first ten years of that Queens reign.
  • 9. The Puritans and Papists separate from the Church at the same time, and the hot pursuance of this Quarrel by the Puritan party.
  • 10. The Quarrel after some repose revived by the Smectymnuans, and their actings in it.
  • 11. The Author undertakes the Defence of Liturgies, as also the Times and Places of Publick Worship against all Opponents unto each.
  • 12. The Prayer prescribed to be used by Preachers before their Sermons, the rea­sons why it was prescribed, and the Church justified for so doing, in a Brief Discourse upon that subject of the Authors making.
  • 13. An Answer to the Objection touching the free exercise of the Gift of Prayer.
  • 14. Set Forms of Prayer condemned in Churches by the Devisers of the Directo­ry, and prescribed for Ships.
  • 15. The Liturgy cryed down by the Lay-Brethren in Order to the taking away of Tithes.
  • 16. The same Design renewed by some late Projectors, the Author undertakes against them, and his Reasons for it.
  • 17. The first Bishops of Queen Elizabeths time quarrelled by the Papists, and the grounds thereof.
  • 18. Covetousness and Ambition in the Presbyterians, the two main grounds of their Pursuit against Episcopacy.
  • 19. Set on by Calvin and Beza, they break out into action, their violent proceedings in it, and cessation from it.
  • 20. The Quarrel reassumed by the Smectym­nuans, outwitted in the close thereof by the Lay-Brethren, without obtaining their own ends in advancing Presbytery.
  • 21. The Author undertakes against Sme­ctymnuus, and proves Episcopacy to be agreeable to all Forms of Civil Government.
  • 22. His History of Episcopacy grounded on the Authority of the Ancient Fathers, and what the Reader is desired in Relation to them.
  • 23. Ordination by the Imposition of Hands, generally in use in all Churches, and how the Ordinance of March 20. 1653. is to be understood as to that particular.
  • 24. No Ordination lawful but by Bishops, and what the Author hath done in it.
  • 25. The close of all, and the submission of the whole to the Readers judgment.
[...]

I READER, of what persuasion or condition soever thou art, I here present and submit unto thee these ensuing Tracts. If thou art of the same persuasion and opinion with me, I doubt not but thou wilt interpret favourably of my Undertakings; and find much comfort in thy Soul for thy Adhesion to a Church so rightly constituted, so warrantably reformed, so punctually modelled by the pattern of the purest and most happy times of Christia­nity. A Church, which for her Power and Polity, her sacred Offices and Administrations, hath not alone the grounds of Scripture, the te­stimony of Antiquity, and consent of Fathers, but as good countenance and support, as the Established Laws of the Land could give her; which Laws, if they be still in force, as they seem to be, thy sufferings for adhering to the Church in her Forms and Government, may not impro­perly be said to have faln upon thee for thy obedience and conformity to the Laws themselves.Smectym. Answ. 85. For though it may be supposed with the Smectym­nians, the Author of The True Cavalier, &c. and some other of our mo­dern Politicks, that Government and Forms of Worship are but matters of humane appointment, and being such may lawfully abrogated by the same Authority by which at first they were Established; yet then it must be still by the same Authority, and not by any other which is less suffici­ent for that end and purpose. And I presume it will not be affirmed by any, that an Ordinance of the Lords and Commons occasionally made and fitted for some present exigent is of as good authority as an Act of Par­liament, made by the King with the consent and approbation of the three Estates, in due form of Law. Or if it be, I would then very fain know the reason why the Ordinance of the third of January, Anno 1644. should be in force as to the taking away of the Book of Common Prayer, and yet be absolutely void or of no effect as to the establishing and imposing of the Directory thereby authorized, which bears an equal share in the title of it; or why the Ordinance of the ninth of October, Anno 1646. for abo­lishing Arch-bishops and Bishops should be still in credit; and yet so many Ordinances for setling the Presbyterian Government (in order whereunto the Hierarchy of Bishops was to be abolished) should be as short lived as Jonas's Goard, Plautus in Pseudolo. or the solstitial Herb in Plautus, Quae repentino orta est repentino occidit, blasted as soon as sprung up, without acting any thing; and finally why so many of the Clergy should still stand sequestred by Order from the Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and yet the Orders of those Houses, as to the recovering of their fifths, should be void and null. So that thy Judgment and Affection being so well bot­tomed, thy Conscience cannot but bear thee witness that thou hast not suffered as a Malefactor, a Violator of the Laws, a contemner of Order, or a Despiser of Dominion; which will be a contentment to thee in thy greatest sorrows,Lactant. lib. 1. cap. 1. above all expression. Delectabit tamen se Conscientia, quod est Animae pabulum incredibile jucunditate perfusum, as Lactantius hath it.

If thou art otherwise persuaded, II and of a different judgment from me in the main Disputes, yet I desire thee notwithstanding to peruse these papers, and to peruse them with that Candor and Christian Charity which we ought to have about us in the agitation of all weighty Con­troversies. I despair not but that thou maist here meet with something which may inform thy Understanding, and rectifie the obliquity of those misconceptions which thou hast harboured heretofore against this [Page]Church, the way and manner of proceeding in her Reformation, her Go­vernment and Establish'd Orders in Gods publick service, her Right and Title to that setled Maintenance, which is reserved to those who officiate in her. Te quoque in his Aliquid quod juvet esse potest, in the Poets Lan­guage.Ovid in Phae­dra ad Hippo­lyt. Howsoever I hope thou art not of those men who hate to be re­formed, or stop their ears like the deaf Adder in the Psalms, that so they may not hear the voice of the Charmer; but hast a malleable soul, and capable of all impressions tending unto peace and truth. And then I shall be confident of this favour from thee, that if thou canst not find good reason to change thy judgment and alter thy opinion in the points disputed, yet thou wilt hereafter think more charitably of those poor Men, who cannot sail with every wind of new Opinion, nor easily wean themselves from those persuasions which they have suckt in as it were with their Mothers milk. If thou art strong, and canst digest all meats which are set before thee, condemn not those of weaker stomachs who have been used unto a Regular and strict kind of Diet.

But if thou art not only of a different Opinion from me, III but differ­ing in Condition also, advanced perhaps unto some eminent degree of Trust and Power in the present Government, I must address my self unto thee in another way. I must then say to thee as did Tertullian once to the Roman Senators, that since there is no means in the way of a personal Defence to vindicate the Church, and clear her Children from all those Calumnies and imputations which are charged upon them, Li­ceat veritati vel occulta via tacitarum literarum ad aures vestras perve­nire; Tertul. in Apo­loget. cap. 2. I hope it may be lawful for the Truth to appear before you, by the humble and modest way of a Declaration. For what hath been the cause of our great Disturbances, but the want of a right Understanding of those Grounds and Principles upon which the Church of England was first reformed, or of those greater Animosities, those Odia plus quam Va­tiniana, exprest towards such as are most cordially affected to her Rules and Tendries? The Men themselves known generally to be both of Parts and Piety, many of them possest of liberal Fortunes, and all re­sponsal to the Publick in all those capacities in which they may do ser­vice to it. And can it rationally be conceived, that either wilfulness or perversness, or a vainglorious affectation of adhering to their old Mum­psimus (as King Harry used to say in another case) could make them run the hazzard of all which is dear unto them, were there not some in­ward principle of Conscience, and light of Understanding to incline them to it? Or that they can suppose themselves to equally dealt with in being debard from serving God in that way of Worship, and under those Forms of Administration, which they find countenanced and commended to them by as good Authority as the Established Laws of the Land could give them; and in the mean time that all sorts of Sects and Heresies de­structive of all civil Magistracy and Humane Society, should find not only a Connivence, but Support and Countenance? And if this cannot be conceived, how canst thou answer it to thy self, or to God and Man, that they who live so peaceably and inoffensively in their several sta­tions, as not to be reproach'd with any disaffection to the present Govern­ment in word or deed, should notwithstanding be mark'd out to conti­nual Ruin, because supposed to be of different Principles and Persuasions from some of those who have such powerful influences on the publick Counsels? For thy sake therefore, not for theirs only, have I took this pains, and drawn these several Tracts together, that being perfectly in­structed [Page]in the grounds of their affections, and the right constitution of the Church their common Mother, thou maist not only carry a more gentle hand towards those who have adher'd unto it, but be more ten­derly affected to the Church it self, which hitherto hath met with so much contradiction from unquiet men.

And to say truth, IV were there no other Arguments to prove the Church of England to be a true Catholick and Apostolick Church; this were suffi­cient to evince it, that it hath been always under persecution, which the whole tenor of the Scriptures and the ancient Monuments of Christia­nity have given us as a mark or character of the Church of God. No sooner had the Israelites freed themselves from the bondage of Egypt, but they were presently pursued and forced through the Red Sea, by the Host of Pharaoh; nor had they sooner escaped that danger by Gods Almighty power, but the Amalekites set upon them, the Moabites set themselves against them, and Balaam the son of Beor is hired to curse them, hated by all the Nations amongst whom they lived, derided for their Sabbath and Circumcision, (Recutitaque Sabbata palles, as the Sa­tyrist hath it) and for their other Rites and Ceremonies in which they differed from the rest of their neighbouring Nations; Their Laws are diverse from all people, Hest. 3.8. Tacit, Hist. lib. 5. saith Haman in the Book of Hester; Novi illis Ritus coeterisque mortalibus contrarii, as it is in Tacitus; therefore to be exterminated as Enemies unto Civil Government and to all mankind. Thus did it also fare with the Primitive Christians, as soon as they had separated themselves from the Jewish Synagogue; exposed to all the dis­advantages of scorn and danger, both by Jews and Gentiles. For as con­cerning this Sect we know that every where it is spoken against; so said the Jews to Paul at his coming to Rome; Acts 28. [...]2. Tacitus in An­nal. lib. XV. Homines per flagitia invisi, as much about the same time the same Tacitus calls them; and therefore odio humani generis convicti, obnoxious to the common hatred of all men, as it after followeth. Persecuted upon this account by the Roman Em­perors, reviled by the malicious Pens of Celsus, Prophyry, Lucian, Ju­lian, and the rest of that Rabble. Thus also hath it happened to the Church of England, No sooner had King Harry freed her from the Bondage of Rome, but the proud Pharaohs of that City pursued him presently with their fulminations, endeavouring to raise up all the Princes of the Earth against him; nor had she sooner purged her self of those su­perstitions and corruptions which had been put upon her in the time of that Bondage, but many hundreds of her children were forcibly driven through the Red Sea (a Sea of their own blood) to the Heavenly Ca­naan. Persecuted after this in forein parts by the Inquisition, at home by the malitious pens and practices of that dangerous Enemy. And as if this had not been enough for her affliction, her Bowels must be torn out by those very children which she had nourished in the faith, though afterwards they scorned to own her for their Mother.

The first thing quarrelled on both sides is the Way and manner of her Reformation. V which is affirmed by those of Rome, to have too little of the Pope, and too much of the Parliament; by those of the Gene­vian party, to have too little of the People, and too much of the Prince. The Genevians or Presbyterians find themselves agrieved that in the agi­tating of this great Business, there was no such consideration had of the common People, as in other places; their Lay-Elders being allowed no Vote either in the Consistory or the Convocation, and consequently no care taken of the Peoples Interess, which in a matter which so nearly [Page]concerned their souls, was as great as any: applauding for this cause the riotous proceedings in some other Countreys, where the People threw down Altars, defaced Images, and in a pious zeal (no doubt) demolisht Churches, laying thereby the ground-work of a more thorow Reformation than was made with us. The Romanists do complain as loudly that this great Work was wholly carried on by the power of Parliaments. And hereupon it is affirmed by D. Harding, the first that took up Arms against this Church in Queen Elizabeths time, that we had a Parliament-Religion, a Parliament-Faith, and a Parliament-Gospel; as by Scultingius and some others, that we had none but Parliament-Bi­shops, and a Parliament-Clergy. Two Clamors so repugnant unto one another, that if the one of them be true, the other cannot chuse but be very false. And thus again the Papists generally object, that in that great work of the Reformation, there was no care taken of the Pope, neither consulted with as the Patriarch of the Western Churches, or as the Apostle at the least of the English Nation: the Pope thereby unwor­thily deprived of that Supremacy which of antient Right belong'd un­to him, to the subverting of the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith. Primo & praecipuo Romanensium fidei articulo de Pontificis primatu immu­tato, Hist Concil. Trident. lib. 1. as my Author hath it. Calvin and his Disciples on the other side, are as much offended with setling the Supremacy upon the King; the Master grievously complaining of it in his Comment on the 7th of Amos, Calvin in Amos cap. 7. his Scholars doing the like in their several Pamphlets, And though it be affirmed by Bracton, one of our ancient Common Lawyers (if my me­mory fail not) that Kings are therefore anointed with holy Oyl, Eo quod spiritualis jurisdictionis sunt capaces, because they are capable of exerci­sing Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Jurisdiction; yet Calvin will have none of that, condemning those for rash and inconsiderate Persons, Qui fa­ciunt eos nimis Spirituales, who ascribe to them any such Authority in Spiritual matters, His Followers will take after him in this particu­lar, none more professedly and at large than Caldwood (or Didoclavius as he calls himself) and his Associates in the Altare Damascenum.

To satisfie the Clamors of these opposite parties, and to appease some Scruples raised thereby in Mr. G. A. of W, a modest and ingenuous Gentleman my especial friend, I set my self in the first place to justifie the Church of England as to the Way and Manner of her Reformation, so loudly and so falsly clamoured on so little ground. And by this Tract it will be proved that nothing was done here in the Reformation, but what was acted by the Clergy in their Convocations, or grounded on some Act of theirs precedent to it, with the Advice, Counsel, and Consent of the Bishops and other learned men assembled by the Kings appointment; and secondly that the Parliaments did nothing in it but that sometimes upon the Post-fact it was thought fit to add some strength to the Decrees and Determinations of the Church (especially in inflicting punishments on the Disobedient) by the Civil Sanctions. And for the proof of this I have used none but Domestick Evidences, that is to say, the Edicts of the King, the Records of Convocation, and the Acts of Parliaments themselves, the best assurances that can be de­vised in Law to convey the Truth unto us in all these particulars. In the next place I have endeavoured to give satisfaction unto all those Doubts which do relate unto the King, the Pope, or the Churches Pro­testant (the riotous actings of the Common People being no good ground to build a Right on) either too little or too much look'd after, [Page]as it is pretended, in that weighty business. Whose pretensions being well examined by the Testimony of the Fathers, Councils, and other Ecclesiastical Antiquities, I hope it will appear as clearly that there was no wrong done either to the Pope or the Forein Churches in being ex­cluded from our Councils in so great a work; and that our Kings have exercised no other power in sacred matters, than what is warranted un­to them by the word of God, and precedented with the best examples of the most godly Kings of Judah, and the most pious Kings and Em­perors in the happiest times. Nothing in all the Managery of the Re­formation but what is justifiable by the practice of the former Ages, and may be drawn into Example for the Instruction and Direction of the present Powers in all occasions of like natue. VII

The next thing faulted on both sides is the publick Liturgy, con­demned by those of Rome, first for abolishing the Mass, and then for being published and communicated in the vulgar Tongue; by those of the Genevian party, for having too much in it of the Roman Rituals. The Papists of the two the more moderate Adversary, and such whose edg was sooner taken off from the prosecution of the Quarrel than the others were. For though the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth, compiled by many Learned and Religious persons, was cryed up both by Act of Parliament,2.3 [...]d. 6. cap. 1. and by Fox himself as done by the especial aid of the holy Ghost, yet it gave no small offence to some scrupulous Men, who relished nothing that related to the Antient Forms. And when by the Authority of Calvin the opposition in conformity of Bishop Hooper, and the great power and policy of John Earl of Warwick (after Duke of Northumberland) it was brought under a Review and altered in such things as were thought offensive, yet then it would not down neither with those tender stomachs. Witness the troubles raised to the English Church at Francford in Queen Maries days, by Knox, Whittingham, and their Associates at their returning from Geneva, and the definitive sen­tence of Calvin in it, to whom it was thought good to refer the Dif­ference. And he accordingly declares, to content his followers, In Liturgia Anglicana multas esse tolerabiles ineptias, that he found in it very many tolerable follies,Calv. Epist. Anno 15 55. Reliquias Papisticae faecis, the very dregs of Popery, as he afterwards calls it.

Brought to a Review in Queen Elizabeths time, and purged of a pas­sage in the Letany, which gave distast unto the Papists, it grew into such general esteem and reputation (as being fitted to the common Principles of Christianity in which all parties did agree) that Pius the fourth, Anno 1560. made offer by Parpatio Abbot of St. Saviours, whom he sent with Letters to the Queen, Liturgiam Anglicam Autho­ritate sua confirmaturum, Cambd. in An­nal. Eliz. to ratifie and confirm the same by his Au­thority. The Scots obliged themselves by a publick Subscription to ob­serve the same (Religionis cultui & Ritibus cum Anglis communibus sub­scripserant, as we read in Buchannan) the fancy of Extemporary Prayer not being then taken up, Histor. Scot. lib. 19. as is affirmed by Knox himself in his Scottish History. So grateful was it for a time to all sorts of people that the Papists for the first ten years of Queen Elizabeths Reign did diligently frequent the Church, and attend the publick Services and performance of it, as is affirmed by Sir Edward Coke in his charge given at the As­sizes held at Norwich, and in his Speech against Garnet, and the other Traytors, Anno 1605. And this not spoken on vulgar hear-say, but on his own certain knowledg and observation, he having noted Bedding [Page]field, Cornwallis, and divers others of that party to repair frequently to the Church without any scruple. And though we may take this well enough on so good Authority, yet may it possibly find more credit because averr'd by Queen Elizabeth herself in her Instructions to Sir Francis Walsingham bearing date August 11. Anno 1570. In which it is affirm­ed expresly of the Heads of that party (and therefore we may judge the like of the Members also) that they did ordinarily resort from the beginning of her Reign in all open places to the Churches and to divine services in the Church, without contradiction or shew of misliking. VIII

But in the year 1568. Sanders and others of the Popish Emissaries began to practise on that party under pretence of doing service to the Catholick Cause; as Button, Bellingham, Compl. Embas­sad. l. 4. and Benson sticklers for the Ge­nevian Interesse did upon those who were inclinable to their Opinions. And they so far prevailed on their several Partisans,Cambd. An­nal. 1568. that about two years after upon the coming out of the Bull of Pope Pius Quintus against the Queen, the Papists generally withdrew themselves from that con­formity, and came no longer to our Churches as before they had done. And on the other side the Puritans (as they then began to call them) ani­mated by Cartwright and the rest of their Leaders, did separate them­selves also from the Congregation, declaming in their frequent Pamphlets against the Liturgy, as superstitious, and impure, and altogether savou­ring of the Romish Missals. Favoured underhand by Arch-bishop Grin­dal, and openly countenanced by the Earl of Leicester, they became so confident at the last, that some of their Leaders being demanded by an Honourable Counsellor, if the abolition of some Ceremonies would not serve their turn, they answered with arrogancy enough, Ne ungulam esse relinquendam, that they would not leave so much as a Hoof behind. But notwithstanding this strong vapour, partly by the constancy and courage of Arch-bishop Whitgift who succeeded Grindal, Anno 1583. the opportune death of the Earl their Patron, Anno 1588. and the incom­parable pains of judicious Hooker Anno 1595. but principally by the seasonable Execution of Copping and Hacker hanged at St. Edmondsbury in Suffolk for publishing the Pamphlets of Rob. Brown against the Book of Common Prayer (pouer publier le liveres de Rob. Brown en countre le Livre de Commune Prayer, as Compton doth report the Case in his Law­yers French) they become so quiet,Compton in his Office of Justices. that the Church seemed to be re­stor'd to some hopes of peace. No Libelling or Seditious preachings, no great disturbance after this for some years together; the Brethren turning their assaults into underminings, and enterprising that by practice which they had found impossible to be gained by violence.

By which means having formed their party, IX prepared their way by some new Libels, back'd by the Scots, and countenanced by some lead­ing members in both Houses of Parliament Anno 1640. they brake out again; the Smectymnuans openly appearing in the way of Argument, while others of more Brains and Power managed the business for them in their several Houses. The Liturgy by the one affirmed to have been intended by the first Reformers to be an help only to the want or weakness of a Minister, and not to be imposed on any but such as would confess them­selves unable to pray without it; by some resembled unto Crutches and such like helps to insufficiency, not to be made use of, but by those only who otherwise could make no use of their legs; reproached by their vulgar fol­lowers with the name of Pottage, a dish to stay their stomachs till the meat came in: all Offices of Piety reduced to Preaching, and all Devotion to the Prayer of the Preachers making.

To this extremity were things brought, X when for the reasons else­where specified I took in hand the Answer to the Humble-Remonstrance, Pref. to the Tract of Li­turgies. in which I found the whole building (as to this particular) to be laid on this foundation; viz. that if by Liturgy we understand prescribed and stinted Forms of Administration composed by some, and imposed upon all the rest, Smectym. Answ. pag. 6. then they are sure that no such Liturgy had been used anciently by the Jews or Christians. Considering therefore they appeal'd to the ancient practice of the Jews and Christians, I was resolved that to the ancient practice they should go for their justification; and to that end drew down the Pedigree and Descent of Liturgies among the Jews from the time of Moses unto CHRIST, carrying it on thorow the constant pra­ctice of the Greeks and Romans, and finally thorow the whole state of the Christian Church from the time of CHRIST our Saviour till the death of Saint Augustin, when Liturgies and Set Forms of Prayer, were universally received in all parts of Christendom. But hardly had I fi­nished my Undertaking,Plutarch. in Mario. when the War broke out; and I knew well (as Marius was once heard to say in another case) That the voice of the Laws could not be heard for the noise of Weapons: the Dispute being then like to be determin'd by stronger Arguments than could be urged on either side by pen and paper. On which consideration the Work lay by me as it was, till the Ordinance of the third of January, 1644. did seem to put an end to the Disputation, by abolishing the Book of Com­mon Prayer, and authorizing the Directory or New Form of Worship to be observed in the three Kingdoms. But finding in that Directory that all set times of Publick Worship were reduced to One, that one sup­posed to be commanded in the Scripture, and that the Festival days vul­garly called Holy-days,Direct. pag. ult. having no warrant in the Word of God, were not to be continued longer; I took that hint or opportunity to enlarge my self in laying down the ancient practice both of Jews and Christians in appointing Holy-days, and recommending them to the pious pra­ctice of all men, which did desire to live conformably to establisht Laws. And finding afterwards, that notwithstanding the Care taken by that Directory, That Places of publick assembling for worship among us, should be continued and employed to their former use; Ibid. some Men began to threaten them with a speedy destruction, and breathed out nothing but Down with them, Down with them, even unto the ground, reproaching them in the mean time with the name of Steeple-houses: I interserted also in convenient places the pious care of the Jewish Nation in erecting Synagogues and Oratories for Gods publick Worship, and of the Primi­tive Christians (not to say any thing of the like care in the ancient Gentiles) in building, consecrating and adorning Churches for the like employments. And this I did to let the Reader understand, that the ac­customed times and places which were designed and set apart for Gods publick service, had more authority to rest on than those Men gave out; the Liturgy it self being apt enough to be beaten down without any such Ordinance, if once those times and places should be discontinued. By these degrees and on these several occasions, the whole Work came to that perfection in which it is now presented to thee; not to be now presented to thee neither, if the necessity of doing my Duty unto God, and the Church, and offering something unto the consideration of the Higher Powers, had not prevailed with me above all respects of my private interest.

Liturgies and Set Forms of Worship being thus asserted, XI my next care was to vindicate the Church in that Form of Prayer which is pre­scribed to be used by Preachers before their Sermons, Can. 55. For cer­tainly the Church had not sufficiently provided for the Common peace, if she had tied her Ministers to Set Forms in the Daily Office, and left them to their own liberty in conceiving Prayers to be used by them in the Pulpit before their Sermons. The inconvenience which that liber­ty hath brought upon us in these latter days, being so apparent, that it is very hard to say whether the Liberty of Prophesying, or the Licenci­ousness in Praying what and how we list, hath more conduced to these distractions which are now amongst us. And if there were no such ef­fect too visible of this licentiousness (which I desire the present State to take notice of) the scandal which is thereby given unto our Religion in speaking so irreverently with such vain repetitions and tautologies to Almighty God (as in extemporary and unpremeditated Prayers is too frequently done) seems a sufficient consideration to bring us back again to that ancient Form which the wisdom of the Church prescribed to prevent the Mischief. Such was the care and providence of the elder times and happiest ages of the Church as to ordain that no unlearned person should make use of any of those Prayers which himself had fra­med, nisi prius eas cum instructioribus fratribus contulerit, Concil. Car­thag. Can. 23. before he had conferred about them with more learned men. The reason of which is thus given in the Council of Milevis, Can. 12. Ne forte aliquid contra fidem vel per ignorantiam, vel per minus studium sit compositum; for fear lest any thing should escape them against faith (and piety) either through the ignorance of the Composer, or carelesness in the Composition. And if such care were taken of Mens private Prayers, no question but a greater care is to be observed in ordering those publick Prayers which are to be offered unto God in the Congregation. Never did Men so literally offer unto God the Calves of their lips, as they have done of late since the extemporary way of Praying hath been taken up. And if it were prohibited by the Law of Moses to offer any thing unto God in the way of the legal Sacrifices, which was maim'd, spotted, or imperfect; how can it rationally be conceived that God should be delighted with those Oblations, or Spiritual Sacrifices, which have nothing almost in them but maims, spots, and blemishes? In which respect I have subjoyned to the Tract of Liturgies a brief Discourse about restraining Preachers to that Form of Prayer which is prescribed them by the Church; and that not only in the Canon of 603. but in the Injunction of King Harry the 8th, King Edward the 6th, and Queen Elizabeth of famous memories, till the predominating Humour of drawing all Gods publick Worship to the Pulpit-prayer carried all before it.

But here it is to be observed that one of the chief reasons for abolish­ing the publick Liturgy was, XII that the Ministers might put forth them­selves to exercise the Gift of Prayer, with which our Lord Jesus Christ pleaseth to furnish all his servants whom he calls to that Office; Pref. to the Direct. p. 2, 3. and that nothing was less effected than the end intended. For first the Directory which prescribes not alone the Heads, but the sense and scope (which is the whole matter) of the Prayers and other parts of publick Worship, Ibid. p. 4. doth in effect leave nothing to the Ministers spirit but the wording of it: which if it be not a restraining of the Gift of Prayer, I am much to seek: the Spirit being as much restrained, and the Gift of Prayer as much kept in, where the matter of the Prayer is prescribed unto [Page]us, as when we are prescribed also in the form and words.

And secondly, whereas it seems to be intended that Ministers should use no Form of Prayer before their Sermons, or in any other part of worship, but such as they call Conceived extemporary or unpremeditated Prayers (though by the way, all Conceived prayer require some preme­ditation.) Few of those Men who have conformed themselves to the Rules of the Directory, have ventured on the Exercise of the Gift of Prayer; most of them using certain and Set Forms of their own Compo­sing, and some not only using such Set Forms memoriter or without book, as we use to say, but reading them in their books or papers as they lie before them. As great a stinting of the Spirit, as contrary to the free Exercise of the Gift of Prayer, as any publick Liturgy or Set Form of Worship can be thought to be.

But that which is most worth our noting is, XIII that those very Men who composed the Directory, and laboured so industriously in abolish­ing all Set Forms of Worship by the Ordinance of the third of January, should within a while after publish some Set Forms of Prayer to be used by such as were at Sea.A supply of Prayer for the Ships. Quo teneam nodo? This is just fast and loose, pretty sport for children. For though it be pretended, that these Set Forms are to be used only in the want of Ministers, yet then it must be sup­posed withal, that none but Ministers have the Gift of Prayer; or if they have, are not to be permitted the free exercise and use thereof as they see occasion; which I conceive the Lay-brethren will not thank them for, who think themselves as well Gifted as the Presbyters do. Or if it be to be supposed, it is to be supposed only in common Cases, when no sense of extraordinary danger or approaching Ruine can quicken the dull spirits of Men, to the free and voluntary acts of invocation; to which the tempestuousness of the Sea, and unavoidable fears of a sud­den death give so many advantages, that there cannot be a better Tutor to teach men to pray. Insomuch that it grew into a proverb in the elder times, Qui nescit orare discat navigare, that he who knew not how to to pray, should undertake some Voyage by Sea, and there he would be sure to learn it. Which shews that there was somewhat else which these good Men aimed at, in crying down the publick Liturgie, than the free exercise and use of the Gift of Prayer (which few of them make use of now they have their ends in it) and what that was it shall not be long before I tell you.

For if we look back into the busie times of Queen Elizabeths Reign, XIV we shall find there were some secret workings amongst those of the Pu­ritan or Presbyterian party, to draw all the power and Riches of the Church into their own hands. And to this end the Ministers so bestir­red themselves, that as they had invaded the Government and Jurisdi­ction of the Church, by setting up their Presbyters in several places; so they resolved that the people should depend upon them alone, as for prayer and preaching, and all the other exercises of their Religion. A thing which could not be effected if the Liturgy were not first abolish'd, which of necessity must bring their own conceived prayers (as they use to call them) into estimation, and make them the sole Rule and Ru­brick of all publick Worship, by means whereof they were sure to get that absolute Sovereignty in the peoples Consciences, which in their practices and preachings they had so long aimed at. But on the other side, the Lay-brethren had their Ends in it also, hoping, that if they could destroy the Liturgy, it would be no hard matter for them to in­gross [Page]the Tithes unto themselves, and to put their Ministers off with ar­bitrary Pensions as in other places; Tithes being (as they gave it out) a Jewish imposition, not to be laid upon free Subjects in the times of the Gospel, never intended for the maintenance of a Preaching Ministery, but of a Sacrificing Priesthood. And so far they might seem to have the truth on their side, that the first Tithes which were ever taken, were not received with reverence to preaching to, or instructing the people, but with relation unto praying for them, or offering up to God the daily and commanded Sacrifices in their behalf. When Melchisedech took Tithes of Abraham, it was not for any pains he had taken in preaching to him, or instructing his little Army, but for praying to God for his Blessings on them; for the Text only tells us, that he blessed Abraham, praising God for his good success against his Enemies,Gen. 14.19..20. and for performing that Office had the Tithes of all. And when Tithes were paid by Gods ap­pointment to the Priests and Levites, it was not for their Teaching, Preaching, or Exhorting, for we find not, that any such Offices were either required of them, or performed by them; but for their service in the Temple, the offering the appointed and occasional Sacrifices per­formed with several kinds of Prayer agreeable to the occasion, and the Spiritual necessities of that people. Tithes therefore being the reward and maintenance of a praying, not a preaching Ministery; the Liturgy being taken away, and Preaching made the main, if not the sole work of the Minister, there could no reason be alledged, why the people might not withold their Tithes, or why the Tithes might not be otherwise im­ployed, as the State thought fit.

This business being resumed and more hotly followed in these latter times, XV and some proposals set on foot for depriving the Ministers of their Tithes, drawing them into some Common Treasuries, and out of them allotting such maintenance to the Ministers, as the necessities and wants of the State could spare; I publish'd a Discourse entituled, The unde­ceiving of the people in the point of Tithes; and to my Preface to that Treatise do refer the Reader both for the motives which induced me (having no ends of my own in it) to that Undertaking; the whole Design and Method of it; and finally the Reasons why I did so disguise my name, that I might not appear for the Author of it. At this time I shall only add, that Tithes being now the only remaining Patrimony which is left the Church, for the encouragement and reward of a learned Ministery; should they be also taken from it, and the poor Clergy forced to de­pend on uncertain Stipends: I see not what can follow thereupon, but a gross night of Ignorance, and Egyptian darkness, especially in those who now hold out the light to others. For certainly that saying of Panor­mitan will be always true, Ad tenuitatem Beneficiorum necessaria sequi­tur ignorantia sacerdotum. And if ignorance once possess the Priests (I hope it will not be offensive if I use that name) we cannot look for much knowledg in the Common people. For if the light be darkness, then ipsae tenebrae quantae! as we know who said.

But the grand Quarrel of these times is about Episcopacy, XVI followed with more acrimony than the former was, because there was something more to be gained by the fall of Bishops, than by contending about Forms and Freedoms to be used in Prayer. And in this point the Papists and the Presbyters differ not a little both in the end they aimed at, and the motives to it. The Papists quarrelled not the Calling, the Episcopal function, and much less the Revenues which belonged unto it, but the [Page] persons rather; offended chiefly that some Men of their own persuasions were not advanced to those great places, and yet not quarrelling the persons neither, for want of any fitness or abilities to discharge the Of­fice, but for defect of some Legalities in their Consecration. And if they could possess the World, that we had no Bishops, it would be no hard matter to persuade them that we had no Ministery, no lawful Di­spensation of the Word and Sacraments; by consequence, that since we had withdrawn our selves from the See Apostolick, we had left off to be a Church: the gaining of which point was the matter aimed at in the Calumny. Quid enim est Ecclesia nisi Plebs Sacerdoti adunata, & Pa­stori suo grex adhaerens? Cypr. Epist. 69. No Bishop, no Church, in St. Cyprians judg­ment; for that by Pastor and Sacerdos he doth mean the Bishop is a thing past question. In this respect, as Harding in his Answer to Jewels Challenge, would not acknowledg him to be Bishop of Salisbury, and Bonner denied Horn (in an open Sessions) to be Bishop of Winche­ster; so did they generally disclaim all the first Bishops of Queen Eliza­beths Reign (and consequently those also which descended from them) as being consecrated in no other Chappel than the Nags-head in Cheap­side, nor by the imposition of any other Hands than their own, nor final­ly by any lawful Ordinal either old or new. But being beaten from these Holds, partly by the inspection of the Publick Registers at Lam­beth-house, and partly by the Testimony of some honourable persons who were present at those Consecrations, but partly by the pains and industry of Fr. Mason in his Book entituled, Vindi [...]iae Ecclesiae Anglicanae; they join themselves underhand to the other Faction, for the subvert­ing of the Calling, as the easiest and most expedite way to their Jour­neys end.

With greater violence and impetuosity did the other Faction hurry on towards their Design, XVII spur'd on by Covetousness and Ambition, the two principal Sticklers in all Distractions of the Church. The Lay-brethren with unsatiable Covetousness gaped after the Possessions and Lands of the Bishops, as the Presbyters and Ministers with as great Ambition did aspire unto their jurisdiction. And as He in Plutarch seeing his own name unexpectedly amongst the Proscripts, and consequently cer­tain of nothing more than some sudden death, cryed out aloud, that it was his fine Gardens, and his Countrey-house which drew that fatal end upon him; so might the Bishops also say, that it was their fair Houses and their goodly Mannors which exposed them to the common envy, and sacrificed them in conclusion to Spoil and Rapine. For though no­thing else was pretended by them but a zeal to Gods glory, the purity of the Ordinances and the Churches peace; yet as my Author well ob­serves, Ecclesiarum opibus inhiabant, it was the Churches goods which they most gaped after,Cam [...]d. in An­nal. Eliz. not the Churches good. In vain had the Pres­byterian Ministers laboured in the pursuit of their Ambition, and hope­lesly endeavoured to change the Government, that they might have it to themselves, had they not been animated and supported in it by their Lay-patrons; many of which (as some of the Scottish Writers say of theirs) would have crucified CHRIST himself to have had his gar­ments.

Presuming on their power and favour, XVIII some of the Ministers which had fled into Geneva in Queen Maries days, brought with them at their coming back in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign, a strong af­fection (and some secret instructions withal) to settle the Presbyte­rian [Page]Discipline (first fitted by Calvin for that City) in the Church of En­gland: Incouraged thereunto no doubt both by Calvin and Beza, the two great Patriarchs of the Sect, who could not but be much agrieved, that their Discipline which had found such welcome in the neighbour­ing Churches, should find none in this. And yet we do not hear of any open Declaration which they made herein, till the year 1566. in which Genebrard placeth the beginning of the Puritan Faction; more visibly appearing about two years after, when Coleman, Button, Cambd. Annal. An. 1568. and some others spoken of before, and Cartwright not long after them, did openly undertake the Business. And we may very well conceive, that Beza would not be an idle Spectator, when they once were at it; ha­ving given order unto Knox for the Church of Scotland, Ne pestem il­lam unquam admittat, quantumvis unitatis retinendie specie blandiatur, Beza in Epist. that is to say, not to admit the plague of Episcopal Government, though it might seem of special use for preserving Unity. Thus countenanced abroad, and back'd at home, they presently mustred up their forces, betook themselves to the quarrel, and whole Realm was on the sudden in an uproar. ‘The Parliaments continually troubled with their Supplications, Admonitions, and the like; and when they found not there that favour which they looked for, they denounced this dreadful Curse against them, That there shall not be a man of their seed that shall prosper to be a Parliament man, For this and that which follows, see Bancrofts dan­gerous positi­ons, &c. or bear Rule in England any more. The Queen exclaimed upon in many of their Pamphlets, her honourable Council scandalously censured as opposers of the Gospel. The Prelates every where cryed down as Antichristian, Petti-popes, Bishops of the Devil, cogging and cousening Knaves, dumb Dogs, Ene­mies of God, &c. and their Courts and Chanceries the Synagogues of Satan. After this they erected privately their Presbyteries in divers places of the Land, and cantoned the whole Kingdom into their se­veral Classes and divisions; and in a time when the Spaniards were expected, they threaten to Petition the Queens Majesty with 100000 Hands.’ Their Discipline they call'd the Scepter and Throne of Christ, and their erecting of Presbyteries the setting of Christ upon his Throne: Their quarrel not being raised (as they gave it out) about Caps and Surplices, but whether Jesus Christ should be King or not. Good ground for our Fifth monarchy-men, and by them well followed. Never did men so ply their Adversaries with the Hail-shot of Libels as Martin Mar-pre­late and his followers plaid upon the Bishops; but they had then no Ordinance on their side, and did little hurt. And all this while the Church might seem to he asleep, till wakened by a Sermon preach'd at Saint Pauls Cross by Dr. Bancroft then Chaplain unto Chancellor Hatton, Feb. 9. 1588. upon that passage in S. John, Believe not every spirit, &c. 1 Joh. 4.1. After which time (the Earl of Leicester their great Patron being newly dead) so vigilant an eye was carried towards them, and such quick execution done upon them, that it was high time for them to give over their open and seditious practices. Their privity to Hacket's Treasons, together with learned and industrious Treatises of Dr. Bil­son in defence of Episcopal Government, of Dr. Bancroft in discovering their dangerous proceedings and positions, his Anatomy or Survey of their pretended holy Discipline; Dr. Cousens his Apology for the proceeding in Courts Ecclesiastical, all publish'd in the year 1593. the execution of Penry, the condemnation of Ʋdal, and the imprisonment of Cartwright happening all together, gave such a check unto their fortunes, that they [Page]durst never venture on the like Disturbances in Queen Elizabeths time.

But as once Florus said of the Affairs of Rome and Carthage; XIX so may we also say in respect of the Bishops and these Men, Semper inter eos po­pulos aut bellum, Flor. Hist. Rom. lib. 4. aut belli praeparatio, aut infida pax fuit. They either were at open War, or preparing for it, or at a peace more doubtful and uncertain than the War it self. And in this interval, while the Brethren had nothing so much as peace in their mouths, they made themselves ready for the battel; and drew unto their side a party like to Davids Army, resorted to by every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, 1 Sam. 22.2. and every one that was discontented; or otherwise were desirous of Novelties, and hoped to mend their Fortunes by the change of Govern­ment. Yet had they not courage enough to discover themselves (ex­cepting some preparatory Libels about the year 1635.) till the Scots having in a Tumult expelled their Bishops, and falling not long after into England with a puissant Army, gave them the confidence of effecting that without any hazard, which with such danger they had tugged for in the former times. And in that confidence the Smectymnuans came to act their part on the publick Theater, addressing their Discourse against Episcopacy to the Lords and Commons, amongst whom they were sure enough to find very good friends; and having tired out with their num­bers and continual exercise, the Patience of the Humble Remonstrant, they began to triumph in the Victory before they had it, and thought themselves as sure of setting up their beloved Presbyteries in every cor­ner of the Kingdom, as if already they were cantoned out and confirm­ed by Parliament. Never so much outwitted as by being ingaged in that employment, in which they served the turns of others; without speed­ing their own. For though they had the hap to obtain an Ordinance for abolishing all Arch-bishops and Bishops, bearing date October 9.1646. and several Ordinances thereupon for setling the Presbyterian Government as they had projected it; yet these last Ordinances being but Proba­tioners expired before their time, within few months after they had passed the Houses: These great contrivers of our Troubles and the Churches Ruine, not having the good luck to see their Discipline esta­blish'd in any one Church within the Kingdom. The Lay-brethren had other fish to fry, and having made use of these hot spirits to effect their purposes, laid by all care of gratifying them with that Supremacy which they affected in the Church, and presently fell to the division of the Spoil among themselves. Which Prey as it had been in chase from the 37 year of K. Henry the VIII. who laid his first hand on that part of the Churches Patrimony,37 Harry 8. cap 16. as appears by the Statutes of that year, so was it followed more or less from that time forwards (except the short parenthesis of Queen Maries reign) till the first Parliament of King James, who past an Act against the diminution of the possessions and Estates of Bishops, repealing in the same some clauses of an unprinted Statute made in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, by which their Land both Sede plena and vacante were wrested from them. But this Pale being broken down by the Ordinance of Octob. 9, which before we spake of, there past ano­ther on the 16th of November following for the sale of those Lands, which was the Game so closely followed by their Fore-fathers in the Faction, and sometimes brought unto the Bay; but never could be hunt­ed to the Fall before.

XX

But I return to the Smectymnuans whom though I left triumphing be­fore the Victory (as before was said) yet seeing my self engaged by [Page]Duty and Provocation (which I have spoken of elsewhere) I was resol­ved to undertake them,Pref. to the Hist. of E­pisco. notwithstanding all advantages which they had against me, as the times then were. And I resolved to undertake them in a way less capable of Contradiction, of Answers and Replies, than than that of Polemical Discourses; to fashion my Design into the form of an History, tracing Episcopacy with all the parts and powers thereof, from the first Institution of it by our Lord and Saviour, to the reign of Con­stantine, at what time it had attained to its full Establishment. One only Argument, which I have heard of late from the mouths of many, must be answered here; and that is, that Episcopacy is so fitted to the Kingly or Monarchical Government, that it is altogether inconsistent with any other. And for this they have no other proof, but because King James did use to say, No Bishop no King, meaning thereby, that there could be no King where there was no Bishop; therefore it followeth, è con­verso, that there can be no Bishop where there is no King. An Argu­ment to be answered without further trouble, than by looking into the three principal Estates of Italy, as they stood at and before the year 1520. that is to say, the Kingdom of Naples, the Aristocratie of Venice, and the Democraty or popular Estate of Florence, with each of which Episcopacy did so well comply, that it created no disturbance unto any of them, but peace and comfort to them all. Some of the Scots, the greatest Enemies to Episcopacy in the Christian World, have now of late confest ingenuoufly enough, that they have buried their antient Monar­chy in the same grave with it. But I could never hear from any that when the Kingdom of the Lombards was destroyed in Italy, and distra­cted into many popular and petit Signories, each independent to the other, the Government of the Church by Bishops, as it had been former­ly, was ruin'd or determin'd with it. And so this Argument being To­pical only, calculated for the Meridian of the present Times, with re­ference to the temper of a broken and unsetled State, can neither serve for any place else, nor for this in fine, when our Affairs shall be reduced to a setled Government. Adeo Argumenta ab absurdo petita ineptos ha­bent exitus, said Lactantius truly.

Now for my History and my proceedings in it, XXI that must next be known, my business being to make good the matter of Fact, that is to say, that in all Ages of the Church there hath been an imparity of Mini­sters; that the chief of these Ministers was called the Bishop; that this Bishop had the Government of all Presbyters and other Christian people within his Circuit; and finally that the powers of Jurisdiction and Or­dination were vested in him. In which particulars if the Affirmative be maintain'd by sufficient evidence, it will be very difficult, if not impos­sible, to prove the Negative. And for the better making good of the Affirmative, I have called in the ancient Writers, the holy Fathers of the Church, to testifie unto the truth of what is here said, either as wri­ting on those Texts of Scripture in which the Institution and Authority the Church in their several times, in the Administration and Government whereof they had most of them some special interess. Their Testimo­nies and Authorities I have fully pondered and alledged as fully; not misreporting any of them in their words or meaning, according to the best of my understanding: as knowing well and having seen experience of it, that such false shifts are like hot waters, which howsoever they may serve for a present pang, do in the end destroy the stomach. And [Page]for those holy and renowned Authors thus by me produced, I desire no more, but that we yieldas much Authority unto them in Expounding Scripture, as we would do to any of the Modern writers on the like oc­casion: and that we would not give less credit to their Affirmations, speaking of things that hapned in their own times, and were within the compass of their observation, than we would do to any honest Country Yeoman, speaking his knowledg at the Bar between man and man. And finally that in relating such orrurrences of Holy Church, as hapned in the times before them, we think them worthy of as much belief, as we would give to Livy, Tacitus, or Suetonius, reporting the Affairs of Rome, from the Records, Monuments, and Discourses of the former times. This is the least we can afford those Reverened Persons, whe­ther we find them acting in publick Councils, or speaking in their own private and particular Writings, and if I gain but this, I have gained my purpose. I hope to meet with no such Readers as Peter Abeilard, of whom Saint Bernard tells us, that he used to say, Omnes Patres sic, ego autem non sic, though all the Fathers hold one way, he would hold the contrary. To such, if any such there be. I shall give no other an­swer at this time, but what Dr. Saravia gave to Beza in this very case, viz. Qui omnem Patribus adimit Authoritatem, nullam sibi relinquit; that is to say, He which takes all Authority from the ancient Fathers, will in fine leave none unto himself.

I should proceed next to the Canonical Ordination of Priests and Deacons, XXII the Stewards which the Lord hath set over his Houshold, the ordinary Dispensers of Mysteries of Eternal life; which like the An­gels ascending and de?scending upon Jacobs Ladder, offer the People Pray­ers to God, and signifie Gods good pleasure and commands to the rest of the People. Offices not to be invaded or usurp'd by any who are not lawfully Ordained; that is to say, who are not inwardly prompted and inclined unto it by the Holy Spirit, outwardly set apart and consecrated to Gods publick service by Prayer and imposition of Hands. A point so clear, as to the Designation of some persons unto sacred Offices, that it hath been universally received in all times and Nations. The sanctify­ing of the Tribe of Levi for the service of the Tabernacle amongst the Jews, the instituting of so many Colledges of Priests for the service of their several Gods by the ancient Gentiles, Acts 13. v. 2. the Separating of Paul and Barnabas to the work of the Ministery in the first dawnings of the Gospel, sufficiently evidence this truth. And no less clear it is, as to the Laying on of Hands, in that Sacred action, retained since the Apostles times in all Christian Churches at the least deservedly so called. And this the Presbyterian-Calvinists saw well enough, who though profest Adversaries to all the old Orders of the Church, do notwithstanding admit none amongst them to the Ministration of the Word and Sacra­ments, but by the Laying on of the Hands of their Presbyteries.

But if it be objected that there is no such thing required by the Or­dinance of approbation of publick Ministers bearing date, March 20. 1653.

I answer, that that Ordinance relateth not to Ordination, but to Ap­probation and Admission; it being supposed that no Man is presented to any Benefice with cure of souls, or unto any publick Lecture, and being so presented, craves to have Admission thereunto, who is not first law­fully Ordained. That Ordinance was made for no other end but to great Admission to such fit persons as were nominated and presented to [Page]them; and thereby to supply the place of Institution and Induction, which had been formerly required by the Laws of the Land. And therefore the said Ordinance declares very well, that in such Approbati­ons and Admissions there is nothing sacred, no setting apart of any Per­son to a particular Office in the Ministery (that being the sole and proper work of Ordination:) but only by such trial and approbation to take care, that places destitute may be supplyed with able and faithful Preachers throughout the Nation.

The Question is not then about Ordination, XXIII or about Laying on of Hands, in which all agree, but what it is which makes the Ordination lawful, whose Hands they are, which make it to be held Canonical. The Genevians, and the rest of Calvins Discipline challenge this power to their Presbyteries, a mungrel company not heard of till these latter times, consisting of two Lay-elders for each preaching Minister. The Lutherans with better reason appropriate it to their Superintendents which in their Churches execute the place of Bishops. But all Antiqui­ty, Councils, Fathers, the general usage of the Churches of the East and West, with those also of the Aethiopian or Habassine Empire, carry it clearly for the Bishop; who hath alone the power to Ordain and Con­secrate, and by the imposition of Hands to set apart some Men to the publick Ministery, though he call in some Presbyters as Assistants to him. Saint Jerom, no great friend to Bishops, doth acknowledg this. Quid facit Episcopus excepta Ordinatione, quod Presbyter non faciat? What doth a Bishop, saith the Father, but what a Presbyter may do also, except Ordination? And to the disquisition of these Canonical Ordina­tions I shall next proceed, as hath been promised in the Title. But I have said so much to that Point in the Course of the History, as Part 1. Cap. 2. Num. 11, 12. Cap. 4. Num. 2,3. Cap. 5. Num. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Part 2. Cap. 1. Num. 10, &c. Cap. 4, Numb, 7. Cap. 5. Num. 5, 6. Cap. 6. Num. 5, 7. besides many other passages here and there interserted to the same effect; that I shall save my self the trouble of adding any thing further to those Observations. And to them therefore I refer the Reader for his satisfaction. At this time I shall say no more but that the Church had never stood so constantly to Episcopal Government, were it not for the great and signal benefits which redound unto it by the same. Of which there is none greater, or of more necessary use to Chri­stianity, than the preserving of a perpetual succession of Preists and Dea­cons, ordained in a Canonical way to be Ministers of holy things to the rest of the people; that is to say, to Preach the Word, Administer the Sacraments, and finally to perform all other Divine and Religious Of­fices which are required of them by the Church in their several places.

Thus have I laid before thee, good Christian Reader, the Method, XXIV and Design of this following Work, together with the Argument and Occasion of each several Piece contained in it. Which as I have done with all Faith and Candor in the sincerity of my Heart, and for the Testimony of a good Conscience, laying it with all humble reverence at the feet of those who are in Authority; so with respective duty and af­fection I submit the same unto the judgment (of which Persuation or Condition soever thou art) for whose instruction in the several Points herein declared, it was chiesly studied. And I shall heartily beseech all those who shall please to read it, that if they meet with any thing there­in, which either is less fitly spoken, or not clearly evidenced, they would [Page]give me notice of it in such a charitable and Christian way, as I may be the better for it, and they not the worse, Which favour if they please to do me, they shall be welcome to me as an Angel of God, sent to con­duct me from the Lands of error into the open ways of truth. And doing these Christian Offices unto one another, we shall by Gods good leave and blessing, not only hold the bond of external peace, but also in due time be made partakers of the spirit of Ʋnity. Which Blessing that the Lord would graciously bestow on his afflicted and distracted Church is no small part of our Devotions in the publick Liturgy; where we are taught to pray unto Almighty God, that he would please continu­ally to inspire his universal Church with the spirit of Truth, Ʋnity, and Concord, and grant that all they which do confess his holy Name, may agree also in the truth of his holy Word, and live in Ʋnity and godly Love. Unto which Prayer he hath but little of a Christian, which doth not heartily say, Amen.

Lacies Court in Abingdon, April 23. 1657.

The Way of the REFORMATION OF THE Church of England, DECLARED and JUSTIFIED, &c.

THE INTRODUCTION, Shewing the Occasion, Method, and Design of the whole discourse.

My dear Hierophilus,

YOUR company is always very pleasing to me; but you are never better welcome han when you bring your doubts and scruples along with you; for by that means you put me to the studying of some point or other, whereby I benefit my self, if not profit you. And I remember at the time of your last being with me, you seemed much scandalized for the Church of England, telling me you were well assured that her Doctrine was most true and orthodox, her Government con­form to the Word of God, and the best ages of the Church; and that her publick Liturgie was an Extract of the Primitive Forms; nothing in all the whole composure but what did tend to edification and Increase of piety. But for all this, you were unsatisfied (as you said) in the ways and means by which this Church proceeded in her Reformation; alleding, that you had heard it many times objected by some Partisans of the Church of Rome, that our Religion was meer Parlia­mentarian, not regulated by Synodical Meetings, or the Authority of Councels, as in elder times; or as D. Harding said long since in his Answer unto B. Jewel, That we had a Parliament Religion, a Parliament Faith, and a Parliament Gospel: To which Scultinguis and some others after added, that we had none but Parliament Bishops, and a Parlia­ment Clergy; that you were apt enough to think that the Papists made not all this noise without some ground for it, in regard you have observed some Parliaments in these latter days so mainly bent to catch at all occasions, whereby no manifest their powers in Ecclesiastical matters, especially in constituting the new Assembly of Divines and others. And finally, that you were heartily ashamed, that being so often choaked with these Objections, you neither knew how to traverse the [...]ndictment, nor plead Not guilty to the Bill. Some other doubts you said you had, relating to the King the Pope, and the Protestant Churches, either too little or too much look'd after in our Reformation; but you were loth to trouble me with too much at once. And thereupon you did in­treat me to bethink my self of some fit Plaister for the sore which did oft afflict you, religiously affirming that your desires proceeded not from curiosity, or an itch of know­ledge, or out of any disaffection to the Power of Parliaments; but meerly from an ho­nest zeal to the Church of England, whose credit and prosperity you did far prefer be­fore your life, or whatsoever in this world could be dear unto you: Adding withal, that if I would take this pains for your satisfaction, and help you out of these perplexi­ties which you were involved in, I should not only do good service to the Church it self, but to many a wavering member of it, whom these objections had much stagger­ed [Page 2]in their Resolutions. In fine, that you desired also to be informed how far the Par­liaments had been interessed in these alterations of Religion, which hapned in the Reigns of K. Hen. VIII. K. Edw. VI. and Q. Elizabeth? What ground there was for all this clamour of the Papists? And whether the Houses, or either of them, have exercised of old any such Authority in matters of Ecclesiastical or Spiritual nature, as some of late have ascribed unto them? Which though it be a dangerous and invidi­ous Subject (as the times now are) yet for your sake, and for the truth's, and for the honour of Parliaments, which seem to suffer much in the Popish calumny, I shall un­dertake it; premising first, that I intend not to say any thing to the point of Right, whether or not the Parliament may lawfully meddle in such matters as concern Religion; but shall apply my self wholly unto matters of Fact, as they relate unto the Reformation here by law established. And for my method in this business, I shall first lay down by way of preamble, the form of calling of the Convocation of the Clergy here in England, that we may see by what Authority they proceed in their Constitutions, and then de­clare what was acted by the Clergy in that Reformation: In which, I shall begin with the ejection of the Pope, and setling the Supremacy in the Crown Imperial of this Realm; descending next to the Translation of the Scriptures into the English tongue, the Reformation of the Church in Doctrinals and forms of Worship, and to proceed unto the Power of making Canons for the well ordering of the Clergy, and the direction of the people in the exercise of their Religion; concluding with an Answer to all such Ob­jections (by what part soever they be made) as are most material. And in the can­vassing of these points, I doubt not but it will appear unto you, that till these late busie and unfortunate times, in which every man intrudeth on the Priestly Function, the Parliaments did nothing at all either in making Canons, or in matters Doctrinal, or in Translation of the Scriptures: Next, that That little which they did in reference to the Forms and Times of Worship, was no more than the inflicting of some temporal or legal penalties on such as did neglect the one, or not conform unto the other, having been first digested and agreed upon in the Clergy way: And finally, that those Kings and Princes before remembred, by whose Authority the Parliaments did that little in those Forms and Times, did not act any thing in that kind themselves, but what was war­ranted unto them by the Word of God, and the example of such godly and religious Emperors and other Christian Kings and Princes as flourished in the happiest times of Christianity. This is the sum of my design, which I shall follow in the order before laid down; assuring you that when you shall acquaint me with your other scruples, I will endeavour what I can for your satisfaction.

1. Of calling or assembling the Convocation of the Clergy, and the Authority thereof when convened together.

AND in this we are first to know, that anciently the Arch-bishop of the several Provinces of Canterbury and York were vested with a power of Convocating the Clergy of their several and respective Provinces, when, and as often as they thought it necessary for the Churches peace. And of this power they did make Use upon all extraordinary and emergent cases, either as Metropolitans and Primates in their seve­ral Provinces, or as Legati nati to the Popes of Rome: But ordinarily, and of common course, especially after the first passing of the Acts or Statutes of Praemuniri, they did restrain that power to the good pleasure of the Kings, under whom they lived, and used it not but as the necessities and occasions of these Kings, or the distresses of the Church did require it of them; and when it was required of them, the Writ or Pre­cept of the King was in this form following. Rex, &c. Reverendissimo in Christo Patri N. Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo totius Angliae Primati & Apostolicae, sedis Legato salutem. Quibusdam ardius & urgentibus negotiis defensionem & securitatem Ecclesiae Anglicanae, ac pacem, tranquillitatem, & bonum publicum, & defensionem Regni nostri, & subditorum nostrorum ejusdem concernentibus, Ʋobis in Fide & dilectione, quibus nobis tenemini, rogando mandamus, quatenus praemissis debito intuito attentis & ponderatis universos & singulos Epis­copos vestrae Provinciae, ac Decanos & Priores Ecclesiarum Cathedralium, Abbates, Priores & alios Electivos, exemptos & non exemptos, nec non Archidiaconos, Conventus, Capitula, & Collegia totum (que) Clerum cujuslibet Dioceseos ejusdem Provinciae, ad conveniendum coram vobis in Ecclesia Sancti Pauli London. vel alibi, prout melius expedire videritis, cum omni celeritate accommoda modo debito Convocari faciatis; Ad tractandum, consentiendum & concludendum super praemissis & aliis quae sibi clarius proponentur, tunc & ibidem ex parte [Page 3]nostra. Et hoc sicut nos & statum Regni nostri, ac honorem & utilitatem Ecclesiae praedictae diligitis, nullatenus omittatis. Teste meipso, &c. These are the very words of the an­tient Writs, and are still retained in these of later times; but that the Title of Legatus sedis Apostolicae then used in the Arch-bishops style, was laid aside, together with the Pope himself; and that there is no mention in them of Abbots, Priors, and Convents, as being now not extant in the Church of England. And in this Writ you may ob­serve; first, that the calling of the Bishops and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury to a Synodical Assembly, belonged to the Arch-bishop of that Province only (the like to him of York also within the Sphere or Verge of his Jurisdiction.) Secondly, that the nominating of the time and place for this Assembly was left to the Arch-bishops plea­sure, as seemed best unto him; though for the most part, and with reference unto themselves and the other Prelates, who were bound to attend the service of the King in Parliament,they caused these Meetings to be held at the time and place, at, and to which the Parliament was, or had been called by the Kings Authority. Thirdly, That from the word Convocari, used in the Writ, the Synodical Meetings of the Clergy were named Convocations. And fourthly, That the Clergy thus assembled in Convocation, had not only a power of treating on, and consenting unto such things as should be there propounded on the Kings behalf, but a power also of concluding or not concluding on the same as they saw occasion: Not that they were restrained only to such points as the King propounded, or were proposed in his behalf to their consideration; but that they were to handle his business with their own, wherein they had full power when once met together.

In the next place we must behold what the Arch-bishop did in pursuance of the Kings command, for calling the Clergy of his Province to a Convocation, who on the receipt of the King's Writ, presently issued out his Mandate to the Bishop of London (Dean by his place of the whole Colledge of Bishops of that Province) requiring him immediately, on the sight hereof (and of the King's Writ incorporated and included in it) to cite and summon all the Bishops, and other Prelates, Deans, Arch-Deacons, and capitular Bodies, with the whole Clergy of that Province, that they the said Bi­shops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, in their own persons, the Capitular Bodies by one Pro­curator, and the Clergy of each Diocess by two, do appear before him at the time and place by him appointed; and that those Procurators shouldbe furnished with sufficient powers by those which sent them, not only to treat upon such points as should be pro­pounded, touching the peace of the Church, and defence and welfare of the Realm of England, and to give their counsel in the same; sed ad consentiendum iis quae ibidem ex communi deliberatione ad honorem Dei & Ecclesiae in praemissis contigerent concorditer ordinari, but also to consent both in their own names, and in the names of those who sent them, unto all such things, as by mature deliberation and consent should be there ordained. Which Mandate being received by the B. of London, the several Bishops cited accor­dingly, and intimation given by those Bishops unto their Arch Deacons for summon­ing the Clergy to make choice of their Procurators; as also the Chapters, or capitular Bodies, to do the like: The next work is to proceed to the choice of those Procurators. Which choice being made, the said Chapters under their common seals, and the said Clergy in a publick Writing subscribed by them, do bind themselves sub Hypotheca omnium bonorum suorum, under the pawn and forfeiture of al their goods moveable and immoveable, (I speak the very words of these publick Instruments) se ratum, gratum & acceptum habere quicquid dicti Procuratores sui nomine & vice suis fecerint, &c. To stand to and perform whatsoever their said Procurators, in their name and stead, shall do, determine and consent to. The like is also done in the Province of York; but that the Arch-bishop thereof sends out the Summons in his own name to the Suffragan Bi­shops, the Province being small, and the Suffragans not above three in number. Fi­nally, as the Convocations of the Clergy in their several Provinces were called by the Arch-bishops only, the Kings Writ thereunto requiring and authorizing; so by the same powers were they also dissolved again; when they had done the business, they were called about, or did desire to be dismissed to their own affairs. At which time by special Writ or Mandates to the said Arch-bishops, expressing the calling and assembling of the Convocation by vertue of the former Precept; it is declared, That on certain ur­gent causes and considerations moving his Majesty thereunto, he thought fit with the ad­vice of his Privy Councel, that the same should be again dissolved: Et ideo vobis manda­mus quod eandem praesentem Convocationem hac instanti die debito modo sine ulla dilatione dissolvatis, sive dissolvi faciatis, prout convenit; and therefore did command them to [Page 4]dissolve it, or cause the same to be dissolved in the accustomed manner, without delay. Which Writ received, and not before, the Convocation was dissolved accordingly: and so it holds in Law and practcie to this very day.

I have the longer staid on these publick Forms, partly because not obvious unto every eye; but especially to let you see by what Authority the Clergy are to be assem­bled in their Convocations, and what it is which makes their Canons and Conclusions binding unto all those which send them thither, or intrust them there. Their calling by the Kings Authority makes their meeting lawful, which else were liable to excep­tions and disputes in Law, and possibly might render them obnoxious to some grie­vous penalties; and so would their continuance too, after the Writ was issed for their Dissolution. As on the contrary their breaking or dissolving of their own accord, would make them guilty of contempt, and consequently subject to the Kings displea­sure; for being called by the Kings Writ, they are to continue till dissolved by the Kings Writ also, notwithstanding the dissolving of the Parliament, with which sometimes it might be summoned. And so it was resolved in terminis, by the chief Judges of the Realm, and others of his Majesties Counsel Learned, May 10. anno 1640. at such time as the Convocations did continue sitting, the Parliament being most unhappily dissolved on the Tuesday before, subscribed by Finch, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Manchester then Lord Privy Seal, Littleton chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Banks Atturney General, Whitfield and Heath his Majesties Sergeants, Authority enough for the poor Clergy to proceed on, though much condemned and maligned for obedience to it. [Now as they have the Kings Authority not only for their Meeting, but continuance also; so also have they all the power of the whole National Clergy of England, to make good whatsoever they conclude upon: The Arch-Bishops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, acting in their own capacities, the Procurators in the name, and by the power committed to them, both by he Chapters or capitular Bodies, and the Diocesan Clergy of both Pro­vinces. And this they did by virtue of that power and trust alone, without any rati­fication or confirmation from King or Parliament, until the 25th. year of King Henry the VIII. At which time they bound themselves by a Synodical Act (whereof more hereafter) not to enact, promulge, or execute any Canons, Constitutions, or Ordinances Provincial in their Convocations for time coming, unless the Kings Highness by his Royal Assent command them to make promulge, and execute the same accordingly. Before this time they acted absolutely in their Convocations, of their own Authority, the Kings Assent neither concurring nor required; and by this sole Authority, which they had in themselves, they did not only make Canons, declare Heresie, convict and censure per­sons suspected of Heresie, in which the subjects of all sorts (whose Votes were tacitely included in the suffrages of their Pastors and spiritual Fathers) were concerned alike. But also to conclude, the Clergy whom they represented in the point of Property, im­posing on them what they pleased, and levying it by Canons of their own enacting. And they enjoyed this power to the very day in which they tendred the submission, which before we spake of. For by this self-authority (if I may so call it) they im­posed and levied that great Subsidy of 120000 l. (an infinite sum as the Standard of the times then was) granted unto K. Henry VIII. anno 1530. to free them from the fear and danger of the Praemuniri. By this the Benefit of the Chapter called Similiter in the old Provincial, extended formerly to the University of Oxon only, was made communicable the same year unto Cambridge also. By this Crome, Latimer, Bilney, and divers others, were in the year next following impeached of Heresie. By this the Will and Testament of William Tracie of Toddington was condemned as scandalous and here­tical, and his body taken up and burnt not many days before the passing of the Act of Submission, anno 1532.

But this power being thought too great or inconsistent at least with the Kings De­sign touching his divorce, the Clergy were reduced unto such a straight by the degrees and steps which you find in the following Section, as to submit their power unto that of the King, and to promise in verbo sacerdotii, that they would do and Enact nothig in their Convocations without his consent. And to the gaining of this point, he was pressed the rather, in regard of a Remonstraence then presented to Him by the House of Commons, in which they shewed themselves aggrieved, that the Clergy of this Realm should act Authoritatively, and supremely in the Convocations, and they in Parliament do nothing, but as it was confirmed and ratified by the Royal Assent. Which not­withstanding, though this Submission brought down the Convocation to the same Level with the Houses of Parliament; yet being made unto the King in his single person, [Page 5]and not as in conjunction with his House of Parliament, it neither brought the Con­vocation under the command of Parliaments, nor rendred them obnoxious to the power thereof. That which they did in former times of their self-authority (in matters which concerned the Church) without the Kings consent co-operating and concur­ring with them, the same they did and might do in the times succeeding, the Kings Authority and Consent being superadded, without the help and midwifery of an Act of Parliament, though sometimes that Authority was made Use of also, for binding of the subject under Temporal and Legal penalties, to yield obedience and conformity to the Churches Orders. Which being the true state of the present business, it makes the clamour of the Papists the more unreasonable; but then withal, it makes it the more easily answered. Temporal punishments inflicted on the refractory and disobedi­ent in a Temporal Court, may add some strength unto the Decrees and Constitutions of the Church, but hey take none from it: Or if they did, the Religion of the Church of Rome, the whole Mass of Popery, as it was received and settled here in Qu. Maries Reign, would have a sorry crutch to stand upon, and might as justly bear the name of a Parliament-Faith, as the reformed Religion of the Church of England. It is true indeed, that had those Convocations which were active in that Reformation, being either called or summoned by the King in Parliament, or by the Houses separately, or conve­nedly without the King: Or had the Members of the same been nominated and im­powered by the House alone, and intermixt with a considerable number of the Lords and Commons; (which being by the way, the Case of this New Assembly, I do not see how any thing which they agree on can bind the Clergy, otherwise than im­posed by a strong hand, and against their privileges.) Or finally, had the conclusions or results thereof been of no effect, but as reported to, and confirmed in Parliament, the Papists might have had some ground for so gross a calumny, in calling the Reli­gion which is now established by the name of a Parliament-Religion, and a Parliament-Gospel. But so it is not in the Case which is now before us, the said Submission not­withstanding. For being the Body being still the same, privileged with the same free­dom of debate and determination; and which is more, the Procurators of the Clergy invested with the same power and Trust which before they had: There was no alterati­on made by the said Submission, in the whole constitution and composure of it, but only the addition of a greater and more excellent power. Nor was there any thing done here in that Reformation, but either by the Clergy in their Convocations, and in their Convocations rightly called and Canonically constituted, or with the councel and advice of the Heads thereof in more private conferences, the Parliaments of these times contributing very little towards it, but acquiescing in the Wisdom of the Sove­reign Prince, and in the piety and zeal of the Ghostly Fathers. This is the ground­work or foundation of the following Building. I now time I should proceed to the Superstructures, beginning first with the Ejection of the Pope, and vesting the Supremacy in the Regal Crown.

2. Of the Ejection of the Pope, and vesting the Supremacy in the Regal Crown.

AND first, beginning with the Ejection of the Pope and his Authority that led the way unto the Reformation of Religion, which did after follow: It was first voted and decreed in the Convocation, before ever it became the subject of an Act of Par­liament. For in the year 1530. 22 Hen. 8. the Clergy being caught in a premunire, were willing to redeem their danger by a sum of money; and to that end, the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury bestowed upon the King the sum of 100000 l. to be paid by equal portions in the same year following; but the King would not so be satis­fied, unless they would acknowledge him for the supream Head on earth for the Church of England; which, though it was hard meat, and would not easily down amongst amongst them, yet it passed at last. For, being throughly debated in a Synodical way, both in the upper and lower Houses of Convocation, they did, in sine, agree upon this ex­pression. Cujus Ecclesiae, (sc. Anglicanae) Singularem protectorem, unicum & Supremum Dominum; & (quantum per Christi leges licet) Supremum caput, ipsius Majestatem recog­noscimus. To this they all consented and subscribed their Hands, and afterwards in­corporated it into the publik Act or Instrument, which was presented to the King in the Name of his Clergy, for the redeeming of their errour, and the grant of their money, which as it doth at large appear in the Records and Acts of the Convocation; so it is touched [Page 6]upon in a Historical way in the Antiq. Britan. Mason de Minist. Anglic. and other Au­thors, by whom it also doth appear, that what was thus concluded on by the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury, was also ratified and confirmed by the Convocation of the Province of York (according to the usual custom) save that they did not buy their par­don at so dear a rate. This was the leading Card to the Game that followed. For on this ground were built the Statutes, prohibiting all Appeals to Rome, and for deter­mining all Ecclesiastical suits and controversies within the Kingdoms, 24 H. 8. c. 12. That for the manner of electing and consecrating of Arch-Bishops and Bishops, 25 H. 8. c. 20. and the prohibiting the payment of all Impositions to the Court of Rome; and for obtaining all such dispensations from the See of Canterbury, which formerly were procured from the Popes of Rome, 25 H. 8. c. 21. Which last is builkt expresly upon this foundation: That the King is the only supream Head of the Church of England, and was so recognized by the Pre­lates and Clergy, representing the said Church in their Convocation. And on the very same foundation was the Statute raised, 26 H. 8. c. 1. wherein the King is declared to be the supream Head of the Church of England, and to have all honour and preheminences which were annexed unto that Title, as by the Act it self doth at full appear: Which Act being made (I speak it from the Act it self) only for corroboration and confirmation of that which had been done in the Convocation, did afterwards draw on the Statute for the Tenths and first fruits, as the point incident to the Headship or supream Authority, 26 H. 8. c. 3.

The second step to the Ejection of the Pope, was the submission of the Clergy, to the said King Henry, whom they had recognizanced for their supream Head. And this was first concluded on in the Convocation, before it was proposed or agitated in the Houses of Parliament, and was commended only to the care of the Parliament, that is might have the force of a Law by a civil Sanction. The whole debate, with all the Traverses and emergent difficulties which appeared therein, are specified at large in the Records of Convocation, Anno 1532. But being you have not opportunity to consult those Re­cords, I shall prove it by the Act of Parliament, called commonly The Act of submission of the Clergy; but bearing this Title in the Abridgment of the Statutes set out by Poulton, That the Clergy in their Convocations shall enact no constitutions without the Kings assent. In which it is premised for granted, that the Clergy of the Realm of England, had not only acknowledged, according to the truth, that the Convocation of the same Celrgy, is, always hath been, and ought to be assembled always by the Kings Writ; but also submit­ting themselves to the Kings Majesty, had promised, in verbo Sacerdotis. That they would never from henceforth presume to attempt, alleadge, claim, or put in ure, enact, promulge, or execute any new Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances provincial, or other; or by whatsoever o­ther name they shall be called in the Convocation, unless the Kings most Royal Assent may to them be had, to make, promulge, and execute the same; and that his Majesty do giv his most Royal Assent and Authority in that behalf.

Upon which ground-work of the Clergies, the Parliament shortly after built this su­perstructure to the same effect, viz.

That none of the said Clergy from henceforth should presume to attempt, alleadge, claim or put in ure, any Constitutions, or Ordinances Provincial, or Synodals, or any other Canons; norshall enact, promulge, or execute any such Canons, Constitutions, or Ordinances Provincial, (by whatsoever names or names they may be called) in their Convocations in time coming (which always shall be assembled by the Kings Writ) unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent and Licence to make, promulge, and execute such Canons, Constitutions, and Ordinances Provincial, or Synodical, upon pain of every one of the said Clergy doing the contrary to this Act, and thereof convicted to suffer Imprisonment, and make Fine at the Kings Will, 25 H. 8. c. 19.

So that the Statute in effect, is no more than this, An Act to bind the Clergy to per­form their promise, to keep them fast unto their word for the time to come, that no new Canon should be made in the times succeeding in the favour of the Pope, or by his Authority, or to the diminution of the Kings Royal Prerogative, or contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm of England, as many Papal Constitutions were in the former Ages: Which Statute I desire you nto take notice of, because it is the Rule and Measure of the Churches power in making Canons, Constitutions, or whatsoever else you shall please to call them in their Convocations.

The third and final Act, conducing to the Popes Ejection, was an Act of Parlia­ment, 28 H. 8 c. 10. entituled, An Act extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome. By which it was enacted, That if any person should extol the Authority of the Bishop of [Page 7]Rome, he should incur the penalty of a preamunire; that every Officer, both Ecclesiastioal and Lay, should be Sworn to renounce the said Bishop and his Authority, and to resist it to his power, and to repute any Oath formerly taken in maintenance of the said Bishop, or his Autho­rity, to be void; and finally, that the refusal of the said Oath should be judged High Treason. But this was also usher'd in by the determination first, and after by the practice of all the Clergy. For in the year 1534. which was two years before the passing of this Act, the King had sent this Proposition to be agitated in both Ʋniversities, and in the great­est and most famous Monasteries of the Kingdom; that is to say, An aliquid authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano, de jure competat, plusquam alii cuicunque Episcopo extero? By whom it was determined Negatively, that the Bishop of Rome had no more power of Right in the Kingdom of England, than any other forreign Bishop. Which being testified & returned under the hands and seals respectively (the Originals whereof are still remaining in the Library of Sr. Robert Cotton) was a good preamble to the Bishops, and the rest of the Clergy assembled in their Convocation, to conclude the like. And so accordingly they did, and made an Instrument thereof subscribed by the hands of all the Bishops, and others of the Clergy, and afterwards confirmed the same by their corporal Oaths. The copies of which Oaths and Instrument you shall find in Foxes Acts and Monumets, Vol. 2. fol. 1203. and fol. 1210, 1211. of the E­dition of John Day, Anno 1570. And this was semblably the ground of a following Statute, 35 H. 8. c. 1. wherein another Oath was devised and ratified, to be imposed upon the Subject, for the more clear asserting of the Kings Supremacy, and the utter exclusion fo the Popes for ever; which Statutes, though they were all repealed by an Act of Parliament, 1 and 2 d. of Phil. and Mary, c. 1. yet were they all revived in 1 Elize. save that the name of supream Head was changed unto that of the supream Governour, and certain clauses altered in the Oath of Supremacy. Where (by the way) you must take notice that the Statutes which concern the Kings Supremacy, are not intro­ductory of any new Right that was not in the Crown before; but only declaratory of an old, as our best Lawyers tell us, and the Statute of the 26 of H. 8. c. 1. doth clearly intimate. So that in the Ejection of the Pope of Rome, which was the firt and great­est steptowards the work of Reformation, the Parliament did nothing, for ought it ap­pears, but what was done before in the Convocation, and did no more than fortifie the Results of Holy Church, by the addition and corroboration of the Secular Power.

3. Of the Translation of the Scriptures, and permitting them to be read in the English Tongue.

THE second step towards the work of Reformation (and indeed one of the most especial parts thereof) was the Translation of the Bible into the English Tongue, and the permitting all sorts of people to peruse the same, as that which visibly did tend to the discovery of the errours and corruptions in the Church of Rome, and the intolerable pride and tyranny of the Roman Prelates, upon which grounds it had been formerly translated into English by the hand of Wickliff, and after, on the spread­ing of Luthers Doctrine, by the pains of Tindal, a stout and active man in K. Henries days, but not so well befriended as the work deserved; especially considering that it hapned in such a time when many Printed Pamphlets did disturb the State (and some of them of Tindals making) which seemed to tend unto sedition, and the change of Government. Which being remonstrated to the King, he caused divers of his Bi­shops, together with sundry of the Learned'st and most eminent Divines of all the Kingdom to come before him; whom he required freely and plainly to declare, as well what their opinion was of the aforesaid Pamphlets, as what they did think fit to be done concerning the Translation of the Bible into the English Tongue: And they upon mature advice and deliberation, unanimously condemned the aforesaid Books of Heresie and Blasphemy (no smaller crime:) then for translating of the Scriptures into the English tongue, they agreed all with one assent, that it depended wholly on the will and pleasure of the Sovereign Prince, who might do therein as he conceived to be most agreeable to his occasions, but that with reference to the present estate of things, it was more expedient to explain the Scripture to the people by the way of Sermons, than to permit it to be read promiscuously by all sorts of men; yet so, that hopes were to be given unto the Laily, that if they did renounce their errours, and pre­sently deliver to the hands of his Majesties Officers all such Books and Bibles (which they conceived to be translated with great fraud and falshood) and any of them had in [Page 8]keeping, his Majesty would cause a true and catholike Translation of it to be published in convenient time, for the use of his Subjects.

This was the sum and substance of the present Conference, which you shall find laid down at large in the Registers of Arch-Bishop Warham.

And according to this advice, the King sets out a Proclamation, not only prohi­biting the buying, reading, or translating of any the aforesaid Books; but straitly charging all his Subjects which had any of the Books of Scripture, either of the Old Testament, or of the New, in the English Tongue, to bring them in without delay: But for the other part, of giving hopes unto the people of a true Translation, if they delivered in the false (or that at least, which was pretended to be false,) I find no word at all in the Proclamation. That was a work reserved unto better times, or left to be solicited by the Bishops themselves, and other Learned men who had given the counsel; by whom (indeed) the people were kept up in hope that all should be accom­plished unto their desires.

And so indeed it proved at last. For in the Convocation of the year 1536. the Authority of the Pope being abrogated, and Cranmer fully settled in the See of Canter­bury, the Clergy did agree upon a form of Petition to be presented to the King, That he would graciously indulge unto his Subjects of the Laity the reading of the Bible in the English Tongue, and that a new Translation of it might be forthwith made for that end and purpose.

According to which godly motion, his Majesty did not only give Order for a new Translation, which afterwards He authorized to be read both in publique and private; but in the interim he permitted CROMWEL, his Vicar General, to set out an In­junction for providing the whole Bible both in Latine and English, after the Translation then in Use, (which was called commonly by the name of Matthews Bible, but was no other than that of Tindal somewhat altered) to be kept in every Parish-Church throughout the Kingdom, for every one that would repair thereunto, and caused this mark or character of Authority to be set upon them in red Letters, Set forth with the Kings most gracious Licence; which you may see in Fox his Acts and Monuments, p. 1248. and 1363.

Afterwards when the new Translation, so often promised, and so long expected, was compleat and finished, Printed at London by the Kings Authority, and countenanced by a grave and pious Preface of Arch-Bishop Cranmer; the King sets out a Proclamation dated May 6. Anno 1541. Commanding all the Curates and Parishioners throughout the Kingdom, who were not already furnished with Bibles so authorized and transla­ted, as is before said, to provide themselves before All-hallowtide next following, and to cause the Bible, so provided, to be placed conveniently in their several and re­spective Churches, straitly requiring all his Bishops, and other Ordinaries, to take spe­cial care to see his said commands put in execution.

And therewithal came out Instructions from the King, to be published by the Clergy in their several Parishes, the better to possess the people with the Kings good affection towards them in suffering them to have the benefit of such Heavenly Treasure; and to direct them in a course by which they might enjoy the same to their greater comfort, the reformation of their lives, and the peace and quiet of the Church. Which Pro­clamation and Instructions are still preserved in that most admirable Treasury of Sir Robert Cotton.

And unto these Commands of so great a Prince, both Bishops, Priests, and People, did apply themselves with such chearful reverence, that Bonner (even that bloody But­cher, as he after proved caused six of them to be chained in several places of St. Paul's Church in London, for all that were so well inclined to resort unto, for their edification and instruction; the Book being very chargeable, because very large, and therefore called commonly (for distinctions sake) The Bible of the greater Volum.

Thus have we seen the Scriptures faithfully translated into the English Tongue, the Bible publickly set up in all Parish-Churches, that every one which would; might per­use the same, and leave permitted to all people to buy them for their private Uses, and read them to themselves, or before their Families; and all this brought about by no other means than by the Kings Authority only, grounded on the advice and judgment of the Convocation.

But long it was not (I confess) before the Parliament put in for a share, and claimed some interest in the work; but whether for the better, or the worse, I leave you to judge. For in the year 1542. the King being then in agitation of a League with [Page 9] Charles the Emperour, He caused a complaint to be made unto him in this Court of Parliament, That the Liberty granted to the people in having in their hands the Books of the Old and New Testament, had been much abused by many false glosses and interpretations which were made upon them, tending to the seducing of the people, especially of the younger sort, and the raising of sedition within the Realm.

And thereupon it was enacted by the Authority of the Parliament (on whom He was content to cast the envy of an Act so contrary to his former gracious Proclamations) That all manner of Books of the Old and New Testament, of the crafty, false and untrue Translation of Tindal, be forthwith abolished, and forbidden to be used and kept. As also, that all other Bibles not being of Tindals Translation, in which were found any Preambles or Annotations, other than the Quotations or Summaries of the Chapters should be purged of the said Preambles and Annotations, either by cutting them out, or blotting them in such wise, that they might not be perceived or read. And finally, That the Bible be not read openly in any Church, but by the leave of the King, or of the Ordinary of the place; nor privately by any Women, Artificers, Apprentices, Journey-men, Husband-men, Labourers, or by any of the Ser­vants of Yeomen, or under, with several pains to those who should do the contrary.

This is the substance of the Statute of the 34 and 35 Hen. 8. c. 1. Which though it shews that there was somewhat done in Parliament, in a matter which concern'd Reli­gion, (which howsoever if you mark it, was rather the adding of the penalties, than giving any resolution or decision of the points in question) yet I presume the Papists will not use this for an Argument, that we have either a Parliament-Religion, or a Parlia­ment Gospel; or that we stand indebted to the Parliament for the Use of the Scriptures in the English Tongue, which is so principal a part of the Reformation. Nor did the Parliament speed so prosperously in the undertaking (which the wise King permitted them to have a hand in, for the foresaid ends,) or found so general an obedience in it from the common people, as would have been expected in these Times on the like oc­casion; but that the King was fain to quicken and give life to the Acts thereof, by his Proclamation, Anno 1546. which you shall find in Fox his Book, fo. 1427.

To drive this Nail a little further: The terrour of this Statute dying with H. 8. or being repealed by that of K. Ed. 6. c. 22. the Bible was again made publique; and not only suffered to be read by particular persons, either privatly, or in the Church; but ordered to be read over yearly in the Congregation, as a part of the Liturgie, or Divine Service: Which how far it relates to the Court of Parliament we shall see anon: But for the publishing thereof in Print for the Use of the people, for the comfort and edification of private persons, that was done only by the King, at least in his Name, and by His Authority. And so it also stood in Q. Elizabeth's time, the translation of the Bible being again reviewed by some of the most learned Bishops, appointed there­unto by the Queens Commission (from whence it had the name of the Bishops Bible) and upon that review, Reprinted by her sole Commandement, and by her sole Autho­rity left free and open to the Use of her well-affected and religious subjects. Nor did the Parliament do any thing in all Her Reign with reference to the Scriptures in the English Tongue, otherwise than at the reading of them, in that Tongue, in the Con­gregation, is to be reckoned for a part of the English Liturgy, whereof more here­after.

In the translation of them into Welch, or British, somewhat indeed was done which doth look this way. It being ordered in the Parliament, 5. Eliz. c. 28. That the B. B. of Hereford, St. Davids, Bangor, Landaff, and St. Asaph, should take care amongst them for translating the whole Bible, with the Book of Common Prayer, into the Welch or Brittish Tongue, on pain of forfeiting 40 l. a piece in default hereof. And to incourage them thereun­to, it was Enacted that one Book of either sort being so translated and imprinted, should be provided and bought for every Cathedral Church, as also for all Parish-Churches and Chappels of Ease, where the said tongue is commonly used; the Ministers to pay the one half of the price, and the Parishioners the other.

But then you must observe withal, that it had been before determined in the Con­vocation of the self-same year, Anno 2562. That the Common-Prayer of the Church ought to be celebrated in a tongue which was understood by the people (as you may see in the Book of Articles of Religion, Art. 24. which came out that year) and consequently, as well in the Welch or Brittish, as in any other. Which care, had it been taken for Ireland also, as it was for Wales, no question but that people had been more generally civiliz'd, and made conformable in all points to the English Government, long before this time. And for the new Translation of K. James his time, to shew that the [Page 10]Translation of Scripture is no work of Parliament, as it was principally occasioned by some passages in the Conference at Hampton Court, without recourse unto the Parlia­ment, so was it done only by such men as the King appointed, and by His Authority alone imprinted, published and imposed, care being taken by the Canon of the year, 1603. That one of them should be provided for each several Church, at the charge of the Parish. No flying in this case to an Act of Parliament, either to Authorize the doing of it, or to impose it being done.

4. Of the Reformation of Religion in points of Doctrine.

NExt let us look upon the method used in former Times in the reforming of the Church, whether in points of Doctrine, or in forms of Worship, and we shall find it still the same. The Clergy did the work as to them seemed best, never advising with the Parliament, but upon the post-fact, and in most cases not at all. And first for Doctrinals, there was but little done in K. Henries time, but that which was acted by the Clergy only in their Convocation, and so commended to the people by the Kings sole Authority, the matter being never brought within the cognizance of the two Houses of Parliament. For in the year 1536. being the year, in which the Popes Authority was for ever banished, there were some Articles agreed on in the Convocation, and re­presented to the King, under the hands of the Bishops, Abbots, Priors, and inferior Clergy usually called unto those Meetings; the Original whereof being in Sir Robert Cotton's Library I have often seen: Which being approved of by the King, were forth­with published under the Title of Articles devised by the Kings Highness, to stable Chri­stian quietness and unity amongst the people. In which it is to be observed: First, that those Articles make mention of three Sacraments only, that is to say, of Baptisme, Penance, and the Sacrament of the Altar. And secondly, That in the Declaration of the Doctrine of Justication, Images, honouring of the Saints departed; as also concerning many of the Ceremonies, and the fire of Purgatory, they differ'd very much from those Opinions which had been formerly received in the Church of Rome; as you may partly see by that Extract of them, which occurs in Fox his Acts and Monuments, Vol. 2. fol. 1246.

For the confirming of which Book, and recommending it to the use of the people, His Majesty was pleased in the Injunctions of the year 1536. to give command to all Deans, Parsons, Vicars, and Curates, so to open and declare in their Sermons, and o­ther Collations, the said Articles unto them which be under their Cure, that they might plainly know and discern, which of them be necessary to be believed and ob­served for their salvation, and which do only concern the decent and politique Order of the Church. And this he did upon this ground, that the said Articles had been concluded and condescended upon by the Prelates and Clergy of the Realm in their Convoca­tion; as appeareth in the very words of the Injunction: For which, see Fox his Acts and Monuments, fol. 1247. I find not any thing in Parliament which relates to this, either to countenance the work, or to require obedience and conformity from the hand of the people. And to say truth, neither the King nor Clergy did account it necessary, but thought their own Authority sufficient to go through with it; though certainly it was more necessary at that time, than in any since: The power and reputation of the Clergy being under foot, the King scarce setled in the Supremacy so lately recognized unto him; and therefore the Authority of the Parliament of more Use than afterward, in Times well ballanced and established.

'Tis true, that in some other year of that Princes Reign, we find some Use and men­tion of an Act of Parliament in matters which concerned Religion; but it was only in such Times when the hopes of Reformation were in the Wane, and the Work went retrogade. For in the year 1539. being the 31. H. 8. When the Lord Comwels power began to decline, and the King was in a necessity of compliance with His Neigh­bouring Princes, there passed an Act of Parliament, commonly called the Statute of the six Articles (or the Whip with six strings.) In which it was Enacted, That whoso­ever by word or writing should Preach, Teach, or publish, that in the blessed Sacraments of the Altar, under form of Bread and Wine, there is not really the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, (or affirm otherwise thereof than was maintained and taught in the Church of Rome) should be adjudged an Heretick, and suffer death by burning, and forfeit all his Lands and Goods, as in case of High Treason.

Secondly: That whosoever should Teach or Preach, that the Communion of the blessed Sacrament (in both kinds) is necessary for the health of mans soul, and ought to be main­tained.

Thirdly: Or that any man ofter the Order of Priesthood received, might Marry, or contract Matrimony.

Fourthly: Or that any Woman which had vowed and professed Chastity, might contract Marriage.

Fifthly: Or that private Masses were not lawful and laudable, or agreable to the Word of God.

Or sixthly: That auricular Confession was not necessary and expedient to be used in the Church of God, should suffer death, and forfeit Lands and Goods as a Felon, 31 H. 8. c. 14.

The rigour of which terrible Statute was shortly after mitigated in the said King's Reign, 32 H. 8. c. 10. and 35 H. 8. c. 5. and the whole Statute absolutely repealed by Act of Parliament, 1 E. 6. c. 12. But then it is to be observed first, that this Parlia­ment of K. H. 8. did not determine any thing in those six points of Doctrine which are therein recited; but only took upon them to devise a course for the suppressing of the contrary Opinions, by adding by the secular Power, the punishment of Death, and forfeiture of Lands and Goods, unto the censures of the Church, which were grown weak, if not unvalid; and consequently, by degrees became neglected ever since the said K. Henry took the Headship on Him, and exercised the same by a Lay Vicar General.

And secondly, you must observe, that it appeareth evidently by the Act it self, that at the same time the King had called a Synod and Convocation of all the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and other Learned men of the Clergy, that the Articles were first deliberately and ad­visedly debated, argued and reasoned, by the said Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and other Learned men of the Clergy, and their opinions in the same declared and made known, before the matter came in Parliament.

And finally, That being brought into the Parliament, there was not any thing de­clared and passed as doctrinal, but by the assent of the Lords Spiritual, and other Learned men of the Clergy, as by the Act it self doth at large appear.

Finally, Whatsoever may be drawn from thence, can be only this, That K. Hen. did make use of his Court of Parliament for the establishing and confirming of some points of Popery, which seemed to be in danger of a Reformation. And this com­pared with the Statute of the 34. and 35. prohibiting the reading of the Bible by most sorts of people, doth clearly shew that the Parliaments of those times did rather hinder and retard the work of Reformation, in some especial parts thereof, than give any fur­therance to the same.

But to proceed: There was another point of Reformation begun in the Lord Crom­wels time, but not produced, nor brought to perfection till after his decease; and then too, not without the Midwifery of an Act of Parliament. For in the year 1537. the Bishops and others of the Clergy of the Convocation, had composed a Book entitu­led, The Institution of a Christian Man; which being subscribed by all their hands, was by them presented to the King, by His most excellent judgment to be allowed of, or condemned. This Book, containing the chief Heads of Christian Religion, was forth­with Printed and exposed to publick view. But some things not being clearly expli­cated, or otherwise subject to exception, he caused it to be reviewed, and to that end, as Supream Head on Earth of the Church of Engl. (I speak the very words of the Act of Parl. 32. H. 8. c. 26.) appointed the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of both Provinces, and also a great number of the best, learned, honestest, and most vertuous sort of the Doctors of Divinity, men of discretion, judgment, and good disposition, to be called together; to the intent, that according to the very Gospel and Law of God, without any partial respect or affection to the Papistical sort, or any other Sect or Sects whatsoever, they should declare by writing, and publish, as well the principal Articles and points of our Faith and Belief; with the Declaration, true un­derstanding and observation of such other expedient points, as by them, with his Graces advice, counsel, and consent, shall be thought needful and expedient; as also for the lawful Rights, Ceremonies, and observation of Gods Service within this Realm.

This was in the year 1540. at what time the Parliament was also sitting, of which the King was pleased to make this special use, That whereas the work which was in hand (I use again the words of the Statute) required ripe and mature deliberation, and was not rashly to be defined and set forth, and so not fit to be restrained to the [Page 12]present Session, an Act was passed to this effect, That all Determinations, Declarations, Decrees, Definitions, and Ordinances, as according to God's Word, and Christ's Gospel, should at any time hereafter be set forth by the said Arch-Bishops and Bishops, and Doctors in Divi­nity, now appointed, or hereafter to be appointed by his Royal Majesty, or else by the whole Clergy of England, in, and upon the matter of Christ's Religion, and the Christian Faith, and the lawful Rights, Ceremonies, and Observations of the same, by his Majesties advice and confirmation under the great Seal of England, shall be by all his Graces Subjects fully believed, obeyed, observed, and performed, to all purposes and intents, upon the pains and penalties therein to be comprized, as if the same had been in express words and sentences plainly and fully made, set forth, declared, and contained in the said Act, 32 H. 8. c. 26. where note, That the two Houses of Parliament were so far from medling in the matter which was then in hand, that they did not so much as require to see the Determinations and Decrees of those Learned men whom his Majesty had then Assembled, before they passed the pre­sent Act, to bind the Subject fully to believe, observe, and perform the same; but left it wholly to the judgment and discretion of the King and Clergy, and trusted them besides, with the ordaining and inflicting of such pains and penalties on disobedient and unconformable persons as to them seemed meet.

This ground-work laid, the work went forwards in good order, and at last being brought unto as much perfection as the said Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and other Learned men would give it, without the co-operation and concurrence of the Royal assent; it was presented once again to the Kings consideration, who very carefully perused it, and altered many things with his own hand; as appears by the Book it self still extant in the famous Library of Sir Robert Cotton; and having so altered and corrected it in some passages, returned it to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, who bestowed some fur­ther pains upon it; to the end, that being to come forth in the King's Name, and by his Authority, there might be nothing in the same which might be justly repre­hended.

The business being in this forwardness, the King declares in Parliament, Anno 1544. being the 34 year of his Reign, his zeal and care, not only to suppress all such Books and Writings as were noysome and pestilent, and tended to the seducing of his Sub­jects; but also to ordain and establish a certain Form of pure and sincere Teaching a­greable to God's Word, and the true Doctrine of the Catholick and Apostolick Church, whereunto men may have recourse for the decision of some such controversies, as have in Times past, and yet do happen to arise.

And for a preparatory thereunto, that so it might come forth with the greater cre­dit, he caused an Act to pass in Parliament for the abolishing of all Books and Wri­tings, comprizing any matters of Christian Religion, contrary to that Doctrine, which since the year 1540. is, or any time during the King's life, shall be set forth by his Highness, and for the punishment of all such (and that too, with most grievous pains) which should preach, teach, maintain, or defend any matter or thing contrary to the Book of Doctrine, which was then in readiness, 34, 35 H. 8. c. 1. Which done, he caused the said Book to be Imprinted in the year next following, under the Title of A necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People; prefixing a Preface thereto in his Royal Name, to all his faithful and loving Subjects, that they might know the better in those dan­gerous Times, what to believe in point of Doctrine, and how they were to carry and behave themselves in points of Practice.

Which Statute, as it is the greatest Evidence which those Times afford to shew, that both, or either of the Houses of Parliament had any thing to do in matters which concerned Religion; so it entitles them to no more (if at all to any thing) then that they did make way to a Book of Doctrine, which was before digested by the Clergy only, revised after, and corrected by the Kings own hand; and finally, perused and perfected by the Metropolitan.

And more then so, (besides, that being but one Swallow, it can make no Summer) it is acknowledged and confessed in the Act it self (if Poulton understand it rightly in his Abridgment) That recourse must be had to the Catholick and Apostolick Church, for the decision of Controversies. Which as it gives the Clergy the decisive power, so it left nothing to the Houses, but to assist and aid them with the Temporal Sword, when the Spiritual Word could not do the deed, the point thereof being blunted, and the edge abated.

Next, let us look upon the time of K. Ed. 6. and we shall find the Articles and Do­ctrine of the Church (excepting such as were contained in the Book of Common-Prayer) [Page 13]to be composed, confirmed, and setled in no other way then by the Clergy only in their Convocation, the Kings Authority co-operating and concurring with them.

For, in the Synod held in London, Anno 1552. the Clergy did compose and agree upon a Book of Articles, containing the chief Heads of the Christian Faith; especially, with reference to such Points of Controversie, as were in difference between the Refor­mators of the Church of England and the Church of Rome, and other Opponents what­soever, which after were approved and published by the Kings Authority.

They were in number 41. and were published by this following Title; that is to say, Articuli de quibus in Synodo London, Anno 1552. ad tollendum opinionum dissentionem & consensum verae Religionis firmandum, inter Episcopos & alios Eruditis viros Convenerat, Regia authoritate in lucem Editi. And it is worth our observation, that though the Parliament was held at the very time, and that the Parliament passed several Acts which concerned Church-matters; as viz. An Act for Ʋniformity of Divine Service, and for the Confirmation of the Book of Ordination, 5 and 6 Edw. 6. c. 1. An Act declaring which days only shall be kept for Holy days, and which for Fasting days, C. 3. against striking or drawing weapon, either in the Church or Church-yard, C. 4. And finally, another Act for the legitimating of the Marriages of Priests and Ministers, C. 12. Yet nei­ther in this Parliament, nor in that which followed, is there so much as the least syl­lable which reflecteth this way, or medleth any thing at all with the book of Articles. Where, by the way, if you behold the lawfulness of Priests Marriages as a matter Do­ctrinal; or think we owe that point of Doctrine, and the indulgence granted to the Clergy in it, to the care and goodness of the Parliament, you may please to know, that the point had been before determined in the Convocation, and stands determined by and for the Clergy in the 31 of those Articles; and that the Parliament looked not on it as a point of Doctrine; but as it was a matter practical, conducing to the benefit and im­provement of the Common-wealth. Or if it did, yet was the Statute built on no other ground-work, than the Resolution of the Clergy, the Marriage of Priests being be­fore determined to be most lawful (I use the very words of the Act it self) and according to the Word of God, by the Learned Clergy of this realm in their Convocations, as well by the common assent, as by subscriptions of their hands, 5, 6. Edw. 6. chap. 12.

And for the time of Q. Elizabeth, it is most manifest, that they had no other body of Doctrine in the first part of her Reign, then only the said Articles of K. Edward's Book; and that which was delivered in the Book of Homilies of the said Kings time: In which the Parliament had as little to do, as you have seen they had in the Book of Articles.

But in the Convocation of the year, 1562. being the fifth of the Q. Reign, the Bishops and Clergy taking into consideration the said book of Articles, and altering what they thought most fitting, to make it more conducible to the use of the Church, and the edification of the people, presented it unto the Queen, who caused it to be pub­lished with this Name and Title, viz. Articles whereupon it was agreed by the Arch-Bishops, and Bishops of both Provinces, and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London, Anno 1562. for the avoiding of diversity of Opinions, and for the establishing of Consent tou­ching true Religion; put forth by the Queens Authority.

Of any thing done, or pretended to be done, by the power of the Parliament, either in the way of Approbation, or of Confirmation, not one word occurs either in any of the Printed Books, or the Publick Registers.

At last, indeed in the 13th. of the said Queens Reign (which was 8 years full after the passing of those Articles) comes out a Statute for the Redressing of disorders in the Ministers of holy Church: In which it was enacted, That all such as were Ordained Priests or Ministers of God's Word and Sacraments, after any other form then that appointed to be used in the Church of England; all such as were to be Ordained, or permitted to Preach, or to be instituted into any Benefice with Cure of souls, should publickly subscribe to the said Articles, and testifie their assent unto them. Which shews (if you observe it well) that though the Parliament did well allow of, and approve the said Book of Articles, yet the said Book owes neither confirmation nor authority, to the Act of Parliament. So that the wonder is the greater, that that most insolent scoff which is put upon us by the Church of Rome, in calling our Religion by the name Parliamentaria-Religio, should pass so long without controle; unless, perhaps, it was in reference to our Forms of Worship, of which I am to speak in the next place.

But first we must make answer unto some Objections which are made against us, both from Law and Practice. For Practice; first, it is alledged by some out of Bi­shop Jewel, in his Answer to the Cavil of Dr. Harding, to be no strange matter to see Ecclesiastical Causes debated in Parliament; and that it is apparent by the Laws of King Ina, King Alfred, King Edward, &c. That our Godly Fore-fathers, the Princes and Peers of this Realm, never vouchsafed to treat of matters touching the Common State, before all Controversies of Religion, and Causes Ecclesiastical had been conclu­ded, Def. of the Apol. part 6. chap. 2. sect. 1.

But the answer unto this is easie: For first, if our Religion may be called Parliamen­tarian, because it hath received confirmation and debate in Parliament, then the Reli­gion of our Fore-fathers, even Papistry it self (concerning which so many Acts of Parliament were made in K. Hen. 8. and Q. Maries time) must be called Parliamen­tarian also.

And secondly, it is most certain, that in the Parliaments or Common-Councils (call them which you will) both of King Inas time, and the rest of the Saxon Kings which B. Jewel speaks of; not only Bishops, Abbots, and the higher part of the Clergy, but the whole Body of the Clergy generally had their Votes and Suffrages, either in person, or by proxie. Concerning which, take this for the leading Case: That in the Parlia­ment or Common-Council in K. Ethelberts time, who first of all the Saxon Kings, re­ceived the Gospel, the Clergy were convened in as full a manner, as the Lay-Subjects of that Prince: Convocati Communi Concilio tam Cleri, quam Populi, saith Sir H. Spelman in his Collection of the Councils, Anno 605. p. 118. And for the Parliament of King Ina, which leads the way in Bishop Jewel, it was (saith the same Sr. H. Spelman, p. 630. Communi Concilium Episcoporum, Procerum, Comitum, nec non omnium Sapientum, Seniorum, Populorumque totius Regni; Where, doubtless, Sapientes and Seniores (and you know what Seniores signifieth in the Ecclesiastical notion) must be some body else then those which after are expressed by the name of Populi, which shews the falshood and absurdity of the collection made by Mr. Pryn, in the Epistle to his Book against Dr. Cousins, viz. That the Parliament (as it is now constituted) hath an ancient genuine, just and lawful Prerogative, to establish true Religion in our Church, and to abolish and sup­press all false, new, and counterfeit Doctrines whatsoever. Unless he means upon the post fact, after the Church hath done her part, in determining what was true, what false, what new, what ancient; and finally, what Doctrines might be counted counterfeit, and what sincere. And as for Law, 'tis true indeed, that by the Statute, 1 Eliz. cap. 1. The Court of Parliament hath power to determine and judge of Heresie; which at first sight seems somewhat strange; but on the second view, you will easily find that this relates only to new and emergent Heresies, not formerly declared for such in any of the first four General Councils, nor in any other General Cuncil, adjudging by ex­press words of holy Scripture; as also that in such new Heresies, the following words restrain this power to the Assent of the Clergy in their Convocation, as being best able to instruct the Parliament what they are to do, and where they are to make use of the se­cular sword for cutting off a desperate Heretick from the Church of CHRIST, or rather from the Body of all Christian people.

5. Of the Reformation of the Church of England in the Forms of Worship, and the Times appointed thereunto.

THIS Rub removed, we now proceed unto a view of such Forms of Worships as have been setled in this Church, since the first dawning of the day of Reformation, in which our Parliaments have indeed done somewhat, though it be not much. The first point which was altered in the publick Liturgies, was, that the Creed, the Pater-noster, and the Ten Commandements, were ordered to be said in the English Tongue; to the intent, the people might be perfect in them, and learn them without book, as our Phrase is. The next, the setting forth and using of the English Letany, on such days and times, in which it was accustomably to be read, as a part of the Service. But neither of these two was done by Parliament; nay, (to say truth) the Parliament did nothing in them. All which was done in either of them, was only by the King's Au­thority, by vertue of the Headship or Supremacy, which by way of recognition was vested in him by the Clergy, either co-operating and concurring with them in their Convocations, or else directed and assisted by such learned Prelates, with whom he did advise in matters which concerned the Church, and did relate to Reformation. By [Page 15]virtue of which Headship or Supremacy he ordained the first; and to that end, caused certain Articles or Injunctions to be published by the Lord Cromwel, then his Viear Ge­neral, Anno 1536. And by the same did he give order for the second, I mean, for the saying of the Letany in the English Tongue, by his own Royal Proclamation, Anno 1545. For which, consult the Acts and Monuments, fol. 1248, 1312. But these were only preparations to a greater work which was reserved unto the times of K. Edw. 6. In the beginning of whose Reign there passed a Statute for the administring the Sacra­ment in both kinds to any person that should devoutly and humbly desire the same, 1 E. 6. c. 1. In which it is to be observed, that though the Statute do declare, that the ministring of the same in both kinds to the people was more agreeable to the first Institution of the said Sacrament, and to the common usage of the primitive Times. Yet Mr. Fox assures us (and we may take his word) that they did build that Declaration, and con­sequently the Act which was raised upon it, upon the judgment and opinion of the best lear­ned men, whose resolution and advice they followed in it, fol. 1489. And for the Form by which the said most blessed Sacrament was to be delivered to the common people, it was commended to the care of the most grave and learned Bishops, and others, assem­by the King at His Castle of Windsor; who upon long, wise, learned and deliberate advice did finally agree (saith Fox) upon one godly and uniform zOrder for receiving of the same, according to the right rule of Scriptures, and the first use of the primitive Church, fol. 1491. Which Order, as it was set forth in Print, Anno 1548. with a Proclamation in the name of the King, to give Authority thereunto amongst the people, so was it recom­mended by special Letters writ unto every Bishop, severally from the Lords of the Council to see the same put in execution: A copy of which Letters you may find in Fox, fol. 1491. as afore is said.

Hitherto nothing done by Parliament in the Forms of Worship, but in the following year there was. For the Protector and the rest of the Kings Council being fully bent for a Reformation, thought it expedient that one uniform, quiet and godly Order should be had throughout the Realm, for Officiating God's divine Service. And to that end (I use the words of the Act it self) appointed the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and certain of the most learned and discreet Bishops, and other learned men of the Realm to meet together, requiring them, that having as well eye and respect to the most pure and sincere Chri­stian Religion, taught in Scriptures, as to the usages in the Primitive Church, they should draw and make one convenient and meet Order, Rite and fashion of Common Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments, to be had and used in this his Majesties Realm of England. Well, what did they being thus assembled? that the Statute tells us: Where it is said, that by the aid of the Holy Ghost (I pray you mark this well) and with one uniform agree­ment they did conclude upon and set forth an Order, which they delivered to the Kings High­ness, in a Book entituled, The Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, after the use of the Church of England. All this was done before the Parliament did any thing. But what was ‘done by them at at last? Why first, considering the most godly travel of the King's Highness, and the Lord Protector and others of his Highness Council, in gathering together the said B. and learned men. Secondly: The Godly Prayers, Orders, Rites and Ceremonies in the said Book mentioned. Thirdly: The motive and inducements which in­clined the aforesaid learned men to alter those things which were altered, and to re­tain those things which were retained: And finally, taking into consideration the honour of God, and the great quietness which by the grace of God would ensue upon it; they gave his Majesty most hearty and lowly thanks for the same, and most hum­bly prayed him, that it might be ordained by his Majesty, with the assent of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, and by Authority of the same, that the said Form of Common-Prayer, and no other, after the Feast of Pentecost next following, should be used in all his Majesties Dominions, with several penalties to such, as either should deprave or neglect the same.’ 2 and 3. E. 6. cap. 1. So far the very words of the Act it self. By which it evidently appeareth, that the two Houses of Parliament did nothing in the present business, but impose that Form upon the people; which by the learned and religious Clergy-men (whom the K. appointed thereunto) was agreed upon, and made it penal unto such as either should deprave the same, or neglect to use it. And thus doth Poulton (no mean Lawyer) understand the Statute, who therefore gives no other title to it in his Abridgement publish'd in the year 1612. than this, The penalty for not using uniformity of Service, and Ministration of the Sacrament. So then the making of one uniform Order of celebrating divine Service, was the work of the Clergy, the making [Page 16]of the Penalties, was the work of the Parliament. Where let me tell yu by the way, that the men who were employed in this weighty business (whose names deserve to be continued in perpetual memory) were Thomas Cranmer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, George Day Bishop of Chichester, Thomas Goodrich B. of Ely, and Lord Chancellour; John Ship Bishop of Hereford, Henry Holbeck Bishop of Lincoln, Nicholas Ridley Bishop of Rochester, translated afterwards to London, Thomas Thirlby Bishop of Westminster, Dr. May Dean of St. Pauls, Dr. Taylor (then Dean, afterwards) Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Hains Dean of Exeter, Dr. Robertson afterwards Dean of Durham, Dr. Redman Master of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge, and Dr. Cox then Almoner to the King, after­ward Dean of Westminster, and at last Bishop of Ely; men famous in their generations, and the honour of the Age they lived in. And so much for the first Liturgy of King Edwards Reign; in which you see how little was done by Authority or power of Par­liament, so little, that if it had been less, it had been just nothing. But some excep­tions being taken against the Liturgy by some of the preciser sort at home, and by Calvin abroad, the Book was brought under a review: And though it had been framed at first (if the Parliament which said so erred not) by the ayd of the Holy Ghost himself; yet to comply with the curiosity of the Ministers and mistakes of the people, rather than for any other weighty cause, As the Statutes 5 and 6 Ed. 6. cap. 1. it was thought expedient by the King, with the assent of the Lords and Commons in Parliament Assembled, that the said Order of Common Service should be faithfully and godly per­used, explained, and made fully perfect.

Perused and explained; by whom? Why, questionless by those who made it; or else, by those (if they were not the same men) who were appointed by the King to draw up and compose a Form of Ordination for the Use of the Church. And this Assent of theirs (for it was no more) was the only part that was ever acted by the Parliament, in matter of this present nature; save that a Statute passed in the former Parliament 3 and 4 Ed. 6. c. 12. unto this effect, that such form and manner of making and consecra­ting Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other Ministers of the Church (which before I spake of) as by six Prelates, and six other men of this Realm, learned in Gods Laws, by the King to be appointed and assigned, shall be devised to that purpose, and set forth under the great Seal, shall be lawfully used and exercised, and none other. Where note, that the King only was to nominate and appoint the men, the Bishops and other learned men were to make the Book; and that the Parliament in a blind obedience, or at the least upon a charitable confidence in the integrity of the men so nominated, did confirm that Book, before any of their Members had ever seen it, though afterwards indeed, in the following Parliament, this Book, together with the Book of Common-prayer, so Printed and explained, obtained a more formal confirmation, as to the use thereof throughout the Kingdom, but in no other respect; for which see the Statute 5 and 6 Ed. 6. c. 1. (As for the time of Q. Elizabeth, when the Common-prayer book now in use (being the same almost with the last of King Edward) was to be brought again into the Church, from whence it was cast out in Queen Maries Reign; it was committed to the care of some learned men; that is to say, to M. Whitehead (once Chaplain to Q. Anne Bullen) Dr. Parker, after Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, Dr. Grindal, after Bishop of London, Dr. Cox, after Bishop of Ely, Dr. Pilkington, after Bishop of Durham; Dr. May, Dean of Saint Pauls, Dr. Bill, Provost of Eaton, after Dean of Westminster, and Sir Tho. Smith. By whom being altered in some few passages which the Statute points to, 1 Eliz. c. 21. it was presented to the Parliament, and by the Parliament received and established without more ado, or troubling any Committee of both or either Houses to consider of it, for ought appears in their Records. All that the Parliament did in it, being to put it into the condition in which it stood before in Kings Edwards Reign, partly by repealing the Repeal of King Edw. Statutes, made in the first of Q. Mary, c. 2. and partly by the adding of some farther penalties on such as did deprave the Book, or neglect to use it, or wilfully did absent themselves from their Parish-Churches. And for the Alterations made in King James his time, being small in the Rubrick only; and for the additions of the Thanksgivings at the end of the Letany, the Prayer for the Queen and the Royal Issue, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments at the end of the Catechisme, which were not in the Book before, they were never referred unto the Parliament, but were done only by Authority of the Kings Commission, and stand in force by virtue only of His Proclamation, which you may find before the Book; the charge of buying the said Book so explained and al­tered, being laid upon the several and respective Parishes, by no other Authority than [Page 17]that of the eightieth Canon, made in Convocation, Anno 1603. The like may also be affirmed of the Forms of Prayer for the Inauguration-day of our Kings and Queens, the Prayer-books for the fifth of November, and the fifth of August, and those which have been used in all publick Fasts: All which, without the help of Parliaments, have been composed by the Bishops, and imposed by the King.

Now unto this discourse of the Forms of Worship, I shall subjoyn a word or two of the times of Worship; that is to say, the Holy-days observed in the Church of Eng­land; and so observed, that they do owe that observation chiefly to the Churches power. For whereas it was found in the former times, that the number of the Holy-days was grown so great, that they became a burthen to the common people, and a great hinderance to the thrift and manufactures of the Kingdom; there was a Canon made in the Convocation, An. 1536. For cutting off of many superstitious and super­fluous Holy-days, and the reducing them into the number in which they now stand (save that St. George's day, and Mary Magdalens day, and all the Festivals of the blessed Virgin had their place amongst them) according to which Canon, there went out a Monitory from the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, to all the Suffragans of his Province, re­spectively to see the same observed in their several Diocesses, which is still extant on Record. But being the Authority of the Church was then in the wane, it was thought necessary to confirm their Acts, and see execution done upon it by the Kings Injun­ction; which did accordingly come forth with this Form or preamble; That the abo­lishing of the said Holy-days, was decreed, ordained, and established by the Kings Highness Authority, as Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England, with the common consent and assent of the Prelates and Clergy of this his Realm in Convocation lawfully Assembled and Congregate. Of which see Fox his Acts and Monuments, fol. 1246, 1247. Afterwards in the year 1541. the King perceiving with what difficulty the people were induced to leave off those Holy-days, to which they had been so long accustomed, published his Proclamation of the twenty-third of July, for the abolishing of such Holy-days (a­mongst other things) as were prohibited before by his Injunctions; both built upon the same foundation, namely, the resolution of the Clergy in their Convocation.

And so it stood until the Reign of King E. 6. at which time the Reformation of the publick Liturgie drew after it by consequence an alteration in the present business, no days being to be kept or accounted Holy, but those for which the Church had set a­part a peculiar office, and not all those neither: For, whereas there are several and pe­culiar offices for the day of the Conversion of St. Paul, and the day of St. Barnabas, the Apostles; neither of these are kept as Holy-days, nor reckoned or esteemed as such in the Act of Parliament, wherein the names and number of the Holy-days is precisely specified, which makes some think the Act of Parliament to have had an over-ruling power on the Common-prayer-Book; but it is not so, there being a specification of the Holy-days in the Book it self, with this direction, These to be observed for Holy-days, and none other; in which the Feasts of the Conversion of St. Paul, and the Apostle Barnabas are omitted plainly, and upon which specification the Stat. 5 & 6. Ed. 6. cap. 3. which concerns the Holy-days, seems most expresly to be built. And for the Offices on those days in the Common-prayer Book, you may please to know that every Holy-day consisteth of two special parts, that is to say, rest or cessation from bodily labour, and celebration of Divine or Religious duties; and that the days before remembred are so far kept holy, as to have still their proper and peculiar Offices, which is ob­served in all the Cathedrals of this Kingdom, and the Chappels Royal, where the Service is read every day; and in most Parish Churches also, as oft as either of them falls upon a Sunday, though the people be not in those days injoined to rest from bo­dily labour, no more than on the Coronation-day, or the Fifth of November, which yet are reckoned by the people for a kind of Holy-days. Put all which hath been said together, and the sum is this: That the proceedings of this Church in the Reforma­tion were not meerly Regal (as it is objected by some Puritans) much less that they were Parliamentarian in so great a work, as the Papists falsly charge upon us, the Par­liaments for the most part doing little in it, but that they were directed in a justifiable way, the work being done Synodically, by the Clergy only, according to the usage of the Primitive times, the King concurring with them, and corroborating what they had resolved on, either by his own single Act in his letters Patent, Proclamations and In­junctions, or by some publick Act of State, as in times, and by Acts of Parliament.

6. Of the power of making Canons, for the well ordering of the Clergy, and the directing of the People in the publick Duties of Religion.

WE are now come to the last part of this design, unto the power of making Ca­nons, in which the Parliament of England have had less to do than in either of the other which are gone before. Concerning which, I must desire you to remem­ber that the Clergy, who had power before to make such Canons and Constitutions in their Convocation as to them seemed meet, promised the King in verbo Sacerdotij, not to Enact or Execute and new Canons, but by his Majesties Royal Assent, and by his Authority first obtained in that behalf; which is thus briefly touched upon in the Ant. Brit. in the life of William Warham, Arch Bishop of Canterbury, Clerus in verbe Sacerdotij sidem Regi dedit, ne ullas deinceps in Synodo ferrent Ecclesiasticas leges, nisi & Synodus au­thoritate Regia congregata, & constitutiones in Synodis publicatae eadem authoritate ratae essent. Upon which ground I doubt not but I might securely raise this proposition, That whatsoever the Clergy did, or might do lawfully before the act of Submission in their Convocation of their own power, without the Kings Authority and consent con­curring, the same they can, and may do still, since the act of their Submission; the Kings Authority and consent co-operating with them in their Councils, and giving confirmation to their Constitutions, as was said before. Further, it doth appear by the asoresaid Act, 25 H. 8. c. 19. That all such Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances, and Synodals Provincial, as were made before the said Submission, which be not con­trary or repugnant to the Laws, Statutes, and Customs of this Realm, nor to the da­mage or hurt of the Kings Prerogative Royal, were to be used and executed as in for­mer times. "And by the Statute 26 H. 8. c. 1. of the Kings Supremacy, that (accor­ding to the Recognition made in Convocation) our said Soveraign Lord, his Heirs and Successors, Kings of this Realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, reform, order, correct, &c. all such Errours, Heresies, Abuses Offences, Contempts, and Enormities whatsoever they be, &.c as may be most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christs Religion, and for the peace, unity, and tranquillity of this Realm, and the confirmation of the same. So that you see these several ways of ordering matters for the publick weal and governance of the Church: First, by such ancient Canons and Constitutions, as being made in former times, are still in force: Secondly, by such new Canons as are, or shall be made in Con­vocation, with and by the Kings consent: And thirdly, By the Authority of the So­vereign Prince, according to the Precedents laid down in the Book of God, and the best ages of the Church, concerning which you must remember what was said be­fore, viz. That the Statutes which concern the Kings Supremacy are Declaratory of an old power only, not Introductory of a new; which said, we shall the better see whether the Parliament have had any thing to do either in making Canons, or pre­scribing Orders for the regulating of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical matters, and un­to whom the same doth of right belong according to the Laws of the Realm of England.

And first, King Henry being restored to his Headship of Supremacy (call it which you will) did not conceive himself so absolute in it (though at the first much enamou­red of it) as not sometimes to take his Convocation with him, but at all times to be advised by his Prelates, when he had any thing to do that concerned the Church; for which there had been no provision made by the ancient Canons, grounding most times, his Edicts and Injunctions Royal, upon their advice and resolution. For on this ground, I mean the judgement and conclusions of his Convocation, did he set out the Injunctions of the year 1536. for the abolishing of superstitious Holy-days, the exterminating of the Popes Authority, the publishing of the Book of Articles, which be­fore we spake of num. 8. by all Parsons, Vicars, and Curates; for preaching down the use of Images, Reliques, Pilgrimages, and superstitious Miracles; for rehearsing openly in the Church, in the English tongue, the Creed, the Pater noster, and the Ten Com­mandments; for the due and reverend ministring of the Sacraments and Sacramen­tals; for providing English Bibles to be set in every Church for the use of the people; for the regular and sober life of Clergy-men, and the relief of the poor. And on the other side, the King proceeded sometimes only by the advice of his Prelates, as in the injunctions of the year 1538. for quarterly Sermons in each Parish; for admitting none [Page 19]to Preach but men sufficiently Licenced; for keeping a Register-book of Christnings, Weddings, and Burials; for the due paying of Tythes, as had been accustomed; for the abolishing of the commemoration of St. Thomas Becket; for singing a Parce nobis Domine, instead of Ora pro nobis, and the like to these. And of this sort were the In­junctions which came out in some years succeeding, for the taking away of Images and Reliques, with all the Ornaments of the same; and all the Monumens and writings of feigned Miracles, and for restraint of offering or setting up Lights in any Churches, but only to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, in which he was directed chiefly by Arch-Bishop Cranmer; as also those for eating of white meats in the time of Lent, the abolishing the Fast on St. Marks day, and the ridiculous (but superstitious) sports ac­customably used on the days of St. Clement, St. Katherine and St. Nicholas. All which and more was done in the said Kings Reign without help of Parliament. For which I shall refer you to the Acts and Mon. fol. 1385, 1425, 1441. The like may also be af­firmed of the Injunctions published in the name of K. E. 6. An. 1547. and printed also then for the Use of the Subjects: And of the several Letters missive which went forth in his Name, prohibiting the bearing of Candles on Candlemas-day; of Ashes in Lent, and of Palms on Palm-sunday; for the taking down of all the Images through­out the Kingdom; for administring the Communion in both kinds, dated March 13, 1548. for abrogating of private Masses, June 24, 1549. for bringing in all Missals, Graduals, Processionals, Legends, and Ordinals about the latter end of December of the same year; for taking down of Altars, and setting up Tables instead thereof, An. 1550. and the like to these: All which particulars you have in Foxes Book of Acts and Mon. in King Edwards life, which whether they were done of the Kings meer mo­tion, or by advice of his Council, or by consultation with his Bishops (for there is little left upon Record of the Convocations of that time, more than the Articles of the year 1552) certain I am that there was nothing done, nor yet pretended to be done in all these particulars by the Authority of Parliament.

Thus also in Q. Elizabeths time, before the new Bishops were well settled, and the Queen assured of the affections of her Clergy, she went that way to work in the Re­formation, which not only her two Predecessors, but all the Godly Kings and Princes in the Jewish State, and many of the Christian Emperours in the Primitive times had done before her, in the well ordering of the Church and People committed to their care and government by Almighty God; and to that end she published her Injunctions, An. 1559. A Book of Orders, An. 1561. Another of Advertisements, An. 1562. All tending unto Reformation unto the building up of the new Jerusalem, with the advice and counsel of the Metropolitan, and some other Godly Prelates, who were then a­about her, by whom they were agreed on and subscribed unto, before they were pre­sented to her, without the least concurrence of her Court of Parliament. But when the times were better settled, and the first difficulties of her Reign passed over, she left Church-work to the disposing of Church-men, who by their place and calling were most proper for it; and they being met in Convocation, and thereto Authorised as the Laws required, did make and publish several Books of Canons, as viz. 1571. An. 1584. An. 1597. Which being confirmed by the Queen under the broad Seal of Eng­land, were in force of Laws to all intents and purposes which they were first made; but being confirmed without those formal words, Her Heirs and Successors, are not binding now, but expired together with the Queen. No Act of Parliament required to confirm them then, nor never required ever since, on the like occasion. A fuller evidence whereof we cannot have, than in the Canons of year, 1603. being the first year of King James, made by the Clergy, only in the Convocation, and confirmed only by the King; for though the old Canons were in force, which had been made before the submission of the Clergy, as before I shewed you, which served in all these wavering and unsettled times, for the perpetual standing rule of the Churches Government; yet many new emergent cases did require new rules, and whilst there is a possibility of Mali mores; there will be a necessity of bonae Leges. Now in the confirmation of these Canons we shall find it thus, That the Clergy being met in their Convocation, accor­ding to the Tenour and effect of his Majesties Writ, his Majesty was pleased by virtue of his Prerogative Royal and Supream Authority in causes Ecclesiastical, to give and grant unto them by his Letters Patents, dated April 12. and June 25. full, free, and lawful liberty, licence, power and authority, to convene, treat, debate, consider, con­sult, and agree upon such Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, as they should think necessary, fit and convenient for the honour and service of Almighty [Page 20]God, the good and quiet of the Church, and the better government thereof from time to time, &c. to be kept by all persons within this Realm, as far as lawfully, being members of the Church, it may concern them; which being agreed on by the Clergy, and by them presented to the King, humbly requiring him to give his Royal assent un­to them, according to the Statute made in the 25 of K. H. 8. and by his Majesties Pre­rogative and Supream Authority in Ecclesiastical causes to ratifie and confirm the same, his Majesty was graciously pleased to confirm and ratifie them by his Letters Patents, for himself, his Heirs, and lawful Successors, straightly commanding and requiring all his loving Subjects, diligently to observe, execute, and keep the same in all points, wherein they do or may concern all or any of them. No running to the Parliament to confirm these Canons, nor any question made till this present, by temperate and knowing men, that there wanted any Act for their confirmation which the law could give them.

7. An Answer to the main Objections of either Party.

BUT against this, all which hath been said before, it will be objected, That being the Bishops of the Church are fully and wholly Parliamentarian, and have no more Authority and Jurisdiction, nisi à Parliamentis derivatum, but that which is con­ferred upon them by the power of Parliaments, as both Sanders and Schultingius do expresly say, whatsoever they shall do or conclude upon, either in Convocation, or in more private conferences, may be called Parliamentarian also. And this last calumny they build on the several Statutes 24 H. 8. c. 12. touching the manner of Electing and Consecrating Arch-Bishops and Bishops, that of the 1 E. 6. c. 2. appointing how they shall be chosen, and what Seals they shall use; these of 3 and 4 Ed. 6. c. 12. & 5. & 6 E. 6. for Authorizing of the Book of Ordination. But chiefly that of the 8 Eliz. c. 1. for making good all Acts since 1 Eliz. in Consecrating any Arch Bishop or bishop within this Realm. To give a general answer to each several cavil, you may please to know, that the Bi­shops as they now stand in the Church of England, derive their Calling, together with their Authority and power in Spiritual matters, from no other hands than those of Christ and his Apostles, their Temporal honours and possessions, from the bounty and affection only of our Kings and Princes, their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in causes Matri­monial, Testamentary, and the like, for which no action lieth at the common Law, from continual usage and prescription; and ratified and continued unto them in the Magna Charta of this Realm, and owe no more unto the Parliament than all sort of Subjects do besides, whose Fortunes and Estates have been occasionally and collate­rally confirmed in Parliament. And as for the particular Statutes which are touched upon, that of the 24 H. 8. doth only constitute and ordain a way by which they might be chose and consecrated, without recourse to Tome for a confirmation, which for­merly had put the Prelates to great charge and trouble; but for the form and manner of their Consecration, the Statute leaves it to those Rites and Ceremonies wherewith before it was performed; and therefore Sanders doth not stick to affirm, that all the Bishops which were made in King Henries days were Lawfully and Canonically or­dained and consecrated, the Bishops of that time, not only being acknowledged in Queen Maries days for lawful and Canonical Bishops, but called on to assist at the Con­secration of such other Bishops (Cardinal Pool himself for one) as were promoted in her Reign, whereof see Masons Book de Minist. Ang. l. c. Next for the Statute, 1 E. 6. cap. 2. besides that it is satisfied in part by the former Answer, as it relates to their Ca­nonical Consecrations, it was repealed in Terminis in the first of Queen Maries Reign, and never stood in force nor practice to this day. That of the Authorizing of the Book of Ordination in two several Parliaments of that King, the one à parte ante, and the other à parte post, as before I told you, might indeed seem somewhat to the pur­pose, if any thing were wanting in it which had been used in the formula's of the Pri­mitive times; or if the Book had been composed in Parliament, or by Parliament­men, or otherwise received more Authority from them, then that it might be lawfully used and exercised throughout the Kingdom. But it is plain, that none of these things were objected in Queen Maries days, when the Papists stood most upon their points, the Ordinal being not called in because it had too much of the Parliament, but be­cause it had too little of the Pope, and relished too strongly of the Primitive piety. And for the Statute of 8 of Q. Elizabeth, which is chiefly stood on, all that was done therein was no more than this, and on this occasion; A question had been made by captious [Page 21]and unquiet men, and amongst the rest by Dr. Bonner, sometimes Bishop of London, whether the Bishops of those times were lawfully ordained or not; the reason of the doubt being this (which I marvel Mason did not see) because the book of Ordination which was annulled and abrogated in the first of Queen Mary, had not been yet re­stored and revived by any legal Act of Queen Elizabeths time; which Cause being brought before the Parliament in the 8th year of her Reign, the Parliament took no­tice first, that their not restoring of that Book to the former power in terms significant and express, was but Casus omissus; and then declare, that by the Statute 5 and 6 E. 6. it had been added to the Book of Common-prayer and Administration of the Sacra­ments as a member of it, at least as an Appendant to it; and therefore by the Statute 1 Eliz. c. 2. was restored again, together with the said Book of Common-prayer, in­tentionally at the least, if not in Terminis. But being the words in the said Statute were not clear enough to remove all doubts, they therefore did revive now, and did accor­dingly Enact, That whatsoever had been done by virtue of that Ordination, should be good in Law; This is the total of the Statute, and this shews rather in my judgment, that the Bishops of the Queens first times had too little of the Parliament in them, than that they were conceived to have had too much. And so I come to your last Objection, which concerns the Parliament, whose entertaining all occasions to manisest their power in Ecclesiastical matters, doth seem to you to make that groundless slander of the Papists the more fair and plausible.

'Tis true indeed, that many Members of both Houses in these latter Times, have been very ready to embrace all businesses which are offered to them, out of a probable hope of drawing the managery of all Affairs, as well Ecclesiastical as Civil, into their own hands. And some there are, who being they cannot hope to have their sancies Authorized in a regular way, do put them upon such designs, as neither can consist with the nature of Parliaments, nor the Authority of the King, nor with the privileges of the Clergy; nor, to say truth, with the esteem and reputation of the Church of Christ And this hath been a practice even as old as Wickliffe, who in the time of K. R. 2. addressed his Petition to the Parliament (as we read in Walsingham) for the Reforma­tion of the Clergy, the rooting out of many false and erroneous Tenets, and for esta­blishing of his own Doctrines (who though he had some Wheat, had more Tears by odds) in the Church of England. And lest he might be thought to have gone a way, as dangerous and unjustifiable, as it was strange and new, he laid it down for a posi­tion. That the Parliament or Temporal Lords (where by the way this ascribes no Authority or power at all to the House of Commons) might lawfully examine and re­form the Disorders and Corruptions of the Church, and a discovery of the errors and corruptions of it, devest her of all Tithes and Temporal endowments, till she were re­formed. But for all this, and (more than this) for all he was so strongly backed by the Duke of Lancaster, neither his Petition nor his Position found any welcome in the Parliament, further than that it made them cast many a longing eye on the Churches patrimony; or produced any other effect towards the work of Reformation, which he chiefly aimed at, than that it hath since served for a precedent to Penry, Pryn, and such like troublesome and unquiet spirits, to disturb the Church, and set on foot those dreams and dotages, which otherwise they durst not publish. And to say truth, as long as the Clergy were in power, and had Authority in Convocation to do what they would in matters which concerned Religion, those of the Parliament conceived it neither safe nor fitting to intermeddle in such business as concerned the Clergy, for fear of being questioned for it at the Churches Bar. But when that Power was lessened (though it were not lost) by the submission of the Clergy to K. H. 8. and by the Act of the Supremacy which ensued upon it; then did the Parliaments begin to intrench upon the Churches Rights, to offer at, and entertain such businesses as formerly were held peculiar to the Clergy only; next, to dispute their Charters and reverse their privi­leges; and finally, to impose some hard Laws upon them. And of these notable in­croachments, Matthew Parker thus complains in the life of Cranmer, Qua Ecclesiasticarum legum potestate abdicata, populus in Parliamento coepit de rebus divinis inconsulto Clero San­cire, tum absentis Cleri privilegia sensim detrahere, jura (que) duriora quibus Clerus invitus tene­retur, Constituere. But these were only tentamenta, offers and undertakings only, and no more than so. Neither the Parliaments of K. Edward, or Q. Elizabeths time knew what it was to make Committees for Religion, or thought it fit that Ʋzzah should sup­port the Ark, though he saw it tottering. That was a work belonging to the Levites only, none of the other Tribes were to meddle with it. But as the Puritan Faction [Page 22]grew more strong and active, so they applyed themselves more openly to the Houses of Parliament, but specially to the House of Commons; putting all power into their hands, as well in Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Causes, as in matters Temporal. This, amongst others, confidently affirmed by Mr. Pryn, in the Epistle to his Book called Anti-Arminianism, where he avers, That all our Bishops, our Ministers, our Sacraments, our Consecration, our Articles of Religion, our Homilies, Common-prayer Book; yea, and all the Religion of the Church, is no other way publickly received, supported, or established amongst us, but by Acts of Parliament. And this not only since the time of the Reformation, but, That Religion and Church affairs were determined, ratified, declared, and ordered by Act of Parliament, and no ways else, even then when Popery and Church men had the greatest sway. Which strange assertion falling from the pen of so great a Scribe, was forthwith chear­fully received amongst our Pharisees, who hoped to have the highest places, not only in the Synagogue, but the Court of Sanhedrim, advancing the Authority of Parlia­ments to so high a pitch, that by degrees they fastened on them, both an infallibility of judgment, and an omniotency of power. Nor can it be denied (to deal truly with you) but that they met with many apt Scholars in that House, who either out of a desire to bring all the grist to their own Mill, or willing to enlarge the great power of Parliaments, by making new precedents for Posterity, or out of faction, or affection, or what else you please, began to put their Rules in practice, and draw all matters whatsoever within the cognizance of that Court: In which their embracements were at last so general, and that humour in the House so prevalent; that one being once de­manded what they did amongst them, returned this answer, That they were making a new Creed: Another being heard to say, That he could not be quiet in his Conscience, till the holy Text should be confirmed by an Act of theirs: Which passages, if they be not true and real, (as I have them from an honest hand) I assure you they are bitter jests. But this, although indeed it be the sickness and disease of the present Times, and little to the honour of the Court of Parliament, can be no prejudice at all to the way and means of the Reformation; amongst sober and discerning men, the Doctrine of the Church being settled, the Liturgy published and confirmed, the Canons authorized and exe­cuted, when no such humour was predominant, nor no such power pretended to, by both or either of the Houses of Parliament.

But here perhaps it will be said that we are fallen into Charybdis by avoiding Scylla, and that endeavouring to stop the mouth of this Popish Calumny, we have set open a wide gap to another no less scandalous of the Presbyterians; who being as professed Enemies of the Kings as the Popes Supremacy, and noting that strong influence which the King hath had in Ecclesiastical affairs since the first attempts for Reformation, have charg'd it as reproachfully on the Church of England, and the Religion here establish­ed; that it is Regal at the best if not Parliamentarian, and may be called a Regal Faith, and a Regal Gospel. But the Answer unto this is easie. For first the Kings intended by the Objectors, did not act much in order to the Reformation (as ap­pears by that which hath been said) but either by the advice and co-operation of the whole Clergy of the Realm in their Convocations, or by the Counsel and consent of the Bishops and most eminent Church men in particular Conferences: which made it properly the work of the Clergy only, the Kings no otherwise than as it was propoun­ed by him, or finally confirmed by the Civil Sanction. And secondly, had they done more in it than they did, they had been warranted so to do by the Word of God; who hath committed unto Kings and Sovereign Princes a Supreme or Supereminent power, not only in all matters of a Temporal or Secular nature, but in such as do concern Re­ligion and the Church of Christ. And so St. Augustine hath resolved it in his third Book against Cresconius. In hoc Reges sicut iis divinitus praecipitur: (pray you note that well) Deo serviunt in quantum Reges sunt, si in suo Regno bona jubeant, mala prohibeant, non solum quae pertinent ad humanum societatem, verum etiam ad Divinam Religionem. Which words of his seemed so significant and convincing unto Hart the Jesuite, that being shewed the Tractate writ by Dr. Nowel against Dorman the Priest, in the begin­ning of Q. Elizabeths time, and finding how the case was stated by that Reverend person, he did ingenously confess that there was no Authority ascribed to the Kings of england in Ecclesiastical affairs, but what was warranted unto them by that place of Augustine. The like affimed by him that calleth himself Franciscus de S. Clara, though a Jesuite too (that you mjay see how much more candid and ingenuous the Jesuits are in this point than the Presbyterians) in his Examen of the Articles of the Church of England. But hereof you may give me opportunity to speak more hereafter, [Page 23]when you propose the Doubts which you say you have, relating to the King, the Pope, and the Churches Protestant, and therefore I shall say no more of it at the present time.

SECT. II. The manner of the Reformation of the Church of England declared and justified.

HItherto I had gone in order to your satisfaction, and communicated my concep­tions in writing to you, when I received your Letter of the 4th. of January, in which you signified the high contentment I had given you, in condescending to your weakness, (as you pleased to call it) and freeing you from those doubts which lay heaviest on you. And therewithal you did request me to give you leave to propound those other scruples which were yet behind, relating to the King, the Pope and the Protestant-Churches, either too little or too much looked after in the Reformation. And first you say it is cvomplained of by some Zelots of the Church of rome, that the Pope was very hardly and unjustly dealt with, in being deprived of the Supremacy so long enjoyed and exercised by his Predecessors, and that it was an Innovation no less strange than dangerous to settle it upon the King. 2. That the Church of England ought not to have proceeded to a Reformation without the Pope, considered either as the Patriarch of the Weftern world, or the Apostle in particular of the English Nation. 3. That if a Reformation had been found so necessary, it ought to have been done by a General Council, at least with the consent and co-operation of the Sister-Churches, especially of those who were engaged at the same time in the same designs. 4. That in the carrying on of the Reformation, the Church proceeded very unadvisedly, in letting the people have the Scriptures and the publique Liturgy in the vulgar tongue, the dangerous consequents whereof are now grown too visible. 5. That the pro­ceedings in the point of the Common-prayer Book were meerly Regal, the body of the Clergy not consulted with, or consenting to it; and consequently not so Regular as we fain would have it. And 6. That in the power of making Canons, and deter­mining matters of the Faith, the Clergy have so fettered and intangled themselves by the Act of Submission, that they can neither meet, deliberate, conclude nor execute, but as they are enabled by the Kings Authority, which is a Vassalage inconsistent with their native Liberties, and not agreeable to the usage of the Primitive times. These are the points in which you now desire to have satisfaction, and you shall have it in the best way I am able to do it, that so you may be freed hereafter from such troubles and Disputants, as I perceive have laboured to perplex your thoughts, and make you less affectionate than formerly to the Church your Mother.

1. That the Church of England did not Innovate in the Ejection of the Pope, and settling the Supremacy in the Royal Crown.

And in this point you are to know that it hath been, and still is the general and con­stant judgment of the greatest Lawyers of this Kingdom, that the vesting of the Supre­macy in the Crown Imperial of this Realm, was not Introductory of any new Right or Power which was not in the Crown before, but Declaratory of an old, which had been anciently and originally inherent in it, though of late Times usurped by the Popes of Rome, and in Abeyance at that time, as our Lawyers phrase it. And they have so resolved it upon very good reasons; the principal managery of affairs which concern Religion, being a flower inseparably annexed to the Regal Diadem, not proper and peculiar only to the Kings of England, but to all Kings and Princes in the Church of God, and by them exercised and enjoyed accordingly in their times and places. For who, I pray you, were the men in the Jewish Church who destroyed the Idols of that people, cut down the Groves, demolished the high places, and brake in pieces the Brazen Serpent, when abused to Idolatry? Were they not the godly Kings and Princes only which sway'd the Scepter of that Kingdom? And though 'tis possible enough that they might do it by the counsel and advice of the High-Priests of that [Page 24]Nation, or of some of the more godly Priests and Levites (who had a zeal unto the Law of the most high God) yet we find nothing of it in the holy Scripture; the merit of these Reformations which were made occasionally in that faulty Church, being as­cribed unto their Kings, and none but them. Had they done any thing in this which belonged not to their place and calling, or by so doing had intrenched on the Office of the Priests and Levits, that God who punished Ʋzzab for attempting to support the Ark when he saw it tottering, and smote Osias with a Leprosie, for burning Incense in the Temple (things which the Priests and Levites only were to meddle in) would not have suffered those good Kings to have gone unpunished, or at least uncensured, how good soever their intentions and pretences were. Nay on the contrary, when any thing was amiss in the Church of Jewry, the Kings, and not the Priests were ad­monished of it, and reproved for it by the Prophets; which sheweth that they were trusted with the Reformation, and none else but they. Is it not also said of david, that he distributed the Priests and Levites into several Classes, allotted to them the particu­lar times of their Ministration, and designed them unto several Offices in the publick Service? Josephus adding to these passages of the Holy Writ, That he composed Hymns and Songs to the Lord his God, and made them to be sung in the Congregation, as an especial part of the publick Liturgy, Of which, although it may be said that he composed those Songs and Hymns by vertue of his Prophetical Spirit, yet he imposed them on the Church, appointed Singing-men to sing them, and prescribed Vestments also to these Singing-men, by no other power than the regal only: None of the Priests consulted in it, for ought yet appears.

The like Authority was exercised and enjoyed by the Christian Emperors, not only in their calling Councils, and many times assisting at them, or presiding in them by themselves, or their Deputies, or Commissioners; but also in confirming the Acts thereof. He that consults the Code and Novelles in the Civil Laws, will find the best Princes to have been most active in things which did concern Religion, in regulating matters of the Church, and setting out their Imperial Edicts for suppressing of Here­ticks. Quid Imperatori cum Ecclesia? What hath the Emperor to do in matters which concern the Church? is one of the chief Brand-marks which Optatus sets upon the Donatists. And though some Christians of the East have in the way of scorn had the name of Melchites (men of the Kings Religion, as the word doth intimate) because they adhered unto those Doctrines which the Emperors, agreeable to former Coun­cils, had confirmed and ratified; yet the best was, that none but Sectaries and Here­ticks put that name upon them. Neither the men, nor the Religion was a jot the worse. Nor did they only deal in matters of Exterior Order, but even in Doctrinals, matters intrinsecal to the Faith; for which their Enoticon set out by the Emperor Zeno for settling differences in Religion, may be proof sufficient.

The like Authority was exercised and enjoyed by Charles the Great, when he at­tained the Western Empire, as the Capitulars published in his Name, and in the names of his Successors, do most clearly evidence; and not much less enjoyed and practised by the Kings of England in the elder times, though more obnoxious to the power of the Pope of Rome, by reason of his Apostleship (if I may so call it:) the Christian Faith being first preached unto the English Saxons, by such as he employed in that Holy work. The instances whereof dispersed in several places of our English Histories, and other Monuments and Records which concern this Church, are hand­somely summed up together by Sir Edward Cook, in the fifth part of his Reports, if I well remember; but I am sure in Cawdries Case, entituled De Jure Regis Ecclesiastico. And though Parsons (the Jesuite) in his Answer unto that Report, hath took much pains to vindicate the Popes Supremacy in this Kingdom, from the first planting of the Gospel among the Saxons; yet all he hath effected by it, proves no more than this, That the Popes, by permission of some weak Princes, did exercise a kind of concurrent juris­diction here with the Kings themselves, but came not to the full and entire Supremacy, till they had brought all other Kings and Princes of the Western Empire; nay, even the Emperors themselves under their command. So that when the Supremacy was recognized by the Clergy in their Convocation to K. H. 8. it was only the restoring of him to his pro­per and original power, invaded by the Popes of these latter Ages; though possibly the Title of Supream Head seemed to have somewhat in it of an Innovation. At which Title, when the Papists generally, and Calvin in his Comment on the Prophet Amos, did seem to be much scandalized, it was with much wisdom changed by Q. Elizabeth, into that of Supream Governour, which is still in use. And when that also would not [Page 25]down with some queasie stomacks, the Queen her self by her Injunctions, published in the first year of her Reign, and the Clergy in their book of Articles agreed upon in Convocation about five years after, did declare and signifie, That there was no Autho­rity in sacred matters contained under that Title, but that only Prerogative which had been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, That they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and to restrain, with the Civil Sword, the stubborn and evil doers; as also to exclude thereby the Bishop of Rome from having any jurisdiction in the Realm of England, Artic. 37. Lay this unto the rest before, and tell me (if you can) what hath been acted by the Kings of England in the Reformation of Religion, but what is warranted unto them by the practice and example of the most godly Kings of Jewry, seconded by the most godly Emperours in the Christian Church, and by the usage also of their own Predecessors in this Kingdom, till Papal Usurpation carried all before it. And being that all the Popes pretended to in this Realm was but Usurpation, it was no Wrong to take that from him which he had no Right to, and to restore it at the last to the proper Owner. Neither prescription on the one side, nor discontinuance on the other, change the case at all; that noted Maxim of our Lawyers, that no prescription binds the King (or Nullum tempus occurrit Regi, as their own words are) being as good against the Pope, as against the Subject.

This leads me to the second part of this Dispute, the dispossessing of the Pope of that Supream Power, so long enjoyed and exercised in this Realm by his Predecessors. To which we say, that though the pretensions of the Pope were antient, yet they were not primitive; and therefore we may answer in our Saviours words, Ab initio non fuit sic, it was not so from the beginning. For it is evident enough in the course of story, that the Pope neither claimed nor exercised any such Supremacy within this Kingdom in the first Ages of this Church, nor in many after; till by gaining from the King the Investiture of Bishops under Henry the First, the exemption of the Clergy from the Courts of Justice under Henry the Second, and the submission of King John to the See of Rome, they found themselves of strength sufficient to make good their Plea. And though by the like artifices, seconded by some Texts of Scripture, which the ignorance of those times incouraged them to abuse as they pleased, they had attained the like Supremacy in France, Spain, and Germany, and all the Churches of the West: Yet his Incroachments were opposed, and his Authority disputed upon all occasions, especially as the light of Letters did begin to shine. Insomuch as it was not only determined essentially in the Council of Constance (one of the Imperial Cities of High germany) that the Council was above the Pope; and his Authority much curbed by the Pragmatick Sanction, which thence took beginning: But Gerson the learned Chancellor of Paris, wrote a full Discourse, entituled, De auferibilitate Papae, touching the total abroga­ting of the Papal Office; which certainly he had never done in case the Papal Office had been found essential and of intrinsecal concernment to the Church of Christ. Ac­cording to the Position of that learned man, The greatest Princes in these times did look upon the Pope and the Papal power as an Excrescence at the best in the body mysti­cal, subject and fit to be pared off as occasion served; though on self ends, Reasons of State, and to serve their several turns by him as their needs required, they did and do permit him to continue in his former greatness. For Lewis the 11th King of France, in a Council of his own Bishops, held at Lions, cited Pope Julius the 2d. to appear before him; and Laustrech Governour of Millaine under Francis the 1st, conceived the Popes Authority to be so unnecessary (yea, even in Italy it self) that taking a displea­sure against Leo the 10th. he outed him of all his jurisdiction within that Dukedom. anno 1528. and so disposed of all Ecclesiastical affairs; ut praefecto sacris Bigorrano Episcopo omnia sine Romani Pontificis authoritate administrarentur, as Thuanus hath it, that the Church there was supreamly governed by the Bishop of Bigor (a Bishop of the Church of France) without the intermedling of the Pope at all. The like we find to have been done about six years after, by Charles the Fifth, Emperor and King of Spain, who being no less displeased with Pope Clement the 7th. Abolished the Papal power and jurisdiction out of all the Churches of his Kingdoms in Spain. Which though it held but for a while (till the breach was closed) yet left he an example by it (as my Author noteth) Ecclesiasticam disciplinam citra Romani nominis autoritatem posse conser­vari, that there was no necessity of a Pope at all. And when K. Henry the 8th. follow­ing these examples, had banished the Popes Authority out of his Dominions, Religion still remaining here as before it did (the Popes Supremacy not being at the time an [Page 26]Article of the Churistian Faith, as it hath since been made by Pope Pius the 4th.) that Act of his was much commended by most knowing men, in that without more altera­tion in the face of the Church, Romanae sedis exuisset obsequium (saith the Author of the Tridentine History) he had freed himself and all his Subjects from so great a Vassalage. Now as K. Henry the 8th. was not the first Christian Prince, who did de facto abrogate the Popes Authority; so was he not the last that thought it might be abrogated if oc­casion were. For to say nothing of King Edward the 6th. and Queen Elizabeth, two of his Successors, who followed his example in it; We find it to have been resolved on by K. Henry the 4th. of France, who questionless had made the Arch-Bishop of Bourges, the Patriarch of the Gallicane Church, and totally withdrawn it from acknowledging of the Authority of the See of Rome, had not Pope Clement the 8th. (much against his will) by the continual solicitations of Cardinal D' Ossat, admitted him to a formal Reconciliation, on his last falling off to Popery. How near the Signeury of Venice was to have done the like, anno 1608. the History of the Interdict, or of the Quarrels be­twixt that State and Pope Paul the 5th. doth most plainly shew. This makes it evi­dent, that in the judgment and esteem of most Christian Princes (in other things of the Religion of the Church of Rome) the Popes Supremacy was looked upon as an in­croachment; and therefore might be abrogated upon better reasons, than it had for­merly been admitted in their several Kingdoms. By consequence the doing of it here in England, is neither so injurious or unjust as your Zelots make it.

2. That the Church of England might proceed to a Reformation without the Approbation of the Pope or Church of Rome.

But here you say it will be replied, that though the Pope be not considered as the Supream Head or Universal Pastor of the Church; with reference whereunto his super­eminent jurisdiction was disputed in the former times; yet it cannot be denied with reason, but that he is the Patriarch of these Western Churches, and the Apostle in particular of the English Nation. In these respects no Reformation of the Church to be made without him; especially considering that the Church of England at that time was a Member of the Church of Rome, and therefore to act nothing in that kind but by consent of the whole; according to that known Maxim of the Schools, Turpis est pars ea quae totisuo non cohaereat. This though it be a Triple Cord, will be easily broken. For first, the Pope is not the Patriarch of the West. One of the Patriarchs of the West we shall easily grant him; but that he is the Patriarch we will by no means yield. To tell you why we dare not yield it, I must put you in mind of these particulars. 1. That all Bishops in respect of their Office or Episcopality are of equal power, whe­ther they be of Rome or Rhegium, of Constantinople or Engubium, of Alexandria or of Tanais, as S. Hierom hath it, Potentia divitiarum & paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit. A plentiful Revenue, and a sorry Competency makes not (saith he) one bishop higher than another in regard of his Office, though possibly of more esteem and reputation in the eyes of men. 2. That in respect to Polity and external order, the Bishops antiently were disposed of into Sub et supra, according to the platform of the Roman Empire, agreeable to the good old Rule which we find mentioned, though not made in the general Councel of Chalcedon, that is to say, [...], &c. The government of the Church is to be sitted and accommodated to the Civil State. 3. That the Roman Empire was divided antiently into 14 Juridical Circuits, which they called Diocesses, reckoning the Praefecture of rome for one of the number; six the of which, that is to say the Diocesses of Italy, Africk, Spain, Britain, Gaul, and Illyricum occidentale, besides the Praefecture of the City, were under the command of the Western Emperors, after the Empire was divided into East and West. 4. That in the Praefecture of the City of Rome were contained no more than the Pro­vinces of Latium, Tuscia, Picenum, Suburbicarium, Samnum, Apulia, and Calabria, Bru­tium and Lucania, in the main land of Italy, together with the Islands of Sicilie, Corsica, and Sardinia. 5. That every Province having several Cities, there was (agreeable to this model) a Bishop placed in every City a Metropolitan in the chief City of each Province, who had a superintendence over all the Bishops; and in each Diocess a Pri­mate ruling in chief over the Metropolitans of the several Provinces. And 6. Though at first only the three Primates or Arch-Bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, commonly and in vulgar speech had the name of Patriarchs, by reason of the wealth and greatness of those Cities (the greatest of the Roman Empire, and the chief of [Page 27] Europe, Asia, and Africa) to which the Bishops of Hierusalem and Constantinople were after added; yet were they all of equal power among themselves, and shined with as full a splendor in their proper Orbs as any of the Popes then did in the Sphere of Rome, receiving all their light from the Sun of Righteousness, not borrowing it from one a­nother; for which the so much celebrated Canon of the Nicene Council may be proof sufficient. If not, the Edicts of Justinian shall come in to help, by which it was de­creed that all Appeals in point of grievance should lie from the Bishop to the Metropoli­tan, and from the Metropolitans unto the Primates (the Patriarchs as he calls them) of the several Diocesses. By which accompt it doth appear that the Patriarchate of Rome was antiently confined within the Praefecture of that City; in which respect as the Provinces subject to the Pope, were by Ruffinus called Regiones Suburbicariae, or the City Provinces; so was the Pope himself called Ʋrbicus, or the City-Bishop, by Optatus Afer.

To prove this point more plainly by particular instances, I shall take leave to travel over the Western Diocesses, to see what marks of Independence we can find among them; such as dissenting in opinion from the Church of Rome, or adhering unto different ceremonies and forms of worship, or otherwise standing in defence of their own Authority. And first the Diocess of Italy, though under the Popes nose (as we use to say) was under the command of the Arch-Bishop of Milain, as the Primate of it; which City is therefore called by Athanafius [...] the Metropolis or chief City of Italy. The Saturdays fast observed at Rome and not at Milain, (Quando Romae sum jejuno Sabbato, quum hic sum non jejuno Sabbato, as S. Ambrose hath it) shews clearly that the one had no dependence upon the other. And yet the difference of Divine Offices or Forms of worship is a more pregnant proof than this: the Churches of Milain officiating for many Ages by a Liturgie which S. Ambrose had a special hand in; they of the Patriarchate of Rome following the old Roman Missals, not fully finished and compleated till the time of Pope Gregory. Whence the distinction of Ecclesiae Am­brosianae & Ecclesiae Gregorianae, extant in Bonaventure and others of the Writers of the latter times. Cross we the Seas unto the Diocess of Africk, governed in chief by the Primate or Arch-Bishop of Carthage: And there we find S. Cyprian determining against Pope Stephen in the then controverted case of Rebaptization; and calling him (in his Epistle to Pompeius) an obstinate and presumptuous man, and a fautor of Hereticks; no very great tokens of subjection, if you mark it well. The error of his judgement in the point debated I regard not here; but I am sure that in defence of his authority and jurisdiction, he was right enough, and therein strongly seconded by the African Church, opposing the incroachments of Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine, succeeding one another in the Roman Patriarchate; prohibiting all Appeals to Rome in the Councils of Milevis and Carthage; and finally excommunicating Lupicinus for appealing to Pope Leo the first, contrary to the Rites and Liberties of the African Church. Next for the Diocess of Spain, I look upon the Musarabick Liturgy, composed by Isidore, Arch-Bishop of Sevil, and universally received in all the Churches of that Continent for as un­questionable a character of self-subsistency as the Ambrosian Office was in the Church of Milain; the Roman or Gregorian Missal not being used in all this Countrey till the year 1083. At which time one Bernard a French-man and a great stickler in behalf of the Roman Ceremonies, being made Arch-Bishop of Toledo, by practising with Alfonso the then King of Castile, first introduced the Roman Missal into some of the Churches of that City, and after by degrees into all the rest of those Kingdoms: soon after the Churches of France, the greatest and most noble part of the Gallick Diocess, they were originally under the Authority of the Bishop of Lions, as their proper Primate, not ow­ing any suit or service to the Court of Rome; but standing on their own Basis, and acting all things of themselves as the others did. The freedom wherewith Irenaeus the renowned Bishop of that City reproved the rashness of Pope Victor (in the Case of Easter) not well becoming an inferior Bishop to the Supream Pastor; shews plainly that they stood on even ground, and had no advantage of each other in respect of sub & supra, as Logicians say; notwithstanding that more powerful Principality (potentior principa­litas, as the Latine hath it) which Irenaeus did allow him over those at home. But a more evident proofof this there can hardly be, than those large liberties and freedoms which the Church Gallican doth at this time enjoy; the remainders past all doubt of those antient Rights which under their own Patriarch they were first possessed of; not suffering the Decrees of the Council of Trent (that great supporter of the Popedom) to take place amongst them, but as insensibly, and by the practices of some Bishops [Page 28]they were introduced; curbing the Popes exorbitant power by the pragmatick San­ction, and by the frequent Judgments and Arrests of Parliament; insomuch as a Book of Cardinal Bellarmines tending to the advancement of the Papal Monarchy, and another Writ by Beanus the Jesuite, entituled Controversia Anglicana, in maintenance of the Popes Supremacy, were suppressed and censured, Anno 1612. Another Writ by Gasper Scioppius to the same effect (but with far less modesty) being at the same time burnt by the hands of the Hangman. Finally, for the Churches of the Diocess of Britain (those of Illyricum lying too far off to be brought in here) they had their own Primate, also the Arch-Bishop of York, and under him two Metropolitans, the Bishops of London and Caer-leon. And for a character of their Freedom or self-subsistence, they had four different customs from the Church of Rome, as in the Tonsure, and the keeping of the Feast of Easter, wherein they followed the Tradition of the Eastern Churches: So firm withal in their obedience to their own Primate, the Arch Bishop of Car-leon on Ʋsh (the only Arch-Bishop of three, which before they had) that they would by no means yield subjection unto Augustine the Monk, the first Arch-Bishop of the English, though he came Armed amongst them with the Popes Authority. Nor would they afterwards submit unto his Successors, though backed by the Authority of the Kings of England, acknowledging no other Primate but the Bishop of St. Davids (to which the Metropolitan See was then translated) until the time of Henry II. when the greatest part of South-Wales and the City of S. Davids it self was in possession of the English. These were the Patriarchs or Primates of the Western Churches, and by these Primates the Church was either governed singly (but withal Supreamly) in their several Diocesses, (taking the word Diocese in the former notion) or in con­junction each with other, by their Letters of advice and intercourse, which they called Literas Formatas and Communicatorias. You see by this, that though the Pope was one of the Western Patriarchs, yet was he not originally and by primitive Institution, ei­ther the Patriarch of the West (that is to say, not the only one) nor could pretend un­to their Rights, as any of their Sees were ruined by the barbarous Nations; and con­sequently his consent not necessary to a Reformation beyond the bounds of his own Patriarchate, under that pretence.

Let us next see what power he can lay claim unto, as the Apostle in particular of the English Nation. Which memorable title I shall never grudge him. I know well not only that the Wife of Ethelbert King of Kent, a Christian and a Daughter of France had both her Chappel and her Chappellance in the Palace Royal, before the first preaching of Austin the Monk, but that the Britains living intermixt with the Saxons for so long a time, may be supposed in probability and reason to have gained some of them to the Faith. But let the Pope enjoy this honour, let Gregory the Great be the Apostle of the English Saxons, by whom that Augustine was sent hither; yet this entituleth his Successors to no higher Prerogatives than the Lords own Apostles did think fit to claim in Countreys which they had converted. For neither were the English Saxons Bap­tized in the name of the Pope (they had been then Gregoriani and not Christiani;) or looked upon him as the Lord of this part of Gods Heritage, but as an helper to their joy. S. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles did disclaim the one; S. Peter the Apostle of the Jews did dissuade the other. The Anglican Church was absolute and Independent from the first beginning, not tied so much as to the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome; it being left by Gregory to the discretion of Augustine, out of the Rites and Rubricks of such Churches as he met with in his journey hither (these of Italy and France he means) to constitute a form of worship for the Church of England. And for a further proof hereof, he that consults the Saxon Councils collected by that Learned and In­dustrious Gentleman Sir H. Spelman, will find how little there was in them of a Papal influence, from the first planting of the Gospel to the Norman Conquest. If we look lower, we shall find that the Popes Legat à Latere whensoever sent, durst not set foot on English ground, till he was licensed and indemnified by the Kings Authority; but all Appeals in case of grievance were to be made (by a Decree of Henry II. from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Metropolitan, Et si Archiepis­copus defecerit in justitia exhibenda, ad Dominum Regem deveniendum est postremo, and last of all from the Metropolitan to the King himself; no Appeal hence unto the Pope as in other places, so that the Clergy of this Land had a Self-authority of treating and concluding in any business which concerned their own peace and happiness, without resorting to the Pope for a confirmation. Out of which Canons and Determinations made amongst our selves, Lindwood composed his Provincial (though framed ac­cording [Page 29]to the method of the Roman Decretal) to be the standing body of our Canon-Law: that on the other side neither the Canons of that Church, or Decretals of the Popes were concluding here, but either by a voluntary submission of some fawning and ambitious Prelates, or as they were received Synodically by the English Clergy; of which the constitutions made by Otho and Othobon Legats à latere from the Pope may be proof sufficient; and finally that Anselm the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, was wel­comed by Pope Ʋrban II. to the Council of Bari in Apulia, tanquam alterius orbis Papa, as in William of Malmesbury; tanquam Patriarcham & Apostolicum, as John Cap­grave hat it, as the Pope, Patriarch, and Apostolick Pastor of another World (Divisos orbe Britannos, as you know who said.) Which titles questionless the Pope would ne­ver have conferred upon him, had he not been as absolute and supream in his own ju­risdiction (succeeding in the Patriarchal Rights of the British Diocess) as the Pope was within the Churches subject unto his Authority. And this perhaps might be the rea­son why Innocent II. bestowed on Theobald (the third from Anselm) and on his Successors in that See, the Title of Legati nati; that they might seem to act rather in the time to come as Servants and Ministers to the Pope, than as the Primates and chief Pastors of the Church of England. And by all this it may appear that the Popes Apo­stleship was never looked on here as a matter of so great concernment, that the Church might not lawfully proceed to a Reformation without his allowance and consent. Were that plea good, the Germans might not lawfully have reformed themselves, without the allowance of the English; it being evident in story that not only Boniface Arch-Bishop of Mentz, called generally the Apostle of Germany, was an English man; but that Willibald the first Bishop of Eystel, Willibad the first Bishop of Bremen, Willibrod the first Bishop of Ʋtretcht, Swibert the first Bishop of Virdem, and the first converters of those parts were of England also, Men instigated to this great work (all except the first) not so much by the Popes zeal as their own great piety.

By this that hath been said, it is clear enough that the Church of England at the time of the Reformation, was not indeed a Member of the Church of Rome, under the Pope as the chief Pastor and Supream Head of the Church of Christ; but a Fellow-member with it of that Body Mystical, whereof Christ only is the Head, part of that Flock whereof he only is the Shepherd, a sister Church to that of Rome, though with relation to the time of her last conversion, but a younger Sister. And if a Fellow-member and a Sister-Church, she might make use of that Authority which naturally and originally was vested in her, to reform her self, without the leave of the particular Church of Rome, or any other whatsoever of the Sister-Churches. The Church is likened to a City in the Book of God, a City at Ʋnity in it self, as the Psalmist calls it; and as a City it consisteth of many houses, and in each house a several and particular Family. Suppose this City visited with some general sickness, may not each Family take care to preserve it self, advise with the Physitian, and apply the Remedy, without consulting with the rest? Or if consulting with the rest, must they needs ask leave also of the Mayor or principal Magistrate, take counsel with no other Doctors, and follow no other course of Physick than such as he commends unto them, or imposeth on them? Or must the lesser languish irremediably under the calamity, because the greater and more potent Families do not like the cure? Assuredly it was not so in the Primitive times, when it was held a commendable and lawful thing for National and particular Churches to reform such errors and corruptions as they found amongst them; nor in the Church of Judah neither, when the Idolatries of their Neighbours had got ground upon them. Though Israel transgress, let not Judah sin, saith the Prophet Hosea, chap. 4. Yet Israel was the greater and more numerous people. Ten Tribes to two, two of the ten the Eldest Sons of their Father Jacob, all of them older than Benjamin the last begotten, being the second of the two; which notwithstanding the Kings of Judah might and did proceed to a Reformation, though those of Israel did refuse to co-ope­rate with them. The like was also done de facto and dejure too in the best and hap­piest times of Christianity; there being many errors and unsound opinions condemned in the Councils of Gangra, Aquilia, Carthage, Milevis; and not a few corruptions in the practical part of Religion reformed in the Synods of Eliberis, Laodicea, Arles, and others in the fourth Century of the Church; without advising or consulting with the Roman Oracle, or running to the Church of Rome for a confirmation of their Acts and doing; though at that time invested with a greater and more powerful principality than the others were. No such regard had in those times to the Church of Rome, though the elder Sister, but that another National Church might reform without her; [Page 30]nor any such consideration had of the younger Sisters, that one should tarry for ano­ther till they all agreed, though possibly they might all be sensible of the inconvenience, and all alike desirous of a speedy Remedy. But of this more anon, in Answer to the next Objections.

Proceed we now a little further, and let us grant for once that the Church of Eng­land was a Member at that time of the Church of Rome, acknowledging the Pope for the Head thereof: Yet this could be no hindrance to a Reformation, when the pre­tended Head would not yield unto it, or that the Members could not meet to consult about it. The whole Body of the Church was in ill condition, every part unsound, but the disease lay chiefly in the Head it self, grown monstrously too great for the rest of the Members. And should the whole Body pine and languish without hope of ease, because the Head (I mean still the pretended Head) would not be purged of some su­perfluous and noxious humours occasioning giddiness in the brain, dimness in the eye, deafness in the ear, and in a word, a general and sad distemper unto all the Members? The Pope was grown to an exorbitant height both of pride and power; the Court of Rome wallowing (as in a course of prosperous fortunes) in all voluptuousness and sen­suality. Nothing so feared amongst them as a Reformation, whereby they knew that an abatement must be made of their pomp and pleasure. Of these corruptions and abuses, as of many others, complaint had formerly been made, by Armachanus, Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln, S. Bernard, Nic. de Clemangis, and other Conscientious men in their several Countreys; not a few errors noted and informed against by Wickliffe, John of Hus, &c. But they complained to a deaf Adder, who was resolved not to hear the voice of those Charmers, charmed they never so wisely. The Church mean-while was in a very ill condition, when he that should prescribe the cure, was become the sickness. Considering therefore that a Reformation could not be obtained by the Popes consent, there was no remedy but that it must be made without it. The Molten Calf modelled by the Egyptian Apis, and the Altar patterned from Damasus, had made the Israelites (in all probability) as great Idolaters as their Neighbours, if the High Briests that set them up might have had their wills. Nor had it been much better with the Church of Christ, if Arianism could not have been suppressed in particular Churches, because Liberius Pope of Rome, (supposing him to be the Head of the Church in general) had subscribed unto it, and that no error and corruption could have been reformed, which any of the Popes (whose Graves I am very loth to open) had been guilty of, but by their permission. The Church now were in worse estate under Christian Princes, than when it suffered under the power and tyranny of the Heathen Emperors, if it were not lawful for particular Churches to provide for their own safety and salvation, with­out resorting to the Pope; who cannot every day be spoke with, and may (when spoken with) be pressed with so many inconveniencies nearer hand, as not to be at leisure to attend such businesses as lie further off. And therefore it was well said by Danet the French Ambassador, when he communicated to the Pope his Masters purpose of Reforming the Gallican Church by a National Council: If (said he) Paris were on Fire, would you not count the Citizens either Fools or Mad-men, if they should send so far as Tiber for some Water to quench it, the River of Seine running through the City, and the Marne so near it?

3. That the Church of England might lawfully proceed to a Reformation without the help of a General Council, or calling in the aid of the Protestant Churches.

But here you say it is objected, that if a Reformation were so necessary as we seem to make it, and that the Pope was never like to yield unto it, as the case then stood; it ought to have been done by a General Council, according to the usage of the Primi­tive times. I know indeed that General Councils (such as are commonly so called) are of excellent use, and that the name thereof is sacred and of high esteem. But yet I prize them not so highly as Pope Gregory did, who ranked the four first General Councils with the four Evangelists: Nor am I of opinion that they are so necessary to a Reformation either in point of Faith or corruption of manners, but that the business of the Church may be done without them. Nay, might I be so bold as to lay my naked thoughts before you (as I think I may) you would there find it to be some part of my Belief that there never was, and never can be such a thing as a General Council truly and properly so called; that is to say, such a General Council, to which all the Bishops of the Church (admitting none but such to the power of voting) have been [Page 31]or can be called together by themselves or their Proxies. These which are commonly so called, as those of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, were only of the Prelates of the Roman Empire. Christian Churches existing at that time in Ethiopia and the Kingdom of Persia (which made up no small part of the Church of Christ) were nei­ther present at them, nor invited to them. And yet not all the Prelates neither of the Roman Empire, nor some from every Province of it did attend that service: those Councils only being the Assemblies of some Eastern Bishops, such as could most conve­niently be drawn together; few of the Western Churches (none at all in some) having or list or leisure for so long a journey: For in the so much celebrated Council of Nice, there were but nine Bishops sent from France, but two from Africk, one alone from Spain, none from the Diocess of Britain; and out of Italy, which lay nearest to it, none but two Priests appeared at all, and those as Legats from the Pope, not Authorised to represent the Italian Churches; so that of 318. Bishops which were there Assem­bled, there were but twelve in all, (besides the Legats of the Pope) for the Western Churches; too great a disproportion to entitle it to the name of General. And yet this was more General than the rest that followed; there being no Bishops of the West at all in the second and third, but the Popes themselves; and in the fourth none but the Legats of the Pope to supply his place. So that these Councils were called General, not that they were so in themselves, but that there was a greater concourse to them from the neighbouring Provinces, than was or had been to some others on the like occa­sions. Which if it be enough to constitute a General Council, I see no reason but the Council of Antioch might be called so too, summoned in the case of Paulus Samosetanus, the Patriarch at that time of that famous City. For the condemning of whose Heresie there convened not the Bishops of that Province only, but the Patriarch of Hierusalem, the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, Bozra in Arabia, Tarsus in Cilicia, Caesarea in Cappa­docia, of Iconium in Lycaonia, of Neo-Caesarea in Pontus, besides many others from all places, of the same rank and quality, but of lesser same: Not to say any thing of Dionysius, Patriarch of Alexandria, invited but not present in regard of sickness, which defect he recompenced by his Letters of advice and intercourse; or of Dionysius Pope of Rome, so hampered by the Puritan or Novatian faction, that he could not come. So that if the present of two of the four Patriarchs, and the inviting of the others, with the Bishops of so many distant Nations as were there assembled, suffice to make a Ge­neral Council; the Council of Antioch might as well have the name of General, as al­most any of the rest which are so entituled.

But laying by these thoughts as too strong of the Paradox, and looking on a Gene­ral Council in the common notion, for an Assembly of the Prelates of the East and West, to which the four Patriarchs are invited, and from which no Bishop is excluded that comes commissionated and instructed to attend the service: I cannot think them of such consequence to the Church of God, but that it may proceed without them to a Reformation. For certainly that saying of S. Augustine in his 4th. Book against the two Epistles of the Pelagians, cap. 12. is exceeding true. Paucas fuisse haereses ad quas superandas necessarium fuerit Concilium plenarium occidentis & orientis, that very few He­resies have been crushed in such General Councils. And so far we may say with the Learned Cardinal, that for seven Heresies suppressed in seven General Councils (though by his leave the seventh did not so much suppress as advance an Heresie) an hundred have been quashed in National and Provincial Synods; whether confirmed or not con­firmed by the Popes Authority, we regard not here. Some instances hereof in the Synods of Aquileia, Carthage, Gaugra, Milevis, we have seen before, and might add ma­ny others now, did we think it necessary. The Church had been in ill condition, if it had been otherwise, especially under the power of Heathen Emperors, when such a confluence of the Prelates from all parts of the world would have been construed a Con­spiracy against the State, and drawn destruction on the Church and the Persons both. Or granting that they might assemble without any such danger, yet being great bodies, moving slowly, and not without long time, and many difficulties and disputes, to be rightly constituted: The Church would suffer more under such delay by the spreading of Heresie, than receive benefit by their care to suppress the same. Had the same course been taken at Alexandria for suppressing Arius, as was before at Antioch for condemning Paulus, we never had heard news of the Council of Nice; the calling and assembling whereof took up so long time, that Arianism was diffused over all the world before the Fathers met together; and could not be suppressed (though it were condemned) in many Ages following after. The plague of Heresie, and leprosie of [Page 32]sin would quickly over-run the whole face of the Church, if capable of no other cure than a General Council. The case of Arius, and the universal spreading of his Heresie compared with the quick rooting out of so many others, makes this clear enough.

To go a little further yet, we will suppose a General Council to be the best and safest Physick that the Church can take, on all occasions of Epidemical distemper; but then we must suppose it at such times and in such cases only, when it may conveniently be had. For where it is not to be had, or not had conveniently, it will either prove to be no Physick, or not worth the taking. But so it was, that at the time of the Refor­mation, a General Council could not conveniently be Assembled, and more than so, it was impossible that any such Council should Assemble; I mean a General Council rightly called and constituted, according to the Rules laid down by our Controversors. For first they say it must be called by such as have power to do it. 2. That it must be intimated to all Christian Churches, that so no Church nor people may plead igno­rance of it. 3. The Pope and the four chief Patriarchs must be present at it, either in person or by Proxie. And lastly, that no Bishop is to be excluded, if he be known to be a Bishop and not excommunicated. According to which Rules, it was impossible I say, that any General Council should be assembled at the time of the Reformation of the Church of England. It was not then as when the greatest part of the Christian world was under the command of the Roman Emperors; whose Edict for a General Council might speedily be posted over all the Provinces. The Messengers who should now be sent on such an errand unto the Countreys of the Turk, the Persian, the Tarta­rian, and the great Mogul (in which are many Christian Churches, and more perhaps than in all the rest of the world besides) would find but sorry entertainment. Nor was it then, as when the four chief Patriarchs, together with their Metropolitans and Suffragan Bishops, were under the protection of the Christian Emperors, and might without danger to themselves, or unto their Churches, obey the intimation and at­tend the service; those Patriarchs with their Metropolitans and Suffragans, both then and now languishing under the tyranny and power of the Turk, to whom so general a confluence of Christian Bishops must needs give matter of suspicion of just fears and jealousies, and therefore not to be permitted (as far as he can possibly hinder it) on good Reason of State. For who knows better than themselves how long and dange­rous a War was raised against their Predecessors by the Western Christians for recovery of the Holy Land, on a resolution taken up at the Council of Clermont; and that making War against the Turks is still esteemed a cause sufficient for a General Council. And then besides it would be known by whom this General Council was to be assem­bled: If by the Pope, as generally the Papists say, he and his Court were looked on as the greatest grievance of the Christian Church; and 'twas not probable that he would call a Council against himself, unless he might have leave to pack it, to govern it by his own Legats, fill it with Titular Bishops of his own creating, and send the Holy-Ghost to them in a Cloakbag, as he did to Trent. If joyntly by all Christian Princes (which is the common Tenet of the Protestant Schools) what hopes could any man conceive (as the time then were) that they should lay aside their particular interesses, to center all together upon one design? Or if they had agreed about it, what power had they to call the Prelates of the East to attend the business, or to protect them for so doing at their going home? So that I look upon the hopes of a General Council, I mean a General Council rightly called and constituted, as an empty Dream. The most that was to be expected was but a meeting of some Bishops of the West of Europe, and those but of one party only; such as were Excommunicated (and that might be as many as the Pope should please) being to be excluded by the Cardinals Rule. Which how it may be called an Oecumenical or General Council, unless it be a Topical-Oecume­nical, a Particular-general (as great an absurdity in Grammar, as a Roman Catholick) I can hardly see.

Which being so, and so no question but it was, either the Church must continue without Reformation, or else it must be lawful for National particular Churches to reform themselves. In such a case the Church may be reformed per partes, part after part, Province after Province, as is said by Gerson. But I do not mean to trouble you with this Dispute. For that particular Churches may reform themselves by National or Provincial Councils, when the Church general will not do it, or that it cannot be effected by a General Council, hath been so fully proved by my Lord of Canterbury in his learned and elaborate discourse against Fisher the Jesuite, that nothing can be [Page 33]added unto so great diligence. But if it be objected, as you say it is, that National Councils have a power of Promulgation only, not of Determination also: I answer first, that this runs cross to all the current of Antiquity, in which not only National but Provincial Councils did usually determine in the points of Faith, and these too of the greatest moment, as did that of Antioch; which if it were somewhat more than a National, was notwithstanding never reckoned for a General Council. I answer se­condly as before, that for one Heresie suppressed in a General Council, there hath been ten at least suppressed in National and Provincial Synods; which could not be in case they had no power of Determination. And thirdly, That the Articles or Confession of the Church of England are only Declaratory of such Catholick Doctrines as were received of old in the Church of Christ, not Introductory of new ones of their own devising; as might be evidenced in particular, were this place fit for it. But what needs any proof at all, when we have Confession? For the Arch-Bishop of Spalato (a man as well studied in the Fathers, as the best amongst them) ingenuously acknow­ledged at the High Commission that the Articles of this Church were profitable, none of them Heretical; and that he would defend the honour of the Church of England against all the World. And this he said at the very time of his departure, when his soul was gone before to Rome, and nothing but his Carkass left behind in England. The like a­vowed by Davenport, or Franciscus à Sancta Clara (call him which you will) who makes the Articles of this Church rightly understood according to the literal meaning, and not perverted to the ends of particular Factions, to be capable of a Catholick and Orthodox sense, which is as much as could be looked for from the mouth of an Ad­versary. So much as cost one of them his life (though perhaps it will be said that he died in prison) and the burning of his body after his death; though he endevoured to save both by a Retractation. So that in this case too we have omnia bene, nothing amiss in the proceedings of this Church, with reference to the Pope or a General Council.

But you will say, that though we could not stay the calling of a General Council, which would have justified our proceedings in the eyes of our Adversaries; it had been requisite even in the way of civil Prudence to have taken the advice of the Sister-Churches, especially of those which were engaged at the same time in the same designs, which would have added reputation to us in the eyes of our Friends, As for the taking counsel of the Sister-Churches, it hath been touched upon already, and there­fore we shall say no more as to that particular; unless the Sister-Churches of these latter times had been like the Believers in the infancy of the Christian Faith, when they were all of one heart and one soul, as the Scripture hath it, Act. 4. their counsels had been dilatory, if not destructive. 'Tis true indeed, united Counsels are the stronger and of greater weight, and not to be neglected where they may be had; but where they are not to be had, we must act without them. And if we look into the time of our Reformation, we shall find those that were engaged in the same design, divided into obstinate parties; and holding the names of Luther and Zuinglius in an higher estimate than either the truth of the Opinion in which they differed, or the common happiness of the Church so disturbed between them. The breach not lessened, but made wider by the rise of Calvin, succeeding not long after in the fame of Zuinglius: Besides, that living under the command of several Princes, and those Princes driving on to their several ends; it had been very difficult, if not impossible to draw them unto such an Harmony of affections, and consent in judgment, as so great a business did require. So that the Church of England was necessitated in that conjuncture of affairs to proceed as it did, and to act that single by it self, which could not be effected by the common Counsels, and joynt concurrence of the others. 'Tis true, Melancthon was once coming over in King Henries days, but staid his journey on the death of Queen Anne Bullen; and that he was after sEnt for by King Edward IV. (Regis Literis in An­gliam vocor) as he affirms in an Epistle unto Camerarius, Anno 1553. But he was staid at that time also on some other occasion, though had he come at that time, he had come too late to have had any hand in the Reformation, the Articles of the Church being passed, the Liturgy reviewed and settled in the year before. And 'tis as true that Calvin offered his assistance to Arch-Bishop Cranmer, for the reforming of this Church; Si quis mei usus esset, as his own words are, if his assistance were thought needful to advance the work. But Cranmer knew the man, and refused the offer; and he did very wisely in it. For seeing it impossible to unite all parties, it had been an imprudent thing to have closed with any. I grant indeed that Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr (men of [Page 34]great learning and esteem, but of different judgments) were brought over hither, a­bout the beginning of the Reign of K. Edward VI. the one of them being placed in Oxford, the other in Cambridge; but they were rather entertained as private Doctors to moderate in the Chairs of those Universities, than any ways made use of in the Re­formation. For as the first Liturgy which was the main key unto the work, was fra­med and settled before either of them were come over; so Bucer died, before the com­piling of the Book of Articles, which was the accomplishment thereof: Nor do I find that Peter Martyr was made use of otherwise in this weighty business, than to make that good by disputation, which by the Clergy in their Synods or Convocations was agreed upon. By means whereof the Church proceeding without reference to the dif­ferent interesses of the neighbouring Churches, kept a conformity in all such points of Government and publique order with the Church of Rome, in which that Church had not forsaken the clear Tract of the primitive Times; retaining not only the Epi­scopal Government, with all the concomitants and adjuncts of it, which had been ut­terly abolished in Zuinglian Churches, and much impaired in power and jurisdiction by the Lutherans also; and keeping up a Liturgy or set form of worship, according to the rites and usages of the primitive times, which those of the Calvinian Congregations would not hearken to. God certainly had so disposed it in his Heavenly wisdom, that so this Church without respect unto the names and Dictates of particular Doctors, might found its Reformation on the Prophets and Apostles only, according to the Ex­plications and Traditions of the ancient Fathers: And being so founded in it self, without respect to any of the differing parties, might in succeeding Ages sit as Judge between them, as being more inclinable by her constitution to mediate a peace amongst them, than to espouse the quarrel of either side. And though Spalato in the Book of his Retractations, which he calls Consilium redeundi, objects against us: That besides the publick Articles and confession authorised by the Churches, we had embraced some Lutheran and Calvinian Fancies (multa Lutheri & Calvini dogmata, so his own words run) yet this was but the error of particular men, not to be charged upon the Church as maintaining either. The Church is constant to her safe and her first con­clusions, though many private men take liberty to imbrace new Doctrines.

4. That the Church did not innovate in translating the Scriptures, and the publick Liturgie into vulgar tongues; and of the consequents thereof in the Church of England.

The next thing faulted (as you say) in the Reformation, is the committing so much heavenly treasure to such rotten vessels, the trusting so much excellent Wine to such musty bottles: I mean the versions of the Scriptures and the publick Liturgies into the usual Languages of the common people, and the promiscuous liberty indulged them in it. And this they charge not as an Innovation simply, but as an Innovation of a dangerous consequence; the sad effects whereof we now see so clearly. A charge which doth alike concern all the Protestant and Reformed Churches, so that I should have passed it over at the present time, but that it is made ours more specially in the application; the sad effects which the enemy doth so much insult in being said to be more visible in the Church of England, than in other places. This make it ours, and therefore here to be considered, as the former were. First then, they charge it on the Church as an Innovation, it being affirmed by Bellarmine, l. 2. De verbo Dei, c. 15. (whether with less truth or modesty, it is hard to say) Ʋniversam Ecclesiam semper his tantum linguis, &c. that in the Universal Church, in all times foregoing, the Scrip­tures were not commonly and publickly read in any other language but in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latine: This is (you see) a two-edged sword, and strikes not only against all Translations of the Scriptures into vulgar Languages for common use, but against reading those Translations publickly as a part of Liturgy, in which are many things as the Cardinal tells us quae secreta esse debent, which are not fit to be made known to the common people. This is the substance of the charge, and herein we joyn issue in the usual Form with Absque hoc, sans ceo, no such matter really; the constant current of Antiquity doth affirm the contrary; by which it will appear most plainly that the Church did neither Innovate in the act of hers, nor deviate therein from the Word of God, or from the usage of the best and happiest times of the Church of Christ. Not from the Word of God, there's no doubt of that, which was committed unto writing that it might be read, and read by all that were to be directed and guided by it. The [Page 35]Scriptures of the Old Testament first writ in Hebrew, the Vulgar Language of that people, and read unto them publickly on the Sabbath days, as appears clearly, Act. 13.15. & 15.21. translated afterwards (by the cost and care of Ptolemy Philadelphus King of Egypt) into the Greek tongue, the most known and sTudied Language of the Eastern World. The New Testament first writ in Greek for the self-same reason, (but that S. Matthew's Gospel is affirmed by some Learned men to have been written in the Hebrew) and written to this end and purpose, that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they might have life in his Name, Joh. 20. vers. ult. But being that all the Faithful did not understand these Languages, and that the light of holy Scripture might not be likened to a Candle hidden under a Bushel: It was thought good by many godly men in the Primitive times to translate the same into the Languages of the Countreys in which they lived, or of the which they had been Natives. In which respect S. Chrysostom then banished into Armenia, translated the New Testament, and the Psalms of David into the Language of that people; S. Hierom a Pannonian born, translated the whole Bible into the Dalmatick tongue, as Vulphilas Bishop of the Gothes did into the Gothick; all which we find together without further search, in the Bibliotheque of Sixtus Senensis, a learned and ingenuous man, but a Pontifician, and so less partial in this cause. The like done here in England by the care of Athelstan causing a Translation of it into the Saxon Tongue; the like done by Methodius, the Apostle General of the Sclaves, translating it into the Sclavonian, for the use of those Nations; not to say any thing of the Syriack, Aethiopick, Arabick, the Persian, and Chaldaean Versions, of which the times and Authors are not so well known. And what I pray you, is the vulgar or old Latine Edition, (of late times made Authen­tick by the Popes of Rome) but a Translation of the Scriptures out of Greek and Hebrew for the instruction of the Roman and Italian Nations, to whom the Latine at that time was the Vulgar Tongue? And when that Tongue by reason of the breaking in of the barbarous Nations was worn out of knowledge, (I mean as to the common people) did not God stir up James Arch-Bishop of Genoa, when the times were darkest (that is to say, Anno 1290. or thereabouts) to give some light to them by translating the whole Bible into the Italian, the modern Language of that Countrey? As he did Wiclef not long after, to translate the same into the English of those times, (the Saxon Tongue not being then commonly understood) a copy of whose Version in a fair Velom Manuscript I have now here by me, by the gift of my noble Friend Charles Dymoke, Hereditary Champion to the Kings of England. So then it is no Innovation to translate the Scriptures; and less to suffer these Translations to be promiscuously read by all sorts of people; the Scripture being as well Milk for Babes, as strong Meat for the man of more able judgment. Why else doth the Apostle note it as a commendable thing in Timothy, that he knew the Scriptures from his Childhood? And why else doth S. Hierom speak it to the honour of the Lady Paula, that she made her Maids learn somewhat daily of the holy Scriptures? Why else does Chrysostom call so earnestly on all sorts of men to provide themselves of the holy Bibles, [...], the only Physick for the Soul, as he calls it there; inviting to the reading thereof not only men of learning and publick business; but even the poor Artificer also, as is acknowledged by Senensis, whom before we mentioned. And why else doth S. Augustine inform his Auditors, that it sufficeth not to hear the Scriptures read in the Congregation, unless they read also in their private Houses. Assuredly, if Boys and Girls, if Servants and Artificers are called upon so earnestly to consult the Scriptures, to have them in a Tongue intelligible to them in their private Families; and are commended for so doing, as we see they are: I know no rank of men that can be excluded.

Let us next see whether it be an Innovation in the Church of Christ, to have the Liturgies or Common-prayers of the Church in the Tongue generally understood by the common people, which make the greatest number of all Church Assemblies. And first we find by the Apostle, not only that the publick Prayers of the Church of Corinth, were celebrated in a Language which they understood; but that it ought to be so also in all other Churches, Except (saith he) ye utter by the voice, words easie to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? How shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen to thy giving of thanks (and consequently to thy Prayers also) if he understand not what thou sayest? 1 Cor. 14.9.16. What say the Papists unto this? Do not both Lyra and Aquinas expresly grant in their Commentaries on this place of Scripture, that the common Service of the Church in the Primitive times was in the common vulgar lan­guage? Is not the like affirmed by Harding in his Answer to Bishop Jewels challenge, [Page 36]Art. 3. Sect. 28. Adding withal, that it was necessary in the Primitive times that it should be so; and granting that it were still better that the people had their Service in their own vulgar Tongue for their better understanding of it? Sect. 33. Having thus Consitentes reos, we need seek no further, and yet a further search will not be unprofitable. And on that search it will be found that the converted Jews did celebrate their divine Offices (Tractatus & oblationes, as the Father hath it) most commonly in the Syriack, and sometimes in the Hebrew tongue, the natural Languages of that people; as is affirmed by S. Ambrose in 1. ad Cor. cap. 14. and out of him by Durand in his Rationale Divinerum. Eckius a great stickler of the Popes, affirmeth in his Common places, that the Indians have their Service in the Indian tongue; and that S. Hierome having translated the whole Bible into the Dalmatick, procured that the Service should be celebrated in that Language also. The like S. Hierome himself, in his Epistle to Heliodorus, hath told us of the Bessi a Sarmatian people: The like S. Basil in his Epistle to the Neo-caesareans, assures us for the Aegyptians, Libyans, Palestinians, Phenicians, Arabians, Syrians, and such as dwell about the banks of the River Euphrates. The Aethiopians had their Missal, the Chaldeans theirs; each in the language of their Countreys, which they still retain. So had the Moscovites of old, and all the scattered Churches of the Eastern parts, which they continue to this day.

But nothing is more memorable in this kind then that which Aeneas Silvius tells of the Sclavonians, who being converted to the Faith, made suit unto the Pope to have the publick Service in their natural Tongue; but some delay being made therein by the Pope and Cardinals, a voice was heard, seeming to have come from Heaven, pray­ing, Omnis Spiritus laudet Dominum, & omnis lingua confiteatur ei: Whereupon their desires were granted without more dispute. Touching which grant, there is extant an Epistle from Pope John VIII. to Sfentopulcher King of the Moravian Sclaves, anno 888 at what time both the Latine Service and the Popes Authority were generally received in those parts of Europe. Which Letter of Pope John VIII. together with the Story above mentioned, might probably be a chief inducement to Innocent III. to set out a Decree in the Lateran Council, importing that in all such Cities in which there was a concourse of divers nations, and consequently of different Languages, (as in most Towns of Trade there doth use to be) the Service should be said, and Sacraments administred, Secun­dum diversitates nationum & linguarum, according to the difference of their Tongues and Nations. And though Pope Gregory VII. a turbulent and violent man, about 200 years after the Concession made by John VIII. in his Letter to Ʋratislaus King of Bo­hemia, laboured the cancelling of that priviledge, and possibly might prevail therein as the times then were; yet the Liburnians, and Dalmatians, two Sclavonian Nations, and bordering on Italy (the Popes proper seat) do still enjoy the benefit of that Indul­gence, and celebrate their Liturgy in their own Language to this very day. So that the wonder is the greater, that those of Rome should stand so stifly in defence of the Latine Service, which the common people understand not, and therefore cannot knowingly, and with faith say Amen unto it. For though the Latine Tongue was Vulgar in a manner to those Western Nations, amongst whom the Latine Service was first received, and for that cause received because Vulgar to them: Yet when upon the inundation of the barbarous Nations, the Latine tongue degenerated into other Languages, as in France, Italy, and Spain; or else was quite worn out of knowledge, as in Britain, Belgium, and some parts of the modern Germany, in which before it had been commonly understood; it was both consonant to Piety and Christian Prudence, that the Language of the common Liturgies should be altered also. The people other­wise either in singing David's Psalms, or repeating any parts of the daily Office, must needs be like those Romans or Italians which S. Ambrose speaks of; who loved to sing Greek songs by rote (as we use to say) out of a meer delight which they had to the sound of the words; nescientes tamen quid dicant, not understanding one word which they said or sung.

The blame and guilt of Innovation being taken off, we must next examine the effects and dangerous consequents; more visibly discerned at this time in the Church of England, than was or could have been believed when they were first intimated. A­mongst these they reckon in the first place the increase of Heresies, occasioned by the mistaking of the true sense and meaning of the Holy Scripture; and to that end it is said by Bellarmine, that the people would not only receive no good by having the Scripture read publickly unto them in their national Languages, sed etiam caperet detrimentum, but on the contrary are like to receive much hurt. However, [Page 37] acciperet facillime occasionem errandi; because thereby they would most easily be led into errors, which gave occasion unto some (as he tells us there) to call the Scripture Li­brum Haereticorum, the Hereticks Book. So he in his 2. Book, and 15th. chapter De verbo Dei. The like saith Harding in his Answer to Bishop Jewel's Challenge, Art 3. Sect. 31. The Nations (saith he) that have ever had their Service in the vulgar Tongue (where note that some Nations never had it otherwise) have continued still in Errors, Schisms, and cer­tain Judaical Ceremonies, &c. In the next place they reckon this, that by permitting Scripture and the publick Liturgies to be extant in the Vulgar Tongues, all men would think themselves Divines, and the Authority of the Prelates would be disesteemed: So Harding in his Answer to Jewels Apologie, l. 5. fol. 460. that the people not content with hearing or reading the holy Scripture, would first take upon them to be Expositors, and at last to be Preachers also, which in effect is that which is charged by Bellarmine. And for this last, the present Distempers and confusions in the Church of England (out of which they suck no small advantage) gives them great rejoycing, as seeing their pre­dictions so exactly verified. In answer to the first we need say no more, then that there have been Sects and Heresies in all times and Ages; never so many as in the first ages of the Church (witness the Catalogue of S. Augustine, Philastrius, and Epiphanius) in which the Scripture was translated into fewer Languages than it is at the present. 2. That this is no necessary effect of such Translations (for we see few new Heresies started up of late in France or Germany, where such Translations are allowed of) but a meer possible Contingency, which either may be or may not be, as it pleaseth God to give or to withdraw his grace from a State or Nation. And 3. That as according to the Divine Rule of the Apostle, we must not do a thing positively evil, in hope that any good, how great soever, may come of it: So by Analogy thereunto, we must not debar the people of God from any thing positively good, for fear that any contingent mischief may ensue upon it. But of this I shall not say more now, as being loth to tra­vel on a common place. The point hath been so canvassed by our Controversors, that you may there find Answers unto all Objections.

That which doth most concern me to consider of, is the second consequent, because it doth relate more specially than the other did to the present condition and estate of the Church of England. Although the Charge be general and equally concerning all the Protestant and Reformed Chrrches; yet the Application makes it ours, as before I said, and as ours, properly within the compass of my present design. And though I will not take upon me to Advocate for the present distempers and confusions of this wretched Church (which no man can lament with a greater tenderness, or look on with more indignation than I do, and I think you know it:) yet I must tell you that it is neither Novum crimen C. Caesar, nor ante haec tempora inauditum, for those of the in­feriour sort to take upon them the inquiry into sacred matters, to turn Expositors and Preachers, as the spirit of delusion moves them. The people have had an itch this way, in all times and Ages. The Satyrist thus complained of it amongst the Heathens:

—Ecce inter pocula quaerunt
Romulides saturi, quid dia Poemata narrant.

That is to say,

The well fed Romans in their Cups, do sit
And judge of things contain'd in holy Writ.

And the Apostle doth complain of it among the Christians, where he informs us of some ignorant and unstable men, which wrested some hard places of S. Pauls Epistles, as they also did the other Scriptures, to their own destruction, 2 Pet. 3.26. and wrest them so, they could not (I am sure of that) did they not take the liberty of expounding also. Look lower to S. Basils time, when learning did most flourish in the Church of Christ, and we shall find the Emperors Cook (or the Clerk of his Kitchen at the best) as busily dishing out the Scriptures, as if it were no more than serving up his Masters diet from the Kitchin-hatch; paid home by that good Father for his over-great sawciness, with this handsome scoff, Tuum est de pulmento cogitare, non Divina deeoquere, that it belonged unto his office to provide good Pottage for the Court, not to Cook the Scriptures. But this was not the folly only of this Master Cook, who perhaps (though better fed [Page 38]than taught) might now and then have carried up the Chaplains Mess, and having heard their Learned conferences and discourses, was apt enough to think himself no small fool at a joynt of Divinity. That whole Age was extreamly tainted with the self-same peccancy; of which S. Hierome in his Epistle to Paulinus, makes this sad com­plaint. Whereas (saith he) all other Sciences and Trades have their several and distinct professors, Sola Scripturarum ars est quam omnes passim sibi vendicant; only the Art of opening, or rather of undoing a Text of Scriptue, (as the phrase is now) was usurped by all: Hanc garrula anus, hanc delirus senex, &c. The pratling Gossip and the doting Sire, the windy Sophister, and in a word, all sorts of people do presume upon, dismembring the body of the Scriptures, and teaching others before they have learnt any thing that is worth the teaching. Some with a supercilious look, speaking big words, discourse of holy Scripture among silly Women; others (the more the shame) learn that of Women which afterwards they may teach to Men, and some with no small volubility of tongue, and confidence, teach that to others which they never understood themselves: Not to say any thing of those who having a smack of humane learning, and coming so prepared to handle the Holy Scriptures, do with inticing words feed the ears of the people, bearing their Auditors in hand quicquid dixerint legem Dei esse, that whatsoever they deliver is the Word of God, nor will vouchsafe to learn what the Prophets and Apostles do conceive of the matter, but very incongruously produce some Testimonies out of holy Writ to make good their corrupt imaginations; as if it were an excellent, not a pernicious way of teaching, to wrest the sense of holy Scripture, and thereby to accommodate it to their present purposes! Hath not the Father given us in this place and passage a most excellent Mirrour, wherein to see the ill complexion of the present times? Doth not he set them forth in such likely colours, as if he rather did delineate the confusions of the present Age, than lament the miseries of his own? May not both Factions see by this, what a condition the poor Church of England is involved in by them? The sight whereof, althoug it justifie them not in their several courses, as being not without example in their present practices:) yet it may serve to let you know that as the distractions and confusions under which we suffer, are not the consequents of our translating of the Scriptures and publick Liturgies into the common vulgar Tongues, so it is neither new nor strange that such confusionsand distractions should befal the Church.

5. That the proceedings of this Church in setting out the English Liturgy, were not meerly Regal; and of the power of Soveraign Princes in Ecclesiastical affairs.

Having thus proved that nothing hath been done amiss by the Church of England, with reference to Gods Word, the testimonies of godly Fathes, and the usage of the primitive times, in leaving off the Latine Service, and celebrating all Divine Offices in the English Tongue: I am to justifie it next, in order to the carrying on of that weighty business, whether so Regular or not, as we fain would have it. I see you are not scrupled at the subject-matter of the Common-prayer-book, which being translated into Greek, Latine, French and Spanish, hath found a general applause in most parts of Christendom; no where so little set by as it is at home. All scruples in that kind have been already fully satisfied by our learned Hooker, who hath examined it per partes, and justified it in each part and particular Office. But for the greater honour of it, take this with you also, which is alledged in the Conference of Hampton Court, touching the Marquess of Rhosny (after Duke of Sally, and Lord High Treasurer of France) who coming Ambassador to King James from Henry IV. and having seen the solemn celebration of our Service at Canterbury, and in his Majesties Royal Chappels, did often and publickly affirm, that if the Reformed Churches in France had kept the same Orders as were here in England, he was assured there would have been many thousand Pro­testants in that Kingdom more than were at that time. That which you seem to stick at only is in the way and manner of proceeding in it; which though you find by perusal of the Papers which I sent first unto you, not to have been so Parliamentarian as the Papists made it; yet still you doubt whether it were so Regular and Canonical as it might have been. And this you stumble at the rather, in regard that the whole Body of the Clergy in their Convocation, had no hand therein, either as to decree the doing of it, or to approve it being done; but that it was resolved on by the King (or ra­ther by the Lord Protector in the Kings Minority) with some few of the Bishops; by which Bishops, and as small a number of Learned Church-men, being framed and fashioned, it was allowed of by the King, confirmed or imposed rather by an Act of Parliament. Your question hereupon is this, Whether the King (for his acting it by a [Page 39]Protector doth not change the Case) consulting with a lesser part of his Bishops and Clergy, and having their consent therein, may conclude any thing in the way of a Reforma­tion, the residue and greatest part not advised withal, nor yielding their consent unto it in a formal way. This seems to have some reference to the Scottish Liturgie (for by your Letter I perceive that one of the chief of your Objectors is a Divine of that Nation) and therefore it concerns me to be very punctual in my Answer to it.

And that my Answer my be built on the surer Ground, it is to be considered, first whether the Reformation be in corruption of manners, or abuses in Government, whe­ther in matters practical, or in points of Doctrine. 2. If in matters practical, whether such practice have the character of Antiquity, Universality, and Consent, imprinted on it; or that it be the practice of particular Churches, and of some times only. And 3. If in points of Doctrine, whether such points have been determined of before in a General Council, or in particular Councils universally received and countenanced; or are to be defined de novo on emergent controversies. And these Distinctions being laid, I shall answer briefly. First, If the things to be reformed be either corruptions in manners, or neglect of publick duties to Almighty God, abuses either in Govern­ment or the parties governing; the King may do it of himself by his sole Authority. The Clergy are beholden to him, if he takes any of them along with him when he goeth about it. And if the times should be so bad, that either the whole body of the Clergy, or any (though the greatest) part thereof should oppose him in it; he may go forwards notwithstanding, punishing such as shall gainsay him in so good a work, and compelling others. And this I look on as a Power annexed to the Regal Diadem, and so inseparably annexed, that Kings could be no longer Kings if it were denied them. But hereof we have spoke already in the first of this Section, and shall speak more hereof in the next that follows. And on the other side, if the Reformation be in points of Doctrin, and in such points of doctrine as have not been before defined, or not defined in form and manner as before laid down: The King only with a few of his Bishops and Learned Clergy (though never so well studied in the point disputed) can do nothing in it. That belongs only to the whole Body of the Clergy in their Con­vocation rightly called and constituted; whose Acts being ratified by the King, bind not alone the rest of the Clergy, in whose names they Voted, but all the residue of the subjects, of what sort soever, who are to acquiesce in their Resolutions. The constant practice of the Church, and that which we have said before, touching the calling and authority of the Convocation, makes this clear enough. But if the thing to be Re­formed be a matter practical, we are to look into the usage of the Primitive times. And if the practice prove to have been both ancient and universally received over all the Church, though intermitted for a time, and by time corrupted: The King con­sulting with so many of his Bishops, and others of his most able Clergy, as he thinks fit to call unto him, and having their consent and direction in it, may in the case of intermission revive such practice, and in the case of corruption and degeneration, re­store it to its Primitive and original lustre, whether he do it of himself, of his own meer motion, or that he follow the advice of his Council in it; whether he be of age to in­form himself, or that he doth relie on those to whom he hath committed the publick Government; it comes all to one: So they restrain themselves to the ancient patterns. The Reformation which was made under josias, though in his Minority and acting by the Counsel of the Elders, as Josephus telleth us, Antiqu. Jud. 1. cap. was no less pleasing unto God, nor less valid in the eyes of all his Subjects, than those of Jeho­saphat and Hezekiah in their riper years, and perhaps acting singly on the strength of their own judgments only without any advice. Now that there should be Liturgies for the use of the Church, that those Liturgies should be celebrated in a Language un­derstood by the people: That in those Liturgies there should be some prescribed Forms for giving the Communion in both kinds, for Baptizing Infants, for the re­verent celebration of Marriage, performing the last office to the sick and the decent burial of the Dead, as also for set Feasts and appointed Festivals; hath been a thing of primitive and general practice in the Christian Church. And being such, though in­termitted or corrupted, as before is said, the King advising with his Bishops and other Church-men (though not in a Synodical way) may cause the same to be revised and revived; and having fitted them to edification and increase of piety, either commend them to the Church by his sole authority, or else impose them on the people under cer­tain penalties by his power in Parliament. Saepe Coeleste Regnum per Terrenum proficit. The Kingdom of Heaven (said Reverend Isidore of Sevil) doth many times receive in­crease [Page 40]from these earthly Kingdoms; in nothing more than by the regulating and well ordering of Gods publick worship.

We saw before what David did in this particular, allotting to the Priest the Courses of their Ministration, appointing Hymns and Songs for the Jewish Festivals, ordaining Singing-men to sing, and finally prescribing Vestments for the Celebration. Which what else was it but a Regulating of the Worship of God, the putting it into a solemn course and order, to be observed from time to time in succeeding Ages? Sufficient ground for Christian Princes to proceed on in the like occasions; especially when all they do is rathe the reviving of the Ancient Forms than the Introduction of a new. Which as the King did here in England by his own Authority, the Body of the Clergy not consulted in it; so possibly there might be good reason why those who had the conduct of the Kings affairs, thought it not safe to put the managing of the business to a Convocation. The ignorance and superstition of the common people was at that time exceeding profitable to the Clergy, who by their frequent Masses for the quick and dead raised as great advantage, as Demetrius and the Silver-Smith by Dianas shrines. It hapned also in a time when many of the inferiour Clergy had not much more lear­ning than what was taught them in the Massals and other Rituals, and well might fear that if the Service were once extant in the English tongue, the Laity would prove in time as great Clerks as themselves. So that as well in point of Reputation, as in point of Profit, (besides the love which many of them had to their former Mumpsimus) it was most probable that such an hard piece of Reformation would not easily down, had it been put into the power of a Convocation; especially under a Prince in Nonage, and a state unsettled. And yet it was not so carried without them neither, but that the Bishops generally did concur to the Confirmation of the Book (or the approbation of it rather) when it passed in Parliament; the Bishops in that time, and after (till the last vast and most improvident increase of the Lay-nobility) making the most conside­rable, if not the greatest part of the House of Peers; and so the Book not likely to be there allowed of, without their consent. And I the rather am inclined unto that Opi­nion, because I find that none but Tunstal, Gardiner, and Bonner were displaced from their Bishopricks, for not submitting in this case to the Kings appointments; which seems to me a very strong and convincing argument, that none but they dissented or refused conformity. Add here, that though the whole body of the Clergy in their Convocation were nto consulted with at first (for the Reasons formerly recited) yet when they found the benefit and comfort which redounded by it to good Christian people, and had by little and little weaned themselves from their private interesses, they all confirmed it on the Post-fact: passing an Article in the Convocation of the year 1552. with this Head or Title, viz. Agendum esse in Ecclesiae linguae quae fit Populo nota, which is the 25th. Article in King Edwards Book. Lay all that hath been said toge­ther, and the result of all will be briefly this, that being the setting out of the Liturgy in the English Tongue was a matter practical, agreeable to the Word of God and the Primitive times; that the King with so many of his Bishops and others of the Clergy as he pleased to call to Counsel in it, resolved upon the doing of it; that the Bishops generally confirmed it when it came before them, and that the whole body of the Clergy in their Convocation (the Book being then under a review) did avow and justifie it: The result of all I say is this, that as the work it self I say was good, so it was done not in a Regal but a Regular way, Kings were not Kings if regulating the exter­nal parts of Gods publick worship according to the Platforms of the Primitive times, should not be allowed them.

But yet the Kings of England had a further right as to this particular, which is a power conferred upon them by the Clergy (whether by way of Recognition or Con­cession, I regard not here) by which they did invest the King with a Supream Autho­rity, not only of confirming their Synodical Acts not to be put in execution without his consent; but in effect, to devolve on him all that power, which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity. And to this we have a parallel Case in the Roman Em­pire, in which there had been once a time when the Supream Majesty of the State was vested in the Senate and people of Rome, till by the Law which they called Lex Regia, they transferred all their Power on Caesar, and the following Emperors. Which Law being passed, the Edicts of the Prince or Emperor were as strong and binding as the Senatus Consulta, and the Plebiseita had been before. Whence came that memorable Maxim in Justinians Institutes; that is to say, Quod Principi placuerit legis habet vigorem. The like may be affirmed of the Church of England, immediately before, and in the [Page 41]Reign of K. Henry VIII. The Clergy of this Realm had a Self-authority in all matters which concerned Religion, and by their Canons and Determinations did bind all the Subjects of what rank soever, till by acknowledging that King for their Supream Head, and by the Act of Submission not long after following, they transferred that power upon the King, and on his Successors: By doing whereof they did not only disable themselves upon concluding any thing in their Convocations, or putting their results into execution without his consent; but put him into the actual possession of that Au­thority which properly belonged to the Supremacy, or the Supream Head, in as full manner as ever the Pope of Rome, or any delegated by and under him did before enjoy it. After which time, whatsoever the King or his Successors did in the Reformation, as it had virtually the power of the Convocations; so was it as effectual and good in Law, as if the Clergy in their Convocation particularly, and in terminis, had agreed upon it. Not that the King or his Successors were hereby enabled to exercise the Keys, and determine Heresies much less to preach the Word and administer the Sa­craments, as the Papists falsly gave it out; but as the Heads of the Ecclesiastical Body of this Realm, to see that all the members of that Body did perform their duties, to rectifie what was found amiss amongst them, to preserve peace between them on emer­gent differences, to reform such errors and corruptions as are expresly contrary to the Word of God; and finally, to give strength and motions to their Councils and De­terminations, tending to Edification and increase of Piety. And though in most of their proceedings towards Reformation, the Kings advised with such Bishops as they had about them, or could assemble without any great trouble or inconvenience, to ad­vise withal; yet was there no necessity, that all or the greater part of the Bishops should be drawn together for that purpose, no more than it was anciently in the Pri­mitive Times for the godly Emperors to call together the most part of the Bishops in the Roman Empire, for the establishing of the matters which concerned the Church, or for the godly Kings of Judah to call together the greatest part of the Priests and Le­vites, before they acted any thing in the Reformation of those corruptions and abuses which were crept in amongst them. Which being so; and then withal considering as we ought to do, that there was nothing altered here in the state of Religion, till either the whole Clergy in their Convocaton, or the Bishops and most eminent Church-men had resolved upon it; our Religion is no more to be called a Regal than a Parliament-Gospel.

6. That the Clergy lost not any of their just Rights by the Act of Submission, and the power of calling and confirming Councils did anciently belong to the Christian Princes.

If you conceive that by ascribing to the King the Supream Authority, taking him for their Supream Head, and by the Act of Submission which ensued upon it, the Clergy did unwittingly ensnare themselves, and drew a Vassallage on these of the times succeeding, inconsistent with their native Rights, and contrary to the usage of the Primitive Church: I hope it will be no hard matter to remove that scruple. It's true the Clergy in their Convocation can do nothing now, but as their doings are confirmed by the Kings Authority, and I conceive it stands with reason (as well as point of State) that it should be so. For since the two Houses of Parliament, though called by the Kings Writ, can conclude nothing which may bind either King or Sub­ject in their civil Rights, until it be made good by the Royal Assent: so neither is it fit nor safe that the Clergy should be able by their Constitutions and Synodical Acts, to conclude both Prince and People in spiritual matters, until the stamp of Royal Autho­rity be imprinted on them. The Kings concurrence in this case devesteth not the Clergy of any lawful power which they ought to have, but restrains them only in the exercise of some part thereof, to make it more agreeable to Monarchical Government, and to accommodate it to the benefit both of Prince and People. It's true, the Clergy of this Realm can neither meet in Convocation, nor conclude any thing there­in, nor put in execution any thing which they have concluded, but as they are enabled by the Kings Authority. But then it is as true withal, that this is neither incon­sistent with their native Rights, nor contrary unto the usage of the Primitive Times. And first it is not inconsistent with their native Rights, it being a peculiar happiness of the Church of England to be always under the protection of Christian Kings; by whose encouragement and example, the Gospel was received in all parts of this Kingdom. And if you look into Sir Henry Spelman's Collection of the Saxon Councils, I [Page 42]believe that you will hardly find any Ecclesiastical Canons for the Government of the Church of England, which were not either originally promulgated, or after approved and allowed o either by the Supream Monarch of all the Saxons, or by some King or other of the several Heptarchies, directing in their National or Provincial Synods. And they enjoyed this Prerogative without any dispute after the Norman Conquest also, till by degrees the Pope in grossed it to himself (as before was shewn) and then con­ferred it upon such as were to exercise the same under his Authority; which plainly manifests that the Act of Submission so much spoke of, was but a changing of their dependance from the Pope to the King, from an usurped to a lawful power, from one to whom they had made themselves a kind of voluntary Slaves, to him who justly chal­lenged a natural dominion over them: And secondly, that that submission of theirs to their natural Prince, is not to be considered as a new Concession, but as the Recog­nition only of a former power.

In the next place I do not find it to be contrary to the usage of the Primitive times. I grant indeed that when the Church was under the command of the Heathen Em­perors, the Clergy did Assemble in their National and Provincial Synods of their own Authority; which Councils being summoned by the Metropolitans, and subscribed by the Clergy, were of sufficient power to bind all good Christians who lived within the Verge of their jurisdiction. They could not else Assemble upon any exigence of affairs but by such Authority. But it was otherwise when the Church came under the protection of Christian Princes; all Emperors and Kings from Constantine the Great (till the Pope carried all before him in the darker times) accompting it one of the principal flowers, (as indeed it was) which adorned their Diadems. I am not wil­ling to beat on a common place. But if you please to look into the Acts of ancient Councils, you will find that all the General Councils (all which deserve to be so called, if any of them do deserve it) to have been summoned and confirmed by the Christian Emperors, that the Council of Arles was called and confirmed by the Emperor Con­stantine, that of Sardis by Constans, that of Lampsacus by Valentinian, that of Aquileia by Theodosius, that of Thessalonica (National or Provincial all) by the Emperor Gra­tian: That when the Western Empire fell into the hands of the French, the Councils of Akon, Mentz, Meldun, Wormes, and Colen received both life and motion from Charles the Great and his Successors in that Empire; it being evident in the Records of the Gallican Church, that the opening and confirming of all their Councils not only under the Caroline but under the Merovignean Family, was always by the power, and sometimes with the Presidence of their Kings and Princes, as you may find in the Col­lections of Lindebrogius and Sirmondus the Jesuite; and finally that in Spain it self (though now so much obnoxious to the Papal power) the two at Bracara, and the ten first holden at Toledo, were summoned by the Writ and Mandate of the Kings thereof. Or if you be not willing to take this pains, I shall put you to a shorter and an easier search; referring you for your better information in this particular, to the learned Sermon Preached by Bishop Andrews at Hampton Court, Anno 1606. touching the Right and power of calling Assemblies, or the right use of the Trumpets. A Sermon Preached purposely at that time and place for giving satisfaction in that point to Melvin, and some leading men of the Scotish Puritans, who of late times had arrogated to themselves an unlimited power of calling and constituing their Assemblies without the Kings consent and against his will.

As for the Vessallage which the Clergy are supposed to have drawn upon themselves by this Submission, I see no fear or danger of it as long as the two Houses of Parlia­ment are in like condition; and that the Kings of England are so tender of their own Prerogative, as not to suffer any one Body of the Subjects to give a Law unto the other without his consent. That which is most insisted on for the proof hereof, is the delegating of this power by King Henry VIII. to Sir Thomas Cromwel (afterwards Earl of Essex and Lord high Chamberlain) by the name of his Vicar General in Ecclesiastical matters; who by that name presided in the Convocation, Anno 1536. and acted other things of like nature in the years next following. And this (especially his presiding in the Convocation) is looked on both by Sanders and some Protestant Doctors, not only as a great debasing of the English Clergy (men very Learned for those times) but as deforme satis Spectaculum, a kind of Monstrosity in nature. But certainly those men forget (though I do not think my self bound to justifie all King Harries actions) that in the Council of Chalcedon, the Emperor appointed certain Noble-men to sit as Judges, whose names occurr in the first Action of that Council. The like we find [Page 43]exemplified in the Ephesine Council, in which by the appointment of Theodosius and Valentinian then Roman Emperors, Candidianus, a Count Imperial, sate as Judge or President; who in the managing of that trust over-acted any thing that Cromwel did, or is objected to have been done by him as the Kings Commissioner. For that he was to have the first place in those publick meetings as the Kings Commissioner, or his Vicar-General, which you will, (for I will neither trouble my self nor you with dis­puting Titles) the very Scottish Presbyters, the mo st rigid sticklers for their own pre­tended (and but pretended) Rights which the world affords, do not stick to yield. No Vassallage of the Clergy to be found in this, as little to be feared by their Submission to the King as their Supream Governour.

Thus Sir, according to my promise, and your expectation, have I collected my Re­membrances, and represented them unto you in as good a fashion as my other trouble­some affairs, and the distractions of the time would give me leave; and therein made you see, if my judgment fail not, that neither our King or Parliaments have done more in matters which concern'd Religion and the Reformation of this Church, than what hath formerly been done by the secular Powers, in the best and happiest times of Christianity; and consequently, that the clamours of the Papists and Puritans both, which have disturbed you, are both false and groundless. Which if it may be service­able to your self, or others, whom the like doubts and prejudices have possessed or scrupled, It is all I wish; my studies and endeavours aiming at no other end, than to do all the service I can possibly to the Church of God; to whose Graces and di­vine Protection you are most heartily commended in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, By

SIR,
Your most affectionate Friend to serve you Peter Heylyn.
OF LITURGIES, OR SET …

OF LITURGIES, OR SET FORMS OF PUBLIQUE WORSHIP: With the Concomitants thereof. IN Way of an Historical Narration.

By PETER HEYLYN, D.D.

Augustin: de bono perseverantiae, lib. 2. c. 22.

Ʋtinam tardi corde & infirmi, &c. sic audirent vel non audirent in hac quaestione Disputationes nostras, ut potius intuerentur orationes suas, quas semper habuit & habebit Ecclesia, ab exordiis suis donec finiatur hoc seculum.

LONDON, Printed for Charles Harper and Mary Clark, 1680.

To the Reader.

WHen the disputes were first raised by those of the Genevian faction, against the Divine Service of this Church, it was pretended that they were well enough content to admit a Liturgy, so it were such an one, as tended more to edifi­cation and increase of Piety, than that which was imposed and established by the Laws of this Land, was given out to do. That which most seemed to trouble them, as they gave it out, was, that it had too much in it of the Ro­man Rituals; that it was cloyed with many superstitious and offensive Ceremonies, the fre­quent and unnecessary repetition of the Lords Prayer, the ill translation of the Psalms and other Scriptures, the intermixture of impertinent Responsories, whereby the course of the Prayers was interrupted; and finally, the diffeence betwixt that Liturgie, and those of other reformed Churches, with which they did desire to hold a more strict Communion. But being beaten from these holds, as by many others, so more chiefly by judicious Hooker, and never daring to adven­ture any more in pursuit of that quarrel, the Smectymnians in our times resolved upon a nearer course to effect their purposes, than the Martinists had done before them; and rather chose to fell down Liturgie it self as having no authority from the Word of God, nor from the practice of Gods people, than waste their time in lopping off the branches and excrescencies of it. Accor­dingly they reduced the whole state of the Controversie to these two Positions.

1. That if by Liturgy we understand an order observed in Church Assemblies, of Praying, Reading, and Expounding the Scriptures, Administring Sacraments, &c. Such a Liturgy they know, and do acknowledge both Jews and Christians to have used: But if by Liturgy we undersTand prescribed and stinted forms of Administration composed by some particular men in the Church, and imposed upon all the rest, then they are sure (for so they must be understood, if they say any thing) that no such Liturgie hath been used ancient by the Jews or Christians.

2. That the first Reformers of Religion did never intend the use of a Liturgy sur­ther, than to be an help in the want, or to the weakness of a Minister; and thereupon it is inferred with contempt enough, that if any Minister appear insufficient to discharge the duty of conceived Prayer, it may be imposed on him as a punishment to use set forms and no other.

If these two Propositions did proceed from the same one spirit, as no doubt they did, the ex­tream falshood of the last doth prove sufficiently, that neither of them did proceed from the Spirit of Truth. King Edward VI. the Lord Protector then being, and the learned Prelates of that time, were our first Reformers; the two first approving and confirming, the last labouring and acting in that weighty business, but all contributing to the passing of an Act of Parliament, for uniformity of Service, and Administration of the Sacraments, 2 and 3. Ed. 6. cap. 1. and in that Act it is said expresly, That all Ministers in any Cathedral or Parish Church, or other place within this Realm of England, Wales, and other the Kings Dominions, shall from and after the Feast of Pentecost next coming, be bounden to say and use all Mattens, Evensong, Celebration of the Lords Supper, commonly called the Mass, and Administration of each of the Sacraments, and their common and open Prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the same Book, and none other or otherwise. Which clause continued still in being (notwithstanding the alteration of the Liturgie) till K. Edward's death, and was revived again in the Act of Parliament, 1 Eliz. cap. 2. By which the second Liturgie was confirmed and ratified. Assuredly, they that are bound to officiate by a Form prescribed, to use no other Form but that; and to use that Form no otherwise than the Law requireth, and requireth under several penalties contained in it; cannot be said to be at liberty to use or not to use it as they list themselves; nor can pretend in any reason, nor with common sense, That the first Reformers of Religion, did never intend the use of a Li­turgy further, than to be an help in the want, or to the weakness of a Minister. What the Reformers did in other Countreys, was no Rule to ours, who in the modelling of that great work, had not only an eye and respect (as the forementioned Statute telleth us) to the most sin­cere and pure Christian Religion taught by the Scripture, as probably the others had, but also to the usages in the Primitive Church, which certainly the others had not. So that the second Position, which the proud Inference thence deducted, being blown aside, the whole weight of the cause must wholly rest upon the first, which whether it be of strength enough to support the same, is the main disquisition and enquiry which we have in hand.

For when this Proposition was first vented, and the point had been somewhat ventilated be­twixt the humble Remonstrant on the one part, and the Smectymnians on the other, I was re­quired by those who had Authority to command me, to try what I could do in drawing down the Pedegree and the descent of Liturgies from the first use and institution of them amongst the Jews, till they were setled and established also amongst the Christians. For since the Smectym­nians had appealed to the ancient practice of the Jews and Christians, affirming positively that no such Liturgies (that is to say, no stinted and prescribed Forms of Administration) were an­ciently used by either of them; it is most fit and just they should be tryed by the Records and practice of those elder times to which they have Appealed for their justification. So that the point between us being matter of Fact, I shall pursue it in the way of an Historical Narration; in which the Affirmative being made good by sufficient evidence, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove the Negative. And for the better making good of the Affirmative; I have taken in the Jewish Rabbins, and other Antiquaries of that people, of most faith and credit, the holy Fathers, and other Ecclesiastical Authors since the times of Christ, to testifie unto the truth of what here is said; either by way of explication of such Texts of Scripture which do relate unto this cause, or in the way of declaration, as laying down the practice of the Jews or Chri­stians in their several times. And that it may be seen that Liturgies or Set Forms of worship were of general usage, I have made diligent search into the best and most unquestioned monu­ments of the ancient Gentiles, and traced out many of their Forms of prayer and sacrifice, used by them in the most religious acts of those performances, and placed that search betwixt the practice of the Jews and that of the Christians. And I have placed it in that order, to the end that it may appear that the Christians had not only some ground of Scripture, Tradition Aposto­lical, and the best judgments of their own times to direct this business; but that they were also guided in it by the light of Nature, the Word of God amongst the Jews, and the constant practice of that people in the times precedent.

Nor have I only took this pains in tracing out the constant practice of all people in respect of Liturgies, but also with relation unto the necessary adjuncts and concomitants of them. Set Forms of Worship require set times and places to perform them in; which gives occasion to insert some notes or observations touching the Festivals, or days of Religious offices, taken up by the Authority of the Church in several Ages, according as the commemoration of some signal be­nefits, or Gods special mercies toward them might invite them to it. The like I have done also in the erecting and dedicating of those sacred places which have been destinated in all times to Religious offices, from the first Consecrating of the Tabernacle by Gods own appointment, till the last dedication of the Temple in the time of Herod, and from the first deputing of some places by the Lords Apostles, for the divine performances and administrations of the Christian Faith, till calmer times permitted the erecting of those stately Fabricks which the Gentiles looked upon with envy and admiration. Some other things are intermingled touching the Habit of the Priests or Ministers under either Testament in the time or act of their officiating; as also of the Gestures used both by Priests and People, according to the several offices and acts of wor­ship. And this I have drawn down unto the time of S. Austin's death, when neither Super­stition in point of worship, nor Heterodoxie in point of Doctrine, had gotten any predominancy in the Church of Christ, which was then come unto her height both for peace and purity. By which the Reader may perceive how warrantably this Church proceeded in her Reformation, as to this particular, how strict an eye was had therein, as well to the most sincere and pure Christian Religion taught by the Scripture, as to the usages in the Primitive Church, how justifiable in the whole course and order of her publick Liturgie, with all the Rubricks and observances therein contained. In which, if any thing be done conducible unto Gods glory and the Churches peace, the information of the Reader, or the convincing of such men who are otherwise minded, I shall think my labour well bestowed, and my pains well recompensed. Howsoever it will be some matter of contentment to me that I have done my duty in it, according unto that poor mea­sure of abilities which the Lord hath given me; commending both the cause and these weak in­devours to his Heavenly blessings, without which, Paul's planting and Apollo's watering are of no increase.

CHAP. I. What doth occurre, and whether any thing at all, for Set Forms of Prayer from the time of Adam unto Moses.

  • 1. Prayer, the chief exercise of publick Wor­ship.
  • 2. The ground, use, and necessity of publick Forms.
  • 3. What priviledge belongs unto the Priest or Minister, in that part of Gods Service which consists in Prayer.
  • 4. The inconvenience and confusion that must needs arise for want of Set Forms in the Worship of God.
  • 5. Liturgies or Set Forms of Prayer, in use amongst all sorts of people, Jews, Gentiles, Christians.
  • 6. The meaning of the word Liturgy, or [...], in the civil sense.
  • 7. As also in the Ecclesiastical notion of it.
  • 8. Whether the offerings of Cain and Abel were regulated by a prescribed Form.
  • 9. A prescribed Form of Worship conceived by some to have been introduced by Enos.
  • 10. The Sacrifices and devotions of the an­cient Patriarchs, for the most part occa­sional only.
  • 11. The Consecrating of set places for Gods publick worship, first begun by Jacob.

IT is exceeding well observed by our incomparable Hooker, I as some truly call him,Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. §. 23. That if the Angels have a continual inter­course betwixt the Throne of God in Heaven, and his Church here militant upon the Earth, the same is no where better verified than in those two godly exercises of Doctrine and Prayer. For what, saith he, is the assembling of the Church to learn, but the receiving of Angels descended from above? What to pray, but the ascending of Angels upwards? His Heavenly inspirations, and our holy de­sires being as so many Angels of commerce and intercourse between God and us. And although these two godly and religious exercises seem to walk hand in hand together; the Prayers made in and by the Church, having for many Ages past, even long before the birth of Christianity, been intermingled with the reading of the Law and Prophets; yet find we that of Prayer so acceptable in the sight of God, so highly valued by the Lord, above all other parts of his publick Service, that he vouchsafed from hence to give a name to his holy Temple, and to entitle it,Isa. 56.7. The House of Prayer. Which holy and religious duty, as it concerneth us two ways, one way in that we are men, and another way as parts and members of the Church, the mystical Body of our Lord and Saviour; so it admits of several considerations both for the mat­ter of the same, and the manner of it. As men we are at our own choice for time, place, and form, according to the exigences of our own occasions. The Church requires not any thing in the performance of this pious office, either as private or domestical; but that we pray with understanding; that we consider with our selves what it is we ask,1 Cor. 14.15. Jam. 4.3. and of whom we ask it. Ye ask and receive not (saith S. James) because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. But for the Service which we do as a publick body, that being publick, is for that cause to be accompted so much the worthier than the other, as a whole society of such condition exceedeth the worth of any one particular person; and for that cause hath been more strictly tied in all former Ages, as to prescribed times and places, so to set Forms also. For were there not some time prescribed (in the great growth and spreading of the Church of God) for the convening of the Congregation, some place assigned in which to meet together at the times appointed; the prayers and devotions of Gods people might and would happen oftentimes to be either at the same time in several places, or in the same place at several times; and so be nothing less than the common prayers, the joynt devotions of Gods Servants. Of all the circumstances which attend Gods publick Service, those two, of time and place, come most near the substance; and are de bene esse at the least, of that weighty duty.

And if appointed times and places, being meerly circumstances, II be of so great a consequence in Gods publick Service, that without them it cannot be discharged with [Page 50]effect and comfort; assuredly the form thereof, containing the whole substance; the main body of it hath much more need to be prescribed. For what saith the Apostle in this case, or one very near it, If the whole Church should come together in some place, and all speak with tongues, 1 Cor. 14.23. and there come in those which are Ʋnbelievers, would they not say that ye are mad? Vers. 26 Or what a tumult would it be, if when you come together, every one of you hath a Psalm, hath a Tongue, hath a Doctrine, hath a Revelation; would it not be a strange medly? Vers. 23 God, as S. Paul hath told us, is the God of order, not of confusion in the Churches. And therefore hath given power unto his Church, that all things in it, for the manner, Vers. 40 be done [...] decently, in a stablished order, and for the end thereof, Vers. 26 to edifying. A thing which could not be in possibility, had every man the liberty to use his own tongue in the Congregation, or to conceive and utter his own prayers, or frame unto himself his own devotions; which is the ground of all those several Liturgies and set Forms of Prayer, which have from the Apostles times been used in the House of God, and never quarrelled till of late. Nor can it be ascribed, as I conceive, to any lower power than the Wisdom of God, guiding the Counsels of his Church, and therefore to be reckoned as a work of his singular Providence, that the Church hath evermore observed a prescript form of Common-Prayer, although not in all things every where the same, yet for the most part retaining still the same Analogy.Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 9. num. 25. So that (as Hooker well observeth) if the Liturgies of all ancient Churches throughout the world be compared amongst themselves, it may be easily perceived that they had all one original mould; and that the publick prayers of the People of God in Churches throughly setled and established, did never use to be voluntary dictates, proceeding from any mans extemporal wit. And certainly to drive this point unto an end, (with some small alteration of my Authors words) To him who doth consider the grievous and scandalous inconveniencies whereunto they make themselves daily subject, when any blind and secret corner is made a fit place for Common-Prayer; the manifold Confusions which they fall into, which cry down all the difference of days and times; the irksome Defor­mities, whereby through endless and senseless Effusions of indigested Prayers they oftentimes disgrace in most unsufferable manner, the worthiest part of Christian duty towards God, who being subject herein to no certain order, do pray both what they list, and how they list; to him I say, which duly weigheth all these things, the reason cannot be obscure, why God so much respects in publick Prayer, not only the solemnity of places where, and the conveniency of the times when; but also the precise appointment, even with what words or sentences his Name should be called on amongst his people.

I have said little all this while of the Priest or Minister, III with whom Gods people are to joyn themselves in this publick action, as with him that standeth and speaketh for them in the presence of God; because I could not tell what place or Ministry to assign him in the discharge of this imployment, unless we first premise a set form of Prayer, as a point necessary to be granted. For in effusion of extemporal Prayers, I cannot see what greater priviledge belongs to him, than any other of the People; or why each member of the Congregation may not as well express his own conceptions in the House of God, as he who calls himself the Minister. For being that the ability (if I may so call it) of pouring out extemporary prayers, doth come by gifts, and not by study; in which regard themselves entitle it most commonly the gift of Prayer: Why may not other men pretend unto that gift, as much as he; or on opinion that they have it, may not make use thereof in the Congregation? Why may not any one so gifted, or so opinionated of his gift, say unto his Minister as Zedekiah did unto Micaiah (in case he do not also strike him upon the cheek) Mene ergo dimisit Spiritus Domini, & locutus est tibi? 1 King. 22 24. Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me, to speak unto thee? Assuredly the gift of prayer is as much restrained in the People, by hearkening only to those expressions which are delivered by their Minister, as that of the Minister can be, (be he who he will) by tying up his spirit to those forms which are prescribed by the Church. This, if it be a quenching of the Spirit, as some please to make it, is such a quenching of the Spirit as hath good ground from God himself, who did not only pre­scribe unto his Priests those very words,Numb. 6.23. wherewith they were to bless the People, as we shall see hereafter in due place and time;Mat. 6.9. but did instruct both Priests and People, both the Apostles and Disciples how they were to pray, in what set form they might present their souls and desires unto him. So little priviledge hath the Priest or Minister more than other People, to speak his own thoughts in the Congregation by way of volun­tary and extemporal prayers, on the grounds they go on; that on the same, the mean­est of the multitude may pretend the like, and that as well in other parts of publick [Page 51]worship as in that of prayer; which what a Chaos of devotion it would introduce, I leave to every sober minded man to judge by that which followeth.

For if we look into the publick Service of Almighty God, IV according as it standeth in all well-regulated Churches; it doth consist of these three parts, Prayer, Praise, and Preaching: Taking the word Preaching here in the largest sense, for publishing or making known the will of God, by whatsoever means it be, touching mans salvation. The Church of England so conceives it, when in the general Invitation she informs her Children that the chief reasons why they do assemble and meet together,Dearly beloved Brethren, &c. are to set forth Gods most holy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul. The Brethren of the Separation (as they call themselves) do conceive so too, though with some variation of the terms, saying there be three kinds of spiritual worship, Praying, Prophesying, and Singing of Psalms. H. Smith in a Book entituled. The differen­ces of the Churches of the Separation. 1606. cap. 18. Id. cap. 11. Id. cap. 10. They add, with truth enough in the affirmation, were there but any sense in the ap­plication, that there is the same reason of helps in all the parts of spiritual worship (as is to be admitted in any one) during the time of performing the worship. What then? Ob­serve I pray you the illation and the necessity thereof on the former grounds. Therefore (for so they do infer) as in Prayer the Book is laid aside, and that by the confession of the ancient Brethren of the separation; so must it also be in Prophesying, and in Singing of Psalms, as we are perswaded. What, are they but perswaded of it, and no more than so? Yes sure, they are more positive and affirm for certain,Id. ibid. that as in Prayer the Spirit only is our help, and there is no outward help given of God for that kind of worship; so also in Prophesy­ing and Singing. And in another place more plainly, therefore whether we Pray, Pro­phesie, or Sing, it must be the Word or Scripture, not out of the book, but out of the heart. Id. cap. 18. Add here these Quaeres raised on the former Thesis. Id. in fine libri. 1. Whether in a Psalm a man must be tyed to Metre, Rhythm, and Tune; and whether voluntary be not as necessary in tune and words as in matter. 2. Whether Metre, Rhythm, and Tune, be not quenching the spirit. 3. Whether a Psalm be only thanksgiving without Metre, Rhythm, and Tune, yea or no. Put this together, and then tell me truly whosoever thou art, if when a great and populous Congregation should be met together, every one of them in that part of worship which consists in Singing, should first conceive his own matter, deliver it in Prose or Metre as he list himself, and in the same instant chant it out in what Tune soever, that which comes first into his head: Tell me I say, if ever there were heard so black a Sanctus, such a confused and horrid noise of tongues and voices; if any howling or gnashing of the teeth whatever, can be like unto it. And yet it follows so directly on the former Principles, that if we banish all set forms of Common-prayer, which is but one part only of Gods publick worship; we cannot but in justice and in reason both, banish all studied and premeditated Sermons from the House of God; and utterly cast out all King Davids Psalms (whether in Prose or Metre, that comes all to one) and all divine Hymns also into the bargain.

This, V though it be sufficient to discover the great and scandalous inconveniencies that necessarily would follow in Gods publick Service, if once the solemn and set forms thereof were quite laid aside; or any ground of hope given unto that confusion, which some have pleased to call the liberty of the Spirit of God; so may there somewhat else be added to set forth the necessity of those publick forms which they so labour to put down. For if we cast a careful eye upon the business, we may perceive without much difficulty, that as a prescript form of Common-prayer, as well amongst the Jews as Christians, proceeded either from the Example of God, who in some cases so pre­scribed it; or from the Wisdom of God guiding the counsels of his Church, as before was noted: So by the Law and light of Nature, which was the way whereby he pleased to manifest himself, and make known his will unto the Gentiles, they also were directed to set forms of Worship, though otherwise mistaken utterly in the object of it: For being taught by Nature that there was a God, one universal supream Power that disposed of all things; and that that God was to be served and worshipped by them, even with the best of their devotions: It was not long before they had agreed on set times and places for the performance of that Worship; as also of some special Minister by whom to tender some solemn forms of words in which to represent their said devotions. The ignorance and blindness of their hearts occasioned them to set up Idols in the place of God; and to serve many Gods instead of one. But in the service of those gods, in the adoring of those Idols, they thought it did concern them in an high degree, to do it with the most solemnity, with the greatest majesty that wisest of them could devise; prescribing as it were by common counsel and advice, whatever [Page 52]they intended to have done therein both for form and matter. So that it will appear on a diligent search, that in all publick Congregations of men met together for the performance of Religious Offices, whether they did adhere to false gods, or adore the true; there was not any thing almost left arbitrary: nothing almost which was not limited and prescribed by Rules or Rubricks; no kind of service to be done for which there was not some set form prescribed in their established and received Liturgies. The following of which search is the intent and Argument of this present work. In which I doubt not but to make it plain and evident by the continual and constant practice of the former times, that in all publick Congregations, whether of the Jews under the Law, or of the Gentiles without the Law, or of the Christians being a body of men made up both of Jews and Gentiles; both Priests and People have been tied to set forms of worship: And therefore that the use of a publick Liturgy is no such new matter in the world, as some men have made it, who will needs have it a device either of a lazy zeal, or Popish ignorance.

But first before we do proceed in this search of Liturgies, VI we must take notice of the word, and explain the same, lest being mistaken in the ground, the building prove un­sure and faulty. And here for the quid nominis, Suidas derives the word [...], from [...],Suidas in Lexico. which signifieth publick, and [...], any work or office. [...] (saith that old Grammarian) [...]. Which doubtless is the true and proper Etymologie, the old word being [...] as we find in Stephanus; Stephanus in Thesauro linguae Grae. [...] q. d. opus publicum faciens, and [...] opus aliquod publicum facio; and shortly after, [...] pro [...] & ejusdem significa­tionis. For the quid rei next, it signifieth (as we see by the Etymologie) ministerium vel munus publicum, a publick charge or ministry in what kind soever, whether it be sacred or profane, and is so used in Classick and approved Authors. Isocrates in some of his Orations,Isocrat. orat. useth the word pro Magistratuum functione, for the power and office of the Civil Magistrate.Rom. 13 6. So also doth S. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, [...], for they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing: Some­times it signifieth the doing or offering a mans service to the Common-wealth, as [...],Arist. Politic. l. 4. in the great Philosopher: in which regard such wealthy Citizens as were able to supply the publick wants from their private Coffers, are said [...], to serve the Common-wealth with their pro­per goods.Rom. 16.27. And so the word is used also by the great Apostle. For if (saith he) the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty also is, [...], to minister unto them in carnal things. And in this sense the word is taken several times in the Epistle unto the Philippians, Polyn. ib hist. Rom. viz. cap. 2. vers. 25. & vers. 30. I might here add that [...] is used in Polybius for munifex in castris, or an Engineer; as [...] in the same Author, pro ministerio castrensi, for a charge or office in the camp; and that in Clemens Alexandrinus, the word is used to signifie those businesses and imployments which attend on Marriage; where he informeth us, that the Married state hath several duties,Clemens Alexan. Stromat. l. 5. [...], whereof a reckoning or accompt must be made to God. But these being the acceptions of the word in the civil sense and meaning only, I shall pass them over.

As for the sacred sense or meaning of it, VII we find in Aristotle that [...], are those publick offices to be performed unto the gods with expence and cost.Arist. Politic. l. 7. From which acception of the word, the Septuagint made use thereof to signifie the Worship and Service due to God, who is not to be Served or Worshipped but with the best of our Devotions, as in the Jewish Church with the best also of their substance. The word so used by them in their Translation of the Old Testament, became in fine a word of Art or speciality amongst the Writers of the New. For in the first Chapter of S. Luke's Gospel, the Ministry of the Jewish Priesthood is called by the name of [...],Luk. 1.23. as where it is said of Zacharias, how it came to pass, [...], that as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he de­parted to his own House. And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, S. Paul alluding to the Ministeries of the Jewish Temple, calleth our Saviour Christ, [...], a Minister of the Holies, Heb. 8.2. or of the Sanctuary. Thus also in allusion to the Ministeries of the Church of Jewry, the Ministry of the Gospel is in the Scripture called by the self­same name;Act. 13.2. Chrysost. in Act. Apud Bezam. in Annot. in Act. 13. the Holy Ghost affirming of the Prophets which were in Antioch, [...], that they ministred unto the Lord, i.e. as Chrysostom ex­pounds the word [...], they Preached the Gospel; or [...], they made their Prayers unto the Lord, as the Syriack Translation hath it. Indeed [Page 53]both glosses on the word, as well that of the Syriack Interpreters, as of S. Chrysostom, do yield a fuller meaning of it (according as it is now used in the Church of Christ) than either of them taken severally; the publick Liturgies of the Church consisting both of Prayers and Preaching, taking the word Preaching as before I did, for the publick no­tifying of the will and pleasure of Almighty God, touching mans salvation. In which respect, as the word [...] is taken many times by the Ancient Fathers, for a Priest or Bishop, to whom the executing or performance of divine Offices in publick did be­long especially, as [...], or [...], or [...], the Mini­sters of God, of the Holy Altar, of the New Testament, in Basil, Nazianzen, and others: So that of [...] came to be appropriated to the performance of those Offices which they were to execute, or rather to the rule and order by which they were to be performed. And so the word is used in the Law Imperial, in which it is ex­presly ordered, [...],Justin. Novel. 131. de Eccles. that no man should presume to execute the publick Liturgy, or to officiate the divine Service of the Church in his private house. In which acceptation of the word (as it is to be taken, and no otherwise in our present business) we do define the same with the Learned Casaubon, to be descriptio quaedam ordinis servandi in sacris celebrandis, Casaubon Ex­ercit. 16. §. 41. a regulated form or order to be observed in the officiating of divine Service; such as the Latines call sometimes Officium, and sometimes Agenda; and the Greek Writers many times [...]. And to this definition I assent the rather, because I find the same approved by the adverse party, particularly by the Altar of Damascus, Altare Da­mascen. p. 612. the total sum of all that had been contributed in the former times, to the disturbance of this Church.

This business being thus past over, we will prepare our selves for the following search; VIII beginning with the Patriarchs before the Law, though not within the compass of my undertaking. Where if we find not any foot-steps of set forms of Prayer, it was be­cause the Sacrifices and devotions of Gods people in those elder times, were for the most part occasional only; there being neither place appointed, nor set time prescribed, for the performance of the same (that we can meet with) until the giving of the Law by Moses: Of those the first we have upon Record is that of Cain and Abel, in Gen. 4. where we are told how that in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to the Lord; and Abel also brought of the Firstlings of his Flock, and of the fat thereof. In which it is to be observed that this is said to have been done, post multos dies, as the Vulgar, or in process of time, as our English reads it;Gen. 4.3, 4. but as it is in others more near the Hebrew, in fine dierum, or at the end of days, as Aynsworth hath it. If we demand what time this was, Musculus will inform you, that it was post messem, at the end of Harvest, as being the most proper time to offer the fruits of the Earth, which was Cain's Oblation. And hereto Aynsworth doth agree,Musculus in Gen. 4. a man well versed amongst the Rabbins, affirming thus, that at the years end, men were wont in most solemn manner, to Sacrifice unto God with thanks for his Blessings, having gathered in their fruits; which he observeth to be the custom of the Gentiles also,Aynsw. Anno. in Gen. 4. according to a place of Aristotle which is therein cited. So that the Sacrifice of Cain and Abel was oc­casional meerly, as unto the time. And for the place, although the Scriptures tell us nothing of it, as a thing unnecessary to be spoken of: Yet by the Rabbins we are told, that it was there where after Abraham purposed to have offered Isaac. For as they say, It is a tradition by the hand of all, that the place wherein David and Solomon built an Altar, in the floor of Araunah,Id. ibid. was the place where Abraham built an Altar and bound Isaac upon it; and that was the place where Noah builded after he came out of the Ark; and that was the Altar whereon Cain and Abel offered, and on it Adam the first man offered an offering after he was created, &c. But this being of no greater cer­tainty than the tradition of the Rabbins, and such as hath no ground to stand on; we may conclude, that in these early days there was no set place put apart for Gods pub­lick service; no greater constat to be found of that, than of a set and prescribed time for the doing of it. Touching the Priest indeed, by whom the Offering was presen­ted to Almighty God, there is more assurance; that office being executed by their Fa­ther Adam, to whom as to the Father of his Family, it of right belonged;Bilson, perpe­tual Govern­ment. cap. 1. Exod. 19.22. as it did afterwards under the First-born, to those that had the priviledge of Primogeniture, until the Priesthood was by God established in the Tribe of Levi. For howsoever it be said by Paraeus, in illa hominum paucitate, quis (que) ut spiritualis sacerdos offerebat, that in those early times, when there were so few men in the world,Paraeus in Gen. cap. 4. every one as a spiritual Priest might tender and present his own oblation; yet it is only said, not proved: and doth not only contradict most approved Writers, but seemeth also to run cross to the holy [Page 54]Scripture. And though we find not in Gods Book, that in the celebration of this offering brought by Cain and Abel, there were either Prayers or Praises intermingled with it:Calvin. in Gen. Yet I am very apt to think with Calvin, non inanibus ceremoniis illusisse patres, that the Oblations offered both by Cain and Abel, as afterwards by other of the Patriarchs were not meer dumb shews, a bare and naked ceremony, and no more than so. But being their devotions were occasional, as before was said, we have no reason to presume that they had any prescript and set form of Prayer, which of congruity was to change and vary, according to the several occasions presented to them.

And yet it seems it was not long, IX before, besides the tendry of their Oblations, Gods Book makes mention of a further duty, that of Invocation, the calling on the name of the Lord their God. In the beginning of that Chapter, we find Cain and Abel bring­ing their Offerings to the Lord; and in the end thereof, on the birth of Enos, we find that men began to call on the Name of the Lord. Gen. 4.26. Which Text, by reason of the different readings, and no less differing expositions, is not yet so clear, but that a question may be made, whether an holy and religious Invocation on the Name of God be there meant or not, and if it be, whether it were a private or a publick duty. For how­soever we read it in the Text of our English Bibles, Then began men to call on the Name of the Lord; yet in the Margin it is otherwise, Then began men to call themselves by the Name of the Lord: And Aynsworth differing from them both, Then began men to call profanely on the Name of Jehovah. So also for the several Glosses made upon the Text (not to insist upon the different readings either of the Greek or Latine Bibles) the Chaldee Paraphrase had it thus, Tunc in diebus ejus inceperunt filii hominum ut non orarent in nomine Domini: Chald. Paraph. in Gen. Then in his days began the Sons of men not to invoke or call upon the Name of God; which is directly contrary unto the English. S. Hierome thus according to the tendries of the Jews, as himself informs us, Tunc primum in nomine Domini, & in similitudine ejus fabricata sunt idola; then began men to set up Idols both in the Name and after the Similitude of God.Hieronym. Qu. Hebraic. in Gen. Maymonides one of the Learnedest of the Rabbins, as he is vouched by Aynsworth, thus, That in those days Idolatry took its first beginning, and the People Worshipped the Stars and the Host of Heaven. And as for those that do adhere unto the reading of the vulgar Latine, Ap. Aynsw. in his notes on Gen. 4. Iste coepit invocare nomen Domini, which differs very little from the English Bible; they are not very well agreed amongst them­selves, though most of them do agree in this, that it is meant of publick Worship, and which is more than so, of set forms of worship. Junius amongst the Protestants doth conceive it so. Prius quidem invocavit Adam, sed in familia; nunc invocarunt multi, sed in Ecclesiam recepti. Junii Annot. in Gen. Adam (saith he) did in the first beginning, call upon the Name of God, but it was only as it were in his private Family: Now began many men to do the like, but such as were assembled to that purpose in a Church or body. Paraeus is more plain and positive. Sed an prius non fuit invocatum? Had not the Name of God been called on in the former times? Yes that it had, saith he, but privately and by a few. But now the Family of Seth increasing, the Church and the Religion in the same professed,Paraeus in cap. 4. Gen. became much improved; Et certa cultus forma fuit constituta, and there was constituted and established a set form of Worship. The like Pererius hath for the Pontificians, who first expounding it of the Exemplary piety of Enos, by preaching and instructing others in the fear of God, then adds, that Enos is first said to call upon the Name of the Lord,Pererius in Gen. cap. 4. quia iste primus certas quasdam precationum formulas condidit, be­cause he was the first that did compose set forms of Prayer, and devised several rites and ceremonies for the advancement of Gods Service. Of the same mind also is Torniellus, as to the gathering of Gods People into Congregations, the setting out of certain forms of Prayer and Praises for the performance of Religious Worship, and the appointing of set times and places for those pious duties. Tunc primum institutos fuisse spirituales quosdam conventus, & quasdam devotas precationes, puta Psalmos aut Hymnos, in summi Dei laudem, Torniell. An­nal. sacri. anno 236. certis temporibus & locis pie cultis, communiter recitandos, as his words there are. In which he saith no more, in substance, than did those before. But where he adds Praecipuè diebus Sabbati, that this was specially observed on the Sabbath day; he hath not only found a reach beyond his fellows, but plainly contradicted what he said before in another place; where we are told that there had been no san­ctifying of a Sabbath here on earth,Id. Ibid. D. 7. till the time of Moses, quando sub praecepto data est filiis Israel, when as it was imposed by a Commandment on the House of Israel. Thus have we found according to the Expositions of these Learned men, a prescribed form of Common-prayer in the time of Enos, even in the cradle of the World. But being the Text hath different readings, and no less different explications, as before was [Page 55]shewn: I dare not hold it a fit ground whereon to raise the building which I have in hand.

And if we find not here what we have in search, X there is but little hope to meet with it, in any of the publick Acts of Noah or Abraham; Gen. 8.20.12, 7, 13, 4, &c. Gen. 12.8.13.4, &c. Gen. 26.25. Gen. 35.1. Gen. 33.20. of both which it is said that they built Altars, and offered Sacrifice; of Abraham, that he called also on the Name of God. Of Isaac, it is also said, that he built an Altar, and called on the Name of the Lord: and it is said of Jacob, the Son of Isaac, that he built two Altars, the one at Bethel, by the Lords appointment, the other at El-Elohe-Israel, of his own devotion. But with what rites those Sacrifices were accompanied, which were performed upon those Altars; and in what solemn form of words, or whether with any solemn form of words they did pour forth their prayers to Almighty God, I am not able to determine. Most like it is, that their Devotions being occasional, their Prayers and Hymns were fitted unto those occasions, as before was said. And that the several Actions of Reli­gious worship, which are recorded of the Patriarchs in the Book of God, were occa­sional only, without relation either to set times or places, may be easily seen, by look­ing over the particulars. The Sacrifice of Noah as it was remarkable, so it was occa­sional; an Eucharistical oblation for that great deliverance which had befallen him and his Family by Gods grace and mercy. And therefore it is well observed by Scaliger, that presently upon his coming out of the Ark, [...] immolavit Deo. Joseph. Scalig. de Emend. Temp. l. 5. He offered unto God the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and paid his Vows to the most High for so miraculous a safety. The Sacrifices and other Acts of publick Worship which are recorded in the Scripture of our Father Abraham, were occasional also; either in due acknowledgment of Gods gracious promise made unto him, at his first entrance into the Land of Canaan, Gen. xii. 7. or for his blessings on his journey, ibid. vers. 8. or on his taking a livery and seisin of the Promised Land, when he sate down and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, cap. xiii. ver. 18. or on the peace concluded betwixt him and the King of Philistims, cap. xxi. v. 33. or finally (not to look after other in­stances) on the redemption or reprieve of Isaac, Gen. xxii. 13. The like we may ob­serve in that of Isaac, building an Altar, and calling on the Name of God, that it was done upon the Lords appearing to him, and the gracious comforts which he gave him, cap. xxxvi. 25. And why did Jacob offer Sacrifice at Galeed, Gen. xxxi. v. 48. & 54. but on occasion of the League concluded betwixt him and Laban? or build an Altar at El-Elobe-Israel, but in regard that he had made a Pacification with his Brother Esau, and was restored unto his Countrey? cap. xxxii. v. 20. So that in all this search into particulars, the most which we can find is this, that they were all intent upon building Altars; which shews that Altars were no part of the Jewish Ceremonies, nor by those holy men conceived unfit to be imployed in the performance of Religious Worship; and that the Sacrifices made upon these Altars, were intermixed with Prayer and Invocation on the Name of God. Of any prescript form of Prayer, there is as little to be found in the former instances, as of appointed either times or places for the performance of the same; of which we have found nothing hitherto in the Book of Genesis.

Not hitherto indeed in any of the instances before produced, XI though one there be which is by some supposed to reflect that way. Abrahams planting of a Grove, and calling there upon the Name of the Lord, Gen. xxi. 33. is thought by men of no mean credit and ability in the ways of Learning, to be the designation of a set and appointed place, for the officiating of Gods publick Service. Musculus doth conceive it so.Musculus in Gen. cap. 21. Cajetan in lo­cum. Locum ora­tionis & Ecclesiae suae constituit inter Arbores. And Cajetan before him to the same effect, Nemus quoddam tanquam templum effecit, ut esset oratorium tam sibi quam aliis colentibus verum Deum. Whose judgement in this point is both recited and approved by Pererius the Jesuite, in his Commentaries on the Text. They all agree in this, that Abraham did plant that Grove for a Church or Oratory, wherein himself and others which were so devoted, might make their supplications to the Lord their God.Calvin in lo­cum. But Calvin rather thinks that Abraham having setled all his differences with K. Abimelech, did plant this Grove, in signum tranquillae fixae (que) habitationis, to signifie that now he had a con­stant dwelling in the Land of Canaan; men using not to build or plant but where they do intend to set up their rest. Lyra conceives that it was planted for no other end, than the benefit of shade and fruit, and to give entertainment unto Strangers;Lyran. in lo­cum. qui amoenitate loci recrearentur, & fructibus reficerentur; to whom the pleasures of the place, and sweetness of the fruits must needs be equally delightful. And this comes nearer to the Hebrew Aeshel, which doth not so much signifie a Grove, as a well-spread Tree. [Page 56]So that the meaning of the Text being not resolved, or if that were, the meaning of the Text which Musculus and Cajetan have agreed upon; yet being it was not drawn into example by Gods faithful Servants in the times succeeding, but only by the Gentiles and the Idolatrous Jews, in their Apostasie from God; we dare not from this Text infer a set place of worship, or that the following Ages took an hint from hence to consecrate appointed and determinate places for Religious uses. But if we look a little lower, into the Life and History of Jacob, we may perhaps find that which will be conclusive. Now it is said of Jacob in the Book of Genesis, that when he had be­held the Vision, and awaked from sleep, and said, How dreadful is this place, &c. that he rose up early in the morning, and took the stone which he had put for his pillow, and set it up for a Pillar, Gen. 28.16, 17, &c. and poured oyl on the top of it. And then, and not till then he called the name of the place Bethel, which by interpretation is the House of God. Josephus gives this gloss on these words of Moses, Joseph. Antiq. Judaic. l. 1. c. 19. [...]. Honorem etiam loco addidit, Bethel nominando, quod Graecis domicilium Dei significat. And this I take be­yond all question, to be the first place solemnly inaugurated for the Worship of God, ordained by him to be Gods House, as it is called expresly, v. 22. A place so pleasing to the Lord, that he vouchsafed to call himself the God of Bethel. I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the Pillar, Gen. xxxi. 13. And to this place did Jacob go by Gods Commandment, to offer Sacrifice to the Lord, and to pay his Vows, Gen. xxxv. Finally, to conclude this Chapter, in imitation of this act of Jacob's (unless perhaps it were some remaining spark of the light of Nature) the Jews, and after them the Gentiles, and at last the Christians have used to consecrate their Temples, and in them their Altars. Sure I am that Rabanus Maurus so resolves it, saying, Altare post aspersionem aquae Chrismate ungitur, ad imitationem Patriarchae Jacob qui post visionem illam terribilem, Rab. Maurus de Institut. Cleri­corum. l. 1. cap. 45. erexit lapidem in titulum, fundens oleum desuper, vocans (que) eum locum domum Dei. But it is time to pass from these unsetled Ages of the Church of God, and to behold it in a constituted and established state; where we shall find not only certain and determinate places and set times of worship to be prescribed by the Lord; but also certain and established forms of worship to be observed amongst Gods Servants from the first beginnings.

CHAP. II. That from the time of Moses unto that of David, the Jews were not with­out a Liturgie or set form of Worship.

  • 1. The Israelites in the Land of Egypt had not the liberty of publick worship.
  • 2. That people made a constituted Church, first, in the time of Moses.
  • 3. The prescribed rites and form of the legal Sacrifices.
  • 4. Set forms of Prayer and Benediction, used at the offering of the Sacrifices, in the time of Moses.
  • 5. The Song of Moses, made a part of the Jewish Liturgie.
  • 6. The form and rites used in the Celebration of the Passeover, according unto Joseph Scaliger.
  • 7. The same, together with the Hymnes then used, described by Beza,
  • 8. The several Prayers and Benedictions which were used therein, according to the Jewish Rabbins.
  • 9. A form of Blessing of the People prescribed by God unto the Priests: A prescribed form used by the People at the offering of their first fruits and tithes.
  • 10. The like in burning of their Leaven, and in confessing of their Sins to Almighty God, as also in the Excommunicating of Impenitent persons.
  • 11. An Answer to two main objections from, and against the Jewish Rabbins.
  • 12. The form of Marriage, and rites of Bu­rial, used amongst the Jews.

HItherto we have looked into the Actions and devotions of the blessed Patriarchs, I during the time they sojourned in the Land of Canaan; in which we find not any apparent footstep either of appointed times or determinate places, or set forms of worship; more than the Consecrating of Jacobs Pillar, and giving to the place the [Page 57]name of Bethel. Follow them in their journey towards the Land of Egypt, and we find Israel offering Sacrifices at Beersheba (being in his way upon the rode) unto the God of his Father Isaac, Gen. xlvi. 1. Which Sacrifice, if we observe it as we ought,Bersabe fuit ul­tima villa ter­ra Chanaan eundi versus Aegyptum. Ly­ran in Gen. 46. Ayns. Annot. in Gen. 46.1. will prove to be as much occasional as any of the rest which we saw before: It being very well observed by Aynsworth, that Jacob in his Sacrifice upon the way, did both give thanks to God for the good tidings which he heard of Joseph, and also consulted with the Lord about his going into Egypt, whither his Father Isaac had been forbidden to go in a time of Famine, as this was, Gen. xxvi. Besides, Beersheba being the last Town of the Land of Canaan, in the way of Egypt, this might be the last time, for ought he could tell, wherein he might have opportunity of offering Sacrifice to the Lord his God, or tendring to him any publick testimony of his faith and duty. And so it proved in the event; nor he nor any one of his Posterity, being permitted whilst they were in Egypt to offer any Sacrifice unto the Lord, as before they used to do. And this appears by the request which Moses made to Pharaoh in behalf of the House of Israel, that he would suffer them to go three days journey into the Wilderness, to offer Sacrifice there­in to the Lord their God. To which when Pharaoh made reply,Exod. 5.3. that rather than let the People go, he would permit them for that once, to offer Sacrifice unto the Lord in the Land of Egypt: Not so, said Moses, it is not meet we should do so; for we shall Sacri­fice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and they will stone us. Exod. 8.26. His reason was, because the Gods of the Egyptians were Bulls and Rams, and Sheep and Oxen, as Lyra notes upon the place. Talia vero animalia ab Hebraeis erailt immolanda, Lyran. in Exod cap. 8. quod non permisissent Aegyptii in terrasua. And certainly the Egyptians could not well endure to see their gods knocked down before their faces. So that for all the time that they lived in Egypt, the piety and devotion of Gods people did consist especially in the in­tegrity and honesty of their conversation and in those private exercises of Religion which might be done within their own walls, in their several Families. Nothing to make it known that they were Gods Servants, [...], as it is observed by Epiphanius, but that they feared the Lord and were Circumcised;Epiphan. adv. haeres. l. 1. haer. 5. nothing but that they did acknowledge one only God, and exercised themselves in justice and in modesty, in patience and long-suffering both towards one another and amongst the Egyptians, framing their lives agreeably unto the will of God, and the law of Nature.

But no sooner, by a mighty hand and an out-stretched arm, II had God delivered them from thence, but he disposed them, being now grown numerous (like to the Stars in Heaven for numbers) into a constituted Church; appointing them set times and places for Religious Worship, ordaining a peculiar Priesthood for his publick service, prescribing with what Rites and Ceremonies that publick service, that religious wor­ship was to be performed. And first the time appointed for this purpose, was the Sabbath-day, Exod. 16.23. the keeping of the which was the first of the Commandments which God gave by Moses; from whence the Hebrew Doctors say, that the Commandment of the Sabath is the foundation and ground of all the rest, quod ante alia praecepta hoc datum sit, quando Manna acceperunt, as being given before them all in the fall of Manna.Hospini. de Fest. Judaeo­rum. cap. 3. A day to be observed and sanctified, both by Priest and People; by the Priest in adding to the daily Sacrifice an offering of two Lambs of an year old without blemish, one in the morning, and the other in the evening; and by the people in an absolute resting from the works of labour, that they might give themselves the better to divine con­templation. Unto which day it pleased God afterwards to adde divers solemn Festi­vals to be observed in their several and appointed seasons, viz. the New-moons,Lev. 1.23. the Feasts of Trumpets, and of Tabernacles, the Feasts of Pentecost, and of the Passeover; although this last had the precedency indeed, both in regard of institution, and of ob­servation over all the rest; this being both ordained and kept at their departure out of Egypt, the other not enjoyned till they were come unto mount Sinai, even in the bowels of the Wilderness. The times being thus appointed and determined,Exod. 12. per tot. the next particular we meet withal, is the designation of the place, which was contrived by the direction of Almighty God, according to the present condition of his People. For being they were then in motion towards Canaan, not yet setled there, they were to be provided of a portable Temple, if I may so call it, which might be carried and re­moved, according to the stations and removes of Israel. This we find called in holy Scripture by the name of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle [...],Exod. 26. & 31. & 35. and by way of eminency; the making and materials of the which are layed down at large in the xxvi. Chapter of the Book of Exodus. And it continued a long time the place of publick Worship for the Tribes of Israel, not only when they were in their way or journeys; [Page 58]but also after they were setled in the Land of Canaan, though many times it changed its seat there, as occasion was, even till the building of the Temple by the hand of Sa­lomon. And for the Priests who were to minister unto the Lord in his Congregation, no sooner were the times determined, and the place designed, but the Lord gave com­mand to Moses, saying, Take thou unto thee Aaron thy Brother, and his Sons with him, from amongst the Children of Israel,Exod. 28.1. that he may minister unto me in the Priests office. Unto which office as they were designed by these words of God, so were they after conse­crated thereunto in a solemn form, by the hand of Moses, the state and manner of the which is upon record in the viii. Chapter of Leviticus. And now, and not till now, were the Tribes of Israel established in a Constituted Church by the Lord their God.

But as once Isaac said to Abraham, Behold the fire and the wood, but where is the Lamb for a Burnt-offering? III Gen. 22.7. So here we have the Sabbath and the solemn Festivals, the Tabernacle and the Priests; but where are the Sacrifices all this while, where the forms of worship? That now comes after in its course; and that we will consider in its full extent, either as legal, or as moral. First for the legal part thereof, it was all prescribed; nothing left arbitrary to the people, either for the matter or the manner. God knew full well, that as they had been much infected with the Idolatries of Egypt, where they lived be­fore, (witness the Golden Calf which they made in Horeb) so they were apt to be in­tangled in the Idolatries of those Nations which they were to neighbour; and there­fore thought it fittest for them to be tyed up and limited in all acts of worship, by his prescriptions. Which that we may the better see, I shall present a brief Synopsis of those rites and ceremonies which were to be observed in these legal Sacrifices, together with the Creatures to be Sacrificed; according as I find them in Josephus, who hath re­duced into a lesser compass, that which is laid down more at large in the holy Scriptures. [...],Joseph Antiq. Judaic. l. 3. c. 10. &c. The Sacrifices are of two sorts; the one of them is made for a pri­vate person, the other for the people in general; and these are made in two manners, for in the one all is consumed which is upon the Altar, which for that cause is called an Holocaust, or an whole Burnt-offering; the other is Eucharistical or of thanksgiving, and they are made with Feasts by those that Sacrifice. The particular person that offered a Burnt-offering, killed an Oxe, a Lamb, or a Goat of an year old (yet it was lawful to kill an Oxe of greater age) being all Males: And after their Throats are cut, the Priests besprinkle the Altar round about with the blood, then they dress the Beast, and cut it in pieces, and season it with salt, and lay it on the Altar ready prepared with wood and fire; and having well cleansed the feet and entrails, they lay them with the rest, and the Priest taketh the skins. They that offer the Sacrifice of Thanksgiving, kill likewise such sorts of Beasts without spot, and more than a year old, both Male and Female; and after they have cut the throats, they sprinkle the blood on the Altar, then they take the reins, the caul, and the fat, with the caul about the liver, and the rump, and lay it on the Altar, but the breast and the left leg is left unto the Priests; and as touching the rest of the flesh, the Priests feast therewith for the space of two days, and if then there remain any thing thereof, it is burned. The same is also observed in the Sin-offering; but those that are not of ability to make these greater offerings, do bring unto the Offerings a pair of Pigeons, or two young Turtles, the one of which the Priests have to feast withal, the other is consumed with sire. He that hath sinned upon Ignorance, offereth a Lamb and a she Goat at the same time; and the Priest besprinkleth the Altar with the blood thereof, not in the same manner as before, but the horns only of the Altar; and on the Altar they offer the kidneys with the rest of the fat and the caul of the liver; the Priests carrying away the skins, and eating the flesh with­in the Tabernacle the very same day, because the Law permitteth not to reserve any thing until the next. He that hath sinned (none but himself being privie to it) offereth a Lamb accor­ding as the Law commandeth, the flesh whereof is eaten in like sort by the Priests the same very day. But if the Princes of the People offer for their sins, they do in like sort as others do, save that they bring a Bull or a Male-kid. The Law also ordaineth that in all Sacrifices both pri­vate and common, there should be a certain quantity of fine flower brought, viz. for a Lamb one Assar,An Assar, as I take it, is the tenth part of an Ephah, or three pints and an half of Ale-measure. An Hin con­tained three quarts of our measure. for a Ram two, for a Bull three, which is first of all mingled and wrought with oyle, and then set upon the Altar to be sanctified. They that Sacrifice do likewise bring oyle, the balf part of an Hin for a Bull; for a Ram, the third part; for a Lamb the fourth: They brought also the like measure of wine, as of oyle, and poured the wine near to the Altar. And if any without Sacrificing, offer up fine flower, he putteth the first fruits upon the Altar, that is to say, one handful of it; and the rest is taken by the Priests, either fryed (for it is kneaded with oyl) or in loaves made thereof. But whatsoever the Priest offereth, that must all be hurnt. The Law likewise forbiddeth to offer any Beast whatever the same day it is born, or to kill it with its Dam, or in any other sort, before it hath fed twelve days. There are also [Page 59]other Sacrifices made for deliverance from sickness, or for other causes; in which Sacrifices they imploy wine or liquor with that which is offered, of which liquors it is not lawful to re­serve any thing till the next day, when the Priests have taken that portion which belongeth to them. So far Josephus.

The rest that followeth of this Argument is, IV a recital of those Sacrifices which were appointed for the Sabbath and the other Festivals; in all which every thing was pre­scribed and limited by the Law of God. And if such care was taken by the Lord our God in the prescribing of these Sacrifices, and all the Rites and Ceremonies which be­longed to them, being the legal part only of this publick worship; there is no question to be made but that the Church took care to prescribe forms of Prayers and Praises to be used in them, which is the moral part thereof. A thing which God might please to leave unto the wisdom of his Church and the Rulers of it, in that being moral duties, and so by consequence imprinted in the minds of men, by the stamp of nature; there needed not so punctual and precise a prescription of them, as of the outward ceremo­nies which were meerly legal. Now that there were set forms of Prayers and Praises used in the celebratien of these legal Sacrifices, even from the very times of Moses, ap­peareth by a memorable passage in an old Samaritan Chronicle, belonging once unto the Library of Joseph Scaliger, now in the custody of the Learned Primate of Armagh. In which Book, after relation of the death of Adrian the Emperour, whom the Jews curse with Conterat Deus ossa ejus (as certainly he was a deadly enemy of theirs) it fol­loweth thus. Quo tempore abstulit librum optimum qui penes illos fuit, Clted by the L. B. of Exeter now B. of Nor­wich, in his Answer to the Vindication. jam inde à diebus illis tranquillis & pacificis, qui continebat cantiones & preces sacrificiis praemissas; Singulis enim Sacrificiis singulas praemiserunt cantiones, jam tum diebus pacis usitatas, quae omnia acourato conscripta, in singulas transmissa subsequentes generationes à tempore Legati (Mosis sc.) ad hunc us (que) diem per ministerium Pontificum Maximorum. These are the words at large as I find them cited; the substance of the which is this, That after the decease of Adrian, the High Priest then being, took away that most excellent Book, which had been kept amongst them ever since the calm and peaceable times of the Israelites, which contained those Songs and Prayers which were ever used before their Sacrifices, there being before every several Sacrifice some several Song or Hymn still used in those times of peace; all which being accu­rately written had been transmitted to the subsequent generations from the time of Moses the Legat, or Ambassador of God, to that very time, by the Ministry of the High Priests of the Jewish Nation. A book to which the Chronicle aforesaid gives this ample testimony, Eo libro historia nulla praeter Pentateuchum Mosis antiquior invenitur, that there was not to be found a more antient piece, except the Pentateuch of Moses. And though some men, (no friends to Liturgy) out of a mind and purpose to disgrace the evidence, have told us, that the most contained in the aforesaid book,Smectymn. Vindicat. p. 24. were only divine Hymns, wherein there was always something of Prayer: In saying so, they have given up their verdict for us, and confirmed our evidence. For if there were set Hymns or Songs premised before every Sacrifice; and if that every Hymn had somewhat in it of a Prayer, there must be then set forms of Hymns and Prayers used at every Sacrifice, which was the matter to be proved, and by them denied.

But to descend unto particulars; there was a Song composed and sung by Moses, V Exod. 15. on the defeat of Pharoah and the host of Egypt, which is still extant in Gods book. A song sung Quire-wise, as it seemeth, Moses as Chanter in that holy Anthem, singing verse by verse, and Mary the Prophetess, Aaron's Sister, and all the residue of the Women, with Instruments of Musick in their hands, saying or singing at each verses end, CANTATE DOMINO, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously, the horse and the rider hath he thrown into the Sea, vers. 21. Aynsworth doth so conceive it in his Notes on Exodus, and Lyra on the place differs little from it. Egressae sunt mu­lieres, quibus (Maria) praecinebat, sec. quod oportebat fieri, & aliae respondebant sicut solet fieri in tympanis & choris; & eodem modo fecit Moyses respecu virorum. Cajetan, though he differ from them both in the manner of it, yet he agrees upon the matter, that this Hymn or Anthem was sung Quire-wise or alternatim; it being his opinion, that the Women singing some spiritual song to the praise of God,Cajetan in Exod. c. 15.21. Mary to every verse made answer CANTATE DOMINO. Innuitur (saith he) quod tot choris mulierum tanquam ex una parte, canentibus aliquid in divinam laudem, Maria sola tanquam ex altera parte canebat initium supra scripti Cantici; that viz. which was sung by Moses. But whatsoever man­ner there was used in the singing of it, it seems the Jews did afterwards make Use there­of in their publick Liturgy. For thus saith Hooker in his Book of Ecclesiastical Polity: Hook. Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. n. 26. That very Hymn of Moses (whereof now we speak) grew afterwards to be a part of the [Page 60]ordinary Jewish Liturgie, and not that only, but sundry others since invented; their Books of Common prayer containing partly Hymns, taken out of the holy Scriptures, partly Thanks­givings, Benedictions, and Supplications, penned by such as were from time to time the Gover­nors of that Synagogue. All which were sorted into several times and places; some to begin the Service of God withal, and some to end; some to go before, and some to follow after, and some to be interlaced between the divine readings of the Law and Prophets. Nor is there any thing more probable than that unto their custom of finishing the Passeover with certain Psalms, the holy Evangelist doth evidently allude, saying, That after the Cup delivered by our Savi­our unto his Apostles, they sung, and so went forth to the Mount of Olives.

What ground that eminent and learned man had for the first part of his Assertion, VI viz That the song of Moses grew afterwards to be a part of the Jewish Liturgy, al­though he hath not pleased to let us know; yet I am confident he had good ground for what he said. But for the latter part thereof, that the Evangelist doth allude un­to certain Psalms used at the finishing of the Jewish Passeover; I think there is not any thing more clear and evident. For proof whereof, and that we may the better see with what set form of Prayers and Praises the Passeover was celebrated by the Jews of old;Joseph. Scalig. de emend. Temp. 1.6. we will make bold to use the words of Joseph Scaliger, who describes it thus: All things being readily prepared, and the guests assembled, Offam azymam in Embamma intingebat Paterfamilias, &c. The Father of the Family, or Master of the House dipped the unleavened bread into the sawce, which was forthwith eaten. Another part thereof being care­fully reserved under a napkin, was broke into as many pieces as there were several guests in the Paschal Chamber; each piece being of the bigness of an Olive, and each delivered severally to the guests, as they sate in order. That done, he takes the Cup, and having drank thereof, gives it to the next, he to a second, and so in order to the rest, till they all had drank. The form of Blessing which he used was this, Benedictus es Domine Deus noster, Rex seculi, qui sanctificasti nos mandatis tuis, & praeceptum dedisti super hoc pane Azymo. Blessed art thou O Lord our God, King of all the world, which hast sanctified us with thy holy pre­cepts, and given us this Commandement about the eating of unleavened bread. And at the giving of the bread, this form, Iste est panis aerumnae quem comederunt patres nostri in terra Aegypti. Quisquis esurit, accedat & paschatizet. This is the bread of sorrow which our Fathers eat when they were in Egypt. Whosoever is an hungred let him come and eat this Passeover. The formal words used at the blessing of the Cup, were these, Benedictus es Domine qui fructum vitis creasti, Blessed art thou, O Lord, which hast Created the fruit of the Vine. And this is called [...], the Cup of Praise, because whilst it was passing round about the Table, they sung an Hymn of Praise to the Lord their God. Finally, Supper being done, and all the Ceremonies ended, they sung the cxiii Psalm, and so dismissed the Assembly. So far the great and famous Scaliger. This last affirmed also by Paulus Brugensis, who addeth that this Psalm (being the cxii. in his accompt) with the five that follow, are by the Hebrews made into one Hymn, and called Allelujah magnum; Paulus Brugens. in Psal. 112. and that they use to sing the same not only at the con­clusion of the Passeover (as it is observed by Joseph Scaliger) but also in the New Moons, and the three great Feasts (in tribus praecipuis festis & in neomeniis) those, viz. of Pentecost, the Trumpets, and the feasts of Tabernacles and finally, that Christ our Saviour conforming to the forms established, Post comestionem agni Paschalis, hymnum praedictum cum Apostolis recitavit, did after the eating of the Paschal Lamb, sing the said Hymn with his Apostles.

This though it make it clear and evident, VII that at the Celebrating of the Passeover, the Jews had their prescribed forms of Prayer and Praise, and Benediction; yet for the more validity thereof, we will relate the same out of Beza also; whose words we will lay down at large without alteration. ‘Sciendum (saith he) agitata fuisse haec convivia in privatis aedibus [...],Beza Annot. in Mat. 26. i.e. per contubernia, non paucorum quam denum virorum, interdum etiam vicenum, qui nisi pedibus de more lotis, totos etiam nonnulli corpo­ribus, non sedebant, sed discumbebant, Agno illo solido cum panibus Azymis vescentes. Hac autem coena peracta consurgentes, altera pedum ablutione facta rursum discumbentes ad se­cundas mensas sese comparabant. In has vero secundas mensas pro bellariis inferebantur in triblio Acetarium, ex intybis & lactucis agrestibus; quarum amaritudinem adhibito quo­dam embammate temperabant. Tum vero Paterfamilias panem Azymum integrum in duas partes dividens, sic uni benedicebat, Benedictus es Domine, Deus noster, Rex universi, in esu panis Azymi. Alteram autem partem sub mappa reconditam ad finem convivii ser­vabat: quo peracto, idem Paterfamilias alteram illam partem depremens, in tot frusta fractam quot erant in illo contubernio convivatores, primus ipse sumebat, reliqua vero frusta [Page 61]sigillatim & ordine discumbentibus caeteris porrigebat, cum his verbis: Iste est panis aerum­nae quem comederunt majores nostri in terra Aegypti. Quisquis esurit accedat & paschatizet; cuicun (que) opus est accedat, & paschatizet. Deni (que) poculum acceptum & degustatum, praeeunte hac benedictione, Benedictus es Domine, qui fructum vitis creasti, idem Paterfamilias proxime tradebat, & ille secundo, donec poculum per totum convivium circumferretur. His autem omnibus absolutis, Psalmus cxiii. cum quin (que) aliis proxime sequentibus canebatur, quem solennem hymnum adhuc hodie magnum Hallelujah vocant; ne (que) post hoc poculum, quod propterea poculum hymni five laudationis dicebatur, comedere quicquam illa nocte fas erat.’ The English of this Latine, as to the sum and substance of it, we have seen before in that of Scaliger; and shall see more at large in that which followeth. In the mean time, without all peradventure, we have found a Liturgy, an order of Celebrating that holy Sacrament, consisting both of Rules and Rubricks, for the performing of the service; as also of those forms of Prayer, and Praise, and Be­nediction, wherewith that service was performed. And lest perhaps it may be said that these were some of the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, devised in the de­clining and corrupted Ages of the Jewish Church: Beza assures us it is no such matter; but that these rites and forms had been used amongst them, à primo in Chananitidem in­gressu, from their first entrance into the Land of Canaan, which was assoon directly,Id. Ibid. as they were a Church.

To make the matter surer yet, VIII we will observe the form and order of the Jewish Passeover, according as it is described at large by Aynsworth, out of the writings of the Rabbins, I will here shew, saith he, the order which the Jews in the Ages following, Aynsworth Annot. in Exod. 12. kept at the Passeover, as themselves have recorded it. First a cup of Wine is filled for every one, and he blesseth for it him that Created the fruit of the Vine, &c. and drinketh it. After that, he blesseth for the washing of hands, and washeth his hands. Then is brought in a Table fur­nished, and upon it bitter herbs and unleavened bread, and the sawce, and the body of the Paschal Lamb, and the flesh of the Chagigah or Feast-offering, which is for the fourteenth day of the moneth. Then he beginneth to bless God which Created the fruit of the earth, and takes an herb and dippeth it in the sawce, and eateth it, he and all that lie at the Table, every one; none eateth less than the quantity of an Olive. Afterward the Table is taken away from before him only that maketh the declaration (of their deliverance out of Egypt, as is commanded, Exod. xiii. & xii. 17.) Then they fill the second Cup, and the Son asketh what is meant by this service (according to Exod. xii. 26.) and he that maketh the declaration saith, How different is this night from all other nights? For all other nights we wash but once, but this night twice. All other nights we eat leavened bread or unleavened, but this night unleavened bread only. All other nights we eat flesh roasted, baked or boiled, but this night roasted only; all other nights we eat of any other herbs, but this night bitter herbs: All other nights we eat either sitting or lying, but this night lying only. Then the Table is brought again before him, and be saith, This Passeover which we eat, is in respect that the Lord passed over the Houses of our Fathers in Egypt. Then holdeth be up the bitter herbs in his hand, and saith, These bitter herbs which we eat are in respect that the Egyptians made the lives of our Fathers bitter in Egypt. Then he holdeth up the unleavened bread in his hand, and saith, This unleavened bread which we eat, is in respect that the dough of our Fathers had not time to be leavened, when the Lord appeared unto them, and redeemed them out of the hand of the Enemy; and they baked unleavened Cakes of the dough which they brought out of Egypt. Then be saith, Therefore are we bound to Confess, to Praise, to Laud, to Celebrate, to Glo­rifie, to Honour, to Extol, to Magnifie, and to Ascribe Victory unto him that did un­freedom, from sorrow to joy, from darkness to great light; and we say before him Hallelujah, Hallelujab, Praise O ye Servants of the Lord, &c. unto the end of the cxiv. Psalm. Then they bless the Lord which redeemed them and their Fathers out of Egypt, and hath brought them unto that night to eat unleavened bread therein, and bitter herbs. And he blesseth God who Created the fruit of the Vine, and drinketh the second Cup. After this he blesseth for the washing of hands, and washeth his hands the second time; and taketh two Cakes, parteth one of them, &c. and blesseth God that bringeth bread out of the Earth. Because it is said the Bread of Affliction, or of Poverty, Deut. xvi. 3. As it is the manner of the Poor to have broken meat, so here is a broken part. Afterwards he wrappeth up of the un­leavened bread and of the bitter herbs together, and dippeth them in the sawce, and blesseth God which commanded to eat unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and they eat. Then he blesseth God which commanded the eating of the Sacrifice, and he eateth the flesh of the Feast-offering; [Page 62]and again blesseth God which commanded the eating of the Passeover, and then he eateth of the body of the Passeover. After this they sit long at Supper, and eat every one so much as he will, and drink as much as they will drink. Afterward he eateth of the flesh of the Passeover, though it be but so much as an Olive; and tasteth nothing at all after it; that it may be the end of his supper, and that the taste of the flesh of the Passeover may remain in his mouth. After this, he lifteth up his bands and blesseth for the third cup of Wine, and drink­eth it. Then filleth he the fourth cup, and accomplisheth for it the Praise (or hymn) and saith for it the blessing of the song, which is, All thy works praise thee, O Lord, &c. Psal. cxlv. 10. and blesseth God that Created the fruit of the Vine, and tasteth nothing at all after it all the night, except water. And he may fill the fifth cup, saying (for it is the great Hymn, viz.) Confess ye to the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever, Psal. cxxxvi. unto the end of that Psalm. But he is not bound (they say) to that cup as to the four farmer cups. For this he citeth Rabbi Maymoni, and after addeth from the said Author (but from another work of his) That at the breaking and delivering of the un­leavened bread, they do use these words, This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers did eat in the Land of Egypt. Whosoever is hungry, let him come and eat; whoso­ever hath need, let him come and keep the Passeover, &c. Compare the words which follow after, viz. These observations of the Jews whilst their Common-wealth stood, &c. with those of Beza formerly remembred, à primo in Chananitidem ingressu; and then we have an Answer to the doubt which might be raised from the first words of Aynsworth in these observations; which seem to intimate, that this Order was not used by the Jews till the Ages following. The Prayers, the Praises, and the Benedictions which are the points which Beza speaks of, might be and were used by them at their first entrance on the Land of Canaan; their frequent washings and reiterating of the Cup so often, might not be introduced till the Ages following.

Here then we have set forms of Prayer and Praise, IX and Benediction used at the Cele­brating of the Jewish Sacrifices; the Song of Moses made a part of the Jewish Liturgy, the several rites and prescribed duties observed in the solemnity of the Jewish Pass­over, and all of very great Antiquity, even from the time of Moses, saith the old Sa­maritan Chronicle; à primo in Chananitidemingressu, from their first entrance into the Promised Land, as it is in Beza. And for the instituting of these forms, besides the power that God hath given unto his Church on the like occasions, they had the pre­sident and example of the Lord himself, who had prescribed in one kind, binding the Priests unto a certain form of Benediction, when he blessed the people; and in a se­cond place of Moses, who had tied himself unto a certain form of words, as often as he setled or removed the Ark. For we are told in holy Scripture, that whensoever the Ark set forwards, Moses said, Rise up Lord, and let thine Enemies he scattered, and let them that hate thee flee before thee. And when it rested he said, Return O Lord unto the many thousands of Israel.Numb. 10.35. And for the blessing of the people, we find the form thereof prescribed by the Lord himself, saying unto Aaron and his Sons, On this wise shall ye bless the Children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless thee and keep thee; the Lord make his Face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee, the Lord lift up his Countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. Numb. 10.23, 24, 25, 26. And to this form the Priests were so precifely tied, that they durst not vary from the same, the Hebrew Doctors understanding the word thus, or in this wise, to imply both the matter and the manner, as viz. Thus shall ye bless, i.e. standing, thus, with the lifting up of hands; thus, in the holy tongue; thus, with your faces towards the faces of the people; thus, with an high voice; thus, by Gods expressed Name JEHOVAH, if ye bless in the Sanctuary. So that it was not lawful to the Priest in any place to add any blessing unto these three verses, as to say (like that of Deut. 1.11.) The Lord God of your Fathers make you a thousand times so many more as you are, or any the like.Maymoni cited by Aynsw in Numb. 6. Now for the manner wherewithal the Priests performed this office, it was briefly thus. The Priests went up unto the bank or stage, after that they had finished the daily mor­ning Service, and lifted up their hands on high above their heads, and their fingers spread a­broad, except the High-Priest, who might not lift his hands higher than the Plate (whereof see Exod. xxviii. 36.) and one pronounced the blessing word by word, till the three verses were ended. And the people answered not after every verse, but they made it in the Sanctuary one blessing. And when they had finished, all the people answered, Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel for ever and ever.Id. Ibid. By which we may preceive most clearly, first that the Priests were tyed precisely to a form of blessing, prescribed by the Lord himself. And secondly, that to this form of blessing thus prescribed by God, the Church did after add of her own Authority, not only several external and significant rites, but a [Page 63]whole clause to be subjoyned by the people, after the Priest had done his part. Now as the Priests were limited by Almighty God unto a set and prescribed form, where­with they were to bless the people in the Name of God: So did he also set a form unto the People; in which they were to pay their Tithes and First-fruits to the Lord their God, towards the maintenance of the Priests. First for the form used at the oblation of the First-fruits, it was this that followeth: (the words being spoke unto the Priest) I profess this day unto the Lord thy God, that I am come unto the Countrey, which the Lord sware unto our Fathers to give us. Which said, and the Oblation being placed by the Priest before the Altar, the party which brought it was to say, A Syrian ready to perish was my Father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a Nation, great, mighty and populous. And the Egyptians evil intreated us and af­flicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage. And when we cryed unto the Lord God of our Fa­thers, the Lord beard our voice, and looked on our affliction, and our labour, and our oppression. And the Lord brought us forth of Egypt with a mighty hand; and with an out-stretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs and with wonders. And he hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this Land, even a Land that floweth with Milk and Honey. And now behold I have brought the First-fruits of the Land, which thou O Lord hast given unto me. Then for the tendry of the Tithe of the third year, which only was payable to the Priest, (those of the other two years being due to the Levites in the Countrey) it was to be brought unto Hierusalem, and tendred in these following words, viz. I have brought away the hallowed thing out of mine House, and also have given them unto the Levite, and unto the Stranger, to the Fatherless, and to the Widow, according to all thy Com­mandments which thou hast commanded me: I have not transgressed thy Commandments, neither have I forgotten them. I have not eaten thereof in my journeying, neither have I taken away ought thereof for any unclean use, nor given ought thereof for the dead; but I have bear­kened to the voice of the Lord my God, and have done according to all that thou hast comman­ded me. Look down from thy holy habitation from Heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the Land which thou hast given us; as thou swarest to our Fathers, a Land that floweth with Milk and Honey. Of this see Deut. 26. from the 1 verse to the 16.

Led by these precedents, and guided by the Wisdom of the Spirit of God, X the Church in the succeeding times prescribed a set form to be used in burning their lea­ven, which after they had searched for with such care and diligence that a Mouse­hole was not left unransacked, they threw it in the fire, with this solemn form of exe­cration, viz. Let all that Leaven, or whatsoever leavened thing is in my power, whether it were seen of me, or not seen, whether cleansed by me, or not cleansed, let all that be scattered, destroyed, and accounted of as the dust of the Earth: A prescribed form they also had, in a constant practice for the confession of their sins, to the Throne of God. The ground thereof they took indeed from the holy Scripture, where the Lord God com­manded, saying, And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live Goat, and confess over him all the Iniquities of the Children of Israel, and all their Transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the Goat, &c.Lev. 16.21. Ask Lyra, what kind of Con­fession is there meant, and he will tell you that it was a general Confession of the peo­ples sins, made by the mouth of the Priest, for and in their names; sicut facimus in Confessione in principio Missae, as we (the Priests) are wont to make in the beginning of the Mass. The Learned Morney comes more home, and informs us thus.Lyr. in Levit. cap. 18.21. Confessio olim in sacrificio solennis. Ejus praeterquam in lege vestigia, in Prophetis formulam habemus. In ipsis Judaeorum libris verba tanquam concepta extant, quae sacerdos pronunciare solitus. Of old they had a solemn or set manner of Confession,Mornaeus de Missal. 1. cap. 5. whereof besides those foot­steps of it which are remaining in the Law, the form is extant in the Prophets. And in the Jewish Liturgy the express words are to be seen, which were pronounced by the Priest. Now if we ask of Paulus Phagius, than whom none more acquainted with the Jewish Liturgies, what the precise form was which the Priest did use; he will thus in­form us. ‘Forma confessionis qua tum usus est summus Pontifex, secundum Hebraeorum relationem haec fuit, &c. The form (saith he) used then by the High Priest in Con­fessing the peoples sins, (as the Hebrew Doctors have recorded) was as followeth.P. Phagius in Chaldaea Pa­raphr. in cap. 16. Levit. O Lord thy People of the House of Israel have sinned, they have done wickedly, they have grievously transgressed before thee. O Lord make Atonement now for the Sins, and for the Iniquities, and for the Trespasses that thy People, the House of Israel have sinned, and un­righteously done, and trespassed before thee, as it is written in the Law of Moses thy Ser­vant, that in this day he shall make Atonement for you.’ This for the people on the Scape­goat. And there were two other Confessions made by the Priest also, as the Rabbins [Page 64]testifie; one for himself,Maymoni. apud Aynsw. in cap. 16. Levit. the other for himself with the other Priests; both on the Bullock of the Sin-offering, mentioned v. 6. each of which also had their certain and prescribed forms. For when he offered the Bullock for a Sin-offering for himself, he said, O Lord I have sinned and done wickedly, and have grievously transgressed. I beseech thee now, O Lord, be merciful unto those sins and iniquities, and grievous transgressions, where­in I have sinned, P. Phagius, loco supr. citato. done wickedly, and transgressed against thee. And when he offered for him­self, and the rest of the Priests, then he used these words, saying, I and my House, and the Sons of Aaron thy holy people have sinned and done wickedly, &c. I beseech thee now, O Lord, be merciful, &c. as in the other forms before delivered. Finally, as there was a form prescribed the Priests, in which to make Confession of their own and the peoples sins to the Lord their God; so if the people were Impenitent, and neither would be brought unto repentance, or amendment of life, they had their forms of Excommunication also. Witness the solemn form in use amongst them in Excommunicating the Sama­ritans. In the denouncing of which censure, they brought together 300 Priests, and 300 Trumpets, and 300 Books of the Law, and 300 Boys, and they blew with the Trumpets; and the Levites singing, accursed the Cuttbaeans (or Samaritans) in the name of Tetragrammaton, or JEHOVAH, and with the curses both of the higher and lower House of judicature, and said, Cursed is he who eats the bread of the Cutthaean; and let no Cutthaean be a Proselyte in Israel,Drusius in Seph. Tanhuma. neither have any part in the resurrection of the just. Which Curse being wrote on Tables, and sealed up, was published over all the Coasts of Israel, who multiplied this great Anathema or Curse upon them.

Nothing can be more plain than this, XI that in almost all sacred and religious duties, which were to be performed in publick, the Jews had anciently their appointed and determinate forms; as well as their appointed and determinate either times or places. But against this it is objected out of Rabbi Maimony, that from the time of Moses unto Ezra, there was no stinted form of Prayer heard of in the Jewish Church, but every man prayed according unto his ability. Smectymn. Vindicat. p. 25. To which the Answer is in brief, that they who have pro­duced this place out of Rabbi Maimony, dare not stand upon it, conceiving it to be no testimony to command belief: Secondly, that the Rabbi in the place alledged, speaks not of publick, but of private prayers: And thirdly, that the place is curtalled to make it serve the turn the better. For look upon the place at large, and we find it thus. We are commanded to pray every day, as it is written, And ye shall serve the Lord your God, Exod. xxiii. 25. We have been taught that this Service is Prayer, as it is written, And to serve him with all your heart. Our wise men have said, what Service is this with the heart? It is Prayer. And there is no number of Prayers by the Law, neither is there any set form of this Prayer by the Law, nor any appointed time for prayer by the Law. And therefore Women and Servants are bound to pray, because it is a Commandment, the time whereof is not determined. But the duty of this Commandment is thus, that a Man make Supplication and Prayer every day, and shew forth the praise of the holy blessed God, and af­terward ask such things as be needful for him by request, and by supplication; and afterward give praise and thanks unto the Lord for his goodness, which he abundantly ministreth unto him; every one according to his might. If he be accustomed unto it, let him use such Sup­plication and Prayer; and if he be of uncircumcised lips, let him speak according as he is able, at any time when he will; and so they make Prayers every one according unto his ability. This is the place at large in Rabbi Maimony. Maymoni. cited by Ayns. Deut. 6.13. And who sees not, that this must be interpre­ted of private prayer, or else it will conclude as strongly against appointed times and places for the performance of this holy exercise, as against the forms; and then what will become of the blessed Sabbath, the day of Prayer; or of the holy Temple, the House of Prayer? Must not they also be discharged on the self-same grounds? Or were it meant of publick Prayer (as it cannot be) all that can be inferred, is no more than this, that God prescribed no set form or number of prayers in the Book of the Law; which makes but little to the purpose. For it was said and shewed before, that Moses was more punctual and precise in laying down the form and matter of the legal Sacri­fices, by which the Jews were to be nourished in the faith of Christ, and with the which they had not been acquainted in the former times; than in prescribing forms of Prayer and Praises, being moral duties, in which they had been trained from their ve­ry infancy. Now to this argument derived from the Authority of the Jewish Rabbins, we must needs add another which is made against them; and that is, that the evi­dence of all this (as also of much of that which followeth) comes from no better Author than Maimonides,Smectymn. in Vindicat. p. 23. who wrote not till above a thousand years after Christ. Against which weak objection (for it is no other) we have a very strong respondent, even the fa­mous [Page 65] Scaliger. Who having made a full description of those rites and forms where­with the Passeover was solemnized in the former times, collected from the Writings of the Jewish Rabbins, thinks it as idle and ridiculous to except against them, because observed by Writers of a later date, though from the best Records and Monuments of that scattered Nation; as if a man reading the Pandects of the Civil Law, composed in Justinians time, should make a question whether those judgments and opinions ascribed unto Paepinian, Paulus, Ʋlpianus, were theirs or not. Quod nemo sanus dixerit, Scaliger de emendat. Temp. l. 6. Quod nemo sanus dixerit, which none, saith he, except a mad-man, would make question of. And so these rubs being thus removed, and in part anticipated, we will go forwards with our search in the Name of God.

But first, before we end this Chapter, XII considering that there were set forms of Mar­riages, and set rites of Burial, and those of great Antiquity in the Jewish Church; I will here put them down in the way of Corollary. For though they were no part of the publick worship, yet doubtless they were parts of the publick Liturgy; and being performed with Prayer and Invocation of Gods holy Name, they deserve place here. And first for Marriage, in the solemnities thereof they observed this form: The time appointed being come, the Bride and Bridegroom were conducted by their special Friends, who are styled [...], Children of the Bride-Chamber, Mat. 9.15. in S. Matthews Gospel, to the Marriage-house; which from the Blessings and Thanksgivings which were used therein on these occasions, was called Beth Hillula, the House of Praise. There, in an Assembly of ten men at the least, the Writing, or Bill of Dowry being rati­ed before a Scrivener or publick Notary, the Man thus said unto the Woman: Esto mihi in uxorem secundum legem Mosis & Israel, & Ego juxta verbum Dei colam te, honorabo te, With my bo­dy I thee worship. alam & regam juxta morem qui colunt, honorant, & regunt uxores fideliter. Do autem tibi dotem virginitatis tuae ducentos aureos (i.e. 50 siclos) quin etiam alimentum tuum & vesti­tum, atque sufficientem necessitatem tuam, Cornel. Bertram. item cognitionem tui juxta consuetudinem universae terrae. That is to say, ‘Be thou a Wife to me according to the Law of Moses and Israel, and I shall worship and honour thee according to the Word of God: I shall seed and govern thee according to the custom of those who worship, honour, and go­vern their Wives faithfully. I give thee for the Dowry of thy Virginity, two hun­dred pence, (i. e. 50 Shekels) as also thy food, cloathing, and all sufficient necessa­ries, and knowledge of thee according to the custom of the whole earth.’ A Shekel was a piece of mo­ney among the Jews, a­mounting in our coyn to 1 s. 3 d. Judg. 14.11. 1 Sam. 18.25. Ruth. 4.2. Much of which form, as to the main and substance of it, is exceeding Ancient. For in the Marriage of Sampson we find the Children of the Bride-Chamber, being the thirty young men, his Companions as they are there called; in that of David unto Michael, the Daughter of Saul, the bringing in of an hundred Foreskins of the Philistins, in loco dotis, as the Dowry-money; in that of Ruth, the presence of ten men to bear witness to it. Nor was this done, being a business of such moment, without a special Benediction. For at the Marriage of Boaz to Ruth, the People and the Elders said, The Lord make the Woman which is come into thine House, like Rachel, and like Leah, which two did build the House of Israel; and do thou worthily in Ephrata, and be famous in Bethlehem; and let thy House be like the House of Pharez, of the Seed which the Lord will give thee of this young Woman. Ruth 4.11, 12. Upon this ground it was that Marriage was not solemnized amonst them without Prayers and Blessings; the form whereof in the ensuing times was this as fol­loweth, Benedictus sis Domine Deus noster, Rex universi, &c. ‘Blessed be the Lord our God, the King of the World, who hath Created Man after his own Image, accor­ding to the Image of his own likeness, and hath thereby prepared unto himself an everlasting building. Blessed be thou O Lord God, who hast Created him.Moses & Aaron l. 6. cap. 4. Then followeth again, Blessed be thou O Lord our God, who hast Created joy and glad­ness, the Bridegroom and the Bride, Charity and Brotherly love, Rejoycing and Pleasure, Peace and Society. I beseech thee O Lord, let there be suddenly heard in the Cities of Judah, and the Streets of Hierusalem, the voice of joy and gladness, the voice of the Bridegroom and the Bride; the voice of exaltation in the Bride-Chamber is sweeter than any Feast, and Children sweeter than the sweetness of a song.’ Which Prayer thus ended, one of the Bride-men or Companions took a cup (having before been blessed in the wonted form) and drinks unto the Married-couple. As for the form and rites of Burial, not to say any thing either of the washing or em­balming of the Corps, which was common unto them with other Nations,Chiristan Sy­nagogue. l. 1. cap. 6. sict. 8. Paraph. 15. Diat, 1. their custom was, after the body was interred, to speak something of the justice of God, and of mans sin which meriteth death; and they prayed God in justice to remember mercy. This said, they gave a Cup of Consolation to the sad-hearted. Finally, on the grave [Page 66]or Tombstone, they caused these words ensuing to be written, Sit anima ejus in fasci­culo vitae cum caeteris justis. Amen, Amen, Selah. That is to say, let his soul be in the bundle of life with the rest of the just. Amen, Amen, So be it. These as they were the ancient forms and ceremonies used in their Marriages and Burials; so after, when they had erected Synagogues in convenient places, they solemnized their Marriages in a Tent,Maymon. ci­ted in Fishter's defence, cap. 17. set upon four Pillars near their Synagogue; which shews, that there was some­thing in it wherewith the Priest or Prophet was to intermeddle, and that they did esteem it of a nature not so meerly civil, but that the blessing of the Minister was re­quired unto it. But it is time I now go forward to the Ages following.

CHAP. III. Of the condition and estate of the Jewish Liturgy, from the time of David unto Christ.

  • 1. Several hours of prayer used amongst the Jews; and that the prayers then used were of prescribed forms.
  • 2. The great improvement of the Jewish Li­turgie in the time of David, by the addi­tion of Psalms and Instruments of Mu­sick.
  • 3. The form of Celebrating Gods publick Ser­vice, according unto Davids Institutions, described by the Jewish Rabbins.
  • 4. The solemn form used in the dedicating of the first and second Temples.
  • 5. The Temple principally built for an House of Prayer.
  • 6. The several and accustomed gestures used among the Jews in the performance of Gods publick worship.
  • 7. The weekly reading of the Law on the Sab­bath days, not used until the time of Ezra.
  • 8. The reading of the Law prescribed and regulated, according to the number of the Sections, by the care of Ezra; and of the 18 Benedictions by him composed.
  • 9. The Exposition of the Law prescribed and ordered by the Authority of the Church.
  • 10. The first foundation of Synagogues and Oratories, and for what employments.
  • 11. The Church of Jewry ordained Holy­days, and prescribed forms of prayer to be used thereon.
  • 12. Set days for publick annual Feasts, ap­pointed by the Jewish Church; with a set form of prayer agreeable to the occasion.
  • 13. The form of Celebrating Gods publick Service, according as it is described by Jesus the Son of Syrac.
  • 14. Jesus the Son of God conforms himself unto the forms established in the Jewish Church.
  • 15. A transition from the forms received in the Jewish Church, to those in Ʋse amongst the Gentiles.

THE Nation of the Jews, being thus setled into an established Church by the hand of Moses, and several forms of Prayer and Praise and Benediction prescribed un­to them, either immediately by the Lord himself, or by the Church directed by the wisdom of Almighty God; it was not long before that divers other points were added by the like Authority, until the Liturgy thereof became full and absolute. Of these the first in course of time, was the deputing of certain and determinate hours in every day, for the performance of those moral duties of Prayer and Praises, in which Gods publick worship did consist especially; which were the third, the sixth, and the ninth. For clearer knowledge of the which we shall add thus much, that the Jews did usually di­vide their day into four great parts (hours of the Temple they were called) that is to say, the third hour, which began at six of the Clock in the Morning, and held on till nine; the sixth, which began at nine and ended at twelve; the ninth, which held from twelve to three in the afternoon; and the eleventh, which was from three until six at night. According to which distribution, they had three several hours of Prayer, viz. the third, the sixth, the ninth, as before was said. For thus saith David of himself, Evening and Morning, and at Noon-day will I pray unto thee, Psal. lv. 17. And so the Scriptures say of Daniel, that turning towards Hierusalem, he kneeled upon his knees and prayed, and gave thanks before his God three times a day, as he had formerly been accustomed, Dan. vi. 10. David who had the opportunity to repair unto the Ta­bernacle, or the House of God, joyned with the Congregation in those Prayers which were appointed for those times. But Daniel who lived an exile in a strange Land, and [Page 67]at a time, in which there was no Temple at Hierusalem, only conceived himself ob­liged to observe the hours which had been antiently in Use with the Jewish Nation; without being punctual in the forms, for ought I can find. It's true, the Jews used to repair unto the Tabernacle, as afterwards unto the Temple, and other places set a­part for this pious duty (of which more anon) to offer up their private Prayers and Vowes to Almighty God. For so we read of Hannah in the first of Samuel, chap. 1. v. 10. &c. and so in other places of Gods Book of divers others. Of which none is more eminent, because not any one so much objected as that of the Publican and the Pharisee, of whom we find mention in the Gospel, who going into the Temple to pray, (as who else did not?) are confidently said to use no prayer that was of regular prescription, because the prayer which they are said to make in the Book of God,Smectymn. p. 8. was of a present conception. But this, if pondered as it ought, can be no Argument I trow, that therefore there was then no set form of publick worship to be performed in those holy places, because Gods Servants used as occasion was, to make therein their private Prayers to the Lord their God: No better argument, than if it should be proved that there is no set Liturgy in the Church of England, because devout and godly men use oftentimes to have recourse unto the Church (or Temple) for their private prayers. In those, though poured forth in the Temple, the proper and appointed place of publick worship, the people were at liberty to make Use of their own con­ceptions. But it was otherwise in those acts of worship, (so far forth as they do relate unto Invocation) which were to be performed with the Congregation. And so it is resolved by the best and learnedest of all the Rabbins; by whom it is affirmed, that in the publick Congregation, a private or a voluntary prayer was not to have been offered to the Lord their God: Quoniam nec Ecclesia seu caetus publicus offerebat ex lege sacrificium ultroneum; because the Church or Congregation was not to offer any Sacrifice but such as was prescribed and ordered by the Law of God.Maim. ap. Selden. in Eu­tych. Alex. p. 49 Which rule as it was constantly observed in all other days, and at the several hours of prayer in each several day; so most especially upon the Sabbaths and the other Festivals; and that upon the self-same reason, viz. Quoniam in eis non offerendum erat ultroneum quid, because no voluntary ob­lation might thereon be offered, (as in some cases might be done on the other days) but only such as were appointed in the Law. Now that there were set forms of prayer for these several hours (besides what is affirmed by a Learned Writer of our own) as appeareth by that memorable passage of Peter and John's going up into the Temple,Selden. Com­ment. in Eutych. Alex. p. 46, 47. sub horam orationis nonam, at the ninth hour, being an hour of prayer. For if the prayer they went to make, were rather of a sudden and extemporary Conception,Smectymn. p. 8. than of a regular Prescription, what needed they to have made Use of such a time, when as the Congregation was assembled for Gods publick worship? And on the other side, that the prayer which the two Apostles went up to make, was such as was prescribed the Congregation, is evident by that of Ludovicus Capellus, the French Oracle of Hebrew Learning, as one truly calls him, who saith expresly,B. Hall. Answ. to the Vindi­cation. Orationem eam cujus causa Petrus & Johannes petebant templum, fuisse eam, quae à Judaeis dicitur [...] Quae respondet oblationi vespertinae lege praescriptae. The prayer (saith he) for which Peter and John went up into the Temple, is that which the Jews called the lesser oblation, answer­ing to the evening Sacrifice prescribed by the Law. And indeed Calvin intimates no less, to my apprehension. For when he askes the question, An Apostoli in Templum ascenderint, ut secundum legis ritum precarentur, whether the Apostles went into the Temple to pray, according to the rites prescribed in the Law;Calv. in Act. although he thinks that they went thither at that time to have the better opportunity to promote the Gospel; yet he confesseth by the question, that at that time there were set prayers made in the Temple, after the manner of the Jews.

But to go on from Moses unto David, I find but little changed or added in things that did concern Gods publick worship, and the forms thereof. But in the time of David, and by his Authority, there was a signal alteration made; much outward form and lustre added to the service of God. For whereas formerly the Levites were ap­pointed by the Law of Moses, to bear about the Tabernacle, as occasion was; the Ta­bernacle being by David fixt and setled in Hierusalem, there was no further Use of the attendance of the Levites in that kind or ministery. He therefore thought it fit to set them to some new imployment; some to assist the Priests in the publick offices of Gods holy worship; some to be over-seers and Judges of the people, some to be Porters also in the House of God; and others finally to be Singers, to praise the Lord with In­struments that he had made, with Harps, with Viols, and with Cymbals. 1 Chron. 23.4, 5, &c. Of these the [Page 68]most considerable were the first and last, the first appointed to assist at the Daily Sacri­fices, as also at the offering of all Burnt-offerings unto the Lord, in the Sabbaths, the moneths, and at the appointed times, according to the number, and according to their custom, continually before the Lord. Ibid. ver. 31. Id. ch. 35.7. The other were instructed in the Songs of the Lord, not only such as had been made before in the former times, but such as he composed himself, according to the influence of the holy Spirit. Josephus tells us in the general, that after Absaloms rebelling was suppressed,Joseph. Antiq. Jud. l. 7. cap. 10. and the Kingdom setled, [...], he composed Odes and Hymns to the praise of God; as also that he made di­vers kinds of Instruments, and that he taught the Levites to praise Gods Name upon the same, both on the Sabbath, [...], and on other the appointed Festivals. And this we may observe also in the holy Scripture by the style and title of those Psalms which were then made by him for that end and purpose. For if we look upon the xcii. Psalm, we find it styled, A Song or Psalm for the Sabbath day, i. e. as it is generally expounded, a Song made to be sung on the Sabbath day. Docet inscriptio Sabbatis praecipuè cantatum fuisse hunc Psalmum, Ap. Marlorat. in Psalm 92. saith Mart. Bucer: Which Calvin se­conds and approves. To the same purpose also Lyra, save that he makes the Author of it to be Moses, Lyr. in Psal. following therein the old tradition of the Hebrew, Secundum Hebraeos Moyses feeit hunc Psalmum decantandum in die Sabbati; as he notes it there. Of the same nature are those Psalms, which in S. Hieroms Bible and the Vulgar Latine, are en­tituled Laus cantici Davidis in die ante Sabbatum, & Psalmus David quarta Sabbati; being the 93 & 94, of our English Bibles. Which what else were they but some Psalms by him intended to be sung in the Congregation upon the Wednesday and the Friday? Besides it is observed by Junius, that from the times of David forwards, they sung the 22 Psalm, ante alias omnes actiones sacras, before they did begin the Morning Sacrifice; and that they sung each day (as they did the former) and 136 Psalm at the conclusion of the Evening Service. For which consult him in his Notes on Exod. xxix. As for the fifteen Psalms called in the holy Scriptures, Cantica graduum, Psalms or Songs of degrees, being the 120 Psalm, and the fourteen following, according to the Hebrew Calculation, and the English Bibles; they are conceived to be made for a perpetual and constant part of Gods daily Service. For though I find amongst Interpreters no little difference about the reason of these titles; yet that to me seems most agreeable to the truth thereof, which is most generall agreed, both by the Latine Writers and the Hebrew DOctors. And amongst them secundum Doctores Hebraeos & Latinos, it is resolved, saith Lyra, that they were so called, eo quod in ascensu Templi qui erat per quindecim gradus, cantabantur à Sacerdotibus & Levitis, primus Psalmus in primo gradu, secundus in secundo & sic de aliis; Lyr. in Psal. 91. because they were sung by the Priests and Levites upon the fifteen Stairs or degrees that went up to the Temple. And this of Lyra, is favoured by the Chaldee Paraphrase, as is said by Aynsworth in his short notes upon the Psalms. And here that divers of the Psalms are such as seem to b e composed of purpose for stirring up the af­fections of the Congregation, as viz. Psal. xxxiv. O magnifie the Lord with me, and let us exalt his Name together. And Psal. xcv. Venite Adoremus, O come, let us worship and fall down, and kneel before the Lord our Maker. And Psal. cxlix. O sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise in the Congregation of the Saints, with many others of that stamp; and then I doubt not but it will appear to any apprehensive Reader, that those and divers of the rest were made of purpose to be sung daily in the Celebrating of Gods publick Service, and so by consequence to be a principal and constant part of the publick Liturgy. And it was usual with the Jews, Christ. Synag. l. 1. c. 6. §. 6. when they carried their first fruits to Hierusalem, to sing upon the way the 122 Psalm; when they came into the Sanctuary, with every mans Basket on his shoulder, to sing the last in all the book; and when they were in the Court-yard to sing the 30. So that it seems they had set Psalms for every duty, which was to be discharged in publick; and more than so, set parts and parcels of some Psalms, for the beginning and conclusion of all publick offices. For, for the Intro­duction to their Prayers they used always this, O Lord open our lips, and our mouth shall shew forth thy praise, Psal. li. 15. and for the close thereof, this clause, Let the words of my mouth, and the meditations of my heart be always acceptable in thy sight, O Lord my strength and my Redeemer, III Psal. xix. ult.

Now unto these collections from the holy Scripture, it will not be amiss to add from the Jewish Rabbins the form and manner in which Gods publick Service was per­formed, after the setling and establishing of the same by David. Maim. ap. Aynsw. in the end of his notes upon the Psalms. The Priests and Levites, say the Rabbins, do sing the song over all the Burnt-offerings of the Congregation, which they were bound to offer, and over all the Peace-offerings of the solemn Assembly, at the time when [Page 69]the wine (i. e. the Drink-offering) was poured out. But over the voluntary Burnt-offerings which the Congregation offered, and the drink-offerings which were brought for them, they said not the song. A Levite that mourned might not serve nor sing; and there might not be fewer than twelve Levites standing on the bank or stage everyday, to say the song over the Sa­crifice; but they might always have as many as they would. And they said not the song but by mouth without Instrument; for the foundation of the Musick is, that it be a Service by mouth. And there were others standing there playing with Instruments of Musick; and they played on Pipes and Psalteries, and Harps, and Trumpets, and Cymbals. There might not be fewer than two Psalteries, nor more than six; nor fewer than two Pipes (or Flutes) nor more than twelve; nor fewer than two Trumpets, or more than an hundred and twenty; nor fewer than nine Harps, but as many as they would; and one Cymbal only. In all the days of the solemn Feasts, and at the new Maons, there were Priests blowing with Trumpets at the hour of the Sacrifice, Numb. x. 10. and the Levites said the song. The Trumpets were of silver, and it was not lawful to have them of other metal. The Pipes which they played on were of Cane, or Reed; the Psaltery was an Instrument like a Bottle, and they played thereon. Twelve days in the year they played on the Pipe or Flute before the Altar, viz. at the killing of the first Passe­over, and at the killing of the second Passeover, and in the first good day of the Passeover, and in the first good day of Pentecost, and in the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles. No Ser­vice almost celebrated without Songs or Musick, and that ordained after the Law Le­vitical was given to Moses, and all the Rites and ceremonies of the same prescribed and limited; which plainly shews that Instrumental Musick in the celebrating of Gods pub­lick worship, is not derived at any hand from the Law of Moses, or to be reckoned as a part of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Levitical Sacrifices. And lest this intermix­ture of Songs and Musick in the officiating of the Moral worship of God, might either be conceived to have been introduced by the Jews, in the declining times of their zeal and piety; or else ordained by David without good Authority, and never practised in the purer times of the Jewish Church; we will look into the Acts of Solomon, Hezekiah, Ezra. Of Solomon and Ezra more anon. Of Hezekiah this at present; of whom it is recorded in the Book of Chronicles, that in the restauration of Gods worship, being much corrupted, When the Burnt-offering began, the Song of the Lord began also with Trumpets, and with the Instruments ordained by David king of Israel: And all the Congrega­tion worshipped, and the Singers sang, and the Trumpeters sounded, 2 Chron. 29.27, 28. and all this continued till the Burnt-offering was finished. Where note, that this was some appointed and determi­nate song which had been formerly set out for the like occasions, that which is here en­tituled the Song of the Lord, or canticum Traditum, as the word is rendred by Treme­lius; as also that the intermixture of Musical Instruments in Gods holy Service is re­ferred to David. And so 'tis also in the Book of Nehemiah, Neh. 12.46. where both the Singers and the songs are referred to him. For in the days of David and Asaph of old, there were chief of the Singers, and songs of praise and thanksgiving unto God, saith the holy Scripture.

Of Solomon and Ezra next, the greatest and most memorable action of whose times, IV was the building of the first and second Temples, immensae opulentiae Templum, Tacit. hist. l. 5. as the last is called by the Historian. For that of Solomon, as soon as it was fitted and pre­pared for the Service of God, that godly and religious Prince, to whom the Lord had given a large and understanding heart, as the Scripture tells us, did not think fit to put it unto publick Use, till he had dedicated the same to the Lord his God, by Prayer and Sacrifice. The pomp and order of the Dedication we may see at large, 1 King. viii. To which add this considerable passage from the Book of Chronicles; where it is said,2 Chron. 5.12, 13. with reverence unto Davids Institution, that the Levites which were the Singers, all of them of Asaph, of Heman, of Jeduthun, with their Sons and their Brethren; being aray­ed in white linen, having Cymbals and Psalteries, and Harps, stood at the East end of the Altar, and with them an hundred and twenty Priests sounding with Trumpets: And that it came to pass, as the Trumpeters and Singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord, that they lift vp their voice with the Trumpets and Cymbals and Instruments of Musick, and praised the Lord, saying, For he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever. In which we may observe two things, first, that in Celebrating Gods pub­lick worship, and in that part thereof which was meerly moral, the Levites were arayed in a white linnen Rayment, such as the Surplice now in Use in the Church of England. And secondly, that they were prescribed what song or Psalm they were to sing, being the 136. of Davids Psalms, beginning with Confitemini Domino quoniam bonus, quoniam in aeternum misericordia ejus. And this we may the rather think to be a certain and pre­scribed Hymn, not taken up at the discretion of the Priests and Levites; because we [Page 70]find the same expresly in laying the foundation of the second Temple. For we are told in the book of Ezra, Ezr. 3.10, 11. that when the Builders laid the foundation of the Temple of the Lord, they set the Priests in their Apparel with Trumpets, and the Levites the Sons of Asaph, with Cymbals, to praise the Lord, after the Ordinance of David the King of Israel: (where not that still this Institution is referred to David) And they sung together by course (Quire-wise) in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord, because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. Lyra observes upon the place, that the Psalm here sung, ab ipso Davide factum, & ad hoc ordinatum, was made by David for this very purpose;Lyr. in Ezr. cap. 3. v. 1. 1 Chron. 28. who had not only left command to Solomon about the building of the Tem­ple, but gave him patterns of the work, and much of the materials for the same. Add finally, that at the Dedication of each Temple, there was a great and sumptuous Feast provided for the People of God; whereof see 1 King. viii. 65. and Ezra. vi. 16. Which as it was the ground of the [...], or Feast of Dedication, established after by the Maccabees; so gave it no small hint unto the Christians to institute the like Feasts on the like occasions; whereof more hereafter.

In the mean time, V to look a little back on Solomon, if question should be made to what particular end he did erect that magnificent Structure; I answer, that it was most spe­cially for an House of Prayer. The legal Sacrifices were all of them performed in the outward Courts, and there were all the utensils and vessels which did pertain unto the same. The Priest that offered Sacrifice came not thither; he had no place nor por­tion in it. 'Tis true, there was an Altar in it, but 'twas the Altar of Incense, not the Altar for Sacrifices. That stood indeed within the Temple, as at the first, by Gods own Ordinance and appointment, within the Tabernacle, where it was placed before the Veil.Exod. 30.6, 7, 8. And it was placed there to this end and purpose, that Aaron might burn Incense on it every morning when he dressed the lamps, and when he lighted them at even. By this was figured the offering up of the Prayers of the Saints to the Lord their God. We find it so expresly in the Revelation. Apocal. 8.3, 4. And another Angel, saith the Text, came and stood at the Altar, having a golden Censer, and there was given unto him much Incense, that he should offer is with the Prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar that was before the Throne; and the smoak of the Incense which came with the Prayers of the Saints, ascended up before God out of the Angels hand. And hereto David doth allude in the book of Psalms. Let my prayer (saith he) be set forth before thee as Incense, and the lifting up of my hand as the Evening Sacrifice. Psal. 141.2. 1 King. 8. But that which makes the matter most clear and evident, is the whole scope of Solomons prayer, made by him at the Dedication of it. The substance and effect whereof is no more than this, that in what misery or distress soever the peo­ple of the Lord should fall into, either by temporal plauges and punishments which assault without, or on the apprehension of their sins which assails within: If they poured forth their souls to God, either in or towards his holy Temple, the Lord would hear them and deliver them out of all their troubles. And so much is summed up by Josephus briefly,Joseph. Judaic. Antiq. l. 8. c. 2. briefly, [...], &c. If it shall so fall out (saith he) that thy People go astray, and that afterwards being punished by thee, with death, pestilence, or any such chastisement, wherewithal thou re­claimest those that offend against thee to the observance of thy Laws; if then they have recourse unto this Temple, beseeching and requiring thee of mercy, that thou wouldest please to hear them, and have mercy on them, and deliver them from their Adversities. Nor was it with­out special reason that God amongst so many Ministeries as were performed in and about his Temple, should single out the exercise of prayer; by which to give deno­mination to this holy place; for by that name, the House of Prayer, he hath been pleased to call it twice in one verse of Esay. Isa. 56.7. Or that our Saviour Christ should be so scandalized at those which sold Doves in the verge thereof, or at the Tables of the Money-changers,Mat. 21. being so necessary, or at least convenient for those who came from remote places, that they might easily provide their offerings there, and dispatch their business with the greater speed. Why else was this, but that our Saviour looked on it as a place for Sacrifice, wherein his legal worship was to be performed in the Obla­tions of Bulls and Goats, Turtles and Pidgeons, and the like; but as a place intended for his moral worship, wherein his People were to offer the calves of their lips; or at the least as on a place which was more grateful to him, as an House for Prayer, than as a Slaughter-house for Sacrifice? His saying that he would have mercy and not sa­crifice, shews us how little he esteemed of the legal duties in respect of moral.

So then, VI the Temple was an House of Prayer, and built most chiefly for the Use. Which being an action meerly moral, was notwithstanding to be waited on with such [Page 71]rites and gestures, wherewith the earnestness of their Petitions, and the humility of the Petitioners might be at once presented to the Lord their God. Not that these out­ward rites and gestures have in all times and places been the same alike; for I know well they have been, may be varied according unto times and seasons; the customs and conditions of several Nations; but that in many of them, and those the principal, there hath been an unanimous agreement over all the world. The first of those which we shall speak of in this place, is that which was first used in this holy Temple, which was the kneeling on the knee, and then the lifting up of the hands to God. For so we find it of K. Solomon at the first Consecration of it, and in the prayer of Consecration, that he kneeled on his knees before the Altar, and his hands spread up unto the Heavens. 1 King. 8.54. But behold a greater than Solomon is here; for Christ our Saviour, when he prayed to God that that Cup if it were possible might pass from him, [...], he fell upon his knees and prayed, as S. Luke; procidit super terram, He fell upon the ground and prayed, Luk. 22.41. Mark. 14.31. Mat. 26.35. Psalm. 95. as S. Mark; procidit super faciem suam, He fell upon his face and prayed, as S. Matthew hath it. Our Saviour being both the Lord and the Son of David, was not to seek in David's lesson, where he doth call upon the people, and invite them, saying, O come, let us worship and fall down, and kneel before the Lord our Maker. He which is all in all, did all this and more. I know it is conceived that commonly the Jews did stand upon their feet in the act of Prayer; and for the proof thereof, is brought as well the instance of the Pharisee and the Publican, of both whom it is said that they stood and prayed; as also an old Saying used amongst that people, Sine stationibus non subsisteret mundus. Christ. Synag. l. 1. c. 6. § 5. But clearly this is to be understood of private Prayers, whether made in the Temple, as that of the Publican and the Pharisee before instanced in, or in the fields, the ways, a mans secret closet, which cannot but be much subservient unto the general subsistence of the Universe, in which they were at liberty to stand or kneel, and did stand most commonly: not of the publick acts of worship in the Congregation. Davids Venite, ado­remus makes this sure enough. Yet we will make it somewhat surer if it may be possible, by adding to this Text of David, the Gloss or Commentary of the Jewish Rabbins; and they t ell us this, that in the place of David there are three several gestures of humiliation in the sight of God, and that they all differed from one another. The bending of the body spoken of in any place, is towards the knees, the bowing of all the joynts of the back­bone, so that he makes his body as a bow; the bending of the head is with the face or counte­nance downward; the bowing of ones self, or worshipping, is the displaying of hands and feet, till he be prostrate with his face on the earth. And they conceived that every one of these had its several Use; it being noted by them, that the bending of the head with the face to the ground, was to escape judgement; the bowing of themselves or worshipping, to obtain mercy; and that the bending of the head was before the worshipping, according to the mystery of the Sin-offering before the Burnt-offering. This is observed by Maimony in his book of Prayer;Cited by Aynsworth, Exod. 4.31. and so most like to be the usual gestures in the Act of prayer. In those particulars of kneeling and spreading of the hands to Heaven, the Jews and Gentiles hold good corre­spondence with one another. In other rites concerning Prayer they extreamly differ­ed; the Gentiles looking towards the East, whereof more hereafter; and the Jews praying towards the West, if in the Temple, because the Ark by Gods appointment was placed in the West end thereof. Otherwise when they were abroad, or in foreign Countreys, they turned their faces toward Hierusalem, from what Coast soever; as ap­pears evidently by Daniel's practice, when he was a Prisoner in the Land of Babylon. Dan. 6.10. It is reported also out of Drusius, (a man exceedingly well skilled in all the knowledge of the Hebrews) that when they prayed their heads were covered.Christ. Synag. l. 6. c. 6. Which if it were so, as I have no reason to suspect the Author, it was not without good cause affirmed by the Historian (if one should look no further than those outward circumstances) Novos illic ritus, & caeteris mortalibus contrarios; Tacit. hist. l. 5. the very same with that which is af­firmed of them in the book of Hester, viz. their Laws are diverse from all people. Finally,Hester 3.8. at the ending of their prayers, the people which were present used to say Amen; which word from thence hath been derived and incorporated into all the Languages which make profession of the faith. Only observe that they had several Amens amongst them;Christ. Synag. l. 1. c. 6. § 5. The first of which they called Pupillum, when one understandeth not what he answers; the second Surreptum, when he saith Amen, before the prayer be fully ended; the third is Otiosum, when a man thinks of something else, and so saith it idly; the fourth Justorum, of the just, when a mans mind is set on his devotions, and thinks upon no other thing. And so much of the Rites and Gestures which they used in prayer.

But it is well observed by Aynsworth, VII that as the Lamps (mention whereof is made in the 30th. of Exodus) do signifie the light of Gods Word, and Incense, the Sacrifice of prayers;Aynsw. Annot. in Exod. 30. so the doing of both these at one time, (the Incense being to be offered when the Lamps were either dressed or lighted, as before was said) did signifie the joyning of the word with prayer. We must look therefore in the next place what room there was, or whether any room at all for reading of the Law in Gods holy Temples. And first for that of Solomon, taking the Temple in the largest and most ample sense, not only for the House, but the Courts and Out-works; it was ordained by Moses in the book of Deuteronomy, that there the Law should publickly be read at the end of every seven years, to the Congregation. At the end of every seven years (saith he) in the solemnity of the year of release, at the feast of Tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord their God in the place that he shall choose, thou shalt read this Law be­fore all Israel,Deut. 31.11. in their hearing. But then withal, we must take notice that such a reading as is there commanded, could not be taken as a part of the publick Liturgy. For by the order and prescript of Moses, the Law was to be read publickly before the people in the seventh year only, in the year of release; because then Servants being manumitted from their bondage, and Debtors from the danger of their Creditors, they might at­tend the hearing of the Law with the greater chearfulness: And in the feast of Taber­nacles, because it lasted longer than the other Festivals, and so it might be read with the greater leisure; and then it was but this Law too, the book of Deuteronomy. This as it was to be performed in that place alone, in which the Lord should choose to place his Tabernacle, and afterwards to build his Temple; so makes it little, if at all, unto the frequent reading of the Law in the House of God. It's true that Philo tells us in a book not extant, that Moses did ordain the publick reading of the Law every Sab­bath day.Philo. ap. Eu­seb. de Praepar. Evang. l. 8. c. 7. [...], &c. What then did Moses order to be dene on the Sabbath day? He did appoint (saith he) that we should meet all in some place together, and there sit down with modesty and a general filence, [...], to hear the Law, that none plead ignorance thereof. Which custom we continue still (saith he) breakning with wonderful silence to the Word of God, unless perhaps we give some joyful ac­clamation on the bearing of it; some of the Priests, if any present, or otherwise some of the Elders reading the Law, and then expounding it till the night came on. But hereof, by the leave of Philo, we must make some doubt. This was indeed the custom in our Saviours time, and when Philo lived; and he was willing, as it seems, to setch the pedigree thereof as high as might be. So Salianus tells him on the like occasion. Videtur Philo Judaeorum morem in Synogogis disserendi, antiquitate donare voluisse, quem à Christe & A­postolis observatum legimus. Salian. Annal. anno m. 25 46. n. 10. And we must make the same Answer to Josephus also, who tells us of their Law-maker, that he appointed not that they should only hear the Law once or twice a year, no oftner; [...], &c.Joseph. contr. Apion. l. 2. but that once every week we should come together to hear the Law, that so we might become the more perfect in it. Which thing, saith he, all other Law givers did omit. And so did Moses too by Josephus's leave. For besides that no such order or command is to be found in the books of Moses, there were not then, nor long time after, any set places destinate to religious Uses, but the holy Tabernacle. And how the people being planted all about the Countrey, could be assembled every week before the Tabernacle, or afterwards (unto the Temple) weekly, let Philo and Josephus judge. And this appears more plainly by the Book of God, where we are told that K. Jehosaphat sent abroad his Visitors, who carried the Book of the Law of the Lord with them, 2 Chron. 17.7, 9. and went through all the Cities of Judaea, and taught the people. A needless Office, had it been as those Authors tell us; if all the people met together weekly to be taught the Law. But that which follows of Josiah, is more full than this. Of whom it is re­corded, that when Hilkiah the High Priest, in looking over the decays and ruins of the Temple, had found a book of the Law, which lay hidden there, and brought the same unto the King; how the good Prince upon the hearing of the words of the Law, rent his Garments; 2 King. 22.11. & 23.1, 2. and not so only, but gathered together all the Elders of Judah and Hieru­salem, and read in their ears all the words of the Book, and joyned together in a Covenant with the Lord their God. Had it been formerly the custom to read the law each Sabbath, every week once at least unto all the people, neither had that religious Prince been so ignorant of it, nor had the finding of the book been counted for so strange an accident; nor could it be to any purpose to call the People altogether from their several dwellings, only to hear the Law read to them, and go home again, if it were read amongst them weekly on the Sabbath days, and that of ordinary course. So that what­ever [Page 73] Philo and Josephus say, there was no weekly reading of the Law, either as a di­stinct and special duty, or as an ordinary part of the publick Liturgy, during the standing of the first Temple, which was that of Solomon. For further proof whereof, if we but look into Chronology, it will there appear, that the finding of the book of God before remembred, did happen in the 3412. yer of the worlds Cre­ation,Tornielli An­nales. A. M. 3412. not forty years before the desolation of that Temple; in which short space, the Princes being careless, and the times distracted, we have no reason to expect such a blessed Ordinance.

But in the second Temple, or rather whilst it stood and flourished, VIII the Law of Moses grew to be read more constantly unto the people, than it had been formerly. Not every seventh year only, on the feast of Tabernacles, as had before been ordered and set down by Moses; but upon every Sabbath day, and each solemn meeting, and some­times on the week-days also; nor only in the Temple of Hierusalem, as it used to be, but in the Towns and principal places of each several Tribe; and then and there they did not only read the book of Deuteronomy, which was the book prescribed by Moses, but the whole body of the Law. Which excellent and useful Ordinance is generally referred to Ezra, a Priest by calling, and very skilful in the Laws of Moses; who having taken great pains to seek out the Law, and other parts and portions of the book of God, digested and disposed them in that form and method, in which we have them at the present. Of this see Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 25. Tertullian de habitu mulierum, Clemens Alexandr. Strom. l. 1. Chrysost. Homil. 8. in epist. ad Hebraeos, and divers others. And if we place this Ordinance or Institution introduced by Ezra, Id. anno 3610. in the 3610. year of the Creation, which was the time wherein that solemn reading of the Law was kept, which we find mentioned in the viii. of Nehemiah; there will occur betwixt that time and the first general Council holden in Hierusalem 490. years, or thereabouts. Which might be ground enough to the Apostle to affirm of Moses, that in the old time he had them that preached him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day; Act. 15.21. and yet not go so high as Philo and Josephus do, to setch the pedigree, or original rather of the Insti­tution. This then I take to be unquestionable, that the weekly reading of the Law was brought into the Jewish Church in the time of Ezra; and being brought in, I take it as unquestionable, that it was used as a part of the daily Office, an ordinary portion of the publick Liturgy. Not to be read at the discretion of the Minister, as his own choice or chance directed, and much les as an exercise to take up the time whilst one man tarried for anothers coming, until the Congregation were grown full, and fit for other business; as in some Churches of the Reformation it is used of late; but as a special portion of the service which they did to God. And this appears by the division of the Law of Moses into those great sections which they call the Parasha, being in number 54. which they read in the 52 Sabbaths of the year, joyning two of the shortest twice together, that the whole might be finished in a years space.Aynsw. Annot. in Gen. 6. Of this thus write the Hebrew Doctors. It is, say they, a common custom throughout all Israel, that they finish wholly the reading of the Law in one year, beginning in the Sabbath which is after the feast of Tabernacles, at the first section of Genesis; in the second, at These are the Generations of Noah; in the third, at The Lord said to Abraham, Gen. xii. 1. &c. So they read and go on in this order, till they have ended the Law at the feast of Tabernacles. Maim. ap. Aynsw. ibid. By which it seems that as the form of their publick service was not voluntary, so neither were the parts thereof uncertain, but all set down in rule and order by the authority of the Church, and the wisdom of the Governours and chief Rulers in it, as might conduce best to the glory of God, and the edification of his people. Nor was this all that Ezra did in the advancement of Gods service, of his publick worship. For unto him, appointed thereunto by the Authority of the Consistory, the Rabbins generally ascribe those eighteen Prayers or Benedictions, so much in use amongst the Jews. Of which thus Maimony. Descripsit cunctas benedictiones Ezra,Maim. ap. Selden in Eu­tych. Alex. p. 51. &c. Ezra (saith he) composed all those Benedictions, which by the Consistory were enjoyned to be perpetually observed, so that it was not lawful to change or alter them, neither to add unto them, or diminish from them; every alteration of those formulas, which by their Wise-men were devised and confirmed in those Be­nedictions, being accounted for a fault. And this was done, as the same Rabbin doth in­form us in another place, Ʋt scilicet in cujuslibet ore bene disponerentur, omnesque eas dis­cerent, &c. ‘That every man might have them in his mouth, and be perfect in them,Id. ap. eundem. p. 44. and that thereby the prayers of the rude and ignorant might be as compleat, as those of a more eloquent tongue.’ Of these eighteen the three first, and the three alst related to the glory of God, the other twelve (as it is noted in the Gemara Hierosolymit.) ad ea [Page 74]quae humano generi necessaria, Ap. tundem. P [...] 43. to such things as were necessary for the life of man; or as it is inlarged by Maimony, to all those things quae singulis hominibus habenda in votis, which either do concern particular men, or are thought necessary to the State or Na­tion. These Prayers or Benedictions thus composed, were not alone thought necessary for all sorts of people, and therefore called by the Jews, preces officii necessario praestandi, an office of necessity to be performed;Ap. tund. p. 47. but used both by Priest and People, as an ordi­nary part of their publick Liturgy. Whereof we are thus told by Rabbi Maimony. Publicus Minister seu universitatis aut populi Apostolus liberat plebem ab officio suo hic prae­stando, &c.Id. p. 47.48. ‘The publick Minister (or the Apostle, as they called him, of the Congre­gation) did ease the people of this service, if when he said the prayers they did hear­ken to him, and unto every Benediction answered AMen; for by so doing the people also are conceived to pray. But this, saith he, is only in such cases, w hen the people is not perfect in those prayers, or cannot say the same by heart: for they who can re­peat the prayers, do not aright discharge their duty as they ought to do, in case they did not pray themselves with the publick Minister.’ And so much for the Prayers and Benedictions devised by Ezra. Which had they been the very first stinted forms of prayer which ever had been heard of in the Jewish Church, Smectymn. indicat. p. 20. as some men give out (although indeed it be not so): it would make more than they imagine, both for the Authority and Antiquity of set forms of worship.

But to return again unto the Reading of the Law, IX set on foot by Ezra, besides that by this institution the reading of the Law of Moses became an ordinary part of the Jewish Liturgy for the Sabbath days, he caused it also to be read upon the second and the fift days (being our Monday and Thursday) that they might not rest three days from hearing the Law; and at the Evening prayer of the Sabbath days, because of idle per­sons, who perhaps were absent at the Morning service.Id. in Tephil­lah ubircath. c. 12. cited by H. Thorndike In his religi­ous Assem­blies, c. 8. The difference was only this, that in these Readings on the by (if I may so call them) the Minister or the Reader was not tyed to read the whole Section, or Parasha, as upon the Sabbath; but was therein left unto himself, conditioned that he read no less than ten verses at each se­veral reading, and that there were three men to read it on the days aforesaid. Now to this reading of the Law in the Congregation every Sabbath day, was also added at some times, and on some occasions, the Exposition of the same; and that I find to have been done two ways, either by way of Comment and Application, or else by reading with the Law some part of passage of the Prophets, as seemed most parallel unto it. Of these the first may seem to take beginning from the Act of Ezra, who in that fa­mous reading of the Law, mention whereof is made in Nehemiah, cap. viii. not only caused a Pulpit of wood to be provided for that purpose, that so he might be heard the better; but placed about the same divers Priests and Levites, to expound the Text, and give the sense and meaning of it, that so the people might the better understand the reading. Whereof, as of a thing never used before, the reason is thus given by Tor­niellus, because the Hebrew tongue, wherein the Scriptures were first written, was grown strange unto them.Torniel. annal. A.M. 3610. n. 9. Chaldaico seu Syriaco idiomate in locum ejus surrogato, the Syriack or Chaldee language being generally received in the place thereof. And hereunto agrees Cunaeus, who saith expresly, that whilst the former Temple stood, Interpretatio magi­strorum commentatio nulla, there was no gloss or exposition of the Law, made (as of course) unto the people:Cunaeus de Repub. Jud. l. 1. c. 17. That office being supplyed, when there was occasion, by such holy Prophets as God raised amongst them at extraordinary times, and for no ordinary purposes. But that these Expositions of the Law thus begun by Ezra, were afterwards used constantly amongst the Jews every Sabbath day; as I do no where find it, so I dare not say it. If so it were, it could not be done presently, but in tract of time, of which more anon. In the mean time we will behold the second kind of Ex­position which before we spake of, that which was made by reading with the Law some part or passage of the Prophets, which came near unto it. The first beginning of the which the Jews refer unto the furious raging of Antiochus; furnamed Epiphanes, who had not only defiled the Temple, and forbid the use of Circumcision, but also did pro­hibit the reading of the Law of Moses, upon pain of death. On which occasion, and to prevent the mischief which might thereby grow, if the reading of the Law should be quite left off; they chose chapters and divisions out of the writings of the Prophets, which were most answerable to those parts of the Law of Moses, which were read be­fore; as for this Section of the Law, In the beginning God Created, &c. They made choice of that in Esa. xlii. 5. So saith the Lord, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, conti­nuing to the 11. verse of the xliii. These fractions of the Law they called Haphtara. And [Page 75]though the tyranny of Antiochus being over-blown,Christ. Synag. lib. 1. cap. 4. they fell again unto the reading of the Law of Moses, as was used before; yet they continued still the reading of the holy Propohets, as finding it a very wholsome institution; and sometimes joyned thereunto such Expositions as the Scribes and Rabbins made upon the same, according to their several Talents. Certain I am, that so it was in our Saviurs time, and in the time of his Apostles. For thus we find in S. Luke's Gospel, that when our Saviour came into the Synagogue of Nazareth, and stood up to read, Luk. 4.16. &c. there was delivered him the book of the Prophet Esay; and that when he had read the place, he closed the Book, and gave it again unto the Minister (the Apostle of the Congregation, as the Rabbins call him) and af­terwards expounded and applyed the Text. And in his History of the Apostles, we find that Paul and Barnabas being present at the Synagogue of Antiochia, Act. 13.14, 15. on the Sabbath day, sate down; and that after the reading of the Law and Prophets, the Rulers of the Synagogue sent unto them saying, Ye Men and Brethren, if ye have any word of Exhortation for the people, say on, &c. In which we have at once the custom of those latter times for the expounding of the Law in the Congregation, as being by this time made a part of Gods holy Service; as the place and room also which it held in the publick Liturgy; that is to say, next to the reading of the Law and Prophets; as now the Sermon fol­loweth on the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel. As for the gesture which was used by these several Ministers in the discharge of those distinct and several Offices, I find that the reading of the Law and Prophets, and the exposition of the same, was with the face of him that did it towards the face of the people; whereof see Luk. iv. 16. And that the Minister who read the Prayers (whom they called the Apparitour of the Synagogue) stood with his back towards the people, his face being turned unto the Ark.

This leads me on unto another Institution not known before the building of the second Temple, or the times of Ezra, X which was the setting up of Synagogues and Oratories throughout the Countrey. Of these we find no mention in the former times, and but little Use; the total sum of all Gods publick worship being cast into the Temple of Hierusalem. For where it is supposed by some that there were Synagogues of the Jews in the time of David, who for the proof thereof did produce these words, They have burnt up all the Synagogues of God in the Land, Psal. lxxiv. the supposition and the proof are alike infirm. For not to quarrel the Translation which is directly diffe­rent from the Greek and Vulgar Latine, and somewhat from the former English, this Psalm if writ by David, was not meant by him of any present misery which befel the Church. There had been no such havock made thereof in all David's time, as is there complained of. And therefore Calvin rather thinks, ad tempus Antiochi referri has querino­nias, that David, as inspired with the spirit of Prophecy,Calv. in Psal. 74. reflected on those wretched and calamitous times, wherein Antiochus made such havock of the Church of God. Nor was there any Use of them in those former times, because no reading of the Law, of ordinary course, in the Congregation, as before was said. But when the former course was changed, and that the reading of the Law to the People of God was not licensed only, but enjoyned, then began the Jews to build them Synagogues; which afterwards increased so strangely, that there was no Town of any moment through­out all Judaea, nor almost any City where they dwelt as Strangers, in which they did not build some Synagogue. God certainly had so disposed it in his holy Counsels, that so his Word might be more generally known over all the world, and a more easie way laid open for the receipt of the Messiah whom he meant to send; that so Hierusa­lem and the Temple there might by degrees be lessened in their reputation; and men might learn that neither of them was the only place where they ought to worship. As for their Oratories, which before I spake of, although I find not their Original, yet I can tell you of their Use. For this, saith Epiphanius of them.Epiph. Haeres. 80. n. 1. [...], &c. There were (saith he) amongst the Jews without their Cities certain Oratories, whither the people did sometimes resort to make their prayers unto the Lord. And this he proves out of the xvi. of the Acts, where it is said, And on the Sabbath we went out of the City by a Rivers side, where prayer was wont to be made, vers. 3. i.e. Ʋbi de more & consuetudine haberi conventus consueverant, as Beza notes upon the Text. The Latines called them from the Use they were put unto Proseuchas; as, in qua te quaero Proseucha, in the Poet Juvenal. Beza in Annot. in Act. 16.13. And although Beza take those Proseuchas, to be the very same with the Jewish Synagogues;Juvenal. Sat. 5. Beza in Act. 16. yet sure there was a special difference between them. For in those Proseuchas or Oratories they might only pray; in the Synagogues they might not only make their prayers, but also [Page 76]read the Law and Prophets, and expound the same, and in the Temple of the Lord, besides those former duties they might offer Sacrifice, which was not lawful to be done in other places. And to these times, when now the Jewish Church was settled, and Synagogues erected in almost all places for reading and expounding the Law of God, we must refer those passages from Philo and Josephus before remembred, which cannot possibly be made good of the former times, wherein this people wanted all con­veniencies for those weekly meetings.

Thus have we seen what care the Rulers of that Church took for providing fit and convenient places for the performance of Gods publick worship, XI and all the sacred Offices thereunto belonging. Had they not, think we, equal power of adding days and times to the commemorating of Gods goodness, and laying before him their afflicti­ons, s well as in appointing places. Assuredly such power they had, and made Use thereof, according as they saw occasion. Witness the feast of Purim, ordained by Mordecai and Hester, with the consent and approbation of the whole people of the Jews, to be obsered on the 14 and 15 days of the moneth Adar yearly, throughout their Generations for evermore; Hest. 9.17, &c. that they should make them days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions unto one another, and gifts to the Poor. Nor was this all, to make them days of feasting and good fellowship, and no more than so; for this had been to make their belly their God, and so by consequence their glory must have been their shame; but in all probability, there were ordained set forms of praise and prayer for so great a mercy, and the continuance of the like. Those who conceived themselves to have Authority of instituting a new Festival to the Lord their God, could not but know they had Au­thority of instituting a new form of prayer and praise, agreeable to the occasion. And so much we may guess by that which remains thereof; it being affirmed by one Antonius Margarita, a converted Jew, once one of the Professors (for the tongue I take it) in the University of Leipsich, Fevardent. in Hest. cap. ult. & Hospinian. de Origine Fest. fol. 133. that to this day legunt diebus illis in Synagogis suis histo­riam istam, they read upon the days of the said Feast of the book of Hester; and anci­ently 'twas not the custom of the Jewish Church to read the Scripture without set forms of Prayers, and appointed Ceremonies. The like may also be affirmed of the [...], or the Feast of Dedication. A Feast ordained by Judas Maccabeus, and the Elders of the Jewish Nation; who having cleansed the Temple and set up the Altar, (which had been impiously profaned by Antiochus) did dedicate the same with Songs and Citternes, 1 Maccab. 4.59, &c. and with Harps and Cymbals; and that being done, ordained that the days of the Dedication should be kept in their season from year to year, by the space of eight days, &c. with mirth and gladness. Here we find mirth and gladness, as before in the feast of Purim. And doubt we not, but there was in the Celebration of it as much spiritual mirth and gladness (at least in the intention of the founders) as there was of carnal; although the forth and manner of it have not come unto us. Our Saviour Christ had never honoured it with his blessed presence (as we shall see he did hereafter) if it had been otherwise. Besides which annual Feasts recorded in the holy Scrip­ture, they had another which they called festivitatem legis, or the feast of the Law; or­dained by the Rulers of the Church of Jewry, for joy that they had finished the pub­lick reading of the Law in their Congregations. For, as before I told you, the Jews began the reading of the Law upon the Sabbath after the feast of Tabernacles, and finished it at 5a readings, against the feast of Tabernacles came about again. Now 'tis observed by Joseph Scaliger, that the feast of Tabernacles beginning always on the 15th. of the month Tisri, and holding on until the 22d. inclusively; this Festival was al­ways held on the morrow after, being the three and twentieth of this month. Which Feast as he makes very ancient,Joseph. Scaliger de emendat. Temp. 1.7. (cujus cultus institutio vetustissima est, as his own words are) grounding the same upon the reading of the Law in the time of Ezra: So I con­ceive their form of worship on the same, was no less ancient than those times. For whereas Ezra is confessed, by those who approve not Liturgies, to be the Author of those 18 Benedictions,Smectymn. Vindicat. p. 26. so much in Use amongst the Jews of the second Temple; some of those Benedictions seem to me to be composed for the Meridian of this feast, though they might elso serve at other times, as occasion was. Of which take this as most agreeable to the intention of the festival.Cited by H. Thorndike c. 10 of his Religi­ous Assembl. Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, that hast sanctified us with thy Precepts, and given us command concerning the mat­ters of the Law. And sweeten, O Lord, the words of the Law in our mouths, and in the mouth of thy people the house of Israel; and make us all, and our Children, and our Childrens Children knowers of thy Name, and learners of thy Law for it self. Blessed art thou, O Lord, which teachest thy people Israel the Law. So far the very words of the Benediction; [Page 77]a Benediction made by the self same Author, who as it is conceived by Scaliger, did ordain the Festival.

The like Authority was exercised by the Jewish Church in Instituting set and ap­pointed Fasts for the chastising of the body, and the afflicting of the soul, XII that so Gods worship might go forward with the greater fervour. Of these we find some men­tioned in the Prophecy of the Prophet Zachary, as viz. the Fasts of the fifth and seventh moneth, cap. vii. v. 5. The Fasts of the fourth and tenth moneths, cap. viii. v. 19. The se­veral occasions of the which you may see elsewhere. Besides which Annual Fasts, they used to fast upon the Monday and the Thursday; Jejuno his in Sabbato, said the Vain­glorious Pharisee in S. Lukes Gospel; and many times they did impose upon them­selves a seven days Fast, the better to profess their sorrow and bewail their sins.Luk. 18.12. For which consult 1 Sam. xxxi. 13. & 1 Chron. x. 12. 2 Esdras v. 13, 20. And we have reason to believe that there were certain and determinate forms of publick worship for all the residue, because we find them on those last. What was the course observed in reading of the Law upon the second and fifth days of the week, we have seen before; and shall add only this at present, that they Assembled in those days in their several Synagogues, not only in the greater Towns, but the smaller Villages;Maimon. in Megillah, c. 1. n. 6. ap. H. Thorndike. as the Rabbins tell us. But for the seven days Fast, the form and order of the same, according as it was performed by those which dwelt in Hierusalem, was this as followeth, When they prayed after this order in Hierusalem, they went into the Mountain of the Temple, against the East gate. And when the Apostle of the Congregation (the same who in S. Luke is called the Minister, cap. iv. 20.) was come unto the prayer which began with this, He that heard A­braham, &c. and ended with these words, viz. Blessed be thou, O Lord God our God, the God of Israel, from generation to generation: The People answered, Blessed be the name of his glorious Kingdom to all generations, and for evermore. Then said the Officer of the Synagogue unto the Priests which blew the Trumpets, Sound ye the Sons of Aaron, sound, and then prayed again. And though it seemeth by the Rabbin, Id. in Tanai­oth c. 4. n. 14. cited by Mr. Thorndike, cap. of his Religi­ous Assem­blies, &c. that this pre­scribed form was fitted only to the Meridian of Hierusalem; yet there is little question to be made, but that it served also for all the Synagogues about Judaea; there being no imaginable reason why a prescript form of publick worship (conceive me in the moral parts thereof) which was observed in the Temple, should not be used in the Syna­gogues; which in performance of Gods service, was to take pattern from the Temple. Only some difference there was in the present case, but such a difference as is a matter of meer nicety, not of any moment. For when this form was used in the Synagogue, the People answered Amen at the end of the Prayer: But when they used it in the Mountain of the Temple, that is, within the outmost compass of it, their Answer was, Blessed be the name of his glorious Kingdom, &c. as before was said, it being not usual with the People as the Rabbins note,cited ibid. c. 7. to answer Amen within the Mountain of the Temple. So punctual were they in their forms, as not to vary in a word or title, from that which was prescribed in their publick Liturgies. And finally, that they had a prescribed form of words for their solemn and occasional Feasts, is evident by that of Abel, cap. ii. 17. where the words occur.

But to look back upon the Celebration of the daily Sacrifices, XIII besides the testimonies of the Rabbins, and that of the Samaritan Chronicle produced before; we have it thus described by Jesus the Son of Syrac, an Author of unquestionable credit to the point in hand. Speaking of Simon the Son of Onias, who was the High Priest at the time, and his officiating at the Altar, he proceeds as followeth.Ecclus. 50.14. And finishing the Service at the Altar, that he might adorn the Offering of the most high Almighty, he stretched out his hand to the Cup (wherewith the Drink-offering was to be made) and poured of the blood of the Grape; he poured out at the foot of the Altar, a sweet smelling savour unto the most high King of all. Then shouted the Sons of Aaron, and sounded the silver Trumpets, and made a great noise to be heard, for a remembrance before the most High. Then all the People hasted together, and fell down to the Earth upon their faces, towards the Lord God Almighty the most High. The Singers also sung praises with their voices, with great variety of sounds was there made sweet melody. And the People besought the Lord most High by prayer, before him that is merciful, till the Solemnity of the Lord was ended, and they had finished his Service. Then went he down, and lifted up his hands over the whole Congregation of the Children of Israel, to give the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to rejoyce in his Name. And they bowed themselves down to worship the second time, that they might receive a blessing from the most High. So far the Author of Ecclesiasticus, who lived in the latter end of Ptolemy Euergetes King of Egypt, as himself tells us in his Preface. Now in these words of [Page 78]his, if we mark them well, we find particularly all the parts of publick worship which before we spake of. The daily Sacrifice performed by the Priests alone; the moral part of Gods divine service joyntly discharged by Priests and People. The Singers we find singing Hymns and Songs of Praise to the Lord their God, the People first making Confession of their Sins, and to that purpose falling flat upon their faces; and after pouring out their souls in prayer for his grace and mercy; the High Priest giving of the blessing to the Congregation, as the Lord appointed; the people bowing down and worshipping at the receiving of the same. And all this in a regular and prescribed way; nothing in all the course thereof being left unto the liberty of Priest or People, but the confession of their private and particular sins, which every one had leave to cast in what mould he would. As for the reading of the Law and Prophets, it's true we find no mention of it in this description of the service by the Son of Syrac. But then perhaps the reason was, because the reading of the Law was only used as an or­dinary part of the publick Liturgy on the Sabbath days; and it appeareth not by the place that this was done upon the Sabbath. Finally such, and none but such, was the daily service of the Synagogue, excepting that there was no Sacrifice to be done there­in. Of which this Maimony the learnedest and most exact of all the Rabbins: Let a man (saith he) go always Morning and Evening to the Synagogue, for his Prayer is not heard always but in the Synagogue. And he that dwelleth in a City where there is a Synagogue, and prayeth not there with the Congregation, this is he that is called a bad Neighbour. Cited by H. Thorndike, ut supra. And certainly, as 'tis well noted to my hand, he well may be called a bad Neighbour, who will not lend his Neighbours Prayers the strength of his own; but himself finds the fruit of his own bad Neighbourhood, when his own prayers want the assistance of his Neighbours.

The mentioning of Jesus the Son of Syrac serves here most fitly as an Usher to make room for Jesus the Son of God, XIV whose testimony to the point in hand, whether by way of Affirmation or of Approbation, will be worth our having. For sure there's no man so profanely impudent, as to affirm; so impiously wretched, as to think, that Christ our Saviour would have kept himself to the Jewish forms, in case the Jewish Church had done amiss in the devising of such forms and other Ceremonies, or wanted good Au­thority to enjoynn the same. In those points therefore, wherein he conformed him­self to the Jewish Ordinances, there is no question to be made, but that those Ordi­nances were conform to the Word of God. When they were otherwise in such points as they made the Word of God of none effect, by their traditions, he therein left them to themselves, and gave no countenance at all unto them by the authority of his practice. Their Synagogues, for which they had no special warrant from the Word of God, he liked well enough, and therefore often honoured them with his blessed pre­sence. The weekly reading of the Law and Prophets,Luk. 4.16. for which there was no order and command of Moses, or of any other of Gods Secretaries, (for ought which hi­therto appears) he approved right well; taking the book, when it was offered by the Minister, reading the place or lesson destinate to the present day, and after preaching on the same.Ibid. The course of publick worship in the holy Temple, he esteemed so highly, that he confirmed the title given unto it in the Prophet Esay, namely that glo­rious Attribute of Domus Orationis, or an House of Prayer. And for the Feast of Dedi­cation, though of no other institution than meerly Ecclesiastical and humane, he thought it no disparagement to the Lord and Master of the Feast to keep and celebrate the same with the rest of the people.Joh. 10.22, 23. It was at Hierusalem the Feast of the Dedication: And Jesus walked in the Temple in Solomons Porch. But that wherein he shewed himself most punctually conformable to the Jewish rites, was in the keeping of the Passeover. Of which,Aynsworth in Exod. 12. thus Aynsworth in his notes on Exodus. These observations of the Jews (saith he) whiles their Common-wealth stood, and to this day, may give light unto some particulars in the Passeover, which Christ kept; as viz. why they lay down one leaning on anothers bosom, Joh. xiii. 23. contrary to the first institution of it; why he rose from Supper, and washed, and sate down again, Joh. xiii. 4, 5, 12. why he blessed or gave thanks for the bread apart, and for the cup apart, Mark. xiv. 22, 23. why it is said he took the cup after Supper, Luk. xxii. 20. And finally, why they sung an Hymn or Psalm at the end of the Supper, Mat. xxvi. 30. Beza goeth somewhat further yet, and to those points before observed, addeth also this, Ex iis demum intelligitur, quaenam sit illa panis benedictio, fractiò, & por­rectio, itidemque poculi mutua praebitio; Reza in Annot. in Mat. 25. by which he makes the blessing, breaking and di­stributing both of the bread and cup in the blessed Eucharist, to have been borrowed from those Rites. But he that hath gone furthest is the famous Scaliger, who doth affirm [Page 79]expresly of our Saviour Christ,Scalig. de E­mendat. Temp. l. 6. nihil immutasse in ritu, that he did vary in no point of circumstance from the usual rites, save that he changed those words which the An­cients used, in giving to their guests the Bread and Wine; and substituted others in the place thereof, more sutable to his intention. So that whatever poor opinion the world hath entertained of late concerning Liturgies and set forms of Prayer; and of the authority of the Church in ordering matters which concern Gods publick worship: It seems our Lord and Saviour was persuaded otherwise, he had not else so punctu­ally and precisely conformed unto the one, and obeyed the other. And therefore, O most blessed Saviour, since thou didst think it no dishonour to thy glorious Majesty to frame thy self unto those publick forms and rites of religious worship which were pre­scribed by that Church, wherein thou didst vouchsafe to sojourn for a certain season: Continue unto us that humble modesty, that we may gladly yield obedience to those forms of worship, which were prescribed by the Church our common Mother, assisted by as great a measure of thy grace and Spirit.

Thus having drawn down the beginning and success of Liturgies (or of prescribed and determinate Forms of Worship, XV call it which you will) from the first times unto the best; from the first giving of the Law to the end thereof: we might now see in what condition they have stood in the Christian Church, and that too in the purest and best times of Christianity. But we must first observe what the Gentiles did, who be­ing another of those integral parts whereof the Church of Christ consisted (both Jews and Gentiles making up one Church to our Lord and Saviour) and having their own forms and rites of religious worship (if the Idolatrous service of their gods may be so entituled) are in the next place to be looked upon; that we may see how uni­verfally all sorts of people have agreed in this, to institute set forms, and determinate rites, whereby to order and direct their whole devotions. And having shewn out of their most unquestionable Records and Monuments, with what a general consent they entertained those publick formulas which had been recommended to them by the for­mer times; we shall proceed to the affairs of the Christian Church, so far forth as they do concern this present business. And then I hope it will seem reasonable to the in­different and sober Reader, that if a prescribed Form of Worship hath been admitted in the world, semper, ab omnibus & ubique, according to the rule of Lyrinensis, at all times formerly, in all places too, and by all sorts of people of what Sect soever: It must needs be a most unheard of novelty to reject them now; and hazard all the pub­lick worship of Almighty God, either upon no Forms at all, or such as no man is ob­liged to observe and hold to. A matter which which the very Gentiles, though men of ex­cellent wits and eloquence thought not fit to do; their gods, though gods of earth, made of gold and silver, and far worse materials, being conceived of too great Ma­jesty to be spoken unto, in such an unprepared and unpremeditated manner, as some men now affect to speak in, to the God of Heaven. And this we shall deliver in one Chapter only, with as much brevity as may be; and so pass forward to the Forms or Liturgies used from the first beginnings of the Christian Church, which is the matter most especially to be looked into.

CHAP. IV. That antiently the Gentiles had their Liturgies or prescribed Forms of publick Worship.

  • 1. The use of Sacrifice amongst the Gentiles before Moses time.
  • 2. Times, Priests, and Temples, sanctified and selected by the Gentiles for the publick ser­vice of their gods.
  • 3. A general proof, that anciently the Gentiles had their Liturgies and set forms of Wor­ship.
  • 4. Preparatory forms used at the Celebration of their Sacrifiees.
  • 5. The rites and forms used in the Sacrifice it self.
  • 6. Several short forms of words observed a­mongst the Gentiles, both Greek and La­tine, in their publick Sacrifices.
  • 7. Set forms of Prayer used unto Jupiter, Mars, Janus, Juno, and other of the gods and goddesses.
  • 8. The solemn form used by the Gentiles, in evocation of the gods of besieged Cities.
  • [Page 80]9. As also in devoting themselves, or Ene­mies to a certain ruine, for preservation of the Common-wealth.
  • 10. The several gestures of the Gentiles in the act of publick worship, prescribed and re­gulated.
  • 11. The rites and forms used by the Greeks particularly, in the solemn Sa­crifices.
  • 12. A prescript form of Matrimony, amongst the Romans.

IT is observed by Epiphanius, I Epiphan. in Pan. l. 1. c. 1. n. 5. that from the time of Adam unto that of Serug, there were no different opinions in the world about Religion, [...], no sides nor factions fostered by the Sons of men, in matters which concerned Gods worship; but that Gods Servants were distinguished from other men, by the piety and integrity of their conversation. [...]. It was the piety and impiety of their lives, (saith he) which made all difference. But in the times of Serug, the people being scattered and divided into several Languages, and not communicating with each other as before they used, began to take up several opi­nions in the things of God, which brought them at the last unto Idolatry; their errors in the point of practice being grounded on their mispersuasions in point of judgment. Yet so, that there accrewed unto them no particular name, by which to difference them from the rest, till the days of Abraham; from which time forward the world began to be divided into Jew and Gentile. Id. adv. hae­res. 8. num. 2. [...], as he tells us after. Upon which ground it may be probably inferred, that in the worshipping of those Idols, Ninus, or whosoever else brought in Idolatry, re­tained that form of Sacrifice and publick Worship, which they had seen observed and practised in the Service of God. For Belus, the Assyrian Monarch, the Son and Suc­cessor of Nimrod (from whom the Jews and Gentiles in succeeding times borrowed the names of Bel and Baal) being the first whose Statua or Image was advanced and wor­shipped, [...],Cyril. Alex. contr. Julian. l. 3. as mine Author hath it, by those that lived under his Dominion; was the first also unto whom they offered Sacrifices, and other rites of divine worship, [...], saith the Father plainly. Now Bel and Serug were Contemporaries, as appears evidently in all Chronology. And therefore when Lactantius tell us of Meliseus King of Crete, Lactant insti­tut. divin. l. 1. c. 22. primum diis sacrificasse, that he was the first who offered Sacrifice unto the Gods; it must be understood, with no doubt, reference to Europe, and these Western parts of the world. Or else it must be meant that he set forth the Sacrifices of the gods, after a more pompous and magnificent man­ner, than formerly had been accustomed; ac ritus novos, sacrorumque pompas introduxisse, as the words next following do seem to intimate.Cicero de natura deorum. So that however it be true which Tully tells us, nulla gens tam barbara, that there was never any Nation known so rude and barbarous, which was not well enough persuaded that there was a God; and that it was imprinted in their souls by the stamp or character of nature, that God was to be Worshipped by them, and that too in the first place, ( [...], said the Grecian Orator) yet for the form and manner of his Worship,Isocrat. orat. ad Demon. the Rites and Sacrifices which they used in the first times of their Idolatry, I rather think they took it on tradition, and from hand to hand, than that the light of nature did direct them in it. But be this as it will, it comes all to one, as to the business now in hand; which aims no further than to shew that anciently the Gentiles had their Sacrifices, when yet no Sacrifices were enjoyned by the Law of Moses. And if they had their Sa­crifices, as 'tis plain they had, and took them up upon the practice of Gods Servants, as 'tis most probable they did; we may conceive that with those Sacrifices they did joyn such Prayers and Praises, as were agreeable to their occasions and necessities, when they made their Offerings, accordingly as had been done by the holy Patriarchs. Un­to what purpose did they [...], which is the word that Cyril useth, were it not that they made their Prayers to those wretched Idols, and implored their favours?

And it was partly thus in the times succeeding. II For when the Tribes of Israel were disposed and setled into a Constituted Church, and had their prescribed Rites of Sacrifice, their Temple, Priests, their solemn and appointed times, and set forms of Worship; it was not long before the Gentiles had the like. The difference was no more but this, that the first Sacrifices, and the rites thereof which had been used a­mongst the ancient Gentiles, descended on them by tradition; whereas those later ad­juncts of Religious Worship, (pardon theh profanation of the phrase) were taken up on imitation. And therefore as they had their Sacrifices and their Altars in the former [Page 81]times, in the unpolished ages of Idolatry; so by degrees as they grew more exact and punctual in their wicked ways, they set apart selected times for the performance of their Idol-worship, made choice of persons to attend that Service, and Consecrated sumptuous Houses to be the seat or receptacle of those several gods, to whom that ser­vice was intended. The several Gods in Rome, if one went no further, the stately and magnificent Temples unto them belonging, the several monthly Festivals, and annual Solemnities, together with those many Colledges of Priests maintained and founded for the Service of those several Gods, were proof enough of this, if there were no more. And though we might content our selves with this general note, yet we will speak a word or two of those times and places, which they had dedicated to the service of the gods they worshipped; to shew that though they could not reach the height of the true Religion, and knew not the intent of those legal Sacrifices, which were im­posed upon the Jews, yet they resolved to come as near it as they could, and miss. First for the time, the Grecians hallowed constantly three days in the every moneth,Hesied. [...]. viz. the first, the fourth, the seventh. [...], as it is in Hesiod; whereof the first was consecrated to Apollo, the fourth to Mercury, the seventh again unto Apollo, as is observed by Alexander ab Alexandro. Alexand. ab Alex. dies Ge­nial. l. 3. c. 18. Scholiast. in Hesiodum. Plut. in vita Thesei. And this (the last I mean) is noted by the Scholiast also. A novilunio exorsus laudat tres, omnes sacras dicens, septimam etiam ut Apollinis natalem celebrans. Particularly the Athenians did offer unto Theseus their greatest and more solemn Sacrifice upon the eighth day of October, because of his arrival on that day from Crete, and kept an half holiday as it were, [...], upon the eighth day of every moneth, because of his descent from Neptune, to whom the eighth of every month had before been Consecra­ted. The sect of Epicures hallowed the 20th. day of every Moon, it may be to their god, the belly; others the last of every moneth to Pluto. H [...]spinian de Origine Fest. c. 5. So for the Romans who came after in respect of time, besides the second day of every moneth to the Bonus Genius, and the fifteenth to Minerva, they consecrated the ninth to Jupiter, which was indeed the greatest and most solemn of their monthly Holidays; Nundinas Joyis ferias esse ait Gravius Licinius, as it is noted by Macrobius. Besides which monthly times of wor­ship,Macrob. Sa­turnal. lib. 1. c. 16. and those which ever private man might separate for his own occasions; both people also had their solemn standing Anniversaries, kept with great pomp, and cele­brated with variety of Rites and Sacrifices; the Catalogue of the which who list to see, may find them gathered to his hand in that laborious Treatise of Hospinian, entituled De Origine festorum. By which we see, that though the Gentiles did not keep the weekly Holiday, which was imposed upon the Jews, yet they had several days each moneth, as many as the Jews, though not the same for publick worship; and for the number of their Annual feasts, their times of pompous and more solemn worship, they went far beyond them. But that wherein they came most near the Jews, was in the building of their Temples, which in the Form and distribution of the parts were so con­trived, as if their workmen had proceeded by the pattern of King Solomons Temple. For as the Temple (taking it in the circuit and out-works thereof) did contain three parts, viz. the Courts, the Sanctum, and the Sanctum Sanctorum, according to their several ministeries by the Law required; so were the Temples of the Gentiles cast into three parts also, that is to say, the Courts or Areas, Rosinus An­tiqu. Rom. l. 2. c. 2. the body of the same which they called Basilicas, and last of all their Adyta, or more secret places, wherein the worship­ped deity was supposed to be. The Areas of these Temples, and the Porticos, together with the nave or body of them, were easily accessible to all sorts of people; but for their Adyta, they were conceived to be [...], not to be trod upon,Jul. Pollux. l. 2. cap. 1. num. 8. or look­ed into but by the Priests. And hereto Caesar doth agree, where speaking of the occulta & remota Templi, the secret and remote parts of their Temples, which sometimes they called Penetralia, and sometimes [...], he adds this brief note;Caesar de Belle Civil. l. 5. Quo praeter sacerdotes adire fas non est, that none were suffered but their Priests to go into them.

Thus have we found amongst the Gentiles, Temples and Priests, III as well as Gods and Sacrifices; and more than so, prescribed and determinate times, whereon those Priests and Temples were to be imployed, on which those gods were to be feasted with Oblations, and made fat with Sacrifices. The next thing here to be considered are the certain Forms (if any such be to be found amongst them) which were accustomably used in those solemnities. For that some certain Forms there were, from which it was not lawful for the Priest to vary in the performance of his office, nor for the people to dissent when they made their Prayers, or brought their Offerings, is evident to any one that hath consulted with the Ancients; many of which shall be collected and pre­sented [Page 82]in that which followeth. These they comprised together in a Book or Volume, which was committed to the Priests for their instruction & direction, to be made use of in their Sacrifices, or other parts of Worship, as occasion was. So witnesses Agellius plain­ly, or A. Gellius, if you will; for I dispute not of the name, so I have the man. Com­precationes deorum immortalium quae ritu Romano diis fiunt, expositae sunt in libris sacerdo­tum Populi Romani,A. Gellius, Noctes Atticae. l. 13. c. 21. & in plerisque antiquis orationibus. The Prayers (saith he) which after the Rites and manner of the Romans, are made to the immortal Gods, are all comprised in the Books belonging to the Priests of the people of Reme, and in most ancient Prayers (or Orations) which still remain upon record. And this I take to be an evidence above all exception; as to the quod sit of the point, that such Forms they had. And these I take it were the Books which Lactantius calls Pontificum ipsorum scripta; Lactant. de di­vin. Institut. l. 1. c. 21. and to the which he doth refer his reader to be more throughly informed, de sacrificiis & mysteriis deorum, touching the mysteries or sacrifices of their several gods. Their Rituals we may rightly call them. For further proof whereof (if more proof be needful) I would fain know what else should be the meaning of those verba certa, & solennia, which do occur so often in the ancient writers of that people; in case they do not mean those set Forms or words, which both the Priests and People were to use, in Celebrating their accustomed Sacrifices, or other parts of publick worship. What else should be the meaning of these solennes preces which we find in Ovid. lib. 6. de Fastis; of the solennem precem quindecim virorum, mentioned in Statius Papinius, lib. 4. Sylv. or of that of Seneca the Tragedian,Senec. in Dedlpe Act. 2. Sect. 2.

In vota superos voce solenni voca,
Arasque dono thuris Eoi extrue?

No question, but in all those passages, the solennes preces, & solennis vox are to be under­stood of those Forms of prayer, which were prescribed unto the Priests, and by him dictated unto the people. In which regard, as they were sometimes called verba certa, so they are called other-whiles verba dictata. For thus the Poet Juvenal — Dictata (que) verba praetulit, i. e. as the old Scholiast doth expound it,Juvenal Sat. 6. dictata à Sacerdote vel haruspice, such words as had been dictated by the Priest or Augur, according to the publick Ritual. Valer. Flaceus Argonautic. l. 1. And to this purpose that of Valerius Flaceus, Dictat pia vota sacerdos, the Priest did dictate to the party, the set words or Form, in which the Vow was to be conceived. And for the Verba certa, which before we spake of, they are no other than those words or Forms, which were prescribed in the performance of these publick offices. For thus saith Cicero, speaking of some of the Ancients Generals, who willingly had offered up their lives to preserve their Countrey; he tells us of them that they did seipsos diis im­mortalibus, velato capite, VERBIS CERTIS pro Repub. devovere. Cicero de aa­tur. dcorum. l. 2. Varro de lingu. Latin. l. 5. Festus Pompeius in Minora. So Varro, the most fa­mous Antiquary of the Latines, gives us this character or definition of their dies Fasti, that they were such, quibus certa verba legitima sine piaculo Praetoribus licet fari. And thus the old Grammarian Pompeius Festus, telling us what is meant by Minora Templa, saith that they are loca aliqua ab Auguribus VERBIS CERTIS definita, places laid out and limited by the Augurs under a certain Form of words, as in another place he tells us, that Temples are sometimes called Fana, a Fando; and gives this reason of the same, quod dum Pontifex dedicat CERTA VERBA fatur.

The Temple being Consecrated, IV and the Priest in readiness, we must next go unto the Sacrifice, to look upon the Rites and set Forms of that. These we will borrow from Rosinus, Rosinus Antiq. Rom. l. 3. c. 33. who doth at large describe them in this wise, as followeth. Cum sacerdos victimam ad aram adduxisset, stans manu Aram prehendebat, & preces fundebat. Princi­pium precationis à Jano & Vesta fieri oportehat, quae in omnibus sacris praecipua numina erant, & in votis nuncupandis compellationem primam meruerant; inde, quod per eos aditus ad caeteros patere opinio erat. Et observabatur in ea precatione nt Jupiter Pater Opt. Max. om­nes (que) dii caeteri Patres advocarentur. Ne quid vero verborum praeteriretur, aut praepostere re­citaretur, descripto praeire aliquem, ruisusque alium custodem dari, qui attenderet sedulo; alium qui favere linguis juberet & tibicinem canere, ne quid infaustum audiretur, oportebat. i. e. ‘when the Priest had brought the Sacrifice unto the Altar, he stood and held the Altar in his hand, (or his hand rather upon it) and made the ordinary Prayers. His Prayers were to begin with invocation of Janus and Vesta, as having the chief place in all their Sacrifices, and being usually first called upon in all their vows and suppli­cations, on an opinion that by them the way was made more facile to the other Gods. And 'twas observed that in that Prayer, not only Father Jupiter the best and greatest [Page 83]was invoked or called upon, but also all the residue of the greater Deities. And that there might no word be pretermitted or spoke out of order, the custom was that some did first repeat the solemn words as they were described in the Ritual, which were said after him by the people present; others were appointed for overseers, to attend the office; others there were who did command the people Silence, and set the Mu­sician to his singing, lest any ominous or unlucky sound should be heard amongst them. This in the way of preparation.’ And all this as you see consisted in Prayers and Orizons unto the gods, that they would graciously accept the intended Sacrifice; and those not arbitrary, at the discretion of the Priest, but such as were prescribed and limited both for the method, and the manner. Which being written in a book (or Ritual as before I call'd it) the Priest did thence praeire verba, pronounce the usual and accustomed words, the people saying after him what he thence pronounced. And whereas it is said by Resnus here, that some of the attendants used to command the people silence, saying favete linguis, as we saw before; even those were words pre­scribed and limited, solemn and formal words in all publick Sacrifices. For thus we find it in the Poet Horace, Favete linguis, Carmina non prius audita, Musarum sacerdos virginibus puerisque canto; & Statius Papinius, thus, Lucanum canimus, favete linguis: Horat. Carm. l. 3. ode 1. Statius Sylv. l. 2. Servius in Virgil. Antid. l. 5. And Servius on those words of Virgil, Ore favete omnes, & cingite temporaramis, makes this observation, Apto sermone usus est in sacrificiis & ludis. Nam in sacris taciturnitas necessaria est, quod etiam Praeco magistratu sacrificante dicebat, Favete linguis. The like we also have in Seneca, in his Book de beata vita ad Gallionem. But to proceed, as they made way unto their Sacrifices with certain and determinate Prayers to those several numina, to whom the service was intended, so when the Sacrifice was ended, and the Rites performed, they shut up all with Hymns and Praises, of which thus Rosinus. Ʋbi quod diis tributum esset conflagrasset, ad epulas ipsi & convivia convertebantur. Inter vescendum diis laudes canebant. i. e.Rosinus Antiqu. Rom. l. 3. c. 33. ‘After the portion of the Sacrifice which was appropriated to the gods, was burnt, they all betook themselves to feast and ban­que; and in the middle of their meat, sang Hymns or Songs of praise unto their gods, and playing on their Cymbals danced about the Altars.’ The reason of which last is thus given from Servius, ut nulla pars corporis sit quae non sentiret religionem, that there might be no part of the body without some sense of religious action, which was then in hand; the Songs relating to the mind or soul; the dancing to the motions of the body.

Next for the Sacrifice it self, he describes it thus. V Id. ibid. His peractis, sacrum ab Immola­tione sacerdos inchoabat. Fruges aut molam salsam in caput victimae deponebat, addito thure masculo. Vocabatur Ritus ille Immolatio, quasi molae in caput victimae collocatio. Deinde vinum aspergebat: sed priusquam id effunderet, scipulo aut simpuvio ligneo, vel fictili admodum parvo & ipse leviter delibabat: & astantibus gustandum deferebat, ut pariter li­barent. Vocabatur hic Ritus Libatio. Quo facto setas inter cornua victimae manu evulsas tanquam prima libamina projiciebat in ignem, conversusque ad ortum obliquum cultrum à fronte victimae ad caudam ducebat. Tandem victimam Diis exhibitam & dedicatam jube­bat jugulare ministros; qui quod mact arent eas Cultrarii & Victimarii, à nonnullis Popae & Agones vocabantur. Reliqui partim admotis vasculis emanantem cruorem excipiebant, partim victimam excoriabant & abluebant, partim igne accendebant. Ʋbi perpurgata erat, mox Aruspex, Flamen, aut Sacerdos cultro ferreo viscera rimabatur, attenteque explorabat an perlitatum foret. Non autem manu licebat contrectare viscera, ne qua offensa pollutis sacris intercideret. Inspectis tandem & exquisitis singulis, ex omni viscere & membro Ministri partes certas, decisas, farina farris involvebant, & in calathis sacrificanti offerebant; Sacerdos Aris imposltas foculo incenso comburebat, quod reddere erat & Litare. Eum ignem ex olea, lauru, & quercu corticis crassioris, aut cujus caudex cavus fungosusque esset, accendere vel Numinibus adolere nefas erat, suspecta enim erant ligna illa, tanquam diri ac mali ominis. So far, and in these words Rosinus; the sense and substance of the which take from an Author of these times, as followeth,Roman, Histor. Authol. l. 2. [...] sect. 2. c. 19. ‘The Priest or Sacrificer having ended his prepa­ratory Prayers, he laid upon the head of the Beast a little Corn, together with a Cake made of Meal and Salt, called in Latine, Mola. From this ceremony, the act of Sacrificing hath been called Immolatio. After this he drank Wine out of an earthen or wooden Chalice, called in Latine Simpulum or Simpuvium; which afterwards was carried unto all the people, that they might also libare, which is, lightly taste thereof, which Rite was therefore called Libatio. Every one having tasted thereof, the rest of the Wine with Frankincense mixt in it, was to be poured on the Beasts [Page 84]head betwixt the horns; and the Priest plucking off some of the Beasts hairs which grew between the horns, did cast them into the fire, calling them his prima Libamina, or first offerings. Then turning his face towards the East, he drew a long crooked Knife from the forehead of the Beast unto his tail; commanding his inferiour Mini­sters, which from this Knife were called Cultrarii, and Victimarii, as also Popae, and Agones, to kill the Beast. And of the people standing by, some did with Vessels save the blood, others did flay or skin the Beast, and others washed it. Anon the Soothsayer, Priest, or Flamen did observe the intrails, and turning and winding them with a knife, which was called Secespita à secando; for he might not touch them with his hand, for fear lest some pollution might befall the Sacrifice, and there­withal his hand have perished. Now after the Soothsayer or Priest had sufficiently turned the Intrails, and found no ill token therein, then did those Ministers or Under­officers cut off from every bowl some part or portion, which after they had rouled in Barley-meal, they presented it in Baskets to the Priests, who laid them on the Altar, and there burnt them; and this was properly termed litare and reddere, i. e. to sa­tisfie by Sacrifice, or to pay the Sacrifice which had been owing to the gods. Add here, that for the fire with which they used to burn their Sacrifice, it was not to be made of the Olive-tree, nor of the Bay-tree, nor an Oak of a thicker bark, or which was of an hollow or spungious body; these trees being of an ominous and suspected quality.’ Rosinus Autiq. Rom. l. 3. c. 35. And 'tis observable withal, Singulis diis victimas suas deputatas esse, that every god had his distinct and several sacrifice, both in kind and numbers, which are reci­ted by Rosinus in the place aforesaid, and there may easily be found. It is enough that we have noted here those determinate Rites, those prescribed Forms and ceremonies, wherewith their Sacrifices were performed, that it may thereby be demonstrated how little (or indeed nothing in a manner) was left unto the Priests discretion, for Form or matter.

But then perhaps it may be said, VI that this is to be understood of such Rites only, as wholly did consist in action; and that there might some liberty be left (notwith­standing this) in words and matter of expression. That therefore shall be looked on next; and being looked on, will be found to be as much prescribed and limited, as the other were. For first, it was the custom of the Grecians in the beginning of their Sa­crifices, to use these words (and these words always) to the people, [...], i. e. who is here? to which the people did as constantly return this answer, [...], ma­ny men and good.Aristophan. A proem very pertinent to the work in hand; the gods being thought of too great majesty, to be attended by a few, and sacrifice a work of too great piety, to be performed in the presence of a wicked person. In which regard as well the Grecians as the Romans did use a certain Form of words before they entred on their Sacrifices, whereby they warned all wicked and unholy persons not to come too near.Callimachus ap. Servium in Aentid. 6. The Form used by the Greeks was this, [...], be all profane far hence, from this holy business. And hereto Orpheus doth allude, when he would have the Temple doors shut against the wicked, lest they should enter in and profane the ceremony.Orphens [...] sive de Deo. [...]; which words of Orpheus are cited both by Justin M. and by Tatianus, two very ancient Chri­stian writers, though by the fault of the Transcriber, instead of [...], which is the true and proper reading, we find there, [...]. Which rather seems to keep the wicked and profane persons in the Temple,Justin Mart. in Paraenetico. than to shut them out. Now that it was the shutting out of such, which is here intended, appeareth by that passage touching Epiphanius, a famous Sophister, who having made an Hymn in the praise of Bacchus, in the reciting of the same ( [...]) according to the usual Form, [...],Sozomen. Eccl. hist. l. 6. c. 25. [...]. commanded all unholy and profane to avoid the room. And now I am fallen upon this Hymn to Bacchus, I shall add thus much, that in the Sacrifices made unto him, the Priests did thus bespeak the people, [...], Sing ye praise to God; and thereunto the people answered, [...]. O Semeles fili, Ap. Casanbon. in Annal. Eccl. Exercit. 16. n. 42. Virgil. Ae­neid. 6. Silius Ital. de Bello Punico l. 17. Iacche, largitor opum. But this is somewhat from the purpose, I return again; and in returning find the self same Form to have been used also by the Latines. Procul, O procul ite PROFANI, Conclamat vates, totoque absistite luco, as it is in Virgil, where he describes the Form of Sacrifice which was then in use much after that, which was collected from Rosinus. The like hath Silius Italicus on the like occasion,

Tune puppe è media magno clamore Sacerdos,
Parcite pollutis contingere vincula polmis,
Et procul hinc, moneo, procul hinc quaecunque PROFANAE.

The like hath Ovid in his Metamorphosis, where speaking of Medea and her incan­tations, he thus brings it in:Ovid. Metam. l. 7.

Hinc Procul Aesonidem, procul hinc jubet ire ministros,
Et monet arcanis oculos removere PROFANOS.

In all which passages the Poets plainly do allude to the usual Forms wherewith the Priests began their Sacrifices. And yet for further proof thereof, lest possibly it may be thought that the aforesaid Form of words hath more of the Poet in it than of the Priest, we have Tertullian speaking of those Rites and Ceremonies wherewith the Gentiles did initiate or begin their Sacrifices, and therein using this expression, Cum semper impiae initiationes arceant PROFANOS. Tertul. in Apo­loget, This Form, or if you will, those formal words, as they were constantly observed in the beginning of the Sacrifice, so were there others no less duly used in the very middle of the same. For when the Priest did pour the Wine upon the head of the Beast (whatsoever it was) which was intended for the Sacrifice, (and so he was to do, as was shewn before) he always used this Form of words, Mactus hoc vino inferio esto. And thus observed by Servius in his notes on Virgil, Arnobius adv. Gentes. l. 7. Quoties aut thus aut vinum super victimam fundebatur, dicebant, mactus est Taurus vino vel thure, hoc est, cumulata est hostia, i. e. magis aucta, Servius in Aeneid. l. 9. Yet so that any times the Form did vary, according to the service of the god to whom the Sacrifice was offered. For if the Sacrifice were made to Janus, then the words ran thus, JANE Pater, M. Cato de re Rustica. c. 134. uti te strue commovenda, bonas preces bene precatus sum, ejusdem rei ergo, Macte vino inferio esto: but if to Jupiter then thus, JƲPITER Dapalis, macte istace dape pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio esto. Where note that howsoever there appear a difference in the first part of these two Forms, which were to be disposed and fitted according to the several oc­casions of the several Offerings; yet for the last clause, that which was said upon the pouring of the Wine on the head of the Sacrifice, there is no difference at all. And note withal, that the Wine here is called vinum inferium, either ab inferendo, because it was brought in for that end and purpose to be bestowed upon the gods;Festus in ver­borum significa­tione. or else as Festus rather thinks, quod in sacrificando infra paterae labrum ponebatur, because that in the act of Sacrificing, it was placed within the lip or brim of the platter.

VII

But not to spend more time (all that we have being too little for this following search) amongst our Criticks and Grammarians; from Forms of words though strictly both prescribed and practised, let us go on to Forms of Prayers. Where first, besides that made to Janus before remembred, we have another of that kind, and on that oc­casion, said usually in strue Jano commovenda (now strues was a kind of Cake which the Gentiles offered to their Gods) and is this that followeth.Festus de ver­borum significa­tione. Cato de re Rustica. c. 134. JANE Pater, te hac strue commovenda bonas preces precor, uti sies volens propitius mihi, liberisque meis, domo, fa­miliaeque meae. And besides that to Jupiter Dapalis, which we saw but lately, we have another of the same, made at the offering of a Cake also, which they called Fertum, thus, JƲPITER te hoc ferto obmovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies volens propitius mihi, liberisque meis, domo, familiaeque meae; Id. Ibid. the very same, no more than the change of the ob­lation, as before to Janus. It seems that both these Prayers and Offerings were made unto the aforesaid gods, upon the coming in of Harvest, when they had gathered in their Corn, and satisfied themselves with the fruits thereof. For theh prosperity of which fruits, whilst they were yet growing, I find a very formal Prayer to be said to Mars, at such time as they made Procession to view their Fields, and pray unto the gods for their blessing on them. But why to Mars, more than to any other of the gods, that I cannot say; unless perhaps because he was the proper Deity of the Fratres arvales, a Colledge or fraternity of Priests so named, quod sacra publica faciunt, propterea ut fruges ferant arva, because they used to offer publick Sacrifice,Rosinus Antiqu. Rom. l. 3. c. 6. that the earth might bring forth her increase. But whatsoever was the reason of it, I am sure that the Prayer was this, and 'tis the most compleat and perfect of any one that I have met with. MARS te precor quaesoque uti sies volens propitius mihi domo familiaeque nostrae. Cujus rei erge, agrum, terram, fundumque meum, Suovetaurilia (what they were, we shall see hereafter) circumagi jussi; uti tu morbos visos invisosque viduertam vastitudinemque, calamitates inteperiasque prohibisses, defendas, averruncesque uti in fruges, frumenta, vineta, virgultaque grandire, beneque evenire sinas, passores, pecuaque salva servasses; duisque bonam salutem, valetudinemque mihi, domo, fawiliaeque nostrae. Harumce rerum ergo, Cato de re Rustica. c. 141. Tibullus Eltg. l. 2. eleg. 1. Macte hisce Suovetaurilibus esto. Which Prayer being very full and punctual, as you see it is, is thus contracted by Tibullus,

Dii Patrii purgamus agros, purgamus agrestes;
Vos mala de nostris pellite limitibus.

[Page 86]And on the other side it is as much extended or drawn out in length by Ovid, in his Book de Fastis, Ovid. de Fastis lib. 4. where he describes the Feast which they called Palilia, and thither I refer the Reader. For other Prayers, but of a different kind, as of a different occasion from those before, take this of Psyche unto Juno; which though it be recorded in a fabulous story, is yet according to the Forms which were then in use, and is this now following.Apuleius de Aurto Asine. l. 6. Magni JOVIS germana & conjuga, sive tu SAMI, quae querulo partu, vagitu (que) & alimonia tua gloriatur, tenes vetusta delubra; sive celsae Carthaginis, quae te virginem, vectura Leonis coelo commeantem, percolit, beatas sedes frequentas; sive prope ripas Inachi, quite jam nuptam Tonantis, & Reginam dearum memoras, inclytis Argivorum praesides moe­nibus; quam cunctus Oriens Zygiam appellat; sis meis extremis casibus JƲNO sospita, me (que) in tantis exantlatis laboribus defessam, imminentis periculi metu libera; quod sciam soles periclitantibus subvenire. And finally, take this for a close of all, used at the Conse­crating of a Grove for religious uses, at which they sacrificed a Swine or Porker with this solemn Form. Si deus, si dea es quorum illud sacrum est, uti tibi jus siet porco piaculo facere, Coerare, an old Latine word, the same with curare in the modern. Extat ap. Ca­ton. de re Rust. c. 139. illiusque sacri, coerandi ergo, sive Ego, sive quis jussu meo fecerit, uti id recte factum siet; ejus rei ergo te hoc Porco piaculo immolando bonas preces precor, uti sies volens propitius mihi, domo familiaeque meae, liberisque meis. Harumce rerum ergo, Macte hoc porco pia­culo immolando esto. More of these instances might be produced, were not these sufficient, to shew that even the Gentiles were no strangers to set Forms of Prayer; whether we look upon them in their solemn Sacrifices, or their occasional devo­tions.

Now as they used set Forms of Prayer when they applyed themselves unto the gods, VIII for the obtaining of their favours; so did they tye themselves to prescribed Forms, either of Invocation or of Adjuration, when they intended to devote themselves to some sudden death, for preservation of their Country; or practised to entice the gods of other Nations, to leave their former dwellings, and repair to them. This last, a thing much used amongst them in those times of darkness, on a conceit, that there was little hope to subdue those people against whom they had waged wars, or to be Masters of that City, State or Country, whose conquest they had undertaken; till the said People, City, State, or Countrey should be forsaken of their gods. This made the Greeks en­deavour with such care and cunning, to get into their hands the Image of Pallas, called the Palladium; Virgil. Aentid. l. 2. being well assured in their own opinion, that Troy could never be sur­prized or forced, till they were masters of that piece. And to this Virgil doth allude, where he complaineth that the gods had forsook their Altars, and dwelt no longer in their Adyta, the most retired and inward part of all their Temples, as before was shewn.Id. ibid. Excessere omnes Adytis arisque relictis Dii quibus imperium hoc steterat, as the Poet hath it. Upon which place it is observed by Servius briefly, ante expugnationem, evo­cari ab hostibus numina, propter evitanda sacrilegia; which is the same in substance with that before. But for a larger and more full description both of the thing it self, and the reason of it, take this of Ludovicus Vives; Cum oppugnabantur civitates, eratque in animo Imperatoribus eas demoliri, ne contra deos bellum geri videretur, iique suis sedibus mo­veri inviti, quod nefas erat, evocabantur ex obsessa civitate ab Imperatore obsidente, ut in ur­bem victricem volentes migrarent. Ludov. Vives in August. de Civita. dei. l. 2. c. 22. And this, saith he, did Camillus at the Siege of Veii, Scipio at the subversion of Carthage, and Numantia, and Mummius at the destruction of Corinth. Now for the Form or prescribed words of Evocation, which were used here­in, they were these that follow, as they were used by Scipio at the Siege of Carthage. Si deus, si dea est, cui populus civitasque Carthaginiensis est tutela, Teque maxime ille qui urbis bujus populique tutelam recepisti, precor venerorque veniamque à vobis peto, ut vos popu­lum, civitatem Carthaginiensem deseratis, loca, Templa, sacra, urbemque eorum relin­quatis, absque his abeatis, eique populo, civitati metum, formidinem, oblivionem injiciatis, proditique Romam ad me, meosque veniatis, nostraeque urbis loca, templa, sacra, urbs acceptior pro­batiorque sit, mihique populoque Romano militibusque meis praepositi sitis, ut sciamus intelli­gamusque. Si ita feceritis, Macrob. Satur­nal. lib. 3. c. 9. voveo vobis Templa ludosque facturum. Shorter was this, but to the same effect and purpose, used by Camillus at the Siege of Veii, when he enticed Queen Juno to desert the place. Te simul JƲNO Regina, quae nunc Veios colis, precor, ut nos victores in nostram tuamque mox futuram urbem sequare; ubi te dignum amplitudine tua Templum accipiat. Iivius in hist. R. Decad. 1. l. 5. It seems the Form increased both in words and circumstance, according to the growth and puissance of the Roman State, which was far greater in the time of Scipio, than when Camillus governed the affairs of Rome. Put all together, and you will think the Tyrians had good reason for what they did, (the dotage of the times considered) when having Apollo in suspicion that he meant to leave them, or [Page 87]possibly might be thus inticed from them, they fastned him unto their Altars with a massie chain, as Plutarch doth relate the story.Plut. in vit [...] Alexàndri.

Thus also when some zealous Patriot had a purpose to devote himself unto sudden and unavoidable destruction, IX for preservation of his Countrey from some imminent ruine; they did it not without a certain Form of words, dictated to them by the Priest, who attended on them for the promotion of that service. That so they did, we have ex­amples many in the stories both of Greeks and Romans; amongst which, that of Codrus the Athenian King, and Decius the Roman General, are of most antiquity.V. Velleium Paterc. hist. l. 1. And for the Form in which they did it, we have it thus laid down in that of Decius, when in a war against the Latines, the Romans beginning to give ground, he said aloud unto theh Priest or Pontifex, who did attend upon the Army, Poutifex praei verba, quibus me pro legionibus devoveam, that they should dictate to him the accustomed words, in which he was to dedicate or devote himself unto the gods, for theh preservation of the Legions. This said, the Priest appointed him to put on his Gown (which they called toga praetexta) and with an hood upon his head, and his hand raised up unto his chin, to stand upon a Dart or Weapon, and to say as followeth, Jane, Jupiter, Mars pater, Quirine, Bellona, Lares, Divi Novensiles, Dii indigetes, Divi quorum est protestas nostrorum hostiumque, Diique manes, vos precor, veneror, veniam peto feroque uti populo Romano Qui­ritium vim victoriamque prosperetis; hostesque populi Romani Quiritium terrore, formidi­neque morteque afficiatis. Sicut verbis nuncupavi, ita pro Republica Quiritium, Diis mani­bus Tellurique DEVOVE. Which said he furiously cast himself into the middle of the Enemies, as if he had been sent by the gods of purpose,Livius in hist. R. Decad. 1. l. 8. qui pestem ab suis aversam in hostes ferret, to carry all their anger with him to the adverse party. And that this was the solemn Form used constantly on those occasions, appears not only by the words of Decius to the Priest or Pontifex, before remembred, but also by the following practice; the self same Form, quo pater DECIƲS bello Latino se jusserat DEVOVERI, Id. decad. 1. l. 10. being used after by the younger Decius, on the like occasion, in a War against the Gauls and Samnites. Such also was the solemn Form which the Romans used when they devoted any of their Enemies, their Camps and Cities to the same perdition. A copy or record wherof is still remaining in Macrobius, from whom take it thus. Dis Paters, Macrob. Saturn. l. 3. c. 9. sive Jovis Manes, sive quo alio nomine fas est nominare, ut omnes illam urbem Carthaginem, exerci­tumque quem ego me sentio dicere, fuga, formidine, terrore compleatis, quique adversus legi­ones exercitumque nostrum arma telaque ferent, uti vos eos exercitus, eos hostes, eosque ho­mines, urbes, agrosque eorum, & qui in his locis regionibusque agris urbibusque habitant, abducatis, lumine supero privetis; exercitusque hostium, urbes agrosque eorum quos me sentio dicere, uti vos eas urbes agrosque capita aetatesque eorum DEVOTAS consecratasque habeatis, illis legibus, quibus quandoque sunt maxime hostes devoti; eosque ego Vicorios pro me, fide, magistratuque meo, & pro populo Romano, exercitibus Legionibusque nostris devoveo; ut me, meamque fidem, imperiumque Legiones exercitumque nostrum, qui in his rebus gerundis sunt, bene salvos sinatis esse. Si haec ita faxitis, ut ego scidm, sentiam, intelligamque tunc quisquis votum hoc faxit, ubi faxit, recte facium esto, ovibus atris tribus, Tellus mater, teque Jupiter obtestor. In the performance of which part of their devotions, it is ob­served by my Author, that when the party, whosoever he was, named the Earth, or Tellus, he stooped unto the ground and touched it; when he named Jove, he lift his hands up to the Heavens; and when he came to the devoting of the place or people, he layed them then upon his breast. Sufficient evidence, that not alone the Forms, but their very gestures were prescribed and regulated.

For further proof whereof (of the last I mean) if we consult the Latine Authors of best rank and credit, X it will soon be found that there was little in the point of gesture left at liberty; but almost every circumstance in the Act of Worship, determined and appointed to their hands; the Gentiles generally making their Prayers upon their knees, their hands stretched unto the Heavens, their faces looking towards the East, and their heads uncovered. These are the most considerable passages in the Act of Worship; and these we shall run over briefly. First that they prayed upon their knees, and more than so, lay prostrate sometimes on the earth in the act of Worship, is evi­dent by several testimonies, both of their own Writers and of the Christian. For Ovid tells us of the Roman Matrons that genibus nixas dees orasse, that they kneeled on their knees when they made their Prayers; the like saith Livie also, whereof more anon;Ovid. Fastor. l. 4. and Apuleius brings in Psyche falling on her knees, when she poured forth her Prayers to Juno. Thus Ovid tells us also of Deucalion and Pyrrha, Apul. Meta­morph. l. 6. that when they came unto the [Page 88]Temple,Ovid. Metam. l. 1. Procumbit uter (que) pronus bumi, they both fell prostrate on the earth. And so Tibullus of himself, that he would never stick at that, viz. to fall down prostrate, yea, to kiss the pavement.

Non ego, si merui, dubitem procumbere Templis,
Et dare sacratis oscula limitibus.
Tibull. l. 1. Eleg. 5.

More of this kind might be added here, were not these sufficient. And for the Chri­stian writers, they observe it also: Arnobius noting of the Gentiles, deorum ante ora prostratos esse, that they fell prostrate when they came before their gods; limina ipsa osculis converrentes, Arnob. advers. gentes l. 1. Prudentius in Apotheosi. and did even sweep the pavement with their kisses. And Prudentius also tells us of them, genua incurvare Dianae, & plantis Herculis alvolvi, that they did bow the knee before Diana, and cast themselves down at the feet of Hercules. 'Tis true, they used to sit sometimes when as the Priest was at the sacrifice, and presently assoon as their Prayers were ended: But then it is as true withal, that by Tertullian, their irreverence therein is much condemned,Tertull. de orat. l. 12. who could not patiently endure it, and therefore sheweth how much he did dislike that irreverent gesture. For which con­sult him in his Book de Oratione, cap. 12. Next for the lifting up of the hands to Hea­ven, besides that place of Virgil, ‘Duplices tendens ad sydera palmas,Virgil. Ae­neid. 1.’

which we learnt when Children, in our Grammars, we find this Rite exceeding fre­quent in that Poet; hardly one book in all the Aeneids, in which that posture is not spoke of. In Ovid it is frequent also,

Ad sydera supplex Cressa manus tollens,
Ovid. Mttam. l. 8.
Ipse gubernator tollens ad sydera palmas:
Id. Trist. l. 1.

Thus Livie tells us of the matrons before remembred, nixas genibus, supinas manus ad caelum ac deos tendere, Livius in hist. Rom. dec. 4. l. 6. that being on their knees, they lifted up their hands unto the Heavens, and so made their prayers. And they are joyned together by Lucretius also,

Nec procumbere humi prostratum, & pandere palmas
Ante Deum delubra—
Lucret. l. 5.

More of this we need not. And much there needs not to demonstrate, that they turned their faces towards the East, in the solemnity of their devotions; the point be­ing made so universally apparent, by this note of Servius. For whereas it is said by Virgil, in the description of a sacrifice,

Illi ad surgentem conversi lumina solem,
Dant fruges manibus salsas:—

The old Grammarian would not have you think that this was spoken of the Sun-rising Jam dudum enim dies erat, Servius in Virg. Aeneid. 12. For it had long before been day. NOt so, saith he, Sed disciplinam ceremoniarum secutus est, ut orientem diceret spectare eum, qui precaturus offerat; He only doth observe the ancient discipline and ceremonies, that he who was to pray, should look toward the East. And this may also be collected from the contrivance of their Temples, which were so fashioned, as the great Architect Vitruvius noteth, ut qui adierint ad aram immolantes, Vitruvius de Architect. l. 4. c. 5. ant sacrificia facientes, spectent ad partem coeli Orientem, that they who offered sacrifice, or made their prayers (for so it followeth in the next words) might look towards the East. Finally, for the uncovering of the head in the Act of Worship, it was used generally by the Grecians, both in their Sacrifices and their Prayers,Macrob. Satur­nal. lib. 1. c. 10. & l. c. c. 6. and is therefore called Graecus ritus, in Macrobius: And by the Romans also in the Prayers and Sacrifices made unto Hercules and Saturn, whereof consult Macrob. lib. 1. c. 8. & 10. and Dionysius Halicarnass. hist. Rom. lib. 1. as also in all acts of worship whatsoever, performed at that great and ancient Altar, called Ara Maxima, of old erected by the Grecians, Macrob. l. 1. cap. 10. before the coming of Aeneas into Italy, with his Trojan cere­monies.

And now I am fallen upon the Grecians and their gestures in the Act of Worship, I will lay down the form and ceremonies, in which their Sacrifices, which were their greatest Acts of Worship, were performed and celebrated. Of these I had intended to say nothing here, partly because the punctual practice of the Romans would give sufficient light and evidence unto the business now in hand; but principally because the Estates of Greece being very many, and those too absolute and independent, I doubted I should find but small agreement in their Rites and Forms. But finding a set Form of Sacrifice used by those of Athens, painfully collected to my hand by Mr. Francis Rous of Oxon, in his three books of the Athenian Antiquities; Archaiologiae Atticae l. bri tres. Id. l. 2. c. 9. in honour of his learned industry, I will here present it, leaving the Allegations and Authorities to be consulted in the Authors margin. Thus then saith he, The Priests being purified and prepared, they came and stood round the Altar, having with them a Basket, in which was the Knife hid, (covered with flower and salt) wherewith they cut the throat of the Victim. Then they purifi­ed the Altar, going about it with the right hand towards it; which lustration was made with Meal and Holy-water sprinkled thereon. This water is called [...], in which they quench­ed a Fire-brand taken from the Altar, with which they bedewed the standers by, accounting it a cleansing; from whence [...] was forbidden him, whom they took for a forlorn and polluted wretch. Then they cast some of the flour on them. And having thus expiated, they cryed out, [...]; who is here? to which they made reply, [...], ma­ny and good. Then they prayed, speaking with a loud voice before they began, [...], i. e. Let us pray. Supplications being ended, they drew the Victim so, as, if it were to the gods above, the head might look upwards; if it were to the Heroes or Demy-gods, with his throat downwards. Then they slew him and skinned him, and cutting out thehuck, shin­bones and banch, they covered them with fat, which is called [...], (whence the gods of the Heathen are said by Nazianzen, [...], to rejoyce in the fat) to the end that they may burn all out in a great flame. For the Grecians accounted it unlucky, if it did not so consume, and thought that it was not [...]. Upon the [...] they cast small pieces of flesh cut from every part of the beast, beginning with the shoulder (which in Greek is [...]) from whence this action is called [...]. The reason Eustathius gives, [...], &c. that they might seem to consume all, which the Athenians did not, being commanded by Law to carry some of the Sacrifice home. By reason of which injunction they did so strain courtesie with their gods, that the illiberal or niggardly sort of people, would sell that which was left, and so make a gain of their devotion. That which they offered was the haunch-bone, or the entrails, or somewhat of no great worth; where by entrails you must understand the spleen, the liver, and the heart, which Homer calleth [...]. These the ancients did divide amongst them at Sacrifice to feed on, and afterwards cut out the rest to roast; for when they had finish­ed their devotions, they let loose the reins to all voluptuousness. For many times they left no­thing of their Sacrifice, especially when they offered unto VEsta; whence the Proverb [...], to Sacrifice to Vesta, is to eatup all. He also notes from Aristophanes, that they had their Meat-offerings, and their Drink-offerings; that in their Meat-offerings, it was re­quired that it should be sound and without blemish, whether it were an Ox, Sheep, Goat, Swine, or Calf; that he whose poverty was such that he could not afford a Sheep, or the like, might with acceptance to the Gods, offer a little Cake or Mola, which by the richer sort was mingled with Oyl and Wine; and finally, that instead of this, the weal­thier sort used to cast frankincense upon the Altar. Such were the prescribed Rites and Forms, in which the Athenians offered Sacrifice to the gods of Attica: And doubt we not but that the other States of Greece, as they had gods to whom to Sacrifice, and Sacrifices for their gods; so were they also regulated by a prescript Form, in which their gods were to be Worshipped, their Sacrifices to be tendred.

But to return again to the Roman Forms, to put an end to this discourse, XII we will a little look on their Forms of Marriage, so far forth and no further, as they did relate to religious Worship and Invocation of their gods. For though they made no care nor conscience in breaking of the Bond of Marriage upon all occasions, yet did they seldom make a Marriage to which the gods were not invited, or not called upon. For anciently there was no making of a Marriage wherein the Soothsayers, or Auspex was not consulted. This Servius hath observed in his notes on Virgil, Servius in Virg. Aeneid. l. 1. Romani nihil nisi captatis faciebant auguriis, praecipue NƲPTIAS, the Romans did not any thing (saith he) without consulting with the Augur, especially in point of Marriage. In celebrating of the which, as there were certain formal words, so were there also solemn Sacrifices. First, for the formal words of Marriage, Boetius doth report them thus. Coemptio certis [Page 90]solennitatibus peragebatur, & sese in coemendo invicem interrogabant, Vir ita, an sibi mulier materfamilias esse vellet, illa respondebat velle: item Mulier interrogabat, an sibi vir Paterfamilias esse vellet, ille respondebat velle, &c. That kind of Marriage (saith he) which is called Coemption, Boetius Com­ment. in Cice­ronis Topica. l. 2. was done with certain and determinate solemnities, pro­posing to each other these Interrogatories. The Man demanded of the Woman, if she would be his Wedded Wife, and she said, I will: And then the Woman asked the Man, if he would be her Wedded Husband, and he said, he would; which said, the Man took the Woman into his hands, and from thenceforth she was his Wife. Next for the solemn Sacrifice performed at Weddings, there was a Form of Marriage which they called Confarreatio, because the Married couple used to eat of a Barley cake, which had been offered in the Sacrifice: From whence perhaps the use of Bride cakes came first into this Countrey with the Romans, as many other of their customs did. And this was Solemnized saith the great Lawyer Ʋlpian, Cited by Rosi­nus Antiqu. Rom. l. 5. c. 37. Certis verbis, & testibus decem prae­sentibus, & solenni sacrificio facto, in quo panis farreus adhibetur, under a certain and pre­scribed Form of words, ten Witnesses at the least being present, and a solemn Sacri­fice, wherein the Barley-cake was used, which before we spake of. The Beast pre­pared for the Sacrifice,Varro de re Ru­stica. l. 2. c. 4. was commonly a Swine or Porker, as it is in Varro. And if a Sacrifice were offered, as it seems to be, no question but it was attended with Prayers and Orizons unto the gods, for the prosperity of the parties. This affirmed plainly by Valerius Flaccus in his Argonautica.

Inde ubi sacrificas cum conjuge venit ad aras
Aesonides, unaque adeunt, pariterque precari Incipiunt, &c.

Finally,Valer. Flaccus Argonaut. l. 8. besides the laying down of money at the time of Marriage, in the way of dowry, from whence it seemeth to be called Coemption; the Bridegroom used to put a Ring on the fourth finger of his Spouse, when he made the Contract. The thing affirmed by Juvenal amongst the Ancients,Juvenal. Sat. 6. where speaking of a Contract or Espousal, he thus glanceth at it, Jamque à tonsore magistro Pectoris, & digitis pignus fortasse dedisti. The reason of it given by Gellius, A. Gellius Noct. Attic. l. 10. c. 10. and since him by others, because it was observed by the Auatomists, repertum esse nervum quendam tenuissimum ab eo uno digito ad Cor hominis pergere ac pervenire, That from that finger there passEd a small and slender nerve to the heart of man. More of this we may see hereafter, when we are come unto the Form of Marriage in the Christian Church; to the determinate Forms whereof we are come at last.

CHAP. V. That in the times of the Apostles Liturgies, or Set Forms of ministration in the Christian Church, were composed and used.

  • 1. The Jews and Gentiles made one Church, by Christ our Saviour.
  • 2. A Form of Prayer prescribed by Christ to his Disciples.
  • 3. The Institution of the Christian Sacrifice, with the set Form thereof, by our Lord and Saviour.
  • 4. That the Lords Prayer, with other Bene­dictions, were used by the Apostles in the Celebration of the blessed Eucharist.
  • 5. A Form of Celebrating Gods publick Ser­vice, prescribed in the first of S. Paul to Timothy, according to the judgment of the Fathers.
  • 6. The Form and manner of Gods publick Ser­vice, described in the first to the Corinthians.
  • 7. The Hymns and Psalms used in the Church of Corinth, were not voluntary, but prescribed and set; and of the Musick therewith used.
  • 8. That is it probable, that the Apostles or­dained Liturgies, for the publick use.
  • 9. What may be said touching the Liturgies ascribed unto. S. Peter, Mark, and James.
  • 10. The Form of ministring the Sacrament of the blessed Eucharist, described by Diony­sius the Areopagite.
  • 11. That of the ministring the Sacrament of holy Baptism described by him; and seconded by the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens.
  • 12. Places appointed in this Age for Gods publick Worship, and honoured with the name of Churches.

THus have we taken a distinct and several view of those Forms of Worship, I which anciently were used by the Jews and Gentiles, whilst they stood divided; whilst they were separated by that partition-wall which the Apostle speaks of, whereby they were indeed divided both in opinions and affections. But that partition-wall being broken down by our Lord and Saviour,Ephes. 2.14, &c. he did withal abolish in his flesh that enmity which had been between them, even the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man; so making peace between the parties, ut recon­ciliaret ambos in unto corpore, that he might reconcile both to God, being united in one body by the Cross of Christ. And indeed how could he do otherwise, who was as well designed by Almighty God, to be a light to lighten the Gentiles, as to be the glory of his People Israel?Luk. 2.32. The promise which God made to Abraham was not unto his Seed alone, but to all the Nations of the World by it: And although Shiloh was to come from the loins of Judah, yet was he also expectatio Gentium, as the Vulgar reads it,Gen. 49.10. and to him should the gather­ing of the People be. Therefore however he was pleased to declare at first, that he was tnot sent but to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel,Mat. 10.6. and did accordingly grant out a limi­ted Commission unto his Disciples; yet he enlarged it in the end,Mat. 10.5. giving them an espe­cial charge to go teach all Nations. Id. 28.19. And when he found them backward in pursuit thereof, he quickned Peter by a Vision, and called Paul as it were of purpose,Act. 10.11. to bear his name before the Gentiles, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness unto light, Act. 9.17. and from the power of Satan unto God. So that although the Jews and Gentiles were not collected into one body, in our Saviours time,Act. 26.18. I mean the time in which he pleased to sojourn here upon the Earth: yet being done by his Authority, and by the con­duct and direction of his blessed Spirit, it can be said of none but him, quod fecit utra (que) unum, that he made both one, bringing them both into one Church,Ephes. 2.14. and making both partakers of the same communion, who were before at such a distance, as was con­ceived to be irreconcilable. Unto the constituting of which Church, our Saviour brought not any thing of Rite or Ceremony, determined nothing that we meet with in his holy Gospels, touching the time or place of publick Worship, the Form and manner of the same; save that he gave a general intimation, that Hierusalem should no longer be the place, in which men should be bound to Worship.Joh. 4.21. The pains he took were principally spent in points of Doctrin, clearing the truths of holy Scripture from those false glosses and corrupt traditions, which had been put upon it by the Scribes and Pharisees; and setting forth a new and clearer body of Divinity than had been taught the people in the Law of Moses; that the Father might be worshipped in succeeding times with a greater measure of the spirit, and a more perfect knowledge of the truth,Joh. 4.23, 24. than he had been formerly. As for the circumstances and out-parts of Worship, he left them in the state he found them, that is to say, to the disposing of the Church, in whose power it was to institute such Rites and Ceremonies as might apparently conduce to the increase of Piety, and to the setting forth of Gods praise and glory. Himself had given a personal and most exemplary obedience to the Church of Jewry, conforming to such Rites and Ordinances (wherein there was no deviation from the Law of God) as had in former times been setled by the power thereof. And therefore had no cause of his collecting; a Church conducted in those points which pertain to godliness, by such a visible co-operation of the Holy Ghost; especially considering what a fair ex­ample of Conformity he should leave behind him. Besides all people of the world, both Jews and Gentiles were setled at that time in a full perswasion of the necessity of set times and determinate places, for the assembling of themselves together in the acts of Worship; and had their prescribed Forms both of Prayer and Praise, their Rituals and established Ceremonies; and therewith also an opinion that those things were to be eprformed by the Priest alone. Which being agreed on in the general, both people might be brought with more facility, to fall on some particular conclusions, to which they were inclined already by their common principles. And so indeed it proved in a short event; times, places, and set Forms for worship, being unanimously and uni­versally received amongst them, within a very little while after our Lords departure. The Jews already had their Synagogues, their Proseuchas or Oratories, as before was said. How small a labour was it to the blessed Apostles, and their successors in that work, to turn those Synagogues of theirs into Christian Churches, for Preaching of the Word of God, and the administration of the Sacraments; accordingly as they did win upon the Jews to embrace the Gospel? Nor is this only a bare speculation, it [Page 92]was done de facto, it being recorded in a book ascribed unto Athanasius, that on the converting of the Jews, Inhabitants of Beritus, to the faith of Christ, [...],Athanas. de passione imagi­nis Dom. no­stri. To. 2. gr. l. p. 631. that the Bishop who had laboured in it, converted the Synagogue of the Jews into a Christian Church, and dedicated it to our Lord and Saviour. And for the Temples of the Gentiles, when once their super­stitions were suppressed, and the Gospel countenanced by Authority, they were con­verted also to the self-same use,Vid. Bed. hist. Eccles. 1. as the Jewish Synagogues had been in other places: Gods Servants being in the mean time contented with such safe retreats, as their ne­cessities inforced them to make use of in those fiery times; or with such publick places of Assembly, but mean and under the degree of envy, as either upon sufferance or by special leave they were permitted to erect. As soon, if not more suddenly, all parties also were agreed on the times of worship, which was reduced with general and joynt consent unto the first day of the week, the Lords day, or the Sunday, call it which you will; wherein all members of the Congregation were to meet together for Gods publick Service. A business, wherein the Church proceeded with great care and wisdom; setting apart one day in seven, to hold the fairer quarter with the Jews, who were so zealous of a Sabbath; but altering the day it self, and paring off those legal Ordinances which had made it burdensome, the better to content the Gentiles. Yet so that they had also their daily meetings as occasion served, for celebration of the Sacrament of the blessed Eucharist, in those fiery times. Whereof, as being institu­ted for the Christian Sacrifice, and of the Evangelical Priesthood to attend the same, we shall speak anon.

In the mean time, II the next thing here to be considered, is the form and order wherein the Church did celebrate Gods publick Service in those purer times; those Forms of Prayer and Invocation, wherewith they did address themselves to the Lord their God. That all Religious offices in the House of God should be performed in form and order,1 Cor. 14. is not only warranted, but enjoyned by the Apostles Canon, made for those of Corinth; and consequently for all Churches else. And that for the avoi­ding of Battologies, and all effusions of raw and undigested prayers, besides what hath been shewn before to have been generally in use both with Jew and Gentile, in being bound and regulated by set Forms of Prayer: We have a Form laid down by our Lord and Saviour, both for our use and imitation. And first, that it was made for our imitation is generally agreed on, even by those, who otherwise approve not set Forms of Prayer.Calv. in Harm. Evangel. Calvin doth so resolve it, saying, In hunc finem tradita est haec re­gula, ad quam preces nostras exigere necesse est, si legitimas censeri Deoque probari cupimus. And in the words not long before, Non jubet Christus suos conceptis verbis orare, sed tan­tum ostendit quorsum vota omnia precesque referri deceat. The meaning in both passages is no more than this, that Christ obliged not his Disciples to the very words, but only shewed them how they were to pray, and what to pray for, if they would order them aright, and did desire to have them acceptable in the sight of God. To this doth Musculus agree, besides many others, whom here indeed I had not named, but that he doth translate the Text in a different manner, from all the rest which I have met with. For whereas Beza, Calvin, Erasmus, Castalio, Paraeus, and indeed who not, do read it sic orate, as the Vulgar doth: Musculus, to decline the easier all set Forms of prayer,Musculus in Mat. c. 6. doth translate it thus, ad hunc ergo modum orate, pray according to this man­ner, and thereupon infers non dicit, hanc ergo orationem, vel haec verba proferte, &c. Christ doth not say, saith he, repeat this Prayer, or use these words which you hear me speak; but let your Prayers be made by this rule and pattern which is laid before you. In which, if they intend no more than this, that Christ our Saviour did not so confine his followers to those very words, but that they might express their minds, and represent their Prayers unto the Lord in such other Forms as might be serviceable to that end and purpose, for which Prayers are made; they shall take me with them. I know not any sober-minded man, who will gain-say them in this matter, if they mean no otherwise. S. Augustin did so state it many years agone. Liberum quidem est (saith he) aliis atque aliis verbis, eadem tamen, quae haec oratio continet, in orando dicere; sed non est liberum alia & diversa & contraria dicere. Augustin in epist. 121. ad Probam. But if they mean that this celestial Form was made for imitation only, not at all for use, I mean not to be used precisely in our saviours words; I must needs crave their pardon, if I leave them there. For when it is affirmed by Musculus, non dicit, hanc ergo orationem, vel haec verba proferte, when it is said by Calvin, non jubet Christus suos conceptis verbis orare; when it is thought to be so hard a task to prove from Scripture, Vindicat. p. 23. that the Disciples were tyed to the use of this [Page 39]Form; and that the often reiterating thereof in our publick Liturgy, is judged a mat­ter so impertinent, as to be reckoned for a stumbling block before the feet of many. Smectymn. p. 12. I can­not sec but that their meaning is to exclude the use of this divine and Heavenly Prayer from Gods publick Worship, if not from the devotions also of Gods Saints in private. This if it be their mind and meaning, as by the practice of some men it may seem to be; I must there leave them to themselves. Our Saviours dicite delivered plainly and expresly in his holy Gospel, is no idle word, who being required by his Disciples to teach them what and how to pray, tells them in plain terms, Dicite, say, Our Father which art in Heaven, with the rest that followeth. And this, as is affirmed by good in­terpreters, and very faintly, if at all gain-said by Calvin (in his hac ale re cum nemine pugnare volo) was at a different time, and on a different occasion, from that which by S. Matthew was before related. Though sic, or ad hunc modum, as it is in Musculus, may serve exceeding well for imitation: yet Dicite, of it self, without either of them, will not be denied, to serve as strongly for the use. And sure the Fathers so conceived it. Of whom thus Cyprian, Qui enim fecit vivere, docuit & orare, ut dum prece & oratione quam filius docuit, apud patrem loquimur, facilius exaudiamur. He,Cyprian. de Ora­tione Dominica. saith the holy Martyr, who made us to live, hath also taught us to pray, that while we speak unto the Father in that prayer and orizon which the Son hath taught us, we may be heard with more facility. And not long after, Agnoscat pater filii verba cum precem facimus; Let the Almighty Father hear the words of hsi blessed Son, when we make our prayers. The like to which we have in Chrysostom, if not hence derived,Opus imperfect. in Mat. Homil. 14. Cognoscit Pater filii sui sensus & verba, that the Heavenly Father knows right well the words and meanin gof his Son. And what else doth Tertullian mean, when he informs us that this most ex­cellent prayer being then animated by the spirit, when it proceeded from the divine mouth of our Lord and Saviour, Suo privilegio ascendit in coelum, commendans Patri quae filius docuit, doth by a special priviledge ascend to Heaven,Tertul. de Ora­tione. commending to the Fa­ther those devotions which were taught and dictated by the Son? Add here the care that hath been taken in the times of old, that Children should be taught this Prayer in their tender years, (for which consult S. Austin, Serm. 1. Mat. 2. in Dominica 10. de Christiano nomine, & Concil. Rhemens. cap. 2.) and then I doubt not but it will appear to indifferent men, that this most excellent Form of Prayer was prescribed for use, and not laid down only for our imitation, and no more than so.

So then, we have a Form of Prayer prescribed by Christ to his Disciples, III to be used by them on occasions, at the least in private. When it became a part of the publick Liturgy, and by whose Authority, we shall shortly see. In the mean time, the next thing here to be considered, is, the institution of the Sacraments; in both of which, our Lord prescribed not the matter only, but the Form and words, wherewith the one is to be ministred, and the other celebrated. But you must understand me of that Form, those words which are essential to the Sacraments; and not of those which have been added by the Chuch for the procuring of a greater reverence to those Acts of Worship, and the exciting of devotion in all those that attend the Service. The Form of Baptism so determined in those words of Christ, go ye and teach all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Mat. 28.19. That when the Arrians were suspected not to use the same, but rather to Baptize in nomine patris, per filium in Sp. sancto, as 'tis said they did; it was decreed in the Council of Arles, that if upon examination it did so appear,Nicephorus hist. Eccl. l. 13. c. 35. Concil. Arela­tons. Can. 8. those who had been Baptized in so void a Form, should be a new admitted to that holy Sacrament. And for the Sacra­ment of the blessed Eucharist, so far forth as the Rites and Form of Celebration used by Christ our Saviour, are declared in Scripture, there is no question made amongst Learned men, but they were Obligatory to the Church for succeeding Ages. The blessing of the Bread, the breaking of it, and the distributing thereof unto his Apostles; the blessing of the Cup, and the communicating of the same to all the Company: those formal Energetical words, Take, eat, this is my Body, and drink ye all of this, this is the Cup, &c. and all this to be done in remembrance of me: Are rites and actions so determined, words so prescribed, and so precisely to be used, that it is not in the Churches power (unless she mean to set up a Religion of her own devising) for to change the same. And this, I take it, is agreed on by all Learned Protestants. Certain I am, it was so in the Churches practice from the first beginning; as may appear to any one who will take the pains to compare the Rites and Form of administration used by S. Paul and his Associates in the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 11.24.25. with that which was both done and prescribed by Christ, according as it is related in the holy Gospel. A further [Page 94]proof hereof we shall e're long. Nor find I any difference considerable amongst mo­derate men, touching the Priest or Minister ordained by Christ, for the perpetuating of this Sacrament, for the commemoratingof his death and passion, until his coming unto judgement. The publick exercises of Religion would be but ill performed with­out a Priesthood; and that would soon be brought to nothing, at least reduced unto contempt and scorn, if every one that listeth might invade the Office. Our Saviour therefore, when he did institute this Sacrament (or as the Fathers called it without offence in those pious times, the Sacrifice of the blessed Eucharist, Cum novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, Prenaeus cont. hares. l. 4. c. 32. to use the words of Irenaeus) give an hoc facite unto his Apostles, a faculty to them and their successors in the Evangelical Priesthood, to do as he had done before, that is to take the Bread, to bless to break it, and to distribute it amongst the Faithful, to sanctifie the Cup, and then to give it to the Congregation, Men of on Orders in the Church, may edere & bibere, as the Lord appointed; and happy 'tis, they are permitted to enjoy such sweet refection. But for hoc facere, that's the Priests peculiar. And take they heed who do usurp upon the Office, lest the Lord strike them with a fouler Leprosie than he did Ʋzzah, 2 Chron. 26.20. when he usurped upon the Priesthood, and would needs offer Incense in the House of God. These points are little controverted amongst sober men. The matter most in question which concerns this business, is, whether our Redeemer used any other either Prayers or Blessings, when he did insti­tute this blessed Sacrament, than what were formerly in use amongst the Jews, when they did celebrate their Passeover; and if he did, then whether he commended them unto his Apostles, or left them to themselves to compose such Prayers as the necessities of the Church required, and might seem best to them and the Holy Ghost. This we shall best discover by the following practice, in which it will appear on a careful search, that the Apostles in their times, and the Church afterwards by their example, did use and institute such Forms of Prayer, and Praise, and Benedictions in the Solemnities of the blessed Sacrament, of which there is no constat in the Book of God, that they were used at that time by our Saviour Christ. And if they kept themselves to a pre­script Form in celebration of the Eucharist, as we shall shortly see they did; then we may easily believe it was not long before they did the like in all the acts of publick Worship; according as the Church increased, and the Believers were disposed of in­to Congregations.

And first, IV beginning with the Apostles, it is delivered by the Ancients, that in the Consecration of the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood, they used to say the Lords Prayer.Hierom. adv. Pelagium. l. 3. There is a place in Hierome, which may seem to intimate that this was done by Christs appointment. Sic docuit Apostolos suos (saith that Reverend Father) ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui, Pater noster, &c. Whether his words will bear that meaning I can hardly say. Certain I am, they are alledged to this purpose by a late Learned writer,Steph. Durantes de ritibus Ec­elesiae Cathol. l. 2. c. 46. who saying first, Eam (i. e. orationem Dominicam) in Missae sacro dicendam Christus ipse Apostolos docuit, that Christ instructed his Apostles to say the Lords Prayer in the Celebration of that Sacrament (or in the Sacrifice of the Mass, as he calls it there) doth for the proof thereof vouch these words of Hierome. But whether it were so or not, most sure it is that the Apostles are reported to have used that Prayer, as often as they Celebrated the Communion. Mos fuit Apostolorum (saith S. Gregory) ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem Dominicam, oblationis hostiam conse­crarent. It was,Gregor. M. Epist. l. 7. Ep. 54. V. Bellarm. de Missa. l. 2. c. 19. Durand. Ra­tion. divinorum. l. 4. saith he, the use or custom of the Apostles to Consecrate the Host or Sacrament with reciting only the Lords Prayer. Which passage, if he took from that of Hierome, as some think he did, the one may not unfitly serve to explain the other. The like saith Durand in his Rationale. The Lord saith he did institute the Sacra­ment with no other words than those of Consecration only; Quibus Apostoli adjece­runt orationem Dominicam, to which the Apostles added the Lords Prayer: And in this wise did Peter first say Mass (you must understand him of the Sacrament) in the Eastern parts.Platina in vita Sixti. Platina saith the like as to S. PETER, Eum ubi consecraverit, oratione Pater noster usum esse, That in the Consecration of the Sacrament, he used to say the Lords Prayer, or the Pater noster. See to this purpose Antonius, tit. 5. cap. 2. §. 1. Martinus Polonus in his Chronicon, and some later Writers. By which, as it is clear and evident, that the Apostles used the Lords Prayer in the Celebration of the holy Mysteries, which is a most strong argument that it was given them to be used or said, not to be imitated only: So it may seem by Gregories solummodo, that they used the Lords Prayer and nothing else. And therefore that of Gregory must be understood, either that they used no other Prayer in the very act of Consecration, or that they closed the Form of [Page 95]Consecration with that Prayer of Christs; which may well be without excluding of the words of Consecration which our Saviour used, or such preparatory Prayers as were devised by the Apostles for that great solemnity. For certainly we must not take the words of Gregory to be so exclusive, as to shut out the words of Institution, or any of those Prayers or Benedictions which our Saviour used, or the Apostles guided by the Lords example, might think fit to imitate. To think that willingly, or rather wilfully, they should omit the words of their Lord and Master, which were so Operative and Energetical, would prove too great a scandal to those blessed spirits. And therefore Ambrose, when he puts the question, touching the Consecration of the Elements,Ambr. de Sacra­mentis. l. 4. c. 4. Con­secratio igitur quibus verbis est, & cujus sermonibus, by what words, and by whose it is made or celebrated; makes answer, Domini JESƲ, by the words of the Lord Jesus. And if the Elements are to be Consecrated by no other words (as the continual practice of the Church of Christ seems to say they may not) there is no question to be made, but that the Apostles used those words of Consecration, which they had heard before delivered from our blessed Saviour. We could not say they did hoc facere, according to the Lords injunction, if it had been otherwise. And no less probable it is, that in a work of so great consequence, they fell not presently upon the words of Institution, making a bare recital of them, and no more than so; and used not some preparatory Prayers to set an edge on the devotions of Gods people, accor­ding as the Lord had done before, who blessed the Bread before be brake it, and there­fore of necessity before he gave it. Certain I am,Rabanus Mau­rus de Institut. Cler. l. 32. that so it is affirmed by Rabanus Maurus, Cum benedictione & gratiarum actione primum Dominus corporis & sanguinis sui sacramenta dedicavit, & Apostolis tradidit, quod exinde Apostoli imitati fecere, & successores suos facere docuerunt, quod & nunc per totum orbem terrarum generaliter tota custodit Ecclesia. The Lord, saith he, first dedicated or ordained the Sacrament of his Body and Blood with Benediction and Thanksgiving, and gave the same to his Apostles; which the Apostles after imitating, did both do themselves, and taught their successors to do it also; so that it is now generally practised by the Church throughout the world. Here then we take it pro confesso, that in the Celebration of the blessed Sacrament, be­sides the words of Consecration which our Saviour used, the Apostles added the Lords Prayer: And we conceive it to be probable that they used certain Prayers and Bene­dictions by way of preparation to so great a business; of which more anon.

For further proof whereof, V that such preparatory Prayers and Benedictions were used originally in the Celebration of this Sacrament; we will first see what ground is laid by the Apostles, and after look upon the building which hath been raised on the same by the holy Fathers. First the Apostle layeth this ground,1 Tim. 2.1, 2, 3. I exhort therefore that firstof all Supplications, Prayers, Intercessions, and giving of Thanks, be made for all men; for Kings, and for all that are in Authority, that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty; for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour. Which words are generally understood not of private Prayers, but those which are made publickly in the Congregation.Calv. & Estius in 1. ad Tim. c. 2. Calvin doth so expound it for the Protestant Writers; and so doth Estius for the Pontificians, as is elsewhere noted. And that the Western Church may not stand alone, Theophylact and Oecumenius do both expound the words, [...], of the daily service,Theophyl. & Oecumen. in 1. ad Tim. which from the first be­ginning had been Celebrated in the Church of God. This I premise as granted with­out more adoe. Which being so premised and granted, and the ground thus layed; we are to look upon the building, as before was said, raised by the Fathers on the place. And here we will begin with S. Austin first, as one that hath more punctually observed the place, and traversed the whole ground, and each part thereof, than any one that went before him; who writing to Paulinus, doth thus build upon it.August. ad Pan­linum. Epist. 59. Multa hinc quippe dici possunt quae improbanda non sunt, sed eligo in his verbis hoc intelligere, quo omnis vel paene omnis frequentat Ecclesia; ut precationes accipiamus dictas, quas facimus in celebratione Sacramentorum, antequam illud quod est in mensa Domini, incipiat benedici: Orationes, cum benedicitur, & sanctificatur, & ad distribuendum comminuitur, quam tot am petiti­onem fere omnis Ecclesia DOMINICA ORATIONE concludit: Interpellationes autem (five ut nostri codices habent, postulationes) fiunt cum populus benedicitur, tunc enim Antistites velut advocati susceptos suos per manus impositionem misericordissimae offerunt potestati. Quibus peractis & participato tanto sacramento, Gratiarum actio cuncta concludit, quam in his etiam verbis ultimam commendavit Apostolus. I have put down the words at large, because they are so full an Exposition of the several words used by the Apostles; and not an Exposition only, but an Application, according to the several parts of the publick [Page 96]Liturgies. The sense and meaning of them is as followeth. Many things may be hence inferred (saith he) not to be distliked, but I choose raher so to understand the same, accor­ding unto that which I find observed in every, or at least every Church almost; that is to say, that here by Supplications we mean those Petitions, which we make in Celebration of the Sa­craments, before we come unto the consecration of the Elements; by Prayers, the sanctifying and blessing of the Bread and Wine, when it is put into a readiness to be distributed unto the people, which action or Petition every Church almost concludeth with the Lords Prayer. (Where by the way, we may observe what place the Lords Prayer had of old in the Ce­lebration.) The Intercessions are made then, when the people do partake of the publick blessing; for then the Prelates of the Church, like Advocates or Sureties, do by the laying on of hands, present them to the merciful protection of the Lord their God. Which ended, and the people being made partakers of so great a Sacrament, all is concluded or shut up with giving thanks, which therefore is last spoken of by the Apostle. So far the words of Austin, and it is wor­thy the noting, that Venerable Bede making a Commentary on S. Paul's Epistles, col­lected out of several passages of this Fathers works, puts down these words at large, as before recited,Ven. Beda. Comment. in 1. ad Tim. c. 2. for the full meaning of the place. And if S. Austin was not out in his Exposition, as I have heard of none that do charge him with it, we have not only Prayers and Benedictions, used and commanded to be used at the Celebration; but such a prescribed and determinate Form, as quickly was received over all the Church, The Commentaries commonly ascribed to Ambrose, which if not his, are certainly both very pious and of great Antiquity, give us the matter of those Prayers, which here by the Apostles rule, were ladi first of all, as a preparatory to the Celebration. Haec regula Ecclesiastica est tradita à magistro Gentium, qua utuntur sacerdotes nostri, ut pro omnibus supplicent, Ambr. Comment. in [...]. ad Tim. c. 2. &c. This Ecclesiastical Ordinance (saith he) was given by by the Doctor of the Gentiles, which our Priests use unto this day, making their Prayers to God for all men. Praying for the Kings of the world, that they may have their people in obedience, that being governed in peace, they may serve the Lord in rest and quietness of mind; as also for all those which are in Authority under them, that they may govern the Common-wealth in truth and equity, with plenty of all things, that so all tumults and seditions being far removed, joy­fulness may succeed in the place thereof. For it is Bread that strengtheneth, and Wine that maketh glad the heart of man. They intercede also for all those who are in misery or necessity, that being delivered from the same, they may praise the Lord, the Author of all health and safety; finally giving thanks to God for all those blessings which he affordeth us in this life, that God may so be praised from whom, and Christ, by whom so many benefits are be­stowed upon us; that all things being composed and quieted, which might prove dangerous unto the Empire, we may have liberty to serve the Lord in godliness and honesty. Thus he. And this I could fain know, how little, if at all, this differs either for matter, form, or place, from the Prayer entituled, for the Church militan here on Earth, continued till this day in the Church of England: And that according to S. Ambrose (if the work be his) Secundum regulam Ecclesiasticam traditam à Magistro Gentium, conform unto a rule of S. Paul's prescribing. I add but this, which is observed unto my hand by a very learned and industrious Gentleman (for I am willing to acknowledge by whom I profit) that in the meaning of the Apostle,H. Thorndike of Religious As­semb. cap. 10. p. 377. as well as in the practice of the primitive Church, Prayers and Supplications were to be made for all men, in the Celebration of the Eucharist, for Kings, &c. it being neither strained nor forced (as he notes full well) to take the word [...], or thanksgiving (which S. Paul there useth) in that very sense, in which it hath been used by Clemens and Ignatius, the Apostles Scholars, for the Celebration of the Eucharist; for the whole action, and all the Prayers and supplications which it was celebrated withal. For why not thus, as well in this place of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 14.16. as in another not so likely, where the Apostle asks this question, HOw shall he which occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen, at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what he saith? Of which thus Beza in his notes, Suspicor A­postolum attingere, Beza Annot. in 1. ad Cor. c. 14. celebrandae Domini coenae ritum, & solennem illam gratiarum actionem. I am, saith he, of an opinion, that the Apostle in this place doth point unto the Rites of Celebrating the Lords holy Supper, and that solemn giving of thanks which was therein used; a full description of the which, he gives us out of Justin Martyr, which we shall see anon in its proper place. Whence had the blessed Sacraments the name of Eucharist, V. Casaubon. in Annal. Eccl. Exerc. 16. n. 40. if our Grammarians and Philologers be not much mistaken, but from this solemn giving thanks which was used therein?

Thus am I fallen at last upon S. Pauls Epistle unto those of Corinth, wherein it is conceived that the performances of the Church are most fully handled, as they relate [Page 97]unto the publick worship of Almighty God. Which though it be, as in relation to those times in which there were such wonderful effusions of the holy Spirit, yet being that those effusions were miraculous, and the publick offices of the Church were go­verned by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, there are not many things therein, which may be drawn into example in these later times, in which we must not look for such effusions: For it is well observed by Chrysostom, Chrysost. Homil. 14. n. 18. ad Rom. [...]. That many of those miracles which were frequent then, are not to be expected now. These extraordinary graces were not given but for an extraordinary end, which was the planting of the Gospel in the midst of Pa­ganism; or where it was encountred by an obstinate faction of obdurate Jews. And therefore they that do pretend to such special gifts, as were in those times necessary for theordering and edification of the Church; may by as strong a Charter, for ought I can see, lay claim unto the gift of Tongues, and the power of Healing, and the spirit of Prophesie; which yet I see but few of them do aspire unto. Passing by those things therefore in this Epistle, which are not to be drawn into example, if will appear most clearly from the xiv. Chapter, that to the constituting of Gods publick Service in the Congregation, there went these three parts, Prayer, Praise, and Prophesie; which we have formerly observed to be the three ingredients that make up the same. This last, we find much spoke of throughout that Chapter, particularly and by name, verse 1, 3, 5, 22, 29, 31, 32, 39. The other two he joyneth together in one verse,1 Cor. 14.15. viz. I will pray with the spirit, and will pray with understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with understanding also. Himself informs us what he means by Prophesying, where it is said, that he who Prophesyeth, speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, Ibid. v. 3. both which, as the times then were, there was a great ambition in the Prophets of the Church of Corinth, for ostentation of their gifts, to utter them in Tongues not understood by the common people. This is the thing most blamed by the Apostle in the present Chapter, viz. that in their exhortations to the people, or explications of the Scriptures, they used to speak in unknown tongues, and not interpret.Ibid. v. 5. & 27 And that they did the like in the act of Prayer, is conceived by Beza, where he thus glosseth on the Text, Orabo spiritu, i. e. lingua peregrina quam mihi dictat spiritus; Be [...]a in Annot. in 1. ad Cor. 14 I will pray in the spirit, that is (saith he) in such an unknown tongue as the spirit dictates; yet so, that I will pray with the understanding; that is (saith he) in etiam ab aliis intelligar & alios instituam, that I may be understood of others, for their information. And this might be, I mean they might affect to pray in an unknown tongue, although the Prayers themselves had been predetermined of both for Form and matter. Chrysostom, if I understand him rightly, seems to say no less. For writing on these following words, Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, (i. e. saith Beza, in peregrima lingua, 1 Cor. 14.16. in an unknown tongue) how shall he which occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen, at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? He thus gives the sense. [...],Chrysost. In 1. ad Cor. Homil. 35. &c. If thu blessest in a barbarous or unknown tongue, the Laity (for he had said before [...], that by the unlearned there, he meant the Laity) not understanding what thou sayest, nor being able to interpret, cannot by Amen; because not hearing this, [...], that is to say, world without end, with which the prayer or blessing is con­cluded, he cannot say Amen unto it. Theophylact from him to the same effect. [...]. Id. ibid. Theophyl. in 1. ad Cor. c. 14. [...], For whilst thou sayest world without end, obscurely in an unknown tongue, he hears not what thou used in the Congregation, were prescribed and known, or else how could the close or end thereof be so known and certain? Nor is this my collection only, it is Peter Martyrs too, as well as mine. Chrysostomus hunc locum tractans, P. Martyr. in 1 ad Cor. c. 14. &c. So Chrysostom on this place (saith he) tell us, that if the people did not hear these words, [...], they could by no means say Amen. Ex quo loco habemus etiam primis illis temporibus preces publicas consuevisse per haec verba in secula seculorum absolvi. And from this place we may perceive, that world without end, even in those first times, was used in the close of their publick prayers. So far Peter Martyr.

And this may yet appear more plainly by that other part of publick worship, VII which S. Paul here speaks of, viz. that of singing. For if they did not sing at random, as the spirit moved them, but did confine themselves unto such Psalms or Hymns as were received in the Church; it may the better be believed that they did hearken also to [Page 98]such prayers as their spiritual guides had provided for them. Now that they did not sing at random, every one as the spirit moved him, needs no other argument, but that confusion both of tune and matter (especially if they used also Instruments of Mu­sick, whereof more anon) which must needs follow thereupon; more dreadful than the noise of Babel. Nor is it evident, that he to whom the spirit did first prompt such a Psalm or Hymn, did like the Chanter in our Quires, or any other of our Vicars Choral, sign the verse alone, and then the Congregation sing it after him, as the Quire or Consort. For though Paraeus seem to be of this question, alios decantare hymnos sa­cros à spiritu dictatos vel meditatos, Paraeus in 1. ad Corinth. c. 14. That some, according to their gifts, did sing some holy Hymns, which had been dictated by the spirit: Yet I subscribe rather unto that of Calvin, who thinks that it is meant of Davids Psalms, which were accustomed to be sung in the Christian church, even from the first beginnings of it, according as before in that of Jewry. Nec vero mihi dubium est (as he states it there) quin ritum Ju­daicae Ecclesiae statim ab initio in Psalmis fuerint imitati. Calvin in 1. ad Cor. c. 14. Musculus is of this mind also, save that to Davids Psalms, he adds such other Hymns and spiritual songs (sive Psalmos Davidis five alia quaedam cecinerint) which were composed for the use of the Congrega­tion.Musculus in 1. ad Cor. c. 14. And certainly it is a matter past all question, that these Coelestial songs of David, and such others (if more such there were) who did contribute to the making up of the Book of Psalms, have been a special part of Gods publick worship, even from the cradle of the Church. It had not else been grown to so considerable an esteem in the publick Liturgy, in and before the time of Trajan, (and consequently of S. John) as we find in Pliny; who tells us of the Christians then, that they did stato die ante lucent convenire, Plin. Epist. l. 10. Epist. 97. carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem, Assemble before light on the days appointed, and sing praise (or Hymns) to Christ, as God, with one another. But we shall speak with Pliny more at large hereafter. In the mean time, if any question should be moved, what the Apostle did dislike in the act of sing­ing, (for somewhat he disliked most certain;) we answer, as before in the case of prayer, that he disliked their affectation in singing the accustomed Psalms in an un­known language.Ambros. in 1. ad Cor. c. 14. S. Ambrose toucheth on this string, where he observeth homines Latinos Grace cant are, that many of the Latines used to sing in Greek, being taken only with the smooth cadence of the words, nescientes tamen quid dicant; but yet not know­ing what they said. But Musculus is more express and positive to the point in hand, conceiving that the fault here found by the Apostle, was that some of them used to sing Davids Psalms in the Hebrew tongue,Musculus in 1. ad Cor. c. 14. which was not understood by the Corinthians, being most part Grecians; and that he therefore did admonish them, sub sua persona, as speaking of himself in his own person, to sing the Psalms in such a Tongue as might be understood of the Congregation. If any shall observe yet further from the pre­sent Text, that besides the use of Psalms and Anthems in the Congregation, they used also Instruments of Musick in those early times, when, and as often as they sung those Hymns or Psalms, per me licet, I will be no hinderance. The word there used in the Orignial will bear it well.Stephanus, & Constantin. in verbo [...] Musculus in 1. ad Cor. c. 14. P. Mart. ibid. Beza. ibid. [...], Citharam pulsantes, fidibus canentes; and [...], proprie de sonitu fidium dicitur; say no mean Grammarians. And this is noted also by as great Divines. Psallere proprie est ad instrumentum canere, as we read in Mus­culus; [...], apud Graecos non est canere simpliciter, sed ad musicum instrumentum; and from thence came the Instrument which is called the Psaltery, so saith P. Martyr; the very same words do we find in Beza, who voucheth S. Augustine for his Author. And although Musculus (upon the place) takes it not for a matter probable, Primos Chri­stianos musicis instrumentis usos fuisse in Ecclesia, that the first Christians had the use of Musical Instruments in their publick meetings: Yet being it is said by Calvin, that these first Christians took up the use of singing Psalms, ad ritum Judaicae Ecclesiae, after the usage of the Jews, as before was noted, why might they not as well have Instru­mental as Vocal Musick in their Congregations, since the Jews used both? But this is only on the by, I insist not on it. Nor would I be mistaken neither, as if there were no use of the gift of Prayer, in those Assemblies of Gods people. I deny not that. All I endeavour to make good, is no more than this, that as in the first dawning of the Gospel, the Christians in their Acts of publick Worship, did sing Davids Psalms, or used such premeditated Hymns as were composed by men enabled thereunto, for the publick use: So there were also certain and set Forms of prayer, to which the people were accustomed; and unto which, as oft as they were used in the Congrega­tion, they had been taught to say Amen.

But not withstanding, VIII Smectymn. p. 11. it is said, that conceived prayer was in use in the Church of God before Liturgies; and a challenge hath been made and published, for the Producing any [Page 99]one Liturgy (rejecting those which are confessed to be spurious) that was the issue of the first 300. years. This is a two-edged sword, or a gladius anceps, as the Latines call it;Id. p. 9. and therefore must be answered with a double ward. For if their meaning be in the Church of God, that is, in the Assembly of Gods people, in the Congregation, there was no Liturgy or set Form of worship during the first three hundred years, because no Liturgy of that time is to be produced; they may as well conclude, that from S. Pauls coming unto Rome, till the time of Origen, which was almost two hundred years, there were no Sermons preached unto Gods people, because none extant of that time. And if they mean by Liturgies, a regulated course and order to be ob­served in the officiating of divine service, according to the definition made by Casau­bon, and approved by the Altar of Damascus, as before was said: Such Liturgies they do acknowledge to be used both by Jews and Christians, as long in use,Id. p. 6. for ought they say unto the contrary, as conceived prayers. And if such Liturgies, Liturgies so defined as before is said, then certainly prescribed and stinted Forms of Administration, composed by some particular men in the Church, and imposed on others. Id. ibid. For what else is an Order ob­served in Church-Assemblies, of praying, reading, and expounding the Scriptures, admini­string the Sacraments, &c. as themselves understand by Liturgy; than a prescribed and stinted Form of Administration? And for an Answer to their Challenge, in case we can­not shew any whole Liturgy, being the issue of the first three hundred years: Yet if we can produce such fragments and remainders of them as have escaped the wrack of Liturgies there were; as a man standing on the shore, may gather from the ribs and Rndera of a broken ship, that some unfortunate Vessel hath been cast away, although he neither knew the owner of it, nor ever saw it rigged and tackled in her former bravery. Nor is it so impossible an undertaking, to venture on the shewing of a Li­turgy, within the space of time prelimited; if men were not possessed with prejudice, and took not up too much of their opinions upon trust and credit. Concerning which I rather shall present the judgment of another man, one every way above exception for his abilities in learning, than lay down mine own; and he thus declares it.Breerwood in his Enquiries, c. 26. I find (saith he) recorded in Durandus (but upon what warrant or authority I cannot find) that till the time of Adrian the Emperor (which was about 120 years after Christ) their Liturgies were all Celebrated in the Hebrew Tongue; and that then the Oriental Church began first to Celebrate them in the Greek. Indeed me-thinks it is possible that the Christians of the Gentiles might in honour of the Apostles, retain the Apostles Liturgies, in the very Tongue wherein by the Apostles themselves they had been first ordained. For it is not to be doubted, but many years passing, (about ten) after our Saviours Ascension, before the Apostles left Syria, and sundred themselves to preach the Gospel abroad in the world among the Gentiles, and foreign Nations. It is not to be doubted, I say, but the Apostles while they remained in Jewry, ordained Liturgies in the Jewish Tongue for the use of those Jews, whom they had converted to Christianity: Which Liturgies by the Christian Disciples of the Jewish Nation, dispersed in many Provinces of the Gentiles, might together with Christian Religion be carried abroad, and gladly entertained among the Gentiles. This is possible I say, but if it be also true (as I have not observed any thing in Antiquity that may certainly impeach the truth of it:) Yet that which is spoken of Durandus of those Liturgies in the Hebrew Tongue, must be understood (I doubt not) of the Hebrew, then vulgar and usual, that is to say, the Syriac Tongue. In all which disputation one may clearly see, that he takes it for a granted and undoubted truth, that the Apostles did ordain Liturgies for the use of the Church: The point in controversie being only this; whether or not they did ordain them in the learned, or the vulgar Hebrew.

Next to descent unto particulars, IX there are three Liturgies still extant in the Biblio­theca Patrum, in Greek and Latine, ascribed to Peter, James, and Mark; which if not theirs (and whether they be theirs or not, is adhuc sub judice) are certainly exceeding ancient, as ancient doubtless as the third Century; though true it is they have not come unto our hands without the intermixture of some unwarranted additions. And if we look upon them well, we may easily find, that whose soever names they carry, they are indeed the ancient Liturgies of those several Churches, whereof those holy men had once been Bishops: and they whose Liturgies they were, were willing, it seems, to derive their pedigree as high as possibly they could, to add some lustre to them by the names of such eminent persons. The Liturgy ascribed unto S. Peter, what is it for the main and substance, but the foundation or the ground of the Roman Missal? as may appear, comparing the Canon of the one, with the forms and order of [Page 100]the other,Biblioth. Patr Gr lat. To. 2. according as they are laid down together in the Bibliotheca. And if that Isidore of Sivil be not much mistaken, S. Peter hath a better claim to that, or somewhat of this kind, than the name and title. By whom we are informed, Ordinem Missae vel orationem quibus oblata Deo sacrificia consecrantur, primum à sancto Petro institutum esse, that the order of the Mass, and the prayers thereof, wherewith the Sacrament (or Sa­crifice) is consecrate, was Instituted first by S. Peter; and is the very same (saith he) cujus celebrationem uno eodemque modo universus peragit orbis, Isidor. Hispal. de offici is di­vin. l. 1. c. 15. which is now univer­sally received over all the world. He means the Western world, you must take him so. That attributed to S. Mark, if scanned and canvassed with a diligent eye, will be discerned to be no other than the Liturgy of the Church of Alexandria, of which he was the first Bishop, as is elsewhere proved; and will appear to be so on painful search, by the agreement which it carrieth with that of Cyril, one of S. Marks succes­sors in that See, and a prime pillar of the Church in the time he lived: As also by comparing it with the Ethiopick Liturgy derived from Alexandria, as the mother City, and extant with it in the bibliotheca, whither I refer you. But that whereof there is the greatest evidence, is that ascribed unto S. James; which if not his, is questionless the ancient Liturgy of the Church of Hierusalem, of which he once was supream Pa­stor under Christ our Saviour. The publisher hereof in Greek and Latine gives us this short note,Biblioth. patrum Gr. lat. To. 2. p. 1. S. Cyrillum Hierosol. Catechesi quinta Mystagogica plura ex illa mutuatum. That Cyril, Bishop of Hierusalem, in the fifth of his Mystagogical Catechizings, did bor­row many things from hence. And certainly the observation is exceeding true, as will appear on the examination and comparison of the several passages, which are still extant in them both.Baron. in An­nal. Eccles. anno 35 1. Now Cyril B. of Hierusalem, lived about the year 350, and was then at his height both for power and credit; and if we grant the Liturgy ascribed to James, to be but 60 years before him, it must needs fall within the compass, of the first three hundred. This though it be enough, we will venture further, and ask what inconvenience would ensue, if this Apostle be affirmed for the Author of it? I mean as to the main and substance of it, though not of all the intersertions and additions which are found therein. That S. James did compose a Liturgy, is proved by Sixtus Senensis out of Proclus, sixtus Senes. Biblioth. Sanct. l. 2. Concil. Trullan. can. 32. sometimes the Patriarch of constantinople, a man of special emi­nence in the Ephesine Council. The Fathers of the Synod, surnamed of Trullo, affirmed of James, whom they avow for the first Bishop of Hierusalem, [...], that he did leave a Liturgy behind in writing, alledging the Authority thereof, for proof that water was to be mingled with the wine in the blessed Sacrament;Liturgia Ja­cobi in Bilioth. p. 13. Cassand. in Li­turgicis. which passageis still extannt in the Liturgy, intituled to him. And when we find in Hegesippus, as he is cited by Eusebius, Eum ab Apostolis primum consti­tutum fuisse Episcopum & Liturgum, as Cassander reads it: Why may we not conceive that he had that adjunct, as the first Author of a Liturgy for the publick use? This may be said in the behalf thereof, if one list to plead it. And were there nothing else to persade me otherwise, than that it is affirmed by Rivet, has omnes profectas esse ab inimico homine, Smectym. vin­dicat. p. 28. &c. that this with those before remembred, proceeded from that Enemy, who sowed his Tares in the middle of the good Seed whilst the Servants slept: I should not much be set against them. Although I honour Rivet for his parts in learning, I never held his words for Gospel; no not although they come apparelled in the Gospel phrase. That it is ancient, yea and holy too, they have not the courage to deny; and yet have so much confidence, which I wonder at, as to ascribe them to the Devil, to whom I hope, no holy thing whatever is to be ascribed. Neither Rivet, nor any of the Mo­derns are so competent Judges in this point, as the Fathers in Trullo, nor of like credit with S. Austin, who speaking of that noted passage of Sursum Corda, used in the Li­turgy of his time, and long time before, saith they were Verba ab ipsorum Apostolorum temporibus petita, words borrowed from the times of the very Apostles.

This being said touching the Liturgies themselves, X we should proceed unto the course and order in the same observed, and to the Forms of Prayer and Benediction contained therein. But that would be too large a trouble, the business of this Inqui­sition not being to transcribe whole Liturgies, but to find them out; besides, that most of the material passages, whereof such ancient writers as are of an unquestionable credit have left us any trace or memory, will call us back to look upon them in convenient time. On therefore to the next that followeth, whom if we rank according to the place and time which is assigned him by the Pontificians, will be the famous Areopagite, even Dionysius, one of S. Pauls first fruits in Athens. I know the Books ascribed unto him, have been much questioned in these searching days, whether his or not. Nor do I [Page 101]mean to meddle in so vexed a question. And therefore, though I rank him here, ac­cording to the time and place assigned him by the learned men of the Roman party; yet I desire no further credit should be given him, than that which he affirms is made good by others, who lived most near the time assigned unto him. Now for the Cele­bration of the Sacrament of the blessed Eucharist, he describes it thus.Dionys. Areo­pag. de Eccl. Hierarchia, p. 89. edit. gr. lat. 'O [...] &c. The Bishop having ended the Preparatory Prayers, said usually at the holy Altar, doth then and thence begin to cense the place, till he hath compassed it about. Returning back unto the Altar, he begins the Psalms, the Clergy which are present, singing with him. Then do the Ministers read the holy Scriptures ( [...]) in their appointed and determinate order. Which done, the Catechumeni, and such as are possessed with unclean spirits, or are under penance, are removed out of the Church; [...]. those only being left behind who were to be partakers of the holy Mysteries. The Ministers, some stand before the Church-doors to keep them shut, others attend those Ministrations which appertain unto their Order. Some of whom chosen for that purpose, present the Bread and Cup of Bene­diction upon the Altar, [...], a general Confession being first made by the whole Congreation. [...]. Then doth the Bishop say the Prayers, and give the peace (or kiss of peace) to all the company; who having saluted one a­nother (with an holy kiss) the Diptychs are forthwith recited. After the Bishop and the Priests having washed their hands, the Bishop standing against the middle of the Altar, (the Priests and Ministers being round about him, and giving praise to God for all his works) pro­ceeds unto the Consecration of the Elements, being then presented to the publick view. Which being thus Sanctified, and publickly set forth to view, [...], he first partakes thereof himself, and then exhorteth others to do the like. The blessed Sacrament being thus given and received, [...], he finally descends to the giving of thanks, and so dismisseth the Assembly. This is the Form of ministration laid down before us in the Books ascribed to this Dionysius; in which I see not any thing which may advantage those of the Church of Rome, unless it be the use of censing; but I see much which makes against them, viz. the giving of the whole Communion, sub utraque specie. For should you stumble at the Altar, which is mentioned here, Ignatius who lived in these very times, Irenaeus who lived but little after, S. Cyprian, and almost who not amongst the Ancients, will lend an helping hand for to raise you up. And if you would sum up the Form which is described here at large, we have the daily Service, which I conceive to be those leading Prayers which the Bishop first said at the holy Altar; the Psalms, the reading of the Scriptures in a prescript order, which possibly may be the Epistle and Gospel, as we call them now; then the dismission of all such who are not fitted to communicate, the placing of the Bread and Wine on the holy Table, the general confession of the peoples sins to Almighty God, the kiss of peace and mutual salutation, with the commemora­tion of the Righteous. After all this, the Prayer of Consecration, and the participa­ting of the blessed Sacrament, and finally Thanksgiving for so great a blessing. In all which, there is nothing that I can see (except it be the act of censing, as before is said) which savoureth not of primitive and Apostolical purity; nothing but what is worthy of the name and piety of Dionysius; nothing but what we may observe in o­ther Worthies, near about the time, which is assigned unto this Author. Finally, if the Author be not Dionysius, which I will not take upon me to determine, yet doubtless he is very ancient; and for the Books ascribed unto him,Petr. Molinaeu [...] in tract. de Altar. c. 7. they are acknowledged by Du Moulin to be utilia & bonae frugis, which is as much as need be said in the present case.

Let us next look upon the Form of Baptism, XI which is another part of the publick Liturgy. For howsoever the word Liturgy be used sometimes to signifie no more than the Ministration of the blessed Eucharist, in which respect it is the same with [...], and is expounded so by Balsamon; Balsam. in not is ad Concil. Sar­dic. yet doth it signifie most commonly the whole course And therefore Bellarmine was foully out when he made this note, à patribus Graecis vix aliter accipi, quam pro minifterio sacrificii Eucharistiae offerendi; Bellarm. de Missa. l. 1. c. 1. Dionys. de Ec­cles. Hierarch. p. 77. edit. gr. lat. [...]. that it was seldom used otherwise by the Greek Fathers, then for the Celebrating of the Sacrifice of the holy Eucharist. But let that pass cum caeteris errorbus, and go we on unto our business, to the Form of Baptism; which we find thus described by the said Dionysius. The day being come in which the party is to be Baptized, and the Congregation being Assembled in the holy Church, [...], &c. The Bishop sings some Psalm contained in the Scripture, the whole Assembly joyning with him; then doing reverence [Page 102]towards the holy Table, he turns unto the party offered unto Baptism, and asks him for what cause he cometh; who being taught by his Surety, first making known his ignorance and want of God, desires that he might be admitted to these things which pertain to godliness. The Bishop next letting him know the rules of a Christian life, demandeth if he will conform unto them; [...]. the which when he hath promised to do, his name together with his sureties, are en­rolled in the publick Registers. This done, [...], the bishop saith the holy Prayer, which when the whole Assembly have consented to, by saying Amen, the Deacon doth prepare himself to strip him and disrobe him of his Cloaths, and placing him towards the West with his hands lift up, requireth him to bid defiance unto Satan thrice; [...] and saying to him the set and solemn words of Abrenuntia­tion, when he hath thrice repeated them, he is turned towards the East, and willeth him, having both his hands and eyes heaved up to Heaven, to joyn himself to Christ, and Gods holy Word. Which having promised, and thrice made profession of his faith, the Bishop layeth his hand upon him, and prayeth over him. Then being disrobed, the Priests bring the Oyl or chrism, wherewith the Bishop doth thrice sign him with the sign of the Cross, and after deli­vereth him unto the Priests, who carry him unto the Font, where calling upon God to bless and sanctifie the waters, and singing to the Lord one of the song or Psalms made by the inspiration of the Holy ghost, the party is called by his Name, and thrice dipped in water, one of the persons of the blessed Trinity being particularly named and called upon, at each several dipping or immersion. This done, they cloath him all in white, and bring him back unto the Bishop, who once more anointeth him with the Oyl or Chrism, and so pronounceth him to be from that time forwards a meet partaker of the blessed Eucharist. So far, and to this purpose, Dionysius. But then withal you must observe, that this was in baptismo Adultorum; and that there was not so much ceremony in the Baptism of Infants, although it was the same in both for the main and substance. Now for the Form of Abrenuntiation, we find it thus laid down in the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens; of which it may be said as was before of Dionysius, that though they be not his whose name they carry, yet are they notwithstanding very ancient; and do exceeding well set forth the Forms and usages of the primitive Church.Clement. Con­stitut. l. y. c. 42. The Form is this. [...], &c. i. e. I forsake the Devil and all his works, his pomps and service, his Angels and inventions, with all things under his command. Which done, he doth rehearse the Articles of his belief in this Form that followeth; [...], I believe in one unbegotten and only true God Almighty, Father of Christ, maker of all things, and in our Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, &c. Next after followeth a set Form of prayer used by the Bishop, in Consecrating of the Oyl or Chrism, and sanctifying of the Water. And finally this prayer to be said by them who were newly brought into the Church by Baptism.Id. ibid. c. 47. [...], &c. Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, give me a body undefiled, a pure heart, a watchful mind, knowledge without error, together with the presence of the holy Spirit, that I may both attain and hold fast the truth, without doubt or wavering, through Christ our Lord, with whom be glory unto thee in the Holy Ghost, world without end, Amen. The sum of what is said before in these two last Authors, Clemens I mean, and Dionysius, because the Writings attributed to them, are by the Learned thought to be none of theirs; we shall find pre­sently confirmed in the words of those who lived shortly after, and are of an unquesti­oned credit amongst all Divines, both of the Protestant party, and the Church of Rome. In the mean time we will sit down and repose our selves; concluding here so much of the present search, as may be found in any of the Writings of the holy Apostles, or such as claim the reputation of being Apostolical men, the Scholars and Successors of the blessed spirits, though now disclaimed for such by our choicer judgements. And yet before I leave this Age, I will see if any thing occur in St. Ignatius, touching a Form of Common-prayer, or Invocation used by the Christians of his time; who being said to be that Child on whom our Saviour laid his hands, saying, Except ye receive the Kingdom of Heaven as a little Child, &c. But howsoever questionless the A­postles Scholar, and Successor to S. Peter in the See of Antioch, hath informed us thus, in his Epistle to the Magnesians, of which no scruple hath been raised amongst Learned men, omnes ad orandum in idem loci convenite, una sit communis precatio, una mens, una spes in charitate, Ignat. Epist. ad Magness. &c. By which it seemeth, that as the Magnesians had a Church or meeting place, to which they usually resorted as a House of Prayer, of which more hereafter; so they had also una Communis precatio, one certain Form of Common-prayer, in which they all concurred as if spirited by one soul, and governed by one hope, in charity [Page 103]and faith unblamable in the Lord Christ Jesus. Which is as much as we could look for in those times, and from a man whose writings are not many, nor of any great­ness, his custom being to express himself as briefly as the nature of Epistles could in­vite him to.

That in this Age, XII the day of worship was translated from the last day of the week to the first, or to the Lords-day from the Sabbath, will not here be doubted; nor can it be much questioned amongst sober men, but that the Chrisitans of these times did Ce­lebrate the Feast of Easter, together with that of Whitsontide, as we call them now, in honour of the Resurrection of their Lord and Saviour, and of the coming down of the Holy Ghost, according to the Annual Revolution of those great occasions. That which hath most been doubted for this Time and Age, is, whether the Christians had their places of publique worship, and whether those places of worship had the name of Churches; both which, I think, may be concluded in the affirmative by convincing arguments. And first it is affirmed for an old Tradition in the Church of Christ, and proved so to be by Adricomius out of several Authors, that the Coenaculum or upper Chamber, in which the Apostles met together after Christs Ascension, was by them used for a place of publick worship;Luk. 22.12. this being said to be that Room in which our Sa­viour Instituted the blessed Sacrament of his Body and Blood, the same in which the Apostles met for the choice of one, in the place of Judas, Act. 1.13. Act. 2.1. Act. 6.4, 6. Act. 15.6. the same in which the Holy Ghost descended on them at the Feast of Pentecost, the same in which they were Assem­bled to elect the seven. And finally, the same in which they held the first General Council for pacifying the disputes about Circumcision, and other ceremonial parts of the Law of Moses. This was called then by the name of Coenaculum Sion, or the upper Chamber of Sion, supposed by some to have been a part of the House of Simon the Leper, but howsoever of some Disciple of rank and quality, who willingly had devoted it to the use of the Church; it being the custom of such men in those early days, when they were not suffered to erect more magnificent Fabricks, to dedicate some convenient part of their dwelling houses for the Assembling of Gods people, and the acts of wor­ship. Thus find we in the Recognitions of Clemens, that the House of Theophilus in the City of Antioch (to whom S. Luke dedicated both his Gospel and Book of Acts) was by him converted to a Church for the use of Christians; and in the Acts of Pudens, whom we find mentioned by S. Paul in the second to Timothy, that he gave his House unto the Church for the same use also; and such an House, or such an upper Cham­ber rather so given and dedicated, is that thought to be in which S. Paul preached at Troas, and from a window whereof Eutychus fell down, and was took up dead.Act. 20.8. But to return again to the Coenaculum Sion before-mentioned, certain it is, that in relation to those duties of Religion which were there performed, it was inclosed afterwards with a beautiful Church, commonly called the Church of Sion; and by S. Cyril, a godly Bishop of Jerusalem, [...],Cyril. Hier. catech. 16. the upper Church of the Apostles, in which the Holy Ghost is there said by him to have fallen upon them; begirt in following times with the Cels or Lodgings of religious persons in the form of a Monastery, of which Bede thus: In superiori montis Sion planicie, Beda Tom 3. de locis sanctis. monachorum cellulae Ecclesiam magnam circundant, illic, ut perhibent, ab Apostolis fundatam, eo quod ibi spiri­tum sanctum accepere, in qua etiam locus coenae Domini venerabilis ostenditur: That is to say, in the uppermost plain of Mount Sion, the Cels of Monks begirt a fair and spacious Church there founded, as it is affirmed, by the holy Apostles, because in that place they had received the Holy Ghost, and where they shew the place in which the Lord did institute his holy Supper. Where by the way this Church is said to have been founded by the Apostles, not that they built it from the ground, but because being given unto them by some godly and devout Disciple, it was by them Consecrated for a place of Gods publick worship. Now that the Christians of this time had the like places for publick worship, as well in other Cities as in Jerusalem and Troas, is evident enough from a remarkable passage in S. Pauls Epistle, according to the Exposition of the ancient Fathers. What (saith the Apostle) have ye not Houses to eat and drink in, 1 Cor. 11.22. or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have not? Where by the Antithesis or opposition between common Houses destinate unto eating and drinking on the one side, and the Church of God designed unto Religious uses on the other side, it ap­peareth plainly unto me, that by those words Ecclesiam Dei, or the Church of God, we are not to understand the Congregation, or the men assembled, but the very place of the Assembly. And to this sense the general current of the Fathers gives a strong assurance, none speaking more plainly than S. Austin, and therefore I shall give [Page 104]you his words at large.Aug. qu. 57. sup. Levit. Ecclesia homines sunt (faith he) de quibus dicitur; ut exhibe­ret sibi gloriosam Ecclesiam. Hanc tamen vocari etiam ipsam domuml orationem, idem Apo­stolus testis est, ubi ait; Nunquid domos non habetis ad manducandum & bibendum; aut Ecclesiam Dei contemnitis? That is to say, the word Ecclesia, or the Church, doth pro­perly signifie those men, of whom it is said by the Apostle, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church; and yet that it doth also signifie the House of Prayer or pub­lick worship, is testified by the same Apostle, saying, Have ye not Houses to eat and to drink in, or despise you the Church of God, &c. See to the same effect and purpose S. Basil in his moral, Reg. 30. The Commentaries on S. Pauls Epistles, ascribed to Hierome, 1 Cor. 11. Sedulius on the same Epistle; St. Chrysostom upon the place; and finally, the same affirmed by Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius (all good men and true) to whom for further satisfaction I refer the Reader. The like Argument may be also borrowed from those Texts of the Apostle, in which he maketh mention of the Church which was in the House of some particular persons, whom he there remembreth; the church which was in the House of Aquila and Priscilla, Rom. 16.4, 5. and again, 1 Cor. 16.19. The Church that is in the House of Nymphas, Col. 4.15. The Church that was in the House of Philemon, in the first words of that Epistle. Where clearly he intendeth not by that expression the Christian Families of those persons, whom he there remembreth, but the Assemblies of Gods people convened together in their Houses, which they had dedicated to those pious and religious exercises, as by many other godly persons had been elsewhere done. For where he mentioneth the Families of such godly Christians, who had not given their Houses, or some convenient parts thereof, to this publick use, he doth it in a different expression, and of less significancy; as the House of Onesiphorus, 2 Tim. 4.19. The Houshold of Aristobulus, Rom. 16.18. The Houshold of Narcissus, vers. 11. Asyncritus, &c. and the Brethren that are with them, vers. 14. Philologus, &c. and all the Saints that are with them, vers. 15. Brethren, and Saints, and Housholds, in the Texts last mentioned, but Churches in the Text before; because the Houses of those men, or some parts thereof had been converted into Churches for the publick use, as the Houses of these last were not. And for this Exposition of these Texts of Scripture, I must ingenuously confess my self indebted to Joseph Mede (a man of most acute and discerning judgment) who taking his hint from Oecumenius, hath very rationally pressed and enforced this Argument. This therefore being taken for granted, as I think it may, we have not only set and appoin­ted places for Gods publick worship in Jerusalem, Troas, and Corinth, but also at Lao­dicea, where Philemon, at Colosse where Nymphas, at Rome where Aquila and Priscilla had their Habitations; and questionless in many other places accordingly, and these too honoured by the Spirit of God with the name of Churches. Which makes it the more strange unto me, that the name of Church (as it denoteth the publick meeting place of Gods people, the material Church) should grow so much into contempt in these later days, that our own Sectaries at home should in derision call those Holy places, by the name of Steeple houses; or that the Hugonots in France, in opposition to the Papists, should call them Temples, choosing to symbolize rather with the Jews, than their Christian Brethren.

CHAP. VI. What doth occur concerning Liturgies and Set Forms of worship, betwixt the death of the Apostles, and the Empire of Constantine the Great.

  • 1. The Form observed in Baptism, and mini­stration of the Eucharist, and in the Ce­lebrating of the Sundays Service, accor­ding unto Justin Martyr.
  • 2. The order used in Baptism, and in the pub­lick Meetings of the Congregation, in Ter­tullians time.
  • 3. That in those times the use of Psalms and Hymns was intermingled with the other parts of publick worship.
  • 4. Tertullian cleared from a wrong sense imposed on him, in the point of worship, by some late Writers.
  • 5. The course and order of the ministration, according to the Author of the Constitu­tions, who lived about those times, in their accompt who place him latest.
  • 6. The order of reading holy Scripture in the Congregation, prescribed and regulated in those times.
  • 7. Proofs for a publick Liturgie or Set Form of Prayer, from the works of Origen.
  • 8. As also from the Writings of S. Cyprian.
  • 9. Touching the Prayer prescribed by the Em­perour Constantine, for the use of his Army.
  • 10. That prescribed Forms of prayer were not occasioned by the Arian or Pelagian He­resies, as it is supposed.
  • 11. What was decreed conducing to Set Forms of prayer, in the ancient Council of Laodicea.
  • 12. Several Offices or Set Forms of Prayer at that time in use, agreeably untot he several sorts of people in the Congregation.
  • 13. A list of serveral solemn Festivals, ap­pointed by the Church for Gods publick worship in these early days.
  • 14. Churches erects by the Christians in these two Ages for the publick duties of Religion.

WHat doth occur concerning Liturgies or set Forms of prayer, I in the first and Apostolical Ages of the Church of Christ, we have seen before. We will next look into those times which intervened betwixt the blessed death of S. John the A­postle, and the establishment of the glorious reign of Constantine the Emperor: During which time, the Church was always strugling between hope and fear, whether to conquer and bring in the Gentiles, or be mastered by them. And yet in those uncer­tain times, we find apparent certainty of those publick Forms which we are in quest of; and that not only for the Ministration of the holy Sacraments, but also for the Ce­ment of Baptism, I find it thus in Justin Martyr. [...], &c. Whosoever is perssaded,Justin Martyr in Apol. secun­da p. 93. edit. gr. lat.and doth believe that those things which we teach are true, and doth resolve to live accordingly, are taught to fast and pray, and call on God for the remission of their sins; the whole Church also fasting and pray­ing with them; then are they brought by us to a certain place, in which water is, and are rege­nerated in the same manner as we were before; being Baptized in the Name of the Lord God, Father of all things, and of Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost. This laver, as he after tells us, is called [...], Illumination, because the minds of those who dispose themselves to learn those things, are enlightned by it. Then he proceeds, and lets us know, Ibid. p. 94. [...], &c. That after the party was Baptized,Id. ibid. p. 97.they brought him to the place of the Congregation, whither the Brethren were Assembled, [...], animo intento, saith the Latine, with all the earnestness they could; that they might all be found fit and worthy to know the truth, and become fruitful of good works, that so they might be found to have been faithful keepers of Gods Commandments, and finally, enjoy everlasting life. Which prayers being ended, [...], We salute one another with an holy kiss. This is the Form summed up in brief by Justin Martyr; in which, if we find not any thing of the Cross, the several Abrenuntia­tions, nor any of the other Ceremonies spoken of before: It was not that they were not then in use, (as we shall shew very shortly) but that the Father purposed to ex­press no more concerning Baptism, than the very substance of that Sacrament. And now being fallen on Justin Martyr, we will from him, before we leave him, describe the Form used int he Celebration of the blessed Eucharist, together with the course [Page 106]and order of the Sundays service. First, for the Sundays Service, it was thus as fol­loweth.Id. p. [...]8. [...], &c. Ʋpon the Sunday, all which Inhabit in the Towns or Villages do meet together in one place; and there the Commentaries of the Apostles, and Writings of the Prophets, [...] as much as serveth for that time are read unto us. The Reader having done, the Bishop or President of the Congregation, maketh an Ora­tion, exhorting the people to the following of those godly lessons, and instructions which are laid before them. Then we rise all together, [...], and send our prayers up to the Lord. Our prayers being finished, and Bread, and Wine, and Water being offered or pre­sented in a readiness, the Bishop, [...], or if you will, the President of the Congrega­tion, did offer up prayers and thanks giving to the Lord with all his might. Where by the way, the word in the Original is [...]. Which howsoever it be turned by Lan­gius into quantum pro virili sua potest, Smectymn. p. 1. and that by some translated thus, according unto his ability; as if the Bishop did not pray by a present Liturgy, but according to his own abilities in the gift of prayer; yet plainly here it means more than [...], in the former place, to shew the earnestness he used in the performance of his office. Now for the ministration of the Eucharist,Justin Martyr. Apol. 2. p. 97. he describes it thus, [...], &c. Prayers being done, we salute one another with an holy kiss. then is presented to the Presi­dent Bread, with a cup of Water and Wine, who receiving them, gives praise and glory unto God the Father of all things, in the name of the Son and Holy Ghost, and rendereth thanks unto the Lord in that be doth vouchsafe these his Creatures to us; which prayers and giving of thanks being ended, the people which are present do with a joyful acclamation say Amen. The President having thus Consecrated the Eucharist, (for so I take it is the meaning of these words, [...]) and the people having testified their assent thereto, those who are called Deacons distribute unto every one there present, the Consecrated Bread and Wine, and carry it to those who are absent. [...]. This nourishment, saith he, is called by us Eucharist, whereof it is not lawful unto any to be partakers, but such as do believe our Doctrine, and have been Baptized for the remission of their sins, and purpose to form their lives according unto their profession. This was the course, or order of divine service in the time of this holy Martyr, in which we have an intermixture of prayers and praises, the reading of the holy Scriptures, and then the Sermon, (as now the Sermon followeth on the reading of the Epistle and Gospel) and after all, the Celebration of the Eucharist, the whole being shut up with thanksgiving to the Lord our God. A clearer illustration of this course we shall see anon.

Mean while proceed we to Tertullian, II and see how he describes the Rites of Baptism, as in his time used. Aquam adituri, ibidem, sed & aliquanto prius in Ecclesia sub Antistitis manu contestamur nos renuntiare Diabolo, & pompae & Angelis ejus. Dehinc ter mergita­mur,Tertul. de Co­rona Militis.amplius aliquid respondentes quam Dominus Evangelio determinavit. We go, saith he, unto the water, and there, as not long time before, we promise in the hands of the Bishop, that we will renounce the Devil, and his pomps, and his Angels. Then are we thrice dipped into the water, making more answers (to the Interrogatories proposed unto us) than the Lord prescribed in his holy Gospel. And for the Cross, though we find nothing in this place, we have it surely in another, viz. in that so celebrated speech of his,Id. de resurre­ctione Carnis. Caro signature, ut anima muniatur; that is to say, the flesh is marked or signed with the sign of the Cross (for of that he speaketh) that the soul may be de­fended and fortified against all assaults. Next let us look on their Assemblies, their customs and behaviour there; and he makes this relation of the course or order used by the Christians of his time in the Congregation. Coimus in coetum & congregationem, ut ad Deum quasi manu fact a precationibus ambiamus orantes. Ea vis Deo grata est. Oramus etiam pro Imperatoribus, pro Ministris eorum & potestaibus, pro statu seculi, pro rerum quiete, pro mora finis. Cogimur ad sacrarum literarum commemorationem, si quid praesentium rerum qualitas aut praemonere cogit aut recognoscere. Certe fidem sanctis vocibus poscimus, spem eri­gimus, fiduicam figimus;Tertullian Apo­loget. cap. 39.disciplinam nihilominus praeceptorum inculcationibus densamus. ‘We meet (saith he) in an Assembly or Congregation, that we may besiege God in our prayers, as with an Army. Such violence is acceptable unto God. We pray for Emperors and their Ministers, and Potestates, for the state of the whole world, the quiet government of the affairs thereof, and for the putting off of the last day. We are assembled to commemorate or hear the holy Scriptures, if the condition of our present state doth either need to be premonished or reviewed. Assuredly by the repetition of those holy words, our faith is nourished, our hope assured, our confi­dence confirmed; yet so, that the severity of discipline is strengthened by the frequent [Page 107]inculcating of Gods Commandments.’ In which description of their meetings, there is no mention of the Eucharist, not that it was not Celebrated then in all publick Assemblies, but because as Cassander well observeth, ad Paganos & nondum initiatos sermo haberetur, he did address his whole discourse to Heathen-men, such as were not yet initiated in the faith of Christ; to whom the Christians of those times imparted not the knowledge of the holy Mysteries. In other of his books, especially in those en­tituled ad uxorem, there's enough of that.

Nor is it to be thought, because Tertullian speaks not of the present place, III nor Justin Martyr in the passage produced before, that they sung no Psalms, nor gave that part of worship no convenient place in the performance of their Service. We find that, and the course of their publick worship thus pointed at unto us in another place. Jam vero prout Scripturae leguntur, aut Psalmi canuntur, aut adlocutiones proferuntur, Id. de Anima cap. 9. aut petitiones delegantur; ita inde materae visionibus subministrantur. Now (saith he) as the Scriptures are read, or Psalms sung, or Exhortations made, or Prayers tendred, so is matter ministred unto her visions. Where we may see that singing of the Psalms was in use amongst them, as well as any other part of publick worship, of what sort soever. Conceive by singing here, as in other Books and Authors about this time, such singing of the Psalms as is now in use in the Cathedrals of this Kingdom, after a plain tune, as it is directed in the Rubricks of the Common-prayer book; and not the singing of the Psalms in Metre, as hath been used, and is still in Parochial Churches. The sing­ing in those times in use was little more than a melodious pronunciation, though after­wards upon occasion of a Canon made in the Council of Laodicea, it came to be more perfect and exact, according to the rules of harmony; and in St. Austins time was so full and absolute, that he ascribes a great cause of his conversion to the powers thereof, calling to mind those frequent tears, quas fudi ad cantus Ecclesiae tuae, which had been drawn from him by this sacred Musick, by which his soul was humbled, and his affecti­ons raised to the height of godliness. But whatsoever was the Musick of these first times, Musick assuredly they had in their publick service, as Tertullian tells us, whom we may credit in this point. And if we please to look, we may be also sure to find the same in that place of Pliny, which before we touched at; Which here take more at large in the Authors words. The Christians on examination did acknowledge,Plin. Ep. 97. l. 10. & Euser. hist. Eccl. l. [...]. c. [...]. quod soliti essent state die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo tanquam Deo canere secum invi­cem; seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne larocinia, ne adul­teria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent: His peractis morem sihi discedendi fuisse, rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum promiscuum tamen & innoxium. ‘They did confess (saith he) that they were accustomed to assemble on their appoin­ted times, before day-light, and to sing Hymns or Songs of praise to Christ, as to a god, amongst themselves; and to bind themselves by Oath or Sacrament, not to the doing of any wickedness, but not to commit Thefts, Robberies, or Adulteries, demanded; and this being done, they used to depart, and then meet again to eat to­gether, their meat being ordinary, and the manner of their eating inoffensive.’ Which last was added, as I take it, to clear them of the slander which was raised against them by their malicious Enemies; who charged them with eating humane flesh, and the blood of Infants, as you may see in most of the Apologies which the Christians published in those times. Note also that their meeting thus to eat toge­ther, which is here last spoken of by Pliny, was for their Love-feasts, or [...], de­scribed so fully by Tertullian in his Apologetick; and by him also joyned to the de­scription of their course or order at their publick meetings.

But here perhaps it will be said, IV that the question is not at the present about a set order or Rubrick of Administrations, but about set and imposed Forms of prayer.Vindication of Smectymn. p. 19 And that although Tertullian do describe a set course and order, yet he is quite against a set From of prayer; where he saith, That the Christians of those times did in their publick Assemblies pray, sine monitore quia de pectore, without any prompter but their own hearts. Smectym. p. 7. And say they, that it should be so, the same Father (as they call him) proves in his Treatise de Oratione. Sunt quae petuntur, &c. There are some things to be asked according to the occasions of every man; the lawful and ordinary prayer (that is the Lords prayer) being laid as a foundation, it is lawful to build upon that foundation other prayers, according to every ones occasion. So they, and to them it may thus be answered, that either those two passages of Tertullian are ill laid together; or else they must be understood of pri­vate, not of publick prayer. For that the latter place is meant of those private prayers, [Page 108]which every man may make for his own occasions, is beyond all question. And in their private Prayers it is not denied, but men may use what words and what Forms they please; so they consider as they ought, what it is they ask, and of whom they ask it. And if this place be meant of private prayer, as by the Authors drift and scope it appears to be; then must the other passage be so understood, or else they are ill laid together, as before was said. Now that the other place so insisted on, is also meant of private, not of publick Prayers, will appear by this, that there Tertullian speaks of the private carriage of the Christians, and of their good affections to the Ro­man Emperors; but medleth not with their behaviour as a publick body, assembled and convened for a publick end. For if he should, it must needs sound exceeding harshly, that every Member in the Congregation should be left unto the liberty of his own expression; and their Devotions, if so ordered, could be entituled nothing less than Common-prayers, by which name Justin Martyr calls them, as before was shewn. But that we may the better understand Tertullians meaning, we will first take the words at large,Tertullian Apo­loget. c. 30. and then conjecture at the sense. The words are these, Illuc suspici­entes Christiani manibus expansis, quia innocuis; capite nudo, quia non erubescimus; sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus; precantes summs omnes semper pro omnibus Imperatoribus, vitam illis prolixam, imperium securum, domum tutam, exercitus fortes, senatum, fidelem, populum probum, orbem quietum, & quaecunque hominis vel Caesaris vota sunt. ‘We Chri­stians looking towards Heaven, pray with our hands stretched out to protest our in­nocence; bare-headed, because not ashamed; without a Monitor, because by heart; an happy Reign, a secure House, valiant Souldiers, faithful Counsellors, an in­dustrious People, and whatsoever else the Prayers of a private man (for it is hominis not hominum) or those even of the Emperor himself, can extend unto.’ And this he sheweth to be the subject of those Prayers which he himself did use to make for the Roman Emperors, in the words next following, Haec ab alio orare non possum, quam à quo me scio consecuturum. I pray for all this to no other than to him alone, of whom only I am certain to obtain the same. And sure Tertullian was a private person; nor de we find that he prayed thus with others in the Congregation; or if he did, yet be­ing the heads are certain which are spoke of here, the Form may also be prescribed for ought appears unto the contrary, which was used there. And for the Monitor, 'tis true, the Gentiles had of old their Monitors, not only to direct them in what words, but to what God also they should make their Prayers. Which thing the Christians needed not, who knew they were to make their Prayers unto God alone; and being accustomed to pray in the Congregation, according to the Form prescribed, for the Emperors safety, and the prosperity of his affairs, could without any Monitor or Prompter pray by heart for those things which concerned the weal and safety of the Emperors, and those who were in Office and Authority by, and under them. What the Prayers were, used by the Christians of those times, it is hard to say, there being so little of them extant in Authors of unquestioned credit; but that they used set Forms of prayer, is not hard to prove, as we shall see in the next Century, when we have looked into the works of Origen, and spent a little time in S. Cyprians writings. If in their Books, one of which was cotemporary with Tertullian, the other living very near him, if not with him also, we find prescribed Forms of prayer: I hope it will be granted without great difficulty, that in Tertullians time they had prescribed Forms, although those Forms appear not upon good record.

But first before we come to that, V we will lay down the course and order of the mini­stration, according as I find it in the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens: The Author of the which, whosoever he was, lived about these times, and may perhaps be cre­dited in a matter of fact, although of no Authority (with the Learned) in a point of Doctrine. Now he describeth both the Churches and the service thus. [...],Constitut. Cle­ment. l. 2. c. 57. &c. When thou (he speaks unto the Bishop) doest call the Congregation to Assemble, as being the Master of the Ship, command thy Deacons as the Mariners, that places be provided for the Brethren, who are as passengers therein. First let the Church be built in form of an Oblongum, looking towards the East; and let the Bishops Throne or Chair be placed in the midst thereof; the Presbyters sitting on each side of him, and the Deacons ready and prepared to attend the Ministry; to whom it appertaineth to place the lay-people in their ranks and seats, and set the Women by themselves. Then let the Reader from the Desk or Pulpit placed in the middle of the people, read the Books of Moss; as also those of Josuah, Judges, Kings and Chronicles, and that of Ezra, touching the return from [Page 109]Babylon, as also those of Job and Solomon, and the sixteen Prophets. [...], &c. Two Chapters being read, let one begin the Psalms of David, and let the people answer the Acrosticks, i. e. the closes, or the burden of the song, as we use to say. Then let the Acts be read, and the Epistles of S. Paul, which he inscribed to several Churches by the suggestion of the Holy Ghost. Afterwards let the Presbyter or Dacon read the Gospels which Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have left behind them. And whilst they read the Gospel let the people stand, and hearken to the same with silence. For it is written, Take heed and hearken O Israel; and in another place, Stand thou there and hearken. Then let the Presbyters speak a word of Exhortation to the people, not all at once, but one by one, and the Bishop last. This done, all of them rising up, and turning towards the East, (the Catechumeni and those which are under Penance, being first departed) let them direct their Prayers to God, after which some of the Deacons are to attend upon the Sacrifice of the holy Eucharist; others to have an eye on the Congregation, and to see that silence be well kept. Then let the Deacon which assists the Bishops, thus bespeak the people, [...]. Let no man here have malice against his Brother; let no man harbour any dissimulation: Which said, the men salute the men, the women those of their own Sex, with an holy kiss. After, the Deacon saith the Prayer for the whole Church, the universal World, and the parts thereof; as also for fertility, for the Priests, the Magistrates, for the Bishop and King, and the peace of all. [...], &c. This done, Id. l. 8. c. 22. the Deacons are to bring the offerings to the Bishop, laying the same upon the Altar; the Priests assisting on each side, as the Disciples do their Master. Then the Bishop praying to himself, together with the Priests or Presbyters, and being arrayed in a white Vesture, standing at the Altar, and maing the sign of the Cross upon his forehead, shall say, The Grace of God Almighty, and the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all; and all the people shall return this Answer, And with thy spirit. Then shall the Bishop say, Lift up your hearts, and they reply, We lift them up unto the Lord. The Bishop thus, Let us give thanks un­to the Lord; the people next, It is meet and right so to do. And then the Bishop, It is meet, right, and our bounden duty above all things, to praise thee the true God, who wast from all eternity, before the foundation of the world was laid. Finally, this being done, let the Bishop give unto the people the blessing of peace. Id. l. 2. c. 57. And as Moses did command the Priests to bless the people in these words, The Lord bless thee and keep thee, the Lord make his Face to shine upon thee, and grant thee peace: So shall the Bishop use this Form. Con­serva Domine populum tuum incolumen, &c. Preserve O Lord thy people in safety, and bless thine inheritance which thou possessest, and hast purchased with the Blood of Christ, and callest a Royal Priesthood, and holy Nation. Afterwards let him go to the Consecration, all the people standing, and praying softly to themselves; and the Oblation being made, let every one severally receive the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour, coming in order thereunto, and with fear and reverence; the Women being also veiled or covered, as becomes their Sex. And whilst that this is doing, let the doors of the Church be shut, that neither any Infidel or Ʋnbaptized person be present at it. So far, and to this purpose Clemens, or whosoever was the Author of the Constitutions; which how it doth agree with the publick Forms, still extant on record in the works and monuments of such Ancient Writers, of whom there is no question amongst Learned men, we shall see anon.

One thing must first be taken into consideration, and that is, VI whether in the rea­ding of the holy Scripture, the Minister was left to his own Election, although not for the number of the Sections or Chapters as we call them now, yet to read what and where he would, without appointment of the Church. A point which hath already been resolved by the Church of England, declaring,The Preface to the Book of Common Prayer. How it was so ordered by the ancient Fathers, that all the whole Bible (or the greatest part thereof) should be read over once every year; intending thereby, that the Clergy, and especially such as were Ministers of the Con­gregation, should (by often reading and meditation of Gods words) be stirred up to godliness themselves, and be more ale to exhort others by wholesome Doctrine, and to confute them that were Adversaries to the truth: And further, that the people by daily hearing of holy Scrip­ture read in the Church, should copntinually profit more and more in the knowledge of God, and be the more inflamed with the love of his true Religion. And certainly it was a good and godly institution, savouring most abundantly of the primitive wisdom; though now, I know not how it comes to pass, it be made a matter of no moment, sive biennio, sive triennio absolvatur lectio sacrae Scripturae; Altare Damasc. c. 10. p. 633. whether the Scriptures be read over in two years or three, so it be read at all in the Congregation. So little thanks or commen­dations hath this unhappy Church of England, for labouring to revive the ancient [Page 110]orders of the Primitive times, and to bring the people of the Lord to be acquainted with his holy Word. But it is said, that in the Primitive times, there was no such custom, but all was left, both for the choice and number of the Lessons, arbitrio Ec­clesiae, Id. Ibid. to the discretion of the Church; that is to say, for nothing else can be the meaning, to the discretion of the Minister. And this they prove from that of Justin Martyr produced before, where it is said, that they did read the writings of the Prophets and Apostle, [...]. i. e. as they translate it, quoad tempus fert, as the time would bear. But [...], if translated rightly, is indeed quan­tum licet, as much as is lawful and permitted: which quite destroyeth their meaning, and confirms the Churches. [...], concedo, admitto. Hinc [...] impersonali­ter, exponitur licet, locus est, facultas est, in the common Lexicon. v. Stephant Thesaurum. And this appears further by the best classick Authors; [...], non licebat manere, in Xeno­phon; [...], quam primum licuerit, in Herodotus; so in others also. And that it was thus in the antient practice appeareth very plainly by that of Austin, (though of a later standing than the times we speak of) where it is said, that in the meeting or assembly for religious Worship, scripturarum divinarum lecta sunt solennia, Augustin. de civit. Dei. l. 22. cap. 8. the solemn and appointed Lessons out of holy Scripture were read unto the Congregation. And if they were solennia then, that is, set out, determined and appointed for times, and seasons: I cannot think thatthey were otherwise in these former days, unless it were on extraordinary and great occasions; in which that course might possibly be dispensed withal; as in the times of persecution, and the like extremities.

And so we come unto the third age of the Church; VII and there we shall begin with Origen, who grew into esteem and credit in the beginning of this Century, and so continued till the midst. By him it is observed, and exceeding rightly, in Ecclesiasticis observationibus nonnulla esse hujusmodi, quae omnibus quidem facere necesse est, nec tamen ra­tionem eorum omnibus patere; that in the usages of the Church there are many things which of necessary are to be done by every man, although the reason of them be not known to all.Origen in Nu­mer. cap. 4. Ho­mil. 5. Which said in general, he thus descends unto particulars: Nam quod genua flectimus orantes, & quod ex omnibus coeli plagis ad solam Orientis par­tem conversi orationem fundimus, non facile cuique puto ratione compertum. Sed & Eu­charistiae sive percipiendae, sive eo ritus quo geritur explicandae, vel eorum quae geruntur in baptismo, verborum gestorumque & ordinum, atuqe interrogationum ac responsionum, quis facile explicet rationem? Et tamen omnia haec operta & relata portamus super humeros nostros cum ita implemus ea & exequimur, ut à magno Pontifice & ab ejus filiis tradita & commendata suscepimus. ‘For when we kneel (saith he) in the time of Prayer, and that of all the points in Heaven we turn unto the East when we make our prayers; I think the reason why we do so is not known to any. Or who can readily as­sign a reason of those Rites and Ceremonies, used both in the receiving of the Eucharist, or at the consecrating of the same; or of those many things which are done in baptism, the words and gestures, the order there observed, the Interrogato­ries and the Answers? And yet all these we undergo, whether revealed or hidden from us, when we do so fulfil and perform them all as they have been commended and delivered to us, either by our great Bishop, or his Sons.’ Here then we have an evident proof, that therer were several Rites and Ceremonies used by the Christians of this time in the officiating of divine Service: several words and gestures used, both in the celebration of the Eucharist, and administration of baptism, and divers Interrogatories with their prescribed Answers to be used therein. Which Interroga­tories doubtless are the same, which we recited out of Clemens in the former Chap­ter; and which this Author also doth recount in another place.Id in Numer. cap. 21. Homil. 12. Recordetur unus­quisque fidelium, cum primum venit ad aquas Baptismi, cum signacula fidei prima susce­pit, & ad fontem salutaris accessit, quibus ibi tunc usus sit verbis, & quid denunciaverit Diabolo: non se usurum pompis ejus, neque operibus ejus, neque tellis omnino servitiis & voluptatibus ejus pariturum. Let every faithful Christian call to remembrance what words he used, what he denounced against the Devil, when first he came unto the waters of Baptism, and received the first signs of Faith, how he renounced all his pomps and works, and did profess that he would never yield obedience to his lusts and pleasures. So that a prescribed Form there was of abrenunciation, in the Sacrament of holy Baptism: and think we that there was not also a prescribed Form of Prayer, in the time of Origen? Himself shall tell you that there was; and more than so, shall give us such a fragment of a prescribed prayer, as by that piece we [Page 111]may conjecture at the whole. For thus saith he, Frequenter in oratione dicimus, Id in Hiere­miam cap. 15. Homil. 11. Da omnipotens, da partem cum Prophetis, da cum Apostolis Christi tui, tribue ut inveniamur ad vestigia unigeniti tui. We say this often in our prayers, Give us Almighty God, give us our portion with thy Prophets and with the Apostles of thy Christ; and grant that we may tread the footsteps of thine only Son. In which, saith he, we ask we know not what; for in effect we say no otherwise, than make us to be hated as the Prophets were, to fall into calamity and persecution as the Apostles did, A prayer this was no question, and a prescribed prayer, said often by the people, in their publick worship. And what else think we were those prayers which in ano­ther place he calleth [...], those solennes preces, as the Latine hath it: which he saith there, they used [...],Id contra Cel­sum lib. 6. con­stantly and of duty both night and day, that is, at Morning, and at Evening prayer. Assuredly it is not likely, that if there were prescribed prayers, such as he calleth solennes preces, in the times of Origen: men should be left at liberty in Tertullians days, being so small a time before, to use extemporary prayers in Gods publick worship, of their own fancies and devising.

The like we may affirm of S. Cyprian also, in whom mention more than once is made, VIII of those Solennia which were used in the celebration of the blessed Eucharist. Solenni­bus adimpletis, calicem Diaconus offerre praesentibus coepit; Cyprian. Ser­mo de lapsis. the solemn prayers (and therefore a set Form of prayers) being finished, the Deacon began to offer the Cup or Chalice to such as were present. And in another place speaking of the Cup, he calleth it Calicem solenni benedictione sacratum, the Cup which had been consecrated with a solemn (or set Form of) benediction. Of which we may conclude as be­fore we did, that if the Forms were solemn or prescribed in S. Cyprians days, they were not likely to be otherwise in Tertullians time: whatever other fancies have been railed about it. And that they used the solenn or set Form of words in the mini­stration of holy things, in S. Cyprians days, besides the general proof before produced, appears most plainly in his book de Oratione; where we have it thus.Id de oratio­ne Dominica. Ideo & Sacer­dos ante Orationem, Praefatione praemissa parat fratrum mentes, dicendo Sursum corda: ut dum respondet plebs, Habemus ad Dominum, admoneatur nihil aliud se quam Domi­num cogitare debere. Therefore (saith he) the Priest before the prayer (that of con­secration) doth by a Preface readily prepare the minds of the Brethren, saying, Lift up your bearts: that when the people make this answer, We lift them up unto the Lord, they may be put in mind, that they must think of nothing but the Lord, when they are pouring out their prayers. This passage of the Preface (as our and it is also to be found in those ancient Liturgies of Rome, Hierusalem, and Alexan­dria, assigned unto SS. Peter, James, and Mark, as before was said.Liturgia S. Petri in Bibli­oth. SS. Patrum. That attributed to S. Peter, thus: [...]. to which the people make this answer, [...]. The very same with that of Cyprian. And so is also that of. Mark, or rather of the Church of Alexandria, save that the word [...] is left out, and it runs simply thus, [...]. In that ascribed to S. James there is some difference, the Priest saying thus,Liturgia S. Jacobi, in Bi­blioth. [...]. i. e. Let us lift up our minds and hearts; to which the people answer there, [...], It is meet and right so to do. But this I take to be an error in the Copy, that being the answer of the people to another invitation of the Priest, viz. to that of Gratias agamus Domino, Let us give thanks unto the Lord: And so it seems to be by that which followeth of the Priest, in S. James his Liturgy: who on the peoples saying it is meet and right, goeth forwards in the usual Form, [...], it is very meet and right and our bounden duty, &c. But to return again unto S. Cyprian, we may conjecture by this piece, that in his time there was a whole and perfect Liturgie, though it be not come unto our hands. And there's another passage in that very book, de Oratione, which points us to that Form of abrenuntiation, which was then used by the Church in holy Baptism.Cyprian de oratione Domi­nica. Potest autem tualis abjecimus, cibum nobis tantum petamus & victum. That passage in the Pater noster, Give us this day our daily bread, may be thus interpreted, that we which have renounced the World, the riches and the pomps thereof by the benefit of faith and grace spiritual, should only crave of God our Meat and Victual. In which we have the matter, although not the Form: but that a Form there was, we were shewed before out of the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens: and will now further prove it by Tertullian [Page 112]also, who thus brings it home. Aquam ingressi, Christianam fidem in suae legis verba pro­fitemur; Tertullian. de spectaculis. c. 1. renunciare nos Diabolo, & pompis ejus & ejus, ore nostro contestamur Entring, saith he, into the water, we make profession of the Christian faith, in the very words of his own law: and with our own mouth do contest, that we re­nounce the Devil and his pomps, and Angels. Compare these words with those of Clemens formerly delivered; and tell me, if you can, where the difference lieth. And there's another passage in that book of Cyprians, which points us to the hours of prayer, at that time in use; viz. The third, the sixth, the ninth. Which having shewed to have been formerly in use with Daniel, and other holy men of God, he addeth, that besides those hours observed of old, Orandi spatia & sacramenta creve­runt, Cyprian de o­rat. Dominica. the times and the occasions of prayer were both increased. Nam & mane orandum est, ut resurrectio Domini matutina oratione celebretur; recedente item sole ac die cessante necessario orandum est, &c. For in the morning we must pray, that the Lords re­surrection may be celebrated by our Morning prayer; and when the Sun is down and the day determined, we must needs pray also, that praying for the returning of the light, we may de­sire of God our Saviours coming, who will conduct us all unto light eternal. So great assu­rance have we of the point in hand, both for the Form and hours of prayer, from this book of Cyprians, that any further search were almost unecessary. Now lest it may be said, as I know some say, that this is none of Cyprians true and genuine wri­tings, but thrust upon him by some Sciolist of a later standing: S. Austin shall come in for witness, who very frequently doth attest unto it, as viz. Epist. 47. & 107. lib. de gratia, & libero arbitrio. cap. 13. & lib. 1. contra Julianum, & de bono perseverantiae, cap. 2. Finally to dismiss S. Cyprian, the Magdeburgians, though no great Friends unto the antient usages of the Church, were so convinced, (or satisifed, to say the least) with this book of his; that they resolve it for a certainty, past all peradventure, that anciently there were set Forms of publick prayer.Histor. Eccle­siast. Cent. 3. cap. 6. Formulas denique precationum absque dubio habuernunt, as they state it there; and for the proof thereof refer us to this book of Cyprians.

This being thus proved, IX. we may affirm with grief, as some do with scorn, that great must be our loss, who are so unhappily deprived of the best improvement, the Church made of her peace and happiness, Smectymn. p. 9. during the first three hundred years. No question but the Liturgies which were then composed did savour strongly both of the piety and affectionof those blessed times. Whether the blessed Constantine was herein as un­happy as our selves; or whether he needed not have composed a Form of Prayer for his Guard to be used by them on the Lords day, but rather might and would have taken them out of the former Liturgies, if there had been any: will prove a very easie Quaere, with whatsoever confidence it be made a difficulty. For certainly there might be former Liturgies, and yet no Form of prayer found in them for that use and purpose, for whch that prayer was made by blessed Constantine. For we have now a Liturgie in the Church of England (and 'tis my prayer we may long have it, naugre the ma­chinations of unquiet Men) in which are many Forms of prayer for Gods publick worship: yet not so many, nor so sutable to all occasions, but that some Men make bold to set forth their own. Besides the Emperours Army did consist as the time then were,Eusebius de vita constant. l. 4. c. 18. partly of Christians, and partly of the Gentiles: and possibly it had not proved such an easie matter to bring the Gentiles to the use of a Form of prayer (the Christian Souldiers being suffered to repair unto the Church upon Sundays, and there to make their prayers to the Lord their God) which had been wholly taken from the Liturgies of the Christian Church. But for the prayer enjoyned by the blessed Constantine, Ibid. cap. 20. it was as followeth, Te solum Deum agnoscimus, te Regem profitemur, te adjutorem invocamus, per te victorias consecuti sumus, per te hostes supera­vimus, à te & praesentem felicitatem consecutos fatemur, & futuram adepturos spera­mus; tui omnes supplices sumus, à te petimus ut Constantinum Imperatorem nostrum, una cum piis ejus liberis, quam diutissime salvum & victorem conserves. In English thus. ‘We do acknowledg thee for the only God, we confess thee to be the King, we call upon thee as our helper and defender: by thee alone it is that we have got the victory, and subdued our Enemies; to thee as we do refer all our present hap­piness, so from thee also we expect our future. Thee therefore we beseech that thou wouldst-keep in health and safety, our noble Emperour Constantine, with his hopeful progeny.’ This was the very Form imposed. And I believe the blessed Constantine would never have troubled himself to compose this Form, had he not though that set and prescribed Forms of prayer had been very necessary, and more to be [Page 113]considered of, than the extemporary prayers of his ablest Ministers. For doubtless, in a CAmp, wherein there were so many of the Gentiles, there must be some Priests, to offer sacrifice unto the Gods whom those Gentiles worshipped. And it is told us by Eusebius, Id. that he had always in his Camp for divine Offices divers Priest and Bishops, Chaplains in ordinary to his Majesty: and it were hard if none of them could have made a shift, to vent some short extemporary prayers for the use of the Army. The blessed Constantine had been most unhappy, if it had been so: and pity 'twas, that some of those who are so vehemently bent against all set Forms, had not been Preachers to his Army. Assuredly they would have eased him of that needless trouble. Especially since we are told, what liberty every Man might take unto himself, in praying both what and how he listed.

For as they say, this liberty in Prayer was not taken away, X nor set and imposed Forms introduced, Smeclymn. until the time that the Arian and Pelagian Heresies did invade the Church: and then because those Hereticks did convey and spread their poyson, in their Forms of Prayer and Hymns, the Church thought it convenient to restrain the liberty of making and using publick forms. A piece of Learning not more new, than strange, to us who never heard of the like before: and such as in conclusion doth destroy it self. For if upon the spreading of the Heresies before remembred, the Church thought it convenient to restrain the liberty of making and using publick Forms: there must be publick Forms before, both made and used in the Church; and therefore sure they came not in upon that occasion. And if the Arians and Pelagians had a mind to disperse their poysons, and do it with the greater freedom: they might have done more to purpose (a thing which we observe by too sad experience) in arbitrary and extemporary prayers of each Mans devising, than being tied and limited by a prescript Form, how well soever fitted and contrived to advance their ends. That which they mean, if they mean any thing, is this, that in the time when Chrisostom was Bishop of Constantinople, the Arians held their Congregations without the City. But grew at last unto that boldness, that when the Orthodox Professors held their publick meetings as on all Saturdays and Sundays they used to do, the Arians got within the gates, [...].Socrat. hist. Eccl. 6. c. 8. & Sozomen. hist. Eccl. l. 8. c. 8. and there sung certain Hymns and Anthems, Quire-wise or alternatim, answering one another, which they had fitted to their lewd and impious tenets. This they con­tinued for the greatest part of the Night, and at day-break singing thee Hymns of Songs even in the middle of the City, they went out again to their own places of Assembly. This when it was observed by Chrysostom to allure many simple Men to that wicked faction; he called out some of his own flock, [...], who falling on the same course, and being intent on this Night-musick, might both suppress the insolency of the Arian party, and confirm his own people in the faith. This is the story which they aim at, and this makes nothing to the purpose. For what hath this to do with set Forms of prayer, so long in use before the time of Chrysostom? Or if it had, yet all that Chrysostom did on this occasion, was not to take away or restrain the liberty of making and using publick Forms; but rather to increase those Forms which were made before. For 'tis said plainly in the story, [...], that he increased the wonted prayers, by adding those Night-anthems to the publick service. But they say still that some restrain there was, of a former liberty,Socrat. hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 8.3. and such as was brought in upon occasion of those Heresis of which before we spake: it being first ordained, say they, in the Council of Laodicea, that none should pray pro arbitrio sed semper eaedem preces, that none should use liberty to vary in Prayer, but use always the same Form. Somewhat indeed was done in that ancient Synod,Smectym. p. 7. and somewhat also to this purpose; but neither so as is delivered, nor on that occasion. Not upon that occasion doubtless. For if Baronius rightly calculate the times, as I think he doth, the Council of Laodicea, with those of Arles, Ancyra, V. Baron. An­nal. Eccl. To. 3. & 5. and Neocae­sarea, was holden in the year 314. the Arian Heresie began not till the next year after, and the Pelagian near an hundred years from that, An. 413. Chrysostom not being Bishop of Constantinople, until the year 397. or thereabouts. So that the Fathers in this Council, must needs be all inspired with the spirit of Prophecie, seeing they could provide such a certain remedy, so many years before the mischief.

Now as this Council did not any thing on this occasion, so whatsoever it was they did, it was not so, as is delivered. The Canon pointed to, is this,Concil. Laodi­cen. Can. 18. [...]. [Page 114]That the same Office of Prayers should be always used, both in the Morning and the Evening, at nine and night (for so I take it we must render [...], rather than post off both services till the afternoon.) These are the words, which though they serve most evidently for set Forms of pryaer, composed by men of eminency for the Churches use, and then imposed upon the Clergy by the Churches power; yet we are told that the Forms herein spoken of, were of every several mans own composing; and that the meaning of the Council was no more than this, viz. To forbid men from varying their own prayers as they listed, Smectymn. p. 7. nd to enjoyn them still to use the same. By what Authority the Canon may be thus perverted from its proper meaning,Vindication. p. 20. I am yet to seek. But sure I am, that never was the mind or meaning of that ancient Synod; or if it had, they would have put it in such terms whereby their mind and meaning might have been discovered in the former times. But Zonaras, whose glosses and interpre­tations I find sometimes approved by these later Scholiasts, gives us another meaning of the Canon, and no doubt a truere; sure I am, more agreeable to truth of story, and the condition of those times. And he expounds the same directly contrary to that which is by them intended; and makes the meaning to be this, That no man should have liberty to compose Forms of prayer, or to recite them in the Congregation; but only to adhere to those in Gods publick Service, which had been countenanced and confirmed by long proscription,Zonaras Com­ment. in Concil. Laodicen. [...]. So his own words are. And this is quite against set Forms of ones own devising. Nor could a worser choice in all antiquity have been pitch'd upon, to countenance set Forms of ones own devising, than was this notable Synod of Laodicea; wherein there is so much determined for setling the received Forms, and abrogating such abuses as had been crept into the same, as in no other publick monu­ment of this time and age. Three of which Canons I shall here produce, and those three which immediately precede that now in question. By that we may perceive most manifestly, how little hope is to be found from Laodicea, how cold the wind blows from those Eastern parts. The first takes care to regulate that part of pub­lick Worship, which did consist in singing Hymns or Psalms to the praise of God, determining that none besides the ordinary and appointed Singers should go up into the Desk (or Pulpit) and sing out of the Parchments in the Congregation. [...].Cancil. Lao­dicen. Can. 15. That is the substance of the Canon. And that, as it excludes all other persons from singing in the Church, but the publick Singers, such as were called unto that Office; so it excludes all other Books of that condition, from being brought into the Church, but the publick Parch­ments, such as were framed and authorized for that very service. Yet so that I conceive with Balsaman, that is to be understood no otherwise, than that it was not lawful unto every man to go into the Pulpit,Balsam. in Con­cil. Laodicen. [...], to name the Psalm, and to begin it (as some about this time had presumed to do:) it being permitted, as he noteth, after the Psalm was so begun, [...], that Lay-men of what rank soever, if they had tuneable voices, or could sing their parts, might then joyn with them, asin consort, to make up the Harmony. The next care taken by this Council was, that the Gospels and other parts of the holy Scripture might be read up­on the Saturday, or the old Jewish Sabbath. [...]. Whereof the reason is thus given by Balsamon, Concil. Ladoic. Can. 15. because that day had been formerly spent in Feasting, [...], and that the people used not to assemble on it,Balsamon, in Can. 16. Laodi­cen. for religious offices; which to redress it was determined by this Canon, that on that day as well as others, [...], all sorts of Ecclesiastical ministrations were to be performed. The last was for the ordering of the Psalms, concerning which it was ordained that between every portion of the Psalms (for they divided the whole Psalter, [...],Id. in Canon. 17. Concil. Laodic. Can. 17. into several portions) [...], some part of holy Scripture should be intermingled, lest else the people might be tyred with continual singing. Here then we have certain prescribed Rules and Orders for the officiating of Gods publick Service, the Palms divided into Portions, those Portions intermin­gled with the reading of the holy Scripture, a prescribed office ordered for the Satur­day, and finaly, a punctual direction not only who should name or begin the Psalm, but from what Book it should be read.

But there's another Canon of this Council which looks more backward, XII and did not so much introduce any new Orders into the Church, as confirm the old; and [Page 115]doth indeed give as full a view of the several parts and Offices of the publick Service, as any other of that time whatever. The first part of the Service we have seen before in Justin Martyr, that which he calleth [...] the Common-prayers of the Church, at which all sorts of people were and might be present. This ended with the Sernion, as we saw before. And we shall see now more particularly what they had to do, after that was done. For howsoever it may seem in that place of Justin, that presently upon the conclusion of the Sermon, they went unto the Celebration of the blessed Eucharist; yet that is on a supposition, that there were none present but Believers only, and such as were prepared to Communicate. But being that in those severe Ages of the Church, they had not only Catechumeni, such as desired to be ad­mitted into the bosom of the Church, and had not yet received that Sacrament of Bap­tism; but such as having been Baptized, were for their lapses and offences put to open Penance; as well as godly and religious persons, against whom no bar could be pre­tended; the Offices of the Church were to be so fitted, that every one of these con­ditions might not want his part. And this is that which we find described in this Canon thus. [...],Concil. Laodi­cen. Can. 19. &c. After the Bishop hath done his Sermon, let first the prayer be said for the Catechumeni; they being gone, the prayers for such who are under penance, are to be dispatched; and when they have received Imposition of hands, and are also gone, then let the prayers for the faithful be thrice made thus, [...], &c. the first softly, every man secretly to him­self, the second and the third aloud, which done, the Peace, (or kiss of peace) is to be given, and so they are to go to the Oblation. And let none but such as be in Orders enter within the rail, [...], or come within the place where the Altar stands, to receive the Sacra­ment. So far the Canon of the Council, by which it is apparent that each sort of Auditors had a peculiar course or Office, besides that part of publick Service in which they joyned all together, as before was said. But whether the prayers here spoken of were left at liberty, to the discretion of the Minister, or in a prescribed and determi­nate Form, we must see elsewhere. And in my mind we cannot see it at a fuller view, than in the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens, undoubtedly more ancient than the times we speak of, where we find it thus; [...], &c. All rising up, let the Deacon go into some eminent place, and say, Constitut. Apost. lib. 8. c. 5. None of the hearers, none of the unbelievers depart the place. And silence being made, he saith, [...], Pray ye hearers. And all the faithful shall pray for them with a good devo­tion, saying [...], Lord have mercy upon them. Then let the Dacon thus pro­ceed, Id. cap. 6. [...], &c. Let us all pray to God for the Catechumeni, that our good God of his abundant love to man-kind would graciously hear their prayers, and give them help, minate their understandings, instruct them in knowledge, and teach them his Command­ments, &c. [...], &c. Moreover let us beseech God for them, that having obtained remission of their sins by Baptism, they may be meet partakers of the holy Eucharist, and dwell for ever with the Saints, &c. Now unto every point or period contai­ned in this solemn prayer, the people answered, [...], Lod have mercy on them, after the manner of the Litany; and the whole prayer being ended, they bowed their heads under the Bishops hands, by whom they were dismissed with a Benediction, conform unto the Canon of the Laodicean Council, which before we spake of. Which done, the Deacon stand­ing as before, said thus, [...], Depart ye Catechumeni in peace. (The Ite missa est, in the Western Churches, is the same with this.) Then fol­low prayers for the Engergumeni, or such as were possessed with unclean spirits: And that being ended, together with another for the Baptized or Illuminati, the Deacon said, [...], Pray ye devoutly which be under Penance; and then goeth on. Id. ibid. cap. 8. Pray we for those which be under Penance, that God would shew them the way of repentance, ac­cept their Recantation and Confession, and finally beat down Satan under their feet, &c. the people still subjoyning unto every clause, [...], Lord have mercy on them. Thus much and more unto this purpose in the Constitutions. And I the rather am inclined to admit these Forms, or to resolve it at the least, that set Forms they had for these several Offices; because the Minister by whom they were performed, was of no higher Order than a Deacon. For had the prayers been left to the discretion or ability of him that made them, assuredly, the Bishop or the Presbyters, being men of greater gifts, and more practised in them than the Deacons were supposed to be, would not have left a business of that weight and moment to be discharged by men of the lowest Order, themselves attending on the service, as if not concerned. And so much for, [Page 116]and on occasion of the so Celebrated Council of Laodicea, one of the ancientest upon true record, in the Church of Christ.

You see by this, XIII that in the time of the renowned Constantine, and long time before, the Church was sorted and disposed into ranks and files; and every sort of men had a particular Form of Service fitted and framed thereunto, besides those Common-prayers wherein all did joyn. We will next see whether they were not in condition, as well to amplifie the times, and beautifie the places of Gods publick worship, as to agree upon the Forms; and then we will go forwards in our purposed search, till we have set the business above all gain-saying. And for the times we shewed before, with what a general consent they had transferred the Jewish Sabbath, on the which God rested, unto the first day of the week, on the which Christ rose. Nor was it long be­fore they had their daily meetings, and thereon their set hours of Prayer, Morning and Evening, as was proved before from S. Cyprians words. To which was after added, as appeareth by the Council of Laodicea before remembred, an hour of prayer at nine of the Clock,Concil. Laodi­cen. Can. [...], saith the Text; which hours are still observed at nine of the Clock, [...], saith the Text; which hours are still observed in all the Cathedrals of this Kingdom. Besides these, as their numbers multiplied, and their affairs were crowned by God with peace and happiness, they instituted several Annual Festivals to be observed with greater solemnity and concourse of people, than any of their ordinary Assemblies, in memory of especial blessings which God had given them by his Son, or conferred on them by his Saints. Of these, the Feasts of Easter and Whitsontide, as they are most eminent, so they are most antient, as being instituted in the times of the Lords Apostles; to which were added in short time, the two days next following, that so those seacred Festivals might be solemnized with the greater measure of devotion; in which regard, Easter is called by Gregory Nyssen, Gregor. Nyssen. Homil. 1. de Paschat. [...], or the three days Feast. See of this also, Augustin de Civitate Dei, l. 22. cap. 8. The Feast of Christis Nativity, began if not before, in the second Age. Theophilus Caesariensis, who lived about the times of Commodus and Severus makes mention of it, and placeth it on the 25th. of December, quocunque die 8. Calend. Januar. venerit, so his own words are, as we still observe it. A Festival of so great erninency, that Chrysostom entituleth it [...], the mother or Metropolis of all other Feasts.Chrysost. Orat. de Phalagon. See for this also in Nicephorus, where it will be found to have been universally received before the time of Dioclesians persecution; who burnt many eminent Christians at Nicomedia, whilst they were Celebrating this great Festival in the House God.Niceph. histor. Eccl. l. 7. c. 6. That of the Incarnation was ordained in the be­ginning of the third Century, there being an Homily of Gregory surnamed Thauma­turgus, who lived, An. 230. entituled de Annunciatione B. Virginis; another (for of this there is made some question) writ by Athanasius, who lived in the beginning of the following Age, whereof there is no doubt amongst Learned men. That of the Passion or Good-Friday, as we call it now, is of the same Antiquity, as the other was; for we find mention of it in the Books of Origen. Origen contra Celsum. l. 4. And for the Feasts of the Apostles, Evangelists, and other blessed Saints of God, they took beginning most of them in the time of Constantine, who by his Edict gave command to all the Deputies and Lieu­tenants of the Roman Empire, that the memorials of the Martyrs should be duely honoured,Euseb. de vita Constat. l. 4. c. 23 and solemn Feasts to be appointed for that end and purpose, most of which brought their Fasts or Vigils along with them. The Church lost nothing of that power by our Saviours coming, which she enjoyed and practised in the times before; but did ordain both Feasts and Fasts too, if she saw occasion, and as she found it might con­duce to the advantage of Gods publique worship. Now as the Christians of these two Ages did augment the Times, so they increased the places also of Gods publique wor­ship. In the first Age they had their meeting or Assemblies in some privage Houses, which being separated from all profane and common use, were by the Owners dedi­cated to Religious exercises, and therefore honoured in the Scriptures with the name of Churches. But as they grew in numbers, so they grew in confidence, and in these Ages had their Churches visible and obvious to the eyes of all men. Witness hereto Ignatius the Apostles Scholar, and Successor to St. Peter in the See of Antioch, who lived in the beginning of the second Century, and writing to the Magnesians (an Epistle hitherto unquestioned by our modern Criticks) doth exhort them thus: Omnes ad orandum in idem loci convenite, Ignat. Epist ad Magnes. una sit communis precatio, una mens, una spes in charitate, &c. That is to say, Assemble all together in the same place, to pour fourth your prayers unto the Lord, let there be one Common-prayer amongst you, one mind, one onely hope, in love and an unblamable faith in Jesus Christ, run all together as one man to the Temple [Page 117]of God, as to one Altar, as to Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the uncreated and immortal God. Witness hereto for the middle of this second Century, two several Epistles of Pope Pius the first, (and those unquestioned hitherto) which we shall have occasion to make use of in the last Chapter of this Tract, and the sixth Section of that Chapter. And finally, witness hereunto for the close thereof, these words of Clemens Alexandri­nus, where speaking of the spiritual Church, or the Congregation of Gods Elect, he doth phrase it thus. [...].Clem Alex. Strom. lib. 7. I call not now (saith he) the place but the Congregation of Gods Elect by the name of the Church. By which it is mosT plain and evident, that the word Ecclesia, or the Church, signified in his time, as well the place of the Assembly, as the general body of the Congregation, or Elect of God. Now that these Churches mentioned by Ignatius in the first beginning, and specially by Clemens in the latter end of this second Century, were not only some rooms in particular houses, or the whole houses of some men dedicated and applyed to Religious offices, will appear most plainly by that of Gregory Thaumaturgus in the following Age, where he divides the Churches extant in his time into five parts or distributions,Greg. Thaumat. Canon. ep. according to the remoter or nearer admission then given to Penitents; a distribution which few houses built for private uses, though afterwards dedicated to Gods service, and no one room in any house could be capable of. But it appeareth more plainly, by that great number of Churches or places of Gods publique worship, which either were destroyed or taken from the Chri­stians in the persecution of Aurelianus, and restored again by Galienus the Roman Em­perors; for which consult Eusebius, Hist, eccl. lib. 7. cap. 12. But it appeareth most plainly by another passage in the said Eusebius, where speaking of the peaceable times which the Church enjoyed immediatly before the Persecution raised by Dioclesian, he tells us of the Christians. Antiquis illis aedificiis haud quaquam amplius contenti, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. 8. amplas spatiosasque in omnibus urbibus ex fundamentis erexerunt ecclesias. That is to say, That not contenting themselves longer with those antient edifices which had been built unto their hands in the times forgoing, they erected large and goodly Churches from the very foundation in all the Cities of the Empire. By which last evidence, it appeareth that the Christians had in most Cities, some Churches or places of Assembly of an old erection, as old perhaps as the last times of the Apostles; and that those old erections being grown unable to contain their multitudes, they were necessitated to build new ones of a larger size, and of capacity proportionable to such infinite numbers. Which places of Assembly, as they first called Ecclesiae, as they also did the Congregation of Assembly it self; so in the middle of this Age, they began to be called Dominicae by the Latines, and in the same signification by the Greeks Kuriacae, from which last word, the English word Church, and the Kirk of the Scots, are very probably supposed to have been derived. From this time forwards the Christians spared no cost to adorn their Churches, the Fabricks more magnificent than they had been formerly, the Or­naments within proportionable to the outward beauties, the Altars furnished with rich plate, even to the envy and astonishment of the spightful Gentiles. Insomuch as Felix a Pro-consul, in the time of Julian the Apostate, a little after the middle of the following Century, at such time as the Churches were given up unto spoil and rapine, is said to have cryed out on the sight thereof, [...]. That is to say, Behold, in what rich Vessels they administer to the Son of Mary. So little was it thought in those happy times, that there should one day come a genera­tion of men professing piety, who should deface those Altars, and destroy those Temples, and cry, Down with them, down with them even to the ground. But of this great increase of Churches, with their Solemnities and Forms of Dedication, we shall speak more hereafter in the close of all.

CHAP. VII. Apparent proofs for Liturgies and Set Forms of Worship, betwixt the Reign of Constantine, and S. Austin's Death.

  • 1. The Form of Baptism described by Cyril of Hierusalem, conform unto the ancient patterns.
  • 2. As also of administring the blessed Eu­charist.
  • 3. Conclusive proofs for Liturgies or Set Forms of worship in S. Basils time.
  • 4. And from the writings of S. Chrysostom.
  • 5. The Liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil vindicated; and the Objections answered which are made against them.
  • 6. Liturgies or Set Forms of worship in the Western Churches, by whom, and what degrees established.
  • 7. Proofs for the ancient Liturgies, and pre­scribed Forms of worship, from S. Austin's works.
  • 8. What was decreed concerning Liturgies or prescribed forms of worship in the A­frican Councils.
  • 9. The Form of ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, prescribed and regulated.
  • 10. A prescribed Form of Marriage and Set Rights of Burial, used anciently in the Church of CHRIST.
  • 11. Touching the habit used of old by God's Priests and Ministers, in the officiating his Divine Service in the Congregation.
  • 12. Several Gestures used by God's people in the Congregation, according to the se­veral parts of Publick Worship.
  • 13. A brief Essay concerning the Antiqui­ty of the Gloria Patri; the time when it was first made a part of the publick Li­turgies, and the accustomed gesture at the pronouncing of the same.

WE are now come nto the setled ages of the Church, I when she had got the better of Idolatry, and stood no more in fear of the Gentiles fury: and so in probability are like to see a fuller and more perfect view of her publick Forms; than in those more remote and dangerous times, in which she durst not stand so much in the open light. The times from Constantine unto S. Austin, were the most glorious and triumphant, that ever were beheld by the militant Church: within which compass we intend to contain our selves, and to conclude the search which we have in hand. And first we meet with Cyril, a right godly Bishop, who in his mystagogical Orations made by him in his younger years,Hieron. de illust. Scriptor. upon the Rites and My­steries of the holy Church, presents us with such pieces of the ancient Liturgies (that of Hierusalem especially) that by them we are well assured of the whole, that some such there were, though we are so unfortunate not to have them now. The first contains the Rites of Baptism, in which it is declared, that those who are admitted to it, [...]. Being brought within the porch unto the place of Baptism, and standing with their aces towards the West, are comman­ed to stretch forth their hands, and to desie the Devil, as if present by them. The Form of which defiance or Abrenunciation he delivereth thus, Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. Myslag. Renuntio tibi Satana, & omni­bus tuis operibus, & omni pompae illius (or tuae rather) & omni tuo cultui; the very same with that which we have seen before of the former times. This done, the party which is to be baptized, [...], being turned from the West towrads the East, is bid to say, Credo in patrem, & filium, & spiritum sanctum, & in baptis­ma poenitentiae. That is to say, I believe in the Father; and in the Son, and in the holy Ghost, and in the baptism of repentance. This said, and being brought further into the Church, [...],Id. Catech. 2. they put off their cloaths, to shew, that they put off the old man with all his works: and being thus naked are anointed with the holy Chrism. Thence being brought unto the Font ( [...]) every one of them is inter­rogated whether he doth believe in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost: and having made confession of thehir faith (according as we saw before from the Constitutions) they were thrice dipped into the water, in memory of our Saviours lying in the grace three days, (the formal words of Baptism, being therewithal pronoun­ced, though not here expressed.) Which done, the party is again anointed on the fore­head, nostrils, Id. Catech. 3. ears, and breasts, (upon the reasons there declared) [...], and cloathed in white garments; Id. Catech. 4. which concludes the action. But here it is to be observed, that this last anointing was in the way of confirmation: it being the custom of those times, in the baptizing of all such as were Adulti, or of riper years, [Page 119]to minister both Baptism and Confirmation at the same time, as our incomparable Hooke rightly noteth. And note withal that in the anointing of the forehead in his later Un­ction,Hooker Ec­cles. Politic. l. 5. § 66. Cyril. Catech. mystagog. 4. Tertull. de resurrect. carnis. the party baptized was signed with the sign of the Cross, [...], as the Father there. Which is no more than that so celebrated passage of Tertullian, Caro signatur ut anims muniatur, declares to be the antient and unquestionable practice of the Church of CHRIST.

Next for the celebration of the Eucharist, he describes it thus. II Things being in readiness, the Deacon bringeth water for the hands to the chief Minister,Cyril. Cate­chis. mystagog. 5. [...], and to the Priests that stand about the Altar, and then saith aloud, Complectimini & osculemini vos invicem, embrace and kiss ye one another; which is done accordingly; and this in token of that Ʋnion both of hearts and souls, which is and ought to be between them. Then saith the Priests, Sur­sum corda, or, Lift up your hearts; the people answer, We lift them up unto the Lord: The Priest again, Let us give thanks unto the Lord; the people say, Dignum & justum est, or, It is meet and right so to do. And by this place (I note this only by the way) we make up the breach in S. James his Liturgy, being the antient Liturgy of the Church of Hierusalem, as before was said: which breach we shewed and touched at obiter, in the former Chapter. [...], &c. Then (saith he) we make mention of Heaven, Earth, and Sea, and all the Creatures reasonable and unreasonable, and also of the Angels and Archangels, and the Powers of Heaven, praising God and saying, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus Deus Sabbati. By which celestial Hymns we do not only sanctifie our selves, but beseech our good and gracious God, that he would send his holy Spirit on the gifts presented, (that is to say, the Bread and Wine) that so the Bread may be made the Body of Christ, and the Wine his Blood. Then do we call upon the Lord, [...], for the general peace of all the Churches, the tranquillity of all the World, for Princes and their Armies, for our Friends and Bre­thren, for all that be in need, sickness, or any other adversity, and in a word, for every one that wanteth help from the hands of God. The rest that followeth as a part of this ge­neral Prayer, upon the alteration of the Form and Person, viz. from [...], We call upon the Lord, in the third person, unto [...] in the second person; is most judiciously concluded by Dr. Rivet, Rivet. Criti­ci sacri, l. 3. c. 10. to be the fraud and forgery of some Impostor: whose judgment in the same I heartily both applaud and follow. But to proceed with that which is received for true and genuine, and of unquestion­ble credit. This general Prayer being thus concluded, followe tht at, [...],Cyril. Cate­ches. mystagog. 5. which Christ our Saviour gave unto his Disciples; the Lords Prayer he means: and meaning so, shews plainly that the Church conceived how the Lords Prayer was given to be said and used, not to be imitated only. Then saith the Priest thus, Sancta Sanctis, unto the holy all things are holy, or holy things are for holy persons; the people answering, Unus sanctus, unus Dominus, JESUS CHRISTUS, That is to say, there is but one Holy, one Lord, JESƲS CHRIST. Then sangt the Priest the divine Hymns, exhorting you to the communion of the holy Mysteries, and saying, Gustate & videte quam fuavis est Dominus. O taste and see how good the Lord is. This said, they came to the Communion, not with their hands spread out, nor disjoyned singers, but with the left hand placed under the right, receiving the Lord's body in the palms of their hands (lest any of the consecrated Bread should fall to the ground;) and therewith (viz. to the Priests prayer when he gave the same) each one said AMEN. After they had received the Communion of the Body of CHRIST, they received the Cup also of his Blood (where still we have the whole Communion, sub utraque specie, what ever new Doctrines have been coyned at Rome) not stretching out the hands, [...], but falling down, as when Men are in the Act of Worship or Adoration, they said AMEN, as formerly at the receiving of the Bread. [...]. Last of all, tarrying for the parting or concluding Prayers, they gave thanks to God, who had vouchsafed to make them worthy of his holy Mysteries. This was the course, and these the footsteps of the Forms observed of old times in the Mother Church, the holy City of Hierusalem. And if we may con­jecture ex pede Herculem, what the dimensions were of the body of Hercules, by the proportion of his foot; we may be well conjecture by these evident footsteps, what the whole bodies were of the antient Liturgies.

From Cyril on unto St. Basil, another famous Bishop of the Eastern Churches. III Who having made some Rules for the better order of those who did intend to lead a Monastick life; and being accused that in the singing of the Psalms, and [Page 120]regulating the manner of that Melody, he had somewhat innovated, contrary to the received custom of the Church: was forced to make his own Apology, and send it to the Clergy of Neo-Caesarea. Basil. Ep. 63. Thus then saith he, [...], &c. The Rites (saith he) which we observe amongst us, are such as are agreeable and consonant to all the Churches of God. Our people rising in the night do before day repair unto the Chappel or house of Prayer: and having made confession of their sins to God, in sorrow, tears, and great compunction of the Soul, they rise at last from Prayer, and take themselves unto the Psalms. Being divided into two parts, they sing as it were in turns, one second another, or Quire­wise (as is used in our Cathedrals) so taking time to meditate on the words of God, and therewithal making our hearts and minds more attent thereto. Then one to whom that charge or Office appertained, began some other Psalm or Hymn; and all sung together after him: by which variety of singing, [...], some Prayers being interserted or mingled with it, they past over the night: and on the dawning of the day, all of them joyned together, [...], as if they had but one heart and one mouth amongst them, and sung unto God a Psalm of Confession (most likely one of the seven penitential Psalms;) and after every one made in his own words a profession of his penitence; and so all returned. Where note, that howsoever this Form of Service was fitted only for a company of private Men, who had embraced the Monastick life; and to be used only by them in their private Oratories: yet the most part thereof was borrowed from the publick Forms, at that time extant in the Church. Of the which Rites or Forms retained amongst them, were the beginning of their service with a confession of their sins, then p rayers to God, and then the singing of the Psalms. That which was singular herein, and needed the Apology, was that they met together before day, and spent more time upon the Psalmody, than in reading, or preaching of the Word, or in Common-prayer, or any of the other parts of publick Worship. Basil could tell as well as any, wherein the Form of Ser­vice used amongst his Monks, agreed with that which was received and used in publick Churches; and wherein it differed: as having took the pains to compose a Liturgie, or rather to compleat and polish, and fit unto the publick use, such as had formerly been extant. And though that Copy of it which occurs in the Bib­liotheca, and in the writings of Cassander, have some things in it which are found to be of a latter date; yet we shall clear that doubt anon, when we come to Chry­sostom, against whose Liturgy I find the like Objections. Mean time take this of Basil for a pregnant Argument, that in his time, and long before it, the Service of the Chruch was not only ordered by Rules and Rubricks; but put into set Forms of Worship: which we have noted in his Books De spiritu sancto, and is this that followeth. For speaking there touching those publick Usages which came into the Church from the tradition of the Apostles,Easil. de sancto spiritu. c. 27. he instanceth in these particulars. [...], &c. The signing with the sign of the Cross all those who place their hopes in Christ, what writing teacheth? that in our prayers we should turn towards the East, where is it taught us in the Scripture? And then, [...], Those words of invocation wherewithal in the holy Eucharist we conse­crate the Bread, and Cup of Benediction, which of those blessed Saints have left in writing? For not content with those things which the Apostles or the Gospel have committed to us, many things have been added since, both in the way of preface and of conclusion, which are derived from unwritten Tradition— And not long after thus of Baptism, having first spoke of consecrating the Water, of the Chrism or Oyl, and the three Dip­pings then in use: Those other things, saith he, which are done in Baptism, viz. [...], the Abrenuntiation which is made to Satan and to all his Angels, out of what Scripture is it brought?

Next for S. Cyrsostom, IV the evidence we have from him is beyond exception. [...], &c.Chrysost. in 2. ad Corinth. hom. 18. It is no now, saith he, as in the old Testament, wherein the Priests eat this, and the people that: it being unlawful for the people to eat those things which were permitted to the Priest. It is now otherwise with us. For unto all is the same Body, and the same Cup presented. And in our very prayers it is easily seen, how much we attribute unto the people. [...], &c. For both those who are possessed with the devil, the Energumeni, and those who yet are under penance, both by the People and Priest ( [...]) common Prayers are made: and we say all one and the self same Prayer, even that which is so full of mercy. Where by the way, though in the Greek it be, [...], they say all [Page 121]one Prayer, yet in the Latin it runs thus, omnes unam eandemque precem concipiunt: which would make well for unpremeditated and extemporary Prayers, if it were possible that all the Congregation, both Priest and people, should fall upon the same conception. But to go on. [...] &c. Again, saith he, [...] when we repell all such from the holy Rayls, which cannot be partakers of the holy Table: there is another Prayer to be said, and we all lie alike upon the ground, and all rise toge­ther. Then when the Peace (or sign of peace) is mutually to be given, and taken, we do all equally salute (or kiss) each other. Thus also in the celebration of the sacred Myste­ries, as the Priest prayeth for the people, so do they for him: these usual words, [...], And with thy Spirit, importing nothing else but this. And finally, Et cum spirtu tuo. Gratlas aga­mus Deo. that Prayer, wherein we give thanks to the Lord our God, is common unto both alike: the Priest not only giving thanks to God, but the whole Assembly. For when he hath de­manded their suffrage first, and they acknowledg thereupon, [...],Dignum est & justum. that it is meet and right so to do, then he begins the holy Eucharist. Nor is it strange, nor should it seem so unto any, that the people should thus hold conference with the Priest o Minister, considering that they sing those holy Hymns, together with the Cherubins, and the powers of Heaven. So he. And all this out of question,Ideo cum Ange­lis & Archan­gelis. must needs be under­stood of prescribed Forms, such as the people said by heart, or could read in Books that either lay before them, or were brought with them: such as they were so through­ly versed in, as to make answer to the Minister upon all occasions. For what else were those common Prayers, those [...] which he speaks of; what else that [...], that one self-same Prayer, that Prayer so full of mercy in which all did joyn? were they not so determinate the prescribed that all could say them with the Minister? And were not those returns and Answers, so prescribed and set, that all the people knew their Q. and were not ignorant of their turn, when they were to speak? Several other passages of the antient Liturgies, might here and there be gathered from this Fathers writings, if one would take the pains to seek them. But I shall save that pains at present, and indeed well may. For what need search be made for pieces, when we have the whole, a whole and perfect Liturgie of this Fathers making: unless it be to shew of what antient pieces the whole work is made.

For in the Bibliothecae Paetrum in the writings of Cassander, V and in the great col­lection of this Fathers works, published by the honoured and admired Sir Henry Savil; there is an entire Liturgie, which bears his name. [...]. So it is entituled.Chrysost. opera Vol. 6. edit. Sa­vilianae. The like we find under S. Basils name, both in Cassanders writings, and the Bibliotheca. The question is, Whether they are the works of those, whose names they carry. For my part, I conceive they are, for the main and substance, though not without some abstractions and additions in the change of times: and hope that when such Arguments are answered, which are produced unto the contrary, it will appear so unto others. And first for that of Basil, it is objected by Hospinian, Veterem transla­tionem cum Graeco exemplari, & nova versione non convenire: Hospinian. [...]isi. Sacrament. l. 9. cap. 14. That the old translation agrees not either with the new, or the Greek Originals. Assuredly, a very gentle Argument, such as will do no hurt at all to any understanding Disputant; and there­fore purposely omitted, as I think by Dr. Rivet, who in his censure of those Litur­gies did consult that Author. And yet this is the only argument of moment which is made against it: which being so gentle as it is would require no answer. Or if it did, and that the difference of translations from one another, or if the old tran­slation from the Greek Original, be a sufficient argument to discharge this Liturgy; there could not very many works of the old Greek Fathers be affirmed for theirs: their old translations being so incongruous, so manifestly different from the Authors mind, as by continual observation they are found to be. The next Objection, if it may be called so, is of a gentler strain than this: it being charged also by Hospi­nian, that in the commemoration of the dead, Basilii & Chrysostomi nomen legitur, Id. ibid. the names of Basil who must alive, when he made this Liturgy, and that of Chryso­stom, who lived after him, do both occur. But there is no such matter to be found in the Original, extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum, nor the translation of the same thereunto annexed: which plainly shews the old translation (if thence the Argu­ment were taken) did differ very much from the genuine Copy. Besides, the same Objection being made against the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom, we shall there meet with it; for there indeed the same commemoration is to be found. Besides which, it is noted by Hospinian also, that in this Liturgy there is this prayer for Pope Nicolas. Ni­colai [Page 122]Sanctiffimi & universalis Papae, longa sint tempora; whereas Pope Nicolas lived not (saith he) till the year 857. which was 500 years after Chrysostoms death; and that there is a prayer for the Emperour Alexius, the first of which name began his Reign, An. 1080. and not before.Id. ibid. To which we say, that neither in the Copy extant in the Bibliotheca, nor in that published by Sir H. Savil, are either of these two last errors to be found, which shews they came not out of the Originals. Secondly, That possibly the business of Pope Nicolas may be nothing but a meer mistake: For whereas he that published that old translation, which as it seems Hospinian met with, had found San­ctissimi & universalis Papae N. (which N. we know is used indefinitely for [...] in the Greek) he out of his abundant ignorance of a Nicolas Nemo, makes Pope Nicolas. Or had it been Pope Nicolaus in the antient Copies, Hospinian, who objects the same, might with small search have found some Patriarchs of Constantinople, of that very name; and they we know did use to call themselves Universal Bishops, for 'twas the thing which Gregory the great so stomached in them. But then it will be said, that every one of those Nicolai lived after Chrysostom was dead; and that Alexius was not Emperour until 700 years after his decease. Most true, for every man of sence must needs conceive, that the names of Emperours and Patriarchs must needs be changed, as the old die, and new Successors come in place: Or else we should collect an ex­cellent Argument for the Church of Rome, in finding prayers for the deceased in S. Chrysostoms Liturgy. Might not one say as well, that certainly, the Liturgy now used and established in the Church of England, is not the same which was set forth and published in Q. Elizabeths Reign, because the name of our dread Soveraign Lord K. Charles doth occur therein; and that there is a prayer in it for Q. Mary and the Royal Issue?Id. ibid. Rivet. Critici. sacri. l. 4. c. 3. But finally, it is objected by Hospinian, and this as well as that Rivet builds on also, that Carolus Calvus in a Letter to the Ravennates, saith that the Li­turgy used in the Church of Constantinople, was that of Basil, and not Chrysostoms: Quod mirum esset si Chrysostomus ejus Ecclesiae Archiepiscopus, Liturgiam composursset; which had been strange saith Rivet, if Chrysostom, which was Archbishop of that City, had composed a Liturgy. However, by their own confession we have a Liturgy of S. basils making, and that it is somewhat worth the having; and it shall go exceeding hard but we will have another of S. Chrysostoms also. For it is noted to my hand by our Learned Brerewood, from Jeremy, a late Patriarch of Constantinople, that in the Greek Churches or Festivals they use the antient Liturgy of Basil, and on common days that of Chrysostom. Brerewoods en­quiry, cap. ult. By which it seems that carolus Calvus, or whosoever gave him that intelligence, was an Holy-day man; and took no notice of the Service of that Church upon common days.

Thus have we found two Liturgies for the Eastern Churches, VI both made within the compass of the first four hundred years from our Saviours Birth; and with the proof of this we might here sit down, and not be put to further travail; but that I think the Western Church would not take it well, if we should leave her worse pro­vided than the Eastern was. Now that there were by this time, and before, set and established Forms of prayer in the Western parts, is evident by those remainders or fragments of them, which we produced from Cyprian for the Church of Africa, from Justin and Tertullian, for the Church of Rome; both which, though born in other Countreys, yet did live there most. Which Liturgy, that I mean of Rome, as it might have its first grounds from S. Peter, whose name it carrieth; so were there many helping hands put to it, in succeeding times, to make up the work. Of which thus Platina. Platina in Xysti. l. Nuda primo haec erant & omnia simpliciter tractabantur. Petrus enim ubi conse­eraverat oratione Pater noster, usus erat. Auxit haec mysteria Jacobus Episcopus Hieroso­lymitanus; auxit Basilius, auxere & alii. Nam Celestinus missae introitum dedit, Grego­rius KYRIE-ELEISON, Gloria in excelsis Telesphorus, &c. These things, saith he, at first were but plain and naked. For Peter when he Consecrated, used the Pater noster; James Bishop of Hierusalem much increased the mysteries; the like did Basil and some others. Celestine made the Introite, Gregory added to it the Kyrie eleison, Telespho­rus the Gloria in excelsis, Xistus the first, put to it the trisagion, or, Holy, holy, holy Lord God of Hosts; Gelasius the Collations, (perhaps the Collects.) The Gospel and Epistle were brought in by Hierom, the Allelujah borrowed from Hierusalem, the Creed from the Council of Nice; the Commemoration of the dead by Pope Pelagius, the kissing of the Pax by Innocent the first; and Agnus Dei was not sung, saith he, till the time of Sergius. If so, then as not Rome it self, so neither was the Liturgy of Rome made in one day. It took up longer time than so, to come unto that bulk and greatness, in [Page 123]which now it stands. But out of doubt a Liturgy it had in the best times of it: So had the Church of Millain, those of France, Spain, England; not every where the same, nor much different from it. Facies non omnibus una, Nec diversa tamen, qualem decet esse Sororum, as once the Poet said in another case. And so it stood until the Western Empire was conferred on the Kings of France, who by their power, and the importunity of the Popes of Rome, setled the Roman or Gregorian Missal over all the West. Till those times they had several Liturgies, as before was said. That of the Church of Millain, called commonly Officium Ambrosianum, not because made by him originally, but because he reduced it to a better and more setled Form, is extant still, and used by special sufferance in the Church of Millain to this very day. So also for the antient Liturgy of the Church of Spain, which they call the Mosarabick Liturgy,Bellarm. de Missa. lib. 2. c. 18. which received great increase both for Form and Order from Isidorus Hispalensis, and therefore is most commonly ascribed to him; it is still used in Toledo by the like per­mission.Id. Ibid. By whom the Liturgy of Spain was first composed or setled, it is hard to say; that Countrey yielding but few Writers, whose works have come unto our hands; But sure a Liturgy they had, long time before the birth of Isidore, and that most punctually observed in the Cathedrals or Mother-Churches. From which, when the Parochial Churches began to vary, as it seems they did, the Council of Girona, (Concilium Gerundense the Latines call it) An. 517. recalled them to their an­tient duty; enjoyning them to hold conformity in all the acts of publick worship with the Mother-Church, the chief Cathedral of the Province; and that as well for the order of the service, the Psalmody, the Canon, as the use and custom of the ministra­tion.Concil. Gerund. Can. 1. Sicut in Metropolitana Ecclesia agitur, ita in Dei nomine, in omni Tarraconensi Pro­vincia, tum ipsius Missae ordo, quam psallendi vel ministrandi consuetudo servetur. So the Fathers ordered. By which it doth appear most fully, that antiently the Church of Spain had its proper Liturgy, a prescribed Form of ministration; and that not only fitted for the use of the Cathedrals, or Mother-Churches; but such to which the Parish Churches were to yield conformity. And for the Gallick Church, though they have now no other Liturgy than that which they received from Rome, power and practice of the Emperours of the Caroline race being most operative at home in their own dominions; yet antiently she had a Liturgy of her own, (for which see Beda's History of the Church of England, l. 1. c. 27.) as had other Churches. Concerning which it was thus ordered at the Council of Vannes, a City of Gallia Lugdunensis, Concil. Veneti­cum. Can. 15. ut intra Provinciam nostram sacrorum, & ordo (or rather ordinis) Psallendi una sit consuetudo, That in that Province there should be one Uniform course in all sacred Offices, and in the order of singing, from thenceforth observed. This was in An. 453. or thereabouts. Not that there had not been before those times a setled and established Liturgy in the Church of France, but that too many had presumed (as is since done in other places) to neglect their rules, and venture on new Forms of their own devising. Finally, for the Liturgy of the Church of England (for of the British Rites or Forms there is nothing certain) it seems to be coeval with the Church it self, whether we look upon the same as Reformed or Planted; not borrowed or derived from Rome, as both the Papist and the Non-conformist bear the world in hand, but fitted to the best edification of this people, ex singulis quibusque Ecclesiis, Beda in bist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 27. our of the Rituals and received Forms of the most flourishing Churches at that time in being, when first the Gospel was made known to the English Nation. The passage is at large in Beda, and thither I refer the Reader.

Nor was it otherwise than thus in the African Churches, VII in case we should not reckon them, as they are most commonly among the Churches of the West. For, besides what was noted from S. Cyprian in the former Chapter, we find some fragments of the antient Liturgies in S. Augustine also. Take this, although not all, as a taste for all. Quod ergo in sacramentis fidelium dicitur, ut Sursum corda habeamus ad Dominum, August. de bone perseverant. c. 13 munus est Domini; de quo munere ipsi Domino Deo nostro gratias agere, à Sacerdote post hanc vocem (illi) quibus hoc dicitur admonentur, & dignum & justum esse respondent. Wherefore (saith he) that in the Sacraments of the Faithful, it is said, That we lift up our hearts unto the Lord, is the Lords own gift; for which, all they who have affirmed so of them­selves, are after admonished by the Priest to give thanks to God, which they acknow­ledge in their answer to be meet and right. See to the same effect, Epist. 156. and in other places. Which with the rest before observed out of other Fathers, make it clear as day, with what an high injustice they proceed against this blessed Church of England, who have accused her for prescribing Responsories to be said by the people, the Minister being [Page 124](as they say) ordained by Scripture to be the peoples mouth to God. Which Responsories, I am sure,Smectymn. p. 12. I dare boldly say it, are freer of Impertinencies and Tautologies (though they charge this on them) than any of the best of their extemporary prayers, be they whose they will. And with as little justice do they use S. Austin, whose words they bring to prove that it was free for Christians to pray as their occasions did require, Vindication, p. 17. without be­ing limited to prescribed prayers. This they are brought to prove indeed, they say well in that. For they are thus brought in, in another place, viz. And to the same purpose (that there were then no such stinted Liturgies) S. Austin in his 121. Ep. Liberum est, &c. It is free to ask the same things which are in the Lords prayer, Smectymn. p. 7. aliis atque aliis verbis, some­times one way, and sometimes another. But doth this prove, think they, that in those times there were no stinted Liturgies, which is the matter to be proved? I cannot possibly believe they think so, whatsoever they say. The Father in that place, as they know full well, speaks of private prayer, and sheweth, that in addressing our desires to God, we are not bound to use the very syllables and words of the Lords prayer only. I trow, none ever said we were. Certain I am, that there is no such doctrine preached by any of the Sons of the Church of England. Besides, if there were publick Liturgies in S. Austins times, as they seem to grant, because they say, they will not peremptorily say there were not; Vindication, ibid. and we say they are peremptory enough, when there is ground for it: Then certainly, whatever might be done in private, it was not free nor lawful to ask the same thing in the publick service of the Church, aliis atque aliis verbis, in other words than were prescribed in those Liturgies. And so the testimony out of Austin is neither so full unto the purpose, as they did intend, nor hath it proved the matter it was brought to prove.Id. ibid. So far was that good Father from decrying ei­ther the benefit or use of publick Liturgies, that, as we saw before, he derives their petigree not only from the Apostles times, (ab ipsts Apostolorum temporibus as his own words are) but also from their words and warrant; and therefore was not like to countenance so bold a freedom of praying in Gods publick worship with what words we listed, or indeed any other than the prescribed Forms.

But this being only his opinion as a private man, VII it may be some will take it to be more authentick, if he delivered it in Synod, and had therein the suffrage and consent of all the Fathers there Assembled: And possible it is that it may be so. For in the body of the Canons, which as they stand in Balsamons collections are called the Canons of the Council of carthage, and so they are in that of Zonaras; but as col­lected by Justellus are called in general, the Canons of the Church of Africa; there is one runs thus entituled. De precibus quae debent fieri ad Altare. Touching the prayers to be made at the Altar.Codex. Can. Eccl. Africn. c. 103. Hoc quoque placuit ut precationes quae in Synodo confirmatae sunt, sive Praefationes, sive Commendationes, sive manus impositiones, ab omnibus peragantur, & omnino aliae adversus fidem nunquam proferantur: sed quae à sapientioribus colleciae sunt di­centur. i. e. ‘It seemeth good unto us (say the Fathers) that those prayers which have been approved of in the Synod, whether that they be Prefaces or Commenda­tions, or laying on of hands (that is, in Ordination, as I conceive, and I will tell you why anon) be performed by all; that none which be against the faith be said in publick, but only such as have been formerly composed by wise and understanding men.’ This Canon, if it were made in any time, between the year 395. and 430. it is most likely that S. Austin had a hand in the making of it, for so long he sate Bishop of the Church of Hippo. v. baron. in Annal. eccl. An. 395.430. Binius in edi­tione Concil. To. 1. For if it were decreed in the third of Carthage, which seems to have a touch of something of it, Can. 23. it must be then An. 397. as it is ranked by Baronius: if in the Council of Milevis, whither some refer it, it falls into the year 416. by the same account; at one of which S. Austin was, and at both of them might be present, for ought I know unto the contrary. But the truth is, the Canons of these African Councils are much disordered in all collections of them which I yet have seen: This Canon in the collection made by zonaras, being the 117th. in that of Bal­samon, Can. 106. in the Code published by Justellus, his 103. and amongst those ascribed to the Milevitan Council, 'tis in rank the 12th. But howsoever it be placed in this rank or that, it seems it was not made without good occasion. For as it is ob­served by Balsamon, Balsamon. notae in Concil. Carth. [...]. Some Bishops then, as since some Presbyters have done, endeavoured to introduce new Forms of their own devising. And yet it was not only the Bishops fault; some of the Priests was no less active in the Innovation,Zonaras in Concil. Cartha­gin. Can. 117. and unto them it is referred by Zonaras. [...], as he tells us there. And this not only in the ministration of the daily prayers, but [...], [Page 125]in the very act of Ordination, in which the Bishop laying hands, [...], upon the head of him that was to be ordained, used certain prayers. Fi­cally, he resolves that in all the several Acts of publick Worship, before remembred, the prayers confirmed ( [...]) not first devised in that Synod should be only used, [...],Id. ibid. and that no new ones brought into the Church by any one, whosoever he was, should be entertained. The reason of the which as 'tis touched before, so is it more expresly manifested in that of the Milevitan Council, if it were of that, Ne forte aliquid contra sidem, Concil. Milevit. Can. 12. vel per ignorantiam vel per minus studium sit compositum, lest else perhaps, either through ig­norance or want of care, something against the rule of Faith be composed and pub­lished. So then, this was no new restraint, and much less the first, whereby the li­berty of Prayer, or praying by a Form of ones own devising, was prescribed and limited, as some give it out:Smectymn. p. 7. but a Reviver only or a Confirmation of the antient Canons, by which it had been limited and prescribed before. As for the Canon of the third of Carthage, in which it seems to be permitted to the Minister, to use such Prayers in the officiating Gods divine Service, concerning which, cum fratribus instru­ctioribus contulerit, he had before conferred with the learned Brethren:Id. Ibid. when they can prove that Canon to be made in the third Council of Carthage, I shall bethink my self of an Answer to it. But sure I am, that in the third Council of Carthage, Cae­sario & Attico Coss. as it is said to be in all Collections of the Councils, were made but 24 Canons as it is in balsamon, but five and twenty as in zonaras, whereof this is none. And no less sure, that it is told me by Baronius, haud omnes in hac Synodo sanciri, that all the Canons attributed to this Council, were not made therein:Baron. Annal. Eccla An. 397. n. 46. nor is it to be found in the Collection of the Canons of the Councils of Carthage either of Zonaras or Balsamon, or in the Codex Canonum published by Justellus; and therefore in all probability made in none at all.

Next look we on the other parts of the publick Liturgies, IX (for other parts there were besides the ministration of the Sacraments, and the daily Service) and we shall find as undeniable Authorities for defence of those, as any of the former, before re­membred. Of these, I shall insist upon no more at this present time, than the Form of ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and that of solemnizing Matrimo­ny, to which we shall adjoyn their Form and Rites of Burial, and so descend at last to a conclusion. And first for that of Ordination, whereas the ancient Form there­of had been interrupted, and many of the Rulers of the Church had been too sen­sibly indulgent to their own affections in the dispensing of the same: it pleased the Fathers in the fourth Council of Carthage, not so much to ordain and constitute new Forms, and Ordinances, as revive the old. A Council of that note and emi­nance, that as the Acts thereof were approved and ratified by Pope Leo the great (if that add any thing unto them);Binius in titulo Concil. To. 1. p. 587. edit. Col. Id. Ibid. p. 591. so by the same the following Ages of the Church did use to regulate and dispose the publick Discipline. Adeo ut hoc Concilium Ecclesiae disciplinae ad pristinam consuetudinem revocatae, quasi promptuarium, semper meri­toque apud posteros habitum fuit, as saith Binius truly. Now amongst those, they which first lead the way unto all the rest, declare the Form and manner to be used in all Ordinations, whether of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; or of inferiour Officers in the Church of Christ. And first for Bishops, especial care being taken for an in­quisition into their Doctrine, Life, and Conversation:Concil. Carthag. IV. can. 1. it is decreed, that when a Bishop is to be ordained, two other Bishops are to hold the Book of the holy Gospel over his head; and whilest one of them doth pronounce the blessing, the rest there present lay their hands upon his head. Episcopus cum ordinatur, Ib. Can. 2. duo Epi­scopi panant & teneant Evangeliorum codicem super caput & cervicem (or rather ver­ticem) ejus; & uno super eum fundente benedictionem, reliqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt, manibus suis caput ejus tangant. So the canon goeth. And this is still observed in the Church of England, save that the laying of the Book on the parties head, is turned (and as I think with more significancy) into the putting of the same in­to his hand. Then for the ordering of the Priest, or Presbyter it is thus declared. Presbyter cum ordinatur, Episcopo eum benedicente, & manum super caput ejus tenente, Ib. Can. 3. etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant. When a Presbyter is to be ordained, the Bishop giving the benedicti­on, (or saying the words of Consecration) and holding his hand upon his head, all other Presbyters then present are to lay their hands upon his head, near the hand of the Bishop. And this is also used and required in the Church of England, save [Page 126]that more near unto the Rule and prescript of Antiquity, three Presbyters at least are to be assistant in laying hands upon the party to be ordained. And last of all for that of Deacons it was thus provided, solus Episcopus qui eum benedicit, manum super caput illius ponat, Ibid. Can. 4. that the Bishop only who ordains, should lay his hand up­on his head. The reason of the which is this, quia non ad Sacerdotium, sed ad mini­sterium consecratur, because he is not consecrated to the Office of Priesthood, but to an inferiour ministry in the house of God. Nor is the Deacon otherwise ordained than thus, in the Church of England. Here are the Rites, the visible and external signs: but where I pray you are the Forms, the prescribed words and prayers which are now in use? I answer, that they are included in those two phrases, benedicere, and fundere benedictionem, to bless, to give the benediction, or pronounce the blessing. For as a Writer of our own very well observes, Benedicere hic nibil aliud est quam verba proferre, Mason de Mi­nist. Angl. l. 2. cap. 17. per quae horum Ordinum potestas traditur: To bless, saith he, or give the benediction, is nothing more nor less, than to say those words by which the power of Order is conferred on every or either of the parties which receive the same. And that the Form of words then used, was prescribed and set, not left unto the liberty of every Prelate, to use what Form of words he pleased, so he kept the sense, we saw before in that of Zonaras: where he affirmed, that the Canon for­merly remembred about the using prescribed Forms in the Church of God, did reach to Ordination also: [...]. In Ordinations, Zonaras in Concil. Carth. Can. 117. saith the Scho­liast, the Bishop or Chief Priest laying his hands on him that came to be ordained, was to recite the usual and accustomed Prayers. Statas preces exequi solitus est, as the Translator of the Scholiast. And this may be observed withal, that though this Council be of good antiquity, as being held An. 398. yet almost all the Acts there­of, and those especially amongst the rest, were rather declaratory of the antient Cu­stoms of the Church of CHRIST, Baron. Annal. Eccl. An. 398. than introductory of new: as both Baronius and Binius do affirm and justifie.

That which remains, X concerns the Form of Marriage, and Rites of Burial; to which a little shall be added of those pious Gestures used by them in the Act of publick Worship: and that being done, I shall conclude. And first for Marriage, there is no question to be made, but that from the beginning of Christianity it hath been cele­brated by the Priest or Minister, with publick Prayers and Benedictions, and most times with the celebration of the blessed Eucharist; whereof thus Tertullian. Ʋnde sufficiam ad felicitatem ejus matrimonii enarrandam, Tertullian ad uxorem. l. 2. quod Ecclesia conciliat, & confirmat oblatio, & obsignatum Angeli enunciant, Pater ratum habet? How can I be suffici­ent, saith this antient Writer, to declare the happiness of that Marriage, which the Church celebrates, the Sacrament confirmeth, which being solemnized is proclaimed by the Angels, and ratified by our heavenly father? To add S. Ambrose to Tertul­lian, a latter to a former Author, may be thought impertinent, yet being a Father of the Church, and one against whom no exception lieth, take him with you also; and you shall find in him,Ambros. Epist. 70. ad Vigi­lium. Conjugium sacerdotali benedictione sanctificari oportere, that Marriage was to be sanctified with the Priests blessing. The Ring in Marriage is as antient as Tertullian also, who mentioneth it in his Apologetick, cap. 6. and it is given saith Isidore by the Bridegroom to his Spouse or Wife, Vel propter mutuae fidei signum, Isidor. Hisp. de officiis. l. 2. c. 59. vel ut eodem pignore eorum corda jungantur; either to testifie their mutual faith, or rather for a pledg of that Conjunction, which is agreed upon between them, both in heart and mind. The reason it is put on the fourth Finger was ob­served before; which lest it should be thought to be meerly gentile, you shall also have it from a Christian Author,Id. ibid. Quod in eo vena quaedam sanguinis ad cor usque perveniat; because there goeth a vein from thence to the very heart. That the Brides antiently went to Church in white Apparel, appeareth in the same Author also; though it was mixt with Purple then, which is now disused: and that they were conducted to the Church by Paranymphs or Bridemen, as we call them now, is no less evident, but from an antienter Record. Where it is said, Sponsus & Sponsa cum benedicendi sunt à Sa­cerdote, à parentibus suis vel Paranymphis offerantur: Concil. Carthag. IV. Can. 13. That both the Bridegroom and the Bride, must be conducted to the Church to receive the benediction of the Priest, either by their Parents or their Bridefolks. Finally, to the making of a Marriage in those early days,Isidor. Hispal. de divin. ffici­is. l. 2. c. 19. they had their Tabulas dotales, their Writings and Instruments of Dowry; by which the married couple became possessed of each others goods; from whence it comes that in the Liturgy of the Church of England, the Man doth [Page 127]actually endow his Wife with all his worldly goods, and that in facie Ecclesiae even in the sight and hearing of the Congregation. Next for their Form or Rites of Burial, not to speak any thing of those preparatory actions which were done within doors, in the embalming of the Body, and making it ready for the Sepulture: the Corps was brought unto the Grave with Psalms, and spiritual Hymns; and being had into the Church, the Priests and people said the accustomed Prayers, such as were destinate to that business. This we shall clearly see by those Funeral Rites with which the body of Macrina, the Sister of Gregory Nyssen, was brought unto her burial, as himself describes it.Gregor. Nyssen. de vita S. Ma­crinae. The Bier, saith he, being carried by Men of eminency in the Clergy, was on both sides attended by no small number of Deacons and other Eccle­siastical Officers, [...], each with a Taper in his hand. And this was not without some mysters; [...], the Psalmody continued most melodiously from the beginning to the end, in consort, not unlike the so much celebrated Song of the three Children: The space betwixt the house from whence we came, and the burial-place, being seven or eight furlongs; so that by reason of the throng which hindred us from hasting forward, we spent all the day. [...], &c. Being come within the Church, we set down the Bier, and first betook our selves to Prayer ( [...]) which moved much sorrow in the people; then unto Psalms again, which were much inter­rupted by the cryes and lamentations of the Virgins, which were then in place. But we requiring them by signs, to keep silence, [...], and the Deacon preparing unto Prayer, and crying to the people in the accustomed words, they put themselves into a posture of Prayer, though with much ado. Prayers being done, the Body was committed to the Grave; and all the company departed to their several houses. A short collation being prepared at an house near hand for the principal Mourners: to which were sometimes added the poor and needy, the Widow and the fatherless Child, pupillos & viduas saturantes, as it is in Origen. Origen. lib. 3. in Job. More of these Rites who list to see, let him consult for the first part hereof, the Psalmody, Nazianzen. orat. in laudem Caesarii, Hierom in vita S. Pauli, and his Epistle ad Eustochium de Paulae obi­tu; s. Chrysostom, Homil. 70. ad populum Antiochen. Augustin. Confessionum l. 6. c. 12. And for the latter part, the Prayers accustomably used in those Solemnities, see Cy­prian, Epist. l. 1. Ep. 9. austin Confession. l. 6. c. 12. Paulinum in vita S. Ambrosii, Cy­rillum Hierosol. Catech. mystag. 5. Euseb. de vita Constant. l. 4. c. 71. and others. Finally for the Funeral Sermon, although condemned of late, in some of the Reform­ed Churches, there is no Man so much a stranger to antiquity, none who hath ever looked into the works of the fathers, Basil or Ambrose, Nazianzen or Nyssen, and indeed whose not; who finds them not to be exceeding frequent in those pious times. For by that means the Dead were honoured in the commemoration of their faith and piety; and those who were alive received both comfort and instruction, in being perswaded to the imitation of their very Examples. Sic & defunctis praemi­um, & futuris dabatur exemplum, as Minutius hath it.

Next for the Rites and Gestures which were in use, XI (even in the best and purest times of the Christian Church) at the performance of all Acts of publick Worship; I find some proper to the Priest, some common both to Priest and People. That which was proper to the Priests, to such as did attend at the holy Altar, was, that they did attire themselves in a distinct Habit, at the time of the ministration; not only from the rest of the common people, but even from that which themselves used to wear at other times, though both grave and decent. The colour white, and the significancy thereof to denote that Holiness, wherewith the Ministers of God ought to be apparelled: and seems to have been much of the same condition both for use and meaning, with the Surplice still retained in the Church of England. This we find clearly evidenced in the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens, as may be seen in the sixth Chapter of this book, num. V. and there the Reader may observe it. Besides which, being as I take it, of unquestioned credit, to the point in hand; S. Hierom tells us in the general, that in the act of Ministration, they used a different Habit, from what they ware at ordinary days and times. Religio divina alterum ha­bitum habet in ministerio, alterum in usu vitaq, communi; Hieronym. in Ezekitl. c. 44. which is sufficient for the general, that it was so anciently. And what this different Habit was, he tells us more particularly in his reply against Pelagius who it seems disliked it: and asks him what offence it could be to God, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, or those of any [Page 128]other inferiour Order,Id. adv. Pelag. lib. 1. in administratione sacrificiorum candida veste processerint, did in the ministration of the Sacraments bestir themselves in a white Vesture. Nor was this white Vesture taken up in the West parts only, which some observe to have been more inclinable to superstition than the Eastern were: it was received and used in the East parts too, as appears by Chrysostom. Who shewing the Priests of Antioch, of which Church he was, unto how high a Calling the Lord had called them, and how great power they had to repell unworthy Men from the Lords Table; adds, that they were to reckon that for their Crown and glory; and not that they were priviledged to go about the Church in a white garment.Chrysostom. Hom. 83. in Matth. [...], as he pleads it there. So antient is the use of white Vestments, during the time of ministration in the Church of Christ: and from those elder days it came down to ours, being received long since in the Church of England. For in the Constituti­ons made for the Province of Canterbury by Archb. Walter, it was decreed, with a praecipimus ut qui Altari ministrat suppelliceo induatur, Linwood, Pro­vincial de of­ficio Archidia­coni. that he who ministred at the Altar should be attired in his Surplice. And in the reformation of this Church, both in the times of King Edward the VI. and Qu. Elizabeth of blessed memory: when as the Church was freed from those massing garments which superstition in the declining times of piety had introduced into the same: the Surplice was thought fit to be still retained by reason of its antient and unspotted pedigree from the Primitive times. I know it hath been said by some, that the first use hereof was heathenish, and that it was first borrowed from the Priests of Egypt: and I know well the Priests of Egypt, were at their publick Sacrifices, arrayed in white. S. Hie­rom so informs me,Hierom. in Eze­kiel. c. 44. Pliny, Natural. hist. lib. 19. saying, Vestibus lineis uti Aegyptios sacerdotes: and so doth Pliny also in his Natural History, who tells us, Vestes lineus sacerdotibus Aegyptiis gratissimas esse. And I could add, that so it was in many of the Pomps and Sacrifices of the Romans also, of which, thus Virgil in the Aeneids.

— Puraque in Veste Sacerdos
Setigerae foetum suis, intonsam (que) bidentem
Attulit —

Upon which words it is observed by Servius, param vestem dici, qua festis diebus uti consueverant sacrificaturi; Servius in Virg. Aeneid. l. 12. that on the Festivals, the Priests who were to sacrifice were cloathed in pure and unspotted Vestures. But this seems better, as I take it, to shew the general use hereof amongst all Nations whatsoever, that either worship­ped the true God, or adored the false: than to be used as an argument to disgrace the Habit. For they which have been pleased to object that such a garment as the Sur­plice, had antiently been worn by the Priests of Isis, in their idolatrous and wretched sacrifices: might have observed as well, that before that time it had been imposed by the best Kings of Judah on the Priests and Levites, when they sung praises unto God,Vid. chap. 3. as was shewn before: And if they should object from thence that it is Jewish at the best, and so not fit to be continued in a Christian Church: they may remem­ber if they please, that though it was a garment of the Priests and Levites, yet was it none of those that were appointed or imposed for the legal Sacrifices, but only was for the moral Service of Almighty God. This makes it evident, that as the white garment of the Priest or Levite was used in the moral service of God, before it had been taken up by the Priests of Egypt; so was it also used in the Primitive Church, be­fore it came to be abused by the Church of Rome.

Next for those Rites which were alike common both to Priest and people, XII they did consist especially in those various Gestures which anciently were used amongst them, according to the several parts of Gods publick Worship. Sometimes they sate, and that was commonly as it seems during the reading of the Lessons, or whilest the Minister was in his Exhortation, or at the singing of the Psalms: And this I do collect out of Justin Martyr, who shewing that the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles were read unto the people in the Congregation; and that being done, the President or Bishop went unto the Sermon; then adds, [...], they all rose up together,Justin. Martyr. Apol. 2. and betook themselves unto their prayers. And in the place of Basil before remembred, the Monks are said to rise up from their prayers, [...], and to proceed unto the Psalms. Which, as it shews that there were several gestures in the Act of Worship; so I con­ceive [Page 129]that sitting was the gesture which was used during the Lessons, Psalms, and Ser­mon: At other times they used to stand, as at the Creed, the Gloria Patri, and at the reading of the Gospel. Their standing at the Creed was antiently used to shew their readiness in standing for the Faith, and the profession of the same before persecuting Judges, never imposed by any Canon or decree of Council, for ought I can find, but taken up on the Authority of antient practice, and afterwards much strengthned by a decree for standing up at the holy Gospels, of which the Creed was but the summary or Abstract. It was not long before the same gesture had been taken up (for I find not that it was imposed by publique Sanction) at the reading also of the Creed, as being the sum and substance of the holy Gospels. Et cum Symbolum est verbum Evan­gelicum quoad sensum ergo illud stando sicut Evangelium dicitur. Durand ratio­nale divin. Of standing at the Gloria Patri, we shall speak more at large in the following Section. And as for the standing at the Gospel, it was decreed, if not before, by Pope Anastasius, by whom it was or­dained,Platina in vita Anastasii. l. saith Platina, Ne Sacerdotes ullo modo sederent, sed curvi & venerabundi starent, cum evangelium caneretur aut legeretur in Ecclesia. But by his leave the Decretal, from which this must be taken, goes a great deal further, and doth not only reach the Priests, but caeteros omnes praesEntes, all who were present in the Church.Anastas. Ep. ap. Binium. in To. 2. Concil. And doubt­less 'twas in use before, though but now enjoyned; Sozomen blaming it in the Alexan­drians, (and he lived long before the time of Anastasius) that at the reading of the Gospels, [...], the Bishop stood not up as in other places.Sozomen. hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 19. Yet you must understand it so, that they used not to stand upright, sed curvi & venerabundi, saith the letter decretal, but with the bowing of the body, as in the way of adoration; and more than so too, if the name of Jesus did occur in the reading of it, they used with all reverence and duty to bow the knee; which in those parts and times was the greatest sign both of humility and subjection. Of this we need no other witness than the great S. Ambrose, whose speaking in his Hexaemeron, Ambros. in o­pera Hexaem. l. 6. c. 9. touching the particular office of each several member; he makes the bowing of the knee at the name of Jesus the proper duty of that part. Kneeling they used both in the act of Prayer and Invocation, as also in the participation or receiving of the blessed Sacrament. First, in the act of Prayer or Invocation, for when Tertullian blamed it in the Gentiles, that they did assidere sub aspectu contraque aspectum ejus, Tertullian. de Orat. cap. 12. Origen. in Nu­mer. Homil. 5. sit down irreverently before their Gods, as soon as they had done their Prayers: And when as Origen asks the reason, quod genua flectimus orantes, why we should kneel upon our knees in the time of Prayer; both of them put it out of question, that in the act of Prayer or Invocation, the Chri­stians of those early times were upon their knees. Next for the reverence which they used in the time of Participation, the least that can be said of them is, that they re­ceived the Sacrament upon their knees. What else can be the meaning of that of Ambrose, where he informeth us of the Christians of his time, that they did carnem Christi in mysteriis adorare, adore the flesh of Christ in the holy mysteries;Ambros. de Sp. S. lib. 3. c. 12. Chrysost. Homil. 3. in Ephes. or that of Chrysostom, [...]. When thou seesT all things ready at the great Kings Table, the Angels ministring at the same, the King in presence, and thou thy self provided of a Wedding garment, cast thy self down upon thy knees at least, and so Communicate. And what else think you caused the Gentiles to accuse the Christians living in S. Austins time, for worshipping Ceres and Bacchus, two good Belly-gods;August. contra. Faustum. Man. l. 20. c. 13. but that they were observed to kneel when they received the Bread and Wine in the blessed Eucharist? And all this done with hands stretched out, and heads uncovered, manibus expansis, Tertullian. Apologet. c. 30. Basil. Ep. 63. capite nudo, as Tertullian hath it; and as S. Basil doth observe of Gregory Nazianzen, [...], that he used not to be covered in the time of prayer. Add, that they turned towards the East in the act of worship, whereof consult with Justin Martyr, in his Book of Questions and Answers ad Orthodopes, Qu. 118. Tertullian in his Apologetick, chap. 16. Origen in his 5. Homily on the Book of Numbers; not to say any thing of those who came after them: And then we have a perfect view of the most usual and material orders, used by the Primitive Christians in Gods publique service.

Before I do conclude this Age, I shall subjoyn some few notes on the Gloria Patri, retained on so good grounds in this Church of England, so oft repeated in the divine service of the same; so solemnly and reverently pronounced by those who either un­derstand their own Christian duties, or the intentions of the antient holy Catholick Church. And those remembrances I shall reduce unto these three heads. First, I shall shew the Antiquity and Original of it: Secondly, when, and by what Authority it became a part of the publick Liturgies: And thirdly, in what posture Gods [Page 130]people used to put themselves, as often as there was occasion to pronounce the same.

Concerning the Antiquity of the Gloria Patri, I I know it is referred by some to the Council of Nice, or the times immediately succeeding; and that it is by them con­ceived to have been framed of purpose for a Counterpoise to the Arian Heresie, and to train up the people in the right perswasion of the holy Trinity. And were it so, it need not be ashamed of its Original, or look into the world for a better petigree; the space of 1300 years and more, being abundantly sufficient to procure it credit, and set it far enough above the reach of contentious men. But yet S. Basil who lived near that Council,Basil. de Sp. S. c. 27. Id. ibid. c. 29. goes a great deal higher, and fetcheth the Original of it [...], from the tradition of the Apostles; and cites some of the antient Fa­thers, and amongst them S. Clemens, the Apostles Scholar, and Dionysius of Alexandria, who died long time before this Council, and in whose writings this doxology was ex­presly found. For the Apostles being commanded by their Lord and Saviour to teach and Baptize all people in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, there is no question to be made, but that in due conformity to their Masters pleasure they did accordingly proceed; and for a preparatory thereunto required of such as were to be added to the Church, a solemn profession of that Faith, into which they were to be Baptized. And this Confession of the Faith he calls [...], the Original and mother as it were of that Doxologie, then and of long time used in the Church of Christ.Id. ibid. c. 27. And then it followeth in these words, [...]. i. e. That as they had received, so they did Baptize, and as they did Baptize, so they did believe,Id. ibid. Ep. 78. and as they did believe, so they also glorified. But they Baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and they believed in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost; and therefore also had some Form of ascribing Glory to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; which was the Form remaining on record in those antient Fathers, whose names there occur. And this he further proves by an antient ceremony used of old at Candle tinding, which he ascribeth also [...], to the tradition of the Fathers; but by which of them devised or first introduced, that he could not tell. Onely he noteth, that at the first bringing in of the Evening lights, the people were accustomed to say these words, [...]. We glorifie or praise the Father and the Son, Id. de Sp. S. cap. 29. and the Holy Spirit of God; (just as we used to say in these Western parts upon the very same occasion, God send us the light of Heaven.) Which as the Father calleth, [...], an antient Ceremony, an old Form of words; so doth he tell us therewithal, [...], that the observation of the same was not imputed unto any (as the other is) either for superstition or impiety.In Nicephor. hist. Eccl. l. 18. c. 51. edit. gr. lat. The Scholiast or Nicephorus (whosoever he was) doth observe this custom, and gives us the whole Form at large of this [...]. whither I refer you; this being only by the way.

'Tis true, the following words, Sicut erat in principio, &c. which make up the whole frame of this Doxologie (as it is now used in the Church) came not in till after­wards, upon occasion of the spreading of the Arian Heresie, by which it was most im­piously maintained and taught, erat quando non erat, that there was once a time when the Son was not, and so not coeternal with his heavenly Father. And though I can­not say with the Learned Cardinal, that this addition was put to it in the Council of Nice, Baron. Annal. Eccl. An. 325. because I find it not in the Acts of that Council, or otherwise than by him ascribed unto it; yet certainly it was adjoyned unto it much about that time, and questionless on that occasion. And so much is affirmed in the Council of Vaisons in France, Concil. Vasens. c. 5. Concilium Vasense & Vassionense the Latines call it: Where it is said, Propter haereticorum asTutiam qua Dei filium non emper cum Patre fuisse, sed à tempore coepisse blas­phemant, in omnibus clausulis post Gloria Patri, & filio & filio & spiritui sancto, dicitur, sicut erat in principio, & nunc est, & in secula seculorum. Which points both to a former usage in some other Churches where this addition was received (whereof more anon) and to the crafty malice of the Arian Hereticks, for a most soveraign Antidote to whose poysons it was first devised. A further proof of which I shall shew you pre­sently.

Such being the Antiquity and use of this Doxologie, II we will next see when, and by what Authority it first became a part of the publick Liturgies. I know Nicephorus ascribes it unto Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch, An. 380. or thereabouts; who as he saith, [...], by the advise and help of Chrysostom (being [Page 131]then a Minister in that Church) did first ordain it.Niceph. Eccles. Hist. l. 18. cap. 51. But certainly it was of longer standing in the Church than so. For it is said by Sozomen, that when Leontius the Arian was Bishop of that See, which was in the year 350. some five and twenty years, no more, after the Council of Nice, the people being divided in opinions about the Deity of our Saviour, did so use the matter, that when they met to glorifie the name of God in the Congregation,Sozom. Eccles. hist. l. 3. c. 20. and sung the holy Anthems Quire-wise ( [...] in the Authors words) as the custom was, [...], they manifested their dissent from one another in the conclusion of those Hymns or Anthems; the Orthodox Professors using the whole Form as it was prescribed by the Church, and saying, Glory be to the Father and to the Son, Theodoret. hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 24. and to the Holy Ghost, As it was in the beginning, &c. The Hereticks pronouncing it with this alteration, Glory be to the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Ghost, &c. to make it service­able to their sense. And for Leontius himself who was most observed, he did so mutter the whole Doxologie between his teeth, [...], and passed it over with such silence as the Author hath it, that the most diligent stander by could hear no more from him but [...], world without end, Amen.Id. ibid. This makes it evident, that as this Form of giving glory to each person of the blessed Tri­nity, was the [...], the badge or cognizance by which the Orthodox Pro­fessors were distinguished from the Arian Hereticks; and therefore called most pro­perly by renowned S. Basil, [...],Basil. Ep. 78. the evidence or demonstra­tion of a sound belief; so presently upon the first compleating of it, it came by ge­neral consent to have a proper place in the publick Liturgies, and was accustomably repeated in the Eastern Churches at the conclusion of such Hymns or Anthems, as were composed and sung to the honour of God. Which also is affirmed in these words of Cassian, an antient Writer,Cassian. l. 2. cap. 8. viz. Hac glorificatione Trinitatis per omnem Orientem solere Antiphonam terminari, that throughout the East, the Anthems were concluded with that Doxologie, that Form of giving glory to the blessed Trinity.

Now as the Eastern Churches used to add this formula to the conclusion of such Hymns or Anthems, as they composed for Gods service in the Congregation; so was it added in the Churches of these Western parts, at the close of each of Davids Psalms, which made up a great part of the publick Liturgies, by the perswasion of S. Hierom. Who living in the Eastern parts for a certain time, and noting with what fruit and be­nefit the Doxologie was added there at the end of the Hymns, addressed his Letters to Pope Damasus (who entred on the See of Rome, An. 367.) advising or desiring, call it which you will, ut in fine cujuslibet Psalmi, that at the end of every Psalm, he would cause this Doxologie to be added, viz. Gloria Patri, &c. Sicut erat in principio, &c.Ext. in Conci­lior. Tom. 10. inter Epistolas & Decr. Da­masi. To the intent that the profession of the faith set forth by the 318. Bishops in the Council of Nice, in vestro ore pari consortio declaretur, should be avowed and published with a like consent in all the Churches of his Patriarchate. I know indeed some Learned men are of opinion that this Epistle is not Hieroms; and perhaps it is not. But whether it be his or not (which I will not stand on) most sure it is that Damasus did the thing which that Letter speaks of in the Churches of his jurisdiction. Of which thus Platina in his life: Instituit quoque ut Psalmi alternis vicibus in ecclesia canerentur, Platina in vi­ta Damasi. utque in fine corum haee verba ponerentur, Gloria Patri & filio, &c. Damasus (saith he) ordained that the Psalms should be sung Quire-wise (or by each side of the Quire in turns) and that at the end of every Psalm they should add these words, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, &c. Which being thus ordained in the Churches of the Roman Patriarchate, be­came forthwith admitted also into other Churches of the West, as appears plainly by that Canon of the Council of Vaisons, which you had before; which I choose rather to refer with the Collector of the Councils to the time of Theodosius the 2d. who lived af­ter Damasus, than with Baronius to the year 337. when no such Form to which that Canon doth relate, had gotten any footing in the Western Liturgies. Now the said Canon taking notice of a former usage of some other Churches, where this Doxologie was added at the end of the Psalms, ordains the like to be observed in the Churches of France, quod & nos in universis Ecclesiis nostris dicendum esse decrevimus, Concil. Valens. Can. 5. as their words there are. And to this purpose, besides that of Cassian (which we shall presently produce for another point) we may add these words of Pope Vigilius (he began his Popedom, An. 535.) who in his Epistle unto Eleutherius gives us this short note, In fine Psalmorum ab omnibus Catholicis ex more dici, Gloria Patri, & filio, &c. That is to say,Ep. Vigilii. in Concil. Tom. 2. that Gloria Patri, was subjoyned at the end of the Psalms, according to the antient custom, by all Catholick persons.

As for the gesture which was used both by Priest and People at the repeating of this Doxologie, III it was the same with that which is still retained. They said it standing on their feet. And this appears expresly by the words of Cassian, who telleth us, that in the Province of Gaul Narbonnoyse, where he then lived, it was the custom of the Church,Cassian. lib. 2. cap. 8. in clausula psalmi omnes astantes concinere cum clamore, Gloria Patri, &c. That at the close of every Psalm, the whole Congregation standing up, did sing together with a loud voice, Glory be to the Father, &c. Contrary to the custom of the Eastern Churches. In which it is to be observed, that the singularity noted by that Author to have been used in those Countreys at the pronouncing of the Gloria Patri, was not, in that the Congregation stood upon their feet at the repeating of the same, which was most like to be the custom of the East Churches also; but that it was subjoyned in Gaul Nar­bonnoyse, (as in all Churches of the West) at the end of the Psalms, whereas it was used only in the East at the end of the Anthems, as before was shewn you from this Author. Now Cassian was S. Chrysostoms Scholar, if not his Convert, and lived about the year 430. before the Church was overgrown with needless Ceremonies, or that the native piety of the true Religion was overshadowed by the superstitions of the Church of Rome. 'Tis true, we find not any Canon which enjoyned this gesture, but that it was first taken up by the voluntary usage and consent of Christian people, who might conceive that gesture to be fittest for it, in regard that it contained not only a bare Form of giving glory to the Lord, but also a profession of the Christian Faith in the great mystery of the holy undivided Trinity, and therefore fit to be pronounced in that very posture, in which from all Antiquity they rehearsed their Creed. And be­ing so taken up, as before was said, it hath been still retained in the general practice of the Church to this very day, not by any Canon of the Church, or decree of Pope, or other Ecclesiastical Constitution; but ex vi Catholicae consuetudinis, by force of a con­tinual Catholick custom which in such points as these hath the power of Law. For though in Articles of the Faith, which are the credenda of the Church, we may say with Hierom, Hieron. advers. Jovinian. Non credimus quia non legimus, We are not bound to submit our belief un­to them, but as they are expressed in the Word of God, or else deduced from the same by plain and evident illation; yet in the outward Forms of Worship, which are the Agenda of the Church, we must say with the good Fathers of the Nicene Council, [...],Concil. Nicen. Can. Let antient customs be observed and prevail amongst us. And this is that for which S. Basil pleadeth so heartily in the very case of this Doxologie. Where first he lays it for a ground, [...], &c. That if we take away all unwritten usages from the Church of God, as being of no efficacy in his publick service, we shall do great detriment to the Gospel, [...]. and in conclusion make the preaching of the Word but a powerless name.Basil. de Sp. S. c. 27. Of which kind, he accounts and nameth the signing of the true Believers with the sign of the Cross, [...], their turning towards the East when they said their prayers, the Form of Consecrating the Bread and Wine in the blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the hallowing of the Water for the Sacra­ment of Baptism, the trina immersio used of old, [...], and the renouncing of the Devil and his Angels, still in use amongst us. And of this kind was that particular gesture which is now in question, not recom­mended to our observation by any particular Law or Canon; but only by successional tradition, and the continual practice of the Christian Church, which is Authority sufficient for a greater matter.

And in this track the Church of England went at her Reformation, when she or­dained according to the antient Canons, that at the end of every Psalm throughout the year, and likewise at the end of Benedictus, Benedicite, Magnificat, and Nunc di­mittis, shall be repeated,Rubrick before Te Deum. Glory be to the Father, &c. As it was in the beginning, &c. But for the gesture to be used, referred it to the antient practice of the Church of Christ, as formerly the Church had done in the self same case. Which practice hath been con­stantly preserved since the Reformation, in all the Cathedrals of this Kingdom, in the Chappels Royal, and in some Parish Churches also; to which, and to the usage of the primitive times it is more just and reasonable that all particular persons should conform themselves, than that the antient and unblamable usages of the Church of God should be changed and varied according to the wild affections of particular men. The Church is now as much in danger to be infected and destroyed by the Socinian Blasphe­mies, as ever heretofore by the Arian Heresies; and therefore this Doxologie as necessary in these present times, and to be said with as great reverence and solemnity by all good [Page 133]Christian people, as in those before. We cannot better make profession of our faith in the holy Trinity, than by this Form, and in the constant uniformity of that an­tient Gesture, which hath been recommended to us from the purest Ages, and the most glorious lights of the Christian World.

CHAP. VIII. Touching the Dedication of Churches, and the Anniversary Feasts thereby occasioned.

  • 1. Dedication of Religious places used an­tiently by all Nations, and the Reasons why.
  • 2. A Repetition of some things that were said before, with reference and application to the point in hand.
  • 3. The Tabernacle consecrated by Gods own appointment; and the consequents of it.
  • 4. Antiquity of the like Dedications amongst the Romans, and by whom performed.
  • 5. The Form, and Ceremonies used in those Dedications by the Antient Romans.
  • 6. The Antiquity and constant usage of such Dedications in the Church of Christ.
  • 7. Titulus and Encoenia what they signifie in the Ecclesiastical notion.
  • 8. The great Solemnities and Feasts used by the Jews and Gentiles, in the Dedica­tion of their Temples.
  • 9. As also by the Primitive Christians.
  • 10. Dedication Feasts made Anniversary by the Roman Gentiles.
  • 11. And by the Christians in the times of their greatest purity.
  • 12. Continued till our times in the Church of England.
  • 13. The Conclusion of the whole, and the Authors submission of it to the Supreme Powers.

HAving thus found out Liturgies and set Forms of Worship in the best and purest times of the Christian Church, I together with certain places and appointed times for the performance of those Offices of Religious Worship in the said Litur­gies prescribed: It remains now that we speak somewhat as by way of Corollary, touching the Dedication of those places, in which those Acts and Offices of Reli­gious Worship were to be performed: it being consonant to Reason, that holy Acti­ons should be celebrated in an holy place, and places are not otherwise hallowed, than by the Dedication of them unto holy Use. For howsoever in themselves they be but ordinary Houses, made of Lime and Stone, and may be put to any use which the Founder pleaseth; yet being once consecrated by the Word and prayer, they become forthwith Holy Ground, and carry with them such an awful reverence in Religious minds, as is not given to other houses, houses to eat and drink in, as the Scripture calleth them. And so we are to understand that of Thomas Aquinas, who in the stating of this Question, hath resolved it thus: Quod Ecclesia & Altare, & alia hu­jusmodi inanimata consecrantur, non quia sunt gratiae susceptiva, Thom. 3. par. qu. 83. Artic. 3. sed quia ex consecratione adipiscuntur quandam spiritalem virtutem, per quam apta redduntur divino cultui: Churches, saith he, Altars, and things inanimate are not therefore consecrated, be­cause they are susceptible of any divine Grace conferred upon them; but because they do obtain thereby some spiritual fitness, which before they had not, and which doth render them more proper for Religious Offices. Besides which influence which they gain by these Consecrations on the minds of such who piously refort unto them, they are thereby exempted also from the power of those by whom they were first built or founded, who otherwise might challenge a propriety in them. That which the ground and charge of building made the house of Man, is made by Con­secration the House of God; and being once dedicated to his holy Service, the pro­perty thereof is vested in him, and in him alone. The Founder cannot take it back, or reserve any part of it for his own private use or pleasure, without sin and sacriledg. Such was that of Ananias, Acts 5.2. who when he sold his House kept back part of the money; as if he would divide the sum betwixt God and himself. The Gentiles by the light of Nature had discerned thus much, and therefore in the Consecration of their Temples they did use these words, Se ex profano usu & humano jure, Tem­plum, [Page 134]cellam, Alex. ab Alex. Gen. Dier. l. 6. c. 14. mensas, arulas, quae (que) eo pertinent eximere: That is to say, That they exempt from the right of Men, and all profane and common usage, the Temple, Table, Vaults and Altars, and all things which pertained unto them, appropriating them unto the service of that God, to whom the Fabrick was intended in the De­dication. A matter of such general use, that it was commonly observed both by the Patriarchs before the Law, by the Jews under the Law, by the Gentiles without the Law, and finally by the Christians, (being a body made up both of Jews and Gentiles) in the times of the Gospel. In looking over whose proceedings touching this particular, and thereby justifying the right use of those Dedications, we will first search into the Antiquity, Universality, and first Authors of them, next into the great Solemnities and magnificent Feasts, accustomably observed in them; and finally on the Annual Revolution of those solemn Feasts, appointed by all sorts of Men in memorial of them.

And first for laying down the Antiquity and first Authors of them, II it is necessary that we look back on something which was said before, touching the practice of the Patriarchs, and some of the godly Princes of the House of Jacob. And first, whereas the Scripture telleth us of Abraham, that he planted a Grove in Beersheba, and called there on the Name of the Lord, Gen. 21.33. the everlasting God: The meaning of which place is by Expositors left uncertain, as before we noted; yet the succeding practice both of Jews and Gentiles, in consecrating Groves for superstitious and Idolatrous Uses, (mention whereof is very frequent in the Scriptures) makes it plain and evident that they concdeived this planting of a Grove by Abraham, was but the consecrating of it to the service of God, for invocating on the Name of the Lord Jehovah. Greater Antiquity than this, as we need not seek; so a more holy Author of those Dedi­cations we can hardly find. And yet the practice and Authority of Jacob is not much short of it, either in point of reputation or respect of time; of whom it is recorded, that he took the Stone which he had put for his Pillow, Gen. 28.17. and set it up for a Pillar, and poured Oyl on the top of it, and then, and not till then that it was thus consecrated, he called the name of the place BETHEL, which by interpretation is the House of God. Look what effect this Act of Jacob did produce, and we shall find first, that God took unto himself the name of the God of Bethel, as a place dedicated for his Worship, Gen. 31. v. 13. And secondly, that in reference to this Consecration, it was thought the fittest place for Jacob, even by God himself, to offer sacrifice to the Lord, and to pay his vows, Gen. 35.16. Nor can I doubt but that when Jeroboam the Son of Nebat, made choice of Bethel, 1 Kings 12.9. to be the seat for one of his Golden Calves, he had respect unto the consecration of this place by the Patriarch Jacob; there being otherwise many places in his new gotten Kingdom of more convenience for his Subjects, and less obnoxi­ous to the Power of the Kings of Judah, than this Bethel was. The Act of Jacob in consecrating the Stone at Bethel, gave the same hint to Jeroboam to profane the place by setting up his Golden Calves; as Abrahams Grove, gave to the Idolatrous Jews and Gentiles for polluting the like places with as impure abominations. And probable enough it is that by these Acts of Abraham and Jacob, the Macchabees pro­ceeded to the Dedication of the Altar, when profaned by Antiochus; though they made use only of their own Authority in honouring that work and the celebra­tion of it with an Annual Feast, of which see Macc. 1. Chap. 4. v. 59, &c. Which Feast being countenanced by our Saviour, as is elsewhere said, gave the first ground unto the Anniversary Feasts of Dedication used in the best and happiest times of Christianity;De Eccles. Of­ficiis. l. 1. c. 3. of which thus Isidore of Sivil, Annuas Festivitates dedicationis, Eccle­siarum ex more veterum celebrari in Evangelio legimus, ubi dicitur, facta sunt Encoe­nia, &c. Where we have both the custom and the reasons of it, that is to say, the antient practice of Gods people amongst the Jews, occasionally mentioned and re­lated too in the holy Gospel. This being repeated and applyed, we must next see by what Authority Gods people afterward proceeded on the like occasions.

Greater Authority we find for the Dedication of the Tabernacle, III than for the con­secrating the Grove or Pillar, which before we spake of, even the command of God himself; who though he had appointed it to be made, prescribed as well the matter as the Form thereof, descending even unto the nomination of the Work­men that were to take care of the Embroydery of it, did not think fit it should be used in his publick Worship, till it had first been dedicated to that end and pur­pose. For thus saith God to Moses in the way of Precept: And thou shalt take the anointing Oyl and anoint the Tabernacle, and all that is therein, and shalt hallow [Page 135] it, and all the Vessels thereof, and it shall be holy, and thou shalt anoint the Altar of the Burnt-offering, and all his Vessels, and sanctifie the Altar, Exod. 40.9, 1. and it shall be an Altar most holy, &c. And thus did Moses in conformity to the Lords Commandment, of whom it is affirmed, Thus did Moses according to all that the Lord commanded him, so did he. That is to say, he reared up the Tabernacle, Verse 16 and disposed of every thing therein in its proper place, hallowing the Tabernacle and the Altar, and the Vessels of it as the Lord commanded, and then, and not till then, was it thought fit for the Acts of Sacrifice, and to be honoured with the presence of the Lord their God. For as it followeth in that Chapter, first Moses offered on the Altar (so prepared and consecrated) a Burnt-Offering and a Meat-Offering as the Lord commanded, ver. 29. And secondly, A Cloud then covered the tent of the Congre­gation, and the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle, v. 34. No Fathers need be called in here to explain these Scriptures, which every one can understand, who is able to read them, and every one who understandeth them may conclude from hence, that God had never took such order for consecrating of the Tabernacle, the Altars and other Vessels of it, had he not meant to leave it for a Document and Example to succeeding times, that no place should be used for his publick Wor­ship, till it was sanctified with Prayer, and set apart by some Religious Ceremo­nies for that holy purpose. According to which great Example, we find a solemn dedication of the Temple, when first built by Solomon, performed by Prayer and Sa­crifices in most solemn manner, 1 Kings 8. A second Dedication of it, when first restored by Zorobabel, in the time of Ezra, where it is said, That the children of Israel, Ezra 6.16. the Priests and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the Captivity kept the Dedica­tion of this House of God with joy. And finally, Josephus telleth us,Antiq. Juda. l. 15. c. 14. that when Zo­robabels Temple was pulled down by Herod, and built again after a more magnifi­cent manner than before it was, with what alacrity and pomp the Jews did cele­brate the Dedication of the same. A Temple gloriously set out to the outward view (immensae opulentiae Templum, it is called by Tacitus as before was said) and dedicated by the Founder with as great magnificence, of which more hereafter. Sufficient evidence to prove, that whether the Temple be considered as a House of prayer, or a place for Sacrifice, it was not to be used for either, not sanctified and set apart for those holy Actions. Having thus seen what was done in those solemn Acts of Dedication, by the Lords own people, as well before as under the Law of Moses; let us next see how far those Actions of Gods people have been followed by the antient Gentiles, who though without the Law of Moses, yet were instruct­ed well enough by the light of Nature, that Sacred Actions were not to be used in unhallowed places.

And here to go no further than the Roman story, being the best compacted, IV and most flourishing estate among the Gentiles; we have in the first Infancy thereof a Temple dedicated by Romulus unto Jupiter Feretrius, of which thus Livy. Jupiter Feretri (inquit Romulus) haec tibi victor Rex Regia arma fero, Templum (que) iis Regio­nibus quas meo animo metatus sum, dedico, sedem opimis spoliis quae Regibus Ducibus (que) hostium caesis, me Autorem sequentes posteri ferent. Unto which words of Romulus, being the formal words of the Dedication; Livy adds his own,Hist. Rom. Dec. 1. l. 1. Haec Templi est origo, quod omnium primum Romae sacratum est: That is to say, this is the Original of that Temple, which first of all was dedicated in the City of Rome. Concerning which, we are to know, that Romulus having vanquished Tolumnius a poor neigh­bouring King, in the head of his Army, and brought his Armour into Rome in tri­umphant manner, designed a Temple unto Jupiter, from hence named Feretrius, for the safe keeping and preserving of those glorious Spoils. And having so designed the Temple, thus bespeaks the gold; viz. O Jupiter Feretrius, I by this favour made a Conquerour, do here present unto thee these Royal Arms, and dedicate or design a Temple to thee in those Regions which in my mind I have marked out for that great purpose, to be a seat for those rich Spoils, which Posterity following my example, having slain Kings or such as do command in chief, shall present unto thee. Which formal words did so appropriate that place to the service of Jupiter, that afterwards it was not to be put unto other uses. This done by Romulus himself; but afterwards when Numa had brought in Religion, and that the Priesthood was established, though Kings and Consuls might design and dedicate, that is to say, prepare a Temple for their Gods (for so the word doth signifie in their antient Rituals) yet the Consecration of them was appropriated to the Pontifex maximus, and the chief Priest did usually [Page 136]perform that Ceremony, as appeareth plainly by the case of C. Flavius. For where­as by the Laws of Rome it was permitted only unto Consuls, or such as did com­mand in chief, to erect Temples for the Gods, Cornelius Barbatus then chief Priest, was required by the people notwithstanding to consecrate the Temple of Concord built by this Flavius, though a Man of no publick Office in the Common-wealth; of which Livy thus. Aedem Concordiae in area Vulcani summa nobilium invidia dedicavit; coactus (que) consensu populi Cornelius Barbatus Pontifex maximus verba praeire, cum more majorum negaret nisi Consulem aut Imperatorem posse Templum dedicare. In Hist. Rom. Decad. 1. l. 9. in fine. Where note, that Templum dedicare in the Authors language, is only to erect and prepare the Temple, and to declare unto what Deity it was intended, which was the point that formerly had been permitted only unto Kings, Consuls, and chief Comman­ders, and therefore not allowable to this C. Flavius, being a mean and private Man: and then that verba praeire to dictate or direct the words by which it was to be blessed and consecrated was the High Priests Office, which this Cornelius Barbatus was compelled to do by the common people, because that it was contrary to their antient custom to grant that honour to so mean a Man, as this C. Flavius. The like performed by Plautus Elianus being then chief Priest of the Romans, in the Con­secration of the Capitol, when the foundation of it was new laid in the time of Ve­spasian, of which more hereafter; and so Vopiscus telleth us of the Emperour Aure­lianus, that having subdued Zenobia the gallant Queen of the Palmireni, he gave order unto one of his Ministers to build a Temple with the Spoils of the conquered people: which done, he addeth, that he would write unto the Senate, ut Pontificem mittat qui dedicet Templum, Fla. Vopis. in vita Aurel. requiring them to send the Pontifex or chief Bishop, by whom it might be consecrated accordingly. An Office questionless which had not been appropria­ted to the Pontifex maximus, if there had not been some certain Form, some appoin­ted Ceremonies, accustomably used in those Consecrations, which none but Men of that high place were by Law to execute.

Now that there was some certain Form, V some appointed Ceremonies, accustoma­bly used by the chief Bishop upon these occasions, appeareth from that of Pompeius Festus an old Grammarian, by whom the Latin word Fanum (which signifieth a Church or Temple) is derived from fando; and so derived upon this reason, quod dum Pontifex dedicat, certa verba fatur, because the Pontifex or chief Priest speaketh certain words (that is to say, a certain and set Form of words) in the Dedication. Which Form of words, or some part of them at the least, together with the other Rites and Ceremonies used in those Solemnities, I cannot better shew than in that Summary or Abstract of them which Alexander ab Alexandro, hath drawn up in this manner following.Genial. Dier. lib. 6. c. 14. Ea vero consecratio vel à Consule vel Imperatore accenso foculo fit, cum Tibicine, verbis priscis & solennibus, praeeunte vero Pontifice maximo praefante car­men, capite velato & concione advocata, ac jussu populi: That is to say, The Consecra­tion was performed by the Consul or chief Commander of the Army, a small fire in a Pan or Chaffing-dish being carried by them, or before them (as the use then was) the Crier with a loud voice using the old and solemn Form of words, as they were dictated by the Pontifex or chief Priest, the Pontifex or chief Priest repeating a set and certain Song with his head covered, the whole body of the people being called together, and their com­mand required to make good the Acts (which last clause touching the Authority or Com­mand of the people, was only in the time of the Popular Government, and was not used when the Emperours had obtained the State) And then it followeth in the Author, Tem­pli vero consecratio fiebat, ut qui Templum aedemvre dedicaturus erat, postem te­nens accenso foculo, & advocato Numine cui Templum aedesve sacrantur, &c. That is to say, Which done, the consecration was dispatched in this manner following, the Founder of the Temple (for so I understand the word Dedicaturus in the present place) laying fast hold on one of the Posts or Pillars of it, with a small Fire-pan in his hand, as before was said, and calling on the Deity to whom the House or Temple was by him in­tended, did openly declare, That he exempted from the right of Men, and all profane and common usage, the Temple, Tables, Vaults, and Altars, and all things which pertained un­to them, (the Latin of which words we have seen before (ea (que) conceptis verbis ipsi Nu­mini (tunc Numen nominat) divina humana (que) omnia consecrare. And that he dedicated and appropriated to that sacred Deity (which Deity he then also named) those and all other both Divine and Humane things, in express words framed and preme­ditated for that purpose. The like hath Servius noted on these words of Virgil, In medio mihi Caesar erit, Templum (que) tenebit, that is, saith he, I will bestow this Temple on [Page 137]him, the Author using in this place a word or term frequent in the Pontifical of the antient Romans, or such a word as the Roman Pontifex did use in those Dedications. Nam qui Templum dicabat postem tenens dare se dicebat Numini, Georg. l. 3. quod ab illo necesse fue­rat jam teneri, & ab humano jure discedere, i. e. For he that was to dedicate the Temple, laying hold on one of the Posts or Pillars of it, declared that he bestowed it upon the Deity, which by that Deity was even then to be holden and enjoyed, and to be alienated for ever from the right of Man. Where by the way, this holding of the Post or Pillar by the Founder, was in the name of the very Numen, to whom the Temple was intended; and was like the holding the Ring or Key of the Church-door, by him that is indu­cted to the cure of Souls, whereby he takes possession of it in the name of God. I have laid down these passages at large in the words of the Author, that we may see, that there were verba prisca & solennia, an antient and set Form of words accustomably used in those Consecrations; though the whole Form, and all the solemn words which were used therein are no where extant in my Authors for ought I can find.

We are now come unto the Christians, where we shall find, VI that from their first having the use of Churches to assemble in, the Dedications of those Churches were in use amongst them. And first St. Cyril, a right godly Bishop of Jerusalem, speaks of a Church in that City, called commonly the upper Church of the Apostles, not cal­led so, because dedicated to them, but because dedicated by them: and therefore said by Beda, to be Ecclesia ab Apostolis fundata, of the foundation of the blessed Apostles, because being given to them, for the use of the Church, it was by them dedicated and appropriated to Gods publick service. Of this we have spoke more at large in the last Section of the fifth Chapter of this Narration, and therefore shall not here repeat it. In the next Century we find Pope Pius writing thus in an Epistle to Justus Viennensis a chief Friend of his in the Year 158. or thereabouts.Plus P. ad Just. Vienn. Soror nostra Euprepeia (sicut bene recordaris) titulum domus suae pauperibus assignavit; ubi nunc cum pauperibus nostris commorantes, Missas agimus. Our Sister Euprepeia hath turned her House into a Church (remember what was said of this, in the last Section of the sixth Chapter) for the use of the poor servants of Christ, where now abiding with our said poor Brethren, we celebrate the Mass or Sacrament of the blessed Sup­per. And in another Epistle to the same Justus, thus. Pastor Presbyter Titulum condidit & digne in Domino obiit: That is to say, Pastor the Priest or Presbyter, hath built a Church, and so died worthily in the Lord. Why we have rendred Titulus by the word Church, and how those places being at first but private Houses, were turned into Churches for publick use, we shall see anon; in the mean time we may take notice, that neither of these two Epistles have hitherto been questioned by our modern Criticks, nor ranked amongst those counterfeit Decretals, whose authority hath been so deservedly abrogated by the learned Protestants. In the next Century after him lived Felix the first, who entred on the See of Rome, An. 272. and not long after him lived Marcellinus, succeeding in the same See, An. 296. of the first of which it is affirmed by Metaphrastes, that he consecrated the House of Cecilia, and of the second by Damasus, that he consecrated the House of Lucina, making them thereby Churches (or places of Religious worship) for the use of Christians. But these being times of persecution, afford us not so clear nor so frequent evidences, as the Age next following; in which, the first glad sight which the Christians saw were the Encaenia, the Dedication of those Churches, which either had been taken from them, and profaned by Idolatry, or otherwise were laid waste, and made un­serviceable in those fiery times. No Man more forward in this work than the Em­perour Constantine, who having founded the Temple of the holy Martyrs in Jerusa­lem, prepared himself for the ENCAENIA or Dedication of the same: [...], &c. as in the Title of the fourth Chapter de Land. Constant. Eusebius hath it.De laud. Const. l. 4. c. 40. Thus Athanasius writing unto the Emperour Con­stantius, and speaking of a Church not consecrated, prayeth that the Emperour might live to see it done, and celebrate the Ceremonies of it.Athan. Apol. ad Constant. Tu tamen interim Deo dilectissime Auguste vivas multos annorum recursus, & solennia Dedicationis perficias, as the Latin hath it. Thus not to wander into more particulars in these Eastern Churches, the Author of the Panegyrick in Eusebius telleth us once for all, that ne­ver any King but Christ had filled all Countreys and Cities of the World with these Dedications. Quis Rex, &c. omnem locum, Regionem & Civitatem, Euseb. l. 10. c 4. tam Graecum quam Barbaricum, regalibus suis Palatiis, divinorum (que) Templorum Consecrationibus adimplevit? [Page 138]as the words there are. A matter judged so necessary in those early times, that the Arians charged it as a grievous crime on Athanasius, that he had celebrated Divine Service in a Church not consecrated; for which he thus Apologizeth to the angry Emperour: Encaeniorum Festium non celebravimus religiosissime Auguste, &c. And so proceeds, shewing the necessity, which did enforce him to do; namely, the incapa­city of all other Churches thereabouts to receive the multitudes then assembled, the unresistable importunity of the people, and such other impulsions. The like clear evidence we have for the Western Churches, there being a Sermon of St. Ambrose, entituled De Dedicatione Basilicae, Ambros. Serm. 89. preached at the Dedication of a Church built by Vitalianus and Majanus, the ground of his Discourse taken from the good Centurion, of whom the Jews told our Saviour in St. Luke's Gospel,Luke 7.5. That he loved their Nation, and had built them a Synagogue. Ambros. Epist. lib. 10. Ep. 85. The same Father writing to his Sister, speaks of a Church which himself had consecrated, Nam cum Basilicam Dedicassem, &c. And writing unto Felix Bishop of Como, invites him to the consecration of a Church then newly built by one Bassianus, requiring him not to fail of his being there, in regard that he had promised for him, Ne duos Sacerdotes redarguas, te qui non affue­ris, & me qui tam facile promiserim. Id. Epis. 5. l. 1. The like authority we have from Paulinus also, another Bishop of those times, invited by Sulpitius Severus his especial Friend. Ad Basilicam quae proxime in nomine Domini consummabitur, Paulin. Nol.Epist. 11. dedicandum. To be present at the dedicating of a Church of his foundation, as soon as it was finished and made fit for those sacred Ceremonies. More of this Argument, both in the East and Western Churches we shall see hereafter, when we are come to the magnificent Feasts and great Solemnities used antiently by the Christians in these Consecrations.

In the mean time, VII as well for the better understanding of somewhat which was said before, and of some things that follow after, there are two words, that is to say, the Titulus of the Romans, and the Encaenia of the Greeks, to be considered and ex­plained. The word Titulus in the former Section we have rendred Church, accord­ing to the Ecclesiastical notion of it: Churches being called Tituli by the Roman Chri­stians of those times, either because by their Dedication the name of Christ our Lord was as it were inscribed upon them (as the manner then was to set the names or Titles of the Owners upon their Houses and possessions) or because they gave a Title of Cure or Denomination to the Presbyters who officiated in them, and to whose charge they were committed at that time, as they do now unto the Cardinals in the Church of Rome. Plat. in vit. Evarist. That he assigned unto the Presbyters or Priests of Rome their several Churches: the Roman Presbyters till that time officiating in their turns, or as their Bishop did appointed them, in the Church Episcopal. Thus are we to understand that passage of Rabanus Maurus (cited in the last Section of our first Chapter) where speaking of Jacobs anoint­ing the Pillar, he telleth us of him, erexit Lapidem in Titulum, vocans eum locum domum Dei, De institut. Cle­ric. l. 1. c. 14. that by so doing he erected the Pillar into a consecrated place or Church, calling it by the name of Bethel or the House of God. His meaning is, that by the anointing of this Pillar, the place did after get the Title of a Church, or reputation of a Temple, by the name of Bethel. And thus we are to understand that passage in the Canon Law, in which it is decreed, that Bi­shops shall admit none into holy Orders, sine merito & Titulo, that is to say, not being sufficiently qualified in respect of merit, and not provided of some Church to officiate in. For should the word Titulus be interpreted of any Academical or Civil Title, any Man graduated in the Universities, or dignified with the Title of Gent. Esquire, &c. and otherwise of sufficiency in point of Learning, might chal­lenge Orders from the Bishop, which was the thing the Canon did purposely strike at, the better to prevent the multitude of wandring clerks, who having no Churches of their own, would thrust themselves into other Mens Cures, to the dishonour of their Order, the great disturbance of the Church, and the confusion of all sacred and spiritual Offices. What inconveniences the gross neglect of this prudent Canon hath brought upon the Church in these latter times, Notius est quam ut stilo egeat, is too well known to be related. And finally, thus the word Titulus must be under­stood in the two Epistles of Pope Pius, which before we spake of, according to the Ecclesiastical notion of it in those elder times. The next word here to be explain­ed, is the Greek [...] promiscuously used both for the Act and Ceremonies of the Dedication, and for the celebration of the Feasts of such Dedications, either once [Page 139]or annually. The word derived from [...], which is to consecrate and devote to an holy use; and it is so taken in the 9th Chap. to the Heb. v. 19. where it is said, [...]. In the first institution of which Festival, as it related to the Jews, in the Book of Maccabees, the days there­of are called, [...], the days of the Dedication of the Al­tar. Macca. 4.59. But in the Gospel of St. John, in one word, [...], i.e. Encaenia, for so both Beza and the vulgar translation read it: the word as it denoteth both the Dedica­tion, and the Festivals of it, being continued long after in the Church of Christ. A word so frequently used by the old Greek Fathers, that it occurreth no less than seven times in one Column of the Greek and Latin Edition of Athanasius, that is to say, in his Apology to Constantius the then Roman Emperour. More of this we shall see hereafter in some following Sections. Now I note only for the close,Atha [...]. Tom. 1. fol. 685. that the De­dication of Churches or places for Religious Worship, hath all the characters of An­tiquity, universality and consent of people: Semper, ubique, & ab omnibus, as Vincen­tius Lerinensts hath it, which are required unto the knowledg or notification of an Apostolical Trandition, as this seems to be.

Our second rank of Arguments to prove the high esteem which the Dedication of sacred places had in former times, is taken from the great Solemnities, VIII the ge­neral concourse of people, he magnificent Feasts, used anciently by all sorts of Men on those occasions. First, look upon the Dedication of Solomons Temple, and we shall find, that there assembled at that time, and on that occasion, the Elders of Israel, and all the heads of the Tribes, the chief of the Fathers of the children of Israel, 1 Kings 8.1. All the men of Israel, v. 2. the Priests and Lveites, v. 4. Nor were the Sacrifices short of this great Assembly, it being said, that Solomon sacrificed to the Lord 22000 Oxen and 120000. Sheep, v. 63. so many that they could not be told nor num­bred for multitude, ver. 5. Here is sufficient not only for a solemn Sacrifice, but a Royal Feast, sufficient for the entertainment of a million of people, and such a Royal Feast indeed was made by Solomon, to add the greater honour to the Dedication of of that glorious Temple. For so it followeth in the Text.1 Kings 8.65. And at that time Solo­mon held a Feast and all Israel with him, a great Congregation, from the entring in of Hamath, unto the River of Egypt, before the Lord our God seven days and seven days, even fourteen days. The second Temple, as it was short of this in bigness and external beauties, for which see Esr. c. 3. v. 12. so fell it short also in the Pomps of the Dedi­cation, the people being then in a low condition, impoverished by their long Cap­tivity, and not fully setled. And yet the Scripture doth inform us,Ezr. 6.16, 17. That the children of Israel, the Priests and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the Captivity, kept the Dedicatio of this House of God with joy. And offered at the Dedication of this HOuse of God, an hundred Bullocks, two hundred Rams, and four hundred Lambs. For short indeed of the magnificence of Solomons in those glorious days, described so fully in the 4th of the 1st of Kings, and yet agreeable enough to their present fortunes, as before was noted. Of the Solemnities and Feasts of the Dedication in the time of Judas Maccabeus, we have spoke already, and shall speak more thereof anon, that being the Original of the like Annual Feasts in the Church of Christ. Proceed we next unto the Dedication of this Temple when new built of Herod, of which Jo­sephus telleth us thus. [...]. That is to say,Joseph. l. 15. c. 14. They celebrated a great Feast in honour of the restauration of the Temple. Which being told us in the general, he next after addeth, That the King offered 300 Oxen unto God, and the rest of them, each one accoring to his ability offered so many Sacrifices, as that scarcely they may be comprehended in number, for that their multitude exceeded their estimate. The Romans guided by Example or the light of Nature, performed these Dedications with as great solemnity, (as pro­bably with as sumptuous Feasts) as the Jews had done in the times before them. Concerning which, besides what hath been said already, we need but look upon the Dedication of the Capitol, in the time of Vespasian; the pomp and order of it thus described by Tacitus, first in the way of Preamble or preparation.Cor. Tacit. hist. l. 4. Ʋndecimo Kal. Julias, serena luca, spatium omne quod Templo dicabatur, evinctum vittis coronis (que) ingressi milites, quibus fausta omina, felicibus Ramis. Dein Virgines vestales, cum pueris puel­lis (que) Patrimis Matrimis (que) aqua rivis & fontibus amnibus (que) hausta perluere. That is to say, on the 11th of the Kalends of July, or 21 of June, being a goodly fair day, the whole Plot of the Temple was bound and tied about with Fillets and Garlands. The Soul­diers whose names had lucky significations, entred in with Olive-branches in their hands [Page 140]for so I think the Author meaneth by felicibus ramis.) Afterward the vestal Virgins, with Boys and Girls that had both Father and Mother alive, washed it with waters fetched from Rivers, and Springs and running streams. It followeth in the Author, Tum Helvi­dius Priscus Praetor praeeunte Plato Eliano Pontifice, lustrata Bove Tauris (que) area (or rather suovetaurilibus area, &c.) Then Helvidius Priscus the Praetor, Plautus E­lianus the chief Pontifex dictating the solemn words of the Dedication (for so I under­stand the word praeeunte in that place) hallowed the Floor with a solemn Sacrifice of a Swine, a Sheep, and a Bullock, and laying the Entrails upon a green Turf, calling first upon Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, and the rest of the Godsprotectors of the Empire, That they would prosper the work, exalt and advance this their own Habitation, begun by the devotion of Men, with their divine and celestial power, the Magistrates, and Priests, the Senate and Gentlemen, with a great part of the people pressing with great desire and joy, to behold the Ceremonies. And though this seemeth to be the Dedication only of the Area or Plot of ground, on which the Capitol was built, yet it shews very plainly withal, with what solemnity and pomp of Ceremonies the antient Romans used to celebrate their Dedications.

But for the Christians it is evident and clear enough, IX that they were no sooner freed from the tyranny of persecution, in the time of Constantine, but they kept those Dedications, as with great Solemnties, so also with magnificent Feastings, called therefore [...],Euseb. hist. Eccl. lib. 10. c. 3. Dedication Feasts: celebrated with a great concourse of Prelates and people from all parts, and solemnized with publick Prayers and elo­quent Orations; one of which is extant still in Eusebius, hist. Eccl. lib. 10. cap. 4. So when the Emperour Constantine had founded the Temple of the holy Martyrs in Hierusalem, he prepared himself for the [...], or Dedication of the same, invi­ting thereunto most of the famous Prelates of those parts, all which he entertained and feasted in a sumptuous manner. Which with the pomp and other the Solem­nities of the Dedication, see in Eusebius, de laudibus Constantini, lib. 4. chap. 40.43, 44, 45. as also in Theodoret, hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 31. To this Nicephorus thus addeth, Erat is decimus quartu [...] Septembris dies, qui ab eo tempore in Ecclesia Hieresolymitana quotannis, Hist. Eccl. l. 8. c. 50. public ab omnibus Festus & celebris agitatus est, octo ex ordine diebus conven­tibus celebrandis; as Langius the Translator reads it, for I have not the Original now by me. It was, saith he, the 14. day of September, which from that time for­wards was annually kept holy in the Church of Jerusalem, by allsorts of people; the Church being then assembled in an holy Congregation, for eight days together. But this belongs more properly to another place, and there we shall again meet with it. Nor was the Ceremony or Religious part of these Dedicatiosn performed with less so­lemnity than with joy and Feasting; that part thereof belonging antiently to the Bishop, as proper and peculiar to him, and not communicable unto any of inferiour Orders; and that as well to add the greater reputation to that sacred Action, as to preserve the dignity and esteem of the Episcopal calling; and of this the Dedica­tion of a Church in Millain, by St. Ambrose Bishop of that City spoken of before, may be a very fit Example, as indeed it is. A matter of so high repute, that the Popes at last began to draw it to themselves, that so they might the better corre­spond in all manner of Prerogative with the old Pontifex maximus in the time of the Romans. For thus Gelasius, who entred on the Popedom, An. 492. Nobis pate­factum est, Do Consec. lib. cap. 27. quod absque praecepto, sedis Apostolicae, nonnulli factas Ecclesias, vel Oratoria sacrare praesumant: We are informed, saith he, that some amongst you do presume to consecrate Churches and Oratories, without the leave and licence of the See Apo­stolick. Which is to be understood with reference to the Bishop of the Roman Pa­triarchate, which properly and Originally were under his jurisdiction, as their pro­per Primate, and not to any other Bishops of Italy, much less of France, Illyricum, or remoter Countreys: and so we are to understand him in his first Epistle, inscri­bed to the Bishops of Lucania, another of the Suburbicarian Provinces, which made upon that Patriarchate, in which he positively declareth, Ne quis Ecclesias, non petitis pro more praeceptionibus, consecrare audeat, that none of them should consecrate any new built Church, without leave from him according to the antient custom; where we may note, that this restraint or prohibition, was laid upon the Bishops only, as they who only in themselves, were capable of officiating in that sacred Action. And being it was a sacred Action, and such an Action as was to be performed by none but Bishops in their several charges, I cannot doubt but that there was some set and appointed Form, in which that Action was then celebrated by those reve­rend [Page 141]persons;though what that Form was, of what particular Ceremonies, what Prayers and Benedictions it did then consist, I have not found amongst the Authors of those times, at least in such unquestioned Authors as I dare rely on.

Our third and last rank of Arguments to prove the reat esteem in which these De­dications were held of old, X is the observing of those Feasts annually in their several courses, which had been once Celebrated in the honour of so great a work. To this, the first hint given in the state of Jewry, was that of Judas Maccabeus, who having kept the Dedication of the Altar eight days together, ordained, that the days of the Dedication of the Altar should be kept in their season from year to year, by the space of eight days, &c. The like done also by he Romans in the time of their Gentilism; Maccab. c. 4. v. 56.59. which whether it were done in imitation of the Jews, or that the Jews took up this custom to hold conformity with the Romans, (who then were grown considerable in the eye of the world) it is hard to say. But for the Romans, sure it is that they observed the Anniversary of many of their Dedications in a Festival way; whereof, if we consult the Roman Kalendar, we shall find them thus disposed of in their several Moneths. Jan. 11. Carmentalia, Juturnae aedes dicata in Campo Martio. 16. Concordiae Templum à Camillo ex voto positum. Febru. 1. Sospite Templi dicatio. May 25. Templum Fortunae da­tum Jun. 1. Monetae aedis Dedicatio. 4. Herculis aedes in Circo. 5. Templum fidei sponsori Jovis. 6. Vestae Templum dicatum. 7. Mentis Templum dicatum. 28. Quirini Templum in colle Quirino. August 1. consecratio Templi Martis. Sept. 14. Capitolii Dedicatio ab Horatio. This was before the rebuilding of it by Vespasian. These Dedication Feasts are spe­cified, as before is said, in the Roman Kalendar, as being generally observed. And others questionless there were of inferiour none, peculiar only unto certain Provinces and Cities, and not so universally received as the former were. And here we must ob­serve withal, that all the Dedications mentioned in the Kalendar, are put down as Festivals, and not as memorable actions hapning on such and such a day, as some may possibly conceive. For Dempster in his Comment upon the Kalendar, reckoneth them every one as Annual Festivals, and gives this Title to the Months in their seeral order. De Januario & ejus diebus Festis, de Februario & ejus diebus Festis, & sic de caeteris: Be­sides that, all of them are accompted such by Ovid, in his Book de Fastis. So frequent were those Festivals amongst the Romans, and so Religiously observed both by Jews and Gentiles.

And being thus Religiously observed by the Jews and Gentiles, XI it is the less to be admired, if the Christians being a Church made up of both, did observe them also; grounding themselves especially upon the practice of the Jews, countenanced by our blessed Saviour, to which the observation of them is ascribed by Isidore, as before was noted; or had not Isidore given it for the ground thereof in the way of Position, we might have found it well enough by the first example of this kind in the way of practice. The first Anniversary Feast of this nature, which we find in Ecclesiastical History, is that of the 14. of September, held Annually in Jerusalem (as before was told us from Nicephorus) in memory of the Dedication of the Church of the Holy Mar­tyrs, so solemnly Celebrated by the Emperour Constantine, and held by them eight days together without intermission; which was as much as had been done in the Encaenia of the Jews, before remembred, proposed (no question) for their patter in that Annual Festival. The like occurreth in Greg. Nazianz. [...], &c. De Encaeniis honorandis lex vetus est, eaque praeclare constituta, vel potius de Tem­plis (and not de rebus novis, as it is foolishly translated) per Encaenia honore complecten­dis. Not once for all, but every year by way of Annual remembrance. For so it followeth in the Author, [...],Orat. 43. in initio. Idque non semel tan­tum verum saepius, nimirum qualibet anni conversione diem eundem advehente; where we may see, that as they kept these Feasts Annually on the same day of the year, so they pretended to that Institution of the Maccabees for the ground thereof. The Father addeth a further reason. Ne alioqui res pulchrae progressu temporis evanescant, atque obli­vionis gurgite obscuratae dilabantur; lest otherwise such famous things might be forgotten in long tract of time, and be at last quite buried in the grave of oblivion. There are also two Sermons of St. Austins, entituled, in Anniversario Dedicationis Ecclesiae, being the 152 and 153. of those De tempore. And howsoever that these Sermons inscribed De Tempore, have been suspected by the Learned Criticks of this Age, not to be St. Austins; yet Perkins running them over in particular, makes no exception against them, or either of them; neither do any other of the Protestant Doctors, as appeareth by Rivet in his Specimen Critici Sacri, lib. 4. c. 16. This makes it clear and evident, [Page 142]that these Anniversary Feasts were not taken up on the Authority of Pope Felix the fourth, (as some untruly have suggested) who came not to the See of Rome until the year 520. many years after the decease of Gregory Nazianzen, and some years also after the death of S. Augustine; though true it is, that by the Authority of that Pope, they be­came more frequent than they had been formerly, there being a Decretal to that purpose, published by him in the words ensuing. Solennitates dedicationum Ecclesiarum & sacerdo­tum solenniter sunt per singulos annos celebrandae, ipso Domino exemplum dante, &c. The Feass of the Dedication of Churches and Consecration of Bishops (for so we understand by Sacerdotes in that place and time) are to be Celebrated yearly according to the Lords example, who went up to Jerusalem with the rest of the people, to solemnize the Feast of the Dedication, as the Scripture telleth us. Where we may see, that the Pope builds not this injunction on his own sole power, but as that power was countenanced by our Saviours practice. And now I am gone a little beyond my bounds (that is to say, the death of St. Augustine) to which I had limited my self. I shall make bold to pursue this Argument so far, till I have brought these Dedication-Feasts to our present times. For Felix having made the Decretal before remembred, found such conformity there­unto in the Western Churches, that in the Council of Mentz, An. 8 13. there was made a Catalogue of the Festival days, which generally were then observed, as Easter, the Ascension, Whitsontide, &c. and in the close of all, similiter etiam Dedicatio Templi; where plainly the Encaenia or Dedication-Feasts of particular Churches is placed in no lower rank, as it relates to the solemnity of the same, than Easter, Whitsontide, or any other of the greater and more eminent Festivals. The like was also done in the Council of Lons, An. 1244. where we shall find a larger Catalogue of Holy-days than we had before, there being many added since the Council of Mentz. And in that Catalogue of the Feasts of Festival days, the Dedication Feasts of particular Churches stand in the same terms as before they did, whereof see the Decretal, de Consecratione, Dist. 3. c. 1.

Now to come nearer to our selves (that I may give some satisfaction in this point to those who desire it of me) there was a Council held at Oxon, XII Lindwood. An. 1222. where a­mongst other Ordinances tending to the good Government of the Church, the Festi­vals were divided into three several ranks. In the first rank whereof were those, quae omni veneratione servanda erant, which were to be observed with all reverence and so­lemnity. Of the which sort were omnes dies Dominici, and all the other Festivals, yet observed amongst us, together with many Festivals of the Blessed Virgin, which we keep not now; and in conclusion, Festum Dedicationis Ecclesiae cujuslibet in sua Parochia, Feasts of the Dedication of particular Churches, which in their several Parishes were to be observed with the same reverence and solemnity which the others were. So also in a Synod of Archbishop Islips, Lind. lib. 2. tit. de feriis. who was promoted to that See, An. 1349. it was de­creed, that on the principal Feasts there named, there should be a more strict and pre­cise restraint from work and labour than had been before. And among them we find the Dedication Feasts of particular Churches to be as high in their esteem, as any of the greater Festivals. By that which hath been said, it appeareth most evident, that the Dedication-Reast was to be Annually observed in each several Parish, and that it was to be observed as solemnly as any of the greater Festivals; and that it was to be ob­served and celebrated on that very day of the week, moneth, and year, whereon the Church was Consecrated at the first. Which being found to draw along with it no small inconvenience, it pleased King Henry VIII. An. 1536. to send out his Injun­ctions amongst other things for restraint of Holy-days. In which Injunctions, that which doth most concern this business, are these two particulars. 1. That the Dedi­cation of Churches shall in all places throughout this Realm, be Celebrated and kept on the first Sunday of the moneth of October for ever, and upon no other day. 2. That the Feast of the Patron of every Church within this Realm, called antiently the Church Holy-day, shall not from henceforth be kept and observed as an Holy-day, as heretofore hath been used. But that it shall be lawful to all and singular persons, resi­dent or dwelling within this Realm, to go to their work, occupation, or mystery, and the same truly to exercise and occupy upon the said Feast, as upon any other work­day, except the said Feast or Church Holy-day be such, as must be else universally ob­served and kept as an Holy-day by this Ordinance following.Acts and Mo­num. part. 2. P 387. Now how far these Injunctions were observed in these particulars, whether they determined on the death of the Lord Cromwel, by whose Authority in the Convocation House they were first set out, and recommended to the King, I am not able to determine upon any certain. [Page 143]But forasmuch as I am able to conjecture by my own observation, or collect from con­ference with old people, I think the point may thus be stated. That is to say, that in such places where the day of the Dedication of the several Churches, or the Church Holy-day, as they call it now, be worn out of memory, they either are observed on the first Sunday in October, or the next Sunday after Michaelmas-day (which is called the Festum Dedicationis Ecclesiae in the Martyrologie) or not kept at all. But where there is any constant Tradition of the day or time of the Dedication of particular Churches, or of the Festivals of that Patron, or Tutelary Sain, to whose name or memory (accor­ding to the custom of those darker times) the said Churches had been formerly dedi­cated; in all such places, as I take it, the Festivals have been transferred to the Sun­day following, and then observed with great joy and chearfulness in liberal entertain­ments, harmless sports, and manlike exercises. And in this estate they did continue in many parts of this Realm, by the name of the Feasts or Wakes of such and such places respectively, till the preciseness of some Ministers, and the severity of some Magistrates, prohibiting all lawful Recreations on the Lords day, brought them both out of use and credit, which gave occasion to the King to revive the Declaration of King James, touching lawful sports, and thereby to restore those Feasts to their for­mer frequency; for which consult his Majesties Declaration, bearing date the 18th. of October, in the nineth year of his Reign, An. 1633. But it is time to close this Co­rollary (somewhat extravagant I confess, but not impertinent altogether to my main design) and therewithal to conclude this Narrative of Liturgies and set Forms of worship; to the officiating whereof Churches, and Churches Dedicated, are of so great use.

Thus have I drawn together for the publick use, what I have met withal, XIII con­cerning Liturgies and set Forms of publick worship; that so it may appear to the sober Reader, how much some men have laboured to abuse the world, in making them the off-spring of the latter times. By this, the sober Reader may perceive, if he list to see it, that to draw the line of Liturgy so high, as from the very times of Moses, is nothing so unparallel'd a discourse as some men have made it; and that there were such stinted Liturgies as that, for which the Church of England pleadeth in Tertullians time,Smectym. p. 6. and some time before, how strange soever they have made it. This, if it be made good, it is all I look for; because I did propose no further in the undertaking. My purpose only was, to draw down the descent and petigree of Liturgies and set Forms of pub­lick worship, as far as any of the Jewish or our Christian Antiquaries could conduct me in it (taking the practice of the Gentiles in upon the by,) without descending to particulars, either this or that. Not that I think the Liturgy of the Church of Eng­land may not be justified and approved in all parts thereof, in all the Offices and mini­strations comprehended in it; or that it may not easily be proved to be truely Chri­stian, Humble Re­monstrance, p. 13. and to have nothing Roman in the whole composure; but that I should but actum agere, and fall upon a point already handled. The learned pains of our incomparable Hooker in this very kind, made up of so much modesty and judgment as that whole work is, hath too off long since those exceptions, which had been made against the several Offices, and whole course thereof, by those unquiet spirits who first moved these Controversies. Who so desires a thorow Vindication of it, boty for Form and matter, he may find it there. This which is done, in all humility I tender to the ac­ceptation of all Orthodox and Religious men, whose service it was principally inten­ded for; and next to the censure of the Supream Powers, before whose Bar the cause of Liturgy is brought to receive its sentence. If it can balance with the one, it cannot but do service to the other, in preservation of that Form and Order which hath made her glorious. However I have done my duty, humbly submitting the success to Al­mighty God, to whom be praise and glory now and evermore.

A BRIEF DISCOURSE TO …

A BRIEF DISCOURSE TOUCHING THE FORM of PRAYER, Appointed to be used by PREACHERS BEFORE THEIR SERMONS, Can. 55.

By PETER HEYLYN, D. D.

Mat. vi. 9. After this manner therefore pray ye.

LONDON, Printed by M. Clark, to be sold by C. Harper. 1681.

THE PREFACE.

IT was about the year 1636. when the Ʋnlicensed Press, which had been almost out of work since the time of the old Martin Mar-prelat, began to teem again with a new brood of Libellous Pamphlets, the Females of Sedition, as a Learned Gentleman truly calls them; in which the Bishops were reproached with Innovating in the Worship of God, here by Law established, in order to some dark design to bring in Popery. The antient usages of the Church, grounded on Law, required by Canon, and Authorized by the stamp of Supream Authority, had lien so long under the Rubbish of neglect and discontinuance, by the remisness (to say no worse of it) of the former Government, that the endeavour of reducing them to use and practice, was forthwith clamorously branded with the odious name of an Innovation; though when it came unto the trial, the Innovation lay at their doors who had raised he clamor. Amongst which Innovations so unjustly charged, there was none made a greater and more general noise, than the requiring a set Form of Prayer to be used by Preachers before their Sermons, imputed by H. E. to the late Archb. as an act of his, and yet confessed (so much he was trans­ported by his spleen and passion) to be prescribed in the Canon of 603. full 30 years before that Prelate had attained the See of Canterbury.

During these heats, I was requested by the Right Reverend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of W. to ease him of some pains, in searching into the constant practice of this Church since the Reformation, as to that particular; as also to consider of the grounds and motives which might induce the Bishops of those times to compose the Canon in which that Form had been prescribed; that haing satisfied himself in all points which concerned that Argument (towards which my poor endeavours were not likely to contribute much) he might with greater confidence require the Clergy of his Diocess to conform unto it. An employment which I under­took with a ready chearfulness, as one that had been always trained up in the School of obedi­ence, and looked upon the just motions of my Superiors, as in the nature of commands. What satisfaction this discourse then gave unto hisLordship, I forbear to add, and what contentment it may give to the Reader now, I forbear to guess. The fate of Books depends not in these times, as in those before, on the capacity of the Reader, but on his private interess, so as it is not to be hoped that such as are approved by some, will be liked of all, though most of those who may mislike, may give no sufficient reason for it. All therefore which I have to do, is to sub­mit it to the judgment of the equaland unbyassed Reader, from whom I am as willing to re­ceive satisfaction in any controverted point, as to use my best endeavours to give it to him. And so good Reader, I conclude with those words of the Poet,

Tu vergo, si quid novisti rectius istis,
Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum.
If thou hast better reasons, lend me thine,
Or otherwise make bold with these of mine.

A BRIEF DISCOURSE, Touching the Form of Prayer, &c.

  • 1. The Introduction to the whole.
  • 2. The Canon of the year 1603.
  • 3. The meaning and purpose of that Canon.
  • 4. The Injunction of Qu. Elizabeth to the same effect.
  • 5. The Injunction of King Edward VI. to the same effect.
  • 6. The like Injunction of King Henry VIII.
  • 7. The ground and reason of the Injunction of that King, and the exemplification of it in the practice of Bishop Latimer.
  • 8. The difference between Invocation, and that bidding of Prayer which is required by the Canon.
  • 9. The Canon justified by the practice of Bishop Andrews.
  • 10. By the practice of Bishop Jewel in Qu. Elizabeths time.
  • 11. By the practice of Archbishop Parker, in King Edwards time.
  • 12. By the like practice of Bishop Latimer in that Kings time also.
  • 13. More of the practice of Bishop Latimer in this point.
  • 14. The same proved also by the practice of Bishop Gardiner.
  • 15. The result arising both from the pre­cept and the practice of the Church here­in.
  • 16. How the now Form of Prayer, by way of Invocation was first taken up.
  • 17. No Prayer by way of Invocation used by the Antients in their Sermons.
  • 18. The Prayer appointed by the Canon, and Injunctions used rather heretofore as a part of the Sermon, than as a preparation to it.
  • 19. Bidding of Prayer more consonant unto the meaning of the Law, than any set Prayer in the way of Invocation.
  • 20. Bidding of Prayer more proper for the place or Pulpit, which was not made for Prayer, but for Exhortation.
  • 21. The like concluded from the posture of the Preacher also.
  • 22. Some inconveniences arising from the Form of Prayer by Invocation.
  • 23. More inconveniencies of that nature by accusing the Liturgie as defective.
  • 24. The conclusion and submission of the whole to his Lordships judgment.

I INventae erant Epistolae, ut certiores faceremus absentes, si quid esset quod eos scire, aut nostrum, aut ipsorum, interesset. Epistles were devised, as Tully writes to Curio, to this end and purpose, that we might certifie the absent, of those things which are most proper for their knowledge and our relation: They are our Messengers for love, our Posts for business, our Agents in the managing and dispatch of the weightiest Affairs, such as most nearly do concern us; which being a chief Use and Be­nefit of Letters, no marvail, if they have been used in all for­mer Ages, not only to maintain an intercourse between Friends in point of Amity, but to lay down in them our resolutions, as occasion is, in point of Controversie. The several Writings in this kind of the antient Authors, as well the Christian as the Gentile; what are they but so many precepts and directions, by which to regulate our Conversations, or reasons and authorities on the which to rest our judgments. Upon which ground (my most Honoured Lord) I have adventured to declare by this way of Letter what I have found upon due search, in answer to the proposition which your Lordship recommended to me, touching the Form of Prayer appointed in the Canon, to be used by Preachers before the Sermon. Of which, such question hath been made in these busie times, whether it ought to be by way of Invocation, as a formal Prayer; or else by way of Exhortation, as a bidding of Prayer: For resolu­tion of the which, I shall first lay down the very Canon, and after briefly shew unto you what is most like to be the true intention of it, out of the publick Monuments of this Church, and constant practice of those men who are above exception for the point in [Page 159]hand, and also by such other pregnant reasons, as I have thought most proper to con­firm the same.

II Now for the title of the Canon, it runs thus; Can. 55. The Form of a Prayer to be used by Preachers before their Sermons: The body of it, is this.

Before all Sermons, Lectures, and Homilies, Preachers and Ministers shall move the people to joyn with them in Prayer, in this Form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may: Ye shall pray for Christs holy Catholick Church; that is, for the whole Congregation of Chri­stian people dispersed through the whole world, and especially for the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland: And herein I require you most especially to pray for the Kings most excellent Majesty our Sovereign Lord, James King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Governour in these his Realms, and all other his Dominions and Countreys, over all Persons, in all causes, as well Ecclesiastical as Tem­poral: Ye shall also pray for our gracious Queen Ann, the noble Prince Henry, and the rest of the Kings and Queens Royal Issue. Ye shall also pray for the Ministers of Gods holy Word and Sacraments, as well Archbishops and Bishops, as other Pastors and Curats: Ye shall also pray for the Kings most honourable Council, and for all the Nobility and Magistrates of this Realm, that all, and every of those in their several callings, may serve truly, and painfully, to the Glory of God, and the edifying and well-governing of his people, remem­bring the accompt they must make. Also ye shall pray for the whole Commons of this Realm, that they may live in true Faith and fear of God, and humble obedience to the King, and Brotherly Charity one to another. Finally, let us praise God for all those that are already de­parted out of this life in the Faith of Christ, and pray unto God, that we may have grace to direct our lives after their good examples, that this life ended, we may be made partakers with them of the glorious Resurrection in the life everlasting: Always concluding with the Lords Prayer.

III So far the Letter of the Canon, in which there was not any purpose, nor in the makers of the same, to introduce into the Church any Form of Prayer or Invocation, save those which were laid down in the Common prayer Book; (nor indeed could they if they would, the Statute 1 Eliz. being still in force) but to reduce her Mini­sters to the antient usage of this Church, which had been much neglected, if not laid aside. The Canons then established were no late Invention, as some give it out, but a Collection of such Ordinances and pious Customs as had been formerly in use since the Reformation; which being scattered and diffused in several Injunctions, Orders, and Advertisements, published by K. Henry VIII. K. Edward VI. and Q. Eliz. or in the Canons of particular Convocations in those times assembled, or otherwise re­tained in continual practice, was by the care and wisdom of the Clergy in the Synod at London, An. 1603. drawn up together into one body, and by his Majesty then be­ing Authorized in due form of Law: And being so Authorized by his Majesty, the Canons then made had the force of Laws, and were of power to bind the Subjects of all sorts according to their several and respective concernments, as fully and effectually as any Statute, or Act of Parliament can bind the Subject of this Realm, in their goods and properties: For which consult the Statute, 25. H. 8. cap. 19. and the practice since. Which as it may be said of all, so more particularly of the Canon now in question, of which it is to be considered, that the main body of the same had been de­livered formerly almost verbatim in the Queens Injunctions, published by her Royal and Supream Authority, in the first year of her Reign, Anno 1559. which I will therefore here put down, that by comparing both together, we may the better see the true intention of that Canon; and what is further to be said in the present business.

IV The Queens Injunction is as followeth. The title this: The Form of bidding the Prayers to be used generally in this uniform sort; and then the body of it is this: Ye shall pray for Christs holy Catholick Church, that is, for the whole Congregation of Christian people, dispersed throughout the whole world, and especially for the Churches of England and Ireland: and herein I require you most especially to pray for the Queens most excellent Ma­jesty, our Soveraign Lady Eliz. Queen of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and supream Governour of this Realm, as well in causes Ecclesiastical as Temporal: You shall also pray for the Ministers of Gods holy Word and Sacraments, as well Archbishops and Bishops, as other Pastors and Curats: Ye shall also pray for the Queens most honourable Council, and for all the Nobility of this Realm: That all, and every of these in their callings may serve truly and painfully, to the glory of God, and edifying of his people, remembring the accompt they must make: Also you shall pray for the whole Commons of this Realm, that [Page 147]they may live in true faith, and fear of God, in humble Obedience; and brotherly Charity one to another: Finally let us praise God for all those that are departed out of this life in the faith of Christ, and pray unto God, that we may have grace to direct our lives after their good example, that after this life, we may be made partakers of the glorious resur­rection in the life everlasting. These are the very words of the Injunction, wherein it is to be observed, that as the Canon hath relation to this Injunction, so neither this In­junction, nor any thing therein enjoyned was of new erection, but a Reviver only of the usual Form which had been formerly enjoyned and constantly observed in King Edwards days, as we shall see by looking over the Injunction published (and the pra­ctice following thereupon) in the said Kings Reign.

V Now the Injunction of King Edward the 6. is in this Form following: The Title thus, The Form of bidding the Common prayers: and then the Form it self: You shall pray for the whole Congregation of Christs Church, and especially for this Congregation of England, and Ireland, wherein first I commend to your devout prayers the Kings most ex­cellent Majesty, supreme Head immediately under God, of the Spiritualty, and Temporalty of the same Church, And for Queen Katharine Dowager, and also for my Lady Mary, and my Lady Elizabeth, the Kings Sisters: Secondly you shall pray for my Lord Prote­ctors grace, with all the rest of the Kings Majesties Council: for all the Lords of this Realm, and for the Clergy, and Commons of the same; Beseeching Almighty God to give every one of them in his degree, Grace to use themselves in such wise, as may be to Gods glory, the Kings honour, and the weal of this Realm: Thirdly you shall pray for all them that be departed out of this world in the faith of Christ, that they with us, and we with them at the day of Judgment, may rest both Body and Soul with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven. This was the Form first published in the beginning of the Reign of King Edward VI. and it continued all his time, save that the latter clause was altered, and that for praising. God for Saints departed put instead thereof, as we may see in Bishop Latimers Sermon preached at Stanford, whereof more anon.

VI Hitherto are we clear for King Edwards time, and no less clear are we for King Henries also, especially for the latter part thereof, in which the use of Bidding pray­ers, or moving the people unto prayer had by him been imposed upon the Clergy, before this time the people had been trained up in a very gross ignorance, not knowing explicitely the Articles of their belief, accustomed to a Latin service in their publick Churches, and to a daily stint of Pater-nosters, and Ave-Maries in the Latin tongue which few or none of them understood. But that King, having taken on himself the Title of supreme Head of the Church of England, and adding of the same to the stile Imperial, viz. Anno 1535, there issued out an order by his Autho­rity in this Form that followeth. This is an Order taken for Preaching, and Bidding of Beads in all Sermons to be made within this Realm. First, Whosoever shall Preach in the presence of the Kings Highness, and the Queen's Grace, shall in the bidding of Beads pray for the whole Catholick Church of Christ, as well quick as dead, and especially for the Catholick Church of this Realm, and first, as we be most bounden, for our Soveraign Lord King Henry the VIII. being immediatly next under God the only supreme Head of this Ca­tholick Church of England. And for the most gracious Lady Qu. Anne his Wife, and for the Lady Elizabeth Daughter and Heir to them both. And no further.

Item the Preacher in all other places of this Realm, not in the presence of the Kings said Highness, and the Queens Grace, shall in the bidding of the Beads, pray first in manner, and Form, and word for word as is above ordained, and limited: Adding thereto in the second part, For all Archbishops, and Bishops, and for the whole Clergy of this Realm, And specially such as the Preacher shall name of his devotion; And thirdly for all Dukes, Earls, Marquess's, and for all the whole Temporalty of this Realm, and specially for such as the Preacher shall name of devotion: And finally for the souls of all them that be dead, and specially for such as it shall please the Preacher to name. So far the very words of the Injunction, as it relates unto the business now in hand, which differs very little, if at all, in Form and fashion (though there be some difference in the matter) from those which followed in the Reign of K. Edward VI. and Q. Eliz. both of which out of question took their hint from hence.

VII Besides it is to be observed, that the said King having assumed unto himself the stile, and Title of supreme Head of the Church of England, as before is said, did before this, by Proclamation dated June 9. An. 1534. declare, and signifie his Royal pleasure, that all, and all manner of Ecclesiastical persons should teach, preach, pub­lish, [Page 151]and declare in all manner of Churches, the said his just Title, Stile, and Juris­diction, on every Sunday, and high Feast throughout the year, which after was en­joyned in the Injunction of the year, Anno 1536, set out by the Lord Cromwell, be­ing then Vicar General, with the Kings authority: As also in the Injunctions of King Edward the 6. An. 1547. which again was revived in the Queens Injunctions, Anno 1559. As after in the first Convocation of King James in the year 1603. And besides this, it was appointed in the said Injunctions of King Henry the 8. that the Preacher or Parochial Priest should every Sunday, in the Pulpit rehearse distinct­ly the Lords prayer, the Articles of the Creed, and the ten Commandments in the En­glish Tongue, for the better instructing of the people in their duties both to God and Man, which being ordered at the same time as the bidding of the Beads in the Forni spoken of before, was first enjoyned, shews plainly the intention and effect of both, to be no other than to instruct the people in the principles of faith and piety. So that as well to teach the people how to pray, and what things they chiefly were to pray for, in the publick meeting, as to make known unto them the Kings just Title, by which they were to recommend him in their devotions, the Form before remembred of Bidding prayers, or Beads was prescribed the Priests, by them to be proposed unto the people in their several Sermons: For instance of the which, in point of practice in the said Kings time, we need but look upon a Sermon of Bishop Latimers (being that before the Convocation, Anno 1536. which was the 28. of King Henries Reign) In which being entred on his matter, as the use then was, he thus bids the prayers. That all that I say shall, may turn to the glory of God, your Souls health, and the edifying of Christs Body. I pray you all to pray with me unto God, and that also in your Petitions, you desire that these two things he vouchsase to grant us. First a mouth for me to speak rightly: next Ears for you, that in hearing me, you may take profit at my hands, and that this may come to effect, you shall desire him unto whom our Master Christ bad, we should pray, saying even the same prayer which Christ himself did Institute. Wherein we shall pray for our Sovereign Lord the King, chief, and supreme Head of the Church of England under Christ, and for the most excellent, gracious, and vertuous Lady, Queen Jane his most lawful Wife, and for all his, whether they be of the Clergy, or Laity, whether they be of the Nobility, or else other his Grace's Subjects; hum­bly beseeching Almighty God, that every one of us, even from the highest to the lowest, may in his degree, and Calling, earnestly endeavour to set forth the glory of God, and the Go­spel of his Son Christ Jesus, that so living in his fear, and love, we may in the end of our days depart out of this life in his friendship and favour. For these graces and what else his wisdom knoweth more needful for us, let us pray, as we are taught, saying: Our Father, &c. Put all that hath been said together. and the sum is this. That if we do interpret the Canon of the year 1603. by the Queens Injunctions, and construe both of them, according to the Injunctions in King Edwards and King Henries days, we shall see plainly, that the Form of prayer appointed by the Canon is no new Inven­tion, neither obtruded on the Church by the Bishops of these times, on a design to stint the Spirit (as some now give out) or on a like design of Archbishop Bancroft, and the Prelates of his time (as is said by others:) but carried and transmitted from hand to hand, since the very first beginning of the Reformation; nor did it stand thus only in point of Law, not being reduced unto practice, but stood thus also in the practice of our Predecessors (though not so frequently in these last as the former times) as shall be presently made good by Witnesses and Proofs of un­questioned credit.

VIII Mean while the Canon, and Injunctions being laid together, there will be little difference found between them, in sum, and substance (except that praying for the dead, used in the latter times of King Henry the 8. and the beginning of the Reign of King Edward the 6. hath since been changed into praising God for their depar­ture in the faith, and Gospel of our Lord and Saviour) and at all nothing in the Form, or any circumstance considerable in the present business: for if we look upon the prayer therein appointed, we shall find these four things to be considered. 1. The substance, or matter of it being the heads therein recited, viz. the Catholick Church, the Kings Majesty, the Qu. the Royal issue, the L Ls. spiritual, and temporal. 2. The phrase, or garb of speech, wherein the matter is expressed in those words, or in other to the same effect. 3. The quantity of time, which is allowed for those expres­sions, as briefly as conveniently we may: and last of all the Form thereof, being the point that is most in question, which plainly is to be by way of exhortation; Ye shall [Page 152]pray, and I require you most especially to pray; and not by way of Invocation, with an immediate address to Almighty God, as Men use it now: Therefore as in King Edward's, and the Queens Injunctions it is called a Bidding of Prayers: the Form of bid­ding prayers generally to be used after this uniform sort, and the Form of bidding the Common Prayers. The Form of bidding the Beads in King Henries Injunction; So in the Canon it is called a Moving: it being therein ordered, that before all Sermons, Lectures and Homilies, Preachers and Ministers shall move the people to joyn with them in prayer, &c. Bidding and Moving, are two words, but to one effect; for when we bid the people pray, we move them to it: and in the Congregation, we have no way to move the people but by that of bidding, or exhorting. Prayer as Saint Basil hath defined it, [...], is requi­ring of some good from the hands of God, and doth imply a punctual, and immediate address unto him, which is the peoples office to the Lord Almighty: Bidding of prayer, as the Injunctions, or moving Men to pray, as the Canon hath it, is the Priests office to the people: wherein he not only exhorts them to the performance of that Duty, but layeth them down a Summary, and brief recital of those things, which they are to pray for as members of that one mystical Body, whereof Christ Jesus is the Head: Now where it is alledged by some, who have turned Bidding into Praying, that in the Canon it is not ordered precisely, that Ministers shall move the people to joyn with them in prayer, in this Form, that followeth, but only in this Form, or to this effect. It's true, what they alledge as unto the words, though not as to the use they make thereof: For by these words to this effect, the Church hath no intent, or meaning, to give Men liberty to devise new Forms of Prayer, nor indeed could she if she would (as before we noted) or to desert as well the usage of those Men, which had been most obedient to her publick Orders, as the Injunctions, on the which, the said use was founded: Wherefore these words, to this effect, must have no reference to the Form, and manner of expression (for it is called in the Canon a moving of the people to joyn in prayer) but only to the words and phrase, it being not the Churches purpose to bind her Ministers precisely to the words, which are there laid down, but that in that very Form of words, or other words to that effect, they should move the people to be mindful of those particular Heads, for which they were to joyn with him at the close of all in the Lords prayer, as appeareth plainly by that passage of the Prayer in Bishop Latimers, spoken of before.

IX That this, and none but this was the Churches meaning, will be easily proved, and made apparent by the practice of the chiefest, and most eminent persons; who are called by Aristotle [...].Eth. l. 1. For those who have the best authority to in­terpret Canons (I mean my LLs. the two Archbishops, with the greater part of the Bishops) have and do use no other Form than that of Bidding or of Moving. And so do also many antient Doctors, both in the Universities, and Cathedral Churches; who being originally accustomed to the Form of Bidding, have not yet turned their stile to a Form of Praying: But since to speak of those, who are now alive, may possibly be subject to misconstruction, we will take Counsel with the dead, whose actions of this kind may be our example, and their proceeding in this point our warrant: of these I will make instance of five alone (though I could in more) all of the Hierarchie, all Men of high esteem in their several times, and therefore such as may be followed with most safety in the present business: Of these the last in course of time was the most Learned Bishop Andrews, of whom, to say no more, we may say with safety, that he was Canonum observantissimus, who being, as he was, a practi­sed Preacher long time before and after the making of the said Canon, did use no other Form of Prayer, than that of Bidding: All those, that heard him cannot but con­fess, that so it was, and in the body of his Sermons collected by my Lord of Can­terbury, that now is, and my Lord of Ely, that then was, there are some Tracts, and footsteps of it, which make it evident unto those that heard him not. For this con­sult his 3d Sermon in Lent, Anno 1593. his sixth in Lent 1596. his sixth for Whit­suntide, Anno 1613. More specially in his second of the holy Ghost, Anno 1608. in which immediately upon the division of his Text, as his custom was, he thus moves the people, or which both comes to one, he thus bids the prayers. But for that there is no speaking of the Spirit, without the Spirit, nor bearing neither; to the end, that hearing, and speaking he may help our infirmities, &c. And in his ninth Sermon of the Fifth of November, 1617. the division ended, as before, he thus proceeded: That these be done, and that they may be done, and that those things which shall be spoken, [Page 153]may tend to this, that they may be done, &c. Which last two passages being preambles, or in­troductions unto his form of bidding Prayers, give us an hint of that which we may find laid down at large in his Latine Sermons extant in his opuscula, collected by the same most Reverend Prelates; particularly in that before his Sermon Preached pro forma, when he went out Doctor, and that at the departure of the Prince Elector Palatine; in both of which, he calls upon his Audience to joyn with him in Prayer by way of bidding, moving, or inviting, Invitemus huc numen, precemur, preces offeramus, and such like phrases: All which thus laid together, do most plainly shew that he did go that way, which was prescribed by the Injunctions, revived and ratified in the Canon, and tra­vel'd by those Worthies that went before him.

X I mean to instance next in Bishop Jewel, who lived and flourished after the setting out of the Queens Injunctions, and dyed long time before the making of the Canon: In a collection of his Sermons by John Garbrand of Oxon, Printed 1583. there are these three passages, which declare most plainly how he did understand the said In­junction, one giving light unto the other. Of these, the first occurs in that upon the first of Haggai, where having spent two leaves upon the entrance to his matter, and made division of his Text, we find it in a line by it self, and a different character, this word Pray, and that noting out the place in which his Form of bidding prayer was at that time used: More fully in his Sermon upon Rom. 13.12. where having entred on his matter, he thus moves the people, or as the Stile then was, thus biddeth the Prayers. But before I proceed to declare further that which is to be spoken at this present, let us turn our bearts to God, even the Father of lights, that it may please him to open the Eyes of your un­derstanding, and to direct all our doings to his Glory. Most fully, and indeed as fully as may be to this purpose, in that on Luc. 11.15. where having read his Text, he doth thus move the people to joyn in prayer. That it may please God so to order both my utte­rance and your understanding, that whatsoever shall be spoken or heard, may turn to the glory of his holy name, and to the profit and comfort of his Church. Before I enter into the exposi­tion of these words, I desire you to call upon our gracious God with your earnest and hearty prayer; and here I commend unto you Gods holy Catholick Church, and therein the Queens most excellent Majesty, by the especial grace of God, Queen of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the true, antient, and Apostolick Faith, and the highest Governour next under God of this Church of England, &c. that as God of his mercy hath marvellously preserved her to the possession of her right, to the great comfort of all her Subjects hearts, and to the Refor­mation of the Church, so it may please him to aid and increase her with his holy Spirit, to the continuance and performance of the same. The Queens most Honourable Council, with the residue of the Nobility; the good Estate of both of the Ʋniversities, and all other Schools of Learning, the only Nurseries of this Realm; the Bishops and Preachers, that the number of them may be increased, and that they may have grace to set forth the truth of Gods Gospel, as their duty is, diligently, sincerely, soberly, timely, and faithfully: And the whole Com­mons of this Realm, and specially such as speak ill, or think ill of Gods holy Word, that they may have grace to regard the Salvation of their Souls, to lay aside all blind affection, to hear the Word of God, and so to come to the Knowledge of the truth. This is the Form by him then used, which plainly is by way of Exhortation, not of Invocation, a Form of Bidding prayer, according as it is prescribed in the Injunction, and no direct prayer, with ad­dress to God, as is now devised against the Injunction and the Canon. And here it is to be observed, that in this Form of Bishop Jewels, there is not only a conformity to the Injunction, that is by Bidding and Exhorting only, but that therein he recom­mends unto them those particular heads which in the said Injunction are contained, the last excepted: As for the words, or phrase of speaking, he useth not the same pre­cisely, which are laid down in the Injunction, but other words amounting to the same effect; which also sheweth, that whatsoever liberty is given us in the Canon by these words, or to this effect, by no means giveth us any power to change the Form of moving, bidding, or exhorting, but only sheweth to what effect they must, and may bid, move, or exhort the people.

The next in order of Ascent (for so we purpose to proceed) is Archbishop Parker, the first Archbishop of Canterbury in Queen Elizabeths Reign, who being Pro-vice-chancellor of Cambridge in King Edwards time, and preaching at the Funeral (there) of Martin Bucer, in the conclusion of his Sermon, doth thus begin his Exhortation ad preces (as it is there called) or (which comes both to one) doth thus bid the prayers. Ʋt igitur velum ignorantiae cordibus nostris detrahetúr, & discutiatur ab oculis invidiae caligo, atque profundâ cogitatione, & consideratione hunc tristem casum pro occasione à Deo [Page 154]oblatâ confiteamur, &c. Coram Deo clemente, & misericorde nos prosternamus, & piis preci­bus ab eo misericordiam invocemus. In quibus Commendo vobis Ecclesiam Catholicam, San­ctam Dei Communionem, ut cum dignâ confessione, &c. progrediatur in cognitione ejus volun­tatis, & in Domini nostri, & Salvatoris fide persistat; orate insuper pro omnibus iis, qui per errorem atque infidelitatem manifestò deprehenduntur extra Ecclesiam, vel qui hypocriticâ dissi­mulatione habentur de eadem (cum sint reverâ synagoga Satanae) ut vocem Christi summi Pastoris unanimes audiant, & efficiamur unum ovile, unum grex, uno ore, & corde gloriam tribuentes Deo Patri Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Orate pro Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ & Hibernicâ, & ambarum supremo capite proxime à Christo Illustrissimo & Clementissimo Domino nostro Rege Edwardo ejus nominis sexto, &c. Precemur etiam pro nobis ipsis, ut quemadmodum Patres Veteris Testamenti versabantur in continuis votis, & expectatione primi adventus Ser­vatoris nostri in carne, &c. sic & nos sub novo testamento, sobriè, piè, & justè vivamus in hoc mundo, acerrimâ cupiditate secundum ejus adventum manentes, & unà cum dormientibus Fratribus plenam redemptionem Corporum nostrorum ejus glorioso corpori conglutinandorum siti­entes, consociati Abrahamo, Isaaco, Jacobo, &c. This I have here set down in the La­tine tongue, according as I find the same in the opera Anglicana of the said Martin Bucer, pag. 898. which if it be compared with the Kings Injunctions, will manifestly appear to be conform thereto in each particular (the special recitation of the Kings Sisters, the Protectours Grace, the Clergy and Nobility being all included, though cut off with, &c.) and cometh also very near to that of Bishop Jewel before remembred, both of them keeping to the Form of bidding, moving, or exhorting, but taking to them­selves the liberty of their own expression for the phrase and stile, according to the pur­pose and effect of the said Injunction. And it is worth our noting too, that presently upon the end of this exhortation, or bidding of the Prayers, used by Dr. Parker, there follow­eth in the book these words, Hic factae sunt tacitae preces. By all which we may perceive most evidently, that it was then the peoples practice, and is now our duty immedi­ately upon the bidding of the Prayers, or on the Preachers moving of the people to joyn with them in Prayer, as the Canon hath it, to recollect the heads recommended to them, and tacitly to represent them to the Lord in their devotions, or otherwise to comprechend them in the Pater-noster, with which the Preacher, by the Canon, is to close up all.

XII And now being come to the times of King Edward the sixth, we will next look on Bishop Latimer, the fourth of these five Prelates, whom before I spake of, who living in King Henry and King Edwards times, and in their times using that Form of bidding Prayers, which is prescribed both in the Canon and Injunctions, shews plainly, that the antient practice in this kind was every way conform to the present Canon, and the old Injunctions. And first to keep our selves to King Edwards Reign, we have eight passages in his Sermons, preached in that Kings time, whereby we may per­ceive what the usage was, six of them laid down in brief, and two more at large; the two last being as a comment on the former six; of the six brief, the first occurs in his 2d.p. 33. Sermon before King Edward thus: Hitherto goeth the Text, That I may declare this the better to the edifying of your Souls, and the glory of God, I shall desire you to pray, &c. So in his third before the King,p. 42. March the 22. Before I enter further into this matter, I shall desire you to pray, &c. And in the fourth, March 29. That I may have grace so to open the remnant of this Parable, that it may be to the glory of God, and edifying of your souls, I shall desire you to pray, in the which prayer, &c. And in the 5th. Sermon before the King on the 6th. of April, p. 51. having entred on his matter, he thus invites them to their Prayers: And that I may have grace, &c. So in the sixth, April the 13th. This is the story, and that I may declare this Text, so as it may be to the honour of God, and the edifying of your souls and mine both, I shall desire you to help me with your prayers, in the which, &c. The last is in a Sermon before that King,p. 108. Preached at the Court in Westm. An. 1550. where he doth it thus, Here therefore I shall desire you to pray, &c.

XIII These instances compared with the other two, make the matter plain, whereof the first is in the seventh before King Edward, April 19. 1549. Thus, This day we have in memory [Christs] bitter passion, and death, the remedy of our Sin. Therefore I intend to treat of a piece of the story of his passion; I am not able to treat of all: that I may do this the better, and that it may be to the honour of God, and the edification of your Souls and mine both, I shall desire you to pray, &c. In this prayer, I shall desire you to remember the Souls departed with laud and praise to Almighty God, that he did vouchsafe to assist them at the hour of their death: I shall desire you to pray, &c. And in the which, &c. What mean these & caetera's? That we shall see most manifestly in his Sermon Preached at Stamford, p. 88. Octob. 9. 1550. [Page 155]which shews indeed most fully; that the Form of bidding Prayers then used, was every way conform to the Injunction of King Edward VI. and very near the same, which was prescribed after by the Queens Injunction. For having as before proposed his matter, he thus bids the Prayers. And that I may at this time so declare them, as may be for Gods glory, your edifying, and my discharge, I pray you to help me with your prayers; in the which prayer, &c. For the Ʋniversal Church of Christ through the whole world, &c. for the preservation of our Sovereign Lord King Edward the Sixth, sole Supreme Head under God, and Christ, of the Churches of England and Ireland, &c. Secondly, for the Kings most honourable Council. Thirdly, I commend unto you the Souls departed this life in the Faith of Christ, that ye remember to give laud, praise, and thanks to Almighty God for his great goodness and mercy shewed unto them in that great need and conflict against the Devil and Sin, and that gave them in the hour of death faith in his Sons Death and Passion, where­by they conquer, and overcome, and get the victory: Give thanks I say for this, adding prayers and supplications for your selves, that it may please God to give you like faith, and grace to trust only in the death of his dear Son, as he gave unto them: For as they be gone, so must we, and the Devil will be as ready to tempt us, as he was them, and our sins will light as heavy up­on us, as theirs did upon them, and we were as weak and unable to resist as were they. Pray therefore that we may have Grace to die in the same faith, as they did, and at the latter day to be raised with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and be partakers with Christ in the Kingdom of Heaven, for this and all other graces, let us say the Lords prayer.

XIV Now unto Bishop Latimer we will joyn another of the same time, and as high a calling, which is Dr. Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, of whom, whatever may be said in other respects, in this it cannot be objected, but that he followed the Form and Order then prescribed; for in a Sermon Preached before King Edward VI. Anno 1550. be­ing the Fourth of that Kings Reign, before the naming of his Text, for ought ap­pears, he thus bids the Prayer. Most honourable Audience, I purpose by the grace of God to declare some part of the Gospel, that is accustomably used to be read in the Church at this day, and that, because without the special grace of God, neither I can speak any thing to your edify­ing, nor ye receive the same accordingly, I shall desire you all, that we may joyntly pray all to­gether for the assistance of his grace. In which prayer I commend to Almighty God your most excellent Majesty our Sovereign Lord, King of England, France, and Ireland, and of the Church of England and Ireland, next and immediately under God here on earth Supream Head, Q. Katharine Dowager, my L. Maries grace, and my L. Elizabeths grace, your Majesties most dear Sisters, my L. Protectors grace, with all others of your most honourable Council, the Spiritualty and Temporalty. And I shall desire you to commend unto God with your prayers, the Souls departed unto God in Christs Faith, and among those most especially our late Sovereign Lord King Henry VIII. your most noble, Father; for these, and for grace ne­cessary, I shall desire you to say a Pater-nosler, and so forth. Which Form of his agrees most exactly with that order in the Kings Injunction, not altered then in that clause, for the Saints departed; which (as it seems) continued till the alteration of the publick Liturgy, Anno 1552. and then was changed with the same: In other things no diffe­rence between him and that other Form, which was commanded and set forth by the Queens Injunction, and between him and Bishop Latimer, so little, that it may seem to be in words more than meaning: In both we have a clear and pregnant evidence, that then they used no proper and direct address to God in a formal Prayer of their own devising, but only laid before the people some certain heads they were to pray for, which in the Language of that time was called Bidding of prayer.

XV We should now look upon the practice in King Henries days, but that I think no question can or will be made in that particular, considering the severe temper of that Prince in exacting full obedience unto all his Mandates; or if there be, that Form of Prayer which we find used by Bishop Latimer in his Sermon Preached before the Con­vocation, in the 28th. of that Kings Reign (which before we spake of) may serve once for all without further Instances, which brings the precept and the practice to the like Antiquity.

Put all that hath been said together, and the sum is this: That if we do interpret the Canon of the year 1603. by the Queens Injunctions, and construe both of them according to the Injunctions in King Edwards and King Henries days, seconded by the constant practice in all times succeeding, we shall see plainly, that in the intention of the Church we are to use no Prayer before our Sermons by way of Invocation to God, but somewhere in them, or before them to use a Form of Bidding prayer by way of Exhortation to the Auditory: This said, we will declare in brief how the new [Page 156]Form of Prayer by way of Invocation, and address to God (which is now generally taken up) came in use amongst us, and afterwards lay down some reasons, not so much to oppose that Form of Invocation lately taken up, as to establish and confirm the other Form of Bidding prayers, founded upon the Canon, the Injunctions, and the antient practice.

XVI Now this new Form of Invocation, to deal plainly in it, was first contrived and set on foot by the Puritan faction, who labouring with might and main [...], as the saying is, to overthrow the publick service of this Church, then by Law established, endeavoured to advance in the place thereof an Arbitrary and Ex­temporary Form of Prayer, of every ptivate mans devising, and that not only before, but after Sermon. Calvin had so appointed in Geneva, and Knex in Scotland, and ra­ther than not have it so in England also, the Brethren were resolved to put all in ha­zard. This when they could not compass with their noise and clamour, they fell up­on a way which came somewhat near it, and was more likely far to effect their pur­pose. Their Lecturers and Preachers, yea, and followers too, not coming to the Church till the Service ended, and their own Prayer was to begin. The Book of dangerous practices and positions, writ as was thought by Bishop Bancroft (though not then a Bishop,) will give us some of those examples; take one among them for a tryal, and you shall find him boast himself, that every Sabbath (so he called it) not medling with the Liturgy prescribed he used to Preach unto his people, Ego singulis sab­batis, si non alius adveniens locum suppleat (cum praescriptâ liturgias formula nihil habens com­mercii) in coetu concionem habeo. What he professed for himself was then the practice of them all (some of them as it is observed in the Conference at Hampton Court, being content to walk in the Church-yard till Sermon time, rather than to be present at publick prayer) and is still, I fear used by many Lecturers in and about the City of London. Thus having limited all Gods Service unto Preaching, and some Extemporary Prayer of their own devising, they brought the people at last unto this persuasion, that in the publick Liturgy there was nothing but a meer formality which the Law enjoyned. Their Arbitrary and Extemporary Forms of Prayer savouring only of the Spirit, and true devotion, which when they could not bring about at the first attempt, they practised with a counterfeit Devil to undertake it: The seven of Lancashire, when they were taught by Mr. Darrel to play the Demoniacks, were also taught by him to pro­mote the cause. As often as any of those Ministers, who were conformable to the Church, and kept themselves unto the Forms of the publique Liturgy, did come to visit them, and in their hearing read some Prayers out of the Common-prayer Book, the Devil was as quiet as any Lamb, as if he were well pleased with that Form of Ser­vice, or that there was not any thing in those Prayers, or the men that used them, to trouble him or disturb his peace. But when as Mr. Darrel and other Brethren of the Non-conformity approached in sight, who used to fall upon him with whole volleys of raw and indigested Prayers of their own devising (such as they had prepared and fitted for the present occasion) then were the wicked Spirits much more troubled, and perplexed extreamly, whereby you may perceive, that even the Puritans also had a kind of Holy-water, with which to fright away the Devil, lest else the Papists should in any thing have the start before them. And whereas the Injunction had restrained the Clergy to some certain heads by them to be commended to the Peoples prayers, these men took neither care of the Form, or matter of the said Injunction; not of the Form, for they directed their address to Almighty God in manner of a formal prayer, as hath since been used against the Canon; nor of the matter of the same, for they began their Prayer with a long confession, or a discourse rather of their own unclean­ness, and the corruption of mans nature, fill'd it with praise and thanksgiving for par­ticular blessings, even for their Godly friends and acquaintance, and ended it with a kind of a charm or transubstantiating, as viz. That the words which they should speak, might not be entertained as the words of a mortal man, but as they were indeed the words of the immortal and living God. (For in that very stile I have heard it often) nay, they went so far in the end, that the Visitation of the Sick prescribed by the Church was quite laid aside, their weak estate being reduced unto that prayer also. Those which were dangerously ill, or but ill at ease, sending their Bills abroad to several Preachers, by them to be remembred in their Pulpit prayers. Hereto they also had reduced parti­cular Thanksgivings for the recovery of such persons as had been visited with Sickness, or had escaped any present danger of what inferiour rank soever it were, which grew so common at the last (and in late times too,) that being once to Preach in the Church [Page 157]of Westminster, before many of the Nobility, and many other persons of great note and honour, the Verger there brought me a Ticket in these words, viz. N. N. of the Parish of St. Martins, Shooe-maker, having lately had a dangerous fall, and now being pretty well recovered, desires this Congregation to give thanks for him. So that this Prayer of theirs became at last the [...], the general plaister for all sores, the common recep­tacle for all sutes, the universal comprehension of all pious offices: The Service of the Church being thought mean while to be ineffectual; nay, by I know not what strange means it found such entertainment among them also, who otherwise were not ill affected unto the order of the Church, that in the end the usual Form of Bidding-prayers was in a manner laid aside by all sorts of men, and is now forced to plead its Birth-right, and seek for repossession as ex post liminio, which it doth as followeth.

XVII And first it may be pleaded from the antient practice, not of our Church alone since the Reformation, which is done already; but of all Churches in all times, in which there is no constat of any Form of Prayer by way of Invocation used, or to be used be­fore the Sermon, Lecture, Exercise, or Homilies, call it what you will: The exposition of the Law in Ezras time, which was a Lecture at the least, if not a Sermon,Nehem. 8. was nakedly delivered without any prayer, so were the Sermons of the Prophets. Our Saviours Sermon on the Mount had no Prayer before it, that we can meet with;Matt. 6.9. but there was in it questionless a Bidding of Prayers, and a particular Form laid down, af­ter which to pray; for it is said there, we shall pray after this manner: those of the Apostles also were delivered in the self same manner, though in those times in the which no publick Liturgy was as yet universally agreed upon, a formal Prayer before the Sermon might be thought, more necessary. In the next Ages, when as the Church was setled, and certain Forms of Prayer prescribed (made either by the A­postles or Apostolick men) we find not any for this purpose: Nor is there only a non liquet of it in the publick formulas, but nothing to be found, which reflects that way in any of the Sermons, Homilies, or Expositions of the Antient Doctors either Greek or Latine. As for the later times, when as the service of the Church was brought unto that Form wherein it now continues, for the most part in the Church of Rome, the Sermon commonly was an enarration, or an explication of the Gospel, for the day appointed, or otherwise some of the Homilies of the Holy Fathers, and needed no much preparation thereunto, as is now required. Nor doth that use continue only in the Church of Rome, but also in the Lutheran Churches (as they call them) as ap­peareth plainly by the Writings of Dietericus, and other Doctors of that party. A thing so universally received among them, that in the alteration of Religion made in Bran­denburg, Anno 1614. It was declared by the Elector amongst other things; Evan­geliis, & Epistolis, quae diebus Dominicis explicantur & quotannis repetuntur, Pastores non ita astrictos esse debere, ut ipsis non liceat alium aliquem insignem textum biblicum praelegere, & pro concione tractare; By which we may perceive that in the Lutheran Churches the Sermons are no other than a brief enarration of, or on the Gospel, and Epistle for the day appointed, and so but little need of preparatory Prayers, as before I noted; so that as not of old in the former times, so neither in the Lutheran Churches, or any others of the Reformation, which retain any Tract, or footstep of the antient Litur­gies (as God be thanked here we do) is there a shew of any thing (that I can meet with) to countenance and conclude a set Form of Prayer made before the Ser­mon according to the Preachers own conceptions, either in prescript or in practice. Geneva which first bred it, doth alone retain it, and those which on her commenda­tions have since took it up.

XVIII Next we may argue for the Form of Bidding Prayers, that at the first, when it was introduced into the Church, it rather was a part of the very Sermon, one of the Principal instructions therein delivered, than any preparation to it: In the Injunctions of King Henry VIII. it is commanded that the Curates should in their Sermons, or Collations, declare unto the People the Kings Su­pream Authority, for which end especially, the use of Bidding-Prayers seems to me to be first ordained, and being so ordained, and withal brought into a Form (as it still continueth) it was for ought we know at the Preachers pleasure to bring it in into his Sermon, where he thought most fit, Ten times at least in Bishop Latimer, we find this Form of Bidding Prayers. In the first whereof be­ing that before the Convocation, he spends three leaves and more ere he comes unto it; two almost in the 2. and 6. before King Edward. Eight almost, being [Page 158]well near half his Sermon in that before that King at Westminster, Anno 1550. and in the other six he doth not use it till he be entred on his matter, as by what hath been said before doth at full appear; Nay by the Rule laid down in the Queens Injunction, it seems it was not to be used till the end of the Sermon: and therefore no such necessary preparation to it, as it is now conceived, and made. For pre­sently on the conclusion of the said Form of Bidding prayers, it followeth thus in the Injunction: And this done, shew the holy-Days, and Fasts. This by our pre­sent Liturgy (confirmed in Parliament before the setting out of the said Injuncti­ons) is ordered to be done after the Homily, or Sermon: and might seem incon­venient, if not absurd, should it be done in the middle of the Sermon, much more between the Prayer, and the Sermon, which also seems to have been put to pra­ctice in King Edwards time: Dr. Parker not descending to the Bidding of prayers (or to his Exhortation ad preces, as it is there called) till he was come to the conclusion of his matter in the close of all. Now where the Canon hath appoint­ed, that the Form of Prayer there recited be used by Preachers before the Ser­mon, i. e. before the substance of it (the preface and division being only a manu­duction thereunto, and no parts thereof) as Bishop Andrews always used it, or else between the Text, and Sermon, as others no less eminent than he have been accustomed to do: Or if it must needs be interpreted to be before them both, as the most would have it, we must then think the Church was pleased to yield a little unto the current of the time, in which that fashion generally had been taken up: And that the Church regarded not so much the circumstance as the main and substance, which was to lay before the people some heads of prayer, and thereby to cut of those long, and tedious prayers, so much used of late, un­der pretence whereof so many Widows houses had been devoured, and all the publick service of the Church neglected.

XIX Thirdly it may be pleaded, that the old Form of Bidding prayers is more a­greeable to the Law, than their new Form of Invocation, which is expresly, and directly against the same: For in the Statute 2. and 3. of King Edward VI. Cap. 1. as afterwards in the first of Queen Elizabeth Cap. 20. (whereas after­wards in the first of Queen Elizabeth Cap. 20. (wherein the Common-prayer-book now in use was confirmed, and established:) It is enacted, ‘That if any man­ner of Parson, Vicar, or whatsoever Minister, that ought, or should sing, or say Common prayers, &c. shall wilfully, or obstinately standing on the same, use any other Rite, Cermony, Order, Form, or manner of celebrating the Lords Sup­per openly, or privily, or Mattens, Even-song, administration of the Sacra­ments, or other open prayer [N. B.] than is mentioned, and set forth in the said Book, He shall lose, and forfeit to the Queens Highness, her Heirs and Suc­cessours, for his first offence the profits of all his spiritual Benefices, and Pro­motions, coming, and arising in one whole year next after his conviction, and also for the same offence shall suffer imprisonment by the space of nine Months without bayl, or mainprise, &c.’ and so from one punishment un­to another, until at last they come on the third offence, to Deprivation, and im­prisonment perpetual. Now lest there should be any doubt, what is here meant by Open prayer, The said two Statutes thus expound it: ‘Open prayer in and throughout this Act is meant, that prayer, which is for others to come unto, and hear either in common Churches or private Chappels, and Oratories, com­monly called the service of the Church:’ so as it seemeth by this Statute, that whosoever useth in the Church any open prayer, i. e. such prayer as is made for other Men to come unto, or hear, which is not mentioned or set forth in the Common-prayer book, makes himself subject unto all the penalties in the same con­teined: which thing considered as it ought, it is not to be thought, that in the Convocation of 1603. the Church did order, or permit by the aforesaid Canon any Form of prayer, or Invocation, which was repugnant to the Statutes standing still in force, but only purposed to continue the usual Form of Bidding prayer, or exhor­tation unto Prayers, which was agreeable thereto.

XX In the 4th rank the very place it self comes to be considered, in which this Prayer of theirs is made, which of all places else is most improper for that action, and least intended to it by the Church. Pulpits were made of old for publick speeches to the people and not for Prayers unto the Gods; the Pulpit for Orations being often [Page 159]mentioned in Heathen Writers (call it Suggestum, rostrum, pulpitum, or what else you will) but never any mentioned in them, as a place for Prayer: And so in sacred matters also, the Pulpit hath been used for publishing the Law in reference to Mount Sinai, whence it first was published;Neh. v. 4. Matth. 5.6, 7. Deut. 27.13. and for the preaching of the Gospel in reference to the Mount, where it was first preached, and for the denouncing of Gods Judgments on the Disobedient, in reference to Mount Ebal, whence the Curse was threatned: But that the Pulpit should be used as a place to pray in, when there are other places destinate to that holy Use, was never heard of, as I think, till these later Ages, when all things seemed to tend to Innovation; Sure I am in the Church of England there was no such meaning; for in the 83. Canon, it is ordained, that the Parishioners shall provide a comely and decent Pulpit, to be set in a convenient place, and to be there seemly kept for the preaching of Gods Word: Nothing else in the Canon is expressed, but only preaching of Gods Word; and therefore I may safely say nothing else was meant: especially there being another seat appointed for the publick prayers, Can. 82. For further proof of which, let us but look unto the Rubrick before the Commination where is said, as followeth. After Morning prayer, the people being called together by the tolling of a Bell, and assembled in the Church, the English Letany shall be said after the accustomed manner, which ended, the Priest shall go into the Pulpit and say thus. Here seems to be another Use of the Pulpit, besides that of preaching, but indeed it is not. The threatnings of Gods Judgments being many times as necessary to, and for Gods people, as the endearments of his mercies, and both the preaching of his Word: Now whereas after the said Commination there are some certain reconciliatory Psalms, or Prayers, that follow after; those are not to be said within the Pulpit, but where the Letany had been said before; for so it is declared in the next Rubrick. Then shall they all kneel upon their knees, the Priest, and Clerk kneel­ing, where they are accustomed to say the Letany, shall say this Psalm: which plainly shews, that in the intention of the Church, the Pulpit was not made for a place for the Priest to pray in, but rather for a place wherein to teach the people, how they were to pray, which is the Bidding prayers in the Canon meant.

XXI The same may be concluded also even from the posture of the Preacher being in the Pulpit; for Pulpits being made as before was said, for Speeches, Sermons, and Orations unto the people, the Speaker, Orator, or Preacher was of necessity, or ordinary Course, to turn himself unto the people, that so they might the better both see, and hear him, as in such things is still accustomed; whereas in times of Prayer, the Priest, or Minister, ought to turn his face to the upper end of the Church, looking towards the East, and so his back to be towards the people; I say that so he ought to do, at least if he intend to follow either the prescript of this Church, or most true antiquity. The Christians of Tertullians time were generally accused for worshipping the Sun, because that in their prayers they turned their faces to the East: Inde suspicio quod innotuerit nos ad Orientis regionem precari: Apol. p. 16. as he there informs us where (nos) no question was not meant of the people only, but of Priest, and people. And for the Church of England, Rubr. after the Psal. it is appointed in her Rubrick that at the reading of the Lessons the Minister which reads, shall stand, and turn him so, as he may be best heard of all such as be present; which shews plainly, he was to look ano­ther way, when he said the Prayers: And lest it may be said, that the other way was not directly from the people, but askew upon them (which yet would ill be­come the Preacher) we find it among other things objected by the Puritan faction in Queen Elizabeths time, not only that the Ministers did say some part of Divine Service within the Chancel, where he must needs look askew upon them, but that at other times his face was turned away from them altogether: whereof see Hooker l. 5. Sect. 30. which makes me wonder by the way, that all, or most part of our Reading-pews should be of late so placed, that contrary both to the Churches Or­der, and the antient practice, the Minister, when he readeth the Prayers, looks down­wards towards the lower end of the Church, and not unto the East, as he ought to do; so then the Preacher in the Pulpit turning himself unto the people, and making himself the object of their Eyes, as he of their attentions, cannot be thought to pray to God, but if he pray at all, to the people rather: and on the other side, the Form of Bidding prayers being by way of Exhortation, and so purposed, doth fit as well the posture of the Preacher, as it doth the place.

XXII Lastly, the Form of Bidding prayers, stands more with the intention of the Church, [Page 160]than that of Invocation, because it doth avoid some inconveniences, and absurdities which do arise upon the other; For first, whereas the Church prescribes a set Form of prayer in her publick Liturgy, from which it is not lawful for any of her Mini­sters, either to vary, or recede; she did it principally to avoid all unadvised effusions of gross and undigested prayers, as little capable of piety, as they are utterly void of Order, and this she did upon the reason given in the Milevitan Council, viz. lest else through ignorance, or want of Care, any thing should be uttered contrary to the Rule of Faith, ne forte aliquid contra fidem, vel per ignorantiam vel per minus stu­dium sit compositum, as the Canon hath it: But were men suffered to enjoy a liberty of Praying, and saying what they listed before their Sermons, in vain had the Church bound us to set Forms of prayer in the common Liturgy, upon several penalties, when men might afterwards run riot how they pleased in their particular prayers be­fore their Sermons, without blame or censure: And though perhaps in some Churches of the Reformation, in which there is no publick Liturgy, or set Form of Divine Service, to which both Priest and people, are obliged to conform themselves, it may be lawful for the Preacher to use such prayers both before and after Sermon, as the consideration of that great work, and the necessities of the people may invite him to; yet it is otherwise with us in the Church of England, where all these points are carefully provided for in the Book of Common-prayers, which in these other Churches are made the Subject of the Preachers. Now where some men conceive they obey the Canon, in case they pray in that Form, or to that effect, those who do so conceive it, shew in their deeds, that they as little care for the effect, as for the Form, we plainly see by the effects, what that effect of theirs would tend to, what is the issue of that liberty, which most Men have taken: too many of that sort, who most stand upon it, using such passages in their prayers before their Sermons, that even their prayers in the Psalmists language are turned into Sin: And for the brevity therein required [as briefly as conveniently they may] they neglect that also: and study to spin out their prayers to a tedious length against all convenience. Besides, whereas the Church intendeth nothing more in her publick Canons than an uniformity in Devo­tion, this leaving men to themselves in such a special part of Gods publick Service as that now is made, would bring in a Confusion, at the least a Dissonancie, and so, destroy that blessed Concord, which the Church most aims at: Both which absurdi­ties or inconveniences, call them what you will, are happily avoided by that Order of Bidding prayers, by the Church intended.

XXIII A third, and greater inconvenience, than the other two, which would, and doth arise from that Form of Prayer by way of Invocation, is that, it doth accuse the pub­lick Liturgy as insufficient, and defective: For were it thought that the Confession in the Service-book, and those particular Prayers, Collects, Hymns, Thanksgivings, and Ejaculations, which are therein used, were either perfect in themselves, or ac­ceptable unto God, to what end should we add a prayer of our own devising? that were to light a Candle before the Sun, and therefore they that stand upon it, do in effect, as much as if a man should say, my Friends, and Brethren make no account of any thing, which you hear from the Common-prayer-book, in which is nothing to be found but the voice of Man, but hearken unto me, and by me what the Churches say to the Spirit; or as a Puritan Tradesman once served my old Chamber-fellow Mr. L. D. meeting one time by chance at Dinner, my Chamber-fellow being the only Scholar in the Company, was requested to say Grace, which he did accordingly; and having done, the Tradesman, whom before I spake of, lifting up both his hands, and whites to Heaven, calls upon them, saying, Dearly beloved Brethren, let us praise God better; And thereupon began a long Grace of his own conceiving. The case is just the same in the present business: Nor had those Men, who first invented those new Forms of Prayer, obtruded them so easily upon the Church, but that withal they laboured to persuade weak Men, and did persuade them at the last, that questionless such prayers were better, and more powerful far than any by the Church appointed: Now all this fear of bringing down the reputation of the Li­turgy, and practising to advance our private prayers above the publick, are easily avoided by that Bidding of prayers enjoyed by Queen Elizabeth, and King Edward VI. and before that, in use in the Church of England, as doth appear most plainly in King Henries time, and therefore questionless it was the meaning of the Canon, that it should continue. And being it was the meaning of the Canon, of them that [Page 161]made it, that the said Form of Bidding prayers (for avoiding the inconveniences and mischiefs before recited) should be still continued; the Prelates of the present times, have greater reason to see it carefully, and duly put in execution, by how much the mischiefs and inconveniences, arising from neglect thereof, and from the liberty which some Men take unto themselves of praying what, and how they list in the Congrega­tion, are now more sensibly apparent than ever formerly.

Other absurdities, or inconveniences in this kind I could produce, but that these few may serve as a taste for the rest, and I am loath to go beyond the compass of a Letter, although I cannot but be fearful, that I have passed the bounds thereof already: However I was willing rather to trespass somewhat on good manners, than to be wanting in the least degree to your desire: Beseeching you as favou­rably to accept, those Considerations, as they are chearfully and faithfully di­gested by me in obedience to the intimation of your Lordships pleasure, which in all matters tending to the Churches service, carrieth the force of a Command upon all the studies and endeavours of

MY LORD,
Your Lordships most Humble Servant.
THE UNDECEIVING OF T …

THE UNDECEIVING OF THE PEOPLE In the point of TITHES.

Wherein is shewed,

  • I. That never any Clergy in the Church of God hath been, or is main­tained with less charge to the Subject, than the established Clergy of the Church of England.
  • II. That there is no Subject in the Realm of England, who giveth any thing of his own, towards the maintenance of his Parish-Minister, but his Easter-Offering.
  • III. That the change of Tithes into Stipends, will bring greater trouble to the Clergy, than is yet considered; and far less profit to the Countrey, than is now pretended.

By PETER HEYLYN, D. D.

1 COR. IX. 7.

Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Who planteth a Vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flocks.

LONDON, Printed by M. Clark, to be sold by C. Harper. 1681.

TO THE READER.

THE Lands of Bishops and Cathedrals, being put to sale, there remain­eth nothing to support a sinking Ministry but Parochial Tithes; and upon these the eyes of Avarice and Rapine were so strongly fixt, that all en­deavours to preserve them were almost grown desperate. The Horseleach and her Daughters in the book of Proverbs are always on the craving hand; nothing but Give, Give, to be heard amongst them. Non mis­sura cutem nisi plena cruoris hirudo, in the Poets lauguage. When they have once tasted the sweets of blood, they never lose their hold till full, and when full, not satisfied. The Prey when brought within the view must be hunted close. And to this end the Anabaptists on the one side, and the Adjutators on the other so be­stirred themselves, that Petitions against Tithes were hammered in all parts of the King­dom, the Parliament continually vexed with their importunities, the vulgar Landhol­ders fool'd into an opinion that they should have those Tithes themselves which be­fore they paid unto the Clergy; the common Tradesman and Artificer which had none to pay, opening as wide as any of the rest to make up the Cry. In this Conjuncture of Affairs, Anno 1648. I published a short and plain Discourse, entituled, The Unde­ceiving of the People in the point of Tithes, under the name of Ph. Treleinie, the letters of my own name being transposed into that in the way of Anagram. For though I was then sequestred from my Church-preferments, in a condition rather of paying than receiving Tithes, and consequently could have no Self-ends in it, as the case then stood: yet I was fearful lest the work of avowed for mine, should be neglected as the pro­duct of corrupted Interests of one that wholly advocated for his own concernments. What benefit redounded by it unto some, what satisfaction unto others, I had rather thou shouldst hear elsewhere than expect from me. All I shall add now is but this, that I hope it will not be less profitable unto them that read it, nor read by any with more prejudice and disaffection, now I acknowledg it for my own, than when it came before them in a borrowed name; and so fare thee well.

The Undeceiving of the People In the Point of TITHES.

AMongst those popular deceits which have been set abroad of late to abuse the people, there is not any one which hath been cherished with more endearments, than a persuasion put into them of not paying Tithes: Partly, because it carrieth no small shew of profit with it, but principally, as it seems a con­ducible means to make the Clergy more obnoxious to them, and to stand more at their devotion than they have done for­merly. Upon these hopes, it hath been the endeavours of some leading men to represent it to the rest as a Publick grie­vane, that the Clergy being but an handful of men in comparison of all the rest of the Kingdom, should go away with the tenth (or as some say, the sixth part) of the fruits of the earth; and that the Minister sitting still in his contemplations, should live upon the sweat of other mens brows, and taking pains amongst the people but one day in seven, should have the tenth part of their Estates allotted to them for their maintenance. And 'tis no marvail, if some few on these mis-persuasions, have im­portuned the High Court of Parliament from time to time with troublesome and cla­morous Petitions to redress this wrong, and put them up also in the name of whole Counties (although the generality of those Counties had no hand therein) to add the greater credit and authority to them. In which design, although they have prevailed no further on the two Houses of Parliament, than to be sent away with this general promise,As in the an­swer to those those of Hart­ford, Kent, &c. That in due time their Petitions should be taken into consideration; and that it was the pleasure of the several and respective Houses, that in the mean season they should take care that Tithes be duly paid accordin to Law; yet they which have espoused the quarrel will not so be satisfied. For when it pleased the Lords and Commons to set out an Ordinance, bearing date Novemb. 8. 1644. for the true payment of Tithes and other duties, according to the Laws and customs of this Realm; there came out presently a Pamphlet entituled, The Dismounting of the Ordinance for Tithes, followed and back­ed by many a scandalous Paper of the self-same strain. And when it seemed good to the said Lords and Commons, on the precipitancy of some of the Clergy under Se­questration, to set out their Additional Ordinance of the ninth of August, Anno 1647. it was encountred presently with a scurrilous Pamphlet, entituled, A Preparation for a day of Thanksgiving to the Parliament for their late Ordinance for Tithes, newly mounted and well charged with treble damages, for the peoples not giving the Tenth part of their Fstates to the Clergy or Impropriators. And this, according to the style of those Petitions, is said to be the Result of the Parliaments Friends in Hartfordshire; though I am verily per­suaded that few, if any of the Gentry and men of quality in the Country were ac­quainted with it. But be it the result of few or many of the Parliaments Friends (though I conceive they are but back-friends to the Parliament, who set so slight a value on their Constitutions) the Title doth afford two things worthy consideration: First, that the maintenance of the Clergy here by Law established, is said to be by giving to them the tenth part of every mans Estate: And secondly, that the blow goes higher than before it did, and aims not only at the devesting of the Church of her ancient Patrimony, but at the depriving of the Gentry of their Impropriations, which many of them hold by Lease, many by Inheritance, all by as good a title as the Law can make them. I know there hath been great pains taken by some Learned men to state the Institution and Right of Tithes, and several judicious Tractates have been writ about it; which notwithstanding have not found such entertainment as [Page 167]they did deserve; partly, because being written in an Argumentative way, they were above the reach of the vulgar Reader; but principally, because written by men in­gaged in the cause, and such as might be byassed with their own interesse in it. For my part I, am free from all those ingagements which may incline me to write any thing for my private ends, being one that payeth Tithes and such other duties as the Laws and Ordinances do injoyn. And though I sit far off from the fountain of business, and cannot possibly see at so great a distance, what might best satisfie the doubts and clamors of unquiet men; yet I shall venture to say somewhat in a modest way to­wards the Undeceiving of the People in this point of Tithes, whose judgments have been captivated by those mis-persuasions which cunningly have been communicated and infused into them. And I shall do it in a way (if I guess aright) which hath not yet been travelled in this present point; such as I hope will satisfie all them of the adverse party, but those who are resolved before-hand, that they will not be satisfied. For whereas the whole controversie turneth on these three hinges: First, that the maintenance allowed the Clergy, is too great for their calling, especially considering the small number of them: Secondly, that it is made up out of the tenth part of each mans Estate: And thirdly, that the changing of this way by the payment of Tythes into that of Stipends, would be more grateful to the Countrey, and more easie to the Clergy: I shall accordingly reduce this small discourse unto these three heads. First, I will shew that never any Clergy in the Church of God hath been, or is maintained with less charge to the Subject, than the established Clergy of the Church of England. Secondly, that there is no man in the Realm of England, who payeth any thing of his own towards the maintenance of his Parish Minister, but his Easter-Offering. And thirdly, that the changing of Tythes into Stipends, would bring greater trouble to the Clergy than is yet considered, and far less profit to the Countrey than is now preten­ded. These Propositions being proved, (which I doubt not of) I hope I shall re­ceive no check for my undertaking, considering that I do it of a good intent, to free the Parliament from the trouble of the like Petitions; and that the common people being disabused, may quietly and chearfully discharge their duties according to the Laws established, and live together with that unity and godly love which ought to be between a Minister and his Congregation. This is the sum of my design, which if I can effect, it is all I aim at: And with this Declaration of my mind and meaning, I trust this short discourse of mine will be, if not applauded, yet at least excused. First then I am to prove this point.

I. That never any Clergy in the Church of God, hath been, or is maintained with less charge to the Subject than the established Clergy of the Church of England.

For proof of this, we must behold the Church of God, as it stood under the Law in the Land of Canaan, and as it now stands under the Gospel in the most flourishing parts of Christendom. Under the Law, the Tribe of Levi was possessed of 48 Cities, and the Territories round about them, extending every way for the space of 2000 Cubits, which in so small a Country was a greater proportion, than the Rents received by the Clergy of all the Bishoprick and Chapter Lands in the Realm of England. Then had they besides Tribes (whereof more anon) the first-born of Man-kind, and all unclean Beasts, which were redeemed at the rate of five Shekels apeece, amounting in our money to 12 s. 6 d. and of the Firstlings of clean Beasts, their blood being sprink­led on the Altar, and the fat offered for a burnt-offering, the flesh remained unto the Priests. Of which, see Numb. 18. v. 15, 16, 17, 18. They had also the First fruits of wine,Levit. 2.3. & 7.5.7. oyl, and wool, Deut. 18. v. 4. yea, and of all things else which the earth brought forth for the use of man; the first fruits of the dough, Numb. 15. v. 20, 21. the Meat-offerings, the Sin-offerings, the Trespass-offerings, the Shake-offerings, the Heave-offerings, and the Shew­bread:Levit. 7.33, 34. Ib. v. 8. As also of all Eucharistical Sacrifices, the Breast and the Shoulder; of others, the shoulder and the two cheeks, and the maw: and the whole burnt-offering, they re­ceived the skin. Then add, that all the Males of the Tribes of Israel were to appear thrice yearly before the Lord, and none of them came empty-handed: And that if any had detained any thing in part or in whole, which was due by Law, he was to bring a Ram for an offering, to make good that which was detained, and to add a fifth part to it in the way of Recompence. Besides, these duties were brought in to the Priests and Levites without charge or trouble. And if any for their own ease desired not to pay in kind, but to redeem the same for a sum of money; the estimation of the due was to be made by the Priest; and a fifth part added, as before, for full satisfaction.Lev. 27, 12, 13. [Page 168]In a word, such, and so many allowances had the Priests and Levites, that setting by the Tithes of their Corn and Cattel, and of all manner of increase, their maintenance had far exceeded that of the English Clergy; and adding unto these the Tithes of all Creatures tithable, it doth more than double it. For in the payment of their Tithes, by the Lords appointment, there was not only a full tenth of all kinds of increase, but such an imposition laid on all kinds of Grain, as came to more than a sixt part of the Crop it self; insomuch that of 6000 bushels, 1121 accrued unto the Priests and Levites; 4779 remaining only to the Husbandman. For first, out of 6000 bushels (and so accordingly in all after that proportion) a Sixtieth part at least, (and that they termed the Therumah of the evil eye, or the niggards First-fruits) was to be set apart for the first fruits of the threshing-floor, which was one hundred in the total. Out of the residue, being 5900 bushels, the first Tithe payable to the Levites, which lived dispersed and intermingled in the rest of the Tribes, came to 590 bushels; and of the residue being 5310 bushels, 531 were paid for the second Tithe unto the Priests, which ministred before the Lord in his holy Temple; yet so, that such as would de­cline the trouble of carrying it in kind unto Hierusalem, might pay the price thereof in money according to the estimate which the Priests made of it. To which a fift part being added (as in other cases) did so improve this Tithe to the Priests advan­tage; as that which being paid in kind, was but ten in the hundred, being thus al­tered into money, made no less than twelve. Now lay these several sums together, and of 6000 bushels, as before was said, there will accrew 1121 to the Priest and Levite, and but 4779 to the Lord or Tenant. By which accompt the Priests and Levites in the tithing of 6000 bushels, received twice as much within a little, as is possessed or claimed by the English Clergy, even where the Tithes are best paid, with­out any exemptions, which are so frequent in this Kingdom.

But then perhaps it will be said, that the Levites made up one of the twelve Tribes of Israel, and having no inheritance amongst the rest but the Tithes and Offerings, be­sides the 48 Cities before mentioned, were to be settled in way of maintenance cor­respondent unto that proportion. But so (they say) it is not in the case of the Eng­lish Clergy, who are so far from being one of twelve or thirteen at most, that they are hardly one for an hundred; or as a late Pamphlet doth infer, not one for five hun­dred. Who on this supposition,Tithe-gathe­rers no Go­spel-Ministers. that there are 500 Men and Women in a Country Parish, the Lands whereof are worth 2000 l. per annum, and that the Minister goeth away with 400 l. a year of the said two thousand; concludeth, that he hath as much for his own particular, as any Sixscore of the Parish, supposing them to be all poor or all rich alike; and then cries out against it as the greatest Cheat and Robbery that was ever practised. But the answer unto this is easie, I would there were no greater diffi­culties to perplex the Church. First, for the Tribe of Levi, it is plain and evident, that though it pass commonly by the name of a Tribe, yet was it none of the twelve Tribes of Israel, the House of Joseph being sub-divided into two whole Tribes, those namely of Ephraim and Manasses, which made up the Twelve. And secondly, it is as evident, that it fell so short of the proportion of the other Tribes, as not to make a Sixtieth part of the House of Jacob. For in the general muster which was made of the other Tribes, of men of 20 years and upwards, such only as were fit for arms and such publick services, the number of them came unto 635500 fighting men; to which, if we should add all those which were under 20 years, and unfit for service, the num­ber would at least be doubled. But the Levites being all reckoned from a month old and above, their number was but 22000 in all, (of which see Numb. 1.46. & 3.39.) which came not to so many by 273. as the only First-born of the other Tribes: And therefore when the Lord took the Levites for the First-born of Israel, the odd 273 were redeemed according to the Law at five Shekels a man, and the money which amounted to 1365 Shekels was given to Aaron and his Sons, Numb. 7.47, 48. Which ground so laid according to the holy Scriptures, let us next take a view of the English Clergy, and allowing but one for every Parish, there must be 9725. according to the number of the parish Churches; or say ten thousand in the total, the residue being made up of Curates officiating in the Chappels of Ease throughout the Kingdom; and reckoning in all their Male-children from a month old and upwards, the number must be more than trebled. For although many of the dignified and beneficed Clergy do lead single lives, yet that defect is liberally supplied by such Married Curates as do officiate under them in their several Churches. And then, as to the disproportion which is said to be between the Clergy and the rest of the people, one to five hundred at the least; the computation is ill grounded, the collection worse. For first, the [Page 169]computation ought not to be made between the Minister and all the rest of the Parish, Men, Women, and Children, Masters and Dames, Men-servants and Maid-servants, and the Stranger which is within the gates; but between him and such whose Estates are Titheable, and they in most Parishes are the smallest number. For setting by all Children which live under their Parents, Servants, Apprentices, Artificers, Day­labourers, and Poor indigent people; none of all which have any interest in the Tith­able Lands: The number of the residue will be found so small, that probably the Mi­nister may make one of the ten, and so possess no more than his own share comes to. And then how miserably weak is the Collection which is made from thence, that this one man should have as much as any Sixscore of the rest of the Parish, (supposing that the Parish did contain 500 persons) or that his having of so much were a Cheat and Robbery? And as for that objection which I find much stood on, that the Levites had no other Inheritance but the Tithes and Offerings, Numb. 18.23. whereas the Eng­lish Clergy are permitted to purchase Lands, and to Inherit such as descend unto them; the Answer is so easie, it will make it self. For let the Tithes enjoyed by the English Clergy descend from them to their Posterity, from one Generation to another, as did the Tithes and Offerings on the Tribe of Levi: And I persuade my self that none of them will be busied about Purchasing Lands, or be an eye-sore to the people in having more to live on than their Tithes and Offerings. Till that be done, excuse them if they do provide for their Wives and Children, according to the Laws both of God and Nature. And so much for the Parallel in point of maintenance, between the Clergy of this Church and the Tribe of Levi.

Proceed we next unto the Ministers of the Gospel at the first Plantation, during the lives of the Apostles, and the times next following; and we shall find, that though they did not actually receive Tithes of the people, yet they still kept on foot their right; and in the mean time, till they could enjoy them in a peaceable way, were so provided for of all kind of necessaries, that there was nothing wanting to their con­tentation. First, that they kept on foot their Right, and thought that Tithes be­longed as properly to the Evangelical Priesthood, as unto the Legal, seems evident unto me by S. Pauls discourse, who proves Melchisedechs Priesthood by these two argu­ments: First, that he blessed Abraham: And secondly, that he Tithed him, or re­ceived Tithes of him. For though in our English translation it be only said, that he received Tithes of Abraham, which might imply that Abraham gave them as a gift, or a Free-will-offering, and that Melchisedech received them in no other sense: Yet in the Greek it is [...], which in plain English is, that he Tithed Abraham, and took them of him as his due, Heb. 7.6. If then our Saviour be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, as no doubt he is, he must have power to Tithe the people as well as to Bless them, or else he comes not home to the Type or figure: Which power of Tithing of the people, or receiving Tithes of them, since he exer­ciseth not in person, it seems to me to follow upon very good consequence, that he hath devolved this part of his power on those whom he hath called and authorised for to bless the people. Certain I am, the Fathers of the Primitive times, though they enjoyed not Tithes in specie, by reason that the Church was then unsetled, and as it were in motion to the land of rest, (in which condition those of Israel paid no Tithes to Levi) yet they still kept their claim unto them, as appears clearly out of Origen, and some other Ancients. And of this truth I think no question need be made amongst knowing men. The only question will be this, Whether the maintenance which they had till the Tithes were paid, were not as chargeable to the people as the Tithes now are (supposing that the Tithes were the Subjects own.) For my part I conceive it was, the people of those pious times not thinking any thing too much to bestow on God, for the incouragement of his Ministers, and the reward of his Prophets. They had not else sold off their Lands and Houses, and brought the prices of the things which were sold, and laid them at the Apostles feet, as we know they did, Acts 4.34, 35. but that they meant that the Apostles should supply their own wants out of those oblations, as well as the necessities of their poorer Brethren. I trow, the selling of all, and trusting it to the dis­pensing of their Teachers, was matter of more charge to such as had Lands and Houses, than paying the tenth part of their House-rent, or the Tithe of their Lands. And when this custom was laid by, (as possibly it might end with the Apostles themselves) the Offerings which succeeded in the place thereof, and are required or injoyned by the Apostolical Canons, were so great and manifold, that there was nothing necessary to the life of man, as Honey, Milk, Fowl, Flesh, Grapes Corn, Oyl, Frankincense, [Page 170]Fruits of the season, yea Strong drink and Sweet-meats, which was not liberally offered on the Altars, or Oblation-Tables: Insomuch as the Author of the Book called the Holy Table, name, and thing, &c. according to his scornful manner, saith of them, that they were rather Pantaries, Larders, or Store-houses, than so many Consecrated Altars. And though he make those Canons but as so many Pot-guns, yet as great Criticks as himself esteem otherwise of them, as his Antagonist in that quarrel proves sufficiently. And as for that particular Canon which requires these Offerings, it is but an exemplification or particularizing of that which is more generally prescribed by S. Paul, Gal. 6.6. where he enjoyneth him that is taught to communicate to him that teacheth him, in omnibus bonis, in all his goods, as the Rhemists read it very rightly, and not in all good things, as our late translation. Now this Injunction reacheth to all sorts of people, to the poor as well as to the rich, as it appears plainly by a passage in S. Cyprians works, where he upbraids a wealthy Widow for coming empty-handed, and without her Offering to the Altar of God, and eating of that part of the Sacrifice which the poor had offered.Locuples & & dives in do­minicum, sine sacrificio venis, & partem sa­crificii quod pauper obtulit sumis. Cyp. de piet. & Elee­mos. To the improvement of the maintenance of him that teacheth, not only the rich men were to offer out of their abundance, but the poor Wo­man also was to bring her Mite. They had not else come home to S. Pauls command­ment, which reacheth unto all sorts of people without any exception; to every one according to that measure of fortune which God hath given him: Which clearly sheweth, that though the payment of Tithes fall heavier upon Landed men, than possibly it might do in the Primitive times, before the Church was in a condition to demand her rights; yet speaking generally of the people of a Church or Parish, the charge was greater to them then, than it hath been since; the greatest numbers of the people being freed from Tithes, (because they have no Lands from whence Tithes are payable) who could not be discharged from the communication of their goods and substance without a manifest neglect of S. Pauls Injunction. More than this yet, besides what was communicated in a private way, for the encouragement and sup­port of him that taught; which we may well conceive to be no small matter: The publick Offerings of the people were of so great confequence, as did not only serve to maintain the Bishop, according to his place and calling, and to provide also for the Priests or Ministers which served under him; but also to relieve the Poor, and repair their Churches.Beda in histor. Eccles. l. 1. And therefore certainly the faithful of those times were generally at more charge to maintain their Ministry, than the Subject is with us in England; the greatest part of which by far pay no Tithes at all to the Parish-Minister, and no man any thing at all towards the maintenance of the Bishop, as in former days.

Follow we our design through several Countries, and we shall find the Clergy of most parts in Christendom, either more plentifully endowed, or else maintained with greater charge unto the Subject, than the Clergy of the Church of England. In France, the Author of the Cabinet computes the Tithes and temporal Revenues of the Clergy, besides provisions of all sorts, to 80 millions of Crowns; but his accompt is disallowed by all knowing men. Bodin reporteth from the mouth of Mon­sieur d'Alemant, one of the Presidents of Accompts in Paris, that they amount to 12 millions, and 300000 of their Livres, which is 1230000 l. of our English money; and he himself conceives that they possess seven parts of twelve of the whole Revenues of that Kingdom. The book inscribed Comment d'Estat gives a lower estimate, and reckoning that there are in France 200 millions of Arpens, (which is a measure some­what bigger than our Acre) assigneth 47 millions, which is neer a fourth part of the whole, to the Gallican Clergy. But which of these soever it be we think fit to stand to, it is resolved by them all that the Baise-maine, which consists of Offerings, Churchings, Burials, Diriges, and such other casualties, amounteth to as much per annum, as their standing rents: Upon which ground, Sir Edwin Sandys computeth their Revenue at six millions yearly. In Italy, besides the temporal Estate of the Popes of Rome, the Clergy are conceived to have in some places a third part of the whole, but in most a moiety. In Spain, the certain rents of the Archbishoprick of Toledo, are said to be no less than 300000 Crowns per annum, which is far more than all the Bishops, Deans, and Prebendaries do possess in England. In Germany, the Bishops for the most part are powerful Princes; and the Canons of some Churches of so fair an Intrado, and of such estimation amongst the people, that the Emperours have thought it no disparagement to them, to have a Canons place in some of their Churches. And as for the Parochial Clergy in these three last Countreys, especially in Spain and Italy, where the people are more superstitious than they be in Germany, [Page 171]there is no question but that the Vailes and Casualties are as beneficial to them, as the Baise-main is to the French.

But here perhaps it will be said that this is nothing unto us of the Realm of England, who have shook off the superstitions of the Church of Rome, and that our pains is spent but to little purpose, unless we can make good our Thesis in the Churches Protestant. We must therefore cast about again; and first, beginning with France, as before we did, we shall find that those of the Reformed party there, not only pay their Tithes to the Beneficiary, who is presented by the Patron to the Cure or Title; or to the Church or Monastery to which the Tithes are settled by Appropriations; but over and above do raise a yearly maintenance for those that minister amongst them. Just as the Irish Papists pay their Tithes and duties unto the Protestant Incumbent, and yet maintain their own Priests too by their gifts and offerings; or as the people in some places with us in England, do pay their Tithes unto the Parson or Vicar whom the Law sets over them, and raise a contribution also for their Lecturer, whom they set over themselves. In other Countreys where the Supream Governours are Reformed or Protestant, the case is somewhat better with the common people, although not generally so easie as with us in England. For there the Tithes are taken up by the Prince or State, and yearly pensions assigned out of them to maintain the Ministers; which for the most part are so small, and so far short of a Competency (though by that name they love to call it) that the Subject having paid his Tithes to the Prince or State, is fain to add something out of his purse towards the mending of the Stipend. Besides, there being for the most part in every Church two distinct sorts of Ministers; that is to say, a Pastor who hath Cure of souls, and performs all Ministerial offices in his Congregation, and a Doctor (like our English Lecturers, which took hint from hence) who only medleth with the Word. The Pastor only hath his Stipend from the pub­lick treasury, the Doctor being maintained wholly (as I am credibly informed) at the charge of the people; and that not only by the bounty or benevolence of Landed men, but in the way of Contribution, from which no sort of people of what rank so­ever, (but such as live on Alms, or the poor Mans box) is to be exempted. But this is only in the Churches of Calvins platform, those of the Lutheran party in Denmark, Swethland, and high Germany, having their Tithes and Glebe as they had before; and so much more in Offerings than with us in England, by how much they come nearer to the Church of Rome, both in their practice and opinions, (especially in the point of the holy Sacrament) than the English do. And as for our dear Brethren of the Kirk of Scotland, who cannot be so soon forgotten by a true born English man, the Tithes be­ing setled for the most part on Religious houses, came in their fall, unto the Crown, and out of them a third was granted to maintain their Minister; but also ill paid while the Tithes remained in the Crown, and worse than alienated to the use of private Gentlemen, that the greatest part of the burden for support of the Ministry, lay in the way of contribution, on the backs of the people. And as one ill example doth beget another, such Lords and Gentlemen as had right to present to Churches, following the steps of those who held the Tithes from the Crown, soon made Lay-fees of all the Tithes of their own demesnes, and left the Presentee such a sorry pittance, as made him burthensome to his Neighbours for his better maintenance. How it stands with them now since these late alterations, those who have took the National Covenant, and I presume are well acquainted with the Discipline and estate of the Scottish Kirk (which they have bound themselves to defend and keep) are better able to resolve us. And so much for the proof of the first proposition, namely, That never any Clergy in in the Church of God, hath been, or is maintained with less charge of the Subject, than the established Clergy of the Church of England. And yet the proof hereof will be more convincing, if we can bring good evidence for the second also; which is,

II. That there is no man in the Kingdom of England, who payeth any thing of his own towards the maintenance and support of his Parish Minister, but his Easter-Offering.

And that is a Paradox indeed, will the Reader say. Is it not visible to the eye, that the Clergy have the tenth part of our Corn and Cattel, and of other the increase and fruits of the Earth? Do not the people give them the tenth part of their Estates, saith one of my Pamphlets? Have they not all their livelihoods out of our purses, saith another of them? Assuredly neither so, nor so. All that the Clergy doth receive from the purse of the Subject, for all the pains he takes amongst them, is two pence at Easter. [Page 172]He claims no more than this as due, unless the custom of the place, (as I think in some parts it is) bring it up to six pence. If any thing be given him over this by some bountiful hand, he takes it for a favour, and is thankful for it. Such profits as come in by Marriages, Churchings, and Funeral-Sermons, as they are generally small, and but accidental: so he is bound unto some special service and attendance for it. His constant standing fee, which properly may be said to come out of the Subjects Purse for the administration of the Word and Sacraments, is nothing but the Easter-offering. The Tithes are legally his own, not given unto him by the Subject, as is now pretended, but paid unto him as a Rent-charge laid upon the Land; and that before the Subject, either Lord or Tenant, had any thing to do in the Land at all. For as I am informed by Sir Edward Coke in his Comment upon Littletons Tenures, lib. 1. cap. 9. Sect. 73. fol. 58. It appeareth by the Laws and Ordinances of ancient Kings, and especially of King Alfred, that the first King of this Realm had all the lands of England in Demesne, and les grands manours & royalties, they reserved to themselves, and with the remnant they for the defence of the Realm enfeoffed the Barons of the Realm with such jurisdiction as the Court Baron now hath. So he, the professed Champion of the Com­mon Laws. And at this time it was, when all the Lands in England were the Kings Demesne, that Ethelwolph, the second Monarch of the Saxon race (his father Egbert being the first which brought the former Heptarchie under one sole Prince) confer­red the Tithes of all the Kingdom upon the Church, by his royal Charter. Of which, thus Ingulph Abbot of Crowland an old Saxon Writer:Anno 855. Rex Ethelwulfus, om­nium Praelatorum & Principum suorum qui sub ipso variis Provinciis totius Angliae praeerant gratuito Consensu, tunc primo cum decimis terrarum & bonorum aliorum sive catallorum, uni­versam dotavit Ecclesiam per suum Re­gium Chirographum. Ingulph. Anno 855. (which was the 18. of his Reign) King Ethelwulph with the consent of his Prelates and Princes which ruled in England under him in their several Provinces, did first enrich the Church of England with the Tithes of all his Lands and Goods, by his Char­ter Royal. Ethelward an old Saxon, and of the blood Royal doth express it thusDecimavit de omni possessione sua in partem Domini, & in universo re­gimine Principatus sui sic constituit. Ethelward.: He gave the Tithe of his possessions for the Lords own portion, and ordered it to be so in all the parts of the Kingdom under his command. Florence of Worcester in these words:Aethelwulphus Rex decimam totius Regni sui partem, ab omni Regali ser­vitio & tributo liberavit, & in sem­piterno Graphio in Cruce Christi, pro Redemptione Animae suae & Praedeces­sorum suorum uni & trino Deo immola­vit. Florent. Wigorn. King Ethelwolfe for the Redemption of his own soul, and the souls of his Predecessors, discharged the tenth part of his Realm of all Tributes and Services due unto the Crown, and by his perpetual Charter signed with the sign of the Cross, offered it to the three-one God. Roger of Hovenden hath it in the self same words: and Huntingdon more briefly thus;Totam terram suam propter amo­rem Dei & Redemptionem ad opes Eccle­siarum decimavit. Henr. Huntingd. That for the love of God, and the redemption of his soul, he tithed his whole Dominions to the use of the Church. But what need search be made into so many Authors, when the Charter it self is extant in old Abbot Ingulph, and in Matthew of Westminster, and in the Leiger Book of the Abbey of Abingdon? which Charter being offered by the King on the Altar at Winchester in the presence of his Barons, was received by the Bishops, and by them sent to be published in all the Churches of their several Diocesses: a clause being added by the King (saith the Book of A­bingdon) That whosoever added to the gift Qui augere voluerit nostram dona­tionem, augeat omnipotens Deus dies ejus prosperos; siquis vero mutare vel mi­nuere praesumpserit, noscat se ad Tribu­nal Christi redditurum rationem, nisi prius satisfactione emendaverit., God would please to prosper and increase his days; but that if any did presume to diminish the same, he should be called to an account for it at Christs Judgment-seat, unless he made amends by full satisfaction. In which, as in some other of the former passages, as there is somewhat savouring of the errour of those darker times, touch­ing the merit of good works; yet the authorities are strong and most convincing for confirmation of the point which we have in hand.

Now that the King charged all the Lands of the Kingdom with the payment of Tithes, and not that only which he held in his own possession, is evident both by that which was said before from Sir Edward Coke, and by the several passages of the former Authors. For if all the Lands in the Kingdom were the Kings Demesnes, and the King conferred the Tithes of all his Lands on the Church of God, it must follow thereupon that all the Lands of the Realm were charged with Tithes be­fore they were distributed amongst the Barons for defence of the Kingdom. And that the Lands of the whole Realm were thus charged with Tithes, as well that which was parted in the hands of Tenants, as that which was in the occupancy of the King himself, the words before alledged do most plainly evidence, where it is said [Page 173]that he gave the tenth of all his Lands, as Ingulph; the Tithe of his whole Land, as Henry of Huntingdon; the tenth part of his whole Kingdom, as in Florence of Worce­ster; the tenth part of the Lands throughout the Kingdom, in the Charter it self. And finally, in the Book of Abingdon, the Charter is ushered in with this following Title, viz. Quomodo Ethelwolfus Rex dedit decimam partem regni sui Ecclesiis, that is to say, how Ethelwolf gave unto the Church the tenth part of his Kingdom. This makes it evident, that the King did not only give de facto, the Tithe or the tenth part of his whole Realm to the use of the Clergy; but that he had a right and a power to do it, as being not only the Lord Paramount, but the Proprietary of the whole Lands; the Lords and great Men of the Realm not having then a property or estates of perma­nency, but as accomptants to the King, whose the whole land was. And though it seems by Ingulph their consents were asked, and that they gave a free consent to the Kings Donation; yet was this but a matter of Form, and not simply necessary, their approbation and consent being only asked, either because the King was not willing to do any thing to the disherison of his Crown, without the liking and con­sent of the Peers; or that having their consent and approbation, they should be bar­red from pleading any Tenant-right, and be obliged to stand in maintenance and defence thereof against all pretenders. And this appears yet further by a Law of King Athelstanes, made in the year 930, about which time not only the Prelates of the Church as formerly, but the great Men of the Realm, began to be setled in Estates of permanency, and to claim a property in those Lands which they held of the Crown; and claiming, so begun (it seems) to make bold to subduct their Tithes. For re­medy whereof, the King made this Law, commanding all his Ministers throughout the Kingdom, that in the first place they should pay the Tithes Ut impri­mis de meo pro­prio reddant Deo decimas; & Episcopi mei similiter faci­ant de suo pro­prio, & Alder­manni mei, & Praepositi mei. of his own estate, (that is to say, that which he held in his own hands, and had not estated out to his Lords and Barons) and that the Bishops did the like of that which they held in right of their Churches; and his Nobles and Officers of that which they held in property, as their own possessions or inheritance. By which we find that Tithes were granted to the Clergy out of all the Lands in the Kingdom, and the perpetual payment of them laid as a Rent-charge on the same, by the bounty and munificence of the first Monarchs of this Realm, before any part thereof was demised to others. And if perhaps some of the great Men of the Realm had Estates in property (as certainly there were but few, if any, which had any such Estates in the times we speak of) they charged the same with Tithes by their own consent, before they did transmit them to the hands of the Gentry, or any who now claim to lay hold under them.

So then, the Land being charged thus with the payment of Tithes, came with this clog unto the Lords and great Men of the Realm; and being so charged with Tithes by the Kings and Nobles, have been transmitted and passed over from one hand to another, until they came to the possession of the present owners. Who whatsoever right they have to the other nine parts, either of Fee-simple, Lease, or Copy, have certainly none at all in the Tithe or tenth, which is no more theirs, or to be so thought of, than the other nine parts are the Clergies. For whether they hold their Lands at a yearly Rent, or have them in fee, or for term of life, or in any other tenure whatsoever it be, they hold them, and they purchased them on this tacite condition, that besides the rents and services which they pay to the Lord, they are to pay unto the Clergy, or unto them who do succeed in the Clergies right, a tenth of all the fruits of the Earth, and of the fruits of their Cattel, and all creatures titheable, unless some ancient custom or prescription do discharge them of it. And more than so, whether they hold by yearly rent, or by right of purchase, they hold it at less rent by far, and buy it at far cheaper rates, be­cause the land it self and the stock upon it is chargeable with Tithes, as before was said, than they would do, or could in reason think to do, were the Land free from Tithes, as in some places of this Realm it is. To make this clearer by Example of an House in London, where, according to the Rent which this House is set at, the Minister hath 2 s. 9 d. out of every pound in the name of a Tithe: Suppose we that the rent of the House be 50 l. the Ministers due according unto that proportion, comes to 6 l. 17 s. 6 d. yearly; which were it not paid, and to be paid by Law to the Parish-Minister, there is no question to be made, but that the Landlord of the House would have raised his Rent, and not content himself with the 50 l. but look for 56 l. 17 s. 6 d. which is the whole Rent paid, though to divers hands. And if this House were to be sold at 16 years purchase, the Grantee could expect no more [Page 174]than 800 l. because there is a Rent of 6 l. 17 s. and 6 d. reserved to the Minister by Law, which is to be considered in the sale thereof; whereas if no such Rent or Tithe were to issue out of it, he would have as many years purchase for the sum remain­ing, which would inhaunce the price 110 l. higher than before it was. Now by this standard we may judg of the case of Lands, though by reason of the difference of the Soil, the well or ill husbanding of grounds, and the greatness or smalness of the stock, which is kept upon them, it cannot be reduced to so clear a certainty. But whatsoever the full Tithe of all be worth to the Minister, we may undoubtedly conclude, that if so much as the Tithe comes to yearly, were not paid to him, the Landlord would gain it in his Rent, and the Grantee get it in the sale: no benefit at all redounding to the Tenant by it, nor any unto him that buyeth it. Or if we will suppose with one of my Pamphlets, (and let it be supposed this once for our better proceeding) that he who officiates in a Parish where Tithes are paid in kind with­out any subtractions, hath the fift part of every landed mans Estate, that is to say, four pounds in every 20 l. per annum: the Purchaser or Tenant, be he which he will, may positively build on this in his better thoughts, that if four pounds in twen­ty were not paid to the Minister, the Tenant must pay to his Landlord, and the Pur­chaser must buy it at the same rates, as he did the rest of the Land. But being that neither the Tenant pays Rent for it, nor the Purchaser hath it in his grant from him that selleth the Land unto him: the Tithe of the increase of their Land and stock, and other creatures titheable in their possession can be none of their own; but must be his, and only his, whom the munificence of Kings and Princes, confirmed by so ma­ny Laws and Statutes, have conferred it on, His part indeed it is, not ours, (not the tenth part of our Estates, as my Pamphlet saith) and he receives it of us as a Rent or Duty, transmitted to us with the Land from one hand to another; not as a matter of gift, or an act of courtesie.

If then we pay not any thing of our own to the Parish Minister, which ariseth to him from the increase of Corn and Cattel, and other creatures titheable by the Law of the Land; I think it cannot be affirmed by discerning men, who are not led aside by prejudice and prepossessions, that we give any thing at all of our own unto them, more than our Easter-Offering, be it more or less. 'Tis true, some Statutes have been made about the payment of personal Tithes, out of the gains arising in the way of Trade: and I remember Dr. Burgess writ a book about it, for which he stands as highly censured by the Independent, As in the book called Tithe-gatherers no Gospel-Of­ficers. as for other things by those of the Prelatical party. But then I think it is as true, that either those Statutes were drawn up with such reservations, or men of Trades have been so backward to conform unto them, that little or no benefit hath redounded by them to the Parish-Minister, more than to shew the good affections which the Parliaments of those times had unto the Clergy. And if we pay nothing of our own towards the maintenance of the Clergy, out of the increase of our grounds and stock, as I have plainly proved we do not; and that no benefit come unto them from the gains of Trading, as I think there comes not: if those small vailes and casualties which redound unto him from Marriages, Church­ings, and the like occasions, be given unto him for some special service which he doth perform, and not for his administration of the Word and Sacraments; I hope my second Proposition hath been proved sufficiently, namely, that there is no man in the Kingdom of England who payeth any thing of his own towards the maintenance of his Parish-Minister, but his Easter-Offering: If so, as so it is for certain, there hath been little ground for so great a clamour as hath been lately raised about this particular: less reason to subduct or to change that maintenance which the piety of our Kings have given, and the indulgence of succeeding Princes have confirmed in Parliament, without any charge unto the Subject. Which change, though possibly some specious colours may be put unto it, will neither be really beneficial to the Clergy or Laity. And that conducts me on to my last Proposition, viz.

III. That the change of Tithes into Stipends will bring greater trouble to the Clergy, than is yet considered; and far less profit to the Countrey, than is now pre­tended.

This is a double Proposition, and therefore must be looked on in its several parts: first, in relation to the Clergy, whose ease is very much pretended; and next in refe­rence to the Occupant, whose profit only is intended in the change desired. It is pre­tended [Page 175]for the Clergy, to be a very difficult thing to know the dues demandable of their several Parishes, that it maketh them too much given unto worldly things, As in the Ken­tish Petition, & other projects of that kind. by looking after the inning and threshing out of their Corn; and doth occasion many scandalous and vexatious Suits betwixt them and their Neighbours: all which they think will be avoided, in case the Ministers were reduced to some annual stipend. And to this end it is propounded by the Army in their late Proposals, that the unequal, troublesome, and contentious way of Ministers maintenance by Tithes, may be considered of, (in Parliament) and a remedy ap­plied unto it. But under favour of the Army, and of all those who have contrived the late Petitions to that purpose, I cannot see but that the way of maintenance by annual stipends will be as troublesome, unequal, and contentious too, as that of Tithes by Law established; especially if those annual stipends be raised according to the plat­form which is now in hand. For, as far as I am able to judg by that which I have seen and heard from the chief Contrivers, the design is this, A valuation to be made of every Benefice over all the Kingdom, according to the worth thereof one year with another; a yearly sum according to that valuation to be raised upon the lands of every Parish, which now stand chargeable with Tithes; the money so as­sessed and levied, to be brought into one common Treasury in each several County, and committed to the hands of special Trustees hereunto appointed; and finally, that those Trustees do issue out each half year such allowances to the Ministers of the se­veral Parishes, respect being had unto the deserts of the person and the charge of his family, as they think fittest: yet so, that the Impropriators be first fully satisfied according to the estimate of their Tithes and Glebe. This is the substance of the project. And if the moneys be assessed in the way proposed, only upon the landed men, whether Lords or Tenants, and not upon Artificers, Handicrafts, and men of mysterious Trades, who receive equal benefit by the Ministers labours; the way of maintenance by stipends will be as unequal altogether, as by that of Tithes. And if it be but as unequal, I am sure it will be far more troublesome. For now the Mi­nister or Incumbent hath no more to do, but to see his Corn brought in and housed (being to be cut and cocked to his hand both by Law and Custom) and being brought in, either to spend it in his House, or sell the residue thereof to buy other provisions. Which if he think too great an avocation from his studies, he may put over to his Wife, or some trusty servant, as Gentlemen of greater fortunes do unto their Bailiffs. And I my self know divers Clergy-men of good note and quality, to whom the taking up of Tithes brings no greater trouble, than once a month to look over the ac­compts of their servants: besides, that many of them, keeping no more in their hands, than what will serve for the necessary expence of Houshold, let out the rest unto some Neighbour at a yearly rent. But when the Tithes are turned to money, and that the Minister hath neither Corn nor Hay, nor any other provision for ex­pence of Houshold, but what he buyeth by the penny: what an unreasonable trouble must it needs prove to him to trudge from one Market to another, for every bit of bread he eats, and every handful of Malt which he is to spend? And if Corn hap­pen to be dear, (as it is at this present) one quarter of a years provisions bought at the price of the Market, may eat out his whole years allowance. Besides, I would fain learn, for I know not yet, whether the valuation be to be made yearly, and to hold no longer than that year, or, being once agreed on, to endure for ever. If it be made from year to year, either the Minister must be at a certain trouble in driving a new bargain every year, with each several and respective Occupant within the Parish; or at a greater trouble in attending the Trustees of the County, till they have list and leisure to conclude it for him. But if the valuation once made be to hold for ever, which is I think the true intent of the design; I would fain know, in case the price of all Commodities should rise as much by the end of the next hundred years, as it hath done in the last, and so the next hundreds after that; how scant a pittance the poor Minister will have in time, for the subsistence of himself and his Family-charge. For since the 26. of King Henry VIII. when a survey was taken of all the spiritual promotions in this Kingdom, and the clear yearly value of each returned into the Court of the Exchequer, the prices of Commodities have been so inhanced, that had not Benefices been improved proportionably, but held unto the valuation which is there recorded, the Ministery in general had been so poor, so ut­terly unable to have gone to the price of the Markets, that many must have digged or begged for an hungry livelyhood.

And yet we do not see an end of the mischief neither; for when the Tithes are changed to a sum of money, and the money brought into a common bank or Trea­sury, the Minister will be sure to undergo a certain loss, and be vexed with more un­certain troubles. For when this Clergy-office is once erected and setled in a constant course or method, as all Offices be; there must be Treasurers, Receivers, Tellers, Au­ditors, besides Under-offices, in each several County; every of which will look to have some benefit by his place and office, if not his whole subsistence by it. And I would fain know of these grand Projectors, by that time every one of these Cooks hath licked his fingers, and each Cerberus hath had his mouth full; how pitifully short the Commons must needs prove to the hungry Clergy, who are to live on the re­mainder. Now as the loss is more than certain, so will the trouble be as great as the loss, and no less certain too, though it be uncertain. For when the poor Clergy­man hackneyeth to receive his Stipend, how many put-offs shall he find e're he speed of his business. For either Mr. Treasurer is not at leisure, or the money is not yet come in, or better men than he must be sped before him: And having danced a fortnight in this at­tendance, may possibly be forced to a Composition, and take eggs for his money, or else pay very dearly for his expedition. Such courses have been formerly complained of in the Kings Exchequer; Committees in the Countrey are not free from the like complaints: And much I fear, lest this new Office prove as full of delays and trouble (for the best of us are but men, and subject to corrupt affections) as either of the others have been found to be. But then, if Mr. Treasurer have a further power either of augmentation or of diminution, according as he judgeth of the Ministers diligence, or looks upon him in respect of his Charge and Family: What a base Vassallage and Thraldom must the poor Clergy-man be brought to, in having such a Super-Intendent to judge of his parts and diligence, or to assign him an allowance for his Wife and Children? How punctually must Mr. Treasurer be attended and crouched unto, gifted, and bribed from time to time, either in hope to have the yearly Stipend men­ded, or else for fear to have it lessened? The Chancellors were thought to Lord it with too high an insolency, when the poor Country-Minister did appear before them. But these who are to bear the Bag, and upon whom the Clergy must depend for a poor subsistence, will be sure to Lord it over them with contempt enough, more than the Chancellor or Bishop in the worst times of their Government; in case at last they do not think all wast which is given to Christ, under pretence of keeping it for more pious uses. And what a trouble and vexation to ingenuous minds this must needs be thought, let the Reader judge.

So then, the way of Ministers maintenance by yearly Stipends being as unequal, and more troublesome than that of Tithes; let us next see whether it may not prove as contentious also. 'Tis true indeed, there have been many suits in the Courts of Westminster, between some Incumbents and their Neighbours about matter of Tithes; but if it be examined where the fault lieth most, I doubt it will be rather found to pro­ceed out of Covetousness in some Parishioners, than any difficulty in discovering the demandable dues, or any contentiousness in the Ministers. For many Country people reckoning all good gains of which they can defraud the Parson, are apt enough on all occasions to subduct their Tithes, and either to pretend Customs, or plead Prescrip­tions to decline the payment. And though they commonly attempt it first in such trifling matters, as are not considerable in themselves, and would bring a scandal on the Minister, should he be too strict, and trouble them for matters of so sleight a na­ture; yet when he looks upon the consequent, and that the withholding or subducting of those petit Tithes, is but to make a way for the rest to follow; he finds more rea­son to insist on a punctual payment, than otherwise the nature of the thing would bear. And if a suit ensue upon it, I see not why it should be charged upon the Minister, who is accomptable to God, the Church, and his whole succession, for any diminution of the Churches rights, by his remisness or connivence. But wheresoever the fault lies, contentious suits do sometimes happen, there is no question of it. And can we think Contentions will not also rise about the payment of the Stipends? Some men con­ceive themselves to be over-rated, others are apt enough to think that the Tradesman who gets more by his Shop, than they do by the Plough, should be as liable as them­selves to this common burden; and some believing that no Tithes are due at all, will neither pay in kind or money. Some course must then be taken to inforce a payment, where payment is denyed upon these pretentions; and there is no compulsive course without some contention. And then supposing that some course must be taken to [Page 177]inforce a payment, (as I can see no hope how it will be avoided) I would next know by whom this course must be pursued. If by the Trustees for the County, they will be like to prove but ill Solicitors in another mans business, as being to get nothing but their pains for their labour; besides that, spending, as they must, on the common stock (and men we know, are very apt to cut large thongs out of another mans lea­ther) the bill of charges for one suit, may possibly devour the fruits of the whole Be­nefice. If by the Minister himself, as it is most likely, we are but where we were be­fore, and by avoiding one Contention for Tithes in kind, the Minister must be in­gaged in another for Tithes in money, which comes all to one. For that such suits will follow on this alteration, I look on as a matter unavoidable; considering espe­cially how infinitely the Country-man, who aims at nothing in the change but his gain or profit, will find himself deceived of his expectation, and consequently will be more stubborn and untractable when he seeth his errour.

For that the change of Tithes into annual Stipends will not be so much unto his profit as he doth expect, and hath been intimated to him by some leading men, who have the hammering of the plot, will be no hard matter to demonstrate. I know that nothing is pretended openly in the alteration, but that the Occupant may have his Tithes at a certain rent; and not be troubled to expect till the Parson comes to set out his dues. But I know too, that generally they have been fed with a secret hope, that if the Parliament prevailed in the present War, they then should pay no Tithes at all, but every man of what estate or trade soever, should be contributory to the charge of the Ministers maintenance. Just so the Prince of Orange dealt with the Boors of Holland; assuring them, that if they prospered in the War against the King of Spain (which was then in hand) they should pay no Tithes unto their Ministers; and in the mean time that the Tithes should be taken up towards the maintenance of the War for the common liberty. But when the War was brought to so fair an issue, that the Boor thought to be exempted from the payment of Tithes: Answer was made, that they should pay none to the Minister as they had done formerly, whereby their Ministers in effect were become their Masters; but that the Tithes were so considerable a Revenue, that the State could not possibly subsist without them; that therefore they must be content to pay them to the States Commissioners, as they had done hitherto, and that the State would take due care to maintain a Ministery. By means whereof they do not only pay their Tithes, as in former times; but seeing how short the pub­lick allowance made their Ministers, doth come of that which some are pleased to call a Competency, they are constrained (as it were) out of common charity, if not com­pelled thereto by order, to contribute over and above, with the rest of the people, for the improvement and increase of the Ministers pension. And so it was in Scotland also, after the Lords of new erection had ingrossed the Tithes. I cannot say that there is any such design as to annex the Tithes to the Crown, (though if they be taken from the Clergy, they ought of common right to return again unto the Crown, from whence they came.) But I dare say, the Landholder will conceive himself as much de­frauded of his expectation, as if there was: And when he finds that instead of paying no Tithes at all, he is to pay a valuable consideration in money for them, will think himself so far from being beholden to the Undertakers of this project, that he will think the old way better and more easie to him. His money he accompts his own, and parts as sadly from it as from so much of his blood. The Tithes he looks upon as another mans, which never were in his possession, or to be reckoned of as a part of himself, and therefore lets them go without grief or trouble. And I have marked it commonly amongst my Neighbours (who I believe are of the some temper with other Oceupants) that the same men who took no thought for parting with their Tithes in kinds, having compounded for them at a rate in money, invented more delays, and made more excuses, to put the payment off for a week or two, and so from one day to another, than for the payment of their Tithes in all their life time. So dear a thing is money to us Countrey people, that he who shall persuade us to redeem a supposed inconvenience with a real and a constant expence of treasure, will be counted but an evil Counsellor. A visible evidence whereof we have now amongst us. For though the quartering of Souldiers be the heaviest bondage that ever a free-born people did languish under, and such as men of means and quality would buy out upon any terms: Yet generally the Countrey-man had rather make himself a Slave, and his Wife a Drudge, and let them spend upon his Victuals, than part with money to re­move them to some other place. My inference hereupon is this; either the valuation [Page 178]of each several Benefice will be true and real to the worth, or not. If not, it may re­dound indeed to the Ploughmans profit, but then it comes accompanied with a pub­lick fraud, which I believe no Christian State will be guilty of. And on the other side, if the rates be made according to the full worth of the Benefice, it will be little to the profit of the Husbandman, who might have farmed his Tithes as cheap of the Parson or Vicar; besides the hearts-grief it will be unto many of them to part with ready money for a thing of convenience, without which they might live as happily as their Fathers did.

And if it be not to the profit of the Ploughman this way, I am sure that in another way it will not be to his content, or his profit either. For taking it for granted, as I think I may, that I have hit on the design which is now on foot, that is to say, that the yearly profits of each Benefice in every County be brought into one common bank or treasury within the County, and then disposed of by Trustees, according as they judge of the deserts of the person, and take into consideration his Family-charge: It may so happen, (and will doubtless) that in a Parish where the Tax or Sessement cometh to 400 l. per annum, the Minister may not be allowed above an hundred. The residue will be wholly in Mr. Treasurers power, either to feast with his Friends, or lay up for his Children; or at the best to setle it on such who relate unto him, or can make means and friends to enlarge their Pensions, though such perhaps as were never seen nor heard of by the Parish, whence the money comes. And if men think it as it is, an ill piece of Husbandry, to have the Soil carried off their own Land, and laid on anothers, to the impoverishing of their own, and inriching of his: I cannot see but that it will be thought a worse piece of Husbandry, and prove of very ill digestion to most Country stomachs; to have the fat of their livings carried to another place, and given unto a man whom they never saw, and who is never like to feed their souls with the bread of life, or their bodies with the life of bread; their own poor Minister mean while, from whom they have reason to expect it, being so discouraged and im­poverished that he can do neither. For whereas those who were possessed of the richer benefices, did use to keep good Hospitality to entertain their Neighbours and relieve their Poor, and do many other good offices amongst them as occasion served, both to the benefit and comfort of all sorts of Parishioners: It may so happen, and it will (as before I said) that the Minister may be so ill befriended by Mr. Treasurer, and the rest of the Trustees for the County, that instead of being either a benefit or a comfort to them, in the way proposed, he may prove a burden and a charge. And though I doubt not but as great care will be taken as can be desired in the choice of those who are to have the disposing of the publick monies; yet to suppose that men once setled in an office of such trust and power, may not be subject unto partialities and corrupt affections, were an imagination fitter for the Lord Chancelour Verulams new Atlantis, or Sir Thomas Moore his Predecessors old Ʋtopia, or a Platonick Common-wealth, than the best tempered government in the Christian world. For my part looking into the design with the best eyes I have, and judging of it by the clearest light of understanding which God hath given me, I am not able to discern but that the change of Tithes in­to Stipends (in the way propounded) will bring greater trouble to the Clergy than is yet considered, and far less profit to the Countrey than is now pretended; which is the third and last of my Propositions, and is, I hope, sufficiently and fully proved, or at the least made probable, if not demonstrative.

I have said nothing in this Tract of the right of Tithes, or on what motive or con­siderations of preceding claim, the Kings of England did confer them upon the Clergy: Contenting my self at this time with the matter of fact, as namely, that they were setled on the Church by the Kings of this Realm, before they granted out Estates to the Lords and Gentry, and that the Land thus charged with the payment of Tithes, they passed from one man to another,Ante Concilium Lateranense, bene toterant Laici decimas sibi in feudum retinere, vel aliis quibuscun­que Ecclesiis dare. Lindw. in Provinc. cap. de deci­mis. until it came unto the hands of the present Occupant, which cuts off all that claim or title which the mispersuaded subject can pretend unto them. I know it cannot be denied, but that notwithstanding the said Grants and Charters of those ancient Kings, many of the great men of the Realm, and some also of the inferiour Gentry possessed of Manours, before the Lateran Council, did either keep their Tithes in their own hands, or make Infeodations of them to Religious houses, or give them to such Priests or Parishes as they best affected. But after the decree of Pope Innocent the third (which you may find at large in Sir Edw. Cokes Comment upon Magna Charta, and other old Statutes of this Realm, in the Chapter of Tithes) had been confirmed in that Council, (Anno 1215) and incorpo­rated [Page 182]into the Canons and conclusions of it, the payment of them to the Minister or Parochial Priest, came to be setled universally over all the Kingdom; save that the Templars, the Hospitalers, and Monks of Cisteaux held their ancient priviledges of being excepted for those Lands which they held in Occupancy from this general rule. Nor have I said any thing of Impropriations, partly, because I am persuaded that the Lords and Gentry who have their Votes or Friends in Parliament, will look well enough to the saving of their own stakes; but principally, because coming from the same original grant from the King to the Subjects, and by them setled upon Mona­steries and Religious houses, they fell in the ruine of those houses to the Crown again, (as of due right the Tithes should do, if they be taken from the Clergy,) and by the Crown were alienated in due form of Law, and came by many mean conveyances to the present Owners. Onely I shall desire that the Lords and Commons would take a special care of the Churches Patrimony, for fear lest that the prevalency of this evil humour which gapes so greedily after the Clergies Tithes, do in the end devour theirs also. And it concerns them also in relation to their right of Patronage, which if this plot go on, will be utterly lost; and Churches will no longer be presentative at the choice of the Patron; but either made Elective at the will of the People, or else Col­lated by the Trustees of the several Counties (succeeding as they do in the power of Bishops) as now Committee-men dispose of the preferments of the Sequestred Clergy. If either by their power and wisdom, or by the Arguments and Reasons which are here produced, the peoples eyes are opened to discern the truth, and that they be de­ceived no longer by this popular errour, it is all I aim at; who have no other ends herein, but only to undeceive them in this point of Tithes, which hath been repre­sented to them as a publick grievance conducing manifestly to the diminution of the [...] gain and profit. If notwithstanding all this care for their information, they will run headlong in the ways of spoil and sacrilege, and shut their eyes against the light of the truth, shine it never so brightly; let them take heed they fall not into that [...] ­tuation which the Scripture denounceth, that seeing they shall see, but shall not perceive; and that the stealing of this Coal from the Altars of God, burn not down their Houses. And so I shut up this discourse with the words of our Saviour, saying, that no man tasteth new wine, but presently he saith that the old is better.

ECCLESIA VINDICATA: …

ECCLESIA VINDICATA: OR, THE Church of England VINDICATED.

PART II.

Containing the Defence thereof

  • V. In retaining the Episcopal Government. AND
  • VI. The Canonical Ordination of Priests and Deacons.

Framed and Exhibited in an HISTORY of EPISCOPACY.

By PETER HEYLYN, D. D.

HEB. XIII. 17.

Obedite Praepositis vestris & subjacete eis. Ipsi enim pervigilant quasi rationem pro Animabus vestris reddi­turi, ut cum gaudio hoc faciant, & non gementes.

CYPRIAN. Epist. LXV.

Apostolos, id est, EPISCOPOS & Praepositos Dominus elegit; Diaconos autem post Ascensum Domini in coelos Apostoli sibi constituerunt, Episcopatus sui & Ecclesiae Ministros.

LONDON, Printed by M. Clark, to be sold by C. Harper. 1681.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

THE Quarrels and Disputes about Episcopacy had reposed a while, when they broke out more dangerously than in former times. In order whereunto the people must be put in fear of some dark design to bring in Popery; the Bishops generally defamed as the principal Agents, the regular and establisht Clergy traduc'd as the subservient In­struments do drive on the Plot: Their actings in Gods publick Worship charged for Innovations; their persons made the Common subjects of re­proach and calumny. The News from Ipswich, Bastwicks Let any, and the Seditious Pamphlets from Friday-street (with other the like products of those times) what were they but Tenta­menta Bellorum Civilium, preparatory Velitations to that grand encounter, in which they were resolved to assault the Calling? The Calling could not be attempted with more hopes of Victory than when it had received such wide wounds through the sides of those persons who principally were concerned in the safety or defence thereof.

The way thus opened, and the Scots entring with an Army to make good the pass; the Smectymnuans come upon the Stage, addressing their discourse in Answer to a Book called An Humble Remonstrance to the Lords and Commons in Parliament Assembled, Anno 1640. amongst whom they were sure beforehand of a powerful party to advance the Cause, which made them far more confident of their good suocess, than otherwise they had reason to ex­pect in a time less favourable. And in this Confidence they quarrelled not the Rocket or the Officers Fees, the Oath ex officio, the Vote in Parliament, or the exorbitant jurisdiction of the High-Commission, at which old Martin and his followers clamoured in Queen Elizabeths time: Non gaudet tenui sanguine tanta sitis. Their stomach was too great to be satisfied with so small a sacrifice as the excrescences and adjuncts of Episcopacy, which seemed most offensive to their Predecessors. They are all now for Root and Branch, for the very Calling, that having grubbed up those goodly Cedars of the Church, the Bishops, they might plant a stinking Elder (as a noble person well observed) in the place thereof. Never was Learning so employed, to cry down the encouragements and rewards of Learning. The Branches needs must wither when the Root decays, and what could else befall Cathedras (as we see it too evidently) but the inevitable exposing of them to a present ruin, by making them Oblations unto Spoil and Rapine?

And now or never was the time for those that had a care of the Churches safety, to put themselves into a posture of defence, and be provided for the Battel. In which if few ap­peared at the first on the Churches side, it was not that they durst not give the onset, but that they were reserved for succours. For whilst the Humbly reverend Remonstrant was pleased to vindicate as well his own as the Churches honour, there was small cause, or rather none, that other men should interpose themselves at all, or rob him of the glory of a sole encounter. Parque novum fortuna videt concurrere Bellum atque virum, as in a case not much unlike was observed by Lucan. But when that Reverend pen grew wearied, not with the strength or number of his Adversaries, but their importunity, who were resolved to have the last words, as himself observeth; and that he hath been pleased to give way to others to shew their duty and affection in so just a cause; it was then no hard matter to persuade me to such further courses as might be thought on and pursued for the Churches peace. And I the rather was resolved to do somewhat in it, because the Smectymnuans in a manner had in­gaged [Page]me in the undertaking,It seems they have forgotten what their own Darling HEILTN, &c. Smectym. pag. 16, 17. by giving me the Title of the Bishops Darling; a Title (which though given in scorn) had been ill bestowed, should I be wanting unto those of that Sacred Order, which were supposed to let me hold so principal a place in their affections.

Doubly ingaged by duty and this provocation (which I could not take but for a challenge) I took their Book into my hand, in which I found the whole dispute, as it relates to the Epis­copal Government reduced to these Propositions, viz.

  • 1. That the Impropriation of name, and Imparity of place (between Bishops and Presby­ters) was not of divine right and Apostolical institution, but of humane invention and occa­sionally only, and that a Diabolical occasion also, and no more than so.
  • 2. That the eminent Superiority and Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction which our Bishops claim, was both unknown to the Scripture and the Primitive times.
  • 3. That antiently in some places of the World the Episcopal Government was never known for many years together, the people in those places being instructed in the faith without help of Bishops.

Hereupon they infer in the close of all, That Bishops or Episcopacy being at the best a meer humane Ordinance, may by the same Authority be abrogated, by which it was first established.

This last I must confess delivered in the way of Quere, but so delivered as to carry a Position in it more pertinent to their aim and purpose than the other three.

In prosecuting of which points, as they have shewed the greatest of their wit and cunning, to give the fairest colours to a rotten Cause; so have they brought no new Ob­jections against the Episcopal Order and Jurisdiction, but what are either answered or prevented in the Learned works of B. Bilson, B. Downham, and other Worthies of this Church now in bliss with God. Nihil dictum, quod non dictum fuit prius; had been an Answer new enough for an old Objection.

But seeing that these Men, though they could bring no new supply of Arguments is make good their Cause, would not rest satisfied with those old Answers which had been given in former times to their Predecessors: I was resolved to deal with them in ano­ther way than what hath formerly been travelled. Not in the way of Argumentation or a Polemical discourse, there being no likelihood of any end in such Disputations, as long as men had so much Sophistry as either to evade the Argument, or find some sleight to weaken and shift off the Answer. I rather chose (having found good success in that kind before) to manage the whole Controversie as it lay between us, in the way of an Historical Narration, as in point of fact, which I conceive to be the readiest means to convince gainsayers, and silence the dispute for the times to come. For if History be Testis temporum, the surest and most faithful witness of mens actions in the carriage of all publick businesses, as no doubt it is; it cannot but be also Magistra vitae (both which the Orator affirms of it) the best Instructress we can have in all Affairs of like nature as they come before us. The History of Episcopacy, collected from the Writings of the Antient Fathers, cannot but be of special use and efficacy in setting forth the Government of the Church in the purest times; especially when those Fathers are pro­duced on no other occasion but either as writing on those Texts of Scripture, in which the Institution and Authority of Bishops is most clearly evidenced; or speaking of the condition of the Church in their several times, in the Administration and Government whereof, they had most of them some especial interess. Out of whose testimonies so di­gested and compared together, I doubt not but it will appear most evidently to an in­different and impartial Reader; first, That our Lord and Saviour JESƲS CHRIST laid the foundation of his Church in an imparity of Ministers, and that according un­to his example the Apostles did the like, ordaining the three several Orders and De­grees of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the holy Ministry. Next, that the Go­vernment of Bishops being founded thus, was propagated over all the World with the faith it self, there being no Nation which received the one without the other. And finally that in matter of Authority and Jurisdiction, the Bishops of the primitive and purest Ages had full as much as ours of England in these latter times. And if I have done this, as I hope I have, it may more rationally be inferred, though per­haps not so safely as the times now are, that Bishops or Episcopacy being of Divine and Apostolical institution, no humane invention, cannot with piety be abrogated by a less Authority than that by which it was ordained at the first appointment.

This is the sum, and this is the end of my design. In prosecution of the which, I had drawn down my story to the times of Constantine, by whose power and favour the Church began to settle in all parts of the Empire, where it had formerly been per­secuted with all kind of Extremities, which either the wit of Tyranny could invent, or an unconquered patience suffer. And if it does appear by this Disquisition, that the Episcopal Government continued from the Apostles times till the time of Constantine, not interrupted by the fury of those Persecutions which made such havock amongst men of that Sacred Order; there will be little question made of it for the time succeeding, in which both the Order and the Men were raised unto the highest pitch of Estimation. But finding one objection of a later date, not to be satisfied in and by the practice of those elder times, I think it not amiss to make answer to it here before we part. The matter to be prov'd, and in the proof whereof they do so much glory, is, That there is one Congregation at the least in the Christian World, in which the Govern­ment of Bishops hath met with Contradiction, contrary unto that which had been posi­tively affirmed in the Humble Remonstrance. And this they prove from the Bishops own Darling HEYLYN, who told them in his Geography, pag. 55. That the peo­ple of Biscay in Spain, admit no Bishops to come amongst them; and that when Ferdinand the Catholick came in progress accompanied among others with the Bishop of Pampelone, the people rose up in Arms, drove back the Bishop, and gathering up all the dust which they thought he had trod on, flung it into the Sea. All this the Darling writes indeed, they say true in that. But can any rational Man in­fer from hence, that the People of Biscay do abominate the Episcopal Government; or that it is not there received without contradiction? They may conclude as strongly (I am sure more logically) that the Dean and Prebends of Westminster are enemies to Episcopal Government, or at the least receive it not without contradiction, because they suffer neither Archbishop nor Bishop to exercise any jurisdiction within that City and the Liberties of it; nor to hold any Convocation within that Church, but upon special leave obtained, and under a solemn protestation not to infringe thereby their antient pri­viledges. For the truth is, that the Biscains being a poor and indigent Nation, and finding the Episcopal Visitations very chargeable to them, procured a priviledge in times past, that their Bishops should not come in person to visit their Churches; for which consult the general History of Spain, fol. 919. And being withal a rugged and un­tractable people, tenaciously addicted to their antient customs, and kept continually in mind of some wrongs and injuries, which had been offered by their Prelats in the times fore­going; they might be easily excited to that act of outrage against the Bishop of Pampelone, and yet without any the least contradiction receive there (as indeed they do) the Epis­copal Government.

But to proceed, I could not but perceive by this scornful attribute, under what prejudice I lay amongst those of that Party, and therefore that any thing of mine in Answer to them would not be lookt upon with equal and impartial eyes. The door of Truth is never so close barr'd, as when Prejudice and Prepossession have blockt up the entrance. In which respect having finished the discourse which I had in hand, I thought not fit to let it pass under my own name, but published it under that of Theophilus Churchman (not without many ho­nest Precedents in that kind before.) A name which might both serve to conceal my Person and express my Relations, and whereunto I hoped to create no reproach or obloquy by my slack performances.

But contrary to what I hoped, the Author of the Pamphlet called The Observator observed (finding perhaps who walked under that Disguise) must needs take him to task, setting upon him first with a petulant scorn, (after his usual way of throwing dirt on all he meets with) as not knowing by what name to call him, whether Goodman, Worshipful, Right Worshipful, Honourable, Right Honourable, or Right Reverend Churchman. Which said he chargeth it upon him, that there is nothing in his Book but what is stoln from Arch­bishop Whitgift, Bishop Bilson, Bishop Hall, and others, fol. 37. and reckoning up some others who have written in defence of Episcopacy, he acknowledges them all but Churchman to be good men and true, and consequently Churchman neither true nor good. Therefore that no man else may suffer by my imperfections, I have thought good to lay aside my former Vizor, to shew my self in my own likeness, and to cry out with him in Virgil, Me, me, adsum qui feci, in me convertite ferrum. Let him and all the Enemies of Episcopacy make their blows at me, and if I cannot stand my ground against all their Batteries, and justifie my self from the crime of falshood in all the particulars of that History, I shall with gladness follow their Triumphant Chariot like a conquered Captive: It will add something to the Pageant that [Page]the bold Champion of the Bishops (as he elsewhere scoffs it) hath his place therein.

At this time passing over his reproachful taunts, I am to clear my self of the Felony which is charged upon me, for stealing all things in that Book from Archbishop Whitgift, Bishop Bilson, Bishop Hall, and others; this is Novum crimen & ante haec tempora inauditum, a Felony not heard of in the Common Law, to which the Gentleman pretends such a special knowledge. The citing of the Authors for every passage absolves me clearly from that crime. And I would fain know of him being so perfect an Historian, how a man writing the Affairs of the former times (which come not within the compass of Autopsie or ocular inspection, as we know who saith) can possibly attain to the knowledge of them, but by canvassing all sorts of Authors, which either lived in or near those times, or otherwise held Correspondence and Intelligence with them. It is not for all men (though it be for some) to challenge such a soveraign or praetorian power of coining as well the matter as the words of their Histories, that whatsoever they let fall, their negligences and ignorances, their mistakes and passions shall forthwith be received for Oracular truths. We poor men who pretend unto no such priviledge, and write of things done long agoe in the dark ages, and obscure twilights of the Church, must help our selves by the light of Letters, and thankfully make use of all hands which hold forth that Candle, with­out fear of holding up our own. If this be stealing, neither the Magdeburgians, nor Baronius, nor Torniellus, Salianus, Parker, Harpsfield, Fox, nor any of our late Compilers of Eccle­siastical or Civil History can be acquitted from the Crime. Let us all be discharged or con­demned together; guilty or not guilty, all or none, there's no question of it.

But I have gone too far on this Gentlemans Errant. And therefore for the credit of those Witnesses which I have produc'd, what is desired of the Reader in relation to them, with other things preparatory to the following History, I must refer the Reader to the General Preface; that being informed in all particulars which concern the Evidence, he may the better be enabled to give up his Verdict. I close up this Address with these words in the Book of Judges, cap. 19. v. 30. Consider of it, take advice, and then speak your minds.

THE HISTORY OF EPISCOPACY.

The First PART.
From the first Institution of it by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, until the death of St. John the Apostle.

CHAP. I. The Christian Church first founded by our Lord and Saviour, in an Imparity of Ministers.

  • 1. The several Offices of Christ our Saviour in the Administration of his Church.
  • 2. The aggregation of Disciples to him.
  • 3. The calling of the Apostles, and why twelve in number.
  • 4. Of the Name and Office of an Apostle.
  • 5. What things were specially required unto the making of an Apostle.
  • 6. All the Apostles equal amongst them­selves.
  • 7. The calling and appointing of the Seventy Disciples.
  • 8. A reconciliation of some different opinions about the number.
  • 9. The twelve Apostles superiour to the Se­venty by our Saviours Ordinance.
  • 10. What kind of superiority it was that Christ prohibited his Apostles.
  • 11. The several Powers and preheminences given to the Apostles by our Saviour Christ.
  • 12. That the Apostles were made Bishops by our Lord and Saviour, averred by the ancient Fathers.
  • 13. And by the Text of holy Scripture.

OF all the Types in holy Scripture, I I find not any that did so fully represent the nature of our Saviours Kingdom, as those of David, Moses, and Melchizedech. David a Shepherd,Psal. 78.71, 72. Gen. 14.18. and a King, Moses a Legislator, and a Prince; Melchisedech both King of Salem, and a Priest also of the living God, as that Text hath stiled him. Each of these was a type of our Saviour Christ, according to his Regal Office; he being like Melchise­dech, Heb. 7.2. Exod. a King of Peace and Righteousness; leading his people, as did Moses, out of the darkness and Idolatries of Egypt, to the land of Canaan: 2 Sam. and conquering like David all those Enemies which before held them in subjection. This Office, as it is supreme, so it is perpetual. That God who tells us in the Psalms, that he had set his King on Zion, on his holy mountain: Psalm 2. Luke 1.33. hath also told us by his Angel, that he should reign over the House of Jacob for ever, and of his Kingdom there should be no end. But if we look upon him in his Sacerdotal and Pastoral Offices: if we behold him as a Lawgiver to his Church and people: we find him not fore-signified in any one of these, but in all together.Heb. 5.6, 10. A Priest he was [Page 188]after the order of Melchisedech; Heb. 3.2. faithful to him that did appoint him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house; ordering, and disposing of the same, according to his will and pleasure. And as for the discharge of his Pastoral or Prophetical Office, God likeneth him to David, Ezek. 34.23. by his holy Prophet saying, I will set up one Shepheard over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David, he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepheard. Which Offices, although subordinate to the Regal power, are per­petual also. He was not made a Priest for a time or season, but for ever. Tu es Sa­cerdos in aeternum: Heb. 5.6. Thou art a Priest for ever, said the Lord unto him. A Priest, who as he once appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself; Heb. 9.26. so by that one offering hath he perfected for ever all them that are sanctified; Heb. 10.14. and sitting down at the right hand of God, Heb. 7.25. he ever liveth, and maketh intercession for them. Of the same perpetuity also are those other Offices of Christ our Saviour, before remembred. He had not been sidelis sicut Moses, Estius in Heb. 3. v. 2. faithful as Moses was in all his house: i. e. as Estius well expounds it, in administratione populi sibi credita, in the well-ordering of the charge committed to him, had he not constituted a set Form of Government, and given the same unto his Church, as a Rule for ever. Nor had he faithfully discharged the part of David, had he looked only to his flock, whiles himself was present; and took no care for the continual feeding of the same, after he was returned to his heavenly glo­ries. And therefore,Eph. 4.8, 11, 12, 13. when he ascended up on high he gave gifts to men, and gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in the unity of faith, and of the knowledg of the son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

He gave them then indeed, II after his Ascension, when he ascended up on high, be­cause he then did furnish them with those gifts and graces, wherewith they were en­dued by the Holy Ghost, and thereby fitted for the execution of the trust commit­ted to them by their Lord. For otherwise many of them had been given already; not only in the way of choice, and designation, but of commission and employ­ment. Ite, Matth. 28.19. & docete omnes Gentes, had been said before. It was not long after our Saviours baptism by John in Jordan, that some Disciples came unto him. That te­stimony which came down from God the Father, when the Heavens were opened, and the Spirit of God descended on him like a Dove, Matth. 3.16. was of it self sufficient to procure many followers. The evidence which was given by John the Baptist, added nought to this. And yet that evidence prevailed so far,John 1.37. that two of his Disciples, when they heard him speak, forsook their old Master, and went after Jesus. Nor did it satisfie them, that they had found the Christ, and had talked with him, but they impart the same unto others also. Thus Andrew brings in his own Brother Simon; Philip invites his friend Nathancel. John 1.42, 46. One tells another the glad tidings, that they had found him of whom Moses in the Law, and all the Prophets did write: and all of them desire to be his Disciples. John 1.45. Afterward as his fame increased, so his followers multiplyed; and every Miracle that he wrought to confirm his Doctrine, did add unto the number of his Proselytes. So great his fame was, and so great the conflux of all sorts of people, that Johns Disciples presently complained, I know not whether with more truth or envy,John 3.26. Omnes ad eum veniunt, that all men came unto him, both to hear his preaching, and receive his baptism. And certainly it was no wonder that it should be so; that all men should resort to him, who was the way; or seek for him, who was the truth; John 6.86. or follow after him, who was the life. Lord (saith Saint Peter, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of life eternal.

The number of his followers being thus increased, III he sends them not immediate­ly to preach his Gospel. Two years he trained them up in the School of Piety, where he himself was both the Teacher and the Lesson, before he ventured them abroad upon that employment; And when he ventured them abroad, he neither sent them all together,Luke 6.13. nor with like authority. Twelve he selected from the rest, whom he named Apostles. Mark 3.14. And he ordained them saith Saint Mark, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach: first to be with him, as the constant witnesses of his words and works, and afterwards to preach and publish what they saw and heard.De Praescript. advers. haeret. In which regard, Tertullian calls them not unfitly, Legatos à latere, sent from Christ to teach the Nations. Ex quibus (out of his Disciples) duodecem praecipuos lateri suo adlegerat, destinatos nationibus Magistros: as his own words are. The same Tertullian gives a reason, why Christ made choice of twelve Apostles, nei­ther more nor less:Contra Mar­cian. l. 4. viz. because there were twelve Fountains in Elim; twelve gems [Page 189]or pretious Stones in the Brest-plate of Aaron; and twelve stones taken out of Jordan by the hand of Joshua, and by him put into the Ark of the Testament. And then he adds, totidem enim Apostoli praetendebantur, that the like number of Apostles was prefigured. Other conceits there are of the Ancient Fathers about this number: Bede, and Sedulius, resemble them to the twelve signs of the Zodiack: Justin Martyr to the twelve Bells in the high Priests garment: Tertullian before named,In John 6. Sedulius. Dialog. cum Tryphone. Loco supra ci­tato. to the twelve Oxen that did uphold the molten Sea in the Temple of Solomon. Others have other fancies to the same effect; but whether Christ related unto any of them in this de­signation, as it is no where to be found, so is it not material to the present pur­pose. More near unto the point in my opinion, is that of Calvin, who thinks our Saviour in the choice of his twelve Disciples related to the twelve Patriarchs of the Tribes of Israel: to shew that as the Patriarchs were the root and seminary of the Tribes of Israel, so the Apostles were to be the Parents, or if you will,Calvin in Harm. Evang. the Patriarchs of the Church of Christ, Non ergo frustra Dominus duodecim veluti Patriarchas consti­tuens, Ecclesiae renunciationem testatus est. Which guess of his, though it come nearer to the matter than the other did; yet it falls short also of the true intention of our Lord and Saviour. For Christ, who was best able to assign the reason of his mind herein, hath told us, that he fitted his Apostles according to the number of the Tribes of Israel; that his Apostles in due time might become their Judges. For so himself declares it in his holy Gospel; Verily (saith he) I say unto you, Matth. 19.28. that ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, Hieron. in lo­cum. i. e. as Hierom doth expound it, Quia credentibus vobis, illi credere noluerunt; by reason of their ob­stinacy and unbelief, not giving credit to that Gospel the Apostles preached. Twelve then our Saviour pleased to chuse, whom he named Apostles, and they themselves conceived this number not to want its weight: and therefore made it their first care to fill up their number, and surrogate some other in the place of Judas. Saint Peter very well declared the necessity of it, when he came in with his Oportet; Acts 1.21, 22. Oportet ergo ex his viris, &c. Wherefore of these men that have companied with us all the time, that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. So excellently true is that of Austin, Adeo numerus ille sacratus est, August. in Psal. 103. ut in locum unius qui exciderat, non posset nisi alter nominari.

As for the name, quos & Apostolos nominavit, as Saint Luke informs us: IV Baronius thinks it was not of our Saviours own divising,Luke 6.13. but by him borrowed of the high Priests of the Jewish Nation, who had a special kind of Ministers, whom they cal­led Apostles, imployed by them for the instruction of the Priests, Quos etiam ipse legare consueve­rat ad compo­nendos optimos Sacerdotum mores, ipsas Sy­nagogas inspi­ciendas, pravos mores corrigen­dos, &c. Annal. A. 32. ss. 5. Epiphan. haeres. 30. n. 5. Quos haec ap­pellatio missos interpretatur. Tert. de pro­script. In Epist. ad Gal. c. 2. the visiting of the several Synagogues, the rectifying of ill manners, and the reforming of those publick Ministers, who did not live according to the prescript of the Law. Whether that it were so or not, or that the Cardinal be not mistaken in the meaning of the Author whom he citeth; I will not meddle for the present: though I conceive by looking on the place in Epiphanius, that the succeeding Patriarchs of the Jewish Nati­on, did rather take this name from Christs Apostles, than he from theirs. But for the word as now we use it, it is meerly Greek, signifying in its natural and ori­ginal sense a Messenger, a Legate, an Embassadour; from whom, to whomsoever sent: after appropriated and applyed by the Evangelists to signifie those twelve, whom our Saviour chose, and called his Apostles, as by way of excellence: yet so that many of those men who saw our Saviour in the flesh, and did preach the Gospel, are sometimes honoured with that name. Quod autem exceptis duodecim quidam vo­cantur Apostoli, illud in causa est, omnes qui Dominum viderunt, & eum postea praedica­runt, fuisse Apostolos nominatos: as Saint Hierom notes it. By which we see, that those two things did principally concur unto the making of an Apostle, viz. to have been conversant with our Saviour Christ, and to preach his Word: which being most exactly verified in those twelve Disciples, whom he selected for that purpose; it was most fit that they should chiefly have the honour of so high a Title. But these, although they were two special marks of an Apostle; yet they were not all. Others had seen our Saviour in the flesh, and preached his Gospe, which notwith­standing never durst assume that Title: Ignatius, who affirms it of himself,Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrnem. that he had seen the Lord Jesus, doth yet disclaim the power and priviledg of an Apostle, [...], saith he in his Epistle to the Romans. So that be­sides their seeing of our Saviour in the flesh, and preaching of those things which themselves had seen; the Twelve had a preheminence above the rest of the Disci­ples, [Page 190]in those three particulars: first, in their nearness of access unto him when he was alive: Secondly, in the latitude of their commission, when he was to leave them: And thirdly, in the height of their authority after his departure.

For first, V the twelve Apostles, and no others were the continual, constant, and do­mestical Auditors of all his Sermons; the diligent beholders and observers of all his Miracles. With them did he discourse familiarly, propounding questions, answer­ing their demands, and satifying all their scruples. The Twelve, and none but they, were present with him, when he did institute his holy Supper: and they alone parti­cipated of those Prayers and Promises which he made to them from himself, or for them to his heavenly Father. Many there were of his retinue, of his Court not few: the Twelve were only of his Council; and of those too, some more especially ad­mitted to his privacies, and of his Cabinet-council; (as it were) than others; whereof see Matth. 17.1. Mark 14.33. Luke 8.51. And on this ground doth Clemens tell us,Clemens Alex. ap. Euseb. l. 2. c. 1. that Christ imparted many things unto these three after his Ascen­sion, which they communicated [...], unto the rest of the Apostles: the rest of the Apostles to the 70. As they were nearer in access, so were they fur­nished with a more liberal Commission,Mark 16. when he was to leave them. Ite in uni­versum mundum. He said unto them, Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. No such commission granted to any others, who had their several precincts and bounds, a limited Commission when it was at best. To the Eleven (for unto them alone did he give that charge) the whole World went but for a Diocess. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 110. edit. Savill. For this cause Chrysostom doth honour them with the stile of Princes, and Princes of a great command over all the Universe. [...], &c. The Apostles were ordained Princes by the hand of God: Princes which have not only under them some Towns, and Nations, [...], but such unto whose care the whole World was trusted. So far that Father. And if we doubt that their authority fell short in any thing of their Commission: the same good Father in the same place, will inform us otherwise. For making a comparison between Spiritual and Civil Dignities,Chrys. ibid. he calleth the Office of an Apostle, [...], a spiritual Con­sulship, [...], the most spiritual of all Powers or Governments; and finally, [...]: the head, the root, nay the foundation of all spiritual Dignities of what sort soever. Doubtless the Father had good reason for so high an Eulogie. When Christ affirmed, Sicut misit me Pater, John 20.21. that as his Father sent him, so sent he them: He said enough to inti­mate that supreme authority which he had given them in the Church, whether it were in preaching of the Gospel, in founding Churches, constituting, and ordaining Pastors, or whatsoever else was necessary for the advancement of his Kingdom. For by these words, as Cyril hath right well observed, [...], he did ordain them for to be Guides and Teach­ers unto all the World,Chrys. in Joh. Evang. l. 12. and the dispensers of his holy Mysteries, commanding them not only to enlighten the land of Jewrie, but all the people of the Universe: as also giving them to understand that it was their duty, [...], to call the sinners to repentance, to heal all those that were afflicted, either in body or in soul, in the dispensing of Gods blessings; not to follow their own will, but his that sent them: and in a word, as much as in them was, [...], to save the World by wholsom dictrines, for to that pur­pose was he sent by his Heavenly Father. And so we are to understand Saint Chry­sostom, when he tells us this, [...] Hom in Joh. c. 20.21. Calv. in Job. that Christ invested his Apostles with the like authority as he received from his Father. Calvin affirms as much or more upon those words of our Redeemer. Quare non abs re Christus cum Apostolis suis communicat, quam à Patre autoritatem acoeperat, &c. But this authority of theirs will be seen more clearly, when we behold it in the practice, and execution.

Five things then of necessity were to concur in the making or constituting of an Apostle, VI truly and properly so called: first an immediate Call from Christ himself: secondly, an Autopsie, or Eye-witnessing of those things which they were afterwards to preach or publish of him: thirdly, their nearness of access: fourthly, the latitude of their Commission: fifthly, and finally, the eminence of their authority: Of these the first were common with them unto the rest of the Disciples; save that the calling of the Apostles to that charge, and function doth seem to be more solemn, and imme­diate. But in the rest, which are indeed the special or specifical differences, they had [Page 191]no co-partners. This made them every way superiour unto the rest of the Disciples, al­though all equal in themselves. Though in the calling of those blessed Spirits to that great imployment, there was a prius and posterius; yet in regard of power and autho­rity, there was neither Summum, nor Subalternum: And howsoever Peter be first named in that sacred Catalogue; yet this entitleth him to no more authority, above the rest of the Apostles, than Stephen might challenge in that regard above the residue of the Seven. Saint Cyprian did resolve this cause many hundreds since; assigning unto all the twelve a parity of power and honour.Cyprian lib. de unitate Eccles. Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti, & honoris & potestatis; sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur. Where clearly there is nothing given to Peter, but a priority of Order; a primacy if you will, but no supremacy. Neither doth Barlaam give him more, though he inscribe his book, de Papae Principatu. [...], &c. The Apostles, all of them saith he,Barlaam de Papae princi­patu. in matter which concern­ed the Church, were of equal honour. If Peter had preheminence in any thing, it was that in their sacred meetings he first brake the business, [...] and peradventure also had the upper place in the assemblies of that goodly fellowship. But what need Cyprian, or Barlaam come in for evidence, when as we find this parity so clearly evidenced in holy Scripture? In the immediateness of their Cal­ling, and their access unto our Lord and Saviour, they were all alike. He that called Peter from his Nets, called also Matthew from the receit of custom. If only Peter, and the sons of Zebedee were taken with him to Mount Tabor, Matth. 17.1. there to behold the glory of his Transfiguration; Mark 14.33. or chosen from amongst the rest to attend his person when he went out into the Garden of Gethsemane: this makes as much for the supremacy of the sons of Zebedee, as the son of Jona. Their mission, and commission were alike to all. He that said Ite & docete, Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, spake it indefinitely to every one; not unto Peter only, as the supreme Pastor; from whom the rest were to receive a delegated and confined authority. Neither had he so often been molested with that needless question, which of them should be greatest in their Masters Kingdom: had he before determined of it, and setled the supremacy in Saint Peters person. And as for those prerogatives, of Tibi dabo claves, Pasce oves meas: which being spoken unto Peter, may seem peculiarly to belong to him: the Fathers say, that nothing did hereby accrew to Peter, but what was common to the rest. Ecclesiae enim claves regni coelorum datae sunt. Et cum ei dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, Amas me? August. lib. de Agon. Christi­an. c. 30. Pasce oves meas: as Saint Austin states it. But what need more be said to affirm this point, than that of our most blessed Saviour, when he encouraged them to perseverance with this heavenly Cordial, that they should sit upon twelve Thrones, Matth. 19.28. judging the twelve Tribes of Israel? In which most gracious words of his, as the sitting of the Apostles shews au­thority; their sitting upon Thrones, an eminence of power; their sitting to judg, a power and exercise of jurisdiction; and their sitting thus to judg the twelve Tribes of Israel, the universality and extent of their jurisdiction:Jansen. harm. Evang. in lo­cum. so doth their sitting on twelve Thrones, singuli in sua sede, as Jansenius hath it, intimate an equality of juris­diction, a parity in point of power.

But to proceed, Our Saviour finding that the harvest was great, VII and the labourers as yet but few, and that his hour was now at hand, appointed other seventy also, Luke 10.1. and sent them two, and two before his face, into every City and place, whither he himself would come. Verse 9 To them he gave authority to proclaim, and publish to the people, Verse 17 that the Kingdom of God was come nigh unto them: giving them also power to heal the sick, and to cast out Devils, as he had formerly to his Apostles. So that there is no question to be made, but that they were intrusted with a part of this sacred Ministery, but whether in an equal rank we shall see anon. In the mean time if any question should be asked who these Seventy were and by what names called; we answer, nondum constat, that we can­not tell. Eusebius as great a searcher into the monuments of Antiquity,Hist. Eccles. lib. 1. c. 12. [...]. as the Church ever bred, professeth plainly, [...], that he could ne­ver meet with any list or catalogue of them. Some he had taken up on hear-say,Ap. Euseb. hist. l. 1. c. 33. [...]. In Panar. l. 1. haeres. 20. n. 4. as Barnabas, Sosthenes, Cephas, Matthias, after chose into the place of Judas, and Thaddeus. Papias mentioneth Aristion, as another of that number also. And Epiphanius adds to these, Stephen, and the residue of the Seven, Mark and Luke, two of the Evangelists, Justus, who stood in competition with Matthias, together with Apelles, Rufas, and Niger, whose names occur in holy Scripture. These are the most that there is any ground for, in antiquity. As for the Catalogue of their names and actions fathered on Dorotheus Bishop of Tyre: there is not any thing more false and fabulous: that Rhapsodist thrust­ing [Page 192]into that Catalogue, many who were converted by the Apostles, after Christs A­scension. Insomuch as Estius worthily complaineth,Estius in Rom. c. 16. eos fere omnes qui à Paulo in hoc capite nominantur, aut salutantes, aut salutandi, that all the men whose names occur in the 16. Chapter to the Romans, are by him thrust into the Catalogue of the Seventy Disciples: not to say any thing of those many other absurdities, which he hath noted in that Bedrol.

As for the number of Seventy, VIII why our Redeemer pitched on that, there is not much dispute amongst the learned. Tertullian, who had fitted (as before we saw) the num­ber of the Apostles, Tertul. contr. Marcion. l. 4. to the twelve fountains in Elim; doth also proportion the number of these Disciples, ad arbusta Palmarum, unto the number of the Palm-trees, that grew thereby. But this being only in the way of Allegory, we shall pass it over: only re­serving the Application made by Hierom for a little longer. That which cometh near­est the matter, and is agreed upon almost by all sorts of Writers, is that our Saviour in this choice, related to the Seventy Elders interessed in the government of the Tribes of Israel: Calv. in har­mon. Evan. mention of whom is made, Num. 11.16. Ezek. 8.11. Calvin amongst the rest gives this reason of it, In numero septuaginta videtur eum ordinem secutus esse, cui jam olim assueverat populus: and adds withal another note, which may well serve to reconcile the difference about this number, which is between the Greek and the Latin Copies. For the Greek Copies have it generally, [...], that he ap­pointed other seventy also, as our English reads it. The Latin no less generally: Desig­navit & alios septuaginta duos, that he sent out other seventy two: which reading doth occur in Hierom, Hieron. in ca­none Lucae. In Evan. l. 2. cap. 14. Beza in Annot. in Luc. 10. Austin, and some others. I know indeed, Beza doth put an handsom slur on the Latin Copies, and thinks that some poor ignorant Scribes (Li­brarii indocti, as he calls them) abbreviating the word discipulos into dlos: others as ignorant as they out of dlos read duos, and so found seventy two Disciples instead of seventy. But surely those renowned Fathers Hierom, and Austin, were no such Babies: not to say any thing of Beda, and the rest that followed. And therefore since it is agreed on, that these Disciples were proportioned to the number of the Elders of the Tribes of Israel: we must first find what was the number of those Elders, before we can agree upon the other. Now for the number of those Elders, the Scripture saith expresly, they were seventy two, as may appear by comparing the 25. verse of the 11. of Num­bers, with the 26. in which we find that there were seventy Elders gathered about the Tabernacle, besides Eldad, and Medad in the Camp. For making up this number, as afterwards in the translation of the Bible, there were six chosen out of every Tribe, [...],Joseph. Ant. Judaic. l. 12. as Josephus hath it, which cometh to seventy two in all. But both the seventy two Elders, are generally called the Seventy; as the Translators of the Bible are called the Septuagint; both of them ad rotundationem numeri: even as the Ma­gistrates in Rome were called Centumviri, though being three for every Tribe, they came unto an hundred and five in all.Calvin. in harm. Evang. ut supra. And this is that which Calvin hath observed in the present business: viz. that the Consistory of the Jewish Judges, to which the number of the Disciples is by him proportioned, consisted of no less than 72, though for the most part, ut fieri solet in talibus numeris, they are called the Seventy. So then to reconcile the Latin with the Greek Original, there were in all 72 Disciples, according to the truth of the calculation: and yet but seventy in account, according to the esti­mation which was then in use. And therefore possibly the Church of England, the better to comply with both computations; though it have seventy in the new Tran­slations, yet still retains the number of seventy two, in the Gospel appointed for Saint Lukes day in the book of Common-prayer confirmed by Parliament.

This being the number of the Disciples, IX it will then fall out, that as there were six Elders, for every Tribes so here will be six Presbyters or Elders, for every one of the Apostles. For those which have compared the Church of Christ which was first planted by the Apostles, with that which was first founded by the Lord himself: resemble the Bishops in the Church to the twelve Apostles; the Presbyters, or Priests, unto the Seventy. Which parallel how well it holdeth, and whether it will hold, or not, we shall see hereafter. Mean while it cannot be denied, but that the Apostles were supe­riour to these Seventy, both in place and power. The Fathers have so generally af­firmed the same, that he must needs run cross unto all antiquity that makes question of it. The Council of Neocaesarea, which was convened some years before that of Nice, Leo Ep. 88. declareth that the Chorepiscopi, which were but Presbyters in fact, (though in Title Bishops) [...],Concil. Neoca­sar. 1. Can. 13. were instituted according to the pat­tern of the Seventy. Saint Hierom, in his Tractate ad Fabiolam, speaking of the twelve [Page 193]fountains of Elim, and the seventy Psalms that grew thereby, doth resolve it thus, Nec dubium quin de duodeeim Apostolis sermo sit, &c. It is not to be doubted, but that the Scripture speaketh here of the twelve Apostles, the waters issuing from whose fountains have moistned the barren driness of the whole World; and that the seventy Psalms that grew thereby, are the Teachers of the second rank or order: Luca testante duodecim fuisse Apo­stolos, & septuaginta Discipulos minoris gradus: Saint Luke affirming that there were twelve Apostles, and seventy Disciples of a lower order, whom the Lord sent two and two before him. In this conceit, Saint Ambrose led the way before him, likening unto those Psalms the Seventy, qui secundo ab Apostolis gradu, who in a second rank from the Apo­stles, were by the Lord sent forth for the salvation of mankind. Serm. 24. Damasus their co-temporary doth affirm as much, viz. non amplius quam duos ordines, Epist. 5. that there were but two Orders amongst the Disciples of Christ, viz. that of the twelve Apostles, and the Seventy. Theophylact concurrs with Hierom in his conceit about the twelve Fountains, and the seventy Palm-trees: and then concludes,Theoph. in Luc. 10. that howsoever they were chosen by Christ, [...], yet were they inferiour to the twelve, and afterwards their followers and Scholars. Add hereunto the testimony and consent of Calvin, who giving the preheminence unto the Apostles, Calvin. in In­stitut. l. 4. c. 3. § 4. as the chief builders of the Church; adds in the next place the Evangelists, such as were Timothy and Titus, & fortassis etiam septuaginta Discipuli, quos secundo ab Apostolis loco Dominus designavit: and peradventure also the seventy Disciples, whom Christ appointed in the second place after his Apostles. Besides, S. Hierom giveth it for a Maxim, Qui provehitur, Ep. ad Ocea­num. de minore ad majus provehitur, that he which is promoted, is promoted from a lower rank unto an higher. Matthias therefore, having been formerly of the Seventy, and afterwards advanced into the rank and number of the Twelve, in the place of Judas: it must needs follow that the twelve Apostles shined in an higher sphere than these lesser luminaries. Now that Matthias had before been one of the seventy, appeareth by the concurrent testi­monies of Euseb. l. 1. Eccles. Hist. c. 12. & l. 2. cap. 1. and of Epiphanius contr. haeres. 20. n. 4. to whom, for brevity sake, I refer the Reader. And this the rather, because the Scripture is so full and pregnant in it; it being a condition, or qualification, if you will, required by S. Peter, in those that were the Candidates for so high a Digni­ty,Acts 1. v. 21. that they accompanied the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst them. And that we know none did, but the Seventy only. So then it is most clear, and manifest, both by authority of Scripture, and consent of Fathers, that our Saviour instituted in his Church two ranks of Ministers, the one subordinate unto the other: and consequently, laid the first foundations of it, in such a Fatherly, and mo­derate imparity, as bound all following times and ages, that would not willingly op­pose so Divine an Ordinance, to observe the like.

And yet it is not to be thought, that this superiority thus by him established, X doth contradict those other passages of holy Scripture, wherein he doth prohibit all domi­nion over one another. They much mistake the business who conceive it so. The Jews in general, and all the followers of Christ particularly, expected that the pro­mised Messiah should come with power, restore again the lustre of the Jewish Kingdom, and free them from that yoke and bondage, which by the Romans had been laid upon them. We thought, said Cleophas, that this had been he that should have delivered Israel. Acts 24.21. And what he thought, was solemnly expected by all the rest.Acts 1.6. Domine, si in tempore hoc restitues regnum Israel, Lord, say they, even in the very moment of his Ascension, wilt thou at this time restore again the Kingdom unto Israel? Upon which fancy and ima­gination, no marvail if they harboured some ambitious thought; every one hoping for the nearest places, both of power and trust about his person. This was the great­ness which they aimed at: and this our Saviour laboured to divery them from: by interdicting all such power and Empire, as Princes, and the favourites of Princes have upon their Vassals. Ye know (saith he) that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them, and they that are great exercise auhtority upon them: Vobis autem non sic,Matth. 20.25. Luke 22.25. But so it shall not be amongst you. Where plainly it appears, both by the Text and context: first, that this strife and contestation was only amongst the twelve Apostles; and there­fore howsoever it may prove that there was to be a parity or equality amongst them­selves, yet it will never prove, but that they were, and might be still superiour unto the Seventy. And secondly, that Christ our Saviour doth not prohibit them the use and exercise of all authority, on those who were inferiour and subordinate to them; but only such authority as the Princes of the Gentiles, and the great Lords and Mini­sters about them did exercise upon their Subjects. The power and government of [Page 194]the Apostles in the Church of Christ was meerly [...], such as a Father beareth unto his children: but not [...], a Lordly, and imperious Rule, such as a Master exerciseth on his slaves and servants:1 Pet. 5.3 2 Cor. 2.24. Chrysost. in o­per. imper. in Mat. hom. 35. Not as Lords over Gods inheritance, but as the hel­pers of their joy, say the two Apostles, and herein stands the difference, according unto that of Chrysostom, Principes mundi ideo fiunt, ut dominentur minoribus suis, The Princes of the Earth were made to this end and purpose, that they might Lord it over their inferiours, and make them slaves, and spoil them, and devour them, abasing them unto the death, for their own profit and glory: Principes autem Ecclesiae fiunt, &c. But the Governours or Princes of the Church were instituted to another end, viz. To serve their inferiours, and to minister unto them all such things, as they have received from the Lord.

This eminence and superiority over all the Church, XI which was thus setled in the Apostles by our Lord and Saviour, will appear more fully, if we consult the several ministrations committed unto them, and to them alone. For unto them alone it was, that Christ committed the whole power of preaching of his holy Word, administring his blessed Sacraments, retaining and forgiving sins, ruling and ordering of his flock: giving them also further power of instituting, and ordaining such, by whom these several Offices were to be performed till his second coming. None but the Twelve were present with him, when he ordained the blessed Sacrament of his body and blood:Luke 22.19. and unto them alone was said Hoc facite, do this: i. e. take bread, and break, and bless it, and distribute it, in remembrance of me. To the eleven alone it was that he gave commission to go into all the World and preach the Gospel to all creatures,Matth. 28.19. baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They only had that powerful and immediate mission,John 20.21. John 20.22, 23. Sicut misit me Pater, As my Father sent me, so send I you; and upon them alone he breathed, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye do remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose sins you do retain, they are retained. Finally, they, and none but they were trusted with the feeding, and the governance of the Flock of Christ, (the word [...] in the Greek doth imply them both) for howsoever Pasce oves meas, John 21.15, 16. was in particular spoken to Saint Peter; yet was that charge incumbent on them all, as before we noted from Saint Austin. By all which passages and Texts of Scripture, it is clear and manifest, that the Apostles were by Christ ordained to be the sole and ordinary Teachers, Bishops, and Pastors of the Church, next and immediately under his most blessed self,Heb. 13.20. 1 Pet. 2.25. who still continueth [...], the great Shepheard of the Sheep, as Paul; the Shepheard and Bishop of our Souls, as Saint Peter calls him. The Seventy had no part in this new Commissi­on, the dispensation of the Word, and Sacraments, but at second hand; as they were afterwards intrusted with it, by the holy Apostles, either as Prophets, Presby­ters, or Evangelists, according to the measure of the Grace which was given unto them: or specially designed to some part therein, after the Ascension of our Lord and Saviour, by the immediate designation of the Holy Ghost. And when they were entrusted with a part thereof, yet were they still secundi Ordinis, Ministers of a second rank, inferiour unto the Apostles, both in place and power, to whom all latitude of power was given. Nay, the Apostles took an hint from this different mission, to in­stitute two several sorts of Ministers in the Church of Christ: the one subordinate unto the other, as were the Seventy unto them. And this by vertue of these words in their Commission, Ita mitto vos; i. e. as the Arch-Bishop of Spalato very well applyeth it,De Repab. Eccl. l. 2. c. 3. n. 7. Sicut ego à Patre habui potestatem eligendi Ministros, etiam diversi ordinis, ita & vos pariter habeatis. As I received power from my heavenly Father, of instituting Ministers, even of divers Orders, so I give it you. And therefore whatsoever the Apostles did therein, they did it after Christs example, and by his authority: and consequently, the imparity of Ministers by them ordained, was founded on the Law of God, and the original institution of our Saviour Christ, by whom the power of Ordination was to them committed, and by them unto their Successours in the Church for ever.

To bring this Chapter to an end, XII our Saviour Christ having thus furnished his A­postles with those several powers, faculties, and preheminences which before we spake of; he thought it best to recommend them to the blessings of Almighty God, whose work they were to go about. And therefore being to take his fare-well of them,Luke 24.50. did in a very solemn manner bestow his benediction on them. Elevatis mani­bus suis benedixit eis, he lifted up his hands, and blessed them, as Saint Luke hath it. Which benediction Saint Austin takes to be a consecrating of those holy men unto the power and dignity of Bishops.Aug. quaest. N. Test. qu. 14. Ipse enim priusquam in caelos ascenderet, imponens [Page 195]manum Apostolis, ordinavit cos Episcopos: as the Father hath it. Which whether it were so or not, I mean so done with such an outward Form and Ceremony, and in that very point of time, is perhaps uncertain: But sure I am, that for the thing it self, which is here delivered, the Fathers, many of them do agree with Austin; affirming, passim, in their writings, that the Apostles were made Bishops by our blessed Lord. Saint Cyprian voucheth it expresly. The Deacons ought to understand,Cyp. lib. 3. Ep. 9. quoniam Apo­stolos, i. e. Episcopos, & Praepositos Dominus elegit, that the Lord Christ himself did chuse the Apostles, that is, the Bishops and Rulers of the Church, and that the Apostles after his ascension did ordain the Deacons to be the Ministers of their Episcopal function, and the necessities of the Church. Saint Ambrose doth affirm the same,Ambros. in 1. ad Cor. c. 12. Caput it aque in Ecclesia Apostolos posuit, &c. Christ, saith he, made the Apostles the head (or su­preme Governours) of his Church, they being the Legats or Ambassadours of Christ, according unto that of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5.20. And then he adds, Ipsi sunt Epi­scopi, that they were Bishops. More plainly in his Comment on the Ephesians, Apo­stoli Episcopi sunt, Prophetae, explanatores Scripturarum, The Apostles, saith he,In Comment. in Ephes. 4. are Bishops, and Prophets, the Expositors of Scripture. But because question hath been made, whether indeed those Commentaries are the works of Ambrose, or of some other ancient Writer; he tells us in his Notes on the 43. Psalm, that in those words of Christ, Pasce oves meas, Peter was made a Bishop by our Lord and Saviour.De Repub. Ec­cles. l. 2. c. 2. n. 4. Signi­ficat Ambrosius Petrum Sacerdotem, hoc est, Episcopum electum, illis verbis, Pasce oves meas: as the place is cited by the Arch-Bishop of Spalato. And thus Saint Chrysostom speak­ing of the election of the Seven, saith plainly, [...], that then there were no Bishops in the Church,Chrys. hom. 14. in Act 6. but only the Apostles.

But what need more be said in the present business, XIII than that which is delivered in the holy Scripture, about the surrogation of some other in the place of Judas: wherein the place or function of an Apostle is plainly called Episcopatus; Acts 1.20. Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter, let another take his Bishoprick, as the English reads it. His Bishop­rick, i. e. saith Chrysostom, [...], his Principality, his Priesthood,Chrys. hom. 3. in Act. 1. the place of government that belonged unto him, had he kept his station. A Text most plain and pregnant as the Fathers thought, to prove that the Episcopal dignity was vested in the persons of the Lords Apostles. The Comment under the name of Ambrose, which before we spake of, having said, Ipsi sunt Episcopi, Ambros. in 1. ad Cor. c. 12 that the Apostles were Bishops, adds for the proof thereof these words of Peter, Episcopatum ejus acci­piat alter. And the true Ambrose saying of Judas, Id. Serm. 50. that he was a Bishop [Episcopus enim & Judas fuit] adds for the proof thereof the same very Text. Finally, to conclude this matter, Saint Cyprian, shewing that Ordinations were not made with­out the privity of the people, in the Jewish Church,Nisi sub populi assistentis con­scientia. lib. 1. ep. 4. adds that the same was after­wards observed by the holy Apostles, Quando de ordinando in locum Judae Episcopo; when Peter spake unto the people, about the ordering of a Bishop in the place of Judas. But for a further proof of this, that the Apostles were ordained Bishops by our Lord and Saviour, we shall see more hereafter in convenient place,Vide chap. 6. n. 12. when we are come to shew, that in the government of the Church, the Bishops were the proper Successors of the Apostles; and so esteemed to be by those, who otherwise were no great friends unto Episcopacy. In the mean time, we may take notice of that impudent assertion of Jobannes de Turrecremata: viz. Quod solus Petrus à Christo Episcopus est ordinatus: Lib. 2. Summae de Eccl. c. 32. ap. Bell. de Rom Pont. that Peter, only Peter was made Bishop by our Saviour Christ, and that the rest of the A­postles received from Peter their Episcopal consecration: wherein I find him second­ed by Dominicus Jacobatius, lib. 10. de Concil. Art. 7. A Paradox so monstrous and absurd, that howsoever Bellarmine doth reckon it amongst other the Prerogatives of that Apostle, in his first Book de Romano Pontifice, cap. 23. yet upon better thoughts, he rejects it utterly in his 4th Book upon that argument, Cap. 22. and so I leave it.

Thus having shewn in what estate the Church was founded by our Saviour, and in what terms he left it unto his Apostles: we must next see what course was taken by them to promote the same, what use they made of that authority which was trusted to them.

CHAP. II. The foundation of the Church of Hierusalem under the Government of Saint James the Apostle, and Simeon, one of the Disciples, the two first Bishops of the same.

  • 1. Matthias chosen into the place of Judas.
  • 2. The coming of the Holy Ghost, and on whom it fell.
  • 3. The greatest measure of the Spirit fell on the Apostles, and so by consequence the great­est power.
  • 4. The several Ministrations in the Church then given; and that in ranking of the same, the Bishops are intended in the name of Pastors.
  • 5. The sudden growth of the Church of Hie­rusalem, and the making of Saint James the first Bishop there.
  • 6. The former point deduced from Scripture.
  • 7. And proved by the general consent of Fa­thers.
  • 8. Of the Episcopal Chair or Throne of Saint James, and his Successors in Hierusalem.
  • 9. Simeon elected by the Apostles to succeed S. James.
  • 10. The meaning of the word Episcopus, and from whence borrowed by the Church.
  • 11. The institution of the Presbyters.
  • 12. What interest they had in the common business of the Church, whilst S. James was Bishop.
  • 13. The Council of Hierusalem, and what the Presbyters had to do therein.
  • 14. The Institution of the Seven, and to what Office they were called.
  • 15. The names of Ecclesiastical functions, promiscuously used in holy Scripture.

OUR Saviour Christ having thus Authorized his Apostles to Preach the Gospel over all the World, I to every Creature; and given them power as well of mini­string the Sacraments, as of retaining and remitting sins, as before is said; thought fit to leave them to themselves,Luk. 24.49. only commanding them to tarry in the City of Hieru­salem until they were indued with further power from on high, whereby they might be fitted for so great a work.Act. 1.9. And when he had spoken those things, while they beheld, he was taken up, and a Cloud received him out of their sight. No sooner was he gone to the Heavenly glories, but the Apostles with the rest, withdrew themselves unto Hieru­salem, as he had appointed; where the first care they took was, to fill up their num­ber, to surrogate some one or other of the Disciples in the place of Judas, that so the Word of God might be fulfilled,Psal. 69.26. which he had spoken by the Psalmist, Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter. A business of no small importance, and therefore fit to be imparted unto all the Brethren; not so much that their suffrage and consent herein was necessa­ry, as that they might together joyn in prayer to Almighty God,Act. 1.21. to direct the action, whose business indeed it was, and unto whom alone the whole election properly per­tained. All that they did was to propose two men unto the Lord their God (Et statuerunt duos, Act. 1.23. saith the Text) such as they thought most fit for so great a charge, and so to leave it to his providence, to shew and manifest which of the two he pleased to choose. In the appointment of which two, whether that statuerunt being a Verb of the Plural number, be to be referred to all the multitude, as Chrysostom is of opinion, or only unto the Apostles, and the Seventy, as some others think, it comes all to one. For the whole number being but an hundred and twenty,Act. 1.15. and being that the Apostles with the Seventy (out of which rank the nomination of the two was made) made up the number of fourscore; it must needs be that the appointment in effect was in them alone. And though I rather do incline to Chrysostom, in this particular, that the appointment of these two was done by all the multitude in general;Chrysost. in hom. 3. in Act. yet I can yield by no means to the next that followeth. For shewing some politick and worldly reasons, why Peter did permit the people to have an interest in the business, he first asked this question, [ [...] [...]; whether it were not lawful for Saint Peter to have chose the man. And then he answereth positively, [...], that it was most lawful, but that he did forbear to do it, lest he might seem to do it out of partiality. In this I must crave leave to dissent from Chrysostom. The power of making an Apostle was too high a priviledge to be intrusted unto any of the Sons of Adam. 1 Cor. 15. Galat. 1.1. Paul was not made Apostle, though an Abortive one, as he calls himself, either of men, or by men, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father. What priviledge or [Page 197]power soever Peter had as an Apostle of the Lord in making Bishops, or as a Bishop of the Church in ordaining Presbyters; he had no power to make Apostles. The Pope might sing Placebo, if it had been otherwise; and we should have Apostles more than ten times twelve, if nothing were required unto it, but Saint Peters Fiat.

But to proceed: This weighty business being thus dispatched,Epiphan. haeres. 20. n. 4. and Matthias who before was of the Seventy, being numbred with the eleven Apostles, it pleased God to make good his promise of pouring on them in a plentiful and signal manner the gifts and graces of his holy Spirit. Not on the Twelve alone, or the Seventy only, but on the whole body of the Disciples, even on the whole 120. which before we spake of. I know that Beza and some others, would limit this effusion of the Holy Ghost to the Twelve alone. Why, and to what intent he doth so resolve it, though I may guess perhaps, yet I will not judge; but sure it is, he so resolves it.Beza in Act. 2. Solis Apostolis propria est haec Spiritus sancti missio, sicut proprius fuit Apostolatus, as his own words are in his An­notations on the Text. The same he also doth affirm in his Book de Ministrorum Evangelii gradibus, cap. 5. But herein Beza leaves the Fathers and the Text to boot. Saint Austin tells us, that the Holy Ghost came from Heaven,Tract. 2. in ep. Johannis. Hom. 4. in Act. c. 2. & implevit uno loco sedentes centum viginti, and filled one hundred and twenty sitting in one place. Saint Chrysostom affirms the same, [...], &c. what (saith he) did it come on the twelve alone, not upon the rest? And then he answereth, [...], not so by no means, it fell on all the 120 which were there Assembled. Nor doth he only say it, but he proves it also, alledging in defence of his assertion that very plea and argument which was used by Peter, to clear himself and his associates from the im­putation of being drunken with new wine,Act. 2.16. viz. Hoc est quod dictum fuit per Prophetam Joel, This is that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, &c. Besides, the text and context make it plain enough, that this effu­sion of the Holy Ghost was upon them all.Act. 1.14. In the first Chapter of the Acts we find them all together (the whole 120.) with one accord: And in the first verse of the second Chapter, we find them all together with the same accord: And then it followeth that there appeared cloven tongues, like as of fire, seditque supra singulos eorum, Act. 2.3, 4. and sate upon each of them; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. If they were all together (as we found before) and all were filled with the Holy Ghost: No question but there were more filled with it than the twelve Apostles. And when as Peter with the eleven stood up, making an Apology for the rest, and saying, These men are not drunken, Act. 2.14, 15. as ye suppose; it must needs be that others, besides the twelve, and indeed all the company were suspected of it. Add, as by way of surplusage, and ex abundanti, that the Seven chosen by the multitude to serve the Tables, who questionless were of the number of the Seventy, are said to have been full of the Holy Ghost, Epiphan. haeres. 20. n. 4. Act. 6.3. before that the Apostles had laid hands on them.

So then it is most evident, as I conceive it, III that the Holy Ghost was given to every one of the Disciples, the whole number of them, to every one according to his place and station, according to that service and imployment, in which the Lord intended to make use of them. For unto one was given by the spirit the word of Wisdom, 1 Cor. 12.8, 9, 10. to another the word of Knowledge, and to another the gift of healing by the same spirit; to another the working of Miracles, to another Prophesie, to another discerning of Spirits, to another divers kinds of Tongues, to another the interpretation of Tongues. Every one of them had their several gifts; the Apostles all [...],Hom. 32. in 1. ad Cor. c. 12. as we read in Chrysostom. Whatever was divided amongst the residue for the advancement of Gods glory, and the improvement of his Church, that was united in the persons of the holy Apostles, whom God had ranked as much above them in their gifts and graces, as they were in place. By means whereof it came to pass, that howsoever the Lord out of these 120 made choice of some to be Evangelists, some to be Prophets, and others to be Pastors, Presbyters, and Teachers; yet the Apostles still retained their superio­rity, ordering and directing them in their several Ministeries to the best edifying of the Church. For thus we read how Paul disposed of Timothy and Titus, who were both Evangelists; sending them, as the occasions of the Church required, from Asia to Greece, and then back to Asia, and thence to Italy. How he sent Crescens to Galatia, 2 Tim. 4. Titus to Dalmatia, Tychicus to Ephesus; commanding Erastus to abide at Corinth, and using the Ministery of Luke at Rome. 1 Cor. 14. So find we how he ordered those that had the spirit of Prophecy, and such as had the gift of tongues, that every one might use his talent unto edification; how he ordained Bishops in one place, Elders or Presbyters in another, as we shall se [...] hereafter in this following story. The like we may affirm [Page 198]of Saint Peter also, and of the rest of the Apostles, though there be less left upon re­cord of their Acts and Writings, than are remaining of Saint Paul; whose mouths and pens being guided by the Holy Ghost, have been the Canon ever since of all saving truth. For howsoever Mark and Luke, two of the Evangelists, have left be­hind them no small part of the Book of God, of their own enditing; yet were not ei­ther of their writings reckoned as Canonical in respect of the Authors, but as they had been taken from the Apostles mouths, and ratified by their Authority, as both Saint Luke himself,Luk. 1. Hieron. in Marc. Clemens apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 15. Act. 8.12. v. 14, 15, 17. and the Fathers testifie. And for a further mark of difference be­tween the Apostles and the rest of the Disciples, we may take this also; that though the rest of the Disciples had all received the Holy Ghost, yet none could give the same but the Apostles only. Insomuch that when Philip the Evangelist had preached the Gospel in Samaria, and converted many, and Baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; yet none of them received the Holy Ghost till Peter. and John came down unto them, and prayed for them, and laid their hands on them, as the Scriptures witness. That was a priviledge reserved to the Apostles, and to none but them. [...],Hom. 18. in Act. 8. as it is in Chrysostom, And when the two Apostles did it, they did it without Philips help or co-operation, who joyned not in it, nor con­tributed at all to so great a work, for ought we find in holy Scripture.

In this regard it is no marvel, IV if in the enumerating of those ministrations which did concur in the first founding of the Church, the Apostles always have preheminence. First,1 Cor. 12.28. Apostles: Secondarily, Prophets: Thirdly, Teachers, &c. as Saint Paul hath ranked them. Nor did he rank them so by chance, but gave to every one his proper place,Hom. 32. in 1. ad Cor. c. 12. [...], saith Saint Chrysostom, first placing that which was most excellent, and afterwards descending unto those of a lower rank. Which plainly shews, that in the composition of the Church there was a prius and posterius in regard of order, a [...], or more honourable, as the Father calls it, in re­gard of power; as in the constitution of the body natural, to which the Church is there resembled, some of the members do direct, and some obey, some of them being honourable,1 Cor. 12.22, 23. some feeble, but all necessary. The like may also be observed out of the 4. chap. of the same Apostle unto the Ephesians, where the Apostles are first placed and ranked above the rest of the ministrations, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers, of which some were to be but temporary in the Church of God, the others to remain for ever.Hom. 11. in Ephes. 4. For as Saint Chrysostom doth exceeding well expound that Scripture, [...], First, he doth name Apostles, as they in whom all powers and graces were united: Secondly, Prophets, such as was Agabus in the Acts: Thirdly, Evangelists, [...], such as had made no progress into many Countries, but preached the Gospel in some certain Regions, as Aquila and Priscilla; and then Pastors and Teachers, who had the government of a Country or Nation, [...], such as were setled and employed in a certain place or City, as Timothy and Titus. If then a question should be made, whom S. Paul meaneth here by Pastors and Teachers; I answer, it is meant of Bishops, [...], as the Father hath it, such as were placed over some certain Cities; and that the Bishops were accounted in the ancient times the only ordinary Pastors of the Church, in the room and stead of the Apostles, we shall shew hereafter.Chap. 6. n. And this I am the rather induced to think, because that in the first Epistle to those of Corinth, written when as there were but few Bishops of particular Cities, S. Paul doth speak of Teachers only; but here in this to the Ephesians, writ at such time as Timothy and Titus, and many others had formerly been ordained Bishops, he adds Pastors also.Theoph. Oecum. in Ephes. 4.4.11. Certain I am that both Theophylact and Oecumenius do expound the words by Bishops only, [...], such Bi­shops as both Timothy and Titus were by them accounted. Nay, even Saint Hierome seemeth to incline this way,Hieron. in Ephes. 4. making the Prelates of the Church, or the Praesides Ecclesiae, as he calls them there, to be the Pastors and Teachers mentioned by Saint Paul, i.e. Pastores ovium, magistros hominum; Pastors in reference to their Flocks, Teachers in reference to their Disciples.

But to go on unto our story. V Our Saviour having thus enabled and supplyed his labourers with the gifts and graces of his Spirit, it could not be but that the Harvest went on apace.Act. 2.41.47. The first day added to the Church 3000 souls. And after that, God added daily to it such as should be saved. The miracle wrought by the hands of the two Apostles at the Beautiful gate, Act. 3.2. opened a large door to the further increase thereof. For presently upon the same, and Peters Sermon made upon that occasion, we find that the number of the men which heard the word and believed, Act. 4.4. was about five thousand. [Page 199]Not that there were so many added to the former number, as to make up five thou­sand in the total; but that there were five thousand added to the Church more than had been formerly; S. Chrysostom and Oecumenius, Chrys. hom. 10. in Act. 4. & hom. 25. in Act. 11. both affirming that there were more converted by this second Sermon of Saint Peters, than by the first. So that the Church increasing daily more and more, multitudes both of men and women being continually added to the Lord, and their numbers growing dreadful to the Jewish Magistrates;Act. 5.14. it seemed good to the Apostles, Vers. 26 (who by the intimation of the Spirit found that there would be work enough elsewhere) to choose one or other of their sacred number, to be the Bishop of that Church, and take charge thereof. And this they did not now by lots, but in the ordinary course and manner of election, pitching on James the Son of Alpheus, Gal. 1.19. who in regard of consanguinity is sometimes called in Scripture the Lords Brother; and in regard of his exceeding piety and uprightness, was surnamed the Just. Which action I have placed here, even in the cradle of the Church upon good Authority. For first, Eusebius tells us out of Clemens, that this was done [...],Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 1. after the Ascension of our Saviour; Hierome more plainly, statim post passionem Domini, immediately upon his passion.In Scrip. Ec­cles. We may with good secu­rity conclude from both, that it was done not long after Christs Ascension, as soon almost as the Believers were increased to a considerable number. And lastly,Ignat. in ep. ad Trall. that Ignatius hath made S. Stephen to be the Deacon, or subservient Minister to this James the Bishop of Hierusalem; and then we must needs place it in some middle time, between the Feast of Pentecost, and the 26. of December, when Saint Stephen was Martyred. So early did the Lord take care to provide Bishops for his Church, and set apart a special Pastor for his holy City.

'Tis true, there is no manifest record hereof in holy Scripture, VI but then withal it is as true, that in the Scripture there are many pregnant circumstances, whereon the truth hereof may well be grounded.Gal. 1.18, 19. Saint Paul some three years after his Conver­sion, went up unto Hierusalem to see Peter, but found no other of the Apostles there, save only James the Lords Brother. Ask Hierome, who this James was, whom S. Paul then saw, and he will tell you that it was James the Bishop of Hierusalem, Hier. in Gal. 1. Hic autem Jacobus Episcopus Hierosolymorum primus fuit, cognomento Justus. And then withal, we have the reason why Paul should find him at Hierusalem, more than the rest of the Apostles, viz. because the rest of the Apostles were dispersed abroad, according to the exigence of their occasions; and James was there residing on his Pastoral or Episcopal charge. Fourteen years after his Conversion,Gal. 21.1. being the eleventh year after the former interview, he went up into Hierusalem again, with Barnabas and Titus, and was toge­ther present with them at the first general Council, held by the Apostles. In which, upon the agitation of the business there proposed, the Canon and determination is drawn up positively and expresly in the words of James. Act. 15.20. Do you desire the reason of it, Peter and others being there? Chrysostom on those words of Scripture,Act. 15.13. Hom. 33. in Act. c. 15. v. 23. James an­swered saying, doth express it thus, [...], this James was Bishop of Hierusalem. And this no question was the reason, why Paul re­citing the names of those with whom especially he had conference at his being there, puts James in the first place before Peter and John, viz. Galat. 2.9. because that he was Bishop there, as Estius hath noted on that Text. The Council being ended, Paul returneth to Antioch, and there by reason of some men that came from James, Peter withdrew, Vers. 12 and separated himself, eating no longer with the Gentiles. Why takes the Apostle such especial notice that they came from James, but because they were sent from him, as from their Bishop, about some business of the Church; this James being then Bishop of Hierusalem, Theoph. & Oe­cum. in Gal. 2. [ [...]] as both Theophylact and Oecumenius note upon the place. Finally, nine years after this, being the 58. of Christs Nativity, Paul makes his last journey to Hierusalem; still he finds James there.Act. 21.18. And the day follow­ing Paul went in with us unto James, &c. as the Text informs us.Chrysost. hom. 46. in Act. Chrysostom notes up­on the place, that James there spoken of was the Lords Brother, [...], and Bishop of Hierusalem. So that for 20 years together, we have appa­rent evidence in Scripture of James residing at Hierusalem, and that as Bishop there, as the Fathers say.

For that Saint James was Bishop of Hierusalem, VII there is almost no ancient Writer but bears witness of it. Ignatius, who was made Bishop of Antiochia, Ignat. ep. ad Trallian. within eight years after the Death and Martyrdom of this James in their account, who place it latest, makes Stephen to be the Deacon of this James, as Clemens and Anacletus were to Peter; which is an implication that James was Bishop of Hierusalem, out of which [Page 200]City we do not find that Stephen ever travelled. Egesippus, who lived near the Apo­stles times,Hieron. in loc. Euseb. l. 4. c. 21. Apud Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 1. Ibid. & l. 7. c. 14. makes this James Bishop of Hierusalem, as both Saint Hierom and Eusebius have told us from him. Clemens of Alexandria not long after him, doth confirm the same. And out of him and other monuments of antiquity, Eusebius doth assure us of him, [...], that he was the first that held the Episcopal throne or chair in the Church of Hierusalem. Saint Cyril, Catech. 4. cap. de cibis. Catech. 14. Bishop of Hierusalem, speaks of him as of his Predecessor, [ [...]] in that Church, [...], as the first Bishop of that Diocess. And Epiphanius for his greater credit, makes him not only the first Bishop that ever was, Haeres. 29. n. 3. but Bishop of the Lords own Throne, [...],Epiph. adv. haeres. 78. n. 7. and that too by the Lords appoint­ment. S. Ambrose doth assign this reason, why Paul going unto Hierusalem to see Peter, Ambros. in Gal. 1. De Scriptor. Eccles. should find James there, quia illic constitutus erat Episcopus ab Apostolis, because that by the rest of the Apostles he was made Bishop of that place. Saint Hierom doth not only affirm as much, as for his being Bishop of Hierusalem, but also doth lay down the time of his Creation to be not long after our Redeemers passion, as we saw before. Saint Chrysostom, Hom. ult. in Ioh. besides what was alledged from him in the former Section, tells in his Homilies on S. Johns Gospel, [...], that Saint James had the Bishoprick of Hierusalem. Where by the way I cannot but take notice of a lewd forgery, or at the best a gross mistake of Baronius, who to advance the Soveraignty of the Church of Rome, An. 34. n. 291. will have this James to take the Bishoprick of Hierusalem from Saint Peters hands, and cites this place of Chrysostom for proof there­of. But surely Chrysostom saith no such matter; for putting the question, how James was made the Bishop of Hierusalem, since Pasce oves meas was said to Peter; returns this answer, [...], that Christ made Peter not the Pastor of a particular place, but of all the universe. That James received his Bishop­rick from Peter, not one word saith Chrysostom: 'Tis true, the Latin reads it as the Cardinal doth; but such an undertaker as he was, should have sought the fountains. As for Saint Austin, Cap. 37. he agrees herein with the other Fathers, in his second book against Cresconius; where speaking of the Church of Hierusalem, he describes it thus, quam primus Apostolus Jacobus Episcopatu suo rexit, whereof S. James the Apostle was the first Bishop. Add here the joynt consent and suffrage of 289 Prelates in the sixth General Council of Constantinople, Concil. Con­stant. in Can. 32. affirming James the Lords Brother to be the first Bishop of Hierusalem; not to say any thing of Oecumenius and Theophylact, whom before we cited. Never was point in issue tried by a fuller evidence.

And yet one other circumstance occurs to confirm the point, VIII which is, that till Eusebius time,Eccl. hist. l. 7. c. 14. the Chair, or Cathedra Episcopalis, wherein S. James was said to be in­throned, was very carefully preserved by his Successors, as a sacred Monument, and gladly shewed to all that desired to see it; [...], as the Author hath it. An evidence of no mean consideration, as being vouched by an Author that lived before the superstitious reverence and esteem of Reliques had been introduced into the world, or any Impostures of that kind put upon the people. Unto which testimony of Eusebius, Beda Martyrol. Decemb. 28. we may add that of Beda also, who in his Marty­rologie doth place the memorial or commemoration of the Apostles inthronizing in that Chair or Throne upon the 27 of December; wherein I dare not joyn with him as unto the day, though I approve his observation of the fact or ceremony, as being every way conform to the ancient custom of the Church. One only thing I have to add and rectifie,Hieron. de Script. Eccles. which concerns S. James, and is briefly thus. S. Hierome tells us out of Egesippus, huic soli licitum esse ingredi Sancta Sanctorum; that it was only lawful to S. James to enter into the Holy of Holies; whereas in truth it should not be huic soli licitum, but huic solitum. And this appears to be the true and ancient reading, by comparing the translation of Sophronius with S. Hieroms Text, wherein we have it, [...], &c. that it was his custom so to do; the Jews permitting him to enjoy that priviledge in the declining times of their State and Temple, by rea­son of the holiness of his conversation.Id. ibid. Finally, to conclude with Hierom, this blessed Man of God was Martyr'd in the 7 year of Nero (An. Chr. 63.) postquam triginta annos Hierosolymis rexerat Ecclesiam; after he had been Bishop of Hierusalem 30 year; that is to say 29 years compleat, and the 30 currant. By which account it must needs follow, that the making of this James Bishop of Hierusalem, was one of the first acti­ons of the Apostles, after they were endued with the Holy Ghost.

James being dead, IX Simeon another of the Lords Disciples was made the Bishop of that Church, Peter, and Paul, and John, and many other of the Apostles, being then alive, and all concurring in this choice, and consenting to it. Eusebius, Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 10. as he tells the story, makes it a very solemn business, scarce such another Precedent to be found in all antiquity. And he relates it thus, as followeth, [...] &c. After the Martyrdom of James, and the taking of Hierusalem (by the Romans) it is affirmed that the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord and Saviour which were yet alive, together with those of the Lords kindred after the flesh, many of whom continued living till that time, resorted thither. Their business was to enter into consultation, [...], whom they should find most worthy to succeed in the place of James; and having well considered of it, they all with one accord, [...], saith the Author, agreed on Simeon the Son of Cleophas, one of our Saviours kindred also, as fit and worthy to possess the Episcopal Throne, [...]. Id. Ibid. and look unto the government of that Church or Diocess. So that in this election there did not only meet together the Lords kindred, who might perhaps desire to keep that holy honour in their own family; not the Disciples only of the lower rank, who might perhaps be easily induced to consent thereto, to gratifie the kindred of their Lord and Master: But there met also the Apostles, men guided and directed by the Spirit of God; and all of these coming from several parts and countries did, [...], with one accord, with one unanimous assent, agree upon the choice of this worthy man, to be the Bishop or chief Pastor of the mother City, which place he held until the time of Trajan, during whose Empire he received the Crown of Martyr­dom, Anno 109.

Here then we have two Bishops of Hierusalem, X made by the general and joynt con­sent of the Apostles; and those two Bishops not in name and title, but in power and office, according to the Ecclesiastical notion of the word, and as the same is taken in the writings of the Fathers before alledged. I know the word Episcopus, in the primitive and proper notion doth signifie a Supervisor or Overseer, as it is rendred in our last Translation, Act. 20.4.Suidas in Epis­copo. Such were the Officers of the Athenians whom Suidas speaks of, sent by that State to look into the Government of the Cities under their domi­nion, [...]. And these, saith he, were called Bishops and Guardians. In this last sense the word is often used by Plutarch, Plutarch. in Numa. as where he calleth Numa, [...], The Bishop or Guardian of the Vestal Virgins; and their God Terminus, [...], the Overseer and preserver of peace and amity. Thus do we read in Sophocles of certain Officers called [...], such as took care about the dead; of others in the civil Laws, qui pani, LL. Munerum. & caeteris rebus venalibus praesunt, which had the oversight of the markets, and those called Episcopi. And thus doth Tully tell us of himself,Cicero ad At­ticum. l. 7. Vult me Pompeius episcopum esse, &c. that Pompey had made him the Overseer or the Guardian of Campania, and the whole Sea-coast. This being the meaning of the word in its native sense, it pleased the Holy Ghost to make choice thereof, to signifie the Pastor or Superiour Minister, to whom the governance of the Church was trusted; one who was vested with a constant and fixed preheminence, as well over the Clergy as the Laity, committed to his charge; such as both Timothy and Titus are described to be in S. Pauls Epistles,V. Chap. 5. De civ. Dei. l. 19. c. 19. of whom we shall say more hereafter. S. Austin rightly understood the word, and the original of it, when he told us this, Graecum est enim, atque inde ductum vocabulum, quod ille qui praeficitur, eis quibus praeficitur superintendit, &c. The word, saith he, is Greek originally, and from thence derived, shewing that he which is preferred, or set over others, is bound to take the oversight and care of those whom he is set over. And so proceeding unto the Etymology, or Grammar of the word, he concludes it thus, ut intelligat se non esse Episcopum, qui praeesse dilexerit, non prodesse, that he deserves not to be called a Bishop, which seeketh rather to prefer himself, than to profit others. Saint Austin being himself a Bishop, knew well the meaning of the word, according to the Ecclesiastical notion and sense thereof. And in that notion, the Scriptures generally, and all the Fathers universally have used the same; out of which word Episcopus (whether Greek or Latine) the Germans had their Bischop, and we thence our Bishop. If sometimes in the holy Scripture, the word be used to signifie an ordinary Presbyter, it is at such times, and such places only, when as the Presbyters had the chief gover­nance of the Flocks, next and immediately under the Apostles, and where there was no Bishop, properly so called, established over them, as we shall see hereafter in the Churches of S. Pauls plantation.

Having thus seen the sudden, XI and miraculous growth of the Church of God, in, and about the City of Hierusalem; and seen the same confirmed and setled in Epi­scopal government: our next enquiry must be made into the Clergy, which were to be subordinate to him, and to participate of the charge to him entrusted, according to his directions. And in this search, we first encounter with the Presbyters, the first, as well in time, as they are in dignity. The Deacon, though exceeding ancient, yet comes short in both. We shewed you in the former Chapter, how our Redeemer having chosen the Twelve Apostles, appointed other Seventy also, and sent them two and two before him, 1 Cor. 12. & Eph. 4.8. to prepare his way. Of these the Lord made choice of some to be Evangelists, and others to be Prophets, some to be Pastors, and Teachers, and others to be helps in Government, according to the measure, and the purpose of his grace bestowed upon them, in the effusion of his Spirit. And out of these thus fit­ted and prepared for the work of God, I doubt not but there were some chosen to assist S. James, in the discharge of the great trust committed to him, by the common Counsel, and consent of the Apostles. Such as were after added unto them, accord­ing to the exigences of that Church. I take it to be all of Saint James ordaining: who being a Bishop, and Apostle, is not to be denied the priviledg of ordaining Pres­byters, it being a thing which both the Apostle Paul did do in all the Churches which he planted, and all succeeding Bishops since have done in their several Dioce­ses. Certain it is, that there were Presbyters in the Church of Hierusalem, before the election of the Seven:Ignat. ep. ad Hieron. Ignatius telling us that Stephen did minister, [...], &c. to James, and to the Presbyters, which were in Hierusalem. And certain also it is, that the Apostles first, and Bishops afterwards ordained Presby­ters, to be assistant with them, and subservient to them, in their several charges: and this they did, according as the Fathers say, in imitation of our Lord and Saviour; who having chose his twelve Apostles, Hier. ad Fa­biolam. appointed Seventy others of a lower rank, Se­ciendos Christi Discipulos, as S. Hierom calls them. Not that the Presbyters of the Church do succeed the Seventy, who were not founded in a perpetuity by our Sa­viour Christ,De Rep. Eccles. l. 2. c. 2. n. 6. Concil. Neo-Cae­sar. Can. 13. as the Arch-Bishop of Spalato hath well observed: but only that they had a resemblance to them, and were ordained [...], as the Council of Neo-Caesarea affirmed before, as secondary and subservient Ministers in the Church of God, And this is that which Beda tells us in his Comment on the Gospel of Saint Luke, Beda in Luc. 10. that as the Twelve Apostles did premonstrate the Form of Bishops, so the Presbyters did bear the figure of the Seventy.

Another resemblance between the Presbyters and the Seventy may perhaps be this, XII that as our Saviour in the choicing of these Disciples related to the number of the Elders in the state of Jewry: so the Apostles thought it fit to give unto the Ministers thus by them ordained (though they regarded not the number) the name of Elders, according to the custom of that State before. Presbyters, they are called in the Greek originals, which being often rendred Seniores in the vulgar Latin, occasioned that our first Translators (who perhaps looked no farther than the Latin) turned it into Elders: though I could heartily have wished they had retained the name of Pres­byters, as the more proper, and specifical word of the two, by far. But for these Pres­byters of the Church of Hierusalem (from whencesoever they may borrow or derive their name) we find thrice mention of them in the Book of the Acts, during the time Saint James was Bishop, viz. in the 11.15.21. In the first place we read, that when the Disciples which dwelt at Antioch, Acts 11. ult. Cap. 18. in Act. Apostol. had made a contribution for the brethren of Judaea, they sent it to the Elders there by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. Ask Oecumenius who these Elders were, and he will tell you [...], that they were the Apostles. And like enough it is, that the Apostles may be comprehended in that general name;In Act. 11. they being indeed the elder brethren. Ask Calvin why this contribution was sent unto the Presbyters or Elders, being there were particular Officers appointed to attend the poor, as is set down in the 6. Chapter of the Acts; and he will tell you, that the Deacons were so appointed over that business, that notwithstanding they were still inferiour unto the Presby­ters; nec quicquam sine eorum auctoritate agerent, v. 18.19, &c. and were not to do any thing there­in without their authority. So for that passage in the 21. S. Luke relates how Paul, at his last going to Hierusalem, went in unto James, and that all the Elders were present; and adds withal, what counsel and advice they gave him, for his ingratia­ting with the Jews. Here find we James the Bishop attended by his Presbyters, at the reception of Saint Paul: Chrys. in Act. 21. and they together joyning with him in the consultation then in hand, the business being great and weighty. And therefore Chrysostom ob­serves, [Page 203] [...] that James determined nothing in it, as a Bishop, of his sole authority: but took Paul into counsel with him: and that the Presbyters on the other side, carried themselves with great respect and reverence towards him, [ [...]] giving him an account, or reason of their following counsel. The Bishop never fist in a firmer Chair, than when his Chapter doth support it.

But that which is indeed the matter of the greatest moment, XIII is that which occurs in the 15. Chapter of the Acts, touching the Council of Hierusalem: wherein the Presbyters are so often mentioned, as if without their presence and assistance, the Apostles had been able to determine nothing. Some would fain have it so perhaps, but it will not be, Saint Paul was so assured of the Doctrine by him delivered, as not to put it to the trial of a mortal man: and the Apostles of a spirit so infallible in the things of God, as not to need the counsel and assistance of inferiour persons. How many points of Doctrine did Saint Paul determine with­out repairing to the Apostles? How many did the Apostles preach and publish with­out consulting with the Presbyters? Somwhat there must be in it more than ordi­nary, which did occasion this conjuncture; and is briefly this. Some of the Jews which had but newly been initiated in the faith of Christ, and were yet very zealous of their ancient Ceremonies, came from Hierusalem to Antiochia; Acts 15.1. and there delivered Doctrines contrary unto those which Paul taught before. It seems there were some Presbyters amongst them, for it is said, they taught the people: and they pretended too, that they did teach no other Doctrine, than that which had been authorized by the Apostles. The Doctrine was, that except men would be circumcised after the man­ner of Moses, they could not be saved. Paul might have over-ruled this case, by his own authority. But partly for the satisfaction of the Antiochians, and partly for the full conviction of these false Teachers, he was content, by Revelation of the Spirit,Gal. 2.2. to put the matter over to the resolution of such of the Apostles as were then abiding in Hierusalem: that by their general attestation, they might confirm his doctrine to be sound, and true. As for the Presbyters it concerned them to be present also, as well to clear themselves from authorizing any such false brethren to disturb the Church, as to prevent the like disorders in the time to come. This is the sum of the proceedings in this business. And this doth no way interest the Presbyters in the determination of points of faith, further than as they are concerned either in ha­ving been a means to pervert the same; or for the clearing of themselves from the like suspicions. And yet I cannot but affirm withal, that pure and primitive anti­quity did derive from hence the Form, and manner of their Councils: in which the Presbyters did oftentimes concur, both for voice and hand, I mean as well in giving of their suffrages, as the subscription of their names.Concil. Tarra­con. Can. 13. Certain I am that in the Council held in Arragon, Anno 490. or thereabouts, it was provided among other things, ut non solum à Cathedralibus, verum etiam de Diocesanis: that certain Pres­byters should be chosen, as well out of the Diocesan, as the Cathedral Churches, to attend that service; and that the Metropolitan should send out his Letters unto that effect: according as is still observed in holding of the Convocation of the Church of England.

Next to the constituting of the Presbyters in time and order, XIV was the election of the Seven; and this the Apostles did put over to the people only: not inter­medling in the same at all, further than in commending them to the grace of God, that they might faithfully discharge the trust committed to them. The Church was then in that condition, that the Disciples lived in one place together, and had all things common: some of them selling their Estates,Acts 4.32.34, 35. and laying down the price thereof at the Apostles feet, that by them it might be distributed as occa­sion was. But being it fell out, that some did think themselves neglected in the distribution, the Apostles, both to free themselves of so great a trouble,Acts 6.1. as also to avoid suspicion of being partial in the business, required them to make choice of such trusty men, as they conceived most fit to be the Stewards of their goods,Acts 6.3. and the dispensers of the common stock. This was the charge the Seven were called to by the people: which being no Ecclesiastical function, but a Civil trust; no dispensation of the Word and Sacraments, but a dispository power of the com­mon Treasure: it was most consonant to the Rules of Reason, that the election of them should be left to the people only. I know these Seven are commonly both called, and accounted Deacons: but I find no such thing in the Texts, or story. [Page 204]Neither in that Chapter, nor in all the Acts, is the word Deacon to be found: nor find I either Stephen or Philip (of whom the Scripture is most copious) to be so entituled.Acts 21.8. Philip indeed is called unus de septem, but no more, one of the Seven, but no such stile as Deacon added: which makes me think their Office was not such as it is conceived. And this I am the rather induced to think, because I find Saint Chrysostom, Hom. 14. in Act. 6. and others of the same opinion. Saint Chrysostom putting it unto the question, what dignity or Office these men had, what Ordination they received, and namely, whether that of Deacons; makes answer first, that in his time the use was otherwise, the Presbyters being there intrusted with the di­stribution of the Churches Treasure, and then concludeth, [...], that it appeared not in his opinion, that they were ei­ther Presbyters, or Deacons. The Fathers of the sixth Council in Constantinople building upon those words of Chrysostom, Concil. in Trul­lo, Can. 16. do affirm the same; determining expresly that those Seven mentioned in the Acts, were not ordained to any ministration at the Lords Table, [...], but only to the service and attendance of the Common Tables.Hieron. in epist. ad Euagr. In which regard Saint Hierom looking back unto the Primitive institution, doth call the Deacons of his time, mensarum & viduarum Ministros, in his Epistle to Euagrius. For howsoever I believe not, on my former ground, that the Seven spoken of in the Acts, had either the Of­fice or the name of Deacons, as it was used afterwards in the Church of God: yet I deny not but the Church took some hint from hence, even in the times of the Apostles, to institute that holy Order, and to appoint it to some special ministery in Gods publick service: as doth appear both by the Epistles of Saint Paul, and the Records of Primitive and pure antiquity. That Philip did both preach the Gospel, and baptize the Converts, or that Stephen did both preach the Gospel, and convince the adversary: related not to any power or faculty which they received by the addition or access of this new Office. For being they, and all the residue were of the Seventy, Epiph. adv. haeres. 20. n. 4. Acts 6.3. as the Fathers say: and that they had received the Holy Ghost before, as the Scriptures tell us: their preaching and baptizing, must relate to their former Calling. And it had been a degradation from their for­mer dignity, being Presbyters at the least before, to be made Deacons now.

Thus have we seen the instituting of the several Orders of Bishops, XV Presbyters, and Deacons, in the holy Hierarchie: according to those several names, which were in tract of time appropriated to their several functions in the Church of God. And certainly it did require some space of time, to estrange words from their natural to a borrowed sense, to bring them to an Ecclesiastical, from a Civil notion. So that it is no wonder, if at first the names and appellations of these several functions were used promiscuously, before that time had limited and re­strained them to that express and setled signification which they still retain. That glorious name of an Apostle, which of it self did signifie a Messenger, (Graecè Aposto­li, Tract. 54. in E­vang. Johannis. Latinè Missi appellantur, as Saint Austin hath it) was given by Christ as a pecu­liar name to his twelve Disciples. And yet we find it sometimes given to inferiour persons,Rom. 16.7. as to Andronicus and Junias, in the 16. Chap. to the Romans: sometimes reverting to its primitive and ancient use, as where the Messengers of the Churches are called Apostles, Cap. 8.23. as in the 2. to those of Corinth, Apostoli Ecclesiarum gloria Chri­sti, the Messengers of the Churches are the glory of Christ. So was it also with that reverend and venerable Title of Episcopus, borrowed and restrained from its general use, to signifie an Overseer in the Church of God: one who was trusted with the Go­vernment, and superintendency of the flock of Christ committed to him: according to the acceptation of the word in the most ancient Authors of the Christian Church.Cap. 1. v. 1. And yet sometimes we find it given unto the Presbyters, as in the first of the Philippians in which Paul writing to the Bishops and Deacons, is thought by Bishops to mean Presbyters; partly because the Presbyters had then the government of that Church under the Apostle, and partly because it was against the ancient Apostolical constitution, that there should be many Bishops (properly so called) in one City. Thus also, for the Title Presbyter, which by the Church was used to signifie, not as before, an ancient Man, which is the na­tive sense,Beza Annot. in 1 Pet. 5.1. Ambros. in 1. ad Tim. c. 3. and construction of it; but one in holy Orders, such as in after times were called by the name of Priests: it grew so general for a while, as to include both Bi­shops and Apostles also; as Beza notes upon the first Epistle of Saint Peter, Chap. 5. And that perhaps upon the reason given by Ambrose, Omnis Episcopus Presbyter, non [Page 205]tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus, because that every Bishop was Presbyter, although not every Presbyter a Bishop. And yet sometimes we find in Scripture, that it re­turned unto its primitive, and original use: as in the first to Tim. Cap. 5. v. 1. in which [...], is used to signifie an ancient Man. [...], an ancient Woman, as by the Text and context doth at full appear. The like occurreth some­times also in the ancient Writers. Last of all, for the word Diaconus, which in it self doth signifie any common Minister, or domestick servant, the Church made use thereof to denote such Men, as served in the inferiour ministeries of the Congre­gation; such as according to the Ecclesiastical notion of the word we now call Dea­cons, as in the first of the Philippians, and in the ancient Writers passim. Phil. 1.1. Yet did it not so easily put off its original nature, but that it did sometimes revert to it again: as in the 13. of the Romans, in which the Magistrate is called Diaconus, Rom. 13.4. being the publick Minister of Justice under God Almighty; Verse 1 and Phoebe in the 16. of the same Epistle, is called [...], a servant of the Church of Cenchrea. Indeed the mar­vel is not much that it should be so long before the Church could fasten and appro­priate these particular names to the particular Officers of, and in the same; consi­dering how long it was before she got a name unto her self. The word [...], which is used in Scripture to denote the Church, doth signifie amongst the ancient learned Writers, a meeting or assembly of the people for their common business: as [...]. Not to omit the Thracians to the common Council.In Acharn. Act. 1. scen. 4. Histor. l. 1. So in Aristophanes. The like we find also in Thucydides, [...], that having constituted the Assembly, they fell upon their alter­cations. The first time that we find it used to denote the Church, is Matth. 16.18. and after frequently in holy Scripture: yet so, that it returned sometimes to its native sense, as in the 19. of the Acts, wherein we read, [...], that the assembly (of the Ephesians) was confused, ver. 32. and [...], he dismissed the assembly, ver. 41. And therefore they which from identity of names in holy Scripture, conclude identity of Offices in the Church of Christ; and will have Presbyter, and Episcopus to be both one Calling, because the names are sometimes used promiscuously in the first beginnings: may with like equi­ty conclude that every Deacon is a Magistrate, and every Presbyter an Apostle, or that the Church of Ephesus was nothing else than an assembly of the Citizens in the Town-Hall there, for the dispatch of business which concerned the Corporation.

CHAP. III. The Churches planted by Saint Peter, and his Disciples, originally founded in Episcopacy.

  • 1. The founding of the Church of Antioch by Saint Peter; the first Bishop there.
  • 2. A reconciliation of the difference about his successors in the same.
  • 3. A list of Bishops planted by him in the Churches of the Circumcision.
  • 4. Proof thereof from Saint Peters general Epistle to the Jews dispersed.
  • 5. And from Saint Pauls unto the He­brews.
  • 6. Saint Pauls Praepositus, no other than a Bishop, in the opinion of the Fathers.
  • 7. Saint Peter the first Bishop of the Church of Rome.
  • 8. The difference about his next successors there, reconciled also.
  • 9. An answer unto such Objections as have been made against S. Peters being Bishop of Rome.
  • 10. Saint Mark the first Bishop of Alexan­dria, and of his successours.
  • 11. Notes on the observations of Epiphani­us, and Saint Hierom, about the Church of Alexandria.
  • 12. An observation of Saint Ambrose ap­plyed unto the former business.
  • 13. Of Churches founded by Saint Peter, in Italy, France, Germany, and the Isle of Britain, and of the Bishops in them in­stituted.

OY [...], I It is the observation of Saint Chrysostom, that the Church never thriveth better than in persecutions.Hom. in Act. cap. 11. And this he speaks, on the dispersion of the Disciples after the martyrdom of Stephen: than which there could not any thing fall out more fortunately, for the advancement [Page 206]of the Gospel.Act. 11.19. They which were scattered abroad (saith the holy Text) upon the perse­cution which arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phoenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the Word to none but the Jews only. At first indeed to none but the Jews alone. The Vision had not yet appeared to Peter, to Authorize his going in unto the Gentiles; nor had Cornelius and his Houshold as yet been made partakers of the Holy Ghost. The Jews were they to whom the promises of God had first been made, who as they were dispersed into many places; so did Gods Word go after them, and found them out, either converting them unto the Faith, or else convincing them of their incre­dulity. But in no City of the East, were they so thick set, as in Antiochia, the re­gal seat and City of the Kings of Syria; Joseph. Antiqu. Jud. l. 12. c. 3. in which by ancient priviledge first granted by Seleucus Nicanor, they were all free Denizens, and enjoyed all immunities what­soever with the Greeks and Macedons. Joseph. de Bello Jud. l. 7. c. 24. This made them plant here in great multi­tudes, together with their Wives and Children, and so by consequence the greater opportunity was offered for the enlargement of the Church. News hereof being brought unto Hierusalem, and Peace by that time being setled throughout the Churches, S. Peter, Act. 9.31, 32. as he passed throughout all quarters, is said to have come down unto Antioch also, and to have undertaken the charge thereof, as being the most famous City of the Eastern parts. It's true, the Scriptures tell us nothing of this, but the Fathers do, and negative proofs from Scripture,Homil. 6. in Lu­cam. in a point of History, are of no Authority. Origen calls Ignatius, Episcopum Antiochiae post Petrum secundum, the second that was Bishop of Antioch after Peter; and therefore Peter must of necessary consequence be first Bishop there.Euseb. eccl. hist. l. 3. c. 35. Eusebius saith the same with Origen, as to S. Peters being Bishop there, and so doth Felix Pope of Rome, in the fifth Council of Constantinople, Actione prima. But not to trust to consequences only,Id. in Chron. though those clear enough; Eusebius in his Chronicon saith expresly, Petrus Apostolus Ecclesiam Antiochenam fundavit, ibique Cathedram adep­tus sedit, that Peter the Apostle founded the Church of Antioch, and sate Bishop there. S. Hierom doth affirm the same,Hieron. in. c. 2. ad Galat. Primum Episcopum Antiochenae Ecclesiae Petrum fuisse, and makes it one of those things which S. Luke omitted. Luke being an attendant of S. Paul in his peregrinations, took not such special and particular notice of S. Peters actions;Ipse firmavit sedem in qua septem annis quamvis disces­surus sedit. Greg. and therefore his omission of it is no argument that it was not so. More of S. Peters being Bishop of the Church of Antioch, see in the same S. Hierom in his Book de Ecclesiast. Scriptoribus: And in S. Gregories Epistles, lib. 6. ep. 37. Where he is said to have continued Bishop there seven years; as indeed most Authors do agree.

This founding of the Church of Antioch by S. Peter, II and his assuming of the Bi­shoprick or charge thereof,Euseb. in Chron. is by Eusebius placed in the fourth year of the 203 Olympiad, which falleth by computation into that 38 year of Christs Nativity, being the fourth year after his Ascension. But then withal, we must restrain S. Peters Bishoprick in Antioch, and his foundation of that Church, only unto the Jewish Congregations there. Preaching unto the Gentiles, was not yet thought lawful. And when it was, it pleased God to make choice of others to promote that work. Whereof when tidings came unto Hierusalem, Act. 11.22. Ibid. 25. they sent forth Barnabas that he should go as far as An­tioch: And when he found the task too great for himself alone, he went to Tarsus, saith the Text, to seek for Saul, whom he brought with him to that City. By these the gaining of the Gentiles in that famous City was begun and finished. In this re­gard S. Paul is to be reckoned a co-founder at the least of the Church of Antioch; and so Ignatius doth account them in his Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignat. ep. ad Magnes. where he relateth that the Disciples were first called Christians at Antiochia, [...], the Church whereof was founded by Paul and Peter. And this may serve to reconcile the difference which doth occur amongst the ancient Writers about S. Peters next Successor in the See of Antioch. Homil. de transt. Ignatii. Dialog. 1. Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Felix, whom before we spake of, do make Ignatius to be S. Peters next Successor; where by the way we have S. Peters being Bishop there, avowed by Chrysostom and Theodoret into the bargain.Hist. l. 3. c. 16. descript. eccles. in Ignatio. Epist. ad. An­tioch. And on the other side, Eusebius and S. Hierom place Euodius first, and after his decease, Ignatius; wherein Ignatius doth himself concur with them, counselling or exhorting the Antiochians, to call to mind Euodius that most holy Bishop, [...], who first received the government of that Church from the holy Apostles. Now for the reconciliation of this difference, taking it first for granted, as I think we may, that at first there were in Antiochia two several Congregations of converted Christians, the one of Jews, Constitat. Apo­stol. l. 7. c. 48. the other of the Gentiles, whereof S. Peter and S. Paul were the se­veral heads; the Author of the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens (who in a matter of [Page 207]this nature may well be credited) will give us an handsom hint, informing us that (the Apostles being to betake themselves to their other business, or the business rather of the Lord) S. Peter did ordain Euodius, and S. Paul, Ignatius, to be the Bishops there in their several charges. Upon which ground Baronius doth infer, and not improba­bly, that the wall of separation being beaten down, and both the Congregations of Antiochia, made into one Church,Baron. Annal. Eccle. An. 45. n. 14. Ignatius did willingly resign his present interest un­to Euodius, whom he succeeded also after his decease. But be this how it will, cer­tain I am that the preferment of Euodius to the See of Antioch, is placed by Eusebius in the 45. year of Christs Nativity; who having sate there six and twenty years, did leave the same unto Ignatius, Anno 71. S. John, and perhaps other of the Apostles be­ing then alive. More than so, Chrysostom affirms expresly,Serm. de Ignat. Tom. 5. p. 499. edit. Savil. not only that some of the Apostles were then alive, but that he was made Bishop by them, [...], and that the hands of the Apostles touched his holy head. And so much for the Bishops of Antioohia, which lived and were co-temporary with the Apostles.

But to go forwards with S. Peter, III having thus setled and confirmed the Church of Antioch, and by this Preaching to Cornelius opened a door unto the Gospel in Caesarea, and amongst the Gentiles; he followed on the course of his Apostleship, Preaching unto the Jews dispersed in the Eastern parts, as namely throughout Pon­tus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, as himself intimates in his first Epistle.1 Pet. 1.1. And when he was to leave those parts, and make for Italy, he left them not without a Ministery; nor did he leave that Ministery without some Bishops to govern and direct the Flock. The Roman Martyrology doth reckon in these Churches of S. Peters founding, Cornelius, the first fruits of the Gentiles,Februar. 2. Quem B. Petrus Episcopali honore sublimavit, made by him Bishop of Caesarea. Metaphrastes, if he may be credited,Citat ap. Baron. An. 44. n. 10. as in most things, which do not tend to miracles, I think he may, relateth that S. Peter in his peregrination did ordain Bishops in the Churches of Sydon, Berytus, and Laodicea; that he made Marson Bishop of Tripolis, and Prochorus of Nicomedia; and finally, that in the Provinces of Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, he did not only plant Churches, but he founded Bishopricks. But waving these things as I find them, and the report of Agapetus in the fifth Council of Constantinople, that the first Bishop of Bizantium was of Peters founding, though of unquestionable credit: Let us repair unto the Scrip­tures.Conc. Constant. 5. Act. 2. There find we the Apostles stirring up the Pastors to have a care unto the Flock. The Elders which are amongst you I exhort, who am also an Elder, and a witness of the suf­ferings of Christ, Feed the Flock of God which is among you. 1 Pet. 5.1. Oecumen. in 1 Pet. cap. 5. Ask Oecumenius who these Presbyters or Elders were, and he will tell you they were Bishops. And then he gives this reason of it, [...], that Bishops are called Presbyters in the book of Acts. But Oecumenius being of a later standing, may possibly be undervalued when he speaks alone; and therefore we will stare super vias antiquas, enquire amongst the ancients, and ask their judgments in the case. And here we meet with Gregory Nazianzen, Nazian. in A­p [...]get. who pencelling and de­scribing a perfect Prelate, makes amongst others, this to be a special quality belonging to him, [...], not to constrain their people to the works of piety by force and violence, but to allure them by persuasions. For proof whereof, he instanceth in this present Text, Feed the Flock of Christ which is among you, not by constraint, but willingly, of a ready mind.

But this construction may be verified from the Text it self, IV as well as from the Glosses of the ancient Writers▪ and that from three particular words or phrases, that occur therein. For first, Saint Peter calling himself their Fellow Presbyter, [...] in the Greek, shews plainly that they were not simple Presbyters, which he thus exhorteth, but Presbyters invested with some higher dignity, such as had some resemblance of the Apostolical function. In which regard S. John the Apostle in his two last Epistles, calls himself a Presbyter, the Elder, as our English reads it. Which word he used, as Oecumenius hath observed,Oecum. in 2. Joh. ep. 1. v. 1. either because he was grown aged when he wrote the same, [...], or intimating that he was a Bishop, according as the word Presbyter would bear in those former times. And why not thus, since Beza doth affirm on those words of Saint Peter, Generale esse nomen Presby­teri, Beza Annot. in 1 Pet. c. 5. that the name of Presbyter was very general; so general as it seems by him, ut etiam ipsi Apostoli hoc nomine comprehendantur, that even the holy Apostles are com­prised therein. And therefore Beza being Judge, S. Peter may mean Bishops here, though he calls them Presbyters. And that he meaneth Bishops, may be also gathered [Page 208]from the word [...], Feed ye the Flock which is among you. [...], in the Greek not signifying to feed only, and no more than so; but such a feeding as implyeth a rule or governance annexed unto it, which is the proper act of Bishops. Inferiour Presbyters may [...], feed the particular Flock committed to them by the word of Doctrine: The Bishop only may [...] so feed them with the word of Doctrine, as that he also rule them with the rod of Discipline. In this respect as the Apostle joyns the Shepherd and the Bishop in a line together:1 Pet. 2.25. So primitive Antiquity did arm the Bishop with a Crozier or Pastoral staff, to shew the union of those Offices in the self-same person. But hereof we shall speak more fully in another place: And in­deed need not speak more of it upon this occasion, considering that there is another word behind in S. Peters Text, which putteth the matter out of question. Feed ye the Flock of God which is among you, saith the Apostle, [...], saith the Text, taking the oversight thereof, as our English reads it, doing the Office of a Bishop, as the word doth signifie.Phil. 3.17. cap. 9. v. 9. The ordinary Presbyters may be called [...], or Seers if you will, according to the notion of that word, in the first of Samuel; the Bishops are [...], such as do over-see the Seers. So then the Presbyters whom S. Peter speaks of, being such as might [...], and [...], both feed and oversee, and govern; it is apparent they were Bishops, and not simple Presbyters.

But in this point Saint Peter shall not go alone; V S. Paul will put in for a share, and keep him company; who writing to the Hebrews, even to the very hebrews of Saint Peters Province,Heb. 13.17. doth advise them thus, [...] &c. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, Chrysost. in 13. ad Heb. &c. If you would know of Chrysostom who these Rulers are, he will tell you that they are the Pastors of the Church, whom if you take away from the Flock of Christ, [...], you utterly destroy and lay waste the whole.Theophy. in 13. ad Heb. Next ask Theophylact, than whom none ever better scanned that Fathers writings, what he means by Pastors, and he will tell you, [...], that he speaks of Bishops.Oecumen. in locum. The very same saith Oecumenius, noting withal that [...], which we read submit, doth signifie [...], a very punctual and exact obedience. But to go higher yet than so, Ignatius the Apostles Scholler, one that both knew S. Paul, and conversed with him, will tell us that the Rulers. or [...], which Saint Paul here speaketh of, were no other than Bishops. For laying down this exhortation to the Trallenses, [...] be subject to your Bishop, as unto the Lord; he gives the self-same reason of it, which S. Paul here doth, viz. Because he watcheth for your souls, as one that is to render an account to Al­mighty God. The like we also find in the Canons commonly ascribed to the Apostles, which questionless are very ancient; in which, the obedience and conformity which is there required of the Presbyters and Deacons, to the directions of their Bishop, is grounded on that very reason alledged before. And for the word, [...] of Saint Paul, it is not such a stranger in the writings of the elder times, but that they use it for a Bishop; as may appear by that of the Historian, where he calls Polycarpus Bishop of the Church of Smyrna, E [...]eb hist. l. 3. cap. 30. [...]. the [...] of that Church; Ignatius writing, as he saith, not only to the Church of Smyrna, [...] but also unto Polycarpus Bishop of the same.

Where lest it may be thought that the preposition doth add unto the nature of the word,Id. l. 14. c. 14. [...]. we find the same Historian speaking of the same Polycarpus in another place; where he gives notice of an Epistle written in the name of the Church of Smyrna; [...], of which this Polycarpus had the Government, and a Bishop doubtless. In the which place [...], is conform most fully to the [...] of Saint Paul, differing no otherwise than the verb and participle.

Now those which in the Greek are called [...], VI in all the old Translations that I have met with, are called Praepositi; Obedite Praepositis vestris, as the Latines read it; and amongst them Praepositi are taken generally for the same with Bishops.Oprian l. 1. ep. 3. S. Cyprian thus, Ob hoc Ecclesiae praepositum prosequitur; for this cause doth the enemy pursue him that is set over the Church, that the Governour thereof being once removed, he may with greater violence destroy the same.Id. lib. 3. ep. 14. More clearly in another place, What danger is not to be feared, saith he, by offending the Lord, when some of the Priests not remembring their place, neither thinking that they have a Bishop set over them, challenge the whole govern­ment unto themselves, Cum contumeliâ & contemptu Praepositi, even with the reproach and contempt of the Prelate, Id. lib. 3. ep. 9. or him that is set over them? Most clearly yet, where speaking of the insolency of a Deacon towards his Bishop, he makes Episcopus and Praepositus to [Page 209]be one same thing; willing the Deacon, Episcopo, Praeposito suo plena humilitate satis­facere, with all humility to satisfie his Bishop, or Praepositus. Saint Austin speaks as fully to this purpose, as Saint Cyprian did, Ad hoc enim speculatores, De civitat. Dei l. 1. c. 9. i.e. populorum Prae­positi in Ecclesiis constituti sunt, &c. For this end are Bishops (for speculatores and Epi­scopi, are the same Office, though in divers words) I mean the Prelates or Praepositi, or­dained in the Churches, that they should not spare to rebuke sin. In the same work De civita­te, he speaks plainer yet. For speaking of these words of the Divine, I saw seats, Id. l. 20. c. 9. and some sitting on them, and judgment was given, he expounds it thus. This is not to be understood, saith he, of the last Judgment: Sed sedes praepositorum, & ipsi Praepositi intelligendi sunt, per quos Ecclesia nunc gubernatur, but the seats of the Praepositi, and the Praepositi themselves, by whom the Church is now governed (and they were Bishops doubtless in Saint Augustines time) must be understood. More of this word who list to see, may find it in that learned Tract of Bishop Bilson, entituled,Chap. 9. The perpetual Government of Christs Church; who is copious in it. Beza indeed, the better to bear off this blow, hath turned Praepositos into Ductores; and instead of Governours, hath given us Leaders. Where if he mean such Leaders, as the word importeth, Leaders of Armies, such as Command in chief, Lieutenants General, he will get little by the bargain. But if he mean by Leaders, only guides and conducts, Paraeus, Paraeus com­ment. in Heb. 13. though he follow him in his Translation, will leave him to himself in his Exposition: who by Ductores un­derstandeth Ecclesiae Pastores & gubernatores, the Pastors and Governours of the Church. Neither can Beza possibly deny, but that those here are called Ductores, Beza Annot. in Heb. 13.17. qui alibi Episcopi vocantur, which elsewhere are entituled Bishops. But where he doth ob­serve, that because the Apostle speaketh of Praepositi in the plural number,Ex eo quod lo­quitur Paulus in plurali mu­mero. Ibid. therefore Episcopal jurisdiction was not then in use; it being indeed against the ancient course and Canons, to have two Bishops in one Church: there could not any thing be spoken, (to pretermit the incivility of his expression) more silly and unworthy of so great a Clerk. For who knows not that the Jews being dispersed into many Provinces and Cities, must have several Churches; and therefore several Bishops, or Praepositos, to bear Rule over them?

This business being thus passed over, VII and the Churches of Saint Peters planting in the Eastern parts, being thus left unto the care and charge of several Bishops: we will next follow him into the West. And there we find him taking on him­self the care of the Church of Rome, or rather, of the Church of God in Rome, con­sisting for the most part then of converted Jews. The current of antiquity runs so clear this way, that he must needs corrupt the Fountains, who undertakes to trou­ble or disturb the stream. His being there, and founding of that Church, his being Bishop there, and suffering there an ignominious, yet a glorious death, for the sake of Christ; are such noted Truths, that it were labour lost to insist upon them. Only I shall direct the Reader to such pregnant places in the most ancient and incor­rupted Writers, as may give satisfaction in those points to any one that will take pains to look upon them. And first to look upon the Greeks, he may find Papias and Clemens, ancient Writers both, alledged to this purpose by Eusebius Hist. Ec­cles. l. 2. c. 14. Caius, & Dionysius Bishops of Corinth, both of good antiquity, al­ledged in the same book, cap. [...]. Eusebius speaking for himself, not only in the 13. Chap. of the same book also, but also in his Chronicon, in which he notes the year of his first coming to that City, to be the 44. after Christs Nativity. See to this purpose also, Saint Chrysostom in his Homily De Petro & Paulo, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, in his Epistle to Pope Celestine: Theodoret, Sozomen, and others. Next for the Latins, there is hardly any but saith somewhat in it: whereof see Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. Tertullian in his book de praescript. adv. haeret. Lactant. lib. 4. cap. 21. Optatus, lib. 2. contr. Parmen. Hierom in his Tract. De Eccl. Scriptoribus, Saint Austin in E­pist. 165. and other places, not to descend to later Writers of the Latin Churches, whose interest it may seem to be. To close this point, Saint Austin, Aug. ep. 169. whom I named last, shall speak once for all, who reckoning up the Bishops in the Church of Rome, thus begins his Catalogue: Si enim, &c. If the succession of the Bishops there be a thing considerable, quanto certius, & verè salubriter ab ipso Petro numeramus? how much more certainly, and assuredly do we begin the same with Peter, who bare the figure of the whole Church? And then goes on, Petro successit Linus, Linus succeeded Peter, Cle­mens him, and so to Anastasius, who then held the See.

Nor can it be replyed that Peter took the Church of Rome into his Apostolical care, and had not the Episcopal charge thereof, as some now suppose. VIII The Tables [Page 210]of succession make that clear enough. Saint Peter the Apostle could have no succes­sours, but the Bishop might. Linus, or whosoever else succeeded, nor did, nor could pretend succession to the preheminences, and miraculous priviledges, which were re­quired necessarily unto the making of an Apostle, challenge an interest by succession, in his Pastoral Office they both might and did. The Writers of all ages since do af­ford them that. Only the difference is amongst them, who was the first that did suc­ceed him in his Pastoral charge. St. Austin gives it unto Linus, as before we saw: next Clemens, Adv. haeres. l. 3. c. 3. Haeres. 26. Lib. 2. contr. Parmen. Hieron. de Script. Eccles. in Clement. Id. ibid. in Petro. and then Anacletus. Irenaeus doth agree with Austin, placing Linus first, but placing Anacletus second, and then Clemens third: and so doth Epiphanius also. Optatus reckoneth them, as before in Austin. Saint Hierom sometimes ranketh them, as Irenaeus, and Epiphanius did, Linus, Cletus, Clemens; and sometimes placeth Clemens first, as Tertullian, and plerique Latinorum, most of the ancient Latin Writers had done before. I know there is much pains taken to compose this difference a­mongst our Antiquaries, those most especially of the Papal party. But in my mind there cannot be a better course taken to effect the same, than that which was obser­ved before in the case of Antioch. And to effect this composition, Ignatius, and some other Fathers give a ground as probable, as that which was laid down before in the former business.Iren. l. 3. c. 3. For first it is affirmed by Irenaeus, that S. Paul had as great an interest in the foundation of the Church of Rome, as Saint Peter had, A duobus Apo­stolis Petro & Paulo Romae fundatae & constitutae Ecclesiae: as his own words are. The like saith Epiphanius in another language,Ado. haeres. 27. num. 6. Ep. ad Tral. making both of them Bishops of that Church. Next it is said expresly by Ignatins, who might well speak on certain knowledg living in those times, that Anacletus (for I conceive that Cletus, and Anacletus were the same) was Deacon to S. Peter, and Linus, Deacon to S. Paul, who doth indeed make mention of him in his second Epistle unto Timothy. This ground thus laid, why may we not conceive, as before in Antioch, that in the first planting of the Church of Rome, there were two several Churches, or congregations; that of the Circumcision being collect­ed by Saint Peter, that of the Gentiles first drawn together by Saint Paul; each of them being Bishop, or chief Pastor of their Congregations? Secondly, that when the two Apostles perceived the time of their sufferings to draw near. Peter ordained Anacletus Bishop of the Churches of the Circumcision, and that Paul did commit to Linus the government of the Churches of the Gentiles: both whom they had em­ployed before as Deputies and Substitutes to attend these charges, whilst they them­selves did travel to and fro, as occasion was, and the necessities of the Church re­quired. Thirdly and lastly, that Linus being dead, Clemens (who had before been specially designed by Saint Peter to possess his place) succeeded Bishop of the Churches of the Gentiles there, who finally surviving Cletus, or Anacletus, call him which you will, and the division between Jew and Gentile being worn away, united the two Churches in his person, as the sole Bishop of the whole. And this I am the rather induced to think, because that Epiphanius making up a Catalogue of the Popes of Rome, [...], &c. E­piph. haer. 27. first joyns together Peter and Paul, next coupleth with the like conjunction Linus and Cletus: and after brings in Clemens, Euaristus, Alexander, &c. in a line successively. And yet the Tables of succession may well stand as they have done hi­therto; first Linus, after Cletus, and thirdly Clemens: because that Linus dying first, left Cletus in possession of the Pastoral charge, and Cletus dying before Clemens, left him the sole surviver of the three, which possibly may be the reason why many of the Latins reckon Clemens for the first Bishop after Peter: whom they conceive to be sole Bishop of that Church: as indeed it was, before there was a Church of Gen­tiles founded in that famous City. For being formerly designed by Saint Peter to be his Successour, and afterward enjoying the whole charge alone, as Peter for a season did: it might not seem improper to report him for the second Bishop; that is, the second of the whole. And then again, Clemens is placed by some next and immediately after Linus, whose successor he was in the direct line, as Bishop of the more famous Church, viz. of the Gentiles; and by some also after Cletus, whom he succeeded at the last, in the line collateral. However, be this so, or not, we have three Bishops sit­ting in the Church of Rome between the martyrdom of Peter, and the death of John: first, Linus, who held the same twelve years: Cletus or Anacletus, who sur­vived, and held twelve years more: and Clemens, finally, who suffered martyrdom at Rome, the next year after the decease of Saint John at Ephesus.

I take it then for a most manifest and undoubted truth, IX not only that Saint Peter was at Rome, but that he also took upon him the Episcopal charge, and was the [Page 211]Bishop of that City. The Arguments devised in this later Age to evince the con­trary, do nothing less in my opinion, than prove the point for which they were first devised. For first it is objected, that the Episcopal charge requiring residence, could not consist with that of an Apostle, who was to be perpetually in motion. Which argument, if it be of any force, will militate as well against Saint James his being Bishop of Herusalem, as against Saint Peters being Bishop of the Church of Rome. And then will Calvin come very opportunely in to help us,Comment. in Act. c. 21. who speaking of S. James his constant residence in Hierusalem, doth resolve it thus. Quanquam com­mune illi cum reliquis collegis mandatum erat, &c. Although, saith he, the Lords Commandment of preaching to all Nations, was common unto him with the residue of the Lords Apostles, yet I conceive, that they did so divide the charge amongst them, as to leave him always at Hierusa­lem, whither such store of strangers did use continually to resort. Id enim perinde erat ac si Evangelium longè latéque promulgasset in locis remotis; for that, saith he, was as sufficient, as if he had promulgated, or preached the Gospel in the parts remote. This if it may be used for James, will serve for Peter. Assuredly there was a greater confluence of all sorts of strangers to the City of Rome, than used to be unto Hierusalem: and there­fore Peter being there, might spread abroad the Gospel with the greater speed; and with no less success than those others did, who did not fix themselves in a certain sta­tion. But whereas Calvin doth object in another place,Institut. l 4. c. 6. n. 14.15. that Saint Paul writing to the Romans, and saluting many of the Saints there, makes no speech of Peter; and that writing many of his Epistles from the City of Rome, he makes no mention of him neither: this may infer indeed, that Saint Peter was then absent, when those things were done, as one that had not so immured himself in the walls of Rome, but that he travelled up and down in several quarters of the world: doing sometimes the Office of an Apostle, discharging otherwhiles the place and function of a Bishop. All the Epistles of Saint Paul which bear date from Rome, were written in the first two years of his being there: and therefore any argument derived from thence must be very weak, either to prove that Peter never was at Rome, or never Bishop of that place: being so many ancient Writers do affirm them both. And yet I would not have the Papists think that this makes any more for the Popes supremacy, because he sits in Peters seat: than it did make for Vibius Rufus to attain Tullies eloquence,Dion. in Tiber. hist. l. 57. or Caesars power, because he married Tullies Widow, and bought Caesars Chair; though the poor Gentleman, as the story telleth us, [...] did presume on both.

But to go on, the Church of Christ being thus setled by Saint Peter, X both in Rome, and Antioch: his next great care is for Alexandria, the great and most renowned City in the parts of Africa: that so there might be no prime City in all the habitable World, to which the Gospel was not preached. In the discharge of this great bu­siness, was Saint Mark employed; a principal and constant follower of Saint Peters, who mentioneth him in his Epistle by the name of Son. 1 Pet. 5.13. The Church which is at Babylon saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my son. The planting of this Church is thus remembred by Eusebius, [...], &c.Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 15. It is affirmed, saith he, that Mark did first (of all Christs followers) pass into Egypt, and there promulge and preach the Gospel, which before he writ; and that he first did plant the Church of Alexandria: in which his undertakings had so good success, that on his very first endeavours, [...], as the Author hath it, great multitudes both of Men and Women did believe in Christ; his holiness, and strict behaviour gaining much upon them. This Church as he first founded in the faith of Christ, so did he take upon himself the charge thereof, and became Bishop of the same. This witnesseth S. Hierom of him, Marcus interpres Petri Apostoli, & Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus Episeopus: Hieron. in Proem. super Matt. that Mark the interpreter of Saint Peter, was the first Bishop of the Church of A­lexandria. The same he also doth affirm in his Epistle to Euagrius; whereof more anon. And when Eusebius doth inform us,Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 23. [...]. that in the eighth year of the Empe­rour Nero, Anianus a right godly Man, [...], as the story calls him, succeeded Mark the Evangelist in Alexandria: he doth infer ex con­sequenti, that Mark was Bishop there before him. So that is seemeth he sat there 19. years by this account. For he came hither Anno 45. being the third of Claudins Cae­sar; and finished his course in the eighth of Nero, which was the 64. of our Re­deemer. Finally, Anianus having continued Bishop here 23 years, died in the 4th.Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 12. [...]. year of Domitianus, being Anno Chr. 87. and had Abilius to succeed him: after whom Cerdo did succeed, in the year 100. what time Abilius left this World, S. John the Apostle [Page 212]being yet alive. So that there were four Bishops of Alexandria succeeding one ano­ther in that weighty charge, during the lives of the Apostles: a pregnant evidence that they both instituted and approved the calling.

Now for the Church of Alexandria, XI there are some things observed by the Fathers, which are worth our noting, and may give great light to the present business; It is observed by Epiphanius, Haeres. 66. n. 6. Smectymn. p. 53. that Alexandria never had two Bishops, [...], as had other Cities: which words not rightly understood have made some conceive, that anciently Bishops were the same with Presbyters, it being against the usual custom to have two Bishops in one Church or City. But if we look considerately upon Epi­phanius, there is no such matter: all that he drives at being this, that whereas in most other Churches, for the preventing of schisms and factions amongst the people, in the electing of their Bishops, it had been ordinary for the Bishop yet in place, to conse­crate some one or other that should assist him whilst he lived, and succeed after his de­cease: only the Church of Alexandria never had that custom. And they that had that custom,Aug. ep. 110. as it seems, did not like it well: for whereas Valerius Bishop of Hippo, out of a vehement desire to have S. Austin his successour, did consecrate or ordain him Bishop, whilst as himself was yet alive. Saint Austin was resolved for his part not to do the like: it being a thing prohibited by the Nicene Council. Quod ergo repre­hensum est in me, noli reprehendi in filio meo, as he there resolveth. So that the place in Epiphanius tendeth unto this alone, viz. to shew the reason why Athanasius could not succeed Alexander in that See, though by him designed: which was, that he being yet alive,Ep. ad Euag. it was against the custom of that Church to ordain another. Saint Hierom, secondly, observeth, that the Presbyters of Alexandria, unum ex se electum in excel­siori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant, did use to chuse one from amongst them­selves, whom being placed in a more eminent degree, than any of the rest, they cal­led a Bishop. And this saith he, continued in that Church, à Marco Evangelista, ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos: from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the Bi­shopricks of Heraclas and Dionysius. Smectymn. p. 31. Some hereupon infer, that the persons who brought in the imparity of Ministers into the Church, were not the Apostles, but the Presbyters. An inference as faulty, as was that before. All that Saint Hierom means is this, that from the time of Mark, till the days of Heraclas and Dionysius, the Pres­byters of Alexandria had no other Bishop than one whom they had chosen out of their own body: just as a man may say, on the like occasion, that from the first foundation till the time of Sir H, Savil, the Colledg of Eaton never had a Provost but one,Euseb. hist. l. 6. c. 12. [...]. whom they had chosen out of their own society. Now Heraclas before he was ordained Bishop was not a Presbyter of that Church, although a Reader in the Schools of that famous City; and belike Dionysius also was. And therefore it is well observed by the Cardinal; that Hierom writing to Euagrius relateth, quid in ea Ec­clesia usque ad haec Dionysii tempora in electione Episcoporum agi consueverit: Annal. An. 1248. n. 5. what was the usage of the Church of Alexandria in the election of their Bishops, until the times of Dionysus. However we have gained thus much by Hierom, that from Mark down­ward till those times, and a long time after, there wanted not a Bishop, properly so called,Hier. Comment. in ep. ad Titum. in that famous Church: and therefore sure they came not first into the Church, Diaboli instinctu, by the Devils instinct. as he elsewhere saith.

There is another observation in the Commentaries ascribed to Ambrose, XII which having some resemblance unto that before, and a like sinister use being made there­of: I shall here lay down: and after give some Annotations on it to explain the place.Comment. in Eph. c. 4. The Author of those Commentaries affirmeth, that Timothy whom Paul crea­ted Presbyter, was by him called a Bishop, because the first Presbyters were called Bishops: it being the custom of the Church (for so I think the sense must be made up) ut rece­dente eo sequens ei succederet; that he [the first] departing, the next in order should succeed. But being it was found that the following Presbyters were utterly unworthy of so high preferment, that course was altered; and it was provided by a Council, ut non ordo, sed meritum crearet Episcopum, &c. that merit, and not seniority should raise a man, he being appointed by the suffrages of many Priests, to be a Bishop, lest an unfit person rashly should usurp the place, and so become a publick scandal. These are the Authors words,Resp. ad tract. de divers. mi­nist. gradibus c. 23. be he who he will. And from hence Beza doth collect that Bishops differed not from Presbyters in the Apostles times; that there was only in every place a Pre­sident of the Presbytery, who called them together, and porposed things needful for their consideration; that this priority went round by course, every one holding it in his turn for a week, or more, according as the Priests in the Jewish Temple had their [Page 213]weekly courses; and finally, that this Apostolical and primitive order was after chang­ed, upon the motives and inducements before remembred.Smectymn. p. 31. Some of our modern Wri­ters against Episcopacy have gone more warily to work than so, affirming from those words of Ambrose (or whosoever was the Author) that this Rectorship, or priority was devolved at first from one Elder to another by succession; when he who was in the place was re­moved, the next in order amongst the Elders succeeded; and that this course was after changed the better to keep out unworthy men, it being made a matter of election, and not a matter of succession. These men come neer the point in their Exposition, though they keep far enough in the Application, inferring hence that the imparity of Ministers came in other­wise than by divine Authority. For by comparing this of Ambrose, with that before mentioned out of Hierom, the meaning of the Author will be only this, that as in some places the Presbyters elected one of their own Presbytery to be their Bishop; so for preventing of Ambition, and avoiding Faction, they did agree amongst them­selves, ut uno recedente, that as the place did vaike by death or deprivation, by resig­nation, cession, banishment, or any other means whatever, the Senior of the whole Presbytery should succeed therein; as the Lord Mayor is chosen for his year in London. But after upon sight of those inconveniences, which did thence arise, it was thought fit in their election of the person, rather to look upon his Merit than his Seniority. So that for all this place of Ambrose (were those Comments his) the Bishop may enjoy a fixt preheminence, and hold it by divine Authority, not by humane Ordinances.

But to return unto Saint Peter, and to the Churches by him planted, XIII and founded by him in Episcopacy in these Western parts; I shall in part rely on the Authority of the Martyrologie of the Church of Rome; though so fat only, and no further, as it is backed by venerable Bede, and Ʋsuardus, ancient Writers both, the latest living in the year 800. and besides them, in some particulars by other Authors of far more An­tiquity.Bellarm. de Scriptor. And these, for better methods sake, we will behold according to the several Countries, into which S. Peter either went himself, or sent forth his Disciples to them, to preach the Gospel. And first for Italy, besides the Church of Rome before re­membred. We find Epaphroditus, (not he that is commemorated by S. Paul, In Annal. Ec­cles. A. 60. Rom. Martyr. Mart. 22. April. 3. Jun. 4. Julii. 12. Julii. 12. Julii. 23. Chrys. serm. 128. in his Epistle to the Philippians, as Baronius witnesseth against himself) à beato Petro Apostolo Episcopus illius Civitatis ordinatus, made Bishop by S. Peter of Tarracina, of old called Anxur: Pancratius made by S. Peter, Bishop of Tauromenium, in the Isle of Sicily, as the Greeks also do affirm in their Menologia: Marcianus Bishop of Syracusa, to whom the said Menologies do bear record also: Hermagoras a Disciple of S. Mark, the first Bishop of Aquileia, now in the Signeurie of Venice: Panlinus the first Bishop of Luques in Tuscanie: Apollinaris, created by S. Peter the first Bishop of Ravenna, in praise of whom Chrysologus, one of his Successors, and an holy Father, hath composed a Pa­negyrick: Marcus ordained Bishop of Atina, at S. Peters first coming into Italy: Rom. Martyr. Apr. 28. Novemb. 7. Sept. 1. Octob. 25. Jan. 27. Acts. Martyrol. Rom. Decem. 29. And last of all, Prosdocimus the first Bishop of Padua à Beato Petro ordinatus, made Bishop thereof by S. Peter. Next to pass over into France, we find there Xystus the first Bishop of Rhemes, and Fronto Bishop of Perigort [Petragorricis;] ordained both by this Apostle: As also Julianus the first Bishop of (Mayne Cononiensium in the Latine) of his Ordination. And besides these, we read that Trophimus, once one of S. Pauls Dis­ciples, was by S. Peter made the first Bishop of Arles. And this besides the Martyro­logies, and other Authors cited by Baronius in his Annotations, appeareth by that me­morable controversie in the time of Pope Leo, before the Bishop of Vienna, the chief City of Daulphine, and him of Arles, for the place and dignity of Metropolitan. In prosecution of the which, it is affirmed by the Suffragans, Epist. contr. Provinc. ad S. Leonem. in fine. lib. or Com-provincial Bishops of the Province of Arles: Quod prima inter Gallias Arelatensis Civitas missum à Beatissimo Petro Apostolo, Sauctum Trophimum, habere meruit Sacerdotem, that first of all the Cities of Gaul, that of Arles did obtain the happiness to have Saint Trophimus for their Bi­shop, (for so Sacerdos must be read in that whole Epistle) sent to them from the most blessed Apostle S. Peter, to preach the Gospel. For Spain, we find this testimony once for all, that Ctesiphon, Torquatus, Secundus, Caecilius, Judaletius, Hesychius, Rom. Martyr. Maij 15. and Euphrasius; Romae à Sanctis Apostolis Episcopi ordinati; & ad praedicandum verbum Dei in Hispanias directi: Having been ordained Bishops at Rome by the Apostles, (viz. S. Peter and S. Paul) were sent unto Spain to preach the Gospel; and in most likeli­hood were Bishops of those Cities, in which they suffered, the names whereof occur in the Martyrologie. If we pass further into Germany, we may there see Eucherius, one of S. Peters Disciples also, by him employed to preach the Gospel to that Nation; which having done with good effect in the City of Triers, Primus ejusdem Civitatis [Page 214]Episcopus, Decemb. 8. he was made the first Bishop of that City. And unto this Methodius also doth attest,Ap. Mar. Sco­tum in An. 72.74. as he is cited by Marianus Scotus, who tells us, that after he had held the Bishoprick 23 years, Valerio Trevericae Ecclesiae culmen dereliquit, he left the govern­ment of that Church unto Valerius, who together with Maternus, (both being Dis­ciples of Saint Peper) did attend him thither; and that Maternus after fifteen years did succeed Valerius, continuing Bishop there 40 years together. I should much wrong our part of Britain, should I leave out that, as if neglected by the Apostle, con­cerning which we are informed by Metaphrastes (whose credit hath been elsewhere vindicated) that this Apostle coming into Britain, Commem. Petri & Pauli ad diem 29 Junii. and tarrying there a certain time, and enlightning many with the word of grace, [...], did constitute Churches, and or­dain Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the same. Which action as he placeth in the twelfth year of Nero, being the 67. of our Redeemer; so he professeth, that he had his information out of some writings of Eusebius, which have not come unto our hands, but with a great deal more of that Authors works, have perished in the ruins and wrack of time. Nor is it strange that the Apostle should make so many of his Dis­ciples Bishops, before or shortly after they were sent abroad to gain the nations to the Faith,Beda hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 27. that being the usual course in the like imployments, as may appear by Austins being consecrated Bishop, immediately after his first coming into England. The rea­son was, as I conceive it, that if God prospered their endeavours with desired suc­cess, they might be furnished with a power of ordaining Presbyters for their assistance in that service. And so much for the Churches planted by Saint Peter, and by his Disciples.

CHAP. IV. The Bishoping of Timothy and Titus, and others of Saint Pauls Disciples.

  • 1. The Conversion of Paul, and his ordaining to the place of an Apostle.
  • 2. The Presbyters created by Saint Paul, Act. 14. of what sort they were.
  • 3. Whether the Presbyters or Presbytery did lay on hands with Paul, in any of his Ordinations.
  • 4. The people had no voice in the Election of their Presbyters in these early times.
  • 5. Bishops not founded by S. Paul at first, in the particular Churches by him planted, and upon what reasons.
  • 6. The short time of the Churches of S. Pauls plantation, continued without Bishops over them.
  • 7. Timothy made Bishop of Ephesus, by S. Paul, according to the general consent of Fathers.
  • 8. The time when Timothy was first made Bishop, according to the Holy Scripture.
  • 9. Titus made Bishop of the Cretans, and the truth verified herein by the ancient Writers.
  • 10. An Answer unto such Objections as have been made against the Subscription of the Epistle unto Titus.
  • 11. The Bishopping of Dionysius the Areo­pagite, Aristarchus, Gaius, Epaphro­ditus, Epaphras, and Archippus.
  • 12. As also of Silus, Sosthenes, Sosipater, Crescens, and Aristobulus.
  • 13. The Office of a Bishop, not incompatible with that of an Evangelist.

WE are now come unto S. Paul, I and to the Churches by him planted, where we shall meet with clearer evidence from Scripture than before we had. A man that did at first most eagerly afflict the poor Church of Christ; as if it were the destiny not of David only, but also of the Son of David, to be persecuted by the hands of Saul. Rhemist. Testam. Act. 15. But as the Rhemists well observe, that the contention between Paul and Barnabas, fell out unto the great increase of Christianity: So did this persecution raised by Saul, fall out unto the great improvement of the Gospel. For by this means, the Disciples being scattered and dispersed abroad, the Gospel was by them disseminated in all the parts and Countreys where they came; and Saul himself being taken off, even in the middle of his fury, became the greatest instrument of Gods power and glory in the converting of the Gentiles. For presently upon his own Conversion, we [Page 215]find him Preaching in the Synagogues of Damascus, Act. 9.20.22. Gal. 1.17, 18. Act. 9 30. Act. 11.26. thence taking a long journey into Arabia, from thence returning to Hierusalem, afterwards travelling towards Tarsus his own native soyl, and thence brought back to Antio [...]h, by the means of Barnabas. And all this while I look upon him as an Evangelist only, a constant and a zealous Preacher of the Gospel of Christ, in every Region where he travelled [...]. His calling unto the Apostleship, was not until the Holy Ghost had said unto the Prophets Lucius, Act. 13.1, 2. Simeon, and Manahen, ministring then in Antiochia, Separate mihi Barnabam & Saulum; separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. An extraordi­nary call, and therefore done by extraordinary means, and Ministers. For being the persons here employed in this Ordination, neither were Apostles, nor yet advanced for ought we find, unto the estate and honour of Episcopacy, it most be reckoned amongst those Extraordinaries which God pleased to work, in, and about the calling of this blessed Apostle. Of which we may affirm with Chrysostom, [...],Chrysostom. hom. 20. in Act. that of the things which did befall S. Paul in his whole vocation, there was nothing ordinary, but every part was acted by the hand of God. God in his extraordinary works ties not himself to ordinary means and courses, but takes such ways, and doth imploy such instruments as himself best pleaseth, for the more evident demonstration of his power and glory. So that however Simeon, Manahen, and Lucius did lay hands upon him; yet being the call and designation was so mira­culous, he might well say that he was made an Apostle neither of men, nor by men. but of Jesus Christ and God the Father. Chrysostom so expounds the place, Not of Men, [...],Gal. 1. v. 1. Hom. 27. in. Act so to make it manifest, that he received not his call from them; not by men; because he was not sent by them, but by the Spirit. As for the work, to which he was thus separated by the Lord, ask the said Father what it was, and he will tell you [...], that it was the office of an Apostle; and that he was ordained an Apostle here, [...], that he might Preach the Gospel with the greater power. Ask who it was that did ordain him, and he will tell you, that howsoever Manahen, Lucius and Simeon, did lay hands upon him, [...], yet he received his Ordination by the Holy Ghost. And certainly, that he had not the Apostleship before, may be made manifest by that which followed after. For we do not find in all the story of his Acts, that either he ordained Presbyters, or gave the Holy Ghost, or wrought any miracles, which were the signs of his Apostleship, before this solemn Ordination,2 Cor. 12.11. or imposition of the hands of the said three Prophets; as afterwards we find he did in several places of that book, and shall now shew (as it relates unto our present business) in that which fol­loweth.

Paul being thus advanced by God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, II to the high place of an Apostle, immediately applyeth himself unto the same: Preaching the Word with power, and miracles, in the Isle of Cyprus, Act. 13.11. &c. from thence proceeding to Pamphylia and other Provinces of the lesser Asia, every where gaining Souls to Almigh­ty God. Having spent three years in those parts of Asia, and planted Churches in a great part thereof, he had a mind to go again to Antioch, Act. 14.26. from whence be had been re­commended to the grace of God, for the work which he had fulsilled. But fearing lest the Do­ctrine he had Preached amongst them, might either be forgotten, or produce no profit, if there were none left to attend that service: Before he went, he thought it fitting to found a Ministery amongst them, in their several Churches. To this end, They (i.e. He and Barnabas) ordained them Presbyters in every Church, with prayer and fasting; Act. 14.23. and that being done, they recommended him unto the Lord, in whom they believed. This is the first Ordination which we find of Presbyters in holy Scripture; though doubt­less there were many before this time. The Church could neither be instructed, nor consist at all, without an ordinary Minister left amongst the people, for the Admini­stration of the Word and Sacraments. However, this being as I said, the first record thereof in holy Scripture; we will consider hereupon, first to what Office they were called, which are here called Presbyters: Secondly, by whom they were Ordained: And thirdly, by what means they were called unto it. First, for the Office what it was, I find some difference amongst Expositors, as well new as old. Beza conceives the word in a general sense, and to include at once, Pastors and Deacons, and who­ever else were set apart for the rule and government of the Churches to them com­mitted.Annot. in Act. 14. v. 23. Presbyteros, i.e. Pastores, Diaconos, & alios Ecclesiae gubernationi praefectos, as his own words are. Here we have pastors, Deacons, Governours, included in this one word Presbyters. Ask Lyra who those Governours were,Lyra in Act. 14. which Beza calls prae­fecti [Page 216]in a general name, and he will tell you they were Bishops. Nomine Presbyterorum hic intelliguntur etiam alii Ecclesiae Ministri; ut Episcopi & Diaconi: Under the name of Presbyters, saith he, are comprehended also other Ecclesiastical Ministers, as Bishops and Deacons.Gloss. Ordinar. in Act. 14. The ordinary gloss agrees herewith, as to that of Bishops; and gives this reason for the same, Illo autem tempore ejusdem erant nominis Episcopi & Presbyteri, that in that time Bishops and Presbyters were called by the same name.Oecum. in Act. 14. And Oecume­nius holds together with them, as to that of Deacons; nothing that Paul and Barnabas had Epifcopal Authority, [...], in that they did not only ordain Deacons, but also Presbyters. So that it seemeth Saint Paul provided here against all occasions, fetling the Churches by him planted in so sure a way, that there was no­thing left at random, which either did relate to government, or point of Doctrine. And yet if any shall contend, that those who here are called Presbyters, were but simply such, according to the notion of that word, as it is now used; I shall not much insist upon it. I only shew what other Authors have affirmed herein; and so leave it off.

The next thing here to be considered, III is who they were that were the Agents in this Ordination. Cum constituissent illis, when they had Ordained; and they, is there a relative, and points to Paul and Barnabas, mentioned v. 20. They preached the Gospel, they returned to Lystra, and finally they here Ordained. Of any one that laid hands with them on these Presbyters heads, which was the ceremony by them used in this Ordination (as the word [...], doth plainly manifest) ne My Lucilianum, not a word in Scripture. Indeed it cannot be conceived that in those places wherein there were no men in Sacred Orders, any should joyn with the Apostles in that sacred action. So that the Presbyters, which were here ordained, could have no other hands laid on them than those of Paul and Barnabas, if they joyned together; and did not rather severally and apart perform that ceremony. And if that the Apostles by the imposition of their own hands only, could perform it now; how came they to be shortned after? how came they so devested of that sacred priviledge, as to want others to be joyned with them, and not to make a Presbyter without the co-assistancy of the Presbytery? The Holy Ghost was no less powerful in them after this, than it had been formerly; neither did Paul or want, or crave the help of any, in giving of the Holy Ghost on the like occasions, in the times that followed. Certain I am,Act. 19. v. 6. when Paul was at Ephesus, though Timothy and others were then present with him, yet none but he laid hands upon the twelve Disciples: And yet upon the laying on of his hands, The Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied. Which if it were an Act of Ordination,Beza Annot. in Act. 19. v. 1. as Beza thinks, and it is likely so to be, be­cause the Text saith that they spake with tongues and prophesied; then have we here more Presbyters created by laying on of Pauls hands only, without help of others. As for that passage in the first Epistle to Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6. wherein the Presbytery may be thought to lay hands upon him; let it be ballanced with another in the second Epistle, where the Apostle doth assume the whole performance to himself, as his proper act; and then the difference which appears will be quickly ended. If Timothy received those gifts which did enable him for the Holy Ministery, by laying on of Pauls hands only, as it seems he did; what interest could the Presbytery challenge in that sacred action? If he received it joyntly from the Presbytery, what influence had Saint Pauls hands on him more than all the rest? Assuredly Saint Pauls hands were not grown so impotent, that they needed help; or that he could not give the graces of the Holy Ghost, by laying on his own hands only, as he had done formerly. And therefore if the Presbytery did concur herein, it was not that the business could not be performed without them, but either to declare the good affections which they did bear unto the person, or to ex­press their joyful approbation of his calling to that sacred function,1 Tim. 1.16. & 1 Tim. 4.14. of whom so many Prophesies had gone out before; or finally to contribute their prayers and blessings to the solemnity of so grave and great a work, And so, I think, the business will be best made up, if Paul be suffered to enjoy the honour of giving unto Timothy, by the imposition of his hands, the gifts and graces of the Spirit; and the Presbytery be per­mitted not to want their share in the performance of the outward ceremony. Cer­tainly that the power of Ordination was in one alone, that is to say, in the Apostle, is affirmed by Calvin. Calvin in 2. ad Tim. 1. v. 6. Who having canvassed the point, doth resolve at last, Ʋnum tantum fuisse qui manus imponeret: Which is indeed the safest tenet, and most agreeable unto Antiquity.Estius in 1. ad Tim. c. 4. v. 14. And therefore Estius, in my mind, did resolve it well, when he did thus divide the business: Ceremoniam impositionis manuum, à pluribus fuisse adhibitam; [Page 217]sed solum Paulum ea peregisse, quae [Sacramento] erant substantialia. Unless perhaps we may conceive, as perhaps we may, that Timothy received two Ordinations; the one unto the Office of a Presbyter, in which the Presbytery might concur as to the out­ward pomp or ceremony; the other to the function of a Bishop, in which, because the Presbyters might not concur, no not so much as to the outward act or ceremony, he was Ordained by laying on of Pauls hands only.

The last thing offer'd to consideration, IV is the election of the persons which are here ordained: which some refer unto the people: Concerning that the word [...], which Saint Luke here useth, doth signifie a popular manner of election, used by the holding up of hands. Ortum est hoc verbum ex Groecorum consuetudine, Beza Annot. in Act. 14.23. qui porrectis manibus suffragia ferebant, as Beza notes it on the place; who hereupon translates the word, Cum per suffragia creassent, wherein he hath been followed by some Translators of our Bibles, who express it thus, When they had created Elders by Election. But what­soever use the word might have in the old Greek Writers, assuredly, it either had no such use now; or if it had, it quite excludes the people of those Churches from having any hand in this Election. [...], however used amongst the Grecians, to signifie the approbation of the people, testifyed by the holding up of their hands; yet in the Church-construction it signifyeth Ordination, done by the laying on of hands. And this, to save the labour of a further search, is very throughly avouched by Calvin, Calvin in Act. c. 14. v. 23. where he acknowledgeth, that amongst Ecclesiastical Writers, the word [...], was used pro solenni ordinationis ritu, for the solemn ceremony of Ordination, which is in holy Scripture called Imposition of hands. Particular instances hereof, he that lists to see, may find them gathered to his hand in the learned work of Bishop Bilson, The perpet. go­vernm. of Ch. Ch. c. 7. Calvin us supra. before remembred. But whereas Calvin hence collecteth, that Paul and Barnabus permitted the Election of these Presbyters to the common suffrage of the people, and that them­selves did only preside therein, Quasi moderatores, ne quid rumultuose fieret, only as Mo­derators of the business, to see that it was fairly carried: What other ground soever he might have for his conjecture, assuredly he could collect none from the word here used. For if that [...] did signifie election by holding up of hands,Id. ibid. qualiter in Comitiis populi fieri solet, as in Assemblies of the people it did use to be; as he himself affirms it doth: Then certainly none but Paul and Barnabas holding up their hands, (for none but they were [...], in the present business) the whole election of these Presbyters must be given to them. But indeed it was neither so, nor so. Neither the Apostle nor the People had any hand in the elections of those times, but the Spirit of God, which evidently did design and mark out those men whom God intended to imploy in his holy Ministery. The words of Paul to Timothy make this clear enough, where it is said, Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophesie, 1 Tim. 4.14. 1 Tim. 1.18. &c. and that there went some Prophesies before concerning Timothy, the same Saint Paul hath told us in the first Chapter of that first Epistle.Hom. 5. in 1. ad Tim. c. 1. Chrysostom notes upon these words, that in those times [...], the Priests and Ministers of God were made by Prophesie, that is, saith he, [...], by the Holy Ghost. And this he proves by the selection of Paul and Barnabas to the work of God, which was done by Prophesie and by the Spirit. And finally glossing on those words, Noli negligere gratiam, &c. he doth thus express it, [...], God, saith he, did elect thee to this weighty charge, he hath committed no small part of his Church unto thee, [...], no mortal man had any hand in that designation: and therefore take thou beed that thou disgrace not, nor dishonour so Divine a calling. More might be said, both from Theodoret and Oecumenius, to confirm this Truth;Theodor. & Oecum. in locum. but that I think it is sufficiently confirmed already.

So then, the Presbyters of these times, being of Gods special choice, V his own desig­nation; and those upon the laying on of such holy hands, furnished by the Spirit with such gifts and graces as might enable them sufficiently to discharge their calling: The marvel is the less, if in those early days, at the first dawning, as it were, of Christi­anity, we find so little speech of Bishops. In the ordaining of these Presbyters, as also of the like in other places, the Apostles might, and did no question, communicate un­to them, such, and so much Authority as might invest them with a power of govern­ment, during the times of their own necessary absence from those several Churches. So that however they were Presbyters in degree and order, yet they both were and might be trusted with an Episcopal jurisdiction in their several Cities; even as some Deans, although but simply Presbyters, are with us in England. And of this rank I take it were the Presbyters in the Church of Ephesus, Act. 20.28. whom the Apostle calleth by the [Page 218]name of Bishops; that is to say, Presbyters by their Order and Degree, but Bishops in regard of their jurisdiction. Such also those ordained by Saint Paul in the Church of Philippos, Phil. 1.1. whom the Apostle mentioneth in the very entrance of his Epistle to that people. Which as it may be some occasion, why Bishops properly so called, were not ordained by the Apostles, in the first planting of some Churches: so there are other rea­sons alledged for it, and are briefly these. For first, although the Presbyters in those times were by the Holy Ghost endued with many excellent gifts and graces, requisite to the Preaching of the Word, yet the Apostles might not think fit to trust them with the chief government, till they had fully seen, and perfectly made tryal of their abili­ties and parts that way.Epiphan. adv. haeres. 75. n. 5. And this is that which Epiphanius meaneth in his dispute against Aerius, saying, [...], &c. that where there were no fit men to discharge that Office, the place remained without a Bishop; but where necessity required, and that there wanted not fit men to supply the place, there Bishops forthwith were appointed. But that which I conceive to be the prin­cipal reason, was this, that the Apostle did reserve unto himself the chief Authority in all the Churches of his planting, so long as he continued in, or about those places: And this he exercised either by personal Visitations, mention whereof is made in the 14.21. and 15.36. of the Book of Acts; or else by his rescripts and mandates, as in his sentencing of the incestuous Corinthian, although absent thence. But when he was re­solved to take a journey to Hierusalem, Act. 19.21. and from thence to Rome, not knowing when he should return to those Eastern parts, and knowing well that multitude of gover­nours do oft breed confusions, and that equality of Ministers did oft end in factions: he then resolved to give them Bishops, to place a Chief in and above each several Pres­bytery, over every City; committing unto them that power aswell of Ordinations, as inflicting censures, which he had formerly reserved to himself alone. This great A­postle, as for some space of time he taught the Church, without help of Presbyters; so for another while he did rule the same without help of Bishops. A time there was wherein there were no Bishops, but the Apostles only to direct the Church; and so there was a time wherein there were no Presbyters, but they, to instruct the same.

However it must be confessed that there was a time in which some Churches had no Bishops. VI And this,Hieron. in Tit. c. 1. if any, was the time that Saint Hierom speaks of, Cum communi Presbyterorum consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur, when as the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the Presbyters. But sure it was so short a time, that had not the good Father taken a distaste against Episcopacy, by reason of some differences which he had with John the Bishop of Hierusalem; he could not easily have observed it. For whether Bishops were ordained,Id. ad Eva­grium. In Schismatis remedium, as he saith elsewhere, for the preventing of those Schisms and factions which were then risen in the Church; or that they were appointed by the Apostles to supply their absence, when they with­drew themselves unto further Countreys: This government of the Church in common by the Presbyters, will prove of very short continuance. For from the first planting of the Church in Corinth, Baronius so computes it. Annal. Hieron. in Tit [...]m. c. 1. which was in Anno 53. unto the writing of his first Epistle to that Church and people, in which he doth complain of the Schisms amongst them, was but four whole years. And yet it doth appear by that place in Hierom, for ought can see, that the divisions of the people in Religion, some saying I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, every one cleaving unto him by whom he had received Bap­tism, were the occasion that it was decreed throughout the world, as that Father saith, Ʋt unus de Presbyteris electus, superponeretur caeteris, that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest, to whom the care of all the Church should appertain, that so the seeds of schism might be rooted up. And from the time when Paul ordained those Pres­byters in Lystra and Iconium, and those other Churches, which was in Anno 48. accor­ding as Baronius calculates it, unto Saint Paul's return unto Hierusalem, which was in Anno 58. are but ten whole years. Before which time, immediately upon his resolu­tion to undertake that journey, and from thence to Rome, he had appointed Bishops in the Churches of his own plantation; so that the government of the Presbyters in the largest and most liberal allowance that can be given them, will be too short a time to plead prescription. Now that Saint Paul ordained Bishops in many of the Asian Cities, or in the Churches of those Cities which himself had planted, before his last going thence into Greece and Macedon; may well be gathered out of Irenaeus, who lived both neer those times, and in those parts, and possibly might have seen and known some of the Bishops of this first foundation.Item. l. 3. c. 14. Now Irenaeus his words are these. In [Page 219]Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis & Presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso & reliquis proximis civi­tatibus, &c. ‘Paul, saith he, calling together in Miletum, the Bishops and Presbyters, which were of Ephesus, and other the adjoyning Cities, told them what things were like to happen to him in Hierusalem, whither he meant to go before the Feast.’ Out of which words of Irenaeus I collect thus much. First, that those Presbyters whom Paul called to Miletum, to meet him there, were not all of Ephesus, though all called from Ephesus: Ephesus being first appointed for the Randevouz, or place of meeting: and secondly, that amongst those Presbyters there were some whom Paul had digni­fied with the stile and place of Bishops: In which regard the Assembly being of a mixt condition, they are entituled by both names; especially those Presbyters which had as yet no Bishops over them, having the charge and jurisdiction of their Churches under the Apostles, as before was said. And this perhaps may be one reason, why the Apostle in his speech to that Assembly, makes no words of Timothy; who being pre­sent with the rest, received his charge together with them: as also why he gave the Presbyters of Ephesus no particular charge, how to behave themselves before their Bi­shop; there being many Bishops there, which were not under the command of Timothy. However we may gather thus much out of Irenaeus, that though we find not in the Scripture the particular names of such as had Episcopal Authority committed to them, but Timothy and Titus: yet that there were some other Bishops at that time of S. Paul's Ordination, who doubtless took as great a care for Thessalonica and Philippos, for Lystra and Iconium, as for Crete and Ephesus. And that these two were by Saint Paul made Bishops of those places, will appear most fully by the concurrent testimony of ancient Writers.

And first for Timothy, that he was Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, VII and the first Bi­shop there, appeareth by an ancient Treatise of his death and martyrdom, bearing the name of Polycrates, who was himself not only Bishop of this Church of Ephesus, but born also within six or seven and thirty years after the writing of the Revelation by Saint John. Which treatise of Polycrates entituled, De martyrio Timothei, is extant amongst the lives of Saints, printed at Lovaine, An. 1585. and cited by the Learned Primate of Armagh in his brief Discourse touching the original of Episcopacy.Sigebertus de Eccl. Script. Certain I am that Sigebertus doth report Polycrates to be the Author of a Book entituled, De passione Sancti Timothei Apostoli; but whether that it ever came unto the hands of those of Lovain, I am not able to determine. More like it is, the book is perished, and the fragments of the Treatise which remain in Photius, Photius in Biblioth. n. 254. touching the death and martyr­dom of Timothy, is all which have escaped that shipwrack. And yet in those poor frag­ments there is proof enough that Timothy was Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, in which it is expresly said, [...], that Timothy was both Or­dained and Inthroned Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus by the great Apostle. Se­condly, this appeareth by the testimony of Eusebius, who reckning up Saint Pauls assistants, his [...], and coadjutors, as it were, bringeth in Timothy for one; and this adds thus of him,Eccles. hist. l. 3. c. 4. [...], that as Histories recorded of him, he was the first Bishop of the Diocess of Ephesus. Thirdly, by Epiphanius, Epiph. har. 75. n. 5. who in a glance gives him the power and stile of Bishop, where he relateth, [...], that the Apostle speaking unto Timothy, being then a Bishop, doth advise him thus, Rebuke not an Elder, &c. Fourthly, by Ambrose, if the work be his,Ambr. Praef. in Epist. 1. ad Timoth. who in the preface to his Com­mentaries on the Epistles unto Timothy, thus resolves the point, Hunc ergo jam creatum Episcopum, instruit per Epistolam; that being now ordained a Bishop, he was instructed by Saint Pauls Epistle, how to dispose and order the Church of God. Fifthly by Hierom, who in his Tract De Eccles. Scriptoribus, doth affirm of Timothy, Hieron. de Script. Eccles. Ephesiorum Episcopum ordinatum à Beato Paulo, that he was ordained Bishop of the Ephesians by Saint Paul. Sixthly, by Chrysostom, as in many places, so most significantly and ex­presly in his Comment on the Epistle to the Philippians, saying,Chrysost. Hom. in 1. ad Tim. & in Praef. ad eand. Paul saith in his Epistle unto Timothy, Fulfil thy Ministry, [...], being then a Bishop: [...], for that he was a Bishop appears by Pauls writing thus unto him, Lay hands hastily on no man. Seventhly, by Leontius, Bishop of Magnesia, Concil. Chal. Act. 11. one of the Fa­thers in the great Council of Chalcedon, affirming publickly, [...], that from blessed Timothy unto his times, there had been 26 Bishops of the Church of Ephesus. Eighthly, by Gregory the Great,De cura Pasto­rali pars 2. c. 11. where he saith that Paul admo­nisheth his Scholar Timothy, Praelatum gregi, being now made the Prelate of a Flock, to [Page 220]attend to reading.Com. in 1. ad Tim. c. 1. Ninthly, by Sedulius an ancient writer of the Scotish Nation, who lived about the middle of the first Century, affirming on the credit of old History, Ti­motheum istum fuisse Episcopum in Epheso; that Timothy to whom Paul wrote, had been Bishop of Ephesus. Primas. in Tim. 1. Ep. 1. c. 4. Tenthly, by Primasius, a writer of the first 600 years, who in the Preface to his Commentaries on the first to Timothy, gives us this short note, Timotheus Episcopus fuit, & Discipulus Pauli; that Timothy was a Bishop, and Pauls Disciple: and in his Comment on the Text, saith, that he had the grace or the gift of Prophesie, cum ordinatione Episcopatus, Subscript. ep. 2. ad Tim. with his ordination to a Bishoprick. 11. By the subscription of the second Epistle, where he is called positively, [...], the first that was ordained Bishop of the Ephesians. In Praesat. in 1. ad Tim. 12. By Theophylact, who giveth this reason of Saint Pauls writing unto Timothy, because that in a Church new constitute, [...], &c. it was not easie to inform a Bishop of all things incident unto his place by word of mouth; and further in his Comment on the fourth Chapter of the first Epistle,In cap. 4. v. 14, 15. Oecum. in 1. ad Tim. c. 1. doth twice or thrice give Timothy the name of Bi­shop. 13. By Oecumonius, whom on these words of the Epistle, I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, gives this gloss or descant; [...], for there, (or of that place) he ordained him Bishop. An evidence so clear and full, that Beza, Beza Annot. in 1. ad Tim. c. 5. v. 19. though he would not call him Bishop, confesseth him to be President, or [...], of the Ephesme Presbytery, and that he had authority to receive accusations and complaints against a Presbyter, and to judge accordingly. Which what it is else than to be a Bishop, is beyond my fancy to imagine.

Now for the time in which he was appointed Bishop of the Church of Ephesus (for on the right stating of that point, VIII 1 Tim. 1.3. the clearing of many difficulties doth depend) it may be best gathered from those words in the first Epistle, where Paul relates, that he besought him to abide still at Ephesus, when he himself went into Macedonia. Now S. Pauls journey into Macedonia, which is here intended, is not that mentioned, Act. 16. for then there was no Church of Ephesus to be Bishop of.Act. 18, 19. & 19.1, 2, 3. &c. Paul had not then seen Ephesus at all, nor planted any Church there till a good while after. Nor could it be when he left Ephesus, to go the second time into Macedonia, mention whereof is made in the 20 Chapter,Act. 19.22. Act. 20.3. for he had sent Timotheus, and Erastus before him thither. But it was after he had stayed three months in Greece, when hearing that the Jews laid wait for him as he went about to sail into Syria, he changed his course, and purposed to return through Macedonia. Then was it, as he went that time into Macedonia, that he brake the bu­siness unto Timothy, requiring or besseeching him to go to Ephesus, to set up his aboad in that populous City, and undertake the government of the Church thereof. To which when Timothy had condescended,Act. 20.5. he was sent before with Aristarchus and the rest, tarrying at Troas in expectation of the Apostles coming. And there he was most like to be, when the Apostles first Epistle came unto his hands, being written not from Laodicea, Athan. in Sy­nop. Sacrae Script. 1 Tim. 3.14. as the subscription doth pretend, but [...], out of Macedonia, as Athanasius doth expresly say in his Synopsis. For howsoever the Apostle hoped to come to him shortly, and to instruct him more at large for that weighty business; yet well considering how many lets and hindrances might intervene, he thought it not amiss to prevent the worst, and send that letter of instructions in the mean time to him, that he might know how to behave himself in the house of God. 1 Tim. 1.15. After this time, I find not that the Apostle did employ Timothy in any other general service which concerned the Church; or that he called him from Ephesus, being once got thither, save that he sent for him to make hast to Rome immediately on his first coming to that City,2 Tim. 4.21. to be assistant to him there in that dangerous exigency. A thing that both the one might crave, and the other do, without detracting any thing at all from the Episcopal place and power which Timothy had taken on him: All the Epistles wherein the name of Timothy is joyned with Pauls, being written within the compass of two years, which was so short an absence from his Pastoral charge, as might be very easily dispensed withal, especially when the publique service of the Church was concerned so highly. I know that some of eminent note,B. Downham, in the Sermon at Lambeth. p. 76, 77, 78. and others. the better to avoid some appearing difficulties that concern this business, will not have Timothy made Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, till after the Apostles coming unto Rome. But the second of the two Epistles doth very throughly refute that fancy, in which Saint Paul acquaints him how he had disposed of his retinue;Tim. 4. Taking it, as it seemeth, in his way to Crete. Titus being gone into Dalmatia, Crescens to Galatia, Erastus taking up his aboad at Corinth, and Trophimus left at Miletum sick; taking great care to have the Cloak and Parchments which were left at Troas, where Timothy stayed for him, Act. 20. to be sent speedily unto him. Where by the way, Miletum, where Paul left Trophimus [Page 221]sick, was not that Town of lesser Asia, unto the which the Elders were called from Ephesus, for after that we find him at Hierusalem, Act. 21.29.Annal. Eccl. An. 59. n. 1. Conditorem ex Mileto, quae in Creta est, Sar­pedonem acci­pientes, Geogr. l. 2. nor was it at the Island called Mileta, as Baronius thinks, on which Saint Paul was cast by Shipwrack, Act. 28. such alterations or corrections not being easily allowable in holy Scripture. For being that there is in the Isle of Crete a Town called Miletus, as Strabo testifieth; and that Saint Paul in his Voyage from Hierusalem to Rome, sailed under Crete, and hovered for a while about that coast, Act. 27.7, 8. &c. that is most like to be the place, and there I leave him.

For being thus fallen on the Coast of Crete, IX I think it seasonable to enquire some news of Titus: whom the Apostle much about the time that Timothy undertook the charge of Ephesus, had made the Bishop of this Island. Baronius thinks,An. 57. n. 209. Act. 20.2. and not im­probably, that at Saint Pauls last going out of Asia into Macedonia, when he had gone over those parts, and given them much exhortation, and having so done, went into Greece; that this his going into Greece was by and through the Aegean sea; that in his passage thither he put in at Crete: And finally, that he left Titus here, ad curandam Ecclesiam, whom he made Bishop for that purpose. This is most like to be the time, the circumstances of the Text and story so well agreeing thereunto; for till this time, Titus was either attendant on S. Paul in person, or sent from place to place on his oc­casions and dispatches; as may appear by looking on the concordances of holy Scrip­ture. Now that Titus was ordained the first Bishop of Crete, hath been affirmed by several Authors of good both credit and antiquity. For first,Eccles. hist. l. 3. c. 4. Eusebius making a Ca­talogue of Saint Pauls assistants, or fellow-labourers, and reckoning Timothy amongst them, whom he recordeth for the first Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, adds presently, [...], and so was Titus also, the first Bishop of Crete. Ambr. praef. in ep. ad Titum. Saint Ambrose in the Preface to his Commentaries, on the Epistle unto Titus, doth affirm as much, Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum, the Apostle consecrated Titus a Bishop, and therefore doth admonish him to be solicitous for the well ordering of the Church committed to him. Saint Hierom, writing on these words in that Epistle,Hieron. in Tit. c. 1. v. 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, &c. doth apply them thus, Audiant Episcopi qui habent constituendi Presbyteres per singulas urbes potestatem, Let Bishops mark this well who have authority to ordain Presbyters in every City, on what conditions, to what persons (for that I take to be his meaning) Ecclesiastical orders are to be conferred. Which is a strong insinuation, that Titus having that authority, must be needs a Bishop. More evidently in his Catalogue of Writers, or in Sophronius at the least,Id. de Scrip. Eccles. in Tit. if those few names were by him added to that Catalogue. Titus Episcopus Cretae, Titus the Bishop of Crete did preach the Gospel both in that and the adjacent Islands.Apud Oecumen. Praef. ad Tim. Theodoret pro­posing first this question, why Paul should rather write to Timothy and Titus, than to Luke and Silas; returns this answer to the same, that Luke and Silas were still with him, [...], but those had entrusted with the govern­ment of Churches. But more particularly Titus, a famous Disciple of Saint Paul, Ap. eund. in Praef. ad Tit. [...], was by him ordained Bishop of Crete, being a place of great extent; with a Commission also to ordain Bishops under him.Theoph. in praef. ad Tit. Oecum. in Tit. c. 1. v. 5. Theophylact in his pre­face unto this Epistle, doth affirm the same; using almost his very words. And Oecu­menius on the Text doth declare as much, saying, that Paul gave Titus authority of ordaining Bishops, Crete being of too large a quantity to be committed unto one alone, [...], having first consecrate or made him Bishop. Finally, the subscription of this Epistle calls Titus the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians; which evidence, though questioned now of late, is of good Authority.

For some of late, who are not willing that Antiquity should afford such grounds, X for Titus being Bishop of the Church of Crete, have amongst other arguments devised against it, found an irreparable flaw, as they conceive, in this Subscription. Beza, Annot at. in Ep. ad Tit. in fine. who herein led the way, disproves the whole Subscription as supposititious, because it is there said, that it was written from Nieopolis of Macedonia. A thing, saith he, which cannot be, for the Apostle doth not say, [...], I will winter here, but [...], illic, I will winter there; and therefore he was somewhere else when he wrote this Epistle. But Athanasius, who lived neerer the Apostles times,In Synopsi sacr. script. Ad Paulum & Eustochium. Comment. in Ep. ad Tit. affirms it to be written from Nicopolis; and so doth Hierome in his Preface unto that Epistle. The Syriack translation dates it also thence, as is confessed by them that adhere to Beza. Theophylact and Oecumenius agree herein with Athanasius, and the ancient Copies. As for the criticism it is neither here nor there; for Saint Paul being still in motion, might appoint Titus to repair unto Nicopolis, letting him understand that howsoever he dis­posed [Page 222]of himself in the mean time, yet he intended there to Winter; and so he might well say, though he was at Nicopolis when he writ the same. That Titus is there cal­led the first Bishop of Crete, Smectym. p. 54. or of the Church of the Cretians, is another hint, that some have taken to vilifie the credit of the said Subscription; asking if ever there were such a second Bishop? Assuredly, the Realm of England is as fair and large a circuit, as the Isle of Crete. And yet I do not find it used as argument, that Austin the Monk had neither any hand in the converting of the English, or was not the first Archbishop of the See of Canterbury; Beda hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 27. because it is affirmed in Beda's History, Archie­piscopus genti Anglorum ordinatus est, that he was ordained the Archbishop of the En­glish Nation.Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 20. [...]. And for an answer to the question, we need but look into Eusebius, where we shall find Pinytus a right godly man, called in plain terms Bishop of Crete; Cretae Episcopus, saith the Latin, [...], as the Greek Original: the self-same stile, which is excepted at in Titus. Now, whereas it is said, that Titus was left no otherwise in Crete, than as Pauls Vicar General, Commissary, or Substi­tute, to order those things in such sort as he had appointed, which he could not di­spatch himself, when he was there present; this can by no means be admitted: the Rules prescribed unto him, and Timothy, being for the most part of that nature, as do agree with the condition of perpetual Governours, and not of temporary and remo­vable Substitutes. As for the anticipation of the time, which I see some use, rela­ting that Saint Paul with Titus, having passed through Syria, and Cilicia, to confirm the Churches, did from Cilicia, pass over into Crete; where the Apostle having preached the Gospel, left Titus for a while to set things in Order: although I cannot easily tell on what Authority the report is built, yet I can easily discern that it can hardly stand with Scripture. We read indeed in the 15. Chapter of the Acts, that he went thorow Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches; ver. ult. and in the first words of the following Chapter,Acts 14.6. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 20. [...]. we find him at Derbe and Lystra Cities of Lycaonia, the very next Province to Cilicia Northward, from which it is divided by a branch of the Mountain Taurus. Now whether of the two it be more probable, that Paul should pass immediately from Cilicia unto Lycaonia, upon the usual common Road; or fetch a voyage into Crete, Smectymn. p. 50. as these men suppose, and be transported back again into Lycao­nia, being an in-land Countrey far from any Sea, (which could not be without some Miracle, or great hiatus in the story) I leave to any man to be imagined.

Timothy and Titus being thus setled in their Episcopal Sees, XI we must pass on, to see if we can meet with any other of Saint Pauls Disciples, or his assistants if you will, that were entrusted with the like Authority. And first we meet with Dionysius, the Areopagite, ordained by Saint Paul, (as is most likely) the first Bishop of Athens; but howsoever, questionless ordained the first Bishop there. Another Dionysius, Bi­shop of Corinth, Ap. Euseb. Eccl. hist. l. 4. c. 22. [...]. as also, l. 3. c. 4. who in all probability was born whilst Saint John was living, doth expresly say it: viz. that Dionysius the Areopagite being converted to the Faith by the Apostle Paul, [...], was first ordained Bishop of the Church of Athens. The foresaid Dionysius the Corinthian doth also tell us,Ap. Euseb. l. c. 22. [...]. that Publius succeeded the Areopagite, after him Quadratus; both which were Disciples of the Apostles: the former of the two, being conceived to be the same,Acts 28.8. whose Father, Paul cured so miraculously, in the Isle of Malta. Next for the Church of Thessalonica, August. 4. the Martyrologies inform us that Aristarchus, one of Pauls Companions, ab eodem Apostolo Thessalonicensium Episcopus ordinatus, was by him or­dained Bishop of the Thessalonians. And after him succeeded Caius, whom Saint Paul mentioned in his Epistle to the Romans, Rom. 16.23. Comment. in Epi. ad Rom. c. 16. by the name of Gaius, the Host, as he calls him, of the whole Church. Certain I am, that Origen reports him to be Bishop here, and that upon the known tradition of his Elders. Fertur sane ex traditione majorum, quod hic Gaius Episcopus fuerit Thessalonicensis Ecclesiae, as his own words are. So for the Church of the Philippians. Saint Paul hath told us of Epaphroditus, one whom he mentioneth oftentimes,Phil. 2.29. in his Epistle to that people, that he was not only his Bro­ther, and Companion in labour, and his Fellow-souldier; Vestrum autem Apostolum, but he was also their Apostle.Theodor. in 1. ad Tim. c. 3. Ask of Theodoret what Saint Paul there meaneth, and he will tell you that he was their Bishop. For in his Comment on the first to Timothy, he gives this note, Eos qui nunc vocantur Episcopi, nominabant Apostolos, that in those times in which Saint Paul writ that Epistle, those who are now called Bishops, were called Apostles. And this he proves out of this passage of Saint Paul, that so, in this respect, [ita Philippensium Apostolus erat Epaphroditus] Epaphroditus is called the A­postle of the Philippians. Which clearly sheweth, that in his opinion, Epaphroditus [Page 223]was Bishop of the Philippians, as Titus of the Cretans, and Timothy of the Ephesians, in whom he afterwards doth instance. Beza indeed doth render the Greek word [...], by the Latin, Legatus; in which he hath been followed by the latter English, who read it Messenger. But Calvin doth not only keep himself to the old Translation,Calvin in [...]. lip. c. 2. though he take notice of the other; but he prefers the old before it; Sed prior sensus meliùs convenit, as more agreeable unto the meaning of the place. For the Colossians next; we find the names of Epaphras, and Archippus, their two first Bishops, in the Epistle to that Church. And first for Epaphras, it is conceived that he first preached the Faith of Christ to the Colossians: And this Saint Paul doth seem to intimate in the first Chapter of the same Epistle, saying,Ver. 7. As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fel­low servant. Certain it is, that in the Martyrologies, he is affirmed to be the Bishop of this Church, ab eodem Apostolo ordinatus, Julii 19. and that he was ordained Bishop by the hands of Paul. But being after Prisoner with Saint Paul at Rome, Archippus undertook the Episcopal charge,Colos. 4.17. whom Paul exhorteth to take heed unto the Ministery which he had received of the Lord, and to fulfil it. Most sure I am, that Ambrose writing on those words, doth make Archippus Bishop of Colossi, by the name of their Praepositus, Ambros. in Co­los. 4. V. cap. 3. n. 5. or Go­vernour, of which see before: adding withal that after Epaphras had seasoned them in the Truth of God, hic accepit regendam eorum Ecclesiam, Archippus took the Govern­ment of that Church upon him.

For other of Saint Pauls Disciples, we find in Dorotheus, if he may be credited, XII that Silas, Pauls most individual Companion,Dorotheas in Synopsi. was Bishop of the Church of Corinth. the truth whereof shall be examined more at large, in the second Century: and that Sosipater, mention of whom is made, Acts 20, was ordained Bishop of Iconium, where­in Hippolitus concurring with him, doth make the matter the more probable. Of Sosthenes, (of whom see Acts 18. 1 Cor. 1.) the same two Authors do report, that he was Bishop of Colophon, one of the Cities of the lesser Asia. But leaving these more Eastern Countreys, let us look homeward towards the West. And there we find that Crescens, whom Saint Paul, at his first coming unto Rome, 2 Tim. 4. had sent into Galatia to con­firm the Churches; was after by him sent on the like occasion into Gaule, or Gallia, there to preach the Gospel: for so I rather chuse to atone the business, than correct the Text, and read it Crescens in Galliam with Epiphanius. Epiphan. haeres. 51. n. 11. For having with so good success been employed formerly in Galatia; he might with better comfort undertake the service of Preaching Christ unto the Gaules, whereof the Galatians were a branch or Colony. Now that he did indeed Preach Christs Gospel there, is affirmed posi­tively both by Epiphanius and Theodoret, two very eminent and ancient Writers:Epiphan. haeres. 51. Theodor. in Epl. 2. ad Tim. Ado in Chron. and Ado Viennensis, a Writer though of lesser standing, yet of good repute, affirmeth that he was put upon this employment, quo tempore Paulus in Hispànias pervenisse creditur, at such time as it is conceived that the Apostle Paul went into Spain, which was in Anno 61. as Baronius thinketh, there being left, and having planted a Church of Christ, in the City of Vienna, (now in that Province which is called Daulphine) he became the first Bishop of the same; Primus ejusdem Civitatis Episcopus, saith the Martyrologie. Decemb. 29. In Chronico. And to this, Ado, one of his successors, also doth agree; adding withal, that after he had sat there some few years, he returned back again into Galatia, leaving one Zacharias to succeed him. Finally, not to leave out Britain, it is recorded in the Greek Menolo­gies, that Aristobulus (whom Saint Paul speaks of Rom. 16.) being one of the Seven­ty, and afterwards a follower of Saint Paul,Menolog. Craec. in Martii. 14. was by him ordained Bishop of Britain ( [...], as the words there are) a region full of fierce and savage people; and that having there setled the Church, and ordained Presbyters and Deacons in the same, he did there also end his life. The Reverend Pri­mate of Armagh, out of a fragment attributed to Heleca, De Britannic. Eccl. prim. c. 1. sometimes Bishop of Sara­gossa in Spain, doth recite a passage, wherein it is affirmed of this Aristobulus, missum in Angliam Episcopum, that he was sent Bishop into England, for so the Author calleth this Countrey according to the name it had when he writ the same. But these things which relate to the British Churches, I rather shall refer to our learned Antiquaries, to be considered of more fully; than affirm any thing my self.

But to look back on Timothy and Titus, XIII whom we left lately in their several Churches, I hear it said, that notwithstanding all those proofs before produced from the ancient, yet being Evangelists, as they were, they could be no Bishops: Smectymn. p. 48. Bishops being tied to the particular care of that flock or Church, over which God had made them Overseers; but the Evangelists being Planetary, sent up and down from place to place, by the Apostles, as the necessities of the Church required. Besides that moving [Page 224]in an higher sphere than that of Bishops, and being Co-partners with Saint Paul in his Apostleship or Apostolical function,Unbishopping of Tim. & Tit. p. 36. it had been a devesting of themselves of their A­postolical jurisdiction, and preheminence, to become Bishops at the last, and so descend from a superiour to an inferiour Office. For answer whereunto we need say but this, that the gift of being an Evangelist, might, and did fall on any rank of ordinary Mi­nisters, as might that also of the Prophet. Philip one of the seven, a Deacon, as it is generally conceived, but howsoever Ministring unto the Church, in an inferiour place or Office, was notwithstanding an Evangelist: and Agabus, though perhaps but a simple Presbyter, one of the Seventy past all question, was a Prophet too. Philip, as he was one of the Seven, was tied to a particular employment, and of necessity, sometimes,Acts 6.12. must leave the Word of God to serve Tables. Yet the same Philip, as he was fur­nished by the Lord with gifts and graces for gaining Souls to God Almighty, and doing the work of an Evangelist, must leave the serving of those Tables to preach the Word. And Agabus, Acts 11.27, 28. & 21.10. if he were a Presbyter, whether of Hierusalem, from whence he is twice said to come, or of some other Church, that I will not say, might notwithstanding his employment in a particular Church, repair to Antioch, or Caesarea, as the Spirit willed him, there to discharge the Office of a Prophet. So then both Timothy and Titus might be Bishops, as to their ordinary place and calling; though in relation un­to their extraordinary gifts, they were both Evangelists. As for their falling from a higher, to a lower function, from an Evangelist unto a Bishop; I cannot possibly per­ceive where the fall should be. They that object this, will not say, but Timothy, at the least, was made a Presbyter, for wherefore else did the Presbytery (which they so much stand on) lay hands upon him. And certainly, if it were no diminution from an Evangelist to become a I resbyter; it was a preferment unto the Evangelist, from being but a Presbyter to become a Bishop. But for the Bishopping of Timothy and Titus, as to the quod sit of it, that so they were, in the opinion of all ancient Wri­ters, we have said enough. We will next look on the authority committed to them, to see what further proof hereof may be brought for that.

CHAP. V. Of the Authority and Jurisdiction given by the Word of God, to Ti­mothy and Titus, and in them, to all other Bishops.

  • 1. The Authority committed to Timothy and Titus, was to be perpetual, and not per­sonal only.
  • 2. The power of Ordination intrusted only unto Bishops by the Word of God, accord­ing to the judgments of the Fathers.
  • 3. Bishops alone both might, and did Ordain, without their Presbyters.
  • 4. That Presbyters might not Ordain with­out a Bishop, proved by the memorable case of Coluthus and Ischyras.
  • 5. As by those also of Maximus, and a Spa­nish Bishop.
  • 6. In what respects, the joint assistance of the Presbyters was required herein.
  • 7. The case of the Reformed Churches be­yond the Seas, declared, and qualified.
  • 8. The care of ordering Gods Divine Service, a work peouliar to the Bishop.
  • 9. To whom the Ministration also of the Sa­oraments doth in chief belong.
  • 10. Bishops to have a care that Gods Word be preached: and to encourage those that take pains that way.
  • 11. Bishops to silence, and correct such Pres­byters, as preach other doctrines.
  • 12. As also to reprove and reject the He­retick.
  • 13. The censure and correction of inferiour Presbyters, doth belong to Bishops.
  • 14. And of Lay-people also, if they walk un­worthy of their Christian calling.
  • 15. Conjectural proofs that the description of a Bishop, in the first to Timothy, is of a Bishop truly and properly so called.

THEY who object that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists; I and so by conse­quence no Bishops,Unbishopping of Tim. & Tit. p. 60, 61, &c. have also said, and left in writing, that the authority com­mitted to them by Saint Paul, did not belong to them at all, as Bishops, but Evange­lists [Page 225]only. But this, if pondered as it ought, hath no ground to stand on. The cal­ling of Evangelists, as it was Extraordinary, so it was but temporary, to last no lon­ger, than the first planting of the Church, for which so many signal gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, were at first poured on the Disciples. I know not any Orthodox Writer, who doth not in this point agree with Calvin: Com. in 4. ad Eph. v. 11. who in his Comment on the Epistle to the Ephesians, gives us this instruction, Deum Apostolis, Evangelistis & Prophetis, Ecclesiam suam non nisi ad tempus ornasse, that God adorned his Church with Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles, for a season only: having before observed, that of all those holy ministrations there recited, Postrema tantum duo perpetua esse, the two last, (viz. Pastors and Teachers, which he takes for two) were to be perpetual. But on the other side, power to ordain fit Ministers, of what sort soever, as also to reprove and censure those that behaved themselves unworthily; authority to con­vent and reject an Heretick, to punish by the censures of the Church, all such as give offence and scandal to the Congregation by their exhorbitant and unruly living: this ought to be perpetual in the Church of Christ. This the Apostle seems to inti­mate, when he said to Timothy, I charge thee in the sight of God, 1 Tim. 6.14. and before Jesus Christ, that thou keep this Commandment without spot, and unreprovable, until the appear­ing of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now Timothy was not like to live till Christs second coming; the Apostle, past all question, never meant it so: therefore the power, and charge here given to exercise the same, according to the Apostles Rules and Precepts was not personal only: but such as was to appertain to him, and to his successours for ever, even till the appearing of our Lord and Saviour. The like expression do we find in Saint Matthew, when our Redeemer said unto his Apostles,Matth. 28. ult. Behold I am with you always even unto the end of the world, Not always certainly with his Apostles, not to the end of the World with those very men, to whom he did address himself when he spake these words; for they being mortal men have been dead long since. Non solis hoc Apostolis dictum esse, this was no personal promise then, saith Calvin truly.Harmon. Evan­gel. In Matth. 28. With them and their successours he might always be, and to the end of the world give them his assistance. Cum vobis & successorlbus vestris, as Denis the Carthusian very well observeth. Saint Paul then gives this charge to Timothy, and in him unto all his successors in the Episcopal function; which should continue in the Church till Christs second coming. And therefore I conceive the annotation of the ordinary gloss to be sound and good, in Timotheo omnibus successoribus loquitur Apostolus, Glossa Ordinar. in 1 Tim. 6. that this was spoke in Timothy unto all his successors. And so the Commentaries under the name of Ambrose do inform us also, saying, that Paul was not so solicitous for Timothy, as for his successors, ut exemplo Timothei Ecclesiae ordinationem custodirent: In 1 Tim. 6. that they might learn by his Example (i.e. by practising those directions which were given to him) to look unto the ordering of the Church.

This ground thus laid, II we must next look on the authority which the Apostle gave to Timothy and Titus, and in them to all other Bishops. And the best way to look upon it is, to divide the same as the School-men do, into potestas ordinis, and po­testas jurisdictionis; the power of Order, and the power of jurisdiction: in each of which there occur divers things to be considered. First, for the power of Order, besides what every Bishop doth, and may lawfully perform, by vertue of the Orders he received as Presbyter; there is a power of Order conferred upon him as a Bishop: and that's indeed the power of Ordination, or giving Orders, which seems so proper and peculiar to the Bishops Office, as not to be communicable to any else. Paul gives it as a special charge to Timothy, to lay hands hastily on no man: Tim. 5.22. which caution doubt­less had been given in vain, in case the Presbyters of Ephesus might have done it, as well as he. And Titus seems to have been left in Crete for this purpose chiefly,Tit. 1. v. 5. that he might ordain Presbyters in every City: which questionless had been unnecessary, in case an ordinary Presbyter might have done the same. The Fathers have observed from these Texts of Scripture, that none but Bishops strictly and properly so called (ac­cording as the word was used when they lived that said it) have any power of Or­dination. Epiphanius in his dispute against Aerius, Haeres. 75. n. 4. observes this difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters, (whom the Heretick would fain have had to be the same) that the Presbyter by administring the Sacrament of Baptism, did beget children to the Church: but that the Bishop by the power of Ordination, [...], did beget Fathers to the same. A power from which he utterly excludes the Presbyter; and gives good reason for it too: for how, saith he, can he ordain, or constitute a Presbyter, [...], which in his Ordination [Page 226]did receive no power to impose hands upon another:Hom. 11. in 1 Tim. c. 3. Chrysostom speaking of the dif­ference between a Bishop, and a Presbyter, makes it consist in nothing else, but in this power of Ordination. [...], &c. only in laying on of hands, saith he, or in Ordination, a Bishop is before, or above a Presbyter; and have that power only inherent in them, Epistola ad Euagr. which the others have not. Hierom although a great advancer of the place and Office of the Presbyter, excludes him from the power of Ordination, or any interest therein. Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus, quod Presbyter non faciat? What, saith he, doth a Bishop, saving Ordination, more than a Presbyter may do? Neither doth Hierom speak de facto, and not de jure, quid facit, not quid debet facere: Smectymn. p. 37. as I observe the place to be both cited and applyed in some late Dis­courses. Hierom's non faciat, is as good as non debet facere: and they that look upon him well, will find he pleads not of the possession only, but the right and Title. And we may see his meaning by the passage formerly alledged upon the words of Paul to Titus, cap. 1. v. 5. Audiant Episcopi qui habent constituendi Presbyteros per singulas urbes potestatem. By which it seems that Bishops only had the power of ordaining Presby­ters; and that they did both claim, and enjoy the same from this grant to Titus.

For further clearing of this point, III there are two things to be declared and made evident, first, that the power of Ordination was so inherent in the person of a Bishop, that he alone both might and did sometimes ordain, without help of Presbyters: and secondly, that the Presbyters might not do the same without the Bishop. And first, that anciently the Bishops of the Church both might, and did ordain, without the help or co-assistance of the Presbyters,Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 7. n. appeareth by the ordination of Origen un­to the Office of a Presbyter by Theoctistus Bishop of Caesarea, and Alexander Bishop of Hierusalem, who laid hands upon him; [...], as my Author hath it. Which act of theirs when it was quarrelled by Demetrius, he did not plead in bar, that there were no Presbyters assistant in it; but that the party had done somewhat (and we know what 'twas) by which he was conceived to be uncapable of holy Orders.Id. l. 6. c. 25. [...]. So when the Bishop, whosoever he was, out of an affe­ctation which he bare unto Novatus (not being yet a Separatist from the Church of God) desired, [...], the Clergy being all against it, to ordain him Presbyter: the matter stood upon, as the story testifieth, was not the Bishops being the sole agent in it, but because it was forbidden by the ancient Canons, that any one who had been formerly baptized being sick in bed, (and that had been Novatus case) should be assumed into the Clergy. But not to make a fur­ther search into particulars, which are vast and infinite: we have two notable cases that reflect this way, and in them two such general Maxims as will make all sure. In the third Council of Carthage holden in or about the year 390. it was proposed by Aurelius then Metropolitan of Carthage, Concil. Carthag. 3. Ca. 45. that it might be lawful for him to chuse or take Presbyters out of the Churches of his Suffragans, and to ordain them Bishops of such Cities as were unprovided: and that the Bishops of those Churches, whose Clerks, or Presbyters they were, might not be suffered to oppose. To which when all the Fathers had agreed. Posthumianus one of the Prelates there assembled, puts this case, that if a Bishop had but one Presbyter only, Numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri, whether that one Presbyter should be taken from him. Aurelius thereunto replyeth, Episcopum unum esse posse, per quem dignatione divina Presbyteri mul­ti constitui possunt, that a Bishop by Gods grace might make many Presbyters, and therefore that on such occasions, his one and only Presbyter must be yielded up upon demand. By which it is most clear and evident, that a Bishop may alone perform the Act or Ceremony of Ordination, not having any Presbyter at all to join with him in it. The like occurreth in the second Council of Sevil (held in the year 617, or thereabouts) con­cerning Erangitanus a Presbyter of the Church of Corduba, who by the Bishop of that See,Concil. Hispa­lens. 2. c. 5. Cap. 6. (a ruffling Prelate, as appeareth by the following Chapter) had been deposed from his Ministry: the cause being brought before the Council, and the whole process openly declared unto them, the man was presently restored to his Orders, and the sentence pas­sed against him declared to be irrregular, and contrary to the ancient Canons, where­by it was enacted that no Clergy-man should be deposed without the judgment of a Synod. And then it followeth, Episcopus sacerdotibus & ministris solus dare honorem po­test, auferre solus non potest; that Bishops solely of themselves may confer holy Orders on Priests and Deacons, but solely of their own authority, they could not depose them.

So then it is most clear and evident, IV that Bishops might and did ordain, without their Presbyters, might not the Presbyters do the like sometimes, without their Bi­shop? [Page 227]Certainly nothing less than so: or if they did attempt it at any time, the whole act was not only censured and condemned as uncanonical, but adjudged void and null, from the first beginning. For besides that which hath been said before, from Hierom, Chrysostom, and Epiphanius, touching the limitation of this power to the Bishops only; there are three Book-cases in the point, which put the matter out of question: Coluthus, once a Presbyter of Alexandria, Athanas. in A­pol. 2. Edit. Gr. Lat. p. 784. falling at difference with his Bishop, usurps upon the Bishops Office, and ordains certain Presbyters, himself be­ing one. This business being canvassed in the Council of Alexandria, before that famous Confessor Hosius, and other Bishops there assembled: Coluthus was command­ed to carry himself for a Presbyter only, as indeed he was: and all the Presbyters of his ordaining reduced to the same condition, [...], in which they were before the said Ordination. Where by the way instead of Coluthus the last edition of this Author in Greek and Latin, doth read Catholicus: Lutet. 1627. which must be mended as before, in the relation of this story;P. 732.792. where we have Co­luthus, and not Catholicus. But to proceed. It hapned afterwards that Ischyras one of the Pseudo-Presbyters ordained by Coluthus, Id. ibid. p. 757. accused Macarius (one of the Pres­byters of Athanasius) for a pretended violence to be offered to him,Id. ibid. p. 732. then ministring at the holy Table. So that the business being brought at last unto the judgment of a Council; and the point in issue being this, whether this Ischyras were a Presbyter, or not; and so by consequence a dispenser of those sacred Mysteries: he was return­ed no Presbyter, by the full consent of all the Prelates then assembled. The reason was, because he was ordained by Coluthus, [...], who died a Presbyter; and that his Ordinations had been all made void, and those that had received them at his hands, [...], became lay again, and in that state received the blessed Sacrament as the Lay-men did. And this saith Athanasius was a thing so publique, [...], that no man ever doubted of the truth thereof.

The second case was that of Maximus, V once a familiar friend of Gregory Nazian­zens, at such time as he was Bishop of Constantinople; and by him,Greg. Presb. in vita Nazian. having taken a good liking to him, admitted into the Clergy of that Church. But Maximus being an ungrateful wretch, complots with others like himself, to be made Bishop of that City: and thereupon negotiates with Peter, then Patriarch of Alexandria, to ordain him Bishop of the same; which being done accordingly, (for Maximus was by birth of Egypt, and possibly might have good friends there, besides his money) and the whole City in a great distemper about the business: the whole cause came at last to be debated in the first general Council of Constantinople, Conc. Const. 1. cap. 4. where on full hearing of the matter it was thus Decreed, viz. that Maximus neither was to be taken for a Bishop, [...], nor any of those he had ordained to be accounted of the Clergy, or remain in any order or degree thereof. Where note, that howsoever Maximus came unlawfully unto the bishoprick of Constantinople, by means whereof all the Acts done by him as a Bishop, were made void and frustrate: yet if as Presby­ter, to which degree he had been lawfully ordained by Nazianzen, he might have given the imposition of hands, the Presbyters by him ordained, would have held good still. But the third case comes nearest to the business, yet as it is thus reported in the Council of Sevil before remembred. A Bishop of the Church of Spain, Concil. Hisp. 11. cap. 5. being troubled with sore eyes, and having some presented to him to be ordained Presby­ters and Deacons, did only lay his hands upon them, suffering a Presbyter that stood by, to read the words of Ordination. This coming to be scanned in the afore­said Council, upon mature deliberation it is thus determined. First, for the Presby­ter, which assisted, that for his boldness and presumption, he had been subject to the Councils censure, but that he was before deceased: next for the Presbyter and Deacons, who were so ordained, that they should actually be deposed from all sacred Orders, Concluding thus, Tales enim merito judicati sunt removendi, quia prave inventi sunt constituti; that they were worthily adjudged to lose those Orders, which they had wrongfully received. So little influence had the Presbyters in the essential parts of Ordination, as that their bare reading of the words (though required to it by the Bishop) was adjudged enough, not only to make them liable to the Churches Cen­sure, but also for their sakes to make void the Action. Nay so severe and punctual was the Church herein, that whereas certain Bishops of those times, whether consult­ing their own case, or willing to decline so great a burthen, had suffered their Cho­repiscopi, aswell those which were simply Presbyters, as such as had Episcopal Ordina­tion [Page 228](for two there were) to perform this Office:Concil. Gan­grens. Can. 13. Concil. Antioch. l. Can. 10. it was forbidden absolutely in the one, limited and restrained in the other sort, as by the Canons of the two ancient Synods of Gangra, and Antioch, doth at full appear.

It is true indeed, that anciently, as long, for ought I know, as there is any Monu­ment, or Record of true Antiquity, VI the Presbyters have joyned their hands to, and with the Bishops, in the performance, and discharge of this great Solemnity. And hereof there are many evidences that affirm the same, as well in matter of fact, as in point of Law. Saint Cyprian, one of the ancientest of the Fathers, which now are extant,Cyprian. Ep. 33. or l. 2. ep. 5. affirms, that in the ordination of Aurelius unto the Office of a Reader in the Church of Carthage, he used the hands of his Colleagues. Hunc igitur à me, & à Col­legis, qui praesentes aderant, ordinatum sciatis, as he reports the matter in a Letter to his charge at Carthage. Where by Colleagues it is most likely that he means his Pres­byters; first, because that Epistle was written during the time of his retreat, and pri­vacy; what time it is not probable, that any of his Suffragan Bishops did resort unto him: and secondly, because those words, qui praesentes aderant, are so conform unto the practice of that Church in the times succeeding. For in the fourth Council of Carthage held in the year 401.Concil. Car. 4. Can. 3. it was Decreed, that when a Presbyter was ordained, the Bishop blessing him, and holding his hand upon his head, etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant; all the Pres­byters which are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head, near the hands of the Bishop. Id. Can. 12. And in the same Council it was further ordered, that the Bishop should not ordain a Clergy-man, sine consilio clericorum suorum, without the counsel of his Clergy: which also doth appear to be Cyprians practice, in the first words of the Epistle before remembred. But then it is as true withal, that this conjunction of the Presbyters in the solemnities of this Act, was rather ad honorem Sacerdotii, quam essentiam operis, more for the honour of the Priesthood, than for the essence of the work. Nor did the laying on of the Presbyters hands confer upon the party that was ordained any power or order: but only testified their consent unto the business, and approbation of the man, according to the purpose and intent of the last of the two Canons before alledged. And for the first Canon, if you mark it well, it doth not say, that if there be no Presbyters in place, the Bishop should defer the Ordination till they came: but Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt, if any Presbyters were present at the doing of it, they should lay their hands upon his head, near the Bishops hands. So that however anciently, in the purest times, the Presbyters which were then present, both might and did impose hands with the Bishop, upon the man to be ordained; and so concurred in the performance of the outward Ceremony: yet the whole power of Ordination was vested in the person of the Bishop only, as to the essence of the work. And this appears yet further, by some passages in the Civil Laws, prescribed for the ordering of Ecclesiastical Ministers; by which, upon neglect or contempt thereof, the Presbyters were not obnoxious unto punishment that joyned with the Bishop, because they had no power to hinder what he meant to do. But the Bishop only, qui ordinat, or, qui ordinationem imponit, he in whom rested the authority, by laying on, or by withholding of his hands, either to frustrate or make good the action: he was accomptable unto the Laws, if he should transgress them: for which consult Novell. Constitut. 123.Cited by B. Bilson. c. 13. Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 23. [...]. Ca. 16. and Novell. Constitut. 6. And so it also stood in the Churches practice; as appeareth plainly by the degradations of Basilius, Eleu­sius, and Elpidius, three ancient Bishops, because that (amongst other things) they had advanced some men unto holy Orders, contrary to the Laws, and Ordinances of the Church: of which Elpidius was deposed on no other reason, but on that alone. Now had the Presbyters been agents in ordaining as well as the Bishop, and the im­posing of their hands so necessary, that the business could not be performed without them: there had been neither equity, nor reason in it, to let them scape Scot-free, and punish the poor Bishops only, for that in which the Presbyters were as much in fault.

Against all this, VII I meet with no Objection in Antiquity, but what hath casual­ly been encountred in the former passages. This present age doth yield one, and a great one too, which is the case of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas: who finding an aversness of the Bishops at the first, to give them Orders, unless they would desert the work of Reformation, which they had in hand, were fain to have recourse to Presbyters, for their Ordinations, in which estate they still continue. That thus it was,August. Con. in fine. appeareth by the Augustan Confession, the Authors and Abettors of the which [Page 229]complain, that the Bishop would admit none unto sacred Orders, Nisi jurent se pu­ram Evangelii Doctrinam nolle docere, except they would be sworn not to Preach the Gospel according to the grounds and Principles of their Reformation. For their parts they profes­sed, Non id agi ut dominatio excipiatur Episcopis, that they had no intention to deprive the Bishops of their Authority in the Church; but only that they might have liberty to Preach the Gospel, and be eased of some few Rites and Ceremonies, which could not be ob­served without grievous sin. This if it could not be obtained, and that a Schism did fol­low thereupon, it did concern the Bishops to look unto it, how they would make up their ac­count to Almighty God. So that the Bishops thus refusing to admit them into holy Orders, which was the publique ordinary Door of entrance into the Ministery of the Church; necessity compelled them at the last, to enter in by private ways, and im­pose hands on one another. In which particular the case of the Reformed Churches may not unfitly be resembled unto that of Scipio, as it is thus related in the story.Valer. Maxim, l. 3. c. 7. Upon some want of money for the furtherance of the necessary affairs of State, he demanded a supply from the common Treasury. But when the Quaestor, pretending that it was against the Laws, refused to open it; himself a private person, seised upon the Keys: Et patefacto aerario, legem necessitati cedere coegit, and made the Law give way to the necessities of the Commonwealth. So in like manner, the better to re­form Religion, many good men made suit to be supplyed out of the common Trea­suries of the Church; to be admitted to the Ministery, according to the common course of Ordination. Which when it was denyed them by the Bishops, the Churches Quaestors in this case, they rather chose to seise upon the Keys; and receive Ordination from the hands of private persons, than that the Church should be un­furnished. This I conceive to be the Case, at the first beginning. But whether with the change of their condition, the case be altered, or whether they continue in the state they were; I am not able to say any thing. It is a good old saying, and to that I keep me; [...], that where I am a stranger, I must be no medler.

Hitherto of the power of Ordination committed by Saint Paul to his two Bishops of Ephesus and Crete, and in them to all other Bishops whatsoever. VIII We must next look upon the power of Jurisdiction, and that consists in these particulars: First, in the ordering of Gods Service, and the Administration of his Sacraments. Second­ly, in the preaching of his Word, censuring those that broach strange Doctrines; and on the other side encouraging and rewarding such as are laborious in their Calling: and lastly, in correction of the manners of such as walk unworthy of the Gospel of Christ, whether of the Clergy, or the Laity. To these three Heads, we may reduce the several points and branches of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; so far forth as the same hath been committed by the Word of God, and by the practice of the Church, unto the managing and care of Bishops. First for the ordering of Gods Service, and all things thereunto pertaining, Saint Paul gave Timothy this Direction, that first of all, 1 Tim. 2.1. Supplications, Prayers, Intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men: for Kings, and all that be in authority, that men may lead a quiet and a peaceable life, in all godli­ness and honesty. This, as it was a common Duty, and appertaining unto every man in his several place: so the Apostle leaves it unto Timothy, to see that men performed this Duty, and were not suffered to neglect it. For that the Prayers here intended, were not the private Prayers of particular persons, but the publique of the Congre­gation, is agreed on all sides. Calvin conceives it so for the Protestant Writers, Paulus simpliciter jubet quoties orationes publicae habentur, Calvin in 1. ad Tim. c. 2. that Paul doth here appoint what he would have to be comprized in our publique Prayers. Estius, for the Ponti­ficians, doth resolve so also,Estius in 1 ad Tim. c. 2. that the place must be understood de publicis Ecclesiae pre­cibus, of the publique Prayers, of and in the Congregation. And that the Western Churches may not stand alone, Theophylact, and Oecumenius do expound the words,Theophyl. & Oc­cum. in locum. [...], of the daily Service used in the Church of God, who also call it [...], the first Christian Duty. Now ask of Chrysostom, Chrysost. in 1 ad Tim. c. 2. to whom it doth belong to see this Duty carefully discharged as it ought to be; and he will tell you 'tis the Priest, or [...], as he which is the common Father of the Universe, and therefore to take care of all, as doth the Lord, whose Priest, or [...] he is. And ask of Oecumenius; Oecum. Ibid. than whom none better un­derstood that Fathers Writings, whom he doth there mean by the Priest, or [...], and he will tell you that it is the Bishop. [...], &c. It doth, saith he, belong unto the Bishop, as the common Father, to make Prayers for all men, [Page 230]faithful and infidels, friends and enemies, persecuters and slanderers. Lyra speaks home and fully to this purpose also. For this he makes to be secundus actus ad Episcopum per­tinens, the second Act belonging to the Bishops Office, that Prayers be offered unto God.

The Ministration of the Sacraments, IX being a principal part of Gods publique service, and comprehending Prayers and Supplications, and giving of thanks, must be looked on next. And this we find to be committed principally to the Bishops care, and by their hands to such inferiour Ministers in the Church of God, as they thought fit to trust with so great a charge.Mat. 28.19. Luk. 22.19. To teach and to Baptize, was given in the charge to the Apostles; and unto none but they did Christ say, hoc facite, that they should take the bread and break, and bless it, and so deliver it to the Communicants. So also in the blessing and distributing of the other element. This power they left in general to their Successors, to the Bishops chiefly, and such as were found worthy of so high a trust,Ep. ad Smyr­nens. by their permission. Ignatius, who lived nearest to our Saviours time, and had been conversant with the Apostles, doth expresly say it. [...], &c. It is not lawful without the Bishop, ei­ther to Baptize, or make Oblations, or celebrate the Eucharist, or finally to keep the Love-feasts, or [...], which were then in use (for those I take it were the [...], which the Father speaks of.Tertul. de Bap­tismo. c. 17.) Tertullian for the second Century doth affirm as much. The right, saith he, of giving Baptism, belongs to the chief Priest, that is, the Bishop; next to the Presbyters or Deacons, non tamen sine authoritate Episcopi, yet not without the Bishops Licence or Authority.Concil. Laodic. Can. 57. [...]. In the third Century, the Councel held in Laodicea is as plain and full, save that indeed it is more general, in which the Presbyter is tyed from doing any thing (i. e. such things as appertain to his ministration) [...]. without the knowledge of his Bishop.Hieron. adv. Luciferian. Saint Hierom finally, no great advancer of the Episcopal authority and jurisdiction, having considered of it better, doth conclude at last, that if the Bishop had not a preheminence in the Church of God, there would be presently almost as many Schisms as Priests. And hence it is, saith he, Ʋt sine Episcopi missione neque Presbyter, neque Diaconus jus habeat baptizandi, that without lawful mission from the Bishop, neither the Presbyter nor Deacons might Baptize. Not that I think there was required in Hieroms time, a special Licence from the Bishop, for every ministerial act that men in either of those Orders were to exe­cute, but that they had no more interest therein, than what was specially given them by, and from the Bishop, in their Ordination.

As for the Act of Preaching, X which was at first discharged by the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, according to the gifts that God had given them for the performance of the same; when as the Church began to settle, it was conferred by the Apostles on the several Presbyters by themselves ordained, as doth appear by Saint Pauls exhorta­tion to the Presbyters,2 Tim. 4.5. which he called from Ephesus unto Miletum. To this as Timothy had been used before, doing the work of an Evangelist; so he was still required to ply it, being called unto the Office of a Bishop. Saint Paul conjuring him before God and Christ, that notwithstanding the diversions which might happen to him by reason of his Episcopal place and jurisdiction,2. Tim. 4.2. he should Preach the Word, and not to Preach it only in his own particular,2 Tim. 2.15. shewing himself a Workman that needed not to be ashamed, di­viding the word of truth aright: But seeing that others also did the like, according to the trust reposed in them; whether they had been formerly ordained by the Apostles, or might be by himself ordained in times succeeding. Those that discharge this duty both with care and conscience,1 Tim. 5.17. guiding and governing that portion of the Church a­right, wherewith they are intrusted, and diligently labouring in the word and doctrine, by the Apostle are accounted worthy of double honour. Which questionless S. Paul had never represented unto Timothy, but that it did belong unto him, as a part of his Episcopal power and Office to see that men so painful in their calling, and so discreet in point of government, should be rewarded and encouraged accordingly. By honour in this place, the Apostle doth not only mean respect and reverence, but support and maintenance, as appears plainly by that which is alledged from holy Scripture, viz. Thou shalt not muzzle the Oxe that treadeth out the Corn: And, the Labourer is worthy of his hi [...]e. Chrysost. hom. 15. in 1 Tim. 5. Ambros. in lo­cum. Calvin in 1 ad. Tim. c. 5. Chrysostom so expounds the word, [...], By honour here is meant both reverence and a supply of all things necessary; with whom agree the Commentaries which pass under the name of Ambrose. Calvin affirms the like for our modern Writers. Victum praecipue suppeditari jubet Pastoribus qui docendo sunt occupati; Paul here commandeth that necessary main­tenance [Page 231]be allowed the Pastor, who laboureth in the Word and Doctrin: And hereto Beza agreeth also in his Annotations on the place. Now we know well that in those times wherein Paul wrote to Timothy, and a long time after, the dispensation of the Churches Treasury was for the most part in the Bishop, and at his appointment. For, as in the beginnings of the Gospel, the Faithful sold their Lands and Goods,Act. 4. v. ult. and laid the money at the Apostles feet, by them to be distributed as the necessities of the Church required: So in succeeding times, all the Oblations of the faithful were returned in un­to the Bishop of the place, and by him disposed of. We need not stand on many Au­thors in so clear a business. Zonaras telling plainly, that at the first, the Bishop had the absolute and sole disposing of the revenues of the Church; [...],Zonaras in Concil. Chalce­d [...]n. Ca. 26. no man whoever, being privy to their doings in it. And that they did accordingly dis­pose thereof, to every man according to his parts and industry, doth appear by Cy­prian, where he informeth us, that he having advanced Celerinus, a Confessor of great renoun amongst that people, and no less eminent indeed for his parts and piety, unto the office of a Reader, he had allotted unto him,Cypr. Ep. 34. vel l. 4. ep. 5. and to Aurelius (one of equal vertue) then a Reader also, Ʋt sportulis iisdem cum Presbyteris honorentur, that they should have an equal share in the distribution with the Priests or Presbyters.

But many times so fell out, that those to whom the Ministry of the word was trusted, XI Preached other doctrin to the People than that which had been taught by the Apostles,1 Tim. 1.3. Tit. 1.10, 11. Vain talkers and deceivers, which subverted whole houses, teaching things they should not, and that for filthy lucres sake. What must the Bishop do to them? He must first charge them not to Preach such doctrins, which rather minister questions than godly edifying: 1 Tim. 1.4. And if they will not hearken to, nor obey this charge, [...],Tit. 1.9. he must stop their mouths, let them be silenced in plain English. The silencing of such Ministers as de­ceive the People, and Preach such things they should not, even for lucres sake, to the subverting of whole Families, is no new matter, as we see in the Church of God. Saint Paul here gives it as in charge to Titus, and to all Bishops in his person. Certain I am that Chrysostom doth so expound it. If thou prevailest not, saith he, by admoni­tions,Chrysost. tom. 2. n. Tit. 1. be not afraid, [...], silentium iis impone, the Translator reads it, but silence them that others may the better be preserved by it. Hierom doth so translate it also, quibus oportet silentium indici, such men must be commanded silence.Hieron. in Can. Tit. And for the charge of Paul to Timothy, that he should charge those false Apostles which he speaks of not to Preach strange doctrines; it carries with it an Authority that must be exercised. For this cause I required thee to abide at Ephesus, [...], not that thou shouldst intreat, but command such men to Preach no other doctrines than they had from me. Theophylact on those words,Theophyl. in 1. ad Tim. c. 1. puts the question thus, in the words of Chrysostom, [...] it may be asked, saith he, whether that Timothy were then Bishop when Paul wrote this to him. To which he answereth of himself, [...], that it is most probable; giving this reason of the same, because he is to charge those men not to teach other doctrines.Oecumen. in lo­cum. Oecumenius is more positive in the point, and affirms expresly on these words, that Paul had made him Bishop there, before that time. And Lyra, if he may be heard,Lyra in 1 Tim. c. 1. make this ge­neral use of the Apostles exhortation, that the first Act here recommended to a Bishop, is falsae doctrinae extirpatio, the extirpation of false doctrine.

This part of jurisdiction, with those that follow, I shall declare only, XII but not ex­emplifie. For being matters meerly practical, and the proceedings on Record, they will occur hereafter, as occasion is, in this following History. And that which fol­loweth first, is very near of kin indeed unto that before. For many times it happen­eth so, that howsoever men be charged not to teach strange doctrins, and that their mouths be stopped, and they put to silence; yet they will persevere however in their wicked courses, and obstinately continue in the same, until at last their obstinacy ends in heresie. What course is to be taken upon such occasions? The Apostle hath re­solved that also. A man that is an Heretick, saith he, after the first and second admoni­tion, Tit. 3.10. is to be rejected. Rejected? but by whom? why by Titus surely. The words are spoken unto him in the second person, and such as did possess the same place and office. Hanc sive admonitionem, sive correptionem, intellige ab Episcopo faciendam, Estius in Ep. ad Tit. c. 3. &c. ‘This [...], which Saint Paul here speaks of, whether that it be meant of gentle admonition, or severe reproof, must be done only by the Bishop, and that not as a private person, but as the governour of the Church, and that both with authority and power, by which he also may denounce him excommunicate, if he amend not on the same.’ So Estius, in his Comment on the place; and herewith Calvin doth accord, [Page 232] Tito scribens Paulus, Calvin. in Ti­tum. c. 3. non disserit de Officio magistratus, sed quid Episcopo conveniat. Paul, saith he, writing unto Titus, disputes not of the Office of the civil Magistrate, but of the duty of a Bishop. And this in answer unto some, who had collected from these words of the Apostle, that Hereticks were to be encountred with no sharper weapon than that of Excommunication, nec esse ultra in eos saeviendum, and that there was no other course to be taken with them. In which these Moderns say no more, as to the exer­cise and discharge of the Episcopal function in this case,Hieron. ad Ri­parium, adv. Vigilant. a. than what the Ancients said before. I marvail, saith Saint Hierom, speaking of Vigilantius, a broacher of strange (or other) Doctrins in the Church of Christ, that the Bishop in whose Diocess he is said to be a Presbyter, hath so long given way to his impiety: Et non virgâ Apostolica, virgáque ferreâ confringere vas inutile; and that he hath not rather broke in pieces with the Apostolick rod, a rod of iron, this so unprofitable a Vessel. In which as the good Father manifests his own zeal and fervour; so he declareth therewithal, what was the Bishops power and office in the present business.

The last part of Episcopal jurisdiction which we have to speak of, XIII is the correction of ill manners, whether in the Presbyters or in the People; concerning which the A­postle gives both power to Timothy, 1 Tim. 5.19, 20. and command to use it. First, for the Presbyters, Against an Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three Witnesses; but if they be convicted, them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. In the declaring of which power, I take for granted that the Apostle here by Elder, doth mean a Presbyter, according to the Ecclesiastical notion of that word;Hom. 15. in 1 Tim. in locum. though I know that Chrysostom, and after him Theophylact and Oecumenius, do take it only for a man well grown in years. And then the meaning of Saint Paul will be briefly this, that partly in regard of the Devils malice, apt to calumniate men of that holy function; and partly to a­void the scandal which may thence arise, Timothy, and in him all other Bishops should be very cautious in their proceedings against men of that profession. But if they find them guilty, on examination, then not to smother or conceal the matter, but censure and rebuke them openly, that others may take heed of the like offences. The Com­mentaries under the name of Ambrose, Amb. in 1. ad Tim. c. 5. do expound it so, Quoniam non facile credi debet de Presbytero crimen, &c. Because a crime or accusation is not rashly to be credited a­gainst a Presbyter; yet if the same prove manifest and undeniable, Saint Paul com­mandeth that in regard of his irregular conversation, he be rebuked and censured pub­likely, that others may be thereby terrified: And this, saith he, non solum ordinatis sed & plebi proficit, will not be only profitable unto men in Orders, but to Lay people also. Herewith agreeth, as to the making of these Elders to be men in Orders, the Com­ment upon this Epistle,Hier. in Ep. 1. ad Tim. ascribed to Hierom: Presbyters then are subject unto censure; but to whose censure are they subject? Not unto one anothers surely, that would breed confusion; but to the censure of their Bishop, [...], saith Epiphanius; Epipha. haer. 75. n. 5. Theoph. in 1. ad Tim. c. 5. he speaks to Timothy, being a Bishop, not to receive an accusation against a Presbyter: Theophylact also saith the same. For having told us, that if a Presbyter upon examination of the business be found delinquent, he must be sharply and severely censured, that others may be terrified thereby; he adds, [...], that it becomes a Bishop (in such cases) to be stern and awful.Lyra in eund. locum. Lyra ob­serves the like in his Gloss or Postils, viz. that the proceedings against inferiour Clergy­men, in foro exteriori, in a judiciary way, is a peculiar of the Bishops. But what need more be said than that of Beza, Beza Annot. in 1. ad Tim. 5. who noteth on these very words, that Timothy, to whom this power or charge was given, was President or [...], at that time of the Ephesian Clergy: Which is a plain acknowledgment, in my opinion, that the cor­rection of the Clergy by the law of God, doth appertain unto the Bishop, the [...], or President of the Presbytery, call him what you will. For what need we contend for words, when we have the matter? And this appeareth by the several Councils of Nice and Antioch, Sardica, Turin, Africa and Sevil; in all and every of the which, the censure and proceedings against a Presbyter, are left to their own Bishops severally; but a course taken therewithal for their ease and remedy, in case their own Bishops should proceed against them out of heat or passion.

For the Lay-people next, XIV that Paul gave Timothy a power of correcting them, ap­pears by the instructions which he gives him for the discharge of this authority towards all sorts of People, whether that they be old or young, of what sex soever. Old men, if they offend, must be handled gently, respect being had unto their years. Rebuke not an Elder, 1 Tim. 5. Hom. 13. in 1 ad Tim. but entreat him as a Father: i. e. saith Chryfostom, take him not up with harshness and severity, but do it with such temperance and meekness as thou wouldest [Page 233]do unto thy Father, if he gave offence. His reason is, because it is an irksome thing unto good persons to be reprehended, [...] especially by one younger than themselves, as then Timothy was. The like regard was to be had to old Women also, for the self-same reason. As for the younger men, they were to be rebuked as Brethren, with greater freedom than before, but still with lenity. [...], the sawce of reprehension must be sweet, though the meat be sowre. Nor was this power committed only unto Timothy, but in him to all other Bishops, of all times and places, [...], so saith Oecumenius. Oecumen. in 1. ad Tim. c. 5. Beza de triplic [...] Episcop. The function of a Bishop was not instituted in the Church of God, quasi Clero impositus inspector, as Beza hath it; that he might oversee the Clergy only, but for the well ordering and governance of all Gods People. Episcopi Graece, speculatores Latinè dicuntur, populi respectu, He that is called a Bishop in the Greek, Is [...]dor. Etymol. l. 7. c. 12. saith Isidore, is called an Overseer in the Latine, and that in reference to the People. And then he gives this reason of it, quod speculetur & prospiciat populorum infra se positorum mores & vitam, because he overseeth the lives and conversation of the People which are under him. The like saith Austin, as to the reason of the name,Aug. de Civ. Deil. l. 19. c. 19. Pater. in Psal. 106. and the intent of their preheminency; the like Paterius on the Psalms, and thither I refer the Reader. As for the execution of this power, how, and by whom the same was exercised, being a matter meerly practical, we shall encounter it hereafter, as occasion is, in the success and prosecution of this story. Only take this of Austin for a taste or relish, where say­ing that there is no greater punishment in the Church than that condemnation,Aug. de Cor­rep. & Grat. c. 16. quam Episcopale judicium facit, which is pronounced by the Bishop: He adds, that notwith­standing this, necessitas pastoralis habet separare ab ovibus sanis morbidam, the Pastor must needs separate the scabby and infected Sheep from the sound and healthy, lest the whole Flock be made obnoxious to so great a danger. What interest or concurrent jurisdiction the Presbyters did either challenge or enjoy in these publick censures, we shall see hereafter. But sure, for ought appears to me, S. Paul addresseth his discourse to the Bishop only; who if, in the succeeding Ages he used the Counsel and assistance of his Presbyters, in the affairs and weightier matters of the Church; he did but as a wary and wise man would on the like occasions.

I would here offer, if I might, some conjectural proofs, XV that the description of a Bishop in the first of Timothy, is of a Bishop truly and properly so called, according as the word was used and appropriated by the Ancient Writers. I know the general current of Interpreters is against me in it, by whom the word Episcopus is said to signifie in that place, as well the Presbyter as the Bishop. Which I conceive they do upon this reason chiefly, because Saint Paul having prescribed the qualities which are required in a Bishop, passeth directly on to the description of a Deacon. But if we look upon it well, I doubt not but we shall perceive some reasons which may incline unto the con­trary. For first, Saint Paul speaks of a Bishop in the singular number,1 Tim. 3.2. but of infe­riour Ministers in the plural. One Church, or City, though it had many Presbyters, had one Bishop only: And therefore we may reasonably conceive, that the Apostle speaking of a Bishop in the singular number, speaks of him in his proper and true ca­pacity, as one distinguished from, and above the Presbyters. Secondly, the Apostle seemeth to require in him an Act of Government, as being a man, that is,1 Tim. 3.5. to take a care of the Church of God; and thereupon gives order for an Inquisition to be had upon him, whether he hath ruled his own house well. Chrysostom hereupon observes that the Church is likened to an House or Family, wherein there is a Wife and Children, Men-servants and Maid-servants, [...], all which are subject to the government of the Husband, who is the Father of the Family. So is it in the Church, saith he, the [...] or Governour whereof is to take care for Wi­dows, Virgins. all Gods Sons and Servants. A care of too transcendent and sublime a nature, to be entrusted unto every common Presbyter, or discharged by him; who as our Hooker well observeth, though he be somewhat better able to speak,In the Preface. is as little to judge, as another man; and if not fit to judge, no fit man to govern. Thirdly,1 Tim. 3.2. Saint Paul requireth in a Bishop, that he be given to Hospitality, i. e. that he receive the Stranger, entertain the Native, and in a word, admit all comers.Hier. in Tit. c. 1. Hierom doth so expound it, saying, that if a Lay-man entertain but two or three, hospitalitatis officium implebit, he hath exceeding well complied with all the rules of hospitality: Episcopus nisi omnes receperit, inhumanus est; but that the Bishop is accounted a Churl or Nig­gard, if his House be not open unto all. Which howsoever it might possibly agree in those ancient times, to the condition of a Bishop, who had the keeping and disposing [Page 234]of the Churches treasures: yet I can see no possibility how it could be expected from the Presbyter, that out of his poor pittance from the Sportula, he should be able to perform it. For I believe not that the Lord intended to work miracles daily, as in the lengthning and increasing the poor womans oil. Fourthly and lastly, it is required by Saint Paul, 1 Tim. 3.6. Chrysost. & Theophyl. in loc. that his Bishop must not be [...], a Novice as our English reads it, and exceeding rightly; that is, as Chrysostom, and out of him Theophylact expound the word, [...], one newly Catechised as it were, lately instructed in the faith. Now who knoweth not, but that in the beginnings of the Church, some of these new plants, these [...], must of necessity be taken into holy Orders, for the increase and propagation of the Gospel. The Presbyters were many, but the Bishops few. And therefore however there might be found sufficient Standards, upon the which to graft a Bishop; yet I can hardly find a possibility of furnishing the Garden of the Church with a fit number of Presbyters, unless we take them from the Nursery. Hence I col­lect, that this description of a Bishop in S. Paul to Timothy, is of a Bishop truly and pro­perly so called, and that it doth not also include the Presbyter. If then it be demanded whether S. Paul hath utterly omitted to speak of Presbyters, I answer, no; but that we have them in the next Paragraph, Diaconos similiter; which word howsoever in our last translation, it be rendred Deacons: Yet in our old translation, and in that of Coverdale, we read it Ministers, according to the general and native meaning of the word:Calv. in 1. ad Tim. c. 3. v. 8. An Exposition neither new, nor forced. Not new, for Calvin doth acknow­ledge, alios ad Presbyteros referre Episcopo inferiores, that some referred those words to Presbyters, subordinate or inferior to the Bishop. Not forced, for if we search the Scripture, we shall there perceive that generally Diaconus is rendred Minister; and that not only in the Gospels, before that Deacons had been instituted in the Church of God, but also in S. Pauls Epistles, after the planting of the Church, when all the Officers therein had their bounds and limits. Thus the Apostle speaking of himself, and of Apollos, 1 Cor. 3.5. faith that they were [...], the Ministers by whom that People did believe; himself he calleth, [...], a Mini­ster of the New Testament, 2 Cor. 3.6. [...], a Minister of God, 2 Cor. 6.4. [...], a Minister of the Gospel, Eph. 3.7. Coloss. 1.23. Thus Tychicus is called, [...], a faithful Minister, Ephes. 6.26. and again, Coloss. 4.7. and so is Epaphras entituled, Coloss. 1.7. Thus Timothy is called [...], 1 Thes. 3.2. [...], a good Minister, in this very Epistle; and finally is required in the next to this,2 Tim. 4.5. not only to do the work of an Evangelist, but [...], to fulfil his Ministery. Hence I infer, that since Diaconus is a word of so large extent, as to include Apostles, Prophets, and Evan­gelists, I see no inconvenience that can follow on it, if it include the office of the Presbyter or Elder also: And let the Bishop have the former Character to himself alone, to whom of right it doth belong. But this I only offer to consideration, as my private thoughts; not being so far wedded to mine own opinions, but that on better reasons I may be divorced, when ever they are laid before me.

CHAP. VI. Of the Estate of holy Church, particularly of the Asian Churches, to­ward the latter days of S. John the Apoistle.

  • 1. The time of S. John's coming into Asia.
  • 2. All the Seven Churches, except Ephesus, of his Plantation.
  • 3. That the Angels of those Churches were the Bishops of them, in the opinion of the Fathers.
  • 4. And of some Protestant Divines of name and eminence.
  • 5. Conclusive reasons for the same.
  • 6. Who most like to be the Angel of the Church of Ephesus.
  • 7. That Polycarpus was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna.
  • 8. Touching the Angel of the Church of Per­gamus, and of Thyatira.
  • 9. As also of the Churches of Sardis, Phila­delphia, and Laodicea.
  • 10. What Successors these several Angels had in the several Churches.
  • 11. Of other Churches founded in Episcopacy, by S. John the Apostle.
  • 12. S. John deceasing, left the government of the Church to Bishops, as to the Successors of the Apostles.
  • 13. The ordinary Pastors of the Church.
  • 14. And the Vicars of Christ.
  • 15. A brief view of the estate of holy Church in this first Century.

WE now proceed unto Saint John, and to the Churches of his time, those most especially which he did either plant or water: who living till the end of this present Century, and being the last Surviver of that Glorious company of the Apostles, could not but see the Church of Christ in her fullest growth, in her perfection, both for strength and beauty. Of this Apostle we find not any thing in Scripture, from his descent unto Samaria, when he accompanied Saint Peter thither,Acts 8.14. by the ap­pointment of the residue of that goodly fellowship, until the writing of the Revela­tion. The intervening passages of his life and preaching, we must make up out of such fragments of Antiquity, and records of Story, as are come safe unto our hands. Where first I must needs disallow the conceit of those, who carry him I know not how to Ephesus, making him an inhabitant there, and taking with him to that place, the Mother of our Lord and Saviour: which must needs be, if ever it had been at all, about the 44. year after Christs Nativity, that being the time wherein the Apostles and Disciples were dispersed abroad, upon the persecution raised by Herod. Acts 12.1, &c. But that it was not then, nor a long time after, will appear by this, that when Paul came to preach and reside at Ephesus, which was in Anno 55. above ten years after, there was so little knowledg of the faith of Christ, that they had not so much as heard there was any Holy Ghost; being baptized only, as themselves confessed, unto John's baptism. Acts 19.2, 3. A thing which could not possibly be supposed, without a great deal of reproach and ignominy to this blessed Apostle, had he been here a resiant, as by some reported. And after this, though we are well assured of his being here, yet then he could not have in houshold with him the blessed Mother of our Lord; who died, in their account that put it off until the latest, Anno 48. seven years before the coming of Saint Paul to Ephesus. And therefore I agree rather unto Epiphanius, as to the main and matter of his Negative, though not as to the reason of it. For where he tells us, that when JOHN went down to Asia, [...],Epiphan. haeres. 78. n. 11. he took not the blessed Virgin with him; I hold it to be absolutely true, past contradi­ction. But where he buildeth his negation upon an [...] the silence of the Scripture in it; I hold that reason to be insufficient: there being many things of un­doubted verity, whereof there is no mention in the Holy Scripture. And I agree too unto Epiphanius, where he tells us this,Epiph. ibid. n. 2. that Saint John's coming into Asia was [...] when he began to be in years; the Holy Ghost then calling of him thither, as well to propagate the Gospel where it was not preached; as to con­firm it where it had been shaken by the force of Heresie. Into what parts the Spirit did before command him, it is hard to say. Some likelyhood there is.Acts 2.9. Possidius in Judic. operum August. that he did preach the Gospel amongst the Parthians, (some of which Nation had been present at Hierusalem at the first giving of the Holy Ghost) his first Epistle being inscribed, ad Parthos, as some Antients say.

But that he came at last to Asia, and there preached the Gospel, is a thing past que­stion. II Eusebius, out of Origen, doth expresly say it.August. qu. E­vang. l. 2. chap. 39. Eccl. Histor. l. 3. cap. 1. And though that piece of Origen be lost out of which Eusebius took the same; yet we may take it on his word without more authority. Nor did he only preach the Gospel in those parts of Asia, strictly and properly so called; but he also planted many Churches, and founded in them many Bishopricks. All the seven Churches, except that of Ephesus, to which he writ his Revelation, were partly, if not totally his foundation: and in all them he constituted Bishops, as we shall manifest and declare anon. And as for Ephesus, although he came too late to plant it, yet he came time enough to water it; to settle and confirm the same: being much weakned and endangered by the sorceries and devices of Apollo­nius Tyanaeus, who for some time did therein dwell; as also by the Heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus, who at that time lived, and therefore rightly doth Ignatius, who then lived also, joyn him with Paul and Timothy, as a Co-founder of that Church.Ignat. Epist. ad Ephes. p. 22 [...]. Edit. Vedelian. But being in the middle of his course, he was sent prisoner unto Rome, Anno 92. thence confined to Patmos, where he continued till the death of the Emperour Domitian, which was in Anno 99. during which time he writ the Revelation. And of those Churches I conceive it was that Tertullian speaketh, where pleading in defence of the Catholick Faith, delivered by the Apostles, to the Churches by them severally plant­ed, and by the Bishops of those Churches taught, and in their successions: he thus brings them in, "Habemus & Johannis alumnas Ecclesias, &c. We have, saith he,Tertul. lib. 4. contra Marci. cap. 5. the Churches founded by Saint John. For howsoever Marcion doth reject his Revelation, Or­do tamen Episcoporum, yet the succession of their Bishops reckoned up unto their original, will stand for John to be their founder. And probable at their request it was, that [Page 236]he writ his Gospel.Hier. descrip Fcc. in Johan. & prooem. in E­vang. 8. Matth. For that he writ it at the intreaty of the Asian Bishops, Roga­tus ab Asiae Episcopis, is positively affirmed by Hierom: though like enough it is, that other Bishops besides those of his own foundation, might contribute their requests, and importunities to so good a purpose, being all equally afflicted with the pest of Heresies.

The quality and condition of these Asian Churches, III Saint John doth punctually describe in his Revelation, written in Anno 97. when as he had been four or five years confined to Patmos. It seemeth those Churches, most of them at the least, on the calami­ty which befel the Apostle in his deportation, being deprived of the benefit of so Divine and excellent a Spirit, and pressed by the importunity of these active Hereticks, willing to make the best advantage of the present time, began to stagger in the faith, wax cold in their affection to the Gospel, and to give way to such false Teachers as were crept in amongst them, to rectify what was amiss amongst them, and to inform them of their er­rours did he direct unto them his Apocalypse, Apoc. 1.4. To the seven Churches in Asia; so it doth begin. But when he comes unto particulars, to give them every one their particular charge, from him who walked in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks; then he addresseth his discourse to the Angels only,Apoc. 2.1. Cap. 8.12. the Angels of those several Churches. Unto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus; and to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna; and to the Angel of the Church of Pergamus; & sic de caeteris. Now ask the Fathers what those Angels were, and they will tell you that they were the Bishops of those several Churches. Saint Austin writing on these words, Ʋnto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, &c. makes this observation,August. Ep. 162. in fine. Divina voce sub Angeli nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae, that the Bishop or Governour of the Church, (remember what was said before of the word Praepositus) is praised by the voice of Christ,Vid. chap. 3. n. 5. under the name of an Angel: But first he gives a reason of his resolution, shewing that this Expostulation could not be applyed to those Ministring spirits in the Heavens, because they still retained their first Love to God; and therefore must be understood, de praepositis Ecclesiae, of the Rulers or Governours of the Church, who had given way to false Apostles. The like occurreth in his Comment on the Revelation, wherein he maketh the Angels of these Churches, to be Episcopi aut praepositi Ecclesiarum, the Bishops or Rulers of the same. The Commentaries under the name of Ambrose, pointing unto this place of the Apocalypse, Amb. in 1 Cor. cap. 11. give us this short note, Angelos Episcopos dicit, that by Angels there he meaneth Bishops. And these ascribed to Hierom, writing on those words, Because of the Angels, Hier. ib. 1 Cor. 11. observes the same, Angelos ecclesiis presidentes dicit, that there by Angels Saint Paul intends the Presidents or Rulers of the Churches. Final­ly, Oecumenius saith the same,Oecumen. ca. 1. in Apoca. who speaking of the seven Churches in Asia, to whom Saint John addresseth his Discourses, observe, that John ascribes to them, [...], an equal or proportionable number of governing Angels. And on those words,Id. cap. 2. in Apocal. the seven stars are the Angels of the seven Churches, makes this gloss or Comment, [...], that he cal­leth these Angels, governours of Churches by the name of stars, because they borrow all their light from the Sun of Righteousness.

For Protestant Writers which affirm the same, IV I begin with those which speak most generally and indefinitely:Citat. apud Marlorat. in cap. [...]. Apoca. v. 20. Bullin. con. 6. in Apocal. Id. in con. 9. where first we have Sebastian Meyer; Ecclesiarum Prae­fecti, & stellae & Angeli, in sacris literis dicuntur; the Governours of Churches are called, saith he, in holy Scripture, by the name of Stars, and Angels. Bullenger to the same effect, Angeli sunt legati Dei, Pastores Ecclesiarum, the Angels are the Messengers of God, the Pastors of the Churches; in which, lest possibly we might mistake his meaning, in the word Pastor, he tells us not long after, that he means the Bishop, for speaking of the Angel, or the Pastor of the Church of Smyrna, he tells us that he was that Polycarpus, as it was indeed, Ordinatus ab Apostolis, ab ipso inquam Johanne Epi­scopus, who was ordained Bishop of that Church by the Apostles, nay by John him­self. Paraeus is as general as the other two, but far more express. Episcopos vocat stel­las, &c.Paraeus in Apo­cal. cap. 1. v. 20. The Bishops are called Stars, saith he, because they ought to out-shine others, aswell in purity of Doctrine, as sincerity of Conversation in the Church of God: eosdem Angelos vocat, quia sunt Legati Dei ad Ecclesiam, and they are also called Angels, because they are the Legats or Embassadours of God to his holy Church. And lest we should mistake our selves, and him, in the word Episcopus, he laboureth to find out the Bishop of each several Church, as we shall see hereafter in that inquisition: for those who speak to the particular,Beza Annot. Apoc. c. 2.1. we begin with Beza, who on those words, un­to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, gives this Annotation. Angelo, i. e. [...], [Page 237] quem nimirum oportuit imprimis de his rebus admoneri, &c. To the Angel, that is, saith he, to the chief President, whom it behoved to have the notice of the charge there given, and by him to the rest of his Colleagues, and the whole Congregation: but fearing lest this Exposition might give some advantage, for the upholding of the Hierarchie, which he so laboured to pull down, he adds, de proprio, that notwithstanding this acknowledgment, Episcopal authority, being a thing of mans invention, hinc statui, nec potest, nec debet, nor may, nor ought to have any ground from hence. Finally, Marlorat himself on those very words,Marlorat. Eccl. Exp [...]sit. in A­pocal. c. 2. v. 1. shews that however there were many things in the Church of Ephesus, which required Reformation, both in the Clergy and the people; Non tamen populum aggreditur, sed Clerum, yet the Apostle doth not apply himself un­to the people, but the Clergy. Nor doth he fashion his discourse to the Clergy gene­rally, Sed ad Principem Cleri, Episcopum utique, but to the chief or principal of the Clergy, which was the Bishop.

Nay, Marlorat goes further yet, and he as he layeth down his interpretation, V so he doth also give a reason of it; and such a one as may well satisfie any man of reason.Idem. Ibid. His reason is, Nam Pastor non modo pro propriis, &c. Because the Pastor is not only to ren­der an account to the supream Judg, for his own sins alone, but for the sins of all his flock, if any of them by his sloth or negligence do chance to perish. And certainly this reason is of special use and efficacy to the point in hand. For if the Lord do look for an ac­count at the Pastors hand, for every sheep that shall be lost by his sloth or negligence: it must needs follow thereupon, that those of whom so strict a reckoning is expected must not have power only to persuade and counsel, but also to correct and censure, and by their own proper and innate authority, to rectifie such things as are amiss in their several charges. The Son of God is neither so unjust, as that the Pastor should be charged with those enormities, which he hath no authority to amend or rectifie: nor so forgetful as to threaten and rebuke the Pastor, not only for the peoples faults, but the Errata of the Presbyters, in case he were not trusted with a greater power than any of the rest, for that end and purpose. Which being so, and that our Saviour by Saint John doth send out his summons neither unto the Church in general, nor to the Presbyters in common, but to the Angel of each Church in the singular number: it is most plain and evident, as I conceive, that in the time of writing the Apocalypse, as long time before it, the Church of Christ had certain Pastors, of more eminent note, when they (as we) intituled Bishops, which governed as well the Presbyters, as the rest of the Flock; and those the Son of God acknowledgeth for stars and Angels. And howsoever the inferiour Pastors both are, and may be cal­led Angels, in a general sense, as Messengers and Ministers of God Almighty: yet if it be the Angel in the singular number, the Angel in the way of eminence and [...], it is peculiar only to the Bishop.

Now that each Church of those remembred in that Book, had his proper Angel, VI and that they were not governed by a Corporation or Colledg of Presbyters, to whom those several Epistles might be sent, by the name of Angels, the word Angel being to be taken collectively, and not individually, as some men suppose, is in the next place to be shewed. And first for proof,Smectymn. p. 52. there is a pregnant evidence in a Discourse or Treatise touching the Martyrdom of Timothy: the Author of the which relates, that after Saint John the Apostle was revoked from his exile, by the sentence of Nerva,Apud Phot. in Biblioth. n. 254. he be­took himself to the Metropolis of Ephesus: [...], and being assisted with the presence of the seven Bishops, he took upon himself the government of the Metropolis of the Ephesians, and there continued preaching the Do­ctrine of salvation till the time of Trajan. Which as it is an evident and convincing proof, that the seven Churches had their several Bishops, to each Church one Bishop: so is it no such difficult matter, to find out most of them by name, and what Church each of them did govern. And first for Ephesus, Paraeum in A­pocal. cap. 2. some have conceived that Timothy was still alive, and Bishop at that time when the Apocalypse was written: which hot­ly is defended by Alcasar, against Ribera, Lyra, and Pererius, who opine the contrary. But surely Timothy it could not be, as doth appear in part by that which was alledged out of the Treatise of his Martyrdom, which if it were not written by Polycrates, is yet very antient, and authentick: wherein he is conceived to be dead before: but principally by the quality and condition of that blessed Evangelist, so plentifully en­dued with the Holy Ghost, so eminent in piety, and all heavenly graces, that no man can conceive him lyable to the accusation, with which the Angel of that Church is charged. And therefore it must either be that John, when (on the death of Timo­thy, [Page 238]as I conceive) Saint John ordained Bishop of this Church, as is reported in the Constitutions,Constitut. Apost. l. 7. c. 48. ascribed to Clemens: or else Onesimus, another of the Successors of Timothy in the See of Ephesus, who is intituled Bishop of it in the Epistle of Igna­tius, written to that Church; within twelve years after the writing of the Revelation. In which Epistle Ignatius blessing God for so good a Bishop,Igna. in Epist. ad Ephes. admonisheth the people of their duty, [...], in submitting themselves unto his judg­ment, or concurring with it, as their whole Presbytery did: which harmony of the Bishop and his Presbyters, he doth compare [...] unto the concord of the Strings and Harp. In which he speaks if you observe, as of a Bishop that had been long confirmed, and setled in his place of Government; and knew the temper of his people: one that was vested with a constant, and fixt preheminence above his Pres­byters, not with a temporary Presidency, and no more than so.

But whatsoever doubt or scruple may be made, VII about Onesimus, his being Bishop, or Angel at this time, of the Church of Ephesus; certain I am, there can be none pre­tended against Polycarpus, as if he were not then the Angel of the Church of Smyrna: he being made Bishop of that See 13 years before,Pullenger in A­pocal. Conc. 9. as Bullinger computes the time, and holding it a long while after, no less than 74 years, as the Annals reckon it, with­out vicissitude or alteration. Now that this Polycarpus was Bishop of this Church of Smyrna, appears by such a cloud of Witnesses, as he that questioneth it, may with equal reason,Ignat. Vpist. ad Polycarp. make doubt of yesterday. And first we have Ignatius Bishop of An­tioch, one of his Co-temporaries, who taking him in transitu, as he was led from Syria towards Rome to suffer Martyrdom, did after write to him an Epistle, in which he stileth him, in the superscription, [...], the Bishop of the Church of Smyrna. Irenaeus apud Euse. l. 4. c. 10. & con. haeres. l. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus, one of his Disciples, and who had often heard the good man discourse of his conversation with Saint John, reporteth that he was not only taught by the Apostles, and had conversed with many of those who had seen Christ in the flesh, [...]; but also was by them appointed Bishop of the Church in Smyrna. Next comes in the whole Church of Smyrna, Apud Euseb. Eccl. hist. l. 4. c. 15. in their Encyclical Epistle of his death, and Martyr­dom, where he is called an Apostolical and Prophetical Doctor, [...], and Bishop of the Catholick Church of Smyrna. After them speaks Polycrates, Ap. Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Bishop of Ephesus, one of the Successours of Onesimus, and so by consequence his Neighbour, who being 38 years of age at the time of the death of Polycarpus, attesteth to him, saying amongst other things, [...], that he had been both Bishop and Martyr in Smyrna. Tertal. lib. de praescript. Tertul­lian who lived about the same time with Polycrates, though in another Clime or Re­gion, is more particular in the point: not only making him Bishop of Smyrna, as the others do; but à Johanne collocatum refert, making him to be placed or establish­ed there by Saint John the Apostle.Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 30. From these hands, and no doubt from many others, it came at last to Eusebius, Bish. of Caesarea, by whom it is affirmed that he was made Bishop of the Church of Smyrna, [...], by those which had beheld the Lord, and were his Ministers. Saint Hierom finally doth inform us,De Scryptor. Eccl. in Poly­car. that he was a Disciple of Saint Johns, & ab eo Smyrnae Episcopus or­dinatus, and by him ordained Bishop of Smyrna. By which it is most clear and evi­dent that he was the Angel or Bishop of this Church, and thereto constituted by Saint John, other of the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord and Saviour, concurring in the Ordination, No titular or nominal Bishop only, but such a one as had a body of Presbyters assistant and subservient to him, as doth most evidently appear out of Ig­natius his Epistle unto those of Smyrna; Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrnen. wherein he telleth them, [...], &c. that they ought not to do any thing, no not so much as to administer the Sacrament, without the consent and approbation of their Bishop.

The Angel of the Church of Pergamus is next in order; VIII but who this was, is not so easie to determine. That there had been a Bishop of this Church before, is proved by Paraeus out of Aretas Caesariensis, Paraeus Com. in Apocal. c. 2. who makes Antipas (whom we find mentioned Apo­cal. 2.13.) to be the Pastor of this Church under the Empire of Domitian, who being cruelly put to death by the Pergamenians, successor ejus haud dubiè fuit iste, ad quem scribit, his successour, as there Paraeus doth observe, must out of question be the man, to whom as to the Angel of that Church, these things are written. And he informs us this withal, that similis supplicii metu, for fear of the like punishment which Antipas suffered, though he continued constant in the faith of Christ, he might grow more remiss and negligent in looking to his Pastoral Office. So then the Angel of this [Page 239]Church was Pergamensis Episcopus, the Bishop of Pergamus, as he plainly calls him;Id. in v. 14. and possibly may be that Gaius whom Clemens makes to be ordained Bishop of this Church by the hands of some of the Apostles. Or if not he, yet questionless some one particular person, as Paraeus saith: this we may rely upon, though his name we know not. Next is the Angel of the Church of Thyatira, Antistes Thyatirensis, that is,Id. in v. 18. the Bishop of Thyatira, saith Paraeus. That Thyatira had a Bishop, as other the seven Churches had, was affirmed before. And probably the Bishop of it at this time, might be that Carpus, who by the name of Carpus Bishop of Thyatira did suffer Martyrdom, during the persecution raised by Antoninus; whereof consult the Martyrologies,Apr. 13. Euseb. l. 4. c. 14. com­pared with Eusebius, lib. 4. However we may take what Paraeus gives us, that the Angel of this Church was the Bishop of it, one singular and individual Person, to whom our Saviour doth direct his charge; though there be somewhat in the Text which is alledged to the contrary. For whereas in the two former Epistles, and the be­ginning of the present, the stile is singular, I know thy works, Apoc. 2.2, 4, 9, 13, 14, 19, 20. and I have somewhat against thee, here on a suddain, as it were, the stile is altered, and it is Vobis autem dico, but I say to you, and unto the rest in Thyatira. Apoc. 2.24. Smectym. p. 53. Hence some infer, that by the word Angel in that place, is meant not any one singular person, but the whole company of Presbyters; and by the rest, the residue of that People there: the people governed, and the gover­nours in the plural number. But this as I conceive, will avail but little; these altera­tions or enallages of number being no rare matters in the Scripture, as doth appear by that so memorable place in the first of Timothy, Salvabitur autem si permanserint, 1 Tim. 2.15. where the Apostle doth begin in she, and end in they. Besides it is observed, that the anti­enter and better Copies read it without the copulative, [...],Apoc. 2.24. I say to you the rest in Thyatira; the spirit there addressing his discourse to those godly men that had not known the depths of Satan. And so, besides the antient Copy sent hither by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and cited by my L. B. of Exeter, Def. of the humble Re­monstr. p. 105. Primasius in Apoc. l. 1. c. 2. doth Primasius read it. Vobis autem dico, reliqui qui estis Thyatirae. Paraeus also doth observe, Veterem sine copula, that the old Latine hath not the conjunction; and that Andreas and Montanus do adhere to that. So that for all this observation, the Angel of this Church was a singular person. And this doth further yet appear (since we are fallen upon these Criti­cisms) by some antient readings of the 20. verse. For whereas now we read in our usual Copies, [...], the woman Jesebel, Cited in the Def. of the Remonstr. p. 105. the old Greek Copy from Constantinople, writ above 1300 years ago, doth read it [...], thy Wife Jesebel, and so doth that also of Aretas Caesariensis. And this doth seem to be the ancienter and the truer reading, as being followed by S. Cyprian and Primasius also;In Can. Apoc. Epistola 52. In Can. Apoc. Vindication &c. p. 140. in marg. (the first of which lived 1400 years agone) in whom we read uxorem tuam. And though I grant that the Original standing thus may be translated thy woman Jesebel, or that woman of thine Jesebel, as I perceive some men would have it; yet then it must be granted therewithal, that the Angel of this Church was one singular individual person, not a body collective. It could not otherwise be thine, but yours.

The fifth in order of these Angels, is he of Sardis, Ecclesiae Antistes, IX the Bishop of that Church, as Paraeus noteth; and he observes withal, veteres quosdam, Paraeus in A­pocal. c. 3. v. 1. that some ancient writers conceive that Melito, of whom Eusebius speaketh, lib. 4. cap. 26. was then the Bishop of this Church, and probably it might be so. For howsoever he ex­cepteth against this opinion, because that Melito was Bishop of this place under Anto­ninus, tamdiu vero Melitonem Sardibus praefuisse non est verisimile, and therefore that it is not likely that he should so long hold this Bishoprick; yet granting it in Polycarpus, tam­diu Smyrnensibus praefuisse, that he was Bishop of Smyrna for as long a time: I see no reason why the like may not be granted of the other also: As for his other reason, that Melito is commended for his sanctimony, and the Angel here accused for his Hypocrisie; it may well be, that though this Angel were accused of Hypocrisie, at the present time, yet having many good things in him, he might be brought unto a sense thereof, upon this admonition from our Lord and Saviour, and so become a careful and a painful Pastor. So that the ancient Writers, as Paraeus saith, reporting that this Angel was that Melito, may be believed, for ought I see unto the contrary, in that affirmation, and this I am the rather inclined to think,Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 25. because I find a tract of Melito's inscribed Onesimo Fratri, unto Onesimus his Brother, who was the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, as be­fore was said, which shews they lived together in one age or time. The Angel of the Church of Philadelphia, must be looked on next, whom some conceive to be Quadra­tus, a Scholar or Disciple of the Apostles, of whom Eusebius speaks, lib. 3. cap. 37.Paraeus in A­pocal. c. 3. But surely if Eusebius speaks of him at all, it is as Bishop of Athens, not of Philadelphia, [Page 238] [...] [Page 239] [...] [Page 238] [...] [Page 239] [...] [Page 240]unless perhaps we may conceive that being first Bishop of Philadelphia, he was translated afterwards to Athens, (Publius the Bishop being dead, whom he there succeeded) which I somewhat doubt. But whatsoever was his name, or whether he were that Demetrius, who as Clemens saith, was by S. Paul made Bishop of this place; I take him for the very man whom Ignatius speaks of in his Epistle to this People: where speaking of their Bishop, he tells them this, that at the very first sight of him he did plainly see, [...],Ignat. ad Phi­ladelphens. that neither of his own desire, nor by choice of man was he preferred unto that place, but by the love of Jesus Christ, and God the Father; commending him for modesty, and for a careful walking in Gods Command­ments, being like Zachary, without reproof; and finally, not only free from passion, but perfectly adorned with all kind of vertue. A commendation very well agreeing with that bestowed upon this Angel by the Holy Ghost; as did the Character of the Angel of the Church of Smyrna, agree unto the quality of Polycarpus, the then Bishop of it; it being generally observed, as it is most true, that only these two Angels are presented to us without fault or blemish. Last of all, for the Angel of the Church of Laodicea, Paraeus in A­pocal. cap. 3. Paraeus, as before conceiveth, that he was the Bishop; quis vero fuerit, nos latet; but who this Bishop was, that he cannot tell. Only he notes him for a man, qui Episcopi titulum perfunctoriè sustineret, that only had the name of Bishop, but not one lively spark of Piety, being wholly taken up with luxury and the love of money. But whether he were Lucius mentioned by S. Paul, Rom. 16. whom Dorotheus makes to be Bishop here; or one Archippus, said by Clemens to be the Bishop of this Church; or Sagaris, Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23. who by Polycrates is affirmed to be the Bishop of this place, I am not able to say positively: Though I incline rather unto Sagaris, whose Martyrdom being touched upon by Melito, Id. l. 4. c. 25. in his books de Paschate, is a strong argument that he departed some good time before him, and so most like to be the man. Nor is it any obstacle unto this conjecture,Apocal. 3.16. that Christ did threaten to spew this Angel out of his mouth, being he called him to repentance,V. 19, 20, 21. and promised him a throne, if he overcame.

To bring this business to an end, X these Angels as they had a singularity, in refe­rence unto that personal Authority which each of them enjoyed in his several Church: so had they all and every one of them a singularity in the succession thereunto. For sure it were no difficult matter to a diligent eye, to find out many of their Successors in those several Sees, since that of Laodicea, which was in most apparent danger to lose its Candlestick, retained a continual and constant successions of Bishops there, from the death of Sagaris to the Nicene Council, and a long time after. Where, by the way, I must needs rectifie Paraeus in this one particular, who shewing that this Church of Laodicea, Paraeus in A­pocal. c. 3. v. did afterwards recover and get strength again, instanceth in Anatotius and Stephanus, both eminent and learned men, and both Bishops there; whereas indeed they were not Bishops of this Laodicea, but of Laodicea in Syria, (called antiently Seleucia Tetrapolis) as he might easily have seen by a more careful looking on those places of Eusebius, which himself hath cited. Now in the Nicene Council, if we like of that, we find the Successors of those several Angels, subscribing severally to the Acts thereof,Act. Conc. Nic. in subser. amongst other Prelates of that time; as viz. Menophanes of Ephesus, Euty­chius, B. of Smyrna, for the province of Asia; Artemidorus B. of Sardis, Soron or Serras B. of Thyatira, Ethymasius B. of Philadelphia, for the Province of Lydia; and finally Nunechlus B. of this Laodicea, Perpet. gover. cap. 13. p. 269. for the Province of Phrygia, for Theodotus, who by Bilson is affirmed to have subscribed as Bishop of this Laodicea, was Bishop of Laodicea in the Province of Syria, amongst the Bishops of which Province his subscription is; which I marvel that most learned and industrious Prelate did not see. And though we find not him of Pergamus amongst them there, yet after in the Council of Chalcedon, doth his name occur. In fine, by the person that speaketh to the Pastors, and those seven Churches, and the name he gives them, it is plain and evident that their vocation was not only confirmed by the Lord himself, but their Commission expressed. He speak­eth that hath best right to appoint what Pastors he would have to guide his Flock, till himself come to judgment: The name he giveth them, sheweth their power and charge to be delivered them from God; and consequently, each of them in his several charge and City, must have Commission to reform the errors and abuses in their se­veral Churches, at whose hands it shall be required, by him that shall sit judge to take account of their doings. And so much for the Angels of the seven Churches in Asia, remembred in the book of the Revelation.

But to go forwards to S. John, XI the Author of it, immediately on his return from Patmos, he sets himself unto the reformation of these Churches, calling together the [Page 241]Bishops of the same, as before we shewed; and governing both those and the adjoyn­ing Churches of Asia minor, by his Apostolical Authority and preheminence. Which having done on the intreaty and request of some godly men, he went unto the neigh­bour Nations, [...],Clemens Alex. ap. Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 17. in some places instituting or ordaining Bishops, in others rectifying and reforming the whole Churches; and in a word, by the direction of the spirit, founding a Clergy in the same. It seems the journey was not far, the places which he visited being said to be [...], the neighbouring Nations; and indeed the Apostle was now grown too old to endure much travel, being near an hundred at this time. And therefore I conceive that the Episcopal Sees of Traellis and Magnesia, were of his foundation:Concil. Chal. in subscript. being Cities not far off, and after reckoned as the Suffragans of the Archb. or Metropolitan of Ephesus. Certain I am, that they were both of them Sees of Bishops, as doth appear by the Epistles of Ignatius; in which he nameth Polybius Bishop of Trallis, Ignat. Epist. ad Magnesi. and Damas Bishop of Magnesia; and those not titular Bishops only, but such as were to be obeyed, [...], without gain-saying; and without whose allowance there was [...] layed upon the Presbyters, who were not to do any thing in their mi­nistrations, but by his authority. One other Bishop there is said to be of S. John's or­daining, viz. the young man which Clemens speaks of,Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 17. whose aspect being liked by the Apostle, he left him to the care and tutorage of an ancient Bishop of those parts. And when the Young man afterwards for want of careful looking to, became debauched, and made himself the Captain of a crew of Out-laws, the blessed Saint with much ado reclaimed him from that wretched course, and afterwards having new moulded him, and prepared him for it, [...], made him a Bishop in the Church. But whether that the word will bear that sense, as to the making him a Bishop, or that it only doth imply that S. John placed him in some function of the holy Ministery, Ec­clesiae ministeri [...] praefecit, as Christophorson reads it, I will not contend. Only I cannot but observe, that where the Bishop to whose care he was committed, is in the prosecution of the story, called [...]; some have collected from the same,Unbishopping of Tim. & Tit. p. 126. that Bishops in those times were no more than Presbyters. But this will prove, if better looked on, but a plain mistake: the word [...] in that place, noting the Bishops age, and not his office, as doth appear by that which followeth in the story, where he is called [...], which certainly doth signifie an ancient man, but not a Presbyter.

The Asian Churches being thus setled and confirmed in the faith of Christ, XII partly by the pains and travel of this blessed man, but principally by the Gospel, and other pieces of Divine holy Scripture, by him written and published about this time,Beda de sex aetatibus. In Annal. Ecc he went unto the Lord his God in a good old age, being then 98 years old, as Beda reckoneth in the beginning of the second century, Anno 101. according to the computation of Baronius: The Church at his departure he left firmly grounded in all the points of faith and do­ctrine, taught by Christ our Saviour, as well setled in the outward government, the polity and administration of the same, which had been framed by the Apostles, accor­ding to the pattern and example of their Lord and Master. For being that the Church was born of Seed immortal, and they themselves though excellent and divine, yet still mortal men; it did concern the Church in an high degree to be provided of a perpe­tuity, or if you will, an immortality of Overseers, both for the sowing of this Seed, and for the ordering of the Church, or the field it self. This since they could not do in person, they were to do it by their Successors, who by their Office were to be the or­dinary Pastors of the Church, and the Vicars of Christ. Now if you ask the Fathers who they were that were accounted in their times and ages, the Successors of the Apo­stles; they will with one accord make answer that the Bishops were. To take them as they lived in order, it is affirmed expresly by Irenaeus, Iren. l. 3. c. 3. one who conversed familiatly with Polycarpus, S. John's Disciple. He speaking of those Bishops which were ordained by the Apostles, and shewing what perfections were in them required, then adds, Quos & Successores relinquebant sunm ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes, whom they did leave to be their Successors, delivering unto them their own place of government.Cypr. Epist. 42. vel. l. 2. ep. 10. S. Cyprian next writing to Cornelius, then Bishop of Rome, exhorts him to endeavour to preserve that unity, Per Apostolos nobis Successoribus traditam, which was commended by the Apostles unto them their Successors. So in another place, speaking of the commission which our Saviour gave to his Apostles, he adds that it was also given to those Praepositi, Id. Epist. 69. vel. l 4. ep. 10. rulers and governours of the Church, Qui Apostolis Vicaria ordinatione succedunt, which by their ordination have been substituted as Successors to them. And lest we should mistake his meaning in the word Prupositi, Firmilianut, anothe [...]i shop of those times,Firmil. ep. Cy. Epist. 79. [Page 242]in an Epistle unto Cyprian, useth instead thereof the word Episcopi, not varying in the rest from those very words which Cyprian had used before.Hieron. ad Marcell. adv. Mont. Hierom, although conceived by some to be an adversary of the Bishops, doth affirm as much. Where speaking of Montanus and his faction, he shews this difference betwixt them and the Church of God, viz. that they had cast the Bishop downwards, made him to be the third in order, Apud nos Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent, but in the Catholick-Church of Christ, the Bishops held the place or room of the Apostles. The like he saith in his Epistle to Euagrius, Id. ad Euagr. where speaking of the parity of Bishops amongst themselves, that the emi­nency of their Churches did make no difference in their authority; he gives this reason of the same, Omnes Apostolorum successores sunt, because they were all Successors to the Apostles. So also in his Comments on the Book of Psalms, writing upon those words,Id. in Psal. 44. Instead of thy Fathers thou shalt have Children, he tells us that at first, the Apo­stles were the Fathers of the Church; but they being gon, Habes pro his Episcopos filios, the Church had Bishops in their stead: which though they were her Children, as be­gotten by her, Sunt tamen & patres tui, yet they were also Fathers to her, in that she was directed and guided by them.August. in Psal. 44. S. Austin on the same words hath the like conceit, the Fathers of the Church, saith he, were the Lords Apostles, Pro Apostolis filii nati sunt tibi, constituti sunt Episcopi, instead of those Fathers, the Church hath Children, Bi­shops that be ordained in her, such whom she calleth Fathers, though her self begat them, & constituit in Sedibus patrum, and placed them in the seats or thrones of those holy Fathers.August. Epist. 42. The like the same Saint Austin in another place, to the same effect. The root, saith he, of Christian Religion, is by the seats of the A­postles, & Successiones Episcoporum, and the succession of the Bishops, dispersed and propagated over all the world.Grego. Magn. hom. 26. And so S. Gregory discoursing of the power of binding and loosing, committed by the Lord unto his Apostles, applies it thus: Horum nunc in Ecclesiâ locum Episcopi tenent, that now the Bishops hold their places in the Church of Christ. Not that the Bishops do succeed them in their personal graces, their mighty power of working Miracles, speaking with tongues, giving the Holy Ghost, and others, such as these, which were meerly temporary; but in their Pastoral charge and go­vernment, as the chief Rulers of the Church, the ordinary Pastors of the Flock of Christ.

Now that the Bishops are the ordinary Pastors of the Church, XIII and so conceived to be by the ancient Fathers, will be made evident by as good authority as the point be­fore. Ignatius, Ignat. Epist. ad Antioch. who conversed with most of the Apostles, writing unto the Antiochians, requireth them to call to mind Euodius (who was his Predecessor in the See of Antioch) [...],Tertull. de fu­ga in persecut. their most blessed Pastor. Tertullian discoursing on those words of Christ, The hireling seeth the Woolf coming and fleeth; but that the good Shepherd layeth down his life for the Sheep, Joh. 10. inferreth thereupon, Praepositos Ec­clesiae in persecutione fugere non oportere, that the Prelates or Governours of the Church are not to fly in persecution. By which it is most clear, (not to dispute the truth of his assertion) that Pastor & Praepositus Ecclesiae do come both to one.Cypr. de Alea­tore. S. Cyprian in his tract de Aleatore, is more plain and positive, Nam ut constaret nos, i. e. Episcopos, Pa­stores esse ovium Spiritualium, &c. that it might evidently appear, saith he, that we the Bishops are the Pastors of the Flock of Christ: He said to Peter, feed my Sheep. And in another place, (for fear the former Book may prove none of his) expostulating with Pupianus, Id. Epist. 69. who charged him, as it seemeth, for some defect in his administration, he thus drives the point. Behold, saith he, for these six years, Nec fraternitas babu­erit Episcopum, neither the Brother-hood hath had a Bishop, nor the People a Praepositus, or Ruler, nor the Flock a Pastor, nor the Church a Governour, nor Christ a Prelate, nor God a Priest. Where plainly, Pastor and Episcopus, and so all the rest are made to be the same one function. More clearly in another place of the same Epistle, where he defineth a Church to be Plebs sacerdoti adunata, & Pastori suo grex adhaerens; that is to say, a People joyned or united rather to their Priest, a Flock adhering to their Pa­stor. Where by Sacerdos, as before, (and in other Authors of the first times) he meaneth no other than a Bishop, as doth appear by that which followeth. Ʋnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia, &c. From whom thou oughtest to understand, saith he, the Bishop to be in the Church, and the Church to be also in the Bishop; and that whoever is not with the Bishop, is not in the Church. Optatus saith the same in brief,Opta. de schis­mate. lib. 1. by whom Pastor sine grege, & Episcopus sine populo, a Bishop without a Church or People, and a Pastor without a Flock are joyned together as Synonyma. S. Austin speaking of two sorts of Over-seers in the fold of Christ, some of them being Children, [Page 243]and the others hirelings: then adds, Praepositi autem qui filii sunt, Pastores sunt, Aug [...]st. Tra [...]. 46. in Job. the Rulers which are Children (of the Church) they are the Pastors. And in another place not long since cited, speaking of Episcopale judicium, the condemnation that at­tends the Bishops sentence; he presently subjoyns, Pastoralis tamen necessitas, Id de corr [...]pt & grat. c. 15. that yet the necessity incumbent on the Pastoral Office, doth many times inflict such sen­tences for the publick safety of the Flock. I might be infinite in this search, but that I have spoke somewhat to the point already: and am moreover saved all further labour in it, by our learned Andrews, affirming positively and expresly,Resp. ad Epis. Petri Motinaei. Apud veteres Pastorum nomen vix adhiberi, nisi cum de Episcopis loquuntur, the name of Pastor is scarce used among the Ancients, but when they have occasion to speak of Bishops. And Binius in his Notes upon the Councils, excepts against a fragment of the Synod of Rhemes, said to be held Anno 630. as not of that antiquity which is there pretend­ed: and that he doth upon this reason only, Eo quod titulum [...]astoris tribuat Parocho, because the stile of Pastor is there given to the common Presbyter,Tom. 3. part. 2. p. 978. contrary to the usage of those elder times.

And certainly it is no wonder that it should be so, XIV that he who is Episcopus & Pastor animarum, the Bishop and Pastor of our Souls, as Saint Peter calls him,1 Petri 2.2 [...]. should confer on them both his Titles: since he hath substituted and appointed them to be his Vi­cars here on Earth. The Pope may challenge, if he will, this Title to himself alone: but since antiquity hath given it to all Bishops equally, to every one as much as to him of Rome. Saint Ambrose hath resolved it generally,Ambros. in 1. ad cor. cap. 11. Episcopus personam habet Christi, the Bishop, saith he, susteineth the person of Christ, and therefore every Wo­man ought to behave her self before the Bishop, as before her Judg: giving this rea­son therewithal, Quia Vicarius domini est, because he is the Vicar of the Lord. The Commentaries on Saint Matthew, ascribed to Chrysostom, doth affirm the same:Opus imperfect. in Matth. hom. 17. where shewing that such men as persecuted or molested those of the holy Sacerdotal Order, were either Gentiles, or at least sordid and sensless Christians: he gives his reason for the same: Quia nec intelligunt, nec considerant, sacerdotes Christi Vicarios esse, be­cause they neither understand nor do consider, that the Bishops, (whom he there meaneth by Sacerdotes) are the Vicars of Christ. Saint Austin to the same effect,Lib. qu. vet. & N. test. qu. 127. as before, Saint Ambrose. The Bishop is to be more pure and pious than another man, for he seemeth to sustein the person of God: Est enim Vicarius ejus, for he is his Vi­car. The Fathers in the Council of Compeigne, Anno 833. thus, Scire omnes convenit, Concil. Com. it behoveth all men to understand what is the nature of the Government or Ministry of Bishops, Quos constat esse Christi Vicarios, who, as it evidently appears, are the Vicars of Christ. Nay even Blesensis, Petr. Blesens. Serm. 47. though he lived and writ when the Papacy was at the height, makes this description of a Bishop. Ordinatur Christi Vicarius, Ecclesiae Praelatus, &c. He is ordained a Vicar of Christ, a Prelate of the Church, a Father of men, and a Pastor of Souls: So far the Ancients have attested to the present business, and yet there is one Testimony more, which as it is more ancient, so it is as pertinent as any hitherto produced, viz. The Declaration of the Fathers in the Council of Carthage, Anno 258. or rather the attestation of the Fathers to that which was affirmed by Clarus of Muscala, one of the Bishops there assembled, who being to give his Vote upon the business then in agitation, first thus laid his grounds.Conc. Carth. sub. Cypr. Manifesta est senten­tia Domini nostri, &c. The judgment of our Lord and Saviour JESƲS Christ is plain and evident, bequeathing that authority unto his Apostles, which had been given him by his Father, to which Apostles we are now the successours, eadem pote­state Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes, governing the Church by that authority, which they had before. In which we see a clear and manifest derivation of this power, this Vicarship, from God the Father unto Christ, from Christ to his Apostles, and by them also to the Bishops, and their successours in the Church for ever. Not that each Bishop in particular hath some particular Apostle whom he doth succeed; I con­ceive not so: but that the Bishops generally do succeed the Apostles, and are in ge­neral Vicars unto Christ our Saviour, as to the general Government of the Church of God. Apostolis datos esse Episcopos successores, non siagulis Apostolis, sed in solidum uni­versis; De rep. Eccles. l. 2. c. 5. n. 3. as the unfortunate Arch-Bish. of Spalato hath right well observed, conform unto the Tenet of the Fathers, in this very point. The sum of these three Sections then, in brief is this. Christ by the mission which he had from his heavenly Father, devolves all power on his Apostles, for teaching, governing and directing his little flock: and they being sensible of their own mortality, ordain by like authority a line of Bishops to succeed them, ad consummationem seculi, by whom that care might be [Page 244]perpetuated. In whom, as there is plenitudo potestatis, a fulness of authority for that end and purpose;Amb. in Ep 4. the Bishop, as is said by Ambrose, being made up of all the Orders in the Church (nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, as his words there are:) so he both doth and may assume such and so many associates, assistants, and subservient Mini­sters in partem oneris, for the discharge of this great trusi; as were assumed by the Apostles, or ordained by them rather, for the publick service of the Church.

Thus have we seen the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour, XV dispersed in very little time, over all parts and quarters of the World: of so much of it at the least, whereof the Acts and Monuments have been recorded to posterity: and therewith a transmission also of that form of Government, which was begotten by it, and grew up with it. Nor is there any doubt at all, but that into what coasts soever the Lords Apostles preached the one, they also in the same did plant the other. The late discoveries of those parts and Countreys which were unknown unto our Predecessours, make this clear enough: there being no place nor Region how remote soever, where there was extant any thing of the Christian Faith, in which there were not found as ap­parent footsteps of the Episcopal form of Government. A pregnant evidence, that as the Lords Apostles were by the Holy Ghost instructed in that Faith, which they were to preach; so by the same eternal Spirit they were directed to that form of Go­vernment, which they were to plant. They could not else have fallen so unanimously on the self same project: nor had God blessed it with so flourishing and fair increase, a growth so suddain and miraculous; had it not been a graft of his own heavenly planting. Which graft, what root it took in this present Age, in little more than half an hundred years after Christs Ascension; we shall best see by looking on this brief Chronologie, which I have drawn to that intent.

The state of Holy Church in this first CENTURY.

  • Anno Chr.
  • 34. OƲR Saviour Christ suffered and rose again, and ascended into glory.
  • S. James made Bishop of Hierusalem.
  • 35. The conversion of Paul.
  • 39. S. Peter takes upon him the Bishoprick (or government of the Church) of Antioch.
  • 41. S. Peter baptizeth Cornelius and his family, opening the door of life unto the Gentiles.
  • 43. The Disciples first called Christians at Antiochia.
  • 44. Bishops ordained by Saint Peter, in the Churches of sidon, Berytus, and Laodi­cea of Syria, and other Cities of the East.
  • Saint Peter cometh to Rome, and under­taketh the government of the Churches of the Circumcision founded in that City.
  • Paul and Barnabas called forth by the holy Ghost, to the Apostleship of the Gentiles.
  • 45. Euodius made Bishop of Antioch.
  • S. Mark ordained Bishop of Alexandria.
  • 46. Saint Peter ordaineth many of his Di­sciples Bishops, and sendeth them abroad into France, Italy and Spain.
  • 49. Saint Paul ordaineth Presbyters in Churches of his Plantation.
  • 50. Eucherius one of St. Peters Disciples, made Bishop of the Church of Triers in Germany.
  • 51. The Jews banished from Rome by Claudius Caesar: in which regard, Saint Peter leaving Rome, committeth the go­vernment of his Church to Cletus, by birth a Roman.
  • The Apostolical Council in Hierusalem.
  • Saint Paul maketh his first Journey into Macedonia.
  • 52. Saint Paul first Preacheth at Athens, Corinth, &c.
  • 55. Saint Paul taketh up his aboad at E­phesus, and from thence writeth to those of Corinth.
  • 57. Timothy ordained by Saint Paul the first Bishop of Ephesus.
  • Titus ordained Bishop of Crete by the same Apostle.
  • Other of Pauls Disciples ordained Bishops for the Eastern Churches.
  • 58. Saint Paul calleth the Elders from E­phesus to Miletum.
  • 59. Saint Paul brought Prisoner unto Rome, takes on himself the Government of the Churches of the Gentiles there.
  • 60. Archippus Bishop of the Colossians.
  • Epaphroditus ordained Bishep of the Phi­lippians.
  • 61. Crescens made Bishop of Vienna in Daulphine.
  • Paul passeth into Spain, leaving the Church of Rome to the care of Linus.
  • 63. Simeon elected Bishop of Hierusalem in the place of James, by the joynt consent of the Apostles and Disciples.
  • 64. Anianus succeedeth Mark in the Bishop­rick of Alexandria.
  • 67. Saint Peter planteth Churches, and or­daineth Bishops, in the Isle of Britain.
  • 68. Peter and Paul return to Rome.
  • 69. The Martyrdom of Peter and Paul at Rome, by command of Nero.
  • 70. Linus and Cletus (or Anacletus) succeed the two Apostles in the govern­ment of their Churches there.
  • 71. Ignatius succeedeth Euodius in the See of Antioch.
  • 74. Valerius succeeds Eucherius in the Church of Triers.
  • 80. Saint John taketh up his abode in Asia, planting and confirming the Churches there, and ordaining Bishops in the same.
  • 81. Linus being dead, Clemens succeedeth him in the government of the Church of the Gentiles, in Rome.
  • 84. Polycarpus made Bishop of Smyrna by Saint John.
  • 87. Abilius succeedeth Anianus in the Bi­shoprick of Alexandria.
  • 92. Saint John confined unto Patmos, by Domitianus.
  • 93. Cletus (or Anacletus) being dead, the Churches of the Circumcision in the City of Rome and parts adjoyning, became united with the Gentiles, under the Go­vernment of Clemens.
  • 97. Saint John writeth the Apocalypse to the Seven Churches in Asia.
  • 98. Saint John restored to Ephesus, found­eth the Churches of Trallis and Magnesia, ordaining Bishops in them both, as in other places.
  • 99. At the intreaty of the Asian Bishops, St. John writeth his Gospel.
  • 100. Cerdo succeeds Abilius in the Bishop­rick of Alexandria.
  • 101. Saint John dieth at Ephesus in a good old age; leaving the government of the Church in the hands of Bishops, as Successors to the Apostles, and the Vicars of Christ.
The End of the first Part.
THE HISTORY OF EPISC …

THE HISTORY OF EPISCOPACY:

The Second Part.

From the Death of Saint JOHN the APOSTLE, To the beginning of the Empire of CONSTANTINE.

By PETER HEYLYN, D. D.

IREN. Lib. III. Cap. III.

Habemus annumerare eos, qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt EPISCOPI in Ecclesiis, & Successores eorum, usque ad nos.

LONDON, Printed by M. Clark, to be sold by C. Harper. 1681.

THE HISTORY OF EPISCOPACY.

PART II.

CHAP. I. What doth occur concerning Bishops, and the Government of the Church by them, during the first half of the second Century.

  • 1. Of the Condition of the Church of Co­rinth, when Clemens wrote unto them his Epistle.
  • 2. What that Epistle doth contain in refe­rence to this point in hand.
  • 3. That by Episcopi, he meaneth Bishops truly and properly so called, proved by the scope of the Epistle.
  • 4. And by a Text of Scripture therein cited.
  • 5. Of the Episcopal succession in the Church of Corinth.
  • 6. The Canons of the Apostles ascribed to Clemens, what they say of Bishops.
  • 7. A Bishop not to be ordained under three or two at least of the same order.
  • 8. Bishops not barred by these Canons from any secular affairs, as concern their families.
  • 9. How far by them restrained from the em­ployments of the Common-wealth.
  • 10. The jurisdiction over Presbyters, given to the Bishops by those Canons.
  • 11. Rome first divided into Parishes, or Ti­tuli, by Pope Euaristus.
  • 12. The reasons why Presbyteries or Colleges of Presbyters were planted at the first in Cities.
  • 13. Touching the superiority over all the flock given to the Bishop by Ignatius.
  • 14. As also of the Jurisdiction by him al­lowed them,
  • 15. The same exemplified in the works of Justin Martyr.

FROM the Apostles we proceed unto their Disciples, I such as conversed with them, and lived nearest to them. And first of all we meet with Clemens, once one of Pauls Disciples, and by him remembred; afterwards Deacon to Saint Peter, Philip. 4.3. Epist. ad Tral­lianos. as Ig­natius tells us, and finally successor to them both in the admi­nistration of the Church of Rome, as before was shewed.Chap. 3. n. 8. A­mongst the several Monuments of Piety which he left behind him, the most renowned is his Epistle to the Church of Co­rinth; of which Eusebius gives this testimony,Euseb. Hist. Ecc. 1.3. c. 12.16. that it was [...] famous and very much admired: adding withal that as well anciently, as in his times, it used to be read publickly in the Congregation. Tht occasion which induced him to write the same, was a sedition, or a faction ra­ther, raised in the Church, which from the first Preaching of the Gospel there, had been too much addicted to Divisions, But what this faction was about,1 Cor. 3. or what oc­casion was then taken for the production of new broyls, or the reviving of the old; we shall best see by looking on this piece of Clemens; recovered from the ruins of Antiquity by the care and industry of Patr. Yong, Library-keeper to his Majesty.Clemen. Epist. ad Corinth. p. 62. There find we the good man complaining that the Church of Corinth, so ancient and [Page 250]well grounded in the faith of Christ, [...], should for the sake of one or two contentious persons tumultuate against their Presbyters: and that the scandal of their functions should come unto the ears of Infidels, to the dishonour of the Lord. Nor did the faction rest in the people only,Ibid. p. 58. though it proceeded to that height as the ejecting of those Presbyters whom they had distasted: but it had taken too deep sooting amongst the Presbyters themselves, encroaching with too high an hand on the Bishops Office, or wilfully neglecting his authority.Part. 1. ch. 5. For whereas in those times, as before was shewn, the bles­sed Eucharist, regularly and according to the Churches Orders, could not be celebra­ted but by the Bishop, by his leave at least, and that it did pertain to him to appoint the Presbyters what turns and courses they should have in that ministration; these men perverting all good order, neither observed the time and place appointed for that sacred Action, nor kept themselves unto those turns and courses, in the performance of the same, which were assigned them by their Bishop. Certain I am that the dis­course of Clemens in the said Epistle doth militate as well against the one, as against the other: blaming as well the Presbyters for their irregular proceeding in their ministra­tion; as censuring the People for their insolency, in the ejecting of their Presbyters. So that we have two factions, at this time in the Church of Corinth: one of some inconformable Presbyters, so far averse from being regulated by their Bishop, as they ought to be,Clem. p. 57. that they opposed the very Calling, raising contentions and disputes about the Name and Office of Episcopacy: another of the people against the Presby­ters, and that pursued with no less acrimony and despite, than the former was.

For the repressing of these factions at this present time, II and the preventing of the like in the times to come, the good old man doth thus proceed. Beginning with the Presbyters, Id. p. 48. he first presents unto them the obedience that Souldiers yield to their Com­manders, shewing them [...], how orderly, how readily and with what subjection they execute the several Commands imposed upon them by their Leaders: that since all of them are not Generals, Collonels, Captains, or in other Office every one [...] in his rank or station is to obey the charge imposed upon him, by the King or Emperour, and his Commanders in the Field. Then represents he to them the condition of the natural Body,Id. 49. in which the Head can do but little without the ministery of the Feet, the Feet as little (out of que­stion) without direction from the Head; that even the least parts of the body are not only profitable, but also necessary, concurring all of them together to the preser­vation of the whole. Which ground so laid, he thus proceeds in his Discourse: [...], &c.Id. p. 52, &c. These things being thus declared and manifested, looking into the depth of heavenly knowledg, we ought to do those things in their proper order, the People in the tendring of their Oblations, the Presbyters in the celebrating of the Liturgy, ac­cording to the times and seasons by the Lord appointed, who would not have these sacred Matters done either rashly or disorderly, but at appointed times and hours, and by such Per­sons as he hath thereunto designed by his supream Will, that being done devoutly and Re­ligiously they might be the more grateful to him. They therefore who upon the times presixed make their Oblations to the Lord, are blessed, and very welcom unto him from whose com­mands they do not vary. [...], &c. For to the High-Priest was assigned his particular function, the Priest had his peculiar ministery prescribed unto him, and the Le­vites theirs: the Laymen being left unto Lay-imployments. Therefore let every one of you my brethren, in his Rank and Station, offer to God the blessed Eucharist, with a good Conscience; [...] p. 53. keeping within the bounds of his ministration, appointed to him by the Canon. (For so I take it is his meaning) For not in every place was it permitted to the Jews to offer up the daily and perpetual Sacrifices; whether they were Sin-offerings, or Eucharistical Oblations, but at Hierusalem alone, nor there in any place indifferently, but only in the Court of the Temple, at the Altar: the Sacrifice being first viewed and approved of, both by the High Priest, and the foresaid Ministers. They that did any thing herein, otherwise than agreeable to his will and pleasure, were to die the Death: you see, my brethren, that as we are endued with a greater knowledg, so are we made obnoxious to the greater danger. The Apostles have Preached the Gospel unto us from Christ; JESUS Christ from God: Christ being sent by God, as the Apostles were by Christ; and both proceeding orderly therein, according to his holy Will. For having received his Commands, and being strengthened by the Re­surrection of our Lord JESUS Christ, and confirmed by the Word of God, they spread themselves abroad, in full assurance of the Holy Ghost, publishing the coming of the King­dom of God: and having Preached the Word throughout many Regions, and several Cities, [Page 251]they constituted and ordained the first fruits of their labours, such whom in spirit they ap­proved of, to be Bishops and Deacons, unto those that afterwards were to believe. [...], &c. p. 54.55. [...]. p. 55. Nor was this any new device, it being written many ages since in the book of God; Esay 60. [...], i.e. I will appoint them Bishops in Righteousness, and Deacons in Faith. Afterwards laying down the History of Aarons Rod budding, and thereby the miraculous confirmation of his Election, he adds, that the Apostles knowing by our Lord JESUS Christ the contention that would arise [...], about the name or function of Episco­pacy,Id. p. 57. (take it which you will) and being for this very cause endued with a perfect fore­sight of that which afterwards should happen; ordained the aforesaid Ministers, and left to every one their appointed Offices; that whensoever they should die, other approved men should succeed in their several places, and execute their several parts in the Ministration. Those therefore which were either ordained by them, or by those famous and renowned men that followed after them, with the consent and approbation of the Church, and have accord­ingly served unblameably in the fold of Christ, with all humility and meekness, and kept themselves from baseness and corruption, and have a long time carried a good testimony from all men: those we conceive cannot without much injury be deprived of their place and service: it being no small sin to reject those men, who holily and without reproof have undergone the Office of Episcopacy, or done the duty of a Bishop.

So far the Father hath proceeded, as to the Vindication of Episcopacy, III or the E­piscopal Function, which you will, from the attempts and practices of such Presby­ters, who went about to undermine it, and raise contentions in the Church about it. That which comes after, doth relate to the other Faction, the Faction raised against the Presbyters by some of the unruly people; and that he doth pursue from pag. 58. beginning with Beati sunt Presbyteri, &c. following the same till pag. 70. where he persuades the Presbyters that were so distasted, by several Examples both profane and sacred, rather to quit the place for the Churches peace, than by their tarrying there to increase the Rupture. Now that by Bishops, or Episcopi, in the words before, he meaneth Bishops truly and properly so called; and doth not use the word in so large a sense, as also to include the Presbyters, as some men conceive;Vindication of the Answ. pa. 136, 137. Clem. p. 53. doth seem most evi­dent to me, by these reasons following. First, from the Parallel here made between the several degrees and Offices in the Jewish Church, and those established in the Chri­stian: which had been very imperfect and inconsequent, if there had not been those several and distinct degrees of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the one, as of the High Priests, Priests, and Levites in the other Church. And that the Bishops in the Christian Church are called many times' [...], or High Priests, in the ancient Wri­ters, is no new Learning unto those that have read the Fathers. And unto this in­terpretation of the word Episcopi in that place of Clemens, I am the more inclined to stand, as to the true and proper meaning of the Father; because I find the self-same Parallel produced by Hierom, none of the greatest Patrons of Episcopacy. Who tels us first, that many of the Apostostolical Traditions did take their ground or hint from the old Testament, and gives us next this instance of it; or if you will, this resolu­tion in the case: Quod Aaron, & filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Epi­scopi, Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendicant in Ecclesia; that such as Aaron, and his Sons,Hierom. ad Euagrium. and the Tribe of Levi, were in the Temple: the same were Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons in the Church of GOD. Where plainly that preheminence which Aaron had over and above the Priests and Levites; the same is given by Hierom to the Bi­shops, over their Presbyters and Deacons respectively. And this is that which is af­firmed in the words of Clemens, if we mark it well, the Parallel being brought in both, for the self-same end. And this to me appears yet further to be clear and evident, by the contentions raised by these Corinthian Presbyters [...],Clem. p. 57. about the Name or Dignity of Episcopacy; the power and priviledges appertaining to that sacred Calling; and the discourse thereon occasioned, touching the limiting and restraining of these busie Presbyters. unto their proper Rank and Station. For had the heat been only raised upon the deposition of their godly Presbyters, as by some is said: that had not any way concerned either the Name or Dignity of Episco­pacy,Vindic. p. 137. (taking Episcopacy in that sense as themselves would have it:) that quarrel not being taken up (as they make the case) against the Dignity or Calling, but the persons only of those Presbyters, whom they had deposed.

But I am most of all confirmed herein by the citation of that Text of the Prophet Esay, though of a very different reading from those now in use: IV Clem. p. 55. the application of [Page 252]it being so conform to that of other ancient Writers. Saint Hierom following the Translation of the Septuagint, Hierom. Com­ment. in Esa. 6.60. doth thus read the Text, Dabo Principes tuos in pace, & Episcopos tuos in justitia: observes that in the Hebrew it is written thus, Ponam vi­sitationem tuam pacem, & Praepositos tuos in justitiam. And thence infers the admirable Majesty of holy Scripture, quod principes futuros Ecclesiis, Episcopos nominavit, in that the future Governours (or Princes) of the Church are there, before-hand, called Bishops; whose Visitation is in peace, and the name or Appellation of their Office, doth denote their justice.Cyril Alexan. in Esai. l. 5. c. 60. Saint Cyril also, although he differ from our Author in the Translation of the Text, following therein the Septuagint, as Saint Hierom did; yet he agreeth with him in his application. For making a comparison between the Re­ligion of the Jews and Christians; likening the one to Gold and Silver, the other un­to Brass and Iron, according to the tenor of the words foregoing: he addeth that the Jewish Ministers, the Scribes and Pharisees, whom before he spake of, being once re­moved, [...], Christ the Redeemer of all people did raise up other Governours and Bishops for them, such as did every way excel in Peace and Righteousness.Id. in Esaiam. Tom. 5. c. 60. And then he makes this use thereof, for our instruction, That since the Princes or Rulers of the Church do excel in Peace, and the Bishops of the same in Righteousness; it ought so far to work upon the people, [...], as that they should endeavour to lead their lives in Christian Piety and Godliness. Here then we have two of the learnedst of the Ancients writing upon the Text alledged by Clemens; and both expounding it of Bishops truly and properly so called, according to the nature of that word in the times they lived: and therefore questionless Clemens must needs be understood of such Bishops also: And herewith you shall have the reason, why Bishops and Deacons are here joyned toge­ther, and that there is no mention made of Presbyters; not that the Presbyters were not ordained by the Apostles, aswell as either of the other; but because the Deacons in this common broyl did constantly adhere unto their Bishop, when as so many of the Presbyters were in opposition:Epiphan. adv. haeres. 75. or else as Epiphanius tells us, because that Bishops at the first had more use of Deacons, than they had of Presbyters: for where the Congregation was but small,Basil de Sp. san. c. 29. (as that of Gregory Thaumaturgus is said to be, consist­ing of no more than 17 persons) a Bishop only was sufficient: [...], but being a Bishop could not be, or at the least not do his Office, without help of Deacons; that Bishops and Deacons are remembred only. And yet perhaps the meaning of the Author may be best conceived, certain I am, the doubt or difficulty would be best removed, did we translate [...], by the English Minister, as in that place I think we may, according to the general meaning of that word in its native sense; the Presbyters and Deacons, both being but subservient Ministers unto the Bishop, who did allot them out their turns and stations in the of­ficiating of Gods divine Service; the Presbyters not having yet assigned them their particular bounds, wherewith to execute the same, as in the time succeeding it is plain they had. Of which more hereafter.

In the mean time we must examine whether the Church of Corinth, V to which Cle­mens writ, had not been setled by the Apostle in that Form of Government, which had been every where established in the neighbour Cities. And certainly I can see no reason, why Corinth should not have a Bishop, aswell as Athens, or Philippi, or the Thessalonians, Hierom. in Ti­tum cap. 1. & in Epist. ad Euagr. or any other Church of Greece or Macedon. I see much reason why it should. For if that Bishops were first instituted in Schismatis remedium, for remedy of Schism, as Saint Hierom saith: assuredly the Church of Corinth being first pestered with that foul Disease, should first of all, in all congruity, be fitted with the remedy so proper and peculiar to it. A Bishop then they were to have by Saint Hieroms Rule, and that as soon as any other Church what ever: but who this Bishop was, is not yet so evident. By Dorotheus in Synopsi, Silas, Saint Pauls most individual Companion, is said to be the Bishop of this Church, Corinthiorum constitutus est Episcopus, as his words there are:Baron. in Rom. Martyrol. Julii. 13. wherein Hippolitus, concurring with him, doth make the matter the more probable. And though I will not take upon me to justifie the reports of Doro­theus, where there is any reason to desert him, as there is too often: yet when the point by him delivered doth neither cross the holy Scripture, nor any of the ancient Writers, as in this he doth not; I know not why his word may not pass for cur­rant. Nay, if we please to search the Scripture, we may find some hint, for the de­fence of Dorotheus in this one particular. For whereas we find often mentioned that Silus did accompany Saint Paul in many of his peregrinations: the last time that [Page 253]we find him spoke of, is in the 18. of the Acts; which time he came unto Saint Paul. Verse 5 to Corinth. After, there is no mention of him in the book of God: And possibly the reason of it may be this, in brief, that he was left there by Saint Paul to look unto the government of that mighty City. Which when he could not do by the Word and Doctrine, Saint Paul reserving for a time the jurisdiction to himself,V. Chap. 4. n. 5. as before was said; and that the Factions there did increase and multiply, for want of ordi­nary power to suppress the same: Saint Paul might then invest him with authority, making him Bishop of the place, both in Power and Title. This if it may be count­ed probable, I desire no more. And then as we have found the first Bishop in the Church of Corinth, we shall with greater ease and certainty find out a second, though his name were Primus: for proof of whose being Bishop here,Ap. Easeb. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 21. x 6. Ibid. c. 24. x 5. Id. lib. 5. c. 21. x 6. we have the testimony of Egisippus, who took him, in his Journey towards Rome and abode long with him; giving him special commendation both for his Orthodoxy and Humanity. After succeeded Dionysius, next to him Bachyllus; of both which we shall speak hereafter in convenient place.

From the Epistle of this Clemens unto those of Corinth, which is his undoubtedly, VI proceed we next unto the Canons commonly called the Apostles Canons, Bellarm. Baron. alii. Tertul. adver. Praxeam. supposed to be collected by him: but so supposed, that still there is a question of it, whether his or not. That they are very ancient is unquestinable, as being mentioned by Tertullian, and cited in some of the ancientest Councils, whereof the acts and monuments are now remaining on Record. But being it is confessed on all hands,Binius in natis ad Can. Apo. quosdam ab haereticis cor­ruptos, that some of them have been corrupted by the Hereticks of old, the better to advance their cause by so great a Patronage: we must be very wary how we build upon them. And howsoever Bellarmine be exceeding confident,Lib. De Serip­tor. Eccl. in Clemente. Annal. An. 102. n. 17. that the first 50 are most true and genuine; and probably it may so be: yet I conceive it safe to admit them on those sober cautions, which are commended to us by Baronius: who on a full debate of the point in question, doth resolve it thus: Illi tantum nobis ex Aposto­lieis fontibus, &c. Those Canons only seem to us, saith he, to be derived from the Aposto­lical fountains, which have either been admitted and incorporated by the Fathers into the Canons of succeeding Councils, or confirmed by the authority of the Bishops of Rome, aut in communem usum Ecclesiasticae disciplinae, or otherwise have been continually practiced in the Churches Discipline. The first and last these three cautions, I conceive to be ex­ceeding sound, and should not stumble at the second, had the Decrees and Ordinances of the ancient Popes come incorrupted to our hands. Which ground thus laid, we will now see what the Apostles Canons have delivered in the present business: and that we shall distribute as it doth relate to Bishops, either in point of their Admission, how and by whom they are to be Ordained; or of their carriage and behaviour being once admitted, how far to disoblige themselves from the employments of the World; or of their Jurisdiction over the inferiour Clergy, whom they are to govern. These are the points which are most clearly offered us to be considered of, in the aforesaid Canons, and these we shall present, and then consider of them accordingly.

And first in way of their Admission to that sacred Function, VII it seemeth to be the first care of the Collector, that it be done according to the mind and meaning of the holy Apostles: and therefore it is put in the very front, viz. That a Bishop is not to be or­dained, but by three Bishops, or by two at the least. [...], as the Canon hath it.Canon. Apost. 1. A Canon which hath all the Rules and cautions required by Baronius, for proof of its antiquity, and Apostolical institu­tion, as being confirmed by many of the Decretals, in case they were of any credit; incorporated first into the Canons of the Council of Arles, Concil. Arelat. Can. 21. Nicen. Can. 4. as afterwards in those of Nice; and generally continued in the constant practice and perpetual usage of the Church. Only the difference is, that the old Canon doth admit of Ordinations made by two Bishops, if a third may not conveniently be had; whereas the later Councils stand on three precisely: whereof prehaps this was the reason, because in later times there was a greater number of Bishops in the Church of God, than had been before; and so the number of three Bishops to concur together, not so hard to meet with. Now they that search into the first occasion of the present Canon fetch it from a Tra­dition on Record in Clemens: viz. that James the Proto-Bishop, Philodox. ap. Masonum de Minist. Anglic. l. 1. c. 5. [...] Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. l. 2. c. 1. the first that ever had a fixt Episcopal See, was ordained Bishop of Hierusalem, by Peter, James and John the sons of Zebedee. Peter, saith he, and James and John being by our Redeemer most esteemed of, contended not amongst themselves after his ascension, for the highest place, [...], but rather made choice [Page 254]of James the Just, to be the Bishop of Hierusalem. But this, if looked on well, was no Ordination, for James being one of the Apostles needed no such Ceremony; but only an agreement made by that goodly fellowship amongst themselves, that whilst the rest did Preach the Gospel in the world abroad,Objected by Philodix. ap Masonum. l. 1. cap. 7. Saint James should take the charge of the Mother-City. The Ordination of Saint Paul and Barnabas unto the Apostleship by the hands of Lucius, Simeon, and Manaen, is indeed more pertinent; but that being an extraordinary case, it can make no precedent. But what need any further pede­gree be sought to raise the reputation of this Canon? It is antiquity enough that it stands in front, and leads on all the residue of the Canons, ascribed of old to the Apostles. And yet we must observe withal, that as there is no general rule but hath some ex­ception, so the necessities of the Church have many times dispensed with these ancient Canons;Anastas. in vi­ta Pelagii. Synadol. Ep. Episcoporum Ponti, ap. Bi­nium. p. 173. Tom. 2. Theodo. Hist. lib. 5. c. 23. the Ordination of Pelagius the first, once a Pope of Rome, and of Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, being performed by two Bishops only, contrary to the Coun­cils of Nice and Arles; that of P. Evagrius Patriarch of Antiochia, but by one alone, contrary to the old Apostolick Canon. But then we must observe withal, that these exceptions being in extraordinary cases and occasions, are rather a confirmation of the Canons, than any diminution to them, according to the good old rule, Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis.

The Bishop being thus admitted to his charge and function by a peculiar Ordina­tion, VIII we must next see what is prescribed him in these Canons, touching his beha­viour, whether Domestick in his Family, or Publick in the Common-wealth. For his Domestick carriage,Canon. 5. it is ordered thus, [...], that he do not put away his Wife on pain of Excommunication, on any shaddow or pretence of Piety whatever. I know my Masters in the Church of Rome would fain shift this off,Binius in An­not. in Can. 5. by saying that there is nothing else required by the present Canon, but that they ought to have a care of them, ipsisque de omnibus quae ad vitam honestè degendem requirun­tur, provideant, and to provide them all things necessary for this present life. But surely Zonaras gives a fairer and more likely gloss;Zonar. Com. in can. Apo. by whom it is affirmed, that if a Bishop, or any other person in holy orders, (for the Canon doth extend to all parti­cularly) should under colour of Religion put away his Wife: He was to be excluded from the Church by this present Canon, till he admitted her again: Admitted her again? to what? Assuredly unto his bed, to cohabitation: Should he do otherwise (saith he) it would redound to the reproach of Marriage, [...], as if that conju­gal society did beget uncleanness, whereas the Scripture saith, that Marriage is honourable, and the Bed undefiled; adding withal, [...], &c. that lawful Wedlock in those times was left free to Bishops, and that it was restrained first by the Synod in Trullo, many hundreds after, An. 692. Which being so, the following Canon must admit of some qualification,Can. Apost. 6. by which it is decreed, [...], that he do not take upon him any worldly cares, or secular affairs, be it which it will. For if he was allowed to have Wife and Children, and consequently was necessitated to maintain a family; it could not be, but he must needs be subject to some worldly cares,1 Tim. 5.8. in making fit provision for them: Saint Paul determining that, If any man provide not for his own, especially for those of his own House, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an Infidel. So that these being not the worldly cares which are intended, as they relate to his domestick carriage in his private family; we must next see how far it doth extend to those worldly cares, or rather secular affairs, if any shall so choose to read it, which do concern him in the publick.

And here we must first know, IX whether that all intermedling in secular affairs, or worldly matters be interdicted by this Canon, meerly quà tales for themselves; or as they were an avocation from the work of the holy Ministery. Not of themselves, quà tales, there's no doubt of that; for then their private and domestick cares must also undergo the same prohibition.Zon. Comment. in Apost. Can. It seems then only as an avocation, as they diverted Bi­shops and the rest in Orders from doing the work of their vocation. Zonaras doth con­ceive it so. [...], the purpose of the Canon is, that they should attend the holy Ministery, keeping themselves from all di­sturbances and the tumultuousness of business. But then withal, we must observe that Zonaras alloweth them to take care of Orphans, and to administer their estate to the best advantage, which is one secular imployment, and no mean one neither. In this the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 3. doth agree with Zonaras, allowing Clergy­men to be Guardians (as we call it) unto those in Wardship. Can. 3. Though the providing for the Fatherless be a work of mercy, [...] the administration of their estates [Page 255] [...], as it is there called, is a work of business. And this allowance is affirmed by Zonaras to be consistent with the Canon, which is one thing more; and such a one as will make way for many others. The arbitrating of emergent differences between man and man, for the advancement both of peace and justice, is a worldly work, a secular imployment, past all question. May not the Canon be persuaded to admit of this, and not to have it laid in bar against the Bishop, that he hath left his holy calling, and made himself a Judge amongst his Neighbours? Out of doubt it will: And which is somewhat more, out of doubt it must. Those Canons which are only fathered on the Apostles, will else run cross with those which are theirs indeed. When Saint Paul lessoned those of Corinth, 1 Cor. 6. that rather than they should profane the Gospel with contentious suits, they should refer their differences to their Brethren: Think you it was his purpose either to exclude the Clergy then, or their Bishop after, when they had one? No saith Saint Ambrose, Ambros. Com. in 1 ad Cor. c. 6. (if the work be his) Melius dicit apud dei ministros causam agere, no better way than to refer the business to Gods Ministers, who being guided by the fear of God, will determin rightly in the same. Or is the Bishop only to be barred this Office? Not so, saith he. For if Saint Paul adviseth them to submit themselves unto the judgment of their Brethren, it was upon this rea­son principally, quia adhuc Rector in eorum Ecclesia non esset ordinatus, because, as then, there was no Bishop in that Church. Saint Austin gives it more exactly, makes it a charge imposed upon the Bishop by Saint Pauls command. For speaking of the pains he took in the determining of such causes as were brought before him,August. de O­pere Monarch. c. 29. he tells us that he underwent the same in obedience only to Saint Paul's injunction, quibus nos mo­lestiis idem affixit Apostolus, as his words there are; and that Saint Paul imposed it not by his own authority, sed ejus qui in eo loquebatur, but by the authority of the Holy Ghost which did dictate to him; adding withal, that howsoever it was irksome and laborious to him, yet he did patiently discharge his duty in it pro spe aeternae vitae, only upon the hope of life eternal. And it is worth the observation, that venerable Beda, making a Comment upon Saint Pauls Epistle, collected out of several passages of Saint Austins writings; he putteth down this place at large, as the most full and proper ex­position of the Apostles words, Secularia judicia si habueritis, &c. 1 Cor. 6.4. If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, &c. Here then we have the Bishop in­teressed in the determining of suits and differences, a secular imployment surely; and yet no violence offered to the sacred Canon. May he not go a little further, and in­termeddle, if occasion be, in matters of the Common-wealth? [...].Synesius in Ep. 57. I do not blame those Bishops, saith Synesius, that are so imployed; such as are fitted with abilities for the undertaking, being by him (a strict and rigorous man) permitted to employ the same. And more than so, [...], it maketh for Gods praise and glory that it should be so; that men, on whom he hath bestowed abilities to perform both Offices, should do accordingly. But these I put down here as opinions only; the practice of them we shall see in a place more proper. If then it be demanded what those [...], those worldly cares, and secular imployments are which the Canon speaks off:Zonar. Com­ment. in Conc. Chalced. Can. 3. Zonaras will inform us in another place, that the Canon aimeth at the mingling of the Roman Magistra­cies [...], with the Episcopal or Priestly function, which at that time were, questionless, incompatible. And then the meaning of the Canon will in fine be this, that Bishops or inferiour Clergy-men, might not be Consuls, Praetors, Generals, or undergoe such publick Offices in the State of Rome, as were most sought for and esteemed by the Gentiles there.

As for their jurisdiction over the inferiour Clergy, X as far as it is warranted by these Apostolick Canons, it doth co [...]st especially in these particulars. First, there is granted and annexed unto them the power of Ordination, and to them alone.Can. Apost. 2. The second Canon tells us so, [...], the Presby­ter and Deacon, and all other Clerks must be ordained by one Bishop. And if a Bi­shop be required, though but one in all, the Presbyters have no authority at all of con­ferring Orders. But of this before: Being ordained, they were accomptable in the next place to their Bishop, in all things which concerned their Ministration; without whose special leave and liking there were not only many things which they might not do, but there was nothing in a manner to be done, [...],Can. 38. Ignat. ad Smyrnens. Zonar. in Can. Apost. let them do nothing, saith the Canon, without the knowledge of the Bishops; neither Baptize nor celebrate the Eucharist, as Ignatius hath it, of whom more anon; [...], not repel any man from the Communion, as it is in Zonaras. But here the Canons [Page 256]speaking in another place, they will tell you more particularly, that if a Presbyter neg­lecting or contemning his own Bishop,Can. 31. shall gather the People into a Conventicle, [...], and erect another Altar for divine worship, not being able to convict his Bishop of any impiety or injustice; he is to be deposed, [...], as an ambitious person, seeking a preheminence that belonged not to him. Finally, so obnoxious were the Presbyters to the command and pleasure of their Bishop, that they could not be admitted into any other City,Can. 12. [...], without his letters testimonial; and this on pain of Excommunication as well unto the Pres­byter that should so depart,Can. 15. as to the party that received him. If any Presbyter or Deacon, leaving the charge appointed to him, shall go into another Diocess (for so I think [...], must be read in this place and time) and there abide without the allowance of his Bishop, [...], he is to be suspended ab officio, especially if he return not presently on the Bishops summons. More of this kind there is in those ancient Canons, touching the Presbyters dependance on, and plain subjection to their Bishop. But I have instanced in such only as may be clearly justified by succeeding practice: And so much of the Apostles Canons, ascribed to Clemens.

From Clemens, XI on to Evaristus, his next successor in the government of the Church of Rome. I know the Antiquaries of that Church have interloped an Anacletus be­tween these two;Iren. l. 3. cap. 3. and let them take him for their labour. But when I find in Irenaeus, who lived so near the times we speak of, as to converse with those which were then alive, when both these Bishops sate in the Church of Rome; and when I find it in Eusebius, Euseb. hist. Ec. l. 3. c. 28. [...]. who with such care and diligence collected the successions of the Prelates in the greater Churches, that Evaristus did immediately succeed this Clemens: I shall de­sire to be excused if I prefer their testimony in this case, before that of Anastasius, or the Pontifical or Platina, or any whosoever of the later days. Now of this Evaristus it is said by Damasus in the Pontifical, In vita Eva­rist. and from him by Platina, titulos in urbe Romae Presbyteris divisisse, that he did first assign the Presbyters in Rome their particular charges, which also is affirmed by Rob. Barnes, De vitis Pont. Rom. in Eva­risto. Hooker Eccles. Polit. l. 5. n. 80. one of the great Agents in our Reformation; which words of the Historians being short and dark, we will expound in the expressions of judicious Hooker thus, as followeth. For more convenient discharge of Ecclesiastical duties, as the body of People must needs be severed by divers Precincts, so were the Clergy likewise ac­cordingly distributed. Whereas therefore Religion did first take place in Cities, and in that respect was a cause why the name of Pagans, which properly signifieth Country-people, came to be used in common speech for the same that Infidels and Ʋnbelievers were, it followed there­upon that all such Cities had their Ecclesiastical Colleges consisting of Presbyters and Deacons, whom first the Apostles or their Delegates the Evangelists did both ordain and govern: Such were the Colleges of Hierusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, Corinth, and the rest, where the Apostles are known to have planted our Faith and Religion. Now because Religion and the Cure of souls was their general charge in common over all that were near about them, neither had any one Presbyter his several Cure apart, till Evaristus Bishop in the See of Rome, about the year 112. began to assign Precincts unto every Church or Title which the Christians held, and to appoint unto each Presbyter a certain compass, whereof himself should take charge alone; the commodiousness of which invention caused all parts of Christendom to follow it: So he. And he saith well that Evaristus first began it; but it was shortly after followed by Higinus also, who added more divisions to the former number, if I do un­derstand my Author rightly.Platina in vit. Higini. As for the following of this pattern by other Churches, 'tis most true indeed that this invention of his was after followed in the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria: whereof see Socrates, Hist. Eccles. l. 5.3. for that of Antioch, and for the other Epiphanius, who reckoneth nomin [...]im those several Churches, which were before the time of Constantine in that famous City. And doubtless in all other Cities as the number of Christians did increase, so were the like divisions made, and several Presbyters appointed for those divisions, though we have no such pregnant evi­dence thereof, as for those before. But then we must observe withal, that such di­visions were not in the Country till a long time after, as we shall let you see in due place and time.

As for those Colleges of Presbyters and Deacons, XII whereof Hooker speaketh, founded by the Apostles and Evangelists in all the Cities wherein they planted the Gospel of Christ, and by them conjoyned into one Church under and with the Bishop: It was a very excellent and useful institution,Bilson. perpet. Covernm. ca. 14. as the times then were. For first it did ex­ceedingly promote the conversion of the world to Christ our Saviour; it being a work [Page 257]too great for one or two to undertake in a populous City, and would require more time to effect the same, than such a weighty business could afford. The Harvest being great, it was most expedient that the Labourers should also be many; that so the truth of Christ might disperse it self not only throughout their Cities, but even unto those Country Towns and Villages which bordered near them. A second use was to continue those whom they had converted, in the Faith of Christ, instructing and incou­raging the Faithful from house to house, and from man to man, to stand fast to the Doctrine which they had received, and not to shrink under the bloody storms of per­secution, which were then so frequent. A work that of necessity required many hands; the more, because the faithful in those dangerous times had not their publick places of Assembly; or if they had, durst not frequent the same as in times of peace: and so the labour must be great, and the persons many, in Preaching, teaching, and exhorting in their private houses, or in those secret places where they met by stealth for the receiving of the Sacrament. A third use was, that from these Presbyteries, or Colleges of Presbyters and Deacons, as from a sacred spring or fountain, there might be a continual supply of fit and able men, by whom as well the Cities themselves might be continually furnished for their own occasions; and also that from thence, the smaller Towns and Villages within the circuit of those Cities, which for the slender­ness of their estate, and paucity of believers could not maintain a Presbyter at their proper charge, might be provided of industrious teachers for their spiritual necessities. For in these times whereof we speak, and a long time after, the Villages and Country Towns, as they were converted to the Faith, and did desire a Minister of the Word and Sacraments to reside amongst them; so they repaired unto the Bishop of the City, within whose [...] or bounds they were, of him desiring a fit man for that busi­ness; which course continued in the Church for a long time after, until Churches were endowed with Tithes, and Glebe, and Mansion houses, which drew the Patro­nage or Presentation, as we call it, into hands of such their Founders and liberal Be­nefactors to the same. The last, but not the least, was the advising and assisting of the Bishop of the Church or City in all doubts and dangers; as well in making Rules and Ordinances for the better government of the place; as for the censuring and cor­recting of such faulty persons, whether of the Clergy or Laity, as were thought fit to be convented, for an example to the rest.Ignatius in Ep. ad Trallian. In which regard Ignatius calleth the Pres­bytery, or College of Presbyters (and not the Priesthood, Sacerdotium, as it is ren­dred by Vedelius) [...], an holy Corporation, Counsellors and Assessors to the Bishop. A perfect Image of the which, we have remaining in our Deans and Chapters of Cathedral Churches, though not so frequently consulted with in the Churches business, as I could heartily desire they were, and as our Canons now in force in some sort require.

The mention which I made so lately of Ignatius, leads me on to him, XIII who yielded up his pious soul by Martyrdom to the hands of God in the City of Rome, whilst Euaristus was there Bishop: And in him I shall only touch upon those Epistles which I find mentioned in Eusebius; and which Vedelius doth confess and defend to boot,Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. In Apolog. pro Ignatio. to be truly his: But by the way I must first tell you that Vedelius in this business deals for all the world like the naughty Cow that gives a good meals milk and kicketh it down with her heel. For having shewed some pains and learning in his Apology for Igna­tius, in vindicating these Epistles from all those who except against them: Yet in the body of the Text, when ever he doth meet with any thing which runneth cross unto his fancies; that he excepts against himself, as supposititious and adulterate, or else de­stroyeth a good Text with a faulty Comment. But let us take the Author as he gives him to us. [...].Ignat. ad Tral. Be subject to the Bishop (saith the good Father) as unto the Lord, and to the Presbyters as to Christs Apostles. Vedelius hereupon observes that the Presbyters are the proper successors of the Apostles,Vedel. Anno­tat. in Ep. ad Trallian. c. 3. contrary unto that of Bellarmine, who makes them (as he saith) to succeed the seventy. In which Vedelius doth the Bishops a far greater courtesie than I believe he did intend them; making the disproportion more considerable between the Bishop and his Pres­byters than any Champion of the Prelacy had done before him. For if Vedelius may infer from our Authors words that the Presbyters are successors unto the Apostles, we may as well infer from the self same grounds, that Bishops are the successors of Christ our Saviour. The like obedience to the Bishop he presseth in another place of the same Epistle. [...]. Reverence your Bishop as you would do Christ, as the Apostles have commanded.Ignat. ibid. And then he gives this [Page 258]reason of it, [...]; for what else is the Bishop, but one superiour un­to all in place and Power? what else the Presbytery, but an holy Company, the Coun­sellers and Assessors of the Bishop? In which we have as great a difference betwixt a Bishop and his Presbyters; as is between a Prince and his Privy Council. In that to the Magnesians thus;Id. ad Magn. [...], &c. It becomes you to obey your Bishop, not being refractory against him in any thing: for a most terrible thing it is to contradict him and oppose him, in that the contumely or reproach doth redound to God. In his third Epistle,Id. ad Philad. that to the Philadelphians, he writeth thus. [...] the Priests are good, and so are the Deacons, as being Ministers of the Word; but better, or more excellent is the Chief Priest, as being only trusted with the Holy of Holies, and the secrets of God.Id. ad Smyrn. The like occurs in that to those of Smyrna; [...], &c. Honour God as the Author and Lord of all things, and your Bishop as the chief Priest, bearing the Image of God; that is to say, of God as he is chief, and of Christ as Priest. And though Vedelius brands this last as supposititious,Vedel. in marg. Ep. ad Philad. and in the former by chief Priest will have our Saviour meant, and not the Bishop: yet he that looks upon the place without prejudice,Id. in exercit. n. Ep. ad Smyr­nens. cap. 18. will easily discern the contrary; the comparison which there Ig­natius maketh, being between the Ministers of the Church with one another, and not between the Ministers and the Master, betwixt them and Christ, with whom it were both impious and absurd to make comparisons. It were an endless piece of work to instance in all those several places, wherein the superiority of Bishops over all the flock, is pleaded and declared by this blessed Martyr. I therefore shut up all with this Conclusion,Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrnens. [...], Let the Lay-people be subject to the Deacons, the Deacons to the Presbyters, the Presbyters unto the Bishop, and the Bishop unto Christ, as he to his Father: An heavenly and Divine subordination. Not one of all the ancient Fathers, that speaks more clearly and distinctly of the Degrees and Or­ders in the Hierarchy, than this blessed Martyr; assigning unto every one his due place and station. If in one place, he calls the Presbyters by the name of Bishops, as wri­ting unto Hero, one of the Deacons of the Church of Antioch it is plain he doth: it was at such time and on such occasion, when he himself being the Bishop of that place was ravished from them; and the chief Government thereof was to them com­mitted, (as in the times of vacancy or absence it hath since been done) which gave them the authority of Bishops, though not the Order.

For point of Jurisdiction next, XIV he gives us first this charge in general. It is ex­pedient, saith he, that whatsoever things you do, [...], do it not without your Bishop: that is to say, as he expounds himself in another place,Id. ad Smyrn. [...], nothing that appertains unto the Church, or concerns Religion. And this he grounds on the obedience of our Sa­viour Christ, Id. ad Magnes. [...], who doth not any thing without his Father: resolving finally, that they who give unto their Governour the name of Bishop, Id. ibid. [...], and yet do what they list without him; do in effect, as those did unto Christ our Saviour, who said unto him, Lord, Lord, and yet did nothing which he said. As for particulars, he would have those which marry, or are given in marriage, Id. in Epist. ad Polycar. [...], to take the Bishop along with them; that so their marriage may be made according unto Gods Commandment, and not for wantonness. The Eucharist he would not have performed but by the Bishop; ei­ther by him in person, or by his authority; nor Baptism to be administred without his licence and permission. This last expresly in his 4th Epistle, being that unto the Church of Smyrna. Id. ad Smyrn. It is not lawful without the Bishop, [...], either to baptize, or present Oblations, or celebrate the sacrifice of the blessed Eucharist, or solemnize the Love feasts; but all things to be done agreeably unto his direction, according to the will and pleasure of Almighty God. In which as to the Sacrament of Baptism,Tertul. lib. de Baptismo. Tertullian also doth concur; as we shall see hereafter in its proper place: And for the celebrating of the Eucharist by himself in person, and the assembling of the people upon his appointment, the same good Father gives it thus.Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrnens. [...]. Let that administration of the Eucharist be held good and valid, which is done by the Bishop, or such as he permits to do it. And where the Bishop shall appear, there let the Congregation be assembled; as where Christ is, there all the Hosts of Heaven do stand round about him. Those that assemble otherwise than thus, and do not take the Bishop with them in these sacred Actions, are by him said,Id. ibid. paulo post. to break the concord of the Church, and destroy her Order; and consequently are worthy of a greater punishment, than he [...], which doth [Page 259]rebel against his King. Never did Advocate for his see plead a cause more throughly. So throughly, that I dare take up the Conclusion of that blessed Martyr:Id. ad Tarsens. [...]. My Soul for theirs who carefully ob­serve this Order, and keep themselves unto the Rules which are here prescri­bed.

Now that which by Ignatius is laid down before us, XV as to the ministration of the Sacrament, by the Bishop, in way of observation or direction; the same we find in Justin Martyr, who lived about the middle of this second Century; exemplified and repre­sented in the way of Practice. For shewing how a Convert was to be admitted in the Congregation, and that he was received with Common Prayers both for himself,Justin Mart. in Apolog. 2. and for the holy Catholick Church, he doth thus proceed. [...], Prayers being done, we salute one another with an holy kiss. Then do we offer Bread and Wine mixt with Water, [...] to the President or Ruler of the brethren; which he receiving, presenteth to the Father of all, by the name of the Son and holy Ghost, the sacrifice of praise and glory, rendring immortal thanks unto him in that he hath vouchsafed those his gifts unto us: who having offered this oblation of Prayer and Thanksgiving, the Congregation present say Amen. The President or [...] having done his part, in celebrating of the Eucharist, and the People crowning his performance with their best Devotions, [...], those who by us are called Ministers or Deacons (for both these words the Latin useth) distribute unto every one there present, a portion of the blessed bread and wine mixt with water, that he may communicate thereof; and also carry part thereof unto such as are absent. Which aliment (being thus consecra­ted and received) we call the Eucharist, and is delivered unto none, but such as do believe our doctrine, and have been washed in the laver of Regeneration. And not long after, ma­king a description of their Assemblies on the Sunday, he first relates that the Commentaries of the Apostles and writings of the Prophets, as much as the time will suffer, are read be­fore them. Then addeth, that the Reader having done, [...], &c. the President or [...] makes a Sermon, wherein he doth instruct the People in the performance of those excellent things, which are contained in the same. Which done we all arise, and make our Prayers unto the Lord, and then the Bread and Wine and Wa­ter, as before, is offered: the [...] proceeding to the Eucharist, according to the manner formerly described. Here then we have the celebration of the Eucharist, and the Preaching of Gods holy Word, performed ordinarily by the [...] or President of the Congregation: but what this [...] should be, is the point in question. For resolution of which doubt, it is clear and evident, that by [...] anciently was meant the Bishop, as may appear by that of Eusebius, calling Publius Bishop of Athens by this name [...], as he stiles him there;Euseb. hist. Ec. l. 4. c. 22. [...]. and so in other places and in other Writers. Nor do I find that it was any way applyed to inferiour Presbyters, till after the division of the Church into several Parishes, not in some Cities only, but in all parts else; after which times the Presbyters or Mi­nisters of Parochial Churches having cure of Souls, by and from the Bishop, and having got the name of Rectors; came to be called in some Writers [...] also, as we shall see hereafter in its proper place. But what need any of the Ancients come in for evidence; when as the matter is confessed by those, who were the greatest ad­versaries of Episcopacy? For Beza making Timothy, whom we have proved suffici­ently to have been a Bishop, to be the President or [...] of the Ephesine Presby­tery; and such a President or [...], ut Justinus vocat, Beza Annot. in Tim. 5.19. as Justin Martyr speaks of in the present place: it must needs be, that Justin Martyrs President or [...] was a Bishop also, as Timothy is proved to be. Which if it be not clear enough, we have a second that speaks plainer, and he the greatest Champion of the adverse Party, which had the honour to be bred in the Church of England; Cartwright I mean,Cited by Bish. Downham in his defence, l. 4. c. 1. sect. 17. who tells us, with great grief no question, that even in Justins time there began to peep, out something, which went from the simplicity of the Gospel, as that the name of [...], which was common to the Elders with the Ministers of the Word, was it seemeth appropriated unto one. So that by the confession of the Adversaries to Episcopal Government we have gained thus much, that the administration of the Sacrament of the blessed Eucharist, did pro­perly and in chief belong unto the Bishop, as was affirmed by Ignatius, and proved in point of practice out of Justin Martyr. And so much for the first half of the second Century; what is presented to us in the other half, we are next to see.

CHAP. II. The setling of Episcopacy together with the Gospel, in the Isle of Britain, by Pope Eleutherius.

  • 1. What Bishops Egesippus met with in his Peregrination; and what he testifieth of them.
  • 2. Of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth; and of the Bishops by him mentioned.
  • 3. How Bishops came to be ordained, where none were left by the Apostles.
  • 4. The setling of the Gospel in the Isle of Britain by Pope Eleutherius.
  • 5. Of the Condition of the Church of Britain from the first preaching of the Gospel there, till the time of Lucius.
  • 6. That Lucius was a King in those parts of Britain which we now call England.
  • 7. Of the Episcopal Sees here founded by King Lucius at that time.
  • 8. Touching the Flamines and Arch-fla­mines, which those stories speak of.
  • 9. What is most like to be the reason of the number of the Archbishopricks and Bishop­ricks here, of old established.
  • 10. Of the Successors, which the Bishops of this Ordination are found to have on true Record.
  • 11. Which of the British Metropolitans was anciently the Primate of that Nation.

AMongst those several Writers of the Primitive times, I out of whose works Euse­bius collected his materials, for the composing of the Ecclesiastical History, which we still enjoy: one of the antientest was Egesippus, one that took great pains in the self-same kind.Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 4.21. [...]. Five books he writ, as both Eusebius and Saint Hierom tell us, touch­ing the Acts and Monuments of the Church of God: this last affirming of the work, that it contained many things, ad utilitatem legentium pertinentia, exceeding profitable to the Reader;De scriptor. Eccles. though written in a plain and familiar stile. Some fragments of his cited by Eusebius, we have seen before; the body of his Works being eaten by the teeth of Time: and one we are to look on now, being the remainder of a most ac­curate and full confession of his Faith,Euseb. ut supra. which he left behind him. There he relates, [...], that in a Journey towards Rome, he did confer with many Bishops; and that he found amongst them all the same Form of Doctrine: there being no City where he came, no Episcopal succession, wherein he found not all things so confirmed and setled, as they were prescribed by the Word, taught by the Prophets, and Preached by our Lord and Saviour. Particularly he tells us of the Church of Corinth, [...], that it continued constantly in the Orthodox Faith, till the time that Primus was there Bishop: with whom he had much conference, as he sailed to­wards Rome, staying with him many days at Corinth, and being much delighted with his Conversation. Of Rome he only doth inform us, that he abode there till the time of Anicetus, whose Deacon Eleutherus at that time was; who not long after did succeed in his Pastors Chair: Soter succeeding Anicetus; Eleutherus succeeding Soter. Where by the way,De viris ill. in Egesip. I wonder how Saint Hierom came to place the coming of Egesippus unto Rome, sub Aniceto, when Anicetus was there Bishop; considering that Egesippus tells us he was there before; and that he there continued [...], until the time of Anicetus, as before was said. Discoursing of the Errours of the Jews his Countrey-men, he sheweth that after James the Just was martyred in defence of Christs Truth and Gospel; Simeon the son of Cleophas and Uncle to our Saviour, was erected Bishop: all the Disciples giving their voices unto him, as being of their Masters kindred: He ad­deth that Hierusalem (whereof he speaketh) was called for long time, the Virgin Church; as being undefiled with the filth of Heresies: and that Thebulis was the first who broach­ed strange Doctrine in the same; the man being discontented, as it seemed, [...], because he was not made a Bishop. So far the pieces of this Journal, or Itinerary direct us in this present search, as to discern how strong a bul­wark the Episcopal succession hath been, and been accounted also, of Gods sacred Truths; how strong a Pillar for support of that blessed building.

At the same time with Egesippus lived Dionysius, II the learned and renowned Bishop of the Church of Corinth, Euseb. Eccles. hist. l. 4. c. 22. [...]. De scriptor. Ecc. successor to that Primus whom before we spoke of. A man, as both Eusebius and Saint Hierom say, of such both industry and Eloquence, [Page 261] ut non solum suae Civitatis & Provinciae populos, that he instructed not alone by his Epistles the people of his own City and Province, but also those of other Churches. One writ he, saith Eusebius, to the Lacedemonians, at once confirming them in faith and love: another unto the Athenians, about the time that Publius, their Bishop, suf­fered Martyrdom; exhorting them to live according to the prescript of Christs holy Gospel. In that Epistle he makes mention of Quadratus also, who succeeded Publius in that charge; declaring also, that Dionysius the Areopagite being converted by Saint Paul, was made the first Bishop of that City. Of which three Bishops of Athens, Qua­dratus is much celebrated by Eusebius for an Apologie by him written,Euseb. l. 4. c. 3. and tendred unto Adrian the Emperour, in the behalf of Christians; being the first piece of that kind that was ever written in the World: and written, as it seems, with such power and efficacy,Id. ibid. c. 9. that shortly after Adrian desisted from his persecuting of the Church of God, making a Law or Edict for their future safety. But to go on with Dionysius. A third he writ unto the Nicomedians, opposing in the same the Heresies of Mar­cion: a fourth unto the Gortynaeans, in which he much commended their Bishop Philip, in that the Church committed to his care and governance [...], had been made famous by so many tryals both for faith and constancy. He writ unto the Church of Amastris also, and the rest in Pontus; speaking by name of Palma, the Bishop there: as also to the Church of Gnossus, in the Isle of Crete; in which he did persuade Pintus, Bishop of the same, [...], not to impose that grievous yoke of Chastity upon his brethren, as a matter necessary; but to consider rather the infirmity and weakness of them. Finally, there was extant in Eusebius's time another Epistle of this Dionysius, to the Church of Rome; wherein he magnifieth their abundant cha­rity towards all the Brethren which were in want or persecution, not only of their own, but of other Cities: highly commending Soter, who was then their Bishop, who did not only study to preserve them in so good a way, [...], but also did encourage them to improve their bounties. So much remains of Dionysius and his publick Acts: by which we may perceive, that though the Bishops of those times (as since) had their particular Sees and Cities, yet did their care extend unto others also; maintaining a continual intercourse betwixt one another, not only for their mutual comfort in those dangerous times, but also for the better government of the Church it self; the Unity whereof was then best preserved by that correspondence which the Bishops, in the name of their several Churches, had with one another. For other Bishops of those times, not to say any thing of Melito or Polycarpus, whom before we spake of; nor of the Bishops of the four Patriarchal Sees, which we shall have occasion to remember shortly: those of most fame were Papias and Apollinarius, Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c 23. [...]. Bishops succes­sively of Hierapolis a City of Phrygia; Pothinus Bishop of Lyons in France; Id. l. 4. c. 25. [...]. Id. l. 5. c. 6. [...]. Id. c. 21. [...]. Id. c. 25. [...]. Ibid. c. 18. [...]. Theophi­lus Bishop of Caesarea; Cassius Bishop of Tyre; Clarius Bishop of Ptolomais, all three in Palestine; Publius Julius Bishop of Debelto a Colony in Thrace; with many others of great eminency; whereof consult Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 5. c. 18. [...]. & cap. 21. [...].

By this that hath been said of Dionysius, and other Bishops of his time, III it is clear and evident, that Bishops had been setled even in those early days) in many Cities, where­in we do not find that any had been formerly ordained by the Apostles. But how they were so setled, and by whose authority, hath in these later days been made a question. Our Masters in the Church of Rome, appropriate the power of instituting and erect­ing new Episcopal Sees, to their Bishop only, as being the only, universal and supream Pastor of the Church. Bellarmine hath resolved it so, in terms express.Bellarm. de Rom. pont. l. 2. c. 12. Apostolorum proprium erat, It properly pertained (saith he) to the Apostles to constitute Churches, and propagate the Gospel in those Churches wherein it never had been Preached. So far unquestionably true, but what followeth after? Et hoc ad Romanum Pontificem perti­nere, & ratio & experientia ipsa nos docet. And that this doth belong to the Popes of Rome, both reason and experience teach us. Belong it doth indeed to the Popes of Rome, so far we dare joyn issue with him: but that it doth belong to the Pope alone, and not to any other Bishops but by his sufferance and authority, which is the matter to be proved, that there is neither reason nor example for. No reason certainly, for if this did belong to all the Apostles, as Bellarmine affirms it did, then other Bishops which derive their pedigree from Andrew, James, John, Paul, or any other of the Apostles, have as much interest herein as the Popes of Rome, who challenge their de­scent from Peter. And for Examples, if they go by that, they have a very desperate cause to manage. 'Tis true indeed, that Clemens, one of the first Bishops of the Church [Page 262]of Rome, Ino Carnotens. in Chron. M.S. citat. à Patr. Junio. did ordain several Bishops in his time, and placed them in the chief Cities of those parts of Gallia which lay near unto him, as viz. Photinus at Lions, Paul at Narbon, Gratian at Tours, others in other places also, as Ino Carnotensis hath reported of him. But then it is as true withal, that other Bishops did the like in their times and places. Christianity and Episcopacy had not else in so short a time been propa­gated over all the World; if those which dwelt far off and remote from Rome, could not have setled and ordained Bishops in convenient places, without running thither, or having a Commission thence. And though we have no precedent hereof, in the present age, yet we may see by the continual practice in the ages following, that Bi­shops were first propagated over all the Churches, by the assistance of such neighbour Churches, in whom there had been Bishops instituted either by the Apostles and Evan­gelists themselves, or by their Successors. Frumentius being in some hope of gaining the Indians beyond Ganges to the faith of Christ, was made a Bishop for that purpose, [...],Socrat. Eccles. hist. lib. 1. c. 15. as the story hath it: not by the Pope of Rome, nor with his privity or consent that we can hear of, but by Atbanasius the great and famous Pa­triarch of Alexandria. Theodoret. hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 4. And when Eusebius Samosatanus had a mind, for the suppres­sing of the growth of Arianism, to erect Dolicha [...] as my Author calls it, a small City, but greatly pestred with that Heresie, into an Episcopal See: we find not that he sent to Rome for a Commission, but actually ordained Maris, Bishop of the place; and went himself to see him inthronized in the same. So in like manner Saint Basil ordained Gregory Nazianzen Bishop of Sasima, making that Town a Bishops See, which before was none:Gregor. Presb. in vita Nazian. and thereupon Gregorius Presbyter writing the life of Nazian­zen, calls it very properly [...], a Bishoprick or Episcopal See of a new foundation. And thus Saint Austin also in the age succeeding erected an Episcopal See in Fussata, a City or walled Town in his own Diocess of Hippo, making one Antonius the first Bishop there,August. Epist. Bellarm. de Ecc. lib. 4. c. 8. the Primate of Numidia returning with him in the Ordination. Nor did they this, as fain the Cardinal would have it, à sede Apostolica fa­cultatem habentes, by force of any faculty procured from Rome; which is gratis dictum: but by their own proper and innate authority, as they were trusted with the Gover­nment of the Church of Christ.

So then the Bishops only of the Church of Rome had not the sole authority of insti­tuting Bishops, IV where none were before. That's a dream only of the Pontifician. Autho­rity they had to do it, as had others also; and hereof doth occur a notable and signal evidence in this present Age: viz. the setling of the Church of Britain, and planting Bishops in the same by Pope Eleutherius. Damas. in vita Eleuther. apud Bin. in Concil. Tom. 1. Of him it is affirmed in the Pontifical, ascri­bed to Damasus, (who lived about the year 370.) accepisse Epistolam à Lucio Britan­nico Rege, ut Christianus efficeretur per ejus mandatum; that he received an Epistle from Lucius a British King, desiring that by his authority he might be made a Christian: Our venerable Bede, a right ancient Writer, thus reports the story. Anno ab incar­natione Domini 156;Beda hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 4. &c. In the 156 year after Christs Nativity, Marcus Antonius Ve­rus together with Aurelius Commodus his brother, did in the fourteenth place from Augustus Caesar, undertake the Government of the Empire. In whose times, when as Eleutherius a godly man was Bishop of the Church of Rome, Lucius King of the Britains sent unto him, obsecrans ut per ejus mandatum Christianus efficeretur, intreat­ing by his means to be made a Christian; whose vertuous desire herein was granted; and the faith of Christ being thus received by the Britains, was by them kept invio­late and undefiled until the times of Dioclesian. Wherein as I submit to Beda, as to the substance of the story, so I crave leave to differ from him as to the matter of Chro­nologie. For by this reckoning Eleutherius must attain the Popedom Anno 167. as Beda elsewhere doth compute it;Beda in histor. Epitom. which is ten years at least before the time assigned him by most other Writers. And therefore I shall rather chuse to follow the com­monly received account, by which the said two Emperours are brought upon the Government of the Roman Empire, Anno 161. and the attaining of the Popedom by this Eleutherius is placed in the 17th year of Mareus, Anno 177. Lucius Aurelius Commodus being dead before. But in this Controversie, as it belongeth to Chronology, I shall not meddle at the present. It is enough, that the planting of the Gospel a­mongst the Britains, was, as the greatest, so the first action of this Pope, done by him, as we read in Platina, Platina in vita Eleutheril. inito pontificatu, at his first entrance on the place: wherein Philippus Bergomensis in Supplemento Chronicorum, l. 8. and Cocc. Sabellicus, Ennead. 7. l. 5. do either follow him,Harpsfield in Ec. hist. Angl. c. 3. or concur with him. How Lucius came to be inflamed with this holy zeal, is related diversly. Nicolas Harpsfield doth conceive it to be on [Page 263]occasion of the great Miracle then lately done by the Christian Legion, obtaining rain from Heaven by their fervent prayers, on the Imperial Army much distressed with drought; by means whereof the Emperors dealt very favourably with the Christians, adjecta etiam accusatoribus damnatione, even to the condemnation of their false Accusers.Tertull. Apol. cap. 5. Others conceive, that being in himself of a sweet and gratious disposition, he was much taken with the reports that had come unto him, de miraculis Christi, Chron. Gisebur. cit. ap. Arma­can. de Primor­diis. & praedica­tione Apostolorum, touching the miracles of Christ, and the preaching of his holy Apostles. And possibly it might be both, one adding help and strength unto the other. But whichsoever it was, it seemeth he was not very forward at the first to im­brace the Gospel, being retarded from the same by the obscure and poor condition of the Christians. But when he had been well informed by Pertinax and Trebellius, Balaeus de scrip. Brit. cent. 1. Lieu­tenants in this Island for the Roman Emperors, Romanorum illustres aliquot illam ad­mifisse, that many men of mark amongst the Romans had received the faith; he then resolved to go through with his good intentions. And being so resolved, Lib. de primo statu Landa­nen. eccl. citat. apud Armacan. c. 4. he dispatched away Eluanus and Maduinus, Britans both, and both initiated in the faith, to Pope Eleu­therius; who giving thanks to God for so great a blessing, did first of all Baptize the Legates or Ambassadors; and having Consecrated Eluanus Bishop, and fitted Meduinus for a Doctor, or an instructer of the people, or made him Presbyter, as I conceive the meaning of the place to be, he sent them back again to Lucius. The issue of the business was, eorum praedica­tione Lucius, & totius Britanniae primates baptismum susceperunt, that by their preach­ing, both Lucius and all the Noblemen of Britain received the Sacrament of Baptism; and that according to the order of the said Eleutherius, the State Ecclesiastical was established, Bishops ordained, and the rules of godly living shewed unto the people. Nor did he trust this work to those two alone, but he sent with them others also, Faganus, Platina in vita Eleuther. alii. and Deruvianus (or Damianus, as some call him) to assist the work, and contribute their best endea­vours to so great a business, as most of our Historians witness.

This though it were a notable and signal work, V and that we stand indebted for it unto the piety and zeal of that holy Pope; yet was not this the planting of the Gospel here, but the watering of it. The planting of it was before, perhaps before it had been planted even in Rome it self. Gildas, Gildas de exci­dio Brit. ini­tio. one of the notedst Antiquaries of the British Nation doth affirm expresly, Tempore, ut scimus, summo Tiberii Caesaris, that in the latter days of Tiberius Caesar, our Saviour Christ the Sun of righteousness had with his beams enlightened this frozen Island, and that his Gospel was here propagated with­out let or hinderance. Now Christ our Saviour suffered in the 18th. year of this Tiberius, and he again deceased in the 39th. of our Saviour; so that the faith of Christ was at the furthest preached unto the Britains within five years after the bitter passion of our Lord Christ Jesus. Whether at Rome so soon, or not, let them prove that can. That it was here so early, we have shewed a proof above all exception; and yet we have one more to come as little liable to exception, in the opinion of the Romanists as that before. It is a passage extant in Baronius, Baron. in An­nal. an. 25. n. 5. and by him borrowed from the Acts or History of Mary Magdalen and her Associats; which tells us this, that after the dis­persion of the Disciples on the death of Steven, Lazarus, Mary Magdalen, Martha, and Marcella, in quos Judaei majori odio exardescebant, against whom the Jews were more in­censed than against any of the rest, were not only thrust out of Hierusalem, but together with one Maximinus, one of the Disciples, put into a Boat without Oars, and so com­mitted unto the mercy, or the fury rather of the Sea, but were at last by Gods great providence brought unto Marseilles in safety, together with Joseph of Arimathea, who made himself a partner in the danger with them, and after went from Gaul to Britain, illicque post praedicatum Evangelium, diem clausit extremum, where having Preached the Gospel, he did end his days. With this, as for the time of Josephs coming into Britain, agreeth the argument made by the English Ambassadors at the Council of Constance, Citat. ap. Ar­macan. de Pri­mordiis Brit. eccles. c. 2. upon occasion of a controversie therein agitated, touching the dignity and greatness of the Kingdoms of England and France. In which it was thus pleaded by the English Advocates, statim post passionem Christi, that presently on the passion of Christ, Joseph of Arimathea that noble Counsellor, who took our Saviour from the Cross, that he might early in the morning apply himself unto the dressing of the Lords Vineyard, came with his twelve Associates into England (i.e. that part of Britain which was then called England) and converted the People of it to the Faith. And this I take,Malmesbur. in hist. Monast. Glaston. Joh. Capgrave. alii. building upon the words of Gildas, to be more consonant to the truth of story, than to put off his coming hither unto the 63. year after Christs Nativity, or the 20. after his Ascension, as some of our Historians do, on far less Authority. But being come, and [Page 264]having Preached the Gospel here, as it is generally delivered by our ancient writers, he retired himself unto the Isle of Avalonia, Polyd. Virg. hist. Ang. l. 2. alii multi. Vide c. 3. & 4. which we now call Glassenbury, and there applyed himself unto his devotions; leaving the work by him begun, to receive a fur­ther measure of perfection both from S. Peter who was here in person, and from Ari­stobulus whom Saint Paul sent hither, as before was said. And though we do not find any evident footstep, that either Aristobulus being ordained Bishop of the Britains, or that those Bishops who are said to have been ordained by Saint Peter, left any to succeed them in that sacred office; or that Religion had gained much upon the People of this Island, being then hardly civilized, and almost continually in wars and troubles: Yet did the Sceleton or carkass of it continue still from this time forwards, even to the days of Dioclesian; Gildas de ex­cidio Brit. in initio. sure I am Gildas doth expresly say it, that howsoever the Gospel was received here but very coldly at the first, apud quosdam tamen integre, apud alios minus, usque ad persecutionem Diocletiani tyranni novennem, yet it continued amongst some in greater, with others in a less perfection, until the nine years Persecution raised by Dioclesian. Balaeus descrip­tor. Cent. 1. c. 27.28. Antiq. P. it. alii. And questionless from this old brood of Christians Eluanus and Me­duinus before remembred (whereof the one is called Avalonus, the other Belga, this being the old name of that sept or nation, to which the Isle of Avalonia in those times belonged) receive their first affections to the Faith of Christ.

But of this little question hath been raised amongst our Antiquaries. VI The greatest scruple is concerning Lucius, and the number of Episcopal Sees by him erected, whom the opposers of this story allow not to be King of Britain, which was reduced at that time to a Roman Province; and so by consequence of no ability to build so many Chri­stian Churches, and endow the same, for the advancement of a Religion not publickly allowed of in the Roman Empire. But this, as I conceive, is no such objection, but what may easily be answered, considering what was vouched out of Bede, before, the ancientest writer of the English Nation, and no great friend unto the British. For they that know the customs of the Roman Empire,Tacit. de vit. Ag [...]c. know this well enough, that nothing was more usual with them, quam habere instrumenta servitutis, & Reges, than to permit Kings in the conquered Countries, making them to be helps and instruments for bringing the People into bondage. And they that know the passages of the present times cannot choose but tell that Lucius Verus living in the times whereof we speak, having put an end unto the War against the Parthians, Capitolinus in Vero. regna Regibus, provincias vero Co­mitibus suis regendas dedisse, did give those Kingdoms which he had subdued to be ruled by Kings; the Provinces to be ruled by Earls or Counts. So that our Lucius might be very well a King in Britain, notwithstanding the reduction of it to a Roman Pro­vince; especially considering that besides his birth-right, he was confirmed in the same.Balaeus de scrip. Brit. Cen. 1. c. 29. M. Antonini Veri tum benevolentiâ, cum authoritate, both by the power and fa­vour of M. Antoninus Verus, then the Roman Emperour. A King then Lucius was, and a King in Britain; in Britain as a King of some part thereof, such as Pratusagus and Cordigunus, Tacit. Annal. l. 14. & l. de Vit. Agric. of whom Tacitus speaketh, had been before; but not a King of Britain, as of all the Island, it being probable that there were other petty Kings and Roytelets as well as he. But as it hapned after in the Saxon Heptarchie, that he which was more eminent than the rest for power and puissance, was called commonly Rex Gentis An­glorum, the King or Monarch of the English Nation: So I conceive, that of these tri­butary Kings in Britain, such as were in their several times of more power than others, assumed unto themselves the stile or title of Reges Britannorum, the Kings of the Britains, by which name of Rex Britannorum, and not Rex Britanniae, Lucius is called in Beda, as before was said: And thus then the seeming difficulty may be better solved than by running out I know not whither, beyond the territories of the Romans, to look for Lucius in the North parts of the Isle which we now call Scotland; only because it is affirmed by Tertullian, Tertul. li. adv. Judaeos cap. 7. Britannorum inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo esse subdita, that those remoter parts of Britain which never had been Conquered by the Romans, were sub­dued to Christ; which might well be after the Gospel had been first received in the Southern Countreys. In which, as I can no way blame the Scots for seeking to appro­priate this honour to their own part of the Island; so can I not but wonder at our Learned Camden, Camden in B [...]l. deseript. that without seeing better cards, he should so easily give up such an hopeful game. As for the name of Lucius, it is meerly Latine, and that derived upon him either from the British Llos (fashioned on the Roman anvil) as in that language he is called, or taken up from Lucius Verus, one of the partners in the Empire at that very time, unto which family he stood indebted for his Crown and dignity, or given him else upon the post-fact, after the glorious light of truth had shined on him, in [Page 265]which regard the Britans call him Lever Maur, a man of great splendor and renown,Addit. in Nin. ap. Armacan. de Primordies. c. 3. propter fidem quae in ejus tempore venit, by reason of the faith which in his time was brought into this Island.

But to go forwards with our story: Lucius and his Nobles being thus Baptized, VII Faganus and Deruvianus return to Rome, giving to Eleutherius an account of their great success; of whom being joyfully received, and their Acts applauded, they returned back again to Britain, accompanied with many others,Matth. Westm. hist. in an. 186. quorum doctrina gens Britonum in fide Christi in brevi fundata refulsit, by whose assiduous preaching the whole British Nation became in very little time to be well setled and confirmed in the faith of Christ. Now at this time of their repair unto the Pope, I conceive it was, that they received in­structions from him, for dealing with that godly King to found Episcopal Sees in the most convenient places of his Dominions; themselves receiving at that time, in all probability, the Episcopal Character. For after this I find them honoured with the name of Bishops, being by Rodburn in his Chronicle called Antistites, Citat. ap. Ar. l. de Primor. c. 6. Id ibid. cap. 5. and by the Au­thor of the book entituled De Antiquitatibus Ecclesiae Wintoniensis, in plain terms Epis­copi: Faganus being further said by some to have been made the first Arch-Bishop of the See of York. Being returned into Britain, and the King throughly established in the faith of Christ, it was no difficult matter to persuade him to turn the Temples of the Idols into Christian Churches, and to appropriate the revenues of them to more pious uses. And this he did, as Matthew of Westminster observes,Matth. westmor. hist. in An. 187. although he differ from us in his calculation, the very next year after their return from Rome. Gloriosus Rex Britonum Lucius, &c. Lucius the glorious King of the Britains, when he had seen the faith of Christ dispersed and propagated over his dominions, possessiones & territoria Ecclesiis & viris Ecclesiasticis abundanter conferens, bestowing with a liberal hand possessi­ons and revenues both on Church and Church-men, did ratifie the said donations by his publick Charters. And this he saith on the Authority of Gildas, who in a book of his, entituled De victoria Aurelii Ambrosii, not now extant, had affirmed the same. Radulphus de Diceto speaks more fully to the point in hand: Eleutherus, saith he,Citat. ap. Ar­machan. lib. de Primord. c. 4. sent into Britain Faganus and Diwanus (for so he calls him) who having Baptized Lucius the King, templa etiam quae in honorem plurimorum deorum fundata erant, did dedicate un­to the one and only God those Temples which had been built in former times to the honour of Idols. More fully, yet in fewer words, Gervase of Tilbury doth relate it thus: Hic Lucius omnia territoria, templis pridem collata, contulit Ecclesiis, & ampliavit: Ap. eund. c. 6. This Lucius, saith he, bestowed upon the Churches those Lands and Territories which had been formerly conferred on the Pagan Temples, and inlarged them also. So that we find the Church indowed, and Bishops instituted in the time of Lucius; and that I hold to be above all exception, as will appear more evidently by the Episcopal suc­cession, reckoned from this time; but whether in so large a number, and upon that occasion, as it is laid before us in our common Chroniclers, that is the point to be con­sidered. Now our Historians, old and new, very few excepted, report that in those times in Britain there were no less than 28 Cities of name and eminency, whereof 25 had anciently been the seats of the Heathen Flamines, the three remaining, viz. York, London, and Caer-Leon upon Ʋske, of the Archiflamines; and that upon the introduction of the Gospel hither, the Temples of the Idols being turned into Christian Churches, instead of Flamines they placed Bishops, Archbishops in the place of the Archi-Flamines. All our own Writers which speak of the foundation of these Bishopricks, from Geofry of Monmouth down to Polydore Virgil, do report it thus, And so do many forrein also, beginning with Martinus Polonus, who first took it up, and so descending down to Platina, and since to other later Authors, both ours and theirs. Erant tunc in Britannia vig inti octo Pontifices Idolorum, quos Flamines vocabant; inter quos tres Archiflamines erant. Martin. Polo­nus in Chron. Sed praedicti Sancti (that is, Faganus and Deruvianus) de mandato Apostolici, ubi erant Flamines, instituerunt Episcopos; ubi Archiflamines, Archiepiscopos. We had the same before in England, save that the Popes appointment (mandatum Apostolici) doth here occur, which there we had not. And how far this may stand with probability, or with truth of story, is in the next place to be looked on.

And for the number of them first, VIII it cannot be denied but that of old there were no less than 28 Cities in these parts of Britain which we now call England. Beda Hist. Ecc. Angl. l. 1. cap. 1. Beda affirms it so expresly, Erat & viginti octo Civitatibus quondam nobilissimis insignita, that Britain anciently was ennobled with 28 signal and noted Cities, besides Towns and Castles. Henry of Huntingdon doth not only declare as much,Huntingdonen. hist. l. 1. in init. but lets us know the several names whereby they had been called in the Britains time; and by the which the most of them [Page 266]were known in the later Ages, when he lived. And possibly there might be Bishops in them all, according as the Gospel did inlarge its borders, and Provinces were gained to the Faith of Christ; though neither all so early as the days of Lucius, nor all of his foundation and endowment, as it is supposed. It was a work too mighty for a petty Prince to spread his arms at once over all the Island, especially so many Provinces thereof being none of his. What might be done in times succeeding, and by his ex­ample, is not now the question; nor whether that which was done after, might in some sort be ascribed to him, as being the first that gave the on-set, and shewed the way to others, how to do the like; as Rome is said to have been built by Romulus, be­cause he began it, the greatest part thereof being built a long time after. And this seems probable to me,Ap. Bedam. hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 29. as to the number of the Sees Episcopal, that there were so many, because that Gregory the great by his constitution, appointed twelve Bishops for the Province of Canterbury, and twelve also unto that of York, which with the four in Wales, which are still remaining, will make up eight and twenty in the total. But for the Flamines and Arch-flamines, I must confess I am not so well satisfied in the pro­bability and truth of that. That by the name of Flamines the Gentiles used to call the Priests of their several Gods,Isidor. Origin. l. 7. c. 12. I know well enough. Socerdotes Gentilium Flamines dice­bantur, as it is in Isidore. But being that one and the same City had not only many Flamines, but also many Colleges of Flamines, according to the number of the Gods they worshipped, some for Mars, others for Jupiter, and some for Romulus; and that there is no ancient Writer of the Roman stories which mentioneth either Archiflamines or Protoflamines, Godwin. Lan­davens. tract. de convers. Brit. as is objected very well by B. Godwin: I must confess I am not so well satisfied in this point, as to deliver it for a certain and undoubted truth. He that de­sires to see what may be answered unto those objections, let him consult the learned and laborious work of Francis Mason, Mason de Mi­nist. Ang. l. 2. c. 3. late Archdeacon of Norfolk, De Ministerio Angli­cano, the sum whereof in brief is this, Licet in una urbe multi Flamines, that though there were many Flamines in one City, yet was there only one which was called Pon­tifex, or Primus Flaminum, the Pope or principal of the Flamines; of which kind one for every City were those whom our Historians speak of: And for the Archiflamines, or Proto-Flamines, Beda hist. eccl. Angl. l. 2. c. 13. though the name occur not, yet were there some in power and autho­rity above the rest, who were entituled primi Pontificum, (as indeed Coifi, by that name is called in Beda) which is the same in sense with Archiflamines, although not in sound. This if it satisfie the Reader, shall not thwart with me, who am no enemy unto the story, or any part thereof, which may well be justified. If not, but that it rather be accounted a device of Monkish ignorance, I shall desire them who are so opinionated to consider this, that few of the records of those elder days have come entire unto our hands; and that it is no marvel it such an ancient story as this is (considering through whose hands it passed) hath in so long a tract of time contracted somewhat of that rust and rubbish wherewith the middle ages of the Church did so much abound.

Yet if mine own opinion were demanded in it, IX though I agree unto the story, both for the number of the Bishops and the Metropolitans, I must needs think there was some other reason for it than the relation of the number of the Flamines and Archi­flamines, which is there pretended: And that this was not done at once, but in a lon­ger tract of time than the Reign of Lucius, as was in part affirmed before. That Lucius did convert the Temples of the Idols into Christian Churches, setled the reve­nues of the same upon the Churches by him founded, I shall easily grant, so far forth as the bounds of his dominions will give way unto it; but being there were but 28 Cities in all that part of Britain which we now call England, as both from Huntingdon and Beda was before delivered; and that King Lucius was but a Tributary Prince of those Regions only, which were inhabited by the Trinobantes and Cattieuchlani, as I do verily conceive he was: I believe rather that the number of the Bishops and Arch­bishops which our stories speak of, related to the form of government, as it was after­wards established in the Roman Empire,Notitia Pro­vinc. in div. cap. and not to any other cause whatever. Now they which have delivered to us the state of the Roman Empire, inform us this: That for the easier government and administration of the same, it was divided into fourteen Diocesses (for so they called those greater portions into the which it was divided:) every Diocess being subdivided into several Provinces, and every Province in the same conteining many several Cities. And they which have delivered to us the estate of the Christian Church,Notitia Prov. & dignitat. c. have informed us this, that in each City of the Empire, where­in the Romans had a Defensor Civitatis (as they called that Magistrate) the Christians when they gain'd that City to the holy faith, did ordain a Bishop, that over every [Page 267]Province in which the Romans had their Presidents, they did place an Arch-bishop, whose seat being commonly in the Metropolis of the Province, gave him the name of Metropolitan: and finally that in every Diocess in which the Romans had their Vica­rius, or Lieutenant-General, the Christians also had their Primate, and seated him in the same City also where the other was. This ground thus layed, it will appear up­on examination, that Britain in the time of the Roman Empire was a full Diocese of it self, no way depending upon any other portion of that mighty State,Ib. in Provinc. Occident. sup. c. 3. as any way subordinate thereunto. And being a Diocese in it self, it was divided in those times into these three Provinces, viz. Britannia prima, Cambd. de di­visione Britan. containing all the Countrys on the South of the River Thames, and those inhabited by the Trinobantes, Cattieuchlani, and Iceni: 2. Britannia secunda, comprising all the Nations within the Severn: and 3. Maxima Caesariensis, which comprehended all the residue to the Northern border. In the which Provinces there were no less than 28 Cities, as before is said; of which York was the chief in Maxima Caesariensis; London the principal in Britannia prima; Caer-Leon upon Ʋsk, being the Metropolis in Britannia secunda. And so we have a plain and apparent reason, not only of the 28 Episcopal Sees, erected anciently in the British Church; but why three of them, and three only, should be Metropolitans. For howsoever after this there were two other Provinces taken out of the former three, viz. Valentia and Flavia Caesariensis, which added to the former,Id. ibid. made up five in all: yet this being after the conclusion of the Nicene Council, the Metropolitan dig­nity in the Church remained as before it did, without division or abatement, ac­cording to the Canon of that famous Synod.Concil. Nicen. Can. 6. And herewithal we have a pregnant and infallible Argument, that Britain being in it self a whole and compleat Diocese of the Roman Empire, no way subordinate unto the Praefect of the City of Rome, but under the command of its own Vicarius or Lieutenant-General; the British Church was also absolute and independent, owing nor suit nor service, as we use to say, un­to the Patriarch or Primate of the Church of Rome, but only to its own peculiar and immediate Primate, as it was elsewhere in the Churches of the other Dioceses of the Roman Empire. This I conceive to be the true condition of the British Church, and the most likely reason for the number of Bishops and Arch-bishops here established, according to the truth of Story, abstracted from those errours and mistakes, which in the middle Ages of the Church, have by the Monkish Writers of those times been made up with them.

But for the substance of the story, as by them delivered, X which is the planting of the Church with Bishops in eminent places, that appears evidently true by such re­mainders of antiquity as have escaped the tyranny and wrack of time. For in the Council held at Arles in France, Anno 314.Tom. 1. Conci­lior. Gall. à Sir­mundo edit. we find three British Bishops at once sub­scribing, viz. Eborius Bish. of York, Restitutus B. of London, and Adelfus B. of Colche­ster, there called Colonia Londinensium. Gennadius also, in his Tract, de viris illustribus, mentioneth one Fastidius, by the name of Fastidius Britanniarum Episcopus, Gennad. in Ca­tal. amongst the famous Writers of old time, placing him Anno 420, or thereabouts; whom B. God. win I cannot tell upon what reasons,Godwin in Catal. Episc. Londinens. Cit. ap. Arma­chan. de Pri­mor. c. 5. Cambden in Brigant. reckoneth amongst the Bishops of the See of London. Particularly for the Bishops or Archbishops of the British Church, we have a Catalogue of the Metropolitans of London collected or made up by Joceline, a Monk of Fournest, an ancient Monastery in the North, being 14 in all: which, howsoever the validity thereof may perhaps be questioned by more curious Wits, yet I shall lay down as I find it: taking their names from him; that little story which concerns them, out of other Writers. First then we have Theon or Theonus: 2 Eluanus, one of the two Ambassadours sent by King Lucius to the Pope. 3 Cadar or Cadoeus: 4 Obinus or Owinus: 5 Conanus: 6 Palladius: 7 Stephanus: 8 Iltutus: 9 Theodwinus: 10 Theodredus: 11 Hilarius: Geosr. Mon­mouth, hist. Brit. Speed in descr. Britan. 12 Guitelinus sent as Ambassadour to Aldrocnus King of Armorica or Little-Britain, to crave his aid against the Scots and Picts, who then plagued the Britains: 13 Vodius or Vodinus, slain by Hengist (but some say by Vor­tiger) at the first entrance of the Sateons into this Isle: 14 And last of all, Theonus who had been sometimes Bishop of Gloncester, but was after translated hither, and was the last Bishop of London, of this line or Series. Of some of these, viz. the second, and the three last, there is good constat in Antiquity: whether there be the like of all the residue, I am not able to determine. So for the Bishops or Arch-bishops of York, of the British line, besides Faganus the first Arch-bishop of this See, as before was said and besides Eborius formerly remembred amongst the Subscribers to the Council of Arles: Godw. in Ar­chiep. Ehoracen. our Stories tell us of one Sampson said to be made the Bishop of the place in the time of [Page 266] [...] [Page 267] [...] [Page 268] Lucius; Galfrid. Mo­numet. hist. l. 9. c. 8. of one Pyramus preferred unto this honour by King Arthur, whose domestick Chaplain he then was: and finally of Tadiacus, who together with Theonus the last Bishop of London of this line or Race, fled into Wales, the better to avoid the tyranny of the Saxons, Math. westmon. Matth. Florile­gus in An. 586. Liber Eccles. Landavens. who then made havock of the Church. And for the Bishops or Arch-bishops of Caerleon upon Ʋsk, which was the third Metropolitical City in the account and estimate of those times, we have assurance of Dubritius a right godly man, ordained Bishop of the same by Germanus and Lupus, two French Prelates, at such time as they came to Britain for the suppressing of the Pelagian Heresie; whose Successours we have upon Record, under the Title of Llandaffe to this very day. That Gloucester also in those times was a Bishops See, besides what did appear before, is affirmed by Cambden, Cambden in de­descript. Brit. in Dobunis. who tells us that the Bishops of the same occur in the subscri­ptions to some ancient Councils, under the name of Cluvienses; for by the name of Clevum or Caer-Glowy was it called of old. But not to wander into more particulars, either Sees or Bishops: Athanas. Apo. 2. in initio. we find in Athanasius, that in the Council of Sardica holden in Anno 358. some of the British Bishops were assembled amongst the rest, concurring with them in the condemnation of the Arian Heresies. As also, that in the Council of Ariminum, Sulpit. Severus in hist sacr. l. 2. held the next year after, the British Bishops were there present: three of the which were so necessitous and poor, that they were fain to be maintained at the pub­lick charge, Sanctius putantes fiscum gravare quàm singulos, thinking it far more com­mendably honest to be defraied out of the Exchequer, than to be burdensom unto their Friends. And when Pope Gregory sent Austin hither for the conversion of the Saxons, Beda Ecc. hist. l. 2. cap. 2. he found no fewer than seven Bishops in the British Churches, viz. Herefor­densis, Tavensis, Paternensis, Banchorensis, Elwiensis, Wiccensis, and Morganensis (or rather Menevensis) as Balaeus counts them.Balaeus Cent. 1. c. 70. All of which, that of Paternensis excep­ted only, do still remain amongst us under other names.

Now if I should be asked, XI whom I conceive to have been the Primate of the British Church during the time it flourished, and stood upright, neither oppressed by the ty­ranny of Dioclesian, nor in a sort exterminated by the Saxons fury; I answer, that it is most likely to be the Metropolitan or Arch-bishop of York: And this I do upon these reasons.Tacit. Annal. lib. 14. For first, however it appears by Tacitus, that London was a Town of the greatest Trade, copia negotiorum & commeatuum maxime celebris, as that Author hath it:Id. ibid. yet neither was it ever made a Roman Colony, nor made the seat at any time of the Roman Emperours. But on the other side, York was a Colony of the Romans, even of long continuance, as appears not only by the testimony of Ptolomy and Antoninus; Cambden in Brit. descript. but by this ancient inscription vouched by Mr. Cambden, and by an old Coin of Severus the Roman Emperour, bearing this inscription, COL. EBO­RACUM LEG. VI. VICTRIX. And as it was a Colony of the Roman people, so was it also for a time the seat of the Roman Emperours: For here the Em­perour Severus before remembred, yielded up his Soul: and here Constantius Chlorus de­ceased also,Id. ibid. having both kept their seat there a good time before: here Constantine the great advancer of the Faith and Gospel,Id. ibid. was first brought forth into the World; and here did he first take upon him, together with the name of Caesar, the Government of that part of the Roman Empire, which had belonged unto his Father. So that Eboracum or York, being the ancient seat of the Roman Emperours, what time they pleased to be resident in the Isle of Britain, was questionless the seat of their Vicarii or Lieutenants General, when they were absent from the same: and so by consequence, the seat of the British Primate, according to the Rules and Platform before laid down. Add here that for the time the Romans held this Island in their possession, they setled their Prae­torium for the administration of Justice, in the City of York, drawing thither the re­sort of all the subjects which had any business of that kind, for dispatch thereof: in which regard it is called by Spartianus [...],Spartian. in vita Severi. the City, as by way of excellence. Veniens in Civitatem, primùm in templum Bellonae ductus est, speaking of the entrance which Severus made into the City of York. But that which most of all confirms me, is the subscription of the British Bishops to the Council of Arles, as it is published amongst the Gallick Councils by Sirmundus, thus: Eborius, Episcopus de Civitate E­boracensi, Provincia Britannia. Restitutus Episcopus de civitate Londinensi, Provincia supradicta. Adelphius Episcopus de civitate Colonia Londinensium; exinde Sacerdos Pres­byter, Arminius Diaconus. By which subscription it is plain, that the Bishop or Arch­bishop of York, having place of London, was Primate of the British Church: there being otherwise no reason why he should have precedence in the Subscription. And so much for the setling of Episcopacy in the Church of Britain, at this reception of [Page 269]the Gospel from the See of Rome: being the first time that the Faith of Christ was publickly received and countenanced; not in this Island only, but any other part of the World whatever. All which I have laid down together, that I might keep my self the closer to my other businesses, to which now I hasten.

CHAP. III. The Testimony given unto Episcopal Authority, in the last part of this second Century.

  • 1. The difference betwixt Pope, Victor and the Asian Bishops, about the feast of Easter.
  • 2. The interpleading of Polycrates and Ire­naeus, two renowned Prelates, in the aforesaid cause.
  • 3. Several Councils called about it, by the Bishops of the Church then being; with ob­servations on the same.
  • 4. Of the Episcopal succession in the four prime Sees, for this second Century.
  • 5. An Answer to some Objections made a­gainst the same.
  • 6. The great authority and esteem of the said four Sees, in those early days.
  • 7. The use made of this Episcopal succession by Saint Irenaeus.
  • 8. As also by Tertullian and some other Ancients.
  • 9. Of the Authority enjoyed by Bishops in Tertullians time, in the administration of the Sacraments.
  • 10. As also in enjoyning Fasts, and the dispo­sing of the Churches Treasury.
  • 11. And in the dispensation of the Keys.
  • 12. Tertullian misalledged in maintenance of the Lay-Presbytery.
  • 13. The great extent of Christianity and E­piscopacy, in Tertullians time, concludes this Century.

HAVING thus setled the affairs of the Church of Britain, I we will look back again towards Rome, where we find Victor sitting as successor unto Eleutherius; and the whole Church though free from persecutions, yet terribly embroyled with Schisms and Heresies. For in the later end of Eleutherius, Blastus and Florinus two notorious Hereticks had broached this doctrine, [...],Euseb. Eccl. hist. l. 5. c. 19. that God was the author of sin: and possibly might have spread the venom of their Heresie exceeding far, if Irenaeus that great and learned Bishop of Lyons, being then at Rome, had not pre­scribed a speedy and a sovereign Antidote, in several Tractates and Discourses against the same. But Eleutherius being dead, and Victor in his place, there hapned such a Schism in the Church of Christ, by his precipitance and perversness, that all the water, which Irenaeus and many other godly men could pour into it,Id. l. 5. c. 23. & 24. was hardly suf­ficient to quench the flame. The business which occasioned it, was the feast of Easter: or indeed not the Feast it self, upon the keeping of the which all Christians had a­greed from the first beginnings: but for the day in which it was to be observed, wherein the Churches of Asia had an old Tradition, differing from the rest of Chri­stendom. For whereas generally that festival had been solemnized in the Church of Christ, on the Lords Day next after the Jewish Passeover, as being the day which our Redeemer honoured with his Resurrection: the Christians of the Asian Churches kept it, upon the 14th day of the month precisely, being the very day prescribed for the Jewish Passeover. A business of no great importance, more than for a general con­formity in the Church of Christ; yet such as long had exercised the patience of it, even from the time of Pius Pope of Rome, who first decreed it to be kept on the Lords Day, Die Dominico Pascha celebrari, as it is in Platina; Platina in vi­ta Pii Pont. Euscb. Ecc. hist. l. 5. c. 24. but followed with most heat and violence by this Victor, perhaps upon the Omen of his name. Of whom Eusebius thus reporteth, [...], &c. that he attempted to cut off the whole Church of Asia, together with the Churches adjacent, from the Communion of the Catholick, [...], as if they had maintained some heterodox or dangerous Doctrine contrary to the Faith of Christ. A matter taken very tenderly not only by the Asian Bishops whom it most concerned, but also by some other of the Western parts, who more endeavoured the preservation of the Churches peace, than the ad­vancement and authority of the See of Rome: those of chief note which interessed [Page 270]themselves therein, being Irenaeus, Polycrates: the one Bishop of the Metropolitan Church of Lyons in France; the other of the Church of Ephesus, the Queen of Asia; both ho­nourable in their times and places.

And first Polycrates begins deriving the occasion and descent of their observation, II from Philip [...],Id. ibid. one of the twelve Apostles (not of the seven Deacons, as our Christopherson most ridiculously and falsly doth translate it) who died at Hierapolis a City of Phrygia; and from Saint John [...], who rested on the bosom of our Lord and Saviour; as also from Polycarpus, and Thracias, Bishops of Smyrna, and both Martyrs; Sagaris B. of Laodicea, Papyrus and Melito and many others, who kept the feast of Easter as the Asians did. As for himself, he certifieth, that following the Traditions of his Elders he had done the like; that seven of his kindred had been Bishops, [...], himself being the eighth, and all which did so observe the feast of Easter, when the Jews did prepare the Passeover; that having served God 65 years, diligently canvassed over the holy Scri­ptures, and held both intercourse and correspondence with many of the brethren over all the World, [...], he was the least disturbed at those Bruta fulmina. Adding withal, that he might here commemorate those several Bishops that were assembled at his call to debate the point; [...], but that this bare retital of their names was too great a trouble: who though they could not but be sensible of his imperfections, yet thinking that he bare not those gray hairs for nought, did willingly subscribe unto his Epistle. So far,Id. ibid. c. 24. [...]. and to this purpose he. And on the other side, Irenaeus writing unto Victor ut­terly dislikes that his severe and rigid manner of proceeding, in cutting off so many Churches from the Communion of our Lord, [...], only because they did adhere to the Tradition of their Ancestors in a point of Cere­mony: shewing how much he differed in this business from the temper and moderation of his Predecessours, Soter, Anicetus, Pius, Higinus, Sixtus and Telesphorus, who though they held the same opinions that he did, did notwithstanding entertain the Asian Bishops, when they came unto them, with great affection and humanity; sending to those who lived far distant, the most blessed Eucharist, in testimony of their fellow­ship and Communion with them. Nor did he write thus unto Victor only, [...], but to the Governours or Bishops of many other Churches also. And certainly it was but need that such a Moderator should be raised to atone the difference: the billows beating very highly, and Victor being beset on every side for his stiff perversness, by the Prelates of the adverse party, [...], sharply assaulting him both with words and Wri­tings.

For the composing of this business, III before it grew to such a heat, there could no better means be thought of, than that the Bishops of the Church in their several quarters should meet together to debate and determine of it. And so accordingly they did,Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 22. [...]. [...], and many Sy­nods and assemblies of the Bishops, were held about it: viz. one in Caesarea of Palestine, wherein Theophilus B. of the place, and Narcissus B. of Hierusalem did sit as Presi­dents: another at Rome: a third of all the Bishops of Pontus, in the which Palmas, [...], as the chief amongst them of that Order, did then preside: A fourth there was of the French or Gallick Churches, in the which Irenaeus sat as chief: a fifth of all the Churches about Osroena and the parts adjoyning. Bachyllus Bishop of Co­rinth, [...], and many other Bishops of particular Churches, held their Synod also apart and separate; which all with one consent determined, that the feast of Easter was to be observed on no other day than that upon the which our Sa­viour rose: contrary to the usage of the Asian Churches. In agitation of which bu­siness, I observe these things. First, that Episcopacy in so short a time was setled and confirmed over all the World, or so much of it at the least, as had received the Faith and Gospel. Secondly, that on all emergent Controversies, that did engage the Church of Christ, the Bishops, as men most concerned in the Churches Peace, were still most forward also to compose the same. Thirdly, that on the practices of the Popes of Rome to enlarge their border, the Bishops of the Church of what part soe­ver, have always been most ready to oppose the same; and keep that proud and swel­ling See within the compass of its proper and peculiar bounds. So far were those most godly and Religious men,S [...]ectymn. p. 30. from making a stirrup for Antichrist to get into his Saddle, though some have so given out in these later days to the dishonour of those glorious [Page 271]lights in the House of Christ, and the profane reproach not only of the wisdom of that Church, but also of the Holy Spirit of Almighty God. Fourthly, That on the rising of such differences, as did disturb the Churches Peace, the Bishops of the Church have an innate and proper power,Bellarm. de Con. l. 1.12. of convocating and assembling Councils both Na­tional and Provincial for the appeasing of the same; wherein the greatest Champions of the Popedom, do consent also: Which Power as they made use of, as their own peculiar, when as there were no Christian Princes to have a care unto the main: so since there have been Christian Princes, that Power is not extinguished but directed only. Fifthly, that in those Councils or Synodical meetings, the Bishops and their Clergy had authority both to debate and to determine of all such matters, as did concern the Church of Christ, either in point of Faith or Ceremony; not seeking any confirmation of their Acts and Ordinances, from that Christian People, who were to yield obedience to them. And last of all, that such things as by them were then de­termined, did presently oblige all people under the governance and direction of the said Prelates and Clergy, so met together and assembled, as before is said; as appears partly by that calm which followed over all the Church, upon the holding of these Synods; but principally by that end, which afterwards was put unto this Contro­versie, by the Council of Nice.

But to proceed with Irenaeus that Religious Prelate, IV from what he did as Bishop in the Churches service, for the atoning of her differences and the advancement of her peace; to that which he hath left behind him concerning Bishops, as a learned Wri­ter, the light and glory of this Age. Which evidence of his, because it doth relate to the Episcopal succession in the Church of Christ, as a foundation on the which he doth build his structures; we will first look on the Succession of the four prime Sees, by which we may conjecture at the state and quality of all the rest. And this we can­not do at a better time, than where now we are, the time when Victor sat in the Chair of Rome: which being in the close of the present Century, gives us opportunity, to look as well upon his Predecessors, as his and their Cotemporaries in the same. And first for Rome, from Clemens where we first began,Euseb. in Chr [...]. to Victor which is now the subject of our History, we find the names and actions of nine intermediate Bishops: Clemens being the fourth, and Victor the 14th, in that Catalogue; most of the which had suf­fered death for the sake of Christ, whose honour they preferred before worldly glories. For Antioch next, I find that from Ignatius who began this Century, unto Serapion who sat Bishop there in the conclusion of the same, were five Bishops only: and that in Alexandria, from Cerdo to Demetrius inclusively, were no more than seven. By which it is most clear and evident that the Bishops in neither of these Churches, held the Chair by turns from week to week, or from month to month as some men sup­pose,Beza de divers­grad. but were invested with a constant and fixt preheminence, such as the Bishops now enjoy in the Church of Christ: some of them, in the two last specially, holding out ten years, some twenty, others more than that; as by the Tables of Succession published by Eusebius, doth at full appear. As for Hierusalem, the Bishops thereof indeed held not out so long, there being no fewer than thirteen from Simeon unto Marcus the first Bishop of that Church, which was not of the Circumcision; and thir­teen more betwixt this Marcus and Narcissus, who closed this Century. So that within one hundred years there sat nine and twenty Bishops in this Church: which sheweth, as Baronius well observeth,Bar. in Annal. An. 113. Ecclesiam Hyerosolymitanam dira fuisse persecutione vexatam, that this poor Church was terribly afflicted with persecutions. And so it is most like to be: For standing as it did betwixt Jew and Gentile, and equally hated of them both; how could it chuse but suffer under a double tyranny; each of the ad­versaries striving who should most afflict her? Nor hath Eusebius only given a bare and naked list of names, but calculated punctually and precisely, the time and years, in which all the Bishops of the three first Sees did possess the Government of those Churches, which he professeth that he could not find in the last exactly, by reason of the shortness of their lives, [...],Euseb. Eccl. hist. lib. 4. cap. 5. Niceph. Chron. as his words there are. But what we fail of there, we find performed after by Nicephorus; who hath assigned to every one of them his own term and time: in the which whe­ther he be rather censured than rectified by Petavius, Animadvers. in Epiph. ha­res. 66. I mean not to examine in this place and time. For howsoever at the first Hierusalem was not reckoned for a Patri­archal Church, as the others were: yet in regard of the opinion which was held of the place it self, as being honoured with the Passion of our Lord and Saviour, and with the Preaching of the Holy Hpostles, and consequently reckoned for the Mother-City of [Page 272]the Christian Church; the Bishops of that Church were in great esteem, and the Episcopal succession there preserved on exact record, as in the three great Patriarchal Sees before remembred.

But here I meet with an Objection that must first be answered, V before we see what use is made of this Episcopal succession by the ancient writers. For if that those who thus succeeded one another in these several Churches, were no more than Presbyters, as some please to say, then must we quit the cause, and let fall the action. And though I cannot think that men of wit and learning, whatsoever they say, doe or can possibly conceive them to be other than Bishops, Bishops distinct from Presbyters, both in power and title; yet we are told, and we shall see how truly, that Anicetus, Pius, Higinus, Smectym. p. 23. Telesphorus, and Sextus, whom the Papists call Bishops, and the Popes Pre­decessors, are by Eusebius termed Presbyters; and therefore (for what else must be the inference?) that Bishops and Presbyters are the same. A passage in the which there are almost as many fallacies and mistakes, as words; which I shall briefly represent, and so pass them by. For first, Eusebius, whom they cite, doth not call them Presbyters, but Irenaeus in Eusebius, Euseb. eccl. hist. l. 1. c. 24. [...]. which so great Criticks should have seen. The difference of the Age or time when these Authors lived, maketh a great difference in the use and acceptation of the word: And I believe it cannot easily be found, whatever may be said of Irenaeus, that Bishops are called Presbyters by Eusebius, or any Writer of his time. 2. It is not evident by the Authors words, that [...] is there used to denote the Office, but the Age or rather Seniority of those holy men which preceded Victor in the Church of Rome. Or if it were, yet 3ly. it is past all question, that simply Presbyters they were not, though by him so called, but [...], such as had had the government of that famous Church, and so were Bishops at the least both in name and office. 4. The calling of them by the name of Presbyters doth no more conclude that Presbyters and Bishops were the same, than if a man discoursing of the state of London, should say that my Lord Mayor was a wealthy Citizen; and thereupon a stander by should make this conclusion, that every Citizen is Lord Mayor of London, and hath as much to do in the Government thereof, as he. 5. The Papists do not call Higinus, Pius, Sixtus, and the rest there mentioned by the name of Bishops; or if they do, they do not call them so quà Papists; or if so too, and that none call them so but Papists, there is almost no Father in the Church of Christ who may not presently be endited and condemned of Popery, because there is almost no Father, nor any other ancient Writer who doth not call them by that name. 6. And lastly, it is no Popery, nor the language of a Papist neither, to say that Pius, Sixtus, and the rest there named, were the Popes Predecessors; for Predecessors of the Popes they were in their See and Government, though neither in their Tyranny nor Super­stition. Nor doth this Argument strike only at the Popes of Rome, though they only named, but at all the Bishops of the Primitive Church, whether of the greater Patri­archal Sees, or of any other; who, if the observation of these men be good and valid, were no more but Presbyters. The best way to refel which fancy, is to behold the la­titude and extent of that jurisdiction which the Bishops of these Churches did enjoy at this present time; which when we have laid down sincerely, according as it stood in the times we speak of, it shall be left to be considered of by any sober-minded man, whosoever he be, whether the men that held such ample jurisdiction were no more than Presbyters, or whether such Bishops were the same with Presbyters, which comes both to one.

Now that the latitude of jurisdiction belonging to these four prime Sees, VI especially to those of Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria, was as ancient as the times whereof we speak, appeareth plainly by the Canon of the Nicene Council. For whereas it was or­dered by the aforesaid Council,Concil. Nicen. Can. 6. [...], that ancient customs should prevail, viz. the Churches of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch should enjoy those privi­ledges which before they had; those priviledges or customs, call them which you will; could not of right be counted ancient, unless we place them at the latest in this second Century, the close thereof being not much above an hundred years before that Synod. Now for those priviledges what they were, we are in part informed by the self same Cannon;Id. ibid. where it is said, that the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria did extend over all Egypt, Epiphan. adv. haer. 68. Libya, and Pentapolis: To which though Epiphanius addeth Thebais Maraeotica, and Ammoniaca, yet he adds nothing in effect; the two first being Pro­vinces of Egypt, and the last of Libya: So that his jurisdiction reached from Gaza in the parts of Syria, unto the Western border of Cyrenaica, (for that was the Pentapolis [Page 273]mentioned in the Canon) where it conterminated on that of Africk. The Canon having thus laid out the bounds of the command and jurisdiction belonging unto him of Alexandria, proceedeth unto that of Rome, who had his mos parilis, or [...], an answerable latitude and extent of power. But for the certainty of this ex­tent we must refer our selves unto Ignatius, directing his Epistle to the Romans, Ignat. in epist. ad Romanos. with this superscription, [...], to the sanctified and illuminated Church of God, presiding in the place of the Religion of the Romans. If Bellarmine can out of this extract an Argument for the Popes supre­macy,Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 15. as he pretendeth to have done, he is a better Chymist than I took him for. And therefore I must turn him over to be better tutored by Vedelius, who howsoever in his notes upon that Father, he lean too much on his own affections and opinions, doth in this very well declare the good Fathers meaning, agreeably unto the tendries of antiquity. And by him we are told,Vedel. exercit. in epi. ad Ro. c. 2. that nothing here is meant by the place or Religion of the Romans, nisi quicquid in Italia terrarum Praefecti urbis administrationi sub­erat; but only those parts of Italy which were directly under the civil government of the Provost of Rome; that is to say, Latium, Tuscia, and Picenum: To which perhaps were added in the following Ages the whole East part of Italy, which we now call Naple [...] [...]ogether with the Isles of Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicilia, all which made up the proper Patriarchate of the Bishop of Rome. In which regard, as anciently the Bishop of Rome was called Ʋrbicus, as doth appear plainly by Optatus, Optat. de. schis-Donatist. l. 1. Ruffin. hist. eccl. lib. 1. cap. 6. calling Pope Zephyrinus by the name of Zephyrinus Ʋrbicus, the City-Bishop: So the said Provinces or Regions unto him belonging, were called by Ruffinus, an Italian writer, Suburbicariae Regiones, or the City Provinces. As for the Church of Antiochia, it spread its bounds and ju­risdiction over those goodly Countries of the Roman Empire, from the Mediterranean on the West, unto the furthest border of that large dominion, where it confined upon the Persian, or the Parthian Kingdom, together with Cilicia and Isauria in the lesser Asia: But whether at this time it was so extended, I am not able to determine. Cer­tain I am, that in the very first beginning of this Age, all Syria at the least was under the jurisdiction of this Bishop: Ignatius, in his said Epistle to those of Rome, Ignat. ad Rom. stiling himself [...], (not a Bishop in Syria, but) the Bishop of Syria; which sheweth, that there being many Bishops in that large Province, he had a power and su­periority over all the rest. Indeed the Bishops of Hierusalem were hedged within a nar­rower compass being both now and long time after subject unto the Metropolitan of Caesarea, as appears plainly by the Nicene Canon; though after they enlarged their bor­der, and gained the title of a Patriarch, as we may see hereafter in convenient time. Only I add, that howsoever other of the greater Metropolitan Churches, such as were absolute and independent, as Carthage, Cyprus, Millain, the Church of Britain, Concil. Ni. c. 7 [...] and the rest, had and enjoyed all manner of Patriarchal rights which these three enjoyed; yet only the three Bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, had in the Primitive times the names of Patriarches, by reason of the greatness of the Cities themselves, being the principal both for power and riches in the Roman Empire, the one for Europe, the other for Asia, and the third for Africk.

This ground thus laid, VII we will behold what use is made of this Episcopal succession by the ancient writers. And first Saint Irenaeus, a Bishop and a Martyr both, derives an argument from hence to convince those Hereticks, which broached strange Doctrines in the Church.Iren. contr. haer. lib. 3. cap. 3. Habemus annumerari eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Eccle­siis, &c. we are able to produce those men which were ordained Bishops by the Apostles in their several Churches, and their successors till our times; qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt, quale ab hiis deliratur, who neither knew nor taught any such absur­dities as these men dream of. Which said in general, he instanceth in the particular Churches of Rome, Ephesus and Smyrna, being all founded by the Apostles; and all of them, hac ordinatione & successione, by this Episcopal ordination and succession, de­riving from the Apostles the Preaching and tradition of Gods holy truth till those very times. The like we find also in another place, where speaking of those Presbyteri, (so he calleth the Bishops) which claimed a succession from the Apostles: He tells us this, quod cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Patris acceperunt; that together with the Episcopal succession,Ir. adv. haeres. l. 4. cap. 43. they had received a certain pledge of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. See to this purpose also cap. 63. where the same point is pressed most fully, and indeed much unto the honour of this Episcopal succession. Where because Irenaeus called Bishops in the for­mer place by the name of Presbyters, I would have no man gather,Smectym. p. 23. as some men have [Page 274]done, that he doth use the name of Bishops and Presbyters, [...] in a promis­cuous sense; much less conclude, that therefore Presbyters and Bishops were then the same. For although Irenaeus doth here call the Bishops, either by reason of their age, or of that common Ordination which they once received by the name of Presbyters, yet he doth no where call the Presbyters by the name of Bishops; as he must needs have done, if he did use the names [...] in a promiscuous sense, as it is sup­posed. And besides, Irenaeus being at this time Bishop, if not Archbishop of the Church of Lyons, could not but know that he was otherwise advanced both in power and title, as well in Dignity as Jurisdiction, than when he was a Presbyter of that very Church, under Pothinus his Predecessor in that See; and therefore not the same man meerly which he was before. But to let pass as well the observation as the infe­rence, certain I am that by this argument the holy Father did conceive himself to be armed sufficiently against the Hereticks of his time, and so much he expresseth plainly, saying, that by this weapon he was able to confound all those, qui quoquo modo vel per sui placentiam malam, vel vanam gloriam, vel per coecitatem & malam sententiam, praeter quam oportet, Ire. adv. haeres. l. 3. c. 3. colligunt: Who any way, either out of an evil self- complacency, or vain­glorious humour, or blindness of the mind, or a depraved understanding, did raise such Doctrins as they ought not. So much for blessed Irenaeus, a man of peace as well in disposition and affection, as he was in name.

Next let us look upon Tertullian, VIII who lived in the same time with Irenaeus, begin­ning first to be of credit about the latter end of this second Century, Baron. ann. eccl. anno 196. Pamel. in vita Tertull. as Baronius calcu­lates it; and being at the height of reputation, an. 210. as Pamelius noteth, about which time Saint Irenaeus suffered Martyrdom. And if we look upon him well, we find him pressing the same point with greater efficacy than Irenaeus did before him. For undertaking to convince the Hereticks of his time, as well of falshood as of novelties, and to make known the new upstartedness of their Assemblies (which they called the Church) he doth thus proceed.Tertull. de praes. adv. haeres. c. 32. Edant ergo origines ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum, &c. ‘Let them, saith he, declare the original of their Churches, let them unfold the course or order of their Bishops, succeeding so to one another from the first beginning, that their first Bishop (whosoever he was) had some of the Apostles, or of the Apostolical men at least, who did converse with the Apostles to be their founder and Predecessor. For thus the Apostolical Churches do derive their Pedegree. Thus doth the Church of Smyrna shew their Polycarpus placed there amongst them by Saint John; and Rome her Clement Consecrated or Ordained by Peter: even as all other Churches also do exhibit to us the names of those, who be­ing Ordained Bishops by the Apostles, did sow the Apostolical seed in the field of God.’ This was the challenge that he made: And this he had not done assuredly, had he not thought that the Episcopal succession in the Church of Christ, had been an evident demonstration of the truth thereof: which since the Hereticks could not shew in their Congregations or Assemblies, it was a very pregnant evidence, that they had neither verity nor antiquity to defend their Doctrins; nor could with any shew of Justice challenge to themselves the name and honour of a Church.Id. ibid. ca. 36. And such, and none but such were those other Churches which he after speaketh of, viz. of Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, and the rest planted by the Apostles, apud quas ipsae Ca­thedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur; in which the Chairs of the Apostles to that time were sate in, being possessed, not by themselves, but by their Successors. By the same argument Optatus first, and after him St. Austin did confound the Donatists, that mighty faction in the Church. St. Austin thus: Numerate Sacerdotes vel ab ipsa sede Petri,August. contr. Petil. l. 2. & in illo ordine quis cui successerit videte. Number the Bishops which have sate but in Peters Chair, and mark who have succeeded one another in the same. A Cata­logue of which he gives us in another place,Id. Epist. 165. lest else he might be thought to prescribe that to others, on which he would not trust himself. Nay so far he relyed on the au­thority of this Episcopal Succession in the Church of Christ, as that he makes it one of the special motives, quae eum in gremio Ecclesiae justissimè teneant, which did continue him in the bosom of the Catholick Church.Id. contr. Epist. Manichaei. c. 4. As for Optatus, having laid down a Catalogue of the Bishops in the Church of Rome, till his own times: He makes a challenge to the Donatists to present the like,Optat. de schis. Donat. l. 2. Vestrae Cathedrae originem edite; shew us, saith he, the first original of your Bishops, and then you have done somewhat to advance your cause: In which it is to be observed, that though the instance be made only in the Episcopal succession of the Church of Rome, Irt. adv. haere. lib. 3. cap. 3. the argument holds good in all others also; it be­ing too troublesome a labour, as Irenaeus well observed, omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare [Page 275]successiones, to run through the succession of all particular Churches; and therefore that made choyce of, as the chief or principal.

But to return again unto Tertullian, IX whom I account amongst the Writers of this Age, though he lived partly in the other; besides the use he made of this Episcopal succession to convince the Heretick, he shews us also what authority the Bishops of the Church did severally enjoy and exercise in their successions, which we will take ac­cording to the proper and most natural course of Christianity. First for the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the door or entrance into the Church,Tertul. lib. de Baptism. c. 17. Dandi quidem jus habet summus sacerdos, i. e. Episcopus. The Right, saith he, of giving Baptism hath the High-Priest, which is the Bishop, and then the Presbyters and Deacons; non tamen sine Episcopi an­toritate, yet not without the Bishops licence and authority, for the Churches honour; which if it be preserved, then is Peace maintained. Nay so far he appropriates it un­to the Bishop, as that he calleth it dictatum Episcopi, officium Episcopatus, a work most proper to the Bishop, in regard of his Episcopacy, or particular Office: Which how­soever it may seem to ascribe too much unto the Bishop in the administration of this Sacrament, is no more verily than what was after affirmed by Hierom, Hieron. adver. Lucifer. shewing that in his time sine Episcopi jussione, without the warrant of the Bishop, neither the Pres­byters nor the Deacons had any authority to Baptize: not that I think, that in the days of Hierom, before whose time Parishes were assigned to Presbyters throughout the Church, the Bishops special consent and warrant was requisite to the baptizing of each several Infant; but that the Presbyters and Deacons did receive from him some general faculty, for their enabling in and to those Ministrations. Next for the Sacrament of the blessed Eucharist, that which is a chief part of that heavenly nou­rishment by which a Christian is brought up in the assured hopes of Eternal life. he tells us in another place, non de aliorum manu quam Praesidentium sumimus, Tertul. de Co­rona Militis. that they received it only from their Bishops hand; the [...] or President of the Presby­tery, as Justin Martyr, seconded by Beza, did before call him. Which Exposition or construction lest it should be quarrelled as being injurious to the Presbyters, who are thereby excluded from the honour and name of Presidents: I shall desire the Reader to consult those other places of Tertullian, in which the word Prefident is used, as viz. Prescriptio A­postoll, Bigames non sinit prae­sidere. Tert. ad axor. lib. ad uxorem, and lib. de Monogamia, in both of which the man that had a second Wife is said to be disabled from Presiding in the Church of God; and on considera­tion to determine of it, whether it be more probable that Presbyters or Bishops be here meant by Presidents. Besides the Church not being yet divided generally into Pa­rishes, but only in some greater Cities, the Presbyter had not got the stile of Rector, and therefore much less might be called a President, that being a word of Power and Government, which at that time the Presbyters enjoyed not in the Congregation. And here Pope Leo will come in to help us, if occasion be, assuring us that in his time it was not lawful for the Presbyter in the Bishops presence, nisi illo jubente, Leo Epist. 88. unless it were by his appointment, conficere Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Christi, to conse­crate the Sacrament of Christs body and blood. The author of the Tract ascribed to Hierom, entituled de Septem Ecclesiae ordinibus, doth affirm as much: but being the author of it is uncertain, though it be placed by Erasinus amongst the [...] docta, we will pass it by.

From the Administration of the Sacraments, X which do belong ad potestatem ordi­nis, to the power of Order; proceed we on to those which do appertain ad potestatem jurisdictionis, unto the power of Jurisdiction. And the first thing we meet with, is the appointing of the publick Fasts, used often in the Church, as occasion was. A priviledg not granted to the common Presbyter, and much less to the common people; but in those times, wherein the Supream Magistrate was not within the pale or bo­som of the Church, entrusted to the Bishop only. This noted also by Tertullian, in his book entituled de jejuniis; which though he writ after his falling from the Church, and so not to be trusted in a point of Doctrine, may very well be credited in a point of custom: Quod & Episcopi universae plebi mandare jejunia assolent, non dico de industria stipium conferendarum, sed ex aliqua sollicitudinis Ecclesiae causa; Tertul. lib. de jejuniis. c. 13. That Bishops use to impose Fasts upon the people, is not done of purpose for lucre, or the Alms then given, but out of a regard of the Churches welfare or the sollicitousness which they have thereof. Wherein as he removes a cavil, which as it seems was cast upon the Church, about the calling of those Fasts: so, plainly he ascribes the calling of them to the Bishop only; according unto whose appointment, in unum omnes [...] agi­tabant, they met together for the humbling of themselves before God the Lord. So [Page 276]for disposing of the Churches Treasure (for Menstrua quaque die modicam quisque stipem vel quam velit, Id. in Apol. c. every month the people used to bring their Offerings, as we call them now, every man as he would and could) that also appertained unto the Bishop. Which as it was distributed most commonly amongst the Clergy, for their present maintenance, so was it in the Bishops power to bestow part thereof upon other uses, as in relief of Widows and poor Virgins: which appears plainly in that place and passage of Tertullian, Tertul. de Virg. veland. cap. 9. in his book de Virginibus velandis: where speaking of a Virgin which contrary to the custom of the Church had been admitted into the rank of Wi­dows; he adds, cui si quid refrigerii debuerat Episcopus, that if the Bishop did intend to allow her any thing towards her relief and maintenance, he might have done it without trespassing on the Churches discipline, and setting up so strange a Monster as a Virgin-Widow. And this is that which after was confirmed in the Council of Antioch, Conc. Antioch. Can. 25. where it is said [...], that the Bishop ought to have authority in the disposing of the things (or goods) that appertained unto the Church; [...], that so he might dispose them unto such as stood in need, in the fear of God.

Finally, XI for the reconciling of a Penitent to the Church of God, in the remitting of his sins,Tertul. de pudi­citia, cap. 18. and bringing of him back to the fold again; that in Tertullians time was a Peculiar of the Bishop also. For, speaking of Repentance after Faith received (de poenitentia post fidem, as he calls it) he is content to give this efficacy thereunto, though otherwise he held, being then a Montanist, that heinous Sinners after Grace received were not to be admitted to Repentance; I say he is content to give this efficacy there­unto, that for smaller sins it may obtain pardon or remission from the Bishop; for greater and unpardonable, from God alone. But take his own words with you for the greater surety, and his words are these, viz. Salva illa poenitentiae specie post fidem, quae aut levioribus delictis veniam ab Episcopo consequi potest, aut majoribus & irremissibi­libus à Deo solo. Pamel. Annot. praedict. lib. 159. In which Pamelius seems to wonder at his moderation, as being of a better temper in this point, than was Montanus, into whose Sect he now was fal­len: who would have no man to make confession of his sins to any other than to God, and seek for reconciliation from no hands but from his alone. And in ano­ther place of the same book also,Tertul. lib. de Pudicit. cap. 1. although he seem to jeer and deride the usage, he granteth that the Bishops of the Christian Church did usually remit even the greatest fins, upon the performance of the Penance formerly enjoyned: For thus he bringeth in the Bishop, whom in the way of scorn he calleth Pontifex Maximus, and Episcopus Episcoporum, proclaiming as it were a general Pardon to such as had performed their Penance; Ego & moechiae & fornicationis delicta poenitenti functis dimitto, that he re­mitted to all such even the sins of Fornication and Adultery. Which words of his, declare not more his Errour, than the Bishops Power in this particular. What in­terest the Presbyters of the Church did either challenge or enjoy in this weighty busi­ness of reconciling Penitents to the Lord their God, we shall see hereafter, when as the same began to be in practice, and was by them put in execution. Mean time I take it for a manifest and undoubted Truth, that properly, originally, and in chief, it did belong unto the Bishop both to enjoyn Penance, and admit the Penitent; and not to the inferiour Presbyters, but as they had authority by and under him. Which lest I may be thought to affirm at random, let us behold the manner of this Reconcilia­tion, as layed down by Sozomen, Sozomen. Eccl. hist. l. 7. c. 16. not as relating to his own times, but to the times whereof we speak: [...], &c. They stand, saith he, in an appointed place, sorrowful and lamented, and when the Eucharist is ended, whereof they are not suffered to be partakers, they cast themselves with grief and la­mentation flat upon the ground. [...], The Bishop then approaching towards him, kneeleth also by him on the ground, and all the multitude also do the like, with great grief and ejulation; [...], This done, the Bishop riseth first, and gently raiseth up the prostrate Penitent, and having prayed for those that are thus in the state of Penance, as much as he thinks fit and requisite, they are dismissed for the present: And being thus dismissed, every man privately, at home, doth afflict himself, either by fasting, or by abstinence from Meats and Bathes for a certain time, [...], as long as by the Bishop is enjoyned him. Which time appoint­ed being come, and his Penance in this sort performed, he is absolved from his sins, sins, [...], and joyned again unto the residue of the Con­gregation. And this, saith he, hath been the custom of the Western Church, and [Page 277]especially of the Church of Rome, [...], from the very first beginning, to this present time. So that both in the City of Rome, in which Tertullian sometimes lived, and in the Western Church, whereof he was a member, being a Presbyter of Carthage, and in the times in which he flourished, for thus it was from the beginning: the Bishop regularly had the power both of enjoyning Penance, and reconciling of the Penitent as it still continueth: Nor doth that passage in Tertullian any way cross the point deli­vered, where speaking of the several acts of humiliation which were to be performed by the Penitent, before he could be reconciled to the Church of God,Tertul. lib. de Poenitent. c. 9. he reckoneth these amongst the rest, Presbyteris advolvi, aris, or caris Dei adgeniculari, (for whether of the two it is adbuc sub Judice) omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis suae injun­gere; to cast themselves before the Presbyters, to kneel before the Altars, or the Saints of God, to entreat the Prayers of all the brethren. Where clearly, there is nothing ascribed unto the Presbyters as in the way of reconciliation, but only in the way of intercession, as unto other of the brethren: the main work being still reserved unto the Bishop.

I know indeed Tertullian is alledged by some, XII as if there were a Government of the Church at that time in use, in the which neither the Bishop nor the Presbyters did bear the greatest stroke; but a Society of Lay-Elders, or (if we may admit such a Monster both in sense and Grammar) a Lay-Presbytery. The place or pas­sage commonly alledged to make good the same, is that in his Apologetick for the Christian Churches, where having shewed the manner of the Christian meetings in their Congregations, for Prayer and hearing of Gods Word, he addeth,Id. in Apol. c. 39. that there are also Exhortations, Chastisements, and Divine censures, Judgment being executed with great advice. Then followeth, Praesident probati quique seniores, honorem istum non pretio, sed testimonio adepti; the Presidents of our meetings are approved Seniors, or Elders (call them which you will) who have obtained this honour not by money, but by good Report. So he: And those whom he calls Seniores, Elders, they will needs have to be such Elders as they dream of, men of the Laity, taken in to day, and put out to morrow. A thing which better might become the Conventicles of the Heretick and Sectary, than the Church of Christ. And as it seems amongst the He­reticks and Sectaries such a course there was, hodie Presbyter qui cras Laicus, that he which was to day an Elder, was on the next day to revert to his occupation;Id. de Praescr. haeret. l. 41. this day an Elder in the Consistory, the next a Botcher on the stall. The Christian Church had no such custom, what ever might be found amongst the Marcionites; if then it be demanded who these Seniors were, which are here said to have presided in their Con­gregations; I answer that they were the Bishops: those at whose hands, de manu Praesi­dentium, the people used in those times to receive the Sacrament. Lay-men they could not be, though called simply Elders, because they did administer the blessed Eucharist: and simply Presbyters they were not, and they could not be, because it is there said that they did preside, and had the Power of Censure and Correction; which are the works and badges of Authority. It then remains they were the Bishops, the Presidents or [...] of the Church of Christ, such as we find described before by Justin Martyr, and are affimed by Beza, to be such as Timothy whom we have proved to be a Bishop. And this appears to me yet further by the words themselves, in which we find that those who did attain that honour got it by good Report, and not by Money. And this may very well be, might the Gentiles say, had it been spoken of the Presbyters, for who would give money for so poor an Office, wherein there was but little to be got­ten, more than ones labour for his pains; or at the best some bare allowance from the sportula, and that too on the Bishops curtesie? When we can hear you say the like of Bishops, through whose hands the money went, who had the keeping and disposing of the common Treasury, and might enrich themselves by the spoyl therof; you then say somewhat to the purpose. Till then it makes but little to the praise of your inte­grity and candour, that such poor men whose places were not worth the haviing should pay nothing for them. This makes it evident to me that the Elders mention­ed here, were not simply Presbyters: but such whose places were esteemed to be both of Means and Credit; and therefore doubtless they were Bishops, that did so preside. Nor is it any prejudice to the truth thereof, that they are called Seniores in the plural number: Tertullian speaking not in the behalf of a particular Church or City, where­in could be one Bishop only; but pleading in the behalf of the Universal, wherein there were as many Presidents, or Bishops, or Presiding Elders, call them which you will, as there were Cities gained to the Faith of Christ.

Now if we please to take a view of the extent of Christianity, XIII according as it stood in the present Century, we cannot better do it, than by a place and passage of Tertullian, who very fully hath described the same in his Apologetick, presented to the Magistrates of the Roman Empire, in the last year thereof, or the next year after, as is affirmed both by Pamelius and Baronius out of ancient Writers:Pamol. in vita Tertul. Bar. in Annal. For having shewn that Christians were not to avenge themselves upon their Persecuters, or to take Arms for the repelling of those injuries which were offered to them, he doth thus proceed:Tertullian in Apologet. c. 37. Si enim & hostes exertos, &c. For should we shew our selves, saith he, to be open enemies unto the State, should we want either strength or numbers? Behold what mischief is done daily to you by the Moors, Marcomannians, and those of Parthia, Masters of a few Countreys only; whereas the Christians are diffused over all the World; you count us Aliens or strangers to you, & vestra omnia implevimus, yet we have filled all places that are yours, Cities, Isles, Castles, Burrowes, your places of Assembly, Camps, Tribes, Palaces, the very Senate, and the Market-place, with our numerous Troops. Only your Temples are your own, &c. Nay, should we only go away from you, and retire into some remote corner of the World, and carry all our Families with us, Suffudisset utique domina­tionem vestram tot qualiumcunque amissio civium, the loss of so many of your people, how ill soever you conceive of them, would be so shrewd a weakening unto your Dominions, that you would tremble at that strange desertion, and be astonished at the solitude and silence of your emptied Cities, quite destitute of men to be commanded; there being more Ene­mies than Citizens remaining in them. Whereas now, God be thanked, you have the fewer Enemies amongst you, in that you have so many Christians, Pene omnes cives Christianos habendo, most of your People being of that Religion. Which as it shews the great ex­tent of Christianity in Tertullians time, so doth it shew a like extent also of Episcopacy; there being no place where Christianity had been received, wherein Episcopacy was not planted also. Which lest it might be taken for a bold assertion, without ground or Truth, I shall crave leave to step a little out of this present Century, and borrow a testimony from Saint Cyprian, who is next to follow; and if he may be credited, will affirm no less:Cyprian. E. 52. For by him we are told of a certain truth, per omnes Provincias & per urbes singulas ordinatos esse Episcopos, that in all Provinces and in every City Bishops had long since been ordained, reverend for their Age, for their Faith sincere, tried in Affliction, and proscribed in time of persecution. Nor doth he speak this of his own time only, which was somewhat after, but as a matter of some standing, cum jam pri­dem per omnes provincias, that so it had been long ago: and therefore must needs be so doubtless in this present Age being not long before his own. And this extent of Chri­stianity I do observe the rather in this place and time, because that in the Age which followeth (the multitudes of Christians being so increased) we may perhaps behold a new face of things: the times becoming quicker and more full of action; Parishes or Parochial Churches set out in Country-Villages and Towns, and several Presbyters allotted to them; with an addition also both of trust and power unto the Presbyters themselves in the Cure of Souls, committed to them by their Bishops; with many other things which concern this business. And therefore here we will conclude this present Century, proceeding forward to the next in the name of God.

CHAP. IV. Of the authority in the government of the Church of Carthage, enjoyed and exercised by Saint Cyprian and other Bishops of the same.

  • 1. Of the foundation and preheminences of the Church of Carthage.
  • 2. Of Agrippinus and Donatus two of St. Cyprian's Predecessors.
  • 3. The troublesom condition of that Church, at Cyprian's first being Bishop there.
  • 4. Necessitated him to permit some things to the discretion of his Presbyters, and con­sent of the People.
  • 5. Of the authority ascribed by Cyprian to the People, in the Election of their Bishop.
  • 6. What Power the people had de facto, in the said Elections.
  • 7. How far the testimony of the People was re­quired in the Ordination of their Presbyters.
  • 8. The power of Excommunication reserved by St. Cyprian, to the Bishop only.
  • 9. No reconciliation of a Penitent allowed by [Page 279] Cyprian without the Bishops leave and licence.
  • 10. The Bishop's power as well in the encou­ragement, as in the punishment, and censure of his Clergy.
  • 11. The memorable case of Geminius Fau­stinus, one of the Presbyters of Carthage.
  • 12. The Bishop's Power in regulating and de­claring Martyrs.
  • 13. The Divine Right, and eminent authority of Bishops fully asserted by St. Cyprian.

SAint Hierom tells us of S. Cyprian, Hieron. de Scri [...]tor. Eccl. in Tertul [...]d. that he esteemed so highly of Tertulian's wri­tings, that he never suffered any day to pass over his head without reading some­what in the same; and that he did oft use to say, when he demanded for his works, Da mihi magistrum, reach me my Tutor or Praeceptor. So that considering the good opi­nion which S. Cyprian had harboured of the man, for his Wit and Learrning, and the nearness of the time in which they lived; being both also members of the same Church, the one a Presbyter, the other Bishop of the Church of Carthage: We will pass on un­to S. Cyprian, and to those monuments of Piety and Learning which he left behind him. And this we shall the rather do, because there is no Author of the Primitive times, out of whose works we have such ample treasures of Ecclesiastical Antiquities as we have in his; none who can give us better light for the discovery of the truth in the present search than that blessed Martyr? But first, before we come to the man himself, we will a little look upon his charge on the Church of Carthage, as well before, as at his coming to be Bishop of it; the knowledge of the which will give special light to our following business. And first for the foundation of the Church of Carthage, Cited by Ba­ronius in An­nal. Eccl. Anno 51. if Metaphrastes may be credited, it was the action of Saint Peter, who leaving Rome at such time as the Jews were banished thence by the Decree of Claudius Caesar, in Afri­cam navigasse & Carthaginensem erexisse Ecclesiam, is by him said to sail to Africa, and there to found the Church of Carthage, leaving behind him Crescens one of his Dis­ciples to be the Bishop of the same: But whether this be so or not, it is out of question, that the Church of Carthage was not only of great Antiquity, but that it also was of great power and credit, as being the Metropolitan Church of Africk, the Bishop of the same being the Primate of all Africa, properly so called, together with Numidia, and both the Mauritanias, as well Caesariensis as Sitisensis: So witnesseth S. Cyprian himself, Latius fusa est nostra Provincia; Cypri. Ep. 45. habet enim Numidiam & Maurita­nias duas sibi cohaerentes, as his own words are. And this appeareth also by the sub­scription of the Bishops to the Council of Carthage, convented ex Provincia Africa, Concil. Tom. 1. p. 149. Edit. Binil. Nu­midia, Mauritania, as is most clear on the record. For whereas antiently the Roman Empire was divided into fourteen Diocesses, reckoning the Prefecture of the City of Rome for one; every Diocess being subdivided into several Provinces, as was said be­fore, the Diocess of Africa was not of the meanest, containing in it six large Pro­vinces,Notitia Pro­vinciarum. and reaching from the greater Syrtis Eastward, where it confined upon the Patriarchat of Alexandria to Mauritania Tingitana, on the West, which did belong un­to the Diocess of Spain. Now Carthage standing in that Province, which was called Zeugitana, or Proconsularis, and being the Seat or Residence of the Vicarius, or Lieu­tenant General of the Roman Empire for that Diocess: The Bishop of it was not only the Metropolitan of his own Province, but the Primate also, in regard of the other sive, which were Tripolitana, Byzacena, Numidia, and the two Mauritanias before remem­bred. Nor was he only the supream Bishop in regard of them, but also absolute and independent in regard of others; as being neither subject or subordinate to the Pa­triarchs of Alexandria, though the prime City of all Africa, nor to the Popes of Rome, the Queen and Empress of the world;Concil. Cartha­giniens. 6. against whose machinations and attempts the Church of Carthage for a long time did maintain her liberty.

Such being the Authority and power of the Church of Carthage, II we must next look upon the Bishops of the same; who though they had not got the name of Patriarchs, as those of Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria now had, and they of Constantinople and Hie­rusalem shall be found to have in the times succeeding; yet had they all manner of Patri­archal jurisdiction. Of these the first I meet withal was Agrippinus, who flourished in the beginning of this Century, bonae memoriae vir, a man of blessed memory, as S. Cyprian, Cyprian. Epist. 71. Vincent. Leri­nen. adv. hae­res. cap. 9. Aug. de Bap. lib. 2. cap. 7, 8. Cypr. Epi. 71. Venerabilis memoriae, of venerable memory, as Vincentius Lerinensis calls him. S. Austin also mentioneth him in one of his discourses against the Donatists, as a Predecessor of S. Cyprians; and all of them agree in this, that he held those which were Baptized by Hereticks, were to be Re-baptized by the Catholick Ministers: for agitation of which business he caused a Council to be called of all the Bishops, Qui illo tempore in Provincia [Page 280]Africae & Numidiae Ecclesiam Dei gubernabant, which at that time did govern the Church of God in the Provinces of Africk and Numidia; in which Re-baptization of men so Baptized, was decreed as necessary. Which howsoever it doth shew that Agrippinus, as a man, had his personal errors; yet shews it also, that as a Bishop of Carthage, he had a power and jurisdiction over all the other Bishops of the Diocess of Africk, and all the Provinces thereof; who on his summons met in Council, as by those words of Cyprian plainly doth appear. So that we find the holy Hierarchy so setled from the first beginners; that as the Presbyters were subordinate unto their Bishops, so it was there a subordination amongst the Bishops themselves, according as it still continueth in those parts of Christendom, in which Episcopal Government doth remain in force. But Agrippinus being dead, his error or opinion died also with him, though it revived again not long after; and his Successor, by name Donatus, looking more carefully un­to his charge, endeavoured what he could to free the same from erroneous doctrines. And to that purpose called a Council of 90 Bishops in Labesitum, a Colony in Africa, in which Privatus, an old Heretick was by their joynt consent condemned; nonaginta Episcoporum sententiâ condemnatus, Cypr. Epi. 55. as Cyprian hath it. By which we may conjecture at the great spreading of Episcopacy; over all this Province, I mean that of Africa: So great,Baron. in An­nal. that at this time, being An. 242. as Baronius calculateth it, there could assemble 90 Bishops at the command or summons of their Metropolitan; especially if we consi­der that these were but a part of a greater number.Augustin. E­pist. 48. S. Austin telling us of a Council held in Carthage by the Donatists (placed by Baronius, Anno 308.) in which there met together no fewer than 270 Bishops of that one faction. But lest it may be said, as perhaps it was, that the Donatists increased the number of Bishops the better to support their party, if ever the business should come to be examined in a Synodical meeting; we find a Council held in Carthage under Aurelius, who was Bishop there in S. Austins time,Concil. Tom. 1. Edit. Bin. p. 587. Anno 398. in which Assembled to the number of 214 Bishops, all of them Or­thodox Professors. With such a strange increase did God bless this calling. For cer­tainly the Church had never brought forth such a large encrease, if God, even our own God had not given his blessing.

Donatus being dead, III Anno 250. Cecilius Cyprianus, a right godly man, being then one of the Presbyters of the Church, is chosen Bishop of the same; and that not only by the joynt consent of the Clergy there,Cypr. Ep. 55. sed populi universi suffragio, but by the general suffrage of the people, according to the general custom of that Church and time. And being so chosen and ordained, did for four years enjoy himself in peace and quiet. But a fierce persecution being raised against the Church, by the command of Decius, then the Roman Emperor; being proscribed and threatned death, he retired himself, expecting a return of better times,Idem. Epi. 10. wherein he might do service to the Lord his God: Professing that in this retreat he followed the direction of the Lord, qui ut secederet jussit, who had commanded him so to do. In this recess of his, some of his Adver­saries, (as who liveth without them) which had opposed him in the time of his Election, taking an opportunity to ensnare the people, and draw them into factions against their Bishops, had made a very strong party on their side, calumniating his re­cess as a deserting of the Flock of Christ committed to him, which more afflicted the good Father than the proscription of his goods, or any trial of his patience which had been laid upon him by the Persecuters. Of this conspiracy he certifieth the people of Carthage by way of Letter, wherein he giveth them to understand how the matter stood. Quorundam Presbyterorum malignitas & perfidia perficit, Idem Epi. 40. &c. That I could not come to you before Easter, the malice and perfidiousness of some of the Presbyters hath brought to pass; whilst mindful of their own conspiracy, and retaining their former rancor against my being Bi­shop, or indeed rather against your suffrages in my Election, and against the judgment of God approving the same; they begin again to set on foot their former opposition, renewing their sacri­legious machinations, and lying treacherously in wait for my destruction. And after, in the same Epistle, Non suffecerat exilium jam biennii, & à vultibus & oculis vestris lugubris separatio, &c. It doth not seem sufficient to them, that I have been now two years banished from your presence, and to my great affliction separated from your sight; that I am overwhelm'd with grief and sorrow, vexing my self with my continual complaints, and day and night wash­ing my cheeks with tears, because it hath not been as yet my good fortune to embrace or salute you, whom you had chosen for your Bishop with such expressions of your love and zeal. Ac­cessit huic tabescenti animo nostro major dolor. And yet a greater grief afflicteth my fainting soul, that in so great distress and need I cannot come my self unto you, fearing lest at my coming, if I should so do, some greater tumult should arise through the threats and secret [Page 281]practices of perfidious persons: And that considering, as a Bishop, I am to take care for the peace and quiet of the Church, ipse materiam seditioni dedisse, I might seem to be or give occasion of some sedition likely to be raised, and so renew the persecution which is now well slaked. Nay as it seemeth, some of the Presbyters of his Church which were not other­wise engaged in the faction, or carried any ill affections towards him; out of an in­clination natural to man, to enlarge their power, and get as much authority into their hands, as the times would give to the advantage of his absence also, and began sensibly to encroach upon his Office, and undertake such things as appertained to his jurisdiction. Thus he complains of his Clergy, that such as yet stood fair in their re­spects, and firm in their obedience to him might be confirmed in the same: and that the rest, being made acquainted with their Errour, might in fine desist, Tacere ultra non oportet, &c. It is no time, saith he, to be longer silent, Idem Ep. 10. when as the danger is so imminent both on my self and on my people. For what extremity of danger may we not justly fear from Gods displeasure, when some of the Presbyters, neither mindful of the Gospel, or their own duty, or the day of Judgment, nor thinking that they have a Bishop set over them, cum con­temptu & contumelia praepositi totum sibi vendicent, with the contempt and reproach of him that is their Bishop shall arrogate all Power unto themselves. Which their behaviour he calls also contumelias Episcopatus nostri, the reproach and slander of his Govern­ment; in having such affronts put on him, as never had been offered to any of his Fredecessors. The like complaint to which he doth also make, but with more resolu­tion and contempt of their wicked practices, in an Epistle to Cornelius, being the 55. in number, according to the Edition of Pamelius.

I have the more at large laid down the storms and troubles raised against this godly Bishop, at his first coming to the place; IV because it gives greater light unto many passa­ges, which concern his time; especially in that extraordinary Power which he ascribes sometimes, both to the People and the Presbyters, in the administration of the Church: as if they had been Partners with him in the publick Government. Which certainly he did not, as his case then stood, without special reason. For being so vehemently opposed from his first Election to the Episcopal Office; all opportunities espied to draw away the peoples hearts and alienate their affections from him; every advantage taken against him during his absence from the City, to vex and cross him in his doings: what better way could he devise to secure himself in the affections of the people, and the obedience of his Presbyters, than to profess that in all his acts and enterprises whatsoever, he did and would depend upon the counsel of the one, and consent of the other. And this is that which he professeth in a Letter to the Presbyters and Dea­cons of Carthage, quod à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim, Idem Epist. 6. nihil sine consilio vestro & consensu plebis meae, privatâ sententiâ gerere; that he resolved from his first entrance on that Bishoprick, to do nothing of his own head, as we use to say, without the Counsel of his Clergy and the consent of his People: and that on his return, (for he was then in exile when he wrote this Letter) he would communicate his affairs with them, Et in commune tractabimus, and manage them in common with their assistance. And certainly this was a prudent resolution, as the World went with him: For by this means he stood assured, that whatsoever Schism or Faction should be raised against him, it would be never able to prevail, or get ground upon him, as long as he had both the People and the Presbyters so obliged unto him, for the support of his autho­rity. But this being but a private case, and grounded on particular reasons makes no general Rule: no Bishop being bound unto the like, by this Example, but where all circumstances do concur, which we meet with here; and then not bound neither, except he will himself, but as it doth conduce to his own security. So that it is to me a wonder, why the example of St. Cyprian should be pressed so often, and all those passages so hotly urged, wherein the Presbyters or People seem to be concerned in matters of the Churches Government; as if both he and all other Bishops had been bound by the Law of God, not to do any thing at all in their holy function, but what the Presbyters should direct, and the people yield their suffrage and consent unto. For being but a resolution taken up by him, the better to support himself against his Ad­versaries; it obligeth no man to the like, as before I said. And he himself did not conceive himself so obliged thereby, but that he could and did dispense with that resolution, as often as he thought it necessary, or but expedient so to do: perform­ing many actions of importance, in the whole course and Series of his Episcopal Go­vernment, wherein he neither craved the advice of the one, nor the good liking of the other; and which is more, doing some things not only without their knowledg, [Page 282]but against their wills, as we shall make appear in that which followeth. Now where­as the points of most importance in the Government and Administration of the Church, are the Election of Bishops, the Ordination of Ministers, the Excommunica­ting of the Sinner, and the reconciling of the Penitent: it will not be amiss to see, what and how much in each of these St. Cyprian did permit, as occasion was, either unto the People or the Presbyters; and what he did in all and every one of these, as often as he saw occasion also, without their knowledg and consent.

First for Election of their Bishops, V it is conceived and so delivered, that all their Elections were ordered by the privity, Semctymn. pag. 33. Sect. 7. consent and approbation of the people, where the Bishop was to serve: and for the proof of this St. Cyprian is alledged, as one sufficient in him­self to make good the point. The place most commonly alledged is in his 68. Epistle touching the Case of Basilides and Martialis, two Spanish Bishops, who had defiled themselves with Idols and many other grievous Crimes: concerning whom, the people of those parts repaired unto him for his resolution. But he remitting the cause back to them, tells them how much it did concern them, A peccatore Praeposito se separare, to separate themselves from such sinful Prelates, and not to participate with them in the Sacrifice,Cypr. Ep 68. giving this reason for the same, quando ipsa maxime habeat potestatem, vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi: because the people specially have power either of chusing worthy Prelates, or of rejecting the unworthy. For that by Sacer­dotes here the Father understandeth Bishops, Smectymn. p. 33. is confessed on all hands. Nor doth the Father only say it, but he goeth forward to make good the same by Divine Authority, ut Sacerdos plebe praesente, that the Bishop should be chosen in the presence of the People, under all mens eyes: that so he may be proved to be fit and worthy by their publick testimony. And for the proof of this, is urged a Text from Moses in the book of Numbers, where God is said to speak thus to Moses: Apprehende Aaron fra­trem tuum, Take Aaron thy brother and Eleazar his son, and thou shalt bring them to the Mount before all the Assembly, and put off Aarons garments, and put them on Eleazar his son. By which it is apparent that God willeth the Priest to be made before all the multi­tude, shewing thereby that the Priest should not be ordained but in the presence of the People, that so the People being present, the offences of the evil may be detected, and the merits of the good made known, and consequently the Election, or rather Ordination may be good and lawful, being discussed by the opinion and voice of all. The like he also proves by the electing of Matthias Bishop, in the place of Judas, which was performed in medio Di­scentium, in the middest of the Disciples, and in the chusing of the seven, done in the face of all the People. This is the sum of what is there delivered by St. Cyprian: and out of this I find three Corollaries or Conclusions gathered.Smectymn. p. 34. First, that the special Power of judging of the worthiness and unworthiness of a man for the Prelacy, was in the brest of the People.

Secondly, The special Power of chusing or rejecting to his place, according as they judged him worthy or unworthy, resided in the People.

Thirdly, That this power did descend upon the People, de Divina Autoritate, by Divine authority. These are the points collected from St. Cyprians words; which with the words themselves out of the which they are collected, are to be taken into consideration, because the weight of all this business doth rest upon them.

And first as for St. Cyprians words, there is no such command of God touching Eleazar, Pamel. Annot. in Cypr. fol. 68. in any Bibles now remaining, as is there laid down, which thing Pamelius well observed. And more than so, the Text of Scripture now remaining, is contrary to that which is there alledged: God willing or commanding Moses, to bring Aaron and Eleazar his son, up into Mount Hor, whither the people neither did nor might ascend,Government of the Church. c. 15. Numb. 20.27, &c. as it is well observed by our learned Bilson. So that Eleazar not being cho­sen by the People, but by God immediatly; and his Ordination solemnized on the top of the Mount, Moses and Aaron being only at the doing of it: this can be no good Ar­gument, that the Election of the Prelate doth specially pertain unto the People. And therefore it is very probable that Cyprian met with some corrupted Copy of the Book of God; or else that we have none but corrupted Copies of the books of Cyprian. As for the Election of Matthias, Acts 1.15. though it was done in medio Discentium, in the presence of the Disciples, as the Scripture tells us; yet surely the Disciples had no hand in the Hection: the calling of an Apostle being too high a work for any of the sons of men to aspire unto,ibid. ver. 24. peculiar only to the Lord our God, to whom the choice is also attri­buted in holy Scripture. As for the Seven, being they were to be the Stewards of the People, in the disposing of their goods for the common benefit of the Church, as be­fore [Page 283]was noted: good reason that the Election should be made by them, whose goods and fortunes were to be disposed of. So that there is no Law of God, no Divine Ordinance of his, expressed in Scripture, by which the People are entituled either unto a special power of chusing their Bishops, or to a necessary presence of the action; though there be many good and weighty reasons, which might induce the Fathers in the Primitive times, not only to require their presence, but sometimes also to crave their approbation and consent in the Elections of the Prelate. Now for the presence of the People, that seemeth to be required on this reason chiefly, that their testimony should be had touching the life and behaviour of the party that was to be Ordained, lest a wicked and unworthy person should get by stealth into the function of a Bishop; it being required of a Bishop, by St. Paul, amongst other things, that he must have a good report. And who more able to make this report, than the People are,1 Tim. 3. quae [plebs viz.] singulorum vitam plenissime novit, who being naturally inquisitive,Cypr. Epi. 68. know each mans life, and hath had experience of his Conversation. And as for their consent there wanted not some reasons why it was required; especially before the Church was setled in a constant maintenance, and under the protection and defence of a Christian Magistrate. For certainly, as our Reverend Bilson well observeth,Bilson's perpe­tual Govern­ment. c. 15. the People did more willingly maintain, more quietly receive, more diligently hear and more hear­tily love their Bishops, when their desires were satisfied in the choice (though merely formal) of the man; than when he was imposed upon them, or that their fancies and affections had been crossed therein. But yet I cannot find upon good autho­rity, that the special power of chusing or rejecting, did reside in them: though indeed somewhat did depend upon their approbation of the party; and this no otherwise than according to the custom of particular Churches. In Africk as it seems the use was this, that on the death or deposition of a Bishop:Cypr. Ep. 68. Episcopi ejusdem Provinciae qui­que proximi conveniant, the neighbouring Bishops of the Province did meet together, and repair unto that People, who were to be provided of a Pastor, that so he might be chosen praesente Plebe, the People being present at the doing of it, and certifying what they knew of his Conversation. And this appears to be the general usage, per Provincias fere universas, through almost all parts of Christendom: Where plainly the Election of the new Prelate resided in the Bishops of the same Province so convened to­gether: and if upon examination of his life and actions, there was no just exception laid against him, manus ei imponebatur, he was forthwith ordained Bishop, and put into possession of his place and Office. But it was otherwise for a long while toge­ther, in the great Patriarchal Church of Alexandria: in which the Presbyters had the Election of their Bishop, Presbyteri unum ex se Electum, as St. Hierom noteth,Hieron. ad Euagrium. the Pres­byters of that Church did chuse their Bishop from amongst themselves: no care being had, for ought appeareth in the Father, either unto the Peoples consent or presence. And this continued till the time of Heraclas and Dionysius, as he there informeth us, of whom we shall speak more hereafter. But whatsoever interest, either the Clergy in the one Church, or the People challenged in the other; there is remaining still a pos­session of it in the Church of England: the Chapter of the Cathedral or Mother-Church making the Election in the name of the Clergy; the King, as Caput Reipublicae, the head and heart also of his people, designing or commending a man unto them; and freedom left unto the People, to be present if they will at his Election, and to except against the man, as also at his Confirmation, if there be any legal and just exception to be laid against him.

Next for the Ordination of the Presbyters, VII it was St. Cyprians usual custom to take the approbation of the People along with him; as he himself doth inform us in an Epistle of his, to his charge at Carthage, inscribed unto the Presbyters and Deacons, and the whole body of the people. In ordinandis clericis, fratres charissimi, Cypr. Ep. 33. vii l. 2. Ep. 5. solemus vos ante consulere, & mores & merita singulorum, communi consilio ponderare, which is full and large. Whatever he saith elsewhere to the same effect is in effect no more than what here is said; and therefore we shall save the labour of a further search. Nor was this Cyprians custom only. It had prevailed as it seems in most parts of Christendom; and was so universally received, that even the Roman Emperours took notice of it. For Alexander Severus, one of the hopefullest young Princes in the declining times of the Roman Empire, noting this custom of the Christians,Lamprid. in vita Alex. Si­veri. was wont when he promoted any unto the Government of Provinces, to post up, as it were, the names of the persons, inviting the People to come in against them, if they could charge them on just proof, with any crimes: And used to say it were a shame not to observe that care [Page 284]in chusing of the Rulers of Provinces, to whom mens lives and fortunes were to be com­mitted; cum id Christiani & Judaei facerent in praedicandis sacerdotibus, qui sunt ordinandi, when as the Jews and Christians did it in publishing the merit of those Priests which were to be ordained by them. Which kind of publication of the life and merits of the party, that was to be Ordained, may possibly relate as well unto the popular manner of Electing Bishops, at that time in use. But as there is no general observa­tion, but doth and must give way unto particular occasions: so neither was this Rule so generally observed, but that sometimes it was neglected. Even Cyprian himself how much soever it concerned him to continue in the Peoples favour, would many times make use of his own authority, in chusing and ordaining men to Functions and Employments in the Church, without consulting with the People, or making them acquainted with his mind therein.Cypr. Ep. 33. For minding to advance Aurelius unto the Office of a Reader (an Office, but no Order, in the Church of God) he tarried not the Peoples liking and consent: but did it first, and after gave them notice of it: not doubting of their taking it in good part, (quod vos scio & libenter amplecti) and so commends him to their Prayers.Id. Epi. 34. The like we find of Celerinus, a man highly prized, admitted first into the Clergy by him and his Colleagues then present with him in his exile, and then acquainteth the People that he had so done, non humana suffraga­tione, sed divina dignatione, not being guided in it by any humane suffrage, but by Gods appointment. And although Celerinus and Aurelius being known unto the People by their former merits, the matter might be taken with the less resentment; yet this no way can be affirmed of Numidicus: who being before a Presbyter in some other Church,Baron. in An­nal. Anno 253. n. 94. Cypr. Ep. 35. as Baronius very well observeth, and in all likelihood utterly unknown de facie, to those of Carthage, was by Saint Cyprian of his sole authority, without consulting either with Presbyters or People, (for ought which doth appear) taken into the number of the Presbyters of that Church, ut nobiscum sedeat in Clero, and so to have a place, together with the Bishop himself, amongst the Clergy of the same, and that we do not find as yet in Saint Cyprians Writings, that the People had any special power either in the Election or Ordination of their Presbyters, more than to give testimony of their well deservings, or to object against them if they were de­linquent. And more than that is still remaining to them in the Church of England: in which the People are required at all Ordinations, Book of Ordi­nation. that if they know any notable crime in any of them which are to be Ordained, for which he ought not to be received into the Mini­stery, to declare the same, and on the declaration of the same, the Bishop must desist from proceeding further. This is as much as was permitted to them in the Primitive times, for ought I perceive; and yet the Church of England gives them more than this: the Presbyter who is to serve the Cure in particular Churches, being elected by the Patrons of them, for and in the name of the rest of the People.

As for the power of Excommunication, VIII I do not find but that St. Cyprian reckoned of it, as his own prerogative; a point peculiar to the Bishop: in which he neither did ad­vise either with the Presbyters or People. When as the wickedness of Felicissimus the leader of the Faction raised against him was grown unto the height, the Father of his own authority denounced him Excommunicant abstentum se à nobis sciat, Cypr. Ep. 38. vel l. 5. Ep. 1. as the phrase then was; as he did also on Augendus, and divers others of that desperate party: committing the execution of his sentence to Herculanus and Caldonius two of his Suf­fragan Bishops, and to Rogatianus and Numidicus, two of the Presbyters of his charge; whom as for other matters, so for that he had made his Substitutes, or Commissaries if you will, Cum ego vos pro me Vicarios miserim, as the words are. And they accordingly be­ing thus authorized proceed in execution of the same, and that in a formality of words, which being they present unto us the ancient form of the Letters of Excommunication used of old,Apud Cypr. E­pist. 39. I will here lay down, Abstinuimus communicatione Felicissimum, & Augendum, item Repostum de extorribus, & Irenem, Rutilorum, & Paulam Sarcinatricem; quod ex annotatione mea scire debuistis. In which we may observe that this Excommunication was so published, that all the residue of the Clergy, to whom the publication of it was committed, might take notice of it: quod ex Annotatione mea (or nostra rather, as Pa­melius very probably conjectureth) scire debuistis. So that the process of the whole is this, that those Incendiaries were denounced excommunicate by St. Cyprian himself, the execution of it left to those above remembred, whom he had authorized in that behalf; and they accordingly proceeding made certificate of it unto the Clergy of Car­thage, that publication might be made thereof unto the People. Which differs very little in effect from what is now in use amongst us. Nor did St. Cyprian do thus only [Page 285]of himself, de facto; but he adviseth Rogatianus, one of his neighbouring Bishops, to exercise the like authority, as properly belonging to his place de jure. Rogatianus had complained as it seems,Cyp. Ep. 65. of some indignities and affronts which had been offered to him by his Deacon: which his respect, in making his complaint unto him, as Cyprian took exceeding kindly; so he informeth him withal, that he had the Law in his own hands; and that pro Episcopatus vigore & Cathedrae authoritate haberet potestatem qua posset de illo statim vindicari; by vigour of his Episcopal function and the Authority of his Chair, he had power enough, to be straightway avenged of him for the same. Yet being the matter was referred unto him, he declares his thoughts, that if the Deacon, whom he writ of, would repent his folly, and give some humble satisfaction to the of­fended Bishop, he might not do amiss, to remit the fault. But if he did provoke him further by his perverse and petulant behaviour; fungeris circa eum potestate honoris tui, ut eum vel deponas vel abstineas; he should exercise the authority of his place, or ho­nour, and either degrade or excommunicate him, as he saw occasion. Here was no sending to the Clergy to have their advice, no offering of the matter unto their better consideration, but all referred unto the Bishop, to do therein as unto him seemed best, of his own authority. So that both Cyprian, and other Bishops, both might, and did, and durst do many things without advising with the Clergy contrary to what some have told us: And this they might do well enough, without dread or fear,Smectymn. sect. 9. p. 38. Ibid. that any of their Sentences might be made irrita, or void, by the fourth Council of Carthage; which was not held until 130 years and upwards, after Cyprian's death. And for the in­terest of the People in these publick Censures, I find them not at all considered, but where the crime was hainous, and the Church scandalized by the sins and lewdness of the party punished. In which case there was such regard had of them, that the Sen­tence was published in facie Ecclesiae, in the full Congregation of Gods people: And that as well that they might the more heartily detest such scandalous and sinful courses; as that they might eschew his company, and conversation, as they would do the company of an Heathen or of a Publican: Tunc se ab ejus conjunctione salubriter conti­net, Aug. cont. Ep. Parmen. lib. 3. cap. 2. ut nec cibum quisquam cum eo sumat; not one of them so much as eating with the man, who is so accursed. Which as they are St. Austins words, so by the tenor of the place, they seem to intimate St. Cyprians practice. So that if Excommunica­tions had not passed in former times,Smectymn. p. 40. without the knowledge and approbation of the body of the Church, to which the delinquent did belong; as some men suppose, it was upon this reason only, as themselves affirm, because the people were to forbear Communion with such. And being that in the Church of England, the Excommunication of notorious sinners, is publickly presented unto the knowledg of the People, for that very reason, because they should avoid the company of Excommunicated persons: I see not any thing in this particular, (I mean as to the publication of the Sentence) in which the Church of England differs from the Primitive and ancient practice. And did our Bishops keep the power of Excommunicating to themselves alone, and not devolve it upon others: they did not any thing herein, but what was practised by Saint Cy­prian.

For Reconciling of the Penitent, which naturally and of course is to come after Ex­communication, IX I find indeed that many times St. Cyprian took along with him, the counsel and consent both of his Presbyters and People. And certainly it stood with reason that it should so be, that as the whole Church had been scandalized at the hei­nousness of the offence; so the whole Church also should have satisfaction in the sin­cerity of the Repentance. Many and several are the passages in this Fathers Writings, which do clearly prove it: none more exactly than that in his Epistle to Cornelius, where wishing that he were in presence when perverse persons did return from their sins and follies, Videres quis mihi labor sit persuadere patientiam fratribus nostris,Cypr. Ep. 55. you would then see, saith he, what pains I take to persuade our brethren, that suppressing their just grief of heart, recipiendis malis curandisque consentiant, they would consent to the re­ceiving and the curing consequently of such evil members. Yet did he not so tie himself to this observance, but that sometimes, according as he saw occasion, unus atque alius obnitente plebe & contradicente, mea tamen facilitute suscepti sunt, some, though not many, had been reconciled and reimbosomed with the Church, not only without the Peoples knowledg, but against their wills. So that the interesse which the People had in these relaxations of Ecclesiastical Censures, were not belonging to them as in point of right, but only in the way of contentation. The leading voice was always in the Bishop, and so the negative voice was also when it came to that: He was [Page 286]to give his fiat first, before the Clergy had any thing to do therein: St. Cyprian telling of himself,Id. Ibid. quam prompta & plena dilectione, that he received such Penitents as came unto him, with such affection and facility, that by his over-much indulgence to them, pene ipse delinque, he was even culpable himself. And if it were no otherwise in his time with the Church of Carthage in this case, there it appears to be in the third Council there assembled: the Bishop had not only the leading voice, but the directing and disposing power,Concil Car. III. cap. 32. a negative voice into the bargain. For there it is ordained, Ʋt Presbyter Episcopo inconsulto, non reconciliet Poenitentem, that the Presbyters were not to reconcile a Penitent, unless it were in the Bishops absence, or in a case of urgent and extream necessity: (as in point of death) it being there declared withal, that it be­longed unto the Bishop,Ibid. c. 31. poenitentiae tempora designare, to appoint the time, and the con­tinuance of the Penance, as he saw occasion. And this to be the practice of S. Cyprians time, is most clear and evident, by the displeasure he conceived against some Presby­ters, who had admitted men (which before were lapsed) without leave from him, to the blessed Sacrament.Cypr. Ep. 10. A matter which he aggravates to the very height, char­ging them, that neither mindful of the Gospel, nor their own place and station, nor of the future day of Judgment, nor of the authority of him their Bishop; they had admitted such as fell in time of persecution to the Churches Sacraments, not be­ing by him authorized so to do. And this he saith, was sure an insolency, quod nun­quam omnino sub Antecessoribus factum, which never had been done in any of his Pre­decessors times: and being now done, cum contumelia & contemptu Praepositi, was done in manifest contempt and reproach of their Bishop, threatning withal, that if they did persist in these wilful courses, he would make use of that authority, qua me uti Dominus jubet, which God had given him for that purpose; viz. suspend them from their Ministery, and bring them to a publick tryal for their misdemeanours, before himself and all the People. 'Tis true indeed, that in the outward action and forma­lity of this great work of Reconciliation, the Clergy did impose hands with the Bishop, upon the head of him that was reconciled:Epist. 10.11, &c. for we find often in St. Cyprian, Manus ab Episcopo & clero imposita; but this was only, as I said before, in the outward action; the power of admitting him unto that estate, and giving way to his desires in making of him capable of so great a favour, belonging only to the Bishop, as before ap­pears.

Thus have we seen how and in what particulars, X as also upon what considerati­ons, Saint Cyprian communicated some part of his Episcopal Authority, either un­to the Presbyters, or to the People; or to both together. We will next look on those particulars, which he reserved wholly and solely to himself: and they concern his Clergy chiefly; in his behaviour towards whom, in matters of reward and punish­ment, he was as absolute, and supream, as ever any Bishop since his time. And first in matter of reward, the greatest honour whereof the Clergy in his time, were ca­pable, was their place of sitting, distinct and separate from the People. A place by Sozomon, Sozom. l. 5. c. 14. Concil. Laodi. Can. 55. Canon Sacer­dot. distinct. 2. Cypr. Ep. 35. called [...] as it were, the Sacrarie; by the Council of Laodicea, en­tituled [...], by reason it was higher than the rest, that all the people might behold it; by others, Presbyterium the place for Presbyters: but by what names soever cal­led, a place it was appointed for the Bishop and his Clergy only. Into this place St. Cyprian admits Numidicus, a stranger to the Church of Carthage, as before was noted from Baronius: but by him added to the number of the Presbyters there, adscriptus Presbyterorum Carthaginiensium numero, as his own phrase is, that so he might enjoy the honour of that place, with the less distast.

And so for point of maintenance, which was another part of the Reward, that did belong to the Laborious and painful Presbyter: the distribution of the same was wholly in the Bishops power. So wholly in his power, that howsoever it belonged unto none of right, but unto the Presbyters: yet, he, having bestowed on Celerinus, and Aurelius, the place of Readers in the Church; did also give unto them or assign the same full maintenance,Id. Epi. 34. which was allowed to any of the Presbyters. Presbyterii ho­norem designasse nos illis jam Sciatis, ut & sportulis iisdem cum Presbyteris honorentur, & divisiones menstruas aequatis portionibus partiantur. ‘Know you (saith he) in an Epistle to the whole Church of Carthage, that we have assigned them to the full honour of Presbyters, appointing that they should receive the same proportion of allowance, and have as great a share in the monthly dividends, as any of the Presbyters had.’ Where, by the way, this portion or allowance had the name of Sportula, from the re­ward or fees which anciently were allowed to Judges, and by that name are mention­ed [Page 287]in the Civil Laws; which being assigned to the Presbyters, pro singulorum meritis, according to the merits of the persons, to some more, some less, at the discretion of the Bishop, gave them the name of Fratres sportulantes, whereof we read in Cyprian, Ep. 66. And they were called divisiones mensurnae, the monthly Dividends, because that as the contributions of the people were made once every month, menstrua quaque die, as Tertullian a Presbyter of this Church hath told us; so, as it seems,Tertul. in Apo­log. c. 36. the Dividend was made accordingly, as soon as the mony had been brought to the Bishops hands. So also in the way of punishment, when any of the Clergy had offended, the Bishop had Authority to withdraw his maintenance, and with-hold his stipend. For when com­plaint was made to Cyprian of Philumenus and Fortunatus, two of his Sub-deacons,Cypr. Ep. 28. and of Favorinus an Acolythite, qui medio tempore recesserunt, who formerly had forsook their calling, and now desired to be restored again unto it; although he neither would nor could determine in it, before he had consulted with his Colleagues, and the whole body of his People, (the matter being great and weighty) yet in the mean time he suspends them from their monthly pay, interim se à divisione mensurna tantum contineant, as he there resolves it, leaving the cause to be determined of at better leasure. This was a plain suspension à Beneficio, and could he not suspend ab Officio also? Assuredly he both could and did, as appears evidently by his proceeding with these Presbyters, who had entrenched upon his jurisdiction, as before was said. Whose great offence, though he reserved unto the hearing both of the Confessors themselves, and the whole body of the People for a final end; yet in the mean time, prohibeantur interim offerre, Idem Ep. 10. it was his pleasure to suspend them for the Ministery from their attendance at the Altar. Suspend them then he might, there's no doubt of that; but might he not if he saw cause, deprive them also. He might assuredly, or otherwise he had never given that counsel to Rogatianus, that if the Deacon formerly remembred, did not repent him of his faults, eum vel deponat vel abstineat, Idem Ep. 65. he either might deprive or excommunicate him, which he would himself. He were a very greedy Bishop, who would not be con­tent with that allowance of Authority which S. Cyprian had.

The like authority he used towards the People also, XI not suffering them to be re­membred in the Churches Prayers, if they had broken or infringed the Churches Ca­nons: And this appeareth by the so celebrated case of Geminius Victor, who at his death had made Geminius Faustinus, one of the Presbyters of Carthage, tutorem testamento suo, Idem Ep. 66. the Executor of his last Will and Testament? which being like to be a means whereby Faustinus might be taken off from his employment in the Ministery; the displeased Bishop doth declare, ne deprecatio aliqua nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur, that he should neither be remembred in the Offertory, nor any Prayer be made in his name in the Church. And this he did upon this reason, ne quis Sacerdotes & Ministros Dei, Altari ejus & Ecclesiae vacantes, ad seculares molestias devocet, that none hereafter should presume to withdraw the Priest and Ministers of God from their attendance at the Altar in the Churches service, unto the cares and troubles of the world. Which pas­sage as it shews expresly the great tye which the Bishops of those times had upon the Conscience of the People, whom they could punish thus after death it self: So is it frequently alledged,Smectym. p. 46. to shew that neither Presbyters nor Bishops were to be molested with handling of worldly affairs. And so far I agree with them, that Presbyters and Bishops are to be restrained from these worldly matters, so far forth as they are a mo­lestation to them, whereby they are disabled from the executing of their holy function, as this Faustinus seems to be, ab Altari avocatus, Cypr. Ep. 66. quite taken off from the attendance of his place; so far forth as the ancient Canons on the which Cyprian grounds himself, they are and ought to be restrained.V. par. 2. c. 1. But we have shewn before that many secular affairs were not inconsistent with the true meaning of those Canons, as neither possibly might this of Faustinus, had it hapned at some other time, been reputed by him. But at this time, partly by reason of the persecution, and partly on occasion of the factious, the Church was almost destitute and unprovided. This as he intimates in his 35 Epistle,Desolata Pres­byterii nostri copia. ep. 35. Cypr. Ep. 24. touching the admission of Numidicus into the number of their Presbyters; so he affirms the same at large in another place: where he declareth, plurimos nostros absentes esse, paucos vero qui illic sunt vix ad ministerium quotidiani operis sufficere, that many of the Presbyters did absent themselves, and that those which did remain upon their Charge, could not suffice for the performance of the daily offices. So that the Church being in that necessity, and such a manifest need or want of Presbyters, as then appearing in the Church; Faustinus could the less be spared from the attendance on the Ministry, and consequently Geminius Victor the more unadvised, in putting him on such a busi­ness [Page 288]by which he was ab administratione Divina avocatus, Cypr. Ep. 66. quite taken off from the em­ployment of his calling in Gods holy Service. And this I rather take to be the true condition of the business, and that which gave S. Cyprian so great cause of Anger, than with Saravia, De honore Prae­sul. debito. c. 16. to affirm that the Decree or Canon whereof Cyprian speaketh, was but particular and provincial, illi tempori & loco serviens, calculated for the Meridian only of the Church of Carthage, and fitted to the present time; the Canon being ancient and universal, as before was shewn.

Another point, XII in which S. Cyprian exercised the height of his Episcopal Authority, (and an high point it was indeed, as the times then were) was in restraining of those Indulgences, which usually the Martyrs, or such as were prepared for Martyrdom, did too promiscuously bestow on collapsed Christians. For in the Primitive times, the Dis­cipline of the Church being very rigid and severe, such as in time of Persecution had denied the Faith, either by offering unto Idols, or by some formal abnegation under their hand-writing,Albaspin. de Eccl. ritibus. whom they called Libellatici, were doomed unto perpetual pe­nance; no restitution being to be hoped for, to the Churches favour, and to the bene­fits and comforts of it, until the very moment of their last departure. Yet such was the regard which was born to those, who did already suffer duresse and imprisonment, and were resolved to suffer death for the sake of Christ; that such to whom they gave their Letters of recommendation,Cypr. Ep. 11.13, 14, 15. were by the Bishops readmitted into the bosom of Church. And this at first was done without any sensible inconvenience following thereupon, the Martyrs or Confessors rather being very wary, on whom they did be­stow those favours, and very sparing of them also. But when that it was grown so general, that either they did pacem lapsis dare, receive such men into their favours, and the Churches peace promiscuously without care and difference;Id. Ep. 17.19, 20, 21, 22. or that the Presbyters taking their warrant for sufficient, without the leave and liking of their Bishop, ad­mitted them to the Communion; then did the Father manifest his dislike thereof, whereof consult, Ep. 11.13, 14, 15. For when it once was come to this, he first ad­dressed himself unto the Confessors or Martyrs to be more sparing of the like Indul­gences, and after to the Presbyters and People severally, for the repressing of this foul disorder. And when that would not serve the turn, he resolved at last, that for the time to come,Cypr. Ep. 15. Quamvis libello à Martyribus accepto, such Bills or Letters notwithstanding, as they had received from those Martyrs, they should stay his leisure, and the whole business concerning them be respited until his return. Which check thus given, and certain of the Presbyters rebuked and threatned by him for their officiousness in this kind, as before we saw; it came to pass, that in a very little time, as well the Discipline of the Church, as the Authority of the Bishops, reverted to its former rigor, especially after that on the sight of this inconvenience, the Lapsi, or Collapsed Chri­stians were by the general consent of holy Church admitted unto penance, like to other Sinners, which as it hapned chiefly by S. Cyprians means, so was it brought to pass in S. Cyprians time. But here take notice by the way, that though these Indul­gences had been granted by these Confessors, whilst they were Martyrs, but in voto, they were not yet to take effect,Albaspinae. de rit. Eccl. li. 1. obseru. 2. as the late Learned Bishop of Orleans very well ob­served, till that they had received the crown of Martyrdom, which he proves very evi­dently out of certain places of S. Cyprian compared together; for which I leave you to that Author. It is enough that the first check that had been given to that promiscuous liberty which the Martyrs took, of doing what they pleased with the Churches Keys, was given by Cyprian. Whose foot-steps one of his Successors following, after brought to pass,Baro. in Annal. Eccl. Anno. 302. n. 126. that none should have the honour of being counted Martyrs after their decease, but such whose life and sufferings, and the occasion of those sufferings were first re­ported by the Bishop of the place in which he lived, to his Metropolitan or Primate, and by the Metropolitan to the chief Primate, who was he of Carthage; who on deli­beration was to decree, Cuinam Martyris cultus deberet impendi, who ought to have the honour and repute of Martyrs, as Baronius noteth. And this he proveth out of a passage in S. Austin, Brev. Coll. die 3. c. 5. wherein Mensurius Bishop of Carthage, writing unto Secundus Primate of Numidia, (for all the Metropolitans of Africa were called Primates) is said to have disliked of those, which without cause or questioning exposed themselves to open dan­ger; Et ab iis honorandis prohibuisse Christianos, and that he did prohibit the Christian People to give them that regard and honour which was due to Martyrs. And indeed Optatus speaks of one who was reputed for a Martyr,Opta [...]. de Schism. lib. 1. Sed nondum vindicatus, but not asserted to that honour, not established in it. So great was the Authority of Bishops over that of Martyrs, whether dead or living.

But to return unto S. Cyprian, XIII whom we have found so stout a Champion in the de­fence of his Episcopal Authority, that though there was a kind of necessity of com­plying (as the world went with him) both with his Presbyters and People, yet not­withstanding he knew how to resume his power, and neither take their counsel nor consent, but on some occasions. Had he done otherwise, he had indeed betrayed the honour of his calling, which in the point of practice, which he so often doth extol, both for Divinity of Institution, and excellency of Jurisdiction, in the way of Theory. For if we look into his writings, we shall soon find what his opinion was touching the institution of Episcopacy, which he maintaineth in several places to be Jure Divino, no Ecclesiastical device, no humane Ordinance. For grounding the Authority of his calling on those words of Christ, Tibi dabo Claves, Cypr. Ep. 27. he sheweth that ever since that time the Church hath been constituted upon Bishops, and every Act thereof by them administred. ‘Then adds, Cum hoc itaque Divina lege fundatum sit, that since it is so ordered by the Law of God, or by Divine Law, which you will; he marveleth much that any one should write such Letters to him, as he had formerly received from some of the collapsed Christians.’ In his Epistle to Cornelius, Id. Ep. 55. he calleth the Office of a Bishop in governing the Church of God, Sublimem & Divinam potestatem, an high and Divine Authority, and tells us of the same, de Divina dignatione firmatur, that it is founded and confirmed by Divine Providence or favour: ‘In that unto Roga­tianus, Idem Ep. 65. Apostolos, i. e. Episcopos & Praepositos Dominus elegit, the Lord saith he, did choose Apostles, that is, the Bishops and Governors of the Church: Therefore, if we that are the Bishops ought to do nothing against God, qui Episcopos facit, who made us Bishops, so neither ought the Deacons to do any thing in despite of us, who made them Deacons.’ Finally in that unto Florentius Pupianus, Idem Ep. 69. who had charged him, as it seems, with some filthy crimes, he affirmeth often, that the Bishop is appointed by God himself, Sacerdotes per Deum in Ecclesia constitui, that they are placed in the Church by God, Deum Sacerdotes facere, that God makes Bishops; and in a word, Apostolis Vicaria ordinatione succedere, they that succeeded the Apostles as their proper Substitutes. As for the excellency of the Episcopal power, take this once for all, where he affirmeth to Cornelius, non aliunde haereses abortas esse, Idem Ep. 55. that Schisms and Heresies do proceed from no other fountain than this, ‘That there is no obedi­ence yielded to the Bishop or Priest of God (for in the ancient stile of many of the Fathers, Sacerdos and Bishop is the same) Vel unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur; and that men do not think that there is one Bishop only for the time in a Christian Church, one for the time that judgeth in the place of Christ.’ Pamel. Annot. in Cypr. Ep. 55. Which words since many of the Advocates for the Popes Su­premacy have drawn against all right and reason from their proper purpose, to the advancement of the dignity of the See of Rome; S. Cyprian writing this unto Cornelius, then the Bishop there; we may hear him speaking the same words almost in his own behalf, Inde enim Schismata, &c. From hence, saith he, do Schisms and Heresies arise, Cypr. Ep. 69. whilst the Bishop being but one in every Church, is slighted by the proud presumption of some men; and he by man is judged unworthy, whom God makes worthy of his favours. And because possibly it may be thought that Cyprian might be partial in the heightning of his own Authority, I shall crave leave to back him with Saint Hierom's words,Hieron. adv. Luciferian. none of the greatest fautors of Episcopacy, who affirms as much; who tells us plainly, that the safety of the Church depends on the chief Priest or Bishop, Cui si non exors & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, to whom, in case there be not given an eminent and transcendent power, there will be shortly as many Schisms in the Church, as Priests. But it is time to leave S. Cyprian, who went unto the Lord his God through the door of Martyrdom, Anno 261. proceeding from the Church of Carthage to that of Alexandria, the next neighbour to it.

CHAP. V. Of the condition and affairs of the two Patriarchal Churches of Alexandria and Antiochia.

  • 1. Of the foundation and first Professors of the Divinity-School in Alexandria.
  • 2. What is affirmed by Clemens, one of those Professors, concerning Bishops.
  • 3. Origen the Divinity-Reader there, per­mitted to expound the Scriptures, in the presence of the Bishop of Caesarea.
  • 4. Contrary to the custom of the Alexandrian and Western Churches.
  • 5. Origen ordained Presbyter by the Bishops of Hierusalem ad Caesarea, and excom­municated by the Bishop of Alexandria.
  • 6. What doth occur touching the superiority and power of Bishops in the works of Origen.
  • 7. The custom of the Church of Alexandria, altered in the election of their Bishops.
  • 8. Of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, and his great care and travails for the Churches peace.
  • 9. The Government of the Church in the for­mer times, by letters of intercourse and correspondence amongst the Bishops of the same.
  • 10. The same continued also in the present Century.
  • 11. The speedy course taken by the Prelats of the Church, for the suppressing of the Here­sies of Samosatenus.
  • 12. The Civil Jurisdiction, train and thrones of Bishops, things not unusual in this Age.
  • 13. The Bishops of Italy and Rome made Judges in a point of title and possession, by the Roman Emperor.
  • 14. The Bishops of Italy and Rome, why reckoned as distinct in that Delegation.

AND being come to Alexandria, I the first thing presents it self to our observation, is the Divinity-School there being, which we must first take notice of before we look into the Church, which in this Age was furnished hence both with Religious Bishops and Learned Presbyters.Eus. hist. Eccl. lib. 5. c. 10. A School, as it appeareth by Eusebius, of no small Antiquity; who speaking of the times of Commodus, saith, [...], that of an antient custom there had been a School for teaching of Divinity, and other parts of Literature, which had been very much frequented in the former times, and so conti­nued till his days. According to which plat-form, first Schools, and after Universities had their consideration in the Church; from whence, as from a fruitful Seminary, she hath been stored ever since with the choicest wits for the advancement of her publique service. But for this School of Alexandria, the first Professor there, which occurs by name,Id. ibid. is said to be Pantaenus, [...], a man renowned in all parts of Learning: first a Philosopher of the Sect of Stoicks, and afterwards a fa­mous Christian Doctor. A man so zealously affected to the Gospel of Christ, that for the propagating of the same, he made a journey to the Indies; and after his return, he took upon him the Professorship in the School aforesaid, [...], opening the treasures of Salvation both by word and writing.Id. l. 5. c. 11. And I the rather instance in him, because that under him Clemens of Alex­andria learned his first Principles of Religion; and after him succeeded in his Chair or Office: who being by birth of Athens, and of the same family with the former Clemens, the fourth Bishop of Rome, upon his coming and abode at Alexandria, gained the sur­name or additament of Alexandrinus. Now that Clemens was Divinity-reader in the School of Alexandria, Id. l. 6. c. 5. is said expresly by Eusebius; where he affirmeth also, [...], that Origen was one of his Disciples: Who after coming to the place himself,Id. li. 6. cap. 12. [...]. was followed in the same by Heraclas, and Dionysius successively; both of them Scholars in the School of Origen, both severally and successively Readers or Doctors in the same, and both, first Heraclas, Dionysius next, Bishops or Patriarchs of Alexandria. So that within the space of half an hundred years, this School thus founded, or at the least advanced in reputation by Pantaenus, brought forth the said four famous Doctors, Clemens and Origen, Heraclas and Dionysius, all of them in their times men of great renown, and the lights and glory of their Age. And though I might relate the names of many other men of fame and credit, who had their breeding in these Schools, did it concern the business which I have in hand; yet I shall instance in no more but these, and these it did concern me to make instance of, because their Acts and Writings [Page 291]are the special subject of all that is to come in this present Chapter; and were indeed the greatest business of that Age.

And first for Clemens, II not to take notice of those many Books which were written by him, a Catalogue whereof Eusebius gives us, and from him St. Hierom: Euseb. hist Ecc. l. 6. c. 11. [...]. those which concern us most, were his eight books inscribed [...], which are now not extant, and those entituled [...], which are still remaining. In the first eight, he tells us in the way of story, that Peter, James, and John, after Christs A­scension,Id. l. 2. c. 2. how high soever in the favour of their Lord and Master, contended not a­mongst themselves for the place and honour, [...], but made choice of James surnamed the Just, to be the Bishop of Hierusalem: that Peter, on perusal of the Gospel, writ by Mark, [...],Id. ib. c. 14. confirm'd the same by his authority, for the ad­vancement of the Church that James [...],Id. Ibid. cap. 22. [...]. to whom the Bishop­rick of Hierusalem had been committed by the Apostles, was by the malice of the Jews done to a cruel death: that John the Apostle, after Domitian's death,Id. l. 3. c. 17. [...]. returned to E­phesus from Patmos, and going at the intreaty of his friends to the neighbour Nations, [...], in some parts he ordained Bishops, in others planted or established Churches, in others, by the gui­dance of the holy Spirit, electing fit men for the Clergy; telling withal the story of a certain Bishop, to whom the said Apostle did commit a young man to be trained up. All which he might affirm with the greater confidence, because he tells us of himself,Id. l. 6. cap. 11. [...]. [...], that he lived very near the Apostles times, and so might have the better light to discern their actions. And for the other eight remaining, although there is but little in them, which concerns this Subject, the Argument of which he writeth, not having any thing to do therewith: yet in that little we have mention of the several Orders, of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons in the Churchof God. And first for Bishops, speaking of the domestick Ministeries that belong to marriage, he shews that by the Apostles Rule,Clement. Alex­and. Stroma. lib. 3. such Bishops are to be ap­pointed for the Church of God, [...], as by the orderly government of their private families, may be conceived most fit and likely to have a care unto the Church. Where clearly, by his [...] he means not Presbyters, as the Apostle is conceived to mean in his Epistle to Timothy. For howsoever the Presbyters might be trusted with the charge of a particular Congregation; yet had they never the inspection, the care or gover­nance, [...], of a whole Church, or many Churches joyned toge­ther, as the word [...] may be rendred. That was the privilege and power of Bishops. So for the two inferiour Orders, we find them in another place,Id. ibid. li. 7. where he divides such things as concern this life, into [...], matters of improvement and advantage, and [...], subservient only thereunto; then adds, that in the Church of God, the Deacons exercise the subservient Offices; [...], but that the Presbyters attend those others, which con­duce to our amendment or improvement in the way of godliness. Out of which words if any man can gather that judging of the conversation or crimes of any members of the Church, that discipline, which worketh emendation in men, is in the power of the Elders, Smectymn. p. 38. as I see some do, he must needs have a better faculty of extraction, than the best Chymist that I know of. In all that place of Clemens not a word of Judging, nor so much as a syllable of Discipline. A power of bettering and amending our sinful lives, he gives indeed unto the Presbyters: but that I hope both is and may be done by the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments, with which the Presbyters are and have been trusted. This is the [...], the bettering and improving power which belongs to them; and not the dispensation of the Keys, which have been always put into other hands, or if at any time into theirs, it hath been only in a second and inferiour place, not in the way of judging, in the course of Discipline.

Next let us look on Origen, III a man of most prodigious parts both for Wit and Learning; who at the Age of eighteen years was made a Catechist, in the Church,Hieron. de Script. Eccl. in Origine. and afterward a publick Reader in the Schools of Alexandria, a man in whom there was nothing ordinary, either good or ill: for when he did well, none could do it better; and when he erred or did amiss, none could do it worse. The course and method of his studies, the many Martyrs which he trained up in the School of Piety, the several Countreys which he travelled, either for informing of himself or others, belong not unto this Discourse. Suffice it, that his eminence in all parts of Learning, and his [Page 292]great pains in his profession,Euseb. bist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 7. [...]. Id. ib. c. 13. [...]. made him most grateful, for a time, unto Demetrius the Patriarch of Alexandria, though after upon envy at the mans renown, he did endea­vour to diminish his reputation. For on occasion of the Wars in Egypt, seeing he could not stay in safety there, he went unto Caesarea, the Metropolitan See of Palestine: where, though not yet in holy Orders, he was requested by the Bishop, not only to dispute in publick, as his custom was, [...], but also to expound the Scriptures; and that too [...] in the open Church. Which when it came unto the knowledg of Demetrius, he forthwith signified by Let­ters his dislike thereof: affirming it to be an unaccustomed and unheard of thing, [...], that any Lay-man should presume to Preach, or Expound Scripture in the Bishops presence. But hereunto it was replyed by Theocti­stus Bishop of Caesarea, and Alexander Bishop of Hierusalem who was also there, that he had quite mistook the matter: it being lawful for such men as were fit and emi­nent, to speak a word of exhortation to the People, or to preach unto them, [...], if they were thereunto required by the Bishop; instancing in Euelpis, Paulinus, and Theodorus, godly brethren all, who on the like au­thority had so done before; and they, for their parts, being of opinion, that others besides them had done so too. In agitation of which business, there are these two things presented to us, first the regard and reverence, which was had, in those Pious times, unto the person of a Bishop; and then the power and authority that was vest­ed in them. For first, it seems that men of whatsoever parts, though of great spirit and abilities, did notwithstanding think it an unfitting thing, to meddle with ex­pounding Scripture, or edifying of the People, in case the Bishop was in place. And yet as strange and uncouth as it was, or was thought to be, the Licence of the Bishop made it lawful. But then withal we must conceive of Preaching in this place and story, not as a Ministerial Office, but only as an Academical or Scholastical exercise: ac­cording as it is still used in our Universities, where many not in holy Orders, preach their turns and courses.

And yet indeed Demetrius was not so much out as they thought he was, IV but had good ground to go upon, though possibly there was some intermixture of envy in it. For whatsoever had been done in the Eastern Churches; the use was otherwise in Alexandria, and in the Churches of the West: in which it was so far unusual for Lay-men to expound, or preach in the Bishops presence, that it was not lawful for the Presbyters. For in the neighbour Church of Carthage it was thus of old, in these times at least. For when Valerius Bishop of Hippo, a Diocese within that Pro­vince, being by birth a Grecian, and not so well instructed in the pronunciation of the Latin Tongue, perceived his Preaching not to be so profitable to the common People, for remedy thereof, having then lately ordained Augustin Presbyter, eidem potestatem dedit coram se in Ecclesia Evangelium praedicandi, Possidon. in vit. Aug. c. 5. he gave him leave to preach the Gospel in the Church, though himself were present. And this, saith Possidonius, who relates the story, was contra usum & consuetudinem Ecclesiarum Africanarum, against the use and custom of the African Churches; and many Bishops thereabouts did object as much. But the old man, bearing himself upon the custom of the Eastern Church, where it was permitted, would not change his course. By means whereof it came to pass, that by this example, some Presbyters in other places, acceptâ ab Episcopis potestate, being thereto licenced by the Bishop, did preach before them in the Church, without controul. For Austin being afterwards Bishop of Hippo in the place of Valerius, ap­plauds Aurelius the Metropolitan of Carthage, Aug. Ep. 77. for giving way unto the same: commend­ing him for the great care he took in his Ordinations, but specially, de sermone Pres­byterorum qui te praesente populo infunditur, for the good Sermons preached by the Pres­byters unto the People in his presence. But this permission or allowance was only in some places, in some Churches only; perhaps in none but those of Africk. For Hierom writing to Nepotian, (being himself a Presbyter in the Church of Rome) complains thereof ut turpissimae consuetudinis, Hieron. ad Ne­potianum. as of a very evil custom, that in some Churches the Presbyters were not to preach if the Bishop were by. And though he was a man of great authority with Damasus and others his Successours, Popes of Rome; yet got he little by complaining, the custom still continuing as before it was. And this is clear by the Epistle of Pope Leo, in which as it is declared unlawful, to perform divers other Sacred Offices in the Bishops presence,Leon. Ep. 88. without his special Precept and Com­mand; so also is there a non licet in this point of Preaching, which was not to be done [nec populum docere, ncc plebem exhortari] if the Bishop were then present in the Con­gregation. [Page 293]So that this being then an ancient and received custom, must needs be now in force when Demetrius lived; and, as it seems by his expostulation in the case of Origen, had been no less observed in Alexandria than in Rome or Africk. There was indeed a time, and that shortly after, in which the Presbyters of Alexandria might not preach at all, [...], as it is in Socrates. Socrat. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 21. Which general restraint, as it was occasioned by reason of the factions raised by Arius, or other troubles of that Church, in the beginning of the Age next following; so it con­tinued till the times of Socrates and Sozomen, Sozom. hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 19. who lived about the middle of the sixth Century, and take notice of it. So that as it appeared before in the case of Austin, that the Bishops have a power to Licence; so it appears by that of Arius, that they also have a power to silence.

But to return again to Origen, V the Bishops of Caesarea and Hierusalem finding how profitable a Servant he might prove in the Church of God, did at another time, as he passed through Palestine to go towards Greece, ordain him Presbyter. And this was done [...], saith Eusebius, by the Bishops there,Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 17. [...]. &c. 7. by the two Bishops formerly remembred; no Presbyter concurring in it for ought there we find. Yet when Demetrius moved with his wonted envy, did not only what he could to dis­grace the man, but also sought to frame an accusation against those, [...],Id. l. 6. c. 7. n. which had advanced him to the order of a Presbyter: We do not find that he objected any thing against them, as to the Act of Ordination, but only as unto the irregularity of the person, by reason of a corporal defect of his own procuring. And on the other side, when as Demetrius saw his time, and found that some few passages in his many writings, either by him or in his name at least set forth and published, had made him liable unto danger, obnoxious to the censures of the Church; he did not only excommunicate him, which had been enough either to right the Church or revenge himself, but he prevailed with many other Churches also,Hier. in Apo. l cont. Ruffinum. to confirm the sentence. Ab eodem Demetrio Episcopo Alexandrino fuisse excommunicatione damnatum, prolatamque in eum sententiam à caeteris quoque Ecclesiis ratam habitam, as S. Hierom hath it. Whereas before we had his Ordination performed only by the two Bishops of Caesarea and Hierusalem, without the hands of any of the Presbyters; and yet the Ordination good and valid, the whole Church after reckoning him for a Pres­byter without doubt or scruple; so here we find him Excommunicated by one Bishop only, without the votes or suffrages of the Presbyters, or any shew or colour of it; and yet the Church concurring with that Bishop, though his ancient Enemy, in con­firmation of that censure. So fully was the Church persuaded in the former times, that these were parts of the Episcopal jurisdiction and authority, that there was no objection made against this last, though Origen had many friends, and those great ones too; nor nullity or invalidity in the first, although Demetrius, who by reason of his great place and power, had made him many Enemies, did except against it.

From that which doth occur concerning Origen in the Books and Works of other Writers, VI proceed we unto that which doth occur concerning Bishops in the works of Origen. And there we find in the first place the several Orders of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. For speaking of those words of the Apostle, He that desireth the Office of a Bishop, desireth a good work; he tells us this,Origen in Mat. cap. 15. Talis igitur Episcopus non desiderat bonum opus, that such a Bishop desireth not a good work, who desireth the Office, either to get glory amongst men, or be flattered and courted by them, or for the hope of gain from those which believe the Gospel, and give large gifts in testimony of their Piety. Then adds, Idem vero & de Presbyteris & de Diaconis dices, that the same is to be said of Presbyters and Deacons also. Nor doth he only shew us, though that were sufficient, the several ranks and orders in the Hierarchy, but also the ascent or degrees from the one to the other, In Ecclesia Christi inveniuntur, ‘In the Church of Christ,Orig. tract. 24. in Mat. c. 23. saith he, there are some men who do not only follow Feasts and them that make them, but also love the chiefest places, and labour much, primùm ut Diaconi fiant, first to be made Deacons, not such as the Scripture describeth, but such as under pretence of long Prayers devour Widdows houses. And having thus been made Deacons, cathedras eorum qui vocantur Presbyteri praeripere ambiunt, they very greedily aspire to the chairs of those who are called Presbyters; and some not therewithal content, practise many ways, ut Episcopi vocentur ab hominibus, to have the place or name of Bishops, which is as much to say as Rabbi,’ And shortly after, having en­deavoured to depress this ambitious humour, he gives this caveat, that he who exalts himself shall be humbled, which he desireth all men to take notice of, but specially [Page 294]the Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops, which do not think those words to be spoken of them. Here have we three degrees of Ministers in the Church of God, one being a step unto the other, whereof the Bishop is Supream, in the highest place. And not in place only, but in power also, and authority, as being the men unto whose hands the keys were trusted by our Saviour.Id. Tract. 1. in Matth. For in another place he discourseth thus. Quoniam ii qui Episcoporum locum sibi vendicant, &c. When they which challenge to themselves the place of Bishops, do make the same confession that Peter did, and have received from our Saviour the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, teaching that what they bind on Earth is bound in Hea­ven, and what they loose in Earth is loosed in Heaven; we must acknowledge that what they said is true, if withal they have those things for which it was so said to Peter. For if he be bound with the Chains of his own sins, frustra vel ligat vel solvit, in vain he takes upon him to bind or loose. In the which words (not taking notice of his errour, seeming to make the efficacy of the Ministery to depend upon the merit of the Minister) we find that in the time of Origen the dispensation of the Keys was the Bishops office. This, if it should not be sufficient to declare their power, we may hear him in another place calling them Principes populi Christiani, Id. in Mat. 19. Tractat. 12. the Princes of the Christian people, blaming them, such especially as lived in the greatest Cities (in which he secretly upbraids the proud behaviour of Demetrius towards him) for want of affability and due respect to their Inferiors: And writing on these words of our Saviour Christ, Who is that faithful and wise Servant, Id. in Mat. 24. Tractat. 31. &c. he applies them thus, Peccat in Deum quicunque Episcopus, qui non quasi conservis servus ministrat, sed quasi Dominus. ‘That Bishop whosoever he be, doth offend against God, which doth not minister as a Servant to his Fellow-Servants, but rather as a Lord amongst them; yea, and too often as a sharp and bitter Master, domineering over them by violence (remember how Demetrius used him) like the Task-masters in the Land of Egypt, afflicting the poor Israelites by force.’ Finally, as he doth acquaint us with their power and eminency, so doth he tell us also of their care and service;Id. Homil. 6. in Esaiam. assuring us, that he who is called unto the Office of a Bishop, non vocatur ad principatum, sed ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae, is not invited to an Empire or a Principality, but to the Service of the whole Church. And this he keeps himself to constantly in that whole discourse (being the sixth Homily on the Prophet Esay) in which although he afterwards doth call the Bishop, Ecclesiae Princeps, yet he affirms that he is called ad servitutem, to a place of service; and that by looking to his service well, ad solium coeleste ire posset, he may attain an Heavenly Throne. And so much shall suffice for Origen, a Learned but unfortunate man, with whom the Church had never peace, either dead or living.

From him then we proceed unto his Successor, VII Heraclas, an Auditor at first of Clemens, [...]s [...]b. hist. l. 6. c. 12. [...]. then of Origen, who being marvellously affected with the great Learning of the man, [...], made him his Partner in the Chair; which after Origen was laid by,Id. c. 20. [...]. he managed wholly by himself with great applause. A man that had the happiness to succeed the two greatest Enemies in the world, Origen and Demetrius; the one in the Schools, the other in the Church of Alexandria; unto which honour he was called on Demetrius death, who had sate Bishop there three and forty years. On this preferment of Heraclas unto the Patriarchate, the Regency of the Alexandrian Schools, was forthwith given to Dionysius, another of Origens Disciples, who after fourteen years or thereabout, succeeded also in the Bishoprick. And here began that alteration in the Election of the Bishops of this Church, which S. Hierom speaks of.Hieron. ad Eva­grium. The Presbyters before this time used to Elect their Bishop from among themselves. Alexandriae à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum, Episcopum nominabant, as the Father hath it. But here we find that course was altered, though what the alteration was, in what it did consist, whether in the Electors, or the condition of the party to be Elected, is not so clearly evident in S. Hierom's words. For my part, I conceive it might be in both, both in the unum ex se, and the collocabant. For first the Presbyters of that Church had used to choose their Bishop from amongst themselves, Electing al­ways one of their own body. But in the choice of these two Bishops that course was altered; these two not being Presbyters of the Church, but Readers in the Schools of Alexandria, and so not chosen from amongst themselves. And secondly, I take it that the course was altered, as to the Electors, to the Collocabant. For whereas hereto­fore the Presbyters had the sole power of the Election, to choose whom they listed, and having chosen, to enthrone him without expecting what the people were pleased to do; the people seeing what was done in other Churches, begun to put in for a share, [Page 295]not only ruling, but finally over-ruling the Election. What else should further the Election of these two, I can hardly tell; but that their diligence and assiduity in the discharge of the employment they had took upon them; the great abilities they shewed therein, and the great satisfaction given thereby unto the people, who carefully fre­quented those publick Readings, had so endeared them to the multitude, that no other Bishops could content them, had not these been chosen. And this I am the rather in­duced to think, because that in a short time after, the interess of the people in the E­lection of their Bishop was improved so high, that the want of their consent and suffrage was thought by Athanasius a sufficient bar against the right of the Elected,Atha. in Epi. ad Orthodoxos. affirming it to be against the Churches Canons, [...], and to the pre­cept of the Apostles. But which of these soever it was, an alteration here was made of the ancient custom, which is as much as is intended by S. Hierom in the words al­ledged. How others have abused this place, to prove that the imparity of Bishops is not of Divine Authority, but only brought in by the Presbyters, we have shewn before. Part I. Cha. 3.

But to go on with Dionysius (for of Heraclas and his acts there is little mention) we find the time in which he sate to be full of troubles; VIII both in regard of Persecutions which were raised against the Church without, and Heresies which assaulted her within. Novatus had begun a faction in the Church of Rome, grounding the same upon a false and dangerous doctrine; the sum whereof we find in an Epistle of this Dionysius, Eus. hist. Ec. lib. 7. cap. 7. unto another Dionysius Pope of Rome. And whereas Fabius Bishop of Antiochia, was thought to be a fautor of that Schism, he writes to him about it also.Id. l. 6. c. 36. [...]. Id. l. 7. c. 5. [...]. Id. l. 7. c. 21. [...]. Id. l. 7. c. 22. [...]. So when Sabellius had begun to disperse his Heresies, he presently gives notice of it to Sixtus, or Xystus Bishop of the Church of Rome; as also unto Ammon Bishop of Bernice, and Basilides the Metropolitan of Cyrenaica or Pentapolis, and to divers others. And when that Paulus Samosatenus began to broach strange doctrins in the Church of Christ, although he could not go in person to suppress the same, yet writ he an Epistle to the Bishops Assembled there, [...], declaring his opinion of the point in question. And on the other side, when as the Persecutors made foul havock in the Church, and threatned utterly to destroy the Professors of it;Id. l. 6. c. 34. [...]. he by his Letters certifieth his neighbouring Bishops in what estate Gods Church stood with him, with what heroick resolutions the Christians in his charge did abide the fury, and conquered their tormenters by their patient sufferings; so giving houour to the dead, and breathing courage in the living. Indeed what Bishops almost were there in those parts of Christendom, with whom he held not correspondence, with whom he had not mutual and continual entercourse by the way of Letters, from whom he did not carefully receive in the self-same way both advice and comfort? Witness his several Epistles, besides those formerly remembred, unto Cornelius Pope of Rome, Id. li. 6. c. 38. com­mending him for an Epistle by him written against Novatus; and giving notice to him of the death of Fabius, and how Demetrianus did succeed him in the See of Antioch; and also to the Church of Rome, discoursing of the publick Ministeries in the Christian Church. Witness that also unto Stephanus, the Predecessor of Cornelius, Id. l. 7. c. 2. Id. l. 7. c. 4. entituled De Baptismate; a second to the aforesaid Stephanus, about the faction of Novatus. To Dionysius Bishop of Rome, besides that before remembred from Eusebius, a second ex­tant in the works of Athanasius. And one to Paulus Samosatenus, Athanas. opera graec. lat. Tom. 1. p. 558. Euse. l. 7. c. 24. Nicephorus, Ecc. hist. l. 6. c. 27. Biblio. Patr. T. 3. edit. Col. Bar. An. 265. Euseb. bist. l. 6. cap. ult. the wretched Pa­triarch of Antiochia, of which though there is no mention in Eusebius, who tells us that he would not vouchsafe to write unto him, yet is it intimated in Nicephorus, who affirmes the contrray, and extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and in the Annals of Ba­ronius. It were an infinite and endless labour to recite all those, which besides these inscribed unto the Bishops of the greater Churches, he writ and sent to others of less note and quality, as viz. to Conon Bishop of Hierapolis, the Churches of Laodicea and Armenia, [...], and to whom not almost either Priest or Bishop that was of any merit and consideration in the Church of Christ?

If you demand to what end serves this general muster of the Epistles of this Prelate, IX why I have brought them thus into the field in their ranks and files, I answer that it was to let you see what was the ancient form of government in the Church of Christ, before they had the happiness to live under Christian Princes, and thereby opportunity of meeting in their General Councils. For all the Apostles being furnished by our Lord and Saviour, with an equality of power and honour; pari consortio praediti potesta­tis & honoris, as S. Cyprian hath it;Cyprian de Ec­clesiae unitate. by consequence all Bishops also were founded in the like equality. So that the government of the Church, as to the outward form and [Page 296]polity thereof, was Aristocratical. And being so, there was in manner a necessity im­posed upon the Prelates of the Church, to maintain mutual entercourse and corre­spondence betwixt one another by Letters, Messages, and Agents, for the communi­cating of their Councils, and imparting their advice, as occasion was in all omergent dangers of the Church. For howsoever that the Church had followed in some things the pattern of the Roman Empire, and in each Diocess thereof (taking the Word ac­cording to the civil sense) had instituted and ordained a Primate, to whom the final resolution of all businesses did appertain, that fell within the compass of that Diocess: Yet all these Primates being of equal power and authority, each of them absolute and independent with the bounds and limits of his own jurisdiction, there was no other way to compose such differences as were either indeterminable at home, or otherwise concerned the publick, but this of mutual entercourse and correspondence. And this, what ever is opined unto the contrary both by the Masters and the Scholars in the Church of Rome, who have advanced the Pope into the Soveraign or Supream di­rection in all points of doubt; will prove to be the practice of the Christian Church in all times and Ages, till the Authority of all other Churches in the worst and darkest times of Christianity, came to be swallowed up in the gulph of Rome. For presently upon the death of the Apostles, who questionless had the frequent resort, the final end­ing of all businesses which concerned the Church, a full and plenary authority to di­rect the same;Ruseb. hist. Ec. l. 3. c. 12. [...] Id. c. 30. [...]. we find that Clemens, one of their Disciples, sends his Epistle to the Church of Corinth for the composing of some Schisms which were raised amongst them, and that Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, another of their Scholars sends the like to Rome, for their confirming in the faith. Besides which, as he travelled towards Rome, or rather was haled thither to his Execution, he dispatched others of his Epistles unto other Churches, and one amongst the rest unto Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna, commen­ding unto him the good estate of the Church of Antioch. Id. l. 4. c. 22. [...]. The like we find of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, a right godly man, of whose Epistles to the Lacedemonians, Athe­nians, Nicomedians, and those of Crete; as also to the Churches in Pontus, nay to that of Rome, conducing either to the beating down of Heresies, or to the preservation of peace and unity, or to the confirmation of the faith, or rectifying of what was amiss in the Churches discipline, there is full mention in Eusebius.

Thus when Pope Victor by his rash perversness had almost plunged the Church in an endless broil;Id. l. 5. c. 23.24. [...]. the Bishops of these times bestirred themselves by publique writings to compose the quarrel; particularly Irenaeus and Polyerates, the one the Metropolitan of the Gallick, the other of the Asian Churches. And when that many of the Bishops se­verally had convocated Councils and Synodical meetings to make up this breach; upon the rising of the same they sent out their Letters,Ib. c. 22. [...]. signifying what they had Decreed, advising what they would have done by all Christian people.Ib. c. 25. [...]. For though Eusebius in­stanceth in none but the Bishops of Caesarea and Hierusalem, (in the records of which, in two Churches, he had been most versed) which sent out these Synodical Epistles; yet being so many other Metropolitans had called Synods also to the same intent, I doubt not but they took the same course as the others did in manifesting their Decrees and Counsels. Nay so exact and punctual they were in the continuance of this mutual amity and correspondence, that there was almost no occurrence of any moment o [...] consideration,Id. l. 6. c. 28. [...]. Id. l. 6. c. 10.16. & Cyprian. E­pist. 42. not so much as the death of some eminent Prelate, and the succession of a new; but they gave notice of it unto one another, ending their Letters of congra­tulation unto the party so advanced: Examples of the which in Ecclesiastical Histories are both infinite and obvious. By means of which continual intercourse there was main­teined, not only an Association of the several Churches for their greater strength, nor a Communication only of their Councils for the publick safety, but a Communion also with each other,Optat. de Schi. Donat. l. 2. as Members of the Mystical Body of our Saviour Christ. And this is that Optatus speaks of, when having made a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome, from S. Peter down unto Siricius, who then held that place; or, as his words there are, Qui noster est Socius, who was his Partner or Associate in the common Government of the Church: He adds, Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in una communionis societate concordant, with whom the whole world doth agree with us in one communion or so­ciety, by Letters of intercourse and correspondence. For Literae formatae, or communi­catoriae, were these Letters called, as in the 163 Epistle of S. Austin, where both names occur.

This as it was the usage of the former times, so was there never more need to uphold the same, than in the latter part of this present Age. So mighty a distemper had pos­sessed [Page 297]the Church, that no part almost of it was in a tolerable constitution: and there­fore it concerned the Bishops to be quick and active, before the maladies thereof be­came incurable. In that of Carthage, besides the faction raised by Felicissimus, which had no countenance from the Church; there was an erroneous doctrine publickly re­ceived about the Baptism of Hereticks. The Church of Alexandria, besides the heat she fell into concerning Origen, was much disquieted by the Heresie of Sabellius, broach­ed within the same. And that no sooner was suppressed, or at lest quieted for the present, but a great flame brake out in the Church of Antioch, which beginning in the House of Paulus Samosatenus before remembred, had like to have put all the Church into combustion. Rome in the mean time was afflicted more than all the rest, by the Schism raised, and the false doctrines preached therein, by Novatianus: and that not for a fit only and no more but so, but in a constant kind of sickness, which disturbed her long. In this distemper of the Church, the Bishops had no way to consult her health; but by having recourse to their old way of mutual commerce and conference: which being it could not be performed in person, must be done by Letters. And so accordingly it was. Witness those several Letters written by St. Cyprian to the Bishops of Rome: viz. from him to Stephanus, Epist. 71. to Lucius, Epist. 58. and to Corne­lius, Epist. 42, 43, 47, 54, 55, 57. to the Church there, Epist. 23, 29. and from the Church of Rome and the Bishops of it, unto him again, Epist. 31, 46, 48, 49. In all of which they mutually both give and take advice, as the necessities of their affairs, and the condition of the Church required: Nor was the business of the Church of Carthage, in agitation between Cyprian only and the Roman Prelates; but taken also into the care and consideration of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, Euseb. hist. Ecc. l. 7. cap. 2. who writ his judg­ment in it, and advice about it, to Stephanus then Pope of Rome, who held against St. Cyprian, or indeed rather for the truth, in the point in question. What the same Dionysius did, for the suppressing of the faction of Novatus, raised in Rome at first, but after spreading further over all the Church, we have in part beheld already, by his Epistle unto Fabius of Antiochia who was suspected to incline that way; and that in­scribed unto Cornelius, written about that business also, which before we spake of. And we may see what Cyprian did in recompence of that advice and comfort which he had from Rome, in his own afflictions, by the great care he took for the composing of her Schisms and troubles when she fell into them; by his Epistles to that only purpose: as viz. those unto Cornelius, Cypr. Ep. 41. Id. Ep. 42. Id. Ep. 43. Id. Ep. 50, 51. Id. Ep. 48, 49. intituled Quod ordinationem Novatiani non rece­perit, De ordinatione ejus à se comprobata, Quod ad Confessores à Novatiano seductos li­teras fecerit: The Letters of those seduced Confessors to him, and his congratulation unto them upon their return to their obedience to the Church; Cornelius writing unto him touching the faction of Novatian, and their wicked practices, with his Re­ply unto Cornelius. Thus also when Sabellius began to broach his Heresies within the jurisdiction of Alexandria; he did not only signifie the same to the Bishop of Rome, which by the Cardinal is used I know not how, for a prime Argument,Baron. in An­nal. Eccl. Anno 260. n. 62. to prove the Popes Supremacy: but unto divers other Bishops, as before was shewn, to whom assuredly he owed no obedience. This as he did, according to the usage of the Church, at that time in force: so took he other courses also for the suppression of that Heresie, both by power and pen. For finding upon certain information [...], that diverse Bishops of Pentapolis, Athan. de sen­tent. Dionys. being within the Patriarchat of Alexandria, began to countenance and embrace the said desperate doctrines, and had so far prevailed therein, that there was hardly any mention in their Churches of the Son of God; he knowing that the care and oversight of the said Churches did belong to him, first laboured by his Messengers and Commissioners to dissuade them from those lewd opinions; and when that would not do the deed, he was constrained to write unto them an Epistle, in which he throughly confuted their erroneous Tenets. By which as we may see the care and piety of this famous Prelate, triumphing in the fall of Heresie; so we may see the power and emi­nency of that famous See, having the governance and superintendency of so many Churches.

But that which was indeed the greatest business of his time, XI and which the Church was most concerned in, was that of Paulus Samosatenus, the sixteenth Bishop of the Church of Antioch, great in relation to the man,Euseb. Eccl. hist. l. 7. c. 22. [...]. one of the three prime Bishops in the Christian Church; and great inference to the danger which was like to follow. When one of the main Pillars of a Church is foundred, the whole edifice is in danger of a present ruin. And therefore presently upon the apprehension of the mischief likely [Page 298]to ensue, in case there was no speedy course taken to prevent the same, the Bishops of all parts repaired to Antioch, not only those which were within the jurisdiction of that Patriarchate, but such as lived far off; and in all possibility, might have kept their Churches from the infection of the Heresie, being so remote. For thither came Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea, Id. Ibid. in Cappadocia, Gregory surnamed Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neo-Caesarea in Pontus, and Athenodorus his brother, another Bishop of that Pro­vince, Helenus Bishop of Tarsus, Nicomas Bishop of Iconium, Hymenaeus Bishop of Hie­rusalem, Maximus Bishop of Bostra, Theoctecnus Bishop of Caesarea, the Metropolis of Pa­lestine; and so many others, [...], that the number of them was in­numerable. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria was required also to be there,Id. ibid. [...], but he excused himself by reason of his age and weakness. And well indeed he might do so, being then very ill at ease, and dying whilst the Synod was in preparation.Id. ibid. But what he could not do in person, he performed by his Pen: writing not only to the Fathers, who were there assem­bled, which Eusebius speaks of; but to the Heretick himself, a Copy of the which we have both in Baronius and the Bibliotheca, as before was said. As for the other Dionysius the then Pope of Rome, I find not any thing that he did, to quench the flame.Baron. Annal. Eccl. Anno 1272. 18. For though Baronius being sensible how much it might redound to this Popes disgrace, that he alone should be a looker on in so great a business, wherein the honour of our Lord and SAVIOUR was so much concerned; hath fained a Council to be held at Rome at the same time, and for the same intent, and purpose; yet there is no such thing in Athanasius whom he cites to prove it; neither doth Bi­nius, though in other things he takes up much of his Commodities on the Cardinals word, speak the least word of such a Council. It may be that the Popes then being, had so much work cut out at home by the Novatian faction there; that they had little leisure to attend a business so remote and distant: which is the best excuse I can see for them. And yet welfare the Cardinal and his Binius too. For though the Pope was neither there, nor had so much as sent his Letters for ought we can find; and that the Synodical Epistle written by the Fathers,Euseb. hist. Ecc. l. 7. c. 24. [...]. was inscribed to this Dionysius Ma­ximus Bishop of Alexandria, [...], and to all o­ther their Colleagues, the Bishops, over all the World, and to the Presbyters and Deacons, and the whole Catholick Church,Bin. Annot. in Concil. Tom. 1. p. 161. Baron. in An­nal. An. 272.17. as the Title runneth: yet they will needs inscribe it to the Pope, none else; Ad Dionysium Romanum Pontificem scripserunt, so saith Binius, Synodicam ad Dionysium Papam scriptam: So Baronius hath it; and both ridiculously false.

But to return again unto the Council, the issue of the whole was this; that Paulus was deposed from his place and dignity; Domnus succeeding in the seat. And where­as Paulus notwithstanding his abdication,Euseb. hist. Ecc. l. 7. c. 24. [...]. still kept possession of his House, [...], the House belonging to his Bishoprick. as the story hath it: the Empe­rour Aurelian, being made acquainted with it, did determine thus, that it should be delivered unto them, [...], to whom the Bishops of Italy and Rome should adjudg the same.

Now in this business there are these two things to be considered; XII the man thus sen­tenced, and those to whom the last part of the Sentence was to be put in execution: both of them yielding matter worthy of our observation, for the present business. For Paulus first, the Fathers of the Council laying down the course and passages of his behaviour,Id. ibid. do describe him thus: that being born of mean and ordinary paren­tage, he had amassed great sums of money, and full heaps of Treasure: which he had gotten by bribery and corruption, from those that were in Suits and differences, [...] and had repaired to him to be righted in their several causes: next, that he never went abroad in publick, but that he was attended by a Cuard; some of them going before him, others following after, to the great scandal of the Gospel: And last of all, that he had caused a Throne of State to be erected for him, not such as did become one of CHRISTS Disciples, but high and lofty, such as the Princes of the World (or rather secular Princes) did use to sit in. Which passages (for I omit the rest that follow, as not conducing to the story which I have in hand) as they do manifestly set forth unto us the extream pride, and base corruptions of the man: so do they also give us no obscure light, whereby we may discern the customs of the Church in these particulars.

For first, I find it not objected against Paulus, that he did deal sometimes in such Suits and differences, (matters of secular business out of question) as were brought before him:Id. nbid. but that he took bribes, [...], and received [Page 299]money of such men as came for Justice, and yet abused them too, and did nothing for them. So that it is not faulted by the Fathers, for ought I can see, that he made himself a Judg amongst his brethren, or took upon him to compose such differences, as were brought before him (which certainly was no new matter in these times:) but that he was corrupt and base, not Ministring, but selling Justice to the People; perhaps not selling Justice neither, but making them pay dearly for an unjust Sen­tence.

The next thing I observe is this, that Paulus is not charged by the Synod for being well attended, for having many followers waiting on him, according to the great­ness of his place and quality. Their words as in Eusebius they are laid before me, will bear no such meaning: though some indeed, to raise an Odium on the Prelacy, Smectymn. p. 55. do expound it so, as if a great part of his pride and insolency consisted in that numerous train which attended on him in the Streets. [...].Id. ibid. He did not stir abroad without a Guard, saith the Original, Magna satellitum stipatus turba, saith the Translator of Eusebius, Cum satellitio publicitus ingrediens, Niceph. Eccl. hist. l. 6. c 30. as the Translator of Nicephorus hath it. Now whether we look upon this passage in the Greek, as given us in the word [...], or in the Latin Satellitium, or Satel­litum turba: I must profess my ignorance to be such in both the Languages, that though I find it charged on Paulus, that he was guarded when he went abroad with a band of Spear-men; I find it not objected that he was Attended by a Train of ser­vants.

Last of all for his Throne, the charge consists not as I take it, in the thing it self, for Bishops were allowed their Thrones in the Primitive times; but in the raising of it to a greater height than had been accustomed. Cassiodore, Cassiodor. hist. tripart. l. 7. I am sure doth expound it so: Intra Ecclesiam vero tribunal in alto altius quam fuerat extrui, & thronum in ex­celsioribus collocari jubet, secretarium quoque sterni & parari, sicut judicibus seculi solet. ‘He caused his Tribunal in the Church to be built much higher than it had been former­ly, and his Throne to be placed more aloft than before it was, and a Closet also to be trimmed and furnished, as secular Judges used to have.’ By which it seemeth, ta­king the Authors words as they lie together,Euseb. hist, Ecc. l. 7. c. 24. [...]. that it was not the Throne but [...] the state and exaltation of the Throne, that gave the scandal. A Throne he might have had, [...], as other Bishops Christs Disciples used to have be­fore. But he would have his Throne exalted, adorned and furnished like a Closet, [...], after the manner of Kings and Princes: Or if the Seat or Throne here spoken of, were a Tribunal, as it is said by Cassiodore; we must not look upon him in the Church, but in the Consistory: in which he would have nothing ordi­nary like to other Bishops, but all things suted and adorned like the Bench or Judgment-seat of a Civil Magistrate.

As for the men to whom the execution of the Sentence was committed, XIII which is the next thing here to be considered, Eusebius tells us that they were the Bishops of Rome and Italy. And possibly the Emperour might commit the judgment of the cause to them, because being strangers to the place, and by reason of their absence not ingaged in the business, or known to either of the two Pretenders; they might with greater equity and indifference, determine in it. This is more like to be the reason, than that the Emperour should take such notice of the Popes authority, as to conceive the Judgments and Decrees of other Bishops to be no further good and valid, quam eas authoritas Romani Pontificis confirmasset, Baron. in An­nal. Anno 272. n. 18. than as they were confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, as fain the Cardinal would have it. If so, what needed the Italian Bishops to be joyned with him? The Pope might do it of himself without their ad­vice, indeed without the Emperours Authority. This was not then the matter, whatsoever was; and what was like to be the matter we have said already. And more than that I need not say, as to the reason of the reference, why the Emperour made choice rather of the Western than the Eastern Bishops to cognisance the cause, and give possession on the same accordingly. But there is something else to be considered, as to the matter of the reference to the point referred; as also to the persons who by this Sovereign Authority were enabled to determine in the cause proposed.

And first as for the point referred, whereas there were two things considerable in the whole proceedings against Paulus; viz. his dangerous and heretical Doctrine, and next his violent and unjust possession: the first had been adjudged before in the Council, and he deposed for the same. With that the Bishops either of Rome or Italy had no more to do, than to subscribe unto the judgment of the Synod: or be­ing [Page 300]being a matter meerly of spiritual cognizance, might in a like Synodical meeting, with­out the Emperors Authority as their case then stood, have censured and condemned the Heresie, though with his person possibly they could not meddle, as being of ano­ther Patriarchat. But that which here I find referred unto them, was a mere Lay-fee, a point of title and possession, and it was left unto them to determine in it, whether the Plaintiff or Defendant had the better right to the house in question. This was the point in issue between the parties, and they upon the hearing of the cause, gave sen­tence in behalf of Domnus; who presently upon the said award or sentence, was put into possession of the house, and the force removed by the appointment of the Em­perour. And it is worth our notice also, that as they did not thrust themselves into the imployment, being a matter meerly of a secular nature: so when the Emperor re­quired their advice therein, or if you will make them his Delegates and High Com­missioners; they neither did delay or dispute the matter, nor pleaded any Ancient Canons, by which they might pretend to be disabled from intermedling in the same. A thing which questionless some one or other of them would have done, there being so many Godly and Religious Prelates interessed therein, had they conceived that the imployment had been inconsistent with their holy calling.

A second thing to be considered in this delegation, XIV concerns the parties unto whom it was committed, which were as hath been said before, the Bishops of Italy, and of the City of Rome. In which it will not be impertinent to examine briefly why the Bishops of Italy, Niceph. hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 29. and the Bishops of Rome, [...], as by Nicephorus it is given us in the plural number, should be here reckoned as distinct, since both the City of Rome was within the limits and bounds of Italy, and Italy subordinate, or rather subject to the City of Rome, 242 the Queen and Empress of the World. For resolution of which Quaere, we may please to know that in the distribution of the Roman Empire, the continent of Italy, together with the Isles adjoyning was divided into two parts, viz. the Prefecture of the City of Rome, conteining Latium, Tuscia, and Picenum, the Realm of Naples, Vide chap. 3. of this 2. Part. and the three Islands of Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia, as before was said, the head City or Metropolis of the which was the City of Rome.

And secondly, the Diocess of Italy containing all the Western and broader part there­of from the River Magra to the Alpes, in which were comprehended seven other Provinces, and of the which the Metropolis, or prime City was that of Millain, [...], as in Athanasius. Athanas. in Epist. iad soli­tar. vitam a­gentes. Optat. de Schis. Dona. l. 2. So that that Church being in the Common-wealth, according to that maxim of Optatus, and following the pattern of the same, in the proportion and fabrick of her publick Government, the Bishops of the Diocess of Italy were no way under the command of the Patriarch or Primate of the Church of Rome, but of their own Primate only, which was he of Millain. And this division seems to be of force in the times we speak of, because that in the subscriptions to the Council of Arles, Conc. Tom. 1. being about 40 years after that of Antioch; the Bishops of Italy stand divided into two ranks or Provinces, that is to say Provincia Italiae, and Provincia Ro­mana, the Province of Italy, of which Orosius the Metropolitan of Millain subscribeth only, and then the Province of the City of Rome, for which Gregorius Bishop of Porto subscribeth first. In after Ages the distinction is both clear and frequent, as in the Epistle of the Council of Sardica extant in Athanasius, In Athanas. Apolog. 2. Atha. ad soli­tar. vitam a­gentes. and an Epistle of the said Atha­nasius written unto others. So that according to the Premisses this conclusion follow­eth, that the Popes or Patriarchs of Rome had no Authority in the Church more than other Primates, no not in Italy it self, more than the Metropolitan of Millain, as may appear, should all proofs else be wanting by this place and passage, by which the Bi­shops of the Diocess of Italy (taking the word Diocess in its civil sense) were put into a joynt commission, with the Bishops of the Patriarchat of Rome with the Pope himself. Which tending so expresly to the overthrow of the Popes Supremacy, as well Christopher­son in his Translation of Eusebius, as the great Cardinal Baronius in his Application of the place, are fain to falsifie their Author. For whereas in the Text we have that he of the Petenders was to have possession, [...], to whom the Bishops of Italy, Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 24 [...] Baron. in An­nal. An. 272. n. 18. and the City of Rome should adjudge the same: Christopherson translates it thus, Quibus Christiani Italiae & Ʋrbis Romae Episcopi tribuenda praescriberent; Baronius with less ambiguity, Cui Italiae Christiani, & Ʋrbis Romanae Episco­pi dandam praescriberent; to whom the Christians of Italy and the Bishops of the City of Rome should think fit to give it. And for a further testimony of this equality betwixt Rome and Millain, we may note also on the by, that each Church had its proper and peculiar customs; Rome neither giving Law to Millain, nor she to Rome. Witness [Page 301]that signal difference betwixt them in the Saturdays fast, which in those times was kept at Rome, but not at Millain; according to that memorable saying of Saint Ambrose, quando Romae sum, jejuno Sabbato; quando hic sum, non jejuno Sabbato: In Aug. Ep. 86. in fine. In­deed the Church of Millain might well stand on her own Prerogatives, as being little inferiour unto that of Rome, either in the condition of her founder, or the Antiquity of her foundation: S. Barnabas the Apostle being generally reported for the first Bishop here, to whom Anathalon succeeded, Gaius after him,Baron. Annet. in Martyr. Rom. Junii 11. Martyr. Rom. Sept. 25.27. and so successively Bishop after Bishop, till these very times. Thus having prosecuted the affairs of this second Century from the Church of Carthage, unto that of Alexandria, from thence to Antioch; and on occasion of Samosatenus Bishop of this last, being forced to take a journey over unto Rome and Italy, we will next look on the condition of these Western Churches, and the estate wherein Episcopacy stood amongst them for this present Age.

CHAP. VI. Of the state wherein Episcopacy stood in the Western Churches, during the whole third Century.

  • 1. Of Zephyrinus Pope of Rome, and the decrees ascribed unto him concerning Bi­shops.
  • 2. Of the condition of that Church, when Cornelius was chosen Bishop thereof.
  • 3. The Schism raised in Rome by Novati­anus, with the proceedings of the Church therein.
  • 4. Considerable observations on the former story.
  • 5. Parishes set forth in Country Villages by Pope Dionysius.
  • 6. What the words [...] and [...], do fignifie most properly in Ancient Writers.
  • 7. The great Authority which did accrue un­to the Presbyters, by the setting forth of Parishes.
  • 8. The rite of Confirmation reserved by Bi­shops to themselves, as their own Prero­gative.
  • 9. Touching the ancient Chorepiscopi, and the authority to them entrusted.
  • 10. The rising of the Manichean Heresie, with the great care taken by the Bishops for the crushing of it.
  • 11. The lapse of Marcellinus Pope of Rome, with the proceedings of the Church in his Condemnation.
  • 12. The Council of Eliberis in Spain, what it decreed in honour of Episcopacy.
  • 13. Constantine comes unto the Empire, with a brief prospect of the great honours done to Bishops in the following Age.
  • 14. A brief Chronologie of the state of holy Church in these two last Centuries.

BEing thus returned at last to the Western Churches, I the first we meet withal is Victor Bishop of the Church of Rome, who lived in the conclusion of the second Century, and the beginning of the third; to whom succeeded Zephyrinus, Optat. de Schism. Donat. l. 2. Platina in vita Zephyrini. who by Optatus is entituled Ʋrbicus, or the City-Bishop; the stile of Oecumenicaal or Ʋniversal, being then unknown. Of him it is affirmed by Platina, Mandasse ne Episcopus vel à Patriarcha vel Primate, vel à Metropolitano suo in judicium vocatus, sine authoritate Apostolica damnare­tur; how he decreed that no Bishop being called in question, either by Patriarch, Pri­mate, or Metropolitan, should be condemned without the leave and liking of the See Apostolick; that is to say, the Bishop of Rome, as the Author means it. A matter fit enough indeed for an Oecumenical, but of too high a nature for a City-Bishop to at­tempt or think of. And therefore I desire to be excused of Platina, if I believe neither his report, nor the Epistles Decretal ascribed unto Zephyrinus, on which the said re­port was founded. Sure I am Damasus in the Pontifical tells us no such matter.Concil. Tom. 1. à Binio edit. Apud Binium in Concil. Tom. 1. Sozom. Eccl. hist. l. 8. c. 6. And no less sure I am that the practice of the Church was contrary for a long time after: Saint Chrysostom being then Patriarch of Constantinople, deposing thirteen Bishops in one Visitation, whom he had found unworthy of so high a calling, without consulting with the Church of Rome, or fearing that his acts might have been repealed by the Popes thereof. Nor can that strange report of Platina consist, if looked on with indifferent eyes, either with the condition of the times of which he writeth, in which the Popes had hardly meditated on their future greatness; or with the Constitutions of the [Page 302]Church, by which the Primate in each Diocess had the dernier resort, as the Lawyers phrase it, there being regularly no Appeal from him but only to a general Council. Which Constitution of the Church, as it was afterwards confirmed by the great Council of Chalcedon, Con. Calcedon. Can. 9. so was it finally established by the Laws Imperial, whereof con­sult Novel. Constitut. 123. c. 22. More likely is that other Ordinance or Decree ascribed to Zepherinus by this Author,Platina in Ze­pherino. ut astantibus Clericis & Laicis fidelibus, & levita & sacerdos ordinaretur, that Priests and Deacons should be ordained in the presence of the Clergy, and other of Gods faithful people; in which, as he is backed by Damasus, who affirms the same: So is the truth or probability thereof, at least confirmed by the following practice. Where note, that in the Ordination of these Priests and Deacons there is not any thing required but the peoples presence, adstantibus Laicis, as that Author hath it; the Church being never so obliged unto the votes and suffrages of the people, but that the Bishop might ordain fit Ministers without requiring their con­sent, though on the reasons formerly delivered it was thought fit that Ordinations should be made in publick, as well the People as the Clergy being present at them.

The seventh from Zepherinus was Cornelius, II by birth a Roman, elected to that place and ministery,Cypr. Epist. 52. Coepiscoporum testimonio, by the consent and suffrage of his Com- Provincials, as also by the voices of the Clergy, & Plebis quae tunc adfuit suffragio, and with the liking of the people, or as many of them as did attend at the Election; the number of the Bishops there Assembled being sixteen in all,Ib. ibid. as by S. Cyprian is recorded. Which as it was the manner of Electing, not only of the Bishops of Rome, but of most Bishops else,Leo. Epist. 89. in the times we speak of, so it continued long in use; the voices of the Clergy in the point and substance, the presence and approbation of the people for the form and ceremony, electio Clericorum, and testimonia populorum, being joyned together by Pope Leo. Now the condition of the Church of Rome under this Cornelius, besides the Schism raised in it by Novatianus, of which more anon, is to be seen most fully in a Letter of his to Fabius Patriarch of Antiochia; Extat ap. Ru­seb. hist. l. 6. c. 35. p. [...]. in which he certifieth him that besides the Bishop, [...], who was but one in every Church, and could not be more, there were forty-six Presbyters, seven Deacons, and Sub-Deacons seven; forty-two Acolythites, Exorcists, Readers, Sextons, (Ostiarij) fifty-two in all; Widows and other poor People, pressed with want and sickness, fifteen hundred, [...]: All which, saith he, are maintained at the publick charge by the grace and bounty of the Lord. Out of which place and passage of my Author there are these several points to be considered in reference to our present business. First, the exceeding large revenue of the Church of Rome in these early days, so great as to maintain the numbers before specified, ac­cording to the rank and quality of each particular; the distribution of the which did ordinarily, and of common course belong unto the Bishop only, or such to whom he pleased to entrust the same. And secondly, we may observe the singularity of suc­cession, wherein the Bishop differed from the other Clergy; he being but one, they many in their ranks and stations, sometimes more, sometimes fewer, according to the greatness of the Church in which they served, and the emergent necessities and oc­casions of it. Here in the Church of Rome to one only Bishop we find a Clergy of in­ferior Ministers consisting of 154 persons; which doubtless was exceedingly increased in the following times;Hierom. in epist. ad Evagr. Hierom complaining in his time, Presbyteros turbam contempti­biles facere, that the great number of them made them be the less regarded. And last of all, we may observe, that though Cornelius mentioneth Acolythites, Readers, Sub-Deacons, Exorcists, and Sextons; these are not to be reckoned as distinct Orders in the Church, although now so accounted in the Church of Rome; but only several services and imployments which were required in the same. Concerning which, take here the learned resolution of judicious Hooker. Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5. n. 78. There is an error, saith he, which beguileth many, who much intangle both themselves and others by not distinguishing Services, Offices, and Orders Ecclesiastical; the first of which three, and in part the second may be executed by the Laity, whereas none have or can have the third but the Clergy. Catechists, Exorcists, Rea­ders, Singers, and the rest of like sort, if the nature only of their labour and pains be consi­dered, may in that respect seem Clergy-men, even as the Fathers for that cause term them usually Clerks; as also in regard of the end whereunto they were trained up, which was to be ordered or ordained when years and experience should make them able. Notwithstanding, in as much as they no way differed from others of the Laity longer than during that work of Service, which at any time they might give over, being thereunto but admitted, not tied by irrevocable Ordi­nation, we find them always exactly severed from that body, whereof those three before rehearsed [Page 303]Orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons only are, the natural parts. So the judicious Divine indeed, as one truly calls him. I add this further of Cornelius, Holy Table. having thus fallen upon the Orders in the state Ecclesiastick, that he had passed through all in­ferior Offices, per omnia Ecclesiastica officia promotus, as Saint Cyprian hath it,Cypr. Ep. 52. and exer­cised each several Ministery in the Church of God, before he mounted to this height, ad Sacerdotij sublime fastigium, are the Fathers words; which shewed that the estate of Bishops was as a different office, so an higher dignity than any other in the Church.

Now as the speech of Heaven doth many times put us in mind of Hell, III so this rela­tion of Cornelius, an holy Bishop and a Martyr, occasioneth me to speak of Novatianus, in whom it is not easie to determine whether the Heretick or the Schismatick had the most predominancy. Certain it is, he proved in both respects one of the cunningest instruments of Satan, for the disturbance of the Church, who suffered most extreamly by him both in peace and truth; the Schism or Heresie by him raised at this very time, being both more suddain in the growth, and permanent in the duration of it, than ever had been set on foot before in the Church of Christ. Now this Novatianus was a Pres­byter of the Church of Rome; and being much offended, as well at the Election of Cornelius, as that himself was pretermitted in the choice, associates himself with one Novatus an African Bishop, as near unto him in conditions, as he was in name, whom Cyprian, omnium sacerdotum voce, Cypr. Epist. 49. by the consent and suffrages of all his Comprovincial Bishops had before condemned. By them it was agreed that Novatianus should take upon himself the name and title of the Bishop of Rome. And being there could be no shew nor colour for it, did he not first receive Episcopal Consecration from some hands or other, they sent unto the obscurest parts of Italy, Euseb. hist. Eccl. lib. 6. c. 35. [...]. [...], as my Author hath it, to find out three poor Countrey Bishops that had not been acquainted with the like affairs. Who being come to Rome, and circum­vented by the Arts of these wicked men, and partly also forced by their threats and menaces, [...], they Ordained him Bishop; if at the least an Act so void and null from the beginning, may be called an Ordination. And this being done, because they found that people naturally are inclined to imbrace new fancies, especially where pretence of piety seems to bear a stroke, they took upon them to be very strict in their conversation, precise in their opinions, and wonderfully de­vout in all their carriage; raising withal this doctrine suitable thereto, That such as fell in time of Persecution, though they repented never so truly, and did what ever was thought necessary to testifie their grief and sorrow for their great offence, yet [...], there was no hope of their salvation,Id. ibid. no mercy to be looked for at the hands of God. By means whereof they drew unto their side some Confessors, as they called them then, who being well persuaded of their own safe­standing, and perhaps having suffered much in testimony of their perseverance, be­came the worse opinionated of those who had not been endued with an equal con­stancy. So that upon a sudden, unawares, the Church of Rome was in a very great distemper; the neighbouring Churches also suffering with it, either in regard of their own peace, which presently began to be endangered by this plausible and popular faction, or out of commiseration unto the distresses of so great a number in the body mystical. Nor was Cornelius wanting to the Church, or the Church to him. For pre­sently upon the breaking out of the flame, he gives notice of it to his dear Brother and Colleague, S. Cyprian the Metropolitan of Carthage to Fabius, Inter. Epistolas Cypr. Ep. 46.48. Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 35. n. [...]. Patriarch of the Church of Antioch, acquainting them with the whole story of the business; assembling also [...], a great and famous Synod in the City of Rome, consisting of sixty Bishops, and as many Presbyters or more, besides Deacons. For being a Provincial Council, and not General, the Presbyters and others of the inferiour Clergy had their Votes therein, according as they still enjoy on the like occasions. And on the other side, the Orthodox and Catholick Bishops made the cause their own; neither re­pelling of his Agents, who came to justifie his Ordination, as S. Cyprian did,Cypr. Epist. 41. Euseb. hist. Eccl. lib. 6. c. 36. [...]. Id. c. 35. [...]. or writing in behalf of the Church against him, as did Dionysius, the Learned and renowned Bishop of Alexandria. The like no doubt did other Bishops. And more than so, they caused several Councils to be called about it, [...], in their several Provinces and charges, as well in Italy as Africk; in each of which, the faction was condemned, and the Arch-Schismatick, with all his Fautors, deprived of the commu­nion of the Church.

I have the rather been more copious in the description of this Schism, and the Au­thors of it, than otherwise I would have been, not only because of that great power and influence which it had after in the Church, which we shall find hereafter in the prosecution of this present story, if it please God to give me means and opportunity, to go thorow with it: but also for those many observations which any one that would be curious in collecting them, might raise or gather from the same, For first of all it must be noted, that though Novatianus had a great desire to be made a Bishop, and that he could not get it by a fair orderly Election, as he should have done: yet he could find no other entrance thereunto, than by the door of Ordination; and therein he would be Canonical, though in nothing else. For being a Presbyter before, as Cor­nelius tells us in his Epistle unto Fabius [...] (saith that holy Prelate: Id. ibid.) he thought that did not qualifie him enough for the place and office of a Bishop, unless he might receive Episcopal Ordination also. And when he was resolved on that, he would not be ordained but by three Bishops, at the least, according to the ancient Canon, and the present practice of the Church; and therefore [...], he procures three Bishops to be drawn together for the purpose. And being thus Or­dained, he sends abroad his Agents into foreign Churches,Cypr. E. 41. as viz. Maximus a Pres­byter, and Augendus a Deacon, Macheus and Longinus, and perhaps some others to the See of Carthage; to have his Ordination ratified, and himself acknwledged for a Bishop, according to the commendable usage of those watchful times. In which, who would not but observe, that Bishops had a different Ordination from the Presbyters, and therefore do not differ from them only in degree, or potestate Jurisdictionis, but in the power of Order also: and that this power of Order cannot be conferred, regu­larly I mean, and when there is no urgent and unavoidable necessity unto the con­trary, but by the joint assistance of three Bishops. For how can any give that power of Order unto others, with which they never were endued themselves? Secondly, it might be observed (not to take notice of his seeking for the approbation of his neighbouring Prelates) that the first Schism, which did disturb the peace of these Western Churches, was made by those, who by the rigidness of their Profession, were in that very instant termed Catharists, Euseb. hist. Ec­cles. l. 6.35. [...]. [...], as that Author hath it; and that not to be Englished in a fuller Word, than that of Puritans. And thirdly, that however in these later times, the Scene be changed, and that the greatest stirrs that have been raised in the Church, have been for pulling down Bishops; yet in the former times, the course was otherwise; most of their troubles and commoti­ons, being for setting up of Bishops, when certain factious and unquiet spirits, not willing to submit to the Chuches Government, would have a Bishop of their own. Certain I am, that thus it was with the Novatians; who though they stood divided from the Catholick Church a long time together, yet they desired to be accounted for a Church: and that they might be so accounted, maintained an Episcopal Suc­cession from the first Apostle of their Sect;Socrat. bist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 21. the names of many of their Bishops, A­gellius, Sisinnius, Marcianus, others being to be found upon good record.

But from these counterfeit and schismatical Bishops, V proceed we forwards unto those, who were acknowledged by the Church for true and real: and amongst those, keeping my self to the succession of the Church of Rome, the fourth in order from Cornelius, Baron. Annal. Eccl. An. 261. Ap. Binium, Concil. Tom. 1. was Dionysius, who entred on that weighty charge, Anno 261. Of him we find in the Pontifical, Presbyteris Ecclesias divisisse, & coemeteria, Parochiasque & dioe­ceses constituisse; that he divided to the Presbyters their several Churches, and Church­yards, and that he first did set out Parishes, and apportioned Diocesses. Which as they were two several Actions so Platina, Platina in vita Dionys. assigns each action to its proper place: making the first, which was the distributing of the Presbyters into their several Churches, and Churchyards, then common places of Assembly, to relate only to the City of Rome. In urbe Roma statim divisit, as his words there are. Which being it had been done before by Pope Euaristus, as hath been formerly observed, we must re­solve it with Baronius, Baron in An­nal. An. 270. n. ult. that this was a reviver only of the former Act: and that the Presbyters, being ravished from their Churches, and the Church-yards taken from the Presbyters, during the persecution of Valerian; were afterwards restored again to their former state by the Authority of Dionysius. In other places, and perhaps here also, this was not done by the Authority, but in the time of Dionysius; the Order, or Authority proceeding from an higher hand,Nicephorus Cal­list. Eccl. hist. l. 6. c. 12. even from the Emperour Gallienus: who did not only prohibit the persecution raised by his Father Valerianus, but also did per­mit by his publick Edict, ut Christiani loca coemeteriorum suorum recigerent, as by Nice­phorus [Page 305]it is related. And for the other part of the Relation, viz. the setting out of Parishes, and the apportioning of Diocesses; that Platina refers unto the Countrey, unto the parts and Provinces abroad, Parochias & Dioeceses foris distribuit; Platina in vita Dionys. so he tells us there: adding withal, quo quisque finibus suis, limitibusque contentus esset, that this was done, that every Bishop might contein himself within the limits of his Diocess, and every Presbyter be confined to his proper Parish. And this as Dionysius did with­in the limits and precincts of his jurisdiction, viz. that is to say, the Patriarchate of Rome; (for it were vain to think that he could do the like over all the World, being beyond the sphere of his activity:) so other Primates, seeing the conveniency and ease which redounded by it to the Church, might and did also do the like within their Commands. Concerning which, it is to be remembred, that as the Romans in each City had a Civil Magistrate, called a Defensor Civitatis, who was to do justice for, and in the name of the Commonwealth, not only in the City it self, but also unto all the Towns and Villages within the Territory of the same: so in each City, there had been placed a Bishop in the former times, who was not only to take care of the Church of God, within the walls and circuit of that City, but also of the parts ad­joyning, accordingly, as they were gained to the faith of Christ. And then the sub­stance of the Institution, will be briefly this, that when the faith had spread it self in the Countrey Villages, and that it was too cumbersom a work for the City-Presby­ters, to repair thither upon all occasions: it was thought fit by Dionysius, and after­wards by other Primates following the Example, that every Countrey Town and Vil­lage which had received the faith of Christ, should be furnished with its proper Presby­ter; and that the Presbyters so setled and dispersed in the Countrey Villages, should be responsible to the Bishop of that City, within the Territory of the which, the said Village stood. Which distribution of the Church into those smaller portions, and particular Congregations, as we now call Parishes; so the Collection of these Parishes into one united body, under one Pastor or chief Governour, which was the Bishop of the City, we do call a Diocess: borrowing the names of both from the Ancient Wri­ters, in whom the same are very frequent; and frequent also in the sense, in which now we use them, specially in those Authors, and Synodical Acts, which did succeed the times we speak of.

'Tis true, the words being used otherwise in the Ancient Writers, VI such of them chiefly, as relate unto us the occurrences of the former times, have given some men occasion to conceive that there was never any Bishop in the Primitive Church, but a Parish-bishop, viz. the Rector of each several Congregation, to whom the cure of Souls is trusted; because they find that in Eusebius, the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, are called Paroeciae: and that there were no Diocesses, nor Diocesan Bishops in the purest times, because they find them not so called in those Ancient Writers. For satisfying of which doubt, it is first confessed, that by Eusebius, the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, as also of Corinth, Ephesus, Lyons, Carthage, Vide Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 2. l. 4. c. 1, 4, 5, 11, 15, 19, 23, 31, & l. 5. c. 5, 22, 23, 27. &c. and many other famous Cities, are called [...], or Paroeciae: There is no doubt at all of that. But then it is to be confessed, that [...], in that Author, is never used to signifie a Countrey-parish, or a sole Congregation only, which we call a Parish: but for the whole City, with the Suburbs and adjoyning Villages, within the circuit of the which, were many Congregations, and material Churches. The very composi­tion of the word doth import no less, the [...], of a City, containing not alone the Citizens, but all such Borderers and Strangers as dwelt near, or repaired to any chief Church or City, for Gods publick Worship; as our learned Bilson doth observe,Perpetual Go­vernment of Christs Ch. cap. 11. comprizing not the City only, but the Towns and Villages near the City, as Master Brere­wood also noteth. And this may be made good even from Eusebius himself, so often cited to the contrary, who having said that Laetus was President of Alexandria, and the rest of Egypt, adds next, [...], but the inspection,M.S. Discourse of the Anci­ent Govern­ment. or superintendency of the Paroeciae, or Churches there, Demetrius, had of late recei­ved: So that Demetrius, being Bishop of the Church of Alexandria, [...], as he after calls him, was not the Bishop of a Parish only,Euseb. hist. Ecc. l. 6. c. 2. [...]. or of the Congregations in the City only; but [...], of all the Churches throughout Alexandria, and those parts of Egypt, Id. l. 6. c. 20. [...]. which were under the command of Laetus, for their Civil Government.

And lest it may be thought, that the word being [...], in the plural num­ber, may bear a different construction, from what it doth, being used in the singular: the same Eusebius tells us of the same Demetrius, Id. l. 6. c. 7.11. that he was [...], [Page 306]the Bishop of the Paroecia, or Church of Alexandria, whereas at that time there were many Parish-Churches, as we now call Parishes, within the circuit of that City; as doth appear by Epiphanius, Epiphan. adv. haeres. 69. who doth not only shew the names of many of them, but tells us also who officiated in the same, as Presbyters. So that the word Paroecia, in its first and primitive acception, signified not a Parish, but a Diocess; nor only the Cathedral, but all other Churches, how near or far soever situated, within the Rule and Government of a Bishop. But for the sense, in which we use it in our Age, it gained it not but by degrees, after this division made by Dionysius, and that the Coun­trey Churches grew to be considerable for their means and numbers. And in this sense,Concil. Car­thag. IV. Can. 102. we find it used in the Fourth Council of Carthage, where we find mention of these Presbyters which did Paroeciis praeesse, and were the Rectors, as we call them, of particular Churches,Concil. Tole. Can. IV. Can. 25, 26. and in the fourth Council of Toledo, where we read of Presby­ters ordained in paroeciis & per paroecias, for the use and service of particular Pa­rishes. And in this sense, but specially indeed for a Countrey Parish, the word is ta­ken in an Epistle of Pope Innocentius, Innocent. lib. ad Decentium. c. 5. in which, Ecclesiae intra Civitatem constitutae, the Churches situated in the City, are distinguished plainly from Paroecias, the Churches scattered in the Countrey. Other Examples of this nature, in the later Ages, being almost infinite, and obvious to the eye of every Reader; I forbear to add. So for the word [...], which we English Diocess, it signified at first, that part or portion of the Roman Empire (there being thirteen of them in all, besides the Prefecture of the City of Rome, as before was noted) which was immediately under the command of the Vicarius or Lieutenant General of those parts. And was so called of [...], which signifieth to Govern or Administer,Isocrat. ad Nico­clen. as [...], in Isocrates, [...], in Demosthenes: a Diocess, being that part or portion of the Empire, which was committed to the Government and Administration of some principal Officer. In which regard, the word [...], or dioecesis, when it was first borrowed by the Church from the civil State, was used to signifie that part or portion of the Church, which was within the jurisdiction of a Primate, containing all the circuit of the civil Diocess, as was shewed before: the Primate being stiled or­dinarily [...] as in the Council of Chalcedon; Concil. Chalce­don. Car. 9.17. Novel. const. 123. c. 22. the Patriarch of the Diocess, in the Laws Imperial. But after, as the former [...], began to lose its former latitude, in which it signified the whole command or Jurisdiction of a Bishop, which we call a Diocess, and grew to be restrained to so narrow a compass, as the poor limits of a Parish: so did [...], grow less also, than at first it was, and from a Patriarchal Diocess,Horat. de Arte. fell by degrees, custom and use prevailing in it (quem penes ar­bitrium est, & ju & norma loquendi, as the Poet hath it) to signifie no more than what Paroecia had done formerly, a Diocess, as now we call it: whereof see Concil. Antioch, cap. 9. Con. Sardicens. cap. 18. Constantinop. ca. 2. Chalcedon. ca. 17. Carthag. III. can. 20. & IV. can. 36. So then the just result of all is this, that the Bishops of the Pri­mitive times were Diocesan Bishops, though they are called [...], by some ancient Writers: and that in the succeeding Ages, as the Church increased, and the Gospel of our Saviour did inlarge its borders, so did the Countrey Villages obtain the name of Parishes, or [...], having to each of them a Presbyter, for the administration of the Sacraments, for their instruction both in Faith and Piety, whom at this day we call the Rector of the Church or Parish.

And with this Presbyter or Rector, VII call him as you will, must we now proceed, who by this Institution, I mean the setting out of Parishes, in the Countrey Villages, did grow exceedingly both in authority and reputation. For whereas upon the setting out of Parishes,Concil. Neo-Caesar. ca. 13. the Presbyters became divided into [...], and [...], the City and the Countrey Presbyters: each of them had their several priviledges: the City Presbyters continuing, as before, the great Council of Estate unto the Bishop,Concil. Neo. ca. 13. and doing many things, which were not suffered to be done by the Countrey Presbyters; and on the other side, the [...], or Country Presby­ters, being more remote, did many Ministerial Acts of their own authority, which in the presence of their Bishop, it was not lawful for them to have done. And therefore I conceive the resolution of Bishop Downham in this case,Defence of the Sermon, l. 1. cap. 2. to be sound and good, who telleth us, That since the first distinguishing of Parisher, and allotting of several Presbyters to them, there hath been ever granted to them both potestas Ordinis, the power of Orders, as they are Ministers, Et potestas jurisdictionis spiritualis seu internae, a power of spi­ritual and inward jurisdiction, to rule their flock after a private manner, as it were in foro Conscientiae, in the Court of Conscience, as they are Pastors of that flock. But because [Page 307]this allowance of a Jurisdiction in foro Conscientiae, in the Court of Conscience, seems not sufficient unto some; who reckon the distinction of a Jurisdiction in foro exter­no, Vindication of the Answ. §. 9. & in foro interno, to be like that of Reflexius and Archipodialiter: they do in this not only put the School-men unto School again, in whom the like distinctions frequent­ly occur; but cross the best Divines in the Church of England, who do adhere unto, and approve the said distinctions. And because many of both sorts may be found in one, and that one publick's declared to be both Orthodox in doctrine, and consonant in discipline to the Church of England, by great Authority; I will use his words.Holy Table. Ch. 3. A single Priest, qua talis, in that formality and capacity only as he is a Priest, hath no Key given him by God or man, to open the doors of any external Jurisdiction. He hath a Consistory within in foro poenitentiae, in the conscience of his Parishioners, and a Key given him upon his institution, to enter into it. But he hath no Consistory without, in foro causae, in med­ling with Ecclesiastical causes, unless he borrow a Key from his Ordinary. For although they be the same Keys, yet one of them will not open all these wards: the Consistory of out­ward Jurisdiction, not being to be opened by a Key alone, but as you may observe in some great mens gates, by a Key and a Staff, which they usually call a Crosier. This (saith he) I have ever conceived to be the ancient doctrine in this kind, opposed by none but professed Puritans; affirming further, that all learned men in the Church of England, do adhere unto it: allowing the School-mens double power, that of Order, and that of Jurisdiction, and the subdivision of this Jurisdiction, into the internal and external, appropriating this last to the Bishop only. So he, judiciously indeed; and for the Authors by him cited, both Protestant and School-Divines, I refer you to him. So then upon this setting out of Parishes, the Presbyters, which attended in the same, had potestatem jurisdictionis, a power of Jurisdiction granted to them, in the Court of Conscience: which needed not to have been granted before this time, when as Gods people, which were scatter­ed up and down the Countrey, did either come unto the Cities, there to be made partakers of the Word and Sacraments, in which the Bishop was at hand to attend all businesses; or that the Presbyters were by the Bishop sent into the Countrey, with more or less authority intrusted to them, as the business was. And for the other power, the power of Order, although it was no other than before it was, as to the power and faculty conferred upon the Presbyters in their Ordination: yet did they find a great enlargement and extension of it, in the free execution of the same. For where­as formerly, as was observed both from Ignatius, and Tertullian, and some other An­cients,Vide Chap. 1. & Chap. 3. of this 2d. part. the Presbyter could not baptize, nor celebrate the blessed Eucharist, sine Episcopi authoritate, without the leave and liking of the Bishop; who then was near at hand to be asked the question: after this time, the Presbyters became more absolute in their ministration, baptizing, celebrating, preaching, and indeed what not, which potestate ordinis, did belong unto him only by vertue of that general faculty, which had been granted by the Bishop, at his Institution, I mean his special designation to that place or Cure.

And yet the Bishops did not so absolutely invest the Presbyters, VIII with a power of Order, in the administration of the Sacraments, as not to keep unto themselves a superiour Power, whereby the execution of that Power of Order, together with a con­firmation of such acts as had been done by vertue of the same, might generally be obser­ved to proceed from them. And of this kind especially was that rite or ceremony, which now we call by the particular name of Confirmation; being called anciently, impositio manuum, the laying on of hands. For howsoever the original institution of it, be far more ancient, and Apostolical, as most think: yet I conceive it neither was so fre­quent, nor so necessary in the former times, as in those that followed. For when the Sacrament of Baptism, either was administred to men grown in years, or by the Bishop himself in person, or in his presence at the least; he giving his Fatherly and Episco­pal blessing to the work in hand: the subsequent laying on of hands, which we call Confirmation, might not seem so necessary. Or if it did, yet commonly, it was ad­ministred with Baptism, as a Concomitant thereof,Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. n. 66. Tertul. de Bap­tismo. c. 7. to confirm and perfect that which the Grace of the Spirit had already begun in Baptism. And so we are to understand Tertullian, where having spoken before of Baptism, he addeth next, Dehinc manus im­ponitur, per benediciionem advocans & invitans Spiritum sanctum, &c. Then, saith he, follow­eth imposition of hands, with invocation, and invitation of the holy Ghost, which willingly cometh down from the Father, to rest upon the purified and blessed bodies, acknowledging, as it were, the Waters of Baptism for a fit seat. And so long as they went together, and were both commonly performed by the same Minister, that is, the Bishop, there was the [Page 308]less notice taken of it, and possibly the less efficacy ascribed unto it. But when they came once to be severed, as in the necessary absence of the Bishop they had been be­fore, and on this setting out of Parishes, were likely for the most part to be after: the Bishops, out of their abundant care of the Churches welfare, permitted that which was most necessary, to the common Presbyter; reserving that which was more hono­rary, to themselves alone. Thus was it, in the first case, in St. Cyprians time, who lived, as was before observed,Vid. Ch. 4. of this 2d. part. in a kind of voluntary exile, as did also divers other Bishops in the heat and violence of persecutions: during whose absence from their Cities, and their much distance from the Countrey, there is no question to be made, but that the Presbyters performed their Office in administration of that Sacrament, and after which there is little question, but that the Children so baptized, were at some time or other brought for Confirmation. Certain I am, that to him they were brought to be confirm­ed, and that he grounds the Institution of that Right on the example of Peter and John, Cypr. Epist. 73. in the Eighth Chap. of the Acts. Illi qui in Samaria crediderant, &c. The faith­ful in Samaria, saith he, had already received Baptism. Only that which was wanting, Peter and John supplyed, by Prayer, and imposition of hands to the end the holy Ghost might be poured on them. Then adds, Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, which also is done amongst our selves, when they which be already baptized, are brought unto the Prelates of the Church (Praepositis [...]cclesiae offeruntur,) that by our Prayer and Imposition of our hands) they may receive the holy Ghost, and be strengthened by the seal of the Lord. And in the second case,Hier. advers. Luciferianos. it is whereof Hierom speaketh, where he observeth it to be the custom of the Church, ut ad eos, qui longè in minoribus urbibus per Presbyteros & Diaco­nos baptizati sunt, Episcopus ad invocationem Spiritus Sancti manum impositurus excur­rat; that the Bishop should go abroad, as in Visitation, and imposing hands, pray for the gift of the Holy Ghost, on them, who far off in the lesser Cities (as also in Viculis & Castellis, in small Towns and Villages) had by the Presbyters and Deacons been baptized. But note withal that Hierom tells us, that this imposition of hands was re­served only to the Bishop, ad honorem potius sacerdotii quam ad legis necessitatem, not that the Sacrament of Baptism was not perfect and compleat without it, but rather out of a certain congruity and fitness to honour Prelacy with such preheminencies; the safety of the Church depending upon the dignity of the chief Priest or Bishop. By which, it doth appear to be St. Hieroms opinion,Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. n. 66. as Hooker excellently collects, That the Holy Ghost is received in Baptism, that Confirmation is only a Sacramental complement; that the reason why Bishops alone did ordinarily confirm, was not because the benefit, grace, and dignity thereof was greater than of Baptism, but rather for that by the Sacrament of Baptism men being admitted into Gods Church, it was both reasonable and convenient, that if he baptize them not, unto whom the chiefest authority and charge of their souls belongeth, yet for Honours sake, and in token of his spiritual superiority over them, because to bless, is an act of Authority, the performance of this annexed Ceremony should be sought for at his hands. What other reasons there are for it, in reference to the parties that receive the same, I forbear to specifie as not conducing to the History of Episcopacy, which I have in hand: to which estate the honour of giving Confirmation, hath always been reserved to this very day.

Another thing which followed upon this setting forth of Parishes by Dionysius, IX was the institution of a new Order in the Church betwixt the Bishop and the Presbyter, being neither of the two, but both. Those they called [...], or Rural Bishops; Of which, being that there were two sorts, according to the times and Ages, when they were imployed; we must distinguish them accordingly. Now of these Chorepi­scopi, or Countrey Bishops, some in the point and power of Order, were no more than Presbyters, having received no higher Ordination, than to that function in the Mini­stery: but were inabled by the Bishop under whom they served, to exercise some parts of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as much as was thought fit to commit unto them, for the better reiglement of the Church. And these I take it, were more ancient than the present times, appointed as the Bishops Visitors, to go abroad into the Countrey, to parts more remote, to oversee such Presbyters as had been sent forth for the in­struction of the people in small Towns and Villages, and to perform such further Of­fices, which the ordinary Presbyter, for want of the like latitude of Jurisdiction was defective in.Con. Neo-Caesa­viens. Can. 13. These I conceive to be of the same nature with our Rural Deans in some parts of England; And these are they which in the Council of Neo-Caesarea, are said to be ordained [...], after the manner of the Seventy: and if no more than so, then but simply Presbyters in the power of Order; though ranked above them in regard of their Jurisdiction. To which Pope Damasus agreeth also, [Page 309]affirming quod ipsi iidem sunt qui & Presbyteri, Damas. Ep. 5. ap. Bin. Concil. T. 1. Bellarm. de Clericis. l. 1. c. 17. that they are the very same with Pres­byters, being first ordained, ad exemplum Septuaginta, after the example of the Seven­ty. Others there were, whom we find furnished with a further power, qui verè Epi­scopalem consecrationem acceperant, which really and truly had received Episcopal Conse­cration, and yet were called Chorepiscopi, because they had no Church nor Diocess of their own, sed in aliena Ecclesia ministrabant, but executed their authority in anothers charge. And these, saith Bellarmine, are such as we now call Titular or Suffragan Bi­shops: such as those heretofore admitted in the Church of England: whereof consult the Act of Parliament, 26 H. 8. cap. 14. Now that they had Episcopal consecration, appeareth evidently by the Council of Antioch, where it is said expresly of them, [...], that they had received the Ordination of Bishops:Conc. Anti. cap. 10. and so by vertue of their Ordination, might execute all manner of Episcopal Acts, which the Bishop of the City might perform. And to this Power, they were admit­ted on two special reasons: whereof the first was to supply the absence of the Bishop, who being intent upon the business of the City, where his charge was greatest; could not so well attend the business of the Countrey, or see how well the Presbyters be­haved themselves in their several Parishes, to which, upon the late division, they were sent abroad. And this is called in the said Council of Antioch, Id. Ibid. [...], the looking to the Administration of the Churches under their authority. The other was to content such of the Novatian Bishops, who rather would continue in their schism and faction, than return unto the Catholick Church, with the loss of the honour and calling which they had before: whom they thought fit, if they were willing to return to the Church again, to suffer in the state of a Chorepisco­pus. And this is that which was so prudently resolved on in the Council of Nice (in which fifteen of those which assembled there, were of this Order or Estate) viz. Conc. Nicen. can. 8. That if any of them did return to the Catholick Church, either in City or Village, where­in there was a Bishop, or a Presbyter before provided, [...], he should enjoy the place and honour of a Presbyter: but if that pleased him not, [...], he should be fitted with the Office of a Chorepisco­pus. Which being the true condition of those Chorepiscopi, it seems to me a plain and evident mistake, that the Chorepiscopus, who was but a Presbyter,Smectymn. pag. 36. should be affirmed to have power to impose hands, and to ordain within his Precincts, with the Bishops licence. For certainly, it is apparent by the Council of Antioch, that the Chorepiscopi which had power of conferring Orders, had to that end received Episcopal consecration, and consequent­ly, could not but be more than Presbyters: though at the first indeed they medled not therewith, without the leave and licence of the Bishop, whose Suffragans and Substi­tutes they were. But when they had forgot their ancient modesty, and did not keep themselves within the bounds and limits appointed to them; which was to make two Bishops in one Diocess, contrary to the ancient Canons; the Church thought fitting to reduce them to their first condition. And thereupon it was decreed in the Council of Ancyra, [...],Conc. Ancyran. can. 13. that it should no more be lawful for them to ordain either Presbyters or Deacons: that is to say, as it was af­terwards explained in the Council of Antioch, [...],Conc. Antio. can. 10. without the liking of the Bishop under whom he served. Howsoever, that they might have somewhat of the Bishop in them, they were permitted by that Canon, to ordain Sub-Deacons, Exorcists, and Readers; with which they were required to rest contented: as also [...], to send abroad their Letters unto other Bishops,Ibid. can. 8. which they called Literas Formatas, & Communicatorias (as before was noted) as those that had the full authority and power of Bishops, did use of old to do at their Ordinations. A point of honour, denied unto the ordinary Presbyters, in that very Canon.

Now to proceed. The next Successor unto Dionysius, in the See of Rome, Ibid. Sept. 18. is called Felix; but no more happy in some things, than his Predecessour: the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus, taking beginning in the time or Government in the one; that of the Manichees, commencing almost with the other. Hujus tempore Manes quidam gen­te Persa, vita & moribus barbarus, &c. During his time, saith Platina, arose one Manes, Platina in vi­ta Felicis. by birth a Persian, in life and manners a Barbarian, who took upon him to be Christ, gathering unto him Twelve Disciples, for the dispersing of his frenzies. In this he differed amongst many things from Samosatenus: he making Christ to be no better than a man; and Manes making a vile sinful man to be the Christ. I know Baronius doth place the rising of this Manicbean Heresie, under Eutychianus, Baron. Ann. Eccl. in An. 277. his next Succes­sor; and let them reconcile the difference that list, for me. Suffice it that the Heresie, [Page 310]being risen up, and being so directly contrary both to Faith and Piety: the Bishops of the Church bestirred themselves both then and after, for the suppressing of the same, according to their wonted care of Her peace and safety. Not as before, in the case of Paulus Samosatenus, by Synodical meetings, which was the only way could be taken by them, for the deposing of him from his Bishoprick, which followed as a part of his condemnation: but by discourse and Argument in publick Writings, which might effectually suppress the Heresie, although the person of the Heretick was out of di­stance, and to say truth,Epiph. advers. haeres. 66. n. 12. beyond their reach. The Persian King had eased them of that labour, who seizing on that wretched miscreant, [...], commanded him to be flay'd alive, and thereby put him to death, as full of ignominy, as of pain. But for the confutation of the Heresie, which sur­vived the Author, that was the business of the Bishops; by whom, as Epiphanius no­teth, [...],Id. Ibid. n. 21. many most admirable Disputations had been made in confutation of his Errors. Particularly, he instanceth in Archelaus, Bishop of the Caschari, a Nation of Mesopotamia, Titus Bishop of Bostra; Diodorus, one of the Bishops of Cilicia; Serapion, Bishop of Thmua; Eusebius the Hi­storian Bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius Emisenus, Georgius and Apollinaris, Bishops succes­sively of Laodicea, Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, with many other Prelates of the Eastern Churches. Not that the Bishops of the West did nothing in it, though not here named by Epiphanius, who being of another Language, could not so well take notice of their Works and Writings. For after this, St. Austin, Bishop of Hippo, wrote so much against them; and did so fully satisfie and confute them both, that he might justly say with the Apostle, that he laboured more abundantly than they all. So careful were the Bishops of the Churches safety, that never any Heretick did arise, but presently they set a watch upon him, and having found what Heresies or dange­rous doctrines he dispersed abroad, endeavoured with all speed to prevent the mis­chief.

This, XI as they did in other cases, so was their care the more remarkable, by how much greater was the person whom they were to censure. Which as we have before demonstrated, in the case of Paulus, Patriarch of the Church of Antioch; so we may see the like in their proceedings against Marcellinus, one of the Popes of Rome, the third from Felix, who though he broached no Heresie, as the other did; yet gave as great a scandal to the Church as he, if not greater far. The times were hot and fiery, in the which he sat: so fierce a persecution being raised against the Church by Dio­clesian, and his Associates in the Empire, as never had been before: A persecution which extended not only to the demolishing of Churches,Theod. Eccl. hist. l. 5. c. 28. Arnob. cont. gent. l. 4. in fine. Damas. in vita Marcellini. the Temples of Almighty God; but to the extirpation of the Scriptures, the Books and Oracles of the Almigh­ty. And for the bodies of his Servants, some of which were living Libraries, and all lively Temples, even Temples of the holy Ghost; it raged so terribly amongst them, that within Thirty days, Seventeen thousand Persons of both sexes, in the several parts and Provinces of the Romam Empire were crowned with Martyrdom, the Tyrants so extreamly raging, Marcellinus comes at last unto his trial: where being wrought up­on either by flattery, or fear, or both, he yielded unto flesh and blood, and to pre­serve his life,Id. ibid. he betrayed his Master. Ad sacrificium ductus est ut thurificaret; quod & fecit, saith Damasus in the Pontifical; He was conducted to the Temple, to offer incense to the Roman Idols, which he did accordingly. And this I urge not to the scandal and reproach of the Church of Rome. Indeed 'tis no Reproach unto her, that one amongst so many godly Bishops, most of them being Martyrs also, should waver in the constancy of his resolutions, and for a season, yield unto those persuasions, which flesh and blood, and the predominant love of life did suggest unto him. That which I urge it for is, for the declaration of the Course which was taken against him, the manner how the Church proceeded in so great a cause, and in the which so great a Person was concerned. For though the crime were great and scandalous, tending to the destruction of the flock of Christ, which being much guided by the example of so prime a Pastor, might possibly have been seduced to the like Idolatry; and that great numbers of them ran into the Temple, and were spectators of that horrid acti­on: yet find we not that any of them did revile him in word or deed, or pronounced hasty judgment on him; but left the cognizance of the cause to them, to whom of right it did belong. Nor is it an hard matter to discern who these Judges were. Lay­men they could not be,Amb. Epist. l. 5. Ep. 32. that's sure. Quando audisti in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopis ju­dicasse? When did you ever hear, saith Ambrose, speaking of the times before him, [Page 311]that Lay-men in a point of Faith did judge of Bishops? And Presbyters they were not neither, they had no Authority to judge the Person of a Bishop. That Bishops had Authority to censure and depose their Presbyters we have shewn already; that ever any Presbyters did take upon them to judge their Bishop is no where to be found, I dare boldly say it, in all the practice of Antiquity. For being neither munere pares, Id. ibid. nor jure suniles, equal in function, nor alike in law, they were disabled now in point of rea­son from such bold attempts, as afterwards disabled by Imperial Edict. A simple Bi­ship might as little intermeddle in it as a simple Presbyter; for Bishops severally and apart were not to judge their Metropolitan, no nor one another. Being of equal Order and Authority, and seeing that Par in parem non habet potestatem, that men of equal rank, qua tales, are of equal power, one of them cannot be the others Judge for want of some transcendent power to pass sentence on him. Which as it was of force in all other cases wherein a Bishop was concerned, so most especially in this wherein the party Criminal was a Metropolitan, and more than so, the Primate or Patriarch of the Diocess. So that all circumstances laid together, there was no other way con­ceivable in these ancient times, than to call a Council, the greatest Ecclesiastical Tri­bunal of Christ on earth, there to debate the business, and upon proof of the offence, to proceed to judgment. This had been done before in the case of Paulus, and this is now resolved on in the present too. Accordingly the Bishops of those Churches, and as many other as could be drawn together in that dangerous time,Platina in vita Marcel. Assembled at Sinuessa (now called Suessa) a City of Campania, 180. in the total, as it is in Platina. Where though they had sufficient proof of that foul offence, yet because Marcellinus stood upon the Negative, negabat se thurifieâsse, as the Acts declare,Acta Conc. Sinuessani, ap. Bin. To. 1. they thought it fit not to proceed unto the sentence, till they had brought him to confession. Ex ore tuo justifi­caberis, & ex ore tuo condemnaberis, as Petrus, one of the Bishops then assembled did press it on him. Not that being met Synodically they did want Authority to proceed against him, as the Pontifician Doctors vainly say;Bellarm. de Pont. Rom. l. 2. c. 26. Act. Concil. Sinuessani. but that it was more consonant to the Roman Laws, that to the testimony of the Witnesses the confession of the party should be added also. Which when they had procured from him, Subscripserunt in ejus damnationem, & damnaverunt eum extra Civitatem, they all condemned him, say the Acts, and all subscribed unto the Condemnation: Helchiades one of the Bishops there Assembled, being the first that led the way. And therefore that which followeth after, Prima sedes non judicabitur à quoquam, that the Bishop of the first See shall be judged of none, which Bellarmin so much insists on, was either foisted in by some later hand,Bellar. ut su­pra. the better to advance the Popes Supremacy, or else must be interpreted, as it fairly may, non judicabitur à quoquam, that no particular person of what rank soever, had any power to judge his Primate.

So great a person as Marcellinus being fallen so foully (though after he recovered footing and died a Martyr for the Gospel) It is the less to be admired, XII Damas. Pla­tina. Alij. if many of inferi­our quality did betray the cause, and fell into the like Idolatries. The persecution was both fierce and long, though never at the height till the last years of Dioclesian, and more than ever were the Lapsi, who had for saving of their lives denied their Saviour. Who when they came unto themselves, and having made their way unto it by some appearance of contrition, desired to be admitted to the blessed Sacrament, the Bishops were much troubled with their importunity; those godly Prelates being as well careful of the Churches Discipline as the unfortunate estate of those wretched men. Besides the quality of their offence appearing in some greater, in some less than others, it put them unto no small trouble how to proportion the intended penance unto the nature of the crime. For remedy whereof, Petrus the godly Patriarch of Alexandris, diversa ad­hibens pro conditione cujusque medicamenta vulneribus, Id. ibid. n. 20. fitting each several wound with a proper plaister, as Baronius hath it, published certain Canons and instructions for their direction in the same. A copy of the which we have both in Baronius and the Biblio­theca. This, as it gave great ease unto the Prelates in the Eastern parts, where the authority of the man was great and prevalent: So in the West the Bishops of particular Churches spared no pains nor labour for the upholding of that Discipline which they received from the hands of their Predecessors. In Spain particularly, where both the number and condition of these Lapsi seemed more considerable,Id. ibid. n. 39. the Bishops of the Province of Betica called a Council at Eliberis, then a prime City of those parts (near to the ruines of the which, the City of Granada standeth,) Osius, that famous Con­fessor being there amongst them, where they established divers Canons, 81. in all, for [Page 312]confirmation of the publick Discipline, and holding up of that severity, by which the same had been maintained. Of all which number those which concern our business are these five especially.Conc. Eliberit. Can. 19. First, it is ordered that neither Bishops, Presbyters, nor Deacons should leave the place in which they served to follow Merchandise, de locis suis negociandi causa non discedant, nor wander up and down the Countrey after gainful Markets. In which it was provided notwithstanding, that ad victum sibi conquirendum that for their necessary maintenance they might send abroad on those employments their Sons, or Freed-men, or Servants, or any other; and for their own parts, if they would needs take that course, intra Provinciam negotientur, they were required to con­tain themselves within the compass of the Province, in the which they ministred. It seems the Fathers of the Council were not so severe, though otherwise tenacious enough of the Ancient Canons; as to conceive that Merchandizing, a secular imploy­ment doubtless, was utterly inconsistent with holy Orders; especially if either it con­duced unto the maintenance of their selves and Families, or that it did not take them off from the attendance on those places in which their Ministery was required. This for the maintenance, the next was for the honour of Episcopacy. For in the 32. it is ordained,Ibid. can. 32. that those who in some grievous Lapse be in danger of eternal death, apud Presbyterum poenitentiam agere non debere, sed potius apud Episcopum, ought not to make confession to, or be enjoyned penance by a Presbyter, but to or by the Bishop only, un­less it be in urgent and extream necessity, in the which case a Presbyter might admit him unto the Communion, as might a Deacon also by the appointment of the Pres­byter. Of this sort also this that followeth,Ibid. can. 53. by which it is decreed, ut ab eo Episcopo quis accipiat Communionem, that Sinners be admitted to the Sacrament by that Bishop only, by whom for their offences they had been formerly Excommunicated; and that if any other Bishop presumed to admit him thereto, the Bishop who had Excommu­nicated him, neither being made acquainted with it, nor consenting to it, he was to render an account of it unto his Colleagues, Cum status sui periculo, even with the danger of his place,Ibid. can. 77. Of the same temper is a fourth, wherein it is enacted, That if any Deacon, having a cure or charge committed to him, shall Baptize any of that cure without a Presbyter or Bishop, Episcopus eos per benedictionem perficere debebit; the Bishop is required to confirm the party by his Episcopal benediction. With this Proviso not­withstanding, that if the party do decease before confirmation, Sub fide qua quis cre­didit, poterit esse justus, it is to be conceived that by the Sacrament of Baptism, he had received all things necessary to salvation. Nor did the Fathers in this Council take order only for the Bishops in point of honour, but they provided also for the whole Clergy in point of safety;Ibid. 75. decreeing by a full consent, that if any person whatsoever should accuse either Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon falsly, and could not make just proof of the Accusation, nec in fine dandam ei communionem, that he should not be admitted to the blessed Sacrament, no not upon his death-bed, in his last extremity. So tender were they in that Age, of the good name and reputation of their Clergy.

And now me-thinks I see a blessed Sun-shine, XIII a time of rest and quiet after all these troubles; a gentle gale breathing upon the Church after so many tedious storms of Persecution. For Dioclesian and Maximianus his Colleague, either afflicted with the guilt of Conscience, or tyred with the effusion of so much innocent blood as had by them been shed in this Persecution, did of their own accord resign the Empire, Anno 304. as Baronius calculates it; leaving the same unto Constantius and Galerius, whom they had long before created Caesars. Baron. Annal. Eccl. An. 304. n. 1. Of these Constantius taking to himself the Western parts, lived not full two years, leaving his own part of the Empire, and a fair ground for all the rest to Constantine his Son; not only born of Helena a British Wo­man, but born at York, the Mother-City, or Metropolis of the British Nation. A Prince whom God raised up of purpose, not only to give end to the Persecutions, wherewith the Innocent Spouse of Christ had been so tortured and tormented; but to become the greatest nursing Father thereunto, that ever was before him in the Church of Israel, or since him in the Israel of the Church. So that if heretofore you find the Clergy reckoned as the filth of men, neglected, slighted, or disgraced, esteemed un­worthy either of publick trust or favour in the employments of the State: It is to be im­puted unto this, that they were held a dangerous and suspected party to the Common­wealth, maintaining a Religion contrary unto that which was allowed in the Empire. Hereafter you shall find it otherwise. Hereafter you shall find an Edict made by Con­stantine, enabling such as would decline the sentence of the Secular Judges,Sozom, hist. Eccl. l. c. 9. [...], lawfully to appeal unto the judgment of their Bishops; [Page 313]whose judgment he commanded to be put in execution by all his Officers, with as much punctuality and effect, as if himself in person had pronounced the same. Here­after we shall find Saint Ambrose a right godly Bishop,Aug. Confes. l. 6. c. 3. so taken up with hearing and determining mens suits and causes that he had very little leisure either for corporal re­past or private study: Saint Austin, who relates the former, saying also this, that he had long waited an opportunity to have conference with him, and had as long been hindred from access unto him; Secludentibus me ab ejus aure atque ore catervis negotio­sorum hominum, quorum infirmitatibus serviebat, his access to him being barred by multi­tudes of Suiters, whose businesses he was pleased to undertake. Hereafter we shall find the same Saint Austin no such lazie Prelate, but that he hath transmitted to us as many monuments both of his Piety and Learning, as any other whosoever; so busied on the like occasions, that he could hardly save the Mornings for his Meditations:Aug. Epist. 210 Post meridiem occupationibus hominum teneri, the afternoons being wholly taken up in the dis­patch or hearing of mens private Connoversies. Nay, when the Councils of Car­thage and Numidia had imposed a certain task upon him, propter curam Scripturarum, in some things that concerned the holy Scriptures; and that he asked but five days re­spite from the affairs and business of the people for the performance of the same: the People would not have the patience to forbear so long, Sed violenter irruptum est, but violently brake in upon him. And this, lest the good Father may be thought to speak it in commendation of his own abilities, we find related also by Possidonius in the narration of his life; where we are told, aliquando usque ad horam refectionis, Possidon in vita Aug. c. 19. aliquando tota die jejunans, that sometimes he gave hearing to mens causes till the hour of repast, and sometimes fasted all the day for dispatch thereof, but always bringing them unto some end or other, pro arbitrata aequitate, according to the rules of equity and a well­grounded Conscience. Hereafter we shall find the Prelates honoured with the titles of [...], most honourable Lords; and that not once or twice,Athanas. in apol. 2. Nazi­anz. Epist. ad Nyssen. Theod. l. 1. c. 4, 5. & others passim. Ambros. Epist. 33. l. 5. but of common course. Hereafter (not to wander through more particulars) we shall find Saint Ambrose employed in the most weighty matters of the Common-wealth, and sent Am­bassadour from the young Emperor Valentinian to the Tyrant Maximus, who had usurped on his Dominions, and much endangered the whole Empire, which he per­formed to so good purpose, that he preserved Italy from an imminent ruin; the Tyrant afterwards confessing, se legationis ejus objectu ad Italiam non potuisse transire, that he was hindred by the same, from passing forwards into Italy with his conquering Army. So little was it either thought or found in those blessed times, that holy Or­ders did superinduce a disability for civil Prudence.

But these things we do here behold but at a distance, XIV as Moses from Mount Nebo saw the Land of Canaan. They appertain of right to the following Age;Deuter. ult. and they which had the happiness to live till then could not but easily discern the great alte­ration, which was between a Church under Persecution and a Church in Peace; be­tween a Church oppressed by Tyrants, and a Church cherished and supported by a Christian Prince. And in this flourishing estate I should gladly shew her, but that my wearied pen doth desire some rest; and that I would fain see with what acceptation my present pains will be received in the world, before I give the second on-set. In the mean time I will lay down a brief Chronology of such of the remarkable occur­rences which have been represented in these two last Centuries, it being the office of an upright Judge, and only such I do desire should peruse these Papers, ut res, ita tempora rerum noscere, to know as well the times and circumstances of business as the things themselves.

A Brief CHRONOLOGY of the Estate of Holy Church, in these two last Centuries.

  • An. Christ. 102. CLemens Bishop of Rome, the true Author of the Epistle to the Church of Corinth, and the supposed Author of the Apostles Canons, depart­eth this life.
  • 103. Evaristus succeedeth Clemens in the See of Rome, in the which Church he afterwards ordained Parishes.
  • 109. Simeon B. of Jerusalem Martyred; Justus succeeded in his place.
  • Ignatius led a Prisoner towards Rome, writes his Epistles to the Churches.
  • 110. Ignatius Martyred, designing Hero his Successor in the Church of Antioch. Onesimus B. of Ephesus, mentioned in the former Century, is made a Martyr.
  • 118. Papias B. of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, at this time flourisheth.
  • 128. Quadratus B. of Athens publisheth an Apologie in behalf of Christians.
  • 138. Marcus made B. of Hierusalem, the first that ever had that place of the Ʋn­circumcision.
  • 150. Justin Martyr writeth his Apologie.
  • 160. Hegesippus beginneth his travels to­wards Rome, conferring with the Bi­shops as he past along.
  • 169. Polycarpus, the famous B. of Smyrna Martyred,
  • 172. Melito B. of Sardis publisheth an Apo­logie.
  • 175. Dionysius B. of Corinth flourished, and writeth many of his Epistles.
  • Theophilus B. of Antioch writes in defence of Christianity.
  • 177. Eleutherius succeedeth Soter in the Church of Rome.
  • Lucius a British King, sendeth an Am­bassage unto Eleutherius, desiring to be made a Christian.
  • 178. Several Episcopal Sees erected in the Isle of Britain.
  • 180. The holy Father Irenaeus made B. of Lyons.
  • 190. Demetrius succeedeth Julianus in the See of Alexandria, being the twelfth Bishop of that Church.
  • 191. Serapion succeedeth Maximinus in the Church of Antioch, the ninth Bi­shop of that See.
  • 198. Victor the Successor of Eleutherius, excommunicates the Asian Churches, a­bout their observation of the Feast of Easter.
  • Irenaeus B of Lyons, and Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, write against him for it.
  • Several Councils called about it, by the Metropolitans and other Bishops of this time.
  • 199. Theophilus, Bishop of Caesarea, at this time flourished, as did Narcissus also, the thirtieth Bishop of Hierusalem.
  • 200. Tertullian, Who began to be in estima­tion, Anno 196. doth this year publish his Apologie.
  • 203. Zepherinus succeedeth Victor in the Church of Rome.
  • 204. Clemens of Alexandria flourisheth in the publick Schools of that famous City.
  • 205. Origen, one of his Disciples, beginneth at this time to be of Credit. Irenaeus B. of Lyons crowned with Martyrdom.
  • 217. Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage lived about this time.
  • Origen preacheth in Caesarea. De­metrius Bishop of Alexandria, and Theoctistus of Caesarea disagree a­bout it.
  • 230. Origen made a Presbyter by Theocti­stus, B. of Caesarea, and Alexander, B. of Hierusalem.
  • 232. Origen Excommunicated by Deme­trius.
  • 233. Heraclas, Origen's Successor in the Schools of Alexandria, is made the Bishop of that City.
  • 240. Donatus Successor of Agrippinus in the See of Carthage.
  • 248. Dionysius, who before succeeded Hera­clas in the Professorship of Alexan­dria, doth now succeed him in his See.
  • 250. Cyprian, a right godly man succeeds Donatus in the Church of Carthage.
  • 253. Cyprian, by reason of the Persecution, retires awhile.
  • Fabius succeedeth Babilas in the See of Antioch.
  • 254. A faction raised against Saint Cyprian by Felicissimus, and his Associates.
  • Cornelius chosen Pope of Rome in the place of Fabian.
  • Novatianus makes a Schism in the Church of Rome, causing himself to be ordained B. of the same.
  • [Page 315]Cyprian returns again to Carthage.
  • 255. Several Councils held against the Schism and Heresie of the Novatians.
  • 256. The death of Origen.
  • 257. The memorable case of Geminius Fau­stinus, one of the Presbyters of the Church of Carthage.
  • 261. Cyprian, and divers other Bishops Martyred: Lucian succeeding Cypri­an in the See of Carthage: Dyonisius chosen Pope of Rome, who caused Pa­rishes to be set forth in Country Villages.
  • 266. The first Council of Antioch against Samosatenus.
  • 272. Paulus Samosatenus, the sixteenth Bi­shop of Antioch, deposed for his Heresie by the Council there, and Doninus cho­sen in his place.
  • Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria dieth, and Maximus succeedeth in that See. The Bishops of Italy and Rome made Judges in the case of Paulus, by the Emperor Aurelianus.
  • 277. The Manichean Heresie now first made known; and the impiety thereof confu­ted by several Bishops.
  • Felix succeedeth Dionysius in the See of Rome.
  • Doninus Bishop of Antioch dieth, and Timaeus succeedeth in that charge.
  • 283. Cyrillus Successor unto Timaeus.
  • 285. Theonus succeedeth Maximus in the Church of Alexandria.
  • 296. Zamdas succeedeth Hymenaeus in Hie­rusalem.
  • Marcellinus, the third from Felix, succeeds Eutychianus in the See of Rome.
  • 298. Tyrannus succeedeth Cyril in the Church of Antioch, being the twenti­eth Bishop of this See, and the last of this Age.
  • 299. Hermon succeedeth Zamdas in the Church of Hierusalem, the thirty-ninth Bishop of the same, and the last of this Century.
  • 300. Petrus succeeds Theonus in the See of Alexandria, the seventeenth Bishop of that Church.
  • 302. the Persecution raised by Dioclesian growes unto the height.
  • The grievous lapse of Marcellinus, Pope of Rome.
  • 303. The Council held at Sinuessa by the Western Bishops for the condemnation of Marcellinus.
  • Mensurius Bishop of Carthage, the Successor of Lucianus at this time flou­risheth.
  • 304. Marcellinus honoured with the crown of Martyrdom, leaveth Marcellus his Successor, who was the twenty-ninth Bishop of this Church, reckoning from S. Peter.
  • 305. The Council of Eliberis assembled by the Spanish Prelates.
  • 306. Constantine, most worthily surnamed the Great, attaineth the Empire, setleth the Church of Christ in peace, safety, and honour on the Clergie.
The end of the Second Part.
FINIS.
THE HISTORY OF THE S …

THE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.

IN TWO BOOKS.

By PETER HEYLYN, D. D.

DEUT. xxxii. 7.

Remember the days of old, consider the years of many Generations; ask thy Father, and he will shew thee; thy Elders, and they will tell thee.

LONDON, Printed by M. Clark, to be sold by C. Harper. 1681.

TO THE MOST HIGH and MIGHTY Prince Charles, By the Grace of God, KING of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c.

Most Dread Soveraign,

YOƲR Majesties most Christian care to suppress those rigours which some in maintenance of their Sabbath-Doctrines, had pressed upon this Church in these latter days, justly deserves to be recorded amongst the principal Monuments of your Zeal and Piety. Of the two great and publick Enemies of Gods holy Worship, although Prophaneness in it self, be the more offensive; yet Superstition is more spreading, and more quick of growth. In such a Church as this, so setled in a constant practice of Religious Offices, and so confirmed by godly Canons, for the performance of the same; there was no fear that ever the Lords Day (the day appointed by Gods Church for his publick Service) would have been over-run by the Prophane neglect of any pious duties on that day required. Rather the danger was, lest by the violent torrent of some mens affections it might have been o're-flown by those Superstitions; wherewith, in imitation of the Jews, they be­gan to charge it, and thereby made it far more burdensome to their Christian Brethren than was the Sabbath to the Israelites, by the Law of MOSES. Nor know we where they would have staid, had not your Majesty been pleased, out of a tender care of the Churches safety, to give a check to their proceedings, in Licencing on that day those Law­ful Pastimes, which some, without Authority from Gods Word, or from the practice of Gods Church, had of late restrained. Yet so it is, your Majesties most Pious and most Christian purpose hath not found an­swerable entertainment; especially amongst those men who have so long dreamt of a Sabbath day, that now they will not be persuaded that it is a Dream. For the awakening of the which, and their reduction to more sound and sensible Counsels, (next to my duty to Gods Church, and your Sacred Majesty) have I applied my self to compose this Story, wherein I doubt not but to shew them how much they have deceived both themselves and others, in making the old Jewish Sabbath of equal age and observation with the Law of Nature; and preaching their new Sabbath-Doctrines in the Church of Christ, with which the Church hath no acquaintance; wherein I doubt not but to shew them, that by their obstinate resolution, not to make Publication of your Majesties plea­sure, [Page]they tacitely condemn, not only all the Fathers of the Primitive times; the Learned Writers of all Ages, many most godly Kings and Princes of the former days, and not few Councils of chief note, and of faith unquestionable; but even all states of Men, Nations, and Churches at this present, whom they most esteem. This makes your Majesties in­terest so particular in this present History, that were I not obliged unto your Majesty in any nearer bond than that of every common Subject, it could not be devoted unto any other with so just propriety. But being it is the work of your Majesties Servant, and in part fashioned at those times, which by your Majesties leave were borrowed from Attendance on your Sacred Person; your Majesty hath also all the rights unto it of a Lord and Master.Institut. l. 1. tit. 8. §. 1. So that according to that Maxim of the Civil Laws, Quodcunque per servum acquiritur, id domino acquirit suo; your Majesty hath as absolute power to dispose thereof as of the Author; who is,

Dread Soveraign,
Your Majesties most Obe­dient Subject, and most faithful Servant, PET. HEYLYN.

A PREFACE To them, who being themselves mistaken, have misguided others in these new Doctrines of the Sabbath.

NOT out of any humour or desire of being in action, or that I love to have my hands in any of those publick quarrels, wherewith our peace hath been disturbed; but that Posterity might not say we have been wanting, for our parts, to your information, and the direction of Gods People in the ways of truth, have I adventured on this Story. A Story which shall represent unto you the constant practice of Gods Church in the present business, from the Creation to these days; that so you may the better see how you are gone astray from the paths of Truth, and tendries of Antiquity, and from the present judgment of all Men and Churches. The Arguments whereto you trust, and upon seem­ing strength whereof you have been emboldned to press these Sabbatarian Doctrins upon the Consciences of poor people, I purpose not to meddle with in this Discourse, [...]. They have been elsewhere throughly canvassed, and all those seeming strengths beat down, by which you were your selves misguided; and by the which you have since wrought on the affections of unlearned men, or such at least that judged not of them by their weight, but by their numbers. But where you give it out as in matter of fact, how that the Sabbath was ordained by God in Paradise, and kept accordingly by all the Patriarchs before Moses time; or otherwise ingraft by Nature in the soul of man, and so in use also amongst the Gen­tiles: In that, I have adventured to let men see that you are very much mistaken, and tell us things directly contrary unto truth of Story. Next, where it is the ground-work of all your building, that the Commandment of the Sabbath is Moral, Natural, and Perpetual, as punctually to be observed as any other of the first or second Table: I doubt not but it will appear by this following History, that it was never so esteemed of by the Jews themselves; no not when as the observation of the same was most severely pressed upon them by the Law and Pro­phets, nor when the day was made most burdensome unto them by the Scribes and Pharisees. Lastly, whereas you make the Lords day to be an institution of our Saviour Christ, confirmed by the continual usage of the holy Apostles, and both by him and them imposed as a perpetual Ordinance on the Christian Church, making your selves believe, that so it was observed in the times before, as you have taught us to observe it in these latter days: I have made manifest to the world that there is no such matter to be found at all, either in any writings of the A­postles, or monument of true Antiquity, or in the practice of the middle or the present Churches. What said I, of the present Churches? So I said indeed, and doubt not but it will appear so in this following Story: The present Churches, all of them both Greek and Latin, together with the Protestants of what name soever, being far different, both in their Doctrine and their practice from these new conceptions. And here I cannot chuse but note, that whereas those who first did set on foot these Doctrines, in all their other practices to subvert this Church, did bear themselves continually on the Authority of Calvin, and the example of those Churches which came most near unto the Plat-form of Geneva: In these their Sabbath-speculations, they had not only none to follow, but they found Calvin and Geneva, and those other Churches directly contrary unto them. However in all other matters they cryed up Calvin and his Writings,Hooker in his Preface. making his Books the very Canon, to which both Discipline and Doctrine was to be confirmed; yet hic magister non tenetur, here by his leave they would forsake him, and leave him fairly to himself, that they themselves might have the glory of a new invention.

For you my Brethren, and beloved in our Lord and Saviour, as I do willingly believe that you have entertain'd these Tenets upon mis-persuasion, not out of any ill intentions to the Church your Mother; and that it is an errour in your judgments only, not of your affections: So upon that belief have I spared no pains, as much as in me is, to remove that errour, and rectifie what is amiss in your opinion. I hope you are not of those men, Quos non persuadebis, etiamsi persuaseris, who either hate to be reformed, or have so far espoused a quarrel, that neither truth nor reason can divorce them from it. Nor would I gladly you should be of their resolutions, [Page] Qui volunt id verum esse quod credunt, nolunt id credere quod verum est; who are more apt to think all true which themselves believe, than be persuaded to believe such things as are true indeed. In confidence whereof, as I was first induced to compose this History; so in continuance of those hopes, I have presumed to address it to you, to tender it to your perusal, and to submit it to your censure: That if you are not better furnished, you may learn from hence that you have trusted more unto other men than you had just reason. It is my chief en­de avour, as it is my prayer, that possibly I may behold Jerusalem in prosperity, all my life long. Nor doubt I by the grace of God, to reduce some of you at the least, to such conformity with the practice of the Catholick Church; that even your hands may also labour in the ad­vancement and promotion of that full prosperity, which I so desire. This that I may the better do, I shall present you, as I said, with the true story of the Sabbath, and therein lay before your eyes both what the Doctrine was, and what the practice of all former times; and how it stands in both respects with all Gods Churches at this present. First, for the Sabbath, I shall shew you that it was not instituted by the Lord in Paradise, nor naturally imprinted in the soul of man, nor ever kept by any of the Antient Fathers before Moses time: And this not ge­nerally said, and no more but so; but proved particularly and successively in a continued descent of times and men. Next, that being given unto the Jews by Moses, it was not so observed or reckoned of as any of the moral precepts, but sometimes kept, and sometimes not, according as mens private businesses, or the necessities of the state might give way unto it; and finally was for ever abrogated, with the other Ceremonies, at the destruction of the Temple. As for the Gentiles all this while, it shall hereby appear that they took no more notice of it, (except a little at the latter end of the Jewish State) than to deride both it, and all them that kept it. Then for the Lords day, that it was not instituted by our Saviour Christ, commanded by the Apostles, or ordained first by any other Authority than the voluntary Consecration of it by the Church to religious uses; and being Consecrated to those uses, was not advanced to that esteem which it now enjoys, but liesurely and by degrees, partly by the Edicts of secular Princes, partly by Canons of particular Councils, and finally by the Decretals of several Popes, and Orders of inferiour Prelates; and being so advanced, is subject still, as many Protestant Do­ctors say, to the Authority of the Church to be retained or changed as the Church thinks fit. Finally, that in all Ages heretofore, and in all Churches at this present, it neither was nor is esteemed of as a Sabbath day; nor reckoned of so near a kin to the former Sabbath, but that at all such leisure times as were not destinate by the Church to Gods publick service; men might apply their minds, and bestow their thoughts either about their businesses or upon their pleasures, such as are lawful in themselves, and not prohibited by those powers, under which they lived. Which shewed and manifestly proved unto you, I doubt not but those Paper-walls which have been raised heretofore to defend these Doctrines, how sair soever they may seem to the outward eye, and whatsoever colours have been laid upon them, will in the end appear unto you to be but Paper-walls indeed; some beaten down by the report only of those many Canons which have successively been mounted in the Church of God, either to fortifie the Lords day, which it self did institute, or cast down those Jewish fancies which some had laboured to restore. Such passages as occurred concerning England, I purposely have deferred till the two last Chapters, that you may look upon the actions of our Ancestors with a clearer eye, both those who lived at the first planting of Religion; and those who had so great an hand in the reforming of the same. And yet not look upon them only, but by comparing your new Doctrines with those which were delivered in the former times; your severe practice, with the innocent liberty which they used amongst them: You may the better see your errours, and what strange Incense you have offered in the Church of God. A way in which I have the rather made choice to walk, that by the practice of the Church in general, you may the better judge of those Texts of Scrip­ture which seem to you to speak in the behalf of that new Divinity which you have preached unto the People; and by the practice of this Church particularly, it may with greater ease be shewed you, that you did never suck these Doctrines from your Mothers Breasts.

It is an observation and a rule in Law, that custom is the best interpreter of a doubtful statute, and we are lesson'd thereupon, to cast our eyes in all such questionable matters unto the practice of the state in the self-same case. Si de interpretatione legis quaeritur, imprimis inspiciendnm est, quo jure civitas retro in hujusmodi casibus usa fuit: Consuetudo enim optima interpretatio legis est. De legib. & longa consuet. If you submit unto this rule, and stand unto the Plea which you oft have made, I verily persuade my self that you will quickly find your errour; and that withal you will discover how to abet a new and dangerous Doctrine, you have deserted the whole practice of the Christian Church, which for the space of 1600 years hath been embraced and followed by all godly men. These are the hopes which we project unto our selves. The cause of this our undertaking was your Information; and the chief end we aim at is your Reforma­tion. [Page]Your selves my Brethren, and your good, if I may procure it, are the occasion and the recompence of these poor endeavours; Pretiumque & causa laboris, in the Poets language.

Nor would I you should think it any blemish to your reputation, should you desert a cause which with so vehement affections you have first mainteined; or that the world would censure you of too deep a folly, should you retract what you have either taught or written in the times before. Rather the world and all good men shall praise both your integrity and ingenuity, in that you think it no disparagement to yield the better unto truth, whensoever you find it. Being men conceive it not impossible, but that you may be in an errour; and having erred, think it your greatest Victory that you are conquered by the truth; which being mighty will prevail, and either here or elsewhere, enforce all of us to confess the great powers thereof. S. Austin and the Cardinal, two as great Clerks as almost any in their times, have herein shewed the way unto you, one in his Retractations, the other in his Recognitions; nor did it ever turn unto their dis­grace. Therefore abandoning all such fond conceits, as enemies unto the truth, which I trust you seek, and above all things wish to find; let me beseech you to possess your souls with desire of knowledge, and that you would not shut your eyes against the tendry of those truths, which either here or elsewhere are presented to you for your information. Which that you may the bet­ter do, I do adjure you in the name, and for the sake of Jesus Christ, to lay aside all prejudice which possibly you may be possessed withal, either in reference to the Argument, or unto the Author; and to peruse this following Story with as much singleness of heart, and desire of truth, and invocation of Gods Spirit to find out the same, as was by me used in the writing of it. It is your welfare which I aim at, as before was said; your restitution to your functions, and recon­ciliation to the Church, from which you are at point of falling; that we with you, and you with us, laying aside those jealousies and distrusts which commonly attend on divided minds, may joyn our hearts and hands together for the advancement of Gods honour, and the Churches peace. And God even our own God shall give us his blessing.

For others which shall read this Story, whether by you misguided or yet left emire, I do desire them to take notice that there is none so much a stranger to good Arts and Learning, whom in this case and kind of writing I dare not trust with the full cognizance of the cause herein re­lated. In points of Law, when as the matter seems to be above the wit of common persons, or otherwise is so involved and intricate, that there hath been no Precedent thereof in former times; it is put off to a demurrer, and argued by my Lords the Judges, with their best maturity of delibe­ration. But in a matter of fact we put our selves upon an ordinary Jury, not doubting if the evidence prove fair, the Witnesses of faith unquestioned, and the Records without suspition of im­posture, but they will do their Conscience, and find for Plaintiff or Defendant, as the cause appears. So in the business now in hand, that part thereof which consists most of Argument and strength of Disputation, in the examining of those reasons which Pro or Con have been alledged, are by me left to be discussed, and weighed by them, who either by their place are called, or by their Learning are inabled to so great a business. But for the point of practice, which is matter of fact, how long it was before the Sabbath was commanded, and how it was observed, being once commanded; how the Lords day hath stood in the Christian Church, by what Authority first instituted, in what kind regarded; these things are offered to the judgment and considera­tion of the meanest Reader. No man that is to be returned on the present Jury, but may be able to give up his Verdict, touching the title now in question, unless he come with passion, and so will not hear, or else with prejudice, and so will not value the evidence which is produced for his information. For my part, I shall deal ingenuously, as the cause requires, as of sworn counsel to the truth, not using any of the mysteries or arts of pleading, but as the holy Fathers of the Church, the learned Writers of all Ages, the most renowned Divines of these latter times, and finally as the publick Monuments and Records of most Nations christned have furnished me in this enquiry. What these or any of them have herein either said or done, or otherwise left upon the Register for our direction, I shall lay down in order in their several times; either the times in which they lived, or whereof they writ: that so we may the better see the whole suc­cession both of the doctrine and the practice of Gods Church in the present business. And this with all integrity and sincere proceeding, not making use of any Author who hath been probably suspected of fraud or forgery, nor dealing otherwise in this search than as becomes a man who aims at nothing more than Gods publick service, and the conducting of Gods People in the ways of truth. This is the sum of what I had to say in this present Preface; beseeching God, the God of truth, yea the truth it self, to give us a right understanding, and a good will to do thereafter.

THE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.

BOOK I. From the Creation of the World to the destruction of the Temple.

CHAP. I. That the SABBATH was not instituted in the Beginning of the World.

  • 1. The entrance to the Work in hand.
  • 2. That those words, Genes. 2. And God blessed the seventh day, &c. are there delivered as by way of anticipation.
  • 3. Anticipations in the Scripture confessed by them, who deny it here.
  • 4. Anticipations of the same nature not strange in Scripture.
  • 5. No Law imposed by God on Adam, touch­ing the keeping of the Sabbath.
  • 6. The Sabbath not ingraft by Nature in the soul of man.
  • 7. The greatest Advocates for the Sabbath, deny it to be any part of the Law of Na­ture.
  • 8. Of the morality and perfection, sup­posed to be in the number of seven, by some learned men.
  • 9. That other numbers in the confession of the same learned men, particularly the first, third, and fourth, are both as moral, and as perfect as the seventh.
  • 10. The like is proved of the sixth, eighth, and tenth; and of other numbers.
  • 11. The Scripture not more favourable to the number of seven, than it is to others.
  • 12. Great caution to be used by those, who love to recreate themselves in the myste­ries of numbers.

I Purpose by the grace of God to write an History of the Sabbath, I and to make known what practically hath been done therein, by the Church of God, in all Ages past, from the Creation till this present; Primaque ab origine mundi, ad mea perpetuum de­ducere tempora carmen. One day, as David tells us, teacheth ano­ther. Nor can we have a better Schoolmaster in the things of God, than the continual and most constant practice of those famous men, that have gone before us. An undertaking of great difficulty, but of greater profit. In which I will crave leave to say, as doth St. Austin, in the entrance to his Books de Civitate; Lib. 1. c. [...]. Magnum opus & arduum, sed Deus est adjutor noster. Therefore, most humbly begging the assistance of Gods holy Spirit to guide me in the way of truth, I shall apply my self to so great a work; beginning with the first Beginnings, and so continuing my Discourse, succes­sively, [Page 326]unto these times, wherein we live. In which no accident of note, as far as I can discern, shall pass unobserved, which may conduce to the discovery of the truth, and se [...]ling of the minds of men in a point so controverted. On therefore [...] to the present business.Gen. 2. In the beginning (saith the Text) God created the Heaven and the Earth. Which being finished, and all the hosts of them made perfect, on the se­venth day God ended his work which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And then it followeth, And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work, which God created and made. Unto this passage of the Text, and this point of time, some have refer­red the institution and original of the Sabbath; taking these words to be a plain Nar­ration of a thing then done, according to that very time, wherein the Scripture doth report it: And that the sanctifying of the seventh day therein mentioned, was a Com­mandment given by God to our Father Adam, touching the sanctifying of that day to his publick Worship. Conceiving also that there is some special Mystery and mora­lity in the number of seven, for which that day, and none but that, could be designed and set apart for this employment. Others and those the ancienter, and of more authority, conceive these words to have been spoken by a Prolepsis or Anticipation: and to relate unto the times wherein Moses wrote. And that it was an intimation only of the reason why God imposed upon the Jews, the sanctifying rather of the se­venth day, than of any other: no Precept to that purpose being given to Adam and to his posterity; nor any mystery in that number, why of it self it should be thought most proper for Gods publick service. The perfect stating of these points, will give great light to the following story. And therefore we will first crave leave to remove these doubts before we come to matter of fact, that afterwards I may proceed with the greater ease unto my self, and satisfaction to the Reader. The ground-work or foundation laid, the Building will be raised the surer.

And first it is conceived by many learned men, II that Moses in the second of Genesis relates unto the times in the which he lived, and wrote the History of the Creation: when God had now made known his holy Will unto him, and the Commandment of the Sabbath had by his Ministery been delivered to the house of Israel. This is indeed the ancienter and more general tendry, unanimously delivered both by Jew and Christian; and not so much as questioned till these later days. And howsoever some ascribe it to Tostatus, as to the first inventer of it; yet is it ancienter far than he: though were it so, it could not be denied, but that it had an able and a learned Author. A man, considering the times in which he lived, and the short time of life it pleased God to give him; that hardly ever had his equal. It's true, Tostatus thus resolves it.In Gen. 2. He makes this quaere first, Num Sabbatum cum à Deo sancti­ficatum fuerit in primordio mundi rerum, &c. Whether the Sabbath being sanctified by God in the first infancy of the World, had been observed of men, by the Law of Na­ture. And thereunto returns this Answer, quod Deus non dederit praceptum illud de ob­servatione Sabbati in principio, sed per Mosen datum esse, &c. that God commanded not the Sabbath to be sanctified in the beginning of the World, but that it was command­ed afterwards by the Law of Moses; when God did publickly make known his Will upon Mount Sinai. And that whereas the Scripture speaketh of sanctifying the se­venth-day, in the second of Genesis, it is not to be understood, as if the Lord did then appoint it, for his publick Worship; but is to be referred unto the time wherein Moses wrote, which was in the Wilderness. Et sic Moses intendebat dicere quod Deus illum diem sanctificavit sc. nobis, &c. And so the meaning of the Prophet will be briefly this, that God did sanctifie that day, that is to us, to us that are his people of the house of Jacob, that we might consecrate it to his service. So far Tostatus. In which I must confess, that I see not any thing. but what Josephus said before him, though in other words: who speaking of the Worlds Creation, doth conclude it thus, [...], &c.Antiqu. l. 1.2. So that Moses saith, that the World and all that is therein was made in six whole days and that upon the seventh day God took rest; and ceased from his labours. [...], &c. By reason where­of we likewise desist from travail on that day, which we call the Sabbath, i. e. Repose. So that the institution of the Sabbath by Tostatus; and the observation of it, by Josephus; are both of them referred, by their us, and we, unto the times of Moses, and the house of Israel. Nor is Josephus the only learned man amongst the Jews, that so in­terpreteth Moses's meaning: Solomon Iarchi, one of the principal of the Rabbins speaks more expresly to this purpose; and makes this Gloss or Comment upon Moses words. [Page 327] Benedixit ei, i. e. in manna, &c. God blessed the seventh day, i. e. in Mannah, because for every day of the week, an Homer of it fell upon the Earth, and a double portion on the sixth, and sanctified it, i. e. in Mannah, because it fell not on the seventh day at all. Et scriptura loquitur de re futura. And in this place (saith he) the Scripture speaks as of a thing that was to came. But what need more be said. Mercer a learned Pro­testant, and one much conversant in the Rabbins, In Gen. 2. confesseth that the Rabbins ge­nerally referred this place and passage to the following times, even to the sanctifica­tion of the Sabbath, established by the Law of Moses. Hebraei fere ad futurum referunt, i.e. sanctificationem Sabbati postea lege per Mosen sancitam: unde & Manna eo die non descen­dit. And howsoever for his own part, he is of opinion, that the first Fathers being taught by God, kept the seventh day holy: yet he conceives withal, that the Com­mandment of keeping holy the Sabbath day, was not made till afterwards. Nam hinc (from Gods own resting on that day) postea praeceptum de Sabbato natum est, as he there hath it. Doubtless, the Jews, who so much doted on their Sabbath, would not by any means have robbed it of so great antiquity; had they had any ground to approve thereof, or not known the contrary. So that the scope of Moses in this pre­sent place, was not to shew the time when; but the occasion, why the Lord did after sanctifie the seventh day for a Sabbath day: viz. because that on that day he rested from the works which he had created.

Nor was it otherwise conceived, III than that Moses here did speak by way of Prolep­sis, or Anticipation, till Ambrose Catharin, one of the great sticklers in the Trent-Coun­cil, opined the contrary. He in his Comment on that Text falls very foul upon To­status; and therein leads the Dance to others, who have since taken up the same opi­nion. Ineptum est quod quidam commentus est, &c. It is a foolish thing (saith he) that, In Gen. 2. (as a certain Writer fancieth) the sanctification of that day which Moses speaks of, should not be true as of that very point of time whereof he speaks it, but rather to be referred un­to the time wherein be wrote: as if the meaning only were, that then it should be sancti­fied when it was ordered and appointed by the Law of Moses. And this he calls Com­mentum ineptum, & contra literam ipsam, & contra ipsius Moseos declarationem; A foolish and absurd conceit, contrary unto Moses words, and to his meaning. Yet the same Catharin doth affirm in the self-same Book. Scripturis frequentissimum esse multa per anticipationem narrare; that nothing is more frequent in the holy Scriptures, than these anticipations. And in particular, that whereas it is said in the former Chapter, male and female created he them, per anticipationem dictum esse non est dubitandum, that (with­out doubt) it is so said by anticipation: the Woman not being made, as he is of opi­nion, till the next day after, which was the Sabbath. For the Anticipation he cites St. Chrysostom, who indeed tells us on that Text, [...]. Behold, saith he, how that which was not done as yet, is here related as if done already. He might have added, for that purpose, Origen on the first of Genesis, and Gregory the Great, Moral. lib. 32. cap. 9. both which take notice of a Prolepsis, or Anticipation in that place of Moses. For the creation of the Woman he brings in St. Jerom, who in his Tract against the Jews expresly saith, mulierem con­ditam fuisse die septimo, that the Woman was created on the seventh day or Sabbath: to which this Catharin assents, and thinks that thereupon the Lord is said to have fi­nished all his works on the seventh day; that being the last that he created. This seems indeed to be the old Tradition, if it be lawful for me to digress a little: it being supposed that Adam being wearied in giving names unto all creatures on the sixth day, in the end whereof he was created; did fall that night into a deep and heavy sleep: and that upon the Sabbath or the seventh day morning his side was opened, and a rib took thence, for the creation of the Woman.Aug. Steuchius in Gen. 2. So Augustinus Steuchius re­ports the Legend. And this I have the rather noted, to meet with Catharinus at his own weapon. For whereas he concludes from the rest of God, that, without doubt, the institution of the Sabbath began upon that very day wherein God rested: it seems, by him, God did not rest on that day, and so we either must have no Sabbath to be kept at all; or else it will be lawful for us by the Lords example to do whatever works we have to do, upon that day; and after sanctifie the remainder. And yet I needs must say withal, that Catharinus was not the only he, that thought God wrought up­on the Sabbath. Aretius also so conceived it. Dies itaque tota non fuit quiete transacta, Problem loc. 55. sed perfecto opere ejus deinceps quievit, ut Hebraeus contextus habet. Mercer a man well skilled in Hebrew, denieth not but the Hebrew Text will bear that meaning. Who thereupon conceives that the seventy Elders in the translation of that place, did pur­posely [Page 328]translate it, [...], that on the sixth day God finished all the work that he had made, and after rested on the seventh. And this they did, saith he, ut om­nem dubitandi occasionem tollerent, to take away all hint of collecting thence, that God did any kind of work upon that day. For if he finished all his works on the seventh day, it may be thought (faith he) that God wrought upon it. Saint Hierom noted this before, that the Greek Text was herein different from the Hebrew; and turns it as an argument against the Jews; and their rigid keeping of the Sabbath. Artabi­mus igitur Judaeos qui de ocio Sabbati gloriantur, Q [...]. Hebraicae in Gen. quod jam tunc in principio Sabbatum dissolutum sit, dum Deus operatur in Sabbato, complens opera sua in eo; & benedicens ipst diei, quia in ipso universa compleverat. If so, if God himself did break the Sabbath, as St. Hierom turns upon the Jews: we have small cause to think that he should at that very time, impose the Sabbath as a Law upon his creatures.

But to proceed. IV Others that have took part with Catharinus against Tostatus, have had as ill success as he; in being forced either to grant the use of Anticipation in the holy Scripture; or else to run upon a Tenet, wherein they are not like to have any seconds. I will instance only in two particulars, both Englishmen, and both exceed­ing zealous in the present cause. The first is Doctor Bound, who first of all did set afoot these sabbatarian speculations in the Church of England, 2. Edit. p. 10. wherewith the Church is still disquieted. He determines thus, I deny not, saith he, but that the Scripture speaketh often of things, as though they had been so before, because they were so then, when the things were written. As when it is said of Abraham, that he removed unto a Moun­tain Eastward of Bethel, whereas it was not called Bethel till above a hundred years af­ter. The like may be said of another place in the Book of Judges called Bochin, &c. yet in this place of Genesis it is not so. And why not so in this, as well as those? Be­cause (saith he) Moses entreateth there of the sanctification of the Sabbath, not only be­cause it was so then when he wrote that Book, but specially because it was so even from the Creation. Medulla Theol. l. 2. c. 15. § 9. Which by his leave, is not so much a reason of his opinion, as a plain beg­ging of the question. The second Doctor Ames, the first I take it, that sowed Bounds doctrine of the Sabbath, in the Netherlands. Who saith expresly first, and in general terms, hujusmodi prolepseos exemplum nullum in tota scriptura dari posse, that no example of the like anticipation can be found in Scripture; the contrary whereof is already pro­ved. After more warily, and in particular, de hujusmodi institutione Proleptica, that no such institution is set down in Scripture, by way of a Prolepsis or Anticipation, either in that Book, or in any other. And herein, as before I said, he is not like to find any seconds. We find it in the sixteenth of Exodus, that thus Moses said, This is the thing which the Lord commandeth: Verse 32 Fill an Omer of it [of the Mannah] to be kept for your generations, that they may see the bread wherewith I have fed you in the Wilder­ness, when I brought you forth from the land of Egypt. It followeth in the Text, that as the Lord commanded Moses, Verse 34 so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony to be kept. Here is an Ordinance of Gods, an institution of the Lords, and this related in the same man­ner, by anticipation, as the former was. Lyra upon the place affirms expresly, that it is spoken there per anticipationem: and so doth Vatablus too, in his Annotations on that Scripture. But to make sure work of it, I must send Doctor Ames to school to Calvin, who tells us on this Text of Moses, non contexuit Moses historiam suo ordine, sed narratione [...] interposita, melius confirmat, &c. Indeed it could not well be otherwise interpreted. For how could Aaron lay up a pot of Mannah to be kept before the Testimony, when as yet there was neither Ark, nor Tabernacle, and so no Testimony before which to keep it. To bring this business to an end, Moses hath told us in the place before remembred, Verse 35 that the children of Israel did eat Mannah forty years, which is not otherwise true, in that place and time, in which he tells it, but by the help and figure of anticipation. And this St. Austin noted in his questions upon Exodus, Qu. 62. significat scriptura per Prolepsin, i. e. hoc loco commemorando quod etiam postea fa­ctum est. And lastly, where Amesius sets it down for certain, that no man ever thought of an anticipation in this place of Moses, Verse supra. qui praejudicio aliquo de observatione diei Domini­cae non prius fuit prius anticipatus, who was not first possessed with some manifest pre­judice against the sanctifying of the Lords day: this cannot possibly be said against Tostatus, who had no Enemy to encounter, nor no opinion to oppose, and so no pre­judice. We conclude then, that for this passage of the Scripture, we find not any thing unto the contrary, but that it was set down in that place and time, by a plain and meer anticipation; and doth relate unto the time wherein Moses wrote: And therefore no sufficient warrant to setch the institution of the Sabbath, from the first [Page 329]beginnings. One only thing I have to add, and that's the reason which moved Moses to make this mention of the Sabbath, even in the first beginning of the Book of God, and so long time before the institution of the same. Which doubtless was, the better to excite the Jews to observe that day, from which they seemed at first to be much averse: and therefore were not only to be minded of it, by a Memento in the front of the Commandment; but by an intimation of the equity and reason of it, even in the entrance of Gods Book, derived from Gods first resting on that day after all his works. Theodoret hath so resolved it, in his Questions on the Book of Genesis. Ma­xime autem Judaeis ista scribens, necessario posuit hoc, sanctificavit eum, Qu. 21. ut majore cultu prosequantur Sabbatum. Hoc enim in legibus sanciendis inquit, sex diebus creavit Deus, &c.

I say an intimation of the Equity and Reason of it, V for that's as much as can be gathered from that place: though some have laboured what they could to make the sanctifying of the seventh day, therein mentioned, a Precept given by God to our Fa­ther Adam touching the sanctifying of that day, to his publick worship. Of this I shall not now say much, because the practice will disprove it. Only I cannot but report the mind and judgment of Pererius a learned Jesuit. Who amongst other reasons that he hath alledged, to prove the observation of the Sabbath not to have taken beginning in the first infancy of the World, makes this for one: that generally the Fathers have agreed on this, Deum non aliud imposuisse Adamo praeceptum omnino positivum, nisi illud de non edendo fructu arboris scientiae, &c, that God imposed no other Law on Adam, than that of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of knowledg. Of which since he hath instanced in none particularly, I will make bold to lay before you some two or three; that so out of the mouths of two or three witnesses the truth hereof may be established. And first we have Tertullian, who resolves it thus.Adv. Judaeos. Namque in principio mundi ipsi Adae & Evae legem dedit, &c. ‘In the beginning of the World, the Lord commanded Adam and Eve that they should not eat of the fruit of the tree, which is in the midle of the Garden. Which Law (saith he) had been sufficient for their ju­stification, had it been observed. For in that Law, all other Precepts were included, which afterwards were given by Moses.’ St. Basil next. who tells us first,De jejunio. that absti­nence or fasting was commanded by the Lord in Paradise. And then, [...], &c. the first Commandment given by God to Adam, was that he should not eat of the Tree of knowledg. The very same, which is affirmed by St. Ambrose in another language, Et ut sciamus non esse novum jejunium, primam illic legem, Lib. de Elia & jejunio c. 3. [i. e. in Paradise] constituit de jejunio. So perfectly agree in this, the greatest lights both of African, the Eastern, and the Western Churches. If so, if that the law of abstinence had been alone sufficient for the justification of our Father Adam, as Tertullian thinks; or if it were the first Law, given by God unto him, as both St. Basil and St. Ambrose are of opinion: then was there no such Law at all then made, as that of sanctifying of the Sabbath; or else not made according to that time and order, wherein this passage of the Scripture is laid down by Moses. And if not then, there is no other ground for this Command­ment in the Book of God, before the wandring of Gods people in the Wilderness, and the fall of Mannah. A thing so clear, that some of those, who willingly would have the Sabbath to have been kept from the first Creation: and have not the confi­dence to ascribe the keeping of it, to any Ordinance of God, but only to the volun­tary imitation of his people. And this is Torniellus way, amongst many others,Anno 236. who though he attribute to Enos both set Forms of Prayer, and certain times by him se­lected for the performance of that Duty; praecipue vero diebus Sabbati, In die 7. especially up­on the Sabbath: yet he resolves it as before, that such as sanctified that day, if such there were; non ex praecepto divino, quod nullum tunc extabat, sed ex pietate solum, id egisse. Of which opinion, Mercer seems to be, as before I noted. So that in this par­ticular point, the Fathers and the Modern Writers; the Papist and the Protestant, agree most lovingly together.

Much less did any of the Fathers, or other ancient Christian Writers, VI conceive that sanctifying of the Sabbath, or one day in seven, was naturally ingrafted in the mind of man, from his first creation. It's true, they tell us of a Law, which natu­rally was ingrafted in him. So Chrysostom affirms, that neither Adam, In Rom. 7.12. hom. 12. nor any other man, did ever live without the guidance of this Law: and that it was imprinted in the soul of man, as soon as he was made a living creature, [...], [Page 330]as that Father hath it. But neither he nor any other, did ever tell us that the Sabbath was a part of this Law of Nature: nay,In Ezech. c. 20. some of them expresly have affirmed the contrary, Theodoret for example, that these Commandments, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, and others of that kind, alios quoque homines natura edocuit, were generally implanted by the law of Nature, in the minds of men. But for the keeping of the Sabbath, it came not in by Nature, but by Moses Law. At Sabbati observandi non na­tura magistra, sed latio legis. So Theodoret. And answerably thereunto Sedulius doth divide the Law into three chief parts.In Rom. 3. Whereof the first is de Sacramentis, of signs and Sacraments, as Circumcision, and the Passeover: the second is, quae con­gruit legi naturali, the body of the Law of Nature, and is the summary of those things which are prohibited by the words of God: the third and last, factorum, of Rites and Ceremonies (for so I take it is his meaning) as new Moons and Sabbaths: which clearly doth exempt the Sabbath, from having any thing to do with the Law of Na­ture. And Damascen assures too,De Orthod. fide l. 4. c. 24. that when there was no Law enacted, nor any Scripture inspired by God, that then there was no Sabbath neither, [...]. To which three An­cients we might add many more of these later times,In Decalog. Medulla. theol. l. 2. cap. 15. Rivet and Ames, and divers others, who though they plead hard for the antiquity of the Sabbath: dare not re­fer the keeping of it, to the Law of Nature, but only (as we shall see anon) unto positive Laws, and divine Authority. But hereof we shall speak more largely when we are come unto the promulgating of this Law, in the time of Moses: where it will evidently appear to be a positive Constitution only, fitted peculiarly to the Jews; and never otherwise esteemed of, than a Jewish Ordinance.

It's true, VII that all men generally have agreed on this, that it is consonant to the Law of Nature, to set apart some time to Gods publick service: but that this time should rather be the seventh day, than any other, that they impute not unto any thing in Na­ture; but either to Divine, Legal, or Ecclesiastical institution. The School-men, Pa­pists, Protestants, men of almost all persuasions in Religion, have so resolved it. And for the Ancients, our venerable Bede assures us, that to the Fathers before the Law, all days were equal; the seventh day having no prerogative before the others: and this he calls naturalis Sabbati libertatem, In Luc. 19. the liberty of the Natural Sabbath, which ought (saith he) to be restored at our Saviours coming. If so, if that the Sabbath or time of rest unto the Lord, was naturally left free and arbitrary, then certainly it was not restrained more unto one day than another; or to the seventh day, more than to the sixth or eighth. Even Ambrose Catharin, as stout a Champion as he was for the antiquity of the Sabbath, finds himself at a loss about it. For having took for grant­ed, as he might indeed, that men by the prescript of Nature, were to assign Peculiar times for the service of God; and adding that the very Gentiles used so to do: is fain to shut up all with an Ignoramus. Nescimus modo quem diem praecipue observarunt priscí illi Dei cultores. We cannot well resolve (saith he) what day especially was ob­served by those who worshipped God in the times of old. Wherein he doth agree exactly with Abulensis, against whom principally he took up the Bucklers; who could have taught him this, if he would have learnt of such a Master, that howsoever the Hebrew people, or any other, before the giving of the Law, were bound to set apart some time for religious Duties:In Exod. 20. Qu. 11. non tamen magis in Sabbato, quam in quolibet alio­rum dierum, yet were they no more bound to the Sabbath day than to any other. So for the Protestant Writers, two of the greatest Advocates of the Sabbath, have re­solved accordingly. Quod dies ille solennis unus debeat esse in septimana, hoc positivi juris est; that's Amesius doctrine. And Ryvet also saith the same, Lege de Sabbato positivam, non naturalem agnoscimus. The places were both cited in the former Section; and both do make the Sabbath a meer positive Law. But what need more be saidin so clear a case; or what need further Witnesses be produced to give in evidence, when we have confiten­tem reum? For Dr. Bound, who first amongst us here endeavoured to advance the Lords day into the place of the Jewish Sabbath; and feigned a pedigree of the Sabbath even from Adams infancy: hath herein said enough to betray his cause, and those that since have either built upon his foundation; or beautified their undertakings with his col­lections. Indeed (saith he) this Law was given in the beginning, not so much by the light of Nature, as the rest of the nine Commandments were; but by express words when God sanctified it. For though this be in the Law of Nature, that some days should be sepa­rated to Gods worship, 2. Edit. p. 11. & 16. as appears by the practice of the Gentiles: yet that it should [Page 331]be every seventh day, the Lord himself set down in express words; which otherwise by the light of Nature they could never have found. So that by his confession, there is no Sab­bath to be found in the Law of Nature: no more than by the testimony of the Fa­thers, in any positive Law, or divine appointment, until the Decalogue was given by Moses.

Nay, Doctor Bound goeth further yet; VIII and robs his friends and followers of a special Argument. For where Danaeus asks this question, Why one of seven rather than one of eight or nine? and thereunto makes answer that the number of seven doth signifie perfection and perpetuity: First, saith the Doctor, I do not see that proved, that there is any such mystical sig­nification, Ib. p. 60. rather than of any other. And though that were granted, yet do I not find that to be any cause at all in Scripture, why the seventh day should be commanded to be kept holy, rather than the sixth or eighth. And in the former page, The special reason why the se­venth day should be rather kept than any other, is not the excellency or perfection of that number, or that there is any mystery in it, or that God delighteth more in it, than in any other: Though, I confess (saith he) that much is said that way, both in divine and hu­mane Writers. Much hath been said therein: indeed, so much, that we may wonder at the strange niceties of some men, and the unprofitable pains they have taken amongst them, in fearching out the mysteries of this number; the better to advance, as they conceive, the reputation of the Sabbath. Aug. Steuchius hath affirmed in general,In Gen. 2. that this day and number is most natural, and most agreeable to divine employments, and therefore in omni aetate inter omnes gentes habitus venerabilis & sacer, accounted in all times and Nations, as most venerable; and so have many others said since him. But he that led the way unto him, and to all the rest, is Philo the Jew; who being a great follower of Platos, took up his way of trading in the mysteries of several numbers: wherein he was so intricate and perplexed, that numero Platonis obscurius, did grow at last into a Proverb. This Philo therefore Platonizing, Tall. ad Attie. l. 7. [...]pl. 13. [...] opi­si [...]o. first tells us of this number of seven, [...], that he persu [...]les himself, there is not any man able sufficiently to extol it; as being far above all th [...] powers of Rhetorick: and that the Pythagoreans (from them first Plato learnt those trifles) did usually resemble it, [...], even to Jove himself. Then, that Hippocrates doth divide the life of man into seven Ages, [...]a [...] age c [...]n­teining seven full years; to which the changes of mans constitution are all framed and fitted: as also that the Bear, or Arcturus, as they use to call it, and the constella­tion called the Pleiades, consist of seven Stars severally, neither more nor less. He shews us also, how much Nature is delighted in this number, [...],De legis Alleg. l. 1. as viz. that there are seven Planets, and that the Moon quartereth every se venth day, that Infants born in the seventh month are usually like enough to live; that they are seven several motions of the body, seven intrails, so many outward members, seven holes, or out-lets, in the same, seven sorts of excrements; as also that the se­venth is the Critical day in most kinds of maladies. And to what purpose this, and much more of the same condition, every where scattered in his Writings; but to de­vise some natural reason for the Sabbath. For so he manifests himself in another place.Ap. Eu [...]b Prae­par. l. 8. c. 7. [...], &c. Now why God chose the se­venth day, and established it by Law for the day of rest, you need not ask at all of me, since both Physicians and Philosophers have so oft declared, of what great power and vertue that number is, as in all other things, so specially on the nature and state of man. [...]. And thus (saith he) you have the reason of the seventh-day Sabbath. Indeed Philosophers and Physicians and other learned men of great name and credit, have spoken much in honour of the number of seven, and severally impute great power unto it in the works of Nature: and several changes of mans Body. Whereof see Censorinus de die natali, cap. 12. Varro in Gellium lib. 3. c. 10. Hippocrates, Solon, Hermippus Beritus in the sixth Book of Clemens of Alexandria, besides divers others. Nay, it grew up so high in the opinion of some men, that they derived it at the last, [...], i. e. ab insita majestate. So Philo tells us. Macrobius also saith the same. Apud veteres [...] vocitatur, De legis Alle­gor. quod graeco nomine testabatur venerationem debi­tam numero. Thus he in somnio Scipionis.

But other men as good as they find no such mystery in this number, but that the rest may keep pace with it, if not go before it: and some of those which so much magnifie the seventh, have found, as weighty mysteries in many of the others also. In which I shall the rather enlarge my self, that seeing the exceeding great both contradiction and contention that is between them in these needless curiosities; we [Page 332]may the better find the slightness of those Arguments, which seem to place a great mo­rality in this number of seven; as if it were by Nature the most proper number for the service of God. And first, whereas the learned men before mentioned, affix a special power unto it in the works of Nature,Respons. ad qu. 69. Justin the Martyr plainly tells us, [...], &c. that the accomplishment of the works of Nature is to be ascri­bed to Nature only, not unto any period of time accounted by the number of seven: and that they oft-times come to their perfection sooner, or later, than the said periods; which could not be, in case that Nature were observant of this number, as, they say, she is, and not this number tied to the course of Nature. [...], &c. Therefore (saith he) this number hath no influence on the works of Nature. Then whereas others attribute I know not what perfection to this number above all the rest; Cicero affirming that it is plenus numerus; Macrobius, that it is numerus solidus & perfectus: De Republ. l. 4. Bodinus doth affirm expresly, neutrum de septenario dici potest, that neither of those Attributes is to be ascribed unto this number; that the eighth number is a solid number, although not a perfect one; the sixth a perfect number also. Now as Bodinus makes the eighth more solid, and the sixth more per­fect; So Servius on these words of Virgil, In Georgic. 1. Septima post decimam foelix, prefers the tenth number a far deal before it: Ʋt primum locum decimae ferat, quae sit valde foelix; secundum septimae, ut quae post decimae foelicitatem secunda sit. Nay, which may seem more strange than this,Oratio secunda. the Arithmeticians generally, as we read in Nyssen, make this seventh number to be utterly barren and unfruitful, [...]. But to go forwards in this matter. Macrobius who before had said of this number of seven, that it is plenus & venerabilis; hath in the same Book said of this number of one, that it is principium finis & omnium, and that it hath a special reference or re­semblance unto God on high: which is by far the greater commendation of the two. And Hierom, In Amos 5. that however there be many mysteries in the number of seven: prima ta­men beatitudo est, esse in primo numero, yet the prime happiness or beatitude is to be sought for in the first. So for the third, Origen generally affirms that it is aptus sa­cramentis, even made for Mysteries:In Gen. hom. 8. and some particulars he nameth. Macrobius findeth in it all the natural faculties of the Soul; [...], or rational; [...], or irascible,Ad Antioch. qu. 51. and last of all [...], or concupiscible. Saint Athanasius makes it equal altogether with the seventh; the one being no less memorable for the holy Tri­nity, than the other for the Worlds Creation. And Servius on these words of Virgil, numero Deus impare gaudet, saith that the Pythagoreans hold it for a perfect number, and do resemble it unto God,In Eclog. 8. à quo principium & medium, & finis est. Yet on the contrary,De Republ. l. 4. Bodinus takes up Aristotle, Plutarch, and Lactantius, for saying that the third is a perfect number: there being in his reckoning, but four perfect numbers in 100000; which are 6.28.496. & 8128.De mundi opif. Next for the fourth, Philo, not only hath assured us, that it is [...], a perfect number, wherein Bodinus contradicts him: but that it is highly honoured,De Abrahamo. as amongst Philosophers, so by Moses also, who hath affirmed of it, that it is, [...], both holy, and praise-worthy too. And for the mysteries thereof, Clemens of Alexandria tells us, that both Jehovah in the Hebrew, Strom. l. 5. and [...] in the Greek, consisteth of four Letters only: and so doth Deus in the Latin. Orat. 44. Nazianzen further doth enform us, that as the seventh amongst the Hebrews, so was the fourth honoured by the Pythagoreans: [...], and that they used to swear thereby when they took an Oath. Yet for all this, Saint Ambrose thought this number not alone unprofitable but even dangerous also. Nu­merum quartum plerique canent, Lib. 4. c. 9. In Levit. hom. 16. & inutile putant, as he in his Hexaemeron. Then for the fifth, Macrobius tells us that it comprehendeth all things both in the Heavens above, and the Earth below. And yet by Origen it is placed indifferently, partly in lauda­bilibus, partly in culpabilibus; there being five foolish Virgins for the five wise ones.

Now let us look upon the sixth, X which Beda reckoneth to be numerus perfectus; and Bodin, In Gen. 2. De Rep. l. 4. De mundi opif. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 4. In Levit. 12. primus perfectorum. Philo, and generally the Pythagoreans do affirm the same. Yet the same Bodin tells us in the self-same Book, that howsoever it be the first perfect number, such as according unto Plato, did sort most fitly with the workman­ship of God, Videmus tamen vilissimis animantibus convenire, yet was it proper, in some sort, to the vilest creatures. As for the eighth, Hesychius makes it an expression, or figure of the World to come. Macrobius, tells us that the Pythagoreans used it as an Hieroglyphick of Justice, quia primus omnium solvitur in numeros pariter pares; because it will be always divisible into even or equal members. Nay, whereas those of Athens did use to sacrifice to Neptune, In Theseo. on the eighth day of every month: Plutarch hath found [Page 333]out such a mystical reason for it, out of the nature of that number, as others in the number of seven, for the morality of the Sabbath. They sacrifice (saith he) to Nep­tune on the eighth day of every month, because the number of eight is the first Cube, made of even numbers: and the double of the first square: [...], which doth represent an immoveable stedfastness properly attributed to the might of Neptune; whom for this cause we name Asphalius and [...], which signifieth the safe keeper and stayer of the Earth, As strong an Argument for the one, as any mystery or morality derived from Numbers, can be for the other. But if we look upon the tenth, we find a greater commendation given to that, than to the seventh: yea, by those very men themselves, to whom the seventh appeared so sacred, Philo affirms thereof, that of all Numbers it is most absolute and compleat;De mundi opif. D. congress. qu. erudit. gr. De Decalogo. not meanly celebrated by the Prophet Moses; most proper and familiar unto God himself, that the Powers and Vertues of it are innumerable: and finally, that leaned men did call it [...] quasi [...], because it comprehended in it self all kind of numbers. With whom agree Macrobius, who stiles it numerum perfectissimum; Strom. l. 6. and Clemens Alexandri­nus, who gives it both the Attributes of Holiness and Perfection,Qu. ad Anti­och. 51. Orat. 42. Nazianzen and A­thanasius are as full, as they. And here this number seems to me to have got the better: there being nothing spoken in disgrace of this, as was before of the seventh, by several Authors there remembred. So that for ought I see, in case the argument be good for the morality of the Sabbath, we may make every day, or any day a Sab­bath, with as much reason as the seventh: and keep it on the tenth day, with best right of all. Adeo argumenta ab absurdo petita ineptos habent exitus, said Lactantius truly. Nay, by this reason, we need not keep a Sabbath oftner, than every thirtieth day, or every fiftieth, or every hundredth: because those numbers have been noted also to contain great mysteries, and to be perfecter too than others.In Gen. hom. 2. For Origen hath plainly told us, that if we look into the Scriptures, invenies multa magnarum rerum gesta sub tricenario & quinquagenario contineri; we shall find many notable things delivered to us in the numbers of thirty and fifty.De vita con­templ. Of fifty more particularly Philo affirms upon his credit, that it is [...], the holiest and most na­tural of all other numbers: and Origen conceived so highly of it, that he breaks out into a timeo hujus numeri secreta discutere, and durst not touch upon that string.In Num. hom. 8. So lastly for the Centenary the same Author tells us, that it is plenus and perfectus, no one more absolute. We may have Sabbaths at our will, either too many, or too few,In Gen. hom. 2. if this plea be good.

Yea, but perhaps, there may be some thing in the Scripture, XI whereby the seventh day may be thought more capable, in Nature, of so high an honour. Some have so thought indeed, and thereupon have mustered up all those Texts of Scripture, in which there hath been any good expressed or intimated which concerns this number, or is reducible unto it. Bellarmine never took more pains, out of that fruitless topick to produce seven Sacraments: than they have done from thence to derive the Sabbath. I need not either name the men, or recite the places: both are known sufficiently. Which kind of proof if it be good, we are but where we were before, amongst our Ecclesiastical and humane Writers. In this, the Scriptures will not help us, or give the seventh day naturally, and in it self, more capability or fitness for Gods Worship, than the ninth or tenth. For first the Scriptures give not more honour to this number in some Texts thereof, than it detracts from it in others: and secondly, they speak as highly of the other numbers, as they do of this.In Gen. 6. n. 17. The Jesuit Pererius shall stand up to make good the first; and Doctor Cracanthorp to avow the second. Pererius first re­solves it clearly, numerum Septenarium etiam in rebus pessimis & execrandis saepenumero positum esse in Scriptura sacra. As for example. The evil spirit (saith St. Luke) brought with him seven spirits worse than himself: and out of Mary Magdalen did Christ cast out seven Devils, as St Mark tells us. So in the Revelation, St. John informs us of a Dra­gon that had seven Heads and seven Crowns, as also of seven Plagues, sent into the Earth, and seven Viols of Gods wrath poured out upon it. (He might have told us had he listed, that the purple Beast whereon the great Whore rid, had seven Heads also, and that she sat upon seven Mountains.) It's true (saith he) which David tells us, that he did praise God seven times a day: but then as true it is, which Solomon hath told us, that the just man falleth seven times a day. So in the Book of Genesis, we have seven lean Kine, and seven thin ears of Corn; as well as seven fat Kine, and seven full Ears: To proceed no further. Pererius hereupon makes this general resolution of the case; Apparet igitur eosdem numeros, aeque in bonis & malis poni, & usurpari in sacra scriptura. [Page 334]Next whereas those of Rome, as before I noted, have gone the same way to find out seven Sacraments: Contra Spalat. cap. 30. our Cracanthorpe, to shew the vanity of that Argument, doth the like, for the proof of two. Quod & si nobis fas esset, &c. If it were lawful for us to take this course, we could produce more for the number of two, than they can for seven. As for example, God made two great lights in the Firmament, and gave to man two Eys, two Ears, two Feet, two Hands, two Arms. There were two Nations in the womb of Rebecca, two Tables of the Law, two Cherubins, two Sardonich stones in which were written the names of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt offer to the Lord, two Rams, two Turtles, two Lambs of an year old, two young Pigeons, two Hee-goats, two Oxen for a Peace-Offering. Let us make two Trumpets, two Doors of the wood of Olives, two Nets, two Pillars. There were two Horns of the Lamb, two Candlesticks, two Olive-branches, two Witnesses, two Prophets, two Testaments; and upon two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets, saith our Saviour. Congruentiis facile vinceremus, si nobis in hunc campum descendere libet, &c. We should (saith he) presume of an easie victory, should we thus dally with congruities, as do those of Rome. Hence we con­clude, that by the light of Scripture, we find not any thing in Nature, why either every seventh day should; or every second day should not be a Sabbath. Not to say any thing of the other Numbers, of which the like might be affirmed; if we would trouble our selves about it.

It's true, XII this Trick of trading in the mysteries of Numbers, is of long standing in the Church, and of no less danger: first borrowed from the Platonists and the Pythago­reans; by the ancient Hereticks, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, and the rest of that damned crew; the better to disguise their errours, and palliate their impieties. Some of the Fathers afterwards took up the device, perhaps to foil the Hereticks at their own weapons: though many of them purposely declined it. Sure I am Chrysostom dis­likes it.In Gen. hom. 24. Who on those words in the 7th of Genesis, by seven and by seven (which is the Number now debated) doth instruct us thus, [...], &c. Many (saith he) do tell strange matters of this fact, and taking an occasion hence, make many observations out of several Numbers. Whereas not observation, but only an unsea­sonable curiosity hath produced those fictions, [...], from whence so many Heresies had their first original. For oftentimes (that out of our abundance we may fit their fancies) we find the even or equal number no less commemo­rated in holy Scripture, as when God sent out his Disciples by two, and two: when he chose twelve Apostles and left four Evangelists. But these things it were needless to sug­gest to you, who have so many times been lessoned, [...], to stop your Ears against such follies. Saint Augustine also, though he had descanted a while upon the mysteries of this Number: yet he cuts off himself, in the very middle,De Civit. Dei, l. 11. c. 31. as it were, Ne scientiolam suam leviter magis quam utiliter, jactare velle videa­tur; lest he should seem to shew his reading, with more pride, than profit. And thereupon he gives this excellent Rule, which I could wish had been more practised in this case; Habenda est itaque ratio moderationis & gravitatis, ne forte cum de numero multum loquimur, mensuram & pondus negligere judicemus. We must not take, saith he, so much heed of Numbers, that we forget at the last, both weight and measure. And this we should the rather do, because that generally there is no Rule laid down, or any reason to be given in Nature, why some particular numbers have been set apart for particular uses, when other numbers might have served: why Hiericho should be rather compassed seven times, than six or eight; why Abraham rather train­ed three hundred and eighteen of his servants, than three hundred and twenty; or why his servant took ten Camels with him into Padan Aram, and not more or less: with infinite others of this kind in the Law Levitical. Yet I deny not, but that some reason may be given, why in the Scripture, things are so often ordered by se­vens and sevens: Respons. ad qu. 69. viz. as Justin Martyr tells, [...], the better to preserve the memory or the Worlds Creation. Another reason may be added, which is, by this inculcating of the number of seven, unto the Jews, to make that people, who otherwise were at first averse from it, as before I noted, continually mindful of the Sabbath.In Isaia 4. Numerum septenarium propter Sabbatum Judaeis familiarem esse, was the observation of S. Hierom. To draw this point unto an end, It is apparent by what hath before heen spoken, that there is no Sabbath to be found in the beginning of the World; or mentioned as a thing done, in the second of Ge­nesis: either on any strength of the Text it self, or by immediate Ordinance and [Page 335]command from God, collected from it, or by the law and light of nature imprinted in the soul of man at his first Creation; much less by any natural fitness in the number of seven, whereby it was most capable in it self of so high an honour, which first pre­mised, we shall the easier see what hath been done in point of practice.

CHAP. II. That there was no Sabbath kept, from the Creation to the Flood.

  • 1. Gods rest upon the Seventh day, and from what he rested.
  • 2. Zanchius conceit touching the Sanctifying of the first Seventh day, by Christ our Sa­viour.
  • 3. The like of Torniellus, touching the San­ctifying of the same, by the Angels in Hea­ven.
  • 4. A general demonstration that the Fathers before the Law did not keep the Sabbath.
  • 5. Of Adam, that he kept not the Sabbath.
  • 6. That Abel and Seth did not keep the Sab­bath.
  • 7. Of Enos, that he kept not the Sabbath.
  • 8. That Enoch and Methusalem did not keep the Sabbath.
  • 9. Of Noah, that he kept not the Sabbath.
  • 10. The Sacrifices and devotions of the An­cients were occasional.

HOW little ground there is, whereon to build the original of the Sabbath, I in the second of Genesis, we have at large declared in the former Chapter. Yet we deny not but that Text affords us a sufficient intimation of the equity and reason of it, which is Gods rest upon that day, after all his works that he had made.Origen. contra Cels. l. 6. Not as once Celsus did object against the Christians of his time, as if the Lord, [...], &c. like to some dull Artificer, was weary of his labours, and had need of sleep; for he spake the word only, and all things were made. There went no greater labour to the whole Creation than a dixit Dominus. De Gen. ad lit. l. 4. c. 14. Therefore Saint Austin rightly noteth, nec cum creavit defessus, nec cum cessavit refectus est; that God was neither weary of working, nor refreshed with resting. The meaning of the Text is this, that he desisted then from adding any thing, de novo, unto the World by him created; as having in the six former days, fashioned the Heaven and Earth, and every thing in them contained, and furnished them with all things necessary, both for use and ornament. I say, from adding any thing, de novo, unto the World by him cre­ated, but not from governing the same; which is a work by us as highly to be prized as the first Creation; and from the which God never resteth. Sabbaths and all days are alike in respect of providence, in reference to the universal government of the World and Nature. Semper videmus Deum operari, Hom. 23. in Num. & Sabbatum nullum est in quo Deus non operetur, in quo non producat Solem suum super bonos & malos. No Sabbath, whereon God doth rest from the administration of the World by him Created, where­on he doth not make his Sun to shine both on good and bad; whereon he rains not plenty upon the Sinner and the Just, as Origen hath truly noted. Nor is this more than what our Saviour said in his holy Gospel, I work, and my Father also worketh. Contra Faustum Man. l. 16. c. 6. A saying, as Saint Augustine notes, at which the Jews were much offended; our Saviour meaning by those words that God rested not, nec ullum sibi cessationis statuisse diem, and that there was no day wherein he tended not the preservation of the Creature; and therefore for his own part, he would not cease from doing his Fathers business, ne Sab­batis quidem, no, though it were upon the Sabbath. By which it seemeth, that when the Sabbath was observed, and that if still it were in force, it was not then, and would not be unlawful unto any now to look to his estate on the Sabbath day, and to take care that all things thrive and prosper which belong unto him; though he increase it not, or add thereto by following, on that day, the works of his daily labour. And this according to their rules, who would have Gods example so exactly followed in the Sabbaths rest; who rested, as we see, from Creation only, not from preservation. So that the rest here mentioned, was as before I said, no more than a cessation or a leaving off from adding any thing, as then, unto the World by him Created. Upon which ground he afterwards designed this day for his Holy Sabbath, that so by his ex­ample [Page 336]the Jews might learn to rest from their wordly labours, and be the better fitted to meditate on the works of God, and to commemorate his goodness manifested in the Worlds Creation.

Of any other Sanctification of this day, II by the Lord our God, than that he rested on it now, and after did command the Jews that they should sanctifie the same, we have no Constat in the Scriptures; nor in any Author that I have met with, until Zanchies time. Indeed he tells us a large story of his own making, how God the Son came down to Adam, and sanctified this first Sabbath with him, that he might know the better how to do the like.De creat. homi­nis l. 1. ad finem. Ego quidem non dubito, &c. I little doubt, saith he, (I will speak only what I think, without wrong or prejudice to others, I little doubt) but that the Son of God taking the shape of man upon him, was busied all this day in most holy confe­rences with Adam, and that he made known himself both to him and Eve, taught them the order that he used in the Worlds Creation, exhorted them to meditate on those glorious works, in them to praise the Name of God, acknowledging him for their Creator; and after his ex­ample, to spend that day for ever in these pious exercises. I doubt not, finally, saith he, but that he taught them on that day the whole body of divinity; and that he held them busied all day long, in hearing him, and celebrating with due praises their Lord and God; and giving thanks unto him for so great and many benefits as God had graciously vouchsafed to bestow upon them. Which said, he shuts up all with this conclusion. Haec est illius septimi diei bene­dictio & sanctificatio, in qua filius Dei una cum patre & spiritu sancto, quievit ab ope­re quod facerat. This was (saith he) the blessing and sanctifying of that seventh day, wherein the Son of God, together with the Father and the Holy Ghost, did rest from all the works that they had made. How Zanchie thwarts himself in this, we shall see hereafter. Such strange conceptions,See n. 5. though they miscarry not in birth, yet commonly they serve to no other use than monsters in the works of nature, to be seen and shewn, with wonder at all times, and sometimes with pity. Had such a thing occurred in Pet. Comestors supplement, which he made unto the Bible, it had been more tolerable. The Legendaries and the Rabbins might fairly also have been excused if any such device had been extant in them. The gravity of the man makes the tale more pitiful, though never the more to be regarded. For certainly, had there been such a weighty confe­rence between God and Man, and so much tending unto information and instruction, it is not probable but that we should have heard thereof in the holy Scriptures. And finding nothing of it there, it were but unadvisedly done, to take it on the word and credit of a private man. Non credimus quia non legimus, was in some points Saint Hieroms rule, and shall now be ours.

As little likelihood there is, III that the Angels did observe this day, and sanctifie the same to the Lord their God; yet some have been so venturous as to affirm it. Sure I am Torniellus saith it.Annal. d. 7. And though he seem to have some Authors, upon whom to cast it; yet his approving of it makes it his, as well as theirs who first devised it. Quidam, non immerito, existimarunt hoc ipso die in Coelis omnes Angelorum choros, speciali quadam ex­ultatione in Dei laudes prorupisse, quod tam praeclarum & admirabile opus absolvisset. Nay, he,38.4.6. and they, whoever they were, have a Scripture for it, even Gods word to Job: Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth; when the morning stars sang toge­ther, and all the Sons of God shouted for joy? Who, and from whence those Quidam were, that so interpreted Gods words, I could never find, and yet have took some pains to seek it.De Civit. Dei, l. 11. c. 9. Sure I am, Saint Austin makes a better use of them, and comes home indeed unto the meaning. Some men, it seems, affirmed that the Angels were not made till after the six days were finished, in which all things had been created; and he refers them to this Text for their confutation. Which being repeated, he concludes, Jam ergo erant Angeli, quando facta sunt sydera, facta autem sunt sydera die quarto. There­fore (saith he) the Angels were created before the Stars; and on the fourth day were the Stars created. Yet Zanchius, and those Quidam, be they who they will, fell short a little of another conceit of Philos, De vita Mosis lib. 3. who tells us that the Sabbath had a priviledge above other days, not only from the first Creation of the World (though that had been enough to set out the Sabbath:) [...], but even before the Heavens and all things visible were created. If so it must be sanctified by the holy Trinity, without the tongues of Men and Angels, and God, not having worked, must rest, and sanctifie a time, when no time was: But to return to Torniellus, however those Quidam did mislead him, and make him think that the first Sabbath had been sanctified by the holy Angels;Annal. d. 7. yet he ingenuously confesseth that sanctifying of the Sabbath here upon the earth, was not in use till very many Ages af­ter, [Page 337]not till the Law was given by Moses. Veruntamen in terris ista Sabbati sanctificatio non nisi post multa secula in usum venisse creditur, nimirum temporibus Mosis, quando sub praecepto data est filiis Israel. So Torniellus.

So Torniellus, and so far unquestionable. IV For that there was no Sabbath kept a­mongst us men, till the times of Moses, the Christian Fathers generally, and some Rabbins also, have agreed together. Which that we may the better shew, I shall first let you see what they say in general, and after what they have delivered of particular men, most eminent in the whole story of Gods Book, until the giving of the Law. And first, that never any of the Patriarchs before Moses time, did observe the Sabbath, Justin the Martyr hath assured us, [...].Dial. cum Tryph. None of the righteous men, saith he, and such as walked before the Lord, were either circumcised or kept the Sabbath, until the several times of Abraham and Moses. And where the Jews were scandalized, in that the Christians did eat hot meats on the Sabbath days, the Martyr makes reply, that the said just and righteous men, not taking heed of any such ob­servances, [...], obtained a notable testimony of the Lord himself. Adv. haeres. l. 4. c. 30. So Irenaeus having first told us that Circumcision and the Sabbath were both given for signs; and having spoken particularly of Abraham, Noah, Lot, and Enoch, that they were justified without them; adds for the close of all, that all the multitude of the faith­ful, before Abraham, were justified without the one; Et Patriarcharum eorum qui ante Mosen fuerunt, and all the Patriarchs which preceded Moses without the other.Adv. Judaeos. Tertullian next, disputeth thus against the Jews, that they which think the Sabbath must be still observed as necessary to salvation; or Circumcision to be used upon pain of death: Doceant in Praeteritum justos sabbatizasse, aut circumcidisse, & sic amicos Dei effectos esse; ought first of all, saith he, to prove, That the Fathers of the former times were Circum­cised or kept the Sabbath, or that thereby they did obtain to be accounted the friends of God. Then comes Eusebius the Historian, and he makes it good,Hist. l. 1. c. 4. that the Religion of the Patriarchs before Moses Law, was nothing different from the Christian: And how proves he that? [...], They were not Circumcised, no more are we; they kept not any Sabbath, no more do we; they were not bound to abstinence from sundry kinds of meats, which are prohibited by Moses, nor are we neither. Which argument he also useth to the self­same purpose in his first book, de demonstr. Evang. and sixth Chapter. And in his seventh, de praeparatione, he resolves it thus, [...],Cap. 6. &c. The Hebrews which preceded Moses, and were quite ignorant of his Law (whereof he makes the Sabbath an especial part) disposed their ways according to a voluntary kind of piety, [...], framing their lives and actions to the law of nature. This argument is also used by Epiphanius, Adv. haereses l. 1. n. 5. who speaking of the first Ages of the World, informs us, that as then there was no difference among men in matters of opi­nion, no Judaism, nor kind of Heresie whatsoever; [...], &c. but that the faith which doth now flourish in Gods Church, was from the beginning. If so, no Sabbath was observed in the times of old, because none in his. I could enlarge my Catalogue, but that some testimonies are to be reserved to another place; when I shall come to shew you that the Commandment of the Sabbath was published to Gods People by Moses only,See Ch. 4. and that to none but to the Jews. After so many of the Fathers, the modern Writers may per­haps seem unnecessary; yet take one or two. First, Musculus, 2 Edit. p. 12. (as Doctor Bound in­forms me, for I take his word) who tells us that it cannot be proved that the Sabbath was kept before the giving of the Law, either from Adam to Noah, or from the Flood to the times of Moses, or of Abraham and his Posterity. Which is no more than what we shall see shortly out of Eusebius. Hospinian next,De festis. 1. cap. 3. who though he fain would have the sanctifying of the Sabbath to be as old as the beginning of the world; yet he con­fesseth at the last, Patres idcirco Sabbatum observasse ante legem, that for all that it cannot be made good by the Word of God, that any of the Fathers did observe it before the Law. These two I have the rather cited, because they have been often vouched in the publick controversie, as men that wished well to the cause, and say somewhat in it.

We are now come unto particulars. V And first we must begin with the first man Adam. The time of his Creation as the Scriptures tell us, the sixth day of the week, being as Scaliger conjectured in the first Edition of his work,Emend. temp. l. 5. the three and twentieth day of April; and so the first Sabbath, Sabbatum primum, so he calls it, was the four [Page 338]and twentieth.Doctrina temp. l. 4. c. 6. Petavius, by his computation, makes the first Sabbath to be the first day of November; and Scaliger, in his last Edition, the five and twentieth of October; more near to one another than before they were. Yet saith not Scaliger, that that primum Sabbatum had any reference to Adam, though first he left it so at large, that probably some might so conceive it; for in his later thoughts he declares his meaning to be this, Sabbatum primum in quo Deus requievit ab opere Hexaemeri. Indeed the Chaldee paraphrase seems to affirm of Adam, that he kept the Sabbath. For where the 92 Psalm doth bear this title, A Song or Psalm for the Sabbath day, the Authors of that Paraphrase do expound it thus, Laus & Canticum quod dixit homo primus pro die Sab­bati, the Song or Psalm which Adam said for the Sabbath day. Somewhat more wary in this point was Rabbi Kimchi, who tells us how that Adam was created upon Friday about three of the Clock, fell at eleven, was censured and driven out of Paradise at twelve, that all the residue of that day, and the following night he bemoaned his mi­series; was taken into grace next morning, being Sabbath day; and taking then into consideration all the works of God, brake out into such words as those, although not the same. A tale that hath as much foundation, as that narration of Zanchy, before remembred. Who though he seem to put the matter out of doubt with his three non dubito's, that Christ himself did sanctifie the first Sabbath with our Father Adam, and did command him ever after to observe that day; yet in another place, he makes it only a matter of probability,In 4. Manda­tum. that the commandment of the Sabbath, was given at all to our first Parents. Quomodo autem sanctificavit? Non solum decreto & voluntate sed reipsa; quia illum diem, (ut non pauci volunt & probabile est) mandavit primis parentibus sanctifi­candum. So easily doth he overthrow his former structure. But to return unto the Rabbins, and this dream of theirs, besides the strangeness of the thing, that Adam should continue not above eight hours in Paradise, and yet give names to all the [...]a­tures, fall into such an heavy sleep, and have the Woman taken out of him, that the must be instructed, tempted, and that both must sin, and both must suffer in so short a time: Besides all this, the Christian Fathers are express, that Adam never kept the Sab­bath. Justin the Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, a learned Jew, makes Adam one of those, [...], &c. [...], which being neither circum­cised, nor keeping any Sabbath,Adv. Judaeos. were yet accepted by the Lord. And so Tertullian in a Treatise written against the Jews, affirms of Adam, quod nec circumcisum nec sabbati­zantem Deus eum instituerit. Nay, which is more, he makes a challenge to the Jews, to prove unto him if they could, that Adam ever kept the Sabbath. Doceant Adamum sabbatizasse, as he there hath it. Which doubtless neither of them would have done, considering with whom the one disputed, and against whom the other wrote; had they not been very well assured of what they said. The like may be affirmed both of Eusebius and Epiphanius, De Praepar. E­vang. l. 7. c. 8. and most learned Fathers. Whereof the first, maintaining positively that the Sabbath was first given by Moses, makes Adam one of those which neither troubled himself with Circumcision, [...], nor any of the Law of Moses: Adv. haereses. l. 1. n. 5. The other reckoneth him amongst those also, who lived according to that faith, which when he wrote, was generally received in the Chri­stian Church. Therefore no Sabbath kept by our Father Adam.

But whatsoever Adam did, VI Abel, I hope, was more observant of this duty. Thus some have said indeed, but on no authority. It is true the Scriptures tell us, that he offered Sacrifice: but yet the Scriptures do not tell us, that in his Sacrifices he had more regard unto the seventh day, than to any other. To offer Sacrifice he might learn of Adam, or of natural reason, which doth sufficiently instruct us, that we ought all to make some publick testimony of our subjection to the Lord. But neither Adam did observe the Sabbath, nor could Nature teach it, as before is shewn. And howsoever some Modern Writers have conjectured, and conjectured only, that Abel in his Sacrifices might have respect unto the Sabbath: yet those whom we may better trust, have affirm'd the contrary. For Justin Martyr disputing against Trypho, brings Abel in for an example; that neither Circumcision nor the Sabbath, the two great glories of the Jews, were to be counted necessary. For if they were, saith he, God had not had so much regard to Abels Sacrifice, being as he was uncircumcised: and then he adds [...], &c. [...], that though he was no Sabbath-keeper, yet was he acceptable unto God.Adv. Judaeos. And so Tertullian, that God accepted of his Sa­crifice, though he were neither circumcised, nor kept the Sabbath. Abelem offerentem sacrificia incircumcisum neque sabbatizantem laudavit Deus, accepta ferens quae in simpli­citate cordis offerebat. Yea, and he brings him also into his challenge, Doceant Abel [Page 339] hostiam Deo sanctam offerentem, Sabbati religionem placuisse: which is directly contrary to that, which is conjectured by some Modern Writers,Adv. haeres. l. 1. n. 5. So Epiphanius also makes him one of those, who lived according to the tendries of the Christian Faith. The like he also saith of Seth, whom God raised up instead of Abel, to our Father Adam. Therefore no Sabbath kept by either.

It is conceived of Abel that he was killed in the one hundred and thirtieth year of the Worlds Creation: of Enos, Seths son, that he was born Anno two hundred thirty six. VII And till that time there was no Sabbath. But then, as some conceive the Sabbath day be­gan to be had in honour, because it is set down in Scripture, that then began men to call upon the Name of the Lord. That is, as Torniellus descants upon the place, then, Gen. 4. Annal. Anno 236. n. 4. were spiritual Congregations instituted, as we may probably conjecture, certain set Forms of Prayers and Hymns devised to set forth Gods glory, certain set times and places also set apart for those pious duties: praecipue diebus Sabbati, especially the Sabbath-days, in which most likely they began to abstain from all servile works, in honour of that God, whom they well knew had rested on the seventh day from all his labours. Sure Torniellus's mind was upon his Mattins, when he made this Paraphrase. He had not else gathered a Sabbath from this Text, considering that not long before he had thus concluded; That sanctifying of the Sabbath here on Earth was not in use, until the Law was given by Moses. But certainly this Text will bear no such matter, were it considered as it ought. The Chaldee Paraphrase thus reads it, Tunc in diebus ejus inceperunt filii hominum, ut non orarent in nomine Domini; V. 3. of this Chapter. which is quite contrary to the English. Our Bibles of the last Translation in the margin, thus; then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord: and generally the Jews, as Saint Hierom tells us, do thus gloss upon it, Tunc primum in nomine Domini, Qu. Hebraic. in Gen. & in similitudine ejus fabricata sunt idola; that then began men to set up Idols both in the name, and after the similitude of God. Ainsworth in his Translation thus, Then began men prophanely to call upon the Name of the Lord: who tells us also in his Annotations on this Text, out of Rabbi Maimony, That in these days Idolatry took its first beginning, and the people worshipped the stars and all the host of Heaven; so gene­rally that at the last there were few left which acknowledged God, as Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Sem, and Heber. So that we see not any thing in this Text, sufficient to pro­duce a Sabbath. But take it as the English reads it, which is agreeable to the Greek, and vulgar Latin; and may well stand with the Original: yet will the cause be little better. For men might call upon Gods Name, and have their publick meetings and set Forms of Prayer, without relation to the seventh day more than any other. As for this Enos, Eusebius proposeth him unto us, [...],De Praeparat. Evang. l. 7, [...]. as the first man commended in the Scripture for his love to God: that we by his example might learn to call upon Gods Name with assured hope. But yet withal he tells us of him, that he observed not any of those Ordinances which Moses taught unto the Jews, whereof the Sabbath was the chief; as formerly we observed in Adam. And Epiphanius ranks him amongst those Fathers, who lived according to the Rules of the Christian Church: Therefore no Sabbath kept by Enos,

We will next look on Enoch, who, as the Text tells us, walked with God, VIII and there­fore doubt we not, but he would carefully have kept the Sabbath, had it been requi­red. But of him also, the Fathers generally say the same, as they did before of others. For Justin Martyr not only makes him one of those which without Circumcision and the Sabbath, had been approved of by the Lord: but pleads the matter more exactly. The substance of his plea is this, that if the Sabbath or Circumcision were to be count­ed necessary to eternal life, we must needs fall upon this absurd opinion, [...],Dial. cum Try­phone that the same God whom the Jews worshipped, was not the God of Enoch, and of other men about those times: which neither had been Circumcised, [...], nor kept the Sabbath, nor any other Ordinances of the Law of Moses. So Irenaeus speaking before of Cir­cumcision and the Sabbath, placeth this Enoch among those,Lib. 4. cap. 30. qui sine iis quae praedicta sunt justificationem adepti sunt, which had been justified without any the Ordinances before remembred. Tertullian more fully yet. Enoch justissimum nec circumcisum, Adv. Judaeos. nec sabba­tizantem, de hoc mundo transtulit, &c. Enoch that righteous man being neither Circum­cised nor a Sabbath-keeper, was by the Lord translated, and saw not death, to be an Item or instruction unto us, that we, without the burden of the Law of Moses, shall be found ac­ceptable unto God. He sets him also in his challenge, as one whom never any of the Jews could prove, Sabbati cultorem esse, to have been a keeper of the Sabbath. De Demonstr. l. 4. c. 6. Euse­bius too, who makes the Sabbath one of Moses's institutions, hath said of Enoch, that [Page 340]he was neither circumcised, nor medled with the Law of Moses: [...], &c. and that he lived more like a Christian, than a Jew. the same Eusebius in his seventh de praeparatione, and Epiphanius in the place before remembred, affirm the same of him, as they do of Adam, Abel, Seth, and Enos: and what this Epiphanius saith of him,Scal. de Emend. Temp. l. 7. that he affirms also of his son Methusalem. There­fore nor Enoch, nor Methusalem ever kept the Sabbath. It's true, the Aethiopians in their Kalendar have a certain period, which they call Sabbatum Enoch, Enoch's Sab­bath. But this consisteth of seven hundred years, and hath that name, either because Enoch was born in the seventh Century from the Creation, viz. in the year six hun­dred twenty two, or because he was the seventh from Adam. It's true, that many of the Jews, Beda in Ger. 4. and some Christians too, have made this Enoch an Emblem of the heaven­ly and eternal Sabbath, which shall never end: because he was the seventh from Adam, and did never taste of death, as did the six that went before him. But this is no Ar­gument, I trow, that Enoch ever kept the Sabbath whiles he was alive. Note that this Enoch was translated about the year nine hundred eighty seven: and that Methu­salem died but one year only before the Flood, which was 1655. And so far we are safely come, without any rub.

To come unto the Flood it self, IX to Noah, who both saw it, and escaped it; it is affirmed by some, that he kept the Sabbath: and that both in the Ark, and when he was released out of it, if not before. Yea, they have arguments also for the proof hereof, but very weak ones: such as they dare not trust themselves. It is delivered in the eighth of the Book of Genesis, that after the return of the Dove into the Ark, Noah stayed yet other seven days before he sent her forth again.Ver. 10. & 12. De festis c. 3. What then? This seems unto Hospinian to be an argument for the Sabbath. In hostoria diluvii, columbae ex arca emissae septenario dierum intervallo, ratione sabbati videntur. So he, and so ver­batim, Josias Simler, in his Comment on the twentieth of Exodus. But to this argu­ment, if at the least it may be honoured with that name, Tostatus hath returned an Answer as by way of Prophecy. He makes this Quaere first, sed quare ponit hic, quod Noe exspectabat semper septem dies, In Gen. 8. &c. Why Noah, betwixt every sending of the Dove, expected just seven days, neither more nor less: and then returns this answer to it, such as indeed doth excellently satisfie both his own Quaere, and the present argument. Resp. quod Noah intendebat scire utrum aquae cessassent, &c. Noah (saith he) desired to know whether the waters were decreased. Now since the Waters being a moist body, are regulated by the Moon, Noah was most especially to regard her motions: for as she is either in opposition or conjunction with the Sun, in her increase or in her wane, there is proportionably an increase or falling of the Waters, Noah then considering the Moon in her several quar­ters, which commonly we know are at seven days distance, sent forth his Birds to bring him tiding: for the Text tells us that he sent out the Raven and the Dove four times. And the fourth time, the Moon being then in the last quarter, when both by the ordinary course of Nature the Waters usually are, and by the Will of God were then much decreased: the Dove which was sent out had found good footing on the Earth, and returned no more. So far the learn­ed Abulensis; which makes clear the case. Nor stand we only here, upon our de­fence. For we have proof sufficient that Noah never kept the Sabbath. Justin the Martyr, Ubi supra. and Irenaeus both make him one of those, which without Circumcision and the Sabbath, were very pleasing unto God, and also justified without them. Tertullian, positively saith it, that God delivered him from the great Water-flood, nec circumci­sum, nec sabbatizantem: Adv. Judaeos. and challengeth the Jews to prove if any way they could, sabbatum observasse, that he kept the Sabbath. Eusebius also tells us of him, that being a just man, and one whom God preserved as a remaining spark to kindle Piety in the World,De demonstr. l. 1. c. 6. yet knew not any thing that pertained to the Jewish Ceremony: not Cir­cumcision [...], nor any other thing ordained by Moses. Remember that Eusebius makes the Sabbath one of Moses's Ordi­nances. Finally, Epiphanius in the place before remembred, ranks Noah in this particular, with Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, and the other Patriarchs.

It's true, X that Joseph Sealiger once made the day, whereon Noah left the Ark, and offered sacrifice to the Lord,De Emendat. Temp. l. 5. to be the seventh day of the week, 28. Decembris, feria sep­tima, egressus Noah, [...] immolavit Deo, saith his first Edition. Which were enough to cause some men, who infinitely admire his Dictates, from thence to have derived a Sabbath: had he not changed his mind in the next Edition, and placed this memorable action, not on the seventh day, but the fourth. I say it might have caused some men, for all men would not so have doted, as from a special [Page 341]accident to conclude a practice. Considering especially that there is no ground in Scripture to prove that those before the Law, had in their Sacrifices any regard at all to set Times and Dayes, either unto the sixth day, or the seventh, or eighth, or any other: but did their service to the Lord. I mean the publick part thereof, and that which did consist in external action, according as occasion was administred unto them. The offerings of Cain and Abel, for ought we can inform our selves, were not very frequent, The Scripture tells us that it was in process of time; Gen. 4.3. at the years end as some expound it. For at the years end; as, Ainsworth noteth; men were wont in most solemn manner, to offer sacrifice unto God, with thanks for all his benefits, ha­ving then gathered in their fruits. The Law of Moses so commanded;Exod. 23.16. the ancient Fathers so observed it, as by this place we may conjecture; and so it was accustomed too among the Gentiles; their ancient Sacrifices and their Assemblies to that purpose, (as Aristotle hath informed us) being after the gathering in of fruits.Ethic. l. 8. No day se­lected for that use, that we can hear of. This Sacrifice of Noah, as it was remarkable, so it was occosional: an Eucharistical Oblation for the great deliverance, which did that day befall unto him. And had it hapned on the seventh day, it were no argu­ment that he made choice thereof as most fit and proper, or that he used to sacrifice more upon that day, than on any other. So that of Abraham in the twelfth of Ge­nesis, was occasional only. The Lord appeared to Abraham saying,Gen. 12.7. Ʋnto thy seed will I give this land (the land of Canaan.) And then it followeth that Abraham builded there an Altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him. The like he did when he first set his footing in the promised Land, and pitched his Tents not far from Bethel, Ver. 8. and when he came to plant in the Plain of Mamre, in the next Chapter. See the like, Verse 18 Gen. 21.33. & 1.22, 13. Of Isaac, Gen. 26.25. Of Jacob, Gen. 28.8. & 31.54. & 33.20. & 35.7, 14. No mention in the Scripture of any Sacrifice or publick Worship, but the occasion is set down. Hoc ratio naturalis dictat, In Gen. 8.20. ut de donis suis ho­noretur imprimis ipse qui dedit. Natural reason, saith Rupertus, could instruct them, that God was to be honoured with some part of that, which he himself had given un­to them: but natural reason did not teach them, that one day differed from ano­ther.

CHAP. III. That the SABBATH was not kept from the Flood to Moses.

  • 1. The sons of Noah did not keep the Sab­bath.
  • 2. The Sabbth could not have been kept, in the dispersion of Noahs sons, had it been commanded.
  • 3. Diversity of Longitudes and Latitudes, must of necessity make a variation in the Sabbath.
  • 4. Melchisedech, Heber, Lot, did not keep the Sabbath.
  • 5. Of Abraham and his sons, that they kept not the Sabbath.
  • 6. That Abraham did not keep the Sabbath in the confession of the Jews.
  • 7. Jacob nor Job no Sabbath keepers.
  • 8. That neither Joseph, Moses, nor the Is­raelites in Egypt did observe the Sab­bath.
  • 9. The Israelites not permitted to offer Sa­crifice while they were in Egypt.
  • 10. Particular proofs that all the Moral Law was both known and kept amongst the Fathers.

WE are now come unto the hither side of the Flood, to the sons of Noah. I To whom, the Hebrew Doctors say, their Father did bequeath seven several Commandments, which they and their posterity were bound to keep.In Lexilo. p. 1530. Septem praecep­ta acceperunt filii Noah, &c. as Shindler reckoneth them out of the Rabbi Maimony. First, That they dealt uprightly with every man: Secondly, That they should bless and magnifie the Name of God: Thirdly, That they abstained from worshipping false gods, and from all Idolatry: Fourthly, That they forbear all unlawful lusts and copulations: The fifth against shedding Blood: The sixth against Theft and Rob­bery: The seventh and last, a prohibition not to eat the flesh, or any member of a Beast, taken from it when it was alive; whereby all cruelty was forbidden. These [Page 342]precepts whosoever violated, either of Noahs Sons, or their Posterity, was to be smit­ten with the sword. Yea, these Commandments were reputed so agreeable to na­ture, that all such Heathens as would yield to obey the same, were suffered to remain and dwell amongst the Israelites, though they received not Circumcision, nor any of the Ordinances which were given by Moses. So that amongst the precepts given unto the Sons of Noah, we find no footstep of the Sabbath. And where a Modern Writer, whom I spare to name, hath made the keeping of the Sabbath a member of the second precept, or included in it; it was not so advisedly done: there being no such thing at all,Cunaeus de re­pab. Hebr. 2.19. either in Schindler, whom he cites, nor in Cunaeus, who repeats the self-same pre­cepts from the self-same Rabbi. Nay, which is more, the Rabbin out of whom they cite it, doth in another place exclude expresly the observation of the Sabbath out of the number of these Precepts given to the Sons of Noah. Ap. Ainsworth in Exod. 20. The Man and Woman- servant, saith he, which are commanded to keep the Sabbath, are Servants that are Circumcised, or Baptized, &c. But Servants not Circumcised nor Baptised, but only such as have received the seven Commandements given to the Sons of Noah, they are as sojourning strangers, and may do work for themselves openly on the Sabbath, as any Israelite may on a working day. So Rabbi Maymony, in his Treatise of the Sabbath, chap. 20. §. 14. If then we find no Sabbath amongst the Sons of Noah, whereof some of them were the Sons of their Fathers piety; there is no thought of meeting with it in their Children, or their Childrens Children, the builders of the Tower of Babel. For they being terrified with the late Deluge, as some conjecture, and to procure the name of great undertakers, as the Scripture saith, resolved to build themselves a Tower, unto the top whereof, the wa­ters should in no wise reach.Antiqu. Jud. l. 1. cap. 5. A work of a most vast extent, if we may credit those reports that are made thereof, and followed by the People, as Josephus tells us, with their utmost industry, there being none amongst them idle. If none amongst them would be idle, as likely that no day was spared from so great an action as they conceived that work to be. They that durst bid defiance to the Heaven of God were never like to keep a Sabbath to the God of Heaven. The action was begun and ended, Anno 1940. or thereabouts.

To ruinate these vain attempts, II it pleased the Lord first to confound the Language of the People, which before was one; and after to disperse them over all the earth. By means of which dispersion, they could not possibly have kept one and the same day for a Sabbath, had it been commanded; the days in places of a different longitude, which is the distance of a place from the first Meridian, beginning at such different times, that no one day could be precisely kept amongst them. The proof and ground whereof, I will make bold to borrow from my late Learned friend Nath. Carpenter, that I may manifest in some sort the love I bore him; though probably I might have furnished out this argument from mine own wardrobe; at least have had recourse to many other Learned men, who have written of it. For that the difference of time is varied ac­cording to the difference of longitudes, in divers places of the earth may be made mani­fest to every mans understanding, out of these two principles: First, if the earth is sphaerical, and secondly, that the Sun doth compass it about in twenty-four hours. From hence it comes to pass, that places situate Eastward see the Sun sooner than those do that are placed Westward. And that with such a different proportion of time, that unto every hour of the Suns motion, there is assigned a certain number of miles upon the Earth; every fifteen degrees, which is the distance of the Meridians, being com­puted to make one hour; and every fifteen miles upon the Earth, correspondent to one minute of that hour. By this we may perceive how soon the noon-tide hapneth in one City before another. For if one City stands Eastward of another, the space of three of the aforesaid Meridians, which is 2700. miles, it is apparent that it will enjoy the noon-tide no less than three hours before the other; and consequently in 10800. miles, which is half the compass of the Earth, there will be found no less than twelve hours difference in the rising and setting of the Sun, as also in the noon and mid-night. The reason of which difference of times, is as before we said the difference of longitudes, wherein to every hour, Cosmographers have allotted fifteen degrees in the Suns diurnal motion; so that fifteen degrees being multiplied by twenty-four hours, which is the natural day, the product will be 360. which is the number of degrees in the whole circle. Now in these times, wherein the Sons of Noah dispersed themselves, in case the Sabbath was to have been kept, as simply moral, it must needs follow that the mo­ral Law is subject unto manifold mutations and uncertainties, which must not be granted. For spreading as they did over all the Earth, some farther, some at shorter [Page 343]distance, and thereby changing longitudes with their habitations; they must of meer necessity alter the difference of times and days, and so could keep no day together. Nor could their issue since their time observe exactly and precisely the self-same day, by reason of the manifold transportation of Colonies, and transmigration of Nations from one Region to another, whereby the times must of necessity be supposed to vary. The Author of the Practice of Piety, though he plead hard for the morality of the Sab­bath, cannot but confess, that in respect of the diversity of the Meridians, and the unequal rising and setting of the Sun, every day varieth in some places a quarter, in some half, in others an whole day; therefore the Jewish Sabbath cannot (saith he) be precisely kept in the same instant of time, every where in the World. Certainly if it cannot now, then it never could; and then it would be found, that some at least of Noahs posterity, and all that have from them descended, either did keep at all no Sabbath, or not upon the day ap­pointed, which comes all to one. Or else it needs must follow that God imposed a Law upon his People, which in it self, without relation to the frailty, ne dum to the iniquity of poor man, could not in possibility have been observed: Yea, such a Law as could not generally have been kept, had Adam still continued in his perfect innocence.

To make this matter yet more plain, It is a Corollary or conclusion in Geography, III that if two men do take a journey from the self-same place, round about the Earth; the one Eastward, the other Westward, and meet in the same place again; it will appear that he which hath gone East, hath gotten, and that the other going Westward, hath lost a day in their accompt. The reason is, because he that from any place assigned doth travel Eastward, moving continually against the proper motion of the Sun, will shorten somewhat of his day; taking so much from it, as his journey in proportion of distance from the place assigned, hath first opposed, and so anticipated in that time the diurnal motion of the Sun. So daily gaining something from the length of day, it will amount in the whole circuit of the Earth to twenty-four hours, which are a perfect natural day. The other going Westward, and seconding the course of the Sun by his own journey, will by the same reason add as much proportionably unto his day, as the other lost, and in the end will lose a day in his accompt. For demonstration of the which, suppose of these two Travellers, that the former for every fifteen miles should take away one minute from the length of the day, and the latter add as much unto it in the like proportion of his journey. Now by the Golden Rule, if every fif­teen miles subtract or add one minute in the length of the day, then must 21600. miles, which is the compass of the Earth, add or subtract 1440. minutes, which make up twenty-four hours, a just natural day. To bring this matter home unto the business now in hand, suppose we that a Turk, a Jew, and a Christian, should dwell together at Hierusalem, whereof the one doth keep his Sabbath on the Friday, the other on the Saturday, and the third sanctifieth the Sunday; then, that upon the Saturday the Turk begin his Journey Westward, and the Christian Eastward; so as both of them compassing the world do meet again in the same place, the Jew continuing where they left him. It will fall out, that the Turk by going West­ward, having lost a day; and the Christian going Eastward, having got a day: one and the same day, will be a Friday, to the Turk, a Saturday unto the Jew, and a Sunday to the Christian; in case they calculate the time exactly from their departure to their return. To prove this further yet by a matter of fact, The Hollanders in their Disco­very of Fretum le Maire, Anno 1615. found by comparing their accompt, 1615 at their coming home, that they had clearly lost a day (for they had traveled Westward in that tedious Voyage:) that which was Munday to the one, being the Sunday to the other. And now what should these People do when they were returned? If they are bound by nature, and the moral Law to sanctifie precisely one day in seven, they must then sanctifie a day apart from their other Country-men, and like a crew of Schismaticks, divide themselves from the whole body of the Church; or to keep order, and comply with other men, must of necessity be forced to go against the Law of nature, or the moral Law, which ought not to be violated for any by-respect whatever. But to re­turn unto Noahs Sons, whom this case concerns: It might, for ought we know, be theirs in this dispersion, in this removing up and down, and from place to place. What shall we think of those that planted Northwards, or as much extreamly South­wards; whose issue now are to be found, as in part is known near and within the Polar Circles: What Sabbath think we could they keep? Sometimes a very long one sure, and sometimes none; indeed none at all, taking a Sabbath, as we do, for one day in seven. For near the Polar Circles, as is plainly known, the days are twenty-four [Page 344]hours in length. Between the Circle and the Pole, the day, if so it may be called, increaseth first by weeks, and at last by months; till in the end, there is six months perpetual day, and as long a night. No room in those parts for a Sabbath. But it is time to leave these speculations, and return to practice.

And first we will begin with Melchisedech, IV King of Salem, the Priest of the most high God, Rex idem hominumque divumque sacerdos, a type and figure of our Saviour, whose Priesthood still continueth in the holy Gospel. With him the rather, because it is most generally conceived that he was Sem the Son of Noah. Of him it is affirmed by Justin Martyr, that he was neither Circumcised, not yet kept the Sabbath, and yet most acceptable unto God,Dial. cum. Try­phone. [...]. Tertullian also tells us of him, Incircumcisum nec sabba­tizantem ad sacerdotium Dei allectum esse; Adv. Judaeos. and puts him also in his challenge, as one whom none amongst the Jews could ever prove to have kept the Sabbath. Eusebius yet more fully than either of them:Dem. l. 1. c. 6. Moses, saith he, brings in Melchisedech Priest of the most high God, neither being Circumcised nor anointed with the holy Oyl, as was afterwards commanded in the Law, [...], no not so much as knowing that there was a Sabbath, and ignorant altogether of those Ordinances which were imposed upon the Jews, and living most agreeably unto the Gospel. Somewhat to that purpose also doth occur in his seventh de praeparatione. cap. 8. Melchisedech, whosoever he was, gave meeting unto Abraham, about the year of the world 2118. and if we may suppose him to be Sem, as I think we may, he lived till Isaac was fifty years of age, which was long after this famous interview. Now what these Fathers say of Sem, if Sem at least was he whom the Scriptures call Melchisedech, the same almost is said of his great Grand-child Heber; he being named by Epiphanius for one of those who lived according to the faith of the Christian Church, wherein no Sabbath was observed in that Fathers time. And here we will take Lot in too, although a little before his time, as one of the Poste­rity of Heber; that when we come to Abraham, we may keep our selves within his Fa­mily. Him, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus both, in the places formerly remembred, make to be one of those which without Circumcision and the Sabbath, were acceptable to the Lord, and by him justified. And so Tertullian, that sine legis observatione, (Sabbath and Circumcision, and the like) de Sodomorum incendio liberatus est. Therefore nor Lot, nor Heber, nor Melchisedech ever kept the Sabbath.

For Abraham next, V the Father of the Faithful, with whom the Covenant was made, and Circumcision as a seal annexed unto it: The Scripture is exceeding copious in setting down his life and actions, as also of the lives and actions of his Son and Ne­phews; their flittings and removes, their Sacrifices, Forms of Prayer, and whatsoever else was signal in the whole course of their affairs; but yet no mention of the Sabbath. Though such a memorable thing, as sanctifying of a constant day unto the Lord, might probably have been omitted in the former Patriarchs, of whom there is but little left, save their names and ages; as if they had been only brought into the story, to make way for him; yet it is strange that in a punctual and particular relation of his life and piety, there should not be one Item to point out the Sabbath, had it been ob­served. This is enough to make one think there was no such matter. Et quod non in­venis usquam, esse putes nusquam, in the Poets Language. I grant indeed that Abraham kept the Christian Sabbath in righteousness and holiness, serving the Lord his God all the days of his life; and so did Isaac and Jacob. Sanctificate diem Sabbati, saith the Prophet Jeremiah to the Jews, i.e. ut omne tempus vitae nostrae in sanctificatione ducamus, sicut fece­runt patres nostri, In Hier. 17. Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, as Saint Hierom glosseth it. Our ve­nerable Bede also hath affirmed as much, that Abraham kept indeed the spiritual Sabbath, quod semper à servili, In Luc. 19. i.e. noxia vacabat actione, whereby he always rested from the ser­vile works of sin; but that he kept or sanctified any other Sabbath, the Christian Fa­thers deny unanimously.In Dial. cum Tryphone. Justin the Martyr numbring up the most of those before re­membred, concludes that they, [...], were justified without the Sabbath; [...]. and so was Abraham after them, and all his Children, until Moses. And whereas Trypho had exacted a ne­cessary keeping of the Law, Sabbaths, New-moons, and Circumcision; the Martyr makes reply, that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, and all the other Patriarchs, both before and after them, until Moses time; yea, and their Wives, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Lea, and all the rest of religious Women unto Moses Mother, [...]. Nei­ther kept any of them all, nor had commandment so to do, till Circumcision was [Page 345]enjoyned to Abraham and his Posterity. So Irenaeus, that Abraham, Lib. 4.30. sine Circumcisione & observatione sabbatorum credidit Deo, without or Circumcision or the Sabbath did be­lieve in God, which was imputed to him for righteousness. And where the Jews ob­jected in defence of their ancient Ceremonies, that Abraham had been circumcised: Tertullian makes reply, sed ante placuit Deo quam circumcideretur; nec tamen sabbatizavit; Adv. Judaeos. that he was acceptable unto God before his being Circumcised, and yet he never kept the Sabbath. See more unto this purpose in Eusebius de Demonstr. l. 1. c. 6. de praeparat. l. 7. c. 8. (where Isaac and Jacob are remembred too:) as also Epiphanius adv. haeres. l. 1. n. 5.

Thus far the ancient Christian Writers have declared of Abraham, VI that he kept no Sabbath; and this in conference with the Jew, and in Books against them. Which doubtless they had never done, had there been any possibility for the Jews to have proved the contrary. Some of the Jews indeed, not being willing thus to lose their Father Abraham, have said, and written too, that he kept the Sabbath, as they do; and for a proof thereof, they ground themselves on that of Genesis, 2615 because that Abra­ham obeyed my Voice, and kept my Charge, my Commandments, my Statutes, and my Laws. The Jews conclude from hence, as Mercer and Tostatus tell us upon the Text, that Abraham kept the Sabbath, and all other ceremonies of the Law; as much I think the one, as he did the other. Who those Jews were that said it, of what name and quality, that they have not told us; and it were too much forwardness to credit any nameless Jew, before so many Christian Fathers. Tostatus, though he do relate their dicunt, yet believes them not; and herein we will rather follow him than Mercer, who seems a little to incline to that Jewish fancy. The rather since some Jews of name and quality have gone the same way that the Fathers did, before remembred.De Arianis l. 11. c. 10. For Petrus Galatinus tell us how it is written in Beresith Ketanna, or the lesser exposition up­on Genesis, a Book of publick use, and great authority among them, that Abraham did not keep the Sabbath. And this he tells us on the credit of Rabbi Johannan, who saith expresly that there, upon these words, God blessed the seventh day; it is set down po­sitively, Non scripta est de Abrahamo observatio Sabbati. And where it is objected for the Jew, that in case Abraham did not keep it, it was because it was not then com­manded: This Galatinus makes reply, Ex hoc saltem infertur sabbati cultum non esse de lege naturae, that therefore it is evident that the Sabbath is no part of the Law of nature. As for the Text of Genesis, we may expound it well enough, and never find a Sabbath in it, which that it may be done with the least suspition, we will take the exposition of Saint Chrysostom, who very fully hath explained it. Because he hath obeyed my voice, &c.] ‘Right, saith the Father, God said unto him, Get thee out from thy Fathers house, and and from thy kindred, and go into the Land that I shall shew thee: And Abraham went out, [...], and left a fair possession for an expectation; and this not wavering, but with all alacrity and readiness. Then fol­loweth his expectation of a Son in his old age, (when nature was decayed in him) as the Lord had promised, his casting out of Ismael, as the Lord commanded; his rea­diness to offer Isaac, as the Lord had willed, and many others of that nature.’ E­nough to give occasion unto that applause, because he hath obeyed my voice, although he never kept the Sabbath. Indeed the Sabbath could not have relation to those words in Gen. because it was not then commanded.

Next look on Jacob the heir as well of Abrahams travels, as of his faith. VII Take him as Labans Shepherd, and the Text informs us of the pains he took.Gen. 31.40. In the day time the drought consumed me, and the frost by night, and the sleep departed from mine eyes. No time of rest, much more no seventh part of his time allotted unto rest from his daily la­bours. And in his flight from Laban, it seems he stood not on the Sabbath. For though he fled thence with his Wives and Children, and with all his substance, and that he went but easily, according as the Cattel and the Children were able to endure; yet he went forwards still without any resting. Otherwise Laban, who heard of his depar­ture on the third day, and pursued after him amain, must needs have overtaken him before the seventh. Now for the rest of Jacobs time, when he was setled in the Land appointed for him, and afterwards removed to Egypt, See n. 5. of this Chapter. we must refer you unto Justin Martyr, and Eusebius; whereof one saith expresly, [...], that he kept no Sabbath; the other makes him one of those which lived without the Law of Moses, whereof the Sabbath was a part. Having brought Jacob into Egypt, we should proceed to Joseph, Moses, and the rest of his off-spring there; but we will first take Job along, as one of the posterity of Abraham; that after we may have the more leisure to [Page 346]wait upon the Israelites in that house of bondage. I say as one of the posterity of A­braham, the fifth from Abraham, Demonstr. l. 1. c. 6. so Eusebius tells us; who saith moreover, that he kept no Sabbath. What (saith he) shall we say of Job, that just, that pious, that most blameless man? What was the rule whereby be squared his life, and governed his devotions? Was any part of Moses Law? Not so. [...]: Was any keeping of the Sabbath, or observation of any other Jewish order? How could that be, saith he, considering that he was ancienter than Moses, and lived before his Law was published? For Moses was the seventh from Abra­ham, and Job the eighth. So far Eusebius. And Justin Martyr also joyns him with Abraham and his Family, as men that took not heed of New Moons, or Sabbaths, whereof see before n. 5.2. Edit. p. 14. I find indeed in Dr. Bound, that Theodore Beza on his own Au­thority hath made Job very punctual in sanctifying septimum saltem quemque diem, every seventh day at least, as God, saith he, from the beginning had appointed. But I hold Beza not a fit match for Justin and Eusebius; nor to be credited in this kind, when they say the contrary, considering in what times they lived, and with whom they dealt.

And now we come at last unto the Israelites in Egypt, VIII from Joseph, who first brought them thither, to Moses, who conducted them in their flight from thence, and so unto the body of the whole Nation.Dem. l. 1. c. 6. For Joseph first, Eusebius first tells us in the general, that the same institution and course of life, which by the Ordinance of Christ was preached unto the Gentiles, had formerly been commended to the ancient Patriarchs; particular instances whereof he makes Melchisedech, and Noah, and Enoch, and Abraham, till the time of Circumcision. And then it follows, [...], &c. [...]. That Joseph in the Court of Egypt, long time before the Law of Moses, lived answerably to those ancient patterns, and not according as the Jews. Nay, he affirms the same of Moses, [...], the very Law-giver himself, the Chieftain of the Tribes of Israel. As for the residue of the People, we can expect no more of them, that they lived in bondage, under severe and cruel Masters, who called upon them day by day to fulfil their tasks,See Exod. 5. v. 5. & 14. De vita Mosis lib. 1. and did expostulate with them in an heavy manner, in case they wanted of their Tale. The Jews themselves can best resolve us in this point. And amongst them Philo doth thus describe their troubles. [...], &c. The Taskmasters or Overseers of the works were the most cruel and unmerciful men in all the Country, who laid upon them greater tasks than they were able to endure, inflicting on them no less punishment than death it self, if any of them, yea, though by reason of infirmity, should withdraw himself from his daily labour. Some were commanded to employ themselves in the publick structures, others in bringing in materials for such mighty buildings, [...], never enjoying any rest either night or day, that in the end they were even spent and tired with continual travel. Antiqu. Jud. lib. 2. c. 5. Josephus goes a little further, and tells us this, that the Egyptians did not only tire the Israelites with continual labour, [...], but that the Israelites endevoured to per­form more than was expected. Assuredly in such a woful state as this they had not leave nor leisure to observe the Sabbath, And lastly, Rabbi Maimony, makes the mat­ter yet more absolute,Apud Ryvit. in Deealog. who saith it for a truth, that when they were in Egypt, neque qui­escere, vel sabbatum agere potuerunt, they neither could have time to rest, nor to keep the Sabbath, seeing they were not then at their own disposing. So he ad Deut. 5.15.

Indeed it easily may be believed that the People kept no Sabbath in the Land of Egypt, IX seeing they could not be permitted in all that time of their abode there to offer sacrifice, which was the easier duty of the two, and would less have taken them from their labours. Those that accused the Israelites to have been wanton, lazy, and I know not what, because they did desire to spend one only day in religious exercises: What would they not have done, had they desisted every seventh day from the works imposed upon them. Doubtless they had been carried to the house of Correction, if not worse handled. I say in all that time they were not permitted to offer sacrifice in that Coun­trey; and therefore when they purposed to escape from thence, they made a suit to Pharaoh, Exod. 8. that he would suffer them to go three days journey into the Wilderness, to offer sa­crifice there to the Lord their God. Rather than so, Pharaoh was willing to permit them for that once, to sacrifice unto the Lord in the Land of Egypt: And what said Moses there­unto? It is not meet (saith he) so to do. For we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God, Vers. 26 before their eyes, and they will stone us. His reason was, [Page 347]because the Gods of the Egyptians were Bulls, and Rams, and Sheep, and Oxen, Vers. 26 as Lyra notes upon that place; talia verò animalia ab Hebraeis erant immolanda, quod non permisissent Aegyptii in terra sua: And certainly the Egyptians would not endure to see their Gods knocked down before their faces. If any then demand wherein the Piety and Religion of Gods People did consist especially; we must needs answer, that it was in the integrity and honesty of their conversation;Adv. haeres. l. 1 har. 5. and that they worshipped God only in the spirit and truth. Nothing to make it known that they were Gods people, [...], but only that they feared the Lord and were Circumcised, as Epiphanius hath resolved it; nothing but that they did acknowledge one only God, and exercised themselves in justice, in modesty, in patience and long suffering, both towards one another, and amongst the Egyptians, framing their lives agreeably to the will of God, and the law of nature. Therefore we may conclude with safety, that hi­therto no Sabbath had been kept in all the World from the Creation of our first Father Adam, to this very time, which was above 2500. years, no nor commanded to be kept amongst them in their generations.

I say there was none kept, no nor none commanded; for had it been commanded, X sure it had been kept. It was not all the pride of Pharaoh, or subtle tyranny of his sub­jects that could have made them violate that sacred day, had it been commended to them from the Lord. The miseries which they after suffered under Antiochus, rather than that they would prophane the Sabbath; and those calamities which they chose to fall upon them by the hands of the Romans, rather than make resistance upon that day, when lawfully they might have done it; are proofs sufficient, that neither force nor fear could now have wrought upon them not to keep the same, had such a duty been commanded. Questionless Joseph for his part, that did prefer a loathsom Prison before the unchast imbraces of his Masters Wife, would no less carefully have kept the Sabbath, than he did his chastity; had there been any Sabbath then to have been ob­served, either as dictated by nature, or prescribed by Law. And certainly either the Sabbath was not reckoned all this while, as any part or branch of the Law of nature, or else it finds hard measure in the Book of God, that there should be particular proofs how punctually the rest of the moral Law was observed and practised amongst the Patriarchs, and not one word or Item that concerns the observation of the Sabbath. Now that the whole Law was written in the hearts of the Fathers, and that they had some knowledge of all the other Commandments, and did live accordingly, the Scrip­ture doth sufficiently declare unto us. First, for the first, I am God all-sufficient, Gen. 17.1. walk before me, and be thou perfect. So said God to Abraham. Then Jacobs going up from Bethel, to cleanse his house from Idolatry,Gen. 25.2. is proof enough that they were acquainted with the second. The pious care they had not to take the Name of the Lord their God in vain, appears at full in the religious making of their Oaths,Gen. 21.27. &c. 31.51. Abraham with Abimelech, and Jacob with Laban. Next for the fifth Commandment what duties Children owe their Parents, the practice of Isaac and Jacob doth declare abundantly,Gen. 24.67. & 28.42. in being ruled by them in the choice of their Wives, and readily obeying all their di­rections. So for the sin of Murder, the History of Jacobs Children,Gen. 34.26, 30. and the grieved Fathers curse upon them for the slaughter of the Sichemites, together with Gods pre­cept given to Noah against shedding blood,Gen. 9.6. shew us that both it was forbidden and condemned being done. The continency of Joseph before remembred,Gen. 39.8. and the pu­nishment threatned to Abimelech for keeping Sarah, Abrahams Wife;Gen. 30.3.31.30.44.4. the quarrelling of Laban for his stoln Idols; and Josephs pursuit after his Brethren for the silver cup that was supposed to be purloined, are proofs sufficient that Adultery and Theft were deemed unlawful. And last of all, Abimelechs reprehension of Abraham and Isaac for bearing false witness in the denial of their Wives,Gen. 20.9.26.10. shew plainly that they had the know­ledge of that Law also. The like may also be affirmed of their not coveting the Wives and goods, or any thing that was their Neighbours. For though the History cannot tell us of mens secret thoughts, yet we may judge of good mens thoughts by their outward actions. Had Joseph coveted his Masters Wife, he might have enjoyed her. And Job, more home unto the point, affirms expresly of himself,Job 31.26. that his heart was ne­ver secretly enticed, which is the same with this, that he did not covet. We conclude then, that seeing there is particular mention how all the residue of the Command­ments had been observed and practised by the Saints of old, and that no word at all is found which concerns the sanctifying of the Sabbath; that certainly there was no Sab­bath sanctified in all that time, from the Creation to the Law of Moses; nor reckoned any part of the Law of Nature, or an especial Ordinance of God.

CHAP. IV. The nature of the fourth Commandment: and that the SABBATH was not kept among the Gentiles.

  • 1. The Sabbath first made known in the fall of Mannah.
  • 2. The giving of the Decalogue; and how far it bindeth.
  • 3. That in the judgment of the Fathers, in the Christian Church, the fourth Command­ment is of a different nature from the other nine.
  • 4. The Sabbath was first given for a Law by Moses.
  • 5. And being given was proper only to the Jews.
  • 6. What moved the Lord to give the Israelites a Sabbath.
  • 7. Why the seventh day was rather chosen for the Sabbath, than any other.
  • 8. The seventh day not more honoured by the Gentiles, than the eighth or ninth.
  • 9. The Attributes given by some Greek Poets to the seventh day, no argument that they kept the Sabbath.
  • 10. The Jews derided for their Sabbath, by the Graecians, Romans, and Egyp­tians.
  • 11. The division of the year into weeks not generally used of old, amongst the Gen­tiles.

THus have we shewn you how Gods Church continued without a Sabbath, the space of 2500 years and upwards; I even till the Children of Israel came out of Egypt. And if the Saints of God, in the line of Seth, and the house of Abraham; assigned not every seventh day for Gods publick Worship: it is not to be thought that the po­sterity of Cain, and the sons of Canaan, were observant of it. To proceed therefore in the History of the Lords own people, as they observed no Sabbath when they were in Egypt, so neither did they presently after their departure thence. The day of their deliverance thence, was the seventh day, as some conceive it, which after was ap­pointed for a Sabbath to them. Torniellus I am sure is of that opinion: and so is Zanchie too, who withal gives it for the reason, why the seventh day was rather cho­sen for the Sabbath, In quartum praeceptum. than any other. Populus die septima liberatus fuit ex Egypto; & tunc jussit in hujus rei memoriam diem illam sanctificare. Which were it so, yet could not that day be a Sabbath, or a day of rest, considering the sudden and tumultuous man­ner of their going thence: their sons and daughters, maid-servants, and men-ser­vants, the cattel and the strangers within their gates, being all put hardly to it, and fain to flie away, for their life and safety. And if St. Austins note be true, and the note be his,Serm. de temp. 154. that on the first day of the week, transgressi sunt filii Israel mare rubrum siccis pedibus, the Israelites went dry-foot over the Red-sea, or Sea of Edom: then must the day before, if any, be the Sabbath-day; the next seventh day after the day of their departure. But that day certainly was not kept, as a Sabbath day. For it was whol­ly spent in murmuring and complaints against God and Moses, They cryed unto the Lord, Exod. 14.11. & 12. and they said to Moses, why hast thou brought us out of Egypt to die in the Wilder­ness? Had it not been better far for us to serve the Egyptians? Nothing in all these murmurings and seditious Clamours, that may denote it for a Sabbath, for an holy Festival. Nor do we find that for the after-times, they made any scruple of journy­ing on that day, till the Law was given unto the contrary, in Mount Sinai, which was the eleventh station after their escape from Egypt. It was the fancy of Rabbi So­lomon, that the Sabbath was first given in Marah, and that the sacrifice of the Red Cow mentioned in the nineteenth of Numbers, Exod. 15.26. was instituted at that time also. This fancy founded on those words in the Book of Exodus, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, &c. then will I bring none of those Diseases upon thee, that I brought on the Egyptians, But Torniellus, and Tostatus, and Lyra, though himself a Jew, count it no other than a Jewish and Rabbinical folly. Sure I am, that on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departure out of Egypt; being that day seventhnight before the first Sabbath was discovered, in the fall of Manna: we find not any thing that implies either Rest or Worship. We read indeed how all the Con­gregation murmured as they did before against Moses and against Aaron, Exod. 16.2. wishing that they had died in the Land of Egypt, where they had Bread their bellies full, rather [Page 349]than be destroyed with Famine. So eagerly they murmured, that to content them, God sent them Quailes that night, and rained down Bread from Heaven next morn­ing. Was this, think you the sanctifying of a Sabbath to the Lord their God? Indeed the next seventh day that followed, was by the Lord commended to them for a Sab­bath; and ratified by a great and signal miracle the day before: wherein it pleased him, to give them double what they used to gather on the former days, that they might rest upon the seventh, with the greater comfort. This was a preamble or pre­parative to the following Sabbath: for by this miracle, this rest of God from raining Mannah, on the seventh day, the people came to know which was precisely the se­venth day from the Worlds Creation: whereof they were quite ignorant at that pre­sent time. Philo assures us in his third Book de vita Mosis, that the knowledg of that day on which God rested from his works, had been quite forgotten, [...], by reason of those many miseries which had befaln the World by fire and water: and so continued, till by this miracle, the Lord revived again the remembrance of it. And in another place,De vita Mosis, l. 1. when men had made a long en­quiry after the birth-day of the World, and were yet to seek: [...], &c. God made it known to them by a special miracle, which had so long been hidden from their Ancestors. The falling of a double portion of Mannah on the sixth day, and the not pu­trifying of it on the seventh; was the first light that Moses had to descry the Sabbath: which he accordingly commended unto all the people, to be a day of rest unto them; that as God ceased that day from sending, so they should rest from looking after their daily Bread. But what need Philo be produced, when we have such an ample Testi­mony from the word it self? For it is manifest in the story, that when the people, on the sixth day, had gathered twice as much Mannah, as they used to do;Exod. 16.5. according as the Lord had directed by his servant Moses: they understood not what they did, at least why they did it. The Rulers of the Congregation, as the Text informs us, Verse 22 came and told Moses of it: and he as God before had taught him, acquainted them, Verse 23 that on the morrow should be the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord; and that they were to keep the over-plus until the morning. Nay, so far were the people from knowing any thing of the Sabbath, or of Gods rest upon that day, that though the Prophet had thus preached unto them of a Sabbaths rest, the people gave small credit to him. For it is said, that some of the people went out to gather on the seventh day, Verse 27 (which was the seventh day after, or the second Sabbath as some think) notwithstanding all that had been spoken, and that the Mannah stank not, as on other days. So that this resting of the people, was the first sanctifying of the Sabbath mentioned in the Scri­ptures: and Gods great care to make provision for his people on the day before, the blessing he bestowed upon it. And this is that, which Solomon Iarchi tells us,Ch. 1. n. 2. as be­fore we noted, Benedixit ei [i.e. in Mannah, quia omnibus diebus septimanae descendit Omer pro singulis, & sexto panis duplex: & sanctificavit eum] i.e. in Mannah, quia non descendit omnino. Nay, generally the Hebrew Doctors do affirm the same: assu­ring us that the Commandment of the Sabbath is the foundation and ground of all the rest, as being given before them all, at the fall of Mannah. Ʋnde dicunt Hebraei sabba­tum fundamentum esse aliorum praeceptorum, quod ante alia praecepta hoc datum sit, De fest Judaeor. c. 3. quan­do Mannah acceperunt. So Hospinian tells us. Therefore the Sabbath was not given before, in their own confession. This happened on the two and twentieth day of the second month after their coming out of Egypt, and of the Worlds Creation, Anno 2044. the people being then in the Wilderness of Sin, which was their seventh station.

The seventh day after, being the nine and twentieth of the second month, II is thought by some, I know not upon what authority, to be that day whereon some of the people, distrusting all that Moses said, went out to gather Mannah, Numb. 35. as on other days: but whether they were then in the Wilderness of Sin, or were incamped in Dophkath, Alush, or Rephidim, which were their next removes, that the Scriptures say not. Most likely that they were in the last station, considering the great businesses there performed; the fight with Amalek, and the new ordering of the Government by Jethroes Counsel; and that upon the third day of the third moneth which was Thursday following, they were advanced so far as to the Wilderness of Sinai. I say the third day of the third month; For where the Text hath it,Exod. 19.1. In the third month when the Children of Israel were gone forth out from Egypt, the same day came they into the Wilderness of Sinai: by the same day is meant the same day of the month, which [Page 350]was the third day,Exod. 19. ver. 3.10, 11. being Thursday, after our Account. The morrow after went Moses up unto the Lord, and had commandment from him to sanctifie the people that day, and to morrow, and to make them ready against the third day: God meaning on that day to come down in the eyes of all the People in Mount Sinai, and to make known his Will unto them. Verse 17 That day being come, which was the Saturday or Sabbath, the people were brought out of the Camp to meet with God, and placed by Moses at the nether part of the Mountain: Moses ascending first to God, and descending after to the people, to charge them that they did not pass their bounds before appointed. It seems the Sabbath rest was not so established, Verse 21 but that the people had been likely to take the pains to climb the Mountain, and to behold the Wonders which were done up­on it; had they not had a special charge unto the contrary. Things ordered thus, it pleased the Lord to publish and proclaim his Law unto the people, in Thunder, Smoak, and Lightnings, and the noise of a Trumpet; using therein the Ministery of his holy Angels: which Law we call the Decalogue, or the ten Commandments, and contains in it the whole Moral Law, or the Law of Nature. This had before been na­turally imprinted in the minds of men; however that in tract of Time, the character thereof had been much defaced; so dimmed and darkened that Gods own people stood in need of a new impression: and therefore was proclaimed in this solemn man­ner, that so the letter of the Law might leave the clearer stamp in their affections. A Law which in it self was general and universal, equally appertaining both to Jew and Gentile; Rom. 2.14. the Gentiles which know not the Law, doing by nature the things contained in the Law, as S. Paul hath told us: but as at this time published on Mount Sinai, and as delivered to the people by the hand of Moses, they obliged only those of the house of Israel. Zanchius hath so resolved it amongst the Protestants, (not to say any thing of the School-men who affirm the same:De Redempti. l. 1. c. 11. Th. 1.) ut Politicae & ceremoniales, sic etiam morales leges quae Decalogi nomine significantur, quatenus per Mosen traditae fuerunt Israelitis, ad nos Christianos nihil pertinent, &c. As neither the Judicial nor the Ceremonial, so nor the Moral Law contained in the Decalogue, doth any way concern us Christians, as given by Moses to the Jews: but only so far forth, as it is consonant to the Law of Nature, which binds all alike: and after was confirmed and ratified by Christ, our King. His reason is, because that if the Decalogue as given by Moses to the Jews; did concern the Gentiles; the Gentiles had been bound by the fourth Commandment, to observe the Sabbath, in as strict a manner as the Jews. Cum vero constet ad hujus diei sanctificationem nunquam fuisse Gentes obligatas, &c. Since therefore it is manifest that the Gentiles never were obliged to observe the Sabbath, it followeth that they neither were, nor possibly could be bound to any of the residue, as given by Moses to the Jews. We may conclude from hence, that had the fourth Commandment been meerly Moral, it had no less concerned the Gentiles, than it did the Israelites.

For that the fourth Commandment is not of the same condition with the rest, III is no new invention: the Fathers jointly so resolve it. It's true that Irenaeus tells us, how God,Lib. 4. cap. 31. the better to prepare us to eternal life, Decalogi verba per semetipsum om­nibus similiter locutus est, did by himself proclaim the Decalogue to all people equally: which therefore is to be in full force amongst us, as having rather been inlarged than dissolved, by our Saviours coming in the flesh. Which words of Irenaeus, if consider­ed rightly, must be referred to that part of the fourth Commandment which indeed is Moral; or else the fourth Commandment must not be reckoned as a part or mem­ber of the Decalogue: because it did receive no such enlargement, as did the rest of the Commandments, by our Saviours preaching; (whereof see Matth. 5.6, and 7 Chapters) but a dissolution rather by his practice.Dial. cum Tri­phone. Justin the Martyr more expresly, in his dispute with Trypho a learned Jew, maintains the Sabbath to be only a Mosaical Ordinance; as we shall see anon more fully; and that it was imposed upon the Israe­lites, [...], because of their hard hearted­ness, and irregularity.Contra Judaeos. Tertullian also in his Treatise against the Jews, saith that it was not spirituale & aeternum mandatum; sed temporale, quod quandoque cessaret, not a spi­ritual and eternal Institution, but a temporal only. Saint Austin yet more fully, that it is no part of the Moral Law.In Epistola ad Galat. For he divides the Law of Moses into these two parts, Sacraments and Moral Duties: accounting Circumcision, the new Moons, Sabbaths, and the Sacrifices to appertain unto the first: ad mores autem, non occides, &c. and these Commandments, Thou shalt not kill, nor commit adultery, nor bear false witness, and the rest,De spiritu & lit. c. 11. to be contained within the scond. Nay more, he tells us, that Moses did receive a Law to be delivered to the people, writ in two Tables made of stone by the [Page 351]Lords own finger: wherein was nothing to be found either of Circumcision, or the Jewish Sacrifices. And then he adds, In illis igitur decem praeceptis, ecceepta Sabbati ob­servatione, dicatur mihi quid non sit observandum à Christiano: Tell me, saith he, what is there in the Decalogue, except the observation of the Sabbath day, which is not care­fully to be observed of a Christian man. To this we may refer all those several places, wherein he calls the fourth Commandment, praeceptum figuratum, & in umbra positum, a Sacrament, a shadow, and a figure: as Tract the third in Joh. 1. and Tract 17. and 20. in Joh. 5. ad Bonifac. l. 3. T. 7. contra Faust. Manich. l. 19. c. 18. the 14th Chapter of the Book de spiritu & lit. before remembred: and finally, to go no further, Qu. in Exod. l. 2. qu. 173. where he speaks most home, and to the purpose. Ex decem praeceptis hoc solum figurate dictum est. Of all the ten Commandments this only was delivered as a sign or figure. See also what is said before out of Theodoret, and Sedulius, Chap. 1. n. 6. Hesychius goes yet further, and will not have the fourth Com­mandment to be any of the ten; Etsi decem mandatis insertum sit, non tamen ex iis esse; In Levit. l. 6. c. 26. and howsoever it is placed amongst them, yet it is not of them. And therefore to make up the number, divides the first Commandment into two, as those of Rome have done the last, to exclude the second. But here Hesychius was deceived, in taking this Com­mandment to be only Ceremonial, whereas it is indeed of a mixt or middle nature: for so the Schoolmen, and other learned Authors in these later times, grounding them­selves upon the Fathers, have resolved it generally. Moral it is as to the Duty, that there must be a time appointed for the service of God: and Ceremonial, as unto the Day, to be one of seven, and to continue that whole day, and to surcease that day from all kind of work. As moral, placed amongst the ten Commandments, extend­ing unto all mankind, and written naturally in our hearts by the hand of Nature: as Ceremonial, appertaining to the Law Levitical, peculiar only to the Jews, and to be reckoned with the rest of Moses Institutes. Aquinas thus, c. 2. 2ae. qu. 122. art. 4. resp. ad primum. Tostatus thus in Exod. 20. qu. 11. So Petr. Galatinus also lib. 11. cap. 9. and Bonaventure in his Sermon on the fourth Commandment. And so di­vers others.

I say, the fourth Commandment, so far as it is Ceremonial, IV in limiting the Sabbath day to be one of seven, and to continue all that day, and thereon to surcease from all kind of labour; which three ingredients are required in the Law unto the making of a Sabbath, is to be reckoned with the rest of Moses Institutes, and proper only to the Jews. For proof of this, we have the Fathers very copious. And first, that it was one of Moses Institutes, Justin the Martyr saith expresly.Dial. eum Tri­phone. [...], &c. As Circumcision began from Abraham, and as the Sabbath, Sacrifices, Feasts, and Offerings came in by Moses; so were they all to have an end. And in another place of the same discourse, seeing there was no use of Circumcision until Abrahams time, [...], nor of the Sabbath until Moses; by the same reason there is as little use now of them, as had been be­fore. So doth Eusebius tell us, [...],De praeparat. l. 7. c. 6. &c. That Moses was the first Law-giver amongst the Jews, who did appoint them to observe a certain Sabbath in memory of Gods rest from the Worlds Creation, as also divers anniversary Festivals, together with the difference of clean and un­clean Creatures, and of other Ceremonies not a few. Next Athanasius lets us know that in the Book of Exodus, we have the Institution of the Passeover,Synopsis sacrae Script. the sweetning of the bitter waters of Marah, the sending down of Quails and Mannah, the waters issuing from the rock; [...], what time the Sabbath took beginning, and the Law was published by Moses on Mount Sinai. Macarius a Contemporary of Athanasius doth affirm as much, viz. that in the Law [...],Hom. 35. which was given by Moses, it was commanded, as in a figure or a shadow that every man should rest on the Sabbath day from the works of labour.In Ezech. 20. Saint Hierom also lets us know, though he name not Moses, that the observation of the Sabbath amongst other Ordinances was given by God unto his People in the Wilderness. Haec praecepta & justificationes, & observantiam Sabbati, Dominus dedit in deserto; which is as much as if he had expresly told us that it was given unto them by the hand of Moses. Then Epiphanius, God saith he, rested on the seventh day from all his labours;De Pond. & mensur. n. 22. which day he blessed and sanctified, [...], and by his Angel made known the same to his servant Moses. See more unto this purpose advers. haeres. l. 1. haer. 6. n. 5. And lastly, Damascen hath assured us,De fide Orthod. lib. 4. c. 24. that when there was no Law nor Scripture, that then there was no Sabbath neither; but when the Law was given by [Page 352] Moses, [...], then was the Sabbath set apart for Gods publick worship. Add here, that Tacitus and Justin refer the Institution of the Sabbath unto Moses only; of which more hereafter.

Next that the Sabbath was peculiar only to the Jews, V or those at least that were of the house of Israel, the Fathers do affirm more fully than they did the other. For so Saint Basil, [...], the Sabbath was given unto the Jews, in his first Homily of Fasting. Saint Austin so, Sabbatum datum est priori populo in otio corporali, Epistola 119. & Sabbatum Judaeis fuisse praeceptum in umbra futuri, de Gen. ad lit. l. 4. c. 11. and in the 13. of the same Book, unum diem observandum mandavit po­pulo Hebraeo: The like to which occurs Epist. 86. ad Casulanum. The Jews, the Hebrews, and the former People, all these three are one; and all do serve to shew that Saint Austin thought the Sabbath to be peculiar unto them only. That it was given unto the Jews exclusively of all other Nations, is the opinion and conceit also of the Jews themselves. This Petrus Galatinus proves against them, on the authority of their best Authors.Ch. 16.29. Sic enim legitur apud eos in Glossa, &c. We read, saith he, in their Gloss on these words of Exodus, The Lord hath given you the Sabbath: What mean, say they, these words, he hath given it you? Quia vobis, viz. Judaeis dedit, & non gentibus saeculi; because it was given unto the Jews, and not unto the Gentiles. It is affirmed also, saith he, by R. Johannan, that whatsoever statute God gave to Israel, he gave it to them publickly, except the Sabbath; and that was given to them in secret, accor­ding unto that of Exodus. Exod. 31.17. Ainsworth in Exod. 13.9. It is a sign between me and the Children of Israel. Quod si ita est, non obligantur gentes ad sabbatum. If so, saith Galatinus, the Gentiles were not bound to observe the Sabbath. A sign between me and the Children of Israel? It seems the Jews were all of the same opinion. For where they used on other days to wear their Phylacteries on their arms or foreheads, to be a sign or token to them, as the Lord commanded, they laid them by upon the Sabbaths; because, say they, the Sabbath was it self a sign.In Gen. 2. So truly said Procopius Gazaeus, Its Judaeis imperavit supremum numen, ut segregarent à caeteris deibus diem septimum, &c. God, saith he, did command the Jews to set apart the seventh day to his holy worship; that if by chance they should forget the Lord their God, that day might call him back unto their remembrances; where note, it was commanded to the Jews alone. Add, that Josephus calls the Sabbath in many places a national or local custom, [...], a law peculiar to that People, as Antiue. l. 14. c. 18. & de bello l. 2. c. 16. as we shall see hereafter more at large. Lastly, so given to the Jews alone, that it became a difference between them and all other People. Saint Cyril hath resolved it so.In Ezech. 20. God, saith he, gave the Jews a Sabbath, not that the keeping of the same should be sufficient to conduct them to eternal life: Sed ut haec ci­vilis administration is ratio peculiaris à gentium institutis distinguat eos; but that so different a form of civil government should put a difference between them, and all Nations else. Theodoret more fully, that the Jews being in other things like to other People, in obser­vatione sabbati propriam videbantur obtinere rempublicam, In Ezech. 20. seemed in keeping of the Sabbath to have a custom by themselves. And which is more, saith he, their Sabbath put a greater difference between the Jews, and other People, than their Circumcision: For Circumcision had been used by the Idumaeans, and Aegyptians: Sabbati verò observa­tion [...] a Judaeorum natio custodiebat, but the observation of the Sabbath was peculiar only to the Jews. Nay, even the very Gentiles took it for a Jewish Ceremony; suffi­cient proof whereof we shall see ere long. But what need more be said in this, either that this was one of the Laws of Moses, or that it was peculiar to the Jews alone, see­ing the same is testified by the holy Scripture? Thou camest down upon Mount Sinai, saith Nehemiah, Cap. 19.13. & Vers. 14. and spakest with them [the house of Israel] from Heaven, and gavest them right judgments and true Laws, good Statutes and Commandments, what more? It followeth, And madest known unto them thy holy Sabbaths, and commandest them Precepts, Statutes and Laws by the hand of thy Servant Moses.

Now on what motives God was pleased to prescribe a Sabbath to the Jews, VI more at this time than any of the former Ages; the Fathers severally have told us, yea, and the Scriptures too in several places. Justin Martyr, as before we noted, gives this general reason,Qu. ex Nov. Test. 69. because of their hard-heartedness, and irregular courses; wherein Saint Austin closeth with him. Cessarunt onera legis quae ad duritiem cordis Judaici fue­runt data, in escis, sabbatis, & neomeniis: Where note how he hath joyned together New-moons and Sabbaths, and the Jewish difference between meat and meat. Parti­cularly Gregory Nyssen makes the special motive to be this,Testim. adven­tus Dei in carne. ad sedandum nimium eorum pecuniae studium, so to restrain the People from the love of money. For coming out of [Page 353]Egypt very poor and bare, and having almost nothing but what they borrowed of the Egyp­tians, they gave themselves, saith he, unto continual and incessant labour, the sooner to at­tain to riches. Therefore said God, that they should labour six days, and rest the seventh. Damascen somewhat to this purpose, [...], &c. God, De side Orth. l. 4. c. 24 saith he, seeing the carnal and the covetous disposition of the Israelites, appointed them to keep a Sabbath, that so their Servants and their Cattel might partake of rest. And then he adds, [...], &c. as also, that thus resting from their worldly businesses, they might repair unto the Lord in Psalms, and Hymns, and spiritual Songs, and medi­tation of the Scriptures. Rupertus harps on the same string that the others did,L 5. in Joh c. 5. save that he thinks the Sabbath given for no other cause, than that the labouring man be­ing wearied with his weekly toyl, might have some time to refresh his spirits. Sab­batum nihil aliud est nisi requies, vel quam ab causam data est, nisi ut operarius fessus caeteris septimanae diebus uno die requiesceret? Gaudentius Brixianus in his twelfth Homily or Ser­mon, is of the same mind also that the others were. These seem to ground themselves on the fifth of Deuteronomy, where God commands his People to observe his Sabbaths, Vers. 14 that thy Man servant, and thy Maid servant may rest as well as thou. And then it fol­loweth, Remember that thou wast a Servant in the Land of Egypt, Vers. 15 and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, though with a mighty hand, and an out-stretched arm; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day. The force of which illation is no more than this, that as God brought them out of Egypt, wherein they were Ser­vants, so he commands them to take pity on their Servants, and let them rest upon the Sabbath; considering that they themselves would willingly have had some time of rest, had they been permitted. A second motive might be this, to make them always mind­ful of that spiritual rest, which they were to keep from the acts of sin; and that eternal rest that they did expect from all toyl and misery. In reference unto this eternal rest, Saint Augustine tells us, that the Sabbath was commanded to the Jews, in umbra suturi, De Gen. ad lit. l. 4. c. 11. quae spiritalem requiem figuraret, as a shadow of the things to come, in S. Pauls Language, which God doth promise unto those that do the works of Righ­teousness. And in relation to the other, the Lord himself hath told us that he had given his Sabbath unto the Jews, to be a sign between him and them, that they might know that he was the Lord that sanctified them, Exod. 31.13. which is again repeated by Ezech. cap. 20.12. That they may know that I am the Lord which sanctifieth them. ‘For God, as Gregory Nyssen notes it, seems only to propose this unto himself, that by all means he might at least destroy in man his inbred corruption.’ [...]. ‘This was his aim in Circumcision, and in the Sabbath,De resurrect. Chr. Orat. 1. and in forbidding them some kind of meats;’ [...], ‘For by the Sabbath he informed them of a rest from sin.’ To cite more Fathers to this purpose were a thing un­necessary, and indeed sensibile super sensum. This yet confirms us further, that the Sabbath was intended for the Jews alone. For had God given the Sabbath to all other People, as he did to them, it must have also been a sign that the Lord had sanctified all People as he did the Jews.

There is another motive yet to be considered, VII and that concerns as well the day as the Institution. God might have given the Jews a Sabbath, and yet not tied the Sab­bath to one day of seven, or to the seventh precisely from the Worlds Creation. Con­stitui potuisset, quod in die sabbati coleretur Deus, aut in die Martis, Aut in altera die. God, saith Tostatus, might have ordered it to have his Sabbath on the Saturday, In Exod. 20. qu. 11. or on the Tuesday, or any other day what ever, what any other of the week, and no more than so: No, he might have appointed it, aut bis, aut semel tantum in anno, aut in mense, once or twice a year, or every month, as he had listed. And might not God as well ex­ceed this number, as fall short thereof? Yes, say the Protestant Doctors, that he might have done. He might have made each third, or fourth, or fifth day a Sabbath, indeed as many as he pleased.In Exod. 20. Si voluisset Deus absolute uti dominio suo, potuit plures dies im­perare cultui suo impendendos: So saith Dr. Ryvet, one of the Professors of Leiden, and a great Friend to the Antiquity of the Sabbath. What was the principal motive then, why the seventh day way chosen for this purpose, and none but that? [...], to keep God always in their minds; so saith Justin Martyr. But why should that be rather done by a seventh day Sabbath than by any other?Dial. Cum Try: phone. Detsest. Paschal. hom. 6. Saint Cyril answers to that point exceeding fully. The Jews, saith he, became infected with the Ido­latries [Page 354]of Egypt, worshipped the Sun, and Moon, and Stars, and the Host of Heaven; which seems to be insinuated in the fourth of Deut. v. 19. Therefore that they might understand the Heavens to be Gods workmanship, eos opificem suum imitari jubet, he willeth them that they imitate their Creator; that resting on the Sabbath day, they might the better understand the reason of the Festival. Which if they did, saith he, in case they rested on that day whereon God had rested, it was a plain confession that all things were made by him, and consequently that there were no other Gods besides him. Et haec una ratio sabbato indicatae quietis: Indeed the one and only reason that is mentioned in the body of the Commandment, which reflects only on Gods rest from all his work which he had made, and leaves that as the absolute and sole occasion, why the seventh day was rather chosen for the Sabbath than the sixth or eighth, or any other. Which being so, it is the more to be admired that Philo being a learned Jew, or any learned Christian Writer, leaving the cause expressed in the Law it self, should seek some secret reason for it out of the nature of the day, or of the number.De Abrahamo. First, Fhilo tells us that the Jews do call their seventh day by the name of Sabbath, which signifieth repose and rest. Not because they did rest that day from their weekly labours, [...], but because seven is found to be, both in the world and man himself, the most quiet number, most free from trouble, war, and all manner of contention. A strange conceit to take beginning from a Jew; Problem. loc. 5 5. yet that that follows of Aretius is as strange as this. Who thinks that day was therefore consecrated unto rest, even a­mongst the Gentiles, quod putarent civilibus actionibus ineptum esse, fortasse propter frigus planetae, contemplationibus vero idoneum: Because they thought that day, by reason of the dulness of the Planet Saturn, more fit for contemplation than it was for action. Some had, it seems, conceived so in the former times, whom thereupon Tostatus cen­sures in his Comment on the fifth of Deuteronomy. Qu. 3. For where it was Gods purpose, as before we noted out of Cyril, to wean the People from Idolatry and Superstition; to lay down such a reason for the observation of the Sabbath, was to reduce them to the worship of those Stars and Planets from which he did intend to wean them. I had almost omitted the conceit of Zanchie, See n. 1. before remembred, who thinks that God made choice of this day the rather; because that on the same day he had brought his People out of Egypt. In case the ground be true, that on this day the Lord wrought this de­liverance for his People Israel, then his conceit may probably be countenanced from the fifth of Deuteronomy, where God recounting to his People, that with a mighty hand, and an out-stretched arm he had delivered them from Egypt; hath thereupon commanded them that they should keep the Sabbath day. Lay all that hath been said to­gether and it will come in all to this, that as the Sabbath was not known till Moses time;Annal. d. 7. so being known, it was peculiar unto Israel only, Non nisi Mosaicae legis tempo­ribus in usu fuisse septimi diei cultum; nec postea nisi penes Hebraeos perdurasse, as Torniellus doth conclude it.

For that the Gentiles used to keep the seventh day sacred, VIII as some give it out, is no where to be found, I dare boldly say it, in all the Writings of the Gentiles. The seventh day of the moneth indeed they hallowed, and so they did the first and fourth, as Hesiod tells us.Opera & dies. [...]. Not the first day, and the fourth, and seventh of every week, for then they must have gone beyond the Jews; but as the Scholiast upon Hesiod, notes it of every month, à novilunio exorsus laudat tres, the first, fourth, and seventh. And lest it should be thought that the seventh day is to be counted holier than the other two, because the attribute of [...] seems joyned unto it; the Scholiast takes away that scruple, à novilunio exorsus tres laudat, omnes sacras dicens, septimam etiam ut Apollinis natalem celebrans; and tells us that all three are accounted holy, and that the seventh was also celebrated as Apollos birth-day. For so it followeth in the Poet, [...]; from whence the Flamines or Gentile Priests did use to call him, [...], i. e. the God born on the seventh day.Dies Geniales l. 3. c. 18. For further proof hereof, we find in Alexander ab Alexandro, that the first day of evry moneth was consecrated to Apollo, the fourth to Mercury, the seventh again unto Apollo, the eighth to Theseus. The like doth Plutarch say of Theseus, that the Athenians offered to him their greatest Sacrifice upon the eighth day of October, because of his arrival that day from Crete; and that they also honoured him, [...], on the eighth day of the other moneths, because he was derived from Neptune, to whom, on the eighth day of every month they did offer sacrifice. To make the matter yet more sure,De Decalogo. Philo hath put this difference between the Gentiles and the Jews, that divers Cities of the Gentiles did solemnize the seventh day, [...] [Page 355]once a month, beginning their account with the New-moon; [...], but that the Jews did keep every seventh day constantly. It's true that Philo tells us more than once or twice, how that the Sabbath was become a general Festival; but that was rather taken up in imitation of the Jess, than practised out of any instinct or light of nature, as we shall see hereafter in a place more proper. Be­sides which days before remembred, the second day was consecrate to the bonus Genius, Hospin. de orig. Fest. cap. 5. the third and fifteenth to Minerva, the ninth unto the Sun, the last to Pluto, and every twentieth day kept holy by the Epicures. Now as the Greeks did consecrate the New­moons and seventh day to Phoebus, the fourth of every month to Mercury, and the eighth to Neptune, & sic de caeteris: So every ninth day in the year was by the Romans anciently kept sacred unto Jupiter; the Flamines or Priests upon that day offering a Ram unto him for a Sacrifice. Nundinas Jovis ferias esse, ait Granius Licinius:Saturnal. l. 1. c. 16. siqui­dem Flaminica omnibus nundinis [every ninth day] in regia Jovi arietem solere immolare, as in Macrobius. So that we see the seventh day was no more in honour than either the first, fourth, or eighth, and not so much as was the ninth; this being as it were a weekly Festival, and that a monthly. A thing so clear and evident,2. Edit. p. 65. that Dr. Bound could tell us that the memory of Weeks and Sabbaths was altogether suppressed and buried amongst the Gentiles. And in the former page. But how the memory of the seventh day was taken away amongst the Romans, Ex veteri nundinarum instituto apparet, saith Beroaldus. And Satan did altogether take away from the Graecians the boly memory of the seventh day, by obtruding on the wicked Rites of Superstition, which on the eighth day they did keep in bonour of Neptune. So that besides other holy days, the one of them observed the eighth day, and the other the ninth, and neither of them both the seventh as the Church doth now, and hath done always from the beginning. It's true, Diogenes the Grammarian, Sueton. in Tiber. c. 32. did hold his disputations constantly upon the Saturday or Sabbath; and when Tiberius at an extraordinary time came to hear his exercises, in diem septimum distulerat, the Pe­dant put him off until the saturday next following. A right Diogenes indeed, and as rightly served. For coming to attend upon Tiberius, being then made Emperour, he sent him word, ut post annum septimum rediret, that he would have him come again the seventh year after. But then as true it is,De illustrib. Grammat. which the same Suetonius tells us of Anto­nius Gnipho, a Grammarian too, that he taught Rhetorick every day; declamaret vero non nisi nundinis, but declaimed only on the ninth. But then as true it is, which Juvenal hath told us of the Roman Rhetoricians, that they pronounced their Declama­tions on the sixth day chiefly.

Nil salit Arcadico juveni, cujus mihi sextâ,
Sat.
Quâque die, miserum dirus caput Annibal implet.

As the Poet hath it.

All days, it seems, alike to them; the first, fourth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and indeed what not, as much in honour as the seventh; whether it were in civil or in sacred matters.

I am not ignorant that many goodly Epithets are by some ancient Poets amongst the Grecians appropriated to this day: which we find gathered up together,Clem. Strom. l. 5. Euseb. Prae­par. l. 13. c. 12. by Cle­mens Alexandrinus, and Eusebius; but before either of them, by one Aristobulus a learned Jew, who lived about the time of Ptolomy Philometor King of Egypt, both Hesiod and Homer, as they there are cited, give it the Title of [...] or an holy day, and so it was esteemed amongst them, as before is shewn: but other days esteem­ed as holy. From Homer they produce two Verses, wherein the Poet seems to be ac­quainted with the Worlds Creation, and the perfection of it on the seventh day.

[...].
[...]
[...].
On the seventh day all things were fully done,
On that we left the waves of Acheron.

The like are cited out of Linus, as related by Eusebius, from the collections of Aristo­bulus before remembred: but are by Clemens fathered on Callimachus, another of the old Greek Poets, who between them thus.

[...]
[...]
[...].
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]

Which put together may be thus Englished, in the main, though not verbatim.

On the seventh day all things were made compleat.
The birth-day of the World, most good, most great,
Seven brought forth all things in the starry Skie;
Keeping each year their courses constantly.

This Clemens, makes an argument that not the Jews only but the Gentiles also knew that the seventh day had a priviledg, yea, and was hallowed above other days; on which the World, and all things in it were compleat and finished. And so we grant they did: but neither by the light of Nature, nor any observation of that day amongst themselves, more than any other. Not by the light of Nature. For Arifto­bulus, from whom Clemens probably might take his hint, speaks plainly, that the Poets had consulted with the holy Bible, and from thence sucked this knowledg: [...], as that Author saith of Hesiod and Homer. Which well might be,Ap. Euseb. considering that Homer who was the oldest of them flourished about five hundred years after Moses death; Callimachus who was the latest, above Seven hundred years after Homers time. Nor did they speak it out of any observati­on of that day, more than any other amongst themselves. The general practice of the Gentiles, before related, hath throughly as we hope, removed that scruple. They that from these words can collect a Sabbath, had need of as good eys as Clemens, who out of Plato in his second de republ. Strom. l. 5. conceives that he hath found a sufficient war­rant for the observing of the Lords day, above all the rest: because it is there said by Plato, That such as had for seven days solaced in the pleasant Meadows, were to de­part upon the eighth, and not return till four days after. As much a Lords day in the one, as any Sabbath in the other. Indeed the Argument is weak, that some of those that thought it of especial weight, have now deserted it, as too light and trivial. Ryvet by name, who cites most of these Verses in his notes on Genesis, to prove the Sab­bath no less ancient than the Worlds Creation; doth on the Decalogue, think them utterly unable to conclude that point, nisi aliunde suffulciantur, unless they be well backed with better Argumens, and Authorities out of other Authors.

Nay, V more than this, the Gentiles were so far from sanctifying the Sabbath or se­venth day, themselves; that they derided those that kept it. The Circumcision of the Jews was not more ridiculous amongst the Heathens, than their Sabbaths were; not were they more extreamly scoffed at for the one, than for the other, by all sorts of Writers.Ap. Aug. de civit. Dei, l. 6. c. 11. Hist. l. 5. Seneca lays it to their charge, that by occasion of their Sabbaths, septimam fere aetatis suae partem vacando perdant, they spent the seventh part of their lives in floth and idleness; and Tacitus, that not the seventh day, but the seventh year also was as unprofitably wasted. Septimo quoque die otium placuisse ferunt; dein blandiente intertia, septimum quoque annum ignaviae datum. Moses, saith he, had so appointed, be­cause that after a long six days march, the People became quietly setled on the seventh. Juvenal makes also the same objection against the keeping of the Sabbath by the Jewish Nation.Sat. 14.

— quod septima quaeque fuit lux
Ignava, & partem vitae non attigit ullam.

And Ovid doth not only call them peregrina sabbata, as things with which the Romans had but small, and that late acquaintance; but makes them a peculiar mark of the Jewish Religion.Reme. amor. l. 1.

Quaque die redeunt, rebus minus apta gerendis,
De Arte l. 1.
Culta Palestino septima sacra viro.
The seventh day comes for business unfit:
Held sacred by the Jew, who halloweth it.

Where by the way Tostatus notes upon these words,In Exod. 20. that sacra septima are here ascribed unto the Jews as their badge or cognizance, which had been most improper, and in­deed untrue, si gentes aliae servarent sabbatum, if any other Nation, specially the Romans, had observed the same. But to proceed, Persius hits them in the teeth with their recutita sabbata: And Martial scornfully calleth them Sabbatarians, Sat. 5. l. 4. ep. 4. Ap. Josephum. Antiq. l. 12.1. in an Epigram of his to Bassus, where reckoning up some things of an unsavoury smell, he reckoneth Sabbatariorum jejunia, amongst the principal. So Agatharebides, who wrote the lives of Alexanders successors, accuseth them of an unspeakable superstition; in that [...], they suffered Ptolomy to take their City of Hierusalem on a Sab­bath day, rather than stand upon their guard. But that of Apion, Joseph. adv. Apion. l. 2. the great Clerk of Alexandria, is the most shameful and reproachful of all the rest: Who, to despight the Jews the more, and lay the deeper stain upon their Sabbaths, relates in his Egyptian story, that at their going out of Egypt, having travelled for the space of six whole days, they became stricken with certain inflammations in the privy parts, which the Egyptians call by the name of Sabbo; [...], and for that cause they were compelled to rest on the seventh day, which afterwards the called the Sabbath. Than which, what greater calumny could a malicious Syco­phant invent against them? Doubtless, those men that speak so despicably and re­proachfully of the Jewish Sabbath, had never any of their own: Nor did the Greeks and Latines, and Egyptians only out of the plenty, or the redundance rather of their wit, deride and scoff the Sabbaths celebrated by those of Jewry; Cap. 1. v. 7. it was a scorn that had before been fastned on them, when wit was not so plentiful as in later times. For so the Prophet Jeremiah in his Lamentations made on the death of King Josiah. The adversa­ries saw her, and did mock at her Sabbaths. The Jews must needs be singular in this observation. All Nations else, both Graecian and Barbarian, had never so agreed to­gether to deride them for it.

Yet we deny not all this while, but that the fourth Commandment, VI so much thereof as is agreeable to the law and light of nature, was not alone imprinted in the minds of the Gentiles, but practised by them. For they had statos dies, some appoin­ted times appropriated to the worship of their several gods, as before was shewed; their holy-days, and half-holy-days, accordding to that estimation which their gods had gotten in the world. And this as well to comfort and refresh their spirits, which other­wise had been spent and wasted with continual labour, as to do service to those Dei­ties which they chiefly honoured. Dii genus bominum laboribus natura pressum miserati, De leg. l. 2. remissionem laborum statuerunt solennia festa; was the resolution once of Plato. But this concludes not any thing that they kept the Sabbath, or that they were obliged to keep it, by the law of nature. And where it is conceived by some that the Gentiles by the light of nature had their Weeks,Purch. Pilgr. l. 1. c. 4. which is supposed to be an argument that they kept the Sabbath, a week being only of seven days, and commonly so called both in Greek and Latine: We on the other side affirm, that by this very rule, the Gentilos, many of them, if not the most, could observe no Sabbath, because they did observe no weeks. For first the Caldees and the Persians had no weeks at all, but to the several days of each several month, appropriated a particular name of some King or other,Emend. temp. l. 3. as the Peruvians do at this present time, & nomina diebus mensis indunt, ut prisci Persae, as Scaliger hath noted of them. The Grecians also did the like in the times of old, there being an old Attick Calendar to be seen in Scaliger, wherein is no division of the month into weeks at all. Then for the Romans, they divided their accompt into eighths and eighths, as the Jews did by sevens and sevens; the one reflecting on their nundinae, Id. l. 4. as the other did upon their Sabbath. Ogdoas Romanorum in tributione dierum servabatur propter nundinas, ut habdomas apud Judaeos propter sabbatum. For proof of which there are some ancient Roman Calendars to be seen as yet, one in the aforesaid Sealiger, the other in the Roman Antiquities of John Rossinus; wherein the days are noted from A. to H, as in our common Almanacks from A to G. The Mexicans go a little further, [...] and they have 13 days to the week, as the same Scaliger hath observed of them. Nay, [Page 358]even the Jews themselves were ignorant of this division of the year into weeks, as tostatus thinks,In Levit. 23. qu. 3. till Moses learnt it of the Lord in the fall of Mannah. Nor were the Greeks and Romans destitute of this accompt, only whiles they were rude and untrain­ed People, as the Peruvians and the Mexicans at this present time; but when they were in their greatest flourish for Arts and Empire.Hist. l. 36. Dion affirms it for the ancient Grecians, that they knew it not, [...], for ought he could learn;Natural. 7. and Seneca more punctually, that first they learnt the motions of the Planets of Eudoxus, who brought that knowledge out of Egypt, and consequently could not know the week before. And for the Romans, though they were well enough acquain­ed with the Planets in their latter times; yet they divided not their Calendar into weeks, as now they do, till near about the time of Dionysius Exiguus, who lived about the year of Christ, 520. Nor had they then received it in all probability, had they not long before admitted Christianity throughout their Empire, and therewithal the knowledge of the holy Scriptures, where the accempt by weeks was exceeding ob­vious. Therefore according to this rule, the Chaldees, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, all the four great Monarchies did observe no Sabbaths, because they did observe no weeks. Which said in this place once for all, we resolve it thus; that as the Israelites kept no Sabbath before the Law, so neither did the Gentiles when the Law was given, which proves it one of Moses Ordinances, no prescript of nature.

CHAP. V. The Practice of the Jews in such observances as were annexed unto the Sabbath.

  • 1. Of some particular adjuncts affixed unto the Jewish Sabbath.
  • 2. The Annual Festivals called Sabbaths in the Book of God, and reckoned as a part of the fourth Commandment.
  • 3. The Annual Sabbaths no less solemnly ob­served and celebrated than the weekly were, if not more solemnly.
  • 4. Of the Parasceue or Preparation to the Sabbath and the solemn Festivals.
  • 5. All manner of work as well forbidden on the Annual as the weekly Sabbaths.
  • 6. What things were lawful to be done on the Sabbath days.
  • 7. Touching the prohibitions of not kindling fire, and not dressing meat.
  • 8. What moved the Gentiles generally to charge the Jews with Fasting on the Sab­bath day.
  • 9. Touching this Prohibition, Let no man go out of his place on the Sabbath day.
  • 10. All lawful recreations, as Dancing, Feasting, Man-like Exercises, allowed and practised by the Jews upon their Sabbaths.

I Shewed you in the former Chapter the institution of the Sabbath, I by whom it was first published, and to whom prescribed. It now remains to see how it was ob­served, how far the People thought themselves obliged by it, and in what cases they were pleased to dispense therewith. Which that we may the better do, we will take notice first of the Law it self, what is contained in the same, what the Sabbath signi­fieth; and then of such particular observances, which by particular statutes were affixed by God to the fourth Commandment, either by way of Comment on it, or addition to it; and after were misconstrued by the Scribes and Pharisees to insnare the People. And first, not to say any thing in this place of the quid nominis, or derivation of the word, which Philo and Josephus, and the seventy do often render by [...], repose or rest: Sabbath is used in Scripture to signifie some selected time by God him­self deputed unto rest and holiness, Most specially and [...], it pints out unto us the seventh day, as that which was first honoured with the name of Sabbath, Exod. 16.25. and in the second place those other Festivals which were by God prescribed to the house of Israel, and are called Sabbaths also, as the others were. Of these, the one was weekly, and the other Annual; the New-moons not being honoured with this title in the Book of God, though in heathen Authors. The weekly Sab­bath was that day precisely, whereon God rested from the works that he had made, which he commanded to be kept for a day of rest unto the Jews, that so they might [Page 359]the better meditate on the wondrous works that he had done every seventh day ex­actly, in a continual revolution from time to time. Therefore, saith Damaseen, De side Ortbod. l. 4. c. 24. when we have reckoned to seven days, [...], our computation of the time runs round, and begins anew. These as in general, and [...], as before I said, they were called Sabbaths; so were there some of them that had particular adjuncts whereby to know them from the rest; whereof the one was constant, and the other casual. The constant adjunct is that of [...], or sabbatum secundo primum, as the Latine renders it; mention whereof is made in Saint Lukes Gospel. Our English reads it, on the second Sabbath after the first. Cap. 6.1. A place and passage that much exercised mens wits in the former times, and brought forth many strange conceits; until at last, this and the [...] sophistarum, Casaub. Exerc. 14. n. 1. and super fluvios manare fontes, came to be reckoned in a Proverb as preposterous things. Scaliger hath of late untied the knot, and resolved it thus,Emend. Temp. lib. 6. that all the Weeks or Sab­baths from Pasch to Pentecost, did take their name [...], from the second day of the Feast of Passeover; that being the Epoche, or point of time, from which the fifty days were to be accompted by the Law: and that the first Week or Sab­bath after the said second day, was called [...], the second, [...], the third, [...]. and so the rest. According to which reckoning, the se­cond Sabbath after the first, as we translate it, must be the first Sabbath, [...], from the second day of the Passcover. The casual adjunct is, that sometimes there was a Sabbath that was called [...], the great Sabbath; or as it is in Saint Johns Gospel, [...], magnus ille dies Sabbati, Cap. 19.31. as the La­tine hath it. And is so called not for its own sake, for Casaubon hath rightly noted;Exerc. 16. n. 31. nunquam eam appellationem Sabbato tributam reperiri propter ipsum: But because then, as many other times it did, the Passeover did either fall, or else was celebrated on a Sab­bath. Even as in other cases, and at other times, when any of the greater and more solemn Festivals did fall upon the Sabbath day, they used to call it,Epist. 110. l. 3. Sabbatum Sabba torum, a Sabbath of Sabbaths, [...], as Isidore Pelusiotes notes it.

For that the Annual Feasts were called Sabbaths too, is most apparent in the Scrip­tures, II especially, Levit. 23. where both the Passeover, the Feast of Trumpets, the Feast of Expiation, and the Feast of Tabernacles are severally entituled by the name of Sab­baths. The Fathers also note the same, [...], saith Saint Chrysostom; and [...], saith Isidore in the place before re­membred.Hom. in Math. 39. Even the New-moons amongst the Gentiles had the same name also, as may appear by that of Horace, who calls them in his Satyrs, Tricesima Sabbata, L. 1. Sat. 9. because they were continually celebrated every thirtieth day. The like they did by all the rest, if Joseph Scaligers note be true, as I think it is; who hath affirmed expresly,Emend. Temp. lib. 3. Omnem festivitatem Judaicam non solum Judaeos sed & Gentiles sabbatum vocare. Nay, as the weekly Sabbaths, some of them had their proper adjuncts; so had the annual. Saint Athanasius tells us of the Feast of Expiation, that it was [...],De Sabbat. & Circumcis. or the principal Sabbath, for so I take it is his meaning; which self same attribute is given by Origen to the Feast of Trumpets. Clemens of Alexandria 6. Stromat. In Num. 28. hom. 23. brings in a diffe­rence of those Festivals out of a supposed work of Saint Peter the Apostle; wherein, besides the New-moons and Passeover, which are there so named, they are distributed into [...], or the first Sabbath, the Feast [...], so called, and the Great day. Casaubon for his part protesteth,Exer. 14. n. 1. ipsi obscurum esse quid sit sabbatum primum, that he was yet to seek what should the meaning be of that first Sabbath. But Scaliger conceives, and not improbably, that by this first Sab­bath, Emend. Temp. Prolog. Edit. 2. of [...], was meant the Feast of Trumpets, because it was caput anni, or the beginning of the civil year; the same which Origen calls Sabbatum sabba­torum, as before we noted. As for the Feast, [...], so named in Clemens, that he conceives to be the Feast of Pentecost; and the great day in him remembred, the Feast of Tabernacles; for the which last, he hath authority in the Scriptures, who tell of the Great day of this very Feast, Joh. 7.37. Not that the Feast of Tabernacles was alone so called, but in a more especial manner:Contr. Marcian. For there were other days so named besides the Sabbaths. Dies observatis, saith Tertullian, & sabbata ut opinor, & coenas puras, & jejunia, & dies magnos. Where sabbata & dies magni, are distinguished plainly. Indeed it stood with reason that these annual Sab­baths should have the honour also of particular adjuncts as the weekly had, being all founded upon one and the same Commandment. Philo affirms it for the Jews. De Decalog. [...], &c. The fourth Commandment, saith he, is of the [Page 360]Sabbath, and the Festivals of Vows, of Sacrifices, forms of purifying, and other parts of di­vine worship. Which is made good by Zanchie for the Christian Writers, who in his work upon the Decalogue doth resolve it thus.In Mandat. 4. Sabbati nomine ad Judaeos quod atti­nebat, Deus intellexit non solum sabbatum septem dierum, sed sabbata etiam annorum, item omnia festa, quae per Mosen illis explicavit. It was the moral part of the fourth Com­mandment that some time should be set apart for Gods publick service; and in the bo­dy of that Law it is determined of that time, that it should be one day in seven. Yet not exclusively, that there should be no other time appointed, either by God or by his Church, than the seventh day only. God therefore added other times, as to him seemed best, the list whereof we may behold in the twenty-third of Leviticus; and the Church too by Gods example, added also some, as namely the Feast of Dedication, and that of Purim.

Now as the Annual Festivals ordained by God, III had the name of Sabbath, as the weekly had; so the observances in them were the same, or not much different, if in some things the weekly Sabbaths seemed to have preheminence, the Annual Sabbaths went beyond them in some others also. For the continuance of these Feasts, the weekly Sabbath was to be observed throughout their Generations for a perpetual Co­venant, Exod. 31.16. So for the Passeover, you shall observe it throughout your Genera­tions by an Ordinance for ever, Exod. 12.14. The like of Pentecost, it shall be a statute for ever throughout your Generations, Levit. 23.21. So also for the Feast of Expiation, Levit. 23.31. And for the Feast of Tabernacles, Levit. 24.41. Where note, that by these words for ever, and throughout their Generations, it is not to be understood that these Jewish Festivals were to be perpetual, for then they would oblige us now as they did the Jews; but that they were to last as long as the Republick of the Jews should stand, and the Mosaical Ordinances were to be in force.De bello. l. 6. cap. 6. Per generationes vestras, i. e. quam diu Respub. Judaica constaret, as Tostatus notes upon this twenty-third of Leviticus. For the solemnity of these Feasts, the pre­sence of the High Priests was as necessary in the one as in the other. The High Priests also (saith Josephus) ascended with the Priests into the Temple, [...], and yet not always, but only on the Sabbaths and New-moons, [...], as also on those other Feasts and solemn Assemblies which yearly were to be observed according unto the custom of the Country. And hitherto we find no dif­ference at all; but in the manner of the rest, there appears a little between the weekly Sabbath and some of the Annual. For of the weekly Sabbath it is said expresly, that thou shalt do no manner of work; Levit. 23.7, 21, 25, 36. as on the other side of the Passeover, the Pentecost, the Feast of Trumpets, and of Tabernacles, that they shall do no servile work: which being well examined, will be found the same in sence, though not in sound. But then again for sence and sound, it is expresly said of the Expiation, that therein thou shalt do no manner of work, as was affirmed before of the weekly Sabbath. So that besides the seventh day Sabbath, there were seven Sabbaths in the year; in six of which, viz. the first and seventh of Unleavened bread, the day of Pentecost, the Feast of Trumpets, and the first and eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles, they were to do no servile works; and on the Expiation day, no work at all. So that in this respect, the week­ly Sabbath, and the day of Expiation were directly equal, according to the very letter. In other things the day of Expiation seems to have preheminence: First, that upon this day only, the high Priest, omnibus pontificalibus indumentis indutus, attired in his Pontificals, might go into the Sanctum sanctorum, or the holiest of all, to make attone­ment for the People; whereof see Levit. 16. And secondly, in that the sacrifices for this day were more and greater than those appointed by the Lord for the weekly Sab­baths; which last is also true of the other Festivals. For where the sacrifice appointed for the weekly Sabbath, consisted only of two Lambs, over and above the daily sacrifice, with a meat-offering and a drink-offering thereunto proportioned; on the New-moons, and all the Annual Sabbaths before remembred the sacrifices were enlarged, nay, more than trebled, as is expressed in the 28 and 29 of the book of Numbers. Nay, if it hapned any time, as sometimes it did, that any of these Festivals did fall upon the weekly Sabbath, or that two of them, as the New-moons and the Feast of Trumpets fell upon the same: the service of the weekly Sabbath lessened not at all, the sacrifices destinate to the Annual Sabbath; but they were all performed in their se­veral turns.Ap. Ainsworth. in Num. 28. The Text it self affirms as much in the two Chapters before specified; and for the practice of it, that so it was, it is apparent to be seen in the Hebrew Calen­dars. Only the difference was this, as Rabbi Maimony informs us, that the addition of the Sabbath was first performed; and after, the addition of the New-moon, and [Page 361]then the addition of the Good day, or other Festival. So that in case the weekly Sab­bath had a priviledge above the Annual, in that the Shew-bread or the loaves of pro­position were only set before the Lord on the weekly Sabbaths: the Annual Sabbaths seem to have had amends all of them in the multiplicity of their sacrifices, and three of them in the great solemnity and concourse of people; all Israel being bound to appear before the Lord on those three great Festivals, the Passeover, the Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles. As for the penalty inflicted on the breakers of these solemn Fe­stivals, it is expresly said of the weekly Sabbath, that whosoever doth any work therein, shall be put to death, Exod. 31.15. And in the Verse before, that whosoever doth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off (or as the Chaldee Paraphrase reads it, that man shall be destroyed) from amongst his People. Whic if it signifie the same, as by the Chaldee Paraphrase it seems to do; it is no more than what is elsewhere said of the Expiation, for so saith the Text. And whatsoever soul it be that doth any work in that same day, Levit. 23.30. that soul will I destroy from amongst his People. But if the phrase be different, as the Rabbins say, the difference is no more than this, that they that break the weekly Sabbath, are to be put to death by the Civil Magistrate; and they that work upon the Feast of Ex­piation shall be cut off by God by untimely deaths. As for the other Annual Sabbaths, the rabbins have determined thus,Ap. Ainsworth. in Levit. 23.7. That whosoever doth in any of them such works as are not necessary for food, as if he build or pull down, or weave, and the like, he breaketh a Com­mandment, and transgresseth against this prohibition, Ye shall not do any servile work; and if he do, and there be Witnesses and evident proof, he is by law to be beaten or scourged for it. So that we see, that whether we regard the institution or continuance of these se­veral Sabbaths, or the solemnities of the same, either in reference to the Priests, the Sacrifices, and concourse of People, or finally the punishment inflicted on the breakers of them; the difference is so little, it is scarce remarkable, considering especially, that if the weekly Sabbaths do gain in one point, they lose as often in another. For the particulars we shall speak of them hereafter, as occasion is.

As for the time when they began their Sabbaths, and when they ended them, IV they took beginning on the Evening of the day before, and so continued till the Evening of the Feast it self. The Scripture speaks it only, as I remember, of the Expiation, which is appointed by the Lord to be observed on the tenth day of the seventh month, Lev. 23.27. yet so that it is ordered thus in the 31. It shall be unto you a Sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month, at even. And then it followeth, From even to even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath. But in the Practice of the Jews, it was so in all, either because they took those words for a general precept, or else because they commonly did accompt their day from even to even. For where the Romans and Egyptians began the day at midnight; [...]mend. Temp. l. 1. the Chaldees and the Persians with the rising Sun; and the Ʋmbri, an Italian People, reckoned theirs from noon to noon; the Jews and the athenians took the beginning of their day, ab occasu solis, from Sun-set­ting, as Scaliger and divers others have observed. Yet sure I am, Honorius Augusto­dunensis, De imagine mundi, l. 2. who lived four hundred years ago and upwards, placeth the Jews together with the Persians and Chaldeans, as men that do begin their day at the Sun-rising. However in this case it is not to be thought that the Even was any part of the Sabbath following, (for the additional sacrifices were offered only on the Morning and the Evening of the several Sabbaths) but a [...], or preparation thereunto; which preparation, if it were before the weekly Sabbath, it was called [...]; if be­fore any of the Annual, it was called [...]. In imitation of the Gentiles, the Latine Writers call these Parasceve's or Evens of preparation by the name of Coena pura, as Augustine noteth upon the nineteenth of S. John, because of some resemblance that was between them; but yet they had a difference too.Exer. 16. n. 100. For Casaubon hath taught us this, that in the Coena pura amongst the Gentiles, a part of the ceremony did consist in the choice of meats, where no such thing occurs at all in these preparations of the Jews. Now these Parasceves, or preparation days the Jews did afterward divide into these four parts. The first was [...], a preparative, as it were, to the pre­paration which began in the morning, and held on till noon. The second was [...], largely taken, from Noon until the Evening-sacrifice of the day: The third, [...], or the approaching of the Sabbath, which began after the Even­ing sacrifice, continued till Sun-set, and was properly called the [...], the fourth was the [...], or entrance of the Sabbath, which lasted from Sun-set unto the dawning of the day. They had amongst them a tradition, or a custom rather, that on the whole day, from the [...], till Sun-set, they [Page 362]might not travel above twelve miles, lest coming home too late, they might not have sufficient leisure to prepare things before the Sabbath.Synag. Jud. c. 10. The time was, as Buxdorfius tells us, quo cornu vel inflata tuba daretur signum, when there was publick warning given by sound of Trumpet, that every man should cease from work, and make all things ready for the Sabbath; though in these days the Clerk or Sexton goeth about from door to door to give notice of it.De Bello l. 5. c. 9. The time was so indeed, so Josephus tells us, that in Hierusalem, one of the Priests continually standing upon a Pillar, [...], made known upon the even before by sound of Trumpet, which time the Sabbath did begin; and on the Evening of the Sabbath, at which time it ended; that so the People might be certified both at what time to rest from labour, and at what time they might again apply their minds and hands unto it. Now what Josephus saith of the weekly Sabbath, the same was done, saith Philo, in the New-moons also; [...], which is much alike.Num. 10.10. And consequently we may say the same of the Annual Sabbaths, in which the Sons of Aaron were to blow the Trumpets, as well as in the New-moons or the weekly Sabbaths. As for the works prohibited or permitted on these days of preparation, whether before the weekly or the Anntal Sabbaths, I find little difference. This I am sure of, that it was as much unlawful for the Judges to sit on any Capital crimes the day before the Annual Sabbath as before the weekly; and the reason was, because the morrow after, of which sort soever, was though to be no fit day for Execution.Ap. Casaub. Exc. 1. n. 20. Judices rerum Capitalium non judicant in paras­ceve Sabbati, aut in parasceve diei festi, quia non debet id fieri; & reus occidi postridie non potest. So saith Rabbi Maimony. Of the ridiculous nicety of the modern Jews in these Paraseeves, we shall speak hereafter.

To come unto the day it self, V it is said expresly in the Law, that therein thou shalt do no manner of work. What, no work at all? How could they eat and drink, and put on their cloaths? These are some manner of works, yet done every Sabbath; yea, by the Pharisees themselves,In Matth. 12. which were most strict observers of the weekly Sabbaths. Quis Pharisaeorum, saith Saint Hierom, in die sabbati non extendit manum, portans cibum, por­rigens calicem, & caetera quae victui sunt necessaria; yet all these were works. How could they Circumcise, and offer Sacrifice, and set on the Shew-bread on the Sabbath? Surely all these are works too, some of them very troublesome, yet commonly performed on the weekly Sabbaths; of which more anon. Therefore when all is done, we must expound these words of ordinary and servile labours, such as are toilsome in themselves, and aim at profit.In Mandat. 4. Zanchie, I am sure, doth expound them so. Nomen operis quod hic habet Moses, non significat opus simplicitur, sed opus quod propter opes comparandas suscipitur: Tale autem opus est vere servile. In Esa. 58.13. Saint Hierom also expounds it, Lege preceptum est ne in sabbatis opus servile faciamus, &c. We are commanded in the Law to do no servile works on the Sabbath days. And on the fifth of Amos he affirms the same; jubet ne quid in eo operis servilis fiat, &c. And so Tertullian; Nec dubium est eos opus servile operatos, &c. in his second book against Marcion. If so, there is no difference at all between the weekly and the Annual Sabbaths in this one particular, because all servile works ex­presly are forbidden in them also, as before we shewed. But take it in the very words, no manner of work; and ask the Hebrew Doctors what they mean thereby. They will then tell you first, there must be no marketting, no not buying of Victuals; for which they cite the 13 of Nehemiah, verse 16, 17. nor no Embalming of the Dead, in which they vouch Saint Lukes Gospel, Chap. 27. v. 54, 56. This we acknowledge for a truth; but then we say withal, that neither of these two were lawful on the Annual Sabbaths. For when it hapned any time, as sometimes it did, that a weekly Sabbath and an Annual Sabbath came next days together, the Jews did commonly in their later times put off the Annual Sabbath to a farther day. And this they did, as them­selves tell us, because of burials, and of meats which were fit for eating, lest by de­ferring either the one or the other, the carkasses should putrifie, and the meats be spoiled.Ap. Casaub. Exerc. 10. n. 20. Non facimus duo sahbata continua, propter olera, & propter mortuos, ut Rabbini dictitant. Which need not be, in case they held it lawful either to bury or to buy on the Annual Sabbaths. They tell us next that the Jews could not travel on the weekly Sabbath, and this from Exod. 16.29. Whether that Text were so intended, we shall see anon. But sure I am, that when the Jews began to reckon it an unlawful matter to travel on the weekly Sabbath; they held it altogether as unlawful to travel on the Annual Sabbath.Joseph. Antiq. l. 13. c. 16. Nic. Damascen reporteth (as Josephus tells us) how that Antiochus the great King of Syria erected a Trophee near the flood Lycus, and abode there awodays at the request of Hyrcanus the King of Jewry, by reason of a solemn Feast at that [Page 363]time, whereon it was not lawful for the Jews to travel. In which he was no wise mistaken. For (saith Josephus) the Feast of Pentecost was that year the morrow after the Sabbath (for at that troublesome time the Pentecost was not deferred) what then? It followeth, [...], and unto us it is not lawful, either upon our Sabbaths or our Feasts to journey any whither. They tell us also, that it is not lawful to execute a Malefactor on the weekly Sabbath, although it be commanded that he must be punished; nor do they do it on the Feasts or Annual Sabbaths, as be­fore we noted. As also that it is not lawful to Marry on the Sabbath day, nor on the Even before the Sabbath, nor the morrow after, lest they pollute the Sabbath by dressing meat for the Feast: and on the solemn Festivals, or the Annual Sabbaths they were not suffered to be Married, lest (say the Rabbins) the joy of the Festival be forgotten through the joy of the Wedding. Ap. Ainsw. in Levit. 23. The many other trifling matters which have been pro­hibited by the Jewish Doctors, and are now practised by that senseless and be­sotted People, shall somewhere be presented to you towards the end of this first Book.

Again, VI demand of these great Doctors, since it is said expresly that we shall do no manner of work, whether there be at all no case, in which it may be lawful to do work on the Sabbath day; and then they have as many shifts to put off the Sabbath, as they had niceties before wherewithal to beautifie it. A Woman is in travel on the Sabbath day, is it not lawful for the Midwife to discharge her duty, although it be for gain, and her usual trade? Yea, saith that great Clerk Rabbi Simeon, Pet. Galatin. l. 11. c. 10. propter puerum unius diei vivum, solvunt sabbatum; to save a Child alive we may break the Sabbath. This Child being born, must needs be Circumcised on the eighth day after, which is the Sabbath: May not the Ministers do their office? yes, for the Rabbins have a maxim that Circumcisio pellit sabbatum. And what? Doth only Circumcision drive away the Sabbath? No, any common danger doth it: And then they change the phrase a little, & periculum mortis pellit sabbatum. Nay more, the Priest that waiteth at the Altar, doth he do no work upon the Sabbath? Yes, more than on the other days, and for that too they have a maxim, viz. qui observari jussit sabbatum, Ap. Casaub. Exer. 16. n. 20. is profanari jussit sabbatum. We shall meet with some of these again hereafter. Therefore we must expound these words, no manner of work, i.e. no kind of servile work, as before we did; or else the weekly Sabbath and the fourth Commandment must be a nose of wax, and a Lesbian rule, fit only to be wrested and applied to whatsoever end and purpose it shall please the Rabbins. More warily and more soundly have the Christian Doctors, yea, and the very Heathens determined of it; who judge that all such corporal labours as tend unto the moral part of the fourth command, which are Rest and Sanctity, are fit and lawful to be done on the Sabbath day. That men should rest upon such times as are designed and set apart for Gods publick service, and leave their daily labours till some other season, the Gentiles knew full well by the light of nature.Mac [...]ob. Sat: l. 1. c. 16. Therefore the Flamines were to take especial care ne feriis opus fieret, that no work should be done on the solemn days, and to make it known by Proclamation, ne quid tale ageretur, that no man should presume to do it. Which done, if any one offended, he was forthwith mulcted; yet was not this enjoyned so strictly that no work was permitted in what case soever. All things which did concern the Gods, and their publick worship, vel ad urgentem vitae utilitatem respicerent, or were important any way to mans life and well­fare, were accounted lawful. More punctually Scevola, being then chief Pontifex. Who being demanded what was lawful to be done on the Holy-days, made answer, quod praetermissum noceret, which would miscarry if it were left undone. He therefore that did underprop a ruinous building, or raise the Cattel that was fallen into the ditch, did not break the Holy-day in his opinion. No more did he that washed his Sheep, si hoc remedii cause fieret, were it not done to cleanse the Wool and make it ready for the Shearers, but only for the cure of some sore or other; according unto that of Virgil, Balantumque gregem fluvio mersare salubri. Georgie. Thus far the Gentiles have resolved it, agreeably to the Law of nature; and so far do the Christian Doctors, yea, and our Lord and Saviour determine of it. The corporal labours of the Priest on the Sabbath day, as far as it concerns Gods service, were accounted lawful: The Priests in the Temple break the Sabbath, and yet were blameless. So was the corporal labour of a man, either to save his own life or preserve anothers: Christ justified his Disciples for gathering Corn upon the Sabbath, being then an hungred, Matth. 12. v. 1.3. and re­stored many unto health on the Sabbath day, Matth. 12.13. and in other places. Fi­nally, corporal labours to preserve Gods Creatures, as to draw the Sheep out of the [Page 364]Pit, Matth. 12.11. and consequently to save their Cattel from the Thief, a ruinous house from being over-blown by tempest, their Corn and Hay also from a sudden In­undation; these and the like to these were all judged lawful on the Sabbath. And thus you see the practice of the Gentiles governed by the light of nature, is every way conformable to our Saviours doctrine, and the best Comment also on the fourth Com­mandment, as far as it contains the law of natue.

For such particular Ordinances which have been severally affixed to the fourth Commandment, VII either by way of Comment on it, or addition to it; that which is most considerable,Vers. 12. is that Prohibition in the 35 of Exodus, viz. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on the Sabbath day. The Rabbins, some of them, conceive that hereby is meant that no man must be beaten, or put to death upon the Sabbath; and then it must be thus expounded, Ye shall kindle no fire, i. e. to burn a man upon the Sabbath, who is condemned by the Law to that kind of death; and consequently not to put him on that day unto any punishment at all. Others of late refer that prohibition unto the building of the Tabernacle, in that Chapter mentioned; and then the meaning will be this, that they should make no fire on the Sabbath, no, though it were to hasten on the work of the holy Tabernacle. Philo restrains it chiefly [...]to manual Trades, [...], such whereby men do get their livings: And then it must be thus interpreted, Ye shall not kindle any sire that is, to do any common ordinary and servile works, like as do common Bakers, Smiths, and Brewers,De vit. Mos. l. 3. by making it part of their usual trade. The later Rabbins, almost all, and many Christian Writers also taking the hint from Ʋatablus and Tremelius it their An­notations, refer it unto dressing of Meat, according to the latter custom. Nay, ge­nerally the Jews in the latter times were more severe and rigid in the exposition of that Text,Tostat. in Jo­sua, c. q. 2. and would allow no fire at all, except in sacred matters only. For whereas Rabbi Aben Ezra had so expounded it, quod liceat ignem accendere ad caiefaciendum siur­geret srigus, that it was lawful to make a fire wherewith to warm ones self in the extre­mity of cold weather, though not to dress meat with it for that days expence; the Rabbins generally would have proceeded against him as an Heretick, and purposely writ a Book in contutation of him which they called the Sabbath. How this interpretation was thus generally received, I cannot say. But I am verily persuaded that it was not so in the beginning;Exod. 16.23. and that those words of Moses, quae coquenda sunt, hodie coquite, bake that which ye will bake to day, and seeth what ye will seeth; which words are com­monly produced to justifie and confirm this fancy, do prove quite contrary to what some would have them. The Text and Context both make it plain and manifest that the Jews baked their Mannah on the Sabbath day. The People on the sixth day had gathered twice as much as they used to do, whereof the Rulers of the Congregation acquainted Moses. And Moses said, to morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord; bake that which ye will bake to day, and seeth what ye will seeth, and that which remaineth over, lay up to be kept until the morning. i.e. As much as you conceive will be sufficient for this present day, that bake or boil, according as you use to do; and for the rest, let it be laid by to be baked or boiled to morrow, that you may have where­with to feed you, on the Sabbath day. That this interpretation is most true and pro­per, appears by that which followeth in the holy Scripture,Vers. 24. viz. They laid it up as Moses bade, and it did not stink, neither was any worm therein; as that which they had kept till morning, on some day before, Verse 20. This makes it evident that the Mannah was laid up unbaked; for otherwise what wonder had it been at all, that it did neither breed worm, nor stink, had it been baked the day before. Things of that nature so preserved, are far enough from putrifying in so short a time. This, I am verily per­suaded was the practice then; and for this light unto that practice, I must ingenu­ously confess my self obliged to Theophilus Braborn, the first that ever looked so near into Moses meaning.Chap. 4. And this most likely was the practice of the Jews in after times, even till the Phartsees had almost made the words of God of no effect, by their tra­ditions; for then came in those many rigid Ordinances about this day, which made the day and them ridiculous unto all the Heathens. Sure I am that the Scriptures call it a day of gladness, for it was a Festival, and therefore probable it is that they had good cheer.2 Edit. p. 137.138. And I am sure that Dr. Bound, the founder of these Sabbatarian fancies, though he conceive that dressing meat upon the Sabbath, was by the words of Moses utterly unlawful in the time of Mannah; yet he conceives withal, that that Commandment was proper only unto the time of Mannah in the Wilderness, and so to be restrained unto that time only. Therefore, by his confession, the Jews for after times might as well dress [Page 365]their meat on the Sabbath day, as on any other: notwithstanding this Injurction of not kindling fire. Indeed why not as well dress meat, as serve it in: the attendance of the servant at his Masters Table, being no less considerable on the Sabbath day, than of the Cooks about the Kitchin: especially in those riotous and excessive Feasts, which the Jews kept upon this day, however probably they might dress their meat on the day before.

I say those riotons and excessive Feasts, which the Jews kept upon that day, VIII and I have good authority for what I say. Saint Augustine tells us of them they kept the Sabbath, only ad luxuriam & ebrietatem; and that they rested only ad nugas & luxu­rias sitas; that they consumed the day, languido & luxurioso otio; T [...]ast. 3. in Joh. De 10. chordis c. 3. In Psalm 91. In Psalm 32. Sympos. Isiac. l. 4. and finally did abuse the same, not only deliciis Judacis, but ad nequitiam, even to sin and naughtiness. Put all together, and we have luxury, and drunkenness, and sports and pleasures enough to manifest that they spared not any Dainties to set forth their Sabbath, though on a Pharisaical prohibition they forbare to dress their meats upon it. Nay, Plutarch lays it to their charge, that they did feast it on their Sabbath, with no small excess, but of Wine especially. Who thereupon conjectureth, that the name of Sabbath had its ori­ginal from the Orgies or Feasts of Bacchus; whose Priests used often to ingeminate the word Sabbi, Sabbi, in their drunken Ceremonies. Which being so, it is the more to be admired, that generally the Romans did upbraid this peopled with their Sabbaths fast. Augustus having been at the Bathes, and fasting there a long time together;Sueton. in Octav. c. 76. gives notice of it to Tiberius, thus: ne Judaeus quidem tam diligenter sabbatis Jejunium servat, that never any Jew had fasted more exactly on the Sabbaths than he did that day. So Martial reckoning up some things of unsavoury smell, names amongst others, jejunia sabbatriorum; for by that name he did contemptuously mean the Jews, as be­fore I noted. And where the Romans in those times, began, some of them, to incline to the Jewish Ceremonies, and were observant of the Sabbath, as we shall see hereas­ter in a place more proper: Persius objects against them this, labra monent taciti, Sat. 5. re­cutitaque sabbata pallent. i.e. that being Romans as they were, they muttered out their Prayers as the Jews accustomed, and by observing of the Fast on the Jewish Sabbaths, grew lean and pale for very hunger. So saith Petronius Arbiter, that the Jews did ce­lebrate their Sabbath, jejunia lege, by a legal Fast: and Justin yet more generally,Hist. l. 36. septimum diem more gentis sabbatum appellatum in omne aevum jejunio sacravit, Moses, that Moses did ordain the Sabbath to be a fasting day for ever. That the Jews fasted very often, sometimes twice a week, the Pharisee hath told us in Saint Lukes Gospel: and probably the jejunia sabbatariorum in the Poet Martial, might reflect on this. But that they fasted on the Sabbath is a thing repugnant both to the Scriptures, Fathers, and all good antiquity: except in one case only, which was when their City was be­sieged, as Rabbi Moyses Egyptius hath resolved it. Nay, if a man had fasted any time upon the Sabbath, they used to punish him in his sort, ut sequenti etiam die jejunaret, Ap. Baron. A. 34. n. 156. to make him fast the next day after. Yet on the other side, I cannot but conceive that those before remembred, had some ground or reason, why they did charge the Jews with the Sabbaths Fast: for to suppose them ignorant of the Jewish custom, consi­dering how thick they lived amongst them, even in Rome it self, were a strange opi­nion. The rather since by Plutarch, who lived not long after Sueton, if he lived not with him; the Jews are generally accused for too much riot and excess upon that day. For my part, I conceive it thus. I find in Nehemiah, that when the people were returned from the Captivity, Ezra the Priest brought forth the Law before the Con­gregation, Cap. 8.2, 3. and read it to them from the morning until mid-day: which done, they were dismissed by Nehemiah to eat, and drink, and make great joy; which they did accord­ingly.Verse 10, 12. This was upon the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, one of the solemn Annual Sabbaths: and this they did for eight days together,Verse 18. from the first day unto the last that the Feast continued. After when as the Church was setled, and that the Law was read amongst them in their Synagogues on the weekly Sabbaths, most pro­bable it is, that they continued the same custom; holding the Congregation from morn to noon: and that the Jews came thither Fasting, (as generally men do now unto the Sacrament) the better to prepare themselves and their attention for that holy Exercise. Sure I am that Josephus tells us,In vit. sua. that at mid-day they used to dismiss the Assemblies, that being the ordinary hour for their repast: as also that Buxtorfius saith of the modern Jews, that ultra tempus meridianum jejunare non licet, Syn. Jud. c. 10. it is not lawful for them to fast beyond the noon-tide on the Sabbath days. Besides they which found so great fault with our Lords Disciples for eating a few ears of Corn on the [Page 366] Sabbath day, are not unlikely, in my mind to have aimed at this. For neither was the bodily labour of that nature, that it should any ways offend them, in so high a measure: and the defence made by our Lord in their behalf, being that of Davids eating of the Shew-bread, when he was an hungred; is more direct and literal to justifie his Disciples eating, than it was their working. This abstinence of the Jews, that lived amongst them; the Romans noted; and being good Trenchermen them­selves at all times and seasons, they used to hit them in the Teeth with their Sabbaths fasting. But herein I submit my self to better judgments.

There was nother Prohibiton given by God about the Sabbath, IX which being mis­interpreted became as great a snare unto the Consciences of men, as that before re­membred of not kindling fire, and dressing meat upon the Sabbath: viz. Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. Which Prohibition, being a Bridle only unto the people, to keep them in, from seeking after Mannah, as before they did, upon the Sab­bath, was afterwards extended to restrain them also, either from taking any Journey, or walking forth into the Fields, on the Sabbath days. Nay, so precise were some amongst them, that they accounted it unlawful to stir hand or foot upon the Sabbath: ne leviter quispiam se commoveat, In Isa. 58.13. quod si fecerit, legis transgressor sit, as St. Hierom hath it. Others more charitably, chalked them out a way, how far they might adventure, and how far they might not: though in this the Doctors were divided. Some made the Sabbath days journey to be 2000 Cubits, [...]. Ep. 151. of whom Origen tells us: others restrain­ed it to 2000 foot; of whom Hierom speaks; and some again enlarged it unto six surlongs, which is three quarters of a mile. For where Josephus hath informed us that Mount Olivet was six furlongs from Hierusalem; and where the Scriptures tell us, that they were distant about a Sabbath days journey: we may perceive by that, how much a Sabbath days journey was accounted then. But of these things we may have opportunity to speak hereafter. In the mean time, if the Injunction be so absolute and general, as they say it is, we may demand of these great Clerks, as their Succes­sours did of our Lord and Saviour; by what authority they do these things, and warrant that which is not warranted in the Text: if so the Text be to be expounded. Cer­tain I am that ab initio non fuit sic, from the beginning was it neither so, nor so. The Scripture tells us, that when the people were in the Wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. They found him, where? Not in the Camp; he was not so audacious as to transgress the Law in the open view of all the people: knowing how great a penalty was appointed for the Sabbath-breaker: but in some place far off, wherein he might offend without fear or danger. Therefore the people were permitted to walk forth, on the Sabbath day; and to walk further than 2000 soot, or 2000 Cubits: otherwise they had never found out this unlucky fellow. And so saith Philo, De vita Mosis. l. 3. that they did. [...] &c. Some of the people going out into the Wilderness, that they might find some quiet and retired place, in which to make their Prayers to God; saw what they looked not for, that wretched and prohibited spectacle. So that the people were not stinted in their goings on the Sabbath day, nor now, nor in a long time after: as by the course of the ensuing story will at large appear. Even in the time of Mannah, they did not think themselves obliged not to stir abroad upon the Sabbath, or not to travail above such and such a compass: in case they did it not, out of a meer dstrust in God, as before they did, to gather Mannah, but either for their Meditation, or their Recreation.

What said I for their Recreation? X what was that permitted? yes, no doubt it was. Though the Commandment did prohibit all manner of work; yet it permitted, que­stionless, some manner of Pleasures. The Sabbaths rest had otherwise been more toil­som, than the week-days labour: and none had gained more by it, than the Ox and Ass. Yea this Injunction last related, Let none go out of his place on the seventh day, had been a greater bondage to that wretched people, than all the drudgeries of Egypt. To­status tells us on that Text, non est simpliciter intelligendum, &c. It is not so to be con­ceived, that on that day the people might not stir abroad, or go out of their doors at all; but that they might not go to labour, or traffick about any worldly businesses. Etenim die sabbati ambulari possunt Hebraei ad solaciandum, &c. For the Jews lawfully might walk forth on the Sabbath day, to recreate and refresh themselves, so it be not in pursuit of profit.Cap. 10. And this he saith, on the confession of the Jews themselves, ut ipsi communiter confitentur. Buxtorfius, in his Jewish Synagogue, informs us further. Permissum est juvenibus ut tempore sabbati, currendo, spatiando, saltando sese oblectent, &c. [Page 367]It is, saith he, permitted, that their young men may walk, and run, yea and Dance also on the Sabbath day, and leap and jump, and use other manlike Exercises: in case they do it for the honour of the holy Sabbath. This speaks he of the modern Jews, men as tenacious of their Sabbath, and the rigours of it, as any of the Ancients were: save that the Essees and the Pharisies had their private flings above the meaning of the Law. Of manly Exercises on the Sabbath, we shall see more anon in the seventh Chapter. And as for Dancing, that they used anciently to Dance upon the Sabbath, is a thing unquestionable. Saint Augustine saith, they used it, and rebukes them for it: not that they danced upon the Sabbath, but that they spent and wasted the whole day in dancing. There is, no question, an abuse even of lawful pleasures. And this is that which he so often lays unto them. Melius tota die soderent, quam tota die salta­rent: In Psal. 32. better the men did dig all day, than dance all day. And for the Women, melius eorum foeminae lanam facerent, quam illo die [&] in neomeniis saltarent: Tract. 3. in Joh. 1. better the Women spin, than waste all that day and the New-Moons in dancing, as they use to do. I have translated it all that day, agreeable unto the Fathers words in another place; where it is said expresly in tota die. De decem chor­dis, c. 3. Melius foeminae eorum die sabbati lanas fa­cerent, quam tota die [&] in neomeniis suis impudice saltarent. Where note, not dancing simply, but lascivious dancing; and dancing all day long without respect to pious and religious Duties; are by him disliked. Ignatius also saith the same,Ad Magnesia­nos. where he exhorts the people not to observe the Sabbath in a Jewish fashion: walking a limi­ted space, and setting all their mind, [...], as they did in dancing, and in capering. They used also on that day to make invitations, Feasts, and assemblies of good neighbourhood; to foster Brotherly love and concord amongst one another: a thing, even by the Pharisees themselves both allowed and practised.Luke 14.1. Saint Luke hath given an instance of it, how Christ went into the house of a chief Pharisee to eat Bread on the Sabbath day: In plainer terms the Pharisees invited him that day to Dinner. We may assure our selves so famous a Professour had not invited so great a Prophet; nor had our Saviour Christ accepted of the invitation: had they not both esteemed it a lawful matter. It seems it was a common practice for friends to meet and feast toge­ther on the Sabbath. Finito cultu Dei solebant amici convenire, Harmon. c. 119. & inter se convivia agi­tare, as Chemnitius notes upon the place. Lastly, they used upon this day, as to invite their Friends and Neighbours, so to make them welcom: oynting their Heads with Oil to refresh their Bodies; and spending store of Wine amongst them, to make glad their hearts. In which regard, whereas all other marketting was unlawful on the Sab­bath days; there never was restraint of selling Wine: the Jews believed that therein they brake no Commandment. Hebraei faciunt aliquid speciale in vino, In Exod. 12. viz. quod cum in sabbato suo à caeteris venditionibus & emptionibus cessent, solum vlnum vendunt; cre­dentes se non solvere sabbatum, as Tostatus hath it, How they abused this lawful cu­stom of Feasting with their Friends and Neighbours on the Sabbath day, into foul riot and excess; we have seen already. So having spoken of the weekly and the Annual Sabbaths, the difference and agreement which was between them, both in the Insti­tution, and the Observation: as also of such several observances as were annexed unto the same; what things the Jews accounted lawful to be done, and what un­lawful, and how far they declared the same in their constant practice: it is high time that we continue on the story, ranking such special passages as occur hereafter, in their place and order.

CHAP. VI. Touching the observation of the SABBATH, unto the time the people were established in the Promised Land.

  • 1. The Sabbath not kept constantly during the time the people wandred in the Wil­derness.
  • 2. Of him that gathered sticks on the Sab­bath day.
  • 3. Wherein the sanctifying of the Sabbath did consist, in the time of Moses.
  • 4. The Law not ordered to be read in the Congregation every Sabbath day.
  • 5. The sack of Hiericho and the destruction of that people was upon the Sabbath.
  • 6. No Sabbath, after this, without Circum­cision; [Page 368]and how that Ceremony could con­sist with the Sabbaths rest.
  • 7. What moved the Jews, to prefer Cir­cumcision before the Sabbath.
  • 8. The standing still of the Sun, at the pray­ers of Josuah, &c. could not but make some alteration about the Sabbath.
  • 9. What was the Priests work on the Sabbath day; and whether it might stand with the Sabbaths rest.
  • 10. The scattering of the Levites over all the Tribes, had no relation unto the reading of the Law on the Sabbaths-days.

WE left this people in the Wilderness, I where the Law was given them: and whether this Commandment were there kept, or not, hath been made a question; and that both by the Jewish Doctors, and by the Christian. Some have re­solved it negatively, that it was not kept in all that time, which was forty years: and others, that it was at some times omitted, according to the stations or removes of Is­rael; or other great and weighty businesses, which might intermit it. It is affirmed by Rabbi Solomon, that there was only one Passeover observed, whiles they continued in the Deserts: notwithstanding that it was the principal solemnity of all the year. Et si illud fuit omissum, multo fortius alia minus principalia. If that, saith he, then by an argument à majore ad minus, much rather were the lesser Festivals omitted also. More punctually Rabbi Eleazar, Ap. Galation. l. 11. c. 10. who on those words of Exodus, and the people rested the seventh day, Chap. 16.30, gives us to understand, that for the space of forty years, whilest they were in the wilderness, non fecerunt nisi duntaxat primum sabbatum, they kept no more than that first Sabbath. Chap. 5.25. According unto that of the Prophet Amos, Have ye offered unto me sacri­fices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? On which authority, Are­tius for the Christian Doctors doth affirm the same:Probl. lo [...]. 55. Sabbata per annos 40. non observavit in deserto populus Dei, Amos 5.25. The argument may be yet inforced by one more par­ticular, that Circumcision was omitted for all that while, and yet it had precedency of the Sabbath, both in the institution for the times before; and in the observation, for the times that followed. If therefore neither Circumcision, nor the daily sacrifices, nor the Feast of Passeover, being the principal of the Annual Sabbaths, were observed by them till they came to the Land of Canaan: why may not one conclude the same of the weekly Sabbaths? Others conceive not so, directly; but that it was omitted at some times, and on some occasions. Omitted at some times, as when the people journied in the Wilderness many days together,In Exod. 12. nulla requie aliquorum dierum habita, without rest or ceasing: and this the Hebrew Doctors willingly confess, as Tostatus tells us. Omitted too on some occasions, as when the Spies were sent to discover the Land, what was the strength thereof, and what the riches; in which discovery they spent forty days: it is not to be thought that they kept the Sabbath. It was a perillous work that they went about, not to be discontinued and layed by so often, as there were Sabbaths in that time. But not to stand upon conjectures, the Jewish Doctors say expresly,Lib. 11. c. 10. that they did not keep it. So Galatine reports from their own Records, that in their latter exposition on the Book of Numbers, upon those words, send men that they may search the land of Canaan; Chap. 13.2. they thus resolve it, Nuncio praecepti lici­tum est, &c. A Messenger that goes upon Command, may travail any day, at what time be will. And why? because he is a Messenger upon Command. Nuncius autem prae­cepti excludit sabbatum. The phrase is somwhat dark, but the meaning plain: that those which went upon that Errand, did not keep the Sabbath. Certain it also is, that for all that time, no nor for any part thereof, the people did not keep the Sabbath, com­pleatly as the Law appointed. For where there were two things concurring to make up the Sabbath, first, rest from labour, and secondly, the sacrifices destinate unto the day: however they might rest some Sabbaths from their daily labours; yet sacrifices they had none until they came into the Land of Canaan.

Now that they rested, II sometimes, on the Sabbath day, and perhaps did so, ge­nerally, in those forty years, is manifest by that great and memorable Business, touch­ing the man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath. The case is briefly this: the people being in the Wilderness, Numb. 15. Verse 32. ad 37. found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day, and brought him presently unto Moses. Moses consulted with the Lord, and it was re­solved that the offender should be stoned to death, which was done accordingly. The Law before had ordered it, that he who so offended should be put to death; but the particular manner of his death was not known till now. The more remarkable is this case, because it was the only time that we can hear of, that execution had been done upon any one, according as the Law enacted: and thereupon the Fathers have [Page 369]took some pains, to search into the reasons of so great severity.De vit. Mos. l. 3. Philo accuseth him of a double crime, in one whereof he was the principal, and an Accessary only in the other. For where it was before commanded, that there should be no fire kindled on the Sabbath day: this party did not only labour on the day of rest; but also laboured in the gathering of such materials, [...], which might administer fuel to prohibited fire. Saint Basil seems a little to bemoan the man,De judicio Dei. in that he smarted so for his first offence; not having otherwise offended either God or Man: and makes the motive of his death, neither to consist in the multitude of his sins, or the greatness of them, [...] but only in his disobedience to the will of God. But we must have a more particular motive yet than this. And first Rupertus tells us, per superbiam illud quod videbatur exiguum com­misit, In locum. that he did sin presumptuously with an high hand against the Lord: and there­fore God decreed he should die the death: God not regarding either what or how great it was, sed qua mente fecerat, but with what mind it was committed. But this is more, I think, than Rupertus knew, being no searcher of the heart. Rather I shall subscribe herein unto Saint Chrysostom. Who makes this Quaere first,Hom. 39. in Matth. 12. seeing the Sabbath, as Christ saith, was made for man, why was he put to death that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath? And then returns this answer to his own demand, [...], &c. because, in case God had permitted that the Law should have been slighted in the first beginning, none would have kept it for the future. Theodoret to that purpose also, ne autor fieret leges transgrediendi, Qu. 31. in Num. lest other men encouraged by his example should have done the like: the punishment of this one man, striking a terrour unto all. No question but it made the people far more observant of the Sabbath, than they would have been: who were at first but back­wards in the keeping of it, as is apparent by that passage in the sixteenth of Exod. v. 27. And therefore stood the more in need, not only of a watch-word or Memento, even in the very front of the Law it self; but of some sharper course to stir up their me­mory. Therefore this execution was the more requisite at this instant, as well be­cause the Jews by reason of their long abode in a place of continual servile toil, could not be suddenly drawn unto contrary offices without some strong impression of terrour: as also because nothing is more needful than with extremity to punish the first transgressours of those Laws, that do require a more exact observation for the times to come. What time this Tragedy was acted, is not known for certain. By Torniellus it is placed in the year 2548. of the Worlds Creation; which was some four years after the Law was given. More than this is not extant in the Scripture touching the keeping of the Sabbath, all the life of Moses. What was done after, we shall see in the Land of Promise.

In the mean time, It is most proper to this place, III to take a little notice of those several Duties, wherein the sanctifying of the Sabbath did consist especially: that we may know the better what we are to look for at the peoples hands, when we bring them thither. Two things the Lord commanded in his holy Scripture, that concern the Sabbath, the keeping holy of the same: one in relation to the People; the other in reference to the Priest. In reference to the People, he commanded only rest from labour, that they should do no manner of work; and that's contained expresly in the Law it self. In reference to the Priest, he commanded sacrifice, that on the Sabbath day, over and above the daily sacrifice, there should be offered to the Lord two Lambs of an year old, without blemish, one in the morning, and the other in the evening: Numb. 28. as also to prepare first, and then place the Shewbread, being twelve loaves, one for every Tribe, continually before the Lord every Sabbath day. These several references so divi­ded, the Priest might do his part, without the People, and contrary the People do their part without the Priest. Of any Sabbath duties, which were to be performed between them; wherein the Priest and People were to join together: the Scriptures are directly silent. As for these several Duties, that of the Priest, the Shew-bread, and the sacrifice, was not in practice till they came to the Land of Canaan: and then, though the Priest offered for the People; yet he did not, with them. So that for forty years together, all the life of Moses, the sanctifying of the Sabbath did consist only, for ought we find, in a Bodily rest, a ceasing from the works of their weekly labours: and afterwards in that, and in the Sacrifices which the Priest made for them. Which as they seem to be the greater of the two, so was there nothing at all therein, in which the People were to do; no not so much, except some few, as to be Spectators: the sacrifices being offered only in the Tabernacle, as in the Temple after; when they had [Page 370]a Temple, the people being scattered over all the Country in their Towns and Villages. Of any Reading of the Law, or exposition of the same unto the People; or publick form of Prayers to be presented to the Lord, in the Congregation; we find no footstep now, nor a long time after. None in the time of Moses, for he had hardly perfected the Law before his death: the Book of Deuteronomy being dedicated by him, a very little before God took him. None in a long time after, no not till Nehemiahs days, as we shall see hereafter, in that place and time. The resting of the people was the thing commanded, in imitation of Gods Rest when his Works were finished, that as he rested from the works which he had created, so they might also rest in memorial of it. But the employment of this Rest to particular purposes either of Contemplation or Devotion; that's not declared unto us in the Word of God: but left at large, either unto the liberty of the People, or the Authority of the Church. Now what the people did, how they employed this rest of theirs, that Philo tells us in his third Book of the life of Moses. Moses, saith he, ordained, that since the World was finished on the seventh day, all of his Common-wealth following therein the course of Nature, should spend the seventh day, [...], in Festival delights, resting therein from all their works: yet not to spend it as some do in laughter, childish sports, or (as the Romans did their time, of publick Feastings) in beholding the activity either of the Jester or common Dancers; but [...], and a little after, [...], in the study of true Philosophy, and in the contemplation of the works of Nature. And in another place, He did command, De Decalog. saith he, that as in other things, so in this also they should imitate the Lord their God, working six days, and resting on the seventh, [...] and spending it in meditation of the works of Nature, as before is said. And not so only, but that upon that day they should consider of their actions in the week before, if haply they had offended against the Law: [...] &c. that so they might correct what was done amiss, and be the better armed to offend no more. So in his Book de mundi opisicio, he affirms the same, that they imployed that day in divine Philosophy, [...], even for the bettering of their manners, and reckoning with their Consciences. That thus the Jews did spend the day, or some part there­of, is very probable; and we may take it well enough upon Philo's word: but that they spent it thus, by the direction or command of Moses, is not so easily proved, as it is affirmed; though for my part, I willingly durst assent unto it. For be it Moses so appointed, yet this concerns only the behaviour of particular persons; and reflects nothing upon the publick Duties, in the Congregation.

It's true that Philo tells us in a Book not extant, IV how Moses also did ordain these publick meetings. Ap E [...]seb. Prae­par. l. 8. [...], What then did Moses order to be done on the Sabbath day? He did appoint, saith he, that we should meet all in some place together, and there sit down with modesty and a general silence, [...], to hear the Law, that none plead ignorance of the same. Which custom we continue still, harkning with wonderful silence to the Law of God, unless perhaps we give some joyful acclamation at the hearing of it: some of the Priests, if any present, or otherwise some of the Elders, reading the Law, and then expounding it unto us, till the night come on. Which done, the people are dismissed, full of divine instruction, and true Piety. So he, or rather out of him, Eusebius. But here by Philo's leave, we must pause a while. This was indeed the custom in our Saviours time, and when Philo lived: and he was willing, as it seems, to fetch the pedigree thereof as far as possi­bly he could.Annales. An. 2546. n. 10. So Salianus tells him on the like occasion. Videtur Philo Judaeorum merem in synagogis disserendi antiquitate donare voluisse, quem à Christo & Apostolis obser­vatum legimus. The same reply we make to Josephus also, who tells us of their Law­maker, that he appointed not, that they should only hear the Law once or twice a year:Cont. Ap. 2. Deut. 6.7. [...], but that once every week we should come together to hear the Laws, that we might perfectly learn the same. Which thing, saith he, all other Law-makers did omit. And so did Moses too, by Josephus leave, unless we make a day and a year all one. For being now to take his farewel of that people, and having oft advised them in his Exhortation to meditate on the words that he had spoken, even when they tarried in their houses, and walked by the way, when they rose up, and when they went to bed: he called the Priests unto him,Verse 31.9. Verse 10. Verse 11. and gave the Law into their hands, and into the hands of all the Elders of Israel. And he commanded them and said, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of Release, at the Feast of Tabernacles; when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord their God, in the place that thou shalt choose, thou shalt read this [Page 371]Law before Israel in their hearing: that they may hear, and that they may learn and fear the Lord your God, and observe all the words of this Law to do them. Verse 12. This was the thing decreed by Moses; and had been needless, if not worse, in case he had before provi­ded that they should have the Law read openly unto them every Sabbath day. So then, by Moses order, the Law was to be read publickly, every seventh year only: in the year of Release, because then servants being manumitted from their Bondage, and Debtours from their Creditours, all sorts of men might hear the Law with the greater chearfulness: and in the Feast of Tabernacles, because it lasted longer than the other Festivals, and so it might be read with the greater leisure, and heard with more at­tention: and then it was but this Law too, the Book of Deuteronomy. This to be done only in the place which the Lord shall choose to be the seat and receptacle of his holy Tabernacle; not in inferiour Towns; much less petty Villages: and yet this thought sufficient to instruct the people in the true knowledg of Gods Law, and keeping of his Testimonies. And indeed happy had they been, had they observed this order and decree of Moses; and every seventh year read the Law as he appointed: they had then questionless escaped many of those great afflictions, which afterwards God brought upon them for contempt thereof. That in the after-times the Law was read unto them every Sabbath, in their several Synagogues, is most clear and manifest: as by the testimony of Philo and Josephus, before related; and by sufficient evidence from the holy Gospel. But in these times, and after for a thousand years, there were no Syna­gogues, no publick Reading of the Law in the Congregation, excepting every se­venth year only, and that not often: Sure I am, not so often as it should have been. So that in reference to the People, we have but one thing only to regard, as yet, touch­ing the keeping of the Sabbath, which is rest from labour, rest from all manner of work, as the Law commanded: and how far this was kept, and how far dispensed with, we shall see plainly by the story. The private meditations and devotions of particu­lar men, stand not upon record at all: and therefore we must only judg by external actions.

This said and shewn, we will pass over Jordan, with the house of Israel, V and trace their footsteps in that Countrey. This happened on the tenth day of the first month, or the month of Nisan, forty days after the death of Moses Anno 2584.Josh. 4.19. That day they pitched their Tents in Gilgal. And the first thing they did, was to erect an Altar in memorial of it: that done to circumcise the people, who all the time that they continued in the Wilderness, (as many as were born that time) were uncircumci­sed. The 14th of the same month did they keep the Passeover:Josh. 5.10, 12. and on the morrow after God did cease from raining Mannah; the people eating of the fruits of the Land of Canaan. And here, the first Sabbath which they kept, as I conjecture, was the day before the Siege of Hiericho: which Sabbath, probably was that very day,Josh. 5. where­on the Lord appeared to Joshuah; and gave him order how he should proceed in that great Business. The morrow after, being the first day of the week, they began to compass it, as the Lord commanded. The Priests some of them bearing the Ark,Josh. 6. some going before with Trumpets; and the residue of the people, some before the Trumpeters, some behind the Ark. This did they once a day, for six days together. But when the seventh day came, which was the Sabbath, they compassed the Town about seven times, and the Priests blew the Trumpets, and the people shouted, and they took the City: destroying in it young and old, man, woman, and children. I said it was the Sabbath day, for so it is agreed on generally, both by Jews and Chri­stians. One of the seven days; be it which it will, must needs be the Sabbath day; and be it which it will, there had been work enough done on it: but the seventh day whereon they went about seven times, and destroyed it finally, was indeed the Sab­bath. For first the Jews expresly say it, that the overthrow of Jericho fell upon the Sabbath; and that from thence did come the saying, Qui sancificari jussit sabbatum, is profanari jussit sabbatum. So R. Kimchi hath resolved on the 6th of Joshuah. In Josh. 6. qu. 2. The like Tostatus tells us, is affirmed by R. Solomon, who adds that both the falling of the wall, and slaughter of that wicked people, was purposely deferred, In honorem sabbati, to add the greater lustre unto the Sabbath. l. 11. c. 10. Galatine proves the same out of divers Rabbins, this Solomon before remembred, and R. Joses in the Book cal­led Sedar Olem; and many of them joyned together, in their Beresith ketanna, or lesser exposition on the Book of Genesis: they all agreeing upon this, Dies sabbati erat, cum fuit praelium in Hiericho; and again, Non capta fuit Hiericho nisi in sabbato; That cer­tainly both the Battel and the Execution fell upon the Sabbath. So for the Christi­an [Page 372]Writers,Adv. Marc. l. 2. Tertullian saith not only in the general, that one of those seven days was the Sabbath day: but makes that day to be the Sabbath, wherein the Priests of God did not only work, Sed & in ore gladii praedata sit civitas ab omni populo, but all the people sacked the City, and put it to the sword, Nec dubium est eas opus servile ope­ratos, &c. Du. 61. ex. n. Test. 1. Exod. 20. And certainly, saith he, they did much servile work that day, when they destroyed so great a City, by the Lords Commandment. Procopius Gazaeus doth affirm the same. Sabbato Jesus expugnavit & cepit Hiericho. Austin thus, Primus Jesus nunc divino praecepto sabbatum non servavit, quo facto muri Hiericho ultro ceciderunt. So last­ly, Lyra on the place, who saith, that dies septimus, in quo capta Hiericho sabbatum erat: and yet they did not sin, saith he, because they did it on that day by Gods own appointment. this doth indeed excuse the parties, both from the guilt of sin, and from the penalty of the Law: but then it shews withal, that this Commandment is of a different quality from the other nine, and that it is no part of the Law of Nature. God never hath commanded any thing contrary to the Law of Nature, unless it were tentandi causa, as in the case of Abraham and Isaac. As for the spoyling of the Eygptians, that could be no Thest, considering the Egyptians owed them more, than they lent unto them, in recompence of the service they had done them, in the former times.

But was the Sabbath broken or neglected only on the Lords Commandment; VI in some especial case, and extraordinary occasion? I think none will say it. Nay, was there ever any Sabbath, which was not broken publickly, by common approbation, and of common course? Surely not one. In such a numerous Commonwealth as that of Jewry, it is not to be thought, but that each day was fruitful in the works of Nature: Children born every Sabbath day, as well as others: and therefore to be Circumcised on the same day also. And so they were continually, Sabbath by Sabbath, Feast by Feast, not one day free in all the year from that Solemnity; and this by no especial order and command from God, but meerly to observe an ancient custom. In case it was deferred some time, as sometimes it was, it was not sure in Conscience to observe the Sabbath; but only on a tender care to preserve the Infant, which was perchance infirm and weak, not able to abide the torment. No question, but the Sabbath following the sack of Hiericho, was in this kind broken: and so were all that followed after,In Job. 7.21. Nullum enim Sabbatum praeteribat, quin multi in Judaea infantes' cir­cumciderentur. It is Calvins note: broken, I say, For Circumcision. though a Sacrament, was no such easie Ministery, but that it did require much labour, and many hands to go through with it. [...]b. 2. Buxdorfius thus describes it in his Synagoga. Tempore diei octavi matutino, ca quae ad circumcisionem opus sunt tempestive parantur, &c. In the morning of the eighth day all things were made ready. And first two seats are placed, or else one so framed, that two may set apart in it; adorned wieh costly Carpets answerable unto the quality of the party. Then comes the surety for the Child, and placeth himself in the same seat, and near to him the Circumciser. Next followeth one bringing a great Torch, in which were lighted twelve Wax-candles, to represent the twelves Tribes of Israel: after, two Boys, carrying two Cups full of red-Wine, to wash the Circumcisers mouth when the work is done; another bearing the Circumcisers Knife; a third a dish of sand, whereinto the fore­skin must be cast, being once cut off; a fourth, a dish of Oil wherein are linnen clouts to be applyed unto the wound: some others, spices and strong Wines, to refresh those that faint, if any should. All this is necessarily required as preparations to the Act of Circum­cision; nor is the Act less troublesom, than the preparations make shew of: which I would now describe, but that I am persuaded I have said enough, to make it known how much ado was like to be used about it. And though perhaps some of these Ce­remonics were not used in this present time, whereof we speak: yet they grew up, and became ordinary many of them, before the Jewish Commonwealth was destroyed and ruinated.Hom. de Se­mente. [...]. Where there is Circumcision, there must be Knifes, and Sponges to receive the Bloud, and such other necessaries, said Athanasius. And not such other only as conclern the work,In Joh. l. 4. l. 50. Lib. 7. but such as appertain also to the following Cure. Circumciditur & curatur homo circumcisus in Sabbato, as St. Cyril notes it. Which argument our Saviour used in his own defence, viz, that he as well might make a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day, as they, one part. Now that this Act of Circumcision was a plain breaking of the Sabbath (besides the troublesomness of the work) is affirmed by many of the Fathers.L. 1. Haeres. 30. n. 32. By Epiphanius expresly, [...]. If a Child was born upon the Sab­bath, [Page 373]the circumcision of that Child took away the Sabbath. And St. Chrysest [...]m speaks more home than he,Hom. 49. in Joh. [...]. The Sabbath, saith the Father, was broke many ways among the Jews; but in no one thing more, than in Circumcision.

Now what should move the Jews to prefer Circumcision before the Sabbath, VII unless it were because that Circumcision was the older ceremony, I would gladly learn; especially considering the resemblance that was between them in all manner of circum­siances. Was Circumcision made to be a token of the Covenant between the Lord of Hea­ven and the seed of Abraham, Gen. 17.17. So was the Sabbath between God and the house of Israel, Exod. 31.17. Was Circumcision a perpetual covenant with the seed of Abraham in their generations? Gen. 17.7. So was the Sabbath to be kept throughout their Generations for a perpetual Covenant also. Exod 31.16. Was Circumcision so ex­acted, that whosoever was not Circumcised, that soul should be cut off from the People of God? Gen. 17.14. So God hath said it of his Sabbath, that whosoever breaks it or doth any manner of work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among the People, Exod. 31.14. In all these points there was a just and plain equality between them; but had the Sabbath been a part of the Moral Law, it must have infinitely gone before Circum­cision. What then should move the Jews to prefer the one before the other; but that conceiving both alike, they thought it best to give precedency to the elder, and rather break the Sabbath than put off Circumcision to a further day. Hence grew it into a common maxim amongst that People, Circumcision pellit Sabbatum, that Circumcision drives away the Sabbath; as before I noted. Nor could it be that they conceived a greater or more strict necessity to be in Circumcision than in the Sabbath; the penalty and danger as before we shewed you, being alike in both: for in the Wilderness, by the space of 40 years together, when in some fort they kept the Sabbath, most certain that they Circumcised not one, not one of many hundred thousands that were born in so long a time. Again, had God intended Circumcision to have been so necessary, that there was no deferring of it for a day or two; he either had not made the Sab­baths rest so exact and rigid, or else out of that generul rule had made exception in this case. And on the other side, had he intended that the Sabbaths resT should have been literally observed, and that no manner of work should be done therein; he had not so precisely limited Circumcision to the eighth day only,Just. Martyn. cont. Tryph. [...], yea though it fell upon the Sabbath, but would have respited the same till another day. The Act of Circumcision was not restrained unto the eighth day so precisely, but that it might be, as it was sometimes, deferred upon occasion; as in the case of Moses Children, and the whole People in the Wilderness, before remem­bred. Indeed it was not to be hastened and performed before. Not out of any mystery in the number, which might adapt it for that business, as some Rabbins thought, but because Children till that time are hardly purged of that blood and slime which they bring with them into the world.Levit. 22. v. 27. Upon which ground the Lord appointed thus in the Law Levitical. When a Bullock, or a Sheep, or a Goat is brought forth, it shall be seven days under the dam; and from the eighth day, and thence-forth, it shall be ac­cepted for an offering to the Lord. This makes it manifest that the Jews thought the Sab­bath to be no part of the Morallaw, and therefore gave precedency to Circumcision as the older ceremony: Not because it was of Moses, but of the Fathers; that is,L. 4. in Joh. c. 49. saith Cyril on that place, because they thought not fit to lay aside an ancient custom of their Ancestors for the Sabbaths sake. Quia non putabant consuetudinem patrum propter hono­rem Sabbati contemnendam esse; as the Father hath it. Nay so far did they prize the one before the other, that by this breaking of the Sabbath they were persuaded verily that they kept the Law. Moses, saith Christ our Saviour, gave you Circumcision, and you on be Sabbath day Circumcise a man, that the Law of Moses should not be broken. Job. 7.22. It seems that Circumcision was much like Terminus and Juventus in the Toman story, who would not stir nor give the place, not to Jove himself. More of this point, see Chrysost. hom. 49. in Job.

But to proceed, VIII the next great action that occurs in holy Scripture reducible unto the business now in hand, is that so famous miracle of the Suns standing still at the Prayers of Josuab; when as the Sun stood still in the middest of Heaven, Jos. 10.13. and hasted not to go down about a whole day, as the Text hath it. Or as it is in Ecclesiast. Cap. 46.4. Did not the Sun go back by his means, and was not one day as long as two? The like, to take them both together in this place, was that great miracle of mercy shewed to Hezekiah, 2 King 20. by bringing of the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the Dial of Ahaz. [Page 374]In each of these there was a signal alteration in the course of nature, and the succession of time; so notable, that it were very difficult to find out the seventh day precisely from the worlds Creation, or to proceed in that account since the late giving of the Law. So that in this respect the Jews must needs be at a loss in their calculation; and though they might hereafter set apart one day in seven for rest and meditation, yet that this day so set apart could be precisely the seventh day from the first Creation, is not so easie to be proved. The Author of the Practice of Piety, as zealously as he pleads for the morality of the Sabbath, confesseth that in these regards the Sabbath could not be observed precisely on the day appointed. And to speak properly, saith he, as we take a day for the distinction of time, called either a day natural, consisting of 24 hours, or a day artificial, consisting of 12 hours from Sun-rising to Sun setting: And withal, consider the Sun standing still at noon, the space of an whole day in the time of Josuah; and the Sun going back ten degrees (viz. five hours, which is almost half an artificial day) in Hezekiahs time; the Jews themselves could not keep their Sabbath on that precise and just distinction of time, called at the first the seventh day from the Creation. If so, if they observed it not at the punctual time, according as the Law commanded, it followeth then on his conscssion, that from the time of Josuah, till the destruction of the Temple, there was no Sabbath kept by the Jews at all, because not on the day precisely, which the Law appointed.

This miracle, IX as it advantaged those of the house of Israel in the present slaughter of their Enemies; so could it not but infinitely astonish all the Canaanites, and make them faint, and flie before the Conquerors. In so much that in the compass of five years, as Josephus tells us, there was not any lest to make head against them. So that the Victory being assured, and many of the Tribes in vested in their new possessions, it pleased the Congregation of Israel to come together at Shilo,Jos. 18.1. there to set up the Tabernacle of the Congregation. Anti ju. Jud. l. 5. c. 1. And they made choice thereof, as Josephus saith, because it seemed to be a very convenient place, by reason of the beauty of the place. Rather because if sorted best with Josuahs liking, who being of the Tribe of Ephraim, within whose lot that City stood, was perhaps willing to confer that honour on it. But whatsoever was the motive, here was the Tabernacle erected, and hitherto the Tribes resorted; and finally here the legal Ceremonies were to take beginning: God having told them many times, these and these things ye are to do, when ye are come into the Land that I shall give you, viz. Levit. 48. and 23. Numb. 15. Deut. 12. That Gilgal was the standing lamp, and that the Levites there laid down the Tabernacle as in a place of strength and safety, is plain in Scripture; but that they there erected it, or performed any legal Ministery therein, hath no such evidence. Though God had brought them then into the Land of Promise, yet all this while they were unsetled. The Land was given after, when they had possession. So that the next Sabbath which ensued on the removal of the Tabernacle unto Shilo, was the first Sabbath which was celebrated with its legal Ceremonies; and this was Anno Mundi 2589. In which, if we con­sider as well the toylsomness as multiplicity of the Priestlike-offices, we shall soon see, that though the People rested then, yet the Priest worked hardest. First, for the Loaves of Proposition,Antiqu. Jud. l. 3. c. 10. or the Shew-bread, however Josephus tells us, that they were baked [...], the day before the Sabbath; and probably in his time it might be so,1 Chron. 9. yet it is otherwise in the Scriptures, The Kohathites, saith the Text, were over the Shew-bread, for to prepare it every Sabbath. These Loaves were twelve in number, one for every Tribe, each of them two tenth deals, or half a peck, so the Scriptures say; every Cake square, ten hand-breaths long, five square, and seven fingers high; so the Rabbins teach us. The kneading, baking, and disposing of these Cakes must require some labour.Athanas. bom. de semente. [...], &c. Where there is baking, saith the Father, then must be beating of the Oven, and carrying in of faggots, and whatsoever work is necessary in the Bakers trade. Then for the Sacrifices of the day, the labour of the Priest, when it was left, was double what it was on the other days. [...], as Chrysostom hath rightly noted. The daily sacrifice was of two Lambs,Concio 1. de lazaro. the Supernumerary of the Sabbath was two more. If the New-moon fell on the Sabbath, as it often did, there was besides these named already an offering of two Bullocks, a Ram, seven Lambs; and if that New-moon were the Feast of Trumpets also, as it sometimes was, there was a further offering of seven Lambs, one Ram, one Bullock. And which is more, each of these had their several Meat-offerings and Drink-offerings, Perfumes, and Frankincense, preportion­able to attend upon them. By that time all was done, so many Beasts kill'd, skinned, washed, quartered, and made ready for the Altar; so many fires kindled, meat and [Page 375]drink-offerings in a readiness, and the sweet Odours fitted for the work in hand; no question but the Priest had small cause to boast himself of his Sabbaths rest, or to take joy in any thing but his larger fees, and that he had discharged his duty. As for the People, though they might all partake of the fruits hereof, yet none but those that dwelt in Shilo, or near unto it at the least, could behold the sight, or note what pains the Priests took for them, whilst they themselves sate still and stirred not. Had the Com­mandment been moral, and every part thereof of the same condition, the Priests had never done so many manners of work as that day they did. However, as it was, our blessed Saviour did account these works of theirs to be a publick prophanation of the Sabbath day. Read ye not in the Law, saith he,Math. 12.5. how that upon the Sabbath days the Priests in the Temple do prophane the Sabbath? Yet he deelared withal that the Priests were blameless in that they did it by direction from the God of Heaven. The Sabbath then was daily broken, but the Priest excusable. For Fathers that affirm the same, see Justin Martyr. dial. & qu. 27. ad Orthod. Epiphan. l. 1. haer. 19. n. 5. Hierom. in Psal. 92. Athanas. de Sabb. & Circumcis. Aust in. Qu. ex N. Test. 61. Isidore Pelusiot. Epl. 72. l. 1. and divers others.

These were the Offices of the Priest on the Sabbath day, X and questionless they were sufficient to take up the time. Of any other Sabbath duties by them performed at this present time, there is no Constat in the Scripture, no nor of any place as yet de­signed for the performance of such other duties as some conceive to appertain unto the Levites: That they were scattered and dispersed over all the Tribes is indeed most true. The Curse of Jacob now was become' a blessing to them. Forty-eight Cities had they given them for their inheritance (whereof thirteen were proper only to the Priests,) besides their several sorts of Tithes, and what accrewed unto them from the publick sacrifices, to an infinite value. Yet was not this dispersion of the Tribe of Levi, in reference to any Sabbath duties, that so they might the better assist the People in the solemnities and sanctifying of that day. The Scripture tells us no such matter. The reasons manifested in the word were these two especially. First, that they might be near at hand to instruct the People,Levit. 10.10, 11. and teach them all the Statutes which the Lord had spoken by the hand of Moses; as also to let them know the difference between the holy and unholy, the unclean and clean. Many particular things there were in the Law Levitical, touching pollutions, purifyings, and the like legal Ordinances which were not necessary to be ordered by the Priests, above those that attended at the Altar, and were resorted to in most difficult cases: Therefore both for the Peoples ease, and that the Priests above might not be troubled every day in matters of inferiour moment the Priests and Levites were thus mingled amongst the Tribes. A second reason was, that there might be as well some nursery to train up the Levites, until they were of Age fit for the service of the Tabernacle; as also some retirement, unto the which they might repair, when by the Law they were dismissed from their attendance. The number of the Tribe of Levi, in the first general muster of them from a month old and upwards, was 22000. just; out of which number, all from 30 years of age to 50. being in all 8580 persons, were taken to attend the publick Ministery. The residue with their Wives and Daughters were to be severally disposed of in the Cities allotted to them, therein to rest themselves with their goods and cattel, and do those other Offices above remembred. Which Offices as they were the works of every day, so if the People came unto them upon the Sabbaths or New-moons, as they did on both, to be instructed by them in particular cases of the Law,2 King. 23. no doubt but they informed them answerably unto their knowledge. But this was but occasional only, no constant duty. Indeed it is con­ceived by Master Samuel Purchas, on the authority of Cornelius Bertram, Pilg. almost as mo­dern as himself, That the forty-eight Cities of the Levites had their fit places for Assemblies; and that thence the Synagogues had their beginnings: Which were it so, it would be no good argument, that in those places of Assemblies the Priests and Levites publickly did expound the Law unto the People on the Sabbath days, as after in the Synagogues. For where those Cities were but four in every Tribe, one with another, the People must needs travel more than six furlongs, which was a Sabbath days journey of the largest measure, as before we noted, or else that nice restriction was not then in use. And were it that they took the pains to go up unto them, yet were not those few Cities able to contain the multitudes. When Joab not long after this, did muster Israel at the command of david, 2 Sam. 24. he found no fewer than thirteen hundred thousand fighting men. Suppose we then, that unto every one fighting man there were three old Men, Women and Children, fit to hear the Law, as no doubt there were. Put these toge­ther, [Page 376]and it will amount in all to two and fifty hundred thousand. Now out of these set by four hundred thousand for Hierusalem, and the service there, and then there will remain one hundred thousand just, which must owe suit and service every Sabbath day to each several City of the Levites. Too vast a number to be entertained in any of their Cities, and much less in their / synagogues, had each house been one. So that we may resolve for certain that the dispersion of the Levites over all the Tribes had no rela­tion hitherto unto the reading of the Law, or any publick Sabbath duties.

CHAP. VII. Touching the keeping of the SABBATH, from the time of David to the Maccabees.

  • 1. Particular necessities must give place to the Law of Nature.
  • 2. That Davids flight from Saul was upon the Sabbath.
  • 3. What David did being King of Israel, in ordering things about the Sabbath.
  • 4. Elijahs flight upon the Sabbath, and what else hapned on the Sabbath in Elijah's time.
  • 5. The limitation of a Sabbath days journey, not known amongst the Jews when Elisha lived.
  • 6. The Lord become offended with the Jewish Sabbaths, and on what occasion.
  • 7. The Sabbath entertained by the Samari­tans, and their strange niceties therein.
  • 8. Whether the Sabbaths were observed du­ring the Captivity.
  • 9. The special care of Nehemiah to reform the Sabbath.
  • 10. The weekly reading of the Law on the Sabbath days, begun by Ezra.
  • 11. No Synagogues nor weekly reading of the Law, during the Government of the Kings.
  • 12. The Scribes and Doctors of the Law im­pose new rigours on the People about their Sabbaths.

THUS have we traced the Sabbath from the Mount to Silo, I the space of forty five years or thereabouts, wherein it was observed sometimes, and sometimes bro­ken: broken by publick order from the Lord himself, and broken by the publick practice both of Priest and People. No precept in the Decalogue so controuled, and justled by the legal Ceremonies, forced to give place to Circumcision, because the younger, and to the legal Sacrifices, though it was their elders; and all this while no blame or imputation to be laid on them that so prophaned it. Men durst not thus have dallied with the other nine, no nor with this neither, had it been a part of the Law of nature. Yet had the Sabbath been laid by in such cases only, wherein the Lord had specially declared his will and pleasure that these and these things should be done upon it, or preferred before it; there was less reason of complaint. But we shall see in that which followed, that the poor Sabbath was inforced to yield up the place, even to the several necessities and occasions of particular men, and that with­out Injunction or Command from the Court of Heaven. This further proves the fourth Commandment as far as it concerns the time,Ryvet. in Deca. one whole day of seven, to be no part nor parcel of the law of Nature, for if it were the law of Nature, it were not dispensable, no not in any exigent or distress whatever. Nullum periculum suadet, ut quae ad legem naturalem directe pertinent infringamus. No danger, saith a modern Writer, is to occasion us to break those bonds wherewith we are obliged by the law of Nature. Nor is this only Protestant Divinity,Aquinas 1.2 ae. qu. 100. art. 9. Qu. ex N. Test. 61. for that Praecepta decalogi omnino sint indispen sabilia, is a noted maxim of the School-men. And yet it is not only School Divinity, for the Fathers taught it. It is a principle of Saint Austins, Illud quod omnino non licet semper non licet; nec aliqua necessitate mitigatur, ut admissum non obsit: est enim semper illicitum, quod legibus, quia criminosum est prohibetur. ‘That, saith the Father, which is unlaw­ful in it self, is unlawful always; nor is there any exigent or extremity that can so excuse it, being done, but that it makes a man obnixious unto Gods displeasure. For that is always to be reckoned an unlawful thing, which is forbidden by the Law because simply evil.’ So that in case this rule be true, as no doubt it is; and that the fourth Commandment prohibiting all manner of work on the Sabbath day, as [Page 377]simply evil, be to be reckoned part of the Moral Law: they that transgress this Law, in what case soever, are in the self-same state with those, who to preserve their lives or fortunes, renounce their Faith in God, and worship Idols: which no man ought to do, no though it were to gain the World. For what will it profit a man to gain the world, and to lose his soul?

But sure the Jews accounted not the Sabbath of so high a nature; II as not to ven­ture the transgressing of that Law, if occasion were. Whereof, or of the keeping it, we have no monument in Scripture, till we come to David. The residue of Josuah, and the Book of Judges, give us nothing of it. Nor have we much in the whole story of the Kings: but what we have we shall present unto you in due place and order. And first for David, we read in Scripture how he stood in fear of Saul his Master, how in the Festival of the New-moon his place was empty,1 Sam. 20. how Saul became offended at it, and publickly declared his malicious purpose, which in his heart he had before conceived against him. On the next morning, Jonathan takes his Bow and Arrows, goes forth a shooting, takes a Boy with him to bring back his Arrows: and by a signal formerly agreed between them, gives David notice that his Father did seek his life, David on this makes haste, and came to Nob unto Abimelech the Priest; and being an hungry, desires some sustenance at his hands. The Priest not having ought else in rea­diness, sets the Shew-hread before him, which was not lawful for any man to eat, but the Priest alone. Now if we ask the Fathers of the Christian Church, what day this was, on which poor David fled from the face of Saul, they answer that it was the Sabbath. Saint Athanasius doubtingly, with a peradventure,Hom. de. se­mente. [...], most likely that it was the Sabbath. His reason makes the matter surer, than his resolution. The Jews, saith he, upbraid our Saviour, that his Disciples plucked the ears of Corn on the Sabbath day: to satisfie which doubt, he tells them what was done by Da­vid, on a Sabbath also. [...], as that Father hath it. Saint Hierom tells us that the day whereon he fled away from Saul, was both a Sabbath and New-moon; In Math. 12. & ad sabbati solennita­tem accedebant neomeniarum dies. Indeed the story makes it plain, it could be no other. The Shew-bread was changed every Sabbath, in the morning early: that which was brought in new, not to be stirred off from the Table till the Week was out: the other which was taken away, being appropriated to the Priests, and to be eaten by them only. Being so stale before, we may be easier think it lay not long upon their hands: and had not David come, as he did, that morning; perhaps he had not found the Priest so well provided, in the afternoon. Had David thought that breaking of the Sabbath in what case soever, had been a sin against the eternal Law of Nature: he would, no doubt, have hid himself that day in the Field by the stone. Ezel, as he had done two days before; rather than so have run away,1 Sam. 20. Verse 19.24. as well from God, as from the King. Especially considering that on the Sabbath day he might have lurked there with more safety, than before he did: none being permit­ted, as some say, by the Law of God, to walk abroad that day, if occasion were. Neither had David passed it over in so light a manner, had he done contrary to the Law. That heart of his which smote him for his Murder and Adultery, and for his numbring of the People would sure have taken some impression, upon the breaking of the Sabbath; had he conceived that Law to be like the rest. But David knew of no such matter: neither did Jonathan, as it seems. For howsoever Davids fact might be excused by reason of the imminent peril; yet surely Jonathans walking forth with his Bow and Arrows, was of a very different nature. Nor did he do it fear­fully, and by way of stealth, as if he were affraid to avow the action: but took his Page with him to bring back his Arrows, and called aloud unto him to do thus and thus, according as he was directed; as if it were his usual custom. Jonathan might have thought of some other way to give advertisement unto David, of his Fathers anger: rather than by a publick breaking of the Sabbath, to provoke the Lord. But then, as may from hence be gathered, shooting and such like manlike Exercises, were not ac­counted things unlawful on the Sabbath day.

This act and flight of Davids from the face of Saul, III hapned in Torniellus compu­tation, Anno 2974: and forty six years after that, being 3020 of the Worlds Crea­tion, and the last year of Davids life, he made a new division of the sons of Levi. For where the Levites were appointed in the times before, to bear about the Tabernacle, as occasion was: the Tabernacle now being fixed and setled in Hierusalem, there was no further use of the Levites service, in that kind.1 Chron. 23.4, 5. Therefore King David thought [Page 378]it good to set them to some new employments; and so he hid: some of them to as­sist the Priests, in the publick Ministery; some to be Overseers and Judges of the people, some to be Porters also in the house of God, and finally, some others to be Singers to praise the Lord with instruments that he had made, with Harps, with Viols and with Cymbals. Of these the most considerable were the first and last. The first ap­pointed to assist at the daily Sacrifices:Verse 31. as also at the Offering of all Burnt-offerings unto the Lord, in the Sabbaths, in the months, and at the appointed times according to the num­ber and according to their custom continually before the Lord. Those were instructed in the songs of the Lord. Cpap. 25.7. The other were chiefly which were made for the Sabbath days, and the other Festivals: and one he made himself, of his own enditing, entituled a Song or Psalm for the Sabbath day. Psalm 92. Calvin upon the 92 Psalm is of opinion, that he made many for that purpose; as no doubt he did; and so he did for the Feasts also. Josephus tells us,Antiq. Jud. l. 7. c. 10. that he composed Odes and Hymns to the praise of God, as also that he made divers kinds of instruments, and that he taught the Levites to praise Gods Name upon the Sabbath days, [...] and the other Festivals: as well upon the Annual, as the weekly Sabbath. Where note, that in the distribution of the Levites into several Offices, there was then no such Office thought of, as to be Rea­ders of the Law: which proves sufficiently that the Law was not yet read publickly unto the people on the Sabbath day. Nor did he only appoint them their Songs and Instruments, but so exact and punctual was he, that he prescribed what Habit they should wear, in the discharging of their Ministery, in singing praises to the Lord; which was a white linnen Rayment, such as the Surplice, now in use, in the Church of England. 2 Chron. 5.12, 13. Also the Levites, saith the Text, which were the singers, being arrayed in white linnen, having Cymbals and Psalteries and Harps, stood at the East end of the Al­tar, &c. praising and thanking God, for his Grace and wercies. And this he did not by commandment from above, or any warrant but his own as we find, and that he thought it fit, and decent. David the Prophet of the Lord knew well, what did be­long to David the King of Israel, in ordering matters of the Church, and setling things about the Sabbath. Nor can it be but worth the notice, that the first King whom God raised up to be a nursing Father unto his Church, should exercise his regal power in dictating what he would have done on the Sabbath day, in reference to Gods publick Worship. As if in him, the Lord did mean to teach all others of the same condition, as no doubt he did, that it pertains to them to vindicate the day of his publick service, as well from superstitious fancies, as prophane contempts: and to take special order that his name be glorified, as well in the performances of the Priests, as the devotions of the people. This special care we shall find verified in Constantine, the first Christian Emperour, of whom more hereaster in the next Book, and third Chapter. Now what was there ordained by David, was afterwards confirmed by Solomon (whereof see 2 Chron. 8.14.) who as he built a Temple for Gods publick Worship; for the New-moons, and weekly Sabbaths, and the solemn Feasts, as the Scripture tells us: so he, or some of his Sucessours, built a fair feat within the Porch thereof, wherein the Kings did use to sit, both on the Sabbath and the annual Festi­vals. The Scripture calls it tegmen sabbati, the covert for the Sabbath; that is, saith Rabbi Solomon, 2 Kings 16. locus quidam in porticu templi gratiose coopertus, in quo Rex sedebat die sabbati, & in magnis festivitatibus, as before was said. So that in this too, both were equal.

From David pass we to Elijah, IV from one great Prophet to anotyher: both persecu­ted, and both fain to flie, and both to flie upon the Sabbath. Elijah had made ha­vock of the Priests of Baal, and Jezebel sent a message to him, that he should arm himself to expect the like. The Prophet warned hereof, arose, and being encoura­ged by an Angel,2 Kings 19.8. he did eat and drink, and walked in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights, until he came to Horeb the Mount of God. What, walked he forty days and as many nights without rest, or ceasing; So it is resolved on. Elijah as we read in Damascen, De fide Orthod. l. 4. c. 24. [...], disqueting himself non only by continual fasting, but by his tra­veling on the Sabbath, even for the space of forty days, [...], did with­out question break the Sabbath: yet God who made that Law was not at all offended with him, but rather to reward his vertue, Andae qu. 122.8.15.4. appeared to him in Mount Horeb. So Thomas Aquinas speaking of some men, in the old Testament, qui transgredientes observantiam subbati, non peccabant, who did transgress against the Sabbath, and yet did not sin; makes instance of Elijah, and of his Journey: Wherein, saith he, it must needs be [Page 379]granted, that be did travel on the Sabbath. And where a question might be made, how possibly Elijab, could spend forty days and forty nights in so small a Journey: Tostatus makes reply, that he went not directly forwards, but wandred up and down, and from place to place; ex timore & inquiectudine mentis, In locum. partly for fear of being sound, and partly out of a disquieted and afflicted mind. Now whiles Elijab was in exile, Benbadad King of Syria invaded Israel, and incamped near Aphek; where Ahab also followed him, and sat down by him with his Army. And, saith the Text, they pitched one over against the other seven days, 1 Kings 20.29. and so it was that in the seventh day the Battel was joyned, and the children of Israel slew of the Syrians an bundred thousand footmen in one day. Ask Zanchius what this seventh day was; and he will tell you plainly that it was the Sabbath. 14 4 Mandat. For shewing us that any servile works may be done lawfully on the Sabbath, if either Charity, or unavoidable necessity do so require: he brings this History in, for the proof thereof. And then he adds, Illi die ipso sab­bati, quia necessitas postulabat, pugnam cum hostibus commiserunt, &c. The Israelites, saith he, fighting against their Enemies on the Sabbath day, necessity inforcing them thereunto, prevailed against them with a great and mighty slaughter, Neither is he only one that so conceived it. Peter Martyr saith as much, and collects from hence,Loci. Coml. l. 7.8. cl. 2. die sabbati militaria munia obiisse eos, that military matters were performed on the Sabbath day. This Field was sought, Anno Mundi 3135: and was eleven years af­ter Elijabs flight.

Proceed we to Elisha next. V Of whom though nothing be recorded that concerns this business; yet on occasion of his Piety and zeal to God, there is a passage in the Scripture, which gives light unto it.2. Kings 4. The Shunamite having received a Child at E­lisha's hands, and finding that it was deceased, called to her husband, and said, send with me I pray thee, one of the young Men and one of the Asses, Verse 21. for I will haste to the man of God, and come again. And he said, wherefore wilt thou go to him to day? Verse 23. It is nei­ther New-moon, nor Sabbath day. Had it been either of the two, it seems she might have gone and sought out the Prophet: and more than so, she used to do it at those times, else what need the question? It was their custom, as before we noted, to tra­vel on the Sabbhath days, and the other Festivals, to have some conference with the Levites, if occasion were; and to repair unto the Prophets at the same times also, as well as any day whatever. In illis diebus festivis Frequentius ibant ad prophetas ad audiendum verbum Dei, as Lyra hath it on the place. And this they did without re­gard unto that nicety of a Sabbath-days Journey; which came not up till long after; sure I am was not now in use. Elisha, at this time, was retired to Carmel, which from the Sbunamites City was ten miles at lest; as is apparent both by Adrichomius Map of Issachar, and all other Tables that I have met with. And so the limitation of 2000 foot, or 2000 Cubits, or the six Furlongs, at the most, which some require to be allotted for the uttermost travel on the Sabbath; is vanished suddenly into nothing. Nay, it is evident by the story that the Journey was not very short; the Woman calling to her servant to drive on, and go forwards, and not to slack his riding unless she bid him: Which needed not, in case the Journey had not been above six Furlongs. Neither New-moon nor Sabbath day; It seems the times were both alike in this respect: the Prophets to be sought unto, and they to publish and make known the will of God, as well at one time, as the other.In Num. 28. qu. 29. Quasi Sabbatum & Calendae ae­qualis essent solennitatis, as Tostatus hath it. If so, if the New-moons, in this re­spect, were as solemn as the weekly Sabbath: no question but the Annual Sabbaths were as solemn also. And not in this respect alone, but in many others. Markets prohibited in the New-moons, as in the Sabbath; When will the New-moon be gone, that we may sell our Corn? in the eighth of Amos; the Sacrifices more in these than in the other, of which last we have spoken already. So when the Scriptures prophecy of those spiritual Feasts, which should be celebrated by Gods Saints, in the times to come: they specifie the New-moons as particularly, as they do the Sabbaths.Esa. 66.23. From one. New-moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. See the like Prophecy in Ezech. Ch. 46. Verse 1.3. Upon which last St. Hierom tells us, Quod privilegium habet dies septimus in habdomada, In Ezech. 46. hoc haber privilegium mensis exordium, the New-moons and the Sabbath have the like Pre­rogatives.

Nay, when the Jews began to set at nought the Lord, VI and to forget that God that brought them out of the Land of Egypt; when they began to loath his Sab­baths, and prophane his Festivals, as they did too often: the Lord expostulates the [Page 380]matter with them, as well for one as for the other. When they were weary of the New-moon,Amos 8.5. and wished it gone, that they might sell Corn; and of the Sabbath, be­cause it went not fast enough away, that they might set forth Wheat to sale: the Lord objects against them, both the one and the other, by his Prophet Amos; that they preferred their profit, before his pleasure. Et Dei solennitates turpis lucri gratia, in sua verterent compendia, In locum. as Saint Hierom hath it. When on the other side they did prophane his Sabbaths, and the holy Festivals with excess and surfeiting, carowsing Wine in Bowls, Amos 6. stretching themselves upon their Couches, and ointing of themselves with the chief Ointments: the Lord made known unto them by his servant Isaiah, how much he did dislike their courses.Chap. 1.14. The New-moons and Sabbaths, the calling of Assemblies I cannot away with; it is iniquity even the solemn meeting. It seems they had exceeding­ly forgot themselves, when now their very Festivals were become a sin. Nay, God goes further yet,Chap. 1.14. your New-moons and your appointed Feasts my soul hateth, they are a trouble to me. I am weary to bear them. Your New-moons, and your Feasts, saith God, are not mine. Non enim mea sunt quae geritis, they are no Feasts of mine, which you so abuse.Servo. 12. How so? Judaei enim neglectis spiritualibus negotiis quae pro animae salute a­genda Deus praeceperat; omnia legitima sabbati, ad ocium luxuriamque contulere. So said Gaudentius Brixianus. They Jews, saith he, neglecting those spiritual Duties which God commanded on that day, abused the Sabbaths rest unto ease and luxury. For whereas being free from temporal cares,Cwil in Amos 8. they ought to have employed that day to spiritual ufes, and to have spent the same in modesty and temperance, [...], and in the repetition and commemoration of Gods holy Word; they on the other side did the contrary, [...], wa­sting the day in gluttony, and drunkenness, and idle delicacies. How far Sr. Augu­stine, chargeth them with the self-same crimes, we have seen before. Thus did the house of Israel rebell against the Lord, and prophane his Sabbaths. And therefore God did threaten them by the Prophet Hosea, Hos. 2.11. that he would canse their mirth to cease, their Feast days, their New-moons and Sabbaths, and their solemn Festivals: that so they might be punished in the want of that, which formerly they had abused.

And so indeed he did, VII beginning first with those of the revolted Tribes, whom he gave over to the hand of Salmanassar the Assyrian, by whom they were led Cap­tive unto parts unknown, and never suffered to return. Those which were planted in their places, as they desired in tract of time, to know the manner of the God of the Land: so for the better means to attain that knowledg, they entertained the Penta­teuch, or five Books of Moses: and with them, the Sabbath. They were beholden to the Lions which God sent amongst them. Otherwise they had never know the Sabbath, nor the Lord who made it. Themselves acknowledg this in an Epistle to Antiochus Epiphanes, when he made havock of the Jews. The Epistle thus. [...] &c. To King Antiochus Epiphancs, the mighty God, the suggestion of the Sidonians that dwell at Sichem. Our Ancestors enforced by a continual plague which destrayed their Countrey (this was the Lions before spoken of) and induced by an ancient superstition, Joseph Antiq. lib. 12. c. 7. [...], took up a custom to observe that day as holy, which the Jows call the Sabbath. So that it seems by this Epistle that when the Assyrian sent back one of the Priests of Is­rael, to teach this people what was the manner of the God of the Land; that at that time they did receive the Sabbath also: which was about the year of the Worlds Creation,Orig. [...] 4. 3315. The Priest so sent, is said to have been called Dosthai; and as the word is mollified in the Greek, it is the same with Dofitheus: who as he taught these new Samaritans, the observation of the Sabbath, so as some say, he mingled with the same, some neat devices of his own. For whereas it is said in the Book of Exo­dus, Let no man go out of his place on the Sabbath day: this Dositheus, if at least this were he, keeping the letter of the Text, did affirm and teach, that in what ever po­sture any man was found, [...], in the beginning of the Sab­bath; in the self-same he was to be, [...], even until the evening. I say if this were he, as some say, because there was another Dositheus, a Samaritan too, that lived more near unto the time of Origen, and is most like to be the man. How­ever, we may take it for a Samaritan device, as indeed it was; though not so ancient as to take beginning with the first entertainment of the Sabbath, in that place and people.

this transportation of the ten Tribes for their many sins, VIII was a fair warning unto those of the house of Judah to turn unto the Lord and amend their lives, and observe [Page 381]his Sabbaths; his sabbata annorum, Sabbaths of years as well as either his weekly or his yearly Sabbaths. The Jews had been regardless of them all, and for neglect of all God resolved to punish them. First,Chap. 13. v. 18. for the weekly Sabbath that God avenged him­self upon them for the breach thereof, is evident by that one place of Nahemiah. Did not your Fathers thus, saith he, and our God brought this plague upon us, and upon our City? yet ye increase the wrath upon Israel in breaking the Sabbath. Next for the Annual Sab­baths, God threatned that he would deprive them of them, by his Prophet Hosea, as before was said. And lastly, for his Sabbaths of years, they had been long neglected and almost forgotten, if observed at all. Torniellus finds three only kepe in all the Scripture. Nor are more specified in particular, but sure more were kept, the cer­tain number of the which may easily be found by the proportion of the punishment. God tells them that they should remain in bondage,1 Chrom. 36.21. until the Land had enjoyed her Sab­baths; for so long as she lay desolate, she kept Sabbath to fulfil threescore and ten years. So that as many years as they were in bondage, so many Sabbaths of years they had neg­lected. Now from the year 2593. which was the seventh year after their possession of the Land of Canaan, unto the year 3450. which was the year of their Captivity, there passed in all 857. years just, of which 122 were years Sabbatical. By which account it is apparent that they had kept in all that time but fifty-two sabbatical years; and for the seventy Sabbaths of years which they had neglected, God made himself amends, by laying desolate the whole Country seventy years together, till the Earth had enjoyed ber Sabbaths. Not that the Earth lay still all that while, and was never tilled; for those that did remain behind, and inhabit there, must have means to live, but that the tillage was so little, and the crop so small, the People being few in numbers, that in comparison of former times it might seem to rest. But whatsoever Sabbaths the carth enjoyed, the People kept not much themselves. The solemn Feasts of Pentecost, the Passeover, and the Feast of Tabernacles, they could not celebrate at all, because they had no Temple to repair unto; nor did they celebrate the New-moons and the weckly Sabbath, as they ought to do. Non neomeniae non sabbati exercere laetitiam, In Hos. 2. nee emnes festivitates quas uno nomine comprehendit, as Saint Hierom hath it. For that they used to work on the Sabbath day, both in the Harvest and the Vintage, during the Captivity, we have just reason to suspect, considering what great difficulty Nehemiah found to redress those errors. So little had that People profited in the School of Piety, that though they felt Gods heavy anger for the breach thereof, yet could they hardly be induced to amend their follies.

But presently on their return from babylon, they reared up the Altar, IX and kept the Feast of Tabernacles, and the burnt-offerings day by day, and afterward the continual burnt­offering, Ezra 3.4, 5. both in the New-moons and the solemn Feast-days that had been consecrate unto the Lord. This the first work that was endeavoured by Zorobabel, and other Rulers of the People, and it was somewhat that they went so far in the Reformation, as to revive the Sabbaths and the publick Festivals. I say the Sabbaths amongst others, for so Josephus doth express it. They Celebrated at that time, saith he, the feast of Tabernacles, according as their Law-maker had ordained; and afterwards they offered oblations and continual Sacrifices, observing their Sabbaths and all holy solemnities. Yet they observed them not so truly, but that some evil customs which had crept amongst them, during the Cap­tivity, were as yet continued: Markets permitted on the Sabbath, and the publick Festivals; Burdens brought in and out; the Vintage no less followed on those days than on any other. And so continued till the year 3610. which was some ninety years after they were returned from Babel; what time they celebrated that great Feast of Tabernacles, and Ezra publickly read the Law before all the People. Upon which Act this good ensued, that both the Priests and Princes, and many others of the People did enter covenant with the Lord, that if the People of the Land brought ware, Nch. 10. v. 31. or any Victuals to sell them on the Sabbath day, that we would not buy it of them on the Sabbath, or on the holy-days, and that we would leave the seventh year free, and the exaction of every debt. Where still observe that they had no less care of the annual Sabbaths, yea, of the Sabbaths of years than of the weekly; and Marketting not more restrained on the weekly Sabbaths than on the Annual. A Covenant not so well performed as it was agreed. For Nehemiah who was principal on the Peoples part, being gone for Babylon, at his return found all things contrary to what he looked for. I saw, saith he,Chap. 13.15. in Judah, them that trode Wine presses on the Sabbath, and that brought in Sheafs, and which laded Asses also with Wine, Grapes, and Figgs, and brought them into Hierusalem on the Sabbath day; and others, men of Tyrus that brought Fish and all manner of Ware, Verse 16. and [Page 382]sold it on the Sabbath unto the Children of Judah; a most strange disorder. So general was the crime become, that the chief Rulers of the People were most guilty of it. So that to rectifie this misrule, Nehemiah was not only forced to shut up the Gates upon the Even before the Sabbath, yea, and to keep them shut all the Sabbath day, whereby the Merchants were compelled to rest with their Commodities, without the Walls; but to use threatning words unto them, that if from that time forwards they came with Merchandize on the Sabbath, he would forbear no longer, but lay hands upon them. A course not more severe than necessary, as the case then stood. Nor had those mischiefs been redressed, being now countenanced by custom, and some chief men among the People; had they not met a man both resolved and constant, one that both knew his work, and had a will to see it finished. This reformation of the Sabbath, or rather of those foul abuses which had of late defiled it, and even made it despicable, is placed by Torniellus, An. 3629. which was above an hundred years after the restitution of this people to their Native Countrey. So difficult a thing it is to overcome an evil custom.

Things ordered thus, X and all those publick scandals being thus removed: there fol­lowed a more strict observance of the Sabbath day, than ever had been kept before. The rather since about these times, began the reading of the Law in the Congrega­tion. Not every seventh year only, and on the Feast of Tabernacles, as before it was, or should have been at the least, by the Law of Moses; but every sabbath day, and each solemn meeting: not only in the Temple of Hierusalem, as it is used to be; but in the Towns and principal places of each several Tribe. Ezra first set this course on foot, a Priest by calling, one very skilful in the Laws of Moses: who having taken great pains to seek out the Law, and other Oracles of God; digested and disposed them into that form and method, in which we have them at this present. Of this see Iren. l. 3.25. Tertullian de habitu mulierum, Clem. Alexandr. l. 1. Strom. Chrysost. hom. 8. ad Hebraeos, and divers others. This done, and all the people met together at the Feast of Taber­nacles, Anno 3610,Nehem. 8.4. which was some ninty years after the return from Babylon, as be­fore was said: he took that opportunity to make known the Law unto the people. For this cause he provided a Pulpit of Wood, that so he might be heard the better: and round about him stood the Priests, Verse 4.7. Verse 8. Verse 18. and Levites, learned men; of purpose to ex­pound the Text, and to give the sense thereof, that so the people might the better un­derstand the reading. And this they did eight days together, from the first day until the last, when the Feast was ended. Now in this Act of Ezra's, there was nothing common, nothing according to the custom of the former times, neither in time, or place, or any other circumstance. For the time, although it was the Feast of Taber­nacles, yet was it not the seventh year as Moses ordered it: that year, which was the first of Nehemiahs coming unto Hierusalem, Neh. 8.1, 3. not being the sabbatical year, but the third year after, as Torniellus doth compute it. Then for the place, it should have been per­formed in the Temple only, as both by Moses Ordinance, and Josiahs practice, doth at large appear: but now they did it in the street before the Water-gates, as the Text informs us. So for manner of the Reading, it was not only published, as it had been formerly, but expounded also.An. 3610. n. 9. Whereof, as of a thing never known before, this reason is laid down by Torniellus, quod lingua Hebraica desierat jam vulgaris esse, Chaldaico seu Syriaco idiomate in ejus locum surrogato, because the Hebrew tongue where­in the Scriptures were first written, was now grown strange unto the people; the Chaldee or the Syriack being generally received in the place thereof. And last of all, for the continuance of this Exercise, it held out eight days, all the whole time the Feast continued: whereas it was appointed by the Law of Moses, that only the first and last days of the Feast of Tabernacles should be esteemed and solemnized, as holy convocations to the Lord their God, Levit. 23.35. & 36. Here was a total alteration of the ancient custom; and a fair overture to the Priests, who were then Rulers of the people to begin a new: a fair instruction to them all, that reading of the Law of God was not confined to place, or time; but that all times, and places were alike to his holy Word, Every seventh day as fit for so good a Duty, as every seventh year was accounted in the former times: the Villages and Towns as capable of the Word of God, as was the great and glorious Temple of Hierusalem: and what prerogative had the Feast of Tabernacles, but that the Word of God might be as necessary to be heard on the other Festivals, as it was on that? The Law had first been given them on a Sabbath day, and therefore might be read unto them every Sabbath day. This might be pleaded in behalf of this alteration, and that great change which followed after, in [Page 383]the weekly Sabbaths; whereon the Law of God was not only read unto the people, such of them as inhabited over all Judaea; but publickly made known unto them, in all the Provinces and Towns abroad, where they had either Synagogues or habitati­ons. God certainly had so disposed it, in his heavenly Counsels, that so his holy Word might be more generally known throughout the World; and a more easie way layed open, for the admittance and receipt of the Messiah, whom he meant to send, that so Hierusalem and the Temple, might by degrees be lesned in their reputation; and men might know that neither of them was the only place, John 4.20. where they ought to worship. This I am sure of, that by this breaking of the custom, although an insti­tute of Moses, the Law was read more frequently, than in times of old: there being one other Reading of it, publickly and before the people related in the thirteenth of Nehemiah, when it was neither Feast of Tabernacles, nor sabbatical year, for ought we find in holy Scripture. Therefore most like it is that it was the Sabbath, which, much about those times, began to be ennobled with the constant reading of the Word in the Congregation. First in Hierusalem, and after by degrees, in most places else, as men could fit themselves with convenient Synagogues, Houses selected for that purpose, to hear the Word of God, and observe the same. Of which times, and of none before, those passages of Philo and Josephus before remembred,Chap. 6. n. 4. touching the weekly reading of the Law, and the behaviour of the people in the publick places of As­sembles; are to be understood and verified, as there we noted.

For that there was no Synagogue nor weekly reading of the Law, XI before these times; (besides what hath been said already) we will now make manifest. No Sy­nagogue before these times, for there is neither mention of them in all the body of the old Testament; nor any use of them in those days, wherein there were no Congre­gations in particular places. And first there is no mention of them in the old Testa­ment. For where it is supposed by some, that there were Synagogues in the time of David; and for the proof thereof they produce these words,Psal. 74.8. they have burnt up all the Synagogues of God in the Land: the supposition and the proof are alike infirm. For not to quarrel the Translation, which is directly different from the Greek, and vulgar Latine, and somewhat from the former English: this Psalm, if writ by Da­vid, was not composed in reference to any present misery which fefell the Church. There had been no such havock made thereof in all Davids time, as is there com­plained of. Therefore if David writ that Psalm, he writ it as inspired with the spirit of Prophecy, and in the spirit of Prophecy did reflect on those wretched times, wherein Antiochus laid waste the Church of God, and ransacked his inheritance. To those most probably must it be referred: the miseries which are there bemoaned, not being so exactly true in any other time of trouble, as it was in this, Magis pro­babilis est conjectura, ad tempus Antiochi referri has querimonias, as Calvin notes it.In Psal. 74. And secondly, there was no use of them before, because no reading of the Law in the Congregation, of ordinary course, and on the Sabbath days. For had the Law been read unto the people every Sabbath day, we either should have found some Command­ment for it, or some practice of it: but we meet with neither. Rather we find strong arguments to persuade the contrary. We read it of Jehosaphat, 2 Chron. 17.7. that in the third year of his reign he sent his Princes, Ben-hail, and Obadiah, and Zechariah, and Nathaneel, and Micaiah, to teach in the Cities of Judah. These were the principal in Commission, and unto them he joyned nine Levites and two Priests to bear them company; and to assist them. It followeth, And they taught in Judah, Verse 9. and had the book of the Law of the Lord with them, and they went about throughout all the Cities of Judah, and taught the people. And they taught in Judah, and had the Book of the Law with them? This must needs be a needless labour, in case the people had been taught every Sabbath day: or that the Book of the Law had as then been extant, and extant must it be, if it had been read) in every Town and Village over all Judaea. There­fore there was no Synagogue, no reading of the Law every Sabbath day, in Jehosa­phats time. But that which follows of Josiah, is more full than this.2 Kings 12. That godly Prince intended to repair the Temple, and in pursuit of that intendment, Hilkiah the Priest, to whom the ordering of the work had been committed; found hidden an old Copy of the Law of God, which had been given unto them by the hand of Moses. This Book is brought unto the King, and read unto him, And when the King had heard the words of the Law, he rent his cloths. And not so only,Verse 11. Chap. 23.1, 2. but he gathered toge­ther all the Elders of Judah and Hierusalem, and read in their ears all the words of the Book of the Covenant, which was found in the house of the Lord. Had it been formerly [Page 384]the custom, to read the Law each Sabbath unto all the people: it is not to be thought that this good King Josiah, could possibly have been such a stranger to the Law of God; or that the finding of the Book had been related for so strange an accident, when there was scarce a Town in Judah, but was furnished with them. Or what need such a sudden calling of all the Elders, and on an extraordinary time, to hear the Law; if they had heard it every Sabbath, and that of ordinary course? Nay, so far were they at this time, from having the Law read amongst them every weekly Sab­bath, that as it seems, it was not read amongst them in the sabbath of years, as Moses had before appointed. For if it had been read unto them once in seven years only; that vertuous Prince had not so soon forgotten the contents thereof. Therefore there was no Synagogue, no weekly reading of the Law, in Josiabs days. And if not then, and not before, then not at all till Ezras time. The finding of the Book of God before remembred, is said to happen in the year 3412. of the Worlds Crea­tion: not forty years before the people were led Captives into Babylon; in which short space, the Princes being careless, and the times distracted, there could be no­thing done that concern'd this business. Now from this reading of the Law in the time of Ezra, unto the Council holden in Hierusalem, there passed 490 years, or thereabouts.Acts 15.21. Antiquity sufficient to give just cause to the Apostle, there to affirm that Moses in old time in every City had them that preached him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day. So that we may conclude for certain, that till these times wherein we are, there was no reading of the Law unto the people on the Sab­bath days: and in these times, when it was taken up amongst them, it was by Eccle­siastical institution only, no divine Authority.

But being taken up, XII on what ground soever, it did continue afterwards, though perhaps sometimes interrupted, until the final dissolution of that Church and State; and therewithal grew up a liberty of interpretation of the holy words, which did at last divide the people into sects and factions. Petrus Cunaeus doth affirm, that howsoever the Law was read amongst them in the former times, either in publick or in private;De repub. l. 2. ca. 17. yet the bare Text was only read, without gloss or descant. Interpretatio magistrorum, commentatio nulla. But in the second Temple, when there were no Pro­phets, then did the Scribes and Doctors begin to comment, and make their several ex­positions on the holy Text: Ex quo natae disputationes & sententiae contrariae; from whence, saith he, sprung up debates, and doubtful disputations. Most probable it is, that from this liberty of interpretation, sprung up diversity of judgments, from whence arose the several sects of Pharisees, Essenes, and Sadduces, who by their diffe­rence of opinions did distract the multitude, and condemn each other. Of whom, and what they taught about the Sabbath, we shall see next Chapter. Nor is it to be doubted, but as the reading of the Law, did make the people more observant of the Sabbath, than they were before: so that libertas prophetandi, which they had amongst them, occasioned many of those rigours, which were brought in after. The people had before neglected the sabbatical years, Joseph. Ant. li. 11. ca. ult. but now they carefully observed them. So carefully that when Alexander the Great being in Hierusalem Anno 3721, command­ed them to take some Boon, wherein he might express his favour and love unto them: the High Priest answered for them all, that they desired but leave to exercise the Or­dinances of their Fore-fathers, [...], and that each seventh year might be free from Tribute; because their Lands lay then untilled. But then again, the liberty and variety of Interpretation, bred no little mischief. For where in former times, according to Gods own appointment, the Sabbath was con­ceived to be a day of Rest, whereon both Man and Beast might refresh themselves, and be the more inabled for their ordinary labours: by canvassing some Texts of Scri­pture, and wringing bloud from thence instead of comfort, they made the Sabbath such a yoke, as was supportable. Nor were these weeds of doctrine very long in growing. Within an hundred years, and less, after Nehemiah, the people were so far from working on the Sabbath day; (as in his time we see they did, and hardly could be weaned from so great a sin:) but thought it utterly unlawful to take sword in hand, yea though it were to save their liberty, and defend Religion. A folly, which their neighbour Ptolomy, Joseph. Ant. li 12. c. 1. the great King of Egypt, made especial use of. For having notice of this humour, as it was no better, he entred the City on the Sabbath day, under pre­tence to offer sacrifice; and presently without resistance surprised the same: the people, [...], not laying hand on any weapon, or doing any thing in de­fence thereof; but sitting still, [...] in an idle slothfulness, suffered [Page 385]themselves to be subdued by a Tyrant Conquerour. This hapned Ann. M. 3730. And many more such fruits of so bad a doctrine, did there happen afterwards: to which now we hasten.

CHAP. VIII. What doth occur about the SABBATH from the Maccabees, to destruction of the Temple.

  • 1. The Jews refuse to fight in their own de­fence upon the Sabbath; and what was ordered thereupon.
  • 2. The Pharisees, about these times, had made the Sabbath burdensom by their Tra­ditions. it 3. Hierusalem twice taken by the Romans, on the Sabbath day.
  • 4. The Romans, many of them, Judaize, and take up the Sabbath: as other Nati­ons did by the Jews example.
  • 5. Augustus Caesar very gracious to the Jews, in matters that concerned their Sabbath.
  • 6. What our Redeemer taught, and did, to rectifie the abuses of, and in the Sabbath.
  • 7. The final ruin of the Temple, and the Jewish Ceremonies on a Sabbath day.
  • 8. The Sabbath abrogated with the other Ce­remonies.
  • 9. Wherein consists the Christian Sabbath, mentioned in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers.
  • 10. The idle and ridiculous niceties of the modern Jews, in their Parasceves, and their Sabbaths conclude the first Part./li

WE shewed you in the former Chapter, I how strange an alteration had been made in an hundred years, touching the keeping of the Sabbath. The people hardly at the first restrained from working when there was no need; and after easily induced to abstain from fighting, though tending to the necessary defence both of their liberty and Religion. Of so much swifter growth is superstition, than true piety. Nor was this only for a fit, as easily layed aside, as taken up; but it continued a long time, yea and was every day improved: it being judged, at last, unlawful to defend themselves, in case they were assaulted on the Sabbath day. Antiochus Epi­phanes the great King of Syria, intending utterly to subvert the Church and Common­wealth of Judah, did not alone defile the Sanctuary,1 Mac. 1. by shedding innocent bloud therein: but absolutely prohibited the Burnt-offerings and the Sacrifices, command­ing also that they should prophane the Sabbaths, and the Festival days. So that the Sanctuary was layed waste, the holy Days turned into mourning, and the Sabbath into a reproach, as the story tells us: some of the people so far yielding through fear and faintness, that they both offered unto Idols, and prophaned the Sabbaths, as the King commanded. But others, who preferr'd their Piety, before their fortunes, went down into the Wilderness, and there hid themselves in Caves and other secret places. Thither the Enemies pursued them, and finding where they were in covert, assailed them on the Sabbath day, the Jews not making any the least resistance,Joseph. ll. 1 [...]. ca. 8. no not so much as stopping up the mouths of the Caves, [...], as men resolved not to offend against the honour of the Sabbath in what extremity soever. These men were certainly more persuaded of the mora­lity of the Sabbath, than David or Elijah in the former times: and being so persua­ded, thought it not fit to fly or fight upon that day; no, though the supream Law of Nature, which was the saving of their lives did call them to it. Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum, in the Poets language. But Mattathias, one of the Priests, a man that durst as much as any in the cause of God, and had not been infected with those dangerous fancies; taught those that were about him a more saving doctrine; Assu­ring them that they were bound to fight upon the Sabbath, if they were assaulted. For otherwise, if that they scrupulously observed the Law, in such necessities: [...], they would be Enemies to themselves, and finally be destroyed both they and their Religion. It was concluded thereupon,2 Macc. 2. that whosoever came to make Battel with them on the Sabbath day, they would fight against him: and afterwards it held for currant, as Josephus tells us, that if necessity required they made no scruple, [Page 386] [...], to fight against their Enemies on the Sabbath day. Yet by Jo­sephus leave, it held not long, as he himself shall tell us in another place: what time, the purpose of this resolution was perverted quite, by the nice vanities of those men, who took upon them to declare the meaning of it. But howsoever it was with those of Jewry, such of their Countrymen as dwelt abroad amongst other Nations made no such scruple of the Sabbath, but that they were prepared, if occasion were, as well to bid the Battel, as to expect it: as may appear by this short story, which I shall here present in brief, leaving the Reader to Josephus for the whole at large. Two Bre­thren, Asinaeus, and Auilaeus, born in Nearda, in the territory of Babylon, began to fortifie themselves, and commit great outrages: which known, the Governour of Babylon prepares his Forces to suppress them. Having drawn up his Army, he lies in Ambush near a Marsh: and the next day which was the Sabbath, (wherein the Jews did use to rest from all manner of work) making account that without stroke stricken, they would yield themselves, he marched against them fair and softly, to come upon them unawares. But being discovered by the scouts of Asinaeus, it was resolved amongst them to be far more safe, valiantly to behave themselves in that necessity, yea though it were a breaking of the very Law; than to submit themselves, and make proud the Enemy. Whereupon all of them at once marched forth, and slaugh­tered a great many of the Enemies; the residue being constrained to save themselves by a speedy flight. The like did Anilaeus after; being provoked by Mithridates, a­nother Chieftain of those parts. This happened much about the year 3957. that of the Maccabees before remembred, Anno 3887, or thereabouts. Happy it was these Brethren lived not in Judaea; for had they done so there, the Scribes and Pharisees would have taken an order with them, and cast them out of the Synagogues, if not used them worse.

For by this time those Sects which before we spake of, II began to shew themselves, and disperse their Doctrines. Josephus speaks not of them till the time of Jonathan, who entred on the Government of the Jewish Nation, Anno 3894. Questionless they were known and followed in the former times; though probably not so much in cre­dit, their dictates not so much adored, as in the Ages that came after. Of those the Pharisees were of most Authority, being most active in their courses, severe professors of the Law, and such as by a seeming sanctity had gained exceedingly on the affe­ctions of the common people. The Sadduces were of less repute, (though other­wise they had their dependants) as men that questioned some of the common prin­ciples: denying the Resurrection of the dead, the hope of immortality. As for the Essees or Esseni, they were a kind of Monkish men, retired and private; of far more honesty than the Pharisees, but of far less cunning: therefore their tendries not so generally received, or hearkened after, as the others were. In matters of the Sabbath they were strict alike; but with some difference in the points wherein their strictness did consist.Joseph. de bello. li. 2.7. In this the Essee seems to go beyond the Pharisee, that they not only did ab­stain from dressing meat, and kindling fire upon the Sabbath, as probably the others did: [...]. But unto them it was unlawful to remove a dish or any other Vessel out of the place, wherein they found it, yea or to go aside to ease Nature. And on the other side, the Pharisee in the multi­plicity of his Sabbath speculations, went beyond the Essee: all which were thrust upon the people, as prescribed by God, and grounded in his holy Law; the perfect keeping of the which seemed their utmost industry. There is a dictate in the Scri­pture, that No man go out of his place on the Sabbath day. Exod. 16. This was impossible to be kept, according to the words and letter: therefore there must be some device to ex­pound this Text, and make the matter feasible. Hereupon Achiba, Simeon, and Hillel, three principal Rabbins of these times, found out a shift to satisfie the Text, and yet not bind the people to impossible burdens. This was to limit out the Sabbaths jour­ney, allowing them 2000 foot to stir up and down, for the ease and comfort of the Body: by which devise they thought the matter well made up, the people happily contented, and the Law observed. This was the refuge of the Jews, when after­wards the Christians pressed them with the not keeping of this Text, R. Achiba, Si­meon, & Hillel magistri nostri tradiderunt nobis, ut bis mille pedes ambularemus in sabbato, as St. Hierom tells us.Ad Algesi [...]m. But this being somewhat of the least, they afterwards impro­ved it to 2000 Cubits, then to three quarters of a mile, as before we noted: and this, with this inlargement too, that in their Towns and Cities they might walk as much and as far as they listed, though as big as Nineveh. This Rab. Hiliel above na­med, [Page 387]lived in the year 3928. which was some fifteen years after Jonathans death: and therefore to be reckoned of these times in the which we are. The other two, for ought we know were his Coaetanei, and lived about the same times also. So for the other Text, Thou shalt not kindle fire on the Sabbath day, this also must be literally un­derstood: and then comparing this with that in Exodus, Bake that which ye will bake to day; it needs must follow that no meat must be made ready on the Sabbath. We shewed before, that generally the people did use to fast on the Sabbath day, till they came from Church, that so they might be more attent unto the reading of the Law: this might suggest a plausible pretence unto the Pharisee, to teach the people that they should forbear from dressing meat, that so their servants also might be present, when the Law was read. Hence came the saying used amongst them, Qui parat in para­sceve, vescetur in Sabbato; he that doth cook it on the Eve, may eat upon the Sabbath. There is a Text in Jeremy, expresly against bearing of burdens on the Sabbath day. Chap. 17. v. 11. This by the Christian Fathers is interpreted of the burden of sin. Custodit animam suam qui non portat pondera peccatorum in die quietis, & sabbati, as St. Hierom hath it on the place. See the same Father also on the 58 of Esay; and Basil, on the first of the same Prophet. And certainly had Gods intent been plain and peremptory, that whosoever did bear any burden on the Sabbath day, should never enter into the King­dom of Heaven: our Saviour never had commanded the poor lame man, to take up his Bed upon the Sabbath. But for the Pharisees, they have so dallied with the Text, that they have made both it and themselves ridiculous. For finding it impossible that men should carry nothing at all about them, to salve the matter they devised some nice absurdities. A man might wear no nailed shoos on the Sabbath day, [...]. l. 4. because the nails would be a burden: [...]. that which a man did carry on one shoulder only was a burden to him; not what he carried upon both, as Origen informs us of them. So where they found it in the Law, that thou shalt do no manner of work, they would have no work done, at all, no though it were to save ones life: neither to heal the wounded, or to cure the sick, both which they did object against Christ our Saviour; nor finally to take sword in hand, for the defence either of mens persons or their Countrey. And though their rigour herein had been over-ruled by Mattathias, and that it was con­cluded lawful to fight against their Enemies on the Sabbath day; yet they found out a way to elude this order: teaching the people this, that they might fight that day a­gainst their Enemies, if they were assaulted; but not molest them in their prepara­tions, for assault and battery. This is now made the meaning of the former Law, and this cost them dear. As good no Law at all, as so bad a Comment.

For when that Pompey warred against them, and besieged their Temple, III he quickly found on what foot they halted; and did accordingly make use of the occasions, which they gave unto him. Had not the Ordinance of the Countrey, as Josephus tells it, com­manded us to keep the Sabbath, and do no labour on that day: Antiq. Jud. l. 14. c. 8. the Romans never had been able to have raised their Bulwarks. How so? [...]. Because the Law permits us to defend our selves, in case at any time we are assailed, and urged to fight; but not to set upon them or disturb them, when they have other work in hand. Which when the Romans found, saith he, they neither gave assault, or profer'd any skirmish on the Sabbath days, but built their Towers and Bulwarks, and planted Engines thereupon: and the next day put them in use against the Jews. It seems they were not well resolved on the for­mer point, whether they might defend themselves on the Sabbath day, Hist. l. 5 [...]. though they were assaulted. For on that day it was, that Pompey took the City, and enslaved the people. So Dio tells us touching the use the Romans made of that advantage; adds for the close of all, [...], that at the last they were surprised upon the Saturday, not doing any thing in their own defence. Strabo therein concurs with Dio, in making Saturday the day,Geogr. l. 16. but takes it for a solemn Fast, [...], wherein it is not lawful to do any work. And so it was a Fast indeed, but such a Fast as fell that time upon the Sab­bath. Josephus tells us only that the Temple was taken in the third month, on a fast­ing day: which Casaubon conceives to be the seventh,Exerc. 16.108. and Scaliger the seventeenth of the month called Tamuz; but both agree upon it, that it was the Sabbath. Em. Temp. edit. 2. l. 3. As for their fasting on that day, it was permitted in this case, and in this case only, when as their City was besieged; as before we shewed. Yet could not this unfor­tunate rigour be any warning to the Jews; but needs they must offend again in the [Page 388]self-same kind. For just upon the same day seven and twenty years, the City was again brought under by Sosius and Herod, who had then besieged it: in the same month,L. 14 c. 24. l. 49. and on the same day, as Josephus tells it; [...], and on the day called Saturday, as Dion hath it. So fatal was it to the Jews, to perish in the folly of their superstitions. The first of these two actions, is placed in Anno 3991. therefore the last, being just 27 years after, must be 4018 of the Worlds Crea­tion, Augustus Caesar being then in the Triumvirate.

By means of these two Victories, IV the Jews being tributary to the Romans, began to find admittance into their Dominions, in many places of the which they began to plant, and filled at last whole Townships with their numberous Families. Scarce any City of good note in Syria, and the lesser Asia, wherein the Jews were not consider­able for their members; and in the which, they had not Synagogues for their Devo­tions. So that the manner of their lives, and forms of their Religion being once ob­served: the Roman people, many of them, became affected to the rites of the Jewish worship, and amongst other Ceremonies, to the Sabbath also. It was the custom of the Romans to incorporate all Religions into their own; and worship those Gods whom before they conquered: Et quos post cladem triumphatos colere coeperunt, in Mi­nutius words. Therefore the marvail is the less, that they were fond of something in the Jews Religion; though of all others they most hated that, as most repugnant to their own. Yet many of them out of wantonness, and a love to Novelties, began to stand upon the Sabbath; some would be also circumcised; and abstain from Swines flesh;Javenal. Sat. 14. others use Candlesticks and Tapers, as they saw the Jews. The Satyrist thus scoffs them for it.

Quidam sortiti metuentem Sabbata patrem,
Nil praeter nubes & coeli numen adorant,
Nec distare putant humana carne suillam,
Qua pater abstinuit: mox & praeputia ponunt.
Some following him, the Sabbaths who devised,
Only the Clouds and Sky, for Gods adore;
Hating Swines flesh, as they did mans before
Cause he forbare it; and are circumcised.

Remember Persius taunteth them with their Sabbata recutita, as before we noted. Now as the Poet did upbraid them with Circumcision, and forbearing Swines flesh: so Seneca derides them for the Sabbaths, Epist. 95. and their burning Tapers on the same, as a thing unnecessary; neither the Gods being destitute of light, nor mortal men in love with smoak, Accendere aliquam lucernam sabbatis praecipiamus, quoniam nec lumine dii egent, & ne homines quidem delectantur fuligine. Nay some of them bewail the same, and wish their Empire never had extended so far as Jewry, that so the Romans might not have been acquainted with these superstitions of their Sabbaths.

O utinam nunquam Judaea subacta fuisset
Pompeii bellis,
Rubilius.
Imperioque Titi.
Latius excisae gentis contagia serpunt,
Victoresque suos natio victa premit.
O would Judaea never had been won
By Pompeys Armies, or Vespasians Son,
Their superstition spreads it self so far,
That they give Laws unto the Conquerour.

Nor were the Sabbaths entertained only in Rome it self. Some, in almost all places of their Empire, were that way enclined; as Seneca most rightly noted. Eo usque scele­ratissimae gentis consuetudo invaluit, ut per omnes jam terras recepta sit, & victi victoribus leges dederunt. Cap. 11. De mund. opis. Saint Augustine so reports him in his sixth Book de civitate. And this is that, which Philo means when as he calls the Sabbath [...], the general Festival of all people: when he sets up this challenge against all the World, [...], &c.De vita Mos. [...]. 2. What man is there in all the World, who doth not reverence this our holy Sabbath, which bringeth rest and ease to all sorts of Men, [Page 389]Masters and Servants, bond and free, yea, to the very brute beasts also. Not that they knew the Sabbath by the light of Nature, or had observed the same in all Ages past; but that they had admitted it in Philos time, as a Jewish ceremony. For let Josephus be the Comment upon Philo's Text, and he will thus unfold his meaning. The Laws, saith he, established amongst us, have been imitated of all other Nations: [...].L. 2. cont. Apiox. Yea, and the common people did long since imitate our piety. Neither is there any Nation Greek or Barbarous, to which our use of resting on the seventh day hath not spread it self: who also keep not Fasting days, and Lamps with lights; and many of those Ordinances about Meats and Drinks, which are enjoyned us by the Law. So far Josephus.

These Romans, V and what other Nations they were soever which did thus Judaize about the Sabbath; were many of them Proselytes, of the Jews, such as had been ad­mitted into that Religion: for it appears that they did also worship the God of Hea­ven, and were Circumcised, and abstained from Swines flesh. Otherwise we may well believe that of their own accord they had not bound themselves so generally to observe the Sabbath, being no parts nor members of the Jewish state: considering that such strangers as lived amongst them, not being circumcised nor within the Covenant, were not obliged so to do. Tostatus tells us of two sorts of strangers amongst the Jews. In Exod. 20. qu. 14. The first, qui adveniebat de Gentilitate & convertebatur ad Judaismum, &c. who being originally of the Gentiles had been converted to the Religion of the Jews, and were Circumcised, and lived amongst them: and such were bound, saith he, to observe the Sabbath, & omnes observantias legis, and all other rites of the Law of Moses. This is evident by that in the twelfth of Exodus, where it is said, that every man servant bought with money, when he was circumcised should eat the Passeover: but that the foreigner and hired servant (conceive it not being circumcised) might not eat thereof. The other sort of strangers, were such as lived amongst them only for a certain time, to trade and traffique or upon any other business of what sort soever. And they, saith he, were not obliged by the Commandment to keep the Sabbath, quia non poterant cogi ad aliquam observantiam legalem, nisi vellent accipere circumcisionem: because they could not be constrained to any legal Ordinance, except they would be Circumcised, which was the door unto the rest. Finally, he resolves it thus, that by the stranger within their gates, which by the Law were bonnd to observe the Sabbath, were only meant such strangers, de gentilitate ad Judaismum conversi, which had renouced their Gentilism, and embraced the Religion of the Jews. And he resolved it so, no doubt, according to the practice of the Jews, amongst whom he lived; and to the doctrine of their Rabbins, amongst whose writings he was very conversant. Lyra himself a Jew, and therefore one who knew their customs as well as any, doth affirm as much, and tells us that the stranger, in the Law intended, Gentilis est conversus ad ritum Judaeorum, is such a stranger as had been converted to the Jewish Church. And this may yet ap­pear, in part, by the present practice of that people, who though themselves milk not their Kine on the Sabbath day, permissium est & iis ut die Sabbatino dicant Christia­no,Buxdorf. Sy­nagog. c. 11.&c. Yet they may give a Christian leave to perform that Office; and then to buy the milk of him for a toy, or trifle. Add here what formerly we noted of their Ser­vants. Ch. 3. n. 1. Of whom we told you out of Rabbi Maimony, that if they were not circum­cised or baptized, they were as sojourning strangers, and may do work for themselves openly on the Sabbath, as any of the Israelites might on a working day. By which it seems that strangers, yea and servants too, in case they were not Circumcised, or otherwise ini­tiated into their Churches were not obliged to keep the Sabbath. Which plainly shews that by the Jews themselves, the keeping of the Sabbath was not taken for a moral Law; or to concern any but themselves, and those of their Religion only. For had they took it for a part of the Law of Nature, as universally to be observed as any other; they had not suffered it to be broke amongst them, before their faces, and that with­out controul of censure: no more, than they would have permitted a sojourning stranger to blaspheme their God, or publickly to set up Idolatry, or without punish­ment to steal their goods, or destroy their persons. The rather since their Sabbath had prevailed so far, as to be taken up with other parts of their Religion, in many principal Cities of the Roman Empire: or otherwise by way of imitation, so much in use among the Gentiles. And this I have the rather noted in this place and time, because that in these times the Countrey of the Jews was most resorted to by all sorts of strangers, and they themselves in favour with the Roman Empe­rours.

Indeed these customs of the Jews did fly about the Roman Empire with a swifter wing, by reason of that countenance which great Augustus Caesar did shew both to the men,Philo. leg. ad Caium. and unto their Sabbath. First, for the men, he did not only suffer them to enjoy the liberty of Conscience in their own Countrey, and there to have their Synagogues and publick places of Assembly, as before they had: but he permitted them to inhabit a great part of Rome, and there to live according to their Countrey Laws. [...]; and yet, saith he, he knew that they had their Proseuchas, or Oratories; that they assembled in the same, especially on the holy Sabbaths; and finally, that there they were instructed in their own Religion. Then for the Sabbath, the Jews had anciently been accustomed, not to appear in judgment either upon the Sabbath day, or the Eve before. Augustus doth confirm this priviledg, bestows upon their Syna­gogues, the prerogative of Sanctuary,Jos. Antiq. l. 16. c. 30. enables them to live according to the Laws of their own Countrey; and finally threatneth severe punishment on those, which should presume to do any thing against his Edict. The tenour of which Edict is as followeth. Caesar Augustus Pont. Max. Trib. Pleb. ita censet, Quoniam Judaeorum gens semper fida & grata fuit populo Rom. &c. placet mihi de communi Senatus sententia, eos propriis uti legibus & ritibus, quibus utebantur tempore Hyrcani Pontificis Dei maximi, & eorum fanis jus Asyli manere, &c. neque cogi ad praestanda vadimonia sabbatis, aut pridie sabbatorum, post horam nonam in Parasceve. Quod si quis contra decretum ausus fuerit, gravi poena mulctabitur. This Edict was set forth Anno 4045. and after many of that kind were published in several Provinces, by Mar. Agrippa, Provost General un­der Caesar: Phil. legat. ad Caium. as also by Norbanus Flaceus, and Julius Antonius, Proconsuls at that time; whereof see Josephus. Nay, when the Jews were grown so strict, that it was thought unlawful either to give, or take an Alms on the Sabbath day: Augustus, for his part, was willing not to break them of it; yet so to order and dispose his Bounties, that they might be no losers by so fond a strictness. For whereas he did use to distribute monthly a certain Donative, either in Mony or in Corn; this distribution sometimes happened on the Sabbath days, [...], as Philo hath it, whereon the Jews might neither give nor take, neither indeed do any thing that did tend to sustenance. Therefore, saith he, it was provided that their proportion should be given them [...], on the next day after, that so they might be made partakers of the publick benefit. Not give nor take an Alms on the Sabbath day? Their superstition sure was now very vehement: seeing it would not suffer men to do the works of mercy, on the day of mercy. And therefore it was more than time, they should be sent to School again, to learn this Lesson; I will have mercy and not sacrifice.

And so indeed they were sent unto School to him, VI who in himself was both the Teacher and the Truth. For at this time our Saviour came into the World. And had there been no other business for him to do: this only might have seemed to require his presence; viz. to rectifie those dangerous Errours, which had been spread abroad in these latter times, about the Sabbath. The service of the Sabbath, in the Congre­gation, he found full enough. The custom was, to read a Section of the Law, out of the Pentateuch or five Books of Moses; and after to illustrate, or confirm the same, out of some parallel place amongst the Prophets. That ended, if occasion were, and that the Rulers of the Synagogue did consent unto it, there was a word of Exhorta­tion made unto the people,Chap. 13.15. conducing to obedience and the works of Piety. So far it is apparent by that passage in the Acts of the Apostles touching Paul and Barnabas: that being at Antioch in Pisidia, on the Sabbath day, after the reading of the Law and Pro­phets, the Rulers of the Synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation to speak unto the people, dicite, say on. As for the Law (I note this only by the way) they had divided it into 54 Sections, which they read over in the two and fifty sabbaths: joyning two of the shortest, twice, together, that so it might be all read over within the year; beginning on the Sabbath which next followed the Feast of Tabernacles, ending on that which came before it. So far our Saviour found no fault, but rather countenanced and confirmed the custom, by his gracious presence, and example. But in these rigid Vanities, and absurd Traditions, by which the Scribes and Pharisees had abused the Sabbath, and made it of an ease to become a drudgery: in those he thought it requisite to detect their follies, and ease the people of that bondage, which they in their proud humours had imposed upon them. The Pharisees had taught that it was unlawful on the sabbath day, either to [Page 391]heal the impotent, or relieve the sick, or feed the hungry: but he confutes them in them all, both by his Acts, and by his Disputations. Whatever he maintain'd by Argument, he made good by Practice. Did they accuse his followers of gathering Corn upon the Sabbath, being then an hungred? he lets them know what David did in the same extremity. Their eating, or their gathering on the Sabbath day, take you which you will, was not more blameable, nay not so blameable by the Law; as David's eating of the Shew-bread; which plainly was not to be eaten by any, but the Priest alone. The Cures he did upon the Sabbath, what were they more than which themselves did daily do, in laying salves unto those Infants, whom on the Sab­bath day they had Circumcised. His bidding of the impotent man to take up his Bed, and get him gone, which seemed so odious in their eyes; was it so great a toyl, as to walk round the walls of Hiericho, and bear the Ark upon their shoulders? or any greater burden to their idle backs, than to lift up the Ox, and set him free out of that dangerous Ditch, into the which the hasty Beast might fall as well upon the Sab­bath, as the other days? Should men take care of Oxen and not God of Man? Not so. The Sabbath was not made for a lazy Idol, which all the Nations of the World should fall down, and worship: but for the ease and comfort of the labouring man, that he might have some time to refresh his spirits. Sabbatum propter hominem factum est, The Sabbath, saith our Saviour, was made for man; man was not made to serve the Sabbath. Nor had God so irrevocably spoke the word, touching the san­ctifying of the Sabbath, that he had left himself no power to repeal that Law; in case he saw the purpose of the Law perverted: the Son of man, even he that was the Son both of God and Man, being Lord also of the Sabbath. Nay it is rightly marked by some, that Christ our Saviour did more works of Charity on the Sabbath day, than on all days else. Zanchius observes it out of Irenaeus. In Mandat. 4. Saepius multo Christum in die Sabbati praestitisse opera charitatis, quam in aliis diebus; and his note is good. Not that there was some urgent and extream necessity; either the Cures to be performed that day, or the man to perish. For if we look into the story of our Saviours actions, we find no such matter. It's true, that the Centurions son, and Peters mother-in-law, were even sick to death: and there might be some reason in it, why he should haste unto their Cures on the Sabbath day. But on the other side, the man that had the withered Hand, Matth. 13. and the Woman with her flux of Blood eighteen years together, Luke 13. he that was troubled with the Dropsie, Luke 14. and the poor wretch which was afflicted with the Palsie, John 5. in none of these was found any such necessity, but that the Cure might have been respited to another day. What then? Shall it be thought our Saviour came to destroy the Law? No. God for­bid. Himself hath told us, that he came to fulfil it rather. He came to let them understand the right meaning of it, that for the residue of time wherein it was to be in force, they might no longer be misled by the Scribes and Pharisees, and such blind guides as did abuse them. Thus have I briefly summed together, what I find scat­tered in the Writings of the ancient Fathers: which who desires to find at large, may look into Irenaeus, li. 4. ca. 19. & 20. Origen. in Num. hom. 23. Tertul. li. 4. contr. Marcion. Athanas. hom. de Semente. p. 1061. & 1072. edit. gr. lat. Victor. An­tioch. cap. 3. in Marcum. Chrysost. hom. 39. in Matth. 12. Epiphan. li. 1. haeres. 30. n. 33. Hierom, in Matth. 12. Ambros. in cap. 3. Luk. li. 3. Augustin. cont. Faustum. li. 16. ca. 28. & lib. 19. ca. 9. to descend no lower. With one of which last Fathers savings,Cont. Adimant. ca. 2. we conclude this list, Non ergo Dominus rescindit Scripturam Vet. Test. sed cogit intelligi. Our Saviours purpose, saith the Father, was not to take away the Law, but to expound it.

Not then to take away the Law, it was to last a little longer. VII He had not yet pro­nounced, Consummatum est, that the Law was abrogated. Nor might it seem so pro­per for him, to take away one Sabbath from us, which was rest from labour; until he had provided us of another, which was rest from sin. And to provide us such a Sabbath was to cost him dearer, than words and arguments. He healed us by his Word before. Now he must heal us by his stripes, or else no entrance into his Rest, the eternal Sabbath. Besides the Temple stood as yet, and whiles that stood, or was in hope to be rebuilt, there was no end to be expected of the legal Ceremonies. The Sabbath, and the Temple did both end together; and which is more remarkable, on a Sabbath day. The Jews were still sick of their old Disease, and would not stir a foot on the Sabbath day, beyond their compass: no, though it were to save their Temple, and in that their Sabbath, or whatsoever else was most dear unto them. Nay they were more superstitious now, than they were before. For whereas in the [Page 392]former times it had been thought unlawful, to take Arms and make War on the Sab­bath day,Joseph. de bello. li. 4. ca. 4. unless they were assaulted and their lives in danger: now [...] it was pronounced unlawful even to treat of peace. A fine contradiction. Agrippa layed this home unto them, when first they entertained a rebellious purpose against the Romans, Id. li. 2. c. 16. [...], &c. If you observe the custom of the Sabbaths, and in them do nothing, it will be no hard matter to bring you under: for so your Ancestors found in their Wars with Pompey, who ever deferred works until that day, wherein his Enemies were idle and made no resistance. [...], &c. If on the other side you take Arms that day, then you transgress your Countrey laws, your selves; and so I see no cause why you should rebel. Where note, Agrippa calls the Sabbath a Custom, and their Coun­trey law; which makes it evident that they thought it not any Law of Nature. Now what Agrippa said, did in fine fall out: the City being taken on the Sabbath day, as Jos. Scaliger computes it; or the Parasceve of the Sabbath, as Rab. Joses hath deter­mined, Most likely that it was on the Sabbath day it self. For Dion speaking of this War,Lib. 66. and of this taking of the City, conclude it thus. [...]. Hierusalem, saith he, was taken on the Saturday, which the Jews most reverence till this day. Thus fell the Temple of the Jews, and with it all the Ceremonies of the Law of Moses. Demonst. l. 1. c. 6. Since when, according as Eusebius tells us, [...], &c. It is not lawful for that people, either to sacrifice according to the Law, or to build a Temple, or erect an Altar, to consecrate their Priests, or anoint their Kings: [...], or finally to hold their solemn Assem­blies, or any of their Festivals ordained by Moses.

For that the Sabbath was to end with other legal Ceremonies, VIII is by this apparent first that it was an institute of Moses, and secondly an institute peculiar to the Jewish Nation; both which we have already proved: and therefore was to end with the Law of Moses, and the state of Jewry. Fathers there be good store, which affirm as much: some of the which shall be produced to express themselves, that we may see what they conceived of the abrogation of the Sabbath. And first for Justin Martyr, it is his chief scope and purpose in his Conference with Tyrpho; Dial. cum Try­pbon. to make it manifest and unquestionable, that as there was no use of Circumcision before Abrahams time, not of the Sabbath until Moses, [...], so neither is there any use of them at this present time: that as it took beginning them, so it was now to have an end.Adv. Marc. l. 2. Tertullian in his Argument against the Marcionites, draws out this conclusion, Ad tempus & praesentis causae necessitatem convaluisse, non ad perpetui tempo­ris observationem; that God ordained the Sabbath upon special reasons, and as the times did then require,Hom. de Sab. & circum. not that it should continue always. St. Athanasius thus discours­eth: When God, saith he, had finished the first Creation, he did betake himself to rest, [...], &c. and therefore those of that Creation did celebrate their Sabbath on the seventh day. But the accomplishment of the new-Creature hath no end at all, and therefore God still worketh, as the Gospel teacheth. Hence it is, that we keep no Sabbath, as the Antients did, expecting an eternal Sabbath, which shall have no end. That of St. Ambrose, Synagoga diem observat, Ecclesia immer­talitatem, comes most near to this.Epist. 72. l. 9. But he that speaks most fully to this point, is the great St. Austin, what he saith, shall be delivered under three several Heads. First, that the Sabbath is quite abrogated; Tempore gratiae revelatae, observatio illa Sabbati, quae unius diei vacatione figurabatur, ablata est ab observatione fidelium: The keeping of the Sabbath is taken utterly away in this time of Grace. De Gen. ad lit. l. 4. c. 13. See the like, ad Bonifac. l. 3. Tom. 7. contr. Faust. Man. l. 6. c. 4. Qu. ex N. Test. 69. Se­condly, that the Sabbath was not kept in the Church of Christ; In illis decem praece­ptis, excepta sabbati observatione, dicatur mihi quid no non sit observandum à Christiano. de sp. & lit. c. 14. What is there (saith the Father) in all the Decalogue, except the keeping of the Sabbath, which is not punctually to be observed of every Christian. More of the like occurs de Genesi contr. Manich. l. 1. c. 22. contr. Adimant. ca. 2. Qu. in Exod. l. 2. qu. 173. And thirdly, that it is not lawful for a Christian to observe the Sabbath.Deiutil. cre­cendi. c. 3. For speaking of the Law, how it was a Paedagogie to bring us unto the knowledg of Christ, he adds, that in those Institutes and Ordinances, Quibus Chri­stians uti fas non est, quale est sabbatum, circumcisio, sacrificia, &c. which are not law­ful to be used by any Christian: such as are the Sabbath, Circumcision, Sacrifices, and such other things; many great Mysteries were contained. And in another [Page 393]place, Quisquis diem illum observat, sicut litera sonat, carnaliter sapit. Sapere autem se­cundum carnem mors est. He that doth literally keep the Sabbath, favours of the flesh:De Sp. & lit. c. 14. but to savour of the flesh is death: Therefore no Sabbath to be kept by the sons of life.

No Sabbath to be kept at all? We affirm not so. IX We know there is a Christian Sabbath, a Sabbath figured out unto us in the fourth Commandment, which every Christian man must keep, that doth desire to enter into the Rest of God. This is that Sabbath which the Prophet Isaiah hath commended to us. Blessed is the man that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it. Quid autem sabbatum est quod praecipit ob­servandum, &c. What Sabbath is it, saith St. Hierom, that is here commanded? The following words, saith he, will inform us that, keeping our hands from doing evil. This is the Sabbath here commanded, Si bona faciens quiescat à malis, if doing what is good we do rest from sin. Nor was this his conceit alone; the later Writers so ex­pound it. The Prophet in this place, saith Ryvet, thus prophecies of the Church of Christ. Blessed is the man that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, In Decalog. and keepeth his hands from doing any evil. Vbi custodire sabbatum in Ecclesia Christiana, est custodire manus suas à malo. And in these words, saith he, to keep a Sabbath in a Christian Church, is only to preserve our hands from doing evil. The like spiritual Sabbath doth the man of God prescribe unto us, in the 58 Chapter of his Book.Verse 13.14. If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, &. not doing thine own way, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor sheapking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thy self in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high plaes of the earth, &c. What saith Hierom unto this? It must be understood, saith he, spiritually. Alioquin si haec tantum prohibentur in sabbato, ergo in aliis sex diebus tribuitur nobis libertas delinquendi. In locum. For otherwise, if those things above remembred, are prohibited only on the Sab­baths, then were it lawful for us on the other days, to follow our own finful courses, speak our own idle words, and pursue our own voluptuous pleasures; which were most foolish to imagine. And so saith Ryvet too for the modern Writers,In Decalog. Repetuum ab omnibus operibus nostris vitiosis cessationem, &c. That everlasting rest from all sinful works, which is begun in this life, here; and finished in the life to come; is signified and represented by those words of Isaiab, ca. 58. They therefore much mistake these Texts, and the meaning of them, who grounding thereupon, forbid all manner of REcreations and lawful pleasures, on their supposed Sabbath day; as being utterly prohibited by Gods holy Prophet. The Jews did thus abuse this Scripture,Maymon. ap. Ains. in Ex. 20. in the times before: and made it an unlawful matter, for any man to walk into the Fields, or to see his Gardens on the Sabbath day; either to mark what things they wanted, or how well they prospered: because this was to do his own pleasure, and so forbid­den by the Prophet. But those that understand the true Christian Sabbath, apply them to a better purpose: as was shewed before. And for the Christian Sabbath, what it is, and in what things it doth consist, besides what hath been said already, we shall add something more from the ancient Fathers. If any man,Dial. cum Try­pbon. saith Justin Martyr, that hath been formerly a perjured person, a deceiver of his Neighbour, an incontinent liver, repentshim of his sins, and amends his life: [...], that man doth keep a true and holy Sabbath to the Lord his God. See to this purpose also, Clemens of Alexandria, Strom. l. 4. So Origen, Omnis qui vivit in Christo semper in sabbatis vivit; That man,Tract. 19. in Math. whose life is hid with Christ in God, keeps a daily Sabbath. See to that purpose, Hom. 23. in Numbers. Macarius also tells us that the Sabbath given from God by Moses, Hom. 35. was a Type only and a shadow of that real Sabbth, [...], given by the Lord unto the soul. More fully Chrysostom, [...], &c. What use, saith he, is there of a Sabbath to him whose Conscience is a continual feast, to him whose conversation is in Heaven. For now we feast it every day, doing no manner of wickedness, but keeping a spiritual rest, holding our hands from covet ous­ness, our Bodies from uncleanness. What need we more? The Law of righteousness con­tains ten Commandments. The first, to know one God; the second to abstain from Idols; the third not to prophane Gods Name; the fourth Sabbatum celebrare spirituale,Hom. 29. in Math. 24. to keep the true spiritual Sabbath, &c. So he that made the Opus imperfectum, on Saint Mat­thews Gospel. Saint Augustine finally makes the fourth Commandment, so far as it concerns us Christians to be no more than requies cordis, De conven. 10; praec. & 10. plagarum. & tranquillitas mentis quam facit bona conscientia, the quiet of the heart, and the peace of mind, occasioned by a good Conscience. Of any other Sabbath to be looked for now, the Fathers utterly [Page 394]are silent: and therefore we may well resolve, there is no such thing.

Yet notwithstanding this, X the Jews still dote upon their Sabbath, and that more sottishly, and with more superstition far than they ever did. A view whereof I shall present, and so conclude the first part of this present Argument. And first for the Parasceves or their Eves,Synag. Jud. c. 10. Buxdorfius thus informs us of their vain behaviour. Die Ve­neris singuli ungues de digitis abscindunt, &c. On Friday in the afternoon they pare their Nails, and whet their Knives, and lay their Holiday-cloaths in readiness for the reception of Queen Sabbath, for so they call it: and after lay the Cloth, and set on their Meat, that nothing be to be done upon the morrow. About the evening goes the Sexton from door to door, commanding all the people to abstain from work, and to make ready for the Sabbath. That done they take no work in hand. Only the Women, when the Sun is near its setting, light up their Sabbath-lamps in their dining rooms: and stretching out their hands towards them, give them their Blessing and depart. To morrow they begin their Sabbath very early, and for entrance thereunto, array themselves in their best Cloaths, and their richest Jewels: it being the conceit of Rabby Solomon, that the Memento in the front of the fourth Com­mandment was placed there especially, to put the Jews in mind of their Holiday Garments. Nay so precise they are in these Preparations, and the following Rest, that if a Jew go forth on Friday, and on the night falls short of home more than is lawful to be travelled on the Sabbath day, there must he set him down, and there keep his Sab­bath; though in a Wood, or in the Field, or the High-way side; without all fear of wind or weather, of Thieves or Robbers; without all care also of Meat and Drink. Periculo latronum praedonumque omui, penuria item omni cibi potusque neglectis, as that Authour hath it. For their behaviour on the Sabbath, and the strange niceties where­with they abuse themselves, he describes it thus. Equus aut asinus Domini ipsius stabu­lo exiens, Id. cap. 11. froenum aut capistrum non aliud quicquam portabit, &c. An Horse may have a Bridle or an Halter to lead, not a Saddle to load him: and he that leadeth him must not let it hang so loose, that it may seem he rather carrieth the Bridle, than leads the Horse. An Hen must not wear her Hose sowed about her Leg, They may not milk their Kine, nor eat any of the milk though they have procured some Christian to do that work, unless they buy it. A Taylor may not wear his Needle sticking on his sleeve. The lame may use a staff, but the blind may not. They may not burthen themselves with Cloggs or Pattens, to keep their feet out of the dirt: nor rub their Shoos, if foul, against the ground; but against a wall: nor wipe their dirty Hands with a Cloth or Towel; but with a Cows or Horses tail they may do it lawfully. A wounded Man may wear a Plaster on his sore, that formerly was applyed unto it: but if it fall off, he may not lay it on anew, or bind up any wound that day, nor carry money in their Purses, or about their Clothes. They may not carry a Fan or flap to drive away the Flies. If a Flea bite, they may remove it, but not kill it; but a Lowse they may: yet Rabbi Eliezer thinks one may as lawfully kill a Camel. They must not fling more Corn unto their Poultry than will serve that day: lest it may grow by lying still, and they be said to sow their Corn upon the Sabbath. To whistle a tune with ones Mouth, or play it on an Instrument, is unlawful utterly: as also to knock with the ring or hammer of a Door; or knock ones hand upon a Table, though it be only to still a Child. So likewise, to draw Letters either in dust or ashes, or on a wet Board is prohibited; but not to fancy them in the Air. With many other infinite absurdities of the like poor nature; wherewith the Rabbins have been pleased to afflict their Brethren, and make good sport to all the World, which are not either Jews or Jewishly affected. Nay, to despite our Sa­viour, as Buxdorfius tells us, they have determined since, that it is unlawful to life the Ox or Ass out of the Ditch; which in the strictest time of the Pharisaical rigours, was accounted lawful. Indeed the marvel is the less, that they are so uncharitable to poor Brute creatures; when as they take such little pitty upon themselves. Crant­zius reports a story of a Jew of Magdeburg, who falling on a Saturday into a Privy, would not be taken out, because it was the Sabbath day: and that the Bishop gave command, that there he should continue on the Sunday also, so that between both the poor Jew was poisoned with the very stink. The like our Annals do relate of a Jew of Tewkesbury, whose story being cast into three riming Verses, according to the Poetry of those times. I have here presented and translated; Dialogue-wise, as they first made it.

Tende manus Solomon, ut te de stercore tollam.
Sabbata nostra colo, de stercore surgere nolo.
Sabbata nostra quidem, Solomon celebrabis ibidem.
[Page 395]
Friend Solomon, thy Hands up-rear,
And from the Jakes I will thee bear.
Our Sabbath I so highly prize,
That from the place I will not rise.
Then Solomon, without more adoe,
Our Sabbath thou shalt keep there too.

For the continuance of their Sabbath, as they begin it early on the day before; so they prolong it on the day till late at night. And this they do in pity to the souls in Hell; who all the while the Sabbath lasteth, have free leave to play. For as they tell us silly wretches, upon the Eve before the Sabbath, it is proclaimed in the Hall, that every one may go his way, and take his pleasure: and when the Sabbath is concluded, they are recalled again to the house of Torments. I am ashamed to meddle longer in these trifles, these Dreams and dotages of infatuated men, given over to a reprobate sense. Nor had I stood so long upon them, but that in this Anatomy of the Jewish follies, I might let some amongst us see into what dangers they are falling. For there are some, indeed too many, who taking his for granted, which they cannot prove, that the Lords Day succeeds into the place and rights of the Jewish sabbath, and is to be observed by vertue of the fourth Commandment: have trenched too near upon the Rabbins, in binding men to nice and scrupulous observances; which neither we nor our Fore-fathers were ever able to endure. But with what warrant they have made a sabbath day, in the Christian Church, where there was never any known in all times before; or upon what Authority they have presumed to lay heavy Burthens upon the Consciences of poor men, which are free in Christ: we shall the better see by tracing down the story from our Saviours time, unto the times in which we live. But I will here sit down and rest, beseeching God, who enabled me thus far, to guide me onwards to the end.

‘Tu qui principio medium, medio adjice finem.’
THE HISTORY OF THE S …

THE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.

The Second BOOK.

From the first preaching of the Gospel to these present Times.

By PETER HEYLYN, D.D.

COLOSS. ii. 16, 17.

Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new Moon, or of the SABBATH Days: which are a shadow of things to come, but the Body is of Christ.

LONDON, Printed by M. Clark, to be sold by C. Harper. 1681.

To the Christian Reader;

AND such I hope to meet with, in this Part especially; which treat­ing of the affairs of the Christian Church, cannot but be displeasing unto them, which are not Christianly affected. Our former Book we destinated to the Jewish part of this enquiry: wherein, though long it was before we found it, yet at the last we found a Sab­bath. A Sabbath which began with that state and Church, and ended also when they were no longer to be called a Nation; but a dispersed and scattered ruin of what once they were. In that which followeth, our Enquiry must be more diffused, of the same latitude with the Church; a Church not limited and confined to some Tribes and Kin­dreds but generally spreading over all the World. We may affirm it of the Gospel, what Florus sometimes said of the state of Rome. Ita late per orbem terrarum arma circumtulit, ut qui res ejus legunt, non unius populi, sed generis humani facta di­scunt. The history of the Church, and of the World, are of like extent. So that the search herein, as unto me it was more painful in the doing, so unto thee will it be more pleasing being done; because of that variety which it will afford thee. And this Part we have called the History of the Sabbath too: although the institution of the Lords Day, and entertainment of the same in all times and Ages since that institution, be the chief thing whereof it treateth. For being it is said by some that the Lords Day succeeded, by the Lords appointment, into the place and rights of the Jewish Sabbath; so to be called, and so to be observed, as the Sabbath was: this Book was wholly to be spent in the search thereof, whether in all, or any Ages of the Church, either such doctrine had been preached, or such practice pressed upon the Conscience of Gods people. And search in­deed we did with all care and diligence, to see if we could find a Sabbath, in any evidence of Scripture, or writings of the holy Fathers, or Edicts of Emperours, or De­crees of Councils: or finally in any of the publick Acts and Monuments of the Christian Church. But after several searches made upon the alias, and the pluries, we still return, Non est inventus: and thereupon resolve in the Poets language, Et quod non invenis usquam, esse putes nosquam; that which is no where to be found, may very strongly be con­cluded not to be at all. Buxdorfius in the 11th Chapter of his Synagoga Judaica, out of Antonius Margarita, tells us of the Jews, quod die sabbatino, praeter animam con­suetam, praediti sunt & alia; that on the Sabbath day, they have an extraordinary soul in­fused into them, which doth enlarge their hearts, and rouze up their spirits, Ut Sabbatum multo honorabilius peragere possint, that they may celebrate the Sabbath, with the greater bonour. And though this sabbatarie soul, may by a Pythagorical [...] seem to have transmigrated from the Jews, into the Bodies of some Christians in these later days: yet I am apt to give my self good hopes, that by presenting to their view, the constant practice of Gods Church in all times before, and the consent of all Gods Churches at this present; they may be dispossessed thereof without great difficul­ty. It is but anima superflua, is Buxdorfius calls it; and may be better spared, than kept, because superfluous. However I shall easily persuade my self, that by this general representation of the estate and practice of the Church of Christ, I may confirm the wavering, in a right persuasion; and assure such as are already well affected, by shewing them the perfect harmony and agreement, which is between this Church and the purest times. It is our constant prayer to Almighty God, as well that he would strengthen such as do stand, and confirm the weak, as to raise up those men which are fallen into sin and errour. As are our prayers, such should be also our endeavours; as universal to all sorts of men, as charitable to them in their several cases and distresses. Happy those men, who do aright discharge their Duties, both in their prayers, and their performance. The bles­sing of our labours we must leave to him, who is all in all: without whom all Pauls plant­ing, and Apollo's watering, will yield poor encrease. In which of these three states soever thou art, good Christian Reader, let me beseech thee kindly to accept his pains; which for thy sake were undertaken: that so he might, in some poor measure, be an in­strument, to strengthen or confirm, or raise thee, as thy case requires. This is the most that I desire, and less than this thou couldst not do, did I not desire it. And so fare thee well.

THE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.

The Second Book.

CHAP. I. That there is nothing found in Scripture, touching the keeping of the Lords Day.

  • 1. The Sabbath not intended for a perpetual Ordinance.
  • 2. Preparatives unto the dissolution of the Sabbath, by our Saviour Christ.
  • 3. The Lords day not enjoyned in the place thereof, either by Christ or his Apostles; but instituted by the Authority of the Church.
  • 4. Our Saviours Resurrection on the first day of the week, and apparitions on the same, make it not a Sabbath.
  • 5. The coming down of the Holy Ghost upon the first day of the week, makes it not a Sabbath.
  • 6. The first day of the week not made a Sab­bath, more than others, by Saint Peter, Saint Paul, or any other of the Apostles.
  • 7. Saint Paul frequents the Synagogue on the Jewish Sabbath, and upon what reasons.
  • 8. What was concluded against the Sabbath, in the Council holden in Hierusalem.
  • 9. The preaching of Saint Paul at Troas, up­on the first day of the week, no argument, that then that day was set apart by the Apostles for religious exercises.
  • 10. Collections on the first day of the week, 1 Cor. 16. conclude as little for that pur­pose.
  • 11. Those places of Saint Paul, Galat. 4.10. Colos. 2.16. do prove invincibly that there is no Sabbath to be looked for.
  • 12. The first day of the week not called the Lords day, until the end of this first Age; and what that title adds unto it.

WE shewed you in the former Book what did occur about the Sabbath, I from the Creation of the World to the destruction of the Temple, which comprehended the full time of 4000 years and upwards, in the opinion of the most and best Chronologers. Now for five parts of eight of the time computed from the Creation to the Law, being in all 2540 years, and somewhat more; there was no Sabbath known at all. And for the fifteen hundred, being the remainder, it was not so observed by the Jews themselves, as if it had been any part of the Law of Na­ture; but sometimes kept, and sometimes broken, either according as mens private businesses, or the affairs of the republick would give way unto it. Never such conscience made thereof, as of Adultery, Murder, Blasphemy, or Idolatry; no not when as the Scribes and Pharisees had most made it burdensome: there being many casus reservati, [Page 401]wherein they could dispense with the fourth Commandment, though not with any of the other. Had they been all alike, equally natural and moral, as it is conceived, they had been all alike observed, all alike immutable; no jot or syllable of that Law which was ingraft by nature in the soul of man, being to fall unto the ground, till Heaven and Earth shall pass away and decay together; till the whole frame of Nature,Luk. 16.17. for preservation of the which the Law was given, be dissolved for ever. The Abro­gation of the Sabbath, which before we spake of, shews plainly that it was no part of the Moral Law, or Law of Nature; there being no Law natural, which is not perpe­tual. Tertullian takes it for confest, or at least makes it plain and evident,Contr. Mare. l. 2. Temporale fuisse mandatum quod quandoque cessaret, that it was only a temporary constitution which was in time to have an end. And after him, Procopius Gazaeus, in his notes on Exodus, e. 16. lays down two several sorts of Laws, whereof some were to be perpetual, and some were not; of which last sort were Circumcision and the Sabbath, Quae duraverunt us­que in adventum Christi, which lasted till our Saviours coming; and he being come, went out insensibly of themselves. For as S. Ambrose rightly tells us,In Col. 2.16. Absent impera­tore imago ejus habet autoritatem, praesente non habet, &c. What time the Emperour is absent, we give some honour to his State, or representation; but none at all, when he is present. And so, saith he, the Sabbaths and New-moons, and the other Festivals, before our Saviours coming, had a time of honour, during the which they were ob­served; but he being present once, they became neglected. But hereof we have spoke more fully in our former Book.

Neglected, not at once, and upon the sudden, but leisurely and by degrees. II There were preparatives unto the Sabbath, as before we shewed, before it was proclaimed as a Law by Moses; and there were some preparatives required before that Law of Moses was to be repealed. These we shall easiliest discover, if we shall please to look on our Saviours actions; who gave the first hint unto his Disciples for the abolishing of the Sabbath amongst other ceremonies. It's true, that he did frequently repair unto the Synagogues on the Sabbath days; and on those days did frequently both read and ex­pound the Law unto the People. And he came to Nazareth (saith the Text) where be had been brought up, and as his custom was, he went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day, Luk. 4.16. and stood up to read. It was his custom so to do, both when he lived a private life, to frequent the Synagogue, that other men might do the like by his good example; and after when he undertook the Ministery, to expound the Law unto them there, that they might be the better by his good instructions. Yet did not he conceive that teaching or expounding the Word of God was annexed only to the Synagogue, or to the Sabbath. That most divine and heavenly Sermon which takes up three whole Chapters of S. Matthew's Gospel, was questionless a weak days work; and so were most of those delivered to us in S. John, as also that which he did preach unto them from the Ship side, and divers others. Nay the Text tells us, that he went through every City and Village, Preaching and shewing the glad tydings of God. Luk. 8.1. Too great a task to be performed only on the Sabbath days; and therefore doubt we not but that all days equally were taken up for so great a business. So when he sent out his Apostles to Preach the Kingdom of God, he bound them not to days and times, but left all at li­berty, that they might take their best advantages as occasion was, and lose no time in the advancing of their Masters service. Now as in this, he seemed to give all days the like prerogative with the Sabbath; so many other ways did he abate that estimation, which generally the People had conceived of the Sabbath day. And howsoever the opinion which the People generally had conceived thereof, was grounded as the times then were, on superstition rather, than true sense of piety; yet that opinion once abated, it was more easily prepared for a dissolution, and went away at last with less noise and clamour. Particulars of this nature we will take along, as they lie in order. His casting out the unclean spirit out of a man in the Synagogue of Caperndum on the Sabbath day, his curing of Peters Wives Mother, and healing many which were sick of divers diseases, on the self same day; being all works of marvellous mercy, and effected only by his word, brought no clamour with them. But when he cured the impotent man at the Pool of Bethesda, and had commanded him to take up his Bed and walk, Joh. 5. then did the Jews begin to Persecute him, and seek to slay him. And how did he excuse the matter? My Father worketh bitherto, saith he, and I also work: Hom. 23. in Numer. Ostendens per hac in nullo seculi bujus Sabbato requiescere Deum, à dispensationibus mundi, & provisionibus generis humani. Whereby, saith Origen, he let them understand that there was never any Sabbath wherein God rested or left off from having a due care of man-kind; and [Page 402]therefore neither would he intermit such a weighty business in any reference to the Sabbath.Joh. 7. Which answer, when it pleased them not, but that they sought their times to kill him, he then remembreth them how they upon the Sabbath used to Circumcise a man, and that as lawfully he might do the one as they the other. This precedent made his Disciples a little bolder than otherwise perhaps they would have been, Pulling the ears of Corn, Matth. 12. and rubbing them with their hands, and eating them to satisfie and allay their hunger;Li. 1. haeres. 30. n. 32. which Epiphanius thinks they would not have done, though they were an hungred, had they not found both by his doctrine and example, that the Sabbath did begin to be in its declination. For which, when he and they were joyntly questioned by the Pharisees, he choaks them with the instances of what David did in the same extremity, when he ate the Shew-bread; and what the Priests did every Sab­bath when they slew the Sacrifices. In which it is to be considered, that in these se­veral defences our Saviour goes no higher than the legal Ceremonies, the Sacrifice, the Shew-bread, and the Circumcision. No argument or parallel case drawn for his justification from the moral Law, or any such neglect thereof on the like occasions. Which plainly shews, that he conceived the Sabbath to be no part or member of the moral Law,Luk. 6.6. Hom. de Se­mente. but only to be ranked amongst the Mosaical Ordinances. It happened on another Sabbath, that in the Synagogue he beheld a man with a withered hand, and called him forth, and made him come into the midst, and stretch out his hand, and then restored it. Hereupon Athanasius notes, [...], that Christ reserved his greatest miracles for the Sabbath day; and that he bade the man stand forth, in defiance as it were of all their malice and informing humour. His healing of the Woman which had been crooked 18. years, and of the man that had the Dropsie; one in the Synagogue, the other in the house of a principal Pharisee, Joh. 9. are proof sufficient that he feared not their accufations. But that great cure he wrought on him that was born blind, is most remarkable to this purpose. First in relation to our Saviour, who had before healed others with his Word alone; but here he spit upon the ground, and made clay thereof, and anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay: L. 1. Haeres. 30. n. 32. [...], but to mould clay and make a Plaister was questionless a work, so saith Epiphanius. Next in relation to the Patient, whom he commanded to go into the Pool of Siloam, and then wash himself; which certainly could not be done without bodily labour. These words and actions of our Saviour, at before we said, gave the first hint to his Disciples for the abolishing of the Sabbath amongst other Ceremonies, which were to have an end with our Saviours sufferings; to be nailed with him to his Cross, and buried with him in his Grave for ever. Now where it was objected in S. Austins time, why Christians did not keep the Sabbath, since Christ affirms it of himself, that he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it; Cont. Faust. l. 19. c. 9. the Father thereto makes reply, that therefore they observed it not, Quia quod ea figura profitebatur, jam Christus implevit, because our Saviour had fulfilled what­ever was intended in that Law, by calling us to a spiritual rest in his own great mercy. For as it is most truly said by Epiphanius, Lib. 1 haer. 30. n. 32. [...], &c. He was the great and everlasting Sabbath, whereof the less (and temporal) Sabbath was a type and figure which had continued till his coming: by him commanded in the Law, in him destroyed, and yet by him fulfilled in the holy Gospel. So Epiphanius.

Neither did he or his Disciples ordain another Sabbath in the place of this, III as if they had intended only to shift the day, and to transfer this honour to some other time. Their doctrine and their practice are directly contrary to so new a fancy. It's true, that in some tract of time, the Church in honour of his Resurrection, did set apart that day on the which he rose, to holy exercises: but this upon their own authority, and without warrant from above, that we can hear of, more than the general warrant which God gave his Church, that all things in it be done decently and in comely or­der. This is that which is told us by Athanasius, Hom. de Semen­te. [...], we honour the Lords day for the Resurrection. So Maximus Taurinensis, Dominicum diem ideo solennem esse, Hom. 3. de Pentecost. quia in eo salvatur, velut sol oriens, discussis infernorum tenebris, luce resurrectionis emicuerit: That the Lords day is therefore solemnly observed, because thereon our Saviour, like the rising Sun, dispelled the clouds of hellish darkness by the light of his most glorious Resurrection. The like S. Austin, Dies Dominicus Christianis resurrectione Domini declaratus est, [...]p. 119. & ex illo cepit habere fostivitatem suam. The Lords day was made known, saith he, unto us Christians by the Resurrection, and from that began to be accounted holy. See the like, lib. 22. de Civit. Dei. c. 30. & serm. 15. [Page 403] de Verbis Apostoli. But then it is withal to be observed, that this was only done on the authority of the Church, and not by any precept of our Lord and Saviour, or any one of his Apostles. And first, besides that there is no such precept extant at all in holy Scripture, Socrates hath affirmed it in the general, [...],Li. 5. c. 22. &c. that the designs of the Apostles were not to busie themselves in prescribing Festival days, but to instruct the People in the ways of god­liness. Now lest it should be said that Socrates being a Novatian, was a profest Enemy to all the orders of the Church; we have the same almost verbatim, in Nicephorus, li. 12. cap. 32. of his Ecclesiastical History.De Sabb. & Circumcis. S. Athanasius saith as much for the particular of the Lords day, that it was taken up by a voluntary usage in the Church of God, with­out any commandment from above, [...] &c. As, saith the Father, it was commanded at the first that the Sabbath day should be observed, in me­mory of the accomplishment of the world, [...], so do we celebrate the Lords day as a memorial of the be­ginning of a new Creation. Where note the difference here delivered by that Reve­rend Prelate. Of the Jews Sabbath it is said, [...], that it was com­manded to be kept: but of the Lords day there is no Commandment, only a positive [...], an honour voluntarily afforded it by consent of men. Therefore whereas we find it in the Homily entituled De Semente, [...], that Christ transferred the Sabbath to the Lords day; this must be under­stood, not as if done by his commandment, but on his occasion: the Resurrection of our Lord upon that day, being the principal motive which did induce his Church to make choice thereof for the assemblies of the People. For otherwise it would plainly cross what formerly had been said by Athanasius, in his [...]; and not him only, but the whole cloud of Witnesses, all the Catholick Fathers, in whom there is not any word which reflects that way, but much in affirmation of the contrary. For besides what is said before, and elsewhere shall be said in its proper place; The Council held at Paris, An. 829. ascribes the keeping of the Lords Day at most to Apostolical tra­dition, confirmed by the authority of the Church. For so the Council,Cap. 50. Christianorum religiosae devotionis, quae ut creditur Apostolorum traditione immo Ecclesiae autoritate descendit, mos inolevit, ut Dominicum diem, ob Dominicae resurrectionis memoriam, honorabiliter colat. And last of all Tostatus puts this difference between the Festivals that were to be ob­served in the Jewish Church, in novo nulla festivitas à Christo legislatore determinata est, sed in Ecclesia Praelati ista statuunt; but in the new, there were no Festivals at all prescribed by Christ, as being left unto the Prelates of the Church, by them to be appointed, as occasion was. What others of the ancient Writers,Cap. 24. v. 20. and what the Protestant Divines have affirmed herein, we shall hereafter see in their proper places. As for these words of our Redeemer in S. Matthews Gospel, Pray that your flight be not in the Winter, neither on the Sabbath day; they have indeed been much alledged to prove that Christ did in­timate, at the least, unto his Apostles and the rest, that there was a particular day by him appointed, whereof he willed them to be careful; which being not the Jewish Sabbath, must of necessity, as they think, be the Lords day. But certainly the Fa­thers tell us no such matter, nay, they say the contrary; and make these words a part of our Redeemers admonition to the Jews, not to the Apostles. In Matth. 24. Saint Chrysostom hath it so expresly. [...], &c. Behold, saith he, how he ad­dresseth his discourse unto the Jews, and tells them of the evils which should fall upon them; for neither were the Apostles bound to observe the Sabbath, nor were they there when those Ca­lamities fell upon the Jewish Nation. Not in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath, and why so, saith he? Because their flight being so quick and sudden, [...], neither the Jews would dare to flie on the Sabbath, [for such their superstition was in the later times] nor would the Winter but be very troublesome in such distresses. In Matth. 24. The­ophilact doth affirm expresly, that this was spoken unto the Jews, and spoken upon the self same reasons; adding withal, [...], that before any of those miserles fell upon that Nation, the Apostles were all departed from out Jerusalem. S. Hierom saith as much as unto the time, that those Calamities which by our Saviour were foretold, were generally referred unto the Wars of Titus and Vespasian; and that both in his Comment on S. Matthew's Gospel, and his Epistle to Algasia. And for the thing that the Apostles and the rest of the Disciples were all de­parted from Jerusalem before that heavy war began, is no less evident in story.Qu. 4. For the Apostles long before that time were either martyred or dispersed in several places for the enlargement of the Gospel; not any of them resident in Jerusalem after the [Page 404]Martyrdom of S. James, who was Bishop there. And for the residue of the Disciples, they had forsook the Country also before the Wars, being admonished so to do by an Heavenly Vision which warned them to withdraw from thence and repair to Pella, be­yond Jordan, Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 5. as Eusebius tells us. So that these words of our Redeemer could not be spoke as to the Apostles, and in them unto all the rest of the Disciples which should follow after, but to the People of the Jews. To whom our Saviour gave this caution, not that he did not think it lawful for them to flie upon the Sabbath day; but that as things then were, and as their consciences were intangled by the Scribes and Pharisees, he found that they would count it a most grievous misery to be put unto it. To return then unto our story, as the chief reason why the Christians of the Primitive times did set apart this day to religious uses, was because Christ that day did rise again from death to life for our justification; so there was some Analogy or proportion, which this day seemed to hold with the former Sabbath, which might more easily induce them to observe the same. For as God rested on the Sabbath from all the works which he had done in the Creation, so did the Son of God rest also on the day of his Resurrection, from all the works which he had done in our Redemption. [...],Orat. in sanct. Pascha. as Gregory Nyssen notes it for us. Yet so that as the Father rested not on the former Sabbath from the works of preserva­tion, so neither doth our Saviour rest at any time from perfecting this work of our redemption by a perpetual application of the benefit and effects thereof. This was the cause, and these the motives, which did induce the Church in some tract of time to solemnize the day of Christs Resurrection, as a weekly Festival, though not to keep it as a Sabbath.

I say in tract of time, IV for ab initio non fuit sic, it was not so in the beginning. The very day it self was not so observed, though it was known to the Apostles in the morn­ing early, that the Lord was risen. We find not on the news, that they came toge­ther for the performance of divine and religious exercises, much less that they intended it for a Sabbath day; or that our Saviour came amongst them until late at night, as in likelihood he would have done had any such performance been thought necessary, as was required unto the making of a Sabbath. Nay, which is more, our blessed Saviour on that day, and two of the Disciples, whatsoever the others did, were otherwise em­ployed than in Sabbath duties.Luke 24.13. For from Hierusalem to Emaus, whither the two Dis­ciples went, was sixty furlongs, which is seven miles and an half, and so much back again unto Hierusalem, which is fifteen miles. And Christ who went the journey with them, at least part thereof, and left them not until they came unto Emaus, was back again that night, and put himself into the middest of the Apostles. Had he in­tended it for a Sabbath day, doubtless he would have rather joyned himself with the Apostles, who as it is most likely, kept themselves together in expectation of the issue, and so were most prepared and fitted to begin the new Christian Sabbath, than with those men, who contrary to the nature of a Sabbaths rest, were now ingaged in a journey, and that for ought we know, about worldly businesses. Nor may we think but that our Saviour would have told them of so great a fault as violating the new Christian Sabbath, even in the first beginning of it, had any Sabbath been intended. As for the being of the eleven in a place together, that could not have relation to any Sabbath duties, or religious exercises, being none such were yet commanded; but only to those cares and fears wherewith, poor men, they were distracted, which made them loth to part asunder, till they were setled in their hopes, or otherwise resolved on somewhat whereunto to trust. And where it is conceived by some that our most blessed Saviour shewed himself oftner unto the Apostles upon the first day of the week, than on any other; and therefore by his own appearings did sanctifie that day instead of the Jewish Sabbath; neither the premisses are true, nor the sequel necessary. The premisses not true, for it is no where to be found that he appeared oftner on the First day than any other of the week;Acts 1.3. it being said in holy Scripture, that he was seen of them by the space of forty days, as much on one, as on another. His first appearing after the night following his Resurrection, which is particularly specified in the Book of God, was when he shewed himself to Thomas, who before was absent. That the Text tells us,John 20.26. was after eight days from the time before remembred; which some conceive to be the eighth day after, or the next first day of the week, and thereupon conclude that day to be most proper for the Congregations or publick Meetings of the Church. Diem octavum quo Christus Thomae apparuit, In Joh. l. 17. cap. 18. Dominicum diem esse necesse est, as Saint Cyril hath it, Jure igitur sanctae congregationes die octavo in Ecclesia fiunt. But where the Greek [Page 405]Text reads it, [...] post octo dies in the vulgar Latine, after eight days, according to our English Bibles; that should be rather understood of the ninth or tenth, than the eighth day after, and therefore could not be upon the first day of the week, as it is imagined. Now as the premisses are untrue, so the Conclusion is un­firm. For if our Saviours apparition unto his Disciples, were of it self sufficient to create a Sabbath, then must that day whereon Saint Peter went on fishing,John 21.3. be a Sabbath also, and so must holy Thursday too, it being most evident that Christ appeared on those days unto his Apostles. So that as yet, from our Redeemers Resurrection unto his Ascension, we find not any word or Item of a new Christian Sabbath to be kept a­mongst them, or any evidence for the Lords day in the four Evangelists, either in pre­cept or in practice.

The first particular passage which doth occur in holy Scripture, V touching the first day of the week, is that upon that day the Holy Ghost did first come down on the Apostles; and that upon the same Saint Peter Preached his first Sermon unto the Jews, and Baptized such of them as believed, there being added to the Church, that day, three thousand souls. This hapned on the Feast of Pentecost, which fell that year up­on the Sunday, or first day of the week, as elsewhere the Scripture calls it, but as it was a special and a casual thing, so can it yield but little proof, if it yield us any, that the Lords Day was then observed, or that the Holy Ghost did by selecting of that day for his descent on the Apostles, intend to dignifie it for Sabbath. For first it was a casual thing that Pentecost should fall that year upon the Sunday. It was a moveable Feast as unto the day, such as did change and shift it self according to the position of the Feast of Passeover; the rule being this, that on what day soever the second of the Passeover did fall, upon that also fell the great Feast of Pentecost. Emend. Temp. l. 2. Nam [...] semper eadem est feria, quae [...], as Scaliger hath rightly noted. So that as often as the Passeover did fall upon the Saturday or Sabbath, as this year it did, then Pentecost fell upon the Sunday: But when the Passeover did chance to fall upon the Tuesday, the Pentecost fell that year upon the Wednesday; & sic de caeteris. And if the rule be true, as I think it is, that no sufficient argument can be drawn from a casual fact; and that the falling of the Pentecost that year, upon the first day of the week, be meerly casual, the coming of the Holy Ghost upon that day, will be no argument nor authority to state the first day of the week in the place and honour of the Jewish Sab­bath. There may be other reasons given, why God made choice of that time rather than of any other: As first, because about that very time before, he had proclaimed the Law upon Mount Sinai: And secondly, that so he might the better conntenance and grace the Gospel in the sight of men, and add the more authority unto the doctrine of the Apostles. The Feast of Pentecost was a great and famous Festival, at which the Jews, all of them, were to come unto Hierusalem, there to appear before the Lord; and amongst others, those which had their hands in our Saviours blood. And there­fore as S. Chrysostom notes it, did God send down the Holy Ghost at that time of Pen­tecost; In Act. 2. because those men that did consent to our Saviours death, might publickly re­ceive rebuke for that bloody act, and so bear record to the power of our Saviours Go­spel before all the World: [...], as that Father hath it. So that the thing being casual, as unto the day; and special, as unto the business then by God in­tended, it will afford us little proof, as before I said, either that the Lords Day was, as then, observed, or that the Holy Ghost did select that day for so great a work, to dignifie it for a Sabbath.

As for Saint Peters Preaching upon that day, and the Baptizing of so many as were converted to the faith upon the same, it might have been some proof, that now at least, VI if nor before, the first day of the week was set apart by the Apostles for religious exer­cises, had they not honoured all days with the same performances. But if we search the Scriptures, we shall easily find that all days were alike to them in that respect; no day, in which they did not preach the word of life, and administer the Sacraments of their Lord and Saviour to such as either wanted it, or did desire it. Or were it that the Scriptures had not told us of it, yet natural reason would inform us, that those who were imployed in so great a work, as the Conversion of the World, could not confine themselves unto times and seasons, but must take all advantages whensoever they came. But for the Scripture, it is said in terms express, first generally, that the Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved; and therefore without doubt,Acts 2.47. the means of their salvation were daily ministred unto them; and in the fifth Chapter of the [Page 406] Acts, Verse 42 and daily in the Temple, and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. Acts 8. So for particulars, when Philip did Baptize the Eunuch, either he did it on a working day, as we now distinguish them, and not upon the first day of the week; and so it was no Lords day duty: or else it was not held unlawful to take a journey on that day, as some think it is. Saint Peters Preaching to Cornelius, and his Baptizing of that house was a week-days work, as may be gathered from Saint Hierom. That Father tells us that the day whereon the vision appeared to Peter, was probably the Sabbath,Advers. Jovini­an. l. 2. or the Lords Day, as we call it now; fieri potuit ut vel sabbatum esset vel dies Dominicus, as the Father hath it: and choose you which you will, we shall find little in it for a Christian Sabbath. In case it was on the Sabbath, then Peter did not keep the Lords day holy, as he should have done in case that day was then selected for Gods worship: for the Text tells us that the next day he did begin his journey to Cornelius house.Acts 10.24. In case it was upon the Lords day, as we call it now, then neither did Saint Peter sanctifie that day in the Congregation, as he ought to do, had that day then been made the Sabbath, and his conversion of Cornelius being three days after, must of ne­cessity be done on the Wednesday following. So that we find no Lords day Sabbath, either of S. Peters keeping, or of S. Philips; or else the preaching of the Word, and the administring the Sacraments were not affixed at all unto the first day of the week, as the peculiar marks and characers thereof. So for Saint Paul, the Doctor of the Gen­tiles, who laboured more abundantly than the other Apostles, besides what shall be said particularly in the following section, it may appear in general that he observed no Lords-day-sabbath, but taught on all days, travelled on all days, and wrought accor­ding to his Trade upon all days too, when he had no employment in the Congregation. That he did teach on all days, is not to be questioned by any that considers how great a work he had to do, and how little time. That he did travel upon all days, is no less notorious to all that look upon his life, which was still in motion. And howsoever, he might rest sometimes on the Lords day, as questionless he did on others, as often as upon that day he Preached the Gospel; yet when he was a Prisoner in the hands of the Roman Souldiers, there is no doubt but that he travelled as they did Lords days and Sabbaths,In Dominieam 17. post. Trinit. all days equally, many days together. Of this see what Saint Luke hath written in the last Chapters of the Acts. Lastly, for working at his Trade (which was Tent-making) on the Lords day, as well as others, Conradus Dietericus proves [...]t out of Hierom, that when he had none unto whom to preach in the Congregation, he followed on the Lords day the works of his Occupation. Hieronymus colligit ex Act. 18. vers. 3. & 4. quod die etiam Dominica, quando, quibus in publico conventu concionaretur, non habebat, manibus suis laboravit. So Dietericus speaking of our Apostle. Now what is proved of these Apostles, and of S. Philip the Evangelist, may be affirmed of all the rest, whose lives and actions are not left upon record in holy Scripture. Their Mini­stery being the same, and their work as great, no question but their liberty was cor­respondent, and that they took all times to be alike in the advancing of the business which they went about, and cherished all occasions presented to them on what day so­ever. What further may be said hereof, in reference to Saint John, who lived longest of them, and saw the Church established, and her publick meetings in some order, we shall see hereafter in his own place and time. Mean while we may conclude for cer­tain, that in the planting of the Church he used all days equally, kept none more holy than another; and after, when the Church was setled, however he might keep this holy, and honour it for the use which was made thereof, yet he kept other days so used, as holy, but never any like a Sabbath.

Proceed we next unto Saint Paul, VII in this particular, of whom the Scripture tells us more than of all the rest; and we shall find that he no sooner was converted, but that forthwith he Preached in the Synagogues that Jesus was the Christ. Acts 9.20. If in the Synagogues, most likely that it was on the Jewish Sabbath, the Synagogues being destinate espe­cially to the Sabbath days. So after he was called to the publick Ministery, he came to Antiochia, Acts 13.14. and went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day, and there Preached the Word. What was the issue of his Sermon? That the Text informs us, And when the Jews were gone out of the Synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be Preached again the next Sabbath. Verse 42 Saint Paul assented thereunto, and the next Sabbath day, as the Text tells us, Verse 44 came almost the whole City together to hear the Word of God. It seems the Lords day was not grown as yet into any credit, especially not into the re­pute of the Jewish Sabbath; for if it had, Saint Paul might easily have told these Gen­tiles, (that is, such Gentiles as had been converted to the Jewish Church) that the next [Page 407]day would be a more convenient time, and indeed opus diei in die suo, the doctrine of the Resurrection on the day thereof. This hapned in the forty sixth year of Christs Nativity; some twelve years after his Passion and Resurrection: and often, after this, did the Apostle shew himself in the Jewish Synagogues, on the Sabbath days; which I shall speak of here together, that so we may go on unto the rest of this Discourse, with less interruption. And first it was upon the Sabbath, that he did preach to the Philippians, and baptized Lydia with her houshold. Acts 16. Amongst the Thessalonians, he reasoned three sabbath days together out of the Scriptures, Acts 17. At Corinth every sabbath day, with the Jews and Greeks, Acts 18. besides those many Texts of Scripture, when it is said of him that he went into the Synagogues, and therefore probably that it was upon the Sabbath, as before we said. Not that Saint Paul was so affected to the Sabbath, as to prefer that day before any other: but that he found the people at those times assembled, and so might preach the Word, with the greater profit. Saint Chrysostom, for the Ancients have resolved it so;In Acts 13.14. [...], as the Father hath it. So Calvin, for the modern Writers, makes this the special cause of St. Pauls resort unto the places of Assembly, on the Sabbath day, quod profecium aliquem spera­bat; In Acts 16.13. because in such concourse of people, he hoped the Word of God would find the better entertainment. Any thing rather to be thought, than that S. Paul, who had withstood so stoutly those false Apostles, who would have Circumcision and the Law observed; when there was nothing publickly determined of it: would, after the de­cision of so great a Council, wherein the Law of Moses was for ever abrogated, ei­either himself observe the Sabbath, for the sabbaths sake; or by his own example teach the Gentiles how to Judaize, which he so blamed in St. Peter. The sabbath with the legal Ceremonies did receive their doom, as they related to the Gentiles, in that great Council holden in Hierusalem: which though it was not until after he had preached at Antiochia, on the sabbath day, yet was it certainly before he had done the like, either at Philippos, Thessalonica, or at Corinth.

For the occasion of that Council, it was briefly this. VIII Amongst those which had joyned themselves with the Apostles, there was one Cerinthus; a sellow of a turbulent and unquiet spirit, and a most eager Enemy of all those Counsels, whereof himself was not the Author. This man had first begun a faction against St. Peter, for going to Cornelius, and preaching life eternal unto the Gentiles: and finding ill success in that, goes down to Antiochia, and there begins another against Saint Paul. This E­piphanius tells us of him, [...],Lib. 1. har. 28. n. 1. &c. [...]. The like Philaster doth affirm, Seditionem sub Apostolis commovisse, De haeres. in Cerintho. that he had raised a faction against the Apostles, which was not to be crushed but by an Apostolical and general Council. This man and those that came down with him, were so enamoured on the Ceremonies and Rites of Moses, that though they enter­tained the Gospel, yet they were loth to leave the Law: and therefore did resolve, it seems, to make a mixture out of both. Hence taught they, that except all men were circumcised after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved. Where note,Acts 15.1. that though they spake only of Circumcision, yet they intended all the Law; sabbaths and other legal Ordinances of what sort soever. Docuit Cerinthus observationem legis Mosaicae ne­cessariam esse, circumcisionem, & sabbata observanda, as Philaster hath it. The like saith Calvin on the place, Sola quidem circumcisio hic nominatur, sed ex contextu facile patet, eos de tota lege movisse controversiam. The like Lorinus also amongst the Jesuits; No­mine circumcisionis reliqua lex tota intelligitur. Indeed the Text affirms as much, where it is said in terms express, that they did hold it needful to circumeise the people, Acts 15.5. and to command them to keep the Law of Moses; whereof the Sabbath was a part. For the decision of this point, and the appeasing of those Controversies which did thence arise, it pleased the Church directed by the Holy Ghost, to determine thus; that such a­mongst the Gentiles as were converted to the faith, should not at all be burdened with the Law of Moses; but only should observe some necessary things, viz. that they ab­stain from things offered unto Idols, and from blood, and that which is strangled, Verse 29 and from fornication. And here it is to be observed, that the Decree or Canon of this Council did only reach unto the Gentiles: as is apparent out of the Proeme to the Decretal, which is directed to the Brethren which are of the Gentiles; and from the 21. Chapter of the Acts, where it is said, that as concerning the Gentiles which believe, we have written and determined, that they observe no such thing, as the Law of Moses. So that for all [Page 408]that was determined in this Council, those of the Jews which had embraced the saith of Christ, were not prohibited, as yet, to observe the Sabbath, and other parts of Moses Law,Acts 16.3. as before they did: in which regard, St. Paul caused Timothy to be cir­cumcised, because he would not scandalize and offend the Jews. The Jews were very much affected to their ancient Ceremonies:In Acts 21.23. and Calvin rightly hath affirmed, Correctionem, ut difficilis erat, ita subitam esse non potuisse, that a full reformation of that zeal of theirs, as it was full of difficulty, so could it not be done upon the sud­den.Concil. Tom. 1. Bin. Therefore it pleased the Apostles, as it is conceived in their fourth Council hol­den at Hierusalem, mention whereof is made in the 21. of the Acts, to make it law­ful for the Jews to retain Circumcision and such legal Rites, together with the faith in Christ: Quamdiu templum & sacrificia legis in Hierusalem stabant, as long as the Jewish Temple, and the legal sacrifices in Hierusalem, should continue standing. Not that the faith of Christ was not sufficient of it self, for their salvation: Sed ut mater Synagoga paulatim cum honore sepeliretur, but that the Synagogue might be layed to sleep, with the greater honour. But this, if so it was, was for no long time. For when the third Council holden in Hierusalem against Cerinthus and his party, was held in Anno 51. and this which now we speak of, Anno 58. the final ruin of the Temple was in 72. So that there was but one and twenty years in the largest rec­koning, wherein the Christian Jews were suffered to observe their Sabbath: and yet not (as before they did) as if it were a necessary Duty; but as a thing indifferent only. But that time come, the Temple finally destroyed, and the legal Ceremonies therein buried: it was accounted afterwards both dangerous and heretical, to observe the Sabbath; or mingle any of the Jewish leaven, with the Bread of life. St. Hierom roundly so proclaims it, caeremonias Judaeorum & perniciosas & pestiferas esse Christianis: that all the Ceremonies of the Jews, whereof before he named the Sabbath to be one, were dangerous, yea and deadly too, to a Christian man; Sive ex Judaeis esset, five ex Gen­tibus, whether he were originally of the Jews, or Gentiles. To which Saint Austin gives allowance, Ego hanc vocem tuam omnino confirmo, in his reply unto St. Hicrom. That it was also deemed heretical, to celebrate a sabbath in the Christian Church, we shall see hereafter.

In the mean time, IX we must proceed in search of the Lords day, and of the Duties then performed: whereof we can find nothing yet, by that name at least. The Scripture tells us somewhat, that St. Paul did at Troas, upon the first day of the week: which happening much about this time, comes in this place to be considered. The passage in the Text stands thus:Acts 20.7. Ʋpon the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight. Take notice here, that Paul had tarried there se­ven days, before this hapned. Now in this Text there are two things to be consi­dered; first what was done upon that day; and secondly what day it was, that is there remembred. First for the action, it is said to be breaking of bread: which some conclude, to be administring the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: and Pauls Discourse which followed on it,In locum. to be a Sermon. But sure I am Saint Chrysostom tells us plainly otherwise: who relates it thus, [...], &c. Their meeting at that time, saith he, was not especially to receive instruction from Saint Paul, but to eat bread with him: and there, upon occasion given, he discoursed unto them. See, saith the Father, how they all made bold with Saint Pauls Table, as it had been common to them all: and as it seems to me, saith he, Paul sitting at the Table did discourse thus with them. Therefore it seems by him, that as the meeting was at an ordinary supper; so the Discourse there happening was no Sermon properly, but an occasional Dispute. Lyra affirms the same, and doth gloss it thus. They came together to break bread, i. e. saith he, Pro refectione corporali, for the refection and support of their Bodies only: and being there, Paul preached unto them, or as the Greek and Latin have it, he disputed with them; prius e [...]s reficiens pane verbi divini, refreshing of them first with the Bread of life. This also seems to be the meaning of the Church of England, who in the margin of the Bible,Canon 80. allowed by Canon, doth refer us unto the second of the Acts, verse 46. where it is said of the Disciples, that they did break their bread from house to house, and eat their meat together with joy and singleness of heart: which plainly must be meant of ordinary and common meats, Calvin not only so affirms it, but censures those who take it for the holy Supper. Nam quod hic fractionem panis nonnulli in­terpretantur sacram coenam, In Acts 2. alienum mihi videtur à mente Lucae, &c. as he there discourseth. Then for the time, our English reads it upon the first day of the week, agreeably un­to [Page 409]to the exposition of most ancient Writers, and the vulgar Latin, which here as in the four Evangelists, doth call the first day of the week, una Sabbati. Yet since the Greek phrase is not so perspicuous but that it may admit of a various exposition, Erasmus renders it by uno die sabbatorum, & quodam die sabbatorum; that is, upon a certain Sabbath: and so doth Calvin too, and Pellican, and Gualter, all of them noted Men, in their translations of that Text. Nor do they only so translate it, but frame their Expositions also unto that Translation; and make the day there mentioned, to be the Sabbath. Calvin takes notice of both readings. Vel proximum sabbato diem intelligit, In locum. vel unum quodpiam sabbatum, but approves the last, Quod dies ille ad habendum con­ventum aptior fucrit, because the Sabbath day was then most used, for the like Assem­blies. Gualter doth so conceive it also, that they assembled at this time on the Sab­bath day, Qui propter veterem morem haud dubie tune temperis celebrior habebatur, Hom. 131. as that which questionless was then of most repute, and name amongst them. So that the matter is not clear, as unto the day, if they may judg it. But take it for the first day of the week, as the English reads it: yet doth St. Austin put a scruple, which may perhaps disturb the whole expectation: though otherwise he be of opinion, that the breaking of the Bread there mentioned, might have some reference or resemblance to the Lords Supper. Now this is that which St. Austin tells us.Ep. 86. Aut post peractum diem Sabbati, noctis initio fuerunt congregati, quae utique nox ad diem Dominicum, h. e. ad unum Sabbati pertinebat, &c. Either, saith he, they were assembled on the beginning of the night, which did immediatly follow the Sabbath day, and was to be accounted as a part of the Lords day, or first day of the week, and breaking Bread that night, as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Lords Body, continued his discourse till midnight, Ut lucescente proficisceretur Dominico die, that so he might begin his Journey, with the first dawning of the Lords day, which was then at hand. Or if they did not meet till the day it self, since it is there expressed that he preached unto them being to depart upon the morrow; we have the reason why he continued his Discourse so long, viz. because he was to leave them, Et eos sufficienter instruere cupiebat, and he desired to lesson them sufficiently, before he left them. So far St. Austin. Chuse which of these you will, and there will be but little found for sanctifying the Lords day, by St. Paul, at Troas. For if this meeting were upon Saturday night; then made S. Paul no scruple of travelling upon the Sunday: or if it were on the Sunday, and that the breaking Bread there mentioned were the ce­lebration of the Sacrament, (which yet St. Augustine saith not in terms express, but with a sicut) yet neither that, nor the Discourse or Sermon which was joyned unto it were otherwise than occasional only, by reason of St. Pauls departure on the mor­row after. Therefore no Sabbath, or established day of publick meeting to be hence collected.

This action of St. Paul, at Troas, is placed by our Chronologers in Anno 57. X of our Saviours birth; and that year also did he write his first Epistle to the Corinthians: wherein amongst many other things, he gives them this direction, touching Colle­ctions for the poorer Brethren at Hierusalem. Concerning the gathering for the Saints, C. 16. v. 1. saith he, as I have ordained in the Churches of Galatia, so do ye also. And how was that? Every first day of the week let every one of you set aside, by himself, and lay up as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. This some have made a principal argument, to prove the Institution of the Lords day to be Apostolical: and Apostolical though should we grant it, yet certainly it never can be proved so, from this Text of Scripture. For what hath this to do with a Lords day Duty, or how may it appear from hence, that the Lords day was ordered by the Apostles to be weekly celebrated, instead of the now antiquated Jewish Sabbath? being an intima­tion only of St. Pauls desire, to the particular Churches of the Galatians and Corin­thians, what he would have them do in a particular and present case. Agabus had signified by the Spirit, that there should be a great dearth over all the World: Acts 11.28, 29. and there­upon the Antiochians purposed to send relief unto the Brethren which dwelt in Judaea. It is not to be thought that they made this Collection, on the Sunday only; but sent their common bounties to them when and as often as they pleased. Collections for the poor, in themselves considered, are no Lords day Duties; no Duties proper to the day: and therefore are not here appointed to be made in the Congregation, but every man is ordered to lay up somewhat by himself, as it were in store, that when it came to a sull round sum, it might be sent away unto Hierusalem: which being but a particular case, and such a case as was to end with the occasion; can be no general rule for a perpetuity. For might it not fall out, in time, that there might be no poor, [Page 410]nay, no Saints at all, in all Hierusalem; as when the Town was razed by Adrian, or after peopled by the Saracens? Surely if not before, yet then this Duty was to cease, and no Collection to be made by those of Corinth: and consequently no Lords day to be kept amongst them, because no Collection; in case Collections for the Saints, as some do gather from this place, were a sufficient argument to prove the Lords day in­stituted by divine Authority. But let us take the Text with such observations, as have been made upon it by the Fathers.In locum. Ʋpon the first day of the week, i. e. as gene­rally they conceive it, on the Lords day. And why on that? Chrysostom gives this reason of it, that so the very day might prompt them to be bountiful to their poor Brethren, as being that day whereon they had received such inestimable bounties at the hands of God, in the resurrection of our Saviour. [...]: as that Father hath it. What to be dene on that day? Unusquisque apud se reponat, Let every man lay by himself, saith the Apostle, [...]. He saith not, saith St. Chrysostom, let every man bring it to the Church: And why? [...] for fear lest some might be ashamed at the smallness of their offering: but let them lay it by, saith be, and add unto it week by week, that at my coming it may grow to a fit proportion. That there be no gathering when I come, but that the money may be ready to be sent away, immediatly upon my coming: and being thus raised up by little and little, they might not be so sensible thereos, In locum. as if upon his coming to them, it were to be collected all at once, and upon the sud­den. Ʋt paulatim reservantes non una bora gravari se putent, as St. Hierom hath it. Now as it is most clear, that this makes nothing for the Lords day, or the translation of the Sabbath thereunto, by any Apostolical Precept: so is it not so clear, that this was done upon the first day of the week, but that some learned men have made doubt thereof. Calvin upon the place, takes notice how St. Chrysostom expounds the [...] of the Apostle, by primo sabbati, the first day of the week, as the English reads it: but likes it not, Cui ego non assentior, as his phrase is, conceiving rather this to be the meaning of St. Paul, that on some sabbath day or other, until his coming, every man should lay up somewhat toward the Collection. And in the second of his In­stitutes, he affirms expresly,Cap. 8. n. 33. that the day destinate by St. Paul to these Collections, was the Sabbath day, The like do Victorinus, Strigelius, Hunnius, and Aretius, Prote­stant Writers all, note upon the place. Singulis sabbatis, saith Strigelius; per singula sabbata, so Aretius; diebus sabbatorum, saith Egidius Hunnius: all rendring [...], on the Sabbath days. More largely yet, Hemingius, who in his Comment on the place, takes it indefinitely for any day in the week, so they fixed on one. Vult enim ut quilibet certum diem, in septimana, constituat, in quo apud se seponat, quod irro­gaturus est in pauperes. Take which you will, either of the Fathers, or the Moderns, and we shall find no Lords Day instituted by any Apostolical Mandate, no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of the week, as some would have it: much less that any such Ordinance should be hence collected, out of these words of the Apostle.

Indeed it is not probable, XI that he who so opposed himself against the old Sabbath would crect a new. This had not been to abrogate the Ceremony, but to change the day: whereas he laboured, what he could to beat down all the difference of days and times, which had been formerly observed. In his Epistle to the Galatians, writ­ten in Anno 59,Cap. 4. v. 10. he lays it home unto their charge, that they observed days and months, and times, and years; and seems a little to bewail his own misfortune, and if he had bestowed his labour in vain amongst them. I know it is conceived by some, that St. Paul spake it of the observation of those days and times, that had been used a­mong the Gentiles; and so had no relation to the Jewish Sabbath, or any difference of times observed amongst them. Saint Ambrose so conceived it, and so did St. Au­gustine. Dies observant, In locum. qui dicunt crastino non est proficiscendum, &c. They observe days, who say, I will not go abroad to morrow, or begin any work upon such a day, be­cause of some unfortunate aspect, as St. Ambrose hath it, from whom it seems, Saint Augustine learnt it, who in his 119 Epistle directly falls upon the very same expression, Eos inculpat qui dicunt, non proficiscor quia posterus dies est, aut quia luna sic fertur; vel proficiscar ut prospere cedat, quia ita se babet positio syderum, &c. The like conceit he hath in his Encheiridion, ad Laurentium, cap. 79. But whatsoever St. Ambrose did, St. Augustine lived, I am sure to correct his errour: observing very rightly that his former doctrine could not consist with St. Pauls purpose in that place, which was to beat down that esteem which the Jews had amongst them of the Mosaical Ordinances, [Page 411]their New moons and Sabbaths. I shall report the place at large for the better clearing of the point. Vulgatissi [...]nus est Gentilium error, ut vel in agendis rebus, vel expectandis eventabus vitae ac negotiorum suorum ab Astrologis & Chaldeis notatos dies observent. This was the ground whereon he built his former errour. Then followeth the correction of it, Fortasse tamen non opus est, ut baec de Gentilium errore intelligamus, ne intentionem causae (mark that) quam ab exordio susceptam ad finem usque perducit, subito in alind temere detorquere velle vide imur; sed de his potius de quibus cavendis eum agere per totam Epistolam apparet. Nam & Judaei serviliter observant dies & menses & annos & tempora, in carnali observatione sabbati, & neomeniae, &c. But yet perhaps, saith he, it is not ne­cessary that we should understand this of the Gentiles lest so we vary from the scope and pur­pose of the Apostle; but rather of those men, of the avoiding of whose Doctrines he seems to treat in all this Epistle, which were the Jews: who in their carnal keeping of New-moons and Sabbaths, did observe days and years, and times, as he here objecteth. Compare this with Saint Hieroms Preface to the Galatians, and then the matter will be clear;Cap. 8. n. 33. that St. Paul meant not this of any Heathenish, but of the Jewish observation of days and times. So in the Epistle to the Colossians, writ in the sixtieth year after Christs Nati­vity, he lays it positively down, that the Sabbath was now abrogated with the other Ceremonies, which were to vanish at Christs coming. Let no man judg you, Colos. 1.16. saith the Apostle, in meat and drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the New moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come: but the body is of Christ. In which the Sabbath is well matched with meats and drinks, new-moons and holy days, which were all temporary Ordinances, and to go off the stage at our Saviours entrance. Now whereas some, that would be thought great sticklers for the Sabbath, conceive that this was spoken, not of the weekly moral Sabbath, as they call it, which must be per­petual, but of the annual ceremonial Sabbaths, which they acknowledg to be abroga­ted; this new device directly crosseth the whole current of the Ancient Fathers who do apply this Text to the weekly Sabbath. It is sufficient in this point to note the places. The Reader may peruse them, as leisore is, and look on Epiphan, lib. 1. haeres. 33. n. 11. Ambrose upon this place Hieroms Epistle ad Algas [...]qu. 10. Chrysost. hom. 13. in Hebr. 7. August. cont. Judaeos cap. 2. & cont. Faust. Manich. l. 16. c. 28.Praesat in Gala. Apocal. 10. I end this list with that of Hierom, Nulius Apostoli sermo est vel per Epistolam vel praesentis, in quo non la­boret docere antiquae legis onera deposita, & omnia illa quae in typis & imaginibus paaecessere, i. e. atium Sabbati, circumcisionis injuriam, Kalendarum, & trium per annum solennitatum reaursns, &c. gratia Evangeln subrepente, cess [...]sse. ‘There is (saith he) no Sermon of the Apostles either delivered by Epistle, or by word of mouth, wherein he labours not to prove that all the burdens of the Law are now laid away; that all those things which were before in types and figures, namely the Sabbath, Circumcision, the New moons, and the three solemn Festivals, did cease upon the Preaching of the Gospel.’

And cease it did upon the Preaching of the Gospel, insensibly and by degrees, XII as before we said; not being afterwards observed as it had been formerly, or counted any necessary part of Gods publick worship. Only some use was made thereof for the enlargement of Gods Church, by reason that the People had been accustomed to meet together on that day, for the performance of religious spiritual duties. This made it more regarded than it would have been, especially in the Eastern parts of Greece and Asia, where the Provincial Jews were somewhat thick dispersed; and being a great accession to the Gospel, could not so suddenly forsake their ancient customs. Yet so, that the first day of the week began to grow into some credit towards the ending of this Age; especially after the final desolation of Hierusalem and the Temple, which hapned Anno 72. of Christs Nativity. So that the religious observation of this day beginning in the Age of the Apostles, no doubt but with their approbation and au­thority, and since continuing in the same respect for so many Ages, may be very well accounted amongst those Apostolical traditions, which have been universally received in the Church of God. For being it was the day which our Redeemer honoured with his Resurrection, it easily might attain unto that esteem, as to be honoured by the Christians with the publick meetings; that so they might with greater comfort pre­serve and cherish the memorial of so great a mercy; in reference unto which, the Worlds Creation seemed not so considerable. By reason of which work wrought on it, it came in time to be entituled, [...], the Lords day;Apotal. 10. which attribute is first found in the Revelation, writ by Saint John about the 94th. year of our Saviours Birth. So long it was before we find the Church took notice of it by a proper name. [Page 412]For I persuade my self, that had that day been destinate, at that time, to religious duties, or honoured with the name of the Lords day, when Paul Preached at Troas, or writ to the Corinthians, which as before we shewed was in the fifty-seventh, neither Saint Luke, nor the Apostle had so passed it over, and called it only the first day of the week, as they both have done. And when it had this Attribute affixed unto it, it only was [...], as before we said, by reason of our Saviours Resurrection per­formed upon it; and that the Congregation might not be assembled as well on them, as on the other. For first it was not called the Lords Day exclusively, but by way of eminency, in reference to the Resurrection only, all other days being the Lords as well as this.In Psal. 23. Prima sabbati significat diem Dominicum, quo Dominus resurrexit, & resurgendo isti seculo subvenit, mundumque ipso die creavit qui ob excellentiam tanti miraculi propriè dies Dominica appellatur, i. e. dies Domini; quamvis omnes sunt Domini. So Bruno Herbipo­lensis hath resolved it. And next, it was not so designed for the publick meetings of the Church, as if they might not be assembled as well on every day, as this. For as Saint Hierom hath determined,In Gal. 4. omnes dies aequales sunt, nee per parasceven tantum Christum crucifigi, & die Dominica resurgere, sed semper sanctum resurrectionis esse diem, & semper eum carne vesci Dominica, &c. All days are equal in themselves, as the Father tells us. Christ was not Crucified on the Friday only, nor did he rise only upon the Lords day; but that we may make every day the holy-day of his Resurrection; and every day eat his blessed Body in the Sacrament. When therefore certain days were publickly assigned by Godly men for the Assemblies of the Church, this was done only for their sakes, qui magis (seculo vacant quam Deo, who had more mind unto the World than to him that made it, and therefore either could not, or rather would not, everyday assemble in the Church of God. Upon which ground, as they made choice of this, (even in the Age of the Apostles) for one, because our Sa­viour rose that day from amongst the dead; so chose they Friday for another, by rea­son of our Saviours passion, and Wednesday, on the which he had been betrayed; the Sa­turday, or ancient Sabbath being mean-while retained in the Eastern Churches. Nay, in the primitive times, excepting in the heat of persecution, they met together every day for the receiving of the Sacrament; that being fortified with that viaticum, they might with greater courage encounter death if they chanced to meet him. So that the greatest honour, which in this Age was given the first day of the week, or Sunday, is that about the close thereof they did begin to honour it with the name or title of the Lords day, and made it one of those set days, whereon the People met together for religious exercises. Which their religious exercises, when they were performed, or if the times were such, that their Assemblies were prohibited, and so none were per­formed at all; it was not held unlawful to apply themselves unto their ordinary la­bours, as we shall see anon in the following Ages. For whereas some have gathered from this Text of the Revelation, from S. John's being in the spirit on the Lords day, as the phrase there is; that the Lords day is wholly to be spent in spiritual exercises: that their conceit might probably have had some shew of likelihood, had it been said by the Apostle, that he had been in the spirit every Lords day. But being, as it is, a particular case, it can make no rule, unless it be that every man on the Lords day should have Dreams and Visions, and be inspired that day with the spirit of Prophecy; no more than if it had been told us upon what day Saint Paul had been rapt up into the third Heaven, every man should upon that day expect the like Celestial raptures. Add here, how it is thought by some, [...]omarus de [...] abbat. c. 6. that the Lords day here mentioned is not to be interpreted of the first day of the week, as we use to take it; but of the day of his last coming, of the day of judgment, wherein all flesh shall come together to receive their sentence; which being called the Lords day too, in holy Scripture (that so the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, 1 Cor. 5.5.) S. John might see it, being rapt in spirit, as if come already. But touching this, we will not meddle; let them that own it, look unto it: the rather since S. John hath generally been expounded in the other sence by Aretas and Andreas Caesariensis upon the place, by Bede, de rat. temp. c. 6. and by the suffrage of the Church the best expositor of Gods Word; wherein this day, hath constantly since the time of that Apostle, been honoured with that name above other days. Which day, how it was afterwards observed, and how far different it was thought from a Sabbath day, the prosecution of this story will make clear and evident.

CHAP. II. In what estate the Lords day stood, from the death of the Apostles, to the reign of Constantine.

  • 1. Touching the orders setled by the Apostles for the Congregation.
  • 2. The Lords day and the Saturday, both Festivals, and both alike observed in the East, in Ignatius time.
  • 3. The Saturday not without great difficulty, made a Fasting day.
  • 4. The Controversie about keeping Easter; and how much it conduceth to the present business.
  • 5. The Feast of Easter not affixed to the Lords day, without much opposition of the Eastern Churches.
  • 6. What Justin Martyr and Dionysius of Corinth have left us of the Lords day; Clements of Alexandria his dislike there­of.
  • 7. Ʋpon what grounds the Christians of the former times used to pray standing, on the Lords day, and the time of Penteco st.
  • 8. What is recorded by Tertullian of the Lords day, and the Assemblies of the Church.
  • 9. Origen, as his Master Clemens had done before, dislikes set days for the Assembly.
  • 10. S. Cyprian what he tells us of the Lords day; and of the reading of the Scriptures in S. Cyprians time.
  • 11. Of other holy days, established in these three first Ages; and that they were ob­served as solemnly as the Lords day was.
  • 12. The name of Sunday often used for the Lords day by the primitive Christians; but the Sabbath never.

WE she wed you in the former Chapter, I whatever doth occur in the Acts and Mo­numents of the Apostles, touching the Lords day and the Sabbath, how that the one of them was abrogated as a part of the Law of Moses; the other rising by de­grees from the ruins of it, not by Authority divine, for ought appears, but by Autho­rity of the Church. As for the duties of that day, they were most likely such as for­merly had been used in the Jewish Synagogues; reading the Law and Prophets openly to the Congregation, and afterwards expounding part thereof, as occasion was; calling upon the Lord their God for the continuance of his mercies, and singing Psalms and Hymns unto him, as by way of thankfulness. These the Apostles found in the Jewish Church, and well approving of the same, as they could not otherwise, com­mended them unto the care of the Disciples; by them to be observed as often as they met together, on what day soever. First for the reading of the Law,In Jos. hom. 15. Origen saith ex­presly that it was ordered so by the Apostles, Judaicarum historiarum libri traditi sunt ab Apostolis legendi in Ecclesiis, as he there informs us. To this was joyned in tract of time the reading of the holy Gospel, and other Evangelical writings; it being order­ed by S. Peter, that S. Marks Gospel should be read in the Congregation,HIst. l. 2.15. 1 Thes. ca. ult. v. 17. as Eusebius tells us; and by S. Paul, that his Epistle to the Thessalonians should be read unto all the holy Brethren; and also, that to the Colossians, to be read in the Church of the Laodiceans; as that from Laodicea, in the Church of the Colossians. By which example,Ca. ult. v. 16. not only all the writings of the Apostles, but many of the writings of Apostolical men were publickly read unto the People; and for that purpose one appointed to exercise the mi­nistry of a Reader in the Congregation. So antient is the reading of the Scriptures in the Church of God. To this by way of comment or application was added as we find by S. Paul's directions, the use of Prophesie or Preaching,1 Cor. 14. v. 3. interpretation of the Scrip­tures to edifying, and to exhortation, and to comfort: This exercise to be performed with the head uncovered, as well the Preacher as the hearer,1 Cor. 11.4. Every man Praying or Pro­phesying with his head covered, dishonoureth his head, as the Apostle hath informed us. Where we have publick Prayers also for the Congregation; the Priest to offer to the Lord the prayers and supplications of the People, and they to say Amen unto those prayers which the Priest made for them. These to contein in them all things necessary for the Church of God, which are the subject of all supplications, prayers, intercessions,1 Tim. 2. and giving of thanks; and to extend to all men also, especially unto Kings, and such as be in Authority, that under them we may be godly and quietly governed, leading a peace­able life in all godliness and honesty. For the performance of which last duties, with the greater comfort, it was disposed that Psalms and Hymns should be intermingled with [Page 414]the rest of the publick service; which comprehending whatsoever is most excellent in the Book of God, and being so many notable forms of praise and prayer, were chear­fully and unanimously to be sung amongst them.1 Cor. 14.26. And thereupon S. Paul repre­hended those of Corinth, in that they joyn'd not with the Assembly, but had their Psalms unto themselves. Whereby it seems that they had left the true use of Psalms, which being so many acclamations, exultations, and holy provocations, to give God the glory, were to be sung together by the whole Assembly; their singing at that time being little more than a melodious kind of pronuntiation, such as is commonly now used in singing of the ordinary Psalms and Prayers in Cathedral Churches. And so it stood, till in the entrance of this Age, Ignatius Bishop of Antiochia, one who was con­versant with the Apostles, brought in the use of singing alternatim, course by course, ac­cording as it still continues in our publick Quires, where one side answers to another; some shew whereof is left in Parochial Churches, in which the Minister and the People answer one another in their several turns.Hist. li. 6. c. 8. To him doth Socrates refer it, and withal affirms that he first learnt it of the Angels, whom in a vision he had heard to sing the praise of God after such a manner: [...], as that Author hath it.Hist. l. 2. c. 24. And where Theodoret doth refer it to Flavianus and Diodorus Priests of Antiochia, during the busilings of the Arian Hereticks,In Damaso. and Platina unto Damasus Pope of Rome: Theodoret is to be interpreted of the restitution of this custom, having been left off, and Platina of the bringing of it into the Western Churches. For that it was in use in Ignatius time, (who suffered in the time of Trajan) and therefore probably begun by him, as is said by Socrates, is evi­dent by that which Pliny signified to the self same Trajan; where he informs him of the Christians, Quod soliti essent stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo, tanquam Deo, dicere, secum invicem, &c. Their greatest crime, said he, was this, that at a certain day, (but what that day was, that he tells not) they did meet together before day-light, and there sing hymns to Christ, as unto a God, one with another in their courses; and after bind themselves together by a common Sacrament, not unto any wicked or unjust attempt, but to live orderly without committing Robbery, Theft, Adultery, or the like offences.

Now for the day there meant by Pliny, II it must be Saturday or Sunday, if it were not both; both of them being in those times, and in those parts where Pliny lived, in espe­cial honour, as may be gathered from Ignatius, who at that time flourished. For demonstration of the which, we must first take notice, how that the world as then was very full of dangerous fancies, and heretical dotages, whereby the Church was much disquieted, and Gods worship hindred. The Ebionites, they stood hard for the Jewish Sabbath, and would by all means have it celebrated, as it had been formerly; observing yet the Lords day, as the Christians did, in honour of the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour. [...], as Eusebius tells.Hist. l. 3. c.x. 3. The like saith Epiphanius of them, l. 1. Haeres. 30. n. 2. And on the other side there was a sort of Hereticks in the Eastern parts, (whereof see Irenaeus li. 1. ca. 20.21, 22, 23, 24, & 25.) who thought that this world being corruptible, could not be made but by a very evil Author. Therefore as the Jews did by the festival solemnity of their Sabbath, rejoyce in God that created the world, as in the Author of all goodness; so they in hatred of the maker of the world, sorrowed and wept, and fasted on that day, as being the birth-day of all evil. And whereas Chri­stian men of sound belief did solemnize the Sunday in a joyful memory of Christs Re­surrection: So likewise at that self same time, such Hereticks as denied the Resurrection did contrary to them that held it, and fasted when the rest rejoyced. For the ex­pressing of which two last Heresies,Ignat. it was, that he affirmed with such zeal and earnest­ness, [...]. If any one did fast either upon the Lords day or the Sabbath, except one Sabbath in the year (which was Easter Eve) he was a murderer of Christ. So he in his Epistle ad Philippenses. Cax. 65. The Canons attributed to the Apostles, take notice of the misdemeanor, though they condemn it not with so high a censure; it being in them only ordered, that if a Clergy-man offended in that kind, he should be degraded, [...], if any of the Laity, they should be excommunicated. Which makes me marvel by the way, that those which take such pains to justifie Ignatius, as Baronius doth in Ann. 57. of his grand Annales, should yet condemn this Canon of imposture, which is not so severe as Ignatius is, only because it speaks against the Saturdays fast. Whereof consult the Annales, Ann. 102. Now as Ignatius labours here to advance the [Page 415]Sabbath, in opposition of those Hereticks before remembred, making it equally a festi­val with the Lords day: so being to deal with those, which too much magnified the Sabbath, and thought the Christians bound unto it, as the Jews had been; he bends himself another way, and resolves it thus. [...] &c. Let us not keep the Sabbath in a Jewish manner, in sloth and idle­ness, for it is written, that he that will not labour shall not eat, and in the sweat of thy brows shalt thou eat thy bread. But let us keep it after a spiritual fashion, not in bodily ease, but in the study of the Law: not eating meat drest yesterday, or drinking luke-warm drinks, or walking out a limited space, or setling our delights, as they did, on dancing; but in the contemplation of the works of God. [...], &c. And after we have so kept the Sabbath, let every one that loveth Christ, keep the Lords day Festival, the Resurrection day, the Queen and Empress of all days; in which our life was raised again, and death was overcome by our Lord and Saviour. So that we see, that he would have both days observed: the Sabbath first, though not as would the Ebionites, in a Jewish sort; and after that the Lords day, which he so much magnifieth, the better to abate that high esteem, which some had cast upon the Sabbath. A­greeable unto this we find that in the Constitutions of the Apostles, for by that name they pass, though not made by them, both days are ordered to be kept Holy, one in memorial of the Creation, the other of the Resurrection. [...]. See the like l. 8. c. 33. Of which more hereafter.

And so it was observed in the Eastern parts, III where those of the dispension had took up their seats; and having long time had their meetings on the Sabbath day, could not so easily be persuaded from it. But in the Western Churches, in the which the Jews were not so considerable, and where those Hereticks before remembred, had been hardly heard of, it was plainly otherwise: that day not only not being honoured with their publick meetings, but destinate to a setled or a constant fast. Some which have looked more nearly into the reasons of this difference, conceive that they ap­pointed this day for fasting, in memory of Saint Peters conflict with Simon Magus, which being to be done on a Sunday following, the Church of Rome ordained a solemn fast on the day before, the better to obtain Gods blessing in so great a business: which falling out as they desired, they kept it for a fasting day for ever after. Saint Austin so relates it, as a general and received opinion, but then he adds, Quod eam esse fal­sam perhibeant plerique Romani; That very many of the Romans did take it only for a fable. As for St. Austin, he conceives the reason of it, to be the several uses which men made of our Saviours resting in the grave, the whole Sabbath day. For thence it came to pass, saith he, that some, especially the Eastern people, Ad requiem signifi­candam mallent relaxare jejunium, to signifie and denote that rest, did not use to fast; where on the other side, those of the Church of Rome and some Western Churches, kept it always fasting. Propter humilitatem mortis Domini, by reason that our Lord, that day, lay buried in the sleep of Death. But as the Father comes not home unto the reason of this usage, in the Eastern Countreys; so in my mind, Pope Innocent gives a likelier reason for the contrary custom, in the Western. Concil. Tom. 1. For in a Decretal by him made touching the keeping of this Fast, he gives this reason of it unto Decentius Eugubinus who desired it of him; because that day and the day before, were spent by the A­postles in grief and heaviness. Nam constat Apostolos biduo isto & in moerore fuisse, & propter metum Judaeorum se occuluisse, as his words there are. The like saith Platina, that Innocentius did ordain the Saturday or Sabbath to be always fasted, Quod tali die Christus in sepulchro jacuisset, & quod discipuli ejus jejunassent, In Innocent. Because our Saviour lay in the grave that day, and it was fasted by his Disciples. Not that it was not fasted before Innocents time, as some vainly think: but that being formerly an arbitrary pra­ctice only, it was by him intended for a binding Law. Now as the African and the Western Churches were severally devoted either to the Church of Rome, or other Churches in the East: so did they follow in this matter, of the Sabbaths fast, the practice of those parts, to which they did most adhere. Millain though near to Rome, followed the practice of the East: which shews how little power the Popes then had even within Italy it self. Paulinus tells us also of St. Ambrose, that he did never use to dine, nisi die sabbati & Dominico, &c. but on the Sabbath, the Lords day, In vita Ambros. and on the Anniversaries of the Saints and Martyrs. Yet so, that when he was at Rome, he used to do as they there did, submitting to the Orders of the Church in the which he was. [Page 416]Whence that so celebrated speeeh of his, Cum hic sum, non jejuno sabbato; cum Romae sum jejuno sabbato: at Rome he did; at Millain he did not fast the Sabbath. Nay, which is more,Epist. [...]6. Saint Augustine tells us, that many times in Africa, one and the self-same Church, at least the several Churches in the self-same Province, had some that dined upon the Sabbath; and some that fasted. And in this difference it stood a long time together, till in the end the Roman Church obtained the cause, and Saturday became a Fast, almost through all the parts of the Western World. I say the Western World, and of that alone: The Eastern Churches being so far from altering their ancient custom, that in the sixth Council of Constantinople, Anno 692, they did admonish those of Rome to forbear fasting on that day, upon pain of Censures. Which I have noted here, in its proper place, that we might know the better how the matter stood between the Lords day and the Sabbath; how hard a thing it was for one to get the mastery of the other: both days being in themselves indifferent for sacred uses; and holding by no other Tenure, than by the courtesie of the Church.

Much of this kind was that great conflict between the East and Western Churches, about keeping Easter: IV and much like conduced, as it was maintained, unto the ho­nour of the Lords Day, or neglect thereof. The Passeover of the Jews, was changed in the Apostles times, to the Feast of Easter: the anniversary memorial of our Sa­viours Resurrection: and not changed only in their times, but by their Authority. Certain it is that they observed it, for Polycarpus kept it, [...], both with Saint John, and with the rest of the Apostles, as Irenaeus tells us in Eusebius's History.Lib. 5. c. 26. The like Polycarpus affirms of Saint Philip also; whereof see Euseb. l. 5. c. 14. Nor was the difference which arose in the times succeeding, about the Festival it self; but for the time, wherein it was to be observed. The Eastern Churches following the custom of Hierusalem, kept it directly at the same time the Jews did their Passeover: and at Hierusalem they so kept it (the Bishops there for fifteen several successions, being of the Circumcision) the better to content the Jews, their Brethren, and to win upon them. But in the Churches of the West, they did not celebrate this Feast decima quarta lunae, upon what day soever it was, as the others did; but on some Sunday following after: partly in honour of the day; and partly to express some difference, between Jews and Christians. A thing of great importance in the present case. For the Christians of the East reflected not upon the Sunday in the Annual return of so great a Feast; but kept it on the fourteenth day of the month, be it what it will: it may be very strongly gathered, that they re­garded not the Lords Day so highly, which was the weekly memory of the Resurre­ction, as to prefer that day before any other, in their publick meetings. And there­upon Baronius pleads it very well, that certainly Saint John was not the Author of the contrary practice,Annal. An. 15 9. as some gave it out. Nam quaenam potuit esse ratio, &c. For what, saith he, might be the reason, why in the Revelation, he should make mention of the Lords Day, as a day of note, and of good credit in the Church, had it not got that name in reference to the Resurrection. And if it were thought fit by the Apostles, to cele­brate the weekly memory thereof, upon the Sunday: then to what purpose should they keep the Anniversary, on another day? And so far questionless we may joyn issue with the Cardinal, that either Sunday is not meant in the Revelation; or else Saint John was not the Author of keeping Easter, with the Jews, on what day soever. Rather we may conceive that Saint John gave way unto the current of the times, which in those places, as is said, were much intent upon the customs of the Jews: most of the Chri­stians of those parts, being Jews originally.

For the composing of this difference, V and bringing of the Church to an uniformity, the Popes of Rome bestirred themselves; and so did many others also. And first Pope Pius published a Declaration,Com. Tom. 1. Pascha domini die dominica, annuis solennitatibus celebran­dum esse, In Chronic. that Easter was to be solemnized on the Lords day only. And here, although I take the words of the letter decretory; yet I rely rather upon Eusebius for the autho­rity of the fact, than on the Decretal it self, which is neither for the substance pro­bable, and the date stark false; not to be trusted; there being no such Consuls, it is Crabbes own note, as are there set down. But the Authority of Pope Pius did not reach so far as the Asian Churches: and therefore it produced an effect accordingly. This was 159. and seven years after, Polycarpus, Bishop of Smyrna, a Reverend and an holy man,Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 13. made away to Rome; [...], then to confer with Anicetus, then the Roman Prelate, about this business. And though one could not wooe the other to desert the cause; yet they communicated to­gether, [Page 417]and so parted Friends. But when that Blastus afterwards had made it neces­sary, which before was arbitrary; and taught it to be utterly unlawful, to hold this Feast at any other time, than the Jewish Passeover, becoming so the Author of the Quarto-decimani, as they used to call them: then did both Eleutherius publish a Decree, that it was only to be kept upon the Sunday; and Irenaeus, though otherwise a peace­able man, writ a Discourse entituled, De schismate contra Blastum, now not extant. A little before this time (this hapned Anno 180.) the controversie had took place in Laodicea; [...],L. 4. c. 25. as Eusebius hath it: which moved Melito Bishop of Sardis, a man of special eminence, to write two Books de Pascbate, and one de die Dominico, [...]. But to what side he took, it is hard to say. Were those Discourses extant, as they both are lost, we might, no doubt, find much that would conduce to our present business. Two years before the close of this second Century, Pope Victor, Euseb. l. 5. c. 23.24. presuming probably on his name, sends abroad his Mandate, touching the keeping of this Feast, on the Lords day only: against the which, when as Polycrates and other Asian Prelates had set out their Manifests, he presently without more ado, declares them all for excommunicate. But when this rather hindred, than advanced the cause, the Asian Bishops cared little for those Bruta fulmina; and Irenaeus, who held the same side with him, having persuaded him to milder courses: he went another way to work, by practising with the Prelates of several Churches, to end the matter in particular Councils. Of these there was one held at Osroena, another by Bachyllus Bishop of Corinth, a third in Gaul by Irenaeus, a fourth in Pontus, a fifth in Rome, a sixth in Palestine by Theophilus Bi­shop of Caesaria; the Canons of all which were extant in Eusebius time: and in all which it was concluded for the Sunday. By means of these Syndical determinations, the Asian Prelates by degrees let fall their rigour; and yielded to the stronger and the surer side. Yet waveringly and with some relapses, till the great Council of Nice, backed with the Authority of as great an Emperour, setled it better than before: none but some scattered Schismaticks, now and then appearing, that durst oppose the re­solution of the that famous Synod. So that you see, that whether you look upon the day appointed for the Jewish sabbath, or on the day appointed for the Jewish Pass­over; the Lords day found it no small matter to obtain the victory. And when it had prevailed so far, that both the Feast of Easter was restrained unto it; and that it had the honour of the Publick Meetings of the Congregation: yet was not this, I mean this last, exclusively of all other days; the former Sabbath, the fourth and sixth days of the week, having some share therein for a long time after, as we shall see more plainly in the following Centuries.

But first to make an end of this: VI this Century affords us three particular Writers that have made mention of this day. First, Justin Martyr, who then lived in Rome, doth thus relate, [...],Apolog. 2. &c. Ʋpon the Sunday all of us assemble in the Congregation: as being that first day wherein God sepa­rating the light and darkness, did create the World; and Jesus Christ our Saviour rose again from the dead. This for the day; then for the service of the day, he describes it thus. Ʋpon the day called Sunday, all that abide within the Cities or about the Fields, do meet toge­ther in some place, where the Records of the Apostles, and writing of the Prophets, as much as is appointed, are read unto us. The Reader having done, the Priest or Prelate ministreth a word of Exhortation, that we do imitate those good things which are there repeated. Then standing up together, we send up our prayers unto the Lord; which ended, there is delivered unto every one of us, Bread, and Wine with Water. After all this the Priest or Prelate offers up our Prayers and Thanksgiving as much as in him is, to God; and all the people say Amen: those of the richer sort, [...], every man as he would himself, contributing something towards the relief of the poorer Bre­thren; which after the Priest or Prelate was disposed amongst them. A Form of service not much different from that in the Church of England, save that we make the entrance unto our Liturgy, with some preparatory prayers. The rest con­sisting as we know, of Psalms, and several Readings of the Scriptures, out of the Old Testament and the New, the Epistles and the holy Gospel: that done, the Homily or Sermon followeth, they offer twice next, then Prayers and after that the Sacrament, and then Prayers again; the people being finally dismissed with a Benediction. The second testimony of these times is that of Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, who lived about 175, some nine years after Justin Martyr wrote his last Apology: who in an Epistle unto Soter Pope of Rome, doth relate it thus. [Page 418] [...],Euseb. l. 4. c. 22. &c. To day, saith he, we kept holy the Lords day, wherein we read the Epistle which you writ unto us, which we do always read for our instruction, as also the first Epistle writ by Clemens. Where note, that not the Scriptures only were in those times read publickly in the Congregation, but the Epistles and discourses of such Learned men as had been eminent for place and piety; as in the after-times on defect of Sermons, it was the custom of the Church to read the Homilies of the Fathers for their edification.Conciliorum Tom. 2. Concerning which it was ordained in a Council at Vaux, Anno 444. that if the Priest were sick, or otherwise infirm, so that he could not preach himself, the Deacons should rehearse some Homily of the holy Fathers. Si presbyter, aliqua in­firmitate prohibente, per seipsum non potuerit praedicare, sanctorum Patrum homiliae à Diaco­nibus recitentur; so the Council ordered it. The third and last Writer of this Century, which gives us any thing of the Lords day,Strom. l. 7. is Clemens Alexandrinus, (he flourished in the year 190.) who though he fetch the pedegree of the Lords day, even as far as Plato, which before we noted; yet he seems well enough contented that the Lords day should not be observed at all. [...], We ought (saith he) to honour and to reverence him, whom we are verily persuaded to be the Word, our Saviour, and our Captain; and in him the Father: [...], not in selected times, as some do amongst us, but always during our whole lives, and on all occasions. The Royal Prophet tells us that he preaised God seven times a day. Whence he that understands himself, stands not upon determinate places, or appointed Temples, [...], much less on any Festivals, or days assigned; but in all places honours God, though he be alone. And a little after, [...], &c. making our whole lives a continual Festival, and knowing God to be every where, we praise him sometimes in the fields, and sometimes sailing on the Seas, and finally in all the times of our life whatever. So in another place of the self-same Book, [...], &c. He that doth lead his life according to the Or­dinances of the Gospel, [...], then keeps the Lords day, when he casts away every evil thought, and doing things with knowledge and understanding, doth glorifie the Lord in his Resurrection. By which it seems, that whatsoever estima­tion the Lords day had attained unto at Rome and Corinth, yet either it was not so much esteemed at Alexandria, or else this Clemens did not think so rightly of it as he should have done.

Now in the place of Justin Martyr before remembred, VII there is one special circum­stance to be considered in reference to our present search; for I say nothing here of mingling water with the Wine in the holy Sacrament, as not conducing to the business which we have in hand. This is, that in their Sundays service they did use to stand, during the time they made their Prayers unto the Lord: [...], as his words there are. Such was the custom of this time, and a long time after; that though they kneeled on other days, yet on the Lords day they prayed always standing. Yet not upon the Lords day only, but every day from Easter unto Pentecost. The reason is thus given by him who made the Responsions ascribed to Justin; That so, saith he, we might take notice, as of our fall by sin, so of our restitution by the grace of Christ. Resp. ad qu. 105. Six days we pray upon our knees, and that's in token of our fall: [...], &c. But on the Lords day we bow not the knee in token of the Resurrection, by which according to the Grace of Christ, we are set free from sin and the powers of death. The like (saith he) is to be said of the days of Pentecost, which custom as he tells us, and cites Irenaeus for his Author, did take beginning even in the times of the Apostles. Rather we may conceive that they used this Ceremony to testifie their faith in the Refurrection of our Lord and Sa­viour, which many Hereticks of those times did publickly gain-say, as before we noted, and shall speak more thereof hereafter. But whatsoever was the reason, it continued long, and was confirm'd particularly by the great Synod of Nice, what time some People had begun to neglect this custom. The Synod therefore thus determined, [...], &c. that forasmuch as some did use to kneel on the Lords day,Can. 20. and the time of Pentecost, that all things, in all places might be done with an uniformity, it pleased the holy Synod to decree it thus: [...], that men should stand at those times when they made their prayers. For Fathers which avow this custom, consult Tertullian, lib. de corona mil. S. Basil. l. de Sp. S. c. 27. S. Hierom. adv. Luciferian. S. Austin. Epist. 118. S. Hilaries Praefat. in Psalm. Ambros. Serm. 62. and divers others. What time this custom was laid by, I [Page 419]can hardly say; but sure I am it was not laid aside in a long time after, not till the time of Pope Alexander the third, who lived about the year 1160.Decret. l. 2. tit. 9. c. 2. For in a Decretal of his, confirmatory of the former custom, it was prohibited to kneel on the times re­membred, Nisi aliquis ex devotioned id velit facere in secreto, unless some out of pure devo­tion did it secretly. Which dispensation probably occasioned the neglect thereof in the times succeeding; the rather since those Hereticks who formerly had denied the re­surrection were now quite exterminated. This circumstance we have considered the more at large, as being the most especial difference whereby the Sundays service was distinguished from the week-days worship in these present times whereof we write. And yet the difference was not such, that it was proper to the Lords day only; but, if it were a badge of honour, communicated unto more than forty other days: Of which more anon. But being it was an Ecclesiastical and occasional custom, the Church which first ordained it, let it fall again by the same Authority.

In the third Century, the first we meet with is Tertullian, VIII who flourished in the very first beginnings of it; by whom this day is called by three several names. For first he calls it Dies solis, Sunday, as commonly we now call it; and saith, that they did dedicate the same unto mirth and gladness, not to devotion altogether: Diem solis laetitiae indulge­mus, Cap. 16. in his Apologetick. The same name is used by Justin Martyr in the passages before remembred; partly because being to write to an Heathen Magistrate, it had not been so proper to call it by the name of the Lords day, which name they knew not; and partly that delivering the form and substance of their service done upon that day, they might the better quit themselves from being worshippers of the Sun, as the Gentiles thought. For by their meetings on this day for religious exercises, in greater num­bers than on others, in Africk and the West especially; and by their use of turning, to­wards the East, when they made their prayers, the world was sometimes so persuaded. Inde suspicio, quod innotuerit nos ad Orientis regionem precari, as he there informed us. Whereby we may perceive of what great antiquity that custom is, which is retained in the Church of England, of bowing, kneeling, and adoring towards the Eastern parts. The second name by which Tertullian calls this day, is the eighth day simply; Ethnicis semel annuus dies quisquis festus est, tibi octavo quoque die. The third is,De Idolat. c. 14. De corona mil. c. 3. Dies Dominicus, or the Lords day, which is frequent in him, as, Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus, we hold it utterly unlawful to fast the Lords day, of which more hereafter. For their performances in their publick meetings he describes them thus. Coimus in coetum & congregationem, &c. We come together into the Assembly or Congregation to our Common prayers, that being banded as it were in a troop or Army, Apol. c. 39. we may besiege God with our Petitions. To him such violence is exceeding grateful. It followeth, Cogimur ad sacra­rum lit. commemorationem, &c. We meet to hear the holy Scriptures rehearsed unto us, that so according to the quality of the times, we may either be premonished or corrected by them. Questionless by these holy speeches our faith is nourished, our hopes erected, our assurance setled; and notwithstanding by inculcating the same, we are the better established in our obedience to Gods precepts. A little after, Praesident probati quique seniores, &c. Now at these g e­neral meetings some Priests or Elders do preside, which have attained unto that honour, not by money, but by the good report that they have gotten in the Church. And if there be a Poor­mans Box, every one cast in somewhat menstrua die, at least once a month, according as they would, and as they were able. Thus he describes the form of their publick meetings; but that such meetings were then used amongst them on the Sunday only, that he doth not say. Nor can we learn by him, or by Justin Martyr, who describes them also, either how long those meetings lasted, or whether they assembled more than once a day, or what they did after the meetings were dissolved. But sure it is, that their Assemblies held no lon­ger than our Morning service; that they met only before noon: for Justin saith, that when they met they used to receive the Sacrament; and that the service being done, every man went again to his daily labours. Of all these I shall speak hereafter. Only I note it out of Beza, that hitherto the People used to forbear their labours,In Cant. Sol. hom. 30. but while they were assembled in the Congregation; there being no such duty enjoyned amongst them, neither in the times of the Apostles, nor after, many years, nor till the Emperours had embraced the Gospel, and therewith published their Edicts to en­force men to it. But take his words at large for the more assurance. Ʋt autem Christi­ani eo die à suis quotidianis laboribus abstinerent, praeter id temporis quod in coetu ponebatur, id neque illis Apostolicis temporibus mandatum, neque prius fuit observatum, quam id à Christi­anis Imperatoribus, ne quis à rerum sacrarum meditatione abstraheretur, & quidem non it a praecise observatum. Which makes it manifest that the Lords day was not taken for a [Page 420]Sabbath day in these three first Ages. But for Tertullian, where I left, note that I rendred seniores, by Priests or Elders, because I think his meaning was to render the Greek Presbyter by the Latine senior. For that he should there mean Lay-elders, as some men would have it, is a thing impossible, considering that he tells us in another place, that they received the Sacrament at the hands of those that did preside in the Assemblies.De coron. milit. c. 3. Eucharistiae Sacramentum non de aliorum manu, quam de Praesidentium sumi­mus; and therefore sure they must be Priests that so presided.

Proceed we next to Origen, IX who flourished at the same time also. He being an Au­ditor of Clemens in the Schools of Alexandria, became of his opinions too in many things; and amongst others in dislike of those selected Festivals which by the Church were set apart for Gods publick service.In Gen. hom. 10. Cont. Cels. l. 8. Dicite mihi vos qui festis tantum diebus ad Ec­cles. convenitis, coeteri dies non sunt festi, non sunt dies Domini? Judaeorum est dies certos & raros observare solennes, &c. Christiani omni die carnes agni comedunt, i. e. carnes verbi Dei quotidie sumunt. ‘Tell me (saith he) you that frequent the Church on the feast days only, are not all days Festival? are not all the Lords? It appertains unto the Jews to observe days and Festivals: The Christians every day eat the flesh of the Lamb,Cent. 2. c. 6. i. e. they ever day do hear the word of God.’ And in another place, [...], &c. He truly keeps the Festivals that performs his duty, praying continually, and offering every day the unbloody sacrifice in his Prayers to God. Which whosoever doth, and is upright in thought, word, and deed, adhereing al­ways unto God our natural Lord, [...]. Every day is to him a Lords day. It seems too, that he had his desire in part; it being noted by the Magde­burgians, that every day there were Assemblies in Alexandria, where he lived, for hearing of the Word of God. Et de collectis quotidie celebratis in quibus praedicatum sit verbum Dei, Hom. 9. in Isa. significare videtur, as they note it from him. Indeed the Proem to his several Homilies seem to intimate, that if they met not every day to hear his Lectures, they met very often. But being a Learned man, and one that had a good conceit of his own abilities, he grew offended that there was not as great resort of People every day to hear him, as upon the Festivals. Of Sunday thee is little doubt, but that it was observed amongst them; and so was Saturday also, as we shall see here­after out of Athanasius. Hist. l. 5. c. 21. Of Wednesday and Friday it is positively said by Socrates, that on them both the Scriptures were read openly, and afterwards expounded by the Doctors of the Church; and all things done appointed by the publick Liturgy, save that they did not use to receive the Sacrament. [...], And this (saith he) was the old use in Alexandria, which he confirms by the practice of Origen, who was accustomed, as he tells us, to preach upon these days to the Con­gregation. Tertullian too takes special notice of these two days, whereof consult him in his Book adv. Psychicos.

About the middle of this Century did Saint Cyprian live, X another African; and he hath left us somewhat, although not much, which concerns this business. Aurelius, one of excellent parts,Lib. 2. Epist. 5. was made a Reader in the Church, I think of Carthage; which being very welcome news to the common People, Saint Cyprian makes it known unto them, and withal lets them understand that Sunday was the day appointed for him to begin his Ministery. Et quoniam semper gaudium properat, nec mora ferre potest laetitia, dominico legit. So that as Sunday was a day which they used to meet on; so reading of the Scripture was a special part of the Sundays exercise. Not as an exercise to spend the time, when one doth wait for anothers coming, till the Assembly be compleat, and that without or choice or stint appointed by determinate order; as is now used both in the French and Belgick Churches; for what need such an eminent man, as Aurelius was, be taken out with so much expectation to exercise the Clerks or the Sextons duty. But it was used amongst them then as a chief portion of the service which they did to God, in hearkening reverently unto his voice: It being so ordered in the Church,Preface to the Common Prayer. that the whole Bible, or the greatest part thereof should be read over once a year. And this, that so the Ministers of the Congregation, by often reading and meditation of Gods Word, be stirred up to godliness themselves, and be the more able to exhort others by wholesome doctrine, and to confute them that were Adversaries to the truth; as that the People by daily hearing of the Scriptures, should profit more and more in the knowledge of God, and be the more inflamed with the love of his true Religion. Now for the duties of the people on this day, in the Congregation, as they used formerly to hear the Word, and receive the Sacraments,D [...]eru. l. 5. c. 7. and to pour forth their souls to God in affectionate prayers: So much [Page 421]about these times, viz. in Ann. 237. it had been appointed by Pope Fabian, that every man and woman should on the Lords day bring a quantity of bread and wine first to be offered on the Altar, and then distributed in the Sacrament. A thing that had been done before, as of common course; but now exacted as a duty: for the neglect whereof Saint Cyprian chides with a rich Widdow of his time, who neither brought her offering, nor otherwise gave any thing to the Poor-mans Box, and therefore did not keep the Lords day as she should have done.De pietat. & Eleemos. Locuples & dives dominicum celebrare te credis, quae Corbonam omnino non respicis, quae in Dominicum (here he means the Church) sine sacrificio venis, quae partem de sacrificio, quod pauper obtulit, sumis. In after times this custom went away by little and little; instead of which it was appointed by the Church, and retained in ours, that Bread and Wine for the Communion shall be provided by the Churchwardens at the charge of the Parish. I should now leave Saint Cyprian here,V. l. 3. Epi. 8. but that I am to tell you first that he conceives the Lords day to have been prefigured in the eighth day, destinate to Circumcision. Which being but a private opinion of his own, I rather shall refer the Reader unto the place, than repeat the words. And this is all this Age affords me in the present search.

For other Holy-days instituted by the Church, XI for Gods publick service in those three Centuries precedent; besides the Lords day, or the Sunday which came every week, Origen names the Good Friday, as we call it now, the Parasceve, as he calls it there;Cont. Cels. l. 8. the Feast of Easter and of Pentecost. Of Easter we have spoken already. For Pentecost or Whitsontide, as it began with the Apostles, so it continues till this present, but not in that solemnity which before it had. For antiently not that day only, which we call Whitsunday, or Pentecost, [...], but all the fifty days, from Easter forwards, were accounted holy, and solemnized with no less observation than the Sundays were; no kneeling on the one, nor upon the other; no fasting on the one, nor upon the other. Of which days, that of the Ascension, or Holy-Thursday being one, became in little time to be more highly reckoned of than all the rest, as we shall prove hereafter out of S. Austin. But for these 50 days aforesaid, Tertullian tells us of them thus,De Coron. milit. ca. 3. Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare: Eadem immunitate à die Paschae in Pentecosten gau­demus, which makes both alike. Which words, if any think too short to reach the point, he tells us in another place that all the Festivals of the Gentiles contained not so many days as did that one. Excerpe singulas solennitates nationum, & in ordinem texe, De Ido. l. c. 14. Pentecosten implere non poterunt. The like he hath also in his Book adv. Psychicos: The like Saint Hierom. ad Lucinum; the like Saint Ambrose, or Maximus Taurinens. which of the two soever it was that made those Sermons, Serm. 60.61. In which last it is said expresly of those fifty days, that every one of them was instar Dominicae, and qualis est Dominica, in all respects nothing inferior to the Lords day. And in the Comment on Saint Luke (which questionless was writ by Ambrose) cap. 17. l. 8. it is said expresly, Et sunt omnes dies tanquam Dominica, That every day of all the fifty was to be reckoned of no otherwise, in that regard especially, than the Sunday was. Some footsteps of this custom yet remain amongst us, in that we fast not either on S. Marks Eve, or on the Eve of Philip and Jacob, happening within the time. The fast of the Rogation week was after instituted on a particular and extraordinary occasion. Now as these Festivals of Easter, and of Whitsontide, were instituted in the first Age or Century, and with them those two days attendant, which we still retain: whereof see Austin de Civit. Dei, li. 22. ca. 8. & Nyssen in his first Hom. de Paschate, where Easter is expresly called [...], or the three-days-feast: So was the Feast of Christs Nativity ordained or instituted in the second, that of his Incarnation in the third. For this we have an Homily of Gregory surnamed Thaumaturgus, who lived in An. 230. entituled De annunciatione B. Ʋirginis, as we call it now. But being it is questionable among the Learned whether that Homily be his or not, there is an Homily of Athanasius on the self same argument (he lived in the beginning of the following Century) whereof there is no question to be made at all. That of the Lords Nativity began if not before, in the second Age. Theophilus Caesariens. who lived about the times of Commodus and Severus the Roman Emperors, makes mention of it, and fixeth it upon the 25 of Decemb. as we now observe it. Natalem Domini, quocunque die 8. Calend. Januar. venerit, celebrare debemus, as his own words are. And after, in the time of Maximinus, which was one of the last great Persecutors, Nicephorus tells us that In ipso natalis Dominici die, l. 7. c. 6. Christi­anos Nicomediae festivitatem celebrantes, succenso templo concremavit; even in the very day of the Lords Nativity, he caused the Christians to be burnt at Nicomedia, whilst they were solemnizing this great Feast within their Temple, I say this Great Feast, and I [Page 422]call it so on the Authority of Beda, Orat. de Philo­gon. who reckoneth Christmas, Easter, and Whitsontide, for majora solennia, as they still are counted. But before Bede it was so thought over all the Church: Chrysostom calls it, [...], the Mother or Metro­polis of all other Feasts.See Binius Conc. T. 1. And before him Pope Fabian, whom but now we spake of, ordained that all Lay-men should communicate at least thrice a year, which was these three Festivals. Etsi non frequentius, saltemter in Anno Laici homines communicent, &c. in Pascha & Pentecoste, & Natali Domini. So quickly had the Annual got the better of the weekly Festivals. According to which ancient Canon, the Church of England hath appointed that every man communicate at least thrice a year; of which times, Easter to be one.

Before we end this Chapter, XII there is one thing yet to be considered, which is the name whereby the Christians of these first Ages did use to call the day of the Resur­rection; and consequently the other days of the week, according as they found the time divided. The rather because some are become offended that we retain those names amongst us, which were to us commended by our Ancestors, and to them, by theirs. Where first we must take notice that the Jews in honour of their Sabbath, used to refer times to that, distinguishing their days by Prima Sabbati, Secunda Sab­bati, and so until they came to the Sabbath it self: As on the other side the Gentiles following the motions of the Planets, gave to each day the name of that particular Planet, by which the first hour of the day was governed, as their Astrologers had taught them. Now the Apostles being Jews, retained the custom of the Jews; and for that reason called that day on which our Saviour rose, [...], una sabbati, the first day of the week, as our English reads it. The Fathers, many of them fol­lowed their example. Saint Austin thereupon calls Thursday by the name of quintum sabbati, Epist. 118. and so doth venerable Beda, hist. lib. 4. c. 25. Saint Hierom, Tues­day, tertium sabbati, in Epitaph. Paulae: Tertullian Friday, by the old name, parasceve, l. 4. advers. Marcion. Saturday they called generally the Sabbath; and Sunday, some­times dies solis, De invent. re­rum l. 5, 6. and is sometimes Dominicus. Pope Silvester, as Polydore Virgil is of opinion, vanorum deorum memoriam abhorrens, hating the name and memory of the Gentile-Gods, gave order that the days should be called by the name of Feriae, and the distinction to be made by Prima feria, secunda feria, &c. the Sabbath and the Lords day holding their names and places, as before they did. Hence that of Honorius Au­gustodunensis; Hebraei nominant dies suos, De imagine mundi, cap. 28. una vel prima sabbati, &c. Pagani sic, dies Solis, Lunae, &c. Christiani vero sic dies nominant, viz. Dies Dominicus, feria prima, &c. Sabbatum. But by their leaves, this is no universal rule; the Writers of the Christian Church not tying up their hands so strictly as not to give the days what names they pleased: Save that the Saturday is called amongst them by no other name than that which formerly it had, the Sabbath. So that when ever, for a thousand years and up­wards, we meet with sabbatum, in any Writer, of what name soever it must be under­stood of no day but Saturday. As for the other day, the day of the Resurrection, all the Evangelists, and Saint Paul, take notice of no other name than of the first day of the Week. Saint John, and after him Ignatius, call it [...], the Lords day. But then again, Justin Martyr for the second Century doth in two several passages call it no otherwise than [...], Sunday, as then the Gentiles called it, and we call it now: And so Tertullian for the third, who useth both, and calls it sometimes diem solis, and sometimes Dominicum; as before was said. Which questionless neither of them would have done, on what respect soever, had it been either contrary to the Word of God, or scandalous unto his Church. So for the after Ages, in the Edicts of Constantine, Valentinian, Valens, Gratian, Honorius, Arcadius, Theodosius, Christian Princes all, it hath no other name than Sunday, or dies solis; and many fair years after them, the Synod held at Dingulofinum in the lower Bavaria, Anno 772. calls it plainly Sunday; Festo die solis prophanis negotiis abstineto; of which more hereafter. And A­ventine, for the latter Writers, who lived not till the Age last past, speaking of the battel fought near Cambray, between Charles Martel and Hilpericus, King of France, saith that it hapned on the thirteenth of the Calends of April, Hist. l. 3. quae tum dies solis ante Paschalia erat, being the Sunday before Easter. They therefore are more nice than wise, who out of a desire to have all things new, would have new names for every day, or call them as sometimes they were, the first day of the week, the second day of the week, & sic de coeteris; and all for fear lest it be thought that we do still adore those Gods whom the Gentiles worshipped.Cont. Faust. l. 19. c. 5. Saint Augustine, as it seems, had met with some this way affected, and thus disputes the case with Faustus Manichaeus. Deorum [Page 423]suorum nomina gentes imposuerunt diebus istis, &c. The Gentiles, saith the Father, gave unto every day of the week, the name of one or other of their Gods: and so they did also unto every month. If then we keep the name of March, and not think of Mars; Why may we not, saith he, preserve the name of Saturday; and not think of Saturn. I add, why may we not then keep the name of Sunday, and not think of Phoebus, or Apollo, or by what other name soever the old Poets call him. This though it satisfied the Manichees, will not perhaps now satisfie some curious men, who do as much dislike the names of months, as of the days. To others I presume it may give some reason, why we retain the name of Sunday, not only in our common speech, but in the Canons of the Church, and our Acts of Parliament: as being used indifferently by so many eminent persons in the Primitive Church, as also in an open Synod, as before was thewn; from thence transmitted by our Fathers unto their posterity. Better by far, and far less danger to be feared, in calling it the Sunday, as the Gentiles did; and as our Ancestors have done before us: than calling it the Sab­bath, as too many do, and on less authority; nay, contrary indeed to all Antiquity, and Scripture.

CHAP. III. That in the fourth Age from the time of Constantine to Saint Austin the Lords day was not taken for a Sabbath day.

  • 1. The Lords day first established by the Em­perour Constantine.
  • 2. What Labours were permitted, and what restrained on the Lords day, by this Em­perours Edict.
  • 3. Of other Holy days, and Saints days, instituted in the time of Constantine.
  • 4. That weekly other days, particularly the Wednesday and the Friday, were in this Age, and those before appointed for the meetings of the Congregation.
  • 5. The Saturday as highly honoured in the Eastern Churches, as the Lords day was.
  • 6. The Fathers of the Eastern Churches, cry down the Jewish Sabbath, though they held the Saturday.
  • 7. The Lords day not spent wholly in Reli­gious Exercises; and what was done with that part of it, which was left at large.
  • 8. The Lords day, in this Age, a day of Feasting; and that it hath been always deemed Heretical, to hold Fasts thereon.
  • 9. Of Recreation on the Lords day: and of what kind those Dancings were, against the which the Fathers inveigh so sharply.
  • 10. Other Imperial Edicts about the keeping of the Lords day, and the other Holy-days.
  • 11. The Orders, at this time in use, on the Lords day, and other days, of publick meeting, in the Congregation.
  • 12. The infinite differences between the Lords day, and the Sabbath.

HItherto have we spoken of the Lords day, I as taken up by the common consent of the Church: not instituted or established by any Text of Scripture, or Edict of Emperour, or Decree of Council, save that some few particular Councils did reflect upon it, in the point of Esater. In that which followeth, we shall find both Emperours and Councils very frequent, in ordering things about this day, and the service of it. And first we have the Empe­rour Constantine, who being the first Christian Prince that publickly profest the Go­spel; was the first also that made any Law about the keeping of the Lords day or Sun­day. De vit. Const. lib. 4. c. 18. Of him Eusebius tells us, that thinking that the chiefest and most proper day, for the devotion of his Subjects, he presently declared his pleasure, [...], that every one who lived in the Roman Empire, should take their ease, or rest, in that day weekly, which is intituled to our Saviour. Now where the Souldiers in his Camp were partly Christians, and partly the Gentiles: it was permitted unto them who professed the Gospel, upon the Sunday, so he calls it, freely to go unto the Churches, and there offer up their Prayers to Almighty God. But such as had conti­nued still in their ancient Errours, were ordered to assemble in the open Fields, upon those days and on a signal given, to make their prayers unto the Lord, after a form by him prescribed. The Form being in the Latin Tongue, was this that followeth. [Page 424] Te solum Deum agnoscimus, te regem prositemur, te adjutorem invocamus, per te victorias consecuti sumus, Cap. 20. per te hostes superavimus, à te & praesentem felicitatem consecuntos fatemur, & futuram adepturos speramus: tui omnes supplices sumus, à te petimus, ut Constanti­num Imperatorem nostrum una cum piis ejus liberis, quam diutissime nobis salvum & victorem conserves. In English thus. We do acknowledge thee to be the only God, we confess thee to be the King, we call upon thee as our helper and defender: by thee alone it is that we have got the Victory, and subdued our Enemies, to thee as we refer all our present happiness, so from thee also do we expect our future. Thee therefore we beseech, that thou wouldest please to keep in all health and safety, our noble Emperour Constantine, with his hopeful Progeny. Nor was this only to be done in the Fields of Rome, in patentibus suburbiorum campis, as the Edict ran: but after by another Proclamation he did command the same over all the Provinces of the Empire.Cap. 23. [...], as Eusebius hath it. So natu­ral a power it is in a Christian Prince to order things about Religion; that he not only took upon him to command the day, but also to prescribe the scrvice; to those I mean who had no publick Liturgy, or set Form of Prayer.

Nor did he only take upon him to command or appoint the day, II as to all his sub­jects; and to prescribe a form of Prayer, as unto the Gentiles: but to decree what works should be allowed upon it, and what intermitted. In former times, though the Lords day had got the credit, as to be honoured with the publick meetings of the Congregation; yet was it not so strictly kept, no not in time of divine service, but that the publick Magistrates, Judges and other Ministers of State, were to attend those great Employments they were called unto, without relation to this day, or cessation on it, and so did other men that had less employments, and those not so ne­cessary. These things this pious Emperour taking into consideration, and finding no necessity, but that his Judges and other publick Ministers might attend Gods ser­vice on that day; at least not be a means to keep others from it: and knowing that such as dwelt in Cities had sufficient leisure to frequent the Church, and that Artificers without any publick discommodity, might for that time forbear their ordi­nary labours: he ordered and appointed, that all of them, in their several places should this day lay aside their own Business, to attend the Lords. But then withal considering, that such as followed Husbandry, could not so well neglect the times of Seed and Harvest, but that they were to take advantage of the fairest and most sea­sonable weather, as God pleased to send it; he left it free to them to follow their affairs on what day soever: left otherwise they might lose those blessings, which God in his great bounty had bestowed upon them. This mentioned in the very Edict he set forth about it. First for his Judges, Citizens or inhabitants of the grea­ter Towns,L. Omnes cap. de feriis. and all Artificers therein dwelling. Omnes Judices, urbanaeque plebes, & cunctarum artium officia, venerabili die Solis quiescant. Next for the people of the Contrey, Rure tamen positi, libere licenterque agrorum culture inserviant, quoniam fre­quenter evenit, ut non aptius alio die, frumenta sulcis, vinea scrobibus mandentur. And then the reason of this follows, Ne occasione momenti, pereat commoditas coelesti provi­sione concessa. This Edict did bear date, in the Nones of March, Anno 321, being the 11. year of that Princes Empire: and long it did not stand, till he himself was fain to explain his meaning in the first part of it. Fr whereas he intended only to re­strain Lawsuits, and contentious pleadings, as being unfit for such a day: his Judges and like Officers finding a general restraint in the Law or Edict, durst not ingage themselves in the cognizance of any civil Cause whatever; no not so much as in the Manumission of a Bondslave. This coming to the Emperours notice, who was a friend of Liberty, and could not but well understand, how acceptable a thing it was to God, that works of charity and mercy should not be restrained on any days: it pleased him to send out a second Edict, in the July following, directed to Elpidius, who was then Praefectus Praetorio, as I take it; wherein he authorized his Ministers to perform that Office, any thing in the former Law, unto the contrary notwithstand­ing. For so it runs,Ibid. Sicut indignissimum videbatur diem Solis venerationis suae celebrem, altercantibus jurgiis & noxis partium contentionibus occupari; ita gratum est & jucundum eo die, quae sunt maxime votiva, compleri. Atque ideo emancipandi & manumittendi, die festo, cuncti licentiam habeant, & super his rebus Acta non prohibeantur. So that not only Husbandry was permitted, in small Towns and Villages; but Manumission being a meer civil Act and of no small Ceremony was by him suffered and allowed in the greater Cities. The first great work done by the first great Christian Prince, was to [Page 425]declare his royal pleasure about this Day; what things he thought most proper to per­mit, and what to disallow upon it, teaching all other Kings and Princes which have since succeeded, what they should also do on the same occasion.

Nor did this pious Prince confirm and regulate the Lords day only: III but unto him we are indebted for many of these other Festivals, which have been since observed in the Church of God. It had been formerly a custom in the Christian Church, care­fully to observe the times and days of their departure, who had preferred the Gospel before their lives, and suffered many Torments, and at last Death it self, for the faith of Christ.Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 14. The Church of Smyrna (and that's the highest we need go) testifieth in an Epistle writ ad Philomelienses, that they did celebrate the day, wherein their Reverend Bishop Polycarp did suffer Martyrdom with joy and gladness, and an holy Convocation. This was in Anno 170, or thereabouts. And in the following Age, Saint Cyprian taking notice of such men as were imprisoned for the testimony of a good Conscience, appointed that the days of their decease should be precisely noted, that so their memories might be celebrated with the holy Martyrs.Ep. 8. l. 3. Denique & dies corum quibus excedunt, annotate, ut commemorationes corum inter memorias martyrum cele­brare possimus, as there he hath it. But hitherto they were only bare memorials, (for more they durst not do in those times of trouble) their sufferings only signified to the Congregation: and that they did unto this end, that by exhibiting to the people their infinite indurances for the truth and testimony of Religion, they also might be nourished in an equal constancy. After, when as the Church was in perfect peace, it pleased the Emperour Constantine to signifie to all his Deputies and Lieutenants in the Roman Empire,Euseb. l. 4. cap. 23. that they should have a care to see those the memorials of the Martyrs duly honoured; and solemnize Times or Festivals to be appointed in the Churches, to that end and purpose, [...]. And though these Festivals and Saints days became not forthwith common over all the World; but were observed in those parts chief­ly, wherein the memory of the Saint or Martyr, was in most esteem; in which re­spect Saint Hierom calls them,In Gal. 4. tempora in honore Martyrum pro diversa regionum varie­tate constituta: yet in a little Tract of time, such of them as had been most eminent, as the Apostles and Evangelists, were universally received and celebrated, even as now they are; as they are now observed in the Church of England; De Martyr. l. 8. and this I say upon the credit and authority of Theodoret. Who, though he gives another reason and original of these Institutions, informs us of these Festivals that they were modestae, castae, temperantia plenae, performed with modesty, chastity and sobriety: not as the Festivals of the Gentiles were, in excess and riot. And not so only, but he affirms this of them, divinis canticis personandis, sacrisque sermonibus audiendis intentae, that they were solemnized with spiritual Hymns, and religious Sermons: and that the people used to empty out their souls to God in fervent and affectionate Prayers, non sine lacrymis & suspiriis, even with sighs and tears. As for Theodores, he lived and flourished in the year 420. and speaks of these Festivals (St. Peter and St. Thomas, and St. Paul, with others which he names particularly) as things which had been setled and established a long time before: and therefore could not be much after the time of Constantine, who died not till the year 341, or thereabouts. As for the eighth Book de Martyrib. Where this passage is, it is the 12. of those entituled de curandis Graec. affect. And howsoever some exception hath been made against them, as that they were not his, whose names they carry: yet find I no just proof thereof amongst our Criticks.

Now as the Emperour Constantine did add the Annual Festivals of the Saints unto those other Anniversary Feasts, IV which formerly had been observed in the Chri­stian Church; so by his Royal Edict did he settle and confirm those publick meet­ings, which had been formerly observed on each Friday weekly; the Wednesday stand­ing on the same Basis, as before it did, which was the custom of the Church.De vit. Const. l. 4. c. 18. Eu­sebius having told us of this Emperours Edict about the honouring of the Sunday; adds, that he also made the like about the Friday: [...], as that Author hath it. Sozomen adds, that he enjoyned also the like Rest upon it, the like cessation both from Judicature, and all other Businesses: and after gives this reason of it. [...].Hist. l. 1. c. 8. He honoured the one, saith he, as being the day of our Redeemers Resurrection, the other, as the day of our Saviours Passion. So for the practice of the Church in the fol­lowing [Page 426]times, that they used other days besides the Sundays, is evident by many pas­sages of Cyril of Hierusalem, where he makes mention of the Sermon preached the day before, [...] in his own Language; Catech. orat. 7. & [...], the morrow after the Lords day, Cat. 14. & [...], Catech. Mystag. 2. The like is very frequent in Saint Ambrose also. Hesterno die de fonte disputavimus, De Sacram, lib. 3. cap. 1. Hesternus noster sermo ad sancti altaris sacramentum deductus est. lib. 5. cap. 1. and in other places. The like in Chrysostom as in many other places; too many to be pointed at in this place and time; so in his 18. Hom. on the 3d of Gen. [...], &c. But this perhaps was only in respect of Lectures, or Expositions of the Scriptures, such as were often used in the greater Cities, where there was much people, and but little business: for I conceive not that they met every day in these times to receive the Sacraments.Epl. 289. Of Wednesday and of Friday, it is plain they did, (not to say any thing of the Saturday till the next Section.) Saint Basil names them all together. [...], &c. It is, saith he, a profitable and pious thing, every day to communicate and to participate of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour; he having told us in plain terms, that Whosoever eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath eternal life. We notwithstanding do communicate but four times weekly, [...], viz. on the Lords day, the Wednesday, the Friday and the Saturday, unless on any other days the memory of some Martyr be perhaps observed. Expos. fid. Cath. 21.22. Epiphanius goeth a little far­ther, andn he deriveth the Wednesdays and the Fridays Service even from the Apostles, ranking them in the same Antiquity, and grounding them upon the same Authority, that he doth the Sunday. [...]. Only it seems the difference was, that whereas formerly it had been the custom not to administer the Sacrament on these two days, (being both of them fasting-days, and so accounted long before) until towards Evening: It had been changed of late and they did celebrate in the Morn­ings [...], as on the Lords day was accustomed. Whether the meeting on these days were of such Antiquity as Epiphanius saith they were, I will not meddle. Certain it is that they were very antient in the Church of God; as may appear by that of Origen and Tertullian before remembred. So that if we consider either the preaching of the Word, the ministration of the Sacraments, or the publick Prayers: the Sunday in the Eastern Churches had no great prerogative above other days, especially above the Wednesday and Friday, save that the meetings were more solemn, and the concourse of people greater than at other times, as it is most likely. The footsteps of this ancient custom are yet to be observed in this Church of England, by which it is appointed that on Wednesdays and Fridays weekly, Can. 15. though they be not holy days, the Minister at the accustomed hours of Service shall resort to Church, and say the Letany prescribed in the Book of Common-prayer.

As for the Saturday, V that retained its wonted credit in the Eastern Church, little inferiour to the Lords day, if not plainly equal: not as a Sabbath, think not so; but as a day designed unto sacred meetings. The Constitutions of the Apostles, said to be writ by Clemens, one of Saint Peters first successours in the Church of Rome, ap­point both days to be observed as solemn Festivals; both of them to be days of rest: that so the servant might have time to repair unto the Church,Lib. 8. c. 33. for this Edification. [...]. So the Constitution. Not that they should devote them wholly unto rest from labour; but only those set times of both, which were appointed for the meetings of the Congregation: Yet this had an exception too, the Saturday before Easter day,Lib. 1. cap. 19. whereupon Christ rested in the Grave, being exempt from these Assemblies, and destinated only unto grief and fasting. And though these Constitutions in all likelihood were not writ by Clemens, there being many things therein, which could not be in use of a long time after: yet ancient sure they were, as being mentioned in Epiphanius; De Scrip. Ecc. in Clemente. and as the Cardinal confesseth, à Graecis veteribus magni factos, much made of by the ancient Grecians, though not of such authority in the Church of Rome. How their authority in this point is countenanced by Ig­natius, we have seen already; and we shall see the same more fully, throughout all this Age.Can. 16. And first, beginning with the Synod held in Laodicea, a Town of Phrygia, Anno 314. there passed a Canon, [...], touching the reading of the Gospels, with the other Scriptures up­on [Page 427]the Saturday, or Sabbath; Canon 49. that in the time of Lent there should be no oblation made [...], but on the Saturday and the Lords day only; neither that any Festival should be then observed in memory of any Martyrs,Canon 51. but that their names only should be commemorated, [...], upon the Lords day and the Sabbaths. Nor was this only the particular will of those two and thirty Prelates that there assembled; it was the practice too of the Alexandrians. S. Athanasius Patriarch there, affirms that they assembled on the Sabbath days, not that they were infected any whit with Judaism, which was far from them;Homil de Se­mente. but that they came together on the Sabbath day to worship Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sab­bath. [...], as the Father hath it. So for the Church of Millain, which as before I said, in some certain things followed the Churches of the East; it seems the Saturday was held in a fair esteem, and joyned together with the Sunday. Crastino die & Sabbato, De Sacrament. Lib. 4. cap. 6. & dominice, de orationis ordine dicemus, as S. Ambrose hath it. And probably his often mention of hesternus dies remembred in the former Section, may have relation to the joynt obser­vance of these two days; and so may that which is reported then out of S. Chrysostom and S. Cyril, Eastern Doctors both.Hist. Eccles. Lib. 6. cap. 8. Sure I am Socrates counts both days for weekly Festivals, [...], that on them both the Congregation used to be assembled, and the whole Liturgy performed. Which plainly shews, that in the practice of those Churches they were both regarded, both alike observed. Gregory Nyssen speaks more home and unto the purpose. Some of the People had neglected to come unto the Church upon the Saturday; and on the Sunday he thus chides and re­bukes them for it. [...], &c. With what face (saith the Father) wilt thou look upon the lords day, De Castiga­tione. which hast dishonour­ed the Sabbath, knowest thou not that these days are Sisters, and that whoever doth despise the one, doth affront the other? Sisters indeed, and so accounted in those Churches, not only in regard of the publick meetings, but in this also, that they were both exempt from the Lenten Fast: of which, more anon. In the mean time, we may remember how Saturday is by S. Basil made one of those four times, whereon the Christians of those parts did assemble weekly to receive the Sacrament, as before we noted. And finally it is said by Epiphanius, that howsoever it was not so in the Isle of Cyprus, which it seems held more correspondence with the Church of Rome than those of Asia; Expos. fidei Cathol. 24. yet in some places, [...], they used to celebrate the holy Sacrament, and hold their publick meetings on the Sabbath day: So as the difference was but this, that whereas in the Eastern and Western Churches several days were in commission for Gods publick service; the Lords day, in both places, was of the Quorum, and therefore had the greater worship, because more business.

They held their publick Meetings on the Sabbath-day, VI yet did not keep it like a Sabbath. The Fathers of this learned Age knew that Sabbath hath been abrogated, and profest as much. The Council of Laodicea before remembred, though it ascribe much to this day, in reference to the Congregations then held upon it; yet it con­demns the Jewish observations of the same. [...], &c. It is not fit for Christians, saith the 29. Canon to Judaize, and do no manner of work on the Sabbath days, but to pursue their ordinary labours on it. Conceive it so far forth, as they were no impediment to the publick Meetings then appointed. And in the close of all, [...], If any should be found so to play the Jews, let them be Anathema. So Athanasius, though he defend the publick Meetings on this day, stands strongly notwithstanding for the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath. Not on the by, but in a whole discourse, writ and continued especially for that end and purpose, entituled De Sabbato & circumcisione. One might conjecture by the title, by coupling of these two together, what his mean­ing was; that he contrived them both to be of the same condition. And in his ho­mily De semente, he tells us of the New-moons and Sabbaths, that they were Ushers unto Christ, and to be in Authority till the Master came. [...]. The Master being come, the Usher grew out of all imployment, the Sun once risen,v.p. 1. chap. 8. the Lamp was dar­kened. To other of the Fathers which have said as much, and whereof we have spoken in a place more proper: add Nazianz. Orat. 43. S. Cyril of Hierusalem, Cat. 4. and Epiphanius in the confutation of those several Hereticks that held the Sabbath for a necessary part of Gods publick worship, and to be now observed, as before it was. Of [Page 428]which kind, over and above the Ebionites and Cerinthians, which before we spake of, were the Nazarai, in the second Century, who, as this Epiphanius tell us, differed both from the Jew and Christian. First, from the Jew, in that they did believe in Christ, next from the Christian, [...], in that they still retain the Law, as Circumcision, and the Sabbath, and such things as those. And these I have the rather noted in this place and time, as being,Cont. Cresco­nium l. 8. so Saint Austin tells us, the Ancestors or Original of the Symmachiani, who held out till this very Age, and stood as much for Sabbaths and legal ceremonies as their founders did; whereof consult S. Ambroses preface to the Galatians. Now as these Nazarens or Symmachiani had made a mixt Religion of Jew and Christian; Nazianz. Orat. 19. so did ano­ther sort of Hereticks in these present times contrive a miscellany of the Jew and Gen­tile: Idols and Sacrifices they would not have, and yet they worshipped the Fire and Candle. [...], &c. The Sabbath also they much reverenced, and stood upon the difference of unclean and clean, yet by no means would be induced to like of Circumcision. These they called Hypsistarij, or rather so those doughty fel­lows pleased to call themselves. Add here that it was counted one of the great do­tages of Appollinaris, and afterwards of all his sect, viz. that after the last Resurrection every thing should be done again,Basil. ep. 74. according to the former Law: [...], &c. That we should be cir­cumcised and observe the Sabbath, and abstein from meats, and offer Sacrifice, and finally of Christians become Jews again. Than which saith Basil, who reports it, what can be more absurd, or more repugnant to the Gospel? By which it is most plain and certain, that though the Christians of the East retained the Saturday for a day of publick meeting; yet they did never mean it to be a Sabbath, reckoning them all for Hereticks that so observed it.

Next let us look upon the Sunday, VII what they did on that. For though it pleased the Emperor, by his royal Edict to permit works of Husbandry in the Country, and manumissions in the Cities, on that sacred day; yet probably there were some pure and pious souls, who would not take the benefit of the declaration, or think them­selves beholden to him for so injurious and profane a dispensation. This we will search into exactly, that so the truth may be discovered. And first, beginning with the Council of Eliberis (a Town of Spain) in the beginning of this Age, it was thus decreed.Can. 21. Si quis in civitate positus, per tres dominicas ecclesiam non accesserit, tanto tempore abstineat, ut correptus esse videatur. If any Inhabitant of the Cities absent himself from Church three Lords days together, let him be kept as long from the holy Sacrament that he may seem corrected for it. Where note, Si quis in civitate positus, the Canon reacheth unto such only as dwelt in Cities near the Church, and had no great business, those of the Country being left unto their Husbandry, and the like affairs, no otherwise than in the Emperours Edict, which came after this. And in the Council of Laodicea, not long after,Can. 29. which clearly gave the Lords day place before the Sabbath, it is com­manded that the Christians should not Judaize on the Sabbath day, but that they should prefer the Lords day before it, and rest thereon from labour, if at least they could, but as Christians still. The Canon is imperfect as it stands in the Greek Text of Binius edition; no sense to be collected from it. But the translation of Dionysius Exiguus, which he acknowledgeth to be more near the Greek than the other two, makes the meaning up. Diem dominicum praeferentes ociari oportet, si modo possint. And this agreeably both unto Zonaras the Balsamon, who do so expound it, and saw no doubt the truest and most perfect copies. Thus then saith Zonaras: It is appointed by this Canon that none abstain from labour on the Sabbath-day, which plainly was a Jewish custom,In Canon. Conc. Laod. and an anathema laid on those who offend herein. [...], &c. but they are willed to rest from labour on the Lords day, in honour of the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour. But here we must observe that the Canon adds, [...], in case they may. For by the civil Law it is precisely ordered, that every man shall rest that day, [...], the Hindes and Husband-men excepted. His reason is the very same, with that expressed before in the Emperours Edict. [...], &c. For unto them it is permitted to work and travel on that day, because perhaps if they neglect it, they may not find another day so fit and serviceable for their occasions. The like saith Balsamon, and more; but him we will reserve for the 12th.Ad Eusto chium. Century, at what time he lived. S. Hierom long time after this, tells us of his Egyptian Monks, diebus dominicis orationi tantum & lectionibus vacare, that they designed the Lords day wholly unto prayer and reading of the holy Scriptures, and [Page 429]that they did the like upon other days, completis opusculis, when their task was finished. This plainly shews that it was otherwise with the common people. For what need Hierom have observed it, as a thing notable in his Monks, and peculiar to them; that they spent all the Lords day in religious exercises, had other men so done as well as they. But Hierom tells us more than this of Paula, a most devout and pious woman, who lived in Bethlehem, accompanied with many Virgins and poor Widows, in man­ner of a Nunnery. Of whom he saith that every Lords day they repaired to the Church of God: Et inde pariter revertentes instabant operi distributo, & vel sibi vel coeteris vestimenta faciebant, and after their return from thence they set themselves unto their tasks, which was the making garments for themselves or others: A thing which questionless to good a Woman had not done, and much less ordered it to be done by others; had it been then accounted an unlawful Act. And finally S. Chrysostom, though in his popu­pular discourses he seem to intimate to the People, that God from the beginning did one day in every week to his publick worship, Hom. 10. in Gen. and that he calls upon them often, [...], to destinate that one day, and that day wholly unto those imployments, as Hom. 5. in Mat. 1.Sa. Hom. 3. in Joh. 3. yet he confesseth at the last, that after the dismission of the Congregation every man might apply himself to his lawful business. Only he seems offended with them, that they went presently to the works of their Vocations as soon as they came out of the Church of God, and did not meditate on the Word delivered to them. Therefore he wooeth them unto this, that presently upon their coming home they would take the Bible into their hands and recapitulate with their Wives and Children that which had been deli­vered from the Word of God: [...], and af­terwards to go about their worldly businesses. As for the time appointed to these pub­lick exercises it seems not to be very long. Chrysostom in the place before remembred,Hom. 5. in Matth. 1. saith that it was [...], a very small portion of the day: Origen more precisely hath laid it out, and limited the same, ad unam aut duas horas ex die in­tegro, but to an hour or two at most, no great space of time.In Numer. Hom. 2. Nor indeed could they hold them long, the Sermons being most times exceeding shorts, as may appear by those of the antient Fathers, which are still extant in our hands, and the Liturgy not so full as now it is.

Let it then go for granted, VIII that such as dwelt in populous Cities (for of the Hus­bandman there is no question to be made) might lawfully apply themselves to their several Businesses, the Exercises being ended, and the Assembly broken up: may we conceive it lawful also for any man to follow his honest pleasures on the remainder of that day; to feast it with his Friends and Neighbours, to Dance, or sport, or to be merry in a civil manner? There is a little question of it; for Feasting, first we must take notice, how execrable a thing it was always held, to fast the Sunday: though some now place a great part of their Piety in their fond abstinence on that day. In this respect Tertullian tells us touching the Christians of his time,De Corona mil., c. 3. that they did hold it an impiety to fast the Lords day: die dominico jejunium nefas esse ducimus, as before we noted. Such an impiety that the very Montanists, though otherwise frequent in their Fasts, did yet except this day and the former Sabbath, out of their austerities: as the same Author doth inform us adv. Psychicos. Cap. 15. What was Ignatius's censure of the Sundays Fast, we have seen already. In the declining of the third Age arose the Manichees, and they revived the former dotage. Dominica jejunare non possumus, quia Manichaeos ob istius diei jejunia, merito damnamus. We fast not on the Lords day, saith St. Ambrose, but rather do condemn the Manichees for fasting on it; Now what this Father said, he made good by practice. Baronius tells us out of Paulinus, that he did never dine but on the Saturday, the Sunday, or the memorial of some Martyr: Annals. Anno 374. and that upon those days he did not only cherish and relieve the poor, sed & viri clarissimi ex­ciperentur, but entertained great Persons, men of special eminence. Vincentius Deputy of Gaul, and Count Arbogastis, are there said by name to have been often at his Table upon those days before remembred: and doubt we not, but they had all things fit for such eminent Persons. The like hath been affirmed by St. Austin also:Epl. 86. Die dominica jejunare scandalum est magnum, &c. It is a great offence or scandal to fast upon the Lords day, in these times especially, since the most damnable Heresie of the Manichees came into the World: who have imposed it on their followers, as the Law of God, and thereby made the Lords day fast the more abominable. Now for an in­stance of his Entertainments also upon this day, see l. 22. de civitate dei, c. 8. This probably [Page 430]occasioned Pope Meltiades, who lived in the beginning of this present Century, to pub­lish a Decree, Ne dominica, neve feria quinta jejunaretur, that no man should presume to fast upon the Sunday, or the Thursday. Not on the Sunday, as the day of the Resurre­ction, to cry down the Manichees: nor on the Thursday, as a day of special credit a­mongst the Gentiles, Anno 319. the better to comply with them in those perillous times. After arose up one Eutactus (for so I rather chuse to call him with the learned Cardinal, than yield to Socrates, who falsly doth impute these follies unto Eustathius:) and he would fast the Sunday too;Conc. Tom. 1. Can. 18. but on another ground, on pretence of abstinence. A folly presently condemned in a Provincial Synod held at Gangra of Paphlagonia; where­in it was determined thus, [...], if any fasted on the Lords day on pretence of abstinence, he should be Anathema. Next sprung up one Aerius, no good Sundays man, but one that went not on so good a ground, as Eutactus did. He stood, good man, upon his Christian liberty, and needs must fast upon the Lords day, only because the Church had determined otherwise. Of him St.De haeres. c. 53. Austin tells us in the general, that he cryed down all setled and appointed Fasts, and taught his followers this, that every man might fast as he saw occasion; ne videatur sub lege, lest else he should be thought to be under the Law. More pun­ctually Epiphanius tells us,Haeres. 75. n. 3. that to express this liberty, they used to fast upon the Sun­day, and feast it (as some do if late) upon the Wednesday and the Friday, ancient fasting days. [...] as the Author hath it. Add, that St. Austin tells us of this Aerius, that amongst other of his Heresies, he taught this for one, Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia discerni debere, that there should be no difference between Priests and Bishops; A pregnant evidence, that those who set themselves against the Hier [...]rchy of the Church are the most likely men of all to overthrow all Orders, in the Civil state. Now as the Manichees did use to fast the Sunday, so we they therein imitated by the Priscillianists, Manichaeorum simillimos, the very pictures of the Mani­chees, as St.Epl. 86. Austin calls them, save that these last did use to fast on the Christmass also, and therein went beyond their pattern. And this they did, as Pope Leo tells us, quia Christum dominum in vera hominis natura natum esse non credunt, Epl. 93. c. 4. because they would not be persuaded that Christ the Lord had taken upon him our humane Nature. To meet with these proud Sectaries, for such they were, there was a Council called at Sarago­sa, Caesarea Augusta the Latins call it: wherein the Fathers censured, and anathema­tized all such as fasted on the Lords day, causa temporis, aut persuasionis, aut supersti­tionis; whether it were in reference unto any time,Con. Tom. 1. Can. 2. or mispersuasion, or superstition. In reference unto any times, this seems to make the Sunday fast unlawful in the time of Lent, and so it was accounted without all question. For this look Epiphanius Ex­pos. fid. Cathol. Num. 22. S. Ambr. de Elia & jejunio, cap. 10. S. Hierom epl. ad Lu­cinum. S. Chrysostom Hom. 11. in Gen. 2. In two of which fourfathers, Chrysostom and Ambrose, the Saturday is excepted also. S. Austin Epl. 86. Concil. Agathens. Can. 12. Aurelianens. 4. Can. 2. Humberti Resp. ad libellum Nicetae, and last of all Rupertus, who lived in the beginning of the 12.De divinis Offic. l. 4. c. 9. Century, to descend no lower; who withal tells us, that from the first Sunday in Lent unto Easter day, are 42 days just, whereof the Church fasteth only the 36. it being prohibited by the Canon to fast upon the day of the Resurrection. Ut igitur nostri solennitas jejunii dominico magis coaptetur exemplo, quatuor dies qui hanc dominicam praecedunt, superadditi sunt. Therefore, saith he, that the solemnity of our fast might come more near the Lords Example; the four days which occur between Shrovetuesday and the first Sunday in Lent, were added to make up the number. But to come back unto the times where before we left, partly in detestation of the Hereticks before remembred, but principally in honour of the Resurrection, the Council held at Carthage, Anno 398.Can. 64. did decree it thus. Qui die dominico studiose jejunat, non creda­tur Catholicus, that he which of set purpose did fast the Sunday, should be held no Catholick.

For honest Recreations next, IX I find not any thing to persuade me that they were not lawful: since those which in themselves were of no good name, no otherwise were prohibited in this present Age; than as they were an hindrance to the publick service of the Church,Can. 88. For so it was adjudged in the Council of Carthage, before re­membred, Qui die solenni, praetermisse Ecclesiae solenni conventu, ad spectacula vadit, exconnnunicetur. He that upon a solemn day shall leave the service of the Church, to go unto the common shews, be he excommunicate: where by the way, this Canon reacheth unto those also who are offenders in this kind, as well on any of the [Page 431]other Festivals, and solemn Days, as upon the Sunday: and therefore both alike considerable in the present business. But hereof, and the spectacula here prohibited, we shall have better opportunity to speak in the following Age. And here it is to be observed, that as St. Chrysostom before confessed it to be lawful for a man to look unto his worldly business, on the Lords day, after the Congregation was dismissed: so here the Fathers seem to dispense, who went unto the common shews, being worldly pleasures, though otherwise of no good name, as before we said, in case they did not pretermit Gods publick service. There fore we safely may conclude, that they conceived it not unlawful for any man to follow his honest pleasures, such as were harmless in themselves and of good report, after the breaking up of the Congregation. Of this sort questionless, were shooting, and all manly Exercises, walking abroad, or riding forth to take the Air, civil Discourse, good company, and inge­nuous mirth: by any of which the spirits may be quickned, and the body strengthen­ed. Whether that Dancing was allowed is a thing more questionable; and probably as the dancings were in the former times, it might not be suffered: nay, which is more, it had been infinite scandal to the Church, if they had permitted it. For we may please to know, that in the dancings used of old, throughout the principal Cities of the Roman Empire, there was much impurity and immodesty; such as was not to be beheld by a Christian eye. Sometimes they danced stark naked,Orat. in Pis. Art. 3. in verrem. and that not pri­vately alone, but in publick Feasts. This Cicero objects against Lucius Piso, quod in convivie saltaret nudus; the same he also casts in the Teeth of Verres: and Dejotarus was accused of the like immodesty, whereof perhaps he was not guilty. As for the Women they had armed themselves with the like strange impudency, and though they danced not naked in the open streets, yet would be hired to attend naked at publick Feasts, and after prostitute themselves unto those Guests, for entertainment of the which, they were thither brought, whereof see Athenaeus Dipnos. l. 12. & Sue­ton. in Tiberio, cap. 42.43. And for their dancings in the publick, they studied all those cunning and provoking Arts, by which they might entice young men to wan­tonness, and inflame their lusts; using lascivious gestures, and mingling with their Dances most immodest Songs: nay, which is more than this, sometimes of purpose laying open to the eye and view of the Spectator, those parts which womanhood and common honesty would not have uncovered. Saint Ambrose so describes them, and from him we take it. An quicquam est tam pronum ad libidines, De virginib. lib. 3. quam inconditis motibus, ea quae natura abscondit, vel disciplina nudavit, membrorum operta nudare, lu­dere oculis, rotare cervicem, comam spargere? And in another place he is more particu­lar, Mulieres in plateis inverecundos sub conspectu adolescentulorum intemperantium choros ducunt, jactantes comam, trahentes tunicas, scissae amictus, nudae lacertos, plaudentes ma­nibus, De Elia & jtjunio. c. 18. personantes vocibus, saltantes pedibus, irritantes in se juvenum libidines motu hi­strionico, petulanti oculo, dedecoroso ludibrio. ‘The Women, saith the Father, even in the sight of wanton and lascivious youths, dance immodest Dances, tossing about their hair, drawing aside their coats that so they might lay open what should not be seen; their garments open in many places for that purpose also, their Arms quite bare: clapping their Hands, capering with their Feet, chanting obscene and filthy Songs (for afterwards he speaks de obscoenis cantibus) finally stirring up the lusts of ungoverned men, by those uncomely motions, wanton looks, and shameful Spe­ctacles.’ Saint Basil in his Tract de luxu & ebrietate, describes them much after the same manner; whereof see that Father. Yet think not that all Women were so lewdly given, or so immodest in their dancings: but only common Women which most used those Arts to increase their custom,Athen. Dipnos. l. 12. c. 13. Iuvenal. Sat. 6. & 11. such as were mustered up by Strato King of the Sidonians, to attend his Banquetings; or such loose Trulls as Messalina, and others mentioned in the Poet, who practised those lascivious dances, to inflame their Paramours. Now to these common publick dancings, the people in the Roman Empire had been much accustomed, especially in their height of Fortune, wherein they were extreamly riotous and luxurious. And unto these too many innocent souls both young Men and women, in the first Ages of the Church used to repair sometimes for their Recreation, only to look upon the Sport: and seeing those un­comely gestures, and uncivil sights, went back sometimes possessed with unchaste desires and loose affections, which might perhaps break out at last in dishonest actions. This made the Fathers of this Age, and of some that followed, inveigh, as generally against all dancings, as most unlawful in themselves; so more particularly, against the Sport it self, and beholding of the same, upon those days which were appointed [Page 432]to Gods worship. And to these kind of dancings and to none but these, must we refer those declamations which are so frequent in their writings, whether in reference to the thing, or unto the times. Two only in this Century, have spoken of Dancing as it reflects upon the day: St. Chrysostom, and Ephrem Syrus. St. Chrysostom though last in time shall be first in place,De Eleemos. Orat. 2. T. 6. [...], &c. Therefore, saith he, we ought to solemnize, this day with spiritual honour, not making riotous Feasts thereon, swimming in Wine, [...] drinking to drunkenness, or in wanton dancings; but in relieving of our poor and distressed Brethren. Where note that I have rendred [...], not simply, dancing, but wanton dancing, ac­cording to the nature of the word, which signifieth such dancings, as was mixt with Songs, Stephan. in [...]. according to the fashion at this time in use, [...], choros agito, salto, tripudio, proprie cum canty, as in the Lexicon: and for the quality of the Songs, which in those times they used in dancing, that is shewn before, so that not dancing, simply, but im­modest dancing, such as was then in use, is by him prohibited. And to that purpose Ephrem Syrus, Serm. de dieb. Festis. if the work be his; Festivitates dominicas honorare contendite, &c. Endea­vour carnestly, saith he, to honour the Lords day, not in a worldly sort, but after a spiritual manner, not as the Gentiles keep their Feasts, but as Christians should. A­mongst which customs of the Gentiles that are there forbidden, one and the principal is this, non choreas ducamus, that we use no Dances, that is, no such immodest and un­seemly dancings, as were most practised by the Gentiles, and could not stand with that discreet behaviour which pertained to Christians. This evident by that which Saint Ambrase tells us,De Elia & jejunios, c. 18. Notum est omnibus, nugaces & turpes saltariones ab Episcopis so­lere compesci: It is well known, sa th he, how carefully the Bishops do restrain all toying, light, and beastly kind of Dances. So that in case the dancings be not toy­ing light, nor beastly, as were the Dances of the Gentiles whom they reprehended; neither the Fathers did intend them, nor the Rulers of the Church restrain them.

For the Imperial Constitutions of this present Age, X they strike all of them upon one and the self-same string, with that of Constantine, before remembred; save that the Emperour Gratian, Cod. Theod. Valentinian and Theodosius, who were all partners in the Empire, set out an Edict to prohibit all publick shews upon the Sunday. Nullus die Solis spe­ctaculum praebeat, nec divinam venerationem, confecta solennitate, confundat. Such was the Letter of the Law: which being afterwards enlarged by Theodosius the younger, who lived in the next Century, we shall meet with there. The other Edicts which concern the business that is now in hand, were only explanations and additions, un­to that of Constantine: one in relation to the matter, the other in reference to the time.Cod. Theodos. First in relation to the matter, whereas all Judges were restrained by the Law of Constantine, from sitting on that day, in the open Court, there was a clause, now added touching Arbitrators, that none should arbitrate any litigious Cause, or take cognizance of any pecuniary Business on the Sunday: Debitum publicum, privatumve nullus efflagitet: nec apud ipsos quidem arbitros, vel in judiciis flagitatos, vel sponte dele­cios, ulla sit agnitio jurgiorum: a penalty being inflicted upon them that transgressed herein.Cod. Theodos. l. 8. tit. 8. This published by the same three Emperours, Honorius and Evodius, being that year Consuls, which was in Anno 384, as the former was. Afterwards Valenti­nian and Valens Emperours were pleased to add, neminem Christianum ab exactoribus con­veniri volumus; that they would have no Christians brought upon that day, before the Officers of the Exchequer. In reference to the time, it was thought good by Va­lentinian, Theodosius and Arcadius, all three Emperours together, to make some other Festivals capable of the same exemption. For whereas formerly all the time of Har­vest and of Autumn, was exempt from pleadings; as that the Calends of January or the New years-day, as now we call it, had anciently been honoured with the same immunity: these added thereunto, the days on which the two great Cities of Rome and Constantinople had been built;Cod. Theodos. l. 2. tit. 8. the seven days before Easter day and the seven that followed; together with every Sunday in its course; yea and the Birth-days of them­selves, with those on which each of them had begun his Empire: Sanctos quoque Paschae dies qui septeno vel praecedunt numero vel sequuntur in eadem observatione nume­ramus: necnon & dies Solis (so they call it all) qui repetito inter se calculo revolvun­tur. Parem necesse est haberi reverentiam etiam nostris diebus, qui vel lucis auspicia, vel imperii ortus protulere. Dated VII. Id. Aug. Timasius and Promotus Consuls, which was 389. So that in this regard, the sacred Day had no more priviledg than the Civil, but were all alike; the Emperours day as much respected as the Lords.

Now as the Days were thus established, XI so was the Form of Worship on those days established, brought unto more perfection than it had been formerly, when their As­semblies were prohibited, and their Meetings dangerous, or at least not so safe and free as in this fourth Century. For in these times, if not before, the Priests that waited at the Altar, attired themselves in a distinct Habit at the Ministration, from what they were on other days: the colour white, and the significancy thereof to denote that Holiness wherewith the Priests of God ought to be apparelled; such as the Surplices now in use in the Church of England. Witness St. Hierom for the West, In Ez [...]ch. 44. that in the ministration they used a different habit from that of ordinary times: Religio divina alterum habitum habet in ministerio, alterum in usu vitaque communi: So for the gencral he informs us. For the particular next in a reply unto Pelagius, Adv. Pelag. lib. 1. who it seems disli­ked it, He asks him what offence it could be to God, that Bishops, Priests, Deacons, or those of any other inferiour order, in administratione sacrificiorum candida veste pro­cesserint, did in the ministration of the Eucharist bestir themselves in a white Vesture. And so St. Chrysostom for the East, telling the Priest of Antioch, now how high a Calling the Lord had called them; and how great power they had to repel unworthy men from the Lords Table: adds, That they were to reckon that for their Crown and glory, and not that they were priviledged to go about the Church in a white garment. [...].Hom. 83. in Math. 26. Nor did the Priest only thus avow his calling. The people wanted not some outward signs and Ceremonies, wherewith to honour their Redeemer; and testifie unto the World that they were his servants: and that by bowing of the knee, which in those parts and times was the greatest sign, both of humility and subjection. Bowing the knee, in honour of their Saviour, at the name of Jesus; and reverently kneeling on their knees, when they received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Saint Ambrose tells us of the first,Cap. 9. in his sixth Book de opere Hexaemeri, where speaking of the office of each several member, he makes the bowing of the knee at the name of Jesus, the proper duty of that part. Flexibile genu quo prae caeteris domini mitigatur offensa, &c. The knee saith he, is flexible, by which espe­cially the anger of the Lord is mitigated, his displeasure pacified, and his grace ob­teined. Hoc enim patris summi ergo filium donum est ut in nomine JESU omne genu curvetur. For this, saith he, did the most mighty Father give as a special gift to his only son, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. This makes the matter plain enough, we need go no further, yet somewhat to this purpose may be seen also in St. Hierom in his Comment on the 46. of Esay; For Kneeling or adoring at the in­stant of receiving the holy Sacrament, the same St. Ambrose on those words,De Sp. Sto. lib. 3. cap. 12. Adore his footstool, doth expound it thus. Per scabellum terra intelligitur, per terram autem caro Christi, quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus. By the footstool here, we are to understand the Earth, and by the Earth the flesh of Christ, which we adore in the holy Mysteries: which plainly shews what was the custom of these times.Hom. 3. in Ephess. And so St. Chrysostom tells his Audience, that the great King hath made ready his Table, [ [...]] the Angels ministring at the same, the King himself in presence, why then stand they still? In case they are provided of a wedding gar­ment, why do they not fall down, and then communicate, [...]. Adora & communica as the Latin renders it. Where that the word adoration seem a little strange, we may take notice that it is so used by Bishop Jewel. The Sacrament, saith he, in that sort i.e. in respect of that which they signifie, Desenc. Art. 8. and not in respect of that which they are in themselves, are the flesh of Christ and are so un­derstood, and believed and adored. And in another place of the same 8. Article, Nor do we only adore Christ, as very God; but we do also worship and reverence the Sacrament, and holy Mysteries of Christs Body: yet so that we adore them not with godly honour, as we do Christ himself: So more hereof in Cyril, Bishop of Hierusalem, Catech 5. where adora. is expresly mentioned: and for the close of all, that which is told us by Saint Austin, how in his time the Gentiles charged it on the Christians, that they did worship Ceres and Bacchus; which was occasioned questionless by reason of their kneeling or adoring, when they received the Bread and Wine in the holy Sacrament.Cont. Faust. Manich. lib. 20. cap. 13. Not that this use of kneeling or adoring, was not more ancient in the Church, for such a custom may be gathered both out of Origen and Tertullian, in the Age before: but that this Age affords us the most clear and perfect evidence, for the proof thereof. So for the Musick used in the Congregation, it grew more exquisite in these times, than it had been formerly: that which before was only a melodious kind of pronunciation, being [Page 434]now ordered into a more exact and artificial Harmony. This change was principally occasioned by a Canon of the Council of Laodicea, in the first entrance of this Age. For where before it was permitted unto all promiscuously to sing in the Church, it was observed that in such dissonancy of Voices, and most of them unskilful in the notes of Musick, there was no small jarring and unpleasant sounds. This Council there­upon ordained,Conc. Laodic. Can. 15. [...], &c. [...], that none should sing hereafter in the Congregation, but such as were Ca­nonically appointed to it, and skilful in it. By means whereof before the shutting up of this fourth. Century the Musick of the Church, became very perfect and harmo­nious; suavi & artificiosa voce cantata, Confess. l. 10. cap. 33. as St. Austin tells us. So perfect and harmo­nious, that it did work exceedingly on the affections of the Hearers, and did movere animos ardentius in flammam pietatis, inflame their minds with a more lively flame of Piety; taking them Prisoners by the ears, and so conducting them unto the glories of Gods Kingdom.Ibid. Saint Austin attributes a great cause of Conversion, to the power thereof, calling to mind those frequent tears quas fudi ad cantus Ecclesiae tuae, which had been drawn from him by this sacred Musick; by which his soul was humbled, and his affections raised to an height of godliness. The like he also tells us, in his ninth Book of Confessions, and sixth Chapter. Nor doubt we but it did produce the same effect on divers others; who coming to the Churches, as he then did, to be partakers of the Musick return'd prepared in mind, and well disposed in their in­tentions, to be converted unto God. Now that the Church might be frequented at the times appointed, and so all secret Conventicles stopped, in these divided times wherein so many Heresies did domineer; and that the itching ears of men might not persuade them to such Churches where God had not placed them, so to discourage their own proper Minister: it pleased the Fathers in the Council of Saragossa, Anno 368. [...]an. 2. or thereabouts, to decree it thus. First, Ne latibulis cubiculorum & montium ha­bitent qui in suspicionibus perseverent; that none who were suspected (of Priscillianism, which was the humour that then reigned) should lurk in secret corners, either in Houses or in Hills; but follow the example and direction of the Priests of God. And secondly, ad alienas villas agendorum conventuum causa, non conveniant; that none should go to other places, under pretence of joyning there to the Assembly, but keep them­selves unto their own. Which prudent Constitutions, upon the self-same pious grounds are still preserved amongst us in the Church of England.

Thus do we see upon what grounds the Lords day stands; XII on custom first, and voluntary consecration of it to religious Meetings; that custom countenanced by the Authority of the Church of God, which tacitely approved the same; and finally confirmed and ratified by Christian Princes throughout their Empires. And as the day, so rest from Labours and restraint from Business upon that day, received its greatest strength from the supream Magistrate, as long as he reteined that Power which to him belonged, as after from the Canons and decrees of Councils, the Decre­tals of Popes, and Orders of particular Prelates, when the sole managing of Eccle­siastical affairs was committed to them. I hope it was not so with the former Sabbath, which neither took original from custom, that people being not so forward to give God a day; nor required any countenance or authority from the Kings of Israel to confirm and ratifie it. The Lord had spoken the word, that he would have one day in seven, precisely the seventh day from the Worlds Creation, to be a day of rest unto all his people: which said, there was no more to do, but gladly to submit and obey his pleasure; nec quicquam reliquum erat praeter obsequii gloriam, in the greatest Prince. And this done all at once, not by degrees, by little and little, as he could see the people affected to it, or as he found it fittest for them; like a probation Law made to continue till the next Session, and then on further liking, to hold good for ever; but by a plain and peremptory Order that it should be so, without further trial. But thus it was not done in our present Business. The Lords day had no such command that it should be sanctified, but was left plainly to Gods people, to pitch on this, or any other, for the publick use. And being taken up amongst them, and made a day of meeting in the Congregation for religious Exercises; yet for 300 years there was neither Law to bind them to it, nor any rest from labour or from worldly businesses required upon it. And when it seemed good unto Christian Princes, the nursing Fathers of Gods Church, to lay restraints upon their people, yet at the first they were not general: but only thus, that certain men in cetrain places should lay aside their ordinary and daily works, to attend Gods service in the Church; those whose [Page 435]employments were most toilsome, and most repugnant to the true nature of a Sabbath, being allowed to follow and pursue their labours, because most necessary to the Com­mon-wealth. And in following times, when as the Prince and Prelate, in their se­veral places, indeavoured to restrain them from that also, which formerly they had permitted, and interdicted almost all kind of bodily labour upon that day; it was not brought about without much strugling, and on opposition of the People: more than a thousand years being past, after Christs Ascension, before the Lords day had at­tained that state in which now it standeth, as will appear at full in the following story. And being brought unto that state, wherein now it stands, it doth not stand so firmly, and on such sure grounds, but that those powers which raised it up, may take it lower if they please, yea, take it quite away, as unto the time, and settle it on any other day, as to them seems best, which is the doctrine of some School-men, and divers Protestant Wri­ters of great name and credit in the world: A power which no man will presume to say was ever challenged by the Jews over the Sabbath. Besides, all things are plainly contrary in these two days, as to the purpose and intent of the Institution. For in the Sabbath, that which was principally aimed at, was rest from labour, that nei­ther they, nor any that belonged unto them, should do any manner of work upon that day, but sit still and rest themselves. Their meditating on Gods Word, or on his good­ness, manifested in the worlds Creation, was to that an accessory; and as for reading of the Law in the Congregation, that was not taken up in more than a 1000. years after the Law was given; and being taken up, came in by Ecclesiastical Ordinance only, no Divine Authority. But in the Institution of the Lords day, that which was prin­cipally aimed at, was the performance of religious and Christian duties, hearing the Word, receiving of the Sacraments, praising the Lord for all his mercies, and praying to him joyntly with the Congregation for the continuance of the same rest and cessa­tion from the works of labour, came not in till afterwards; and then but as an ac­cessory to the former duties, and that not setled and established in 1000 years, as before was said; when all the proper and peculiar duties of the day had been at their perfection a long time before. So that if we regard either Institution, or the Autho­rity by which they were so instituted; the end and purpose at the which they princi­pally aimed, or the proceedings in the setling and confirming of them; the difference will be found so great, that of the Lords day no man can affirm in sense and reason, that it is a Sabbath, or so to be observed, as the Sabbath was.

CHAP. IV. The great improvement of the Lords day in the fifth and sixth Ages, make it not a Sabbath.

  • 1. In what estate the Lords day stood in S. Austius time.
  • 2. Stage-plays, and publick shews prohibited on the Lords day, and the other holy-days by Imperial Edicts.
  • 3. The base and beastly nature of the Stage-plays at those times in use.
  • 4. The barbarous and bloody quality of the Spectacula, or shews at this time prohi­bited.
  • 5. Neither all civil business, nor all kind of pleasure restrained on the Lords day by the Emperour Leo, as some give it out. The so much cited Canon of the Council of Mascon proves no Lords day Sabbath.
  • 6. The French and Spaniards in the sixth Age begin to Judaize about the Lords day, and of restraint of Husbandry on that day, in that Age first thought of.
  • 7. The so much cited Canon of the Council of Mascon proves no Lords day Sabbath.
  • 8. Of publick honours done in these Ages to the Lords day by Prince and Prelate.
  • 9. No Evening Service on the Lords day, till these present Ages.
  • 10. Of publick Orders now established for the better regulating of the Lords day-meetings.
  • 11. The Lords day not more reckoned of than the greater Festivals; and of the other holy­days in these Ages instituted.
  • 12. All business and recreation not by Law prohibited, are in themselves as lawful on the Lords day as on any other.

WE are now come unto the times wherein the Church began to settle, L having with much adoe got the better hand of Gentilism, and mastered those stiff Heresies of the Arians, Macedonians, and such others as descended from them: Unto [Page 436]those times wherein the troubles which before distracted her peace and quiet, being well appeased, all things began to grow together in a perfect harmony; what time the faithful being united, better than before in points of judgment, became more uni­form in matters of devotion, and in that uniformity did agree together, to give the Lords day all the honour of an holy Festival. Yet was not this done all at once, but by degrees; the fifth and sixth Centuries being well-nigh spent before it came unto that height which hath since continued. The Emperours and the Prelates in these times had the same affections, both earnest to advance this day above all others, and to the Edicts of the one, and Ecclesiastical constitutions of the other, it stands indebted for many of those priviledges and exemptions which it still enjoyeth. But by degrees, as now I said, and not all at once: For in S. Austin's time, who lived in the beginning of this fifth Century, it was no otherwise with the Lords day than as it was before in the former Age, accounted one of those set days, and probably the principal, which was designed and set apart for Gods publick worship. Amongst the writings of that Father, which are his unquestionably, we find not much that doth conduce to our present business; but what we find we shall communicate with as much brevity as we can.Epi. 86. Decivitat. l. 22. c. 8. The Sundays fast he doth abominate as a publick scandal. Quis deum non offen­dit, si velit cum scandalo totius ecclesiae, die dominico jejunare? The exercise of the day he describes in brief in this form that followeth. Venit Pascha atque ipso die dominico mane, frequens populus praesens erat. Facto silentio, divinarum Scripturarum lecta sunt so­lennia, &c. Easter was come, and on the Lords day in the morning the people had assembled themselves together. All being silent and attent, those lessons out of holy Scripture which were appointed for the time, were read unto them, when we were come unto that part of the publick service which was allotted for the Sermon, I spake unto them what was proper for the present Festival, and most agreeable to the time. Service being done, I took the man along to dinner, (a man he means that had recovered very strangely in the Church that morning) who told us all the story of those sad Calamities which had befallen him. This is not much, but in this little there are two things worth our observation. First, that the Sermon in those times was not accounted either the only, or the principal part of Gods publick service, but only had a place in the common Liturgy; which place was probably the same, which it still retains, post Scripturarum solennia, after the reading of the Gospel. Next that it was not thought unlawful in this Fathers time to talk of secular and hu­mane affairs upon this day, as some now imagine; or to call friends or strangers to our Table, as it is supposed: S. Austin being one of so strict a life, that he would rather have put off the invitation and the story both to another day, had he so conceived it. Nor doth the Father speak of Sunday, as if it were the only Festival that was to be ob­served of a Christian man.Cont. Adimant. c. 16. Other Festivities there were which he tell us of. First generally, Nos quoque & dominicum diem, & Pascha, soleuniter celebramus, & quaslibet alias Christianas dierum festivitates. The Lords day, Easter, and all other Christian Festi­vals were alike to him:Epi. 118. And he enumerates some particulars too, the Resurrection, Passion, and Ascension of our Lord and Saviour, together with the coming of the Holy Ghost, which constantly were celebrated, anniversaria solennitate. Not that there were no other Festivals then observed in the Christian Church, but that those four were reckoned to be Apostolical, and had been generally received in all Ages past. As for the Sacrament, it was not tyed to any day, but was administred indifferently upon all alike, except it were in some few places where it had been restrained to this day alone. Alij quotidie communicant corperi & sanguini dominico, alij certis diebus acci­piunt: alibi Sabbato tantum & dominico, alibi tantum dominico, as he then informs us. As for those works ascribed unto him, which either are not his, or at least are question­able; they inform us thus: The tract de rectitudine Cathol. conversationis, adviseth us to be attent and silent all the time of Divine Service, not telling tales, nor falling into jarrs and quarrels, as being to answer such of us as offend therein, for a double fault: Dum nec ipse verbum Dei audit, nec alios audire permittit, as neither hearkening to the Word of God our selves, nor permitting others. In the 251. Sermon, inscribed De tempore, we are commanded to lay aside all worldly businesses, in solennitatibus sancto­rum, & maxime in dominicis diebus, upon the Festivals of the Saints, but the Lords day specially, that we may be the readier for divine imployments: Where note, that whosoever made the Sermon, it was his purpose that on the Saints days men were to forbear all worldly businesses; and not upon the Lords day only, though on that especially. And in the same it is affirmed, that the Lords day was instituted by the Doctors of the Church, Apostles, and Apostolical men, the honours of the Jewish [Page 437]Sabbath being by them transferred unto it. Sancti ecclesiae Doctores omnem Judaici Sab­batismi gloriam in illam transferre decreverunt. It seems some used to hunt on the Lords day then, for there it is prohibited as a devilish exercise: Nullus [in die dominico] in venatione se occeupet, & diabolico mancipetur officio, with command enough. Nay in the 244. of those de tempore, it is enjoyned above all things, with an ante omnia, that no man meddle with his Wife, either upon the Lords day, or the other holy-days. Ante omnia quoties dies dominicus, aut aliae festivitates veniunt, uxorem suam nullus agnoscat; which I the rather note, though not worth the noting, that those who are possessed with so poor a fancy (and some such there be) would please to be as careful of the Holy-days as of the Sundays, being alike expressed in the Prohibition: One may con­jecture easily, both by the stile, and by the state of things then being in the Christian Church, that neither of these Sermons (not to say any thing of the rest which con­cern us not) could be writ by Austin the latter, every thing therein considered, by no man of Wisdom.

I say as things then were in the Christian Church, II that Sermon was not likely to be Saint Austins. It had been too much rashness to prohibit hunting, being in it self a lawful sport; when such as in themselves were extreamly evil, and an occasion of much sin, were not yet put down. The Cirque and Theatre were frequented hitherto, as well upon the Lords day as on any other; and they were first to be removed before it could be seasonable to inhibit a lawful pleasure. Somewhat to this effect was done in the Age before; the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, having made a Law that no man should exhibit any publick shew upon the Sunday, as before we noted. But this prevailed not at the first. And thereupon the Fathers of the Coun­cil of Carthage, in the first year of this fifth Century, did then and there decree by publick order, to make Petition to the Emperor then being: Ʋt spectacula theatrorum, coeterorumque ludorum die dominiea, vel cateris religionis Christianae diebus solennibus, amove­antur, &c. Their suit was double, first that the Shews exhibited on the Theaters, and other places then used, might no more be suffered on the Lords day, or any other Fe­stival of the Christian Church, especially on the Octaves of the Feast of Easter, what time the People used to go in greater numbers unto the Cirque or Shew-place than the House of God. Then that for other days, no man might be compelled to repair unto them (as they had been formerly) as being absolutely repugnant unto Gods Com­mandments; but that all people should be left at liberty to go or not to go, as they would themselves. Nee oportere quenquam christianorum ad hac spectacula cogi, &c. Sed uti oportet homo in libera voluntate subsistat, sibi divinitus concessa: so the Canon. The Emperour Theodosius thereupon Enacted, that on the Lords day, on the Feast of Christs Nativity, and after to the Epiphany, or Twelfth-day, as we call it commonly; as also on the Feast of Easter, and from thence to Whitsontide, the Cirques and Theaters in all places should be shut up; that so all faithful Christian People might wholly bend them­selves to the service of God. Dominice qui totius septimanae primus est dies, Cod. Theodos. & Natale at­que Epiphaniorum Christi, Paschae etiam & Quinquagesima diebus, &c. Omni theatorum at­que Circensium voluptate per universas urbes earundem populis denegata, totae Christianorum & fideliune mentes dei eultibus eccupentur. So far the letter of the law which was Enacted at Constantinople, the first of February, Anno 425. Theodosius the second time, and Valentinian being that year Consuls. Where still observe how equally the principal Festivities, and the Lords day were matched together; that being held unlawful for the one, which was conceived so of the other. And so it stood until the Emperour Leo, by two several Edicts advanced the Lords day higher than before it was, and made it singular above other Festivals, as in some other things, of which more anon; so in this particular. For in an Edict by him sent unto Amasius, at that time Captain of his Guard, or Prafectus praetorio, he enacts it thus. First generally, Dies festos, Cod. l. 3. tit. 12. de seriis. dies altissimae majestati dedicatos, nullis volumus voluptatibus occupari; that he would have holy days, which had been dedicated to the supream Majesty, not to be taken up with pleasures. What would he have no pleasures used at all on the holy days? No, he saith not so, but only that they should not wholly be taken up with sports and plea­sures, no time being spared for pious and religious duties; nor doth he bar all plea­sures on the Sunday neither, as we shall see anon in the Law it self, but only base, ob­scene, and voluptuous pleasures. Then more particularly for the Lords day thus, in reference to the point in hand, that neither Theater, nor Cirque-sight, nor Comba­tings with Wild Beasts should be used thereon; and if the Birth day or Inauguration of the Emperour fell upon the same, that the Solemnities thereof should be referred to [Page 438]another day; no less a penalty than loss of dignity, and confiscation of estate, being laid on them that should offend against his pleasure. But for the better satisfaction, take so much of the Law it self as concerns this business. Nihil eadem die vendicet scena theatralis, aut Circense certamen, aut ferarum lachrymosa spectacula: Etiam, si in nostrum ortum aut natalem celebranda solennitas inciderit, differatur. Amissionem militiae, proscrip­tionemque patrimonii sustinebit, si quis unquam spectaculis hoc die interesse, [praesumpserit.] Given at Constantinople, Martian and Zeno being Consuls, 469. of our Saviours Birth.

Now for the things prohibited in these several Edicts, III we will take notice of two chiefly, the sports accustomed to be shown on the Stage or Theater; and those Specta­cula, wherein Men with Beasts, and sometimes Men with Men did use to fight toge­ther in the Cirque or Shew-place: 1. That we may know the better what these Princes aimed at, and what the Fathers mean in their frequent invectives against Plays and Shews. And first for that which first is named, the Scene or Stage-play, though they arose from poor beginnings, yet they attained at last to an infinite impudence, such as no modest eye could endure to see, or ear to hear. The whole contexture of the Poems, wanton and lascivious, the speeches most extremely sordid and obscene, the action such as did not so much personate, as perform all base kind of Vices. Their Women, as their parts were framed, did many times act naked on the open Stage, and sometimes did perform the last Acts of Lust, even in the sight of all Spectators; than which what greater scorn could be given to nature, what more immodest spectacle could be represented to the eye of Heaven.De theatro lib. 1. This Caesar Bullinger assures us, and withal makes it the chief cause why both profane and sacred Authors did cry down the Stage, as being a place of such uncleanness: Authores omnes tum sacri tum profani, spurcitiem scenae exagitant, non modo quod fabulae obscenae in scena agerentur sed etiam quod motus gestus­que essent impudici, atque adeo prostibula ipsa in scenam saepe venirent, & scena prostarent. So he: Nor hath he done them wrong, or delivered any thing without good authority. Lactantius and Tertullian have affirmed as much, and from them he had it; moulding up into one relation what they had severally reported. First for their, Women, acting naked,De fals. rel. l. 1. c. 20. Lactantius saith, that so it was in all their plays, devoted to the memory of their Goddess Flora. Exuuntur vestibus populo flagitante meretrices, quae tunc mimorum funguntur officio, &c. The Whores, which used to act those parts, (for who else would do it) were by the people importuned to put off their Cloaths, which they did accordingly; and being naked personated, as the Mimicks used all shameless and immodest gestures, till the most impudent eye amongst them was glutted with so foul a spectacle. Then for the other filthiness,De spectaculis cap. 17. Tertullian tells us, that the common Prostitutes, such as received the filths of all the Town, like the common-sewers, performed those beastly acts on the publick stage, and which was yet more shameful, in the sight and presence of the self-same Sex. Ipsa etiam prostibula, publicae libidinis hostiae, in scena proferuntur, plus misera in praesentia foeminarum, De gubern. Dei. l. 6. as that Author hath it. And sure there must be in them some extream impurities, when Salvian a godly Bishop of this Age, hath told us of them, that such they were, Ʋt ea non solum dicere, sed etiam recordari, aliquis sine pollutione non possit: that none could speak, no not so much as think of them, without some infection. Such, that whereas all other crimes, of what kind soever, Murder, Adultery, and Theft, and Sacriledg, and others of that heinous nature, might with­out any breach of Modesty, be accused and censured: Solae impuritates theatrorum sunt, quae honeste non possunt vel accusari, the baseness of the Theaters was so transcendent, that no man could accuse them, but must put off Modesty. No marvel therefore if the Fathers both of this and the former Ages, used to declame so much against them, and to cry them down; at least to wean the people from them: as being the bane of Chastity, the shipwrack of the Soul, the Devils Temples, the scandal of the World, and the shame of Nature. No marvel if the Council held in Carthage, in the Age be­fore, or any of the Christian Writers of these present times, Salvian and Chrysostom, and the rest, so highly censured those, who left the Church and publick service of the Lord, to go to those impure delights, and unmanlike spectacles; for that the Fathers in the same place assembled, in this present Century, agreed so well together to peti­tion the Emperours then being, to redress this mischief; or lastly that the Emperours of these times, sent out their Edicts, to prohibit such unchristian sports.

As wicked, IV as unchristian, were those other shews against which the self-same Fa­thers do inveigh, against the which the foresaid Council did petition, and the good Emperors before remembred, made their several Laws; though of a very disterent [Page 439]nature: those worthily abominated for their filthy baseness; and these as much to be detested for their inhumanity. It was the custom of the great ones in the State of Rome, to court the favour of the people, by entertaining them with several shews; which in the end became repleat with all kind of cruelty; which fashion afterwards was retained among the Emperours, the better to content the vulgar; and keep them in a good opinion of the present change. Sometimes they entertained their humours by presenting them with divers sorts of crucl and outlandish beasts; which being brought into the place appointed, were chased and hunted up and down, by such as were condemned to die, or otherwise would adventure for reward and hire: In which it hapned many times, that many a man was made a prey unto Bears and Lions, and other beasts of the like fierce and cruel nature: and therefore in the Em­perours Law before recited, are justly called ferarum lacrymosa spectacula; a most pro­per Epithite. Sometimes again they would present them with a shew of Fencers, not such as played at Cudgels, or with Swords rebated, only to shew their activeness, and teach men how to use their Weapons: but such as in good earnest were to fight it out and not give over till the Victory was made good by Death. And these I take to be Cirque fights, or the Circense certamen, principally in the Law prohibited.De spectac. Ter­tullian tells us of the first, ferarum voluptati satis non fieri, nisi & feris humana corpora dissiparentur; that they conceived the Beasts had not sport enough, unless they tore in pieces the wretched bodies of poor men. And to the other, we may well apply the words of Cyprian, Quid potest inhumanius, quid acerbius dici? Epl. 2. li. 2. disciplina est ut peri­mere quis possit gloria quod peremit. ‘What, saith the Father, can be told that is more cruel, more inhumane. Murder is grown into an Art, and they that kill most, have the greatest honour. And so indeed they had, there being Rewards designed for them, that came off with victory:’ liberty, if they had been Bondmen; if freemen, sometimes money, and sometimes a garland of Palm-tree, which being wound about with certain woollen Ribbands called Lemnisci, De spectac. cap. 28. had generally the name of Palmae Lemniscatae. With this Tertullian doth upbraid the Roman people, that whereas sometimes they would cry out to have a notable Murderer cast unto the Lions: Iidem gladiatori atroci rudem petunt, & pileum praemium conferunt, the self-same men would have some cruel swash-buckler or Gladiator, rewarded with a Rod and Cap, the signs of freedom. These barbarous and bloody sights, being so far different from the spirit of meekness, which was the badge and proper cognizance of a Christian; were therefore bitterly inveighed against by the ancient Writers, the Reverend Fa­thers of the Church: and such as harkened not to their Exhortations, esteemed as men given over to a reprobate sence; such as had cast away their livery, and forsook their Master. The nature of these sights, and the opinion had of those that did fre­quent them, we cannot better shew than by the story of Alipius, as St. Austin tells it; and is briefly this, Quidam amici ejus, & condiscipuli, &c.Confession. lib. 6. c. 8. Some friends of his meeting him as he came from Dinner, with a familiar kind of violence, forced him against his will to go with them into the Amphitheater (for there these sports were sometimes held) cru­delium & funestorum ludorum diebus, upon a day designed to these cruel pastimes. He told them by the way, that though they haled his body with them, yet should his eys and soul be free from these bloody spectacles, cum talia aversaretur & detestaretur, which of himself he so detested. But thither he went and took his place, and presently closed his eys that he might not see those dismal sights, which were before him. When as the fight waxed hot, & omnia fervebant immanissimis voluptatibus, and all were taken up with those unmerciful delights, upon a sudden shout, occasioned in the fight, he let loose his eys to see what it meant: Et percussus est graviori vulnere in anima, quam ille in cor­pore, ceciditque miserabilius, quam ille, quo cadente factus est clamor. By means whereof, he became smitten with a greater wound in his soul, than the poor fellow in his body; and fell more miserably by far, than he, upon whose death the said noise was raised. How so? Ut enim vidit illum sanguinem, immanitatem simul ebibit, &c. For presently assoon, as he beheld the blood, he sucked in cruelty, and drew in the furies of the place, being delighted with the wickedness of the sport, and made drunk as it were with those bloody spectacles. Such Plays and shews as these, were not unlawful to be seen on the Lords day only, but on all days else. And such and none but such, were the plays and shews, against the which the Fathers do inveigh with so much bitterness; which as they were unworthy of a Christian eye, so as Religion did prevail, they be­gan to vanish; and finally were put down, I mean these last, by Theodoricus King of the Goths, in Italy. Our plays and theirs, our shews and theirs, yea and our dancings [Page 440]too compared with theirs,Annales, Anno 469. are no more of kin than Alexander the Coppersmith was with Alexander the Great King of Macedon. Nay, if Baronius tells us true, as I think he doth, these Plays and Cirquefights were not prohibited by the Emperour Leo, because he thought them not as lawful to be performed upon the Lords day as on any other, but for a more particular reason. He had a purpose to avenge himself of Asper and Ar­daburius, two great and powerful men that had conspired against his safety; and for the execution of that purpose, made choice of such a time, when the Circensian sports were to be exhibited. Which therefore he prohibited at this time, to be presented on the Sunday, because, though his revenge was just, yet the effusion of so much Christian blood on that sacred day, might be a blemish to Religion. Ne licet justa esset ultio, ta­men diem sacrum ignominia videri posset labefactasse. So far the Cardinal.

A second thing which this Emperour did in the advancing of the Lords day, V was in relation unto Civil, and legal businesses. It was before appointed by the Emperour Constantine, that Judges should not set that day in the open Court; the Emperours Gra­tian, Valentinian and Theodosius added thereunto that none should arbitrate in any brawling and litigious cause upon the same.Cod. l. 2. de fer. lex. 2. And whereas Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius had privileged other days as well as Sunday, from the suits of Court, which days are formerly remembred in their proper place: The Emperour Thedosius the younger, was pleased to add the Feast of Christs Nativity, and so to the Epiphany, or Twelfth-tide, as we use to call it, together with seven days before, and seven days after: [Diem natalis domini, & epiphaniae septem qui praecedunt, & septem qui sequuntur] making this Festival with the rest before remembred, in this case equal with the Sunday, where by the way, we may observe of what antiquity the feast of Epiphany is to be ac­counted, as having got unto such an height in this Emperours time, (he entred on the Empire, Anno 408) as to be priviledged in the self-same manner, as Christmas was. And not in this respect alone, in respect of pleadings, but in a following Law of his, Anno 425. he declared his pleasure, that this day, with the other principal Feasts, as before we noted, was not to be prophaned, as it had been formerly, by the Cirques and Theaters. For the antiquity thereof more might be said, were not this sufficient. Only I add, that in the Eastern Churches from the times of old, they used to lengthen out the Feast of Christmass for 12 days together, not ending the so­lemnities of the same till the Epiphany was gone over; from whence in likelihood that custom came at last to these Western parts: Nativitatem domini Epiphaniae continuantes, duas illas festivitates unam faciunt. Hist. l. 7. c. 32. So Otho Frisingensis tells us of them. But to pro­ceed, it seems that either these Edicts were not well observed, or else the Ministers of the Courts used to meet together for dispatch of business on that day, though the Judges did not. Therefore it seemed good to this Emperour Leo in the year and day above recited, to declare his pleasure thereupon in this form that followeth. Dies festos, Cod. Justin. l. 3. tit. 12. dies altissimae majestati dedicatos, &c. It is our will that the Holy-days being dedicated to the most High God, should not be spent, or wholly taken up in pleasures, or otherwise pro­phaned with vexatious suits. Particularly for the Lords day, that it be exempt from Execu­tions, Citations, entring into Bonds, Apparances, Pleadings, and such like; that Cryers be not heard upon it, and such as go to Law, lay aside their Actions, taking truce a while, to see if they can otherwise compose their differences. For so it passeth in the Edict. Dominicum itaque ita semper honorabilem decernimus & venerandum, ut à cunctis executionibus excusetur. Nulla quenquam urgeat admonitio, nulla fidei-jussionis flagitetur exactio, taceat apparitio, ad­vocatio delitescat, sit idem dies à cognitionibus alienus, praeconis horrida vox sileat, respirent à controversiis litigantis, & habeant foederis intervallum, &c. I have the rather here laid down the Law it self, that we may see how punctual the good Emperour was in silencing those troublesome suits, and all preparatives or appurtenances thereunto; that so men might with quieter minds repair unto the place of Gods publick service; yet was not the Edict so strict, that neither any kind of Pleasures were allowed upon that day, as may be thought by the beginning of the Law, nor any kind of secular and civil business to be done upon it. The Emperour Constantine allowed of manumission, and so did Theodosius too.Cod. l. 2. de. fer. lex. 2. Die dominico emancipare & manumittere licet, reliquae causae vel lites quies­cant, so the latter Emperour: Nor do we find but that this Emperour Leo well allowed thereof; sure we are that he well allowed of other civil businesses, when he appointed in this very Edict that such as went to Law might meet together on this day to com­pose their differences, to shew their evidences, and compare their writings. And sure I am that he prohibited not all kind of pleasures, but only such as were of an obscene and unworthy nature. For so it followeth in the Law: First in relation unto businesses, [Page 441] ad sese simul veniant adversarij non timentes, pacta conserant, transactiones loquantur. Next in relation unto pleasures, Nec tamēn hujus religiosae d [...]ei [...]cia relaxantes, obscenis quem­quam patimur voluptatibus detineri; where note not simply voluptates, but obseenae volup­tates, not pleasures, but obscene and filthy pleasures are by him prohibited, such as the Scena theatralis therein after mentioned; not civil business of all sorts, but brangling and litigious businesses are by him forbidden, as the Law makes evident.Collectar. And thus must Theodorus Lector be interpreted, who tells us of this Emperour Leo, how he or­dained [...], that the Lords day should be kept holy by all sorts of People, that it should be a non-lee day, a day of rest and ease unto them, which is no otherwise to be understood, than as the Law it self intended; however the words of Theodorus seem to be more general? Nor was it long before this Edict, or the matter of it had found good entertainment in the Christian world; the rather since those Churches which lay further off, and were not under the command of the Roman Emperour, taking perhaps their hint from hence, had made a Canon to that purpose. For in a Council held in Aragon, Anno 516. be­ing some 47 years after Leos Edict, it was decreed that neither Bishop, Priest, or any other of the Clergy (the Clergy at that time were possessed of some seats of judica­ture) should pronounce sentence in any cause, which should that day be brought be­fore them. Nullus Episcoporum aut presbyterorum vel Clericorum, Can. 4. propositum cujuscunque causae negotium, die dominico audeat judicare. This was in Anno 516. as before I said, the second year of Amalaricus King of the Gothes in Spain.

Nor stayed they here. The People of this sixth Age wherein now we are, VI began to Judaize a little, in the imposing of so strict a rest upon this day; especially in the Western Churches which naturally are more inclined to Superstition than the Eastern Nations. Wherein they had so far proceeded, that it was held at last unlawful to tra­vel on the Lords day with Wains or Horses, to dress Meat, or make clean the House, or meddle with any manner of Domestick businesses. The third Council held at Orleans, Anno 540. doth inform us so; and plainly thereupon determined,Can. 27. that since these prohibitions abovesaid, Ad Judaicam magis quam ad Christianam observantiam per­tinere probantur, did savour far more of the Jew than of the Christian; Die dominico quod ante licuit, licere, that therefore whatsoever had formerly been lawful on that day, should be lawful still: Yet so that it was thought convenient that men should rest that day from Husbandry, and the Vintage, from Sowing, Reaping, Hedging, and such ser­vile works; quo facilius ad ecclesiam venientes, orationis gratia vacent, that so they might have better leisure to go unto the Church, and there say their Prayers. This was the first restraint which hitherto we have observed, whereby the Husband-man was re­strained from the Plough and Vintage, or any work that did concern him. And this was yielded, as it seems, to give them some content at least, which aimed at greater and more slavish prohibitions than those here allowed of; and would not otherwise be satisfied than by grant of this: Nay so far had this superstition, or superstitious con­ceit about this day prevailed amongst the Gothes in Spain, a sad and melancholick People, mingled and married with the Jews, who then therein dwelt: that in their dotage on this day, they went before the Jews their Neighbours; the Sabbath not so rigorously observed by one, as was the Lords day by the other. The Romans in this Age had utterly defeated the Vandals and their power in Africk; becoming so bad Neighbours to the Gothes themselves. To stop them in those prosperous courses, Theude the Gothish King, Anno 543. makes over into Africk with a compleat Army. The Armies near together, and occasion fair, the Romans on a Sunday set upon them, and put them all unto the sword; the Gothes, as formerly the Jews, never so much as laying hand upon their Weapons, or doing any thing at all in their own defence, only in reverence to the day. The general History of Spain so relates the story, although more at large. A superstition of so sudden and so quick a growth, that whereas till this present Age, we cannot find that any manner of Husbandry or Country labours were forbidden as upon this day, it was now thought unlawful on the same to take a sword in hand for ones own defence. Better such Doctrines had been crushed, and such Teachers silenced in the first beginnings, than that their Jewish speculations should in fine produce such sad and miserable effects. Nor was Spain only thus infected where the Jews now lived; the French we see began to be so inclined. Not only in prohibiting things lawful, which before we specified, and to the course whereof the Council held at Orleans gave so wise a check, but by imputing such Calamities as had fallen amongst them, to the neglect or ill observance of this day. A flash of Lightning, [Page 442]or some other fire from Heaven, as it was conceived, had on the Lords day made great spoil of men and houses in the City of Limoges. This Gregory of Tours, who lived about the end of this sixth Century, pronounceth to have fallen upon them, ob diei dominici injuriam, because some of them used to work upon the Sunday. But how could he tell that, or who made him acquainted with Gods secret counsels? Had Gre­gory been Bishop of Limoges, as he was of Tours, it may be Limoges might have scaped so fierce a censure, and only Tours have suffered in it. For presently he adds, in Turo­nico vero nonnulli ab hoc igne, sed non die dominico, adusti sunt: that even in Tours it self, many had perished by the self same fire; but being it fell not on the Sunday, as it did at Limoges, therefore that misery fell on them for some other reason. Indeed he tells us of this day, that being it was the day whereon God made the light, and after was the witness of our Saviours resurrection: Ideo omni fide à Christianis observari debet, ne fiat in eo omne opus publicum; therefore it was to be observed of every Christian, no manner of publick business to be done upon it. A piece of new Divinity, and never heard of till this Age, nor in any afterwards.

Not heard of till this Age, VII but in this it was. For in the 24th. year of Gunthram, King of the Burgundians, Conc. Matiso­nens. 11. Can. 1. Anno 588. there was a Council called at Mascon, a Town situate in the Duchy of Burgundy, as we now distinguish it; wherein were present Priscus, Evantius, Praetextatus, and many other reverend and learned Prelates. They taking into consideration how much the Lords day was of late neglected; for remedy thereof ordained, that it should be observed more carefully for the times to come: Which Canon I shall therefore set down at large, because it hath been often produced as a principal ground of those precise observances which some amongst us have endea­voured to force upon the consciences of weak and ignorant men. It is as followeth, Videmus populum Christianum temerario more diem dominicum contemptui tradere, &c. It is observed that Christian people do very rashly slight and neglect the Lords day, giving themselves thereon, as on other days, to continual labours, &c. Therefore let every Christian, in case be carry not that name in vain, give ear to our instruction, knowing that we have care that you should do well, as well as power to bridle you, that you do not ill. It followeth, Custodite diem do­minicum qui nos denuo peperit, &c. Keep the Lords day, the day of our new birth, where­on we were delivered from the snares of sin. Let no man meddle in litigious Controversies, or deal in Actions or Law-suits, or put himself at all upon such an exigent, that needs he must prepare his Oxen for their daily work, but exercise your selves in Hymns, and singing Praises unto God, being intent thereon both in mind and body. If any have a Church at hand, let him to unto it, and there pour forth his soul in tears and prayers, his eyes and hands being all that day lifted up to God. It is the everlasting day of rest, insinuated to us under the shadow of the seventh day, or Sabbath, in the Law and the Prophets; and therefore it is very meet that we should celebrate this day with one accord, whereon we have been made what at first we were not. Let us then offer unto God our free and voluntary service, by those great goodness we are freed from the Goal of errour: not that the Lord exacts it of us, that we should celebrate this day in a corporal abstinence, or rest from labour; who only looks that we do yield obe­dience to his holy will, by which contemning earthly things, he may conduct us to the heavens of his infinite mercy. However, if any man shall set at nought this our exhortation, be he assured that God shall punish him as he hath deserved, and that he shall be also subject unto the censures of the Church. In case he be a Lawyer, he shall lose his cause; if that he be an Husband­man or Servant, he shall be corporally punished for it; but if a Clergy-man or Monk, he shall be six months separated from the Congregation. Add here, that two years after this, being the second year of the second Clotaire King of France, there was a Synod holden at Auxerre, a Town of Champagne (concilium Antisiodorense in the Latin Writers) where­in in it was decreed as in this of Mascon, Non licet die dominico boves jungere, vel alia opera exercere; no man should be suffered to yoak his Oxen, or do any manner of work up­on the Sunday. This is the Canon so much urged, (I mean that of Mascon) to prove that we must spend the Lords day wholly in religious exercises; and that there is no part thereof which is to be imployed unto other uses. But there are many things to be considered before we yield unto this Canon, or the authority thereof; some of them being of that nature, that those who most insist upon it, must be fain to traverse. For first it was contrived of purpose with so great a strictness, to meet the better with those men which so extreamly had neglected that sacred day. A stick that bends too much one way, cannot be brought to any straightness till it be bent as much the other. This Synod secondly, was Provincial only, and therefore can oblige none other, but those for whom it was intended, or such who after did submit unto it, by taking it in­to [Page 443]their Canon. Nor will some part thereof be approved by them who most stand up­on it; none being bound hereby to repair to Church, to magnifie the name of God in the Congregation, but such as have some Church at hand; and what will then be­come of those that have a mile, two, three, or more to their Parish Churches, and no Chappel neither? they are permitted by the Canon to abide at home. As for Reli­gious duties here are none expressed, as proper for the Congregation, but Psalms and Hymns, and singing Praise unto the Lord, and pouring forth our souls unto him in tears and prayers; and then what shall we do for Preaching, for Preaching of the Word which we so much call for. Besides, King Gunthram, on whose Authority this Council met, in his Confirmatory Letters doth extend this Canon as well unto the other Holy-days as unto the Sunday; commanding all his Subjects, Vigore hujus decreti & definitionis generalis, by vertue of his present mandate, that on the Lords day, vel in quibuscunque alijs solennitatibus, and all solemn Festivals whatsoever, they should ab­stain from every kind of bodily labour, save what belong'd to dressing meat. But that which needs must most afflict them, is that the Council doth profess this abstinence from bodily labour which is there decreed, to be no Ordinance of the Lords, that he exacteth no such duty from us; and that it is an Ecclesiastical exhortation only, and no more but so. And if no more but so, it were too great an undertaking, to bring all Nations of the World to yield unto the prescript of a private and particular Canon, made only for a private and particular cause; and if no more but so, it concludes no Sabbath.

Yet notwithstanding these restraints from work and labour, VIII the Church did never so resolve it, that any work was in it self unlawful on the Lords day, though to ad­vance Gods publick service, it was thought good that men should be restrained from some kind of work, that so they might the better attend their prayers, and follow their devotions. It's true, these Centuries, the fifth and sixth, were fully bent to give the Lords day all fit honour; not only in prohibiting unlawful pleasures, but in com­manding a forbearance of some lawful business, such as they found to yield most hinde­rance to religious duties. Yea, and some works of piety they affixt unto it for its grea­ter honour. The Prisoners in the common Goals had formerly been kept in too strictly. It was commanded by Honorius and Theodosius, at that time Emperours, Anno 412. that they should be permitted, omnibus diebus dominicus, every Lords day to walk abroad, with a guard upon them; as well to crave the charity of well disposed per­sons, as to repair unto the Bathes for the refreshing of their bodies. Nor did he only so command it, but set a mulct of 20 pound in gold on all such publick ministers as should disobey, the Bishops of the Church being trusted to see it done. Where note, that going to the Bathes on the Lords day was not thought unlawful, though it re­quired, no question, corporal labours; for had it been so thought, as some thought it afterwards, the Prelates of the Church would not have taken it upon them to see the Emperours will fulfilled, and the Law obeyed. A second honour affixt in these Ages to the Lords day, is that it was conceived the most proper day for giving holy Orders in the Church of God; and a Law made by Leo then Pope of Rome, and generally since taken up in the Western Church, that they should be conferred upon no day else. There had been some regard of Sunday in the times before; and so much Leo doth ac­knowledge. Quod ergo à patribus nostris propensiore cura novimus servatum esse, à vobis quoque volumus custodiri, ut non passim diebus omnibus sacerdotalis ordinatio celebretur. Ept. Decret. 81: But that which was before a voluntary act, is by him made necessary; and a Law given to all the Churches under his obedience, Ʋt his qui consecrandi sunt, nunquam benedicti­ones nisi in die resurrectionis dominicae tribuantur, that Ordinations should be celebrated on the Lords day only. And certainly he gives good reason why it should be so, except in extraordinary and emergent cases, wherein the Law admits of a dispensation. For on that day, saith he, The holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles, and thereby gave us as it were this celestial rule, that on that day alone we should confer spiritual orders, in quo collata sunt omnia dona gratiarum, in which the Lord conferred upon his Church all spiritual graces. Nay, that this business might be done with the more solemnity and preparation, it was appointed that those men who were to be invested with holy Or­ders, should continue fasting from the Eve before; that spending all that time in prayer, and humbling of themselves before the Lord, they might be better fitted to re­ceive his Graces. For much about these times the service of the Lords day was en­larged and multiplyed; the Evenings of the day being honoured with religious meet­ings, as the Mornings formerly: Yea, and the Eves before were reckoned as a part or [Page 444]parcel of the Lords day following; Cui à vespere sabbati initium constat ascribi, as the same Decretal informs us. The 251. Sermon de tempore; ascribed unto St. Austin doth affirm as much; but we are not sure that it is his. Note that this Leo entred on the Chair of Rome, Anno 440. of our Saviours birth, and did continue in the same full 20 years; within which space of time he set out this decretal, but in what year particularly, that I cannot find.

I say that now the Evenings of the Lords day began to have the honour of re­ligious Meetings: X for ab initio non fuit sic, it was not so from the beginning. Nor hd it been so now, but that almost all sorts of people were restrained from works; as well by the Imperial Edicts, as by the constitutions of particular Churches; by means whereof the afternoon was left at large, to be disposed of for the best increase of Christian Piety. Nor probably had the Church conceived it necessary, had not the admiration which was then generally had of the Monastick kind of life, facili­tated the way unto it. For whereas they had bound themselves to set hours of prayer,Epitaphium Panlae matr. Mane hora tertia, sexta, nona, vespere, noctis medio, at three of the clock in the Morning, at six, at nine, and after in the Evening, and at midnight, as St. Hierom tells us: the people generally became much affected with their strict Devotions; and seemed not unwilling to conform unto them, as far at least, as might consist with their Vocations: upon this willingness of the people, the service of the Church be­came more frequent than before; and was performed thrice every day in the greater Churches, where there were many Priests and Deacons to attend the same: name­ly, at six, and nine, before Noon; and at some time appointed in the Evening, for the afternoon; accordingly as now we use it in our Cathedral and Collegiate Churches. But in inferiour Towns and petty Villages, where possibly the people could not every day attend so often; it was conceived sufficient that they should have the Morning and the Evening prayer sung or said unto them, that such as would, might come to Church for their devotions: and so it is by the appointment of the Rubrick in our Common Prayer book. Only the Sundays and the Holy days were to be honoured with two several meetings, in the Morning: the one, at six of the clock, which simply was the morning service; the other, at nine, for the administration of the holy Sacra­ment, and Preaching of the Word to the Congregation. This did occasion the distin­ction of the first and second Service, as we call them still: though now by reason of the peoples sloth, and backwardness in coming to the Church of God, they are in most places joyn'd together. So whereas those of the Monastick life, did use to solemnize the Eve or Vigils of the Lords day, and of other Festivals; with the pecu­liar and preparatory service, to the day it self: that profitable and pious custom, be­gan about these times, to be taken up, and generally received in the Christian Church. Of this there is much mention to be found in Cassian; as Institut. lib. 2. cap. 18. l. 3. c. 9. Collat. 21. c. 20. and in other places. This gave the hint to Leo, and St. Austin if he made the Sermon, to make the Eve before, a part or parcel of the day; because some part of the Divine Offices of the day, were begun upon it. And hence it is, that in these Ages, and in those that followed (but in none be­fore) we meet with the distinction of matutinae & vespertinae precationes, Mattins and Evensong, as we call it: the Canons of the Church about these times, beginning to oblige men to the one, as well as formerly to the other. The Council held in Arragon, Conc. Tarta­conens. Can. 7. hereupon ordained, Ʋt omnis clerus die Sabbati ad vesperam paratus sit, &c. That all the Clergy be in readiness on the Saturday vespers, that so they may be pre­pared with the more solemnity, to celebrate the Lords day in the Congregation. And not so only, sed ut diebus omnibus vesperas & matutinas celebrent, but that they diligently say the morning and the evening service, every day continually. So for the mattins on the Sunday, Gregory of Tours informs us of them. Motum est signum ad matutinas, Erat enim dies dominica; how the Bell rung to mattins for it was a Sunday. I have translated it the Bell, according to the custom of these Ages, whereof now we write; wherein the use of Bells was first taken up, for gathering of the people to the house of God: there being mention in the Life and History of St. Loup or Lupus, Baron. Ann. Anno 614. (who lived in the fifth Century) of a great Bell that hung in the Church of Sens in France, whereof he was Bishop, ad convocandum populum for calling of the congregation. Afterwards they were rung on the holy-day Eves, to give the people notice of the Feast at hand, and to advertise them, that it was time to leave off their businesses. Solebant vesperi, initia feriarum campanis praenunciare; so he that wrote the life of Codegundut.

Well then, the Bells are rung, and all the people met together: XI what is expected at their hands? That they behave themselves there like the Saints of God, in fer­vent Prayers, in frequent Psalms, and Hymns, and spiritual Songs, hearing Gods holy Word, receiving of the Sacraments. These we have touched upon before, as things that had been always used from the beginnings of the Church. Collections for the poor, had been sometimes used on this day before: but now about these times, the Offertory began to be an ordinary part of Gods publick Worship. Pope Leo seems to intimate it, in his fifth Sermon de collectis; Et quia die dominico proxima futura est collectio, vos omnes voluntariae devotioni praeparare, &c. and gives them warn­ing of it, that they may be ready. For our behaviour in the Church, it was first ordered by St. Paul, that all things be done reverently, [...], because of the Angels: according to which ground and warrant, it was appointed in these Ages, that every man should stand up, at the reading of the Gospel, and the Gloria Pa­tri; that none depart the Church till the service ended. Pope Anastasius who lived in the beginning of the fifth Age, is said to have decreed the one. Dum S. S. Epl. Decret. 1 ap. Bin. Evan­gelia in Ecclesia recitantur, sacerdotes & caeteri omnes praesentes, non sedentes sed vene­rabiliter curvi, in conspectu sancti Evangclii stantes, dominica verba attente audiant, & fideliter adorent. The Priests, and all else present are enjoyned to stand (their Bo­dies bowed a little in sign of reverence) during the reading of the Gospel; but by no means to hear it sitting: adding some joyful acclamation at the end thereof, such as is that of Glory be to thee O Lord. So for the Gloria Patri, that form of giving to the Lord the Glory which belongs unto him; we find in Cassian, that they used to stand upon their feet at the doing of it: In clausula Psalmi; Institut. lib. 2: c. 8. omnes astantes pro­nunciant magno clamore, Gloria Patri, &c. that gesture being thought most natural and most proper for it. No constitution needed to enjoyn those Duties, which natural discretion of it self, could dictate. As for the last, it seemed the people in those parts, used to depart the Church, some of them, before the Service ended, and the blessing given: for otherwise there had been no Canon to command the contrary. Ex malis moribus bonae nascuntur leges, the old saying is. And out of this ill custom did arise a Law, made in a Synod held in a Town of Gallia Narbonensis, the 22 of the Reign of Alaricus King of the Visi-Gothes, or Western-Gothes Anno 506.Conc. Agathens: Can. 47. that on the Lords day all Lay-people should be present at the publick Liturgy; and none depart before the Blessing. Missas die dominico secularibus audire speciali ordine praecipimus: ita ut egredi ante benedictionem sacerdotis populus non praesumat: So the Canon hath it. Ac­cording unto which it is provided in the Canons of the Church of England, Can. 19. that none depart out of the Church during the time of Service and Sermon, without some reasonable or urgent cause. The Benediction given, and the Assembly broken up, the people might go home no doubt; and being there make merry with their Friends and Neighbours: such as came either to them of their own accord, or otherwise had been invited. Gregory of Tours informs us of a certain Presbyter, that thrust himself into the Bishoprick of the Arverni, immediately upon the death of Sidonius Apollinaris, who died about the year 487: and that to gain the peoples favour, on the next Lords day after, Jussit cunctos cives praeparato epulo invitari, Hist. l. 31. he had invited all the principal Citizens to a solemn Feast. Whatever might be said of him, that made the invitation, no doubt but there were many pious and religious men, that accepted of it. Of Recreations after Dinner until Evening prayers; and after Evening prayer till the time of Supper: there is no question to be made but all were practised, which were not prohibited. Nam quod non prohibetur, permissum est, as Tertullian. Of this more anon.

Thus have we brought the Lords day to the highest pitch; XII the highest pitch that hitherto it had enjoyed, both in relation unto rest from worldly business, and to the full performance of religious Duties. Whatever was done afterwards in pur­suit hereof, consisted specially in beating down the opposition of the common people, who were not easily induced to lay by their business: next in a descant as it were on the former plain-song; the adding of particular restrictions, as occasion was which were before conteined, though not plainly specified, both in the Edicts of the former Emperours, and Constitutions of the Churches before remembred. Yet all this while we find not any one who did observe it as Sabbath, or which taught others so to do: not any, who affirmed that any manner of work was unlawful on it, further than as it was prohibited by the Prince, or Prelate; that so the people might assemble with their greater comfort: not any one, who preached or published, that any pastime, [Page 446]sport; or recreation of an honest name, such as were lawful on the other days, were not fit for this. And thereupon we may resolve, as well of lawful business as of law­ful pleasures: that such as have not been forbidden by supream Authority, whether in Proclamàtions of the Prince, or Constitutions of the Church, or Acts of Parliament, or any such like Declaration of those higher Powers, to which the Lord hath made us subject; are to be counted lawful still. It matters not, in case we find it not re­corded in particular terms, that we may lawfully apply our selves to some kind of business, or recreate our selves in every kind of honest pleasure, at those particular hours and times, which are left at large, and have not been designed to Gods pub­lick service. All that we are to look for, is to see how far we are restrained from labour, or from recreations on the Holy days; and what Authority it is, that hath so restrain­ed us; that we may come to know our duty, and conform unto it. The Canons of particular Churches have no power to do it, further than they have been admitted, into the Church wherein we live: for then being made a part of her Canon also, they have power to bind us to observance. As little power there is to be allowed unto the Declarations and Edicts of particular Princes, but in their own dominions only, Kings are Gods Deputies on the Earth, but in those places only, where the Lord hath set them; their power no greater than their Empire: and though they may command in their own Estates, yet is it extra sphaeram activitatis, to prescribe Laws to Nations. not subject to them. A King of France can make no Law, to bind us in England. Much less must we ascribe, unto the dictates and directions of particular men, which being themselves subject unto publick Order, are to be hearkned to no further, than by their life and doctrine they do preach obedience, unto the publick Ordinances under which they live. For were it otherwise, every private man, of name and credit, would play the Tyrant with the liberty of his Christian Brethren; and nothing should be lawful, but what he allowed of: espe­cially if the pretence be fair and specious, such as the keeping of a Sabbath to the Lord our God; the holding of an holy convocation to the King of Heaven. Example we had of it lately in the Gothes of Spain, and that strange bondage, into which some pragmatick and popular man had brought the French, had not the Council held at Orleans gave a check unto it. And with examples of this kind, must we be­gin the story of the following Ages.

CHAP. V. That in the next six hundred years from Pope Gregory forwards, the Lords day was not reckoned of, as of a Sabbath.

  • 1. Pope Gregories care to set the Lords day free from Jewish rigours, at that time obtruded on the Church.
  • 2. Strange fancies taken up by some about the Lords day, in these darker Ages.
  • 3. Scriptures and Miracles in these times found out, to justifie the keeping of the Lords day holy.
  • 4. That in the judgment of the most learned in these six Ages, the Lords day hath no other ground, than the Authority of the Church.
  • 5. With how much difficulty the people of these times were barred from following their Husbandry and Law-days, on the Lords day.
  • 6. Husbandry not restrained on the Lords day in the Eastern parts, until the time of Leo Philosophus.
  • 7. Markets and Handierafts restrained with no less opposition, than the Plough and Pleading.
  • 8. Several casus reservati in the Laws themselves wherein men were permitted to attend those businesses on the Lords day, which the laws restrained.
  • 9. Of divers great and publick actions done in these Ages: on the Lords day.
  • 10. Dancing, and other sports no otherwise prohibited on the Lords day, than as they were an hindrance to Gods publick Service.
  • 11. The other Holy days as much esteemed of, and observed as the Lords day was.
  • 12. The publick hallowing of the Lords day, and the other Holy days in these pre­sent Ages.
  • 13. No Sabbath all these Ages heard of, either on Saturday or Sunday; and how it stood with Saturday in the Eastern Churches.

WE are now come to the declining Ages of the Church after the first 600 years were fully ended, and in the entrance on the seventh, I some men had gone about to possess the people of Rome with two dangerous fancies; one, that it was not lawful to do any manner of work upon the Saturday, or the old Sabbath, ita ut die Sabbati aliquid operari prohiberent; the other, ut dominicorum die nullus debeat la­rari, that no man ought to bathe himself on the Lords day, or their new Sabbath. With such a race of Christned Jews, or Judaizing Christians was the Church then troubled. Against these dangerous Doctrines did Pope Gregory write his Letter to the Roman Citizens; stiling the first no other than the Preachers of Antichrist: Epl. 3. l. 11. one of whose properties it shall be, that he will have the Sabbath and the Lords day both so kept, as that no manner of work shall be done on either; qui veniens, diem Sabbatum atque dominicum, ab omni faciet opere custodire, as the Father hath it. Where note, that to compell or teach the people, that they must do no manner of work on the Lords day, is a mark of Antichrist. And why should Antichrist keep both days in so strict a manner? Because, saith he, he will persuade the people that he shall die and rise again; therefore he means to have the Lords day in especial honour; and he will keep the Sabbath too, that so he may the better allure the Jews to adhere unto him. Against the other he thus reasoneth. Et si quidem pro luxuria, & voluptate, quis la­vari appetit, hoc fieri nec reliquo quolibet die concedimus, &c. If any man desires to bathe himself, only out of a luxurious and voluptuous purpose (observe this well) this we conceive, not to be lawful upon any day: but if he do it only, for the neces­sary refreshing of his body, then neither is it fit it should be forbidden upon the Sunday. For if it be a sin to bathe, or wash all the body on the Lords day; then must it be a sin, to wash the face upon that day: if it be lawful to be done in any part, why then, necessity requiring, is it unlawful for the whole. It seems then by St. Gregories doctrine, that in hot weather, one may lawfully go into the water, on the Lords day, and there wade or swim, either to wash or cool his body, as well as upon any other. Note also here, that not the quality of the day, but the condition of the thing is to be considered, in the denominating of a lawful or unlawful Act: that things unlawful in themselves, or tending to unlawful ends are unfit for all days; and that whatever thing is fit for any day, is, of it self, as fit for Sunday. Finally he concludes with this, Dominicorum vero die à labore terreno cessandum est, &c. We ought to rest indeed on the Lords day from earthly labours, and by all means to abide in prayers; that if by humane negligence, any thing hath escaped in the six former days, it may be expiated by our prayers on the day of the Resurrection. This was the salve, by him applyed to those dangerous sores, and such effect it wrought upon them, that for the present, and long after we find not any that prohibited working on the Saturday. But at the last, it seems some did; who thereupon were censured and condemned by another Gregory, of that name the seventh. Damnavit docentes, non licere die Sabbati operas facere; as the Law informs us, De consecratione distinct. 3. cap. Pervenit. But this was not till Anno 1074. or after, almost 500 years after the times where now we are. As for the other fancy, that of not going to the Bathes on the Lords day, it seems he crushed that too, as for that particular: though otherwise, the like conceits did break out again, as men began to entertain strange thoughts, and superstitious doctrines, about this day; especially in these declining Ages of the Church, wherein so many errours both in faith and manners, did in fine defile it, that it was black indeed, but with little comliness. The Church, as in too many things, not proper to this place and purpose, it did incroach upon the Jew; much of the cere­monies and Priestly habit in these times established being thence derived: so is it not to be admired, if in some things, particular both Men and Synods began to Judaize, a little, in our present business; making the Lords day no less rigidly to be observed, than the Jewish Sabbath, if it were not more.

For in the following Age, and in the latter end thereof, II when Learning was now almost come to its lowest ebb; there was a Synod held at Friuli, by the command of Pepin then King of France; a Town now in the Territory of the State of Venice. The principal motive of that meeting, was to confirm the doctrine of the holy Tri­nity, and the incarnation of the Word; which in those times had been disputed. The President thereof, Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquilegia: Anno 791. of our Redemption. There, in relation to this day, it was thus decreed. Diem dominicum inchoante noctis initio, i.e. vespere Sabbati, quando signum insonuerit, &c. We constitute and appoint that all Christian men (that is to say, all Christian men who lived within the Canons reach) [Page 448] should with all reverence and devotion honour the Lords day, beginning on the Evening of the day before, at the first ringing of the Bell; and that they do abstain therein, especially from all kind of sin, as also from all carnal acts, Etiam à propriis conjugibus, even from the com­pany of their Wives, and all earthly labours; and that they go unto the Church devoutly, lay­ing aside all suits of Law, that so they may in love and charity praise Gods name together. You may remember that some such device as this was fathered formerly on Saint Austin, but with little reason. Such trim conceits as these had not then been thought of. And though it be affirmed in the preamble to these constitutions, nec novas regu­las instituimus, nee supervacuas rerum adinventiones inbianter sectamur; that they did nei­ther make new rules, or follow vain and needless fancies: Sed sacris paternerum Can [...] ­num recensitis soliis, &c. But that they took example by the antient Canons; yet look who will into all Canons of the Church for the times before, and he shall find no such example. For my part, I should rather think that it was put into the Canon in suc­ceeding times, by some misadventure; that some observing a restraint, ab omni opere carnali, of all carnal acts, might, as by way of question, write in the Margin, etian à proprtir conjugibus, from whence, by ignorance, or negligence of the Collectors, it might be put into the Text. e if it were so passed at first, and if it chance that any be so minded, (and some such there be) as to conceive the Canon to be pure and prous; and the intent thereof not to be neglected: They are to be advertised that the Holy-days must be observed in the self same manner. It was determined so before by the false Saint Austin. And somewhat to this purpose saith this Synod now, that all the greater Festivals must with all reverence be observed and honoured; and that such Holy-days as by the Priests were bidden in the Congregation, Omnibus modis sunt custodienda, were by all ways and means to be kept amongst them; that is, by all those ways and means which in the said Canon were before remembred. In this the Christian plainly out-went the Jew; amongst whose many superstitions there is none such found.Ap. Ainsw. in Ex. 20.10. 'Tis tre indeed, the Jews accounted it unlawful to marry on the Sabbath-day or on the Evening of the Sabbath, or on the first day of the week; lest (say the Rabbins) they should pollute the Sabbath by dressing Meat. Conformably where­unto,Can. 17. it was decreed in a Synod held in Aken, or Aquisgranum, Anno 833. nec nuptias pro reverentia tantae solennitatis celebrari visum est, that in a reverence to the Lords day, it should no more be lawful to Marry, or be Married upon the same. The Jews, as formerly we shewed, have now by order from their Rabbins, restrained themselves on their Sabbath day from knocking with their hands upon a table to still a child; from making figures in the air, or drawing letters in the ground, or in dust and ashes, and such like niceties. And some such teachers, Olaus King of Norway, had no question met with, Anno 1028. For being taken up one Sunday in some serious thoughts, and having in his hands a small walking stick, he took his knife and whitled it, as men do sometimes, when as their minds are troubled, or intent on business. And when it had been told him, as by way of jest, how he had trespassed therein against the Sabbath, he gathered the small chips together, put them upon his hand, and set fire unto them: Ʋt in se ulcisceretur, Matropol. l. 4. t. 8. quod contra divinum praeceptum incautus admisisset; that so, saith Crantzius, he might avenge that on himself, which unawares he had committed a­gainst Gods Commandment. Crantzius, it seems, did well enough approve the solly; for in the entrance on this story, he reckoneth this inter alia virtutum suarum praeconia, amongst the monuments of his piety, and sets it up as an especial instance of that Princes sanctity. Lastly, whereas the modern Jews are of opinion, that all the while their Sabbath lasts, the souls in Hell have liberty to range abroad, and are released of all their torments:P [...]i. ad Domi­vicum. c. 5. So, lest in any superstitious fancy they should have preheminence, it was delivered of the souls in Purgatory, by Petrus Damiani, who lived in Anno 1056. Dominico die refrigerium poenarum habuisse, that every Lords day they were manumitted from their pains, and fluttered up and down the lake Avernus, in the shape of Birds.

Indeed the marvel is the less, III that these and such like Jewish fancies should in those times begin to shew themselves in the Christian Church; considering that now some had begun to think that the Lords day was founded on the fourth Commandment; and all observances of the same, grounded upon the Law of God. As long as it was taken only for an Ecclesiastical Institution, and had no other ground upon which to stand, than the Authority of the Church, we find not any of these rigours annexed unto it. But being once conceived to have its warrant from the Scripture, the Scrip­ture presently was ransacked, and whatsoever did concern the old Jewish Sabbath was applied thereto. It had been ordered formerly that men should be restrained on the [Page 449]Lords day from some kind of labours, that so they might assemble in the greater num­ber; the Princes and the Prelates both conceiving it convenient that it should be so. But in these Ages there were Texts produced, to make it necessary. Thus Clotaire, King of France, grounded his Edict of restraint from servile labours on this day, from the holy Scripture: quia hoc lex prohibet, & sacra Scriptura in omnibus contradicit, be­cause the Law forbids it, and the holy Scripture contradicts it. And Charles the Great builds also on the self same ground, Statuimus secundum quod in lege dominus praecepit, &c. We do ordain according as the Lord commands us, that on the Lords day none presume to do any servile business. Thus finally the Emperour Leo Philosophus in a constitution to that purpose, of which more hereafter, declares that he did so de­termine, secundum quod Sp. Sancto ab ipsoque institutis Apostolis placuit, according to the dictate of the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles by him tutored. So also when the Fa­thers of the Church had thought it requisite, that men should cease from labour on the Saturday in the afternoon, that they might be the better fitted for their devotions the next day, some would not rest till they had found a Scripture for it. Observemus diem dominicum fratres, sicut antiquis praeceptum est de Sabbato, &c. Let us observe the Lords day, as it is commanded, from even to even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath. The 251. Sermon inscribed de tempore, hath resolved it so. And lastly, that we go no further, the superstitious act of the good King Olaus, burning his hand, as formerly was re­lated, was then conceived to be a very just revenge upon himself, because he had of­fended, although unaware, contra divinum praeceptum, against Gods Commandment. Nor were these rigorous fancies left to the naked world, but they had miracles to confirm them. It is reported by Vincentius and Antoninus, that Anstregisilus, one that had probably preached such doctrine, restored a Miller by his power, whose hand had cleaved unto his Hatchet, as he was mending of his Mill on the Lords day, for now you must take notice that in the times in which they lived, grinding had been prohibited on the Lords day, by the Canon Laws. As also how Sulpitius had caused a poor mans hand to wither, only for cleaving wood on the Lords day (no great crime assuredly, save that some parallel must be found for him that gathered sticks on the former Sabbath) and after on his special goodness made him whole again. Of these, the first was made Arch-Bishop of Burges, Anno. 627. Sulpitius being Successor unto him in his See, and as it seems too in his power of working miracles. Such miracles as these, they who list to credit, shall find another of them in Gregorius Turonensis, Miracul. l. 1. c. 6. And some we shall hereafter meet with when we come to England, forged purposely, as no doubt these were, to countenance some new device about the keeping of this day, there being no new Gospel Preached, but must have miracles to attend it, for the greater state.

But howsoever it come to pass, that those four Princes, especially Leo, IV who was him­self a Scholar, and Charles the Great, who had as learned men about him, as the times then bred, were thus persuaded of this day, that all restraints from work and labour on the same, were to be found expressly in the Word of God; yet was the Church and the most Learned men therein of another mind. Nor is it utterly im­possible, but that those Princes might make use of some pretence or ground of Scrip­ture, the better to incline the People to yield obedience unto those restraints which were laid upon them. First for the Church, and men of special eminence in the same for place and learning, there is no question to be made, but they were otherwise per­suaded. Isidore, Arch-Bishop of Sevil, who goes highest,De Eccles. Offic. l. 1.29. makes it an Apostolical Sanction only, on divine commandment; a day designed by the Apostles for reli­gious exercises, in honour of our Saviours Resurrection on that day performed. Di­em dominicum Apostolì ideo religiosa solennitate sanxerunt, quia in eo redemptor noster à mortuis resurrexit. And adds, that it was therefore called the Lords day, to this end and pur­pose, that resting in the same from all earthly acts, and the temptations of the world, we might intend Gods holy worship; giving this day due honor for the hope of the resurrection, which we have therein. The same verbatim is repeated by Beda, lib. de Offic. and by Rabanus Maurus lib. de institut. Cleric. l. 2. c. 24. and finally by Alcuinus de divin. Offic. cap. 24. which plainly shews that all those took it only from an Apostolical usage, an observation that grew up by custom, rather than upon commandment. Sure I am that Alcuinus, one of principal credit with Charles the Great, who lived about the end of the eighth Century, as did this Isidore, in the beginning of the se­venth, saith clearly, that the observation of the former Sabbath had been translated very fitly to the Lords day, by the custom and consent of Christian people. For speak­ing how the Sabbath was accounted holy in the former times, and that the Jews [Page 450]resting thereon, from all manner of work, did only give themselves to meditation and to fasting;Homil. 18. post. Penta. he adds, cujus observationem mos Christianus ad diem dominicum competentius transtulit. Where plainly mos Christianus doth imply no precept, no order or com­mand from the Apostles, that it should be so, and much less any precept in the Old Testament, which should still oblige. And sure I am, Rabanus Maurus speaks only as by way of exhortation, and not armed with any warrant from the Apostles, or other argument from Scripture:Homil. in ai [...]b. dom. Where he adviseth us, à vespera diei Sabbati usque ad vespe­ram diei dominici, sequestrati à rurali opere & omni negotio, solo divino cultui vacemus: Where no man will presume to say, that either rest from Husbandry, and such other business, or the beginning of the Lords day on the Eve before, were introduced by any precept of the Apostles; considering how long it was, before either of them had been used in the Christian Church. And so Hesychius, Bishop of Hierusalem, who flou­rished at the self same time with Isidore, speaks of it only as a custom, or a matter of fact,In Levit. lib. 2. cap. 5. descending by tradition from the Apostles. Apostolorum sequentes traditionem, diem dominicum conventibus divinis sequestramus; which was the most that he could say, for the original thereof, indeed who could more. And as for Isidore himself, whom the others followed,Etymolog. l. 6. c. 18. it's clear that they esteemed the Lords day for no other than a com­mon Holiday; by far inferior unto Ester. Pascha festivitatum omnium prima est. Then followeth Pentecost, Epiphany, Palm-sunday, Maunday-thursday, and in the last place, Dies dominicus, the Lords day. Which questionless he had not placed in so low a room, had he conceived it instituted by any precept, or injunction of those blessed Spirits. So in a Council held at Paris, Anno 829. it was determined positively, that keeping of the Lords day had no other ground than custom only; and that this custom did de­scend ex Apostolorum traditione, immo ecclesiae autoritate, at most from Apostolical tradi­tion, but indeed rather from the Authority of holy Church. And whereas Courts of Law, or Law days, had formerly been prohibited on this day, that so men might in peace and concord go to Church together: the several Councils, that of Friburg, Anno 895. and that of Erpford, Anno 932. though then the times were at the darkest; ascribe it not to any Law or Text of Scripture, but only to the anient Canons. Se­cundùm sanctorum statuta patrum, saith the first, Can. 26. Secundùm Canonicam institu­tionem, saith the second, Cap. 2. And howsoever some have said that Alexander Pope of Rome, of that name the third, refers the keeping of the Lords day to divine com­mandment; yet they that look upon him well, can find no such matter. He saith in­deed that both the Old and New Testament depute the seventh day unto rest, but for the keeping of it holy, both that and other days appointed for Gods publick ser­vice, ecclesia decreverit observanda; that he ascribes alone to the Churches order. De­cret. l. 2. tit. 9. de feriis. cap. 3. The like may be affirmed also of restraint from labout, that it is grounded only on the Authority of the Church, and Christian Princes; how­ever in some regal and imperial Edicts there be some shew or colour added from the Law of God.

I say some shew or colour added from the Law of God. V For as before I said, it is not utterly impossible, but that those Princes might make use of some pretence or shew of Scripture, the better to incline the People to yield obedience unto those restraints which were laid upon them. The Synod held at Mascon, and that in Auxerre, both before remembred, expresly had prohibited all works of Husbandry on this day; the former having added for inforcing of it, not only Ecclesiastical censures, but corporal and civil punishments. But yet this was not found enough to wean the people from their works, their ordinary labours used before, upon that day, and it is no marvel. The Jews were hardly brought unto it, though they had heard God thundring from the holy mountain, that they should do no manner of work upon their Sabbath: It being added thereunto, that whosoever should offend therein, the should die the death. And certainly it was very long before either Prince or Prelate, or both joyned together, with all their power and policy could prevail upon them; either to lay aside their labours, or forbear their Law days, as may appear by many several Edicts of Emperours, de­crees of Popes,Can. 18. and Canons of particular Councils, which have successively been made in restraint thereof. The Synod of Chalons, Anno 662. wherein were 44. Bishops, and amongst them S. Owen, Arch-Bishop of Roman, concluded as had been before, [non nova condentes sed vetera renovantes] that on the Lords day no man should presume to Sow or Plough, or Reap, vel quicquid ad ruris culturam pertinet, or deal in any thing that be­longed to Husbandry; and this on pain of Ecclesiastical censure and correction. But when this did no good, Clothaire the third of France, (for he I think it was who set out [Page 451]that Law) beginning with the Word of God, and ending with a threat of severe chastisement, doth command the same. Die dominico nemo servilia opera praesumat facere, Ltg. Aleman. tit. 39. ap. Brisson. quia hoc lex prohibet, & sacra Scriptura in omnibus contradicit, as before was said. If any do offend herein, in case he be a Bond-man, let him be soundly hastinadoed; in case a Free­man, let him be thrice admonished of it; if he offend again, the third part of his patrimony was to be confiscated: and finally if that prevailed not, he was to be convented before the Governour, and made a Bondslave. So for the Realm of Germany, a Council held at Din­gulofinum, in the lower Bavaria, Anno 772. did determine thus. Festo die Solis, ocio di­vino intentus, prophanis negotiis abstineto; ‘Upon the Sunday (so they call it) let every man abstain from prophane employments, and be intent upon Gods worship: If any man shall work his Cart this day, or busie himself in any such like work, jumenta ejus publica sunto, his Teem shall presently be forseited to the publick use: And if stubbornly they persist to provoke Gods anger, be they sold for Bond-men.’ Hist. l. 3. Ap. Brisson. ut supra. So Aventine reports the Canon. And somewhat like to this was ordered by Theodorius King of the Bavarians, viz. Si quis die dominico, &c. If any man upon the Lords day shall yoak his Oxen, and drive forth his wain, dextrum bovem perdat, his right hand Oxe shall be forthwith forfeit; if he make Hay or carry it in; if he now Corn or carry it in, let him be once or twice admonished; and if he amend not thereupon, let him receive no less than 50 stripes: Yet notwithstanding all this care, when Charles the Great, being King of France, had mastered Germany, which was 789. or thereabouts, there had been little reformation in this point amongst them. Therefore that Prince first published his own Regal Edict, grounding himself secundum quod in lege praecepit dominus, upon the pre­script of Gods Law, and there commands that all men do abstain from the works of Husbandry. Which Edict, since it speaks of more particulars at that time prohibited, we will speak more thereof anon. That not prevailing, as it seems, he caused five se­veral Synods to be assembled at one time, Anno 813. at Mentz, at Rhemes, at Tours, at Chalons, and Arles; in all of which, it was concluded against the Husband-man, and many others more, as we shall see in the next Section. And yet we find some grudging still of the old disease, as is apparent by a Synod held at Rome, Anno 826. under Eugenius the second, chap. 30. another in the same place, Anno 853. under Leo the fourth, Can. 30. the like in that of Compeigne held by Alexander the third, what time he lived an exile in the Realm of France. So for restraint of Law days, or Courts of judgment, those chiefly that determined of mens lives; it was not brought about in these Western parts without great difficulty. Witness, besides the several Imperial Edicts before remembred, Conc. Mogunt. Anno. 813. Can. 37. Rhemens. Can. 35. Tu­ronens. Can. 40. Arelatens. Can. 16. being four of those Councils which were called by Charles, as before was said; as also that of Aken, Anno 836. Can. 20. And though it was determined in the Roman Synod, under Leo the fourth, that no suspected person should receive judgment on that day; a clause being added in the Can [...]; legibus infir­mari judicium eo die depromptum, that all Acts sped upon that day, were void in Law: yet more than 300 years after it was so resolved of, was Alexander the third in Council of Compeigne before remembred, enforced particularly to revive it, and then and there to set it down, Ne aliquis ad mortem vel ad poenam judicetur, that no man should upon that day be doomed to death, or otherwise condemned unto bodily punishment. So difficult a thing it was to wean the People from their labours, and other civil business, unto which they had been accustomed; there being nothing to inforce or induce them to it but humane authority.

On the same reason as it seems, Leo Philosophus, Emperour of Constantinople, VI did make use of Scripture; when in conformity with the Western Churches he purposed to restrain the works of Husbandry, on that day; which till his time had been permitted. The Emperour Constantine had ordained, as before was shewn, that all Artificers, and such as dwelt in Cities, should on the Sunday leave their trades; but by the same Edict gave licence to the Husbandman to pursue his business, as well upon that day as on any other. But contrary this Leo, surnamed Philosophus (he began his Reign, Ann 886.) grounding himself, for so he tells us, on the Authority of the Holy Ghost, and of the Apostles; (but where he sound that warrant from the Holy Ghost, and from the holy Apostles, that he tells us not) restrained the Husbandman from his work, as well as men of other callings. Nicephorus mistakes the man, and attributes it to the former Leo, whom before we spake of in our fourth Chapter.Eccl. hist. c. 22. Quo tempore primus etiam Leo constitutione lata, ut dies dominicus ab omnibus absque labore omni, per ocium transigeretur, festusque & venerabilis esset, quemadmodum & divis Apostolis visum est, praecepit. Where [Page 452]the last clause with the substance of the Edict, make the matter plain, that he mistook the man, though he hit the busineses: the former Leo, using no such motive in all his Edict.Constit. 54. But take it from the Emperour himself, who having told us first that the Lords day was to be honoured with rest from labour; adds next, that he had seen a Law (he means that of Constantine) quae non omnes simul operari prohibendos nonnullosque uti operentur indulgendum censuit; which having not restrained all works, but permitted some, did upon no sufficient reason dishonour that so sacred day. Then followeth. Statuimus nos etiam, quod Sp. Sancto ab ipsoque institutis Apostolis placuit, ut omnes in die sacro, &c. à labore vacent. Neque Agricolae, &c. It is our will, saith he, according to the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, and of the Apostles by him directed, that on that sacred day, whereon we were restored unto our integrity, all men should rest themselves and surcease from labour; nei­ther the Husbandmen nor others, putting their hand that day to prohibited work. For if the Jews did so much reverence their Sabbath, which only was a shadow of ours, are not we which inhabit light and the truth of grace, obliged to honour that day which the Lord hath ho­noured, and hath therein delivered us, both from dishonour and from death? Are not we bound to keep it singularly and inviolably sufficiently contented with a liberal grant of all the rest; and not encroaching on that one which God hath chosen for his service? Nay, were it not a retchless slighting and contempt of all Religion, to make that day common, and think that we may do thereon as we do on others? So far this Emperour determins of it first, and dis­putes it afterwards. I only note it for the close, that it was near 900 years from our Saviours birth, if not quite so much, before restraint of Husbandry on this day had been first thought of in the East; and probably being thus restrained, did find no more obedience there than it had done before in the Western parts.

As great a difficulty did it prove to restrain other things in these times projected, although they carried it at the last. VII The Emperour Constantine had before commanded that all Artificers in the Cities should surcease from labour on the Lords day, as well as those whom he imployed in his seats of justice; and questionless he found obedience answerable to his expectation. But when the Western parts became a prey to new Kings and Nations, and that those Kings and Nations had admitted the Laws of Christ; yet did they not conceive it necessary to submit themselves to the Laws of Con­stantine, and therefore followed their imployments, as before they did. And so it stood until the time of Charles the Great, who in the year 789. published his regal Edict in this form that followeth.In Legib. Aquif granens. Statuimus, secundum quod & in lege dominus prae­cepit, &c. We do ordain, according as it is commanded in the Law of God, that no man do any servile work on the Lords day. This in the general had been before commanded by his Father Pepin, in the Council holden in Friuli, but he now explicates himself in these parti­culars. That is to say, that neither men imploy themselves in works of Husbandry, in dressing of their Vines, ploughing their Lands, making their Hay, fencing their grounds, grubbing of felling Tre [...] working in Mines, building of Houses, planting their Gardens, nor that they plead that day, or go forth on hunting;and that it be not lawful for the Women to weave, or dress cloth, to make Garments, or Needle work, to card their Wool, beat Hemp, wash Cloaths in publick, or sheer Sheep; but that they come unto the Church to divine ser­vice, and magnifie the Lord their God for those good things which on that day he hath done for them. After considering with himself that Fairs and Markets on this day were an especial means to keep men from Church, he set out his Imperial Edict, de nundinis non concedendis, as my Author tells me. Nor did he trust so far to his own Edict, as not to strengthen it, (as the times then were) by the Authority of the Church, and therefore caused those five Councils before remembred, to be Assembled at one time; in four of which it was determined against all servile works and Law days, as also ut mercatus in iis minime sit, Concil. Mogunt. Can. 37. ne mercata excerceant, Remens. can. 35. and so in those of Tours, 40. and Arles 16. That of Chalons, which was the fifth, did only intimate, that whereas the Lords day had been much neglected, the better keep­ing of the same was to be established authentica constitutione, Can. 50. by some Authentical con­stitution of the Emperour himself. But whatsoever care this Emperour took to see his will performed, and the Lords day sanctified, it seems his Successour Ludovicus, was remiss enough; which being found, as found it was, the People fell again to their for­mer labours, Ploughing and Marketting, and Law-days, as before they did. The Council held at Paris, Concil. Pari­siens. l. 1. c. 50. Anno 829. which was but sixteen years after the holding of the aforesaid Synods, much complains thereof; and withal adds, that many of the Pre­lates assembled there, knew both by same and by their own proper knowledge, quos­dam in hoc dit ruralia opera e [...]cercentes, fulmine interemptos, that certain men following [Page 453]their Husbandry on that day, had been killed with lightning, and others with a strange convul­sion of their joints, had miserably perished: whereby say they, it is apparent, that God was very much offended, with their so great neglect of that Holy day. Rather with their so great neglect of their Superiours, in that, nor declaration of their King, nor constitu­tion of the Church, could work so far upon them, as to gain obedience; in things conducing to Gods service. Had working on that day, been so much offensive in the sight of God, likely it is, we might have heard of some such judgments, in the times before: but being not prohibited, it was not unlawful. Now being made un­lawful, because prohibited, God smote them for their frequent workings, at times which were designed to another use; not in relation to the day, but their disobedi­ence. Therefore the Council did advise that first of all the Priests and Prelates, then that Kings, Princes, and all faithful people, would do their best endeavour for the re­storing of that day to its ancient lustre; which had so foully been neglected. Next they addressed themselves particularly to Lodowick and Lotharius then the Roman Emperours, ut cunctis metum incutiant, that by some sharp injunction, they would strike a terrour into all their Subjects, that for the times to come none should presume to Plough, or hold Law-days, or Market, as of late was used. This probably occa­sioned the said two Emperours 852. to call a Synod at Rome, under Leo the fourth:Syn. Rom. Can. 30. where it was ordered more precisely, than in former times, ut die dominico nullus au­deat mercationes, nec in cibariis rebus, aut quaelibet opera rustica facere, that no man should from thenceforth dare to make any Markets on the Lords day, no not for things that were to eat; neither to do any kind of work that belonged to Husbandry. Which Canon being made at Rome, confirmed at Compeigne, and afterwards incorporated, as it was, into the body of the Canon Law (whereof see Decretal. l. 2. tit. 9. de feriis cap. 2.) became to be admitted, without further question, in most parts of Christen­dom; especially when the Popes had attained their height, and brought all Christian Princes to be at their devotion. For then the people, who before had most opposed it, might have justly said. Behold two Kings stood not before him, how then shall we stand? 2 Kings 10. Out of which consternation all men pre?sently obeyed. Tradesmen of all sorts being brought to lay by their Labours: and amongst those, the Miller, though his work was easiest, and least of all required his presence. Nec aliquis à vespera diei Sabbati, usque ad vesperam diei dominicae, ad molendina aquarum vel ad aliqua alia molere audeat. So was it ordered in the Council of Angeirs, (of which see Bochellus) Anno 1282: wherein the Barber also was forbidden to use his Trade.

Yet were not those restraints so strict, as that there was no liberty to be allowed of, VIII either for business or pleasure! A time there was for both, and that time made use of: there being in the Imperial Edicts, and Constitutions of the Church, yea and the decretals of the Popes many reservations, whereby the people might have liberty to enjoy themselves: They had been else in worse condition, than the Jews before. In the Edict of Charles the Great before remembred, though otherwise precise enough, there were three several kinds of carriages, allowed and licensed o the Lords day, i.e. Hortalia carra, vel victualia, vel si forte necesse erit corpus cujuslibet ducere ad sepulchrum; that is to say, carriage of gardening Ware, and carts of Victuals, and such as are to carry a dead corps to burial. So Theodulphus Aurelianensis who lived about the year 836. having first ut it down for a positive Rule, that the Lords day ought with such care to be observed, ut praeter orationes & missarum solennia, Epl. ap. Bibl. Patr. & ea quae ad vescendum pertinent, nil aliud fiat; that besides Prayer, and hearing Mass, and such things as belong to Food, there is directly nothing that may be done: admits of an exception, or a reservation, Nam si necessita [...] fuerit navigandi vel itinerandi, licentia datur. For if (saith he) there be a necessary occasion either of setting Sail, or go­ing a Journey, this may be allowed of: in case they permit not Mass and Prayers. This I find extant as a Canon of the 6. General Council holden in Constantinople: but since both this and all the rest of the same stamp, (there are nine in all) are thought not to belong of right unto it, I have chosen rather to rafer it to this Theo­dulphus, though a private man, amongst whose works I find it in the great Biblio­theca Patrum. Tom. 9. Thus in a Synod held at Coy, within the Realm and Diocess of Oviedo, Anno 1050. it was decreed, that all men should repair to Church on the Lords day, and there hear Mattins, Mass, and other the canonical hours; as also, O­pus servile non exerceant, nec sectentur itinera, that they should do no servile work, Tit. 6. nor take any Journey. Yet with exceptions four or five, namely unless it were for De­votions sake, or to bury the Dead, or to visit the Sick; or finally pro secreto regis, [Page 452] [...] [Page 453] [...] [Page 454]Saracenorum impetu, on special business of the Kings, or to make head against the Saracens. The King was much beholden to them that they would take such care of his State Affairs: more than some Princes might be now, in case their business were at the disposing of particular men. So had it been decreed by several Empe­rours, yea and by several Councils too: which for the East pars was confirmed by Emanuel Comneus the Eastern Emperiour, Anno 1174. [...], that all access to the Tribunal should be quite shut up; that none of those who sat in Judgment should sit on any Cause that day. Yet this not absolutely, but [...], &c. unless the King shall please on any new emergent cause, as many times bu­siness comes unlooked for, to appoint it otherwise. Thus also for the works of la­bour, fishing had been resirained on the Lords day, as toilsom Act, and on he other Holy days, as well as that: yet did it please Pope Alexander the third, (he entred on the Chair of Rome, Decretal. l. 2. tit 9. c 3. Anno 1160.) to order by his decretal, that on the Lords day and the rest, it might be lawful unto those who dwelt upon the Coast, Si halecia terrae in­clinarint, eorum captioni, ingruente necessitate, intendere; to set themselves unto their fishing, in case the Herring came within their reach, and the time was seasonable. Provided that they sent a convenient portion, unto the Churches round about them, and unto the poor. Nay even the works of Handicrafts were in some sort suffered. For whereas in the Council of Laodicea, it was determined, that men should rest on the Lords day, [...], from all their handy work, and repair to Church. Balsa­mon tells us in his Glass, In Can. 29. concil. Laod. that so it was resolved amongst them, [...], not absolutely; but [...], if with conveniency they could. For still, saith he, (he lived in Anno 1191) in case men labour on that day, [...], either because of want or any other necessity they are held excusable. Lastly,Chronic. Adit [...]i. whereas Pope Gregory the ninth had on the Sundays and the Holy days com­manded ut homines & jumenta omnia quiescant, that there should be a general restraint from labour both of man and beast: there was a refervation also, nisi urgens necessitas instet, vel nisi pauperibus, vel Ecclesiae, gratis fiat; unless on great necessity, or some good Office to be done unto the poor, or to the Church.

Nor were there reservations and exceptions only in point of business and nothing found in point of practice; IX but there are many passages, especially of the greatest per­sons, and most publick actions left upon Record; to let us know what liberty that assumed unto themselves, as well on this day as the rest. And in such only shall I instance, and as being most exemplary, and therefore most conducing to my present purpose.Aventine Hist. l. 3. And first we read of a great Battel fought on Palm-Sunday, An. 718. between Charles Martel, Grand master of the Houshold of the King of France, and Hilpericus the King himself; wherein the Victory fell to Charles: and yet we read not there of any great necessity, nay of none at all, but that they might on both sides have de­ferred the Battel, had they conceived it any sin to fight that day. Upon the Sunday before Lent, Anno 835. Ludovick the Emperour [...]urnamed Pius, or the godly, together with his Prelates and others,Baron. which had been present with him at the Assembly held at Theonville, went on his Journey unto Mets: nor do we find that it did derogate at all from his Name and Piety. Upon the Sunday after Whitsontide, Anno 844. Ludo­wick Son unto Lotharius the Emperour made his solemn entrance into Rome: the Roman Citizens attending him with their Flaggs and Ensigns; the Pope and Clergy staying his coming in St. Peters Church there to entertain him. Upon a Sunday, Anno 1014.Ditmarus Hist. l. 7. Otho Frising. hist. l. 6. c. 29. Henry the Emperour duodecim senatoribus vallatus, environed with twelve of the Roman Senatours, came to St. Peters Church, and there was crowned, together with his Wife, by the Pope then being. On Easter day, in ipsa die paschalis solennita­tis, Anno 1027. Conrade the Emperour was solemnly inaugurated by Pope John; Canutus King of England, and Rodalph King of the Burgundians, being then both pre­sent: and the next Sunday after began his Journey towards Germany. Upon Palm Sunday, Anno 1084. Wibert Archbishop of Ravenna was solemnly inthronized in the Chair of Rome: [...]spergen. Chronicon. and the next Sunday after being Easter day, Henry the third Imperiali dignitate sublimatus est, was crowned Emperour. On Passion Sunday, Anno 1148. Lewis the King of France afterwards Canonized for a Saint, made his first entry into Hierusalem with all his Army; and yet we read not any where that it was laid in Bar against him, to put by his Sainting; as possibly it might be now, were it yet to do: What should I speak of Councils on this day assembled, as that of Char­tres, Anno 1146. for the recovery of the Holy land; of Tours, on Trinity Sunday as we [Page 455]call it now, Anno 1164. against Octavian the Pseudo-Pope; that of Ferrara, upon Pas­sion Sunday, Anno 1177. against Frederick the Emperour; or that of Paris, Anno 1226. summoned by Stephen then Bishop there, on the fourth Sunday in Lent, for the con­demning of certain dangerous and erronious positions, at that time on foot. I have the rather instanced in these particulars, partly because they hapned about these times, when Prince and Prelate were most intent in laying more and more restraints upon their people, for the more honour of this day: and partly because being all of them publick actions, and such as moved not forwards but by divers wheels; they did re­quire a greater number of people to attend them. And howsoever Councils in themselves be of an Ecclesiastical nature; and that the crowning of a King in the act it self, be mixed of sacred and of civil: yet in the Train and great attendance that belongs unto them, the Pomp the Triumphs, and concourse of so many people they are meerly secular. And secular although they were, yet we may well persuade our selves, that neither Actor or Spectator, thought themselves guilty, any wise of offering any the least wrong to the Lords day: though those Solemnities no question might without any prejudice have been put off to another time. No more did those who did attend the Princes before remembred in their magnificent Entries into Rome and Metz: or the other military entrance into Hierusalem: which were meer secular Acts, and had not any the least mixture, either of Ecclesiastical or Sacred Nature.

For Recreations in these times, there is no question to be made, X but all were law­ful to be used on the Lords day, which were accounted lawful upon other days;and had not been prohibited by Authority: and we find none prohibited but dancing only. Not that all kind of dancing was by Law restrained: but either the abuse thereof at times unseasonable, when men should have been present in the Church of God; or else immodest shameless dancings, such as were those, against the which the Fathers did inveigh so sharply in the Primitive times. In reference to the first, Damascen tells us of some men, who only wished for the LOrds day, Parallellorum. lib. 3. cap. 47. ut ab opera feriati vitiis operam dent, that being quitted from their labours, they might enjoy the better their sinful pleasures. For look into the streets (saith he) upon other days, and there is no man to be found, die dominico egredere, atque alios cithara canentes, alios ap­plaudentes, & saltantes, &c. But look abroad on the Lords day, and you shall find some singing to the Harp, others applauding of the Musick; some Dancing, others jeering of their Neighbours, alios denique luctantes reperies, and some also wrestling. It followeth, Praeco ad Ecclesiam vocat? omnes segnitie torpent, & moras nectunt: cithara aut tuba personuit? omnes tanquam alis instructi currunt. Doth the Clark call unto the Church? they have a feaver-lurdane, and they cannot stir: doth the Harp of Trumpet call them to their Pastimes? they fly, as they had wings to help them. They that can find in this a prohibition either of Musick, Dancing, publick sports, or manlike Exer­cises, such as wrestling is on the Lords day; must certainly have better eyes than Lynceus, and more wit than Oedipus. Plainly they prove the contrary to what some alledg them: and shew most clearly, that the Recreations there remembred, were allowed of publickly; otherwise none durst use them, as we see they did, in the open streets. Only the Father seems offended, that they preferred their Pastimes before their Prayers; that they made little or no haste to Church, and ran upon the spur to their Recreations: that where Gods publick Service was to be first considered, in the Lords day, and after, on spare times mens private pleasures; these had quite changed the course of Nature, and loved the Lords day more for pleasure than for Devotion. This is the most that can be made, from this place of Damascen; and this makes more for dancing, and such Recreations, than it doth against them, in case they be not used at unfitting hours. Much of this nature, is the Canon produced by some, to con­demn dancing on the Lords day, as unlawful utterly: which being looked into, con­demns alone immodest and unseemly dancings, such as no Canon could allow of upon any day of what name soever. A Canon made by Pope Eugenius in a Synod held at Rome, Anno 826. what time both Prince and Prelates did agree together to raise the Lords day to as high a pitch as they fairly might. Now in this Synod, there were made three Canons which concern this day: the first prohibitive of business and the works of labour; the second against process, in causes criminal; the third, ne núlieres festis diebus vanis ludis vacent; that Women do not give themselves on the Holy days, unto wanton sports: and is as followeth. Sunt quidam, & maxime mulieres, qui festis & sacris diebus, &c. Certain there are, but chiefly Women, which on the Holy days, Can. 35. and [Page 456]Festivals of the blessed Martyrs, upon the which they ought to rest, have no great list to come to Church, as they ought to do: sed balando, & turpia verba decantando, &c. but to spend the time in Dancing, and in shameless Songs, leading and holding cut their Dances as the Pagans used, and in that manners, come to the Congregation. These, if they come unto the Church, with few sins about them, return back with more: and therefore are to be admonished by the Parish Priest, that they must only come to Church to say their prayers; such as do otherwise, destroying not themselves alone, but their Neighbours also. Now in this Canon there are these three things to be considered: First that these Women used not to come unto the Church with that sobriety and gravity which was fitting, as they ought to do: but dancing, singing, sporting, as the Pagans used, when they repaired unto their Temples: secondly, that these dancings were accompanied with immodest Songs, and therefore as unfit for any day, as they were for Sunday: and thirdly, that these kind of dancings were not prohibited on the Lords day only, but on all the Holy days. Such also was the Canon of the third Council of Tolledo, Decret. pars 3. de consecrat. distinct. 3. An. 589. which afterwards became a part of the Canon Law;though by he oversight of the Collector, it is there said to be the fourth: and this will make as little to the purpose, as the other did. It is this that follow­eth, Irreligiosa consuetudo est, quam vulgus per sanctorum solennitates & festivitates agere con­suevit. Populi qui divina officia debent attendere, saltationibus turpibus invigilant, cantica non solum mala canentes, sed etiam religiosorum officiis perstrepunt. Hoc enim ut ab omni Hispania [the Decret reads ab omnibus provinciis] depellatur, sacerdotum ac judicum à sancto Concilio curae commit titur ‘There is an irreligious custom taken up by the common people, that on the Festivals of the Saints, those which should be attent on Divine Service, give themselves wholly to lascivious and shameless dances: and do not only sing unseemly Songs, but disturb the Service of the Church. Which mischief that it may be soon removed out of all the Countrey, the Council leave it to the care of the Priests and Judges.’ Such dances and employed to so bad a purpose, there is none could tole­rate; and yet this generally was upon the Holy days, Saints days I mean, as well as Sundays: whereby we see the Church had no less care of one, than of the other.

And so indeed it had, XI not in this alone, but in all things else: the Holy days, as we now distinguish them, being in most points, equal to the Sunday; and in some superiour. Leo the Emperiour by his Edict shut up the Theater, and the Cirque or shew-place on the Lords day. The like is willed expresly, in the sixth general Council holden at Constantinople, Can. 66. Anno 692. for the whole Easter week. Nequaquam ergo his diebus, equorum cursus, vel aliquod publicum fiat spectacum; so the Canon hath it. The Emperour Charles, restrained the Husbandman and the Tradesman, from fol­lowing their usual work on the Lords day. The Council of Melun doth the same, for the said Easter week, and in more particulars: it being ordered by that Synod, that men forbear,Can. 77. during the time above remembred, ab omni opere rurali, fabrili, carpentario, gynaecaeo, caementario, pictorio, venatorio, forensi, mercatorio, audientiali, ac sa­cramentis exigendis; from Husbandry, the craft of Smiths and Carpenters, from Needle­work, Cementing, Painting, Hunting, Pleadings, Merchandize, casting of Accounts, and from taking Oaths. That Benedictines had but three mess of Pottage upon other days: die vero dominico & in praecipuis festivitatibus, but on the Lords day and the prin­cipal Festivals, a fourth was added; as saith Theodomare the Abbot in an Epistle to Charles the Great. Law-suits and Courts of Judgment were to be laid aside, and quite shut up on the Lords day,; as many Emperours and Councils had determined se­verally. The Council held at Friburg, Anno 895. did resolve the samne of Holy days or Saints days, and the time of Lent. Nullusomnino secularis diebus dominicis, vel San­ctorum in Festis, Conc. Frib [...] ­riens. Can. 26. seu Quadragesimae, aut jejuniorum, placitum habere, sed nec populum illo praesumat coercere, as the Canon goeth. The very same with that of the Council of Erford, Anno 932. cap. 2. But what need private and particular Synods be produ­ced, as witnesses herein, when we have Emperours, Popes, and Patriarchs, that af­firm the same.Ap. Balsam. tit. 7. cap. 1. To take them in the order in which they lived. Photius the Pa­triarch of Constantinople, Anno 858. thus reckoneth up the Festivals of especial note, viz. Seven days before Easter, and seven days after Christmas, Epiphanie, [...], the Feasts of the Apostles, and the Lords day. And then he adds, [...], that on those days, they neither suffer publick shews, nor Courts of Justice. E­manuel Comnenus next,Ap. Balsam. Emperour of Constantinople, Anno 1174. [...], &c. We do ordain, saith he, that these days fol­lowing be exempt from labour, viz. the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, Holy-rood day, and [Page 457]so he reckoneth all the rest in those parts observed) together with all the Sundays in the year; and that in them there be not any access to the seats of judgment. Lib. 2 tit. [...] feriis cap. 5. The like Pope Gre­gory the ninth, Anno 1228. determineth in the Decretal, where numbring up the Holy-days he concludes at last, that neither any process hold, nor sentence be in force, pronounced on any of those days, though both parts mutually should consent upon it. Consentientibus etiam partibus, nec processus habitus teneat, nec sententia quam contingit diebus hujusmodi promulgari. So the Law resolves it. Now lest the feast of Whitsontide might not have some respect as well as Easter, it was determined in the Council held at Engelheim, Anno 948. that Munday, Tuesday, Wednesday, in the Whitsun-week; Cap. 6. non minus quam dies dominicus solenniter honorentur. should no less solemnly be observed than the Lords day was. So when that Otho Bishop of Bamberg had planted the faith of Christ in Pomerania, and was to give account thereof to the Pope then being,Urspergens. Chronic. he cer­tifieth him by his Letters, Anno 1124. that having Christned them, and built them Churches, he left them three injunctions for their Christian carriage. First that they eat no flesh on Fridays: Secondly, that they rest the Lords day ab omni opere malo, from every evil work, repairing to the Church for religious duties: And thirdly, Sanctorum solennitates cum vigiliis omni diligentia observent, that they keep carefully the Saints days, with the Eves attendant. So that in all these outward matters we find fair equality, save that in one respect the principal Festivals had preheminence above the Sunday: For whereas Fishermen were permitted by the Decretal of Pope Alex­ander the third, as before was said, diebus dominicis & aliis festis, on the Lords day and other Holy-days, to fish for Herring, in some cases; there was a special exception of the greater Festivals, praeterquam in majoribus anni solennitatibus, as the other was. But not to deal in generals only, Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil in the beginning of the se­venth Century, making a Catalogue of the principal Festivals, begins his list with Easter, and ends it with the Lords day, as before we noted, in the fifth Section of this Chapter. Now lest it should be thought that in sacred matters and points of substance the other Holy-days wee not as much regarded as the Lords day was: The Council held at Mentz, Anno 813. did appoint it thus, that it the Bishop were infirm, or not at home, Non desit tamen diebus dominicis, & festivitatibus, qui verbum Dei praedicet juxta quod populus intelligat; yet there should still be some to preach Gods Word unto the People, according unto their capacities, both on the Lords day and the other Festivals. Indeed why should not both be observed alike, the Saints days being dedicated unto God as the Lords day is, and standing both of them on the same authority; on the authority of the Church for the particular Institution; on the authority of Gods Law for the general Warrant. It was commanded by the Lord, and written in the heart of man by the pen of nature, that certain times should be appointed for Gods publick worship;the choicing of the times was left to the Churches power, and she designed the Saints days as she did the Lords; both his, and both allotted to his service only. This made Saint Bernard ground them all, the Lords day and the other Holy-days on the fourth Commandment, the third in the Account of the Church of Rome. Serm. 3. Super Salve reg. Spirituale obsequium Deo praebetur in observantia sanctarum solennitatum, unde tertium praeceptum con­texitur. Observa diem Sabbati, i. e. in sacris feriis te exerce. So S. Bernard in his third Ser­mon, Super salve Regina.

The Lords days, and the Holy-days, or Saints days being of so near a kin, XII we must next see what care was taken by the Church in these present ages, for hallowing them unto the Lord. The times were certainly devout, and therefore the less question to be made, but that the Holy-days were employed as they ought to be, in hearing of the Word of God, receiving of the Sacraments, and pouring forth their prayers unto him. The sixth general Council holden at Constantinople, appointed that those to whom the care of the Church was trusted, should on all days, [...], especially on the Lords day, instruct the Clergy and the People out of the holy Scripture in the ways of Godliness. I say the Clergy and the People; for in these times the Revenue of the Church being great, and the offerings liberal, there were besides the Parish-Priest, who had Cure of souls, many assisting Ministers of inferiour Orders, which lived upon Gods holy Altar. Somewhat to this purpose of Preaching every Sun­day, yea, and Saints days too in the Congregation, we have seen before, established in the Council at Mentz, Anno 813. So for receiving of the Sacrament, whereas some would that it should be administred every day, singulis in anno diebus, as Bertram hath it, lib de corp. & sangu. Christi: Rabanus Maurus, who lived 824. leaves it as a thing in­different; advising all men notwithstanding, in case there be no lawful let, to com­municate [Page 458]every Lords day.De Sermon. pr [...]pri [...]tat. [...]. 4.10. Quotidie Eucharistiae communionem percipere nec vitupero nec laudo, omnibus tamen dominicis diebus communicandum hortor, si tamen mens in affectu pec­candi non sit, as his words there are. And whereas this good custom had been long neglected,Can. 21. it was appointed that the Sacrament should be administred every Lords day by the Council at Aken, Anno 836. Ne forte qui longe est à sacramentis quibus est re­demptus, &c. lest, saith the Council, they which keep so much distance from the Sa­craments of their redemption, be kept as much at distance from the fruition of their Salvation. As for the Holy-days or Saints days, there needed no such Canon to en­joyn on them the celebration of the Sacrament, which was annexed to them of course. So likewise for the publick prayers, besides what scatteringly hath been said in former places,C [...] Friburi­en [...]. Can. 26. the Council held at Friburg, Anno 895. hath determined thus, Diebus dominicis & sanctorum festis vigiliis & orationibus insistendum est, & ad missas cuilibet Christiano cum oblationibus currendum: That on the Lords day, and the Festivals of the Saints, every Christian was to be intent upon his devotions, to watch and pray, and go to Mass, and there make his offering. It's true, the Service of the Church being in the Latine, and in these times that Language being in some Provinces quite worn out, and in some others grown into a different dialect from what it was; that part of Gods worship, which was publick prayer, served not so much to comfort and to edification as it should have done. As for the outward adjuncts of Gods publick service on the Churches part, the principalwas that of Musick, which in these Ages grew to a per­fect height. We shewed before that vocal Musick in the Church, is no less ancient than the Liturgy of the Church it self, which as it was begun in Ignatius time, after the manner of plain-song, or a melodious kind of pronunciation, as before was said; so in S. Austins time it became so excellent, that it drew many to the Church, and consequently many to the saith. Now to that vocal Musick which was then in use, and of which formerly we spake; it pleased the Church in the beginning of these Ages to add Instrumental; the Organ being added to the Voice by Pope Vitalian, Anno 653. above 1000 years ago, and long before the aberration of the Church from its pristine piety. And certainly it was not done without good advice, there being nothing of that kind more powerful than melody both Vocaland Instrumental for raising of mens hearts, and sweetning their affections towards God. Not any thing wherein the Militant Church here on Earth hath more resemblance to the Church in Heaven triumphant, than in that sacred and harmonious way of singing praise and Allelujahs to the Lord our God, which is and hath of long been used in the Church of Christ.

To bring this Chapter to an end, XIII in all that hath been said touching the keeping of the Lords day, we find not any thing like a Sabbath, either in the practice of the Church, or writings of particular men; however these last Ages grew to such an height, in restraint of labours on this day, that they might seem to have a mind to revive that part of the fourth Commandment, Thou shalt do no manner of work upon it. For where they tell us of this day, as before was said, that it was taken up by custom on the Authority of the Church, as most on Apostolical tradition; this makes it plain that they intended no such matter as a Sabbath day; though that the Congregation might assemble in the greater numbers, and men might joyn together in all Christian duties with the greater force; it pleased the Church and principal powers thereof to restrain men from cororal labours, and bind them to repair to the House of God. Or if they did intend the Lords day for a Sabbath day, it's plain they must have made more Sabbaths than one day in seven; those Holy-days which universally were ob­served in the Christian Church, being no othersise to be kept than the Lords day was; and those increasing in these Ages to so great a number, that they became a burden to the common people. Nor is it likely, that being once free from the bon­dage of the Jewish Sabbath, they would submit themselves unto another of their own devising; and do therewith, as the Idolaters of old with their woodden Gods, first make them, and then presently fall down and worship them. Rather they took a course to restrain the Jews from sanctifhing their Sabbah, and other legal Festivals, as before they used.Can. 10. Statutum est de Judaeis, in the 12. Council of Tolledo, Anno 681, Ne Sabbata, caeterasque festivitates ritus sui, celebrare praesumant: and not so only, Sed ut diebus dominicis & ab opere cessent, but that they should refrain from labour on the Lords day also. of any Sabbath to be kept in the Christian Church, some few might dream perhaps, such filthy dreamers as Saint Jude speaks of;but they did only dream there­of, they few no such matter. They which had better Visions could perceive no Sub­bath; [Page 459]but in this life a Sabbath or a rest from sin, and in the life to come, a Sabbath, or a rest from misery. Plainly Rupertus so conceived it, as great a Clerk as any in the times wherein he lived, which was in the beginning of the twelfth Century. Nam sicut signum circumcisionis incarnationem, &c. For as, saith he, the sign of Circumcisian foreshewed the Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour, the offering of the Paschal Lamb, his Death and Passion: Sic Sabbatismus ille requiem annunciabat, quae post hanc vitam posita [...]t fanctis & [...]lectis; so did the Sabbath signifie that eternal rest, which after this life is provided for the Saints and elect of God. And more than this, Spiritualis homo non uno die heb­domadis, sed omni tempore Sabbatizare satagit; the true spiritual man keeps not his Sub­bath once a week, but at all times whatever, every hour and minute. What then? would he have no day set apart for Gods publick service; no, but not the Sabbath. Because (saith he) we are not to rejoyce in this world that perisheth, but in the sure and certain hope of the Resurrection; therefore we ought not rest the seventh day in sloth and idleness: But we dispose our selves to prayers and hearing of the Word of God upon the first day of the week, on the which Christ rose: cum summa cura providentes, ut tam illo quam caeteris diebus feriati semper simus à servili opere peccati. Provided always that upon that, and all days else, we keep our selves free from the servile Acts of sin. This was the Sabbath which they principally looked for in this present life; never applying of that name to the Lords day, in any of those monuments of Learning they have left behind them. The first who ever used it, to denote the Lords day, (the first that I have met with in all this search) is one Petrus Alfonsus, he lived about the times that Rupertus did, who calls the Lords day by the name of the Christian Sabbath, Dies domnica, dies viz. resurrectionis, quae suae sal­vationis causa extitit, Christianorum sabbatum est. But this no otherwise to be construed than by Analogy and resemblance, no otherwise than the Feast of Easter is called the Christian Passeover. As for the Saturday, the old Sabbath day, though it continued not a Sabbath, yet it was still held in an high esteem in the Eastern Churches; counted a festival day, or at least no fast, and honoured with the meetings of the Congregation. In reference to the first, we find how it was charged on the Church of Rome, by the sixth Council in Constantinople, Anno 692. that in the holy time of Lent. [...], they used to fast the Saturday, which was directly contrary to the Canons of the Apostles, as they there alledge. This also was objected by Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, against Pope Nicolas of Rome, Anno 867. and after that by Michael of Constantinople, against Leo the ninth, Anno 1053. which plainly shews that in the Eastern Churches they observed it otherwise. And in relation to the other,Curopalat. we find that whereas in the principal Church of Constantinople, the holy Sacrament was celebrated only on the greater feasts, as also on the Saturdays and the Sundays [Sabbatis & dominicis] and not on other days, as at Rome it was: Constantine surnamed Mononi­achus, Anno 1054, enriched it with revenue, and bestowed much fair plate upon it, that so they might be able every day to perform that office. Which proves sufficiently that Saturday was always one in all publick duties, and that it kept even pace with Sunday. But it was otherwise of old in the Church of Rome, where they did laborare & jejunare, as Humbertus saith, in his defence of Leo the ninth against Nicetas. And this with little opposition or interruption, save that which had been made in the City of Rome, in the beginning of the seventh Century, and was soon crushed by Gregory then Bishop there, as before we noted. And howsoever Ʋrban of that name the second,Hect. Boet. hist. l. 22. did consecrate it to the weekly service of the blessEd Virgin, and instituted in the Coun­cil held at Clermont, Anno 1095. that our Ladies office [Officium B. Mariae] should be said upon it, Eandemque Sabbato quoque die, praecipua devotione, populum Christianum colere debere, and that upon that day all Christian folk should worship her with their best de­votions; yet it continued still, as before it was, a day of fasting and of working. So that in all this time, in 1200 years, we have found no Sabbath, nor do we think to meet with any in the times that follow, either amongst the Schoolmen, or amongst the Protestants, which next shall come upon the Stage.

CHAP. VI. What is the judgment of the Schoolmen and of the Protestants, and what the practice of those Churches in this Lords day business.

  • 1. That in the judgment of the Schoolmen, the keeping of one day in seven, is not the mo­ral part of the fourth Commandment.
  • 2. As also that the Lords day is not founded on Divine Authority, but the Authority of the Church.
  • 3. A Catalogue of the Holy-days drawn up in the Council of Lyons; and the new Doctrine of the Schools, touching the native sanctity of the Holy-days.
  • 4. In what estate the Lords day stood, in mat­ter of restraint from labour, at the refor­mation.
  • 5. The Reformators find great fault, both with the said new doctrine, and restraints from labour.
  • 6. That in the judgment of the Protestant Di­vines, the keeping of one day in seven is not the moral part of the fourth Command­ment.
  • 7. As that the Lords day hath no other ground on which to stand, than the Authority of the Church.
  • 8. And that the Church hath power to change the day, and to transfer it to some other.
  • 9. What is the practice of all Churches, the Roman, Lutheran, and Calvinian chiefly in matter of Devotion, rest from labour, and sufferance of lawful pleasures.
  • 10. Dancing cried down by Calvin and the French Churches, not in relation to the Lords day, but the sport it self.
  • 11. In what estate the Lords day stands in the Eastern Churches; and that the Sa­turday is no less esteemed of by the Ethi­opians than the said Lords day.

WE are now come unto an Age wherein the Learning of the world began to make a different shew from what it did, I to such a period of time, in which was made the greatest alteration in the whole fabrick of the Church that ever any time could speak of. The Schoolmen, who sprung up in the beginning of the thirteenth Age, contracted Learning, which before was diffused and scattered into fine subtilties and distinctions; the Protestants; in the beginning of the sixteenth, endeavouring to destroy those buildings, which with such diligence and curiosity had been erected by the Schoolmen, though they consented well enough in the present business, so far as it concern'd the Institution either of the Lords day, or the Sabbath. Of these, and what they taught, and did in reference to the point in hand, we are now to speak; taking along with us such passages of especial note as hapned in the Christian world, by which we may learn any thing that concerns our business. And first beginning with the Schoolmen, they tell us generally of the Sabbath, that it was a Ceremony, and that the fourth Commandment is of a different nature from the other nine: That whereas all the other precepts of the Decalogue are simply moral, the fourth which is the third in their account,22. qu. 122. art. 4. ad 1. is partly moral, partly ceremonial. Morale quidem quantum ad hoc, quod homo deputet aliquod tempus vitae suae, ad vacandum divinis, &c. Moral it is in this regard, that men must set apart some particular time for Gods publick service; it be­ing natural to man to destinate particular times to particular actions, as for his dinner, for his sleep, and such other actions. Sed in quantum in hoc praecepto determinatur speciale tempus in s gnum creationis mundi, sic est praeceptum ceremoniale. But inasmuch as that there is a day appointed in the Law it self, in token of Gods rest, and the worlds cre­ation; in that respect the Law is ceremonial, and ceremonial too they make it, in refe­rence to the Allegory, our Saviours resting in the grave that day; and in relation to the Analogical meaning of it, as it prefigureth our eternal rest in the Heaven of glories. Finally, they conclude of the fourth Commandment, that it is placed in the Deca­logue, in quantum est praeceptum morale, non in quantum est ceremoniale; only so far forth as it is moral, and not as ceremonial: that is, that we are bound by the fourth Com­mandment to destinate some time to Gods publick service, which is simply moral; but not the Seventh day, which is plainly ceremonial, Aquinas so resolves it for all the rest;In Gr at. de Sabbato. his judgment in this point (if Doctor Prideaux note be true, as I have no reason but to think so) being universally embraced, and followed by all the Schoolmen of what sect soever. So that in him we have them all; all of them consonant in this point, to make up the Harmony, however dissonant enough in many others. But [Page 461]that this consent may appear the more full and perfect, we will take notice of two o­thers, men famous in the Schools, and eminent for the times in which they lived. First Bonaventure, who lived in the same time with Aquinas, and died the same year with him. which was 1274. hath determined thus.Serm. de decem praecept. Imelligendum est quod praeceptum illud habet aliquid, quod est mere morale, &c. It is to be conceived, saith he, that in the fourth Commandment there is something which is simply moral, something again that is plainly ceremonial, and something mixt. The sanctifying of a day is Moral; the sancti­fying of a Seventh day, Ceremonial: rest from the works of labour, being mixt of both. Quod praecipit Deus sanctificationem, est Praeceptum morale! Est & in hoc praecepto aliquid ceremoniale, ut figuratio dici septimae. Item continetur aliquid quod est partim morale, partim ceremoniale, ut cessatio ab operibus. Lastly,In Exod. 20. qu. 11. Tostatus Bishop of Avila in Spain hath resolved the same; aliquid est in eo juris naturalis, aliquid legalis: that in the fourth Commandment there is something Natural, and something Legal; that it is partly Moral and partly Ceremonial. Naturale est quod dum Deum colimus, ab aliis abstinea­mus, &c. Moral and Natural it is, that for the time, we worship God, we do abstain from every thing of what kind soever, which may divert our thoughts from that holy action. But that we should design, in every week, one day unto that employment; and that the whole day be thereto appointed; and that in all that day, a man shall do no manner of work: those things he reckoneth there to be Ceremonial.

So for the Lords day, it is thus determined by Aquinas, II that it depends on the au­thority of the Church, the custom and consent of Gods faithful servants;2.20. qu. 122. art. 4. ad 4. and not on any obligation laid upon us by the fourth Commandment. Diei dominicae observantia in nova lege, succedit observantiae sabbati, non ex vi praecepti legis, sed ex constitutione Ec­clesiae & consuetudine populi Christiani. What followeth thereupon? Et ideo non est ita arcta prohibitio operandi, in die dominica, sicut in die Sabbati. Therefore, saith he, the prohibition of doing no work on the Lords day, is not so rigorous and severe, as upon the Sabbath; many things being licensed on the one, which were forbidden on the other: as dressing meat and others of that kind and nature. And not so only, but he gives us a dispensatur facilius in nova lege, an easier hope of dispensation under the Gospel in case upon necessity we meddle with prohibited labours; than possibly could have been gotten under the Law. The like Tostatus tells us, though in diffe­rent words: save that he doth extend the prohibiton, as well to all the Feasts of the Old Testament, as all the Holy days of the New; and neither to the Sabbath, nor the Lords day only. In veteri lege major fuit strictio in observatione festorum, In Exod 20. qu. 13. quam in nova lege. How so? In omnibus enim festivitatibus nostris quantaecunque sint, &c. Because, saith he, in all our Festivals how great soever, whether they be the Lords days, or the feasts of Easter, or any of the higher rank, it is permitted to dress meat and to kindle fire, &c. As for the grounds whereon they stood, he makes this difference between them, that the Jews Sabbath had its warrant from Divine commandment; but that the Lords day, though it came in the place thereof, is founded only on Ecclesiastical constitution. Colebatur Sabbatum ex mandato Dei, cujus loco successit dies dominica, In Matth 23. qu. 148. & tamen mani­festum est, quod observatio diei dominicae, non est de jure divino, sed de jure humano Canonico. This is plain enough; and this he proves, because the Church hath still a power mu­tare illum diem, vel totaliter tollere, either to change the day, or take it utterly away, and to dispense touching the keeping of the same: which possibly it neither could nor ought to do, were the Lords day of any other institution, than the Churches only. They only have the power to repeal a Law, which had power to make it; Qui habet institutionem, habet destitutionem, as is the Bishops plea in a Quare Impedit. As for the first of these two powers, that by the Church the day may be transferred, and abrogated; Suarez hath thus distinguished in it; verum id esse absolute, non pra­ctice: that is, as I conceive his meaning, that such a power is absolutely in the Church, though not convenient now to be put in practice. According unto that of St. Paul, which probably was the ground of the distinction. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. This is the general tendry of the Roman Schools, that which is publickly avowed, and made good amongst them. And howsoever Petrus de Anchorana and Nicholas Abbat of Patermo two learned Canonists; as also Angelus de Clavasio, and Silvester de Prierats, two as learned Casuists, seem to defend the insti­tution of the Lords day to have its ground and warrant on divine Authority: yet did the general current of the Schools, and of the Canonists also, run the other way. And in that current still it holds, the Jesuits and most learned men in the Church of Rome, following the general and received opinion of the Schoolmen, whereof see [Page 462] Bellarm. de cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 11. Estius in 3. Sent. dist. 37. Sect. 13. but especially Agsorius, in his Institut. Moral. part second cap. 2. who gives us an whole Catalogue or them, which hold the Lords day to be founded only on the authority of the Church. Touching the other power, the power of Dispensation, there is not any thing more certain, than that the Church both may and doth dispense with such as have therein offended against her Canons. The Canons in themselves do profess as much; there being many casus reservati, as before we said, expressed particularly in those Laws and constitutions, which have been made about the keeping of this day, and the other Festivals; wherein a dispensation lieth, if we disobey them. Many of these were specified in the former Ages; and some occur in these whereof now we write. It pleased Pope Gregory the ninth,Decretal. l. 2. tit. de feriis. cap. 5. Anno 1228. to inhibit all contentious Suits on the Lords day and the other Festivals; and to inhibit them so far, that judgment given on any of them, should be counted void, Etiam consentientibus partibus, although both parties were consenting. Yet was it with this clause, or reservation, nisi vel necessitas urgeat vel pietas suadeat, unless necessity inforced, or piety persuaded that it should be done. So in a Synod holden in Valladolit [apud vallem Oleti] in the parts of Spain, Concil. Sabi­ness. de [...]feriis. Anno 1322. a general restraint was ratified that had been formerly in force, quod nullus in diebus dominicis & festivis, agros colere audeat, aut manualia artificia exer­cere praesitmat; that none should henceforth follow Husbandry; or exercise himself in mechanick Trades upon the Lords day or the other Holy days: Yet was it with the same Proviso, nisi urgente necessitate, vel evidentis pietatis causa, unless upon necessity, or apparent piety or charity: in each of which he might have licence from the Priest, his own Parish-Priest, to attend his business. Where still observe that the restraint was no less peremptory on the other Holy days, than on the Lords day.

These Holy days as they were named particularly in Pope Gregories Decretal; III so was a perfect list made of them in the Synod of Lyons, [...]e consecrat. distinct. 3. c. 1. Anno 1244. which being ce­lebrated with a great concourse of people, from all parts of Christendom, the Canons and decrees thereof, began forthwith to find a general admittance. The Holy days allowed of there, were these that follow, viz. the feast of Christs nativity, St. Stephen, St John the Evangelist, the Innocents, St. Silv [...]ster, the Circumcision of our Lord, the Epiphany, Easter, together with the week precedent, and the week succeeding, the three days in Rogation week, the day of Christs Ascension, Whitsunday, with the two days after, St. John the Baptist, the feasts of all the twelve Apostles, all the festivities of our Lady, St. Lawrence, all the Lords days in the year, St. Michael the Archangel, All Saints, St. Martins, the Wakes or dedication of particular Churches, together with the Feasts of such topical or local Saints which some particular people had been pleased to honour, with a day particular amongst themselves. On these and every one of them the people were restrained, as before was said, from many several kinds of work, on pain of Ecclesiastical censures to be laid on them, which did offend: unless on some emergent causes, either of charity or necessity, they were dispensed with for so doing. In other of the Festivals which had not yet attained to so great an height, the Council thought not fit perhaps by reason of their numbers, that men should be restrained from labour; as neither that they should be incouraged to it, but left them to themselves, to bestow those times, as might stand best with their affairs, and the Common wealth. For so the Synod did determine, Reliquis festivitatibus quae per annum sunt, non esse plebem cogendam ad feriandum sed nec probibendam. And in this state things stood a long time together, there being none that proferd opposi­tion, in reference to these restraints from labour on the greater Festivals; though some there were, that thought the Festivals too many, on which those burden of re­straints had unadvisedly been imposed on the common people. Nicholas de Cleman­gis, complained much as of some other abuses in the Church, so of the multitude of Holy days, Ap. Hospin cap. [...] de fest. [...]. which had of late times been brought into it. And Pet. de Aliaco Cardi­nal of Cambray, in a Discourse by him exhibited to the Council of Constance, made publick suit unto the Fathers there assembled, that there might a stop be put in that kind, hereafter: as also that excepting Sundays and the greater Festivals, liceret operari post auditum officium, it might be lawful for the people, after the end of Divine Service, to attend their businesses: the poor especially having little time enough on the work­ing days, ad vitae necessaria procuranda, to get their livings. But these were only the expressions of well wishing men. The Popes were otherwise resolved, and did not only keep the Holy days, which they found established, in the same state in which they found them; but added others daily, as they saw occasion. At last it came unto that [Page 463]pass by reason of that rigorous and exact kind of rest, which by the Canon Law had been fastned on them, that both the Lords day and the other Festivals were accounted Holy, not in relation to the use made of them, or to the holy actions done on them, in the honour of God: but in and of themselves considered, they were avowed to be vere aliis sanctiores, Bell arm. de cultu S. l. 3. c. 10. truly and properly invested with a greater sanctity than the other days. Yea so far did they go at last, that it is publickly maintained in the Schools of Rome, non sublatam esse, sed mutatam tantum [in novo Testamento] significationem discretionem dierum: that the difference of days and times and the mysterious signifi­cations of the same, which had before been used in the Jewish Church; was not abo­lished, but only changed in the Church of Christ. Aquinas did first lead this Dance, in fitting every legal Festival, with some that were observed in the Christian Church; laying this ground, that ours succeeded in the place of theirs. Sabbatum mutatur in diem dominicum; similiter aliis solennitatibus veteris legis, novae solennitates succedunt: 1. 2ae. qu. 103. Art. 3. ad 4. as his words there are. Upon which ground of his, the Doctrines now remembred were, no question, raised: and howsoever other men might think all days alike in themselves considered; yet those of Rome will have some holier than the rest, even by a natural and inherent holiness.

And in this state things stood, both for the doctrine and the practice, until such time as men began to look into the errours and abuses in the Church of Rome, with a more serious eye than before they did: the Canonists being no less nice, in the point of practice; than were the Schoolmen and the rest exorbitant in the point of Do­ctrine. Whose Niceties, especially in matter of restraint, we have most fully repre­sented to us by Tostatus: In Exod. 12. one that had run through all the parts of Learning at that time on foot, and was as well studied in the Canon, as in the Schools. He then de­termineth of it thus. Itinerando pro negotiis peccatum esse mortale, &c. Qu. 25. He that doth travel on the Holy days (for in that general Name the Lords day and the other Fe­stivals are comprehended) about worldly business, commits mortal sin; as also if he Trade or Traffick in the place wherein he liveth. But this hath two exceptions, or reservations: First, if the business by him done be but small and light, quae quietem Sabbati non impediunt, such as are no great hinderance to the Sabbaths rest; and se­condly nisi hoc sit in causa pia, unless it were on some devout and pious purpose. To read unto, or teach a man, to deal in actions of the Law, or determine Suits,Qu. 26. or to cast Accounts, si quis doceret ut lucretur, if it be done for hire, or for present gain, become servile works, and are forbidden: Otherwise, if one do it gratis. Qu. 27. If a Musi­tian wait upon a Gentleman, to recreate his mind with Musick, and that they are agreed on a certain wages; or that he be hired only for a present turn; he sins, in case he play, or sing unto him on the Holy days: but not if his reward be doubtful,Qu. 28. and depends only upon the bounty of the parties, who enjoy his Musick. A Cook that on the Holy days is hired to make a Feast, or to dress a Dinner, doth commit mortal sin: sed non pro toto mense aut anno, but not if he be hired by the month, or by the year, Meat may be dressed upon the Lords day, or the other Holy days:Qu. 29. but to wash Dishes on those days, was esteemed unlawful; & differri in diem alteram, Qu. 32. and was to be deferred till another day. Lawyers, that do their Clients business for their wonted see, were not to draw their Bills, or frame their Answers, or peruse their Evidences, on the Holy days: Secus si causam agerent pro miserabilibus personis, &c. but it was otherwise, if they dealt for poor indigent people, such as did sue in forma pauperis, as we call it; or in the causes of a Church, or Hospital, in which the Popes had pleased to grant a Dispensation. A man that travelled on the Holy days, Qu. 34. to any special shrine or Saint, did commit no sin, Si autem in redeundo, peccatum est mortale; but if he did the like in his coming back, he then sinned mortally. Qu. 35. In any place where formerly it had been the custom, neither to draw Water, nor to sweep the House, but to have those things ready on the day before; the custom was to be observed; where no such custom is, there they may be done. Actions of a long continuance, if they were delightful, or if one played three or four hours together on a Musical Instrument; were not unlawful on the Holy days: yet possibly they might be sinful, at si quis hoc ageret ex lascivia: as if one played only out of wantonness, Qu. 36. or otherwise were so intent upon his Musick, that he went not to Mass. Artificers which work on the Holy days for their own profit only, are in mortal sin; unless the work be very small: quia mo­dicum non facit solennitatem dissolvi, because a little thing dishonours not the Festival: De minimis non curat lex, as our saying is. Contrary Butchers, Vintners, Bakers, Co­ster-mongers, sinned not in selling their Commodities; because more profit doth re­dound [Page 464]to the Common wealth, which cannot be without such commodities, than to them that sell; yet this extended not to Drapers, Shoomakers, or the like, because there is not such a present necessity for cloaths, as meat. Yet where the custom was, that Butchers did not sell on the Holy days, but specially not upon the Lords day; that commendable custom was to be observed: though in those places also, it was permitted to the Butcher, that on those days, at some convenient times thereof, he might make ready what was to be sold on the morrow after, as kill and skin his Bestial which were fit for sale; in case he could not do it with so much convenience [non ita congrue] at another time.Qu. 37. To write out or transcribe a Book, though for a mans own private use, was esteemed unlawful, except it were exceeding small, because this put no difference between the Holy days and the other: yet was it not unlawful neither, in case the Argument were Spiritual, nor for a Preacher to write out his Sermons, or for a Student to provide his Lecture for the day following. Windmils were suffered to be used on the Holy days,Qu. 38. not Watermills, because the first required less labour and attendance, than the other did. This is the reason in Tosta­tus, though I can see no reason in it: the passage of the Water being once let run, being of more certainty and continuance, than the changeable blowing of the Wind. But to proceed,Qu. 39. Ferry-men were not to transport such men, in their Boats or Wher­ries, as did begin their Journey on an Holy day, unless they went to Mass, or on such occasions: but such as had begun their Journey, and now were in pursuit thereof, might be ferried over, quia forte carebunt victu, because they may perhaps want Victuals if they do not pass.Qu. 41. To repair Churches on the Lords day and the other Holy-days, was accounted lawful; in case the Workmen did it gratis, and that the Church were poor, not able to hire Workmen on the other days: not if the Church were rich and in case to do it.Qu. 42. So also to build Bridges, repair the walls of Towns and Castles, or other publick Edifices, on those days, was not held unlawfu; si instent hostes, in case the Enemy be at hand: though otherwise not to be done, where no danger was. These are the special points observed and published by Tostatus. And these I have the rather exactly noted, partly that we may see in what estate the Lords day and the other Holy days, were in the Church of Rome, what time the reformation of Religion was first set on foot: but principally to let others see, how near they come in their new fancies and devices, unto the Niceties of those men whom they most abhor.

Thus stood it, V as before I said, both for the Doctrine and the Practice, till men began to look into the Errours and abuses in the Roman Church. with a more serious eye than before they did: and at first sight, they found what little pleased them, in this particular. Their Doctrine pleased them not, in making one day holier than another, not only in relation to the use made of them, but to a natural and inherent holiness, wherewith they thought they were invested. Nor did their practice please much more, in that they had imposed so many burdens of restraint, upon the consci­ences of Gods people; and thereby made that day a punishment. which was intended for the ease, of the labouring man. Against the doctrine of these men, and the whole practice of that Church, Calvin declares himself in his book of Institutions. And therewith taxeth those of Rome, L. 2. cap. 8. p. 34. qui Judaica opinione populum superioribus seculis imbue­runt, ‘who in the times before possessed the peoples minds with so much Judaism; that they had changed the day indeed, as in dishonour of the Jew, but otherwise retained the former sanctity thereof; which needs must be, saith he, if there remain with us, (as the Papists taught) the same opinion of the mysteries and various significations of days and times, which the Jews once had. And certainly, saith he, we see what dangerous effects have followed, on so false a Doctrine: those which adhere to their instructions, having exceedingly out gone the Jews, crassa carnalique Sabbatismi superstitione, in their gross and carnal superstitions, about the Sabbath.’ In Apocal. 1. v. 10. Beza his Scholar and Achates, sings the self-same Song, that howsoever the Assemblies of the Lords day were of Apostolical and divine Tradition: sic tamen ut Judaica cessatio ab omni opere non observaretur, quoniam hoc plane fuisset Judaismum non abolere, sed tantum, quod ad diem attinet, immutare; yet so that there was no cessa­tion from work, required as was observed among the Jews. For that, saith he, had not so much abolished Judaism, as put it off and changed it to another day. And then he adds, that this cessation was first brought in by Constantine, and afterwards confirmed with more and more restraints, by the following Emperours: by means of which it came to pass, that that which first was done for a good intent, viz. that men being free from their worldly businesses, might wholly give themselves to hearing of the Word of God; in merum Ju­daismum [Page 465]degenerarit, degnerated at the last into down-right Judaism. So for the Lutheran Churches, Chemnitius challengeth the Romanists of superstition, quasi dominicae diei & reliquis diebus festis, per se, peculiaris quaedam insit sanctitas, because they taught the people that the Holy days, considered only in themselves, had a Native Sanctity. And howsoever for his part, he think it requisite, that men should be restrained from all such works, as may be any hinderance unto the sanctifying of the day: yet he ac­counts it but a part of the Jewish leaven; nimis scrupulose diebus festis prohibere operas externas, quie vel quando, non impediunt publicum ministerium: so scrupulously to pro­hibit such external Actions which are at all no hindrance to Gods publick service, and mans Sabbath Duties. Bueer goes further yet, and doth not only call it a superstition, In Mat. 12. but an Apostacy from Christ, to think that working on the Lords day, in it self consi­dered, is a sinful thing. Si existimetur operari in eo die, per se, esse peccatum, superstitio, & gratiae Christi, qui ab elementis mundi nos suo sanguine liberavit, negatio est: as his own words are. Then adds, that he did very well approve of the Lords day meet­ings, si eximatur è cordibus hominum opinio necessitatis, if men were once dispossessed of these opinions, that the day was necessary to be kept, that it was holier in it self than the other days, and that to work upon that day, in it self, was sinful. Lastly, the Churches of the Switzers profess in their Confession, that in the keeping of the Lords day, they give not the least hint to any Jewish superstitions. Neque enim alteram diem altera sanctiorem esse credimus, nec otium Deo, per se probari existimamus. For neither,Cap. 24. (as they said) do we conceive one day to be more holy than another; or think that rest from labour, in it self considered, is any way pleasing unto God. By which we plainly may perceive, what is the judgment of the Protestant Churches in the present point.

Indeed, It is not to be thought, VI that they could otherwise resolve and determine of it, considering what their Doctrine is of the day it self: how different they make it from a Sabbath day, which Doctrine that we may perceive with the greater ease, we will consider it in three Propositions, in which most agree: 1. That the keeping holy one day of seven, is not the Moral part of the fourth Commandment, or to be reckoned as a part of the law of Nature; 2. That the Lords day is not founded on Divine Commandment, but only on the authority of the Church; and 3. That the Church hath still authority to change the day, and to transfer it to some other. First, for the first, it seems that some of Rome, considering the restraints before remembred, and the new Doctrine thence arising, about the Natural and inherent holiness which one day had above another; had altered what was formerly delivered amongst the Schoolmen, and made the keeping of one day in seven, to be the Moral part of the fourth Commandment. This Calvin chargeth them withal that they had taught the people in the former times,Instit. l. 1. Cap. 8.11, 34. that what­sover was ceremonial in the fourth Commandment, which was the keeping of the Jews seventh day, had been long since abrogated: remanere vero quod morale est, nempe unius diei observationem in hebdomade, but that the moral part thereof which was the keeping of one day in seven, did continue still. With what else is it, as before was said, than in dishonour of the Jews, to change the day; and to affix as great a sanctity thereunto, as the Jews ever did. And for his own part he professeth, that howsoever he approved of the Lords day meetings, Non tamen numerum septennarium ita se morari, ut ejus ser­vituti Ecclesias astringeret; yet stood not he so much for the number of seven, as to confine the Church unto it. If Calvin elsewhere be of another mind, and speak of keeping holy one day in seven as a matter necessary; (which some say he doth) either they must accuse him of much inconstancy and forgetfulness; or else interpret him, with Rivet; as speaking of an Ecclesiastical custom, not to be neglected,In decalog. non de necessitate legis divinae, and not of any obligation layed upon us by the Law of God. Neither is he the only one that hath so determined. Simler hath said it more ex­presly. Quod dies una cultui divino consecretur, ex lege naturae est; quod autem haec sit septima, non octava, nona aut decima, juris est divini, sed ceremonialis: In Exod. 20. That one day should be set apart for Gods publick Worship, is the law of Nature, but that this day should be the seventh, and not the eighth, ninth, or tenth, was of Divine appointment, but as ceremonial. Aretius also in his common places,Loc. 55. distinguished between the substance of the Sabbath, and the time thereof; the substance of it, which was rest, and the works of Piety, being in all times to continue; tempus autem ut septime die observetur, hoc non fuit necessarium in Ecclesia Christi, but for the time, to keep it on the seventh day always, that was not necessary in the Church of Christ. So also Fran­kisc. Gomarus, that great undertaker against Arminius, in a Book written purposely de [Page 466]origine & institutione Sabbati, affirms for certain, that it can neither be made good by the law of Nature,Cap. 5. n. 8. or Text of Scripture, or any solid Argument drawn from thence, unum è septem diebus ex vi praecepti quarti ad cultum Dei necessario observandum, that by the fourth Commandment, one day in seven, is of necessity to be dedicated to Gods service.In Exod. 20. p. 1 [...]0. And Ryvet, as profest an Enemy of the Remonstrants, though for the anti­quity of the Sabbath, he differeth from the said Gomarus, yet he agreeth with him in this: not only making the observance of one day in seven, to be meerly positive, as in our first part we observed; but lays it down for the received opinion of most of the Reformed Divines, unum ex septem diebus, non esse necessario eligendum, ex vi prae­cepti, ad sacros conventus celebrandos; the very same with what Gomarus affirmed be­fore. So lastly for the Lutheran Churches,In Examin. Conc. Trid. Chemnitius makes it part of our Christian liberty, quod nec sint alligati nec debeant alligari ad certorum vel dierum vel temporum ob­servationes, opinione necessitatis, in Novo Testamento, &c. That men are neither bound, nor ought to be, unto the observation of any days, or times, as matters necessary, un­der the Gospel of our Saviour: though otherwise he account it for a barbarous Folly, not to observe that day with all due solemnity, which hath for so long time been kept by the Church of God. Therefore in his opinion also, the keeping of one day in seven,Medull. Theel. l. 2.15. is neither any moral part of the fourth Commandment, or parcel of the law of Nature. As for the subtil shift of Amesius finding, that keeping holy of one day in seven is positive indeed, sed immutabilis plane institutionis, but such a positive Law as is absolutely immutable; and doth as much oblige, as those which in themselves are plainly natural and moral: it may then serve, when there is nothing else to help us. For that a positive Law should be immutable in its self; and in its own nature, be as universally binding, as the Moral Law; is such a piece of Learning, and of contradiction, as never was put up to shew, in these latter times. But he that learnt his lirry in England, here; and durst not broach it but by halves, amongst the Hollanders.

For the next Thesis, VII that the Lords day is not founded on divine Commandment, but the authority of the Church: it is a point so universally resolved on, as no one thing more; and first we will begin with Calvin, who tells us how it was not without good reason, that those of old, appointed the Lords Day as we call it, to supply the place of the Jewish Sabbath.Institut. l. 2. c. 8. l. 3. Non sine delectu, dominicum, quem vocamus diem, veteres in locum sabbati subrogarunt, as his words there are. Where none, I hope will think, that he would give our Saviour Christ or his Apostles such a short come off, as to include them in the name of Veteres, only: which makes it plain, that he conceived it not to be their appointment.In Matth. 12. Bucer resolves the point more clearly, communi Christianorum consensu Dominicum diem publicis Ecclesiae conventibus ac quieti publicae, dicatum esse, ipso statim Apostolorum tempore: and saith, that in the Apostles times, the Lords day by the common consent of Christian people, was dedicated unto publick rest, and the assem­blies of the Church.In Gen. 2. And Peter Martyr, upon a question asked, why the old seventh day was not kept in the Christian Church; makes answer, that upon that day, and on all the rest, we ought to rest from our own works, the works of sin. Sed quod is magis quam ille, eligatur ad externum Dei cultum, liberum fuit Ecclesiae per Christum, ut id consuleret quod ex re magis judicaret: nec illa pessime judicavit, &c. That this was rather chose than that for Gods publick service, That, saith he, Christ left totally unto the liberty of the Church, to do therein what should seem most expedient: and that the Church did very well, in that she did prefer the memory of the Resurrection, before the me­mory of the Creation. These two I have the rather thus joyned together, as being sent for into England in King Edwards time, and place by the Protector in our Universities, the better to establish Reformation, at that time begun: and doubt we not, but that they taught the self-same Doctrine (if at the least they touched at all upon that point) with that now extant in their writings;In Apoc. 1. at the same time with them lived Bullinger and Gualter, two great Learned men. Of these, the first informs us, hunc diem, loco sabbati in memoriam resurgentis Domini delegisse sibi Ecclesias, that in memorial of our Saviours Resurrection, the Churches set apart this day in the Sabbaths stead, whereon to hold their solemn and religious meetings. And after, Sponte receperunt Ecclesiae il­lam diem, non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam, that of their own accord, and by their own authority, the Church made choice thereof for the use aforesaid; it being no where to be found that it was commanded.In Act. Ap. Hom. 131. Gualter, more generally, that the Chri­stians first assembled on the Sabbath day, as being then most famous, and so most in use: but when the Churches were augmented, preximus à sabbato dies rebus sacris de­stinatus, [Page 467]the next day after the Sabbath was designed to those holy uses. If not be­fore, then certainly not so commanded by our Saviour Christ: and if designed only, then not enjoyned by the Apostles.Apoc. 1.10. Yea Beza though herein he differ from his Ma­ster, Calvin; and makes the Lords day meetings to be Apostolicae & verae divinae tradi­tionis, to be indeed of Apostolical, and divine Tradition: yet being a Tradition only, al­though Apostolical, it is no Commandment. And more than that, he tells us in ano­ther place, that from St. Pauls preaching at Troas, and from the Text.In Act. 20. 1 Corinth. 16.2. non inepte colligi, it may be gathered not unfitly, that then the Christians were ac­customed to meet that day, the ceremony of the Jewish Sabbath beginning by de­grees to vanish. But sure the custom of the people makes no divine Traditions; and such conclusions, as not unfitly may be gathered from the Text, are not Text it self. Others there be, who attribute the changing of the day, to the Apostles; not to their precept, but their practice. So Mercer, Apostoli, in Dominicum converterunt, In Gen. the A­postles changed the Sabbath to the Lords day: in Gen. 2. Paraeus attributes the same Apostolicae Ecclesiae unto the Apostolical Church, or Church in the Apostles time: quo­modo autem facta sit haec mutatio in sacris liberis expressum non habemus; but how, by what authority such a change was made, is not delivered in the Scripture.In Thesib. p. 733. And John Cuchlinus though he call it consuetudinem Apostolicam an Apostolical custom; yet he is peremptory that the Apostles gave no such Commandment; Apostolos praeceptum reli­quisse constanter negamus. So Simler calls it only consuetudinem tempore Apostolorum re­ceptam, a custom taken up in the Apostles time. And so Hospinian, De sestis Chr. p. 24. although saith he, it be apparent that the Lords day was celebrated in the place of the Jewish Sabbath, even in the times of the Apostles: non invenitur tamen vel Apostolos, vel alios, lege ali­qua & praecepto, observationem ejus instituisse: yet find we not that either they, or any other, did institute the keeping of the same, by any law or precept, but left it free.In 4. praecept. Thus Zanchius, nullibi legimus Apostolos, &c. We do not read, saith he, that the A­postles commanded any to observe this day. We only read what they and others did upon it, liberum ergo reliquerunt, which is an argument that they left it to the Churches power. To those add Ʋrsin in his Exposition of the fourth Command­ment, liberum Ecclesiae reliquit alios dies eligere, In Catech. Palat. and that the Church made choice of this, in honour of our Saviours Resurrection: Aretius in his Common-places, Christiani in Dominicum transtulerunt: Gomarus and Ryvet, in the Tracts before remembred. Both which have also there determined, that in the chusing of this day, the Church did exercise as well her Wisdom, as her Freedom: her freedom, being not obliged unto any day, by the Law of God; her wisdom ne majori mutatione Judaeos offende­ret, that by so small an alteration, she might the less offend the Jews, who were then considerable. As for the Lutheran Divines; it is affirmed by Doctor Bound, that for the most part they ascribe too much unto the liberty of the Church, in appointing days for the assembly of the people: which is plain confession. But for particulars, Brentius, as Doctor Prideaux tells us, calls it civilem institutionem, a civil institution, and no com­mandment of the Gospel: which is no more indeed, than what is elsewhere said by Calvin, when he accounts no otherwise thereof, than, ut remedium retinendo ordini ne­cessarium, as a fit way to retain order in the Church. And sure I am Chemnitius tells us, that the Apostles did not impose the keeping of this day; as necessary, upon the consciences of Gods people by any Law or Precept whatsoever: sed libera fuit obser­vatio ordinis gratia, but that for orders sake, it had been voluntarily used amongst them, of their own accord.

Thus have we proved that by the Doctrine of the Protestants, of what side soever, VIII and those of greatest credit in the several Churches, eighteen by name, and all the Lutherans in general of the same opinion; that the Lords day is of no other institu­tion than the authority of the Church. Which proved, the last of the three Theses, that still the Church hath power to change the day, and to transfer it to some other, will follow of it self, on the former grounds: the Protestant Doctors before remembred, in saying that the Church, did institute the Lords day, as we see they do; confessing tacitely, that still the Church hath power to change it. Nor do they tacitely confess it, as if they were affraid to speak it out: but some of them in plain terms affirm it, as a certain Truth. Zuinglius, the first Reformer of the Switzers, hath resolved it so, in his Discourse against one Valentine Gentilis, a new Arian Heretick. Audi mi Valen­tine, quibus modis & rationibus, sabbatum ceremoniale reddatur. Tom. 1. p. 254. [...]. ‘Harken now Valen­tine by what ways and means, the Sabbath may be made a ceremony: if either we observe that day which the Jews once did, or think the Lords day so affixed unto [Page 468]any time, ut nefas sit illum in aliud tempus transferre, that we conceive it an impiety, it should be changed unto another; on which as well as upon that, we may not rest from labour, and harken to the Word of God, if perhaps such necessity should be: this would indeed make it become a ceremony.’ Nothing can be more plain than this. Yet Calvin is as plain, when he professeth, that he regardeth not so much the Number of seven, ut ejus servituti Ecclesias astringeret, as to enthral the Church unto it. Sure I am, Doctor Prideaux reckoneth him, as one of them, who teach us that the Church hath power to change the day, and to transfer it to some other: and that John Barclaie makes report,In orat. de Sab. how once he had a Consultation, de transferenda Domi­nica in feriam quintam, of altering the Lords day unto the Thursday. Bucer affirms as much, as touching the Authority, and so doth Bullinger, and Brentius, Ʋrsine, and Chemnitius, as Doctor Prideaux hath observed. Of Bullinger, Bucer Brentius, I have nought to say, because the places are not cited; but take it, as I think I may upon his credit. But for Chemnitius he saith, often, that it is libera observatio, a voluntary ob­servation; that it is an especial part of our Christian liberty, not to be tied to Days and Times, in matters which concern Gods service; and that the Apostles made it manifest by their Example, Singulis diebus, vel quocunque die. That every day, or any day,Catech. qu. 103. §. 2. may by the Church be set apart for religious Exercises. And as for Ʋrsine, he makes this difference between the Lords day and the Sabbath, that it was utterly unlawful to the Jews, either to neglect or change the Sabbath, without express Commandment from God himself, as being a ceremonial part of divine Worship: but for the Chri­stian Church, that may design the first, or second, or any other day to Gods publick service. Ecclesia vero Christiana primum, vel alium diem, tribuit ministerio, salva sua li­bertate, sine opinione cultus vel necessitatis: as his words there are. To these add Die­tericus a Lutheran Divine,Dom. 17. post Trinit. who though he makes the keeping of one day in seven, to be the moral part of the fourth Commandment; yet for that day, it may be dies Sabbati, or dies Solis, or quicunque alius, Sunday or Saturday, or any other, be it one in seven. And so Hospinian is persuaded, Dominicum diem mutare & in alium trans­serre licet, That is the occasions of the Church do so require, the Lords day may be changed unto any other: provided it be one of seven; and that the change be so trans­acted, that it produce no scandal or confusion in the Church of God. Nay by the doctrine of the Helvetian Churches, if I conceive their meaning rightly, every parti­cular Church may destinate what day they please, to religious meetings; and every day may be a Lords day,Cap. 2. or a Sabbath. For so they give it up in their Confession, Deligit ergo quaevis Ecclesiae sibi certum tempus ad preces publicas, & Evangelii praedica­tionem, necnon sacramentorum celebrationem: though for their parts, they kept that day, which had been set apart for those holy uses, even from the time of the Apostles, yet so, that they conceived it free, to keep the Lords day, or the Sabbath: Sed & Do­minicum, non Sabbatum, libera observatione, celebramus. Some Sectaries, since the Re­formation, have gone further yet, and would have had all days alike, as unto their use, all equally to be regarded, and reckoned that the Lords day as the Church con­tinued it was a Jewish Ordinance, thwarting the Doctrine of Saint Paul, who seem­ed to them to abrogate that difference of days, which the Church retained. This was the fancy, or the frenzy rather of the Anabaptist, taking the hint perhaps from something, which had been formerly delivered by some wiser men; and after them, of the Swinck feildian, and the Familist: as in the times before, of the Petro-Brusians, and (if Waldensis wrong him not) of Wiclef also.

Such being the Doctrine of those Churches, IX the Protestant, and those of Rome, it is not to be thought but that their practice is according: Both make the Lords day only an Ecclesiastical constitution, and therefore keep it so far forth, as by the Canons of their Churches, they are enjoyned. These what they are at Rome, and those of her obedience, we have seen already; and little hath been added since. It hath not been, of late, a time, to make new restraints; rather to mitigate the old, to lay down such which were most burdensom, and grievous to be born withal. And so it seems they do, Azorius the Jesuit being more remiss in stating and determining the restraints, imposed on the Lords day, and the other Holy days; than Tostatus was, who lived in safer times by far, than these now present: nor is their Discipline so severe, as their Canon, neither. So that the Lords day there, for ought I could observe, when I was amongst them, is solemnized much after the same manner as with us in England: re­pairing to the Church, both at Mass and Vespers, riding abroad to take the Air, or otherwise to refresh themselvas, and following their honest pleasures at such leisure [Page 469]times, as are not destir ate to the publick meetings; the people not being barred from travelling about their lawful business, as occasion is, so they reserve some time for their Devotions in the publick. Which is indeed agreeable to the most antient and most laudable custom, in the Church of God. Now for the protestant Churches, the Lutherans do not differ much, from that which we have said before of the Church of Rome: and therefore there is nothing to be said of them. But for the rest which follow Galvin, and think themselves the only Orthodox and Reformed Churches; we will consider them in three several circumstances: first in the exercise of Religious Duties, secondly, in restraint from labours, and thirdly in permission of Recreations. And first for the excrcise of religious Duties, they use it in the Morning only: the Afternoon being left at large, for any, and for every man to dispose thereof, as to him seems fitting. So is it in the Churches of high Germany, those of the Palatinate, and all the others of that mould. For I have heard from Gentlemen of good repute, that at the first reception of the Lady Elizabeth into that Countrey, on Sunday after Dinner, the Coaches and the Horses were brought forth; and all the Princes Court, betook themselves unto their plea­sures, sures, Hunting or Hawking, as the season of the year was fit for either. Which tend the Princcss thither: answer was made, it was their custom so to do, and that they had no Evening-service, but ended all the Duties of the day with the Morning­sermon. Nor is this custom only, and no more but so.art. 46. There is a Canon for it in some places, it must be no otherwise. For in the first Council of Dort, Anno 1574. it was Decreed, Publicae vespertinae preces non sunt, introducendae, ubi non sunt introdu­ciae, ubi sunt, tollantur: that in such Churches where publick Evening Prayer had not been admitted, it should continue as it was, and where they were admitted, they should be put down. So Doctor Smith relates the Canon (if so irregular a Decree may deserve that name) in his collat. doctr. Cathol. & Protest. cap. 68. Art. 1. And so it stood till the last synod of Dort, Anno 1618. what time, to raise the repu­tation of the Palatine Catechisin, Sess. 14. being not long after to be admitted into their Canon, it was concluded, that Catechism-lectures should be read each Sunday in the afternoon; nor to be laid aside propter auditorum infrequentiam, for want of Auditors. Now to allure the people thither, being before staved off by a former Synod, it was provided that their Ministers should read howsoever, Coram paucis auditoribus, immo vel coram suis famulis tantu, Though few were present, or none but their domestick servants; in hope by little and little to attract the people. And secondly it was re­solved on, to implore the civil Magistrate, Ʋt opera omnia servilia, seu quotidiana, &c. quibus tempus pomeridianum diebus Dominicis maxime in pagis, plerunque transigi soleret, that by their Edicts they would restrain all servile works, the works of ordinary days, and especially, Games, Drinking-matches, and other profanations of the Sab­bath, wherewith the afternoon or Sundays, chiefly in smaller Towns and Villages, had before been spent; that so the people might repair to the Catechising. By which we also may perceive, that there was no restraint, on Sundays in the afternoon, from any kind of servile works, or daily labours, but that men might and did apply themselves to their several businesses, as on other days. As for the greater Towns there is scarce any of them wherein there are not Fairs and Markets, Kirk-masses, as they use to call them, upon the Sunday: and those as much frequented in the afternoon, as were the Churches in the forenoon. A thing from which they could not hold, not in Dort it self, what time the Synod was assembled. Nor had it now been called upon, as it is most likely, had not Amesius, and some other of the English Malecontents, scattered a­broad Bounds principles amongst the Netherlands, which they had sown before in England. And certainly they had made as strong a faction there before this time, their learned men beginning to bandy one against the other, in the debates about the Sabbath; but that the livelihood of the States, consisting most on Trade and Traffick, cannot spare any day, Sunday no more than any other, from venting their commodities, and providing others. So that in general, the Lords day is no other­wise observed with them (though somewhat better than it was twelve years ago) than an Half-holiday is with us: the Morning though not all of that, unto the Church; the afternoon, to their Employments. So for the French and German Churches, we may perceive by their Divines, Calvin, and Beze, and Martin Bucer who do so highly charge the Romanists, for the restraint of working on the Lords day; that they were well enough content to allow the same. And for the Churches of the Switzers, Resp. ad Va [...]. Gentilem. Zuinglius avoweth it to be lawful, Die dominico peractis sacris laboribus incumbere, On [Page 470]the Lords day after the end of Divine Service, for any man to follow and pursue his la­bours, as commonly we do, saith he, in the time of Harvest. Indeed the Polish Churches formerly decreed in two several Synods, the one at Cracow, An. 1573. the other at Petricow, Ann. 1578. Ʋt Domini in suis ditionibus prohibeant Dominicis diebus nundinas annuas & sep­timanales, That Lords of Mannours (as we call them) should not permit on the Lords day either Fairs or Markets in any of the Towns unto them belonging: Neque iisdem diebus co­lonos suos ullos laboribus aut vecturis onerent; nor on those days imploy their Tenants in car­riages, or such servile labours. But this was rather done to please the Lutherans, a­mongst whom, and those of the Communion of the Church of Rome, under whom they live, than out of any principle or example of those Churches, whom they chiefly followed. For Recreations last of all, there is no question to be made, but that where working is permitted, and most kind of business, a man may lawfully enjoy himself and his honest pleasures; and without danger of offence, pursue those pastimes by which the mind may be refreshed, and the spirits quickned. Already have we told you what the custom is in the Palatine Churches. And for the Belgick, besides it was be­fore declared from the Synod of Dort, touching the usual spending of that day in Games and Drinking-matches;S [...]ps. [...] a [...]p. 81. n. 58. their four great Doctors, Polyander, Ryvet, Thysius, and Walaeus, make Recreation to be part of the Sabbaths rest, Et inter fines Sabbati esse, and to be reckoned as a principal intent thereof. Even in Geneva it self, the Mother Church unto the rest, as Robert Johnson tells us in his enlargement of Boterus, All honest exercises, Shooting in Peeces, Long-bows, Cross-bows, &c. are used on the Sabbath day, and that in the morning both before and after Sermon: neither do the Ministers find fault there­with, so they hinder not from hearing of the Word at the time appointed. Indeed there is no reason why they should find fault, the practice so directly rising upon their principles.

Dancing indeed they do not suffer, X either in Geneva or the French Churches (though not prohibited for ought I can learn, in either Germany, or any of the Lutheran King­doms;) but this not in relation to the day, but the sport it self, which absolutely they have forbidden on all days whatever. Calvin took great offence thereat (of so austere a life would he have the People) and kept a great ado about it in Geneva, when he lived amongst them;Epist. ad Farel. as he doth thus relate the story to his friend Farellus, Corneus, and Perinus, two of special power and quality in that City, together with one Heinrichus, one of the Elders of the Church, a Syndic (which is one of the four chief Officers of the Common-wealth) and some others of their friends, being merry at an Invitation, fell to dancing. Notice hereof being given to Calvin, by some false brother, they were all called into the Consistory, excepting Corneus and Perinus; and being interrogated thereupon, Impudenter Deo & nobis mentiti sunt; they lyed, saith he, most impudently unto God and us. (Most Apostolically said.) At that (saith he) I grew offended, as the indignity of the thing deserved; and they persisting in their contumacy, Censui ut jure-jurando ad veri confessionem adigerentur. I thought it fit to put them to their Oaths about it. So said, so done, and they not only did con­fess their former dancing, but that that very day they had been dancing in the house of one Balthasats Widdow. On his confession he proceeded unto the censure which certainly was sharp enough for so small a fault (for a fault it was, if he would have it:) the Syndick being displaced, the Elder turned out of his office, Perryn and his Wife both clapt in Prison, and all the rest, pudore confusi, put to open shame. This was in Anno 1546. And afterwards, considering how much he disliked it, their Mi­nisters and Preachers cried down dancing as a most sinful and unchristian pastime, and published divers tracts against it. At last in Anno 1571. it was concluded in a Synod held at Rochel, and made to be a part of their publick discipline, viz. that all Congrega­tions should be admonished by their Ministers seriously to reprehend and suppress all Dances, Mummeries, and Enterludes: As also that all Dancing-masters, or those who make any dancing meetings, after they have been oft admonished to desist, ought to be excommunicate for that their contumacy and disobedience. Which rigidness of theirs, as it is conceived, considering how the French do delight in Dancing,Dallingtons [...]ew of [...]. hath been no small impediment unto the general entertainment of the reformed Religion in that Kingdom. So great is their delight therein, and with such eagerness they pursue it, when they are at lei­sure from their business; that as it seems, they do neglect the Church on the Holy-days, that they may have the more time to attend their Dancing. Upon which ground it was, [...] and not that Dancing was conceived to be no lawful sport for the Lords day, that in the Council of Sens, Anno 1524. in that of Paris, Anno 1557. [Page 471]in those of Rhemes, and Tours, Anno 1583. and finally in that of Bourges, Anno 1584. dancing on Sundays, and the other Holy-days hath been prohibited; prohibited indeed, but practised by the People, notwithstanding all their Canons. But this concerns the French and their Churches only, our Northern Nations not being so bent upon the sport, as to need restraint. Only the Polish Churches did conclude in the Synod of Petricow before remembred, that Tavern-meetings, Drinking-matches, Dice, Cards, and such like pastimes, as also Musical Instruments and Dances should on the Lords day be forbidden. But then it followeth with this clause, Praesertim eo temporis mo­mento quo concio & cultus divinus in temple peragitur, especially at that instant time, when men should be at Church to hear the Sermon, and attend Gods worship. Which clearly, shews that they prohibited dancing, and the other pastimes then recited, no otherwise than as they were a means to keep men from Church. Probably also they might be induced unto it by such French Protestants as came into that Countrey with the Duke of Anjou, when he was chosen King of Poland, Anno. 1574. which was four years before this Council.

As for the Churches of the East, being now heavily oppressed with Turkish bondage, XI we have not very much to say. Yet by that little which we find thereof, it seems the Lords day keeps that honour which before it had; and that the Saturday continues in the same regard, wherein once it was: both of them counted days of Feasting, and both retained for the Assemblies of the Church. First, that they are both days of Feasting, or at the least exempted from their publick Fasts, appears by that which is related by Christopher Angelo, a Graecian, whom I knew in Oxford, De institut. Graec. c. 16. [...], that on the Saturday and Sunday, which we call the Lords day, they do both eat Oyl and drink Wine, even in Lent it self, whereas on other days they feed on Pulse, and drink only water. Then that they both are still retained for the Assemblies of the Church, with other Holy-days, he tells us in another place; where it is said,Id. c. 17. [...], &c. that for the Lords days, and the Sa­turday, and the other Festivals, they use to go unto the Church on the Eve before, and almost at midnight, where they continue till the breaking up of the Congregation. For the Egyptian Christians, or Cophties, as we call them now, it is related by G. Sandys, Travels l. 2. That on the Saturday presently after midnight, they repair unto their Churches, where they remain well nigh until Sunday at noon; during which time, they neither sit nor kneel, but support themselves on Crutches; and that they sing over the most part of Davids Psalms at every meeting, with divers parcels of the Old and New Testament. He hath informed us also of the Armenians, another sort of Eastern Christians, that coming into the place of the Assembly on Sunday in the afternoon, he found one sitting in the middest of the Congregation, in habit not differing from the rest, reading on a Bible in the Chaldean tongue; that anon after came the Bishop in an Hood or Vest of black, with a staff in his hand: that first he prayed, and then sung certain Psalms assisted by two or three; after, all of them singing joyntly, at interims praying to themselves; the Bishop all this while, with his hands erected, and face towards the Altar: That service being ended, they all kissed his hand, and bestowed their Alms, he laying his other hand on their heads and blessing them; finally, that bidding the succeeding Fasts and Festivals, he dismissed the Assembly. The Muscovites being near un­to the Greeks, once within the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, partake much also of their customs. They count it an unlawful thing to fast the Saturday, Gagvinus de Moscovit. which shews that somewhat is remaining of that esteem, in which once they had it; and for the Holy-days, Sundays as well as any other, they do not hold themselves so strictly to them, but that the Citizens and Artificers, immediately after Divine Service, betake themselves unto their labour and domestick businesses. And this, most pro­bably, is the custom also of all the Churches of the East, as holding a Communion with the Church of Greece, though not subordinate thereunto: From the which Church of Greece, the faith was first derived unto these Muscovites, as before was said; and with the faith, the observation of this day, and all the other Holy-days at that time in use. As for the Country people, as Gagvinus tells us, they seldom celebrate or observe any day at all, at least not with that care and order as they ought to do; saying, that it belongs only unto Lords and Gentlemen to keep Holy-days. Last of all, for the Habassines, or Ethiopian Christians, though further off in situation; they come as near unto the fashions of the ancient Grecians. Enquiries c. 23 Of them we are informed by Master Brerewood out of Damiani, that they reverence the Sabbath, keeping it solemn equally [Page 472]with the Lords day.Emend. Temp. lib. 7. Scaliger tells us that they call both of them by the name of Sab­baths; the one the first, the other the later Sabbath: or in their own language, the one Sanbath Sachristos, that is, Christs Sabbath; the other Sanbath Judi, or the Jews Sabbath. Bellarmine thinks that they derived this observation of the Saturday or Sab­bath from the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens; which indeed frequently do press the observation of that day with no less fervour than the Sunday. [...]e Script Ec­clin. Clem. Of this we have already spoken. And to this Bellarmine was induced the rather, because that in the Country they had found authority, and were esteemed as Apostolical. Audio Ethiopes his Constitutionibus uti, ut vere Apostolocis, & ea de causa in erro [...]ibus versari, circa cultum Sabbati, & diei Dominicae. But if this be an errour in them, they have many partners; and those of ancient standing in the Church of God, as before was shewn. As for their service on the Sunday, they celebrate the Sacrament in the morning early, except it be in the time of Lent: when fasting all the day, they discharge that duty in the Evening, and then fall to meat; as the same Scaliger hath recorded. So having looked over all the residue of the Christian World, and found no Sabbath in the same, except only nominal, and that as well upon the Saturday as upon the Sunday; it is now time we turned our course, and set sail for England, where we shall find as little of it as in other places, until that forty years ago, no more, some men began to introduce a Sab­bath thereunto, in hope thereby to countenance and advance their other projects.

CHAP. VII. In what estate the Lords day stood in this Isle of Brittain, from the first Planting of Religion to the Reformation.

  • 1. What doth occur about the Lords day, and the other Festivals, amongst the Churches of the Brittains.
  • 2. Of the estate of the Lords day, and the o­ther Holy-days in the Saxon Heptar­chy.
  • 3. The honours done unto the Sunday and the other Holy-days, by the Saxon Mo­narchs.
  • 4. Of the publick actions Civil, Ecclesiastical, mixt, and Military, done on the Lords day, under the first six Norman Kings.
  • 5. New Sabbath Doctrins broached in Eng­land, in King Johns Reign; and the mi­raculous original of the same.
  • 6. The prosecution of the former story, and ill success therein of the undertakers.
  • 7. Restraint of worldly business on the Lords day, and the other Holy-days, admitted in those times, in Scotland.
  • 8. Restraint of certain servile works on Sun­days, Holy-days, and the Wakes, con­cluded in the Council of Oxon, under Henry III.
  • 9. Husbandry and Legal process, prohibited on the Lords day first, in the Reign of Edward III.
  • 10. Selling of Wools on the Lords day, and the solemn Feasts, forbidden first by the said King Edward, as after, Fairs and Mar­kets generally, by King Henry VI.
  • 11. The Cordwainers of London restrained from selling their Wares on the Lords day, and some other Festivals, by King Edward IV. and the repealing of that Act by King Henry VIII.
  • 12. In what estate the Lords day stood, both for the doctrine and the practice, in the be­ginning of the Reign of the said King Henry.

AND now at last we are for England, I that we may see what hath been done a­mongst our selves in this particular, and thereby be the better lessoned what we are to do. For as before I noted, the Canons of particular Churches, and Edicts of particular Princes, though they sufficiently declare both what their practice and opi­nion was in the present point; yet are no general rule, nor prescript to others, which lived not in the compass of their Authority. Nor can they further bind us, as was then observed; than as they have been since admitted into our Church or State, either by adding them unto the body of our Canon, or imitating them in the composition of our Acts and Statutes. Only the Decretals of the Popes, the body of their Canon Law is to be excepted; which being made for the direction and reiglement of the Church in general, were by degrees admitted and obeyed in these parts of Christen­dome; [Page 473]and are by Act of Parliament so far still in force, as they oppose not the Pre­rogative Royal, or the municipal Laws and Statutes of this Realm of England. Now that we may the better see how it hath been adjudged of here, and what hath been de­creed ordome touching the Lords day, and the other Holy-days; we will ascend as high as possibly we can, even to the Church and Empire of the Brittains. Of them indeed we find not much, and that delivered in as little; it being said of them by Beda, Hist. l. 1. c. 8. that in the time of Constantine they did dies festos celebrare, observe those Holy-days which were then in use; which, as before we said, were Easter, Whitsontide, the Feasts of Christs Nativity, and his Incarnation every year; together with the Lords day weekly. And yet it may be thought that in those times the Lords day was not here of any great ac­count, in that they kept the Feast of Easter after the fashion of the Churches, in the Eastern parts, decima quarta luna, on what day of the week soever: which certainly they had not done, had the Lords day obtained amongst them that esteem, which ge­nerally it had found in the Western Churches. And howsoever a late writer of Ec­clesiastical History, endeavour to acquit the Brittains of these first Ages from the erro­neous observation of that Feast,Brought. hist. l. 4. c. 13. and make them therein followers of the Church of Rome: yet I conceive not that his proofs come home to make good his purpose. For where it is his purpose to prove, by computation, that that erroneous observation came not in amongst the Brittains till 30 years before the entrance of S. Austin, and his asso­ciates into this Island; and for that end hath brought a passage out of Beda, touching the continuance of that custom: It's plain that Beda speaks not of the Brittish, but the Scottish Christians. Permansit autem apud eos [the Scottish-Irish Christians, as himself confesseth] hujusmodi observantia Paschalis tempore non pauco, hoc est usque ad annum Do­mini. 717. per annos 150. which was (as he computes it somewhat near the point) but 30 years before the entrance of that Austin. Now for the Scots, it is apparent that they received not the faith till the year of Christ 430, (not to say any thing of the time wherein they first set footing in this Island, which was not very long before:) and probably might about that time, of which Beda speaks, receive the custom of keeping Easter from the Brittains, who were next neighbours to them, and a long time lived mingled with them. But for the Brittains, it is most certain that they had longer been accustomed to that observation; though for the time thereof, whether it came in with the first plantation of the Gospel here, we will not contend, as not pertaining to the business which we have in hand. Suffice it, that the Brittains anciently were observant of those publick Festivals which had been generally entertained in the Church of God: though for the time of celebrating the Feast of Easter, they might adhere more unto one Church than unto another. As for the Canon of the Council of Nice, Anno 198. which is there alledged, Baronius rightly hath observed out of Athanasius, that notwithstan­ing both the Canon and the Emperours Edicts thereupon: tamen etiam postea, Syros, Cilices, & Mesopotamios, in eodem errore permansisse, the Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopo­tamians, continued in their former errours. And why not then the Brittains, which lay farther off, as well as those that dwelt so near the then Regal City?

Proceed we next unto the Saxons, II who as they first received the faith from the Church of Rome, so did they therewithal, receive such institutions as were at that time generally entertained in the Roman Church; the celebration of the Lords day, and the other Festivals, which were allowed of and observed, when Gregory the Great at­tained the Popedom. And here, to take things as they lie in order, we must begin with a narration concerning Westminster, which for the prettiness of the story I will here insert. Sebert the first Christian King of the East Saxons, having built that Church unto the honour of God, and memory of Saint Peter, invited Mellitus Bishop of London, Adredus de Ge­stis Edwardi. on a day appointed unto the consecration of it. The night before, S. Peter coming to the further side, crosseth the Ferry, goes into the Church, and with a great deal of celestial musick, lights, and company, performs that office; for the dispatch of which Mellitus had been invited. This done, and being wafted back to the further side, he gives the Ferri-man for his fare a good draught of Fishes, only commanding him, to carry one of them, which was the best for price and beauty, for a present from him to Mellitus, in testimony that the work was done to his hand already. Then telling who he was, he adds, that he and his Posterity, the whole race of Fisher-men should be long after stored with that kind of Fish; tantum ne ultra piscari audeatis in die Dominica; pro­vided always that they fished no more upon the Sunday. Aldredus so reports the story. And though it might be true, as unto the times wherein he lived, (which was in the declining of the twelfth Century) that Fishing on the Lords day was restrained by Law; [Page 474]yet sure he placed this story ill, in giving this injunction from St. Peter in those early days, when such restraints were hardly setled; if in a Church new planted they had yet been spoken of. Leaving this therefore as a fable, let us next look on Beda, what he hath left us of this day, in reference to our Ancestors of the Saxons-Race: and many things we find in him, worth our observation. Before we shewed you, how the Sunday was esteemed a Festival, that it was judged heretical to hold Fasts thereon.Hist. l. 3. c. 23. This Ordinance came in amongst us with the faith it self. S. Chadd, ha­ving a place designed him by King Oswald, to erect a Monastery, did presently retire unto it, in the time of Lent: In all which time, Dominica excepta, the Lords day ex­cepted, he fasted constantly till the Evening, as the story tells us. The like is told of Adamannus, Hist. l. 4. c. 25. one of the Monastery of Coldingham, now in Scotland, (but then ac­counted part of the Kingdom of Northumberland,) that he did live in such a strict and abstemious manner, ut nil unquam cibi vel potus, excepta die Dominica, & quinta Sabbati perciperet; that he did never eat nor drink but on the Sunday and Thurs­day only. This Adamannus lived in Anno 690. Before we shewed you, with what profit Musick had been brought into the Church of God: and hither it was brought, it seems, [...] hist. l. 2. c. 20. with the first preaching of the Gospel. Beda relates it of Paulinus, that when he was made Bishop of Rochester, which was in Anno 631. he left behind him in the North one James a Deacon, cantandi in Ecclesia peritissimum, a man exceeding perfect in Church Musick: who taught them there that form of singing Divine Service, which which he learnt in Canterbury. And after in the year 668, what time Archbishop Theodorus made his Metropolitical visitationn, Lib. 4. c. 2. the Art of singing Service, which was then only used in Kent (for in the North it had not been so setled, but that it was again for­gotten) was generally taken up over all the Kingdom. Sonos cantandi in Ecclesia, quos eate­nusin Cantica tantum noverant, ab hoc tempore per omnes Anglorum Ecclesias dicere coeperunt, as that Author hath it. Before we shewed, how Pope Vitalianus, Anno 653. added the Organ to that vocal Musick, which was before in use in the Church of Christ, In less than 30 years after, and namely in the year 679. were they introduced by Pope Agatho, into the Churches of the English: and have continued in the same well near 1000 years, without interruption. Before we shewed you, how some of the greater Festivals, were in esteem before the Sunday: Bed. Eccl. hist. l. 4. c. 19. and that it was so even in the Primitive times. And so it also was in the Primitive times of this Church of England: it being told us of Qu. Etheldreda, that after she had put her self into a Monastery, she never went unto the Bathes praeter immi­nentibus soleniis majoribus, but on the approach of the greater Festivals, such as were Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas; for so I think he means there by Epiphanie: as also, that unless it were on the greater Festivals she did not use to eat, above once, a day. This plainly shews, that Sunday was not reckoned for a greater Festival; that other days were in the opinion and esteem above it: and makes it evident withal, that they conceived not that the keeping of the Lords day, was to be accounted as a part of the law of Na­ture; or introduced into the Church, by divine Authority, but by the same Autho­rity that the others were.Ap. Lambert. Archaion. For Laws in these times made, we meet with none but those of Ina, a West-Saxon King, who entred on his Reign Anno 712. A Prince ex­ceedingly devoted to the Church of Rome, and therefore apt enough to imbrace any thing, which was there concluded. By him it was enacted, in the form that fol­loweth, Servus si quid operis patrarit die Dominico, ex praecepto Domini sui, liber esto, &c. If a servant work on the Lords day, by the appointment of his Master, he was to be set free, and his Master was to forfeit 30 shillings: but of he worked without such order from his Master, to be whipped, or mulcted. Liber si hoc die operetur injussu Do­mini sui, &c. So if a Freeman worked that day, without direction from his Master, he either was to be made a Bondman, or pay 60 shillings. As for the Doctrine of these times,In Luc. 59. we may best judg of that by Beda. First for the Sabbath, that he tell us, ad Mosis usque tempora caeterorum dierum similis erat, was meerly like the other days until Moses time, no difference at all between them: therefore not institute and observed in the beginning of the World, as some teach us now. Next for the Lords day, that he makes an Apostolical sanction only, no Divine Commandment; as before we noted: and how far Apostolical sanctions bind, we may clearly see, by that which they determined in the Council of Hierusalem. Of these two Specialties, we have spoken already.

This is the most we find in the Saxon Heptarchie; III and little more than this we find in the Saxon Monarchie. In this we meet with Alured first, the first that brought this Realm in order,Lambert. Archaion. who in his Laws cap. de diebus festis & solennibus, reckoneth up cer­tain days in which it was permitted unto Freemen to enjoy their Festival liberty, as [Page 475]the phrase there is: servis autem & iis qui sunt legitima officiorum servitute astricti, non item, but not to slaves, and such as were in service unto other men, viz. the twelve days after Christs Nativity, dies ille quo Christus subegit diabolum, the day wherein our Saviour overcame the Devil; the Festival of Saint Gregory, seven days before Ea­ster, and as many after, the Festival day of Saint Peter and Paul, the week before our Lady day in Harvest, All Hallowtide, and the four Wednesdays in the Ember-weeks. Where note how many other days, were priviledged in the self-same manner, as the Lords day was; in case that be the day then spoken of, wherein our Saviour overcame the Devil, as I think it is: as also that this priviledg extended unto Freemen only, ser­vants and bondmen being left in the same condition as before they were; to spend all days alike in their Masters businesses. This Alured began his Reign, Anno 871. and after him succeeded Edward, surnamed the Elder, in the year 900. who in a league between himself and Gunthrun King of the Danes in England, did publickly on both sides prohibit, as well all markettings on the Sunday, as other kind of work what­soever on the other Holy days. Dacus si die Dominico quicquam fuerit mercatus, reipsa, & Oris praeterea 12 mulctator; Anglus 30 solidos numerato, &c. If a Dane bought any thing on the Lords day, he was to forfeit the thing bought, and to pay 12 Oras, (every Ora being the fifteenth part of a pound) an Englishman doing the like to pay 30 shil­lings. A Freeman if he did any work, die quocunque festo, on any of the Holy days, was forthwith to be made a Bondman, or to redeem himself with Money; a Bondslave to be beaten for it, or redeem his beating with his Purse. The Master also whether that he were Englishman or Dane, if he compelled his servants to work on any of the Holy days, was to answer for it. So when it had been generally received in other places to begin the Sunday-service on the Eve before, it was enacted by King Edgar, surnamed the Peace­able, who began his Reign. An. 959. diem Sabbati, ab ipsa die Saturni hora pomeridiana tertia, usque in lunaris diei diluculum, festum agitari: that the Sabbath should begin on Saturday, at three of the clock in the afternoon, (and not as Fox relates it in his Acts and Monuments, at nine in the morning) and so hold on till day break, on Mon­day. Where, by the way, though it be dies Sabbati in the Latin, yet in the Saxon Copy, it is only Healde, the Holy day. After this Edgars death, the Danes so plagued this Realm, that there was nothing setled in it either in Church or State, till finally they had won the Garland, and obteined the Kingdom. The first of these, Canutus, an heroick Prince; of whom it is affirmed by Malmesbury, omnes leges ab antiquis regibus, & maxime sub Etheldredo latas, that he commanded all those Laws to be observed which had been made by any of the former Kings, (and those before remembred amongst the rest, of which see the 42. of his Constitutions;) especially by Etheldred his predecessour: and that upon a grievous mulct, to be laid on such, who should disobey them. These are the Laws which afterwards were called K. Edwards, non quòd ille statuerit, sed quòd observa­rit, not because he enacted them, but that he caused them to be kept. Of these more a­non. Besides which Laws so brought together, there were some others made at Winchester by this King Canutus: and amongst others, this, that on the Lords day there should be no markettings, no Courts, or publick meetings of the people for civil businesses:Leg. 14.15. as also that all men abstein from Hunting, and from all kind of earthly work. Yet was there an exception too, nisi flagitante necessitate, in cases of necessity, wherein it was permitted both to buy and sell and for the people to meet together in their Courts. For so it passeth in the Law, Die Dominico mercata concelebrari, populive conventus agi, nisi flagitante necessitate planissime vetamus: ipso praeterea die sacrosancto à venatione, & opere terreno prorsus omni, quis (que) abstineto. Not that it is to be supposed, as some would have it, that he intended Sunday for a Sabbath day, for entring on the Crown A. 1017. he did no more than what had for­merly been enacted by Charles the Great, and several Councils after him:Lib. 6. c. 29. none of which dreamed of any Sabbath. Besides it is affirmed of this Canutus, by Otho Frisingensis, that in the year 1027. he did accompany the Emperor Conrade at his Coronation on an Easter day; which questionless he would not have done, knowing those kind of Pomps to be meerly civil, and to have in them much of ostentation; had he intended any Sabbath, when he restrained some works on Sunday. But to make sure work of it, without more ado, the Laws by him collected, which we call St. Edwards, make the matter plain: where Sunday hath no other priviledg than the other Feasts; and which is more, is ranked below them. The Law is thus entituled,Rog. de Hove­den. in Henri [...]. secundo. De temporibus & diebus pacis Domini Regis, the Text as followeth. Ab adventu Domini usque ad octavam Epipha­niae, pax Dei & Ecclesiae, per omne regnum, &c. From Advent to the Octavei of Epi­phanie; ‘Let no mans Person be molested, nor no Suit be pursued: the like from Septuagesima, to Low-sunday; and so from Holy Thursday to the next Sunday after [Page 476] Whitsontide. Item omnibus Sabbatis ab hora nona usque ad diem Lunae, &c. The like on Saturdays from three in the afternoon until Monday morning; as also on the Eves of the Virgin Mary, S. John the Baptist, all the holy Apostles; of such particular Saints whose Festivals are published in the Churches on the Sunday mornings; the Eve of All Saints in November from three of the clock, till the solemnity be ended. As also that no Christian be molested, going to Church for his Devotions, or returning thence: or travelling to the dedication of any new erected Church, or to the Sy­nods, or any publick Chapter meeting.’ Thus was it with the Lords day, as with many others, in S. Edwards Laws; which after were confirmed and ratified by King Henry the second, after they had long been neglected.

Now go we forwards to the Normans, IV and let us see what care they took about the sanctifying of the Lords day; whether they either took or meant it for a Sabbath. And first beginning with the Reign of the first six Kings, we find them times of action, and full of troubles, as it doth use to be in unsetled States: no Law record­ed to be made touching the keeping of this day; but many actions of great note to be done upon it. These we will rank for orders sake under these five Heads: 1. Co­ronations, 2. Synods Ecclesiastical, 3. Councils of Estate, 4. Civil business, and 5. Battels and Assaults; which we shall sum up briefly in their place and time. And first for Coronations, which as before I said, are mixt kind of actions, compound of sacred and of civil: William, surnamed Rufus, was crowned at Canterbury by Archbishop Lanfrancke, the 25 of Septemb. being Sunday; Anno 1087. So was King Stephen, the 21 of Decemb. being Sunday too, Anno 1135. On Sunday before Christmas day was Henry the second crowned at London, by Archbishop Theobald, Anno 1155. and on the Sunday before Septuagesima, his Daughter Joane was, at Palermo, crowned Queen of Sicily. Of Richard the first it is recorded, that hoysing Sail from Barbeflet in Normandy, he arrived safely here upon the Sunday, before our Lady day in Harvest: whence setting towards London, there met him his Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, and Barons, cum copiosa militum multitudine, with a great multitude of Knightly rank; by whose advise and Councel he was crowned on a Sunday, in September following, Anno 1189. and after crowned a second time on his return from Thraldom and the Holy Land, Anno 1194. on a Sunday too. The Royal and magnificent form of his first Coronation, they who list to see, may find it most exactly represented in Rog. de Hoveden. And last of all King John, was first inaugurated Duke of Normandy, by Walter Archbishop of Roane, the Sunday after Easter day, Anno 1200. and on a Sunday after crowned King of England, together with Isabel his Queen, by Hubert at that time Archbishop of Canterbury. For Synods next, Anno 1070. A Council was assem­bled at Winchester, by the appointment of King William the first, and the consent of Alexander then Pope of Rome, for the degrading of Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury: and this upon the Sunday next after Easter. And we find mention of a Synod called by Richard Archbishop of Canterbury, Anno 1175. the Sunday before holy Thursday: ad quod concilium venerunt fere omnes Episcopi & Abbates Cantuariensis dioeceseos; where were assembled almost all the Bishops and Abbots of the whole Province. For Coun­cils of Estate, there was a solemn meeting called on Trinity Sunday, Anno 1143. in which assembled Maud the Empress, and all the Lords which held her party; where the Ambassadours from Anjou gave up their account: and thereupon it was concluded, that the Earl of Gloucester should be sent thither to negotiate his Sisters business. So in the year 1185, when some Embassadours from the East, had offered to King Henry the second, the Kingdom of Hierusalem; the King designed the first Sunday in Lent for his day of answer. Upon which day there met at London, the King, the Pa­triarch of Hierusalem, the Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and Barons of the Realm of England; as also William King of Scotland, and his Brother David, with the Earls and Barons of the Countrey: & habito inde cum deliberatione concilio, &c. and then and there upon mature deliberation, it was concluded, that though the King accepted not the Title, yet he would give his people leave, to put themselves into the action, and take up the Cross. For civil Business of another nature, we find it on Record that on the fourth Sunday in Lent, next following, the same King Henry Knighted his Son John, and sent him forthwith into Ireland: Knighthood at those times being far more full of ceremony, than now it is. Which being but a preparation to War and military matters, leads us unto such Battels, as in these times were fought on Sunday. Of which we find it in our Annals, that in the year 1142. upon a Sunday being Candle­mas day, King Stephen was taken prisoner at the battel of Lincoln: as also that on [Page 477] Holy-Cross day next after, being Sunday too, Robert Earl of Gloucester, Commander of the adverse force, was taken Prisoner at the battel of Winchester. So read we that on Sunday the 25th. of August, Anno 1173. the King of France besieged and forced the Castle of Dole in Brittain, belonging to the King of England: As also that on Sunday the 26th. of Septemb. Anno 1198. King Richard took the Castle of Curceles from the King of France. More of the kind might be remembred, were not these sufficient, to shew how anciently it hath been the use of the Kings of England to create Knights, and hold their Councils of estate on the Lords day, as now they do. Were not the others here remembred, sufficient to let us know that our Progenitours did not think so su­perstitiously of this day, as not to come upon the same unto the Crowning of their Kings, or the publick Synods of the Church; or if need were, and their occasions so required it, to fight as well on the Lords day, as on any other. Therefore no Lords day Sabbath hitherto, in the Realm of England.

Not hitherto indeed. But in the Age that followed next, V there were some over­tures thereof, some strange preparatives to begin one For in the very entrance of the 13th. Age, Fulco, a French Priest, and a notable Hypocrite,Rog. de Hote­den. as our King Richard coun­ted him, and the story proves, lighted upon a new Sabbatarian fancy; which one of his Associates, Eustathius Abbat of Flay, in Normandy, was sent to scatter here in Eng­land: but finding opposition to his doctrine, he went back again, the next year after, being 1202. he comes better fortified, preaching from town to town, and from place to place, ne quis forum rerum venalium diebus Dominicis exerceret, that no man should presume to market on the Lords day. Where by the way we may observe, that not­withstanding all the Canons and Edicts before remembred in the fifth Chapter of this book, and the third Section of this Chapter, the English kept their markets on the Lords day, as they had done formerly, as neither being bound to those which had been made by foreign states; or such as being made at home, had long before been cut in peeces by the sword of the Norman Conqueror. Now for the easier bringing of the people to obey their dictates they had to shew, a warrant sent from God himself, as they gave it out. The title this, Mandatum sanctum Dominicae diei quod de coelo venit in Hierusalem, &c. An holy mandat touching the Lords day, which came down from Heaven unto Hierusalem, found on S. Simeons Altar in Golgotha, where Christ was Crucified for the sins of all the world; which lying there three days, and as many nights, strook with such terrour all that saw it, that falling on the ground, they besought Gods mercy. At last the Patriarch, and Akarias the Archbishop (of I know not whence) ventured to take into their bands that dreadful letter, which was written thus. Now wipe your eyes and look a while on the Contents, which I shall render with as much brevity as the thing requires. Ego Dominus qui praecepi vobis ut observaretis diem sanctum Dominicum, & non custodistis eum, &c. I am the Lord which hath commanded to keep holy the Lords day, and you have not kept it, neither repented of your sins, &c. I caused Repentance to be preached unto you, and you believed not. Thent sent I Pagans amongst you, &c. and because you did not keep the Lords day holy, I punished you a while with famine, &c. Therefore I charge you all, that from the ninth hour on the Saturday, until Sun rising on the Monday, no man presume to do any work but what is good; or if he do, that he repent him of the same. Verily I say and swear unto you by my Seat and Throne, and by the Cherubins that keep my seat, that if you do not harken to this my Mandat, I will no more send to you any other Epistle; but I will open the heavens, and rain upon you stones, and wood, and scalding water, &c. This I avow, that you shall die the death, for the Lords day and other festivals of my Saints, which you have not kept: and I will send amongst you Beasts, with the heads of Lyons, and the hair of Women, and the tailes of Camels; and they shall eat you and devour you. There is a great deal more of this wretched stuff, but I am weary of abusing both my pains and patience. Only I cannot choose but wish that those who have enlarged their Lords day Sabbath to the same extent, would either shew us some such letter, or bring us any of the miracles which hereafter follow; or otherwise be pleased to lengthen out the Festivals of the Saints in the self same manner, as by this goodly Script they are willed to do.

But to procced, the said Eustathius thus furnished, and having found but ill success the former year, in the Southern parts, where he did Angliae Praelatos praedicatione sua molestare, disturb the Prelates by his preachings, as my Author hath it; he went up to York. There did he preach his doctrins, and absolve such as had offended; condi­tioned that hereafter they did shew more reverence unto the Lords day, and the other Holy days, doing no servile works upon them; nec in diebus Dominicis exercerent forum rerum venalium; particularly, that on the Lords day they should hold no Markets. [Page 478]The people hereunto assented, and promised they would neither buy nor sell on the Lords day, nisi forte cibum & potum praetereuntibus, excepting meat and drink to passen­gers. Whereby it seems, that notwithstanding all this terrour, men were permitted yet to travel on the Lords day, as they had occasion. This coming to the notice of the King and Council, my men were all fetched up; such specially qui in diebus Dominicis forum rerum venalium dejecerant, which had disturbed the Markets, and overthrown the Booths and Merchandize on the Lords day, and made to fine unto the King for their mis­demeanour. Then were they fain to have recourse to pretended miracles. A Carpen­ter making a wooden Pin, and a Woman making up her Web, both after three on Saturday in the afternoon, are suddenly smitten with the Palsey. A certain man of Nafferton, baking a Cake on Saturday night, and keeping part until the morrow, no sooner brake it for his breakfast, but it gushed out blood. A Miller of Wakefield, grinding Corn on Saturday, after three of the clock, instead of Meal, found his Bin full of Blood, his Mill-wheel standing still of its own accord. One or two more there are of the same edition. And so I think is that related in the Acts and Monuments, out of an old Book entituled de Regibus Angliae; which, now I am fallen upon these fables, shall be joyned with them: King Henry the Second, saith the story, being at Cardiffe in Wales, and being to take horse, there stood a certain man by him, having on him a white Coat, and being barefoot, who looked upon the King, and spake in this wise: Good old King, John Baptist and Peter straightly charge you, that on the Sundays throughout all your Do­minions, there be no buying or selling, nor any other servile business (those only ex­cept which appertain to the preparation of meat and drink) which thing if thou shalt observe, whatsoever thing thou takest in hand, thou shalt happily finish. Adding withal, that unless he did these things, and amend his life, he should hear such news within the twelve-moneth, as would make him mourn till his dying day. But to conclude, what was the issue of all this,Hoveden. this terrible letter and forged miracles? That the Historian tells us with no small regret, informing us, that notwithstanding all these miracles, whereby God did invite the people to observe this day: Populus plus timens regiam po­testatem, quàm divinam, the people fearing more the Kings power than Gods, returned unto their Marketting, as before they did.

I say that the Historian tells it with no small regret; VII for in that passionate discon­tent he had said before, that inimicus humani generis, the Devil envying the proceedings of this holy man so far, so possessed the King and the Princes of darkness (so he calls the Council) that they forthwith proceeded against them who had obeyed him. Which makes me think that this Eustathius was a familiar of the Popes, sent hither for the introducing of those restraints which had been formerly imposed on most parts of Christendom; though here they found no entertainment, the Popes had found full well how ill their justlings had succeeded hitherto with the Kings of England, of the Norman race; and therefore had recourse to their wonted arts, by prodigies and miracles to in­snare the people, and bring them so unto their bent. And this I do the rather think, because that in the following year, Anno 1203. there was a Legate sent from Rome to William King of Scots, with several presents, and many indulgences. Quae quoniam grato accepit animo, Hect. Boet. lib. 13. eodem concilio approbante decretum est, &c. Which he accepting very kindly, it pleased him with the approbation of his Parliament at that time assembled, to pass a Law, that Saturday from twelve at noon should be counted holy; and that no man should deal in such worldly businesses as on the Feast-days were forbidden. As also that at the sounding of the Bell, the People should be busied only about holy actions, going to Sermons, hearing the Vespers, or the Evensong; idque usque in diem Lunae facerent, and that they should continue thus until Monday morning, a penalty being laid on those who should do the contrary. So passed it then, and in the year 1214 some eleven years after, it was enacted in a Parliament at Scone, Lex aquarum cap. 16. §. 2. under Alexander the third King of the Scots, that none should fish in any wa­ters, à die Sabbati post vesperas usque ad diem lunae post ortum solis, from Saturday after Evening prayer, until Sun-rising on the Munday. This after was confirmed in the first Parliament of King James the first, and is to this day called the Saturdays Slop. So easily did the Popes prevail with our now friends of Scotland; that neither miracle, nor any special packet from the Court of Heaven, was accounted necessary.

But here with us in England it was not so, VIII though now the Popes had got the better of King John, that unhappy Prince; and had in Canterbury an Archbishop of their own appointment, even that Steven Langton, about whom so much strife was raised. Which notwithstanding, and that the King was then a Minor, yet they proceeded here with [Page 479]great care and caution, and brought the Holy-days into order, not by command, or any Decretal from Rome, but by a Council held at Oxford, Ap. Lindwood Anno 1222. where amongst other Ordinances tending unto the Government of the Church, the Holy-days were divided into these three ranks. In the first rank were those, quae omni veneratione ser­vanda erant, which were to be observed with all reverence and solemnity; of which sort were omnes dies Dominici, &c. all Sundays in the year, the feast of Christs Nativity, together with all others now observed in the Church of England: as also all the Festivals of the Virgin Mary, excepting that of her Conception which was left at large; with divers which have since been abrogated. And for conclusion, festum dedicationis cu­juslibet Ecclesiae in sua parochia, the Wakes or Feasts of Dedication of particular Churches in their proper Parishes, are there determined to be kept with the same reverence and solemnity, as the Sundays were. Nor was this of the Wakes or Feasts of Dedication any new device; but such as could plead a fair original from the Council held in Mentz, anno 813. If it went no higher. For in a Catalogue there made of such principal feasts as annually were to be observed, they reckon dedicationem templi, the consecra­tion Feast, or Wake, as we use to call it; and place it in no lower rank, in reference to the solemnity of the same, than Easter, Whitsontide, and the rest of the greater Festivals. Now at the first those Wakes or Feasts of dedication were either held upon the very day on which, or the Saints day to which, they had been first consecrated. But after finding that so many Holy days brought no small detriment to the Com­mon-wealth, it came to pass that generally these Wakes or Feasts of dedication were respited until the Sunday following, as we now observe them. Of the next rank of Feasts in this Council mentioned, were those which were by Priest and Curate to be celebrated most devoutly, with all due performances; minoribus operibus servilibus, se­cundum consuetudinem loci, illis diebus interdictis, all servile works of an inferiour and less important nature, according to the custom of the place, being laid aside. Such were Saint Fabian and Sebastian, and some twenty more, which are therein specified, but now out of use: and amongst them the Festival of Saint George was one, which after in the year 1414. was made by Chicheley, then Archbishop, a Majus duplex, and no less solemnly to be observed than the Feast of Christmass. Of the last rank of Feasts, were those in quibus post missam opera rusticana concedebantur, sed antequam non; wherein it was permitted that men might after Mass pursue their Countrey, businesses, though not before: and these were only the Octaves of Epiphany, and of John the Baptist, and of Saint Peter, together with the translations of Saint Benedict and Saint Martin. But yet it seems that on the greater Festivals, those of the first rank, there was no restraint of Tillage and of Shipping, if occasion were; and that necessity did require, though on those days, Sundays and all before remembred, there was a general restraint of all other works. For so it standeth in the title prefixt before those Festivals, haec sunt festa, in quibus, prohibitis aliis operibus, conceduntur opera agriculturae & carrucarum. Where by the way, I have translated carrucarum, shipping: the word not being put for Plough or Cart, which may make it all one with the word foregoing, but for ships and sayling. Carruca, signifieth a Ship of the greater burden, such as to this day we call Carrects, which first came from hence. And in this sense the word is to be found in an Epistle writ by Gildas, Illis ad sua remeantibus emergunt certatim de Carruchis, qui­bus sunt trans Scyticam vallem avecti. So then, as yet, Tillage and Sayling were al­lowed of on the Sunday, if, as before I said, occasion were,Math. Westmo­naster. and that necessity so re­quired. Of other passages considerable in the Reign of K. Henry III. the principal to this point and purpose, are his own Coronation, on Whitsunday, anno 1220. two years before this Council, which was performed with great solemnity and concourse of People. Next, his bestowing the order of Knighthood on Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, accompanied with forty other gallants of great hopes and spirit, on Whit­sunday too, Anno 1245. and last of all, a Parliament Assembled on Mid-lent Sunday, Parliamentum generalissimum, the Historian calls it the next year after.

This was a fair beginning, but they staid not here. IX For after in a Synod of Arch­bishop Islippes (he was advanced unto the See,Lindw. l. 2. tit. de feriis. Anno 1349.) it was decreed de fratrum nostrorum consilio, with the assent and counsel of all the Prelates then assembled, that on the principal Feasts hereafter named, there should be generally a restraint through all the Province, ab universis servilibus operibus etiam reipubl. utilibus, even from all manner of servile works, though otherwise necessary to the Common-wealth. This general restraint, in reference to the Sunday was to begin on Saturday night, ab hora diei Sabbati vespertina, as the Canon goes, not a minute sooner: and that upon good rea­son [Page 480]too, ne Judaicae superstitionis participes videamur, lest if they did begin it sooner (as some now would have us) they might be guilty of a Jewish superstition. the same to be observed in such other Feasts, quae suas habent vigilias, whose Eves had formerly been kept. As also that the like restraint should be observed upon the Feast of Christ­mass, S. Steven, S. John, &c. and finally on the Wakes, or Dedication Feasts which before we spake of, Now for the works before prohibited, though necessary to the Common wealth, as we may reckon Husbandry, and all things appertaining there­unto, so probably we may reckon Law-days, and all publick Sessions in Courts of Justice; in case they had not been left off in former times, when as the Judges general being of the Clergy,Fin [...] of the Law, l. 1. c. 3. might in obedience to the Canon-law forbear their Sessions on those days, the Lords day especially. For as our Sages in the Law have resolved it generally, that day is to be exempt from such business, even by the Common Law, for the solemnity thereof, to the intent that people may apply themselves to prayer, and Gods publick service. Particularly, Fitz-Herbert tells us that no plea shall be holden Quindena Paschae, Nat. Brevium, fol. 17. 1 Eli [...] p. 168. because it is always on the sunday, but it shall be holden crastino quindenae paschae, on the morrow after. So Justice Dyer hath resolved, that if a Writ of scire facias out of the Common-pleas, bear Test on a Sunday, it is an errour, because that day is not dies juridicus in Banco. And so it is agreed amongst them, that on a Fine levied with Pro­clamations according to the Statute of King Henry VII. if any of the Proclamations be made on the Lords day, all of them are to be accounted erroneous Acts. But to re­turn unto the Canon where before we left, however that Archbishop Langton for­merly, and Islip at the present time, had made these several restraints from all servile labours; yet they were far enough from entertaining any Jewish fancy. The Canon last remembred, that of Simon Islip doth express as much. But more particularly and punctually we may find what was the judgment of these times in a full declaration of the same, in a Synod at Lambeth, what time John Peckham was Archbishop, which was in Anno 1280.Lindw, l. 1. tit. de offic. Archi­presb. It was thus determined. Sciendum est quod obligatio ad feriandum in Sabbato legali expiravit omnino, &c. It is to be understood that all manner of obligation of resting on the legal Sabbath, as was required in the Old Testament, is utterly expired with the other ceremonies. And it is now sufficient in the New Testament, to attend Gods service upon the Lords days, and the other Holy days, ad hoc Ecclesiastica authoritate deputatis, ap­pointed by the Church to that end and purpose. The manner of sanctifying all which days, non est sumendus à superstitione Judaica, sed à Canonicis institutis, is not to be derived from any Jewish superstition, but from the Canons of the Church. This was exact and plain enough, and this was constantly the doctrine of the Church of England. Joannes de Burgo, who lived about the end of K. Henry VI. doth almost word for word resolve it so in his Pupilla oculi, part 10. c. 11. D.

Yet find we not in these restraints, X that Marketting had been forbidden, either on the Lords day, or the other Holy days, and indeed it was not; that came in after­wards by degrees, partly by Statutes of the Realm, partly by Canons of the Church; not till all Nations else had long laid them down. For in the 28 of King Edward III. cap, 14. it was accorded and established, that shewing of Wools shall be made at the Stapie every day of the week, except the Sunday and the solemn Feasts in the year. This was the first restraint in this kind with us here in England; and this gives no more priviledge to the Lords day than the solemn Festivals.Antiq. Brit. in Stafford. Nor was there more done in it for almost an hundred years; not till the time of Henry VI. Anno 1444. what time Archbishop Stafford decreed throughout his Province, ut nundina & emporia in Ecclesiis, aut Coemiteriis, diebusque Dominicis atque Festis, praeterquam tempore messis, non teneantur; that Fairs and Markets should no more be kept in Churches and Church-yards, or on the Lords days, or the other Holy-days, except in time of Harvest only. If in that time they might be suffered, then certainly in themselves they were not unlawful on any other; further than as prohibited by the higher powers. Now that which the Archbishop had decreed throughout his Province,Tabians Chro­nicle. Catworth Lord Mayor of London, attempted to exceed within that City. For in this year, saith Fabian, (Anno 1444.) an Act was made by Authority of the Common Council of London, that up­on the Sunday should no manner of thing within the franchise of the City be bought or sold, nei­ther Victual nor other thing; nor no Artificer should bring his Ware unto any man to be worn or occupied that day; as Taylers Garments, and Cordwayners Shooes, and so likewise all other occupations. But then it followeth in the story, the which Ordinance held but a while; enough to shew by the success, how ill it doth agree with a Lord Mayor, to deal in things about the Sabbath. Afterwards in the year 1451. which was the 28 of [Page 481]this Henries Reign, it pleased the King in Parliament to ratifie what before was order­ed by that Archbishop in this form that followeth.28. H. 6. c. 16. Considering the abominable in­juries and effences done to Almigvty God, and to his Saints always ayders and finguler affistants in our necessities, by the necasion of Fairs and Marhets upon their high and principal Feasts; as in the Feast of the Ascension of our Lord. in the day of Corpus Christi, in the day of Whitsunday, Trinity Sunday, and other Sundays; as also in the high Feast of the Assumption of our Blessed Lady, the day of all Saints, and on Good Friday, accustomably and miserably holden and used in the Keaim of England, &c. our Soveraign Lord the King, &c. hath ordained that all manner of Fairs and Markets on the said principal Feasts and Sundays, and Good Friday, shall clearly cease from all shewing of any Goods and Merchandises, necessary Victual only ercept, (which yet was more than was allowed in the City-Act) upon pain of forfeiture of all the goods aforesaid to the Lord of the franchise or liverty, where such goods be or shall be she wed contrary to this Ordinance; the four Sundays in Harvest except. Which clause or reservation sheweth plainly that the things before prohibited were not esteemed unlawful in themselves: as also that this Law was made in confirmation of the former order of the Archbishop, as before was said. Now on this Law I find two resolutions made by my Lords the Judges. First Justice Brian in the 12th. of King Edward the fourth, declared that no sale made upon a Sunday, though in a Fair or Market-overt, (for Markets, as it seemeth, were not then quite laid down, though by Law prohibited) shall be a good sale to alter the property of the goods. And Ploydon in the time of Queen Elizabeth was of opinion,Daltons Justice. cap. 27. that the Lord of any Fair or Market kept upon the Sunday contrary to the Statute, may there­fore be indicted for the King or Queen, either at the Assizes, or general Goal delivery, or Quarter Sessions within that County. If so, in case such Lord may be Endicted for any Fair or Market kept upon the sunday, as being contrary to the Statute; then by the same rea­son may he be Endicted for any Fair or Market kept on any of the other Holy-days in that Statute mentioned.

Nor staid it here. For in the 1465. which was the fourth year of King Edward IV. XI it pleased the King in Parliament to Enact as followeth. Our Soveraign Lord the King, &c. hath ordained and established that no Cordwainer or Cobler within the City of London, or within three miles of any part of the said City. &c. do upon any Sunday in the year, or on the Feasts of the Ascension or Nativity of our Lord, or on the Feasi of Corpus Christi, sell or command to be sold any Shwe, Huseans, (i. e. Bootes) or Galoches; or upon the Sunday, or any other of the said Feasts, shall set or put upon the feet or legs of any person any Shwes, Huseans, or Galoches, upon pain of forfeiture and loss of? O shillings, as often as any person shall do contrary to this Ordinance. Where note, that this restraint was only for the City of London, and the parts about it; which shews that it was counted lawful in all places clse. And therefore there must be some particular motive why this restraint was laid on those of London only; either their insolencies, or some notorious neglect of Gods publick service; the Gentle craft had otherwise been ungently handled, that they of all the Tradesmen in that populous City should be so restrained. Note also, that in this very Act, there is a reservation or indulgence for the Inhabitants of S. Martins le Grand, to do as formerly they were accustomed, the said Act or Statute not with­standing. 14 & 15 of H. 8. cap. 9. Which very clause did after move King Henry VIII. to repeal this Statute, that so all others of that trade might be free as they: or as the very words of the Sta­tute are, That to the Honour of Almighty God, all the Kings Subjects might be hereafter at their liberty, as well as the Inbabitants of S. Martins le Grand. Now where it seemeth by the Proeme of the Statute 17. of this King Edward IV. c. 3. that many in that time did spend their Holy-days in dice, Quoits, Tennis, bowling, and the like unlawful Games, forbidden (as is there affirmed) by the Laws of the Realm; which said unlawful Games are thereupon prohibited, under a certain penalty in the Statute mentioned; It is most manisest that the Prohibition was not in reference to the time, Sundays or any other Holy-days, but only to the Games themselves, which were unlawful at all times. For publick actions in the times of these two last Princes, the greatest were the battels of Towton and Barnet; one on Palm-Sunday, and the other on Easter-day; the greatest Fields that ever were fought in England. And in this State things stood till King Henry VIII.

Now for the doctrine and the practice of these times before King Henry the VIII. and the Reformation; we cannot take a better view than in John de Burgo, Chancellor of [Page 482]the University of Cambridg, I pitta O [...]i Pl. 12. & 11. D. about the latter end of King Henry the sixth. First Do­ctrinally he determincth, as before was said, that the Lords day was instituted by the authority of the Church, and that it is no otherwise to be observed, than by the Ca­nons of the Church we are bound to keep it. Then for the name of Sabbath, that the Lords day, & quaelibet dies statuta ad divinam culturam, Id. lb. E. and every day appointed for Gods publick service, may be so entituled, because in them we are to rest from all servile works: such as are Arts Mechanick, Husbandry, Law-days, and going to Mar­kets, with other things quae ab Ecclesia determinantur, Il ply 5.9. cap. 7. H. which are determined by the Church. Lastly, that on those days, insistendum est orationibus &c. We must be bu­sied at our prayers, the publick service of the Church, in Hymns, and in spiritual Songs, and in hearing Sermons. Next practically for such things as were then al­lowed of, he doth sort them thus. First generally, Non tamen prohibentur his diebus faccre quae pertinent ad providentiam necessariorum, &c. We are not those days restrained from doing such things as conduce to the providing of necessaries either for our selves or for our Neighbours: as in preserving of our persons, or of our substance; or in avoid­ing any loss that might happen to us.Id. ib. J. Particularly next, si jacentibus, &c. In case our Corn and Hay in the Fields abroad, be in danger of a Tempest, we may bring it in, yea though it be upon the Sabbath. Butchers and Victualers, if they make ready on the Holy days, what they must sell the morrow after, either in open Market, or in their shops; in case they cannot dress it on the day before, or being dressed they cannot keep it:Id. ib. L. non peccant mortaliter, they fall not by so doing, into mortal sin. ve­ctores mercium, &c. Carriers of Wares, or Men, or Victuals, unto distant places, in case they cannot do it upon other days without inconvenience, are to be excused. Barbers and Chirurgions, Smiths or Farriers, if on the Holy days they do the works of their daily labour,Id. ib. M. especially. propter necessitatem eorum quibus serviunt, for the neces­sities of those who want their help; are excusable also, but not in case they do it chiefly for desire of gain.Id. ib. N. Messengers, Posts and Travellers, that travel, if some special occasion be, on the Holy days; whether they do it for reward, or not; non audeo condemnare, are not at all to be condemned. As neither Millers, which do grind either with Water-mils, or Wind-mils, and so can do their Work without much labour; but they may keep the custom of the place in the which they live, not being otherwise commanded by their Ordinaries:Id. ib. O. secus si traciu jumentorum mul­turam faciunt; but if it be an Horse-mill, then the case is altered. So buying and selling on those days, in some present exigent, as the providing necessary Victuals for the day, was not held unlawful: dum tamen exercentes ea non subtrabunt se di­vinis officiis, in case they did not thereby keep themselves from Gods publick Ser­vice. Lastly,Id. ib. Q. for Recreations, for dancing on those days, he determins thus: that they which dance on any of the Holy days, either to stir themselves, or others: unto carnal lusts, commit mortal sin; and so they do, saith he, in case they do it any day. But it is otherwise, if they dance upon honest causes, and no naughty purpose; and that the persons be not by Law restrained. Choreas ducentes, maxi­me in diebus sestis, causa incitanda se, vel alios, ad peccatum mortale, peccant mortali­ter: & similiter si in profestis diebus hoc fiat: secus si hoc fiat ex causa honesta, & inten­tione non corrupta, & à persona, cui talia non sunt probibita. With which determina­tion I conclude this Chapter.

CHAP. VIII. The story of the Lords Day, from the Reformation of Religion, in this Kingdom, till this present time.

  • 1. The doctrine of the Sabbath and the Lords day, delivered by three several Martyrs, conformably to the judgment of the Prote­stants before remembred.
  • 2. The Lords day, and the other Holy days, confessed by all this Kingdom, in the Court of Parliament, to have no other ground, than the authority of the Church.
  • 3. The meaning and occasion of that clause in the Common-Prayer book, Lord have mercy upon us, &c. repeated at the end of the fourth Commandment.
  • 4. That by the Queens Injunctions, and the first Parliament of her Keign, the Lords day was not meant for a Sabbath day.
  • 5. The doctrine in the Homilies delivered, about the Lords day, and the Sabbath.
  • 6. The sum and substance of that Homily; and that it makes not any thing for a Lords day Sabbath.
  • 7. The first original of the New Sabbath Speculations, in this Church of England; by whom, and for what cause invented.
  • 8. Strange and most monstrous Paradoxes, preached on occasion of the former doctrines; and of the other effects thereof.
  • 9. What care was taken of the Lords day in King James his Reign; the spreading of the doctrines: and of the Articles of Ire­land.
  • 10. The Jewish Sabbath set on foot: and of King James his declaration about law­ful sports, on the Lords day.
  • 11. What Tracts were writ and published in that Princes time, in opposition to the doctrines before remembred.
  • 12. In what estate the Lords day and the other Holy days have stood in Scotland, since the reformation of Religion in that Kingdom.
  • 13. Statutes about the Lords day, made by our present Sovereign; and the miscon­struing of the same: His Majesty revi­veth, and enlargeth the Declaration of King James.
  • 14. An exhortation to obedience unto his Majesties most Christian purpose, concludes this History.

THUS are we safely come to these present times, the times of Reformation, I wherein whatever had been taught or done in the former days, was publickly brought unto the test, and if not well approved of, layed aside, either as unprofitable, or plainly hurtful. So dealt the Reformators of the church of England, as with other things, with that which we have now in hand, the Lords day, and the other Holy days: keeping the days, as many of them as were thought convenient for the advancement of true godliness, and increase of piety; but paring off those supersti­tious conceits and matters of opinion, which had been entertained about them. But first, before we come to this, we will by way of preparation, lay down the judgments of some men in the present point; men of good quality in their times, and such as were content to be made a sacrifice, in the common Cause. Of these I shall take notice of three particularly, according to the several times in the which they lived. And first we will begin with Master Frith, who suffered in the year 1533. who in his declaration of Baptism, thus declares himself. Our forefathers, saith he,Page 96. which were in the begin­ning of the Church, did abrogate the Sabbath, to the intent that men might have an en­sample of Christian liberty, &c. Howbeith because it was necessary that a day should be re­served in which the people should come together, to hear the Word of God, they ordained in­stead of the Sabbath which was Saturday, the next day following which is Sunday. And although they might have kept the Saturday with the Jew, as a thing indifferent, yet they did much better. Some three years after him, Anno 1536. being the 28. of Henry the eighth, suffered Master Tyndall, who in his answer to Sir Thomas More, hath resolved it thus. As for the Sabbath we be Lords over the Sabbath,Page 287. and may yet change it into Monday, or into any other day, as we see need; or may make every tenth day Holy day only, if we see cause why. Neither was there any cause to change it from the Saturday, but to put a difference between us and the Jews; neither reed we any Holy day at all, if the people might be taught without it. Last of all bishop Hooper, sometimes Bishop of Glou­cester, who suffered in Queen Maries Reign, doth in a Treatise by him written on the Ten Commandments, and printed in the year 1550. go the self-same way.age 103. We may not [Page 484]think (saith he) that God gave any more holiness to the Sabbath, than to the other days. For if ye consider Friday,Pag. 103. Saturday, or Sunday, inasmuch as they be days, and the work of God, the one is no more holy than the other: but that day is always most holy, in the which we most apply and give our selves unto holy works. To that end did he sanctifie the Sabbath day, not that we should give our selves to illness, or such Ethnical pastime as is now used amongst Ethnical people: but being free that day from the travels of this World, we might consider the works and benefits of God, with thanksgiving; hear the Word of God, honour him and fear him; then to learn who, and where be the poor of Christ, that want our help. Thus they: and they amongst them have resolved on these four conclusions. First, that one day is no more holy than another, the Sunday than the Satur­day or the Friday; further than they are set apart for holy Uses. Secondly, that the Lords day hath no institution from divine authority, but was ordained by our fore-fathers in the beginning of the Church, that so the people might have a Day to come toge­ther, and hear Gods Word. Thirdly, that still the Church hath power to change the day from Sunday unto Monday, or what day she will. And lastly, that one day in seven, is not the Moral part of the fourth Commandment: for Mr. Tyndal saith expresly, that by the Church of God, each tenth day only may be kept holy, if we see cause why. So that the marvel is the greater, that any man should now affirm, as some men have done, that they are willing to lay down both their Lives and Livings, in maintenance of those contrary Opinions, which in these latter days have been taken up.

Now that which was affirmed by them, II in their particulars, was not long after­wards made good by the general Body of this Church and State, the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and all the Commons met in Parliament, Anno the fifth and sixth of King Edward the sixth;5 & 6 Edw. 6. cap. 3. where, to the honour of Almighty God, it was thus enacted: For as much as men be not at all times so mindful to Iaud and praise God, so ready to resort to hear Gods holy Word, and to come to the holy Commu­nion &c. as their bounden duty doth require: therefore to call men to remem­brance of their duty, and to help their infirmity, it hath been wholsomly pro­vided, that there should be some certain times and days appointed, wherein the Christians should cease from all kind of labour, and apply themselves only and wholly unto the aforesaid holy works, properly pertaining to true Keligion, &c. Which works as they may well be called Gods Service, so the time especially appointed for the same, are called Holy days: Rot for the matter or the nature either of the time or day, &c. for to all days and times are of like holiness, but for the nature and condition of such holy works, &c. whereunto such times and days are sanctified and hallowed: that is to say separated from all prophane uses, and dedicated not unto any Saint or Creature, but only unto God, and his true wor­ship. Neither is it to be thought that there is any certain time or definitive num­ber of days, prescribed in holy Scripture; but the appointment both of the time, and also of the number of days, is left by the authority of Gods Word unto the liberty of Christs Church, to be determined and assigned orderly in every Countrey, by the discretion of the Rulers and Ministers thereof, as they shall judg most expedi­ent, to the true setting forth of Gods glory, and edification of their people. Nor is it to be thought, that all this Preamble was made in reference to the Holy days or Saints days only; whose being left to the authority of the Church, was never questioned: but in relation to the Lords day also, as by the Act it self doth at full ap­pear; for so it followeth in the Act: Be it therefore enacted, &c. That all the days hereafter mentioned, shall be kept, and commanded to be kept Holy days, and none other: that is to say, all Sundays in the Year, the Feasts of the Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Epiphanie, of the Purification, (with all the rest now kept, and there named particularly) and that none other day shall be kept and com­manded to be kept holy day, and to abstain from lawful bodily labour. Nay, which is more, there is a further Clause in the self-same Act, which plainly shews that they had no such thought of the Lords day, as that it was a Sabbath, or so to be ob­served, as the Sabbath was; and therefore did provide it, and enact by the Authority aforesaid, a bat it shall be lawful to every Husbandman, Labourer, Fisherman, and to all and every other person or persons, of what estate, degree, or condition be or they he, upon the holy days aforesaid in Harvest, or at any other times in the year, when necessity shall so require, to labour, ride, fish, or work any kind of work at their free-wills and pleasure: any thing in this Act unto the contrary notwith­standing. This is the total of this Act; which, if examined well, as it ought to [Page 485]be, will yield us all those propositions or conclusions, before remembred, which we collected from the writings of those three particular Martyrs: Nor is it to be said, that it is repealed, and of no Authority. Repealed, indeed, it was, in the first year of Queen Mary; and stood repealed in Law, though otherwise in use and practice, all the long Reign of Queen Elizabeth: but in the first year of King James, was re­vived again. Note here, that in the self-same Parliament, the Common Prayer-Book, now in use, being reviewed by many godly Prelates, was confirmed and autho­rized; wherein, so much of the said Act, as doth concern the Names and Number of the Holy days, is expressed, and as it were incorporate into the same. Which makes it manifest, that in the purpose of the Church, the Sunday was no otherwise esteemed of, than another Holy day.

This Statute, as before we said, was made in Anno 5. & 6. of Edward the sixth. III And in that very Parliament, as before we said, the Common-Prayer-Book was con­firmed, which still remains in use amongst us: save, that there was an alteration or addition of certain Lessons to be used on every Sunday of the Year: 1 Eliz. cap. 2. the form of the Letany altered, and corrected; and two Sentences added in the delivery of the Sacrament unto the Communicants. Now, in this Common Prayer-Book thus confirmed, in the fifth and sixth years of King Edward the sixth,Cap. 1. it pleased those that had the altering and revising of it, that the Commandments, which were not in the former Liturgy, allowed of in the second of the said Kings Reign, should now be added, and accounted as a part of this; the people being willed to say after the end of each Commandment, Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law. Which being used accordingly, as well upon the hearing of the fourth Com­mandment, as of any others; hath given some men a colour to persuade themselves, that certainly it was the meaning of the Church, that we should keep a Sabbath still, though the day be changed; and that we are obliged to do it, by the fourth Com­mandment. Assuredly, they who so conclude, conclude against the meaning of the Book and of them that made it. Against the meaning of the Book: for if the Book had so intended, that that Ejaculation was to be understood in a literal sence, accord­ing as the words are laid down in terminis: it then must be the meaning of the Book, that we should pray unto the Lord, to keep the Sabbath of the Jews, even the se­venth day precisely, from the Worlds Creation, and keep it in the self-same manner, as the Jews once did: which no man, I presume, will say was the meaning of it. For, of the changing of the day, there is nothing said, nor nothing intimated; but the whole Law laid down in terminis, as the Lord delivered it. Against the meaning also of them that made it: for they that made the Book, and reviewed it afterwards, and caused these Passages and Prayers to be added to it; Cranmer, Archbishop of Can­terbury; Ridley, Bishop of London; and certain others of the Prelates, then and there assembled; were the same men, by whose advice and counsel, the Act before remem­bred, about keeping Holy days, was in the self-same Parliament drawn up, and per­fected. And is it possible, we should conceive so ill of those reverend persons, as that they would erect a Sabbath in the one Act, and beat it down so totally in the other: to tell us in the Service-Book, that we are bound to keep a Sabbath, and that the time and day of Gods publick Worship, is either pointed out in the fourth Com­mandment, or otherwise ordained by Divine Authority: and in the self-same breath, to tell us, that there is neither certain time, nor definite number of days, prescribed in Scri­pture, but all this left unto the liberty of the Church? I say, as formerly I said, it is impossible we should think so ill of such Reverend persons: nor do I think, that any will so think hereafter, when they have once considered the non sequitur of their own Conclusions. As for the Prayer there used we may thus expound it, according to the doctrine and the practice both, of those very times; viz. that their intent and meaning was, to teach the people, to pray unto the Lord, to incline their hearts to keep that Law, as far as it contained the Law of Nature, and had been entertained in the Christian Church; as also to have mercy on them for the neglect thereof, in those Holy days, which by the wisdom and authority of the Church, had been set apart for Gods publick Service. Besides, this Prayer was then conceived, when there was no suspition, that any would make use thereof, to introduce a Jewish Sabbath; but when men rather were inclined to the contrary errour, to take away those cer­tain and appointed times, Lords days, and other Holy days, which by the wisdom of the Church had been retained in the Reformation. The Anabaptists were strongly bent that way, as before we shewed; and if we look into the Articles of our Church,See Art. 26.37, 38, 39. [Page 486]we shall then find what special care was taken, to suppress their errours in other points, which had taken footing, as it seems, in this Church and Kingdom. Therefore the more likely it is, that this Cluse was added, to crush their furious fancies, in this particular, of not hallowing certain days and times to Gods publick Service. Yet I conceive withal, that had those Reverend Prelates foreseen how much their pious purpose would have been abused, by wresting it to introduce a Sabbath, which they never meant; they would have cast their meaning in another mould.

Proceed we to the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, IV that so much celebrated Princess; and in the first place, we shall meet with her Injunctions, published the first year of her Empire: in which, the Sunday is not only counted with the other Holy days; but labour, at some times permitted; and which is more, enjoyn'd upon it: For thus it pleased her to declare her will and pleasure;Injunct. 20. All the Queens faithful and loving Subjects shall from henceforth celebrate and keep their holy day, according to Gods holy will and pleasure: that is, in hearing the Word of God read, and taught; in private and publick Prayers; in knowledging their offences unto God, and amendment of the same; in reconciling of themselves charitably to their Neighbours, where displeasure hath been; in oftentimes receiving the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ; in bistting the Poor, and Sick, using all soberness, and godly conversation. This seems to be severe enough; but what followeth next? Yet notwithstanding, all Parsons, Vicars, and Curats shall teach and declare to their Parishioners, that they may with a safe and quiet conscience, after their Common Prayer, in the time of Harvest, labour upon the boly and Festival days, and save that thing which God hath sent: And if, for any scrupulosity or grudg of Conscience, men should superstitiously abstain from work­ing on these days, that then they should grievously offend and displease God. This makes it evident, that Qu. Elizabeth in her own particular, took not the Lords day for a Sabbath; or to be of a different nature from the other Holy days: nor was it taken so, by the whole Body of our Church, and State, in the first Parliament of her Reign;1 Eliz. c. 2. what time it was enacted, That all and every person and persons in­habiting within this Realm, and any other the Queens Dominious, shall dili­gently and faithfully, having no lawful or reasonable excuse to be absent, en­deavour themselves to resort to their Parish Church, or Chappel, accustomed: or upon reasonable let thereof, to some usual place where Common Prayer shall be used in such time of let, upon every Sunday, and other days ordained and used to be kept as Holy day, and then and there to abide orderly and soverly, During the time of Common Prayer, Preaching, or other Service of God, upon pain of punishment, &c. This Law is still in force, and still like to be; and by this Law, the Sundays and the Holy days are alike regarded: Nor by the Law only, but by the purpose and intent of holy Church, who in her publick Liturgy is as full and large for every one of the Holy days, as for the Sunday, the Letany excepted only. For otherwise by the rule and prescript thereof, the same Religious Offices are designed for both, the same devout attendance required for both: and whatsoever else may make both equal. And therefore by this Statute, and the Common Prayer-Book, we are to keep more Sabbaths than the Lords Day Sabbath, or else none at all.

Next look we on the Homilies, V part of the publick Monuments of the Church of England, set forth and authorized, Anno 1562. being the fourth of that Queens Reign. In that entituled Of the place and time of Prayer, we shall find it thus. As concerning the Time in which God hath appointed his people to assemble toge­ther solemnly, it doth appear by the fourth Commandment, &c. And Albeit this Commandment of God doth no [...] hind Christian people so straitly to observe and keep the utter ceremonies of the Sabbath day as it did the Jews, as touching the forbearing of work and labour in the time of great necessity, and as thouching the precise keeping of the seventh Day, after the manner of the Jews: (for we keep now the first day, which is our Sunday, and make that our Sabbath, that is, our day of rest, in honour of our Saviour Christ, who as upon that day he rose from death conquering the same most triumphantly.) Yet notwithstanding whatsoever is found in the Comandment appertaining to the Law of Nature, as a thing most godly, most just, and needful for the setting forth of Gods glory, ought to be retained and kept of all good Christian people. And therefore by this Commandment we ought to have a time, as one day in the week, wherein we ought to rest, yea from our lawful and needful words. For like as it appear­eth [Page 487]by this Commandment, that no man in the six days ought to be slothful and idle, but diligently to labour in that state wherein God hath set him, even so God hath given express charge to all men, that upon the Sabbath day, which is now our Sunday. they should cease from all weekly and work-day labour; to the intent, that like as God [...] wrought six days, and rested the seventh, and blessed and sanctified it, and consecrated it to quietness and rest from labour; even so Gods obedient people should use the Sunday Holily, and rest from their common and daily business, and aisa give themselves wholly to Heavenly exercises of Gods true religion and service. [...]o that God doth not only command the observation of this holy day but also by his own example doth stir and provoke us to the diligent keep­ing of the same, &c. Thus it may plainly appear that Gods will and Command­ment was to have a solemn time and standing day in the week. Wherein the people should come together, and have in remembrance his wonderful benefits, and to render him thank's for them, an appertaineth to loving, kind, and obedient people. This example and Commandment of God, the godly Christian people began to fol­low im [...]ediately after the Ascension of our Lord Christ, and began to choose them a standing day of the week to come together in; yet not the seventh day, which the Jews kept, but the Lords day, the day of the Lords resurrection, the day after the seventh day, which is the first day of the week, &c. Sithence which time, Gods [...] hath always in all Ages, without any gain-saying, used to come together [...] the Sunday. to celebrate, and honour the Lords blessed Name, and carefully to [...] that [...] If it and quietness, both Man and Woman, Child, Servant, and Stranger. So far the Homily: and this is all thereof which is doctrinal. The re­sidue consists in reprehension of two sorts of men; one of the which, if they had any business to do, though there were no extream need, would not spare the Sunday, but med all days alike, the holy-days and work-days all as one; the other so consumed the day in gluttony and drunkenness, and such fleshly filthiness, that as it is there said, the Lord was more dishonoured, and the I euil better served on the Sunday, than upon all the days in the week besides.

This saith the Homily, VI and this hath often been alledged, as well to prove a Lords day Sabbath, to be allowed of by the doctrine of the Church of England; as at this present time, to justifie the disobedience of those men who have refused to publish the Princes pleasure in point of Recreations. But this, if well examined, will as little help them, as Lord have mercy upon us, in the Common-Prayer book. For first it is here said, that there is no more of the fourth Commandment to be retained and kept of good Christian people, than whatsoever is found in it appertaining to the law of Nature. But we have proved before that there is nothing in the fourth Commandment of the law of Nature, but that some time be set apart for Gods publick service; the precept so far forth, as it enjoyns one day in seven, or the seventh day precisely from the worlds creation, being avowed for ceremonial by all kind of Writers. Secondly it is said, not that the Lords day was enjoyned by Divine Authority, either by Christ him­self, or his Apostles; but chosen for a standing day to come together in, by godly Christian people, immediately after the Ascension of our Lord Christ: If chose by them, then not enjoyned by the Apostles; if not till after the Ascension of our Saviour Christ, then not at all by him commanded. Thirdly, whereas they chose themselves a standing day in the week to come together in, they did not this by any obligation laid upon them by the fourth Commandment, but only by a voluntary following of Gods example, and the Analogy or equity of Gods Commandment, which was (they do not say which is) that he would have, [amongst the Jews] a solemn time and standing day in the week, wherein the people [...] have in remembrance his won­derful benefits, and render thanks to him for the same. For it is said, that this example and Commandment of God, the gody Christian people began to follow after Christs Ascension: So that it seems they might have chosen whether they would have followed them or not. Fourthly, when they had chosen this day which we now observe for their pub­lick meetings, they did not think themselves obliged by the fourth Commandment, to forbear work and labour in time of great necessity, or to the precise keeping of the same, after the manner of the Jews; both which they must have done, had they conceived the keeping of one day in seven to be the moral part of the fourth Commandment; and to oblige us now, no less than it did them formerly, as some men have taught us. Now whereas some have drawn from hence these two conclusions. First, that ac­cording to this Homily, we ought to keep one day in seven by the fourth Commandment; [Page 488]and secondly, that we must spend it wholly in religious exercises. I would fain know how those conclusions can be raised from the former premises. It's true, the Homily hath told us that by the fourth Commandment we ought to have a time, as one day in the week, wherein we ought to rest from our needful works. Where note, that there it is not said, that by the fourth Commandment we ought to have one day in the week, which is plain and peremptory; but that we ought to have a time, as one day in the week, which was plainly arbitrary. A time we ought to have by the fourth Commandment, as being that part of it which pertains to the law of Nature: But for the next words, as one day in the week, they are not there laid down, as imposed on us by the Law; but only instanced in, as setled at that time in the Church of God. So where it is affirmed in another place, that Gods will and commandment was to have a solemn time and standing day in the week; we grant indeed that so it was: and that the Godly Christian people in the Primitive times were easily induced to give God no less than what he formerly commanded. But had the meaning of the Homily been this, that we were bound to have a standing day in the week by the fourth Commandment; they would have plainly said, it is Gods will and pleasure that it should be so, and not have told us what it was in the times before. It's true, the Homily hath told us that we should rest our selves on Sunday from our common business, and also give our selves wholly to Heavenly exercises of Gods true religion and service. Where note, it is not said that we should spend the day wholly in Heavenly exercises; for then there were no time allowed us to eat and drink, which are meer natural employments: But that we give our selves wholly, that is our whole selves, body and soul to that performance of those heavenly exercises which are required of us in the way of true religion, and Gods publick service. It is accounted, as we have formerly made plain, to be the ceremonial part of the fourth Commandment,In Exod. 20. qu. 11. quod fiat semel in qualibet hebdomada; & quod fiat in una die tota, ista observatio; & quod per totam diem abstineatur ab operibus servilibus: First the determining of the day, to be one in seven; next that this one day wholly be so employed; and last of all, that all that day there be an absolute cessation from all servile works. Therefore the spending wholly of one day in seven, being ceremonial, comes not within the compass of the Homily; which would have no more of the fourth Commandment to be kept amongst us, than what is appertaining to the law of Nature. Now it pertains unto the law of Nature, that for the times appointed to Gods publick worship,Id. ib. we wholly sequester our selves from all worldly businesses; natural est quod dum Deum colimus, ab aliis abstineamus, as Tostatus hath it: and then the meaning of the Homily will be briefly this, that for those times which are appointed by the Church for the assembly of Gods people, we should lay by our daily business, and all worldly thoughts, and wholly give our selves to the heavenly exercises of Gods true Religion and Service. But to encounter them at their own weapon, it is expresly said in the Act of Parliament about keeping Holy-days, that on the days and times appointed, as well the other Holy days as the Sunday, Christians should cease from all kind of labour, and only and wholly apply themselves to such holy works as appertain to true Religion; the very same with that delivered in the Homily. If wholly in the Homily must be applied un­to the day, then it must be there; and then the Saints days and the other Holy-days must be wholly spent in religious exercises. When once we see them do the one, we will bethink our selves of doing the other. As for the residue of that Homily which consists in popular reproofs and exhortations, that concerns not us, in reference to the point in hand. The Homilies, those parts thereof especially which tend to the cor­rection of manners, and reformation of abuses, were made agreeable to those times wherein they were first published. If in those times men made no difference between the Working-day and Holy-day, [...] kept their Fairs and Markets, and bought and sold, and rowed and ferried, and drow and carried, and rode and journeyed, and did their other business on the Sunday as well as on the other days, when there was no such need but that they might have tarried longer; they were the more to blame, no doubt, in trespassing so wilfully against the Canons of the Church, and Acts of Parliament, which had restrained many of the things there specified: The Homily did well to re­prove them for it. If on the other side they spent the day in ungodliness and filthiness, in gluttony and drunkenness, and such like other crying sins as are there particularly noted; the Prelates of the Church had very ill discharged their duty, had they not taken some course to have told them of it. But what is that to us, who do not spend the Lords day in such filthy fleshliness, (whatever one malicious sycophant hath affirmed therein:) or what is that to dancing, shooting, leaping, vaulting, may-games, and meetings of good Neighbourhood, or any other Recreation not by Law prohibited, being no such ungodly and filthy acts as are therein mentioned.

Thus upon due search made, VII and full examination of all parties, we find no Lords day Sabbath in the book of Homilies; no nor in any writings of particular men, in more than 33 years after the Homilies were published. I find indeed that in the year 1580 the Magistrates of the City of London obtained from Queen Elizabeth, that Plays and Enterludes should no more be acted on the Sabbath-day, within the liberties of their City. As also that in 83. on the 14th. of January being Sunday, many were hurt, and eight killed outright by the sudden falling of the Scaffolds in Paris-garden. This shews that Enterludes and Bear-baitings were then permitted on the Sunday, and so they were a long time after, though not within the City of London; which certainly had not been suffered, had it been then conceived that Sunday was to be accounted for a Sabbath. But in the year 1595. some of that faction which before had laboured with small profit to overthrow the Hierarchy and government of this Church of Eng­land; now set themselves on work to ruinate all the orders of it: to beat down at one blow all days and times, which by the wisdom and authority of the Church had been appointed for Gods service, and in the stead thereof to erect a Sabbath of their own devising. These Sabbath speculations, and Presbyterian directions, as mine Author calls them, they had been hammering more than ten years before; thought they pro­duced them not till now: and in producing of them now, they introduced, saith he, a more than cither Jewish or Popish superstition into the Land, Rogers in pre­face to the Ar­ticles. to the no small blemish of our Christian profession, and scandal of the true servants of God, and therewith doctrine most erro­neous, dangerous, and Antichristian. Of these the principal was one Dr. Bound, who published first his Sabbath Doctrins, Anno 1595. and after with additions to it, and enlargements of it, Anno 1606. Wherein he hath affirmed in general over all the book, that the Commandment of sanctifying every seventh day, as in the Mosaical deca­logue, is natural, moral, and perpetual: That where all other things in the Jewish Church were so changed, that they were clean taken away, as the Priesthood, the Sacrifices, and the Sacraments; this day, the Sabbath, was so changed, that it still remaineth, p. 91. that there is great reason why we Christians should take our selves as straitly bound to rest upon the Lords day, as the Jews were upon their Sabbath; for being one of the moral Commandments, it bindeth us as well as them, being all of equal authority, p. 247. And for the Rest upon this day, that it must be a notable and singular Rest, and most careful, exact and pre­cise Rest, after another manner than men were accustomed, p. 124. Then for parti­culars; no buying of Victuals, Flesh, or Fish, Bread or Drink, 158. no Carriers to travel on that day, 160. nor Parkmen, or Drovers, 162. Scholars not to study the li­beral Arts; nor Lawyers to consult the Case, and peruse mens Evidences, 163. Ser­geants, Apparitours, and Sumners to be restrained from executing their Offices, 164. Justices not to examine Causes, for preservation of the Peace, 166. no man to travel on that day, 192. that ringing of more Bells than one, that day, is not to be justified, p. 202. No solemn Feasts to be made on it, 206, nor Wedding Dinners, 209. with a permission notwithstanding to Lords, Knights, and Gentlemen, (he hoped to find good welcome for this dispensation) p. 211. all lawful Pleasures, and honest Recrea­tions, as Shooting, Fencing, Bowling, (but Bowling, by his leave, is no lawful pleasure for all sorts of people) which are permitted on other days, were on this day to be forborne, 202. no man to speak or talk of pleasures, p. 272. or any other worldly matter, 275. Most Magisterially determined; indeed, more like a Jewish Rabbin than a Christian Doctor. Yet Jewish and Rabbinical though his Doctrin were, it carried a fair face and shew of Piety, at the least in the opinion of the common people; and such who stood not to examine the true grounds thereof, but took it up, on the appearance; such, who did judge thereof, not by the workmanship of the stuff, but the gloss and colour. In which, it is most strange to see how [...]uddenly men were induced not only to give way unto it, but without more ado, to abett the same; till in the end, and that in very little time, it grew the most bewitching Errour, the most popular Deceit that ever had been set on foot in the Church of England. And verily I persuade my self that many an honest and well-meaning man, both of the Clergy and the Laity, either because of the appearance of the thing it self, or out of some opinion of those men who first endeavoured to promote it; became exceedingly affected towards the same, as taking it to be a Doctrin sent down from Heaven for encrease of Piety: So easily did they believe it, and grew at last so strongly possessed therewith, that in the end they would not willingly be persuaded to conceive otherwise thereof, than at first they did; or think they swallowed down the hook when they took the bait. An hook in­deed, which had so fastned them to those men who love to fish in troubled waters, that [Page 490]by this Artifice, there was no small hope conceived amongst them, to fortifie their side, and make good that cause, which till this trim Deceit was thought of, was al­most grown desperate. Once, I am sure, that by this means, the Brethren, who before endeavoured to bring all Christian Kings and Princes under the yoke of their Presbyteries; made little doubt to bring them under the command of their Sabbath Doctrines. And though they failed of that applauded parity, which they so much aimed at, in the advancing of their Elderships; yet hoped they, without more ado, to bring all higher Powers, whatever, into an equal rank with the common people, in the observance of their Jewish Sabbatarian rigours. So Doctor Bound declares him­self, pag. 171. The Magistrate, saith he, and Governours in authority, how High soever, cannot take any priviledg to himself, whereby he might be occupied about worldly business, when other men should rest from labour. It seems, they hoped to see the greatest Kings and Princes make suit unto their Consistory for a Dispensation, as often as the great Affairs of State, or what cause soever, induced them otherwise to spend that Day, or any part or parcel of it, than by the new Sabbath Doctrine had been permitted. For the endearing of the which, as formerly to endear their Elderships, they spared no place, or Text of Scripture, where the word Elder did occur; and without going to the Heralds, had framed a Pedigree thereof, from Jethro, from Noahs Ark, and from Adam finally: so did these men proceed in their new devices, publishing out of holy Writ, both the antiquity and authority of their Sabbath day: No passage of Gods Book unransacked, where there was mention of a Sabbath, whether the legal Sab­bath, charged on the Jews, or the spiritual Sabbath of the Soul, from sin, which was not fitted and applied to the present purpose: though, if examined, as it ought, with no better reason, than Paveant illi, & non paveam ego, was by an ignorant Priest alledged from Scripture, to prove that his Parishioners ought to pave the Chancel. Yet, upon confidence of these proofs, they did already begin to sing Victoria; espe­cially, by reason of the enterteinment which the said Doctrines found with the com­mon people. For, thus the Doctor boasts himself, in his second Edition, Anno 606. as before was said, Many godly learned both in their Preachings, Writings, and Disputa­tions, did concur with him in that Argument; and, that the lives of many Christians, in many places of the Kingdom, were framed according to his Doctrine, p. 61. Particularly, in the Epistle to the Reader, that within few years, three several profitable Treatises successively were written, by three godly learned Preachers, [Greenhams was one, whose­ever were the other two] that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, the Doctrine of the Sabbath might be established. Egregiam verò laudem, & spolia ampla!

But whatsoever cause he had thus to boast himself, VIII in the success of his new Do­ctrines; the Church, I am sure, had little cause to rejoyce thereat. For what did follow hereupon but such monstrous Paradoxes, and those delivered in the Pulpit, as would make every good man tremble at the hearing of them? First, as my Author tells me, it was preached at a Market Town in Oxfordshire, that to do any servile work or business on the Lords day, was as great a sin, as to kill a man or commit adultery: Secondly, preached in Somersetshire, that to throw a Bowl on the Lords day was as great a sin, as to kill a man; Thirdly, in Norfolk, that to make a Feast, or dress a Wedding Dinner on the Lords day, was as great a sin, as for a Father to take a knife and cut his childs throat: Fourthly, in Suffolk, that to ring more Bells than one, on the Lords day, was as great a sin as to commit Murder. I add what once I heard my self, at Sergeants Inn in Fleetstreet, about five years since, that temporal death, was at this day to be inflicted, by the Law of God, on the Sabbath-breaker, on him, that on the Lords day did the works of his daily calling: with a grave application, unto my Masters of the Law, that if they did their ordinary works on the Sabbath day, in taking Fees and giving Counsel, they should consider what they did deserve by the Law of God. And certainly these and the like conclusions cannot but follow most directly, on the former Principles. For that the fourth Commandment be plainly moral, obliging us as straitly as it did the Jews: and that the Lords day be to be observed according to the prescript of that Commandment: it must needs be, that every wilful breach thereof, is of no lower nature, than Idolatry, or blaspheming of the Name of GOD, or any other deadly sin against the first Table; and therefore questionless as great as Murder or Adultery, or any sin against the second. But to go forwards where I left, my Au­thor whom before I spake of, being present when the Suffolk Minister was convented, for his so lewd and impious Doctrine, was the occasion that those Sabbatarian errours and impieties, were first brought to light, and to the knowledg of the State. On which [Page 491]discovery, as he tells us, this good ensued, that the said books of the Sabbath were cal­led in, and forbidden to be printed and made common. Archbishop Whitguift by his Let­ters and Visitations, did the one, Anno 1599. and Sir John Popham Lord Chief Ju­stice did the other Anno 1600. at Bury in Suffolk, Good remedies indeed had they been soon enough applyed: yet not so good as those which formerly were applied to Thacker and his fellow, in the aforesaid Town of Bury, for publishing the books of Brown against the service of the Church. Nor was this all the fruit of so bad a Do­ctrine. For by inculcating to the people these new Sabbath speculations, teaching that that day only was of Gods appointment, and all the rest observed in the Church of Eng­land a remnant of the will-worship in the Church of Rome: the other holy days in this Church established were so shrewdly shaken, that till this day they are not well recovered of the blow then given. Nor came this on the by, or besides their purpose; but as a thing that specially was intended from the first beginning; from the first time that ever these Sabbath Doctrines peeped into the light. For Dr. Bound, the first sworn servant of the Sabbath, hath in his first edition thus declared himself,Page 31. that he sees not where the Lord hath given any authority to his Church, ordinarily and perpetually to san­ctifie any day, except that which he hath sanctified himself: and makes it an especial ar­gument against the goodness of the Religion in the Church of Rome, that to the se­venth day they have joined so many other days,Page 32. and made them equal with the se­venth, if not superiour thereunto, as well in the solemnity of divine Offices, as re­straint from labour. So that we may perceive by this, that their intent from the be­ginning was to cry down the holy days, as superstitious, Popish Ordinances: that so their new found Sabbath being placed alone (and Sabbath now it must be called) might become more eminent. Nor were the other, though more private effects there­of, of less dangerous nature: the people being so insnared with these new devices, and pressed with rigours more than Jewish, that certainly they are in as bad condi­tion, as were the Israelites of old, when they were captivated and kept under by the Scribes and Pharisees. Some I have known, (for in this point I will say nothing without good assurance,) who in a furious kind of zeal like the mad Prophetess in the Poet, have run into the open streets, yea and searched private Houses too, to look for such as spent those hours on the Lords day in lawful pastimes, which were not destinate by the Church to Gods publick service: and having found them out, scat­tered the company, brake the Instruments; and if my memory fail me not, the Mu­sitians head; and which is more, they thought that they were bound in conscience so to do. Others, that will not suffer either baked or roast to be made ready for their Dinners, on their Sabbath day, lest by so doing they should eat and drink their own damnation, according to the doctrine preached unto them. Some, that upon the Sabbath, will not sell a pint of Wine, or the like Commodity: though Wine was made by God, not only for mans often infirmities, but to make glad his heart, and refresh his spirits, and therefore no less requisite on the Lords day, than on any other. Others, which have refused to carry provender to an Horse, on the supposed Sabbath day, though our Redeemer thought it no impiety on the true Sabbath day indeed, to lead poor Cattel to the Water: which was the motive and occasion of M. Brerewoods learned Treatise. So for the female sex, Maid-servants I have met with some two or three, who though they were content to dress their meat upon the Sabbath, yet by no means would be persuaded either to wash their Dishes, or make clean their Kitchen. But that which most of all affects me, is, that a Gentlewoman, at whose House I lay in Leicester, the last Northern Progress, Anno 1634. expressed a great de­sire to see the King and Queen who were then both there. And when I proferd her my service, to satisfie that loyal longing, she thanked me, but refused the favour, because it was the Sabbath day. Unto so strange a bondage are the people brought, that as before I said, a greater never was imposed on the Jews themselves, what time the consciences of that people were pinned most closely on the sleeves of the Scribes and Pharisees.

But to go forwards in my story, it came to pass for all the care before remembred, IX that having such a plausible and fair pretence, as sanctifying a day unto the Lord, and keeping a Commandment that had long been silenced; it got strong footing in the Kingdom, as before is said: the rather because many things, which were indeed strong avocations from Gods publick Service, were as then permitted. Therefore it pleased King James, in the first entrance of his Reign, so far to condescend unto them, as to take off such things which seemed most offensive. To which intent he [Page 492]signitied his loyal pleasure by Proclamation dated at Theobald, May 7. 1603. that Whereas he had been informed, that there had been in tormer times a greet neg­lect in keeping the Sabbath day; for better obserbing of the same, and for a­beiding of all impious prophanarion of it, be straitly charged and commanded that no Bear-baiting, Bull baiting, Enterludes, common Plays, or other like disor­dered or unlawful exercises or pastimes, be frequented, kept or used at any time hereafter upon any Sabbath day. Not that his purpose was to debar himself of lawful pleasures on that day, but to prohibit such disordered and unlawful pastimes, whereby the common people were withdrawn from the Congregation, they being only to be reckoned for Common Plays, which at the instant of their Acting or re­presenting, are studied only for the entertainment of the common people, on the publick Theaters. Yet did not this, though much content them. And therefore in the Conference at Hampton Court, it seemed good to D. Reynolds (who had been made a party in the cause) to touch upon the prophanation of the Sabbath, (for so he called it) and contempt of his Majesties Proclamation made for the reforming of that abuse; of which be earnestly desired a straiter course, for reformation thereof: to which he found a gent­ral and unanimous assent. Nor was there an assent only, and nothing done. For pre­sently in the following Convocation, it pleased the Prelates there assembled, to revive so much of the Queens Injunction before remembred, as to them seemed fitting, and to incorporate it into the Commons then agreed of: only a little alteration, to make it more agreeable to the present times, being used therein. That then they ordered in the Canon for due celebrution of Sundays, and holp days, Can. 13. viz. All manner of persons within the Church of England, shall from beneeforth celebrote and heep the Lords day commonly called Sunday and other Holy days, according to Gods holy will and pleasure, and the Diders of the Church of England prescribed in that behalf, i.e. in hearing the Word of God read and taught in pribate and publich Prapert, in acknowledging their offences to God, and amendment of the same, in reconciling themselves charitably to their Neighbours where displeasure had been, in offentimes receibing the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, using all godly and scber conversation. The residue of the said Injunction, touch­ing work in Harvest, it seemed fit unto them not to touch upon; leaving the same to stand or fall, by the statute of King Edward the sixth before remembred. A Canon of an excellent composition. For by enjoyning godly and sober conversation, and diligent repair to Church to hear the Word of God and receive the Sacrament, they stopped the course of that prophaneness, which formerly had been complained of: and by their ranking of the holy days in equal place, and height, with Sunday, and limiting the celebration of the same, unto the Orders in that case prescribed by the Church of England; shewed plainly their dislike of those Sabbath Doctrines, which had been lately set on foot; to the dithonour of the Church, and diminution of her authority in destinating other days to the service of God, than their new Saint-Sabbath. Yet did not this, the Churches care, either so satisfie their desires, or restrain the follies of those men, who had embraced the New Sabbath Doctrines; but that they still went forwards to advance that business, which was now made a part of the common cause: no book being published by that party, either by way of Catechism, or Com­ment on the Ten Commandments, or moral Piety, or systematical Divinity, of all which, these last times have produced too many; wherein the Sabbath was not pres­sed upon the consciences of Gods people, with as much violence, as formerly with authority upon the Jews. And hereunto they were encouraged a great deal the ra­ther; because in Ireland, what time his Majesties Commissioners were employed, a­bout the setling of that Church, Anno 1615. there passed an Article, which much confirmed them in their Courses, and hath been often since alledged to justifie both them and their proceedings.Art. 56. The Article is this. The first day of the week which is the Lords day is wholly to be dedicated to the service of God; and therefore we are bound therein to rest from our common and daily business, and to bestow that leisure upon holy Exer­cises both private and publick. What moved his Majesties Commissioners to this strict austcrity, that I cannot say: but sure I am, that till that time, the Lords day never had attained such credit, as to be thought an Article of the Faith, though of some mens fancies. Nor was it like to be of long continuance, it was so violently follow­ed: the whole Book being now called in, and in the place thereof, the Articles of the Church of England confirmed by Parliament, in that Kingdom, Anno 1634.

Nor was this all the fruit neither of such dangerous Doctrines, that the Lords day was grown into the reputation of the Jewish Sabbath: but some that built on their foundations, and ploughed with no other than their Heifers, endeavoured to bring back again the Jewish Sabbath, as that which is expresly mentioned in the fourth Commandment; and abrogate the Lords day for altogether, as having no foundation in it nor warrant by it. Of these, one Thraske declared himself, for such, in King James his time, and therewithal took up another Jewish Doctrine about Meats and Drinks: as in the time of our dread Soveraign now being, Theophilus Braborne ground­ing himself on the so much applauded Doctrine of the morality of the Sabbath; maintained that the Jewish Sabbath ought to be observed, and wrote a large Book in defence thereof, which came into the World 1632. For which their Jewish doctrines, the first received his censure in the Star-Chamber, and what became of him I know not: the other had his doom in the High-Commission, and hath since altered his opi­nion, being misguided only by the principles of some noted men, to which he thought he might have trusted. Of these I have here spoken together, because the ground of their opinions, so far as it concerned the Sabbath, were the very same; they only make the conclusions, which of necessity must follow from the former premisses: just as the Brownists did befoe when they abominated on the Communion of the Church of England, on the Puritan principles. But to proceed. This of it self had been suf­ficient to bring all to ruin, but this was not all. Not only Judaism did begin, but Popery took great occasion of increase, by the preciseness of some Magistrates and Ministers in several places of this Kingdom, in bindring people from their Recreations on the Sunday: the Papists in this Realm being thereby persuaded that no honest Mirth or Recreation was tolerable in our Religion. Which being noted by King James, in his progress through Lancashire, King James's Declarat. it pleased his Majesty to set out his Declaration, May 24. Anno 1618. the Court being then at Greenwich, to this effect, that for his good peoples lawful Recreations his pleasure was, that after the end of Divine Service, they should not be disturbed, letted or discoura­ged, from any lawful Recreations: such as Dancing, either Men or Women, Archery for Men, Leaping, Vaulting, or any other such harmless Recreations: nor from having of May­games, Whitsun-Ales, or Morrice-dances, and setting up of May-poles, or other sports therewith used; so as the same be had in due and cenvenient time, without impediment or let of Divine Service: and that Women should have leave to carry Rushes to the Church, for the decoring of it, atcording to their old custom: withal prohibiting all unlawful Games to be used on the Sundays only, as Bear-baiting, Bull-baiting, Enterludes, and at all times, in the meaner sort of people, by Law prohibited, Bowling. A Declaration which occasio­ned much noise and clamour; and many scandals spread abroad, as if these Counsels had been put into that Princes head, by some great Prelates, which were then of most power about him. But in that point they might have satisfied themselves, that this was no Court-doctrine: no New-divinity; which that learned Prince had been taught in England. He had declared himself before, when he was King of the Scots only, to the self-same purpose: as may appear in his Basilicon Doron, published Anno 1598. This was the first Blow, in effect, which had been given, in all his time, to the new Lords day Sabbath, then so much applauded.

For howsoever, as I said, those who had entertained these Sabbatarian Principles, XI spared neither care nor pains to advance the business, by being instant in season, and out of season, by publick Writings, private Preachings, and clandestine insinuations, or whatsoever other means might tend to the promotion of this Catholick Cause: yet find we none that did oppose it in a publick way, though there were many that disli­ked it: only one Mr. Loe, of the Church of Exeter, declared himself in his Effigiatio veri Sabbatismi, Anno 1606. to be of different judgment from them; and did lay down indeed the truest and most justifiable Doctrine of the Sabbath, of any Writer in that time. But being written in the Latin Tongue, it came not to the peoples hands: many of those which understood it, never meaning, to let the people know the Contents thereof. And whereas, in the year 1603, at the Commencement held in Cambridg, this Thesis, or Proposition, Dies Dominicus nititur Verbo Dei; was pub­lickly maintained by a Doctor there, and by the then Vice-Chancellour so determined; neither the following Doctors there, or any in the other University, that I can hear of, did ever put up any Antithesis, in opposition thereunto. At last, some four years after his Majesties Declaration before remembred, Anno 1622. Doctor Prideaux, his Majesties Professour for the University of Oxon, did, in the publick Act, declare his judgment in this point, de Sabbato; which afterwards, in the year 1625. he pub­lished [Page 494]to the World, with his other Lectures. Now, in this Speech, or Determination, he did thus resolve it. First, that the Sabbath was not instituted in the first Creation of the World; nor ever kept by any of the ancient Patriarchs, who lived before the Law of Moses: therefore, no moral and perpetual Precept, as the others are, Sect. 2. Secondly, That the sanctifying of one day in seven, is ceremonial only, and obliged the Jews; not Moral, to oblige us Christians to the like Observance, Sect. 3. & 4. Thirdly, That the Lords day is founded only on the Authority of the Church, guided therein by the practice of the Apostles: not on the fourth Commandment, which in the 7. Section he entituleth a seandalous Doctrine; nor any other authority in holy Scripture, Sect. 6. & 7. Fourthly, That the Church hath still authority to change the day, though such authority be not fit to be put in practice, Sect. 7. Fifthly, That in the celebration of it, there is no such cessation from the works of labour, requi­red of us, as was exacted of the Jews: but that we lawfully may dress Meat, pro­portionable unto every mans estate; and do such other things, as be no hinderance to the publick Service, appointed for the day, Sect. 8. Sixthly, That on the Lords day all Recreations whatsoever are to be allowed, which honestly may refresh the spirits, and encrease mutual love and Neighbourhood amongst us: and, that the Names whereby the Jews did use to call their Festival (whereof the Sabbath was the chief) were borrowed from an Hebrew word, which signifies to Dance, and to make merry, or rejoyce. And lastly, that it appertains to the Christian Magistrate, to order and appoint, what Pastimes, on the Lords day, are to be permitted, and what pro­hibited: not unto every private person, much less to every mans rash Zeal, as his own words are, who out of a schismatical Stoicism, (debarring men from lawful Pa­stimes) doth incline to Judaisin, Sect. 8. This was the sum and substance of his re­solution, then: which, as it gave content unto the sounder and the better part of the Assembly; so it did infinitely stomack and displease the greater numbers, such as were formerly possessed with the other Doctrines; though they were wiser, than to make it a publick Quarrel. Only it pleased Mr. Bifeild of Surrey, in his Reply in a Discourse of Mr. Brerewoods, of Cresham Colledg, Anno 1631. to tax the Doctor as a spreader of wicked Doctrine; and much to marvel with himself, how either he durst be so hold to say, Page 161. or having said it, could be suffered to put it forth, viz. That to establish the Lords day on the fourth Commandment, were to incline too much to Judaism: This the said M. Bifeild thinks to be a foul aspertion on this famous Church. But in so thinking, I conceive, that he consulted more his own opinion, and his private interest, than any publick maintenance of the Churches cause; which was not in­jured by the Doctor, but defended rather. But to proceed, or rather to go back a little: About a year before the Doctor thus declared his judgment, one Tho. Broad, of Gloucestorshire, had published something in this kind: wherein, to speak my mind thereof, he rather shewed, that he disliked those Sabbath Doctrines, than durst dis­prove them. And before either, M. Brerewood, whom before I named, had writ a learned Treatise about the Sabbath, on a particular occasion therein mentioned; but published it was not, till after both, Anno 1629. Add here, to joyn them altogether, that in the Schools at Oxon, Anno 1628. it was maintained by Dr. Robinson, now Archdeacon of Gloucester; viz. Ludos Recreationis gratia in die Dominico, non esse prohibitos Divina Lege; That Recreations on the Lords day, were not at all prohibited by the Word of God.

As for our neighbour Church of Scotland; XII as they proceeded not at first with that mature deliberation, in the reforming of that Church, which had been here observed with us; so did they run upon a course of Reformation, which after was thought fitting to be reformed. The Queen was young, and absent, in the Court of France; the Regent was a desolate Widow, a Stranger to the Nation, and not well obeyed: So that the people there, possessed by Cnoxe, and other of their Teachers, took the cause in hand; and went that way, which came most near unto Geneva, where this Cnoxe had lived. Among the first things wherewithal they were offended, were the Holy days: Proceedings at Perth. These, in their Book of Discipline Anno 1560. they condemned at once; particularly, the observation of Holy days, entituled by the names of Saints; the Feasts of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany, the Purification, and others of the Virgin Mary; all which they ranked awongst the abominations of the Roman Religion, as having neither Commandment nor assurance in the Word of God. But having brought this Book to be subsigned by the Lords of secret Counsel, it was first rejected: some of them giving it the Title of Devote Imaginations; Cnoxe, Hist. of Scotl. p. 523. whereof Cnoxe complains. Yet notwith­standing, [Page 495]on they went, and at last prevailed, (for in the middle of the Tumults, the Queen Regent died) and did not only put down all the Holy days, the Lords day ex­cepted; but when an uprore had been made in Edenburg, about a Robin-hood, or a Whitson-Lord, they of the Consistory excommunicated the whole multitud. Now,Proceedings at Perth. that the holy days were put down, may appear by this; That in the year 1566. when the Confession of the Helvetian Churches was proposed unto them, they gene­rally approved the same; save that they liked not of those Holy days, which were there retained. But whatsoever they intended, and howsoever they had utterly suppressed those days, which were entituled by the Names of particular Saints, yet they could ne­ver so prevail, but that the people would retain some memory of the two great and principal Feasts of Christs Nativity and Resurrection. For in the year 1575. Complaint was made unto the Regent, how in Dunfreis they had conveyed the Reader to the Church with Taber and Whissel, to read Prayers all the Holy days of Zule, or Christmas. Thereupon, Anno 1577. it was ordained in an Assembly of the Church: That the Visitors should admonish Ministers, preaching or ministring the Communion, at Pasche or Zule, or other like superstitious times, under pain of deprivation, to desist therefrom. Anno 1587. it was complained of to his Majesty, That Pasche and Zule were superstitiously observed in Fife, and about Dunfreis: and in the year 1592. the Act of the Queen Regent granting licence to keep the said two Feasts, was by them repealed. Yet find we by the Bishop of Brechin, in his Discourse of the Proceedings at the Synod of Perth, that notwithstanding all the Acts Civil, and Ecclesiastick, made against the superstitious observation and prophane abuse of Zule day, the people could never be induced to labour on that day: and wheresoever Divine service was done that day, as in Towns which have al­ways Morning and Evening Prayers, they were perceived to resort in greater numbers on that day, than on any other to the Church. As for King James of happy memory, he did not only keep the said great Festivals from his youth as there is said; but wished them to be kept by all his Subjects, yet without abuse; and in his Basilicon Doron publish­ed, Anno 1598. thus declares himself; that without superstition, Plays and unlawful Games may be used in May, and good Cheer at Christmas. Now on the other side, as they had quite put down those days, which had been dedicated by the Church to Re­ligious Meetings: so they appointed others of their own authority. For in their Book of Discipline before remembred, it was thus decreed, viz. That in every notable Town, a day, besides the Sunday should be appointed, weekly, for Sermons; that during the time of Sermon, the day should be kept free from all exercise of labour, as well by the Master, as by the Servant: as also that every day [in the said great Towns] there be either Ser­mon, or Prayers, with reading of the Scriptures. So that it seemeth, they only were afraid of the name of Holy days, and were contented well enough, with the thing it self. As for the Lords day, in that Kingdom, I find not that it had attained unto the name or nature of a Sabbath day, until that Doctrine had been set on foot amongst us in England. For in the Book of Discipline, set out as formerly was said in 560. they call it by no other name than Sunday; ordaining, that upon four Sundays in the year, which are therein specified, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper should be admi­nistred to the people: and in the year 1592. an Act of King James the third about the Saturday, and other Vigills to be kept holy from Evensong to Evensong, was annul­led and abrogated. Which plainly shews that then they thought not of a Sabbath. But when the Sabbath doctrine had been raised in England, Anno 1595, as before was said, it found a present entertainment with the Brethren there; who had before professed in their publick Writings to our Puritans here,Davison. p. 20. that both their causes were most nearly linked together, and thereupon, they both took up the name of Sabbath, and imposed the rigour: yet so, that they esteem it lawful to hold Fasts thereon, quod saepissime in Ecclesia nostra Scoticana factum est; and use it often in that Church; which is quite contrary unto the nature of a Sabbath. And on the other side they deny it, to be the weekly Festival of the Resurrection, Non sunt dies Dominici festa Resurrectionis as they have resolved it;Altare Damasc. p. 669. which shews as plainly that they build not the translation of their Sabbath on the same grounds, as our men have done.Id. 696. In brief by making up a mixture of a Lords day Sabbath they neither keep it as the Lords day, nor as the Sabbath. And in this state things stood until the year 1618. what time some of the Ancient holy days were revived again, in the Assembly held at Perth: in which, moving some other Rites of the Church of England which were then ad­mitted, it was thus determined viz. As we abhor the superstitious observation of festi­val days by the Papists: and detest all licentious and prophane abuse thereof, by the com­mon [Page 496]sort of Professors; so we think that the inestimable benefits received from God, by our Lord Jesus Christ, his Birth, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and sending down of the Holy Ghost, was commendably and godly remembred at certain particular days and times by the whole Church of the world, and may be also now. Therefore the Assembly ordains that every Minister shall upon these days have the Commemoration of the foresaid inestimable benefits, and make choice of several and pertinent Texts of Scripture, and frame their Doctrine and Ex­hortation thereunto, and rebuke all superstitious observation and licentious prophanation thereof. A thing which much displeased some men of contrary persuasion: first, out of fear that this was but a Preamble to make way for all the other Holy days observed in Eng­land: And secondly, because it seemed that these five days were in all points to be observed as the Lords day was, both in the times of the Assembly, and after the dis­solving of the same. But pleased or dispeased, so it was decreed; and so still it stands.

But to return again to England. XIII It pleased his Majesty now Reigning (whom God long preserve) upon information of many notable misdemeanors on this day committed;1 Carol. 1. in his first Parliament to Enact, That from thence-forwards there should be no Meetings, Assemblies, or concourse of people out of their Parishes on the Lords day, for any sports or pastimes whatsoever; nor any Bear-baitings, Bull­baitings, common Plays, Enterludes, or any other unlawful Exercises, or Pastimes, used by any person or persons in their own Parishes; every offence to be punished by the forfeiture of 3 s. 4 d. This being a Probation Law, was to continue till the end of the first Session of the next Parliament: And in the next Parliament, it was conti­nued till the end of the first Session of the next,3 Carol. 1. which was then to come. So also was another Act made in the said last Session wherein it was enacted, That no Carrier, Waggoner, Wain-man, Carman, or Drover, travel thence-forwards on the Lords day, on pain that every person and persons so offending shall lose and forfeit 20 s. for every such offence: And that no Butcher, either by himself, or any other by his privity and consent, do kill or sell any Victual on the said day, upon the forfeiture and loss of 6 s. 8 d. Which Statutes being still in force, by reason that there hath not been any Session of Parliament, since they were enacted; many, both Magistrates and Ministers, either not rightly understanding, or wilfully mistaking the intent and meaning of the first, brought Dancing and some other lawful Recreations, under the compass of unlawful Pastimes, in that Act prohibited: and thereupon disturbed and punished many of the Kings obedient people, only for using of such Sports as had been authorized by his Majesties Father of blessed memory. Nay, which is more, it was so publickly avowed and printed by one who had no calling to interpret Laws, except the provocation of his own ill spirit, That Dancing on the Lords day was an unlawful Pastime, punishable by the Statute, 1. Carol. 1. which intended (so he saith) to suppress Dancing on the Lords day, as well as Bear-baiting, Bull-baiting, Enterludes, and common Plays, which were not then so rife and common as Dancing, when this Law was made. Things being at this height,King Charles Declarat. it pleased his excellent Majesty, Observing, as he saith him­self, how much his people were debarred of Recreation, and finding in some Counties, that un­der the pretence of taking away abuses, there had been a general forbidding, not only of ordinary Meetings, but of the Feasts of the Dedication of Churches, commonly called Wakes; to ratifie and publish the Declaration of his Majesties Father, before remembred: adding, That all those Feasts, with others, should be observed; and that all neighbourhood and freedom, with manlike and lawful exercises, be therein used. Commanding all the Justices of Assize, in their several Circuits, to see that no man do trouble or molest any of his loyal and dutiful People in or for their lawful Recreations, having first done their duty to God, and continuing in obedience unto him and his Laws: and further, that publication thereof be made by order from the Bishops through all the Parishes of their several Diocesses respectively. Thus did it please his excellent and sacred Majesty to publish his most pious and religious purpose of opening to his loyal people that liberty of the day, which the day allowed of; and which all Christian States and Churches in all times before had never questioned: withal, of shut­ting up that door, whereat no less than Judaism would in fine have entred, and so in time have over-run the fairest and most beautiful Church at this day in Christendom. And certainly it was a pious and Princely act, nothing inferiour unto that of Constan­tine, or any other Christian King or Emperour before remembred; it being no less pious, in it self considered, to keep the Holy-days free from Superstition, than to pre­serve them from Prophaneness; especially considering that permission of lawful Plea­sures is no less proper to a Festival than restraint from labour. Nay, of the two it is [Page 497]more ancient: For in his time, Tertullian tells us that they did diem solis laetitiae indul­gere, devote the Sunday partly unto Mirth and Recreation, not to Devotion al­together; when, in an hundred years after Tertullians time, there was no Law or Constitution to restrain men from labour on this day, in the Christian Church.

Yet did not his most excellent Majesty find such obedience in some men, XIV and such as should have been examples unto their flocks, as his most Christian purpose did deserve; there being some so setled in the opinion of a Sabbath day, a day not heard of in the Church of Christ 40 years agoe, that they chose rather to deprive the Church of their pains and ministry, than yield unto his Majesties most just commands. For whose sakes specially, next to my duty unto God, my Soveraign, and the Church my Mo­ther, I have employed my time and studies to compose this History; that they may see therein, in brief, the practice of Gods Church in the times before them, and frame themselves to do thereafter; casting aside those errours in the which they are, and walking in the way which they ought to travel. Which way, when all is done, will be via Regia, the Kings high way; as that which is most safe, and of best assurance, be­cause most travelled by Gods people. Our private paths do lead us often into errour, and sometimes also into danger. And therefore I beseech all those who have offended in that kind, to lay aside their passions, and their private interests, if any are that way misguided; as also not to shut their eyes against those truths, which are presented to them for their information: that so the King may have the honour of their due obedi­ence; the Church, the comfort of their labours, and conformable ministry. For to what purpose should they hope to be ennobled for their sufferings in so bad a cause, that neither hath the doctrine of the Scripture to authorize it, or practice of the Church of God, the best Expositor of the Scripture, to confirm and countenance it? or to be counted constant to their first Conclusions, having such weak and dangerous premisses to support the same; since constancy not rightly grounded, is at best but obstinacy, and many times doth end in Heresie. Once again therefore I exhort them, even in Gods name, whose Ministers they are, and unto whom they are to give up an account of their imployment; and in the Kings Name, whom as Gods deputy they are bound to obey not for wrath only, but for conscience sake, and in the Churches name, whose peace they are to study above all things else; and their own names lastly, whom it most con­cerns, that they desist, and go not forwards in this disobedience, lest a worse business fall upon them. For my part I have done my best, so far to give them satisfaction in the present point (so far forth as the nature of an History would permit;) as they might think it no disparagement to alter their opinions and desert their errors, and change their resolutions; since in so doing, they shall conform themselves unto the practice of Gods Church in all times and Ages. The greatest Victory which a man can get, is to subdue himself, and triumph over sin and errour.De Civit. Dei, l. 22. c. 30. I end as I began in S. Augustins language: Quibus hoc nimium, vel quibus parum est, mihi ignoscant; quibus satis est, non mihi, sed Domino mecum congratulantes, gratias agant. Let such as shall conceive this Treatise to be too little, or too much, excuse my weakness: And as for those whom it may satisfie in the smallest measure, let them not unto me, but to God, with me, ascribe all the honour: to whom belongs all praise and glory even for evermore.

Pibrac. Quadr. 5.
Ne va disant, ma main a faict cest oeuure,
Ou ma vertu ce bel oeuure a parfaict:
Mais dis ainsi, Dieu par moy l'oeuuee a faict,
Dieu est l'Autheur, du peu de bien que l'oeuure.
Say not, my hand this Work to end hath brought,
Nor this my vertue hath attain'd unto:
Say rather thus; this God by me hath wrought;
God's Author of the little good I do.
FINIS.
Hiſtoria Quinqu-Arti …

Historia Quinqu-Articularis: OR, A DECLARATION Of the Judgment of the WESTERN CHƲRCHES, And more particularly of the CHURCH of ENGLAND; IN The Five Controverted Points, Reproached in these Last times by the Name of ARMINIANISM.

Collected in the way of an Historical Narration, Out of the Publick Acts and Monuments, and most ap­proved Authors of those several Churches.

By PETER HEYLYN, D. D.

Jer. 6.16.

State super vias, & videte, & interrogate de semitis antiquis, quae sit via bona, & ambulate in ea, & invenietis refrigerium animabus vestris.

Macrob. in Saturnal. Omne meum & nihil meum.

LONDON, Printed by M. Clark, to be sold by C. Harper. 1681.

TO THE READER.

IT is well known to some in London and elsewhere, that these Papers were finished for the Press before August last. But the first breaking out in Cheshire, and the unsetledness of affairs which ensued upon it, proved such discouragements to all Engagings of this kind, that Mi­chaelmas was past before the undertakers would adventure on it. And what distractions have since followed in the Publick Government (sufficient to retard a work of greater consequence) is unknown to none. But long looked for comes at last, as the saying is, though why it should come out at all, may be made a question: And I shall also give the Reader some account of that, but in so doing, must make use of somewhat which was said elsewhere.

It was more than half against my will, and rather through the indiscretion of others, than any forwardness of my own, that I was drawn to shew my self in these present Controversies. But being unseasonably brought upon the Stage by Dr. Bernard, impertinently enough by Mr. Baxter, and with more than ordinary Petulancy by the Man of Scorn; the occasion was laid hold on by some very able and discerning men, for pressing me to search into the History of these disputes, so far forth as the Church of England was concerned in them, and to make publick what I sound upon that inquiry. To which re­quest I made such answer at the present, as the consideration of my many un­fitnesses for an employment of that nature, might suggest unto me. But coming to me from so many hands, that it could not fairly be denied, I was prevailed with in the end, to apply my self to the undertaking, as soon as I had dispatched such other businesses as lay then upon me.

In the mean time I thought I might comply sufficiently with all expectations, by fashioning some short Animadversions on the principal passages relating to the Doctrin of the Church of England; which had been purloyned for the most part out of Mr. Prinns Book of Anti-arminianism, by a late Compiler. By which name the old Criticks and Grammarians used to call those men, who pilfering their materials out of other mens writings, did use to lay them close together as their own, to avoid discovery.Compilo, i. c. Surripio, quia quae fures aufe­runt ea pressim colligunt, quod est compilare. And so the word is took by Horace is his Compilasse, Serm. 1. verse ult. as is observed on that verse by the Learned Scoliasts. So that a Compilator and a Plagiary are but two terms of one signification. And he that would behold a Plagacy in his proper co­lours, may find him painted to the lise in the Appendix to Mr. Pierce his Vindication of the Learned Grotius; to which for further satisfaction I re­fer the Reader.

That preamble having led the way, and may other businesses being ever, I prepared my self unto that search to which I was so earnestly moved, and so affectionately intreated. My helps were few and weak, which might suffici­ently have deterred me from the undertaking. But a good cause will help to carry on it self, and truth will find the way to shine, though darkned for a time with the clouds of Errour; as the Sun breaking from an Eclips, doth [Page]appear more glorious, though a while obscured: Delitere videtur sol, non delitet, as in the like case the Father hath it. The five disputed points which in these last times are reproached by the name of Arminianism, had more or less exercised the Church in all times and ages, especially after the breaking out of the Pelagian Heresies, where all the Niceties thereof were more thoroughly canvassed. Neither the piety and sobriety of the Primitive times, nor the authority of the Popes, nor the commanding spirit of Luther, nor the more powerful name of Calvin have prevailed so far; but that the Church, and every broken fragment of it, hath sound some subdivision about these Debates. So that it can be no great wonder if the Church of England be divided also on the same occasion; or that a Deviation should be made from her publick rules, as well as in all other Churches, and all former times.

Which way the general vote had passed in the elder ages, hath been abun­dantly set forth by John Gerrard Vossius, in his Historia Pelagiana. But be descended not so low as these latter times, conceiving he had done enough in shewing to which of the contending parties, the general current of the Fa­thers did most encline. And if Tertullians rule be good, that those opi­nions have most truth which have most antiquity, (id verum est quod pri­mum, as his own words are) the truth must run most clearly in that part of the Controversie which hath least in it of the Zuinglian or Calvinian Doctrins. And so far I shall follow his method, or example rather, in the pursuit of that design which I have before me. For though it be my prin­cipal purpose to search into the Doctrine of the Church of England; yet I shall preface my discourse by laying down the Judgment of the rest of the Western Churches, before I come to that of our first Reformers. By means whereof it may be seen what guides they followed, or rather with what parties they con­curred in judgment; since in those times the Church was generally so di­stracted about these disputes, that with the whole the aggregate body of belie­vers, there could be no agreement hoped for, no compliance possible.

In the pursuance of this work I have exemplified so much of the Debates and Artifices in the Council of Trent, as concerns these points, and may be parallel'd with the like proceedings in the Synod of Dort: I have consulted also the Confessions, the Synodals, and other publick Monuments, and Records of the several parties, and so many of the best and most approved Authors of this Church of England, as either were within my power, or could be advised with at a further distance: One whole discourse I have transcribed about Free-will, not obvious to the met withal in Shops or Libraries. The like I have done also with one whole Homily, though the book be easie to be found by those that seek it, knowing full well how unwilling most Readers are to take more pains in turning over several books, and examining all quo­tations which are brought before them, than of necessity they must. Nor have I purposely concealed or subducted any thing considerable which may seem to make for the advantage of the opposite party: And have therefore brought in a discourse of the Martyrologist in favour of the Calvinian Doctrine. I have also given a just account of the first breaking out of the Predestinarians in Queen Maries time, and of the stirs in Cambridge, in Queen Elizabeths; not pretermitting such particulars as may be thought to make for them in the course of this Narrative, even to the Articles of Ireland, and the harsh ex­pression of King James against Arminius. And therefore I may say in the words of Curtius, Plura equidem transcribo quam credo; nec enim affirmare ausuge sum, quae dubito; nec subducere sustineo quae accepi. I have related many things which I cannot approve, though I have not let them [Page]pass without some censure, that so I may impose nothing on the Readers belief, without good grounds; nor defraud him of any thing conducible to his infor­mation.

I was not to be told how much my first engaging in this business might offend those men who loved to countenance their extravagancy by the name of the Church, and what loud clamours they had raised against the most Reve­rend Dr. Whitgift, for encountring with T. C. in behalf of the Liturgy, against Dr. John Bridges, Dean of Sarisbury, for standing in defence of the sacred Hirarchy, against the most Learned Bishop Bilson, for crossing Calvins new device about Christ descent; against Dr. Barce for opposing the Genevian Rigors in the points before us; against Mr. Richard Mon­tague for separating the opinions of private men from the Churches Doctrins, and finall against the late Renowned Archbishop, for labouring to restore this Church to its primitive lustre. And though hI could not hope to be more sa­vourably dealt withal in this case than my Letters were, yet I might reason­ably expect to be used no worse. But on the contrary I have lately seen a scurrilous Pamphlet, the Author whereof hath licked up all the filth of for­mer Libels, to vomit it at once upon me, without respect to that civility which beseems a Scholar, or that sobriety and modesty which adorns a Christian; so Cocks are dieted sometimes with Garlick before they fight, that they may rather overcome their Adversaries by the stinck of their breath, than by the sharpness of their spurs, or the strength of their blows.

But I have been so long accustomed to the noise of this Rayling Rhetorick, that I am now no more troubled at it, than were the Catadupi at the Ro­rings of the River Nilus, or Socrates to see himself derided and exposed to scorn on the publick Theatre: Or could I be exasperated to a Retaliation, that saying of St. Cyprian would recal me to my wonted temper; who being bitterly railed at by some of his Presbyters, returned this Answer, Non Oportet me paria cum illis facere; that it becomes not me to answer them with the like revilings. And yet I cannot but take notice of a mischievous project for throwing a Ball of discord betwixt me and some friends of mine, Doctors in title and degree, and by the Libeller declared to be of my own per­suasion, one of which is affirmed to say, That I was an unhappy Writer, and marred every thing which I medled with; and for the finding of this one, I have nothing but a blind direction of Hist. in the margin; placed there of purpose, as it seemeth, to put me into a suspition of all eminent per­sons, whose names begin with those two Letters.

It is recorded in the History of Amianus Marcellinus, that certain men informed the Emperour Valence by their Devilish Arts, that one whose name began with THEO should succeed in the Empire. Which put the sealous Prince into such a general distrust of all whose Names had that beginning (Theodoret, Theodofius, Theopulos, Theodulos, Theodore) that he caused many of them, though men of eminent worth, and most exemplary Loyalty, to be made the subjects of his fear and cruelty. And such a De­villish Art is this of T. C. the younger (by which two Letters he affects to disguise his name) to work me into a suspition of some eminent persons, and such as must be also of my own persuasions. But I have no such jealousies as Valence had, and therefore shall create no trouble to my self or others upon that temptation. For first, I know the parties pointed to in those two let­ters, to be the masters of so much Candor and Ingenuity, that I am consident they rather would excuse my infelicities, or insufficiencies (be they which they will) than bring me under the reproach of any such censure, as none of different judgment ever laid upon me. And secondly, so much they have [Page]descended beneath themselves, as of their own accord to certifie me both by Letters and Messages, how free they were from giving any ground to that base suspition which was contrived with so much malice and design, to divide be­tween us. And so Autorem Scelus repetet, the Calumny must be left at the Authors door, as the natural parent of it, till he can find out more di­stinctly upon whom to charge it. In the mean time I leave him to the mercy of the Laws, as a common Barrator, Drenched over head and ears in the waters of strife, a sower of discord and discention amongst faithful friends.

But I have wasted too much time on this piece of impertinency, and might perhaps have better studied my own fame, if I had taken no notice of the Libel, or the Author either, but that to have been silent altogether in so just a grievance, might possibly be taken for an argument of insensibility. For otherwise, as there is nothing in the Author, but the stoln name of Theo­philus Churchman, which descries my Pen, so there is nothing argumenta­tive in the Pamphlet, either which was not both foreseen and satisfied in the following papers, before it came unto my hands. I return therefore to my Post, which if I can make good by Records and Evidence, (the fittest wea­pons for this Warfare) I shall not easily be forced from it by Reproach and Clamors, as were the ancient Gauls from surprising the Capitol by the noise and gagling of the Geese. But whether I have made it good or not, must be left to the Reader, to whom I hope it will appear that Calvinism was not the native and original Doctrine of the Church of England, though in short time it overspread a great part thereof, as Arrianism did the Eastern Churches in the elder times; Ubi ingemuit orbis, as St. Hierom hath it, when the world groaned and trembled under the calamity of that dangerous Heresie. And I hope too it will appear by this discourse, that I am not yet so far re­duced ad secundam pueritiam (as the Scorner taunts it) as that my vene­rable back and buttocks (pardon me for repeating such unmannerly lan­guage) should be intituled to the Rod of this proud Orbilius. Or if I be, I doubt not but that God Almighty, who ordaineth praise out of the mouths of Babes and Sucklings, will raise some glory to his Name from that second Childhood. To which great God, and his unspeakable mercies in Jesus Christ our common Saviour, I do most heartily recommend this Church, and all them that love it.

Lacies Court in Abington, December, 26. 1659.
PETER HEYLYN.

Historia Quinqu-Articularis: OR, A DECLARATION Of the Judgment of the Western-Churches, &c.

CHAP. I. The several Heresies of those who make God to be the Author of Sin, or attribute too much to the Natural freedom of Man's Will in the Works of Piety.

  • 1. God affirmed by Florinus to be the Author of sin, the blasphemy encountred by Irenaeus, and the foul consequents thereof.
  • 2. Revived in the last Ages by the Liber­tines, said by the Papists to proceed from the Schools of Calvin, and by the Calvi­nists to proceed from the Schools of Rome.
  • 3. Disguised by the Maniches in another dress, and the necessity thereby imposed on the Wills of men.
  • 4. The like by Bardesanes, and the Priscilia­nists, the dangerous consequents thereof exemplified out of Homer, and the words of S. Augustine.
  • 5. The error of the Maniches, touching the servitude of the Will revived by Luther, and continued by the rigid Lutherans.
  • 6. As those of Bardesanes and Priscilian, by that of Calvin, touching the Absolute Decree, the dangers which lie hidden un­der the Decree, and the incompetibleness thereof with Christs coming to Judgment.
  • 7. The large expressions of the Ancient Fa­thers touching the freedom of the Will, a­bused by Pelagius and his followers.
  • 8. The Heresie of Pelagius, in what it did consist, especially as to this particular, and the dangers of it.
  • 9. The Pelagian Heresie condemned and re­called: the temper of S. Augustine touch­ing the freedom of the Will in spiritual mat­ters.
  • 10. Pelagianism falsly charged on the Mo­derate Lutherans: How far all parties do agree about the freedom of the Will, and in what they differ.

OF all the Heresies which exercised the Church in the times fore­going, I there never was any more destructive of humane So­ciety, more contrary to the rule of Faith and Manners, or more repugnant to the Divine Justice and Goodness of Al­mighty God, than that which makes God to be the Author of sin. A blasphemy first broacht in terms express by Florinus, Blastus, and some other of the City of Rome, about the year 180. encountred presently by that godly Bishop and Martyr S. Irenaeus, who published a Discourse against them, bearing this Inscription [...], Viz.Hist. Eccl. Euseb. l. 5. c. 14. & 19. That God was not the Author of sin. And he gave this Inscription to it (as the story telleth us) because Flo­rinus not content with those Vulgar Heresies which had been taken up before, would needs break out into blasphemous Phrensies against God himself, in making him the Author of all those sins which lewd men commit. Which Doctrine were it once admitted, not only the first sin of Adam, but all the sins that have been hitherto per­petrated by his whole Posterity, must be charged on God, and he alone must be ac­countable for all Murthers, Robberies, Rapes, Adulteries, Insurrections, Treasons, Blas­phemies, Heresies, Persecutions, or any other Abominations which have been acted in the world since the first Creation. For certainly there can be no reason why every [Page 506]man may not say, on the committing of any sin, whatsoever it be, as did Lyconides in Plantus, when he defloured old Eudio's Daughter, Deus mihi impulsor fuit, is me ad illam illexit; it was God alone who tempted and provoked them to those wicked actions.

What Arguments the good Father used to cry down this Blasphemy (for a Heresie is a name too milde for so lewd a Doctrine) I cannot gather from my Author, II but such they were, so operative and effectual in stopping the current of the mischief, that either Florinus and the rest had no followers at all (as most Hereticks had) or such as never attained to the height of their Masters Impudence. And so that damnable Doctrine (the Doctrine of Devils I may call it) seems to be strangled in the birth, or to be bu­ried in the same grave with the Authors of it, never revived in more than thirteen hun­dred years after the death of Irenaeus, when it was against by the Libertines, a late brood of Sectaries, whom each of the two opposite parties are ashamed to own. This taught as did Florinus, Calv. Advers. Libertl. c. 12. in the Primitive times, Quicquid ego, & tu facimus, Deus efficit; nam in nobis est, That whatsoever thing they did, was Gods working in them; and therefore God to be intituled to those wicked actions which themselves committed. The time of their first breaking out affirmed to be about the year 1529. The Foun­ders of this Sect Loppinus and Quintinus, Flemmings both; and this Prateolus affirms for certain to be the Progency of Calvin, and other leading men of the Protestant Churches. They came (saith he) Eschola nostrae tempestatis Evangelicorum. Bellarmin somewhat more remisly,Prateol. E­lench. Haeve. in Quintino. Bellar. Omnino probabile est, eos ex Calvianianis promanasse, and makes it only probable that it might be so, but not rightly neither: The Libertines breaking out, as before was said, Anno 1527. when Calvin was of little credit, and the name of Calvinists, or Calvinians not so much as heard of. And on the other side, Paraeus Pro­fessor of Divinity in the University of Hidelberg, writing some Animadversions on the Cardinals works, assures us that they were both Papists, acquaints us with the place of their Nativity, and the proceedings had against them. Nor was Calvin wanting for his part, to purge himself from such an odious imputation, not only by confuting their Opinions in a set discourse, but making one Franciscus Porquius, a Franciscan Fryer to be a chief stickler in the Cause. Against which I know nothing that can be said, but that the doctrine of the Libertines in this particular, doth hold more cor­respondence with Calvins principles, than any of the received Positions of the Fryers of S. Francis. But whether it were so or not, I shall make this Inference, That the Doctrine must needs be most impious, which both sides detested, which the Papists laboured so industriously to father on the Schools of Calvin, and the Calvinians no less passionatly to charge on some of our great Masters in the Church of Rome.

But so it is, III that though the Impiety was too gross to appear bare fac'd, yet there have been too many both in the elder and these latter times, who entertaining in their hearts the same dreadful madness, did recommend it to the world under a disguise, though they agreed not at all in that Masque or Vizard which was put upon it. Of this sort Manes was the first, by birth of Persia, and Founder of the damnable Sect of the Manicheans, Anno 273. or thereabouts. This Wretch considering how unsuc­cesfully Florinus had sped before, in making God (who is all, and only good) to be the Author of sin: did first excogitate two Gods, the one good, and the other evil, both of like eternity; ascribing all pious actions to the one, all Sins and Vices to the other; Which ground so laid, he utterly deprived the will of man of that natural li­berty, of which it is by God invested; and therefore that in man there was no ability of resisting sin, or not submitting unto any of those wicked actions which his lusts and passions offered to him.Prateol. in Elench. Haer. in Marich. Condendebant, item, peccatum non esse à libero arbitrio, sed à Daemone, & capropter non posse per liberum arbitrium impediri, as my Author hath it. Nor did they only leave mans will in a disability of hindering or resisting the incursions of sin, but they left it also under an incapability of acting any thing in order to the works of Righteousness, though God might graciously vouchsafe his assisting grace, making no difference in this case, betwixt a living man and a stock or Statua, for so it follows in my Author. Sed & nullam prorsus voluntati tribuetant Actionem, nec quidem adjuvante spirity sancto: quasi nihil interesset inter statuam & voluntatem. In both directly contrary to that divine counsel of S. James, where he adviseth us to lay apart all filthiness and su­perfluity of naughtiness, and to receive with meekness the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. Chap. 1. ver. 21. That of S. Peter exhorting, or requiring rather, That we work out our salvation with fear and trembling. And finally that golden Aphorism of S. Augustine; si non sit liberum arbitrium, quomodo Deus judicabit mundum? With what [Page 507]justice saith the Father, can God judg or condemn the world, if the sins of men pro­ceed not from their own free will, but from some over-ruling power which inforc'd them to it?

Others there were who harbouring in their hearts the said lewd opinions, IV and yet not daring to ascribe all their sins and wickednesses unto God himself, imputed the whole blame thereof to the Stars and Destinies, the powerful influence of the one, and the irresistable Decrees of the other, necessitating then to those wicked actions which they so frequently commit. Thus we are told of Bardesanes, Quod fato conver­sationes hominum ascriberet, That he ascribed all things to the power of Fate.August. de Hae­res. cap. 25. Ibid. cap. 15. & 70. And thus it is affirmed of Priscillianus, Fatalibus Astris homines alligatos, That men were thral­led unto the Stars, which last S. Augustine doth report of one Colarbus, save that he gave this power and influence to the Planets only, but these if pondered as they ought, differed but little, if at all from the impiety of Florinus before remembred, only it was expressed in a better language, and seemed to savour more of the Phi­losopher than the other did. For if the Lord had passed such an irresistible Law of Fate, that such and such should be guilty of such foul Transgressions as they com­monly committed, it was all one as if he was proclaimed for the Author of them: and then why might not every man take unto himself the excuse and plea of Aga­memnon, [...]. It was not I that did it,Homer Illiad. but the Gods and Destiny. Or if the Lord had given so irresistable a power to the Stars of Heaven, as to inforce men to be wickedly and lewdly given; what differs this from making God the Author of those vitious actions, to which by them we are in­forced? And then why might not every man cast his sin on God, and say, as did some good fellows in St. Augustines time. Accusandum potius esse Autorem syderum, August. de Gen. ad lit. lib. 2. c. 27. quam commissorem scelerum. That he who made the Stars was in the fault, not the men that did it.

But this absurdity being as much cryed down by Augustine and other learned Wri­ters of those elder times, as the impiety of Florinus had been before; V were either ut­terly extinguish'd, or lay concealed for many hundred years together. Amongst the philosophical Heterodoxies of the Roman Schools, that of the Maniches first revived by Martin Luther, who in meer opposition to Erasmus, who had then newly written a Book De Arbitrio libero, published a Discourse, intituled, De Arbitrio servo. In which Discourse he doth not only say, That the freedom ascribed unto the Will is an empty nothing, Titulus, & nomen, sine re, a name of no such thing in Nature: but holds expresly, that man is drawn no otherwise by the grace of God, than Velut inanimale quiddam, No otherwise than as a sensless stock or stone (the Statua of the ancient Maniches) in the great work of his conversion, to a state of Righteousness. And though Luther afterwards conformed his Judgment in this Point, unto that of Melancthon, as appear­eth by the Augustan Confession, in drawing up whereof he is acknowledged to have had a principal hand; yet was he followed in this first Errour, as in almost all the rest of his extremities, by the rigid Lutherans, headed by Flaccus Illyricus, and his Associats in the City of Magdeburg, at his first separation from the Melancthonian Di­vines, who remained at Wittenberg, and had embraced more moderate and sober counsels: of which more hereafter.

But Luther shall not go alone, and not take Calvin along with him, VI how much so­ever they might differ in some other Points: Luther revived the Error of the Ma­niches in denying all freedom to the will, especially in matters which relate to eternal life; and Calvin will revive the Errors of Bardesanes, and Priscillian, in charging all mens wicked actions on the Stars, and Destiny, not positively and in terminis, I must needs say that, but so that he comes close up to them, to Tantamont, ascribing that to the inevitable Decrees of Almighty God, which Bardesanes attributed to the powers of Fate: Priscillian, Clolarbus to the influences of the Stars and Planets: For if God before all Eternity (as they plainly say) did purpose and decree the Fall of our Father Adam, Ʋt sua defectione periret Adam: In the words of Calvin, Calv. instit. lib. 3. c. 23. sect. 7. V. Synod. Rom. There was in Adam a necessity of committing sin, because the Lord had so decreed it. If without consideration of the sin of man, he hath by his determinate sentence ordained so many millions of men to everlasting damnation, and that too necessario, and inevitabiliter, as they please to phrase it, he must needs pre-ordain them to sin also: there being (as themselves confess) no way unto the end but by the means. The odious Inferences which are raised out of these Opinions, I forbear to press, and shall add only at the present: That if we grant this Doctrine to be true and Orthodox; we may do well [Page 508]to put an Index expurgatorius upon the Creed, and quite expunge the Article of Chrins coming to Judgment. For how could God condemn his Creature to un­quenchable Flames? or put so ill an Office upon Christ our Saviour, as to condemn them by his mouth, in case the sins by them committed were not theirs, but his; or punish the for that himself works in them, unto which rather he decred them be­fore all Eternity.Falgent. ad Monimum. Nothing more true than that excellent saying of Fulgentius, Deus non est eorum ultor, quorum est Autor. That God doth never punish his own actings in us.

Such were the men, VII and such the means, by which the blame of sin was transfer­red from man, and charged on the account of God, either expresly and in terms, or in the way of necessary consequence and undeniable Illation, by which lost man was totally deprived of all abilities for resisting Satan, or otherwise concurring with Gods grace in his own conversion. Nor wanted there some others in those elder times, who did ascribe so much to mans will, and the powers of Nature, as to make Gods Grace unprofitable, or at least unnecessary in either of the Acts aforesaid. The Fathers generally which lived before the starting of the Pelagian Heresies, declared themselves so largely, if not lavishly also, in the present Point, that the greatest Pa­trons of Free will in the Church of Rome, were fain sometimes to qualifie their ex­pressions, and put a milder sence upon them, than the words import. For being to deal with the fatal necessity of the Pagans on the one side, and the impiety of Maniches on the other side; they gave themselves such liberty in advancing the powers of Na­ture, as might best serve to the refelling of either Adversary; not dreaming then that any Heresie could arise in opposition to the free Grace of God, to the advancing of free will above all degrees of power and possibility. But on the contrary Pe­lagius, a Britain born, either misguided by the lavishness of their expressions, or otherwise willing to get a Name unto himself by some new Invention, ascribed so much unto the freedom of the will in all Acts of Piety. Ʋt gratiam Dei necessariam non putaret, as Vincentius Lirynensis telleth us of him.

This man associated with Caelestinus and Julianus two of his Companions, VIII whom he had either drawn into the same Opinion with him, or found them ready of them­selves to promote the work, began to spread abroad their Errours about the year 405. Amongst the which those that especially concern this purpose are these two that follow,August. Tom. 2. Epist. 106. Viz. 1. Non esse liberum Arbitrium, si Dei indiget auxilio, quoniam in propria voluntate babet unusquis (que) facere aliquid, vel non facere. 2. Victoriam nostram non ex Dei adjutorio esse; sed ex Libero Arbitrio: That is to say, 1. That there is no freedom of the will, if it stand in any need of Gods assistance, because every man hath it in the power of his own will, either to do a thing, or not to do it, as to him seems best. And 2. That our Victory over sin and Satan comes not of any help which we have from God, but our own free will. Add unto this, that which must follow of ne­cessity from the former Principles. Orationes quas facit Ecclesia pro infidelibus, & aliis peccatoribus ut convertantur, sive pro fidelibus ut perseverent, frustra fieri. That is to say, That the Services of the Church, which are made either for the conversion of the wicked, or the perseverance of the Just, are but labour lost; because (say they) our own free will is able of it self to attain those ends, and therefore it is to no pur­pose to ask those things at the hands of God, which we may compass of our selves: Quod ad illa omnia sufficere dicant nostri Arbitrii liberam potestatem, Prattol. Elench. Heret. in Pe­lag. & ita non opus esse à Deo petere quae nos ipsi consequi possumus, as my Author hath it; whose words I have laid down at large, that we may see how much the world was carried to the other extream, how much the Truth was lost on both sides, and yet how easie to be found by those who went a middle was in the search thereof.

For looking on these last opinions as they stand in themselves, IX we may affirm of them in general, as Augustine doth particularly of the Stoical Fates: Nil aliud agere nisi ut nullus omnino aut rogetur aut colatur Deus. They seem to aim at nothing more than the utter abolition of the Worship and Service of God. But these Pelagian He­resies did not hold out long, being solemnly condemned in the two Affrican Councils of Cartbage, and Milevis, confuted by St. Augustine with great care and diligence: and finally retracted by Pelagius himself in the Synod of Palestine. So that the Heresie being suppressed, the Catholick Doctrine in that Point became more setled and con­firmed by the opposition, such freedom being left to the will of man, as was subser­vient unto grace, co-operating in some measure with those heavenly influences: And so much is confessed by St. Augustine himself, where he asks this question, Quis [Page 509]nostrum dicit, quod primi hominis peccato perierit Arbitrium de humano genere? August. l. 1. contr. Epist. Pelagi. cap. 2. Doth any man (saith he) affirm that free will is perished utterly from man by the fall of Adam? And thereunto he makes this answer: Libertas quidem periit per peccatum; sed illa quae in Paradiso fuit habendi plenam cum immortalitate justitiam. That is to say, Free­dom is perished by sin, but it is that freedom only which we had in Paradise, of having per­fect righteousness with immortality. For otherwise it appears to be this Opinion that man was not meerly passive in all the Acts of Grace which conduced to Glory, ac­cording to the memorable saying of his (so common in the Mouths of all men) Qui creavit te sine te, non salvabit te sine te: That he who first made us without our help, will not vouchsafe to save us at the last without our concurrence. If any harsher ex­pressions have escap'd his Pen, (as commonly it hapneth in the heats of a Disputa­tion) they are to be qualified by this last Rule, and by that before; in which it was affirmed, That God could not with justice judge and condemn the World, if all mens sins proceeded not from their own free will, but from some over-ruling provi­dence which inforc'd them to it.

After this time we meet with no such Enemies to the Grace of God, X no such Ad­vancers of mans free will and the power of Nature, as might intitle any man to the Crime of Pelagianism. It cannot be denied but that Illyricus and some other of the rigid Lutherans upbraided Melancthon and all the Divines in a manner, both of Lipsique and Wittenberge, with teaching that a man by the powers of Nature may yield obedience to the Word, embrace the Promises, and make no opposition to the workings of the Holy Ghost, as hath been noted by Lyndanus. Lindan in Dial. 21. But then it must be granted, that when their works came to be weighed in the Scale of the Sanctuary, it will be found that they speak only of such a Synergie, or co-operation, as makes men differ from a sensless stock, or liveless statua, in reference to the great work of his own conversion. And thereupon we may resolve that at the last the Church in general concentred upon these Propositions.

1. Man in the state of corruption hath freedom of will in Actions natural and civil.

2. That considered in the same estate he hath free will in matters moral. And,

3. That man hath free will in Actions of Piety, and such as belong unto his sal­vation; that is to say, Being first prevented by Gods Grace, and having afterwards the assistance, and support thereof: which Propositions being easie and intelligible as they stand by themselves, but are made more difficult and obscure, even to learned men, by interweaving them with many intricate Disputes, touching the correspon­dence of free will, with Prescience, Providence, and Predestination; Disputes so in­tricate and perplexed, that Armachanus (as great a Clerk as almost any in his time) travelled no less than twenty years in the search of one of them alone, and yet could not find it. And yet I cannot say, that the consent in those three Propositions before remembred, in which the Church hath generally concentred: since the death of St. Augustine hath met with no dissenting Judgment in these later times. Some men re­straining all our Actions to so strict a Rule, as to make the will of man determined and tied up in all particulars, even to the taking up of a Rush, or Straw, as in ano­ther case it was taught by Cartwright the great Bel-weather of the Flock in Queen Elizabeths time, sufficiently derided,Eccles. polit. lib. 11. p. 96. or rather gravely reprehended for it by judicious Hooker. And if we meet with any thing which looks that way in the Writings of some Dominican Fryers, who stifly stand to all the rigours of St. Augustine in the con­troversies of Predestination, Grace, Free-will, &c. against the Jesuits, and Franciscans: it is to be imputed rather to the errour of their Education a stiffness in maintaining their old Opinions, or finally to that Animosity, which commonly the weaker party carrieth against the stronger, than to any clear and evident Authority, which they can pretend to from that Father, or any other ancient Writers of unquestioned cre­dit; which said, I hope it will be granted without much difficulty, that such a Doctrine of Predestination, as neither directly nor indirectly makes God to be the Au­thor of sin, nor attributes so much to the will of man, in depraved Nature, as to exclude the influences of Gods Heavenly Grace; is more to be embraced than any o­ther, which dasheth against either of the said extreams: And that being granted or supposed, I shall first lay down the Judgment of the differing parties, in the Ar­ticle of Predestination, and the points depending thereupon: and afterwards declare to which of the said differing Parties, the Doctrine of the Church of England seemeth most inclinable.

CHAP. II. Of the Debates amongst the Divines in the Council of Trent, touch­ing Predestinations, and Original Sin.

  • 1. The Articles drawn from the Writings of the Zuinglians, touching Predestination and Reprobation.
  • 2. The Doctrine of Predestination, accord­ing to the Dominican way.
  • 3. As also the old Franciscans, with Rea­sons for their own, and against the other.
  • 4. The Historians Judgment interposed be­tween the Parties.
  • 5. The middle way of Catarinus to com­pose the differences.
  • 6. The newness of St. Augustines Opinion, and the dislike thereof by the most learned Men in the Ages following.
  • 7. The perplexities amongst the Theologues, touching the absoluteness of the Decrees.
  • 8. The Judgment of the said Divines, touch­ing the possibility of falling from Grace.
  • 9. The Debates about the nature and transmit­ting of Original Sin.
  • 10. The Doctrine of the Council in it.

IN such conditions stood Affairs in reference to the Doctrines of Predestination Grace, I Free will, &c. at the first sitting down of the Council of Trent, in which, those Points became the subject of many sad and serious Debates amongst the Pre­lates and Divines, then and there Assembled, which being so necessary to the un­derstanding of the Questions which we have before us: I shall not think my time ill spent in laying down the sum and abstract of the same, as I find it digested to my hand by Padre Paulo, the diligent and laborious Author of the Tridentine History; only I shall invert his Method, by giving precedency to the Disputes concerning Prede­stination, before the Debates and Agitations, which hapned in canvasing the Articles touching the Freedom of mans Will, though those about Free-will do first occur in the course and method of that Council: It being determined by the Council, as that Author hath it, to draw some Articles from the Writings of the Protestants, concern­ing the Doctrine of Predestination: It appeared that in the Book of Luther, in the Augustan Confession, and in the Aplogies and Colloquies, there was nothing found that deserved Censure; But much they found among the Writings of the Zuinglians, out of which they drew these following Articles; Viz.

  • 1. For Predestination and Reprobation; that man doth nothing, but all is in the will of God.
  • 2. The Predestinated cannot be condemned, nor the Reprobate saved.
  • 3. The Elect and Predestinated only are truly justified.
  • 4. The Justified are bound by Faith to believe, they are in the number of the Predestinated.
  • 5. The Justified cannot fall from Grace.
  • 6. Those that are called, and are not in the number of the predestinated, do never receive Grace.
  • 7. The Justified is bound to believe by Faith, that he ought to persevere in Justice until the end.
  • 8. The Justified is bound to believe for certain, that in case he fall from Grace, he shall receive it again.

In the examining the first of these Articles, II the Opinions were diverse. The most esteemed Divines amongst them thought it to be Catholick, the contrary Heretical, be­cause the good School-Writers (St. Thomas, Scotus, and the rest) do so think, that is, that God before the Creation, out of the Mass of mankind, hath elected by his only and meer mercy, some for Glory, for whom he hath prepared effectually the means to obtain it, which is called, to predestinate. That their number is certain and determined, neither can there any be added. The others not predestinated can­not complain, for that God hath prepared for them sufficient assistance for this, though indeed none but the Elect shall be saved. For the most principal reason they alledged, that S. Paul to the Romans having made Jacob a pattern of the predestina­ted, and Eau of the Reprobate, he produceth the Decree of God pronounced be­fore they were born, not for their Works, but for his own good pleasure. To this [Page 511]they joyned the example of the same Apostle: That as the Potter of the same lump of Clay, maketh one Vessel to honour, another to dishonour; so God of the same Mass of men, chooseth and leaveth whom he listeth: for proof whereof S Paul bringeth the place where God saith to Moses, I will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy, and I will shew pity on whom I will shew pity. And the same Apostle concludeth: It is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God who sheweth mercy; adding after, that God sheweth mercy on whom he will, and hardneth whom he will. They said further, That for this cause the Council of the Divine Predestination and Reprobation is called by the same Apostle, the height and depth of Wisdom unsearchable and incomprehensible. They added places of the other Epistles, where he saith, We have nothing but what we have received from God, that we are not able of our selves, so much as to think well: and where, in giving the cause, why some have revolted from the Faith, and some stand firm, he said, it was because the Foundation of God standeth sure, and hath this seal; the Lord knoweth who are his. They added divers passages of the Gospel of S. John, and in­finite Anthorities of S. Augustine, because the Saint wrote nothing in his old Age but in favour of this Doctrine.

But some others though of Iess esteem, opposed this opinion, calling it hard, III cruel inhumane, horrible, impious, and that it shewed partiality in God, if, without any motive cause, he elected one, and rejected another; and unjust if he damned men for his own will, and not for their faults, and had created so great a multitude to condemn it. They said, it destroyed Free-will, because the Elect cannot finally do evil, nor the Reprobate good: that it casteth men into a gulph of desperation, doubting that they be Reprobates: That it giveth occasion to the wicked of bad thoughts, not caring for Pennance, but thinking if they be elected, they shall not perish; if Reprobates, it is in vain to do well, because it will not help them. They confessed that not only works are not the cause of Gods election, because that is before them, and eternal; but that neither Works foreseen can move God to Predestinate, who is willing for his in­finite mercy, that all should be saved, to this end prepareth sufficient assistance for all, which every man having Free-will receiveth or refuseth as pleaseth him: and God in his eternity foreseeth those who will receive his help and use it to good, and those who will refuse; and rejecteth these, electeth and predestinateth those: They added, That otherwise there was no cause why God in the Scriptures should complain of sin­ners, nor why he should exhort all to repentance and conversion, if they have not suf­ficient means to get them: that the sufficient assistance invented by the others, is in­sufficient, because in their opinion it never had, nor shall have any effect.

The first Opinion as it is mystical and hidden, keeping the mind humble, IV and re­lying on God, without any confidence in it self, knowing the deformity of sin, and the excellency of Divine Grace; so this second was plausible and popular, cherishing humane presumption, and making a great shew; and it pleased more the preaching Fryers than the understanding Divines. And the Council thought it probable, as con­sonant to politick Reason: It was maintained by the Bishop of Bitonto, and the Bishop of Salpi shewed himself very partial. The Defenders of this, using humane Reasons, prevailed against the others, but coming to the testimonies of Scripture, they were ma­nifestly overcome.

Calarinus, holding the same Opinion, to resolve the places of Scripture, V which troubled them all, invented a middle way; That God of his goodness had elected some few whom he will save absolutely, to whom he hath prepared most potent, effectual, and infallible means; the rest he desireth for his part they should be saved; and to that end hath promised sufficient means for all, leaving it to their choice to accept them and be saved, or refuse them and be damned. Amongst these there are some who re­ceive them and are saved, though they be not of the number of the Elect; of which kind there are very many. Other refusing to co-operate with God, who wisheth their salvation, are damned. The cause why the first are predestinated, is only the will of God: why the others are saved, is the acceptation, good use, and co-operation with the Divine assistance, foreseen by God: why the last are reprobated, is the fore­seeing of their perverse will, in refusing or abusing it. That S. John, S. Paul, and all the places of Scripture alledged by the other part, where all is given to God, and which do shew infallibility, are understood only of the first, who are particularly priviledged; and in other, for whom the common way is left, the admonitions, exhortations, and general assistances are verified, unto which, he that will give ear and follow them, is saved; and he that will not, perisheth by his own fault. Of these few who are priviledged [Page 512]above the common condition, the number is determinate and certain with God, but not of those who are saved by the common way, depend on humane liberty, but only in regard of the fore-knowledge of the works of every one. Catarinus said, He won­dred at the stupidity of those, who say, the number is certain and determined, and yet they add that others may be saved; which is as much as to say, that the number is certain, and yet it may be enlarged: And likewise of those who say, That the Repro­bates have sufficient assistance for salvation, though it be necessary for him that is saved to have a greater, which is to say, a sufficient, unsufficient.

He added, VI that S. Augustins Opinion was not heard of before his time, and himself confesseth it cannot be found in the works of any, who wrote before him; neither did himself always think it true, but ascribed the cause of Gods will to merits; saying, God taketh compassion on, and hardneth whom he listeth. But that will of God can­not be unjust, because it is caused by most secret merits; and that there is diversity of sinners: some who though they be justified, deserve justification. But after the heat of Disputation against the Pelagians transported him to think, and speak the contrary; yet when his opinion was heard, all the Catholicks were scandalized, as S. Prosper wrote to him, and Genadius of Marselles, fifty years after in his judgment which he maketh of the famous Writers, said, That it hapned to him according to the words of Solomon: That in much speaking one cannot avoid sin; and that by his fault exagitated by his Enemies, the question was not then risen, which might afterwards bring forth He­resie, whereby the good Father did intimate his fear of that which now appeareth; that is, that by that opposition some Sect and Division might arise.

The censure of the second Article was diverse, according to the three related Opi­nions. Catarinus thought the first part true, in regard of the efficacy of the Divine Will towards those who were particularly favoured: But the second false, concerning the sufficiency of Gods assistance unto all, and mans liberty in co-operating. Others ascribing the cause of Predestination in all to humane consent, condemned the whole Article in both parts. But those that adhered unto S. Augustine, and the common opinion of the Theologans, did distinguish it, and said, it was true in a compound sense, but damnable in a divided: a subtilty which confounded the minds of the Pre­lates, and his own, though he did exemplifie it by saying, he that moveth cannot stand still, it is true in a compound sense, but is understood, while he moveth: but in a di­vided sonse it is false, that is, in another time. Yet it was not well understood, be­cause applying it to his purpose: It cannot be said that a man predestinated can be damned, in a time when he is not predestinated, seeing he is always so; and gene­rally the divided sense hath no place, where the accident is inseparable from the subject. Therefore others thought to declare it better, saying, that God governeth and moveth every thing according to its proper nature, which in contingent things is free, and such, as that the act may consist together with the power to the opposite; so that with the act of predestination, the power to reprobation and damnation doth stand. But this was worse understood than the first.

The other Articles were consured with admirable concord. VIII Concerning the third and sixth, they said, it hath always been an opinion in the Church, that many re­ceive divine Grace, and keep it for a time, who afterwards do lose it, and in time are damned. Then was alledged the example of Saul, Solomon, and Judas, one of the twelve; a case more evident than all, by these words of Christ to the Father: I have kept in thy name all that thou hast given me, of which not one hath perished, but the son of Per­dition. To these they added Nicholas, one of the seven Deacons, and others, first com­mended in the Scriptures, and then blamed; and for a conclusion of all, the Fall of Luther.

Against the sixth, IX they particularly considered, that Vocation would become impi­ous derision; when those that are called, and nothing is wanting on their side, are not admitted: that the Sacraments would not be effectual for them; all which things are absurd. But for censure, first, the Authority of the Prophet was brought directly contrary in terms, where God saith, That if the Just shall abandon justice, and commit iniquity, I will not remember his works. The example of David was added, who com­mitted Murther and Adultery; of Magdalen and S. Peter, who denied Christ: They derided the folly of the Zuinglians, for saying, the Just cannot fall from Grace, and yet sinneth in every work. The two last were uniformly condemned of temerity, with exception of those unto whom God hath given a special Revelation, as to Moses and the Disciples, to whom it was revealed, that they were written in the Book of Heaven.

Now because the Doctrine of Predestination doth naturally presuppose a Curse from which man was to be delivered: IX Hist. of the Council. fol. 175. It will not be amiss to lay down the Judgment of that Council in the Article of Original sin (which rendred man obnoxious to the dreadful curse) together with the preparatory Debates amongst the School-men and Divines which were there Assembled; touching the nature, and transmitting of it from Adam unto his Posterity, and from one man to another. Concerning which it was declared by Catarinus, That as God made a Covenant with Abraham, and all his Posterity, when he made him Father of the faithful: So when he gave Original Righ­teousness to Adam, and all man-kind, he made him seal an Obligation in the name of all, to keept it for himself and them, observing the Commandment: which because he transgressed, he lost it, as well for others as himself, and incurred the punishment also for them; the which, as they are derived in every one, and to him as the cause to others, by vertue of the Covenant: so that the actual sin of Adam is actual sin in him, and imputed to others is Original; for proof whereof, he grounded himself upon this especially, that a true and proper sin must needs be a voluntary act, and nothing can be voluntary but that transgression of Adam imputed unto all. And Paul, saying, that all have sinned in Adam, it must b e understood that they have all committed the same sin with him; he alledged for example, that S. Paul to the Hebrews affirmeth that Levi paid Tyth to Melchisedeck; when he paid in his great Grandfather Abraham; by which reason it must be said that the Posterity violated the Commandments of God when Adam did it; and that they were sinners in him, as in him they received Righteousness.

Which Application as it was more intelligible to the Prelates Assembled together in the Council, than any of the Crabbed Intricacies, X and perplexities of the rest of the School-men, irreconcilable in a manner amongst themselves: so did it quicken them to the dispatch of their Canons, or Anathamatisms (which they had the Notions in their heads) against all such as had taught otherwise of Original sin, Idem. sol. 181. than was allowed of and maintained in the Church of Rome, but more particularly against him. 1. That confesseth not, that Adam by transgressing hath lost Sanctity and Justice, incurred the wrath of God, Death, and Thraldom to the Devil, and is infected in Soul and Body. 2. Against him that averreth that Adam by sinning hath hurt himself only, or hath de­rived into his Posterity the death only of the Body, and not sin, the death of the Soul. 3. Against him that affirmeth the sin, which is one in the beginning, and proper to every one (committed by Generation, not imitation) can be abolished by any other remedy than the death of Christ) is applied as well to Children, as to those of riper years, by the Sacrament of Baptism ministred in the Form and Rite of the Church.

CHAP. III. The like Debates about Free-will, with the Conclusions of the Council, in the Five Controverted Points.

  • 1. The Articles against the Freedom of the Will, extracted out of Luer's Writings.
  • 2. The exclamation of the Divines against Luer's Doctrine in the Point, and the ab­surdities thereof.
  • 3. The several Judgments of Marinarus, Ca­tarinus, and Andreas Vega.
  • 4. The different Judgment of the Domini­cans and Francisans, whether it lay in mans power to believe, or not to believe; and whether the Freedom of the Will were lost in Adam.
  • 5. As also of the Point of the co-operation of mans Will with the Grace of God.
  • 6. The opinion of Fryer Catanca, in the point of irresistibility.
  • 7. Faintly maintained by Soto a Dominican Fryer, and more cordially approved by o­thers, but in time rejected.
  • 8. The great care taken by the Legates in having the Articles so framed, as to please all parties.
  • 9. The Doctrine of the Council in the Five controverted Points.
  • 10. A Transition from the Council of Trent, to the Protestant and Reformed Churches.

THese Differences and Debates concerning Predestination, I the possibility of falling away from the Faith of Christ, and the nature of Original sin: being thus passed over; I shall look back on those Debates which were had amongst the Fathers and Di­vines in the Council of Trent, about the nature of Free-will, and the power thereof. In order whereunto these Articles were collected out of the Writings of the Lutherans, to be discussed and censured as they found cause for it. Now the Articles were these that follow, viz.

  • 1. God is the total cause of our works good and evil, and the Adultry of David, the cruelty of Manlius, and the Treason of Judas, are the works of God as well as the Vocation of Saul.
  • 2. No man hath power to think well or ill, but all cometh from absolute necessity, and in us is no Free-will, and to affirm it is a meer fiction.
  • 3. Free-will since the sin of Adam is lost, and a thing only titular, and when one doth what is in his power, he sinneth mortally: yea, it is a thing fained, and a Title without reality.
  • 4. Free-will is only in doing ill, and hath no power to do good.
  • 5. Free-will moved by God, doth by no means co-operate, and followeth as an In­strument without life, or an unreasonable Creature.
  • 6. That God correcteth those only whom he will, though they will not spurn against it.

Upon the first Article they spake rather in a Tragical manner than Theological; that the Lutheran Doctrine was a frantick wisdom: II that mans Will as they make it, is prodigious; that those words, a thing of Title only, a Title without reality, are mon­struous: That the Opinion is impious and blasphemous against God; that the Church hath condemned it against the Maniches, Priscilianists, and lastly against Aballardus, and Wickliff; and that it was folly against common sense, every one proving in him­self his own Liberty; that it deserveth not confutation, but as Aristotle saith, Chastise­ment and Experimental proof, that Luther's Scholars perceived the folly, and to mo­derate the Absurdity, said after, that a man had liberty in External, Political, and Oeconomical actions, and in matters of Civil Justice, that, which every one but a Fool knoweth, to proceed from Councils and Election, but denied Liberty in matter of Divine Justice only.

Marinarus said, III That as it is foolish to say no huane action is in our power, so it is no less absurd to say, that every one is: every one finding by experience that he hath not his affections in his power; that this is the sense of the Schools, which say, that we are not free in the first motions: which freedom because the Saints have, it is cer­tain that some freedom is in them which is not in us. Catarinus according to his opi­nion, said, That without Gods special assistance, a man cannot do a moral good; said, there was no liberty in this, and therefore that the Fourth Article was not so easily to be condemned. Vega, after he had spoken with such Ambiguity, that he un­derstood not himself, concluded that between the Divines and the Protestants, there was no difference in Opinion. for they concluding now that there is liberty in Phi­losophical Justice, and not in Supernatural, in External works of the Law, not in external and spiritual; that is to say, precisely with the Church, that one cannot do spiritual works belonging to Religion without the assistance of God. And though he said, all endeavour was to be used for composition, yet he was not gratefully heard: it seeming in some sort a prejudice, that any of the differences might be reconciled; and they were wont to say that this is a point of the Colloquies, a word abhorred, as if by that, the Laity had usurped the Authority which is proper to Councils.

A great Disputation arose upon them, IV Whether it be in mans power to believe, or not to believe? The Franciscans following Sotus, did deny it: saying, That as Know­ledge doth necessarily follow Demonstrations, so Faith doth arise necessarily from persuasions; and that it is in the understanding, which is a natural Agent, and is na­turally moved by the Object. They alledged Experience, that no man can believe what he will, but what seemeth true, adding that no man would feel any displeasure, if he could believe he had it not. The Dominicans said, that nothing is more in the power of the Will, than to believe, and by the determination and resolution of the Will only, one may believe the number of the Stars is even.

Upon the I hird Article, Whether Free-will be lost by sin, very many Authorities of S. Augustine being alledged, which expresly say it.Hist of [...] cil. p. 108. &c. Soto did invent, because ke knew [Page 515]no other means to avoid them, that true Liberty is equivocal; for either it is derived from the Noun Libertas, Freedom, or from the Verb Liberare, to set Free: that in the first sense it is opposed to Necessity, in the second to Servitude; and that when S. Au­gustine said, That Free-will was lost, he would infer nothing else, but that it is made slave to Sin and Satan. This difference could not be understood, because a servant is not free, for that he cannot do his Will, but is compelled to follow his Masters: And by this opinion Luther could not be blamed for entituling a Book of SERVILE WILL; many thought the Fourth Article absurd, saying, That Liberty is understood to be a power to both the contraries; therefore that it could not be said, to be a Liberty to Evil, if it were not also to Good: But they were made to acknowledge their Error, when they were told that the Saints and blessed Angels in Heaven are free to do good, and therefore that it was no inconvenience that some should be free only to do Evil.

In the examining the fifth and sixth Articles of the consent which Free-will giveth to Divine Inspiration, or preventing Grace, V the Franciscans and Dominicans were of divers Opinions: The Franciscans contended that the Will being able to prepare it self, hath Liberty much more to accept or refuse the divine Prevention when God giveth assistance, before it useth the strength of Nature. The Dominicans denied that the Works preceding the Vocation, are truly preparatoy, and ever gave the first place to God. Notwithstanding there was a contention between the Dominicans themselves. For Soto defended, that although a man cannot obtain Grace without the special pre­venting assistance of God, yet the Will may ever some way resist and refuse it; and when it doth receive it, it is because it giveth assent, and doth will so: and if our assent were not required, there would be no cause why all should not be converted. For ac­cording to the Apocalyps, God standeth always at the Gate and knocketh: And it is a say­ing of the Fathers, now made common, That God giveth Grace to every one that will have it; and the scripture doth always require this consent in us, and to say otherwise were to take away the Liberty of the Will, and to say that God useth violence.

Fryer Aloisius Catanca said to the contrary, VI That God worketh two sorts of pre­venting Grace in the mind, according to the Doctrine of S. Thomas, the one sufficient, the other effectual: To the first, the Will may consent or resist, but not to the second, because it implieth contradiction, to say, that Efficacy can be resisted; for proof, he alledged places of S. John, and very clear Expositions of S. Augustine: He answereth that it ariseth hence, that all are not converted, because all are not effectually prevented. That the fear of overthrowing Free-will is removed by S. Thomas, the things are vio­lently moved by a contrary Cause, but never by their own: and God being the cause of the WIll, to say it is moved by God, is to say, it is moved by it self. And he con­demned, yea, mocked the Lutherans manner of speech; that the Will followeth as a dead and unreasonable Creature: for being reasonable by Nature, moved by its own Cause, which is God, it is moved as reasonable, and followeth a reasonable. And likewise that God consenteth, though men will not, and spurn at him: For it is a contradiction that the Effect should spurn against the Cause. That it may happen that god may effectually convert one, that before hath spurned before sufficient pre­vention, but afterwards cannot, because a gentleness in the Will moved, must needs follow the Efficacy of the Divine Motion.

Soto said, That every Divine Inspiration was only sufficient, and that, VII that where­unto Free-will hath assented, obtaineth efficiency by that consent, without which it is ineffectual; not by the defect of it self, but of the man. The Opinion he defended very fearfully, because it was opposed, that the distinction of the Reprobate from the Elect, would proceed from man, contrary to the perpetual Catholick sense; that the Vessels of Mercy are distinguished by Grace from the Vessels of Wrath. That Gods Election would be for Works foreseen and not for his good Pleasure. That the Do­ctrine of the Fathers in the Affrican and French Councils against the Pelagians, hath pub­lished, that God maketh them to will, which is to say, that he maketh them consent; therefore giving consent to us, it ought to be attributed to the Divine Power; or else he that is saved would be no more obliged to God than he that is damned, if God should use them both alike.

But notwithstanding all these Reasons, the contrary Opinion had the general ap­plause, though many confessed that the Reasons of Catanca were not resolved and were displeased that Soto did not speak freely, but said, that the Will consenteth in a certain manner; so that it may in a certain manner resist: as though there were a certain man­ner of mean between this Affirmation and Negation. The free speech of Catanca, and [Page 516]the other Dominicans did trouble them also, who knew not how to distinguish the O­pinion which attributeth Justification by consent from the Pelagian; and therefore they counselled to take heed of leaping beyond the Mark, by too great a desire to condemn Luther: that Objection being esteemed above all, that by this means the Divine Election or Predestination would be for Works foreseen, which no Divine did admit.

The Ground thus laid, VIII we shall proceed unto a Declaration of the Judgment of the Church of Rome, in the five Articles disputed afterwards with such heat, betwixt the Remonstrants, and the Contra Remonstrants in the Belgick Church, so far forth as it may be gathered from the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent, and such preparatory Discourses as smoothed the way to the Conclusions which were made therein. In order whereunto, it was advised by Marcus Viguerius, Bishop of Sini­gali, to separate the Catholick Doctrine from the contrary, and to make two De­crees; in the one to make a continued Declaration and Confirmation of the Doctrine of the Churches,Ibid. p. 215. and in the other to condemn and Anathematize the contrary. But in the drawing up of the Decrees, there appeared a greater difficulty, than they were aware of, in conquering whereof the Cardinal of Sancta Cruz (one of the Presidents of the Council) took incredible pains, avoiding as much as was possible to insert any thing controverted amongst the School-men; and so handling those that could not be omitted, as that every one might be contented. And to this end he observed in every Congregation, what was disliked by any, and took it away, or corrected it as he was advised; and he spake not only in the Congregations, but with every one in particular, was informed of all the doubts, and required their Opinions. He diver­sifyed the matter with divers Orders, changed sometimes one part, sometimes ano­ther, until he had reduced them unto the Order in which they now are, which ge­nerally pleased, and was approved by all. Nor did the Decrees thus drawn and setled, give less content at Rome than they did at Trent, for being transmitted to the Pope, and by him committed to the Fryers, and other learned men of the Court, to be consulted of amongst them, they found an universal approbation, because every one might understand them in his own sense: And being so approved of were sent back to Trent, and there solemnly passed in a full Congregation, on the thirteenth of January, 1547. according to the account of the Church of Rome. And yet it is to be observed, that though the Decrees were so drawn up, as to please all parties, espe­cially as to the giving of no distast to the Dominican Fryers and theis Adherents; yet it is casie to be seen, that they incline more favourably to the Franciscans, whose cause the Jesuits have since wedded, and speak more literally and Grammatically to the sence of that party, than they to do the others: which said, I shall present the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, as to these controverted Points in this Order following.

1. Of Divine Predestination.

All Mankind having lost its primitive integrity by the sin of Adam, IX they became thereby the Sons of wrath,Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 1. and so much captivated under the command of Satan; that neither the Gentiles by the power of Nature; nor the Jews by the Letter of the Law of Moses were able to free themselves from that grievous Servitude. In which respect it pleased Almighty God the Father of all Mercies to promise first,Ibid, c. 2. and after­wards actually to send his only begotten Son Jesus Christ into the World, not only to redeem the Jews who were under the Law, but that the Gentiles also might embrace the righteousness which is by Faith, and all together might receive the Adoption of Sons. To which end he prepared sufficient assistance for all,Hist. of the Council. f. 212. which every man having free will might receive, or refuse, as it pleased himself; and foreseeing from before all Eternity who would receive his help, and use it to God: and on the other side, who would refuse to make use thereof; he predestinated and elected those of the first sort to Eternal Life; and rejected the others.

2. Of the Merit and Effect of the Death of Christ.

Him God proposed to be a propitiation for our sins by his Death and Passion, and nor for our sins only,Ses. 6. c. 2, 3. but for the sins of the whole World. But so that though Christ died for all men, yet all do not receive the benefit of his death and sufferings, but only they to whom the merit of his Passion is communicated in their new birth or [Page 517] Regeneration, by which the grace whereby they are justified, or made just, is conferred upon them.

3. Of Mans Conversion unto God.

The Grace of God is not given no man by Jesus Christ, to no other end,session 6, can. 2, 3. but that thereby he might the more easily divert himself in the ways of Godliness, and conse­quently merit and obtain eternal life, which otherwise he might do without any such Grace, by his own free will, though with more difficulty and trouble. And therefore if any man shall say, that without the preventing Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and his heavenly Influences, a man is able to even hope, love, or repent, as he ought to do, that so he may be justified in the sight of God: let him be Anathema.

4. Of the manner of Conversion.

The Freedom of the Will is not so utterly lost in man,Sess. 6. c. 5. though it be diminished and impaired, as to be accounted nothing but an empty Name, or the name of no such thing existing in Nature: in that the Will of man moved and stirred up by the grace of God, retains a power of co-operating with the heavenly Grace, by which he doth prepare and dispose himself for the obtaining of the Justification, which is given unto him.Can. 4. And therefore if any one shall say that a man cannot resist this grace though he would, or that he is meerly passive, not acting any thing, but as a stock or sensless stone, in his own Conversion, let him be also held accurst. And so are they who have presumed to affirm and teach, that it is not in the power of man to do evil, but as well bad as good works are done not only by Gods permission, but by his proper working: so that as well the Treason of Judas, as the Calling of Paul, is to be reckoned for the work of Almighty God.

5. Of the certainty or uncertainty of Perseverance.

No man is so far to presume on the secret Mystery of Predestination, Sess. 6. Can. 13. as to account himself for certain to be within the number of the Elect; as if he were assured of this, that being justified, he could neither sin no more, nor were sure of Repentance if he did. And therefore no man is to flatter himself with any such certainty of per­severance, though all men ought to place a constant and firm hope (for the ob­taining of the same) in the help of God.Can. 14. They which by sin have fallen away from the grace received, may recover their lost Justification, if being stirred up from above, they endeavour the recovery of it by sincere Repentance,Can. 15. or by the Sacrament of Pennance, as the words there are; And finally the grace of Justification (or the grace by which a man is justified) is not only lost by infidelity, by which the Faith it self doth suffer Shipwrack, but even by every mortal sin, though Faith be not lost also at the same time with it.

Such is the Doctrine of this Council in the Points disputed, X extracted fainfully out of the Canons and Decrees thereof: one only clause being added to the Article of Predestination, agreeable to the Opinion in the Conferences and Debates about it, which prevailed most upon the Prelates and all others who were interessed and in­trusted in drawing up the Products and Conclusions of it, which how far it agreeth or disagreeth with, or from hat which is maintained by the opposite Parties in the Reformed and Protestant Churches, we are next to see.

CHAP. IV. The Judgment of the Lutherans and Calvinians in these Five Points, with some Objections made against the Conclusions of the Council of Dort.

  • 1. No difference in the Five Points betwixt the Lutherans and the Church of Rome, as is acknowledged by the Papists themselves.
  • 1. The Judgement of the Lutheran Churches in the said five Points, delivered in the fa­mous Confession of Ausperge.
  • 3. The distribution of the Quarrel betwixt the Franciscans, Melancthonians, and Arminians, on the one side, the Domini­cans, Rigid Lutherans, and Sublapsa­rian Calvinists on the other; the middle way of Catarinus paralleled by that of Bishop Overal.
  • 4. The Doctrine of Predestination as laid down by Calvin, of what ill Consequence in it self; and how odious to the Lutheran Doctors.
  • 5. Opposed by Sebastian Castellio in Ge­neva it self, but propagated in most Churches of Calvins Plat-form, and af­terwards polished by Perkins, a Divine of England, and in him censured and confuted by Jacob Van Harmine, a Belgick Wri­ter.
  • 6. A brief view of the Doctrine of the Sub­lapsarians, and the odious Consequences of it.
  • 7. The Judgment of the Sublapsarians in the said Five Points, collected and pre­sented at the Conference at the Hauge, Anno 1610.
  • 8. The Doctrien of the Synodists in the said Points.
  • 9. Affirmed to be repugnant to the holy Scri­pture, as also to the Purity, Mercy, Justice, and Sincerity of Almighty God.
  • 10. And the subversion of the Ministry, and all Acts of Piety, illustrated by the Ex­ample of Tiberius Caesar, and the Lant­grave of Thurin.

SUCH being the Doctrines of this Council in the Points disputed; I we need not not take much pains in looking after the Judgment of the Lutheran Chruches; which comes so near to that of the Church of Rome, as to be reckoned for the same. For in the History of the Council,Hist. of the Council of Tr. p. 210. it is said expresly, as before is noted, that in the Books of Luther, in the Augustane Confession, and in Aplogies and Colloquies, there was nothing found (as to the Doctrine of Predestination) which deserved to be censured. And therefore they were sain to have recourse unto the Writings of the Zuinglian party, (amongst which, Calvin and his followers were to be accounted) to find out matter to proceed upon in their Fulminations: And in particular it is said by Andreas Vega, one of the stiffest and most learned men amongst the whole pack of the Franciscans, Ibid. f. 208. when the Points about Free will were in agitation, that be­tween themselves and the Protestants there was no difference of Opinion, as to that parti­cular. How near they came to one another in the other Points, may easily be found in the Debates and Conferences before laid down, compared with the Judgment of the Lutheran Doctors, not only in their private Writings, but their publick Colloquies. But then we are to understand, that this Agreement of the Lutheran Doctors expressed in their private Writings and their publick Colloquies, and especially the solemn Con­fession at Ausperge, relates to that interpretation of the Decrees and Canons of the Tridentine Council, which is made by the Jesuits and Franciscans, and not unto the Gloss or Exposition which is made thereof by the Preaching and Dominican Fryers.

But not to leave so great a matter to a Logical Inference, II I shall lay down the Doctrine of the Lutheran Churches in the said Five Points, extracted faithfully out of the Augustan Confession, with the Addition of one Clause only to the first Article (the Makers of the Confession declining purposely the Point of Predestination) out of the Writings of Melancthon, and other learned men of the same persuasion. Now the Doctrine of the said Churches so delivered is this that followeth, Viz.

1. Of Divine Predestinction.

After the miserable fall of Adam, August. Confes. cap. 2. all men which were to be begotten, according [Page 519]to the common course of Nature, were involved in the guilt of Original sin, by which they are obnoxious to the wrath of God, and everlasting damnation: In which E­state they had remained, but that God, beholding all mankind in this wretched con­dition, was pleased to make a general conditional Decree of Predestination, Appel. Eving. cap. 4. under the condition of Faith and perseverance; and a special absolute Decree of electing those to life, whom he foresaw would believe, and persevere under the means and aids of Grace, Faith and Perseverance: and a special absolute Decree of condemning them whom he foresaw to abide impenitent in their sins.

2. Of the Merit and Efficacy of Christs Death.

The Son of God, who is the Word, assumed our humane Nature in the Womb of the Virgin, and being very God and very Man, he truly Suffered, was Crucified,Aug. Confess. c. 3. Dead, and Buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be the Sacrifice not only for Original sin, but also for all the Actual sins of men.

A great part of St. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews is spent in the proving of this Point, that only the Sacrifice or Oblation made by Christ,Id. cap. de Missa. procured for others Re­conciliation and Remission of sins, inculcating that the Levitical Sacrifices were year by year to be reiterated, and renewed, because they could not take away sins, but that satisfaction once for all was made by the Sacrifice of Christ for the sins of all men.

3. Of Mans Will in the state of depraved Nature.

The Will of man retains a freedom in Actions of Civil Justice,Ibid. cap. 18. and making Ele­ction of such things as are under the same pretension of natural Reason, but hath no power without the special Assistance of the Holy Ghost to attain unto spiritual Righ­teousness, according to the saying of the Apostle; That the natural man perceiveth not the things which are of the spirit of God. And that of Christ our Saviur, Without me you can do nothing. And therefore the Pelagians are to be condemned, who teach that man is able by the meer strength of Nature, not only to love God above all things, but also to fulfill the Law, according to the substance of the Acts thereof.

4. Of Conversion, and the manner of it.

The Righteousness which is effected in us by the operation and assistance of the Holy Ghost, which we receive by yielding our assent to the Word of God:Idem. cap. 18. accord­ing to that of S. Augustin, in the third Book of his Hypognosticks, in which he grants a freedom of the Will to all which have the use of Reason, not that they are thereby able either to begin or g o through with any thing in the things of God, without Gods assistance, but only in the Affairs of this present life whether good or evil.

5. Of falling after Grace received.

Remission of sins is not to be denied in such who after Baptism fall into sins,Idem cap. 11. at what time soever they were converted; and the Church is bound to confer the be­nefit of Absolution upon all such as return unto it by Repentance. And therefore as we condemn the Novatian Hereticks, refusing the benefit of Absolution unto those, who having after Baptism lashed into sin, gave publick Signs of their Repentance: so we condemn the Anabaptists, who teach, that a man once justified can by no means lose the Holy Ghost, as also those who think that men man have so great a measure of perfection in this present life, that they cannot fall again into sin.

Such is the Doctrine of the Lutheran Churches agreed on in the famous Augustin Confession, so called, because presented and avowed at the Diet of Auspurge. (Au­gusta Vindelicorum the Latins call it) 1530. confirm'd after many struglings on the one side, and oppositions on the other, by Charles the fifth, in a general Assembly of the Estates of the Empire holden at Passaw, Anno 1552. and afterwards more fully in another Dyet held at Auspurge, Anno 1555. A Confession generally ebtertained not only in the whole Kingdoms of Demnark, Norway, and Sweden, but also in the Dukedom of Prussia, and some parts of Poland, and all the Protestant Churches of the High Germany: neither the rigid Lutherans, nor the Calvinians themselves, being [Page 520]otherwise tolerated in the Empire, than as they shrowd themselves under the Patronage and shelter of this Confession. For besides the first breach betwixt Luther and Zuing­lius, which hapned at the beginning of the Reformation, there afterwards grew a sub­division betwixt the Lutherans themselves, occasioned by Flacius Illyricus and his Asso­ciates; who having separated themselves from Melancthon, and the rest of the Divines of Wittenberge, and made themselves the Head of the rigid Lutherans, did gladly enter­tain those Doctrines, in which they were sure to find as good assistance as the Domi­nicans and their party could afford unto them. The wisdom and success of which Council being observed by those of the Zuinglian or Calvinian Faction, they gladly put in for a share, being not meanly well approved, that though their Doctrines were condemned by the Council of Trent, yet they found countenance (especially in the Sublapsarian way) not only from the whole Sect of the Dominicans, but the rigid Lu­therans: And that the Scales might be kept even between the Parties, there started out another Faction amongst the Calvinists themselves, who symbolized with the Me­lanctbonians, or moderate Lutherans, as they did with the Jesuit and Franciscan Fryers. For the abetting of which their Quarrel, this last side calling to their ayd all the An­cient Fathers both Greek and Latine, who lived before the time of S. Augustine, the others relying wholly on his single judgment, not always constant to himself, nor very well seconded by Prosper, nor any other of great Note in the times succeeding. Finally that Catarinus may not go alone in his middle way, I will follow him with one of his own Order (for he was afterwards made Bishop of Minori in Italy) that is to say, the right learned Doctor Overal, publick Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, Dean of S. Pauls, and successively Bishop of Lichfield and Norwhich, whose judgment in a middle way, and though not the same that Catarinus went, the Reader may find in Mr. Play­ferts notable Picce, intituled Apello Evangelium; to which I refer him at the present, as being not within the compass of my present design, which caries me to such dif­putes as have been raised between the Calvinians and their Opposites in these parts of the world, since the conclusion and determination of the Council of Trent.

And for the better carrying on of my design, IV I must go back again to Calvin, whom I left under a suspition of making God to be the Author of sin; from which, though ma­ny have taken much pains (none more than industrious Doctor Field) to absolve and free him; yet by his Doctrine of Predestination, he hath laid such grounds as have involved his followers in the same guilt also. For not content to travel a known and beaten way, he must needs find out a way by himself, which either the Dominicans, nor any other of the followers of S. Augustine's rigors had found out before, in making God to lay on Adam an unavoidable necessity of falling into sin and misery, that so he might have opportunity to manifest his mercy in the electing of some few of his Poste­rity, and his justice in the absolute rejecting of all the rest. In which, as he can find no Countenance from any of the Ancient Writers, so he pretendeth not to any ground for it in the holy Scriptures. For whereas some objected on Gods behalf, De certis verbis non extare, That the Decree of Adams Fall, and consequently the involving of his whole Posterity in sin and misery, had no foundation in the express words of Holy Writ,Institut. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 7. he makes no other Answer to it than a quasi vero, as if (saith he) God made and created man the most exact Piece of his Heavenly Workmanship, without determining of his end. And on this Point he was so resolutely bent, that nothing but an absolute Decree for Adams Fall, seconded by the like, for the involving of all his Race in the same prediction, would either serve his turn, or preserve his Credit. For whereas others had objected on Gods behalf, that no such unavoidable necessity was laid upon man-kind by the will of God; but rather that he was Created by God unto such a perishing estate, because he foresaw to what his own perversness at the last would bring him: He answereth that this Objection proves nothing at all, or at least nothing to the purpose,Calv. Institut. lib. 3. cap. 23. sect. 6. which said, he tells us further out of Valla, though otherwise not much versed (as he there affirmeth) in the holy Scriptures, That this question seems to be su­perfluous, because both Life and Death are rather the Acts of Gods Will than of his Pre­science or fore-knowledge. And then he adds as of his own, that if God did but fore-see the successes of men, and did not also dispose and order them by his Will, then this Question should not without cause be moved, Whether his fore-seeing any thing availed to the ne­cessity of them. [...]a [...]m [...] sect. 7. But since (saith he) he doth no otherwise fore-see the things that shall come to pass, than because he hath decreed that they should so come to pass: it is in vain to move any Controversy about Gods fore-knowledge, where it is certain that all things do happen ra­ther by divine Ordinance and appointment. Yet notwithstanding all these shifts, he is [Page 521]forced to acknowledge the Decree of Adams Fall to be Horribile decretum, a cruel and horrible Decree, as indeed it is a cruel and horrible Decree to pre-ordain so many Millions to destruction, and consequently unto sin, that he might destroy them. And then what can the wicked and impenitent do, but ascribe all their sins to God, by whose inevitable Will they are lost in Adam, by whom they were particularly and per­sonally necessitated to death, and so by consequence to sin. A Doctrine so injurious to God, so destructive of Piety, of such reproach amongst the Papists, and so offen­sive to the Lutherans, of what sort soever, that they profess a greater readiness to fall back to Popery, than to give way to this Predestinarian Pestilence (by which name they call it) to come in amongst them.

But howsoever having so great a Founder as Calvin was, V it came to be generally en­tertained in all the Churches of his Plat-form, strongly opposed by Sebastian Castellino in Geneva it self; but the poor man so despightfully handled both by him and Beza (who followed him in all, and went beyond him in some of his Devises) that they never left pursuing him with complaints and clamours, till they had first cast him out of the City, and at the last brought him to his Grave. The terrour of which example, and the great name which Calvin had attained unto, not only by his diligent Preach­ing, but also by his laborious Writings in the eye of the World: As it confirmed his power at home, so did it make his Doctrines the more acceptable and esteemed abroad. More generally diffused, and more pertinaciously adhered unto in all those Churches, which either had received the Genevian Discipline, or whose Divines did most industri­ously labour to advance the same. By means whereof it came to pass (as one well ob­serveth) That of what account the Master of the Sentences was in the Church of Rome;Hooker in ec­cle. Pol. Pres. p. 9. the same and more amongst the Preachers of the Reformed Churches Calvin had purchased; so that they were deemed to be the most perfect Divines, who were most skilful in his Writings. His Books almost the very Canon by which both Doctrine and Discipline were to be judged: The French Churches both under others abroad, or at home in their own Country, all cast according to the Mold which he had made. The Church of Scotland in erecting the Fabrick of their own Reformation, took the self same pattern. Receive not long after in the Palatine Churches, and in those of the Netherlands: In all which, as his Doctrine made way to bring in the Discipline, so was it no hard matter for the Discipline to support the Doctrine, and crush all those who durst oppose it. Only it was permitted unto Beza and his Dis­ciples to be somewhat wilder than the rest, in placing the Decree of Predestination be­fore the Fall, which Calvin himself had more rightly placed in Massa corrupta, in the corrupted Mass of Man-kind: and the more moderate Calvinians as rightly presuppose for a matter necessary, before there could be any place for the Election or Reprobation of particular persons. But being they concurred with the rest, as to the personal Election or Reprobation of particular persons; the restraining of the Benefit of our Saviours sufferings to those few particulars (whom only they had honoured with the glorious name of the Elect) the working on them by the irresistible powers of Grace in the Act of Conversion, and bringing them infallibly by the continual assistance of the said Grace unto life everlasting: there was hardly any notice taken of thier Deviation, they being scarce beheld in the condition of erring brethren, though they differed from them in the main fountain which they built upon; but passing under the name of Calvinists, as they thus did. And though such of the Divines of the Belgick Churches as were of the old Lutheran stock, were better affected unto the Melancthonian Doctrine of Predestination, than to that of Calvin; yet knowing how pretious the name and memory of Calvin was held amongst them: or being unwilling to fall foul upon one another, they suffered his Opinions to prevail without opposition. And so it stood till the year 1592. when Mr. William Perkins, an eminent Divine of Cambridge pub­lished his Book, called the Armilla Aurea, &c. containing such a Doctrine of Predesti­nation as Beza had before delivered, but cast into a more distinct and methodical Form. With him as being a Foreiner both by birth and dwelling, a Supralapsarian in Opi­nion, and one who had no personal Relations amongst themselves, it was thought fittest to begin to confute Calvins Doctrines in the person of Perkins; as many times a Lion is said to be corrected by the well Cudgelling of a Dog, without fear of danger. And against him it was, his order in delivering the Decree of Pedestination, that Armi­nius first took up the Bucklers in his Book, intituled Examen Pradestinationis Perkinsoniae, which gave the first occasion to those Controversies which afterwards involved the Sublapsarians also, of which more hereafter.

In the mean time, VI let us behold the Doctrine of the 'Supralapsarians, first broacht by Calvin, maintained by almost all his followers, and at last polished and lickt over by the said Mr. Perkins, as it was charged upon the Contra Remonstrants in the Conference at the Hague, Anno 1610. in these following words, viz. That God (as some speak) by an eternal and unchangeable Decree from amongst men, Arcan. Dog. Aat. Rom. p. 15. whom he considered as not created, much less as faln, ordained certain to eternal life, certain to eternal death, without any regard had to their righteousness, or sin, to their obedience, or disobedience; only because it was his pleasure (or so it seemed good to him) to the praise of his Justice and Mercy, or (as others like better) to declare his saving Grace, Wisdom, and free Authority (or Jurisdiction:) Many being also so ordained by his eternal and unchangeable decree, fit for the execution of the same, by the power or force whereof, it is necessary that they be saved after a necessary and unavoidable manner, who are ordained to Salvation, so that 'tis not possible that they should perish, but they who are destined to destruction (who are the far greater num­ber) must be damned necessarily and inevitably; so that 'tis not possible for them to be saved. Which doctrine first makes God to be the Author of sin, as both Piscator and Macarius, and many other Supralapsarians, as well as Perkins, have positively and ex­presly affirmed him to be; and then concludes him for a more unmerciful Tyrant, than all that ever had been in the world, were they joyned in one: A more unmerciful Ty­rant than the Roman Emperour, who wished that all the people of Rome had but one Neck amongst them, that he might cut it off at a blow, he being such in voto only, God alone in opere.

But this extremity being every day found the more indefensible, VII by how much it had been more narrowly sifted and inquired into: the more moderate and sobert sort of the Calvinians forsaking the Colours of their first Leaders, betook themselves into the Camp of the rigid Lutherans, and rather chose to joyn with the Dominican Fryers, than to stand any longer to the dictates of their Master Calvin. These passing by the name of Sublapsarians, have given us such an order of Predestination as must and doth presuppose a fall, and finds all man-kind generally in the Mass of Perdition. The sub­stance of whose doctrine both in this and the other Articles were thus drawn up by the Remonstrants in the Conference at the Hague before remembred.

1. That God Almighty, willing from eternity, with himself to make a decree con­cerning the Election of some certain men, but the rejection of others; considered man-kind not only as created, but also as faln and corrupted in Adam and Eve, our first Parents, and thereby deserving the Curse: And that he decreed out of the fall and damnation to deliver and save some certain ones of his Grace, to declare his Mercy: But to leave others (both young and old, yea truly, even certain Infants of men in Covenant, and those INfants baptized, and dying in their Infancy) by his just Judgment in the Curse, to declare his Justice: and that without all consideration of Repentance and Faith in the former, or of impenitence or unbelief in the latter. For the execution of which decree, God useth also such means whereby the Elect are necessarily and unavoidably saved; but Reprobates necessarily and unavoidably perish.

2. And therefore that Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World died, not for all men, but for those only who are elected either after the former or this latter manner, he being the mean and ordained Mediator, to save those only, and not a man besides.

3. Consequenty that the Spirit of God, and of Christ doth work in those who are elected that way, or this, with such a force of Grace that they cannot resist it: and so that it cannot be, but that they must turn, believe, and thereupon necessarily be saved. But that this irresistible grace and force belongs only to those so elected, but not to Reprobates, to whom not only the irresistible Grace is denied, but also grace necessary and sufficient for Conversion, for Faith, and for Salvation, is not afforded. To which Conversion and Faith indeed they are called, invited, and freely sollicited outwardly by the revealed Will of God, though notwithstanding the inward force necessary to Faith and Conversion, is not bestowed on them, according to the secret Will of God.

4. But that so many as have once obtained a true and justifying Faith by such a kind of mesistible force, can never totally nor finally lose it, no not although they fall into the very most enormous sins, but are so led and kept by the same irresistible force, that 'tis not possible for them (or they cannot) either totally, or finally fall, and perish.

And thus we have the doctrine of the Sublapsarian Calvinists, as it stands gathered out of the Writings of particular men. But because particular men may sometimes be mistaken in a publick doctrine, and that the judgment of such men being collected by the hands of their Enemies, may be unfaithfully related; we will next look on the Conclusions of the Synod of Dort, which is to be conceived to have delivered the Ge­nuine sense of all the parties, as being a Representative of all the Calvinian Churches of Europe (except those of France) some few Divines of England being added to them. Of the calling and proceedings of this Synod, we shall have occasion to speak further in the following Chapter. A this time I shall only lay down the Results thereof in the five controverted Points (as I find them abbreviated by Dan. Tilenus.) accordin gto the Heads before mentioned, in summing up the doctrine of the Council of Trent.

Art. 1. Of Divine Predestination. That God by an absolute decree hath Elected to salvation a very small number of men, without any regard to their Faith, or obedience whatsoever;Arcan. Dogn. Contr. Remon. p. 23. and secluded from saving Grace all the rest of man-kind, and appointed them by the same decree to eter­nal damnation, without any regard to their Infidelity or Impenitency.

Art. 2. Of the Merit and Effect of Christs Death. That Jesus Christ hath not suffered death for any other, but for those Elect only,Ibid. p. 29. having neither had any intent nor commandment of his Father to make satisfaction for the sins of the whole World.

Art. 3. Of Mans Will in the state of Nature. That by Adam's Fall his Posterity lost their Free-will,Ibid. p. 33. being put to an unavoidable necessity to do, or not to do, whatsoever they do, or do not, whether it be good or evil; being thereunto Predestinated by the eternal and effectual secret decree of God.

Art. 4. Of the manner of Conversion. That God, to save his Elect from the corrupt Mass,Ibid. p. 41. doth beget faith in them by a power equal to that, whereby he created the World, and raised up the dead, insomuch that such unto whom he gives that Grace, cannot reject it, and the rest being Repro­bate, cannot accept of it.

Art. 5. Of the certainty of Perseverance. That such as have once received that Grace by Faith, can never fall from it finally,Ibid. p. 47. or totally, notwithtanding the most enormious sins they can commit.

This is the shortest, and withal the most favourable Summary, III which I have hitherto met with, of the conclusions of this Synod: that which was drawn by the Remon­strants in their Antidotum, being much more large, and comprehending many things by way of Inference, which are not positively expressed in the words thereof. But against this, though far more plausible than the rigorous way of the Supralapsarians, Gods love to Mankind, p. 45. it is objected by those of the contrary persuasion: 1. That it is repugnant of plain Texts of Scripture, as Ezek. 33.11. Rom. 11.2 John 3.16. 2 tim. 2.4. 2 Pet. 3.9. Gen. 4.7. 1 Chron. 28.9. 2 Chron. 15.2. Secondly, That it fighteth with Gods Holiness, and makes him the cause of sin in the greatest number of men. 1. In regard that only of his own will and pleasure he hath brought men into an estate in which the cannot avoid sin; that is to say, by imputing to them the transgression of their Father Adam. Ibid. p. 53. And 2. In that he leaves them irrecoverably plunged and involved in it, without af­fording them power or ability to rise again to newness of life. In which case that of Tertullian seems to have been fitly alledged, viz. In cujus manu est ne quid fiat, Tertul. l. 2. contr. Marcion. c. 22. ei deputa­tur cum jam sit. That is to say, In whose power it is, that a thing be not done, to him it is imputed when it is done; as a Pilot may be said to be the cause of the loss of that Ship, when it is broken by a violent Tempest, to the saving whereof, he would not lend a helping hand when he might have done it. They object thirdly, That this doctrine is inconsistent with the mercy of God, so highly signified in the Scriptures,Gods love to Mankind, p. 62. in [Page 524]making him to take such a small and speedy occasion, to punish the greater part of men for ever, and for one sin once committed, to shut them up under an invincible necessity of sin and damnation. For proof whereof they alledge this saying out of Prosper, viz. Qui dicit quod non omnes homines velit Deus salvos fieri, Ibid. p. 64. sed certum numerum praedestinato­rum: durius loquitur quam loquutum est de altitudine inscrutabilis gratiae Dei. That is to say, He which saith that God would not have all men to be saved, but a certain set number of predestinate persons only: he speaketh more harshly than he should of the light of Gods unsearchable Grace. 4. It is affirmed to be incompatible with the Justice of God, who is said in Scripture to be Righteous in all his ways, according unto weight and measure, Ibid. p. 65. & p. 67. that the far greatest part of man-kind should be left remedil [...]sly in a state of damnation, for the sin of their first Father only: that under pain of damna­tion, he should require faith in Christ, of those to whom he hath precisely in his abso­lute purpose denied both a power to believe, and a Christ to believe in; or that he should punish men for the omission of an Act which is made impossible for them by his own decree, by which he purposed that they should partake with Adam in his sin, and be stript of all the supernatural power which they had in him before he fell. And fifthly, It is said to be destructive of Gods sincerity, in calling them to repentance, and to the knowledge of the faith in Jesus Christ,Ibid. p. 58. that they may be saved, to whom he doth not really intend the salvation offered, whereby they are conceived to make God so to deal with men, as if a Creditor should resolve upon no terms to forgive his Debtor the very least part of his debt,Ibid. p. 76. and yet make him offers to remit the whole upon some conditions, and bind the same with many solemn Oaths in a publick Auditory. The like to be affirmed also in reference to Gods passionate wishes, that those men might repent, which repent not; as also to those terrible threatnings which he thun­dreth against all those that convert not to him: all which, together with the whole course of the Ministry, are by this doctrine made to be but so many acts of deep Hypo­crisie in Almighty God, though none of the maintainers of it have the ingenuity to contess the same, but Piscator only, in his Necesse est, ut sanctam aliquam si mutationem statuamus in Deo, which is plain and home.

And finally it is alledged that this doctrine of the Sublapsarians is contrary to the ends by God proposed, X in the Word and Sacraments, to many of Gods excellent gifts to the Sons of men, to all endeavours unto holiness and godly living, which is said to be much hindered by it,Ibid. p. 91. and tend to those grounds of comfort, by which a Conscience in distress should be relieved. And thereupon it is concluded, that if it be a doctrine which discourageth Piety; if it maketh Ministers (by its natural import­ment) to be negligent in their Preaching, Praying, and other Services which are or­dained of God for the eternal good of their people: if it maketh the people careless in hearing, reading, praying, instructing their Families, examining their Consciences, fasting and mourning for their sins, and all other godly exercises, as they say it doth: it cannot be a true and a wholsome doctrine, as they say 'tis not. This they illustrate by a passage in Suetonius, Sect. de vit. Tyb. c. 69. p. 180. relating to Tyberius Caesar, of whom the Historian gives this note: Cire à Deos & Religiones negligentior erat, quippe addictus mathematicae, persuasionisque plenus, omnia fato agi. That is to say, That he was the more negligent in matters of Religion, and about the Gods, because he was so much addicted to Astrologers, fully persuaded in his own mind that all things were governed by the Destinies: And they evince by the miserable example of the Landgrave of Turing, of whom it is reported by Heistibachius, Heisti. lib. 1. de Minor. Hist l. 27. p. 39. or Gods love to mankind. p. 97. that being by his Friends admonished of his vitious Conversation, and dangerous condition, he made them this Answer, viz. Si praedestinatus sum, nulla pec­cata poterint mibi, regnum coelorum auferre; si praescitus, nulla opera mihi illud valebunt conferre. That is to say, If I be elected, no sins can possibly bereave me of the King­dom of Heaven, if reprobated, no goods deeds can advance me to it. An Objection not more old than common; but such I must confess to which I never found a satis­factory Answer from the Pen of Supralapsarian, or Sublapsarian, within the small com­pass of my reading.

CHAP. V. The Doctrine of the Remonstrants, and the Story of them, until their final Condemnation in the Synod of Dort.

  • 1. The doctrine of the Remonstrants an­cienter than Calvinism in the Belgick Churches, and who they were that stood up for it before Arminius.
  • 2. The first undertakings of Arminius, his preferment to the Divinity Chair at Leiden, his Commendations and Death.
  • 3. The occasion of the Name Remonstrants, and Contra Remonstrants; the Contro­versie reduced to Five Points, and those disputed at the Hague, in a publick Con­ference.
  • 4. The said Five Points according to their several Heads first tendred at the Hague, and after at the Synod at Dort.
  • 5. The Remonstrants persecuted by their Opposites, put themselves under the pro­tection of Barnevelt, and by his means ob­tained a collection of their Doctrine. Bar­nevelt seised and put to death by the Prince of Orange.
  • 6. The Calling of the Synod of Dort, the pa­rallel betwixt it and the Council at Trent, both in the conduct of the business against their Adversaries, and the differences a­mongst themselves.
  • 7. The breaking out of the differences in the Synod in open Quarrels between Martinius one of the Divines of Breeme, and some of the Divines of Holland; and on what occasions.
  • 8. A Copy of the Letter from Dr. Belconqual, to S. Dudly Carlaton, his Majesties Resi­dent at the Hague, working the violent prosecutions of those Quarrels by the Dutch Divines.
  • 9. A further prosecution of the parallel be­tween the Council and the Synod, in refe­rence to the Articles used in the Draught upon the Canons and Decrees of either, and the doubtful meaning of them both.
  • 10. The quarrelling Parties joyn together a­gainst the Remonstrants, denying them any place in the Synod; and finally dismist them in a furious Oration made by Boyer­man, without any hearing.
  • 11. The Synodists indulgent to the damnable Doctrines of Macorius, and unmerciful in the banishment or extermination of the poor Remonstrants.
  • 12. Scandalously defamed, to make them odi­ous, and those of their persuasions in other places, Ejected, Persecuted, and Dis­graced.

HAving thus run through all the other Opinions, touching Predestination, I and the Points depending thereupon: I come next to that of the Remonstrants (or Arminians, as they commonly call them) accused of Novelty, but ancienter than Calvinism, in the Churches of the Belgick Provinces, which being originally Dutch, did first embrace the Reformation, according to the Lutheran model, though afterward they suffered the Calvinian Plat-form to prevail upon them. It was about the year 1530, that the Reformed Religion was admitted in the Neighbouring Country of East Priezland, under Enno the first, upon the preaching of Hardingbergius, a Learned and Religious man, and one of the principal Reformers of the Church of Emden, a Town of most note in all that Earldom: From him did Clemens Martini take those Principles, which afterwards he propagated in the Belgick Churches, where the same Doctrine of Predestination had been publickly maintained, in a Book called Odegus Laicorum, or the Lay-mans guide, published by Anastasius Velluanus, Ann. 1554. and much commended by Henricus Antonides, Divinity Reader in the University of Francka: But on the other side the French Ministers having setled themselves in those parts, which either were of French Language, or anciently belonged to the Crown of France, and having more Quicksilver in them than the others had, prevailed so far with William of Nassaw, Prince of Orange, that a Confession of their framing was presented to the Lady Regent, ratified in a forcible and tumultuus way, and afterwards by degrees ob­truded upon all the Belgick Churches: which notwithstanding the Ministers successively in the whole Province of Ʋtrecht adhered unto their former Doctrines; not looked on for so doing as the less reformed: Nor wanted there some one or other of eminent note, who did from time to time oppose the Doctrine of Predestination, contained in that Confession of the year, 1567. when it took beginning. INsomuch that Johannes Isbrandi, one of the Preachers of Roterdam, openly professed himself an Anticalvinian, [Page 526]and so did Gellius Succanus also in the Countrey of West-Friezland, who looked no otherwise upon these of Calvin's Judgment, than as Innovators in the Doctrine which had been first received amongst them. The like we find also of Holmanus, one of the Professors of Leyden, of Cornelius Meinardi, and Cornelius Wiggeri, two men of prin­cipal esteem, before the name of Jacob Van-Harmine, was so much as talked of.

But so it hapned, II that though these learned men had kept on foot the ancient Do­ctrines, yet did they never find so generally an Entertainment in those Provinces, as they did afterwards by the pains and diligence of this Van-Harmine: (Arminius he is called by our Latin Writers) from whom these Doctrines have obtained the name of Arminianism, called so upon no juster Grounds than the great Western Continent is called by the name of America, whereas both Christopher collumbus had first discove­red it, and the two Cabots Father and Son had made a further progress in the said discovery, before Americus Vespatius ere saw those shores. As for Arminius, he had been fifteen years a Preacher (or a Pastor as they rather phrase it) to the great Church of Amsterdam, during which times, taking a great distast at the Book pub­lished by Mr. Perkins, intituled Armilla Aurea, he set himself upon the canvasing of it, and published his performance in it, by the name of Examen Predestinationis Perkinso­niae, as before was said. Incouraged with his good success in this adventure, he un­dertakes a Conference on the same Argument with the learned Junius, the sum where­of being spread abroad in several Papers, was after published by the name of Amica Collatio. Junius being dead in the year 1603. the Curators or Overseers of the Uni­versity made choice of this Van-harmine to succeed him in his place. But the Inha­bitants of the Town would not so part with him, till they were over-ruled by the Entreaties of some, and the power of others, A matter so unpleasing to the rigid Calvinians, that they informed against him to the State for divers Heterodoxies, which they had noted in his Writings. But the business being heard at the Hague, he was acquitted by his Judge, dispatcht for Leyden, and there confirmed in his place. To­ward which the Testimonial Letters sent from the Church of Amsterdam, did not help a little. In which he stands commended, Ob vitae inculpatae sanae doctrinae & morum summam integritatem. That is to say, for a man of an unblameable life, sound Doctrine and fair behaviour, as may be seen at large, in the Oration which was made at his Funeral in the Divinity Schools of Leyden, on the 22. day of October, 1609.

Thus died Arminius, III but the Cause did not so die with him. For during the first time of his sitting in the Chair of Leyden, he drew unto him a great part of the Univer­sity, who by the Piety o [...]he man, his powerful Arguments, his extream diligence in that place, and the clear light of Reason which appeared in all his Discourses, were so wedded unto his Opinions, that no time nor trouble could drown them: For Armi­nius dying in the year 1609, as before was said, the heats betwixt the Scholars, and those of the contrary persuasion, were rather increased than abated; the more in­creased for want of such a prudent Moderator, as had before preserved the Churches from a publick Rupture. The breach between them growing wider and wider, each side thought fit to seek the Countenance of the State, and they did accordingly: for in the year 1610. the followers of Arminius address their Remonstrnace, (containing the Antiquity of their Doctrines, and the substance of them) to the States of Holland, which was encountred presently, by a Contra Remonstrance, exhibited by those of Cal­vins Party: from hence the names of Remonstrants, and Contra Remonstrants, so fre­quent in their Books and Writings; each Party taking opportunity to disperse their Doctrines, the Remonstrants gained exceedingly upon their Adversaries: For the whole Controversie being reduced to these five Points, Viz. The Method and Order of Predestination; The Efficacy of Christs Death, The Operations of Grace, both be­fore and after mans Conversion, and perseverance in the same; the Parties were ad­mitted to a publick Conference at the Hague, in the year 1611. in which the Remon­strants were conceived to have had much the better of the day. Now for the five Articles above mentioned, they were these that follow;

VIZ.

I. De Electione ex fide praevisa. DEus aeterno & immutabili Decreto, in Jesu Christo filio suo, ante jactum mundum fundamentum statuit, ex lapso & peccatis obnoxio humano genere, illos in Christo, propter Christum, & per Chri­stum servare, qui spiritus sancti gratia in eundem filium ejus credunt, & in ea fide, fideique obedientia, per eandem gratiam, usque ad finem perseverant.

II. De Redemptione Universali. Proinde Deus Christus pro omnibus ac singulis mortuuus est: atque id ita quidem ut omnibus per mortem crucis Reconciliationem, & Peccato­rum Remissionem impetrarit: Ea ta­men conditione, ut nemo illa pecca­torum Remisione fruatur, praeter hominem fidelem, John 2.26. 1 John 2.2.

III. De causa fidei. Homo fidem salutarem à seipso non habet, nec vi liberi sui arbitrii, quandoquidem in statu defectionis, & peccati, nihil boni, quod quidem vere est bonum (quale est fides sa­lutaris) ex se potest cogitare, velle, aut facere: sed necessarium est, eum à Deo, in Christo, per spiritum ejus sanctum regigni, renovari, mente, af­fctibus, seu voluntate, & omnibus facultatibus, ut aliquid boni posset intelligere, cogitare, velle, & perfi­cere, secundum illu, JOhn 15.5. sine me potestis nihil.

IV. De Conversionis modo. De, gratia est initiumi progressus, & perfectio omnis boni, atque adeo quidem, ut ipse homo Kegenitus, abs­que hac praecedanea seu Adventitia, excitante, consequente, & co-operante gratia, neq, boni quid cogitare, velle, aut facere potest, neq, etiam ulli ma­le tentationi resistere, adeo quidem ut omnia bona opera, quae excogitare possumus, Dei gratiae in Christo tri­buenda sunt. Quoad vero modum co-operationis illius gratiae, illa non est irresistibilis: de multis enim dicitur, eos spiritui sancto refistisse. Acto­tum 7. & alibi multis locis.

V. De Perseverantia incerta. Qui Jesu Christo per veram fidem sunt insiti ac proinde spiritus ejus vivificantis participes, ii abunde ha­bent facultatum, quibus contra Sa­tanam, peccatum, mundum, & pro­priam suam carnem pugnent & vi­ctoriam obtineant: verumtamen per gratiae spiritus sancti subsidium. Je­sus Christus quidem illis spiritu sus in omnibus tentatinnibus adest; ma­num porrigit, & modo sint ad certa­men prompti, & ejus Auxilium Petant, neque officio suo desint, eos confirmat: adeo quidem ut nulla satanae fraude, aut vi seduci, vel e manibus Christi eripi, possint, secun­dum illud Johannis 10. Nemo il­los è manu mea eripiet, Sed an illi ipsi negligentia sua, principium illud quo sustentantur in Christo, deserere non possint, & praesentem mundum iterum amplecti, à sancta doctrina ipsis semel tradita deficere, conscien­tiae naufragium facere, à gratia ex­cidere; penitus ex sacra scriptura esset expendendum, antequam illud cum plena animi tranquillitate, & Plerephoria dicere possumus.

VIZ.

I. Of Election ont of Faith foreseen. ALmighty God by an Eternal and un­changeable Decree, ordained in Je­sus Christ, his only Son, before the founda­tions of the World were laid, to save all those in Christ, for Christ; and through Christ, who being faln, and under the command of sin, by the assistance of the Grace of the Holy Ghost, do persevere in Faith and Obedience to the very end.

II. Of universal Redemption. To this end Jesus Christ suffered Death for all men, and in every man, that by his death up­on the Cross, he might obtain for all mankind, both the forgiveness of their sins and Reconci­liation with the Lord their God; with this Con­dition notwithstanding, that none but true Be­lievers should enjoy the benefit of the Reconci­liation and forgiveness of sins, John 2.16. 1 John 2.2.

III. Of the cause or means of attaining Faith. Man hath not saving Faith in and of himself, nor can it attain it by the power of his own Free­will, in regard that living in an estate of sin, and defection from God, he is not able of himself to think well, or do any thing which is really, or truly good; amongst which sort saving Faith is to be accounted. And therefore it is necessary that by God in Christ, and through the Work­ings of the Holy Ghost he be regenerated and renewed in his Understanding, Will, Affections, and all his other faculties; that so he may be able to understand, think, will, and bring to pass any thing that is good, according to that of St. John, 15.5. Without me you can do nothing.

IV. Of the manner of Conversion. The Grace of God is the beginning, promo­tion, and accomplishment of every thing that is good in us; insomuch that the Regenerate man can neither think well, nor do any thing that is good, or resist any sinful Temptations, without this Grace preventing, co-operating and assisting; and consequently all good works, which any man in his life can attain unto, are to be attributed and ascribed to the Grace of God. But as for the manner of the co-ope­ration of this Grace, it is not to be thought to be irresistable, in regard that it is said of many in the holy Scripture, that they did resist the Holy Ghost; as in Acts 7. and in other pla­ces.

V. Of the uncertainty of Perseverance. They who are grafted into Christ by a lively Faith, and are throughly made partakers of his quickning Spirit, have a sufficiency of strength, by which (the Holy Ghost contributing his Assistance to them) they may not only right, but obtain the Victory, against the Devil, Sin, the World, and all infirmities of the flesh. Most true it is, that Jesus Christ is present with them by his Spirit in all their Tempta­tions, that he reacheth out his hand unto them, and shews himself ready to support them, if for their parts they prepare themselves to the encounter, and beseech his help, and are not wanting to themselves in performing their un­ties: so that they cannot be sedoced by the cunning, or taken out of the hands of Christ by the power of Satan, according to that of St. John, No man taketh them out of my hand, &c. Cap. 10. But it is first to be well weighed and proved by the holy Scripture, whether by their own negligence, they may not forsake those Principles of saving Grace, by which they are sustained in Christ, embrace the pre­sent World again, Apostatize from the saving Doctrince once delivered to them, suffer a Ship­wrack of their Conscience, and fall away from the Grace of God, before we can publickly teach these doctrines, with any sufficient tranquility or assurance of mind.

It is reported, V that at the end of the Conference between the Protestants and Papists, in the first Convocation of Queen Maries Reign, the Protestants were thought to have had the better, as being more dextrous in applying and in forcing some Texts of Scripture than the others were, and that thereupon they were dismissed by Weston the Prolocutor, with this short come off: You, said he, have the Word, and we have the Sword. His meaning was, That what the Papists wanted in the strength of Ar­gument, they would make good by other ways, as afterwards indeed they did by Fire and Fagot. The like is said to have been done by the Contra Remonstrants, who finding themselves at this Conference to have had the worst, and not to have thrived much better by their Pen-comments, than in that of the Tongue, betook themselves to other courses; vexing and molesting their Opposites in their Classes, or Consisto­ries, endeavouring to silence them from Preaching in their several Churches: or o­therwise to bring them unto publick Censure. At which Weapon the Remonstrants being as much too weak, as the others were at Argument and Disputation; they be­took themselves unto the Patronage of John Van Olden Burnevelt, a man of great Power in the Council of Estate for the Ʋnited Belgick Provinces, by whose means they obtained an Edict from the States of Holland, and West-Friezland, Anno 1613. re­quiring and enjoying a mutual Toleration of Opinions, as well on the one side as the other. An Edict highly magnified by the Learned Grotius in a Book, intituled, Pietas Ordinum Hollandiae &c. Against which some Answers were set out by Bogerman, Si­brandus, and some others, not without some reflection on the Magistrates for their Actings in it: But this indulgence, though at the present it was very advantageous to the Remonstrants, as the case then stood, cost them dear at last. For Barnevelt ha­ving some suspition that Morris of Nassaw, Prince of Orange, Commander General of all the Forces of those Ʋnited Provinces both by Sea and Land, had a design to make himself the absolute Master of those Countreys, made use of them for the uniting and encouraging of such good Patriots as durst appear in maintenance of the common li­berty, which Service they undertook the rather, because they found that the Prince [Page 529]had passionately espoused the Quarrel of the Contra Remonstrants. From this time for­wards the Animosities began to encrease on either side, and the Breach to widen, not to be closed again; but either by weakning the great power of the Prince or the death of Barnevelt. This last the easier to be compassed, as not being able by so small a Party to contend with him, who had the absolute command of so many Legions. For the Prince being apprehensive of the danger in which he stood, and spurred on by the continual Sollicitations of the Contra Remonstrnats, suddenly put himself into the Head of his Army with which he march'd from Town to Town, altered the Guards, changed the Officers, and displaced the Magistrates, where he found any whom he thought disaffected to him; and having gotten Barnevelt, Grotius, and some other of the Heads of the Party into his power, he caused them to be condemned, and Barnevelt to be put to death, contrary to the fundamental Laws of the Countrey, and the Rules of the Union.

This Alteration being thus made, VI the Contra Remonstrants thought it a high point of Wisdom to keep their Adversaries down, now they had them under, and to effect that by a National Council, which they could not hope to compass by their own Au­thority: To which end, the States General being importuned by the Prince of Orange, and his Sollicitation seconded by those of KIng James (to whom the power and person of the Prince were of like Importance) a National Synod was appointed to be held as Dort, Anno 1618. Barnevelt being then still living. To which besides the Commissioners from the Churches of their several Provinces, all the Calvinian Churches in Europe (those of France excepted) sent their Delegates also; some eminent Divines being Commissioned by King James to attend also in the Synod: for th eRealm of Britain. A Synod much like that of Trent, in the Motives to it; as also in the managing and conduct of it. For as neither of them was assembled till the Sword was drawn, the terrour whereof was able to effect more than all other Argu­ments: so neither of them was concerned to confute, but condemn their Op­posites.

Secondly, The Council of Trent consisted for the most part of Italian Bishops, some others being added for fashion-sake, and that it might the better challenge the Name of General, as that of Dort, consisted for the most part of the Delegates of the Belgick Churches, to whom the foreign Divines were found inconsiderable. The Differences as great at Dort, as they were at Trent, and as much care taken to adulce the discon­tented Parties (whose Judgments were incompatible with the ends of either) in the one as the other. The British Divines, together with one of those which came from the Breme, maintained the Universal Redemption of mankind by the death of Christ. But this by no means would be granted by the rest of the Synod especially by those of North-Holland, for fear of yielding any thing to the Arminians; as Soto in the Council of Trent opposed some moderate Opinions, teaching the certainty of Salva­tion, because they were too much in favour with the Lutheran Doctrines. First, The general body of the Synod not being able to avoid the inconveniences which the Supra­lapsarian way brought with it, were generally intent on the Sublapsarian: but on the other side, the Commissioners of the Churches of South-Holland, thought it not ne­cessary to determine which were considered, an faln, or not faln, while he passed the Decrees of Election and Reprobation. But far more positive was Gomarus, one of the four Professours of Leyden, who stood as strongly to the absolute irrespective and irreversible Decree (exclusive of mans sin, and our Saviours Sufferings) as he could have done for the HOly Trinity. And not being able to draw the rest unto his Opinion, not willing to conform to theirs, he delivered his own Judgment in writing apart by it self, not joyning in subscription with the rest of his Brethren, for conformity sake, as is accustomed in such cases. But Macorius one of the Professors in Frankar, in West-Friezland, went beyond them all, not only maintaining against Sibrandus Lubbertus his fellow Collegiate in their open Synod; That God wills sin; That he ordains sin as it is sin: and, That by no means he would have all men to be saved; but openly declaring, That if these Points were not maintained, they must forsake their chief Doctors who had so great a hand in the Reformation.

Some other differences there were amongst them, not reconcilable in this Synod; VII as namely, wether the Elect be loved out of Christ, or not: whether Christ were the cause and foundation of Election, or only the Head of the Elect; And many others of like nature. Nor were these Differences managed with such sobriety as became the gravity of the persons, and weight of the business, but brake out many times into such open heats and violences, as are not to be parallel'd in the like Assemblies; the [Page 530] Provincial Divines banding against the Foreiners, and the Foreiners falling foulupon one another: for so it hapned, that Martinius, one of the Divines of Breme, a moderate and learned man, being desired to speak his mind in the Points last mentioned, signitied to the Synod,In his Letters, p. 72. That he made some scruple touching the Doctrine Passant, about the manner of Christs being Fundamentum electionis, and that he thought Christ not only the Effector of our Election, but also the Author and Procurer of it. Gomarus presently as soon as Mar­tinius had spoken, starts up and tells the Synod, Ego hanc rem in me recipio, and there­withal casts his Glove, and challenges Martinius with this Proverb, Ecce Rhodum, ecce Sullum, and required the Synod to grant them a Duel, adding, That he knew Martinius could say nothing in Refutation of that Doctrine. So my dear Friend Mr. Hales of Eaton relates the story of this passage in a Letter to Sir Dudly Carleton, bearing date Jan. 25. 1618. according to the style of the Church of England: and where he endeth, Dr. Bel­canqual shall begin, relating in his Letters to the said Ambassadour, the story of a grea­ter Fray, between the said Martinius and Sibandus Lubberius, above mentioned, upon this occasion. Martinius had affirmed God to be Causa Physica Conversionis; and for the truth thereof, appealed to Goclenius a great Philosopher, being then present in the Synod, who thereupon discoursed upon it out of Themistinus, Averores, Alexander Aphrodisaeus, and many more; affirming it to be true in Philosophy, although he would not have it to prescribe in Divinity. Sibrandus Lubbert taking fire at this, falls upon them both: but the Fray parted at the present, by the care of Boyerman. Gomarus with­in few days after picks a new quarrel with Martinius, and the rest of the Divines of Breme, for running a more moderate course than the rest of the Synod: many other of the Provincials seconding Gomarus in the quarrel, and carrying themselves so uncivilly in the prosecution, that Martinius was upon the Point of returning homewards. But this quarrel being also taken up, the former is revived by Sibrandus in the following Session, concerning which Belcanqual writes to Sir Dudley Carleton, this ensuing Let­ter, which for the rarity and variety of the passages contained in it, and the great light which it affords to the present business, I shall crave leave to add it here.

Dr. Belcanqualis Letter to Sir Dudley Carleton.

My very good Lord,

SInce my last Letters to your Lordship, VIII there hath been no business of any great Note in the Synod, [...]canquals Letters, p. 10. but that which I am sure your Lordship will be very sorry to hear; Contention like to come to some head, if it be not prevented in time: for there hath been such a Plot laid ex compositò, for disgracing of the Bremenses, as I think the Synod shall receive small grace by it. D. Gomarus being he at whom the last Disquisition of the third and fourth Articles ended, was entreated by the President to speak his mind of the said Articles; but Sibrandus desireth the President, first, to give him leave to add some few things to that he had poken the day before: Now what he added was nothing but a renewing of the strife, which was between him and Martinius in the last Session: two things he alledged; First, That he had been at Goclenius his Lodging, conferring with him about that Proposition, whether God might be called Causa Physica of humane Actions, and delivered certain Affirmations pronounced by Goclenius, tending to the Negative; for the truth of his relation he appealed to Goclenius there present, who testified that it was so: next Martinius had alledged a place out of Paraeus for the Affirmative in opere conversionis. Sibrandus read a great many places out of Paraeus, tending to the contrary: and (no question it being pleaded before) be entreateth some of the Pallatines (naming them all severally) who were Paraeus his Colleagues, would speak what they did know of Paraeus his mind, concerning the said Proposition. Scultetus be­ginneth with a set speech, which he had written lying before him; but such a Speech it was, as I, and I think all the Exteri, were exceeding grieved it should have come from a man of so much worth: the sum of it was this, That he did know upon his own knowledge, that Paraus did hold the contrary of that which had been falsly fathered on him in the Synod, that he could not endure to hear his dearest Colleague so much abused as he had been by some men in the Synod: Moreover he could not now dissemble the great grief he had conceived that some in the Synod went about to trouble sound Divinity with bringing in Tricas Scolasticas, such as was to make God Causam Physicam Conversionis (that was for Martinius) such portenta vocabulorum, as determinare, and non determinare voluntatem: That some men durst say that there were some doubts in the Fourth Article, which Calvin himself had not throughly satisfied, nor other Learned Reformed Doctors; that it was to be feared that they intended to bring in [Page 531]Jesuits Divinity in the Reformed Churches, and to corrupt the Youth committed to their Charge, with a strange kind of Divinity. This last Speech concerned D. Grotius. Scultetus delivered his mind in exceeding bitter and disgraceful words, and repeated his bitterest sentences twice over: He having ended, Martinius with great modesty answered, first, That he would read Paraeus his own words, which he did; next that for Sibrandus, he wondred that he would now in publick bring these things up, since out of his love to Peace, that very day he had sent his Colleague Grotius to Sibrandus, with a large explication in that sense, in which he was fully satisfied, and so he made account that that business had been peaceably transacted: All this while Grotius spake nothing; Gomarus beginneth to go on in the Disquisition, but I think he delivered a Speech against the Bremenses, which none but a madman would have uttered. First, Whereas Martinius had said that he did desire the resolution of this doubt, Qui Deus possit ab homine cujus potentia est finita, fidem, quae est opus omnipotentiae, exigere: and that neither Calvin, nor any of the Divines, had yet plainly enough untied the Knot: He replied, first, That he that said so was not Dignus qui solveret Calvino Corrigiam; and that for the doubt it self, it was such a silly one, that ipsi pueri in trivio, could ipsius soluti­onem decantare (at which Speech very body smiled.) Moverover, whereas Martinius in his Answer to Scultetus, had not spoken one word against him, but only this, That he was sorry that one who had now been 25 years a Professor of Divinity, should be thus used for using a School-term: Gomarus very wisely had a fling at the two, and telleth the Synod, that since some men thought to carry it away annorum numero, he himself had been a Professor not only 25, but 35 years. Next he falleth upon Grotius, and biddeth the Synod take heed of these men that brought in the Monstra & Portenta vocabulorum, the Barbarisms of the Schools of the Jesuits, determinare, & non determinare voluntatem, with many such speeches deli­vered with such sparklings of his eyes, and fierceness of pronunciation, as every man wondred the President did not cut him off, at last he cut off himself I think for want of breath; and the President giveth Celeberrimo Doctori Gomaro, many thanks for that his Grave and accu­rate speech: the Exteri wondred at it; at last my Lord of Landaff, in good faith, in a very grave short speech (for which, as for one of the least, I am persuaded he ever delivered, we and all the Exteri, thought he deserved infinite Commendations:) he spake to the President to this purpose, That this Synod called Disquisition, was instituted for Edification, not for any man to shew Studium Contentionis; and therefore did desire him to look that the knot of Ʋnity were not broken. In this his Lordships speech, be named no man, the last word was hardly out of his Lordships mouth, but furious Gomarus, knowing himself guilty, delivered this wise Speech; Reverendissime D. Praesul, non agendum est hic in Synodo authoritate, sed ratione. That it was free for him to speak in his own place, which no man must think to abridge him of by their Authority. My Lord replied nothing; but the President told my Lord, that Celeberrimus D. Gom, had said nothing agaist mens Persons, but their Opinions, and there­fore that he had said nothing worthy of Reprehension: This gave every man just occasion to think the President was of the Plot. Martinius against this Speech of Gomarus said nothing, but that he was sorry that he should have this Reward for his far Journey: The Disquisition went on to Thysius, who very discreetly told the SYnod he was sorry Martinius should be so exagi­tated for a speech, which according to Martinius his explication was true. Just as Thysius was thus speaking, Gomarus and Sibrandus, who sate next him, pulled him by the Sleeve, talked to him in a confused angry noise, in the hearing and seeing of all the Synod, chiding him that he would say so: afterwards Thysius with great moderation, desired Martinius to give him satisfaction of one or two doubtful Sentences he had delivered; which Martinius, thank­ing him for his Courtesie, fully did. The President was certainly in this Plot against Martinius, for at the same time he read out of a Paper publickly, a note of all the hard Speeches martinius had used. All this while. D. Grotius his patience was admired by all men, who being so grosly abused and disgraced, could get leave of his affections to hold his peace.

I could pursue these Differences further, both in weight and number, without any great trouble; but that I have some other work to do, which is the pressing of some other Conformities between this Synod and the Council: the same Arts being used in drawing up the Canons and Conclusions of the one, as were observed in the other; what care and artifice was used in the Council of Trent, so to draw up the Canons and Decrees thereof, as to please all the differing Parties, hath been already shewn in the third Chapter of this Book. And in the History of the Councils, we shall find t his passage, viz. That immediatly after the Session, Fryer Dominicus Soto, principal of the Dominicans, wrote three Books, and did Intitle them of Nature and of Grace: for Commentary of this Doctrine, and in his Expositions all his Opinions are found. [Page 532]When the work was published,Hist. of the Contr. p. 215. Fryer Andrew Vega, the most esteemed of the Francis­cans, set forth fifteen great Books for Commentaries, upon the sixteen Points of that Decree, and did expound it all according to his own Opinion; which two Opinions, saith my Author, do not only differ in almost all the Articles, but in many of them are expresly contrary. A perfect parallel to which we may find in this Synod; the con­clusions and results whereof, being so drawn up, for giving satisfaction to the Salap­sarians, that those of the Supralapsarian Faction might pretend some Title to them also: [...]rtf. A. 9. Concerning which, take here this passage from the Arcan. Dogm. Remonstr. long since published, where we are told of a bitter Contention betwixt Voetius and Maresius, about the sense of this Synod: the one of them maintaining that the Synod determined the Decree of Predestination and Reprobation, to antecede the consideration of the Fall of Adam; the other opposing him with an Apology in behalf of the Synod, against that Assertion. So that though assembled on purpose to decide these Controversies, and appease the broyls that Emerged, and were inflamed upon them, yet (that they [...] seem to agree together in something) have they wrpt up their Decrees and Canons in so many Clouds, and confounded them with so many Intricacies, (if a man hath recourse to their suffrages for an Interpretation) that they are like to fall into a greater new Schism, before they come to a setled resolution, of knowing what the meaning of that Synod is. And so much of the parallel between the Council of Trent and the Synod of Dort, touching the managery of all affairs both in fact, and post fact.

It was to be supposed in the midst of so many differences and disorders, X the Remon­strants might have found a way to have saved themselves, either by somenting the Con­tentions, or by finding some favours at their hands, who seemed to be any thing in­clinable to their Opinions: but no such favour could be gained, not so much as hoped for; though Ephraim was against Manasses, and Manasses against Ephraim, yet were they both together against Judah, as the Scripture tells us. Nor did the differences between the Supralapsarians, and the Sublapsarians, or those which were of equal mo­ment in the other Points extend so far, as to be any hindrance to the condemning of those poor men, to whom they were resolved not to give an equal hearing before the final sentence of their recondemnation: so truly was it said by some of the Remonstrants themselves:Exam. Cens. p. 63. D. Adeo facile Coeunt, qui in fatalitatem absolutam tantum consentiunt. In order whereunto many direct proceedings had been used to hinder those of the Remonstrant or Arminian party, by excommunicating some, and citing others to appear as criminal persons, from being returned Commissioners from their several Classes; and to refuse admittance to them into the Synod, upon such returns, except they would oblige themselves to desert their Party, as in the case of those of Ʋtrecht, there when the Parties whom they cited, were authorized by the re [...] to present themselves before the Synod, and to press for audience, offering to refer their Cause to a Disputation: their offer was not rejected only, but they were commanded to forbear any further atten­dance, unless they would submit themselves unto two Conditions: First, to acknow­ledge the Members of the Synod (whom they beheld as Parties) to be competent Judges in that case. And secondly, To proceed in such a method as they conceived would be destructive of their Cause: On the refusal of which last, the former Point be­ing in a manner yielded to, in hope of some fair dealing from the foreign Divines, they were dismist without hearing what they could say for themselves, as before was noted. For Boyerman President of the Synod, having some suspition that they would openly report those gross Impieties which were contained under the absolute Decree of Repro­bation; dismissed them the Assembly in a most bitter Oration, his eyes seeming to sparkle sire for the very fear, or fervency of spirit which was then upon him, which though I might report with safety enough from the Pen of some of the Remonstrants, in their Books called the Synodalia Remonstrantium, and the Antidotum, &c. yet I choose rather to relate it from a more impartial Author, even from the mouth of my dear Friend Mr. Hales (the most learned and ingenious John Hales of Eaton) who being then Chaplain to Sir Dudley Carleton, King James his Resident at the Hague, was suffer­ed to be present at the hearing of it; so that it might be said of them, as was affirmed by Tertullian of the ancient Gentiles, when the persecuting humour was upon them: Audire nolunt, quod auditum damnare non possunt; they were resolved not to hear those Arguments which they could not answer, or to give ear unto the proving of those Points, which they could not honestly condemn, if they had been proved.

More favourable were they unto those of the other extremity, looking no otherwise on the Supralapsarians, than as erring Brethren; but on the Remonstrants or Arminians, [Page 533]as their mortal Enemies. Macorius before-mentioned, is charged to have brought many dangerous and blasphemous Paradoxes, in making God to be the Author of sin, and openly maintaining in the Synod it self, that God willed sin, that he ordained sin, a [...] sin, and that by no means he would have all men to be saved, as before is said.Gods [...] Man-kind p. [...]. He had taught also in his Writings, Deum Reprobis verbum suum proponere non alio sine, quam ut inexcusabiles reddantur: That is to say, That God doth propound his Word to Reprobates for no other end, than that they might be left without excuse: That if the Gospel be considered in respect of Gods intention, the proper end of it, and not the Accidental, in reference to Re­probates, is their inexcusableness. More than so yet, That Christ knoweth all the hearts of Re­probates, who he knoweth neither can nor will open to him; not that he may enter in, but parth, that he may upbraid them for their impotency, and partly that he may encrease their damnation: And finally, Deum ideo eis locutum esse, ut ex cotenptu, & odio filii unigeniti, Grat [...]r con­demnatio esset. That God doth speak unto them to no other end, but that by the contempt and hatred of his only Son they might incur the greater condemnation. For which, and many other expressions of the like foul nature, occurring frequently in his Writings, and those Positions which he stood to in the open Synod, he received no other Censure from them, but a fair and friendly Admonition, to forbear such Forms of speech as might give offence to tender Ears, and could not be digested by persons ignorant and uncapable of so great Mysteries: [...] As also that he would not set light by those distinctions of Divines who had deserved well of the Church of Christ. But on the other side, the Remonstrants who maintained no such Impieties, whose Writings neither charged God with Ty­ranny and Hypocrisie, or having any hand in the act of sin, were most reproachfully handled and thrown out of the Senate, without so much as hearing what they had to say in their own defence, though that was the least part of the unsery intended to them: For when the Synod had concluded in the condemnation of their Doctrine, they next proceeded to the destruction of their persons, calling upon them to subscribe to the Acts of the Synod; and setting them a peremptory day for conforming to it: And when they saw that would not do it, by their incensed importunity, they procured a Proclamation from the States General, to banish them from their Native Countrey, with their Wives and Children, and so compelling them to beg their Bread, even in desolate places.

But yet this was no end of their sorrows neither. He must come under a new Cross, XII and be calumniated for maintaining many horrid Blasphemies, and gross impieties which they most abhorred. For in the continuation of the History of the Netherlands, written by one Cross, a fellow of no parts or judgment, and so more apt to be abused with a false report: It is there affirmed (whether with greater ignorance or malice, it is hard to say) That there was a Synod called at Dort, to suppress the Arminians; and that the said Arminians held amongst other Heresies First, That God was the Author [...] sin: and Secondly, That he created the far greater part of Man-kind, only of purpose for to damn them; with several others of that kind: Which every man of reason knows, not only to be the consequence and results of Calvins Doctrine, but to be po­sitively maintained and taught by some of his followers. By which and such like sub­tile and malicious practises, they endeavoured to expose their Adversaries to the pub­lick hatred, and make th em odious with the people; till at last these poor men might have said most justly, as one the primitive Christians did, under the burden of the like Calumnies and Imputations, Condemnati sumus quia nominamur, non quia convincimur, as Tertullian hath it, the name of an Arminian carried a Condemnation in it self without any conviction. Nor was their fury satisfied in Exauctorating, Banishing, and de­stroying those of the adverse party, who lived within the compass of the Belgick Pro­vinces; the genius of the Sect being active in all parts alike, in none more visibly than the neighbouring City of Ledan, the principal seat and Signory of the Dukes of Bovillon: Out of which Francisous Auratus, a most faithful Minister of that Church, is said to have been shamefully ejected for no other reason, by those of the Calvinian party, but because, preaching on the Text of St. James. 1.13. God tempteth no man, &c. he largely de­clared that God was not the Author of sin. With what severity they proceeded in Eng­land, when they had gotten the advantage of Power and Number, and with what Ca­lumnies and Reproaches they aspersed all those which were of a contrary persuasion to them; the sequestring and ejecting of so many hundreds of learned and religious men from their several Benefices, the most odious Pamphet called, The first Century of Scan­dalous and MALIGNANT PRIESTS, together with many uncharitable and disgrace­ful passages against them, in the Writings of some Presbyterian Ministers, do most clear­ly evidence.

CHAP. VI. Objections made against the Doctrine of the Remonstrants, the Answer unto all, and the retorting of some of them on the Opposite Party.

  • 1. The Introduction to the said Objections.
  • 2. The first Objection, touching their being Enemies to the Grace of God, disproved in general, by comparing the Doctrine with that of St. Augustine, though somewhat more favourable to Free Will than that of Luther.
  • 3. A more particular Answer in relation to some hard Expressions, which were used of them by King James.
  • 4. The second charging it as Introductive of Propery, began in Holland, and pressed more importunatly in England, answered both by Reason and Experience to the con­trary of it.
  • 5. The third, as filling men with spiritual pride, first answered in relation to the te­stimony from which it was taken, and then retorted on those who objected the same.
  • 6. The fourth CHarge, making the Remon­strants a factious and seditious people, began in Holland, prosecuted in England, and answered in the general by the most Religious Bishop Ridly.
  • 7. What moved King Jmaes to think so ill of the Remonstrants, as to exasperate the States against them.
  • 8. The Remonstrants neither so troublesom nor so chargeable to the States themselves, as they are made by the Assertor; the in­direct proceedings of the Prince of Orange, viz. the death of Barnevelt, and the injustice of the Argument in charging the practices of his Children, and the Prince upon all the party.
  • 9. Nothing in the Arminian doctrine, which may incline a man to seditious courses, as it is affirmed and proved to be in the Calvin.
  • 10. The Racrimination further proved by a passage in the Conference of the Lord Treasurer Burleigh with Queen Eliz. in a Letter of some of the Bishops to the Duke of Buckingham, and in that of Dr. Brooks to the late Archbishop.
  • 11. More fully prosecuted and exemplified by Campney's an old English Prote­stant.
  • 12. A Transition to the Doctrine of the Church of England.

IT may be thought, I that some strange mystery of iniquity, lay hidden under the Mask or Vail of the Five Articles last mentioned, which made the Synodists so furiously to rage against them; to use such cruelty (for security is too mild a name to express their rigour) towards all those who did maintain them. For justifying whereof in the eye of the World, both before, and after the Synod, course was taken to impeach their Doctrine in these points of no smaller crimes, than to be destructive of Gods Grace, introductory of Popery, tending unto spiritual pride, and to Sedi­tion or Rebellion in the Civil Government. Which Objections I shall here present, as I have done the Arguments of most importance which were Excogitated, and en­forced against the Conclusions, and Determinations of the Synod in the said five points: and that being done, I shall return such Answers as are made unto them.

First then it is objected, II that this Doctrine is destructive of Gods Free Grace, re­viving the old Pelagian Heresies, [...]man, An­not. Grotii Putat. so long since condemned. This is press'd by Boyer­man, in his Annotations on the Book of Grotius, called Pietas Ordinum, &c. where he brings in Pareus, charging them, with having proceeded E Schola Caelestii & Pelagii, from no other School, than that of Pelagius, and Caelestius, those accursed Hereticks. Thycius another of the Contra-Remonstrants, but somewhat more moderate than the rest in this particular, conceives their Doctrine to incline rather to Semi-Pelagianism, Et aut eandem esse, aut non multo diversam, and either to be the very same, or not much different.Declar. against Vorstius. But the authority of King James was of greatest weight, who in his heats against Vorstius, calls them the Enemies of Gods grace, Atheistical Sectaries, and more particularly, the Enemy of God Arminius, as the King once called him. To which Objection it is answered, that whatsoever Paraeus and the rest might please to call them, they had but little reason for it; the Remonstrants speaking as honourably of the Grace of God as any other whatsoever. And this they prove, by comparing the first branch of the Fourth Article, with that Golden saying of St. Augustine, yiz. Sine gratia Dei praeveniente ut velimus, & subsequente ne frustra velimus, ad pietatis opera nil [Page 535]valemus: that is to say, that we may will the things which are good, and following or assisting, that we do not will them to no purpose, we are not able to do any thing in the works of Piety. And by comparing the said Clause with St. Augustins words, it cannot easily be discerned, why the one party should be branded for the Enemies of the Grace of God, while theo ther is honoured as the chief Patron, and Defender of it. It cannot be denied, but that they ascribe somewhat more to the will of man, than some of the rigid Lutherans and Calvinians do, who will have a man drawn for­cibly, and irresistably, with the cords of Grace, velut inanimatum quiddam, like a sensless stock, without contributing any thing to his own salvation. But then it must be granted also, that they ascribe no more unto it, than what may stand both with the Grace and Justice of Almighty God, according to that Divine saying of St. Au­gustine, viz. Si non est gratia Dei, quomodo salvat mundum? Si non est liberum arbitrium, quomodo judicat mundum? Were it not for the Grace of God, no man could be sa­ved, and were there not a freedom of will in man, no man with justice could be condemned.

And as for the Reproachful words which King James is noted to have spoken of them, III it hath been said (with all due reverence to the Majesty of so great a Prince) that he was then transported with prejudice or particular Interesse; and therefore that there lay an Appeal, (as once to Philip King of Macedon,) from the King being not then well informed, to the same King, whensoever he should be better informed. Touching their proceedings, it was observed, 1. That he had his Education in the Kirk of Scotland, where all the Heterodoxies of Calvin were received as Gospel, and therefore could not so suddenly cast off those opinions, which he suckt in as it were with his MOthers Milk. 2. He was much governed at that time by Dr. Mountague, then Bishop of Bath and Wells, and Dean of his Majesties Chappel Royal, who having been a great Stickler in the Predestinarian Controversies, when he lived in Cambridg, thought it his best way, to beat down all such Opinions by Kingly Authority, which he could not over-bear by the strength of Arguments. And thirdly, That K. James had then a turn to serve for the Prince of Orange, of which more anon, which turn being served, and Mountague dying not long after, his ears lay open to such further informations as were offered to him, which drew him to a better liking both of the Men and then Opinions than he had formerly entertained of either of them.

It is objected secondly, IV that these Doctrines symbolize so much with the Church of Rome, that they serve only for a Bridg for Popery to pass over, into any Church, into which they can obtain admittance. This Calamity first laid upon them in a Declaration of the States General, against Barnevelt before remembred; wherein they charge him with a design of confederating with the Spaniard, to change the Religion of those Countreys, and countenancing to that end the Arminian party, as his fittest Instruments; which clamor being first raised in Holland, was afterwards much che­rished and made use of, by the Puritan, or Calvinian party amongst us in England. By one of which it is alledged,Justificat. of the Fathers, &c. that Mr. Pym being to make a report to the House of Commons, Anno 1626. touching the Books of Richard Mountague, after Bishop of Chichester, affirmed expresly, that the whole scope of his Book was to discourage the well-affected in Religion, and as much as in him lay, to reconcile them unto Popery. He gives us secondly, a Fragment of a scattered Paper, pretended to be written to the Rector of the Jesuits colledg in Bruxels; in which, the Writer lets him know, that they had strongly fortified their Faction here in England, by planting the Soveraign Drug Arminianism, which he hoped would purge the Protestants from their Heresie. Thirdly, he backs this Paper with a Clause in the Remonstrance of the House of Commons, 1628. where it is said that the hearts of hsi Majesties Subjects were perplexed in beholding the daily growth and spreading of the Faction of Arminanism, that being, as his Majesty well knew, (so they say at least) but a cunning way to bring in Popery. To all which, being but the same words out of divers mouths, it is answered, first, That the points which are now debated between the Calvinians and the old Protestants in England; between the Remonstrants, and the Contra-Remonstrants in the Belgick Churches; and finally between the rigid and moderate Lutherans in the upper Germany, have been as fiercely agitated, between the Franciscans and the Dominicans in the Church of Rome: The old English Protestants, the Remonstrants, and the moderate Lutherans, agreeing in these points with the Franciscans; as the English Calvinists, the Contra-Remonstrants, and the rigid Lutherans do with the Dominicans: So that there is a compliance on all sides with one of the said two differing parties in the Church of Rome. And there­fore [Page 536]why a general compliance in these points with the Fryers of S. Dominick, the princi­pal sticklers and promoters of that Inquisition, should not be thought as a ready a way to bring in Popery, as any such compliance with the Fryers of St. Francis, he must be a very wise man indeed which can give the reason. Secondly, it is answered, that the Melanctho­nian or moderate Lutherans which make up infinitely the greatest part of the Lutheran Churches, agree in these points with the Jesuits or Franciscan Fryers, and yet are still as far from relapsing to the Church of Rome, as when they made the first separation from it. And therefore thirdly, that if Arminianism, as they call it, be so ready a Bridg for passing over to Popery, it would be very well worth the knowing, how and by what means it should come to pass, that so few of the Remonstrants in the Belgick Provinces, and none of those whom they call Arminians in the Church of England, should in so long a time pass over that Bridg, notwithstanding all the provocations of want and scorn, which were put upon the one, and have been since multiplied upon the other.

In the next place, V it is observed, that the Arminian Doctrines, naturally incline a man to the sin of pride,Justif. of the Fathers, &c. p. 34. in attributing so much to the power of his own will, and so little to the Grace of God, in chusing both the means, and working out of the end of his own salvation. And for the proof hereof, a passage is alledged out of the History of the Council of Trent, that the first Opinion, (that is to say, the Doctrine of Pre­destination, according to the opinion of the Dominican Fryers) as it is hidden and mystical, keeping the mind humble, and relying on God, without any confidence in it self, knowing the deformity of Sin, and the excellency of Divine Grace; so the Second (be­ing that maintained by the Franciscans) was plausible and populare, and cherished hu­mane presumption, &c. The whole passage we have had before in the Second Chapter, Numb. 4. but we shall answer to no more of it than the former Clause. Concerning which, it may be said, that though Father Paul the Author of the History hath filled the Christian World with admiration, yet it is obvious to the eye of any discerning Reader, that in many places he savoureth not so much of the Historian, as he doth of the Party; and that being carryed by the Interest of his Native Countrey, (which was the Signory of Venice) he seldom speaks favourably of the Jesuits; and their ad­herents, amongst which the Franciscans in these points are to be accounted. Second­ly, that either Father Paul did mistake himself, or else that his Translator hath mi­staken his meaning, in making the Second Opinion to be more pleasing to the Preaching Fryers, than the understanding Divines; the name of Preaching Fryers, being so appropriated in common speech to those of the Dominican Order, that it is never ap­plyed unto any other. And Thirdly, That the Authority of Father Paul is no other­wise to be embraced in Doctrinal matters, (what credit soever may be given to him in point of History) than as it is seconded by Reason. And certainly, if we pro­ceed by the rule of Reason, that Doctrine must needs more cherish humane presump­tion, which puffeth men up with the certainty of their Election, the infallibility of assisting and persisting Grace, and the impossibility of falling from the attaining of that salvation which they have promised to themselves; than that which leaves these points uncertain, which puts a man to the continnal necessity of calling on God, and working out the way unto his salvation with fear and trembling. He that is once possessed with this persuasion, that all the sins which he can possibly commit, were they as many as have been committed by all mankind, since the beginning of the World, are not able to frustrate his Election, or separate him from the love and favour of Almighty God; will be too apt to swell with Pharisaical pride, and despise all other men as Heathens and Publicans; when such poor Publicans as have their minds humble and relying on God, will stand aloof, not daring to approach too near the Divine Majesty, but crying out with God be merciful unto me a sinner, and yet shall be more justified in the sight of God than the others are. For this we need produce no proof, we find it in the su­percilious looks, in the haughty carriage of those who are so well assured of their own Election; who cannot so disguise themselves, as not to undervalue and despise all those who are not of the same party, and persuasion with them. A race of men, whose insolence and pride there is no avoid by a modest submission, whose favour there is no obtaining by good turns and benefits. Quorum superbiam frustra per mo­destiam, & obsequium, effugeris, as in another case was said by a Noble Britain.

And finally it is objected, VI (but the Objection rather doth concern the men, than the Doctrine) that the Arminians are a Faction, a turbulent, seditious Faction, so found in the Ʋnited Provinces, from their very first spawning; not to be suffered by any Rea­son [Page 537]of State in a Commonwealth. So saith the Author of the pamphlet called the Obser­vator observed, and proves it by the wicked conspiracy (as he calls it) of Barnevelt, Obf. Observed, p. 46. who suffered most condignly (as he tells us) upon that account, 1619. And afterwards by the damnable and hellish plot of Barnevelts Children and Allies, in their designs against the State, and the Prince of Orange. P. 37. This Information seconded by the Author of the Book called, The Justification of the Fathers, &c. who tells us, but from whom he knows not, that the States themselves have reported of them, that they had created them more trouble, than the King of Spain had by all his Wars. And both these backt by the Authority of King James, who tells us of them in his Declaration against Vorstius, That if they were not with speed rooted out, no other issue could be expected, than the Curse of God, infamy through­out all the Reformed Churches, and a perpetual rent, and destraction in the whole body of the State. This is the substance of the Charge: So old and common, that it was answered long since, by Bishop Ridly in Qu. Maries days, when the Doctrine of the Protestants was said to be the readiest way to stir up Sedition, and trouble the quiet of the Com­monwealth; wherefore to be repressed in time by force of Laws. To which that godly Bishop returns this Answer, That Satan doth not cease to practice his old guiles and accustomed subtilties: He hath ever this Dart in a readiness, to whirl against his adversa­ries, to accuse them of Sedition, that he may bring them, if he can, in danger of the Higher Powers; for so hath he by his Ministers, always charged the Prophets of God. Ahab said unto Elias, art thou he that troubleth Israel. The false Prophets complained also to their Princes of Jeremy; that his words were seditious, and not to be suffered. Did not the Scribes and Pharisees falsly accuse Christ, as a seditious person, and one that spake against Caesar. Which said, and the like instance made in the Preachings of St. Paul; Confer. be­tween Kidley and Latimer. he concludes it thus, viz. But how far they were from all sedition, their whole Doctrine, Life and Conversation doth well declare. And this being said in reference to the Charge in general, the Answer to each part thereof is not far to seek.

And first it hath been answered to that part of it which concerns King James, that the King was carried in this business, not so much by the clear light of his most excel­lent understanding, as by Reason of State; the Arminians (as they call them) were at that time united into a party, under the command of John Olden Barnevelt, and by him used (for the reasons formerly laid down) to undermine the power of Maurice then Prince of Orange, who had made himself the Head of the Contra-Remonstrants, and was to that King a most dear Confederate. Which Division in the Belgick Pro­vinces, that King considered as a matter of most dangerous consequence, and utterly destructive of that peace, unity and concord, which was to be the greatest preserva­tion of the States Ʋnited; on whose tranquillity and power, he placed a great part of the peace and happiness of his own Dominions. Upon which reason, he exhorts them in the said Declaration, To take heed of such infected persons; their own Countrey-men being already divided into Factions, upon this occasion (as he saith) which was a matter so opposite to Ʋnity (which was indeed the only prop and safety of their State, next under God) as of ne­cessity it must by little and little bring them to utter tuin, if justly and in time they did not pro­vide against it. So that King James considering the present breach, as tending to the utter ruin of those States, and more particularly of the Prince of Orange, his most dear Ally; he thought it no small piece of King-craft, to contribute toward the suppression of the weaker party; not only by blasting them in the said Declaration, with reproach­ful names, but sending such Divines to the Assembly at Dort, as he was sure would be sufficiently active in their condemnation.

So that part of the Argument which is borrowed from the States themselves, VIII it must be proved by some better evidence, than the bare word of Mr. Hickman, before it can deserve an Answer; the speech being so Hyperbolical (not to call it worse) that it can hardly be accounted for a flower of Rhetorick. The greatest trouble which the States themselves were put to in all this business, was, for the first eight years of it, but the hearing of Complaints, receiving of Remonstrances, and being present at a Con­ference between the parties. And for the last four years, (for it held no longer) their greatest trouble was to find out a way to forfeit all their old and Native Privi­ledges in the death of Barnevelt, for maintenance whereof they had first took up Arms against the Spaniard. In all which time, no blood at all was drawn by the Sword of War, and but the blood of five or six men only, by the Sword of Justice, admit­ting Barnevelts for one: Whereas their Wars with Spain had lasted above thrice that time, to the sacking of many of their Cities, the loss of at least 100000, of their own lives, and the expense of many millions of Treasure. And as for Barnevelt, if [Page 538]he had committed any Treason against his Countrey, by the Laws of the same Coun­trey he was to be tryed. Contrary whereunto, the Prince of Orange having gotten him into his power, put him over to be judged by certain Delegates, commissionated by the States General, who by the Laws of the Union, can pretend unto no Authority over the Life and Limb of the meanest Subject. Finally, for the conspiring of Bar­nevelts Children, it concerns only them whose design it was. Who to revenge his death, so unworthily and unjustly contrived, and (as they thought) so undeserved­ly, and against their Laws, might fall upon some desperate Counsels, and most un­justifiable courses in pursuance of it. But what makes this to the Arminian and Re­monstrant party? Or doth evince them for a turbulent and seditious Faction, not to be suffered by any Reason of State in a well-ordered Commonwealth. Barnevelts Kin­dred might be faulty, the Arminians innocent, or the Armanians faulty, in their pra­ctice against the life of the Prince of Orange, under and by whom they had suffered so many oppressions, without involving those in their Crimes and Treasons, who hold the same Opinion with them in their Neighbouring Churches.

The reason is, XI because there is nothing in the Doctrine of the Arminians, (it as re­lates to the Five points in difference) which can dispose the Professors of it to any such practices. And therefore if the Arminians should have proved as turbulent and seditious as their Enemies made them, yet we were not to impute it to them, as they were Arminians, that is to say, as men following the Melancthonian way, of Predestina­tion, and differing in those points from the rest of the Calvinists, but as exasperated, and provoked, and forced to cast themselves upon desperate courses, Quae libertatis arma dat ipse dolor, in the Poets language. But so some say, it is not with the Doctrine of the other party by which mens actions are so ordered and predetermined by the eternal Will of God, even to the taking up of a straw, as before was said, ut nec plus boni nec minus mali, that it is neither in their power, to do more good, or commit less evil than they do. And then according to that Doctrine, all Treasons, Murders and Seditions, are to be excused, as unavoidable in them, who commit the same, because it is not in their power not to be guilty of those Treasons or Seditions which the fire and fury of the Sect shall inflame them with. And then to what end should Princes make Laws, or spend their whole endeavours in preserving the publick Peace, when notwithstanding all their cares, and travels to prevent the mischief, things could no otherwise succeed, than as they have been predetermined by the Will of God. And therefore the best way would be, Sinere res vadere quo vult (in the Latin of an old Spanish Monk) to let all matters go as they will, since we cannot make them go as we would; according to that counsel of the good old Poet.

Solvite mortales animos,
Manil. de Sphe. lib.
curisque levate,
Totque super vacuis animum deplete querelis:
Fata regunt Orbem, certa stant omnia lege.

That is to say,

Discharge thy Soul poor man of vexing fears,
And ease thy self of all superfluous cares.
The World is governed by the Fates, and all
Affairs, by Heaven's decree, do stand or fall.

To this effect, X it is reported, that the old Lord Burleigh should discourse with Queen Eliz. when he was first acquainted with the making of the Lambeth Articles. Not being pleased wherewith,Hist. Artic. Lambeth, p. 6, 7. he had recourse unto the Queen, letting her see how much her Majesties Authority, and the Laws of the Realm were thereby violated, and it was no hard matter to discern what they aimed at, who had most stickled in the same. For, saith he, this is their Opinion and Doctrine; that every Humane action, be it good or evil, it is all restrained and bound up by the Law of an immutable De­cree; that upon the very wills of men also, this necessity is imposed, ut aliter quam vellent homines, velle non possent, that men could not will otherwise than they did will. Which Opinions, saith he, Madam, if they be true, Frustra ego aliique fideles Ma­jestatis tuae ministri, &c. then I and the rest of your Majesties faithful Ministers do sit in Council to no purpose, 'tis in vain to deliberate and advise about the affairs of your Realm; Cum de his quae eveniunt necessario, stulta sit plane omnis consultatio, since in those things that came to pass of necessity, all consultation is foolish, and ridiculous. [Page 539]To which purpose it was also press'd by the Bishop of Rochester, Oxon, and St. Davids, in a Letter to the Duke of Buckingham, concerning Mountagues Appeal, Ann. 1625.Cabuba. p. 116. In which it is affirmed, that they cannot conceive what use there can be of Civil Government in the Common-wealth, or of Preaching, and external Ministry in the Church, if such fatal Opinins, as some which are opposite and contrary to those delivered by Mr. Mountague, shall be publickly taught and maintained. More plainly and particularly charged by Dr. Brooks. once Master of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge, in a Letter to the late Archbishop,Cont. Dom. p. 167. bearing date Decemb. 15. 1630. in which he writes, that their Doctrines of Predestination is the root of Puritanism, and Puritanism is the root of all Rebellions, and disobedient untractable­ness in Parliaments, &c. and of all Schism and saweiness in the Countrey, nay in the Church it self; making many thousands of our People, and too great a part of the Gentlemen of the Land very Leightons in their hearts; which Leighton had published not long before, a most pestilent and seditious Book against the Bishops, called Sions Plea, in which he excited the People to strike the Bishops under the fifth rib, reviling the Queen by the name of a Daughter of Heth; and for the same was after censured in the Star-Chamber to Pillory, loss of Ears, &c.

But because perhaps it may be said that this is but a new device, XI excogitated by the malice of these later times, to defame this doctrine,Answer to a certain Lett. p. 38. let us behold what Campneys hath delivered of it in the first or second year of Queen Eliz. at the first peeping of it out to disturb this Church. Where (saith he) who seeth not the distraction of England, to follow this Doctrine? Who seeth not the confusion of all Common-wealths to de­pend hereupon? What Prince may sit safely in the seat of his Kingdom? What sub­ject may live quietly possessing his own? What man shall be ruled by the right of Law? If these Opinions may be perfectly placed in the hearts of the People? Which Corol­lary he brings in, in the end of a discourse touching the Rebellion, raised by Martin Cyrnel, and seconded by the Earl of Lincoln, Martin Swarth, and others, against Hen. VII. For, building on the Culvinian Maxim, that as God doth appoint the end, so he ap­pointeth also the means and causes which lead unto it; he thereupon inferreth that Martin Swarth, and his men, according to that Doctrine were destined by God to be slain at the Batrel of Stoke. In order whereunto, first Sir Richard Simon the Priest must be appointed and predestinate of God to pour in the pestilent poyson of privy Conspi­racy, and trayterous mischief of vain glory into the heart of Lambert (his Scholar) as a cause leading to the same end. Secondly,Ibid. p. 38. That he the said Lambert was appointed and predestinate of God to consent and agree unto the pestiferous persuasion of his Ma­ster S. Richard, in the pride of Lucifer, to aspire unto the Royal Throne, as another cause leading to the same end which God ordained. Thirdly, That the Irish men were appointed of God to be Rebellious Traytors against their Soveraign Lord the King of England, and to maintain the false and filthy quarrel of Lambert, as another cause leading to the same end. Fourthly, That in order to the said end, the Lady Margaret (Sister to K. Edw. IV.) was appointed and predestinate of God to be a Tray­toress to England, and to imploy all her wits, forces, and power, to the utter de­struction of her natural Countrey: And fifthly, in particular, that the said Lady Mar­garet was appointed of God, to hire the said Martin Swarth and his men to invade the Realm of England. Sixthly and finally, that the said Martin Swarth, the Earl of Lin­coln, the Lord Lorel, the Lord Gerrard, and divers others, Captains of the Rebels, were appointed and predestinate of God to be of such valiant courage in maintaining the false quarrel of trayterous Lambert, that they were slain, (and on the other side, many a brave English mans blood was shed) at the Battel of Stoke, which was the end of this woful Tragedy. Let them say therefore what they can or will; this meer ne­cessity which our men teach, is the very same which the Stoicks did hold; which opi­nion, because it destroyed the state of a Common-wealth, was banished out of Rome, as St. Augustine declareth in lib. Quaest. Vet. & Nov. Testam.

And thus the different judgments of all the other Western Churches, XII and the several Subdivisions of them in the five controverted Points, being laid together with such discourses and disputes as have occasionally been made, and raised about them, we will next shew to which of the said differing parties the Church of England seems most in­clinable, and afterwards proceed in the story of it.

Historia Quinqu-Articularis: OR, A DECLARATION Of the Judgment of the WESTERN-CHƲRCHES, And more particularly of the CHURCH of ENGLAND, In the Five Controverted Points.
PART II. Containing the Judgment of the Church of England, and the most Eminent Divines thereof in the Reign of King Henry VIII. and King Edward VI.

CHAP. VII. An Introduction to the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Points disputed, with the Removal of some rubs which are laid in the way.

  • 1. The Doctrine of the Homilies, concerning the Endowments of man at his first Creation.
  • 2. His miserable fall.
  • 3. And the promised hopes of his Restitution in the Lord Christ Jesus.
  • 4. A general Declaration of the judgment of the Church of England in the points dis­puted, exemplified in the story of Agilmond and Lamistus, Kings of Lombardy.
  • 5. The contrary judgment of Wicklif ob­jected, answered, and applied to all modern Heresies.
  • 6. A general answer to the like Argument, pretended to be drawn from the Writings of Frith, Tyndal, and Barns. But more par­ticularly,
  • 7. The judgment of Dr. Barns in the present points, and the grounds on which he build­ed the same.
  • 8. Small comfort to be found from the works of Tyndal, in favour of the Calvinian Doctrines.
  • 9. The falsifyings of John Frith, and others in the Doctrine of Predestination, reproved by Tyndal.
  • 10. A parallel between some of our first Mar­tyrs, and the blind man restored to sight in the eighth of Saint Mark.

BEing therefore in the next place to declare the Judgment of the Church of England, I shall prepare the way, by laying down her publick Do­ctrine, I touching the Fall of Adam, and the Restitution of man-kind in Jesus Christ, that having cleared God from being the Author of sin, and having laid a sure foundation for the Restitution of Man­kind to Gods grace and favour, and consequently to the hopes of Eternal Life, we may [Page 542]proceed with more assurance to the rest that followeth:Hom. of the Na­tivity, fol. 167. And this we cannot better do, than by laying down the words of the Homily concerning the Nativity and Birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; where we find it thus: Among all the Creatures (saith the Homily) that God made in the beginning of the world, most excellent and wonderful in their kind; there was none (as the Scripture beareth witness) to be compared almost in any point unto man; who as well in body as soul, exceedeth all other no less than the Sun in bright­ness and light exceedeth every bright and little Star in the Firmament: He was made accor­ding to the similitude and Image of God, he was endued with all kind of Heavenly gifts, he had no spot of uncleanness in him, he was sound and perfect in all parts, both outwardly and inwardly; his reason was uncorrupt, his understanding was pure and good, his will was obe­dient and goldly; he was made altogether like unto God, in Righteousness, in Holiness, in Wisdom, in Truth; to be short, in all kind of perfection.

After which, II having spoken of mans Temporal Felicities, relating to the delicacies of the Garden of Eden, and the Dominion which God gave him over all the Creatures, the Homily doth thus proceed, viz. But as the common nature of all men is in time of prospe­rity and wealth, to forget not only themselves, but also God; even so did this first man Adam, who having but one Commandment at Gods hand; namely, That he should not eat of the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil, did notwithstanding most unmindfully, or rather most wil­fully break it, Hom. of the Na­tivity, p. 168. in forgetting the strait charge of his Maker, and giving ear to the crafty sug­gestion of the evil Serpent the Devil; whereby it came to pass, that as before he was blessed, so now he was accursed; as before he was loved, so now he was abhorred; as before he was most beautiful and precious, so now he was most vile and wretched in the sight of his Lord and Ma­ker; instead of the Image of God, he was now become the Image of the Devil; instead of a Citizen of Heaven, he was now become the Bond-slave of Hell, having in himself no one part of his former purity and cleanness, but being altogether spotted and defiled, insomuch, that now he seemed to be nothing else but a lump of sin: and therefore by the just judgment of God was condemned to everlasting death.

This being said touching the introduction of the body of Sin, III the Homily doth first proceed to the propagation and universal spreading of it, and afterwards to the Resti­tution of lost man by faith in Christ: This so great and miserable plague (for so the Homily proceedeth) if it had only rested in Adam who first offended, it had been so much the easier, and might the better have been born; but it fell not only on him, but also in his Posterity and Children for ever, so that the whole brood of Adams flesh should sustain the self same fall and punishment, which their forefather by his offence most justly had deserved: S. Paul in the fifth to the Romans saith, By the offence of only Adam, the fault came upon all men to condemnation; and by one mans disobedience, many were made sinners: By which words we are taught, that as in Adam all men universally received the reward of sin; that is to say, became mortal and subject unto death, having in themselves nothing but everlasting con­demnation both of body and soul, &c. Had it been any marvel if man-kind had been utterly driven to desperation, being thus fallen from life to death, from salvation to destruction, from Heaven to Hell! But behold the great goodness and tender mercy of God in this behalf! albeit mans wickedness and sinful behaviour was such, that it deserved not in any part to be forgiven; yet to the intent be might not be clean destitute of all hope and comfort in time to come, he or­dained a new Covenant, and made a sure promise thereof; namely, that he would send a Me­diater, or Messias into the world, which should make intercession, and put himself as a stay be­tween both parties, to pacifie the wrath and indignation conceived against sin, and to deliver man out of the miserable curse, and cursed misery whereunto he was fallen head-long, by dis­obeying the Will and Commandment of the only Lord and Maker.

Which ground thus laid, IV we will proceed unto the Doctrine of Predestination, accor­ding to the sense and meaning of the Church of England, which teacheth us (accor­ding to the general current of the ancient Authors before Augustins time) that God from all Eternity intending to demonstrate his power and goodness, designed the Creation of the World, the making of man after his own Image, and leaving him so made, in a perfect liberty to do, or not to do what he was commanded, and that fore­knowing from all Eternity, the man abusing this liberty, would plung himself and his posterity into a gulf of miseries; he graciously resolved to provide them such a Saviour, who should redeem them from their sins, to elect all those to life eternal who laid hold upon him, leaving the rest in the same state in which he found them, for their incre­dulity. And this I take to be the method of Election unto life Eternal, through Jesus Christ our Lord, according to the Doctrine of the Church of England: For althought there be neither prius nor posterius in the will of God, who sees all things at once together, [Page 543]and willeth at the first sight without more delay; yet to apply his acts unto our capa­city, as were the acts of God in their right production, so were they primitively in his intention: But Creation without peradventure did forego the fall; and the disease or death which ensued upon it, was of necessity to be, before there could be a course taken to prescribe the cure; and the prescribing of the cure must first be finished, before it could be offered to particular persons. Of which, and of the whole doctrine of Pre­destination, as before declared, we cannot have an happier illustration than that of Agilmond and Lamistus in the Longobardian story of Paul the Deacon: In which it is reported, That Agilmond the second King of Lombardy, riding by a Fish-pond, saw seven your Children sprawling in it, whom their unnatural Mothers (as the Author thinketh) had thrown into it not long before. Amazed whereat, he put his hunting spear amongst them, and stirred them gently up and down; which one of them laying hold on, was drawn to land, called Lamistus, from the word Lama, which is the Lan­guage of that People, and signifies a Fish-pond; Trained up in that Kings Court, and finally, made his Successor in the Kingdom. Granting that Agilmond being fore­warned in a Vision, that he should find such Children sprawling for life in the midst of that pond, might thereupon take a resolution within himself to put his hunting spear amongst them, and the which of them soever should lay hold upon it, should be gently drawn out of the water, adopted for his Son, and made Heir of his Kingdom: No Humane story can afford us the like parallel case to Gods proceeding in the great work of Predestination to Eternal Life, according to the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers, and the Church of Rome, as also of the Lutheran Churches, and those of the Arminian party in the Belgick Provinces.

Now that this was the Doctrine also of the Church of England, V will easily appear up­on a due search into the Monuments and Records thereof, as they stand backed by those learned religious men, who had a principal hand in carrying on the great work of the Reformation. Among which, those of the Calvinian party would fain hook in Wicklif, together with Fryth, Barns and Tyndal, which can by no means be brought under that account, though some of them deserved well of the Churches for the times they lived in. They that desire to hook in Wicklif, do first confess that he stands ac­cused by those of the Church of Rome for bringing in Fatal Necessity, and making God the Author of sin; and then conclude, that therefore it may be made a probable guess that there was no disagreement between him and Calvin: The cause of which Argu­ment stands thus, That there being an agreement in these points betwixt Wicklif and Calvin, and the Reformers of our Church embracing the Doctrines of Wicklif; there­fore they must embrace the Doctrines of Calvin also. But first, it cannot be made good that our Reformers embraced the Doctrines of Wicklif, or had any eye upon the man; who though he held many points against those of Rome, yet had his field more Tares than Wheat; his Books more Heterodoxies than sound Catholick Doctrine. And secondly, admitting this Argument to be of any force in the present case, it will as warrantably serve for all the Sects and Heresies which now swarm amongst us, as well as for that of Calvin; Wicklif affording them the grounds of their several dotages, though possibly they are not so well studied in their own concernments: For they who consult the works of Thomas Waldensis, or the Historia Wicklifiana, writ by Harpsfield, will tell us that Wicklif, amongst many other errours, maintained these that follow: 1. That the Sacrament of the Altar is nothing else but a piece of Bread. 2. That Priests have no more Authority to minister Sacraments than Lay-men have. 3. That all things ought to be common. 4. That it is as lawful to Christen a Child in a Tub of water at home, or in a Ditch by the way, as in a Font-stone in the Churches. 5. That it is as lawful at all times to confess unto a Lay-man, as to a Priest. 6. That it is not necessary or profitable to have any Church or Chappel to pray in, or to do any Divine Service in. 7. That burying in Church-yards is unprofitable, and in vain. 8. That Holy-days ordained and instituted by the Church, (and taking the Lords day in for one) are not to be observed and kept in reverence, inasmuch as all days are alike. 9. That it is sufficient and enough to believe, though a man do no good works at all. 10. That no Humane Laws or Constitutions do oblige a Christian. 11. And finally, That God never gave grace nor knowledge to a great person or rich man, and that they in no wise follow the same. What Anabaptists, Brownists, Ranters, Quakers, may not as well pretend that our first Reformers were of their Religion, as the Calivinsts can, if Wicklifs Doctrine be the rule of our Reformation: Which because possibly it may ob­tain the less belief, if they were found only in the works of Harpsfield and Waldensis be­fore remembred, the Reader may look for them in the Catalogue of those Mala Dog­mata [Page 544]complained of by the Prolocutor in the Convocation, Anno 1536. to have been publickly preached, printed and professed by some of Wicklifs Followers: for which consult the Church History, lib. 4. fol. 208. and there he shall be sure to find them.

It is alledged in the next place, VI that the Calvinistical Doctrines in these points, may be found in the Writings of John Frith, William Tyndal, and Dr. Barns, collect­ed into one Volume, and printed by John Day, 1563. of which the first suffered-death for his conscience, Anno 1533. the second, Anno 1536. and the third, Anno 1540 called therefore by Mr. Fox in a Preface of his before the Book, the Ring-lea­ders of the Church of England: And thereupon it is inferred, that the Calvinian Do­ctrine of Predestination, must be the same with that which was embraced and countenan­ced by the first Reformers. But first, admitting that they speak as much in honour of Calvins Doctrine as can be possibly desired, yet being of different judgments in the points disputed, and not so Orthodox in all others as might make them any way considerable in the Reformation, it is not to be thought that either their Writings or Opinions should be looked on by us for our direction in this case. Barns was di­rectly a Dominican in point of Doctrine; Frith soared so high upon the Wing, and quite out-flew the mark, that Tyndal thought it not unfit to call him down, and lure him back unto his pearch; and as for Tyndal, he declares himself with such care, and caution, excepting one of his fllyings out against Free-will, that nothing to their purpose can be gathered from him. Secondly, I do not look on Mr. Fox as a com­petent Judge in matters which concern the Church of England, the Articles of whose Confession he refused to subscribe, he being thereunto required by Archbishop Parker; and therefore Tyndal Frith and Barns not to be hearkned to the more for his com­mendation. Thirdly, if the testimony of Frith and Tyndal be of any force for de­fence of the Calvinists, the Anti-Sabbatarians any more justly make use of of it in defence of themselves, against the new Sabbath speculations of Dr. Bond and his Adherents, embraced more passionately of late than any Article of Religion here by Law established: Of which the first declares the Lords day to be no other than an Ecclesiastical Institution, or Church Ordinance; the last, that it is still changeable from one day to another, if the Church so please: For which consult the Hist. of Sab. l. 2. c. 8. Let Frith and Tyndal be admitted as sufficient Witnesses when they speak against the new Sabbath Doctrines, or not admitted when they speak in behalf of Calvins, and then I am sure his followers will lose more on the one side, than they gained on the other, and will prove one of the crossest bargains to them which they over made. And then it is in the fourth place to be observed, that the greatest Trea­sury of Learning which those and the Famerlines could boast of, was lock'd up in the Cloisters of the Begging Fryers, of which the Franciscans were accounted the most nimble Disputants, the Dominicans the most diligent and painful Preachers; the Au­gustinians for the most part siding wit the one, and the Carmelites or White Fryers joyning with the other; so that admitting Frith and Tyndal to maintain the same Doctrine in these points, which afterwards was held forth by Calvin, yet possibly they maintained them not as any points of Protestant Doctrine, in opposition to the errours of the Church of Rome (which had not then declared it self on either side) but as the received Opinion of the Dominican Fryers, in opposition to the Franciscans. The Doctrine of which Dominican Fryers, by reason of their diligent preaching, had met with more plausible entertainment, not only amongst the infe­riour fort of people, but also amongst many others of parts and Learning.

And as for Barns, VII the far most learned of the three, he had been once Prior of the Augustinian Fryers in Cambridge, whose Doctrines he had sucked in at his first coming thither, and therefore might retain them to the very last, without relation to the Zuinglian or Calvinian Tenents, or any differences then on foot between the Protestant Doctors and the Church of Rome: Besides, being of the same Order which Luther had quitted, he might the more willingly encline to Luthers first opinion touching servitude of the will, mans inability in co-operating with the Grace of God, and being forcibly drawn in his own conversion, velut inanimatum quiddam, like a stock or stone, in which he was tenaciously followed by the rigid Lutherans, though he had afterwards changed his judgment touching that particular: So that beholding Dr. Barns either as one that followed Luther in his first Opinions, or travelled the Domi­nican way in the present points as an Augustinian, it is no marvel if we find some­what in his Writings agreeable to the palate of the Calvinists and rigid Lutherans. From whence it is,Dise of Free­will, p. 278. that laying down the Doctrine of Predestination, he discourseth [Page 545]thus; viz. But yet sayst thou, that he giveth to the one mercy, and the other none. I an­swer, what is that to thee? is not his mercy his own? is it not lawful for him to give it to whom he will? is thine eye evil because his is good? take that which is thine, and go thy way; for if he will shew his wrath, and make his power known over the vessels of wrath, ordained to damnation; and to declare the riches of his glory unto the vessels of mercy,Id. ib. which he hath prepared and elected unto Glory; what hast thou therewith to do?—But here will subtil blindness say, God saw before that Jacob should do good, and therefore did he choose him; he saw also that Esau should do evil, therefore did he condemn him. Alas for blindness! what will you judg of that which God foresaw? how know we that God saw that? and if he saw it, how know we that it was the cause of Jacobs Election? These Children being unborn, they had done neither good nor bad, and yet one of them is chosen, and the other is refused: St. Paul knoweth no other cause but the will of God, and will you needs discuss another. He saith not, I will have mercy on him that I see shall do good; but, I will shew mercy to whom I will: He saith not, I will have compassion on him that shall deserve it de congruo; but, Of him of whom I will have compassion. Now as he followeth the Dominicans or rigid Lutherans, in laying down the grounds and method of Predestination: so he draws more to them also, and the Zuinglians also, touching Gods workings on the will, than possibly may be capable of a good construction.Ib. p. 281. Gods, saith he of his infinite power, letteth nothing to be exempted from him, but all things to be subject unto his action; and nothing can be done by them, but by his principal motion: So that he worketh in all manner of things, that be either good or had, not changing their nature, but only moving them to work after their natures: So that good worketh good, and evil worketh evil, and God useth them both as instruments, and yet doth he nothing evil, but evil is done alone through the will of man: God working by him (but not evil) as by an instrument. Which last Position (notwithstanding all the subtilty in the close there­of) how far it is from making God to be the Author of sin, I leave to be determi­ned by men of more Sholastical and Metaphysical heads, than my simplicity can pretend to.

For Tyndal next, VIII though I shall not derogate in any thing from his great pains in translating the Bible, nor from the glory of his suffering in defence of those Truths for which he died; yet there were so many Heterodoxes in the most of his Wri­tings, as render them no fit rule for a Reformation, no more than those of Wicklif before remembred, the number and particulars whereof, I had rather the Reader should look for in the Acts and Monuments, where they are mustered up together (about the latter end of the Reign of King Henry the eighth) than expect them here. That which occurreth in him touchin Predestination, is no more than this;Prolog. in E­pist. to the Romans, p. 42. 1. Grace, saith he, is properly Gods favour, benevolence, or kind mind, which of his own self, without our deservings, he reacheth to us, whereby he was moved and inclined to give Christ unto us, with all other gifts of Grace. Which having told us in his Preface to Sr. Pauls Epistle to the Romans; he telleth us not long after, that in the 9, 10, 11. Chapters of the Epistle, the Apostle teacheth us of Gods Predestination; From whence it springeth altogether whether we shall believe or not believe; be loosed from sin, or not be loosed: By which Predestination, our Justifying and Salvation are clear taken out of our hands, and put into the hands of God only, which thing is most necessary of all; for we are so weak, and so uncertain, that if it stood in us, there would of truth no man be saved; Ibid. 15. the Devil no doubt would deceive him; but now God is sure of his Predestination, neither can any man withstand or let him; else why do we hope and sigh against sin? Discoursing in another place of the act the Will hath on the Understanding, he telleth us, That the Will of man followeth the Wit; that as the Wit erreth, so doth the Will; and as the Wit is in captivity, so is the Will; neither is it possible that the Will should be free, when the Wit is in bondage, &c.—as I err in my Wit, so I err in my Will; when I judg that to be evil which is good, then indeed do I hate that which is good; and then when I perceive that which is good to bee evil, then indeed do I love the evil. Finally, in the heats of his Dis­putation with Sir Thomas Moor who had affirmed, That men were to endeavour them­selves, and captivate their understandings, if they would believe. He first cryes out,lib. 3. Hist. Moor, p. 306. How Beetle-blind is fleshly reason! and then subjoyns, that the Will hath no operation at all in the working of faith in my soul, no more than the Child hath in begetting of his Father; for, saith Paul, it is the gift of God, and not of us; my Wit must conclude good or had, yet my Will can leave or take; my Wit must shew me a true or an apparent cause why yet my Will have any working at all.

I had almost forgot John Frith, and if I had, it had been no great loss to our rigid Calvinists; who not content to guide themselves in these Disputes by Gods Will re­vealed, have too audaciously pried into the Ark of Gods Secret Counsels; of which spirit I conceive this Frith to be; not that I find him such in any of his Writings ex­tant with the other two, but that he is affirmed for such, in a Letter of Tyndals di­rected to him under the borrowed name of Jacob: For in the collection of his pieces, neither the Index nor the Margent direct us unto any thing which concerns this Ar­gument, though to the Writtings of the others they give a clearer sense (howsoever made then) in favour of the Calvinian party, than the Books themselves, or possibly was ever meant by the men that made them:Acts and Mon. fol. 987. Now Tyndals Letter is as followeth; Dearly beloved Jacob, my hearts desire in our Saviour Jesus is, That you arm your self with patience, and be hold, sober, wise and circumspect; and that you keep you a low by the ground, avoiding high questions that pass the common capacity; but expound the Law truly, and open the Rule of Moses, to condemn all flesh, and prove all men sinners, and all deeds under the Law (before mercy hath taken away the condemnation thereof to be sin, and damnable: And then as a faithful Minister, set abroach the mercy of our Lord Jesus, and let the wounded consciences drink of the water of life: And then shall your preaching be with power, not as the Doctrine of Hypocrites; and the Spirit of God shall work with you, and all consciences shall bear record unto you, and feel that it is so: And all Do­ctrine that casteth a mist on these two, to shadow and hide them, I mean, the Law of God, and mercy of Christ, that resist you with all your power. Of him it is, or of such high Climers as he was, [...]roloe, before the Epist, unto the Rom. p. 48. who we find Tyndal speaking in another place: But here, saith he, we must set a mark upon those unquiet, busie, and high-climing Wits, how far they shall go; which first of all bring hither their high Reasons and pregnant Wits, and begin first from on high to search the bottomless secrets of Gods Predestination, whether they be predestinated or no: These must needs either cast themselves headlong down into Desperation, or else commit themselves to free chance careless: But follow thou the order of this Epistle, and nuzzel thy self with Christ, and learn to understand the Law and the Gospel-means, and the office of both, that thou mayst in the one know thy self, and how thou hast of thy self no strength but to sin; and in the other the grace of Christ; and then see thou fight against sin and the flesh, as the seven first Ghapters teach thee. Of these high flyings, Lambert, another of our Martyrs, was endicted also, who as he would not plead Not guilty, Acts and Mon. fol. 1008. so he stood not mute, but bound to the Endictment in this manner following; Ʋnto the Article, saith he, whether it be good or evil, cometh of necessity, that is (as you construe it) to wit, whether a man hath Free-will, so that he may deny joy or pain: I say (as I said at the beginning) that unto the first part of your Riddle, I neither can nor will give any desinitive answer, for so much as it surmounteth any capacity, trusting that God will send hereafter others that be of better cunning than I to incite it.

If there be any thing in this which may give any comfort to our rigid Calvinists, much good do them with it, X and if they meet with any in the former passages, let them look back upon the Answers before laid down, and then consider with them­selves what they have got by the adventure, or whether Tyndal, Barns, and Frith, conjunct or separate, may be considered as a Rule to our first Reformers; which ha­ving done, I would have them finally observe the passage in the eighth of St. Mark, where the blind man, whom our Saviour at Bethsaida restored to his sight, at the first opening of his eyes said, he saw men as trees walking; that is to say, he saw men walking as trees, quasi dicat homines quos ambulantes video, non homines, sed arbores mihi videntur; as we read in Maldionale: By which the blind man declared (saith he) se quidem videre aliquid, imperfecte tamen videre, cum inter homines &c arbores distin­guere non posset: I discern somewhat said the poor man, but so imperfectly, that I am not able to distinguish between trees and men: Such an imperfect sight as this might these Martyrs have, in giving unto men no greater power of walking in the ways of Gods Commandments, than as if they had been sensless Trees, or liveless shadows: And such an imperfect sight as his the Lord gave many times to those whom he recovered out of the Egyptian darkness of Popish Errours, who not being able to discern all divine Truth at the first opening of the eyes of their understand­ing, were not to be a Rule or President to those that followed and lived under a brighter beam of illumination. Finally, taking all for granted as to the judgment of these men in the points disputed, which the Calvinians can desire and pretend unto, and letting them enjoy the Title which Mr. Fox hath given them, of being called the Ring-leaders of the Church of Englanp (which Bilney, Byfield, Lambert, Garet, [Page 547]or any other of our ancient Martyrs may as well lay claim to) yet as they suffered death before the publick undertaking of the Reformation under E. 6. so nothing was ascribed to their Authority by the first Reformers.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Preparatives to the Reformation, and the Doctrine of the Church in the present points.

  • 1. The danger of ascribing too much to our ancient Martyrs, &c. exemplified in the parity of Ministers and popular elections unto Benefices, allowed by Mr. John Lambert.
  • 2. Nothing ascribed to Calvins judgment by our first Reformers, but much to the Au­gustine Confession, the writings of Me­lancthon.
  • 3. And to the Authority of Erasmus, his Pa­raphrases being commanded to the use of the Church by King Edward VI. and the Reasons why.
  • 4. The Bishops Book in order to a Reformation, called, The Institution of a Christian man, commanded by King Henry VIII. 1537. corrected afterwards with the Kings own hand, examined and allowed by Cran­mer, approved by Parliament, and finally, published by the name of Necessary do­ctrine, &c. An. 1543.
  • 5. The Doctrine of the said two Books in the points disputed, agreeable unto that which after was established by King Edward the Sixth.
  • 6. Of the two Liturgies made in the time of King Edward VI. and the manner of them; the testimony given unto the first, and the alterations in the second.
  • 7. The first Book of Homilies, by whom made, approved by Bucer, and of the Argument that may be gathered from the method of it in the points disputed.
  • 8. The quality and condition of those men who principally concurred to the Book of Articles, with the Harmony or consent in Judgment between Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Rid­ley, Bishop Hooper, &c.
  • 9. The Doctrine delivered in the Book of Ar­ticles, touching the five controverted points.
  • 10. An answer to the Objection against these Articles, for the supposed want of Autho­rity in the making of them.
  • 11. An Objection against King Edwards Ca­techism, mistaken for an Objection against the Articles, refelled, as that Catechism by John Philpot Martyr, and of the dele­gating of some powers by that Convocation to a choice Committee.
  • 12. The Articles not drawn up in compre­hensive or ambiguous terms to please all par­ties, but to be understood in the respective, literal, and Grammatical sense, and the Reasons why.

I Have the longer stood upon the answering of this Objection, to satisfie and prevent all others of the like condition, in case it should be found on a further search, that any of our godly Martyrs, or learned Writers, who either suffered death before the Reign of Edward VI. or had no hand in the carrying on of the Reformation, embraced any opinions in Doctrine or Discipline contrary to the established Rules of the Church of England: For otherwise, as we must admit all Tyndals Heterodoxies, and Friths high flying conceits of Predestination, which before we touch'd at, so must we also al­low a Parity, or an Identity rather in Priests and Bishops, because John Lambert, (ano­ther of our Godly Martyrs) did conceive so of it. In the primitive Church (saith he) there were no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishops and Deacons; that is to say, Mi­nisters, as witnesseth, beside Scripture, S. Hierom in his Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul. Whereas (saith he) that those whom we now call Priests, were all one, and no other but Bishops, and the Bishops no other but Priests, men ancient both in age and learning, so near as could be chosen; nor were they instituted and chosen as they be now a days, the Bishop and his Officer only opposing them whether they can construe a Collect; but they were chosen also with the consent of the people, amongst whom they were to have their living, as sheweth S. Cyprian: But alack for pity, such elections are banished, and new fashions brought in. By which opinion (if it might have served or a Rule to the Reformation) our Bishops must have been reduced to the rank of Priests, and the right of Presentation put into the hands of the people, to the Destruction of all the Patrons in the Kingdom.

If then the question should be asked (as perhaps it may) On whom, II or on whose judgment the hrst Reformers most relied in the weighty business? I answer nega­tively: First, That they had no respect of Calvin, no more than to the judgement of Wicklef, Tyndal, Barns, or Frith, whose offered assistance they refused when they went about it; of which he sensibly complained unto some of his friends, as appears by one of his Epistles. I answer next affirmatively in the words of an Act of Parlia­ment, 2. & 3. Edw. 6. where it is said, That they had an eye in the first place to the more pure and sincere Christian Religion taught in the Scriptures; and in the next place to the usages of the Primitive Church. Being satisfied in both which ways, they had thirdly a more particular respect to the Lutheran Plat-forms, the English Confession or Book of Ar­ticles being taken in many places word for word out of that of Ausberg, and a confor­mity maintained with the Lutheran Churches in Rites and Ceremonies; as namely, in kneeling at the Communion, the Cross in Baptism, the retaining of all the ancient Festivals, the reading of the Epistles and Gospels on Sundays and Holy-days, and gene­rally in the whole Form of External Worship. Fourthy, in reference to the points dis­puted, they ascribed much to the Authority of Melancthon (not undeservedly called the Phoenix of Germany) whose assistance they earnestly desired, whose coming over they expected, who was as graciously invited hither by King Edward the Sixth (Regiis li­teris in Angliam vocari) as himself affirms in an Epistle to Camerarius: His coming laid aside upon the fall of the Duke of Sommerset, and therefore since they could not have his company, they made use of his writings for their direction in such points of Doctrine, in which they though it necessary for the Church to declare her judg­ment.

I observe finally, III That as they attributed much to the particulars, to the Authority of Melancthon, so they ascribe no less therein unto that of Erasmus, once Reader of the Greek Tongue in Cambridge, and afterwards one of the Professors of Divinity there; whose Paraphrases on the four Evangelists being translated into English, were ordered to be kept in Churches for the use of the People, and that they owned the Epistles to be studied by all such as had cure of souls: Concerning which it was commanded by the injunctions of King Edward VI. published by the advice of the Lord Protector Somerset and the Privy Council,Acts and Mon. fol. 1181. in the first year of the said Kings Reign: 1. That they should see pro­vided in some most convenient and open place of every Church, one great Bible in English, with the Paraphrase of Erasmus in English, that the People might reverently, without any let, read and hear the same at such time as they listed, and not to be inhibited therefrom by the Par­son or Curate; but rather to be the more encouraged and provoked thereunto. And 2. That every Priest under the degree of a Batchellour of Divinity should have of his own, one New Testa­ment in English and Latine, with the Paraphrases of Erasmus upon the same, and should di­ligently read and study thereupon, and should collect and keep in memory all such comfortable places of the Scripture, as do set forth the Mercy, Benefits, and Goodness of Almighty God to­wards all penitent and believing persons, that they might thereby comfort their flock in all dan­ger of death, despair or trouble of Conscience; and that therefore every Bishop in their Institu­tion should from time to time try and examine them how they have profited in their studies. A course and care not likely to have entred into the thoughts of the Lord Protector, or any of the Lords of the Council, if it had not been advised by some of the Bishops, who then began to have an eye on the Reformation, which soon after followed; and as un­likely to be counselled and advised by them, had they intended to advance any other Doctrine than what was countenanced in the Writings of that Learned man. Where­upon I conclude the Doctrine of the points disputed, to be the true and genuine Doctrine of the Church of England, which comes most near to the plain sense of holy Scripture, the general current of the Fathers in the Primitive times, the famous Augustane Con­fession, the Writings of Melancthon, and the Works of Erasmus: To which Conclusion I shall stand till I find my self encountred by some stronger Argument to remove me from it.

The ground thus laid, IV I shall proceed unto the Reformation which was built upon it, first taking in my way some necessary preparations made unto it by H. 8. by whom it had been ordered in the year 1536. That the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and the Ten Commandments should be recited publickly by the Parish Priest in the English Tongue, and all the Sundays and other Holidays throughout the year: And that the people might the better understand the duties contained in them, it pleased him to assemble his Bishops and Clergy in the year next following, requiring them, &Vpon the diligent search and perusing of Holy Scripture, to set forth a plain and sincere Doctrine, con­cerning [Page 549]the whole sum of all those things which appertain unto the Profession of a Christian man. Which work being finished, with very great care and moderation, they published by the name of an Institution of a Christian man, containing the Exposition or Interpre­tation of the common Creed, the seven Sacraments, the Ten Commandments,Epls. Dedit. the Lords Prayer, &c. and dedicated to the Kings Majesty. Submitting to his most excellent Wisdom and exact Judgment, to be by him recognized, overseen, and corrected, if he found any word or sentence in it amiss, to be qualified, changed, or further expounded, in the plain setting forth of his most vertuous desire and purpose in that behalf. A Dedication publickly subscribed in the name of the rest, by all the Bishops then being, eight Archdeacons, and seventeen Doctors of chief note in their several faculties: Amongst which I find seven by name, who had a hand in drawing up the first Liturgy of King Edward VI. that is to say, Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury; Goodrich, Bishop of Ely; Hebeach, then Bishop of Rochester, and of Lincoln afterwards; Skip, then Archdeacon of Dorset, after Bishop of Hereford; Roberson, afterwards Dean of Durham, as Mayo was afterwards of S. Pauls, and Cox of Westminster: And I find many others amongst them also, who had a principal hand in making the first Book of Homilies, and passing the Articles of Religion in the Convocation of the year, 1552. and so it rested till the year, 1643. when the King making use of the submission of the Book which was tendred to him corrected it in many places with his own hand, as appeareth by the Book it self, re­maining in the famous Library of Sir Robert Cotton: Which having done, he sends it so corrected to Archbishop Cranmer; who causing it to be reviewed by the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation, drew up some Annotations on it: And that he did for this intent (as I find exprest in one of his Letters bearing date, June 25. of this present year) because the Book being to be set forth by his Graces censure and judgment, he would have nothing therein that Momos himself could reprehend, referring notwithstanding all his Anno­tations to his Majesties exacter judgment: Nor staid it here, but being committed by the King to both Houses of Parliament, and by them very well approved of, as appears by the Statutes of this year, Cap. 1. concerning the advancing of true Religion, and the abo­lition of the contrary, it was published again by the Kings command, under the title of Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian man: And it was published with an Epistle of the Kings before it, directed to all his faithful and loving Subjects; wherein it is affirmed, To be a true Declaration of the true knowledge of God and his Word, with the principal Articles of Religion, whereby men may uniformly be led and taught the true under­standing of that which is necessary for every Christian man to know, for the ordering of himself in this life, agreeable unto the will and pleasure of Almighty God. V

Now from these Books the Doctrine of Predestination may be gathered into these particulars; which I desire the Reader to take notice of,Institut. of a Christian. that he may judge the bet­ter of the Conformity which it hath with the established Doctrine of the Church of England.

1. That man by his own nature was born in sin, and in the indignation and dis­pleasure of God, and was the very child of Wrath, condemned to everlasting death, subject and thrall to the power of the Devil and sin; having all the principal parts or portions of his soul, as reason and understanding, and free-will, and all other powers of his soul and body, not only so destituted and deprived of the gifts of God where­with they were first endued, but also so blinded, corrupted and poysoned with errour, ignorance and carnal concupiscence, that neither his said powers could exercise the natural function and office for which they were ordained by God at the first Creation, nor could he by them do any thing which might be acceptable to God.

2. That Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God the Father, was eternally pre­ordained and appointed by the Decree of the Holy Trinity, to be our Lord; that is to say, to be the only Redeemer and Saviour of Man-kind, and to reduce and bring the same from under the Dominion of the Devil and sin, unto his only Dominion, King­dom, Lordship, and Governance.

3. That when the time was come in the which it was before ordained and appointed by the Decree of the Holy Trinity, That Man-kind should be saved and redeemed,Necessary pray­er. than the Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, and very God, descended from Heaven into the world, to take upon him the very habit, form, and nature of man, and in the same nature of suffer his glorious Passion for the Redemption and Salvation of all Man-kind.

4. That by this Passion and Death of our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only Corporal death is so destroyed, that it shall never hurt us, but rather that it is made wholesome [Page 550]and profitable unto us; but also, that all our sins, and the sins also of all them that do believe in him, and follow him, be mortified and dead, that is to say, all the guilt and offence thereof, as also the damnation and pains due for the same, is clearly extincted, abolished and washed away, so that the same shall never afterwards be imputed and inflicted on us.

5. That this Redemption and Justification of Man-kind could not have been wrought or brought to pass by any other means in the world, but by the means of this Jesus Christ, Gods only Son; and that never man could yet, nor never shall be able to come unto God the Father, or to believe in him, or to attain his favour, by his own wit and reason, or by his own science and learning, or by any of his own works, or by whatsoever may be named in Heaven or Earth, but by faith in the Name and Power of Jesus Christ, and by the gifts and graces of his Holy Spirit.

But to proceed, VI the way to the ensuing Reformation being thus laid open: The first great work which was accomplished in pursuance of it, was, the compiling of that fa­mous Liturgy of the year, 1549, commanded by King Edward VI. that is to say, the Lord Protector, and the rest of the Privy Council, acting in his Name, and by his Authority, performed by Archbishop Cranmer, and the other six before remembred, assisted by Thirdby, Bishop of Winchester; Day, Bishop of Chichester; Ridley, Bishop of Rochester; Taylor, (then Dean after) Bishop of Lincoln; Redman, then Master of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge; and Hains, Dean of Exeter; all men of great abilities in their several stations: and finally, confirmed by the King, the Lords Spiritual and Tem­poral, and the Commons in Parliament Assembled, 23 Edw. VI. In which Confir­matory act it is said expresly to have been done by the especial aid of the Holy Ghost; which testimony I find also of it in the Acts and Monuments, fol 1184. But being disliked by Calvin, who would needs be meddling in all matters which concerned Religion, and disliked it chiefly for no other reason (as appears in one of his Epistles to the Lord Protector) but because it savoured too much of the ancient Forms, it was brought un­der a review, the cause of the reviewing of it being given out to be no other, than that there had risen divers doubts in the Exercise of the said Book, for the fashion and manner of the Ministration, though risen rather by the curiosity of the Ministers and Mistakers, than of any other cause, 5, 6 Edw. 6. cap. 1. The review made by those who had first compiled it, though Hobeach and Redman might be dead before the confirmation of it by Act of Parliament, some of the New Bishops added to the former number, and being review­ed, was brought into the same form in which now it stands; save, that a clause was taken out of the Letany, and a sentence added to the distribution of the blessed Sacra­ment, in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, and that some alteration was made in two or three of the Rubricks, with an addition of Thanksgiving in the end of the Le­tany; as also of a Prayer for the Queen, and the Royal Issue in the first of King James.

At the same time, VII and by the same hands which gave us the first Liturgy of King Edward VI. was the first Book of Homilles composed also; in which I have some cause to think that Bishop Latimer was made use of amongst the rest, as one who had sub­scribed the first other two books before mentioned, as Bishop of Worcester, Ann. 1537. and ever since continued zealous for a Reformation, quitting in that respect such a wealthy Bishoprick, because he neither would nor could conform his judgment to the Doctrine of the six Articles Authorized by Parliament: For it will easily appear to any, who is conversant in Latimers writings, and will compare them carefully with the book of Homilies, that they do not only savour of the same spirit in point of Doctrine, but also of the same popular and familiar stile, which that godly Martyr followed in the course of his preachings; for though the making of these Homilies be commonly ascribed (and in particular by Mr. Fox) to Archbishop Cranmer, yet it is to be under­stood no otherwise of him, thad than it was chiefly done by encouragement and di­rection, not sparing his own hand to advance the work, as his great occasions did per­mit. That they were made at the same time with King Edwards first Liturgy, will appear as clearly, first by the Rubrick in the same Liturgy it self, in which it is di­rected,Let. of Mr. Bu­cer to the Church of Eng­land. that after the Creed shall follow the Sermon or Homily, or some portion of one of them, as they shall be hereafter divided. It appears secondly by a Letter writ by Martin Bucer, inscribed To the holy Church of England, and the Ministers of the same, in the year 1549. in the very beginning whereof, he lets them know, That their Sermons or Ho­milies were come to his hands, wherein they godlily and effectually exhort their people to the reading of Holy Scripture (that being the scope and substance of the first Homily, which [Page 551]occurs in that book) and therein expounded the sense of the faith whereby we hold our Chri­stianity and Justification, whereupon all our help censisteth, and other most holy principles of our Religion, with most godly zeal. And as it is reported of the Earl of Gondomar, Am­bassador to King James from the King of Spain, that having seen the elegant dispo­sition of the Rooms and Offices in Burleigh House, not far from Stanford erected by Sir William Cecil, principal Secretary of State, and Lord Treasurer to Queen Elizabeth, he very pleasantly affirmed, That he was able to discern the excellent judgment of the great Statesman, by the neat contrivance of his house: So we may say of those who composed this book, in reference to the points disputed, A man may easily discern of what judgment they were in the Doctrine of Predestination, by the method which they have observed in the course of these Homilies: Beginning first with a discourse of the misery of man in the state of nature; proceeding next to that of the salvation of man-kind by Christ our Saviour only, from sin and death everlasting; from thence, to a Declaration of a true, lively, and Christian saith, and after that of good works annexed unto faith, by which our Justification and Salvation are to be obtained; and in the end descending unto the Homily bearing this inscription, How dangerous a thing it is to fall from God: Which Homilies in the same form and order in which they stand, were first authorized by King Edward VI. afterwards tacitly approved in the Rubrick of the first Liturgy be­fore remembred, by Act of Parliament, and finally, confirmed and ratified in the book of Articles, agreed upon by the Bishops and Clergy of the Convocation, Anno 1552. and legally confirmed by the said King Edward.

Such were the hands, VIII and such the helps which co-operated to the making of the two Liturgies, and this book of Homilies; but to the making of the Articles of Re­ligion, there was necessary the concurrence of the Bishops and Clergy Assembled in Convocation, in due form of Law; amongst which there were many of those which had subscribed to the Bishops book, Anno 1537. and most of those who had been for­merly advised with in the reviewing of the book, by the Commandment of King Henry VIII. 1543. To which were added, amongst others. Dr. John Point, Bishop of Winchester, an excellent Grecian, well studied with the ancient Fathers, and one of the ablest Mathematicians which those times produced: Dr. Miles Coverdale, Bishop of Exon, who had spent much of his time in the Lutheran Churches, amongst whom he received the degree of Doctor: Mr. John Story, Bishop of Rochester (Ridley being then preferred to the See of London) from thence removed to Chichester, and in the end by Queen Elizabeth to the Church of Hereford; Mr. Rob. Farran, Bishop of St. Davids, and Martyr, a man much favoured by the Lord Protector Sommerset, in the time of his great­ness; and finally (not to descend to those of the lower Clergy) Mr. John Hooker, Bishop of Gloucester, and Martyr; of whose Exposition of the Ten Commandments, and his short Paraphrase on Romans 13. we shall make frequent use hereafter; a man whose works were well approved of by Bishop Ridley (the most learned and judicious of all the Prelates) who notwithstanding they differed in some points of Ceremony, professeth an agreement with him in all points of Doctrine; as appears by a Letter writ­ten to him when they were both Prisoners for the truth, and ready to give up their lives (as they after did) in defence thereof: Now the words of the Letter are as fol­loweth, But now my dear Brother, forasmuch as I understand by your works, which I have but superficially seen, that we throughly agree, and wholly consent together in those things which are the grounds and substantial points of our Religion, Acts and Mon. fol. 1366. against the which the world now so rageth in these our days: Howsoever in times past, in certain by-matters and circumstances of Religion your wisdom and my simplicity and ignorance have jarred, each of us following the abundance of his own sense and judgment: Now I say, be you assured, that even with my whole heart, God is the witness, in the bowels of Christ, I love you in truth, and for the truths sake that abideth in us, and I am persuaded, by the grace of God, shall abide in us for ever­more. The like agreement there was also between Ridley and Cranmer, Cranmer ascribing very much to the judgment and opinion of the learned Prelate, as himself was not ashamed to confess at his Examination; for which see Fox in the Acts and Monu­ments, fol. 1702.

By these men, IX and the rest of the Convocation, the Articles of Religion (being in number 41) were agreed upon, ratified by the Kings Authority, and published both in Latine and English, with these following Titles, viz. Articuli de quibus in Synodo Londinens. A.D. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissentionem, & consensum verae Religionis firmandum, inter Episcopos & alios eruditos viros, convenerat, Regia authoritate Londin. editi; that is to say, Articles agreed upon by the Bishops and other learned men assembled in [Page 552]the Synod at London, Anno 1552. and published by the Kings Authority, for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent, touching true Religion. Amongst which Articles (countenanced in Convocation by Queen Elizabeth, Ann. 1562.) the Doctrine of the Church in the five controverted points is thus delivered, according to the form and order which we have observed in the rest before.

1. Of Divine Predestination.

Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the World were laid) he hath constantly ordered by his Council,Artic. 17. secret unto us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom be hath chosen in Christ out of man-kind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.

Furthermore, we must receive Gods promises in such wise at they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture, and in our doing the will of God that is to be followed, which we have ex­presly declared to us in the Word of God.

2. Of the Redemption of the World by the faith of Christ.

The Son, which is the Word begotten of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Fa­ther, &c. and being very God, and very Man, did truly suffer, was Crucified, Dead and Buried,Artic. 2. to reconcile his Father to us, and be a Sacrifice not only for Original guilt, but also for the actual sins of men.

The Offering of Christ once made,Artic. 31. is this perfect Redemption, Propitiation and Satisfaction to all the sins of the whole world, both Original and Actual.

3. Of mans will in the state of depraved nature:Artic. 9. Man by Original sin is so far gone from Original righteousness, that of his own nature be is inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth al­ways contrary to the Spirit; and therefore

Works done before the grace of Christ,Artic. 13. and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School Authors say) deserve grace of Congruity.

4. Of the manner of Conversion.

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare him­self by his own natural strength and good works,Artic. 10. to faith and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

5. Of the uncertainty of Perseverance.

The Grace of Repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism, in regard that after we have received the Holy Ghost,Artic. 16. we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin; and by the grace of God (we may) arise again and amend our lives; and therefore they are to be condemned which say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of Repen­tance to such as truly repent.

Now in these Articles, X as in all others of the book, there are these two things to be observed. 1. What Authority they carried in respect of the making. And 2. How we are to understand them in respect of the meaning. And first for their Authority; it was as good in all regards as the Laws could give them, being first treated and agreed upon by the Bishops and Clergy in their Convocation, and afterwards confirmed by the Letters Patents of Edw. VI. under the Great Seal of England. But against this it is objected, That the Records of this Convocation are but a degree above blanks; that the Bishops and Clergy then assembled, had no Commission from the King to meddle in Church business; that the King durst not trust the Clergy of that time in so great a matter, on a just jealousie which he had of the ill affections of the major part; and therefore the trust of this great business was committed unto some few Confidents, cordial to the cause of Religion, and not unto the body of a Convocation. To which it hath been already answered, That the Objector is here guilty of a greater crime than that of Scandalum magnatum, making King Edward VI. of pious memory, no better than [Page 553]an impious and lewd Impostor, in fathering those children on the Convocation, which had not been of their begetting: For first, the Title to the Articles runneth thus at large, Articuli de quibus, &c. as before we had it; which Title none durst adventure to set before them, had they not really been the products of the Convocation. Se­condly, the King had no reason to have any such jealousie at that time of the major part of the Clergy, but that he might trust them with a power to meddle with matters of Religion; this Convocation being holden the sixth year of his Reign, when Gardi­ner, B [...]nner, Day and Tunstall, and others of the stiffest Romanists, were put out of their places; most of the Episcopal Sees and Parochial Churches being filled with men according unto his desires, and generally conformable to the Forms of Worship here by Law established. Thirdly, the Church of England for the first five years of Queen Elizabeth, retained these Articles, and no other, as the publick tendries of the Church in point of Doctrine; which certainly she had not done, had it been recommended to her by a less Authority than a Convocation lawfully assembled and confirmed. And fourthly, that it is true, that the Records of Convocation during this King, and the first years of Queen Mary are very defective and imperfect, most of them lost; amongst others, those of this present year: And yet one may conclude as strong­ly, that my Mother died Childless, because my Christening is not to be found in the Parish Register; as that the Convocation of this year was barren, because the Acts and Articles of it were not entred in the Journal Book.

To salve this sore, it is conceived by the Objector, XI that the Bishops and Clergy had passed over their power to some select Divines appointed by the Kings; in which sense they may be said to have made these Articles themselves, by their delegates, to whom they had deputed their Authority, the case not being so clear, Id. Ib. but that it occasioned a Cavil at the next Convocation the first of Queen Mary, when the Papists therein assembled, renounced the legality of any such former transactions. And unto this it shall be answer­ed, That no such defect of legality as was here pretended, was charged against the book of Articles it self, but only against a Catechism which was bound up with it, countenanced by the Kings Letters Patents prefix'd before it, approved by many Bishops and learned men, and generally voiced to be another of the products of this Convocation: And therefore for so much as concerns this Catechism, it was replyed by Mr. John Philpot Archdeacon of Winchester, who had been a member in the former, and was now a member of the Convocation in the first of Queen Mary. That he thought they were deceived in the Title of it,Acts and Mo­num. fo. 1282. in that it owned the Title of the last Synod of London, many which were then present, not being made privy to the making or publishing of it. He added. That the said former Convocation, had granted the Authority of making excellent Laws, unto certain persons to be ap­pointed by the Kings Majesty; so as whatsoever Ecclesiastical Laws they, or the most part of them did set forth (according to a Statute in that behalf provided) might be well said to be done in the Synod of London, though such as were of the house, had no notice thereof before the promulgation: And thereupon he did infer, That the setters forth of the Catechism did not slander the House, as they went about to per­suade the World, since they had the Authority of the Synod unto them committed, to make such Spiritual Laws as they thought convenient and necessary for the good of the Church. In which Discourse we may observe, that there was not one word which reflects on the Book of Articles, all of it being made in reference to the Ca­techism before remembred; though if the Objection had been made (as indeed it was not) against the Articles themselves, the defence of that learned man, and godly Martyr, would have served as fully for the one, as it did for the other. But whatsoe­ver may be said in derogation to the Authority of the Book of Articles, as it was published in the time of King Edward the sixth, Anno Dom. 1552. certain I am, that nothing can be said unto [...]e contrary, but that they were received, and the far greater part of them agreed upon in full Convocation, Anno 1562. And therefore for avoiding of all Disputes, I am resolved to take them in this last capacity, as they were ratified by Queen Elizabeth, Anno 1563. confirmed by King James, An. 1604. and finally established by the late King Charles, with his Majesties Royal Declara­tion prefixt before them, Anno 1628.

Less doubt there is concerning the intent of this Convocation in drawing up the Articles in so loose a manner, XII that men of different judgments might accommodate them to their own Opinions, which I find both observed and commended in them by the former Author; by whom we are informed, that the Articles of the English [Page 554]Protestant Church,Chur. Hist. lib. 9. fol. 72. in the infancy thereof, were drawn up in general terms, foresee­ing that posterity would grow up to fill the same; meaning, that these holy men did prudently discover that differences in judgment would unavoidably happen in the Church, and were loth to unchurch any, and drive them off from any Ecclesia­stical communion for petty differences, which made them pen the Articles in com­prehensive words, to take in all, who differing in the branches, meet in the root of the same Religion: This hath been formerly observed to have been the artifice of those who had the managing of the Council of Trent, and is affirmed to have been used by such men also as had the drawing up of the Canons at the Synod of Dort: But the Composers of the Articles of the Church of England had not so little in them of the Dove, or so much of the Serpent, as to make the Articles of the Church like an upright shoe, which may be worn on either foot; or like to Theramenes shoe, as the Adage hath it, fit for the foot of every man that was pleased to wear it; and therefore we may say of our first Reformers, in reference to the present Book of Articles, as was affirmed of them by Dr. Brancroft then Bishop of London, in relation to the Ru­brick in private Baptism; that is to say, that those reverend and learned men in­tended not to deceive any by ambiguous terms; for which, see Conf. at Hampton Court, Confer. p. 15. And to this supposition or imagination it is also answered, That the first Reformers did not so compose the Articles, as to leave any liberty to diffenting judgments, as the said Author would fain have it in some words preceding, but did not bind men to the literal and Grammatical sense; they had not otherwise attain­ed to the end they aimed at, which was ad tollendam Opiniorum Dissentionem, & con­sensum in vera Religione firmandum; that is to say, to take away diversity of Opinions, and to establish an agreement in the true Religion. Which end could never be ef­fected, if men were left unto the liberty of dissenting, or might have leave to put their own sense upon the Articles, as they list themselves: For where there is a pur­pose of permitting men to their own Opinions, there is no need of definitions and determinations in a National Church, no more than is of making Laws to bind the Subjects in an unsetled Commonwealth, with an intent to leave them in their for­mer liberty, either of keeping or not keeping them, as themselves best pleased. Which said, we shall enquire into the meaning of the Articles, as before laid down, whether they speak in favour of the Melancthonian or Calvinian way, so far forth as the meaning of them can be gathered from the publick Liturgy and book of Homilies, or from the Writings of those men, who either had a hand in the making of them, or died in the Religion here by Law established.

CHAP. IX. Of the Doctrine of Predestination delivered in the Articles, the Ho­milies, the publick Liturgies, and the Writings of some of the Reformers.

  • 1. The Articles indifferently understood by the Calvinian party, and the true En­glish Protestants, with the best way to find out the true sense thereof.
  • 2. The definition of Predestination, and the most considerable points contained in it.
  • 3. The meaning of those words in the Defini­tion; viz. whom he hath chosen in Christ, according to the Exposition of St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerom, as also of Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Latimer, and the Book of Homilies,
  • 4. The Absolute Decree condemned by Bishop Latimer, as a means to Licentiousness and carnal living.
  • 5. For which, and making God to be the Author of sin, condemned as much by Bishop Hooper.
  • 6. Our Election to be found in Christ, not sought for in Gods secret Counsels, ac­cording to [...] judgment of Bishop Lati­mer.
  • 7. The way to find out our Election, deliver­ed by the same godly Bishop, and by Bishop Hooper, with somewhat to the same pur­pose also from the Book of Homilies.
  • 8. The Doctrine of Predestination, delivered by the holy Martyr John Bradford, with Fox his gloss upon the same to corrupt the sense.
  • [Page 555]9. No countenance to be had for any abso­lute, personal and irrespective Decree of Predestination in the publick Liturgy.
  • 10. An Answer to such passages out of the said Liturgy, as seem to favour that Opi­nion; as also touching the number of Gods Elect.

THUS have we seen the Doctrine of the Church of England in the five con­troverted Points, according as it is delivered in the Book of Articles; I but in what sense we ought to understand it, hath been made a Question: Some take the Articles in the Literal and Grammatical sense, which is the fairest and most approved way of Interpretation; according to the saying of an ancient Writer,Declar. before the Art. 1628. That if the Literal sense of holy Scripture will stand with the Analogy of Faith and Piety, it is to be preferred before any other: Others they are (of which his late Majesty complained) who draw the Articles aside, and put their own sense or Comment to be the meaning of the Articles; fashioning them to their own fancies, as they please themselves: Each of the parties in those curious points in which the present differences do most consist, conceive the Articles of the Church to speak for them, exclusive wholly of the other, but with a notable difference in the Application. The Calvinists, Our Divines commonly called Calvi­nists, Yates in Ap, Caesar. cap. 5. p. 38. by which name they love to be called, endeavour to captivate the sense of the Article, and bring it to the bent of their own understanding, but the true English Protestants (whom for di­stinction sake we may call Confessionists) accommodate, though they do not capti­vate, their own sense to the sense of the Church, according to the plain and full meaning of the Articles in the points disputed. But because possibly both parties may not be agreed on a Rule or Medium by which the proper sense and meaning of the Articles may be best discovered, it will not be amiss to follow the directions of the Civil Laws, in cases of like doubtful nature; which is briefly this, viz. Si de interpretatione Legis quaeritur, imprimis inspiciendum est, quo jure Civitas retro in hujusmodi casibus usa fuit: And this we shall the better do, if we enquire into the Doctrine of those Learned, Religious and Godly men, who either had a principal hand in the Reformation, or were most conversant with them; and beloved of them in their se­veral stations, taking along with us the Authority of the Homilies and publick Litur­gy, to which all parties have subscribed. In order whereunto, it will first be neces­sary to lay down the definition of Predestination, as before we had it in the Article, to sum up the particular points and contents thereof, to shew the sense of one phrase in it, and then to travel more exactly in this Enquiry, whether the method of Prede­stination, illustrated by the story of Agilmond and Amistus Kings of Lombardy, cap. 7. num. 4. agree not more hamoniously with the true sense and meaning of the Church of England, than any other whatsoever.

First then, Predestination unto life, II is defined in the seventeenth Article to be the everlast­ing purpose of God, whereby, and before the foundations of the World were laid, he hath constantly decreed by his Council secret unto us, to deliver from damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ unto everlasting salvation. In which definition there are these things to be observed: First, That Predesti­nation doth presuppose a curse or state of damnation in which all mankind was re­presented to the sight of God, which plainly crosseth the Opinion of the Supra-Lapfarians, the Supra-Creaturians, or Credibilitarians, as some call them now. Se­condly, That it is an act of his from Everlasting, because from Everlasting he fore­saw into what misery wretched man would fall, by the abuse of that liberty in which first he stood. Thirdly, That he founded it, and resolved for it in the Man and Media­tor Christ Jesus, both for the purpose and performance; which crosseth as directly with the Sublapsatians, who place the absolute decree of Predestination to life, and of Reprobation unto death, both of body and soul, before the decree or consideration of sending his only beloved Son Jesus Christ into the World, to be the common Propi­tiation for the sins of men. Fourthly, That it was of some special ones alone, Elect called forth, and reserved in Christ, and not generally extended unto all mankind; a General Election, as they say, being no Election. Fifthly, That being thus elected in Christ, they shall be brought by Christ (but not without their own consent and co­operation) to everlasting salvation. And finally, That this Council is secret unto us; for though there be revealed to us some hopeful signs of our Election and Predesti­nation unto life, yet the certainty thereof is a secret hidden in God, and in this life unknown to us; For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or hath been his Counsellour? (or of his Secret Council) saith the great Apostle.

Such is the definition of Predestination, III and the substance of it, in which there is nothing so obscure no term so intricate, as to need any especial or distinct explica­tion, as those words Whom he hath chosen in Christ: which being the very words of the same Apostle; Ephesians first, cap. 4. we will first paraphrase in the words of some ancient Writers,Ambros in E­p [...]st. 1.4. and then illustrate them by others of our holiest Martyrs, who had a principal hand in the Reformation: First, St. Ambrose, amongst others, sicut elegit nos in ipso, as he hath chosen us in him, Praescivit enim Deus omnes, scil. qui credituri essent in Christum: For God (saith he) by his general prescience, did foreknow every man that would believe in Christ: To the same purpose speaks S. Chrysostom, saying, Quod dicit perinde est ac si dicat, Per quem nos benedixit, per eundem & elegit; and a little after, Quid est in ipso elegit? per eam quae in ipso habenda esset, fidem; For, praestitit prius quam ipsi essemus, Chrys in Ep. 14. magis autem prius quam mundi bujus jacerentur Fundamenta: Which is as much as to say (saith he) as if he had said. That we are blessed in him, in whom we are chosen; and we are chosen in him in whom we believe; which he performed before we our selves had any being, or rather before the foundations of the World were laid; And to the same effect, the Commentary upon St. Pauls Epistles, ascribed to St. Jerom: viz. in hoc praedestinavit, ut haberent potestatem filii Dei ficri homines, Hierom. in Epist. 64. qui credere voluissent; that is to say, in this he hath predestinated us to Eternal life, that men may be made the Sons of God, if they will believe. Which say­ings of those ancient Writers, we shall expound by others of our holy Martyrs; and first Archbishop Cranmer, L. 5. p. 372. in his Answer to Gardiner touching the holy Sacrament, tel­leth us this; viz. Christ (saith he) took unto himself not only their sins that many years be­fore were dead, and put their trust in him; but also the sins of those that until his com­ing again, should truly believe in his Gospel: More fully Bishop Latimer, thus, When (saith he) we hear that some be chosen, Serm. 3. Sun­day after Epi­phany. part. 3. fol. 198. and some be damned, let us have good hope that we be amongst the chosen, and live after this hope; that is, uprightly and godly, then shall we not be deceived; think that God hath chosen those that believe in Christ, and Christ is the Book of Life: If thou believest in him, then art thou written in the Book of Life, and shalt be saved. By which we may the better understand that passage in the book of Homilies,Hom. of the misery of Man. f. 8. where it is said, That the Scripture shutteth up all under sin, that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ should be given unto them that believe; which is as much as can be comprehended in so narrow a compass.

This said, IV as in the way of Explication, we will next see what hath been posi­tively delivered by our first Reformers, concerning the fatality or absoluteness of Gods Decrees maintained by Calvin then, and his followers since: Of which thus Bishop Latimer in his Sermon upon Septuagesima. Serm. on Sep­f [...]ages. f. 213. Some vain fellows make their reckoning thus, What need I to mortifie my body, with abstaining from all sin and wickedness? I per­ceive God hath chosen some, and some are rejected; now if I be in the number of the cho­sen, I cannot be damned; but if I be accounted amongst the condemned number, then I cannot be saved: For Gods judgments are immutable; such foolish and wicked reasons some have, which bringeth them either to carnal liberty, or to desperation: Therefore it is as needful to beware of such Reason or Exposition of the Scriptures, as it is to beware of the Devil himself. To the same purpose in his third Sermon after the Epiphany: viz. We read in the Acts of the Apostles, that when St. Paul had made a long Sermon at Antioch, There believed (saith the Evangelist) as many as were ordained unto everlasting life: With the which saying, a great number of people have been offended; and have said, We perceive that only those shall come to believe, and so to everlasting life, which are chosen of God unto it; therefore it is no matter whatsoever we do; for if we be chosen to everlasting life, we shall have it: And so they have opened a door unto themselves of all wickedness and carnal liberty, against the true meaning of the Scripture: For if they must be damned, the fault is not in God, but in themselves; for it is written, Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri, God would have all men should be saved: But they themselves procure their own damnation, and despise the passion of Christ, by their own wicked and inordinate living.

5. V Hooper is bolder yet than he, even to the censuring of those who by the fatality of these Decrees,Hoop. in Pre­fac, before the ten Com­mandm. make God to be the author of sin: And first he lets us know in ge­neral, That the blind Southsayers that write of things to come, were more to be esteemed of than our curious and high-climing Wits; for they attribute the cause of ill to the evil A­spect, and sinister conjunctions of the Planets. Which said, we shall hear him speaking more particularly to the present point,Id. Ibid. in this manner following; viz. It is not a Christian mans part to attribute to his own free will, with the Pelagian, and extenuate Original sin, nor to make God the Author of evil, and our damnation, nor yet to say, God hath written [Page 557]fatal Laws, with the Stoicks, and in the necessity of Destiny, violently pulleth one by the hair into Heaven, and thrusteth the other headlong into Hell. And in another place, Our Gospel­lists, saith he, he better Learned than the Holy Ghost; Id. Ibid. for they wickedly attribute the cause of punishment and adversity to Gods Providence, which is the cause of no ill, as he himself could do no ill; and every mischief that is done, they say, it is Gods will. Id. Ibid. And then again—Howsoever man judgeth of Predestination, God is not the cause of sin, thou art not the God that willest sin; and it is said, That thy Perdition, O Israel, is of thy self, and thy succour only of me. And finally, to shut up his discourse hereof with some Applica­tion, he shall tell us thus: Being admonished by the Scripture, that we must leave sin, Id. Ibid. and do the works commanded of God, it will prove but a carnal opinion which we blind our selves withal, of Fatal Destiny; and in case there follow not in us knowledge of Christ, amendment of life, it is not a lively faith that we have, but rather a vain knowledge, and meer pre­sumption.

Next let us look upon such passages in the writings of those godly men which teach us to enquire no further after our Election, VI than as it is to be found in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: Of which Bishop Latimer in the first place thus, viz. Lat. in Serm. on Septuages. p. 3. fol. 214. If thou art desirous to know whether thou art chosen to everlasting life, thou maist not begin with God; for God is too high, thou canst not comprehend him, the judgments of God are un­known to man, therefore thou must not begin there: But begin with Christ, and learn to know Christ, and wherefore that he came: namely, That he came to save sinners, and made himself a subject of the Law, and fulfiller of the same, to deliver us from the wrath and dan­ger thereof, and therefore was crucified for our sins, &c.—Consider, I say, Christ and his coming, and then begin to try thy self whether thou art in the Book of Life or not: If thou findest thy self in Christ, then thou art sure of everlasting life: If thou be without him, then thou art in an evil case; for it is written, nemo venit ad patrem nisi per me; that is, no man cometh to my Father but through me; therefore if thou knowest Christ, thou maist know further of thy Election. And then in another place.— When we are troubled within our selves, whether we be elected or no, we must ever have this Maxim or principal rule before our eyes; namely, that God beareth a good will towards us, God loveth us, God beareth a Fatherly heart towards us. But you will say, How shall I know that? or how shall I believe that? We may know Gods good will towards us through Christ; for so saith John the Evan­gelist, Filius qui est in sinu patris ipse revelavit; that is, The Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealeed it: Therefore we may perceive his good will and love to­wards us. He hath sens the same Son into the World, which hath suffered most painful death for us: Shall I now think that God hateth me? or shall I doubt of his love towards me? And in another place, Here you see how you shall avoid the scrupulous and most dangerous question of the Predestination of God: for if thou wilt enquire into his Councils, and search his Consistory, thy wit will deceive thee, for thou shalt not be able to search the Council of God: But if thou begin with Christ, and consider his coming into the World, and dost believe that God hath sent him for thy sake to suffer for thee, and to deliver thee from Sin, Death, the Devil, and Hell? Then when thou art so armed with the knowledge of Christ; then (I say) this simple question cannot hurt thee, for thou art in the Book of Life, which is Christ himself—For thus it is writ, Sic Deus dilexit mundum, that God so entirely loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, to the end that all that believed in him should not perish, but have everlasting life; whereby appeareth most plainly, that Christ is the Book of Life, and that all that believe in him, are of the same Book, and so are chosen to everlasting life; for only those are ordained that believe.

Not stays that godly Bishop here, but proceeds (after some intervening passages) towards this Conclusion.

Here is now taught you (saith he) how to try your Election; namely, in Christ: For Christ is the Accompting Book and Register of God, and even in the same Book, that is, Christ, are written all the names of the Elect; therefore we cannot find our Election in our selves, neither yet the high Council of God; for inscrutabilia sunt judicia Altissimi: Where then shall I find my Election? in the Compting Book of God, which is Christ, &c. Agreeable whereunto we find Bishop Hooper speaking thus, The cause of our Election, is the mercy of God in Christ; howbeit, he that will be partaker of this Election, must receive the promise in Christ by faith; for therefore we be Elected, because afterwards we are made the Members of Christ—So we judge of Election by the event or success that hapneth in the life of man; those only to be Elected, that by faith apprehend the mercy promised in Christ. To the same purpose also (but not so clearly and perspicuously) speaks the Book of Homilies;Hom. of the mi­sery of man. fol. 11. where we find it thus, viz. That of our selves (as in our selves) we find nothing whereby [Page 558]we may be delivered from this miserable captivity in which we were cast (through the envy of the Devil) by breaking Gods Commandment in our first Parent Adam: It is the Lord with whom is plenteous Redemption; he is the God which of his own mercy saveth us, &c. not for our own deserts, merits, or good deeds, &c. but of his meer mercy freely, and for whose sake truly, for Christ Jesus sake, the pure and undesiled Lamb of God, &c. for whose sake God is fully pacified, satisfied and set at one with man. Such is the Doctrine of the Church in the matter of Predestination unto life, according to the judgment of these learned men, and godly Martyrs, who were of such Authority in the Reformation.

Proceed we next to one of an inferiour Order, VIII the testimony of John Bradford Martyr, a man in very high esteem with Martin Bucer, made one of the Prebends of S. Pauls Church by Bishop Ridley, and one who glorified God in the midst of the flames, with as great courage as his Patron; of whom we find a Letter extant in the Acts and Monuments, Fox Acts and Mon. fol. 1505. directed to his friends N. S. and R. C. being at that time not tho­roughly instructed in the Doctrine of Gods Election: The words of which Letter are as fol­loweth I wish to you my good Brethren the same grace of God in Christ, which I wish and pray the Father of mercies to give me for his holy names sake, Amen. Your Letter, though I have not read my self, because I would not alienate my mind from conceived things, to write to others, yet I have heard the sum of it, that it is of Gods Election; wherein I wil briefly re­late to you my faith, and how for I think it good and meet for a Christian to wade in. I be­lieve, that man made after the Image of God, did fall from that blessed estate to the condemna­tion of him and all his posterity: I believe that Christ (for man being then fallen) did oppose himself to the judgment of God, as a Mediator paying the ransom and price of Redemption for Adam and his whole Posterity, that refuse it not finally: I believe, that all that believe (I speak of such as be of years of discretion) are partakers of Christ and all his merits: I believe, that faith and belief in Christ is the work and gift of God, given to no other than to those which be his Children; that is, to those whom God the Father before the beginning of the World hath Predestinated in Christ unto Eternal life. Thus do I wade in Predestination, in such sort' as God hath patesied and opened it. Though to God it be the first, yet to us it is the last opened; and therefore I begin with Creation, from whence I come to Redemption, so to Justifi­cation, so to Election. On this sort I am sure that warily and wisely a man may walk it easily by the light of Gods Spirit, in and by his Word, seeing this faith is not to be given to all men, 2 Thes. 3. but to such as are born of God; Predestinated before the World was made, after the purpose and good will of God, &c. Which judgment of this holy man comes up so close to that of the former Martyrs, and is so plainly cross to that of the Calvinistical party, that Mr. Fox was fain to make some Scholia's on it, to reconcile a gloss like that of Orleance, which corrupts the Text; and therefore to have no place here, how­ever it may be disposed of at another time. But besides the Epistle above mentioned, there is extant a Discourse of the said godly Martyr, entituled, The sum of the Doctrine of Predestination and Reprobation; in which is affirmed, That our own wilfulness, sin, and contemning of Christ, are the cause of Reprobation, as is confessed by the Author of the Anti-Arminianism, p. 103. though afterwards he puts such a gloss upon it (as he doth also on the like passages in Bishop Hooper) as makes the sin of man to be the cause only of the execution, and not of the decree of Reprobation.

But it is said, IX That any one that reads the Common-Prayer-book with an unpre­judiced mind,Justifi. Fa­t [...]s. cannot chuse but observe divers passages that make for a Personal, Eter­nal Election. So it is said of late, and till of late never so said by any that ever I heard of, the whole frame and fabrick of the Publique Liturgy being directly opposite to this new conceit. For in the general Confession, we beseech the Lord to spare them that confess their faults, and restore them that be penitent, according to his promises declared unto man­kind in Christ Jesus our Lord: In the Te Deum it is said, that Christ our Saviour having overcome the sharpness of death, did open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers: In the Prayer for the first day of Lent, That God hateth nothing which he hath made, but doth for­give the sins of all them that be penitent: In the Prayer at the end of the Commination, That God hath compassion of all men, that he hateth nothing which he hath made, that he would not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from sin and repent: In the Absolu­tion before the Communion, That God of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them, which with hearty repentance, and true faith, turn unto him. Can any one which comes with an unprejudiced mind to the Common-Prayer book, observe any thing that favoureth of a Personal Election in all these passages? or can he hope to find them in any other? Look then upon the last Exhortation before the Communion, in which we are required above all things, To give most humble and hearty thanks to God the Father, [Page 559]and the Holy Ghost, for the Redemption of the World, by the death and passion of our Saviour Christ, both God and man, who did humble himself even to the death upon the Cross, for us miserable sinners, which lay in darkness and the shadow of death. More of which nature we shall find in the second Article. Look on the Collect in the form of publique Bap­tism, in which we pray, That whosoever is here dedicated unto God by our Office and Mini­stry, may also be endued with Heavenly vertues, and everlastingly rewarded through Gods mercy: O blessed Lord God, &c. And in the Rubrick before Confirmation, where it is said expr sly. That it is certain by Gods Word, that Children being baptized, have all things necessary to their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved. Look on these passages and the rest, and tell me any one that can, whether the publique Liturgy of the Church of England, speak any thing in favour of such a Personal and Eternal Election; that is to say, such an absolute, irrespective, and irreversible Decree of Predestination (and that of some few only) unto life Eternal, as is maintained and taught in the Schools of Calvin.

Some passages I grant there are, which speak of Gods People, and his chosen People, and yet intend not any such Personal and Eternal Election, as these men conceit unto themselves: Of which sort these viz. To declare and pronounce to his People being peni­tent—O Lord save thy People and bless thy Heritage—that it would please thee to keep and bless all thy People—and make thy chosen People joyful, with many others in­ters [...]ers'd in several places: But then I must affirm withal, that those passages are no otherwise to be understood, than of the whole bo y of the Church, the Congregation of the faithful, called to the publique participation of the Word and Sacraments: Which appears plainly by the Prayer for the Church Militant here on earth; where having called upon the Lord, and said, To all thy People give thy Heavenly grace; we are taught presently to add, especially to this Congregation here present; that is to say, the members of that particular Church, which there pour forth their prayers for the Church in general. More to their purpose is that passage in the Collect for the Feast of All-Saints; where it is said, That Almighty God hath knit together his Elect in one com­munion and fellowship in the mystical body of his Son Jesus Christ; though it doth signifie no more but that inseparable bond of Charity, that Love and Unity, that Holy Com­munion and Correspondency which is between the Saints in Glory in the Church Tri­umphant, and those who are still exercised under the cares and miseries of this present life in the Church here Militant. But it makes most unto their purpose (if any thing could make unto their purpose in the Common-Prayer book) that at the burial of the dead we are taught to pray, That God would please of his gracious goodness shortly to ac­complish the number of his elect, and to hasten his Kingdom: From whence, as possibly some may raise this inference, That by the Doctrine of the Church of England, there is a predestinated and certain number of Elect, which can neither be increased nor diminished, according to the third of the nine Articles which were agreed upon at Lambeth: So others may perhaps conclude, That this number is made up out of such Elections, such Personal and Eternal Elections as they have fancied to themselves. But there is no­thing in the Prayer which can be useful to the countenancing of any such fancy, the number of the Elect, and the certainty of that number being known only unto God in the way of his Prescience, by which he seeth all things past, and all things to come, as if present with him. And therefore having past a general Decree of Predestination, touching the saving of all those which believe in Christ, and knowing most infallibly who, and how many of all Nations will believe in Christ, continue in the faith to the end of their lives, and consequently attain salvation. The number of the persons so Predestinated, is as well known unto him in the universal comprehension of his Hea­venly Prescience, as if they had been personally elected unto life Eternal; the accom­plishing of which number, that so his Kingdom may be hastned, and the hastning of his Kingdom, that we, with all the rest which are departed in the true faith of his holy Name, may have our perfect Consummation and bliss both in body and soul, is the scope and purpose of that Prayer: And being the sole scope and purpose of it, cannot imply such a Personal and Eternal Election as some men imagine, though it conclude both for a number, and for a certain number of Gods Elect.

CHAP. X. The Doctrine of the Church concerning Reprobatin and Universal Redemption.

  • 1. The absolute Decree of Reprobation not found in the Articles of this Church, but against it in some passages of the publick Liturgy.
  • 2. The cause of Reprobation to be found in a mans self, and not in Gods Decrees, ac­cording to the judgment of Bishop Latimer, and Bishop Hooper.
  • 3. The Absolute Decrees of Election and Re­probation, how contrary to the last clause in the seventeenth Article.
  • 4. The inconsistency of the Absolute Decree of Reprobation, with the Doctrine of Ʋniver­sal Redemption by the death of Christ.
  • 5. The Ʋniversal Redemption of man-kind by the death of Christ, declared in many places of the publick Liturgy, and affirmed also in one of the Homilies, and the Book of Articles.
  • 6. A further proof of it from the Mission of the Apostles, and the Prayer used in the Ordination of Priests.
  • 7. The same confirmed by the writings of Arch­bishop Cranmer, and the two other Bi­shops before mentioned.
  • 8. A Generality of the Promises, and an Ʋniversality of Vocation, maintained by the said two godly Bishops.
  • 9. The reasons why this benefit is not made effectual to all sorts of men, to be found only in themselves.

AS the speaking of Heaven doth many times beget the discovery of Hell, I so the foregoing discovery of Predestination to Eternal life, conducts me to the speak­ing of a few words concerning the Doctrine of Reprobation, Rejection, Eternal death, a point of which the Church of England is utterly silent, leaving it to be gathered up­on Logical inferences from that which is delivered by her in the point of Election (for contrariorum contraria est ratio, as Logicians say) though that which is so gathered, ought rather to be called a Dereliction than a Reprobation: No such absolute, irreversible, and irrespective Decree of Reprobation, taught or maintained in any publick Monument of Record of the Church of England, by which the far greater part of man-kind are pre­ordained, and consequently pre-condemned to the pit of torments, without any re­spect had unto their sins and incredulities, as generally is maintained and taught in the Schools of Calvin. Much, I am sure, may be said against it out of the passages in the Liturgy before remembred; where it is said, that God hath compassion upon all men, and hateth nothing which he hath made; but much more out of those which are to come in the second Article, touching the Universal Reconciliation of man-kind unto God the Father, by the death of Christ. Take now to more than this one Collect, being the last of those which are appointed for Good Friday, on which we celebrate the me­morial of Christ his death and passion; and is this that followeth, viz. Merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldst the death of a sinner, but rahter that he should be converted and live, have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, In­fidels, and Hereticks, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved amongst the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold, under one Shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord. A Prayer as utterly inconsistent with the Calvinians Decree of Reprobation, as the finding of an Hell in Heaven, or any thing else which seems to be most abhorrent both from faith and piety.

More may be said against it out of the writings of Bishop Latimer and Bishop Hooper before remembred: II Latimer in his 4. Sermon, third Sunday after Epiphany. 4. Serm. in Lincoln. Beginning first with Latimer, he will tell us this, viz. That if most be damned, the fault is not in God, but in themselves; for Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri, God would that all men should be saved, but they themselves procure their own damna­tion. Thus also in another place, That Christ only, and no man else, merited Re­mission, Justification, and Eternal Felicity, for as many as believe the same, that Christ shed as much blood for Judas, as for Peter; that Peter believed it, and there­fore was saved; that Judas could not believe it, therefore was condemned, the fault being in him only, and no body else. More fully, not more plainly, the other Bishop in the said Preface to the Exposition on the Ten Commandments; where it is said, [Page 561] That Cain was no more excluded from the promise of Christ, till he excluded himself, than Abel; Saul, than David; Judas, than Peter; Esau, than Jacob; concerning which two brethren, he further added That in the sentence of God given unto Rebecca, that there was no mention at all, that Esau should be disinherited of Eternal life, but that he should be inferiour to his brother Jacob in this world: which Prophecy (saith he) was fulfilled in their Posterity, and not the persons themselves (the very same withat of Arminius and his followers have since declared in this case.) And this being said, he proceedeth to this Declaration, That God is said by the Prophet to have hated Esau, not because he was disinherited of Eternal life, but in laying his mountains and his heritage waste for the Dragons of the Wilderness, Mal. 1.3. that the threatning of God against Esau (if he had not of wilful malice excluded himself from the promise of grace) should no more have hindred his salvation, than Gods threatning against Nineve; that the cause of Rejection or Damnation is sin in man, which will not hear, neither re­ceive the promise of the Gospel. And finally thus. That by Gods grace we might do the good, Exposit. of the Command. cap. of Ignor. and leave the evil, if it were not through malice or accustomed doing of sin; the which excuseth the mercy and goodness of God, and maketh that no man shall be excused in the latter judg­ment, how subtilly soever they now excuse the matter, and put their evil doings from them, and lay it upon the Predestination of God, and would excuse it by ignorance: or say he can­not be good, because he is otherwise destined; which in the next words he calls A Stoical O­pinion, refuted by those words of Horace; Nemo adeo ferus est, &c.

But that which makes most against the absolute, irrespective, III and irreversible De­cree of Predestination, whether it be life or death, is the last clause of our second Ar­ticle, being the seventeenth of the Church, as before laid down; where it is said that we must receive Gods promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scri­pture, and that in all our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expresly declared to us in holy Scriptures. And in the holy Scripture it is declared to us, That God gave his Son for the World or for all mankind, that Christ offered himself a Sacrifice for all the sins of the whole World, that Christ redeemed all mankind, that Christ command­ed the Gospel to be preached to all; that God wills and commands all men to hear Christ, and to believe in him; and in him to offer grace and salvation unto all men: That this is the infallible truth, in which there can be no falshood; otherwise, the Apostles, and other Ministers of the Gospel, preaching the same, should be false witnesses of God, and should make him a liar; than which nothing can be more repugnant to the Cal­vinian Doctrine of Predestination, which restrains Predestination unto life, in a few particulars, without respect had to their faith in Christ, or Christs sufferings and death for them, which few particulars so predestinate to eternal life. shall (as they tell us) by an irresistible Grace, be brought to God, and by the infallible conduct of the holy Spirit, persevere from falling away from grace and favour: Nothing more contrary to the like absolute decree of Reprobation, by which the infinitely greatest part of all mankind is either doomed remedilesly to the torments of Hell, when they were but in the state of Creability (as the Supralapsarians have informed us) and unavoidably necessitated unto sin, that they might infallibly be damn'd; or otherwise, as miserably, leaving them under such a condition, according to the Do­ctrine of the Sablapsarians, which renders them uncapable of avoiding the wrath to come, and consequently subjected them to a damnation no less certain than if they were created to no other purpose; which makes it seem the greater wonder, that Dr. Ʋsher (afterwards Lord Primate of Ireland) in drawing up the Article of pre­destination for the Church of Ireland, Anno 1615. should take in so much as he doth of the Lambeth Articles, and yet subjoyn this very clause at the foot thereof,Article of Ire­land, Numb. 12.14, 17. which can no more concorporate with it, than any of the most heterogeneous metals can unite into one piece of refined Gold; which clause, as it remaineth in the Articles of the Church of England, how well it was applyed by King James, and others in the Conference at Hampton Court, we shall see hereafter.

In the mean time we must behold another Argument which fights more strongly against the positive decree of Reprobation than any of the rest before; that is to say, IV the reconciliation of all men to Almighty God; the universal redemption of man­kind by the death of Christ, expresly justified and maintained by the Church of Eng­land. For though one in our late undertaking seem exceeding confident, that the granting of universal redemption will draw no inconvenience with it as to the absoluteness of Gods decrees, or to the insuperability of converting Grace, Cap. 10. or to the certain infallible per­severance of Gods Elect aftec Conversion: Yet I dare say, he will not be so confident in affirming this, That if Christ did so far die for all, as to procure a salvation for all, [Page 562]under the condition of faith and repentance, as his own words are, there can be any room for such an absolute decree of Reprobation, Antecedaneous, and precedent to the death of Christ, as his great Masters in the School of Calvin, have been pleased to teach him. Now for the Doctrine of this Church, in that particular, it is exprest so clearly in the second Article of the five before laid down, that nothing needs be ad­ded either in way of explication or of confirmation; howsoever, for avoiding of all doubt and hesitancy, we will first add some farther testimonies touching the Doctrine of this Church in the point of universal Redemption: And secondly, touching the applying of so great a benefit by universal Vocation, and finally we shall shew the causes, why the benefit is not effectual unto all alike.

And first, V as for the Doctrine of Universal Redemption, it may be further proved by those words in the publick Catechism, where the Child is taught to say, that he believeth in God the Son, who redeemed with him all mankind; in that clause of the publick Letany, where God the Son is called the Redeemer of the World,; in the passages of the latter Exhortation before the Communion, where it is said, That the Oblation of Christ once offered, was a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD; in the proper Preface appointed for the Communion on Easter day, in which he is said to be the very Paschal Lamb that was offered for us, and taketh away the sins of the world, repeated in the Gloria in excelsis to the same effect.Hom. Salva­tion. p. 13. And finally, in the Prayer of Conservation; viz. Almighty God, our heavenly Father, which of thy tender mercies didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our Redemption, who made there by his own Oblation of himself once offered, a firm, and perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation, and Satisfaction for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD. To this purpose it is said in the book of Homilies, That the World being wrapt up in sin by the breaking of Gods Law, God sent his only Son our Saviour Christ into this world to fulfil the Law for us; and by shedding of his most precious blood, to make a Sacrifice and Satisfaction, or as it may be called, amends to his Fa­ther for our sins, to asswage his wrath and indignation conceived against us for the same. Out of which words it may be very well concluded, That the World being wrapt up in sin, the Recompence and Satisfaction which was made to God, must be made to him for the sins of the World, or else the plaister had not been commensurate to the sore, nor so much to the magnifying of Gods wonderful mercies in the offered means of Reconcilement betwixt God and man; the Homily must else fall short of that which is taught in the Articles: In which (besides what was before delivered from the se­cond and 31. concerning the Redemption of the world by the death of Christ) it is affirm­ed in the 15. as plain as may be, That Christ came to be a Lamb without spot, who by the Sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world: Than which there can be nothing more conducible to the point in hand.

And to this purpose also, VI when Christ our Saviour was pleased to Authorize his Holy Apostles to preach the good Tidings of Salvations, he gave them both a Com­mand and a Commission, To go unto all the World, and preach the Gospel to every Crea­ture, Mark 16.15. So that there was no part of the World, nor any Creature in the same, (that is to say, no rational Creature) which seems to be excluded from a Pos­sibility of obtaining Salvation by the Preaching of the Gospel to them, if with a faith unfeigned they believe the same, which the Church further teacheth us in this fol­lowing Prayer, appointed to be used in the Ordering of such as are called to the Office of the holy Priesthood; viz. Almighty God and Heavenly Father, which of thine Infinite Love and Goodness toward us, hast given to us thy only and most Dear Beloved Son Jesus Christ, to be our Redeemer and Author of Everlasting Life; who after he had made perfect our Redemption by his Death, and was ascended into Heaven, sent forth abroad into the world, his Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Doctors and Pastors, by whose labour and Ministry, he gathered together a great Flock in all the parts of the World, to set forth the Eternal Praise of his Holy Name: For these so great Benefits of thy Eternal Goodness, and for that thou hast vouchsafed to call thy Servant here present to the same Office and Ministry of Salvation of Mankind, we render unto thee most hearty thanks, and we worship, and praise thee; and we humbly beseech thee, by the same, thy Son, to grant unto all, which either here, or elsewhere call upon thy Name, that we may shew our selves thankful to thee for these and all other thy benefits; and that we may daily increase and go forward in the knowledg and faith of thee and thy Son, by the Holy Spirit: So that as well by these thy Ministers, as by them to whom they shall be appointed Ministers thy Holy Name may be always glorified, and thy Blessed Kingdom enlarged; through the same, thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the [Page 563] Ʋnity of the same Holy Spirit, world without end, Amen. Which Form in Ordering and Consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons (I note this only by the way) being drawn up by those which had the making of the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth, and confirmed by Act of Parliament in the fifth and sixth of the said King, was afterwards also ratified by Act of Parliament in the eighth year of Queen Elizabeth, and ever since hath had its place amongst the publick Monuments and Records of the Church of England.

To these I shall only add one single testimony out of the Writings of each of the three godly Martyrs before remembred, VII the point being so clearly stated by some of our Divines, commonly called Calvinists (though not by the Outlandish, also) that any longer insisting on it may be thought unnecessary: First then, Bishop Cranmer tells us in the Preface to his Book against Gardiner of Winchester aforementioned, That our Saviour Christ, according to the will of his Eternal Father, when the time thereof was fully accomplished, taking our Nature upon him, came into this World, from the high Throne of his Father, to declare unto miserable Sinners the Goodness, &c. To shew that the time of Grace and Mercy was come, to give light to them that were in darkness and in the shadow of death, and to preach and give Pardon and full Remission of sin to all his Elected: And to perform the same, he made a Sacrifice and Oblation of his body upon the Cross which was a full Redemption, Satisfaction and Propitiation for the sins of the whole World. More briefly Bishop Latimer thus, The Evangelist saith, When Jesus was born, &c. Serm. 1. Sund. after Epiph. What is Jesus? Jesus is an Hebrew word, which signifieth in our English Tongue a Saviour and Redeemer of all Mankind born into the World. This Title and Name To save, appertaineth properly and principally unto him; for he saved us; else had we been lost for ever. Bishop Hooper in more words to the same effect, That as the sins of Adam,Pref. to the ten Comman­dments. without Priviledg or Exemption, extended and appertained unto all and every of Adams Posterity; so did this Promise of Grace generally appertain as well to every and singular of Adams Posterity as to Adam; as it is more plainly expressed, where God promiseth to bless in the seed of Abra­ham; all the people of the World.

Next for the point of Ʋniversal Vocation, VIII and the extent of the Promises touching life Eternal: besides what was observed before from the Publick Liturgy, we find some Testimonies and Authorities also in the Book of Homilies. In one whereof it is declared, That God received the learned and unlearned, and casteth away none, Hom. of Holy Scrip. p. 5. but is indifferent unto all. And in another place more largely, that the imperfection or na­tural sickness taken in Adam, excludeth not that person from the promise of God in Christ, except we transgress the limits and bounds of this Original sin, by our own folly and malice; If we have Christ, then have we with him, Hom. against fear of death. p. 62. and by him all good things what­soever we can in our hearts wish or desire; as Victory over death, sin, hell, &c. The truth hereof is more clearly evidenced in the Writings of the godly Martyrs so often men­tioned; as first of Bishop Latimer, who discourseth thus; We learn, saith he, by this sentence, that multi sunt vocati, that many are called, &c. that the preaching of the Go­spel is universal, that it appertaineth to all mankind, Serm. Septure. that it is written in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, through the whole world their sound is heard. Now seeing that the Gospel is universal, it appeareth that he would have all mankind be saved; that the fault is not in him if they be damned; for it is written thus, Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri, God would have all mankind saved; his salvation is sufficient to save all mankind. Thus also in another place, That the promises of Christ our Saviour are general, they appertain to all mankind: He made a general Proclamation, saying, Qui credit in me,1 Serm: Lincol: habet vitam aeternam, Whosoever believeth me, hath eternal life—And not long after in the same Sermon, That we must consider wisely what he saith with his own mouth, Venite and me om­nes,Hook. pres. to Commo. &c. Mark here, he saith, mark here, he saith, Come all ye; wherefore should any body despair, or shut out himself from the promises of Christ, which be general, and apper­tain to the whole world? The like saith Bishop Hooper also, telling us,Pref. to his Exposition. There was no di­versity in Christ of Jew or Gentile; that it was never forbid, but that all sorts of people, and every propeny of the World, to be made partakers of the Jews Religion. And then again in the example of the Ninevites: Thou hast, saith he, good Christian Reader, the mercy of God, and general promise of salvation performed in Christ, for whose sake only God and man were set at one.

The less assistance we had from Bishop Hooper in the former points, IX the more we shall receive in this, touching the causes why this great benefit is not made effectual unto all alike: Concerning which, he lets us know. That to the obtaining the first end of his justice, he allureth as many as be not utterly wicked, and may be helped, Ibid. partly with [Page 564]threatnings, and partly with promises, and so provoketh them unto amendment of life, &c. and would have all men to be saved; therefore provoketh now by fair means, now by foul, that the sinner should satisfie his just and righteous pleasure; not that the promises of God appertain to such as will not repent, or his threatnings unto him that doth repent; but these means he useth to save his creature; this way useth he to nurture us, until such time as the holy Spirit worketh such a perfection in us, that we will obey him, though there were neither pain nor joy mentioned at all—And in another place more briefly. That if either out of a contempt or hate of Gods Word we fall into sin, and transform our selves into the image of the Devil, then we exclude our selves by this means from the promises and merits of Christ. Serm. 1. Sund. after Epiph. Bishop La­timer to the same point also: His salvation is sufficient to satisfie for all the World, as con­cerning it self; but as concerning us, he saveth no more than such as put their trust in him; and as many as believe in him shall be saved; the other shall be cast out as Infidels into ever­lasting damnation; not for lack of salvation, but for infidelity and lack of faith, which is the only cause of their damnation. One word more out of Bishop Hooper to conclude this point, which in fine is this, To the Objection (saith he) touching that S. Peter speaketh of such as shall perish for their false doctrine, &c. this the Scripture answereth, that the promise of grace appertaineth to every sort of men in the world, and comprehendeth them all, howbeit within certain limits and bounds, the which if men neglect to pass over, they exclude them­selves from the promise of Christ.

CHAP. XI. Of the Heavenly influences of Gods grace in the Conversion of a Sinner, and mans co-operation with those Heavenly influences.

  • 1. The Doctrine of Deserving Grace ex con­gruo, maintained in the Roman Schools before the Council of Trent, rejected by our ancient Martyrs, and the Book of Ar­ticles.
  • 2. The judgment of Dr. Barns and Mr. Tyn­dal, touching the necessary workings of Gods grace on the will of man, not different from that of the Church of England.
  • 3. Ʋniversal grace maintained by Bishop Hooper, and proved by some passages in the Liturgy and Book of Homilies.
  • 4. The offer of Ʋniversal grace made in­effectual to some, for want of faith; and to others, for want of repentance, according to the judgment of Bishop Hooper.
  • 5. The necessity of Grace preventing, and the free co-operation of mans will being so pre­vented, maintained in the Articles, in the Homilies, and the publick Liturgy.
  • 6. The necessity of this co-operation on the part of man, defended, and applied to the ex­ercise of a godly life, by Bishop Hooper.
  • 7. The Doctrine of Irresistibility, first broached by Calvin, pertinaciously maintained by most of his followers, and by Gomarus a­mongst others.
  • 8. Gainsaid by Bishop Hooper, and Bishop Latimer.
  • 9. And their gainsayings justified by the tenth Article of King Edwards Books.
  • And 10. The Book of Homilies.

THIS leads me unto the Disputes touching the influences of Grace, I and the co-ope­ration of mans will with those Heavenly influences, in which the received Do­ctrine of the Church of Rome seems to have had some alteration to the better, since the debating and concluding of those points in the Council of Trent; before which time the Doctrine of the Roman Schools was thought to draw too near to the lees of Pelagia­nism, to ascribe too much to mans Free-will, or so much to it at the least, as by the right use of the powers of nature, might merit grace ex congruo (as the School-men phrase it) of the hands of God. Against this it was that Dr. Barnes declared, as before was said in his discourse about Free-will; and against which the Church of England then declared in the 13 Article,His works, p. 821. affirming, That such works as are done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, do not make men meet to receive grace; or (as the School-men say) deserve grace of Congruity. Against which Tyndal gives this note, That Free-will preventeth not Grace; which certainly he had never done, if somewhat to the contrary had not been delivered in the Church of Rome; and against which it was declared by John Lambert, another of our ancient Martyrs, in these following [Page 565]words, viz. Concerning Free-will (saith he) I mean altogether, as doth S. Augustine, that of our selves we have no liberty nor ability to do the will of God, but are subject unto sin, Acts and Mn. fol. 1009. and thrals of the same, conclusi sub peccato; or as witnesseth S. Paul: But by the grace of God we are rid and set at liberty, according to the proportion that every man hath taken of the same, some more, some less,

But none more fully shewed himself against this opinion than Dr. Barnes before re­membred, II not touching only on the by,Collection of his works by I. D. sol. 266. but writing a Discourse particularly against the errours of that time in this very point: But here (saith he) we will search what strength is of man in his natural power, without the Spirit of God, to will or do those things that be acceptable before God, unto the fulfilling of the will of God, &c. A search which had been vain and needless, if nothing could be found which tended to the mainte­nance of acting in spiritual matters, by mans natural power, without the workings of the Spirit: And therefore he saith very truly, That man can do nothing by his Free-will, as Christ teacheth (for without me ye can do nothing, &c.) where it is opened, that Free­will without Grace can do nothing (he speak not of eating and drinking, though they be works of Grace) but nothing that is fruitful, that is meritorious, that is worthy of thanks, that is acceptable before God. To which effect we also find these brief Remembrances, Mans Free-will without Gods Grace, can do nothing that is good, p. 268. that all which Free-will can do without Grace, is but sin, &c. fol 269. In which passages of those godly Mar­tyrs, as there is nothing in it self not Divine and Orthodox, so find we somewhat in their writings, which doth as truly and Religiously express the workings of Gods Spirit in the heart of man, without depriving him of the ability of co-operation, which afterwards was taught and countenanced by the Church of England: Of which thus Tyndal in his Path-way; Collection of his works, sol. 382. When the Evangelion is preached (saith he) the Spirit of God entreth into them whom God hath ordained and appointed to Everlasting life, and openeth their inward eyes, and worketh such a belief in them, when the woful Consciences feel and taste how sweet a thing the bitter death of Christ is, and how merciful and loving God is through Christs Purchasing and Merits, so that they begin to love again, and consent to the Law of God, how that it is good, and ought so to be, and that God is righteous that made it, and desire to fulfil the Law, as a sick man desireth to be whole. According to which Doctrine,19. Sund. after Trin. the Church hath taught us to pray thus, viz. O God, forasmuch as without thee we are not able to please thee, grant that that working of the Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts, through Christ our Lord, Amen. More of which Prayers might be produced to the same effect, were not this enough; the point concerning the necessity of Gods grace to­wards mans Conversion, not being in Dispute between the Parties.

Now for Gods Grace, according as it is set forth in the Church of England, III we shall consider it in the general offer and extent, the efficacious workings of it, and the con­currence of mans will in the beginning and accomplishment of his own Conversion: And first, as to the general offer of the Grace of God, we find Bishop Hooper thus dis­coursing in the sixth Chapter of his Exposition of the Ten Commandments: Thus did S. Paul (saith he) convince the Gentiles of sin, because they knew the evil they did was condemned by the testimony of their own Conscience; for the Law of God to do well by, is na­turally written in the heart of every man: He that will diligently search himself, Exposi. cap. 6. shall some­time find the same; and in case man should behold his own misery both in body and soul, al­though there were no Law correcting, nor no Heavens over our heads to testifie the justice and judgment of God, and the equity of an honest life, mans Conscience would tell him when he doth well, and when he doth evil—Further (saith he) the judgment and discovery of Rea­son, directs not only to live just in this World, but also to live for ever in Eternal felicity without end: And that cometh by the similitude of God which remaineth in the soul since the sin of Adam; whereby we plainly see, that those excuses of ignorance be damnable, when man sees that he could do well if he followed the judgment of his own Conscience. Our Articles indeed say nothing to this particular, but our Liturgy doth; and somewhat is found also of it in the Book of Homilies: For what can be more clear and full than that clause in the Collect, where it is said if God Almighty, That he sheweth to all men being in errour, the light of his truth, to the intent they may return to the way of righteousness, &c. What more com­fortable to a man deprived of the outward benefit of the Word and Sacraments, than that clause in the Homily, where it is said,Exhortation to Holy Scripture, Hom. p. 5. That if we lack a Learned man to instruct and teach us, God himself from above will give light unto our minds, and teach us those things which are necessary for us.

If then it be demanded, IV How it comes to pass that this general Overture of Grace becomes so little efficacious in the hearts of men? we shall find Bishop Hooper ascri­bing [Page 566]it in some men to the lack of faith; and in others, to the want of repentance: Touching the first,Pres. to the Ex­post. of the Law. he tells us this, That S. Paul concludes, and in a manner includeth the Divine Grace and Promise of God within certain terms and limits; that only Christ should be profitable and efficacious to those that apprehend and receive this abundant Grace by faith; and to such as have not the use of faith, neither Christ, nor Gods Grace to appertain. After which he proceedeth in this manner toward the other sort of men, which make not a right use of this general Grace for want of Repentance:d. ib. Howbeit (saith he) that we know by the Scripture, that notwithstanding this imperfection of faith, many shall be saved; and likewise, notwithstanding that Gods promise be general, unto all people of the world, yet many shall be damned. These two points must therefore diligently be discussed; first, how this faith being unperfect, is accepted of God; then, how we be excluded from the promise of grace that extendeth to all men, &c. To which first it is thus answered, That S. Paul, S. John, and Christ himself, damneth the contemners of God, or such as willingly continue in sin, and will not repent; these the Scripture excludeth from the general promise of Grace.

Here then we have the Doctrine of the Church of England delivered in the Liturgy, V and the Book of Homilies, more punctually pressed and applied in the words of godly Bishop Hooper, concerning Universal Grace, and somewhat also of the reasons of its not being efficacious in all sorts of men, relating to that liberty which remains in man, of closing or contending with it, as he is either ruled by reason, or else misguided by the tyranny of his lusts and passions. But before I come unto this point, we may be­hold the necessary workings of Gods Grace, preventing man by the inspirations of his holy Spirit, and the concurrence or co-operation of mans will being so prevented, which is, the Celestial influences of the Grace of God: Of which the Church hath spoken so fully in all the Authentick Monuments and Records thereof, that no true English Protestant can make question of it:Artic. 10. For thus she tells us in the tenth Article of her Confession, viz. That the condition of man after the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God: Where­fore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable unto God, without the Grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will and working with us, when we have that good will. In the first clause the Church declares her self against the old Pela­gians, and some of the great School-men in the Church of Rome; and in the last, against the Manichees, and some of the more rigid Lutherans in the Churches Protestant, which make man in the work of his own Conversion to be no other than a Statue, or a senseless stock:Exhort. to the reading of the Scrip. p. 6. Contrary whereunto we are instructed in the Homily exhorting to the reading of holy Scripture, to use all possible endeavours in our own Salvation. If we read once, twice, or thrice, and understand not, let us not cease so, but still continue reading, praying, asking of other men, and so by still knocking, at last the door shall be opened (as S. Augustine hath it) which counsel had been vain and idle, if man were not invested with a liberty of complying with it. More plainly is the same ex­prest in many of our publick Prayers,Collect for Easter day. as partly in the Collect for Easter day; in which we humbly beseech Almighty God, That as by his special Grace preventing us, he doth put in our mind good desires, so by his continual fellowship, that he would bring the same to good effect. Col. after Trin. And in that on the seventh Sunday after Trinity, That his Grace may al­ways prevent and follow us, and make us continually to be given to all good works. But most significantly we have it in one of the Collects after the Communion, that namely in which we pray to the Lord,Col. before the Communion. To prevent us in all our doings by his most glorious favour, and further us with his continual help, that in all our works begun, and continued in him, we may so glorifie his holy Name, that finally, by his mercy we may obtain life everlasting, through Christ Jesus our Lord. So that upon the whole matter it needs must follow, that as we can do nothing acceptable in the sight of God, without Grace preventing; so by the freedom of mans will, co-operating with the Grace preventing, and by the subsequent Grace of God co-operating with the Will of man, we have a power of doing such works as are agreeable to the will of our Heavenly Father.

Now to this plain Song of the Articles, VI the Homilies, and the Publique Liturgy, it may be thought superfluous to make a descant, or add the light of any Commentary to so clear a Text. And yet I cannot baulk some passages in Bishop Hooper, which declare his judgment in the point; where he not only speaks of mans concurrence or co-operation with the Grace of God, but lays his whole damnation on the want there­of: Look not therefore (saith he) on the promises of God, Preface to his Exposities, &c. but also what diligence and obe­dience he requireth of thee, lest thou exclude thy self from the promise: There was promised [Page 567]to all those that went out of Egypt with Moses, the Land of Canaan; howbeit, for disobe­dience of Gods Commandments, there were but one or two that entred. This he affords in his Preface, and more than this in his tenth Chapter of the Exposition, relating to the common pretence of Ignorance: For though (saith he) thou canst not come to so far knowledge in the Scripture as others that believe, by reason thou art unlearned, or else thy vo­cation will not suffer thee all days of thy life to be a Student, yet must thou know, and upon pain of damnation art bound to know God in Christ, and the holy Catholick Church; Hoop. cap. dign. by the Word written, the Ten Commandments, to know what works thou shouldst do, and what to leave un­done; the Pater noster, Christ his Prayer, which is an Abridgement, Epitomy, or compen­dious Collection of all the Psalms and Prayers written in the whole Scripture, in the which thou prayest for the remission of sin, as well for thy self, as for all others, desirest the Grace of the Holy Ghost to preserve thee in vertue, givest thanks for the goodness of God toward thee and all others. He that knoweth less than this, cannot be saved; and he that knoweth no more than this, if be follow his knowledge, cannot be damned.

But the main Controversie in the point of mans Conversion, moves upon this hinge; VII that is to say, whether the influences of gods Grace be so strong and powerful, that withal they are absolutely irresistible, so that it is not possible for the will of man not to consent unto the same. Calvin first harped upon this string, and all his followers since have danced to the tune thereof, Illud toties à Chrysostomo repetitum repudiari necesse est, Calv. Institut. lib. 2. cap. 3. Quem trabit, volentem trahit, quo insinuat Dominum porrecta tantum manu expectare an suo auxilio juvari nobis adlubescat. These words (saith he) so often repeated by Chrysostom, viz. That God draws none but such as are willing to go, are to be condemned, the Father intimating by those words, that God expecteth only with an out-stretched and ready arm, whether we be willing or not: In which, though he doth not express clearly the good Fathers meaning, yet he plainly doth declare his own, insinuating,Declar. p. 20. that God draws men forcibly, and against their will to his Heavenly Kingdom. Gomarus, one of later date, and a chief stickler in these Controversies, comes up more fully to the sense which Calvin drives at: For putting the question in this manner, An gratia haec datur vi irresistibili, id est, efficaci operatione Dei, ita ut voluntas ejus qui regeneratur, facultatem non habeat illi resistendi? He answereth presently, Credo & profiteor ita esse; that is to say, his question is, Whether the Grace of God be given in an irresistible manner; that is to say, with such an efficacious operation, that the will of him who is to be regenerated, hath not the power to make resistance? And then the answer follows thus, I believe and profess it to be so. More of which kind might be produced from other Authors, but that this serves sufficiently to set forth a Doctrine which is so little countenanced by the burning and most shining lights of the Church of England.

Beginning first with Bishop Hooper, we shall find it thus: VIII It is not (saith he) a Chri­stian mans part to attribute his salvation to his own Free-will, with the Pelagian,Pres. to his Exp. and exte­nuate Original sin, nor to make God the Author of ill and damnation, with the Maniche; nor yet to say that God hath written Fatal Laws, and with necessity of Destiny, violently pulleth the one by the hair into Heaven, and thrusteth the other headlong into Hell, &c. More fully in his gloss on the Text of St. John, viz. No man cometh to me except my Father draw him, chap. 6.44. Many (saith he) understand these words in a wrong sence, as if God re­quired no more in a reasonable man than in a dead post, and mark not the words which follow, Every man that heareth, and learneth of my Father, cometh unto me, &c. God draw­eth with his Word and the Holy Ghost, but mans duty is to hear and learn; that is to say, to receive the grace offered, consent to the promise, and not to impugn the God that calleth. More fully, but to the same purpose also speaks Bishop Latimer. Gods salvation, saith he, is sufficient to save all man-kind: But we are so wicked of our selves, that we refuse the same; Serm. on Septu. fol. 214. and we will not take it when 'tis offered unto us, and therefore he saith, pauci vero electi, few are chosen; that is, few have pleasure and delight in it, for the most part are weary of it, can­not abide it; and there are some that hear it, but they will abide no danger for it,—And in few lines after thus, Such men are cause of their own damnation; for God would have them saved, but they refuse it, like Judas the Traytor, whom Christ would have had to be saved, but he refused his salvation, he refused to follow the Doctrine of his Master Christ. The like occurs in another place of the same Sermon, where we find, That seeing the preaching of the Gospel is universal, it appeareth that God would have all man-kind saved; and that the fault is not in him if they be damned: For thus it is written, Deus vult omnes homines falvos fieri, God would have all men to be saved, but we are so wicked of our selves, that we refuse the same, and will not take notice of it when 'tis offered.

And here for strength and confirmation unto all the rest, IX we are to know that these two godly Martyrs have delivered no other Doctrine than what is positively expressed, or may be rationally inferred both from the tenth Article of King Edwards book, and the book of Homilies. And first for the tenth Article of King Edwards book, it is this that followeth, viz. Gratia Christi, sive Spiritus Sanctus qui per eundem datur, cor lapideum aufert, & dat cor carneum. Atque licet ex nolentibus quae recta sunt, volentes faciat, & ex volentibus prava, nolentes reddat: Voluntati tamen nullam violentiam infert, & nemo hac de causa cum peccaverit, ut eam ob causam, accusari nonmereatur aut damnari. That is to say—The Grace of Christ, or the Holy Ghost which is given by him, doth take from man the heart of stone, and giveth him a heart of flesh: And though it rendreth us willing to do those goed worke which before we were unwilling to do, and unwilling to do those evil works which before we did; yet is no violence offered by it to the will of man; so that no man when he hath sinned can excuse himself, as if he had sinned against his will, or upon constraint; and therefore that he ought not to be accused or condemned upon that account. The composition of which Article doth most clearly shew that our first Reformers did as little counte­nance that Doctrine of the Irresistibility of Gods grace in its workings on the will of man, which the Calvinians now contend for, as they did the Dreams and Dotages of some zuinglian Gospellers, into whose writings if we look, we shall easily find that Gods divine Predestination is by them made the cause of sin, by which men are ne­cessitated and compelled to those acts of wickedness which they so frequently commit: By the vertue of Gods will, saith one, all things are done, yea even those things which are evil and excerable. By Gods Predestination, saith another, we are compelled to do those things for which we are damned, as will appear more fully in the sixtecnth Chapter, when the extravagancies of the Predestinarians come to be considered. And it is pro­bable enough, that to encounter with these monstrous Paradoxes of the Zuinglian Gospellers, this Article was first composed; in which Provision seems to have been made against all those who taught that men sinned against their wills, or upon constraint, or that men might excuse themselves from the blame thereof upon that consideration. If any of the Calvinian factions can find any thing in this Article against Arminianism (as they call it) or in defence of the determining of the will by converting grace, or the consistency of the freedom or liberty of the will, much good may it do them. But then they should think themselves obliged to give a better reason than I think they can, why this article is not to be found in the Book as now it is Printed. Either this Article was not made in favour of Calvinism, when it was published with the rest in King Edwards time; or the Re­formers of the Church under Queen Elizabeth, were no friends to Calvinism, in cansing it to be left out in the second Book, Anno 1562. to which subscription is re­quired by the Laws of the Land.

Proceed we next unto the book of Homilies; X in the one of which we find this passage,Hom. of the Mis. of Man. p. 10. that few of the proud, learned, wise, perfect, and holy Pharisees was saved by Christ, because they justified themselves by their counterfeit holiness before men.—And in ano­ther thus, But the corrupt inclination of man was so much given to follow his own fancies (and as you would say) to favour his own bird, Hom. of good works, p. 33. that he worships himself, that all the ad­monitions, exhortations, benefits, and the precepts of God, could not keep him from their inten­tion. More clearly and expresly in another place, where after the recitation of some pious duties by God commended to the Jews, the Homily proceeds in this manner following: But these things they passed not of, they turned their backs and went their way; they stopped their ears that they might not hear, 1. p. of the Ser. of felling from God, p. 53. and they hardned their hearts as an Adamant stone, that they might not listen to the Law, and the words that the Lord had sent through his holy Spirit: Wherefore the Lord shewed his great indignation upon them. It came to pass (saith the Prophet) even as I told them, and they would not hear, so when they cried they were not heard, but were scattered into all Kingdoms, which they never knew, and their Land was made desolate. And to be short, all they that may not abide the Word of God, but following the persuasions and stubbornness of their own hearts, go back­ward and not forward (as is said in Jeremy) they go and turn away from God. Nor is this spoken only of such a temporary resistance as may be overcome at last by the un­conquerable power of the Spirit of God; but even of such an obstinate and perverse re­sistance, as in the end will lead the way to a final Apostacy, an unrecoverable forsaking of God, and being as irrecoverably forsaken by him: Of which we shall speak more at large in the fifth and last Article, concerning the uncertainty of perseverance.

CHAP. XII. The Doctrine of Freewill agreed upon by the Clergy in their Con­vocation, Anno 1543.

  • 1. Of the Convocation holden in the year, 1543. in order to the Reformation of Re­ligion in points of Doctrine.
  • 2. The Article of Freewil in all the powers and workings of it, agreed on by the Pre­lates and Clergy of that Convocation, a­greeable to the present Doctrine of the Church of England.
  • 3. An Answer to the first Objection concern­ing the Popishness of the Bishops and Clergy in that Convocation.
  • 4. The Article of Freewil approved by King Henry the eighth, and Archbishop Cran­mer.
  • 5. An Answer to the last Objection concern­ing the Conformity of the Article to the present established Doctrine in the Church of Rome.

BUT First, I am to take in my way another evidence, I which though it hath not so directly the forced of Law to bind us to consent unto it, and perhaps may not be considered amongst the Monuments and Records of the Reformation; yet it speaks plainly the full sense of our first Reformers, I speak this of a pithy, but short Discourse, touching the nature of Freewil, contained amongst some others, in the Book published by the Authority of King Henry the cighth, in the year 1543. entituled, A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for all Christian men: Concerning which, as we have spoken at large already in Ch. 8. of this Work, so now we must add something touching this particular, of which there was no notice taken in the Bishops book: For when the Bishops Book which had been printed in the year 1537. under the Title of An Instituti­on for a Christian man, had for some time continued without alteration, it was brought under the review of the Bishops and Clergy assembled in their Convocation, An. 1543. and having been reviewed in all the parts and members of it, a particular Treatise touching the nature of Freewil, which in those times had exercised the greatest wits: Of which I find this Memorandum in the Acts of the Convocation; that is to say,Art. of Confes. 1543. Aprill. ult. That on Monday, being the last of April, Lecto & publice exposito Articulo Liberi Arbi­trii in vulgari, &c. The Article of Freewil being read, and publickly expounded in the English Tongue, the most Reverend Archbishops delivered it into the hands of the Prolocutor, to the end that he should publish it before the Clerks of the lower House of Convocation, as is accustomed in such cases, Quo lecto, & per eos approbato; which being read and approved by them, it was returned with the residue to the upper House of Convocation, with this Approbation, Quod pro Catholicis & Religiosis acce­perunt, necnon gratias ingentes patribus egerunt, quod tantos labores, sudores, & vigilias Religionis & Reipublicae causa, & unitatis gratia subierant; that is to say, that they embraced them all for sound and Orthodox, rendring unto the Fathers their most humble thanks for the great care and pains which they had undertaken for the good of the Church and Commonwealth, and the preserving of peace and unity among the people. Which passage I have at large laid down, to shew by whose hands, and by what Authority, as well the Book it self, which we have spoken of before, as this particular Treatise in it, was at first fashioned and set forth. And that being said, I shall first present the Treatise or Discourse it self, and after Answer such Objections as either prejudice or partiality may devise against it. Now the article followeth in haec verba.

The Article of Freewill.

The Commandments and threatnings of Almighty God in Scripture, II whereby man is called upon, and put in remembrance what God would have him to do, Rom. 12. 1 Tim. 4. 1 John 2. Matth. 19. most evidently do express and declare, that man hath Freewil also now after the fall of our first Father Adam, as plainly appeareth in these places following. Be not overcome of evil, neg­lect [Page 570]not the grace that is in thee; Love not the World, &c. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments. Which undoubtedly should be said in vain, unless there were some faculty or power left in man, whereby he may by the help and grace of God (if he will receive it, when it is offered him) understand his Commandments, and freely consent unto and obey them: which thing of the Catholick Fathers is called Freewill, which if we will describe, we may call it conveniently in all men, A certain power of the Will joyned with Reason, whereby a reasonable creature, without constraint in things of Reason, discerneth and willeth good and evil; but it willeth not the good which is acceptable to God, except it be holpen with Grace; but that which is ill it willeth of it self. And therefore other men define Freewill in this wise. Freewill is a power and Reason of Will by which good is chosen by the assistance of Grace, as evil is chosen without the assistance of the same.

Howbeit the state and condition of Freewill was otherwise in our first Parents, before they sinned, than it was either in them or their Posterity after they had sinned. For our first Pa­rents, Adam and Eve, until they wounded and overthrew themselves by sin, had so in possession the said power of Freewill by the most liberal gift and grace of God their Maker, that noe only they might eschew all manner of sin, but also know God and love him, and fulfil all things appertaining to their felicity and welfare; For they were made righteous, and to the image and similitude of God, 1. [...]. 16. having power of Freewill (as Chrysostom saith) to obey or disobey; so that by obedience they might live, and by disobedience they should worthily deserve to die. A For the wise man affirmeth of them that the state of them was of this sort in the beginning, saying thus, God in the beginning did create man, and left him in the hands of his own counsel, he gave unto him his Precepts and Commandments, saying, If thou wilt keep these Commandments, they shall preserve thee; He hath set before thee fire and water, put forth thy hands to whether thou wilt; before man is life and death, good and evil; what him listeth, that shall he have. From this must happy estate our first Parents falling by disobedience, most grievously hurted themselves and their posterity; for besides many other evils that came by that transgression, the high power of mans Reason and Freedom of will were wounded and corrupted, and all men thereby brought into such blindness and infirmity, that they cannot eschew sin, except they be made free and illuminated by an especial grace, that is to say, by a supernatural help and working of the holy Ghost, which although the goodness of God offers to all men, yet they only enjoy it, which by their Freewill do accept and embrace the same.

Nor they also that be holpen by the said grace can accomplish and perform things that be for their wealth, but with much labour and endeavour; So great is in our Nature the corruption of the first sin, and the heavy burden hearing us down to evil. For truly albeit the light of Reason doth abide, yet is it much darkned, and with much difficulty doth discern things that be inferiour, and pertain to this present life; but to understand and perceive things that be spiritual, and pertain to that everlasting life, it is of it self unable. And so likewise there remains a certain freedom of the will in those things which do pertain unto the desires and works of this present life; yet to perform spiritual and heavenly things, Freewill of it self is unsufficient; and therefore the power of mans Freewill being thus wounded and decayed, hath need of a Physician to heal it; and one help to repair it, that it may receive light and strength, whereby it may be so, and have power to do those godly and spiritual things which before the fall of Adam it was able and might have done.

To this blindness and infirmity of mans Nature, proceeding of Original sin the Prophet David hath regard, when he desired his eyes to be lightened of Almighty God, that he might consider the marvellous things that be in his Law. And also the Prophet Je­remy saying, Psalm 115. Jer. 16. Heal me O Lord, and I shall be made whole. Augustin also plainly de­clareth the same, saying, We conclude that Freewill is in man after his fall, which thing whoso denieth, is not a Catholick man; but in spiritual desires and works to please God, it is so weak and feeble, hat it cannot eithre begin or perform them, unless by the Grace and help of God it be prevented and holpen. And hereby it appeareth that mans strength and Will in all things which be helpful to the soul, and shall please God, hath need of the graces of the holy Ghost, by which such things be inspired to men, and strength and constancy given to perform them, if we do not wilfully refuse the said Grace effered to them.

And likewise as many things be in the Scripture which do shew Freewill to be in man; so there be now fewer places in Scripture which declare the Grace of God to be so necessary, that if by it Freewill be not prevented and holpen, it neither can do, nor will any thing good and godly, of which sort be these Scriptures following, Without me you [Page 571]can do nothing: no man cometh to me except it be given him of my Father.John 15. Jon. 6.1. Cor. 3. We be not sufficient of our selves as of our selves to think any good thing. According unto which Scriptures and such other like it followeth, That Freewill, before it may will or think any godly thing, must be holpen with the grace of Christ, and by his Spirit be pre­vented and inspired that it may be able thereunto. And being so made able, may from thenceforth work together with grace; and by the same sustained, holpen and maintained, may, both accomplish good works, and avoid sin, and persevere also, and increase in grace; It is true of the grace of God only that first we are inspired and moved to any good thing: but to resist temptations, and to persist in goodness and go forward, it is both of the Grace of God and our Freewill and endeavour. And finally after we have persevered unto the end, to be crowned with glory therefore, is the gift and mercy of God, who of his bountiful goodness hath ordained that reward to be given after this life according to such good works as be done in this life by his Grace.

Therefore men ought with much diligence and gratitude of mind to consider and regard the inspiration, wholesom motions of the holy Ghost, and to embrace the Grace of God which is offered to them in Christ, and moveth them to work good things. And furthermore to go about by all means to shew themselves such, as unto whom the Grace of God is not given in vain. And when they do settle, that notwithstanding their diligence, yet through their infirmity they be not able to do that they desire, then they ought earnestly and with a fervent devotion and stedfast faith to ask of him, which gave the beginning, that he would vouchsafe to perform it: which thing God will undoubtedly grant, according to his promise, to such as persevere in calling upon him. For he is naturally good, and willeth all men to be saved, and careth for them, and provideth all things by which they may be saved, except BY THEIR OWN MALICE they will be evil, and so by the righteous judgment of God, perish and be lost. For truly men be to themselves the AƲ ­THOR OF SIN and DAMNATION. God is neither the AƲTHOR OF SIN, nor the CAƲSE OF DAMNATION, and yet doth he most righ­teously damn those men, that do with Vices corrupt their Nature, which he made good, and do abuse the same to evil desires, against his most holy will; wherefore men be to be warned, that they do not impute to God their Vice, or their damnation; but to themselves, who by Freewill have abused the grace and benefits of God. All men be also to be monish­ed, and chiefly Preachers, that in this high matter they looking on both sides, so attemper and moderate themselves, that neither they so preach the Grace of God, as to take away thereby Freewill, Nor on the other side so extol Freewill, that injury be done to the grace of God.

Such was the judgment of the Bishops and Clergy assembled in Convocation, III Anno 1543. touching the nature of Freewill, and the co-operations of it with the grace of God; In which I can see nothing not agreeable to the present establish'd Doctrine of the Church of England. And if it be objected, as perhaps it may, that this Convo­cation was held in times of Popery, and managed by a Popish Clergy: it may be answered that the Bishops and Clergy then assembled were such as had a principal hand in the Reformation, and generally subscribed unto the Articles of Religion, agreed upon, and published in King Edwards time, Anno 1552. At which time fifteen of the Bishops which had been present at the Convocation, Anno 1543. were not only living, but present, and consenting to the Articles in King Edwards time, that is to say, Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury; Parfew, Bishop of Saint Asaph; Buchely, Bishop of Bangor; Bush, Bishop of Bristol; Sampson, Bishop of Litchfield; Bar­low, Bishop of Saint David; Goodrich, Bishop of Ely; Ship, Bishop of Hereford; Fol­gate, Bishop of Landaff, and afterwards Archbishop of York; King, Bishop of Oxon; Chambers, Bishop of Peterborough; Cepon, Bishop of Sarum; Thirlby, then Bishop of Westminster; Aldrich, then Bishop of Carlile; and Bird, Bishop of Chester: By which proportion, we may conclude that a far greater number of the Deans and Arch-dea­cons, who have a personal right of voting in all Convocations, and coming to the number of eighty and thereabouts, must be living and consenting also to the Refor­mation, as being younger men than the Bishops were; not to say any thing of the Clerks or Procurates of Cathedral Churches, and those of the Diocesan Clergy, as being variable and changeable from time to time, though possibly a great part of them might be present and consenting also, 1552. Nor stood this book nor the Article of Freewill therein contained, upon the order and authority only of this Convocation, but had as good countenance and encouragement to walk abroad as could be su­peradded to it by an Act of Parliament, as appears plainly by the Kings Pre­face [Page 572]to that Book, and the Act it self, to which for brevity sake I refer the Rea­der.

But if it be replyed, IV that there is no relying on the Acts of Parliament which were generally swayed, changed, and over-ruled by the power and passions of the King; and that the Act of Parliament which approved this Book, was repealed the first year of King Edward the sixth, as indeed it was: we might refer the Reader to a passage in the Kings Epistle, before remembred, in which the Doctrine of Freewill is affirmed to have been purged of all Popish Errors; concerning which take here the words of the Epistle,Epist. Ded. viz. And for as much as the heads and senses of our people have been imbusied, and in these days travelled with the understanding of Freewill, Justi­fication, &c. We have by the advice of our Clergy for the purgation of Erroneous Doctrine, declared and set forth openly, plainly, and without ambiguity of speech, the meer and cer­tain truth of them: so as we verily trust, that to know God, and how to live after his plea­sure to the attaining of everlasting life in the end, this Book containeth a perfect and sufficient Doctrine, grounded and established in holy Scriptures. And if it be rejoyned, as perhaps it may, that King Henry used to shift Opinion in matters which concerned Religion, according unto interest and reason of State; it must be answered that the whole Book, and every Tract therein contained, was carefully corrected by Archbishop Cranmer, the most blessed instrument under God, of the Reformation, before it was committed to the Prolocutor and the rest of the Clergy. For proof whereof I am to put the Reader in mind of a Letter of the said Archbishop, relating to the eighth Chapter of this book; in which he signified to an honourable Friend of his, that he had taken the more pains in it, because the Book being to be set forth by his Graces (that is to say, the Kings) censure and judgment, he could have nothing in it that Momus him­self could reprehend, as before was said: And this I hope will be sufficient to free this Treatise of Freewill from the crime of Popery.

But finally, V if notwithstanding all these Reasons, it shall be still pressed by those of the Calvinian party, that the Doctrine of Freewill, which is there delivered, is in all points the same with that which was concluded and agreed on in the Council of Trent, as appears Cap. de fructibus justificationis, & merito bonorum operum, Can. 34. and therefore not to be accounted any part of the Protestant Doctrine; which was de­fended and maintained by the Church of England, according to the first Rules of her Reformation: the answers will be many, and every answer not without its weight and moment. For first, it was not the intent of the first Reformers to depart farther from the Rites and Doctrines of the Church of Rome, than that Church had departed from the simplicity both of Doctrine and Ceremonies, which had been publickly maintained and used in the Primitive times, as appears plainly by the whole course of their proceedings, so much commended by King James in the Conserence at Hampton Court. Secondly, this Doctrine must be granted also to be the same with that of the Melancthonian Divines or moderate Lutherans, as was confessed by Andreas Vega, one of the chief sticklers in the Council of Trent, who on the agitating of the Point, did confess ingenuously, that there was no difference betwixt the Lutherans and the Church touching that particular. And then it must be confessed also, that it was the Doctrine of Saint Augustine, according to that Divine saying of his, Sine gratia Dei praeveniente ut velimus, & subsequente ne frustra velimus, ad pietatis opera nil valemus, which is the same of that of the tenth Article of the Church of England, where it is said, That without the grace of God preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will, we can do nothing that is acceptable to him in the ways of piety. So that if the Church of England must be Arminian, and the Arminian must be Papist, because they agree together in this particular; the Me­lancthonian Divines amongst the Protestants, yea, and St. Augustine amongst the An­cients himself, must be Papists also.

CHAP. XIII. The Doctrine of the Church of England, concerning the certainty or uncertainty of Perseverance.

  • 1. The certainty of Grace debated in the Council of Trent, and maintained in the Affirmative by the Dominicans, and some others.
  • 2. The contrary affirmed by Catarinus and his adherents.
  • 3. The doubtful resolution of the Council in it.
  • 4. The Calvinists not content with certainty of Grace, quoad statum praesentem, pre­sume upon it also, quoad statum sutu­rum.
  • 5. The bounds and limits wherewith the judgment in this point ought rationally to be circumscribed.
  • 6. The Doctrine of the Church of England in the present Artìcle.
  • 7. Justified by the testimonies of Bishop La­timer, Bishop Hooper, and Master Tyndal.
  • 8. And proved by several arguments from the publick Liturgy.
  • 9. The Homily commends a probable and sted-fast hope:
  • But 10. Allows no certainty of Grace and perseverance (in any ordinary way) to the Sons of men.

OF all the Points which exercised the wits and patience of the School-men in the Council of Trent, there was none followed with more heat between the parties, I than that of the certainty of Grace, occasioned by some passages in the writings of Lu­ther, wherein such certainty was maintained as necessary unto justification, and an essential part thereof. In canvasing of which point, the one part held that certainty of grace was presumption, the other that one might have it meritoriously. The ground of the first was, Hist. of the Coun of Trent. fol. 205. &c. that Saint Thomas, Saint Bonaventure, and generally the School-men thought so; for which cause the major part of the Dominicans were of the same opinion; besides the authority of the Doctors, they alledged for reasons, that God would not that man should be certain, that be might not be lifted up in pride, and esteem of themselves, that he might not prefer himself before others, as he that knoweth himself to be just would do before manifest sinners; and a Christian would so become drowsie, careless, and negligent to do good. Therefore they said that uncertainty was profitable, yea and meritorious besides, because it is a passion of the mind which doth afflict it; and being supported, is turned to merit. They alledged many places of the Scripture also; of Solomon, that a man knoweth not whether he be worthy of hath or love; of Wisdom, which commandeth not to be without fear of these sins pardoned; of Saint Peter, to work out our salvation with fear and trembling; of Saint Paul, who said of him­self, though my Conscience accuse me not, yet I am not thereby justified. These Reasons and Testimonies, together with many places of the Fathers were brought and amplified, especially by Levipandus, Vega, and Soto.

But Catarinus and Marinarus had other places of the same Fathers to the contrary, which shewed they had spoken accidentally in this particular, as the occasions made most for their pur­pose, sometimes t comfort the scrupulous, sometimes to repress the audacious; yet they kept themselves close to the authority of the Scripture. They said that to as many as it is read in the Gospel that Christ hath forgiven sins, to all them he said, Believe that your sins are for­given, and it would be an absurdity that Christ should give an occasion of temerity and pride; or, if the contrary were profitable, or a merit, that he would deprive all men of it. That the Scripture bindeth us to give God thanks for our justification, which cannot be given except we know that we have obtained it; for to give them when we are uncertain, would be most foolish and impertinent. That St. Paul doth plainly confirm the certainty, when he putteth the Co­rinthians in mind to know that Christ is in them, except they be Reprobates. And when he saith, we have received from God the Spirit to know what is given us by his divine Majesty, and more clearly, that the holy Spirit doth bear witness to our spirit that we are the Sons of God: and it is much to accuse them of rashness who believe the Holy Ghost that speaketh with them. For St. Ambrose saith that the Holy Ghost doth never speak unto us, but doth make us know that it is he that speaketh. After this he added the words of Christ in St. John, that the world cannot receive the Holy Ghost, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him, but that the Disciples shall know him, because he shall dwell in them. Calarinus did fortifie him­self strongly by saying that it was the opinion of a man in a dream, to defend that Grace is va­luntarily [Page 574]received, when we know not whether we have it or not; as if to receive a thing willingly, it be not necessary that the willing receive should know it is given him, that he doth really receive it, and that after it is received, he doth possess it.

The force of these Reasons made them first retire a little that censured the opinion of Teme­rity, III and yield that there might be a conjecture, though not an ordinary certainty; yet they ac­knowledged a certainty in the Martyrs, in the newly Baptized, and in some by special reve­lation, and from conjecture, they were brought to call it moral Faith: And that Vego who in the beginning admitted probability only, overcome by these Reasons, and beginning of favour the certainty, for fear of conforming himself to the Lutheran opinion, said that there was so much certainty as did exclude all doubt, and could not be deceived; yet that it was not Chri­stian Faith, but humane and experimental. But Catarinus and his party which were all the Carmelites, not resting satisfied either in the terms of an experimental faith, or a moral persuasion, did press the certainty so far, that many of the Prelates began to incline to that opinion, and to persuade themselves, that certainty of Grace was founded upon such an assurance as might in some sort be called divine; though when they came to draw up the Decree therein, they found themselves involved in more per­plexities than they were aware of. For the Point being followed with great heat between the parties, and each of them conceiving that the truth was clearly on their side; it was found necessary to cast the Decree into such a mold as those of the two contrary opinions might repose themselves on it. And certainly he that looks on the ninth Chapter of the sixth Session of the Council, entituled Contra inanem Haereticorum siduciam, may easily perceive into what streights they were reduced by seeking to content the Leaders of the several factions. For when the De­cree came to be discussed, it was no hard matter to make them joyn against that con­fidence which was maintained by many of Luthers followers, as if a man were no otherwise justified than by the confidence which he had in his own justification; yet when they came to express that certainty which had occasioned that intricate and per­plexed dispute, they were not so well able to state the point, as not to shew their own irresolution and uncertainty in it. For in the conclusion of the Decree in which they were to declare some cause for which no man could certainly know that he hath ob­tained Grace at the hands of God, the Cardinal to satisfie one part, added certainty of faith; and he with the Dominicans not thinking it to be enough, urged him to add the word Catholick to it; so that the sence thereof might seem to be to this effect, that no man could assure himself of obtaining Grace by any such certainty of Faith as may come under the notion of Catholick. But because the Adherents of Catarinus were not so contented,Hist. of the Coun. of Trent. fel. 215. instead of those words of Catholick Faith (no which the Dominicans in­sisted) it was thought necessary to declare that they meant it not of such a faith, cui non potest subesse falsum, which cannot be subject to falshood. And thereupon the con­clusion was drawn up in these following words, viz. Quilibet dum seipsum, suamque propriam infirmitatem & indispositionem respicit, de gratia formidare & timere potest, cum nullus scire valeat certitudine Fidei cui non potest subesse falsum, se gratiam Dei esse consecu­tum; that every one in regard of his own disposition and infirmity may doubt with himself whether he hath received this Grace or not, because he cannot know by cer­tainty of infallible faith that he hath obtained it. A temperament which contented both sides. For one party inferred that all the certainty of faith which could be had herein, might be false or fallible, and therefore to be thought uncertain; the others in­ferred with equal confidence, and content that the certainty therein declared, could have no doubt of fashood or fallibility,Hict. of Coun. p. 21 [...]. for the time that it remained in us; and that it could no otherwise become false or fallible, than by changing from the state of grace to the state of sin, as all contingent truths, by the alteration of their subjects may be made false also.

By which last clause it doth appear that all the certainty which Catarinus and the Car­melites contended for, was no more but this, that the Regenerate and righteous man might be certain of grace and his own justification, quoad statum praesentem, but not that he could challenge or pretend to any such certainty, quoad statum futurum, or build on a continual perseverance in it for the time to come. For even those men who stick­led most in maintenance of the certainty of Grace quoad statum praesentem, concurred with those who maintained the uncertainty of perseverance, together with the possi­bility of falling totally and finally from the Grace received, for which see Chap. 2. Num. Appell. Caes. part. 2. cap. 26. 8. of this present Book. But the Calvinists being men of another making, pre­sume not only (as one saith of them) to know all things that belong to their present [Page 575]justification a assuredly as they know that Christ in Heaven, but are as sure of their eternal election, and of their future glorification, as they are of this Article of our Creed, that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. And that he may not be thought to have spoken this without good authority, we need look no farther than the fifth Ar­ticle of the Contra-Remonstrants which was disputed at the Hague, according as it is laid down in our fourth Chap. Numb. 7. compared with the determination of the Council of Dort touching the point of perseverance, the sum whereof is briefly this, viz. That God will preserve in the Faith all those who are absolutely elected from eternity, and are in time brought to faith by an almighty and irresistible operation or working, so that though they fall into detestable wickednesses and villanies, and continue in them some space of time, Arcan. Dry. An­ti. Remo. p. 21. against their conscience, yet the said wicked villanies do not binder so much as a straw amounts to, their election or salvation; neither do they, or can they by means of, or because of these, fall from the Grace of Adoption, and from the state of Justification, or lose their faith; but all their sins, how great soever they be, both which heretofore they have committed, and those which after they will or shall commit, are surer than assuredly forgiven them; yea and more­over, they themselves, at last, though it be at the last gasp, shall be called to repentance, and brought out into possession of salvation. To which determination of the Synod it self, it may be thought impertinent to subjoyn the words and suffrages of particular men, though those of Roger Dontebeck are by no means to be omitted: by whom is affirm­ed, That if it were possible for any one man to commit all the sins over again which have been acted in the world, it would neither frustrate his election, nor alienate him from the love and favour of God: For which and many other passages of like nature, too frequent in the writings of the Contra-Remonstrants, the Reader may consult the Appendix to the book called Press-Declaratio Sententiae Remonstrantium, printed at Leiden, Anno 1616. and there he may he satisfied in his curiosity.

But on the other side, such as have looked into the mysteries of eternal life with the eye of Reverence, are neither so confident in the point, V nor so unadvised in their ex­pressions as Donlebeck, and others of the presumptuous sort of our modern Calvinists, Moun. against. the Gagger. c. 22. p. 185. by whom we are informed, that all assurance is twofold, that is to say, in respect of the object known, believed; and in regard of the subject believing, knowing: As man relieth upon his Evidence, or as his Evidence to relie upon, that all Evidence is divine or humane, from God or man; that Evidence divine, if apprehended, is over certain, and infallible, both for the necessity of our object, God, in whom is no change, nor shadow of change; as also for the manner of determining the Evidence, whereby that is certain or necessary for effect, which is but contingent otherwise in it self; that such Evidence as is most clear, and such assurance as is most certain in it self, may be contingent and uncertain, as we may both use it and dispose it, who are here and there, off and on as our judgments vary, being irresolute in our ways, and as in­constant in our works: And thereupon it is inferred in behalf of those who maintain the infallibility of such assurance that they mean no otherwise than this; that is to say, that in regard of God, faithful and true; in respect of his promises, Yea and Amen; every Child of God renewed by Grace, may (and ought infallibly) assure himself of his own salvation procured in Christ, who yet in regard of his own infirmity and in­constancy, cannot chuse but waver in his assurance, and fear the worst, though he hope the best. And this, if Bellarmine say right, is St. Augustines doctrine, out of whom he collects thus much, Ex promissione Christi potest unusquisque colligere se transisse à morte ad vitam, & in judicium non venire; that is to say, that every man (he means it only of the regenerate man) may collect from the promise of Christ, that he is translated from death to life, and shall not be brought unto the judgment of condemnation; the Cardinal thereupon resolves, that a man may collect so much by infallible assurance and di­vine, if he look into the faithfulness of him that promiseth; but if he consider his own dispo­sition, we assign no more but probable and conjectural assurance only.

Which said as to the certainty and incertainty of the assurance which a man may have within himself, not only concerning his present being in the state of Grace, VI as his continuance and perseverance in it for time to come; we must next look into the Do­ctrine of this Church in the point it self: For having formerly maintained in the tenth Article of her Confession that there remains a freedom of the Will in man, for laying or not laying hold upon those means which are offered by the Grace of God for our salvation; she must by consequence maintain also, that there is a freedom from the Will in standing unto Grace received, or departing from it. Certain I am, that it is so resolved in the sixteenth Article for her Confession, in which it is declared, that after [Page 576]we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from the Grace given, and fall into sin; and by the Grace of God we may arise again and amend our lives; Art. 16. where plainly the Church teacheth a possibility of falling or departing from the Graceof the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us, and that our rising again, and amending of our lives upon such a rising is a matter of contingency only, and no way necessary on Gods part to assure us of a Doctrine so repugnant to that of the Calvinists, that to make the Article come up to their opinion, they would fain add neither finally nor totally (as appears by that of Doctor Reynolds at Hampton Court) to the first clause of it: By which addition, as they would make the last part of it to be absolutely unprofitable, and of no effect; so do they wilfully oppose themselves against the known maxim in the Civil Laws, which telleth us, Non esse distinguendum, ubi lex non distinguit, that no distinctions must be made in the explicating or expounding of any Law, which is not to be found in the Law it self. And therefore for the clear understanding of the Churches meaning, we must have recourse in this as in other Articles to the plain words of Bishop Latimer and Bishop Hooper, so often mentioned in this work.

And first we find Bishop Latimer discoursing thus, VII Let us not do, saith he, as the Jews did, which were stiff-necked; they would not leave their sins, they had a pleasure in the same, Bishop Latimer in his 8. Sermon in Linc. they would follow their old Traditions, refusing the Word of God; therefore their destruction came worthily upon them: And therefore, I say, let us not follow them, lest we re­ceive such a reward as they had, lest everlasting destruction come upon us; and so we be cast out of the favour of God, and finally lost, world without end. And in another place—I say there be two manner of men; Idem in Serm. Rom. 13.11. some there be that are not justified, not regenerate, not yet in the state of salvation, that is to say, not Gods servants: they take the Renovation or Rege­neration, they be not come yet to Christ, or if they were, be fallen again from him, and so lost their justification; as there be many of us when we fall willingly into sin against Consci­ence, we lose the favour of God, and finally the Holy Ghost— But you will say, How shall I know that I am in the Book of Life? See Ibid. I answer, that we may be one time in the Book, and another time come out of it again, as appeareth by David, who was written in the Book of Life, but when he sinned foully, at that time came out of the favour of God, until he repented, and was sorry for his faults: so that we may be in the Book one time, and afterards when we forget God, and his Word, and do wickedly, we come out of the Book, which is Christ. The like we find in Bishop Hooper, Pref. to the Expos on the ten Comman­dements. first telling us that the causes of Rejection or Damnation is sin in man, that will not hear, neither receive the promise of the Gospel, or else after he hath re­ceived it, by accustomed doing of ill, falleth either unto a contempt of the Gospel, or will not study to live thereafter, or else he hateth the Gospel because it condemneth his ungodly life. After which he proceedeth to the Application—Refuse not therefore the Grace offered, nor once received, banish it with ill conversation. If we fall, let us hear Almighty God that call­eth us to repent, and with his Word, and return; let us not continue in sin, nor heap one sin up­on another, lest at last we come to a contempt of God and his Word. In the beginning of his Paraphase or Exposition to the thirteenth Chapter of the Romans, he speaks as plainly to this purpose; which passage might here deserve place also, but that I am called up­on by Master Tyndal, Collect. of his Works by J. Day. p. 185. whose testimony I am sure will be worth the having, and in the Prologue to his Exposition on the same Epistle he informs us thus. None of us (saith he) can be received to Grace, but upon a condition to keep the Law, neither yet continue any longer in Grace than that promise lasteth. And if we break the Law, we must sue for a new pardon, and have a new light against sin, hell, and desperation; yet we can come to a quiet faith again, and feel that sin is forgiven; neither can there be in thee a stable and undoubted faith, that thy sin is forgiven thee, except there be also a lusty courage in thy heart, and trust that thou wilt sin no more; for on this condition that thou wilt sin no more, is the promise of mercy and forgiveness made unto thee.

But against all this it is objected that Montague himself, VIII both in his Gag and his Ap­peal, confesseth that the Church hath left this undecided; Hick. in his justi. of the Fathers &c. Pres. Montag. Gag. cap. 20. p. 171. that is to say, neither deter­mining for finally or totally, and much less for both. And that he doth so in the Gag, I shall easily grant, where he relateth only to the words of the Article, which speaks only of a possibility of falling, without relating to the measure or duration of it. But he must needs be carried with a very strange confidence, which can report so of him in his book called Appello Caesarem, in which he both expresly saith, and proveth the con­trary. He saith it first in these words, after a repetition of that which he had formerly said against the Gagger. I determine nothing in the question, that is to say, nor totally nor finally,Appell. Caes. cap. 4. p. 28. or totally not finally, or totally and finally; but leave them all to their Authors and Abetters; resolving upon this, not to go beyond my bounds, the consented, resolved and [Page 577]subscribed Articles of the Church of England; in which, nor yet in the Book of Common-Prayer, and other divine Offices, is thee any tye upon me to resolve in this much disputed question, as these Novellers would have it (not as these Novellers would have it, there's no doubt of that,) For if there be any, it is for a possibility of total falling, of which more anon. He proves it next by several Arguments extracted from the book of Homilies, and the pub­like Liturgy. Out of which last he observeth theee passages, the first out of the Form of Baptism, in which it is declared, that the Baptised Infant being born in original sin, by the Laver of Regeneration in Baptism, is received into the number of the Children of God, Ibid. p. 3 [...]. and Heirs of everlasting life: the second out of the publick Catechism, in which the Child is taught to say, that by his Baptism he was made a Member of Christ, the Child of God, and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven. The third out of the Rubrick before Confir­mation, in which it is affirmed for a truth, that it is certain by Gods Word, that Children being Baptized, have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved. And thereupon he doth observe that it is to be acknowledged for a Doctrine of this Church, that Children duly Baptized, are put into a state of Grace and salvation: And secondly, that it is seen by common experience, that many Children so Baptized, when they come to Age, by a wicked and lewd life do fall away from God, and from the state of Grace and salvation where­in he had set them, to a worse state, wherein they shall never be saved. From which what else can be inferred, but that the Church maintains a total, and a final falling from the grace of God? Add hereunto that the Church teacheth men to pray to Almighty God not to take his holy Spirit from us. And in another place, that he suffer us not at our last hour for any pains of death to fall from him; which certainly she had never done, were it not possible for a man so far to grieve and vex the Holy Spirit of God, and so far to despair of his gracious mercy, as to occasion him at the last to deprive us both of the one and the other.

Next for the Homilies, IX as they commend unto Gods People a probable and sted­fast hope of their salvation in Christ Jesus; so they allow no such infallibility of per­sisting in grace, as to secure them from a total and final falling. In reference to the first, they tell us in the second part of the Sermon against the fear of death, That none of those their causes of the fear of death, (that is to say, the sorrow of repenting from our worldly pleasures, the terrible apprehension of the pangs of death, and the more terrible ap­prehension of the pains of Hell) do make any trouble to good men, Hom. p. 67. because they stay themselves by true faith, perfect charity, and sure hope of the endless joy and bliss everlasting. All therefore have great cause to be full of joy, that he joyned to Christ with true Faith, stedfast hope, and perfect charity, and not to fear death, nor everlasting damnation. The like we find not long after, where it speaks of those, Who being truly penitent for their offences, de­part hence in perfect charity and in sure trust, that God is merciful to them; forgiving them their sins, for the merits of Jesus Christ the only natural Son. In the third part of which Sermon it is thus concluded: He that conceiveth all these things, and believeth them assu­redly, Ibid. p. 68. as they ought to be believed, even from the bottom of his heart, being established in God, in his true faith, having a quiet Conscience in Christ, a firm hope and assured trust in Gods mercy through the merits of Jesus Christ, to obtain this rest, quietness, and everlasting joy, shall not only be without fear of godly death when it cometh, but greatly desire in his heart (as St. Paul did) to be rid from all these occasions of evil, and live ever to Gods pleasure, in perfect obedience of his Will, with Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, to whose gracious pre­sence, &c, By all which passages it is clear and evident that the Church teacheth us to entertain a probable and stedfast hope of our salvation in Christ Jesus; but whether it teacheth also such an infallibility of persisting in grace, such a certainty of perseverance, as to exclude all possibility of a total or a sinal falling, we are next to see.

And see it we may without the help of Spectacles, or any of the Optical instru­ments, X if we go no farther than the title of two of those Homilies, the first whereof is thus inscribed, viz. A Sermon shewing how dangerous a thing it is to fall from God. And it had been ridiculous if not somewhat worse, to write a Sermon de non ente, to terrifie the people with the danger of that misfortune, which they were well enough assured they should never suffer. Out of which Homilies the Appellant makes no use but of these words only, Whereas God hath shewed unto all them that truly do believe his Gospel, his face of mercy in Christ Jesus; which doth so enlighten their hearts, that they be transformed into his Image, be made partakers of the Heavenly light, and of his holy Spirit; Hom. p. 54. be fashioned to him in all goodness requisite to the Child of God; So if they do afterwards neglect the same, if they be unthankful unto him, if they order not their lives according unto his Doctrine and Example, and to the setting forth of his glory, he will take from them his holy Word, his King­dom [Page 578]whereby be should reign in them, because they bring not forth fruit which he looked for. besides which there are mony other passages to this effect, where it is said, that as by pride and sin we fall from God, Ibid. p 50. so shall God and all goodness go from us — that sometimes men go from God by lack of faith and mistrusting of God— and som [...]t [...]te. by neglecting his Commandments concerning their Neighbours. And after some examples given in these several cases, it followeth that by these examples of holy Scripture we may know that as we forsake God, Id. p 54. so shall he forsake us. And what a miserable estate doth conse­quently and necessarily follow thereupon, a man may easily consider by the horrible threat­nings of God, &c. And finally having not only laid before us the said horrible threat­nings, but the recital also of those gentle courses by which he doth endeavour to gain us to him, it concludeth thus, viz. that if these will not serve, but still remain disobe­dient to his Word and Will, not knowing him, or loving him; not fearing him, nor putting our whole trust and confidence in him: and on the other side to our Neighbours, behaving our selves uncharitably by disdain, envy, malice, or by committing murder, robbery, adul­tery, gluttony, deceit, lying, swearing, or other like detestable works, and ungodly beha­viour; then he threatneth us by terrible comminations, swearing in great anger, that who­soever doth these works, shall never enter into his rest, which is the Kingdom of Heaven.

CHAP. XIV. The Plain Song of the second Homily, touching the falling from God, and the Descants made upon it.

  • 1. More from some other Homilies, touching the possibility of falling from the grace re­ceived.
  • 2. The second Homily or Sermon touching falling from God, laid down verbatim.
  • 3. The sorry shifts of Mr. Yates, to elude the true meaning of the Homily, plainly discovered, and confuted.
  • 4. An Answer unto his Objection, touching the passage cited from the former Homily, in Mr. Mountagues Appeal.
  • 5. The Judgment of Mr. Ridley, Arch­deacon of Canterbury, in the points of Election and Redemption.
  • 6. As also touching the Reasons why the Word was not preached unto the Gentiles till the coming of Christ, the influences of of grace, the co-workings of man, and the possibility of falling from the truth of Christ.

NOR doth the Church declare this only in the former Homily, I where the poin is purposely maintained; but in some others also obiter, and upon the by, whert it discourseth principally on some other subject;Hom. of good works, p. 32. for in the second part of the Ser­mon of good Works, we shall find St. Chrysostom speaking thus; viz. The Thief tha­was hanged when Christ suffered, did believe only, and the most merciful God justified himt And because no man shall say again that he wanted time to do good works, for else he could have done them; truth it is, and I will not contend herein; but this I will surely affirm, that faith only saved him. If he had lived, and not regarded Faith, and the works thereof, he should have lost his salvation again; which words of Chrysostom passing for a part of the Homily, declare sufficiently, that by the Doctrine of the Church in King Edwards time, not only Faith, but Justification once had, may be lost again. To the same purpose in the second part of the Homily against Swearing it is plainly said;Page 50. ‘That whosoever forsaketh the Truth for love or displeasure of any man, or for lucre and profit to himself, doth forsake Christ, and with Judas betray him.’ And somewhat also to this purpose may be found in the third Sermon against the peril of Idolatry; Page 58. page 130. and in the second part of that touching the time and place of Prayer, though not so proper at the present, because not made within the compass or the first Refor­mation in King Edwards Reign; and keeping my self within the compass, I think it not amiss to present unto the eye of the Reader, the second part of the Sermon, about [...]alling from God, and to present the same verbatim, as it stands in the Book; and afterwards to clear it from all such evasions and Objections which the sullenness rather than the subtilty of some men have found out against it. Now the said second Sermon, (beginning with a recapitulation of that which had been taught in the first) is this that followeth.

She Second Part of the Sermon of falling from God.

In the former part of this Homily, II you have learned how many manner of ways men fall from God, some by Idolatry, some for lack of Faith, some by neglecting of their Neigh­bours, Hom. of falling from God, Part 1. fol. 55. some by not hearing of Gods Word, some by the pleasure they take in the vanities of worldly things; you have also learned in what misery that man is which is gone from God; and how that God yet of his infinite goodness to call again man from that his misery, useth first gentle admonitions by his Preachers; after he layeth on terrible threatnings: Now if this gentle monition and threatning together do not serve, then God will shew his terrible countenance upon us, he will pour intolerable plagues upon our heads, and after he will take away from us all his aid and assistance wherewith before he did defend us from all such man­ner of calamity, as the Evangelical Prophet Isaiah, agreeing with Christ his Parable, Isa. 5. Mat. 21. doth teach us, saying, That God hath made a goodly Vineyard for his beloved Children; he hedged it, he walled it round about, he planted it with chosen Vines, and made a Turret in the midst thereof, gathering also a Wine-press, and when he looked that it would bring forth good grapes, it brought forth wild grapes, and after it followeth; Now shall I shew you (saith God) what I will do with my Vineyard, I will pluck down the hedges thereof that it may perish; I will break down the walls that it may be trodden under foot; I will let it lie waste, it shall not be cut, it shall not be digged, but bryers and thorns shall overgrow it, and I will command the clouds that they shall no more rain upon it.

By these threatnings we are monished and warned, that if we which are the chosen Vine­yard of God, bring not forth good grapes, that is to say, good works that may be delectable and pleasant in his sight, when he looketh for them, when he sendeth his Messengers to call upon us for them, but rather bring forth wild grapes; that is to say, sour works; unsa­voury and unfruitful; then will he pluck away all defence, and suffer grievous plagues of famine, battel, dearth and death to light upon us. Finally, if these serve not, he will let us lie waste, he will give us over, he will turn away from us, he will dig and delve no more about us, he will let us alone, and suffer us to bring forth even such fruit as we will, to bring forth brambles, bryers and thorns, all naughtiness, all vice, and that so abundantly, that they shall clean over-grow, choak, strangle, and utterly destroy us. But they that in this World live not after God, but after their own carnal liberty, perceive not this great wrath of God towards them, that he doth let them alone even to themselves: but they take this for a great benefit of God to have all their own liberty; and so they live, as if carnal liberty were the true liberty of the Gospel: But God forbid (good people) that ever we should desire such liberty; for although God suffer sometimes the wicked to have their pleasure in this world, yet the end of ungodly living is at length endless destruction; the murmuring Israe­lites had that they longed for, they had Quails enough, yea, till they were weary of them; but what was the end thereof? their sweet meat had sour sawce; even whil'st the meat was in their mouths, the plague of God alighted upon them, and suddenly they died: So if we live ungodly, and God suffereth us to follow our own wills, to have our own delights and pleasures, and correcteth us not with some plagues, it is no doubt but he is almost utterly displeased with us; and although it be long ere he strike, yet many times when he striketh such persons, he striketh them once for ever; so that when he doth not strike us, when he ceaseth to afflict us, to punish or beat us, and suffereth us to run headlong into all ungodli­ness, and pleasures of this world that we delight in, without punishment or adversity, it is a dreadful token that he loveth us no longer, that be careth no longer for us, but hath given us over to our selves.

As long as a man doth prune his Vines, doth dig at the root, and lay fresh earth to them, be hath a mind to them, he perceiveth some token of fruitfulness that may be recovered in them; but when he will bestow no more such cost and labour about them, it is a sign that he thinks they will never be good: And the Father as long as he loveth his Child, he looketh angerly, he correcteth him, when he doth amiss; but when that serveth not, and upon that he ceaseth from correction of him, and suffereth him to do what he list himself, it is a sign he intendeth to disinherit him, and cast him away for ever; so surely nothing should pierce our hearts so sore, and put us into such horrible fear, as when we know in our conscience that we have grievously offended God, and do so continue, that yet he striketh not, but quietly suffereth us in the naughtiness that we here delight in, then especially it is time to cry, and to cry again as David did, Cast me not away from thy face,Psalm 51. and take not thy holy Spirit from me; hide not thy face from me, lest I be like unto them that go down into hell. The which lamentable prayers of his, as they do certifie us what horrible danger they be in [Page 580]from whom God turneth his faced for the time, and as long as he so doth) so should they more and more [...]ir us to cry unto God with all our heart, that we may not be brought into the state which doubtless is so sorrowful, so miserable, and so dreadful as no Tongue can sufficiently ex­press, nor any heart can think; for what deadly grief can a man suppose it is to be under the wrath of God, to be forsaken of him, to have his holy Spirit the Author of all goodness, to be taken from him; to be brought to so vile a condition, that he shall be l [...]ft meet for no better purpose than to be for ever condemned to Hell? for not only such places of David de shew, that upon the turning of Gods face from any persons, they stall be l [...]ft bare from all goodness, and far from hope of remedy; but also the place rehearsed last before of Isaiah, doth mean the same, which sheweth, that God at length doth so fosake his unfruitful Vineyard, that he will notonly suffer it to bring forth weeds, bryars and thorns, but also further to punish the unfruitfulness of it, he saith he will not cut it, he will not delve it, and he will command the clouds that they shall not rain upon it; whereby is signified the teaching of the holy Word, which St Paul after a like manner expressed by plant­ing and watering, Meaning that he will take that away from them, so that they shall be no longer of his Kingdom, they shall be no longer governed by his holy Spirit, they shall be put from the grace and benefits they had, and ever might have enjoyed through Christ; they shall be deprived of the heavenly light and life which they had in Christ whilst they abode in him; they shall be (as they were once) as men without God in the world, or rather in a worse taking.

And to be short, they shall be given into the power of the Devil, which beareth the rule of all men which be cast away fro God, as he did in Saul and Judas, and generally in all such as work after their own wills, the Children of wistrust and unbelief; let us be­ware therefore good Christian people, lest that we rejecting, or casting away Gods Word (by which we obtain and retain true faith in God) be not at length cast so far off, that we become as the Children of unbelief, which be of two sorts far diverse, yea, almost clean contrary, and yet both be very far from returning to God: the one sort only weighing their sinful and detestable living with the right judgment and straitness of Gods righteousness, be so without content, and be so comfortless, (as they all must needs be from whom the Spirit of counsel and comfort is gone) that they will not be persuaded in their hearts, but that either God cannot or else that he will not take them again to his favour and mercy; the other, hearing the loving and large promises of Gods mercy, and so not conceiving a right faith thereof, make those promises larger than ever God did. Trusting that although they continue in their sinful and detestable living never so long, yet that God at the end of their life will shew his mercy upon them; and that then they will return. And that both these two sorts of men be in a damnable estate, and yet nevertheless God (who willeth not the death of the wicked) hath shewed means whereby both the same (if they take heed in season) may escape. The first, as they defend Gods rightful justice in punish­ing sinners (whereby they should be dismayed, and should despair indeed, as touching any hopes that may be in themselves) so if they would constantly and stedfastly believe, that Gods mercy is the remedy prepared against such despair and distrust, not only for them, but generally for all that be sorry, and truly repentant, and will therewithal stick to Gods mercy, they may be sure they shall obtain mercy, and enter into the Port or Haven of safeguard, into the which whosoever do come, be they before time never so wicked, they shall be out of danger of everlasting damnation, as godly Ezekiel saith. What time soever a sinner doth return, and take earnest of true Repentance, I will forgive all his wicked­ness.

The other as they be ready to believe Gods promises, so they should be as ready to be­lieve the threatnings of God;as well believe the Law as the Gospel; as well that there is an Hell, and everlasting fire, as there is an Heaven, and everlasting joy; as well they should believe damnation to the threatned to the wicked and evil doers, Ezek. 3. as salvation to be promised to the faithful in Word and Works; as well they should believe God to be true in the one as the other.

And for sinners that continue in this wicked living, they ought to think that the promises of Gods mercy and the Gospel pertain not unto them being in that state; but only the Law, and those Scriptures which contain the wrath and indignation of God, and his threatnings, which should certifie them, that as they do over-boldly presume of Gods mercy, and live dis­solutely; so doth God still more and more withdraw his mercy from them, as he is so pro­voked thereby to wrath at length, that he destroyeth such presumers many times sudden­ly; for of such St Paul said thus, When they shall say it is peace, there is no danger, then shall sudden destruction come upon them;1 Thess. 5. let us beware therefore of such naugh­ty [Page 581]boldness to sin; For God which hath promised his mercy to them that be truly penitent, (although it be at the latter end) hath not promised to the presumptuous sinner either that he shall have long life, or that he shall have true Repentance at the last end. But for that purpose hath he made every mans death uncertain, that he should not put his hope in the end, and in the mean season [...] to Gods high displeasure) live ungodlily: Wherefore let us follow the counsel of the Wise man, let us make no tarrying to turn unto the Lord, let us not put off from day to day; for sudenly his wrath comes, and in time of vengeance he will destroy the wicked; let us therefore turn betimes, and when we turn, let us pray to God as Hosea teached, saying, Forgive ad our sins, receive us graciously:Hosea 14. And if we turn to him with an humble and a very penitent heart, he will receive us to his favour and grace for his holy Names sake, for his Promise sake, for his Truth and Mercies sake pro­mised to all faithful Believers in Jesus Christ his only natural Son. To whom the only Sa­viour of the world, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, be all honour, glory and power, world without end. Amen.

These are the very words of the second Himily, touching falling from God, III in which we have many evident proofs, not only that there is a Falling, and a fre­quent Falling, but also a Total, yea, a final Falling from the grace of God, according to the Doctrine of the Church of England. And hereunto I must needs say, that I never met with any satisfactory and sufficient Answer, how much soever some have slighted the authority of it, or the strength rather of the Argument which is taken from it; for Mr. Yetes of Ipswitch (from whose Candle most of them that followed, borrow all their light) in his book intituled, Ibis ad Caesarem, written against Mountagues Appeal, can find no better Answers to it, or evasions from it, than they four that fol­low, viz. 1. That the Homily speaks of the visible Church, and therefore it is not to be construed in the same sense of all; whereas the Homily speaketh of Gods chosen people,Ibid. ad Cas. p. 2. c. 3. p. 139. (his chosen Vineyard are the words) and consequently not only of the mixed mul­titude in a visible Church: He answers secondly, That it speaks with limitation and distinction; some beholding the face of Gods mercy aright, other not as they ought to do; the one of which may fall quite away, the other being transformed, can never be wholly de­formed by Satan: but this is such a pitiful shift, as could not save the man from the scorn of laughter, had he been deal with in his kind; the Homily speaking largely of those men, which having beheld Gods face of mercy in Jesus Christ as they ought to do, do afterwards neglect the same, prove unthankful to him, and order not their lives according to his Example and Doctrine, &c. For which, consult the place at large in the former Church. He answers thirdly, that the Homily speaks conditionally, if they afterwards, &c. (that is to say, if afterwards they neglect the same, prove unthankful to him, and order not their lives according to his Example and Doctrine, &c.) and so con­cludes nothing positively and determinately, which is a sorrier shift than that which you had before, for if such conditional Propositions conclude nothing positively, what will become of all those Propositions in the Scriptures by which we are assured, That if a sinner do repent him of his sins wickednesses, he shall find mercy from the Lord? Do they conclude nothing positively neither? most miserable were the state of man, if these conditional Propositions should conclude nothing to the comfort of a troubled consci­ence. And finally, he answereth thus, that the Homily speaks of Gods dreadful countenance appearing in Plagues, Sword, Famine, and such like temporal punishments, wherewith the Elect may be chastened as well as others, that they may not for ever be condemned with the wicked: the first part of which Allegation I confess to be true, Gods judgments fal­ling promiscuously on all sorts of people: but the addition is unknown, and is not to be found in the words of the Homily. And secondly, the Homily speaks not only of Gods temporal judgments, with which the Elect be chastened as well as others, that they may not for ever be condemned with the wicked; but positively and determinately, of taking from them his Kingdom; and holy Word, as in the former, so that they shall be no longer in his Kingdom, governed no longer by his holy Spirit, put from the Grace and benefit which they had, &c.

But Master Yates intends not so to leave the matter, IV we must first see that he is as good at raising an Objection, as at the making of an Answer; and he objecteth out of another of he Homilies, that though the godly do fall, yet they walk not on purposely in sin, they stand not still to continue and tarry in sin, they sit not down like careless men, Hom. of cer­tain places of Scripture. fol. 150. without all fear of Gods just punishment for sin; through Gods great grace and infinite mercy they rise again and fight against sin, &c. But first it may be hoped that Master Yates could not be ignorant how great a difference there is betwixt such passages as fall oc­casionally, [Page 582]and on the by, from the pen of a Writer, discoursing on another Argu­ment, and those which do occur in such Discourses, Sermons, and other Tractates, as purposely are made and fitted to the point in hand. And secondly, though it be affirmed in the said Homily, that the godly man which shall add sin to sin, by Gods great grace and infinite mercy may arise again and fight against sin: Yet can it not be gathered thence, that it is so at all times, and in all such cases; that is to say, that neither the great grace, nor his infinite mercy shall be wanting at any time unto such as are fallen from God; or that man shall not be wanting to himself in making a right use of it to his rising again. And then this passage in the Homily will affirm no more to this purpose than the Article doth;Art. 16. where it is said, that after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may de­part from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God (we may) arise again and amend our lives.

Now to these testimonies from the Homilies, V the publick Liturgy, and the writings of the Learned men and Godly Martyrs before remembred, it will not be amiss to add one more; that is to say, Master Lancelot Ridley Arch-Deacon of Canterbury, who by his name seems to have had relation to Doctor Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London, and by his office to Doctor Cranmer, Arch-bishop of Canterbury; the two chief Agents in the work of the Reformation. This man had published some Expositions on Saint Pauls Epistles to the Ephesians and Philippians, as he did afterwards on that to the Collossians also; which last was printed by Richard Grafton, 1548. At which time both the first Liturgy, and the first book of Homilies were in force and practice, and therefore was not like to contain any point of Doctrine repugnant unto either of them. And if we look upon him in his Comment upon the Epistle, we shall find him thus declare him­self in the points disputed; which I will lay all together, according to the method for­merly observed in setting down the Articles sor points themselves. For first in refe­rence to Election unto life eternal, he telleth us, That all fulness of the Father is said to dwell in Christ, Ridley in Co­l [...]s. cap. 1, 6. that all men should know all the goodness they have to come of God by Christ to them; and all that believe in Christ, should not perish, but be saved, and should have life everlasting by Christ with the F [...]ther. Li [...] in cap. 2. P. 1. And afterwards speaking on those vertues which St. Paul commends in the Elect, he tells us, That those vertues do shew unto us who be elected of God, and who not, as far as man can judge of outward things; and that those men may be con­cluded to be elected of God who hate all vice and sin, that love vertue and godly living, and in it do walk all their life-time by true faith and works of the spirit. 2. More plainly doth he speak in the second place of Universal Redemption, Id. in cap. 1, 6. telling us that all men which either for their Original sin, or for their Actual sin, were out of Gods favour, and had offended God, should by Christ only be reconciled to Gods favour, and have remission of their sins, and be made partakers of everlasting life; that Christs death was a full and sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the whole World, Id Ibid. [...]. 1. and for all them that shall be sanctified and saved; that Christ by his death once for all, Id. Ibid. [...]. hath fully and perfectly satisfied for the sins of all men; and finally, that there re this is an undoubted truth, ever to be believed of all Christians, that Christ by his Passion and Death hath taken away all the sins of the World.

In the next place he puts the question with reference to the application of so great a benefit, VI for what causes God would not have his Word preached unto the Gentiles till Christs time; and makes this answer thereunto: First, That it is a point not to be too curiously searched, or enquired after. Secondly, That it is enough for us to know that it was so ordered by Gods Will, Id. Ibid. G. 2, 3. But thirdly, That it might yet be done, either because by their sins they had deserved their blindness and damnation (as indeed they had) or that God saw their hard hearts, or their stiff necks, and that they would not have received it before Christs comings, if the Gospel had been preached unto them; or finally, that God reserved that mystery unto the coming of our Saviour Christ, that by him all goodness should be known to come to us, Id. cap. 2. H. 7. &c. As for the necessary influences of Gods Grace, and mans co-working with the same, he telleth us briefly, That no man ought to ascribe the good works that he d [...]th [...]s himself, or to his own might and power, but to God the Author of all goodness; but then withal, that it is not enough for men to have knowledge of Christ and his benefits, but that they must encrease in the knowledge of God, Id [...]. cap. 4. which knowledge cometh by Gods Word. And finally, as to the point of falling away, he gives us first the example of Demas, who as long as all things were prosperous with S. Paul, was a faithful Minister to him, and a faithful Dis­ciple of Christ; but when he saw Paul cast into Prison, he forsook Paul and his Doctrine, and followed the World; then he inferreth that many such there be in the World, &c.—of whom speaketh Christ, Matth. 13. Many for a time do believe, but in time of tribulations they shrink away. And finally he concludes with this advice, That he that standeth should [Page 583]look that he did not fall, and that he do no trust too much to his own might and power; for if he did, he should deceive himself, and have a fall as Demas had. And so much for the judgment and opinion of Master L. Ridley in the points disputed, who being Arch-deacon of Canterbury, as before was said, may be presum'd to be one of those who con­curred in Convocation to the making of the Articles of K. Edwards book, 1552. to find the true and natural meaning of which Articles we have taken this pains.

CHAP. XV. Of the Author and Authority of King Edwards Catechism, as also of the judgment of Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr in the Points disputed.

  • 1. The Catechism published by the Authority of King Edward VI. Ann. 1553. affirmed to have been writ by Bishop Poinet, and countenanced by the rest of the Bishops and Clergy.
  • 2. Several passages collected out of that Ca­techism to prove that the Calvinian Do­ctrines were the true, genuine, and ancient Doctrines of the Church of England.
  • 3. With a discovery of the weakness and im­pertinency of the Allegation.
  • 4. What may most probably be conceived to have been the judgment of Bishop Pointer, in most of the Controverted Points.
  • 5. An Answer to another Objection derived from Mr. Bucer, and Peter Martyr; and the influence which their Auditors and Dis­ciples are supposed to have had in the Re­formation.
  • 6. That Bucer was a man of moderate Coun­sels, approving the first Liturgy of King Edward VI. assenting to the Papists at the Dyet of Ratisbone, in the possibility of falling from grace; and that probably Peter Martyr had not so far espoused the Calvinian quarrels, when he lived in Oxon. as after his return to Zurick and Calvins Neighbourhood.
  • 7. The judgment of Erasmus, according as it is delivered in his Paraphrases on the four Evangelists, proposed first in the general view, and after more particularly in every of the Points disputed.

SEcuri de salute, de gloria certemus: I Having shewed the cause by so many pregnant Evidences derived from the Articles and Homilies,Tacit in vita Agric. and backt by the consenting Testimonies of Learned men, and godly Martyrs, it would add something at the least in point of Reputation, if not of glory also, to gain Bishop Poinet to the side; of whom, as to his personal capacity we have spoken already, and must now look back up­on him in relation to a Catechism of his setting forth, Printed by Wolfe in Latine, and by Day in English, Anno 1553. being the next year after the Articles were agreed up­on in the Convocation; a Catechism which comes commended to us with these ad­vantages, that it was put forth by the Authority of King Edward VI. to be taught by all School-masters in the Kingdom. By another of the same persuasion,Prin. Anti-Armin. Pag. 44. that the King committed the perusal of it to certain Bishops, and other Learned men, whom he much esteemed; by whom it was certified to be agreeable to the Scripture, and Statutes of the Realm; that thereupon he presixt his Epistle before it, in which he commands and charges all School-masters whatsoever within his Dominions, as they did reverence his Authority, Anti-Armin. Page. 48. and as they would avoid his Royal displeasure, to teach this Catechism diligently and carefully in all and every their Schools; that so the youth of the Kingdom might be setled in the grounds of true Religion, and furthered in Gods worship. The Church Historian seems to give it some further coun­tenance,Ch Hist. lib. 7. fol. 421. by making it of the same extraction with the book of Articles, telling us that by the Bishops and Learned men before-mentioned, we are to understand the Convocation; and that it was not commanded by his Majesties Letters Patents to all School-masters only, but by him commended to the rest of the Subjects, which cost these several Au­thors have bestowed upon it, out of an hope of gaining some greater matter by it, to­wards the countenancing and advancing of the Calvinian Doctrine, Predestination, as the true genuine and ancient Doctrine of this Church; certain I am, that both Mr. Prin and his Shadow so declare themselves;Anti-Armin. Pag. 48. the one affirming that all these passages are directly for them, and punctually opposite to their Arminian Antagonists; the other [Page 584]crying out with some admiration, How do the Master and Scholar plainly declare them­selves to b [...] no friends to the Tenents which the English Arminians how contend for! but notwithstanding all this cry, I fear we shall get but little wool, when we come to consider of those passages in Poynets Catechism, which are most relied on, and which h [...]re follow, as I find them in the Anti-arminianism, without alteration of the words or syllables, though with some alteration in the method of the Collection: Now the pass [...]ges collected out of Poynets Catechism, are these that follow, viz.

The Image of God in man by original sin and evil custom, II was so obscured in the beginning, and the natural judgment so corrupted, Ca [...]. Pag. 7.8, 12. Page 9. that man himself could not sufficiently understand the difference between good and bad, between just and unjust, &c. As for the sacrificings, cleansings, washings, and other Ceremonies of the Law, they were Shadows, Types, Images, and Figures of the true and eternal sacrifice that Jesus Christ made upon the Cross, by whose benefit alone all the sins of all Believers from the beginning of the World are pardoned, by the sole mercy of God, Page 13. and not by any merit of their own. As soon as ever Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, they both died; that is, that they were not only liable to the death of the body, but likewise lost the lise of the soul, which is righteousness, and forthwith the Divine Image was obscured in them; and those lineaments of Righteousness, Holiness, Truth, and know­ledge of God, exceeding comely, were disordered and almost obliterated; the terrene Image only remained, coupled with unrighteousness, fraud, carnal affections, and great ignorance of Di­vine and Heavenly things; from thence also proceeded the infirmity of our flesh, from thence corruption and confusion of affections and desires; hence that plague, hence that seminary and nutriment of sin, wherewith all man-kind is infected, which is called Original sin. Moreover, na­ture is sodepraved and cast down, that unless the goodness and mercy of Almighty God had helped us by the medicine of grace, as in body we were thrust down into all the miseries of death, so it was necessary that all men of all sorts should be cast into eternal torments and fire which can­not be quenched. [...]e [...]. 18. Those things which are spiritual are not seen but by the eye of the spirit: He therefore that will see the Divinity of Christ on Earth, let him open the eyes, not of the body, but of the mind, and of Faith, and he shall see him present, whom the eye doth not see, he shall see him present in the midst of them: Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in his Name, he shall see him present with us to the end of the World. What have I said, he shall see Christ present! yea, he shall both see and feel him dwelling in himself no otherwise than his own soul, for he doth dwell and reside in the soul, and in the heart of him who doth place all his confidence in him.

Above all things this cannot be concealed, III that the benefits which are brought unto us by the Death, [...]. 23. the Resurrection and Ascention of Christ, were so great and ample, that no tongue either of men or Angels can express it, &c. From these, and from other actions of Christ, two benefits do accrew unto us. One, that whatsoever he did, he did it all for our profitand commodity; so that they are as much ours, if we cleave fast to him with a firm and lively faith, as if we our selves had done them. He verily was nailed to the Cross, and we are crucified with him, and our sins are punished in him. He died and was buried; we likewise with our sins are dead and buried; and that so, as that all the memory of our sins is utterly abolished; he rose again, and we also are risen with him, being made partakers of his resurrection and life, that henceforth death might no more domineer in us: for there is the same Spirit in us that raised Jesus from the dead. Lastly, as he ascended into Celestial glory, so we are exalted to­gether with him. Fol. 30. The Holy Ghost is called holy, not only for his own holiness, but because the Elect of God, Fol. 31. and the Members of Christ are made holy by him. The Church is the company of them who are called to eternal life by the Holy Ghost, by whom she is guided and governed; which time she cannot be understood by the light of sense or nature, is justly placed amongst the number of those things which are to be believed; and is therefore called the Catholick, that is the universal Assembly of the faithful, F [...]. 44, 45. because it is not tied to any certain placed. God who rules and governs all things, can do all things. No man is of so great power that he can so much as withst and him, but he gives whatsoever he shall decree according to his own pleasure; and those things which are given to us by him, he is able to take them away.

‘After the Lord God had made the Heavens and Earth, IV he determined to have for himself a most beautiful Kingdom, [...] from Pag. 37. to 41. and holy Commmon-wealth. The Apostles and Ancient Fathers that writ in Greek, called it Ecclesia, in English a Congregation or Assembly, into the which he hath admitted an infinite number of men that should be subject to one King as their Soveraign and only Head: him we call Christ, which is as much as to say Anointed; or to the furnishing of this Common-wealth, belong all they, as many as do truly fear, honour, and call upon God, daily applying their minds to holy and godly living; and all those, that putting all their hope and trust in him, [Page 585]do assuredly look for bliss of everlasting life.’ But as many as are in this Faith stedfast, were fore-chosen, predestinate, and appoined to everlasting life before the World was made, ‘witness whereof they have within their hearts the merit of Christ the Authour, ear­nest and unfailable pledge of their Faith; which Faith only is able to perceive the my­steries of God, only brings peace unto the heart, only taketh hold on the Righteous­ness which is in Christ Jesus.’

Master.

Doth then the Spirit alone and Faith (sleep we never so securely, or stand we never so reckless or slothful) work all things for us, as without any help of our own to convey us to Heaven?

Scholar.

Just Master (as you have taught me) to make a difference between the Cause and the Effect. The first principal and most proper cause of our Justification and Salvation, is the goodness and love of God, whereby he chose us for his, before he made the World. After that, God granteth us to be calledby preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, when the Spirit of the Lord is poured upon us; by whose guiding and governance we be led to settle our trust in God, and hope for the perfor­mance of his promise. With this choice is joyned as companion, the mortifying of the Old man, that is, of our affections and lusts, from the same Spirit also cometh our Sanctification, the love of God, and of our Neighbour, justice and uprightness of life. Finally, to say all in sum, whatever is in us, or may be done of us, honest, pure, true, and good, that altogether springeth out of this most pleasant Rock, from this most plentiful Fountain, the goodness, love, choice, and unchangable purpose of God; he is the cause, the rest are the fruits and effects. Yet are also the choice and Spirit of God, and Christ himself, causes conjoyned and coupled each with other; which may be reckoned amongst the principal causes of salvation. As oft therefore as we use to say that we are made righteous and saved by Faith only, it is meant thereby, that faith, or rather trust alone, doth lay hard upon, understand, and per­ceive our righteous making to be given us of God freely; that is to say, by no deserts of our own, but by the free grace of the Almighty Father. Moreover, Faith doth ingender in us love of our Neighbour, and such works as God is pleased withal: for if it be a lively and true faith quickned by the Holy Ghost, she is the mother of all good saying and doing. By this short tale it is evident by what means we attain to be righteous. For not by the worthiness of our deservings were we heretofore chosen, or long ago saved, but by the only mercy of God, and pure grace of Christ our Lord, whereby we were in him made to do those good works that God had appointed for us to walk in. And although good works cannot deserve to make us righteous before God, yet do they so cleave unto Faith, that neither Faith can be found without them, nor good works be any where found without Faith;Fol. 68. immortality and blesse life God hath provided for his chosen, before the foundations of the World were laid.

These are the passages which Mr. Prin hath gathered out of Poynets Catechism, IV to prove that Calvinism is the true, genuine, and original Doctrine of the reformed Church of England, in the Points disputed; for my part, I can see no possible inconvenience which can follow on it, in yielding so far to his desires, as to admit the passages before recited to be fully consonant to the true genuine sense, and proper meaning of all, but more especially of our 9, 10, 13, 16, and 17. Articles then newly composed; so that whatsoever is positively and clearly affirmed in this Catechism of any of the Points now controverted, may be safely implied as the undoubted Doctrine of our Church and Articles. For who can find, if he looks upon them with a single and impartial eye, that all or any of the passages be­fore treated, can be made use of for the countenancing of such a personal and eternal election, without relation unto sin, as is supposed by the Supralapsarians, or with­out reference to Christs death and sufferings, as is defended by the Sublapsarians in the Schools of Calvin? What ground can a man find here for the Horribile Decretum, that cruel and most unmerciful decree of pre-ordaining the far greatest part of all man-kind to everlasting damnation, and consequently unto sin, that they might be damned? What passage find we in all these, either in opposition to the Doctrine of Ʋniversal Re­demption (though that be afore said to be here condemned) or in maintenance of the irresistible working of the grace of God, as takes away all freedom and co-operation from the will of man, and renders him as unable to his own conversion, as to the work of his own being begotten to the life of nature; or to the raising of his dead body to life of glory? And finally, what assurance is here, that the man once justified shall not fall into deadly sin, or not continue in the same, multiplying one sin upon ano­ther, till he hath made up the measure of his iniquities? and yet all this while remain [Page 586]in the favour of God, and be as sure and certain of his own salvation by the like un­resistible working of the holy Spirit, as if he had never wandred from the ways of Righ­teousness! He must see further into a Mill-stone than all men living, who can conclude from all, or any of those passages, that the Zuinglian and Calvinian Doctrines (the Anti-Arminian Doctrines,Antia [...]m. as that Author calls them) are manifestly approved, and un­deniably confirmed by them, as the only ancient, established, and professed Doctrines of our Church and Articles, or that can honestly affirm (as his eccho doth) that both the Master and the Scholar declare themselves plainly in that Catechism, to be no friends to any of the Tenents which those of the opposite side contend for.

Which said, IV [...] Faith. & [...].-arm. p. 102. we will endeavour to find out Bishop Poynets judgment in the points disputed (or so many of them at the least as are touched upon) as well from such frag­ments as are offered to us in the Anti-Arminianism, as from such passages as have been cunningly slipt over, of purpose to subduct them from the eye of the Reader. And first, the Author lets us know that God created man after his own Image, that is to say (in ea absolutissima Justitia, & perfectissima sanctimonia, &c.) in such a high degree of righteousness and perfect holiness as came most near unto the nature of God him­self; that this Divine image was so defaced by the sin of our first Parents, Adam and Eve, that those lineaments of righteousness, holiness, truth, and knowledge of God were disordered, and almost obliterated; that man being in this wretched case, it pleased God to raise him to a new hope of Restitution in the seed of the Woman; that is to say, in Jesus Christ his only Son, conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born of the pure and most immaculate Virgin Mary; the actions of whose life do so much re­dound to our benefit and commodity, that if we cleave fast unto them with a true and lively faith, they shall be as much ours as his; and finally, that as many as are in this faith stedfast, were fore-chosen, predestinate, and appointed to everlasting life before the world was made. 2. In the next place he lets us know (which the Author hath amongst his fragments) that the sacrificings, cleansings, washings, and other Cere­monies of the Law were Shadows, Types, Images, and Figures of the true and eternal Sacrifice of Jesus Christ made upon the Cross; by whose benefit alone all the sins of all Believers from the beginning of the World, are pardoned by the sore mercy of God, and not by any deserts of their own, But then he lets us know withal (which that Author doth not) that he did truly die, and was truly buried, ut iratum humano ge­neri Patrem suavissimo sacrificio placaret, that by so sweet a Sacrifice he might reconcile his angry and offended Father unto all Man-kind. 3. In the third place, by asking this question, viz. Whether the Spirit alone, and Faith, sleep we never so securely, or stand we never so wreckless or slothful, work all things for us, as without any help of our own to carry us to Heaven? He plainly sheweth first that some me there were who did so conceive it, but that they were to be condemned for conceiving so of it. And secondly, that all men were to lend a helping hand toward their salvation, not only by laying hold on Christ with the hand of faith, but in being fruitful of good works, without which, faith is neither to be reckoned true and lively, or animated by the Holy Ghost. 4. He telleth us finally, that the Chuch is the company of them that are called to eternal life by the Holy Ghost, by whom she is guided and governed. And yet it cannot but be feared that many of those who are called to eternal life by the Holy Ghost, and chearfully for a time obey the calling, and live continually within the pale of the Church, which is guided by the most bllessed Spirit, do fall away from God and the grace received, and thereby bring themselves into a state of damnation from which they never do recover by sincere repentance.

As little comfort can be drawn from that Argument, V by which they hope to make the Articles in these points to speak no otherwise than according to the sense of Martin Bucer, Godw. Annal. in Edw. 6. and Peter Martyr, by whose Disciples and Auditors they are alledged to have been composed, or at the least by such as held consent with them in Doctrine; but unto this it hath been answered, that our first reformers were Arch-Bishops, Deans, and Arch-Deacons, most of them too old to be ut to School again to either of them. Secondly, the first Liturgy of King Edward VI. which was the Key to the whole work, was finished, con­firmed, and put in execution before either of them were brought over; dispatcht soon after their arrival to their several chairs; Martyr to the Divinity Lecture in Oxon, and Bucer unto that of Cambridge where he lived not long. And dying so quickly as he did, (Luctu Academiae, as my Author hath it) though he had many Auditors there, yet could he not gain many Disciples in so short a time. Thirdly, that though Peter Martyr lived to see the Death of King Edward, and consequently the end of the Con­vocation, [Page 587] Ann. 1552. in which the Articles of Religion were first composed and agreed on; yet there was little use made of him in advising, and much less in di­recting any thing which concerned that business; for being a stranger, and but one, and such an one who had no Authority in Church or State, he could not be considered as a Master-builder, though some use might be made of him as a labourer to advance the work. And fourthly, as to their consent in point of doctrine, it must be granted in such things, and in such things only in which hey joyn together against the Pa­pists, not in such points wherein those Learned men agreed not between themselves, and therefore could be no foundation of consent in others.

For they who have consulted the Lives and Writings of these Learned men, VI have generally observed that Bucer having spent the most part of his time in the Lutheran Churches, was more agreeable to the doctrines which were there maintained; as Martyr who was most conversant amongst the Suitzers, shewed himself more inclinable to the Zuinglian or Calvinian Tenants, And it is generally observed also that Bucer was a man of moderate counsel, and for that received a check from Calvin, at his first coming hither, putting him in remembrance of his old fault (for a fault he thought it) Mediis consiliis Autorem esse vel approbatorem, of being an Author, or an approver of such moderate courses as the hot and fiery temper of the Calvinists could by no means like. And governing himself with such moderation, he well approved of the first Li­turgy, translated into Latine by Alexander Alesius a learned Scot, that he might be the better able to understand the composure of it, and pass his judgment on the same ac­cordingly. And yet it cannot bedenied, but that there are many passages in the first Liturgy which tend directly to the maintenance of universal Redemption by the death of Christ, of the co-operation of mans will with the grace of God, and finally of the possibility of falling from that grace, and other the benefits and fruits thereof before received. In which last point it is affirmed that he amongst some others of the Pro­testant Doctors, assented to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome at the Dyet at Ratis­bone. And it is more than probable that Peter Martyr was not Peter Martyr, I mean that he was not the same man as the Zuinglian and Calvinian Doctrine is, and his espousing the same being here as he was after his departure, when he had spent some further time amongst the Suitzers, and was thereby grown a nearer neighbour unto Calvin than he was in England. For whereas his book of Common-Places, Anti-arm. p. 79.83, 94, 102, 103, 108, &c. and his Com­mentary to St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans, are most insisted on for the proof of his Calvinism; it appears plainly by his Epistle to Sir Anthony Coke, that the last was not published till the year 1558. which was more than five years after his leaving of this Kingdom. And as for his book of Common-Places, although it was Printed first at London, yet it received afterwards two impressions more, the one at Zurick, and the other at Basil, before the last Edition of it by Massonius after his decease, Ann. 1576. By which Edition, being that which is in Oxon Library, and probably remaining only in the hands of Students, or in the private Libraries of Colleges, it will be hard, if not impossible, to judge of his opinion in these points, when he lived in England.

And now Iam fallen amongst these strangers, VII it will not be amiss to consult the Pa­raphrases of Erasmus in the English tongue,Vide Chap. 8. Sect. 3. & Chap. 17. Sect. 4. which certainly had never been commen­ded to the reading both of Priest and People, as well by the injunctions of Queen Eliz. as K. Edw. VI. if they had contained in them any other Doctrine than what is conso­nant to the Articles, the Homilies, and the publick Liturgy of this Church.Paraph. Erasm. fol. 434. Now in his Paraphrase on the third Chapter of St. John, v. 16. we shall find it thus. Who (saith he) would have believed the charity of God to have been so great towards the world, being rebellious against him, and guilty of so many great faults; that not only he did not re­venge the ungracious acts that had been committed therein, but also sent down his only Son from Heaven unto Earth, and delivered him to suffer death, yea, even the most shamesful death of the Crost, to the intent that what man soever would believe in him, were he Jew, Grecian, or never so barbarous, should not perish, but obtain eternal life through the faith of the Gospel. For albeit, that in time to come the Father should judge the universal World by his Son at his l [...]st coming; yet at this time which is appointed for mercy, God hath not sent his Son to condemnn the World for the wicked deeds thereof, but by his death to give free salva­tion to the world through saith. And lest any body perishing wilfully should have where­by to exercise his own malice, there is given to all folks an easie entry to salvation. For satis­faction of the faults committed before, is not required. Neither yet observation of the Law, nor circumcision; only he that believeth in him shall not be condemned, for asmuch as he hath embraced that thing, by which eternal salvation is given to all folk, be they never so [Page 588]much burdened with sins, so that the same person after he hath professed the Gospel, do ab­stain from the evil deeds of his former life, and labour to go forward to perfect holiness, according to the doctrine of him whose name he hath professed. But whosoever condemning so great charity of God towards him, and putting from himself the salvation that was freely offered, doth not believe the Gospel, he hath no need to be judged of any body, for as much as he doth openly condemn himself; and rejecting the thing whereby he might obtain ever­lasting life, maketh himself guilty of eternal pain.

By which passages and the rest that follow on this Text of Scripture, VIII we may have a plain view of the judgment of this learned man in the Points disputed, as to the designa­tion of eternal life to all that do believe in Christ, the universality of Redemption by his death and passion, the general offer of the benefit and effect thereof to all sorts of people; the freedom of mans will in co-operating with the grace of God, or in rejecting and re­fusing it when it is so offered, and relapsing from the same when it is received. All which we find in many other passages of those Paraphrases, as occasion is presented to him. But more particularly it appears, first, that he groundeth our Election to eternal life, on the eternaland divine prescience of Almighty God; telling us in his Explication of the 25. Chap. of Sain Matthews Gospel,Ibid. fol. 96. that the inheritance o the heavenly Kingdom was prepared by the providenceand determination of God the fore-knower of all things before the World was made. Secondly, of Ʋniversal Redemption, in his gloss on the first Chap. of Saint John, Ibid. fol. 414. he telleth us thus: This Lamb (saith he) is so far from being subject to an kind of sin, that he alone is able to take away all the sins of the whole World. He is so well beloved of God, that he only may turn his wrath into mercy; He is also so gentle, and so desirous of mans salvation, that he is ready to suffer pains for the sins of all men, and to take upon him our evils, because he would bestow upon us his good things. Third­ly, of the manner of the working of Gods grace, he speaks as plainly in his Expli­cation of the sixth Chap. of the same Evangelist; where he telleth us, that of a truth whosoever cometh unto Christ, shall obtaineternal life; that by faith must men come to him, and that faith cometh not at all adventures, Ibid. fol. 443. but is had by the inspiration of God the Fa­ther, who like as he draweth to him mens minds by his Son, in such wife that through the operation of both jointly together, men come to them both: the Father not giving this so great gift, but to them that be willing and desirous to have it; so that who with a ready will and godly diligence, deserves to be drawn of the Father, he shall obtain everlasting life by the Son. No violent drawing in these words, but such as may be capable of resistance on the part of man, as appears by his descant on that plain Song of our Saviour in Matt. 23. in which he makes him speaking in this manner unto those of Hierusalem, viz. Nothing is let pass on my behalf, whereby thou mightest be saved: but contrariwise thou hast done what thou canst to bring destruction upon thy self, Ibid. fol. 90. and to exclude salvation from thee. But to whom Freewill is once given, he cannot be saved against his will. Your will ought to be agreeable to my Will, But behold as miserable calamity, &c. More plainly thus in the like descant on the same words in Saint Lukes Gospel, viz. How many a time and oft have I assaved to gather thy children together, and to join them to my self, none otherwise than the Hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, that they may not miscarry! But thy stubbornness hath gone beyond my goodness, and as though thou hadst even vowed and devoted thy self to utter ruin,so dost thou refuse all things whereby thou mightest be recovered and made whole. And finally, as to the possibility of falling from the faith of Christ, he thus declares himself in the Exposition of our Saviours Parable, touch­ing the Sower and the seed, viz. There is another sort of men which greedily hear the word of the Gospel, Ibid. fol. [...]. and set it deep enough in their mind, and keep it long; but their minds being intangled and choaked with troublesom cares of this World, and especially of Riches (as it were with certain thick thorns) they cannot freely follow that he loveth; because they will not suffer these Thorns which cleave together, and be entangled one with another among themselves, to be cut away, the fruit of the seed which is sown doth utterly perish. Which being so, either we must conclude the doctrine of this Church in the book of articles to be the same with that which is contained in the Paraphrases of this learned man or else condemn the godly Bishops of this Church, and the religious Princes above mentioned, of a great imprudence in recommending them to the diligent and careful reading both of Priest and People.

Historia Quinqu-Articularis: OR, A DECLARATION Of the Judgment of the WESTERN-CHƲRCHES, And more particularly of the CHURCH of ENGLAND, In the Five Controverted Points.
PART III. Containing the first Breakings out of the Predestinarians, in the Church of England, and the pursuance of those Quarrels, from the Reign of K. EDWARD the sixth, to the death of K. JAMES.

CHAP. XVI. Of the first breakings out of the Predestinarians, and their Proceedings in the same.

  • 1. The Predestinarians called at first by the name of Gospellers.
  • 2. Campneys a professed enemy to the Prede­stinarians, but neither Papist nor Pelagian.
  • 3. The common practices of the Calvinists to defame their Adversaries, the name of Freewill-men, to whom given, why.
  • 4. The Doctrine of John Knox, in restraining all mens actions either good or evil, to the determinate Will and Counsel of God.
  • 5. The like affirmed by the Author of the Table of Predestination; in whom, and the Genevian Notes, we find Christ to be excluded from being the foundation of mans Election, and made to be an inferiour cause of salvation only.
  • 6. God made to be the Author of sin, by the Au­thor of a Pamphlet, entituled against a Privy Papist, and his secret Counsels called in for the proof thereof both by him and Knox, with the mischiefs which ensued upon it.
  • 7. The Doctrine of Robert Crowly, imputing all mens sins to Predestination, his silly defences for the same, made good by a di­stinction of John Verons, and the weakness of that distinction shewed by Campneys.
  • 8. The Errours of the former Authors oppo­sed by Campneys, his book in answer to those Errours, together with his Orthodoxy in the point of universalRedemption, and what he builds upon the same.
  • 9. Hissolid Arguments against the imputing of all actions either good or evil to Predesti­nation; justified by a saying of Prosper of Aquitaine.
  • 10. The virulent prosecutions of Veron and Crowly, according to the Genius of the sect of Calvin.

THUS we have seen the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Five Controverted Points, I according to the Principles and persuasions of the first Reformers. And to say truth, it was but time that they should come to some conclusion in the Points disputed: there being some men who in the beginning of the Reign of King Enward the sixth, busily stickled in the maintenance of Calvins Doctrins. And thinking themselves to be more Evangelical than the rest of their Brethren, they either took unto themselves [Page 590](or had given by others) the name of Gospellers. Of this they were informed by the reverend Prelate, and right godly Martyr, Bishop Hooper, in the Preface to his Ex­position of the Ten Commandments: Our Gospellers (saith he) be better learned than the holy Ghost, for they wickedly attribute the cause of Punishments and Adversity to Gods Providence, which is the cause of no ill, as he himself can do no ill: and over every mischief that is done, they say it is Gods Will. In which we have the men and their Doctrine too, the name of Gospellers, and the reason why that name was ascribed unto them. It is observed by the judicious Author of the Book, called Europae Speculum that Calvin was the first of these latter times who search'd into the Counsels (the Eternal Coun­sels) of Almighty God. And as it seems he found there some other Gospel than that which had been written by the four Evangelists: from whence his followers in these Doctrines had the name of Gospellers: for by that name I find them frequently called by Campneys also in an Epistolary Discourse, where he clears himself from the crimes of Popery and Pelagianism, which some of these new Gospellers had charged upon him; which had I found in none but him, it might have been ascribed to heat or passion in the agitation of these Quarrels: but finding it given to them also by Bishop Hooper (a temperate and modest man) I must needs look upon it as the name of the Sect, by which they were distinguished from other men.

And now I am fallen upon this Campneys; II it will not be unnecessary to say some­thing of him in regard of the great part he is to act on the stage of this business. Protestant he was of the first Edition cordially affected to the Doctrine of the Church of England in the present points, but of a sharp and eager spirit. And being not well weaned from some points of Popery in the first dawning of the day, of our Re­formation, he gave occasion unto some of those whom he had exasperated to inform against him, that they prosecuted the complaint so far, that he was forced to bear a faggot at St. Pauls Cross (as the custom was in all such cases) Miles Coverdale, then or not long after Bishop of Exon, preaching a Sermon at the same. But whatsoever he was then in other Doctrinals, he hath sufficiently purged himself from the crimes of Popery and Pelagianism, wherewith he had been charged by those of the adverse Party.Answer to a certain Let­ter. p. 3. For whereas one William Samuel had either preached or written in Queen Maries times, That a man might deserve God, &c. Campneys beholds it for a Doctrine so blasphemous and abominable, that neither Papists nor Pelagians, nor any other Heretick old or new hath ever-written or maintained a more filthy and execrable saying. For it is the flat and manifest denying both of God the Father, and of his Son Christ Jesus: neither doth it require any confutation to him that doth but confess that there is a God. And as for my self, saith he, I do not love my life so dearly, as I hate this vile saying deadly. He gives not long after to the Popish Pelagians the name of a filthy and detestable Sect. p. 5. mu­stereth up all the errours of Pelagius, which had been publickly recanted in the Synod of Palestine, and falling upon that which teacheth, That the grace of God is given ac­cording unto our deserving; he declares it to be vile and abominable, contrary to the manifest mind and words of the Apostle, p. 12. Finally, Not to trouble my self with more particulars, encountring with another of the Pelagian Heresies, he passionately cries out, O blasphemy intolerable! O filthy puddle, and sink most execrable! full of stinking Errours, full of damnable presumption, like to the pride of Lucifer, most abo­minable, p. 15.

This is enough to free this man from being either a Papist or Pelagian Heretick, III as his Enemies made him. And for the other reproach which they laid upon him, of being an Enemy to Gods Predestination, I conceive it will not be regarded as a matter of moment, considering the Disputes between them, and the usual acts of the Calvinians to defame their Adversaries. We shewed before, how Bogerman, Paraeus, and the rest of the Calvinian Sect, reproach'd the Remonstrants with Pelagianism in their publick Wri­tings, though as free from it as themselves. We shewed before, how Cross in the continuation of his Belgick History imposeth on them for some of their detestable O­pinions, that they made God to be the Author of sin, and that he had created the infinitely greatest part of mankind to no other end, but to burn them in Hell-fire for ever: which horrid blasphemies they both abominated and confuted to their best abilities. The like unworthy practices, were used by Calvin and Beza, against Seba­stian Castel, a man of no less learning, but of far more modesty and moderation than either of them; whom they never left persecuting and reviling, till they had first cast him out of Geneva, and afterwards brought him to his grave. And this they did unto a man both of parts and piety upon no other pretence or provocation whatever, but [Page 591]because he maintained another way of predestination than that which they had taught their followers for Gods Truth and Gospel. And therefore it can be no wonder if the new Gospellers in England pursued the same courses against all those who opposed their fancies. For being governed by this spirit, they taxed their opposits sometimes for being haters of Gods Predestination, as before is said, though entire lovers of the same, Answer to a certain Letter. p. 16. re­viled them by the names of Popish Pelagians, and justifiers of themselves, imputing to those men the whole mass of Pelagianism, who from their very hearts and souls abhorr'd all their wicked Opinions, and have been many years willing to bestow their lives against all their abomi­nable Errours. And sometimes finally they call them Free-will men. in contempt and scorn; designing by that name not the Papist only, but such of their own Mothers Children also, as taught that Cain was not predestinate to slay his Brother, Id. p. 56. and that God hath not predestinate any man to the committing of Murder, or any such like wicked abominations.

Which being said, and the credit of the man set right, IV we may the better know what we are to trust to in taking up some few following passages upon his Authority. Amongst which I shall first begin with that of Knox, that great Incendiary of the Na­tion and Kirk of Scotland, who in a book of his published in the end of King Edward's, or the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign, against an Adversary of Gods Predestina­tion, as the Title telleth us. First builds the Doctrine of Predestination unto Gods absolute Will, without relation to mans sin, or our Saviours suffering: and then ascribes unto the predeterminate Counsel and Will of God, all humane actions what­soever.

In reference to the first he was of their opinion plainly, who building upon the ex­ample of Esau, exclude all that is in man, either original sin or actual, from the cause of Gods hate, which they lay on his own pleasure only; which Knox endeavoureth to make good by this following Argument, p. 141. That if Esau was hated for his evil deserving, then must needs follow, that Jacob was loved for his well-deserving, Pag. 48. the Argu­ment following, as he saith, by the rule of contraries. What superstructure he hath raised upon this foundation? Assuredly no better nor no worse than this, That the wicked are not only left by Gods suffering, but compelled to sin by his power, p. 317. More copiously, but not more plainly in another place, fol. 158. where it is affirmed, That whatsoever the Ethnicks and Ignorants did attribute unto fortune, we Christians do assign to the Providence of God, that we should judge nothing of fortune, Id. p. 22. but that all cometh by the determination of his Counsel; and finally, that it displeaseth him when we esteem any thing to proceed from any other: so that (saith he) we not only behold and know him to be the principal cause of all things, but also the Author appointing all things to the one part, or to the other by his Counsel. In which last, if he make not God the Author of sin (as I think he doth) we shall very shortly find another that will.

So able a Leader as John Knox could not want followers of all Nations to attend up­on him: in the Catalogue or list whereof, V Id. p. 36. we must first look upon the Author of a Treatise written in French, and published afterwards in English, entituled, A brief Declaration of the Table of Predestination, in which it is affirmed expresly, That seeing God hath appointed the end, it is necessary also that he should appoint the causes leading to the same end; as if he should have said (saith Campneys) that as God hath appointed some man to be hanged, so he hath appointed him also to steal, as a cause leading to the same end, to which by God he is appointed. The same French English Author lets us know in another place, That by vertue of Gods Will all things were made; yea, P. 45. even those things which are evil and execrable: Which execrable saying he endeavoureth to palliate with this distinction, That those evil execrable things which are wrought by the vertue of Gods Will, are not evil and execrable, in that they are wrought by his divine Counsel: P. 63. but for as much as they proceed from the Prince of the air And as for the foundation of Election to eternal life, he laies it not on the free Mercy of God in Christ, which he affirms to be no other, but an inferiour cause thereof; but teacheth us to ascend unto an higher cause, that is to say, to the eternal purpose and predestination of God, which he determined only in himself. Conform to which we find in the Genevian Bibles this marginal note, amongst many others of like nature, viz. As the only Will and purpose of God is the chief cause of Election and Reprobation; so his free mercy in Christ is an inferiour cause of sal­vation, &c. Rom. 9.

In the next place comes out a Pamphlet, entituled Against a privy Papist; VI the Au­thor whereof takes him to prove this point, That all evil springeth out of Gods Ordinance, or that Gods Predestination was the cause of Adams fall, and of all wickedness. Now [Page 592]this man goes to work like a Logician, and frames his Syllogism in this manner, viz.

That whatsoever was in Adam,Major. was in him by Gods Will and Ordinance.

But sin was in Adam.Minor.

Ergo, Sin was in him by Gods Will and Ordinance.

Of which Syllogism Campneys very well observeth, that if the major of it be under­stood of Adam after his fall, (as by the minor it must be) then may it be affirmed also of any other, that whatsoever execrable wickedness is in him, the same is in him by Gods Will and Ordinance. But then because it might be asked, that seeing it is the Decree, Ordinance, and Will of God that man should not sin; how they should creep into that secret Council, Ibid. p. 43. where God ordained, decreed, and willed the contrary? The leader will come in to help his followers in the present plunge; for in his trayterous and seditious Libel, Against the Regiment of Women (which he calls, The first blast of the Trumpet) he knows not how to shift off the obedience due by Gods word to lawful Queens in their several Kingdoms, but by flying to some special Revelation from his secret will, not publickly communicated to the Sons of men: And this he speaks not faintly, but with zeal and confidence, telling us who assured him, that God hath revealed to some in our Age, (that is to say, himself and his Disciples in the holy Presbytery) that it is more than a Monster in nature, that a Woman should Rule and have Empire against man. And what could they do less, upon this assurance, upon so plain a Revelation of Gods secret Will, than take up Arms against the Queen, depose her from her Throne, expel her out of her native Kingdom, and finally prosecute her to the very death. The Ladder which Constantine the great commended to Assesius a Novatian Bishop, for his safer climbing up to Heaven, was never more made use of than by Knox and Calvin, for mounting them to the sight of Gods secret Council, which St. Paul calls [...], or things unspeakable, such as are neither possible nor lawful for a man to utter.

But of all Knox's followers, VII none followed so close upon his heels as Ro. Crowly, a fugitive for Religion in Q. Maries days, and the Author of a Book called a Confutation of 13 Articles, Ibid. p. 18. &c. In which he lays the sin of Adam (and consequently all mens sins from that time to this) upon the Absolute Decree of Predestination; for seeing (saith he) that Adam was so perfect a Creature that there was in him no lust to sin; and yet withal so weak of himself, that he was not able to withstand the assault of the subtile Serpent; no re­medy, the only cause of his fall must needs be the Predestination of God. In other places of this book he makes it to be a common saying of the Free-will men (as in contempt and scorn he calls them) that Cain was not Predestinate to slay his Brother; Ibid. p. 2. [...]. which makes it plain that he was otherwise persuaded in his own opinion: That the most wicked persons that have been, whereof God appointed to be even as wicked as they were, that if God do pre­destinate a man to do things rashly and without any deliberation, he shall not deliberate at all; but run headlong upon it, Ibid. p. 2. 6. be it good or evil: That we are compelled by Gods predestination to do those things for which we are damned: Ibid. 2.7. Ibid. 46. And finally, finding this Doctrine to be char­ged with making God more cruel and unmerciful than the greatest Tyrant, and pressed therewith by some of the contrary persuasion, he returns his answer in this wise, If God (saith he) were an inferiour to any superiour power, to the which he ought to render an account of his doing, or if any of us were not his Creatures, but of another Creation besides his workmanship, then might we charge him with Tyranny, because he condemneth us, and ap­pointed us to be punished for the things we do by compulsion, through the necessity of his Pre­destination. For a Catholicon, or general Antidote, to which dangerous Doctrines, a new distinction was devised,Ibid. p. 4. 47. by which, in all abominations God was expresly said to be the Author of the fact or deed, but not of the crime; which subtilty appeareth amongst many others in a brief Treatise of Election and Reprobation, published by one John Veron in the English tongue,Ibid. p. 32. about the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth; which subtilty, Campneys not unfitly calls, a marvellous sophistication, a strange Paradox, and a cautelous Riddle, and he seems to have good reason for it. For by this Doctrine (as he noteth) it must follow, that God is the Author of the very fact and deed of Adul­tery, Theft, Murder, &c. but not the Author of the sin; Sin having, as they say, no positive entity, but being a meer nothing as it were, and therefore not to be ascribed to Almighty God: And thereup on he doth infer, that when a Malefactor is hanged for any of the facts before said, he is hanged for nothing, because the fact or deed is ascribed to God, and the sin only charged on him, which sin being nothing in it self, it must be nothing that the Malefactor is condemned or hanged for.

By all the Books it doth appear what method of Predestination these new Gospellers drive at, VIII how close they followed at the heels of their Master Calvin in case they did not [Page 593]go beyond him. Certain it is that they all speak more plainly than their Master doth; as to the making of God to be the Author of sin; though none of them speak any thing else, than what may Logically be inferred from his ground and principles. And by this book it appeareth also, now contrary these Doctrins are, to the establish'd by the first Reformers in the Church of England; how contrary the whole method of Predestination out of which they flow, is to that delivered in the Articles, the Homilies, and the publick Liturgy, and witnessed too, by so many learned men and godly Mar­tyrs. Which manifest deviation from the rules of the Church, as it gave just offence to all moderate and sober men, so amongst others unto Campneys before remembred; who could not but express his dislike thereof, and for so doing was traduced for a Pe­lagian and a Papist, or a Popish Pelagian. For which being charged, by way of Letter, he was necessitated to return an Answer to it which he published in the second or third year of Queen Elizabeth. In which Answer he not only clears himself from favouring the Pelagian Errours in the Doctrine of Freewill, Justification by Works, &c. but solidly and learnedly refuteth the Opinions of certain English Writers and Preachers; whom he accuseth for teaching of false and scandalous Doctrine, under the name of Predestination; Ibid. p. 10. Rom. 5. for his preparation whereunto he states the point of Universal Redem­ption by the death of Christ, out of the parallel which St. Paul hath made between Christ and Adam; that by the comparison of condemnation in Adam, and redemption in Christ, it might more plainly be perceived, that Christ was not inferiour to Adam, nor grace to sin; And that as all the generation of man is condemned in Adam, so is all the generation of man redeemed in Christ: and as general a Saviour is Christ by Redemption, as Adam is a condemner by transgression. Which ground so laid, he shews how inconsistent their Opinions are to the truth of Scripture, who found the Doctrine of Election and Re­probation on Gods absolute pleasure; by which infinitely the greatest part of all mankind is precedaniously excluded from having any part or interess in this Redem­ption, reprobated to eternal death, both in body and soul: as the examples of his vengeance, and consequently preordained unto sin, as the means unto it, that so his vengeance might appear with the face of Justice. Which preordaining unto sin, as it doth necessarily infer the laying of a necessity upon all mens actions, whether good or bad, according to that predeterminate Counsel and Will of God; so these good men, the Authors of the books before remembred, do expresly grant it, acknowledging that God doth not only move men to sin, but compel them to it, by the inevitable rules of Predestination.

But against this it is thus discoursed by the said Campneys: IX that if Gods Prede­stination be the only cause of Adams fall, and filthy sin: Ibid. p. 51. And consequenty the only cause and worker of all evil: yea even with compulsion and force (as they shamefully and plainly affirm) then will no man deny, but that (on the other side) Gods Predestination worketh as violently in all things that are good: so then if Gods Predestination work all, without all exception, both in evil and good; then all other things whatsoever they be, although they all appear to work and do some things; yet do they indeed utterly nothing. So that the Devil doth nothing, Man doth nothing, Laws do nothing, Doctrine doth nothing, Prayer doth nothing: but Gods Predestination doth all together, and is the efficient cause, yea and the only cause of all things. He further proves, that according unto this position, August. Retrac. l. a. c. 9. & 11. they hold the Errour both of the Stoicks, as also of the Manicheans; that is to say, Ibid. p. 26. (as St. Augustine declareth) that evil hath his original of Gods Ordinance, and not of mans freewill; for if Murtherers, Adul­terers, Thieves, Traitors, and Rebels, be of God predestinated and appointed to be wicked, (even as they are) cannot chuse but of meer necessity by the Ordinance of God, commit all such wickedness even as they do: then what is our life but a meer destiny? All our doing Gods Ordinances; and all our imaginations, branches of Gods Predestination? And then we must have Thieves by Predestination, Whoremasters, and Adulterers by Predestina­tion, Murderers, and Traitors by Predestination, and indeed, what not: if all mens actions are necessitated by the Will of God, and so necessitated that they can neither do less evil, nor more good than they do, though they should never so much endea­vour it, as some of our Calvinians teach us, which Opinion, as Campneys hath observed,Ibid. p. 45. is condemned by Prosper of Aquitane in his defence of St. Augustine, in these following words: Predestinationem dei, sive ad malum, sive ad bonum, &c. Prosp. 1. Resp. ad Object. Gal. 6. ‘That the predestina­tion of God (saith he) doth work in all men either into good or into evil, is most foolishly said. As though a certain necessity, should drive men unto both: seeing in good things the evil is not to be understood wthout grace, and in evil things the evil is to be understood without grace. And so much touching Camp­neys, [Page 594]and his performance in the points against the Gospellers, some passages having before been borrowed from him, concerning Lambert, Gynnel, and his Adherents.’ For which see, Chap. 6. Numb. 11.

No sooner was this book come out, X but it gave a very strong alarum to those of the Calvinian party within this Realm; which had been very much encreased by the retiring of so many of our learned men to the Zuinglian and Genevian Churches in Queen Maries days, amongst which none more eager, (because more concerned) than Veron, Crowly above mentioned. The first of these, being reader of the Divi­nity Lecture in the Church of St. Pauls, and one of the Chaplains to the Queen, pub­lished his Answer shortly after, called, An Apology or Defence of the Doctrine of prede­stination and dedicated to the Queen: in which Answer he gives his Adversary no bet­ter Titles, than the blind guide of the free-will men. p. 37. A very Pelagian, and consequently a Rank Papist, p. 40. Suffering the Devil, by such sectaries as Campneys to sow his lyes abroad, &c. and 41. The Standard-bearer of the free-will men; His book he calls a venomous and Railing book, upbraids him with his bearing of a faggot in King Edwards days; and challenging him, that if he be able to maintain his own Doctrine, and oppose that in the answer to it, let him come forth and play the man. Nor was it long before another An­swer came out by the name of Crowly, called an Apology or defence, of the English Wri­ters and Preachers, with Cerberus the three headed dog of Hell, Chargeth with false Doctrine, under the name of Predestination, printed at London in the year 1566. And by the Title of this Book, as we may see with what a strange Genius the Gospellers or Cal­vinians were possessed from the first beginning, we may well conjecture at the Gentle usage, which the poor man was like to find in the whole Discourse. But if it be objected in favour of these two books, that they were published by Authority and according to Order; when that of Campneys, seems to have been published by stealth without the Name of Author or of Printer, as is affirmed in Verons book before re­membred; It may be since answered, that the Doctrine of the Church was then un­setled, the Articles of King Edwards time being generally conceived to be out of force, and no new established in their place, when Veron first entred on the cause. And secondly it may be answered, that though Crowlyes Apology came not out till the year 1566, when the new Articles were agreed upon, yet his Treatice called a Con­futation of thirteen Articles, which gave occasion to the Quarrel, had been written many years before. And he conceived himself obliged to defend his Doctrine, and get as good countenance to it as he could within a time, especially intent on suppres­sing Popery, might be no hard matter for him to do. And as to that part of the Ob­jections which relate to Campneys, and his suppessing of his Name, I look upon it as a high part of wisdom in him, in regard of the great sway which the Calvinians had at their first coming over, the prejudice conceived against him for his slips and suffer­ings in the Reign of K. Edward, and the Authority of the men against whom he writ. Veron a Chaplain to the Queen, Crowly of great esteem in London for his diligent preach­ing, and Knox the great Directer of the Kirk of Scotland.

CHAP. XVII. Of the Disputes among the Confessors in Prison in Queen Maries days, and the Resetling of the Church on her former Principles under Queen Elizabeth.

  • 1. The Doctrine of Predestination disputed amongst the Confessors in Prison in Queen Maries days.
  • 2. The Examination of John Carelese be­fore Dr. Martin, in reference to the said Disputes.
  • 3. Considerations on some passages in the Conference betwixt Dr. Martin and the said John Carelese.
  • 4. Review made of the publick Liturgy by the command of Queen Elizabeth, and the Paraphrases of Erasmus commended to the reading both of Priest and People.
  • 5. The second book of Homilies how provi­ded for, and of the liberty taken by the Gospellers and Zuinglian Sectaries, be­fore the reviewing and confirming of the Book of Articles, by the Queens Authority.
  • [Page 595]6. Of the reviewing and authority of the Book of Articles, Anno 1562. and what may be from thence inferred.
  • 7. An answer from the Agreement drawn from the omitting the ninth Article of King Edwards Book, the necessity of giving some content to the Zuinglian Gospellers, and difficulty wherewith they were in­duced to subscribe the Book, at the first passing of the same.
  • 8. The Argument taken from some passages in the English Catechism, set forth by Mr. Alexander Nowel, and the strength there­of.
  • 9. Several considerations on the said Ca­techism, and the rest of the Authors ma­king; and what his being Prolocutor in the Convocation might add to any of them in point of Orthodoxy.
  • 10. Nothing to be collected out of the first passage in Mr. Nowels Catechism, in fa­vour of the Calvinian Doctrine of Prede­stination, and the points depending there­upon, and less than nothing in the second, if it be understood according to the Authors meaning; and the determination of the Church.

MORE calmly, I and with less deviation from the Doctrine of the Church of England, were the same points, disputed in Queen Maries days, amongst the Confessors in Prison, which coming to the knowledg of the Queen and her Councli, a Commission was granted to one Dr. Martin (a busie man in all such matters as ap­pears by the story) to make enquiry, amongst many other things, into this particu­lar; and he according to the power given by the Commission, convents before her one John Carelese, born at Coventry, of no better quality than a Weaver, yet one that was grown very able to express himself, when the matter came to examination: by which Examination it appears, that as Carelese somewhat differed in the Doctrine of Predestination, and the point depending thereupon from the Church assembled, ac­cording as it was established in King Edwards time; so Trew, another of the Prisoners (but of what quality or condition, I was yet to seek) seems more inclinable to that Opinion, if Carelese understood them rightly, which was defended all that time by the Popish Clergy. And that the Reader may perceive the better how the difference stood: I shall lay down so much of the Conference, between Dr. Martin and the Pri­soner, as concerns this business, leaving the Reader to admire at Gods infinite good­ness, giving poor unlettered men such a measure of Christian courage, as might en­able them to speak both stoutly and discreetly in their greatest troubles. Now the said Conference was as followeth.

2. The Examination of John Carelese before Dr. Martin.

Martin.

Carelese, I could wish that thou wouldst play the Wise mans part,Act. and Mon. fol. 1742. thou art a hand­some man, and 'tis pity but that thou shouldest do well, and save that God hath bought.

Carelese,

I think your good Mastership most heartily, and I put you out of doubt, that I am most sure and certain of my salvation by Jesus Christ: so that my Soul is safe already, what pains soever my body suffer here for a little time.

Martin.

Yea, marry you say truth, for thou art so predestinate to life that thou canst not perish in whatsoever Opinion thou dost die.

Carelese,

That God hath predestinate me to eternal life in Jesus Christ, I am most certain; and even so I am sure that his holy Spirit (wherewith I am sealed) will so preserve me from all Heresies and evil Opinions, that I shall die in none at all.

Martin.

Go to, let me hear your faith in Predestination, for that shall be written also.

Carelese,

Your Mastership shall pardon me herein, for you said your self ere while, that you had no Commission to examine my Conscience.

Martin.

I tell thee I have a Commission, yea, and a Commandment from the Council to examine thee of such things as be in Controversie between thee and thy fellows in the Kings Bench, whereof Predestination is a part as thy fellow hath confessed, and thy self dost not deny it.

Carelese,

I do not deny it, but he that first told you that matter, might have found himself much better occupied.

Martin.

Why? I tell thee truth, I may now examine thee of any thing that I list.

Carelese,

Then let your Scribe set his Pen to the paper, and you shall have it roundly, as the truth is; I believe that Almighty God, our most dear loving Father, of his great mercy, and infinite goodness (through Jesus Christ) did elect and appoint in him before the foundation of the Earth was laid, a Church or Congregation, [Page 596]which he doth continually guide and govern by his Grace and holy Spirit, so that not one of them all ever finally perish. When this was written, Mr. Doctor took it in his hand, saying.

Martin.

Why? who will deny this?

Carelese,

If you Mastership do allow it, and other Learned men, when they shall see it, I have my hearts desire.

Martin.

Did you hold no otherwise than is there written?

Carelese,

No verily, no ne're did.

Martin.

Write that he saith otherwise he holdeth not; (so that was written) it was told me also, that thou dost affirm that Christ did not die effectually for all men.

Carelese,

Whatsoever hath been told you, is not much material, for indeed I do believe that Christ did effectually die for all those that do effectually repent and believe, and for none other; so that was written.

Martin.

Now Sir, what is Trews faith of Predestination? he believeth that all men be Pre­destinate, and that none shall be damned, doth he not?

Carelese,

No forsooth, that he doth not.

Martin.

How then?

Carelese,

I think he doth believe as your Mastership, and the rest of the Clergy do believe of Predestination, that we be elect in respect of our good works, and so long elected as we do them, and no longer.

Martin.

Yet thou canst not deny but that you are at a jar amongst your selves in the Kings Bench, and it is so throughout all your Congregation, for you will not be a Church.

No, III Master Doctor, that is not so, there is a thousand times more variety of opi­nions amongst your Doctors,Carelese. which you call, of the Catholick Church; yea, and that in the Sacrament, for the which there is so much blood shed now adays. I mean of your later Doctors and new Writers; as for the old they agree wholly with us.

Now in this conference or examination there are divers things to be considered: For first, I consider Carelese as a man unlettered, and not so thoroughly grounded in the constitution of the Church of England, as not to entertain some thoughts to which the doctrine of this Church could afford no countenance. Amongst which, I reckon that strong confidence which he had of his own salvation, and of the final perseve­rance of all those who are the chosen Members of the Church of Christ, which was not taught him by the Church, and could not be obtained in any ordinary way by the light of that doctrine which then shined forth unto the People. Secondly, I consider him as one so far instructed in the knowledge of Predestination, as to lay the foundation of it on Gods great mercy, and infinite goodness in Christ Jesus; which plainly crosseth with the new Gospellers of those times, who found the same upon his absolute will and pleasure, without relation to Christs sufferings for us, or our faith in him. Thirdly I consider that the Doctrine of Ʋniversal Redemption, by the death of Christ, and the effectuality thereof to the Sons of men, was then so generally received and taught in the Reformed Church of England, as not to be known to Artificers, Tradesmen, and Me­chanicks; and that they were so well instructed in the niceties of it, as to believe that though Christ died effectually for all, yet the benefit thereof should be effectually ap­plied to none but those who do effectually repent. Fourthly, I consider that if the Popish Clergy of those times did believe no otherwise of Predestination, than that men be elected in respect of good works, and so long elected as they do them, and no lon­ger, as Carelese hath reported of them; the Doctrine of the Church hath been some­what altered since those times; there being now no such Doctrine taught in the Schools of Rome, as that a man continues no longer in the state of Election, than whilst he is exercised in good works. And finally, I consider the unfortunate estate of those, who living under no certain rule of Doctrine or Discipline, lie open to the practices of cunning and malicious men; by whom they are many times drawn aside from the true Religion. For witnesses whereof, we have Trew and Carelese above mentioned; the one being wrought on by the Papists, the other endangered by the Gospellers or Zuin­glian Sectaries: For that Carelese had been tampered with by the Gospellers or Zuin­glian Sectaries, doth appear most clearly, first by the confidence which he had of his own salvation, and of the final perseverance of all others also, which are the chosen members of the Church of Christ; and secondly, but more especially, for giving the scornful title of a Free-will man to one of his fellow Prisoners, who was it seems of [Page 597]different persuasion from him. For which consult his Letter to Henry Adlington, in the Act. and Mon. Fol. 1749. which happened unto him as to many others; when that Doctrine of the Church wanted the countenance of Law, and the Doctors of the Church here scattered and dispersed abroad, not being able to assist them. In which condition the affairs of the holy Church remained, till the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, and for some years after.

But no sooner had that gracious Lady attained the Crown, IV when she took order for the reviewing of the publick Liturgy, formerly Authorized by Act of Parliament, in the fifth and sixth years of King Edward VI. The men appointed for which work, were Dr. Parker, after Archbishop of Canterbury; Dr. Grindal, after Bishop of London; Dr. Pilkington, after Bishop of Durham; Dr. Cox, after Bishop of Elie; Dr. May, Dean of Pauls; Dr. Bill, Provost of Eaton, after Dean of Westminster; Mr. Whitehead, (some­times Chaplain to Queen Anne Bullen) designed to be the first Archbishp of this new Plantation; and finally, Sir Thomas Smith, a man of great esteem with King Edw. VI. and the Queen now Reigning. By thesE men was the Liturgy reviewed, approved, and passed, without any sensible alteration in any of the Rubricks, Prayers and Con­tents thereof; but only the giving of some contentment to the Papists and all mode­rate Protestants in two particulars; the first whereof was the taking away of a clause in the Letany, in which the People had been taught to pray to Almighty God to deli­ver them from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities. The second was, the adding of the sentences in the distribution of the Sacrament, viz. The Body of our Lord Jesus, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life. The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, &c. which sentences ex­clusive of the now following words of participation, as they were only in the first, so were they totally left out of the second Liturgy of King Edward VI. Other alterations I find none mentioned in the Act of Parliament, 1 Eliz. c. 2. but the appointing of certain Lessons for every Sunday in the year; which made no change at all in the publick Doctrine, before contained in that book; and that the People might be the better trained up in the same Religion, which had been taught and preacht unto them in the time of King Edward VI. She gave command by her Injunctions, published in the first year of her Reign, Ann. 1559. that the Paraphrases of Erasmus should be diligently studied both by Priest and People. And to that end it was required (as formerly in the Injunctions of the said King Edward) 1. That the Paraphrases of the said Erasmus, Injunct. 6. and on the Gospel in the English tongue, should be provided at the joynt charges of the Parson and Parishioners, and being so provided should be set up in some conve­nient place of every Church, so as the Parishioners may most commodiously resort un­to the same, and read the same out of the time of common service. And secondly,Injunct. 16. that every Parson, Vicar, Curate, and Stipendary Priest, shall provide, and have of his own within the time therein limitted, the New Testament in Latine and English, with the Paraphrases on the same; conferring the one with the other. And the Bi­shops by themselves and other Ordinaries, and their Officers in Synods and Visitations, shall examine the said Ecclesiastical Priests how they have profited in the study of holy Scripture. Evident Arguments that there was no intent of setling any other Doctrine in the Church of England, than such as was agreeable to the Judgment of that Learned man.

The next care was for making and perfecting those Homilies, V of which we find men­tion at the end of King Edwards book, for the necessary edifying of Christian People, and the increase of godly living; both books sufficiently provided for (besides the confirma­tion of that first Article of the year, 1552.) in the Rubrick of the second Liturgy, where it is said, that after the Creed, if there be no Sermon, shall follow one of the Homilies already set forth, or to be set forth by common authority; which Rubrick being revised with the rest of the Liturgy, put the said books of Homilies (as well the second as first part of them) into the service of the Church, and thereby made them no small part of the publick doctrine: But who they were which laboured in this second book, whe­ther they were the same that drew up the first, or those who in Queen Elizabeths time reviewed the Liturgy; or whether they were made by the one, and reviewed by the other, I have no where found, though I have taken no small pains in the search there­of. But those few doctrinals which were contained in the Book of Common Prayer, or deducible from it, not being much taken notice of; and the Homilies not confirm'd by that common Authority, which was required in the Rubrick, the Zuinglians or Gospellers took the opportunity to disperse their doctrines, before the door of utterance [Page 598]should be shut against them, or any publick course be taken to suppress their practices. And this they did with so much diligence and cunning, that they encreased exceedingly both in power and numbers; of which more hereafter. Notice whereof being taken of those which were of most Authority in the Government of the Church, it was thought necessary for the preventing of the mischief which might thence ensue, that the Articles of Religion, published in King Edwards time, 1552. should be brought under a Review, accommodated to the use of the Church, and made to be the standing rule, by which all persons were to regulate and confirm their Doctrines.

And to this end a Convocation was assembled on the 13. of January, IV Ann. 1562. which continued till the 14th. day of April; the main business which was acted in it, being the canvasing and debating of the Articles of King Edwards book, and passing them in the form and manner in which now they stood, which business as they took first into consideration on the 19th. of January, and diligently prosecuted from day to day, by the Bishops and Clergy in their several houses, they came to an agreement on the 29th. of the same month, on which the said Articles were publickly recited, gene­rally approved, and subscribed by the greatest part of the Clergy which were then assembled. And being so subscribed, presented to the Queen, and ratified by her Royal Authority, were forthwith published to the same end for which they were made, that is to say, For the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the stablishing of consent touching true Religion, as in the title is declared. In the composing of which book, though a clause was added to the twentieth Article, and another taken from the third; though some Articles of King Edwards were totally omitted, and some new made (as that amongst the rest for confirmation of the second Book of Homilies) which were not in the book before; yet the five Articles touching the Doctrine of the Church in the points disputed, as they stand in the eighth Chapter of this book, were left in that same state in which they found them. And being left in the same state in which they found them, were to be taken in the same sense, in which they had been understood at the first making of them, according to such illustrations as occur in the book of Common Prayer, such explanations as are found in the book of Homilies, and the judg­ment of those Learned men and godly Martyrs, which had a principal hand in the Re­formation, so that the Articles being the same as to these particulars, the paraphrases of Erasmus state the same; the publick Liturgy, and the first book of Homilies, in all points the same; and the second book of Homilies, agreeing exactly with the first in the present controversies, as appears by the three first Sections of the seventh Chapter of this book, and that which follows in the next; there is no question to be made, but that the doctrine was the same in the said five points, which had been publickly allowed of in the time of King Edward.

But against this it may be said, VII that one of the material Articles of King Edwards book (in reference to the points disputed) was totally left out of this; and therefore that there was some alteration of the Churches judgment, as to the sense and meaning of the present Articles, which Article being the tenth in number, as it stands in that book, is there delivered in these words, viz. Gratia Christi seu spiritus sanctus, qui per eun­dem datur, &c. ‘The grace of Christ, or the Holy Ghost which is given by him, doth take from man the heart of stone, and giveth him a heart of flesh: And though by the influences thereof, it rendreth us willing to do those good works which before we were unwilling to do, and unwilling to do those evil works which before we did; voluntati tamen nullam violentiam infert; yet is no violence offered by it to the will of man: nor can any man when he hath sinned excuse himself, quasi volens aut coactus peccaverit, as if he had finned against his will, or upon constraint, and therefore that he ought not to be accused or condemned upon that account.’ For answer whereun­to it may first be said, that the Composers of that Book, thought ir not fit to clog it with any unnecessary points in which the peace and safety of the Church seemeth not much concerned; and therefore as they left out the present Article, so they omitted the sixteenth, touching the blasphemy against the Holy Chost, together with the four last of King Edwards Book, touching the general Resurrection, the state of means souls after death, the Doctrine of the Millinaries, and of a general salvation to be given to the wicked also, after they had endured the pains of Hell for a certain time. Secondly, they considered that the doctrine of mans free Co-operation with the grace of God, had been sufficiently expressed and provided for by the tenth Article of this Book, and the ninth of which, illustrated by divers passages in the publick Liturgy, accommoda­ted and applied to the most encrease of piety in the book of Homilies: therefore that [Page 599]there was no great need to contend about it, or to retain it in the Book. And some­what also must be done (the point being so secured and provided for, as before was said) to content (the Zuinglians, or Calvinians, by which last name they were after­wards more generally called) who were grown strong and numerous in most parts of the Realm: Insomuch that many of them did not refuse to subscribe the book, and were complained of for that cause by the Prolocutor to the House of Bishops; desiring that an order might be presently made to cause them to subscribe their names to the said Article, either in their own house, or before their Lordships: which order being made on the fifth of February, the Prolocutor signified to the Archbishop and Bishops in the name of the lower House of Convocation; that some of the Refusers had sub­scribed, and that others still persisted in their former obstinacy, And thereupon the Bishops ordered the same day (the tenth of February) quod nomina eorum qui hactenus non subscripserant, presententur coram iis in proxima sessione; that is to say, that the names of such who still refused to subscribe, should be presented to their Lordships at the next Session, which put an end to the dispute, for after this I hear no more of their refusals; the subscription of the book being universal, as appears by this memorial in the journal of the Convocation, viz. universus clerus eosdem etiam unanimiter & recepit & professus est, ut ex manuum suarum subscriptionibus patet; that is to say, that all the Clergy did unani­mously approve the said Articles, and testified their consent therein, as by the sub­scription of their hands doth and may appear; so difficult a thing it was from the first beginning, to bring that violent and head-strong faction unto any confor­mity.

In the next place it is objected that Mr. Alexander Nowel Dean of Saint Pauls, VIII who was Prolocutor in this Convocation,Justif. of the Fath. pref. maintaineth in his Catechism a Doctrine con­trary to that which the Arminians, as some call them, do now contend for; and that it is not to be thought that he and others engaged with them in the same convoca­tion, were either so ignorant, as not to understand what they put into the Articles, or so infatuated by God, to put in things quite contrary to their own judgments, which be­ing supposed or took for granted, we are directed to his Catechism written in the English tongue, and dedicated from the two Archbishops, from which the Objector hath abstracted these two passages following, viz. To the Church do all they properly be­long, as many as do truly fear, honour, and call upon God, altogether applying their minds to live holily and godly, and with putting all their trust in God, do most assuredly look for the blessedness of eternal life. They that be stedfast, stable and constant in this faith, where chosen and appointed, and (as we term it) predestinate to this so great felicity, p. 44. The Church is the body of the Christian Common-wealth, i. e. the universal number and fellowship of the faithful, whom God through Christ hath before all beginning of time, appointed to everlasting life. Such are the passages in this Catechism, from which the Objector hath con­cluded, that Mr. Nowel had no communion with Arminians (as some please to call them.) And to say truth, he could have no communion with the Arminians (as some please to call them) though he had desired it; Arminius being not born, or but newly born, when Mr. Nowel wrote that Catechism; and Mr. Nowel had been dead some years be­fore the name of an Arminian had been heard in England.

But unto this it hath been answered, that looking upon Mr. Nowel, IX in his publick capacity, as he was Prolocutor to that Convocation, it cannot be denied, but that he was as like to undersTand the conduct of all affairs therein, as any other whatsoever: And yet it cannot rationally be inferred from thence, that therefore nothing was con­cluded in that Convocation which might be contrary to his own judgment for a pri­vate person, admitting that he was inclined to Calvin in the points disputed, as he was not neither. For had he been of his opinion, the spirit of that Sect is such as could not be restrained from shewing it self dogmatical, and in terms express; and not oc­casionally only, and on the by (as in the Catechism now before us) and that too in full general terms that no particular conclusion can be gathered from them.Justif. of the Fath. pref. It hath been answered again thus, that the Articles in the five points, being the same with those in King Edwards book, and so confessed by the Objector; and no new sense be­ing put upon them by the last establishment, they must be understood no otherwise than according to the judgment of those learned men, and godly Maryrs, before remem­bred, who had before concurred unto the making of them, from which, if Mr. Nowels sense should differ in the least degree, it is to be lookt upon as his own, not the sense of the Church. And thirdly, it hath been observed that the Catechism to which we are referred for the former passages, is not the same with that, which is authorized to [Page 600]be taught in the Grammar Schools in Greek and Latine, nor the same which was pub­lished with the consent of the Author in the English tongue, Ann. 1572. but a Cate­chism of a larger size, yet of less authority, out of which the other was extracted; such points as were superfluous, and not well expressed, not being reduced into the same. And somewhat certainly there was in it, which rendred it uncapable of any further editions, and not thought fit to be translated into Latine, though such a tran­slation of it was propounded to the Archbishops, Bishops in the Epistle Dedicatory, to the shorter English. And though to let us know what Catechism it is he means, he seems to distinguish it from the other, it being dedicated to the two Archbishops: Yet that doth rather betray the Objectors ignorance than advance his cause, the Authors own Latine Edition, and the English of it beign dedicated to the two Archbishops as well as that.

But since he hath appealed to the larger Catechism, X to the larger Catechism let him go, in which he cannot so much as find one single question touching the Doctrine of Predestination, or the points depending thereupon: and therefore is necessitated to have recourse unto the Articles of the Catholick Church, the mem­bers and ingredients of it, from whence he doth extract the two former passages. And then again, we are to note, that the first of the two passages not being to be found in the Latine Edition, nor the English translation of the same, is taken al­most word for word out of Nowels Catechism, therefore to be understood in no other sense than before it was, when it was perused and approved by the Bishops, and other Learned men of King Edwards time. And thirdly, there is nothing in all that passage, which justifieth the absolute and irrespective decree of the Pre­destinarians, or the restraining of hte benefit of our Saviours sufferings to a few particulars, nothing of Gods invincible working on the hearts of his chosen ones, or the impossibility of mans co-operating any further in his resurrection from the death of sin to the life or righteousness, than in that of his body from the grave to the life of glory; nothing that teacheth any such certainly, or infallibly of per­severing in the faith and favour of God: as all the sins of the world are not able to deprive them of it, but that they shall, must necessarily be brought again into the place and station from which they had fallen. And as for the last of the said two passages being the very same with that in the Authors Latine, and the English translation of the same, there is nothing in it, which either a true Eng­lish Protestant, or a Belgick Remonstrant may not easily grant, and yet preserve himself from falling into Calvinism in any of the points disputed. For granting that the Church is the universal number and fellowship of all the faithful whom God through Christ hath before all beginning of time appointed to everlasting life: Yet must it so be understood, that either they were appointed to eternal life upon the sup­position of their faith and repentance, which may extend to the including of all those who are called to the external participation of the Word and Sacraments: or else that it is meant especially of such as are appointed from all eternity to life everlasting, without excluding any from the Dignity of being members of the Church, who have received the outward call, and openly joyn with them in all publick duties, and thereby pass in common estimate amongst the faithful Be­lievers: And then this definition will afford no comfort to our modern Calvinists, or create any inconvenience unto those whom they call Arminians.

CHAP. XVIII. A Declaration of the Doctrine in the Points disputed under the new establishment made by Queen Elizabeth.

  • 1. the Doctrine of the second Book of Ho­milies concerning the wilful fall of Adam, the miserable estate of man, the restitu­tion of lost man in Jesus Christ, and the universal redemption of all man-kind by his death and passion.
  • 2. The doctrine of the said second Book con­cerning universal grace, the possibility of a total and final falling, and the co-operation of mans will with the grace of God.
  • 3. The judgment of Reverend Bishop Jewel, touching the universal redemption of man­kind by the death of Christ; Predestination grounded upon faith in Christ, and reached out unto all them that believe in him, by Mr. Alexander Poynets.
  • 4. Dr. Harsnet in his Sermon at St. Pauls Cross, Anno 1584. sheweth that the ab­solute decree of Reprobation turneth the truth of God into a lie, and makes him to be the Author of sin.
  • 5. That it deprives man of the natural free­dom of his will, makes God himself to be double minded, to have two contrary wills, and to delight in mocking his poor Creature, Man.
  • 6. And finally, that it makes God more cruel and unmerciful than the greatest Tyrant, contrary to the truth of Scripture, and the constant Doctrine of the Fathers.
  • 7. The rest of the said Sermon reduced unto certain other heads, directly contrary to the Calvinian Doctrines in the points disputed.
  • 8. Certain considerations on the Sermon afore­said, with reference to the subject of it, as also to the time, place, and persons, in and before which it was first preached. An Answer to some Objections concerning a pre­tended Recantation falsly affirmed to have been made by the said Mr. Harsnet.
  • 10. That in the judgment of the Right Learned Dr. King, after Bishop of Lon­don, the alteration of Gods denounced judg­ments in some certain cases infers no alte­ration in his Counsels; the difference be­tween the changing of the will, and to will a charge.
  • 11. That there is something in Gods decrees revealed to us, and something concealed unto himself, the difference between the in­feriour and superiour causes, and of the conditionalty of Gods threats and promises.
  • 12. The accommodating of the former part of this discourse to the case of the Ninevites.
  • 13. And not the case of the Ninevites to the case disputed.

THese Obstacles being thus removed, I I shall proceed unto a Declaration of the Churches Doctrine under this new establishment, made by Queen Elizabeth. And first, all Arguments derived from the publick Liturgy, and the first book of Ho­milies being still in force; we will next see what is delivered in the Homilies of the second part, establisht by a special Article, and thereby made a part of the doctrine here by Law established: And first, as touching the doctrine of Predestination, it is declared in the Homily of the Nativity, That as in Adam all men universally sinned; so in Adam all men received the reward of sin; that is to say, became mortal and subject unto death, having in themselves nothing but everlasting condemnation, both of body and soul; that man being in this wretched case, ti pleased God to make a new Covenant with him, namely, that he would send a Mediator or Messias into the world which should make intercession, and put him­self as a stay between both parties, to pacifie wrath and indignation conceived against sin, and to deliver man out of the miserable curse, and cursed misery, whereunto he was fallen head­long, by disobeying the Will and Commandment of the only Lord and Maker. Nor, secondly, was this deliverance and redemption partial, intended only for a few, but general and universal for all man-kind; the said Homily telling us not long after, that all this was done to the end, the promise and covenant of God made unto Abraham and his Posterity, Hom. p. 172. concerning the Redemp­tion of the World, might be credited and believed—to deliver man-kind from the bitter curse of the Law, and make perfect satisfaction by his death for the sins of all People.— For the accomplishment whereof, It was expedient, saith the Homily, that our Medi­ator should be such an one as might take upon him the sins of Man-kind, and sustain the due punishment thereof, viz. Death—to the intent he might more fully and perfectly make satisfaction for man-kind: which is as plain as words can make it, and yet not more plain than that which followeth in the Homily of the worthy receiving of the Sa­crament, Fol. 200.

Nor doth the Homily speak less plainly in another place concerning Universal Grace, II than it doth speak to this in reference to Universal Redemption, as appears evidently by the first part of the Sermon against the peril of Idolatry,Hom. 1. part against the peril. in which it is declared in the way of paraphrase on some passages in the 40. Chapter of the Prophet Isaiah, That it had been preached to men from the beginning, and how by the Creation of the World, and the greatness of the work, they might understand the Majesty of God, the Creator and Maker of all things to be greater than it should be expressed in any image or bodily similitude. And therefore by the light of the same instruction (had they not shut their eyes against it) they might have come unto a further knowledg of the Will of God; and by degrees to the performance of all moral duties required of them before Christ coming in the flesh. And in the third part of the same Sermon there are some passages which do as plainly speak of falling from God, the final alienation of the Soul of a man once righteous, from his love and favour. Where it is said, how much better in were that the Arts of Painting, and we had never been found, than one of them whose Souls are so precious in the sight of God, should by occasion of Image or Picture, perish and be lost. And what can here be understood, by the souls which are so precious in the sight of God, but the souls of the Elect, of justified and righteous per­sons, the souls of wicked men being vile and odious in his sight, hated by God, as Esau was, before all Eternity, as the Calvinians do informs us. And what else can we understand by being perished and lost, but a total or final alienation of those precious souls, Hom. of the Resurrection. p. 139. from his grace and favour: more plainly speaks the Homily of the Resurrection, in which the Church represents unto us, what shame it should be for us, being thus clearly and freely washed from our sin to return to the filthiness thereof again? What a folly it would be for us, being thus endued with Righteousness to lose in again? What a madness it would be to lose the inheritance we be now set in, for the vile and transitory pleasure of sins. And what an unkindness it would be, where our Saviour Christ of his mercy is come unto us, to dwell with us as our guest, to drive him from us, and to banish him violently out of our souls: And instead of him in whom is all grace and vertue to receive the ungracious spirit of the De­vil, the founder of all naughtiness and mischief; than which there can be nothing more direct and positive to the point in hand. And as for the co-operation of mans will with the grace of God, either in accepting or resisting it, when once offered to him, besides what may be gathered from the former passages; it is to be presumed as a thing past question in the very nature of the book, for what else are those Homilies but so many proofs and arguments to evince that point. For to what purpose were they made, but to stir up the minds of all men to the works of piety: And what hopes could the Au­thors of them give unto themselves of effecting that which they endeavoured, had they not presupposed and taught that there was such a freedom in the will of man, such an assistance of Gods grace, as might enable them to perform these works of piety, as in all and every one of the said Homilies are commended to them. More for the proof of which points, might be gathered from the said second book of Homilies; established by the Articles of Queen Elizabeth's time, as before is said, were not these sufficient. Proceed we therefore from the Homilies, III and the publick Monuments of the Church to the judgment of particular persons, men of renown and eminent in their several places, amongst which we find incomparable Jewel, then Bishop of Salsbury, thus clearly speaking in behalf of Universal Redemption, viz. Ceerto animis nostris persua­demus, &c. ‘We do assuredly persuade our minds (saith he) that Christ is the ob­tainer of forgiveness for our sins;Bishop Jewels Def [...]n. Apo­log. c. 18. De­vis. 1. and that by his bloud all our spots of sins be wash­ed clean: that he hath pacified and set at one all things by the bloud of his Cross: that he by the same one only Sacrifice which he once offered upon the Cross, hath brought to effect, and fulfilled all things: and that for the cause he said, it is finished. By which word (saith he) he plainly signified, persolutum jam esse pre­tium, pro peccato humani generis, that the price or ransom was now fully paid for the sin of mankind.’ Now as Bishop Jewel was a principal member of the House of Bi­shops, so Mr. Nowel was the Prolocutor for the House of the Clergy, in which the Ar­ticles were debated and agreed upon. In which respect his favour is much sought by those of the Calvinian party, as before was shewn. But finding no comfort for them in his larger Catechism, let us see what may be found in his Latin Catechism, autho­rized to be taught in Schools, and published by his consent in the English Tongue, Anno 1572. And first he sheweth, that as God is said to be our Father for some other reasons,Catec. Edi­tion c. 1 [...]54. p. 19 so most specially for this; quod nos divine per spiritum sanctum generavit, & per fidem in verum suum, atque naturalem filium Jesum Christum nos elegit, sibique Filios, & [Page 603]regni Coelestis, atque sempiternae vitae heredes per eundem instituit, that is to say, because he hath divinely regenerated us (or begotten us again) by the Holy Ghost, and hath elected us by Faith in his true and natural Son Christ, Jesus, and through the same Christ hath adopted us to be his Children and Heirs of his heavenly Kingdom and of life everlasting. And if Election come by our faith in Christ, as he saith it doth, eni­ther a Supra-lapsarian, nor a Sub-lapsarian, can find any comfort from this man, in favour of that absolute and irrespective decree of Predestination, which they would gladly father on him in his larger Catechism, and then as for the method of Prede­stination, he thus sets it forth, viz. Deus Adamum illis honoris insignibus ornavit, Ibid. 22. ut ea cum sibi tum suis, id est, toto humano generi, aut servaret, aut amitteret, &c. ‘God (saith he) indued Adam with those Ornaments (that is to say) those Ornaments of Grace and Nature, which before we spake of) that he might have them or lose them for him­self and his, that is to say, for all mankind. And it could not otherwise be, but that as of an evil Tree, evil fruits do spring: so that Adam being corrupted with sin, all the issue that came of him, must also be corrupted with that original sin; For delivery from the which there remained no remedy in our selves, and therefore God was pleased to proise that the seed of the Woman, which is Jesus Christ, should break the head of the Serpent, that is, of the Devil, who deceived our first Parents, and so should deliver them and their posterity that believed the same. Where first we have mans fall, Secondly, Gods mercy in his restitution. Thirdly, This restituti­on to be made by Jesus Christ; and fourthly, to be made to all, which believe the same.’

Proceed we next to a Lermon preached at St. Pauls Cross, Octob. 27. 1854. by Samuel Harsnet then fellow of Pembrook Hall in Cambridg, IV and afterwards Master of the same, preferred from thence to the See of Chichester, from thence translated unto Norwich, and finally to the Archiepiscopal See of York. For the Text or subject of his Sermon, he made choice of those words in the Prophet Ezekiel, viz. As I live (saith the Lord) I delight not in the death of the wicked, Chap. 33. v. 11. In his Discourse upon which Text, he first dischargeth God from laying any necessity of sinning on the sons of men, and then delighting in their punishment because they have sinned: he thus breaks out against the absolute decree of Reprobation, which by that time had been made a part of the Zuinglian Gospel,Mr. Harnets Sermon at Pauls Cross bound up at the end of Dr. Stewards three Ser­mons, printed 1 [...]58. p. 1 [...]3. &c. and generally spread abroad both from Press and Puipit. There is a conceit in the World (saith he) speak little better of our gracious God than this, and that is, that God shoould design many thousands of souls to Hell before they were, not in eye to their faults, but to his own absolute will and power, and to get him glory in their damnation. This Opinion is grown high and monstrous, and like a Goliah, and men do shake and tremble at it; yet never a man reacheth to Davids sing to cast it down. In the name of the Lord of Hosts we will encounter it, for it hath reviled not the Host of the living God, but the Lord of Hosts.

First, That it is directly in opposition to this Text of holy Scripture, and so turns the truth of God into a lye. For whereas God in this Text doth say and swear, that he doth not de­light in the death of man; this Opinion saith, that not one or two, but millions of men should fry in Hell; and that he made them for no other purpose than to be the children of death and hell, and that for no other cause but his meer pleasure sake; and so say, that God doth not only say, but will swear to a lye. For the Oath should have run thus, As I live (saith the Lord) I do delight in the death of man.

Secondly, it doth (not by consequence but) directly make God the Author of sin. For, if God without eye to sin did design men to hell, then did he say and set down that he should sin; for without sin he cannot come to hell: And indeed doth not this Opinion say, that the Almighty God in the eye of his Counsel, did not only see, but say that Adam should fall, and so order and decree, and set down his fall, that it was no more possible for him not to fall, than it was possible for him not to eat? And of that when God doth order, set down and decree (I trust) he is the Author, unless they will say, that when the Right honourable Lord Keeper doth say in open Court, We order, he means not to be the Author of that his Order.

Which said, he tells us Thirdly,Ibid. p. 135. that it takes away from Adam (in his state of innocency) all freedom of will and Liberty not to sin. For had he had freedom to have altered Gods designment, Adams liberty had been above the designment of God. And here I remember a little witty solution is made, that is, if we respect Adams Will, he had power to sin, but if Gods Decrees, he could not sin. This is a filly solution; And indeed it is as much as if you should take a sound, strong man that hath power to walk, and to lie still, and bind him hand and foot, (as they do in Bedlam) and [Page 604]lay him down, and then bid him rise up and walk, or else you will stir him up with a whip; and he tell you, that there be chains upon him, so that he is not able to stir; and you tell him again, that, that is no excuse, for if he look upon his health, his strength, his legs, he hath power to walk, or to stand still; but if upon his Chains, indeed in that respect he is not able to walk. I trust he that should whip that man for not walking, were well worthy to be whipt himself: Fourthly, As God do abhor a heart, and a heart, and his soul detesteth also a double minded man: so himself cannot have a mind and a mind: a face like Janus, to look two ways. Yet this Opinion maketh in God two Wills, the one flat opposite to the other: An Hidden Will by which he appointed and willed that Adam should sin; and an open Will by which he forbad him to sin. His open Will said to Adam in Paradise, Adam thou shalt not eat of the Tree of good and evil: His Hidden Will said, Thou shalt eat; nay, now I my self cannot keep thee from eating, for my Decree from Eternity is pas­sed, Thou shalt eat, that thou may drown all thy posterity into sin, and that I may drench them as I have designed, in the bottomless pit of Hell. Fifthly, Amongst all the Abomina­tions of Queen Jezabel, that was the greatest (1 Kings 21.) when as hunting after the life of innocent Naboth, she set him up amongst the Princes of the Land, that so he might have the greater fall. God planted man in Paradise, (as in a pleasant Vineyard) and mounted him to the World as on a stage, and honoured him with all the Soveraignty, over all the Creatures; he put all things in subjection under his feet, so that he could not pass a decree from all Eternity against him, to throw him down head-long into Hell: for God is not a Jezabel, Tollere in altum, to lift up a man, ut lapsu graviore ruat, that he may make the greater noise with his fall.

But he goes on, VI and having illustrated this cruel Mockery by some further instances, he telleth us, Ibid. p. 140. that the Poet had a device of their old Saturn, that he eat up his Children assoon as they were born, for fear least some of them should dispossess him of Heaven. Pharaoh King of Egypt, had almost the same plea, for he made away all the young Hebrew Males lest they should multiply too fast: Herod for fear our Saviour Christ should supplant him in his Kingdom, caused all the young Children to be slain: those had all some colour for their barbarous cruelty But if any of those had made a Law, designing young Children to torments before they had been born; and for no other cause and purpose, but his own absolute will; the Heavens in course would have called for revenge, It is the Law of Nations, that no man innocent shall be condemned; of Reason not to hate, where we are not hurt; of Nature to like and love her own brood, [...], (saith the holy Ghost) we are Gods Kindred, he cannot hate us when we are innocent, when we are nothing, when we are not. Now touching Gods Glory (which is to us all as dear as our life) this Opinion hath told us, a very inglorious and shameful Tale, for it saith, the Almighty God would have many souls go to Hell; and that they may come thither, they must sin, that so he may have just cause to condemn them. Who doth not smile at the Grecians Conceit, that gave their God a glorious title for killing of flies? Gods Glory in punishing ariseth from his Justice in revenging of sin: and for that it tells us, as I said, a very sad and unpleasant Tale; for who could digest it to hear a Prince say after this manner? I will beget met a Son, that I may kill him, that I may so get me a name, I will beget him without both his feet, and when he is grown up, having no feet, I will command him to walk upon pain of death: and when he breaketh my Commandment, I will put him to death. O beloved, these glorious fancies, imaginations and shews, are far from the nature of our gracious, merciful and glo­rious God, who hath proclaimed himself in his Titles Royal, Jehovah, the Lord, the Lord strong and mighty, and terrible, slow to anger, and of great goodness: And therefore let this conceit be far from Jacob, and let it not come near the Tents of Joseph. How much holier and heavenlier conceit had the holy Fathers of the Justice of God? Non est ante pu­nitor Deus, quam peccator homo, God put not on the person of a Revenger, before man put on the person of an Offender, saith St. Ambrose. Neminem coronat antequam vincit; neminem punit antequam peccat; he crowns none before he overcomes, and he punisheth no man before his offence. Et qui facit miseros ut miseratur, crudelem habet misere­cordiam, he that puts man into miseries that he may pity him, hath no kind, but a cruel pity.

The absolute decree of Reprobation being thus discharged, VII he shews in the next place,Ibid. 48. that as God desireth not the death of man without relation to his sin, so he de­sireth not the death of the sinful man, or of the wicked sinful man, but rather that they shoudl turn from their wickedness and live. And he observes it is said unto the Goats in St. Matthews Gospel, Ite malidicti in ignem paratum; ‘he doth not say, Ma­ledicti patris, Go ye cursed of the Father; (as it is Benedicti patris, when he speaks [Page 605]of the sheep) God intituling himself to the blessing only; and that the fire is pre­pared, but for whom? Non vobis, sed Diabolo & Angelis ejus, not for you, but for the Devil and his Angels. So that God delighteth to prepare neither Death nor Hell for damned men. The last branch of his Discourse he resolves into six consequences, as links depending on his Chain: 1. Gods absolute Will is not the cause of Re­probation, but sin. 2. No man is of an absolute necessity the child of Hell, so as by Gods grace he may not avoid it. 3. God simply willeth every living soul to be saved, and to come to the Kingdom of Heaven. 4. God sent his Son to save every soul, and to bring it to the Kingdom of Heaven. 5. God offereth Grace effectually to save every one, and to direct him to the Kingdom of Heaven. 6. The nelgect and contempt of this Grace, is the cause why every one doth not come to Heaven, and not any privative Decree, Council and Determination of God.’ The stating and canvasing of which points, so plainly, curtly to the Doctrines of che old Zuinglian Gospellers, and the modern Calvinians; as they take up the rest of the Sermon, so to the Sermon I refer the Reader for his furtehr satisfaction in them. I note this only in the close, that there is none of the five Arminian Articles (as they commonly call them) which is not contained in terms express; or may not easily be found by way of Deduction in one or more of the six consequences before recited.

Now in this Sermon there are sundry things to be considered, as namely, first, VIII That the Zuinglian or Calvinian Gospel in these points, was grown so strong, that the Preacher calls it their Goliah; so huge and monstrous, that many quaked and trembled at it, but none, that is to say, but few or none, vel duo, vel nemo, in the words of Persius, durst take up Davids sling to throw it down. Secondly, That in canvasing the absolute Decree of Reprobation, the Preacher spared none of those odious aggravations which have been charged upon the Doctrines of the modern Calvinists by the Remonstrants, and their party in these latter times. Thirdly, That the Sermon was preached at St. Pauls Cross, the greatest Auditory of the Kingdom, consisting not only of the Lord Mayor, the Aldermen, and the rest of the chief men in the City, but in those times of such Bishops, and other learned men as lived occasionally in London, and the City of Westminster, as also of the Judges and most learned Lawyers, some of the Lords of the Council being for the most part present also. Fourthly, That for all this we can­not find, that any offence was taken at it, or any Recantation enjoyned upon it, either by the high Commission, or Bishop of London, or any other having Authority in the Church of England, nor any complaint made of it to the Queen, or the Council-Table, as certainly there would have been, if the matter of the Sermon had been con­trary to the Rules of the Church, and the appointments of the same. And finally we may observe, that though he was made Archbiship of York in the Reign of King Charles, 1628. when the times are thought to have been inclinable, to those of the Arminian Doctrines, yet he was made Master of Pembrook Hill, Bishop of Chichester, and from thence translated unto Norwich, in the time of King James. And thereupon we may conclude, that King James neither thought this Doctrine to be against the Articles of Religion, here by Law established, nor was so great an Enemy to them, or the men that held them, as some of our Calvinians have lately made him.

But against this it is objected by Mr. Prin in his book of Perpetuity, IX &c. printed at London in the year 1627. 1. That the said Mr. Harsnet was convented for this Ser­mon, and forced to recant it as Heretical. 2. That upon this Sermon,Perpetulty, &c. 304. and the Contro­versies that arose upon it in Cambridg between Baroe and Whitacres, not only the Ar­ticles of Lambeth were composed (of which more hereafter) but Mr. Wotton was appointed by the University to confute the same. 3. That the siad Sermon was so far from being published or printed, that it was injoyned by Authority to be recanted. For Answer whereunto, it would first be known, where the said Sermon was recanted, and by whose Authority. Not in or by the University of Cambridg, where Mr. Harsnet lived both then, and a long time after; for the Sermon was preached at St. Pauls Cross, and so the University could take no cognisance of it, nor proceed against him for the same. And if the Recantation was madea t St. Pauls Cross, where the sup­posed offence was given, it would be known by whose Authority it was enjoyned. Not by the Bishop of London, in whose Diocess the Sermon was preached: for his Au­thority did not reach so far as Cambridg, whither the Preacher had retited after he had performed the service he was called unto: and if it were injoyned by the High Com­mission, and performed accordingly, there is no question to be made, but that we should have heard of in the Anti-Arminianism, where there are no less than eight leaves [Page 606]spend in relating the story of a like Recantation pretended to be made by one Mr. Barret on the tenth of May 1595. and where it is affirmed, that the said Mr. Harsnet held and maintained the same errors for which Barret was to make his Recantation. But as it will be proved hereafter that no such Recantation wass made by Barret, so we have reason to believe that no such Recantation was imposed on Harsnet. Nor, secondly, can it be made good, that the Controversies between Doctor Whitacres and Dr. Baroe were first occasioned by this Sermon, or that Mr. Wotton was appointed by the University to confute the same. For it appears by a Letter written from the heads of that Uni­versity to their Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer Burleigh. dated March 18. 1595. that Baroe had maintained the same Doctrines, and his Lectures and Determinations above 14 years before, by their own account, for which see Chap. 21. Numb. 80. which must be three years at the least before the preaching of that Sermon by Mr. Harsnet. And though it is probable enopugh that Mr. Wotton might give himself the trouble of con­futing the Sermon, yet it is more than probable that he was not required so to do by that University. For if it had been so appointed by the University, he would have been rewarded for it by the same power and authority which had so appointed, when he appeared a Candidate for the Professorship on the death of Whitacres, but could not find a party of sufficient power to carry it for him, of which see also Chap. 21. Numb. 4. And thirdly, as for the not Priting of the Sermon, it is easily answered; the genius of the time, not carrying men so generally to the Printing of Sermons as it hath done since. But it was Printed at the last, though long first: And being Printed at the last, hath met with none so forward in the Confutation, as Mr. Wotton is affirmed to be, when at first it was Preached. And therefore notwithstanding these three surmises which the Author of the Perpetuity, &c. hath presented to us, it may be said for certain, as be­fore it was, that Mr. Harsnet was never called in question for that Sermon of his, by any having Authority to convent him for it, and much less, that he ever made any such Recantation, as by the said Author is suggested.

In the next place we will behold a passage in one of the Lectures upon Jonah, X deli­vered at York, Anno 1594. by the right learned Dr. John King (discended from a Bro­ther of Robert King, the first Bishop of Oxon) afterwards made Dean of Christ Church, and from thence presented by the power and favour of Archbishop Bancroft to the See of London: A Prelate of too known a zeal to the Church of England to be accused of Popery, or any other Heterodoxies in Religion, of what sort soever, who in his Le­cture on these words, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown, cap. 3. verse 4. discoursed on them in this manner.

The only matter of Question herein,Bishop King's Lecture upon Jonath, Lect. 33. p. 450. is how it may stand with the constancy and truth of eternal God to pronounce a Judgment against a place which taketh not effect within one hundred years: For either he weas ignorant of his own time, which we cannot imagine of an omniscient God, or his mind was altered, which is unpro­ble to suspect.Numb. 23. Heb. 13. Rev. 1. For is the strength of Israel a man that he should lie, or as the Son of man that be should repent? Is he not yesterday, and to day, and the same for ever? that was, that is, and that which is to come? I mean not only in substance, but in Will and Intention? Doth he use lightness? Are the words that he speaketh, yea and nay? Doth he both affirm and deny too?2 Cor. 1. Are not all his Promises, are not all his Threatnings, are not all his Mercies, are not all his Judgments, are not all his Words, are not all the titles and jots of his words, yea and amen? so firmly ratified, that they cannot be broken: Doubtless it shall stand immutable, When the Heaven and the Earth shall be changed, Mal. 3. and wax old like a garment, Ego Deus & non mutor, I am God that am not changed. Aliud mutare voluntatem, aliud velle mu­tationem. A­quin. 1. qu. 19. art. 7. The School in this respect hath a wise distinction, It is one thing to change the will, and another to will a change, or to be willed that a change should be. God will have the Law and Ceremony at one time, Gospel without Ceremony at another, this was his Will from Everlasting, constant and unmoveable, that in their several courses both should be. Though there be a change in the matter and subject, there is not a change in him that disposeth it. Our Will is in Winter to use the fire, in Sum­mer a cold and an open air; the thing is changed according to the season; but our Will whereby we all decreed and determined in our selves so to do, remain the same.

Sometimes the Decrees and purposes of God consist of two parts, XI the one whereof God revealeth at the first, and the other he concealeth a while, and keepeth in his own knowledge; as in the action enjoyned to Abraham, the purpose of God was two­fold: 1. To try his Obedience. 2. To save the Child. A man may impute it incon­stancy [Page 607]to bid and unbid:Mutat seo tentiam non mutat consili­um. lib. 10. mor. cap. 23. but that the Will of the Lord was not plenarily understood in the first part. This is it which Gregory expresseth in apt terms, God changeth his in­tent pronounced sometimes, but never his Counsel intended. Sometimes things are decreed and spoken of according to inferiour cause, which by the highest and over­ruling cause are otherwise disposed of. One might have said, and said truly both ways, Lazarus shall rise again, and Lazarus shall not rise again: if we esteem it by the power and finger of God it shall be; but if we leave it to nature, and to the arm of flesh, it shall never be. The Prophet Esay told Hezekias the King, put thy house in or­der, Esa. 38. for thou shalt die: considering the weakness of his body, and the extremity of his disease, he had reason to warrant the same; but if he told him contrariwise, accor­ding to that which came to pass, thou shalt not die, looking to the might and merecy of God, who received the prayers of the King, he had said as truly. But the best defi­nition is, that in most of these threatning there is a condition annexed unto them, ei­ther exprest or understood, which is as the hinges to the door,Jer. 18. and turneth forward and backward the whole matter. In Jeremy it is exprest, I will speak suddenly against a Nation or a Kingdom, to pluck it up, to root it out, and to destroy it: But if this Nation, Jer. 18. against whom I have pronounced, turn from their wickedness, I will repent of the plague which I thought to bring upon them. So likewise for his mercy, I will speak suddenly concerning a Nation, and concerning a Kingdom, to build it, and to plant it; but if yet do evil in my sight, and hear not my voice, I will repent of the good I thought to do for them. Gen. 20. it is exprest, where God telleth Abimeleck, with-holding Abrahams Wife, Thou art a dead man, because of the Woman which thou hast taken: the event fell out otherwise, and Abimeleck purged himself with God, With an upright mind, and innocent hands have I done this. There is no question but God inclosed a condition with his speech, Thou art a dead man, if thou restore not the Woman withoput touching her body and dis­honouring her Husband.

Thus we may answer the scruple by all these ways. 1. XII Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown, and yet forty and forty days and Nineveh shall not be overthrown. Wy? Because Nineveh is changed, and the unchangable will of God ever was, that if Nineveh shewed a change, it should be spared. 2. There were two parts of Gods purpose, the one disclosed, touching the subversion of Nineveh, the other of her con­version, kept within the heart of God. Whereupon he changed the sentence pro­nounced, but not the counsel whereunto the sentence weas referred. 3. If you consider Nineveh in the inferiour cause, that is in the deservings of Inineveh, it shall fall to the ground; but if you take it in the superiour cause, in the goodness and clemency of Almighty God, Nineveh shall escape. Lastly, the judgment was pronounced with a condition reserved in the mind of the judge, Nineveh shall be overthrown if it repent not. Now he that speaketh with condition, may change his mind without suspition of lightness.2 Cor. 1. As Paul promised the Corinthians to come to them in his way towards Macedonia, and did it not: For he evermore added in his soul that condition which no man must exclude, if it stand with the pleasure of God, and he hinder me not. Philip threatned the Lacedemonians, that if he invaded their Country, he would utterly ex­tinguish them: They wrote him no other answer but this, If, meaning it was a con­dition well put in, because he was never like to come amongst them, ‘Si nisi non esset, perfectum quidlibet esset.’ If it were not for conditions and exceptions, every thing would be perfect, but nothing more unperfect than Nineveh, if this secret condition of the goodness of God at the se­cond hand had not been.

So far this Reverend Prelate hath discoursed of the nature of Gods decrees, XIII and ac­commodated his discourse thereof to the case of the Ninevites. Let us next see how far the principal particulars of the said discourse, and the case of the Ninevites it self my be accommodated to the Divine decree of Predestination; concerning which the said Reverend Prelate was not pleased to declare his judgment, either as being imper­tinent to the case which he had in hand, or out of an unwillingness to engage himself in those disputes which might not suddenly be ended. All that he did herein, was to take care for laying down such grounds in those learned Lectures, by which his judg­ment might be guessed at, though not declared. As Dr. Peter Baroe (of whom more hereafter) declared his judgment touching the Divine Decrees in the said case of the Ninevites, before he fell particularly on the Doctrine of Predestination, as he after did. [Page 608]And first, as for accommodating the case of the Ninevites to the matter which is now be­fore us, we cannot better do it than in the words of Bishop Hooper, so often men­tioned; who having told us that Esau was no more excluded from the promise of grace than Jacob was,Pres. to his Expos. on the ten Commandments. proceedeth thus, viz. ‘By the Scripture (saith he) it seemeth that the sentence of God was given to save the one, and damn the other, before the one loved God, or the other hated him. Howbeit, these threatnings of god against Esau (if he had not of his wilful malice excluded himself from the promise of grace) should no more have hindred his salvation, than Gods threatnings against Nineveh, (which notwithstanding that God said should be destroyed within forty days, stood a great time after, and did penance. Esau was circumcised, and presented unto the Church of God by his Father Isaac in all external Ceremonies as well as Jacob.’ And that his life and conversation was not as agreeable unto justice and equity as Jacobs was, the sentence of God unto Rebecca was not in the fault, but his own malice. Out of which words we may observe, first, that the sentence of God concerning Esau, was not the cause that his conversation was so little agreeable to justice and equity; no more than the judgment denounced against the Ninevites could have been the cause of their impenitency, if they had continued in their sins and wickednesses without re­pentance; contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospellers in Queen Maries days, impu­ting all mens sins to Predestination. Secondly, that Gods threatnings against Esau (supposing them to be tanta-mount to a reprobation) could no more have hindred his salvation, than the like threatning against the Ninevites could have sealed to them the assurance of their present destruction; if he had heartily repented of his sins, as the Ninevites did. And therefore thirdly, as well the decree of God concerning Esau, as that which is set out against the Ninevites, are no otherwise to be understood than un­der the condition tacitly annexed unto them; that is to say, that the Ninevites should be destroyed within forty days, if they did not repent them of their sins; and that Esau should be reprobated to eternal death, if he gave himself over to the lusts of a sen­sual appetite: Which if it be confessed for true, as I think it must, then fourthly, the promises made by God to Jacob, and to all such as are beloved of God, as Jacob was, and consequently their election unto life eternal, are likewise to be understood with the like condition; that is to say, if they repent them of their sins, and do unfainedly be­lieve his holy Gospel. The like may be affirmed also in all the other particulars touching Gods decrees, with reference to the Doctrine of Predestination, which are observed or accommodated by that learned Prelate in the case of the Ninevites, had I sufficient time and place to insist upon them.

CHAP. XIX. Of the first great breach which was made in the Doctrine of the Church, by whom it was made, and what was done towards the making of it up.

  • 1. I Great alterations made in the face of the Church, from the return of such Divines as had withdrawn themselves beyond Sea in the time of Queen Mary; with the ne­cessity of imploying them in the publick ser­vice, if otherwise of known zeal against the Papists.
  • 2. Several examples of that kind in the places of greatest power and trust in the Church of England; particularly of Mr. Fox the Martyrologist, and the occasion which he took of publishing his opinion in the point of Predestination.
  • 3. His notes on one of the Letter of John Bradford Martyr, touching the matter of election therein contained.
  • 4. The difference between the Comment and the Text, and between the Author of the Comment and Bishop Hooper.
  • 5. Exceptions against some passages, and ob­servations upon others, in the said Notes of Mr. Fox.
  • 6. The great breach made hereby in the Churches Doctrine, made greater by the countenance which was given to the Book of Acts and Monuments, by the Convocation, An. 1571.
  • 7. No argument to be drawn from hence, touching the approbation of his doctrine by touching the approbation of his doctrine by that Convocation, no more than for the [Page 609]Approbation of his Marginal Notes, and some particular passages in it, disgraceful to the Rites of the Church, attire of the Bishops.
  • 8. A counterballance made in the Convoca­tion against Fox his Doctrine, and all other Novelisms of that kind.

IT was not long that Queen Mary sate upon the Throne, I and yet as short time as it was, it gave not only a strong interruption for the present to the proceeding of the Church, but an occasion also of great discord and dissention in it for the time to come. For many of our Divines, who had fled beyond the Sea of avoid the hurry of her Reign, though otherwise men of good abilities in most parts of Learning, returned so altered in their principals, as to points of Doctrine, so disaffected to the Govern­ment, Forms of worship here by Law established, that they seem'd not to be the same men at their coming home, as they had been at their going hence: yet such was the necessity which the Church was under, of filling up the vacant places and preferments, which had been made void either by the voluntary discession, or positive deprivation of the Popish Cleergy, that they wer fain to take in all of any condition, which were able to do the publick service, without relation to their private opinions in doctrine or discipline, nothing so much regarded in the chice of men for Bishopricks, Deanries, Dignities in Cathedral Churches, the richest Benefices in the Countrey, and places of most command and trust in the Universities, as their known zeal against the Papists, together with such a sufficiency of learning as might enable them for writing and preaching against the Popes Supremacy, the carnal presence of Christ in the blessed Sa­crament, the superstitions of the Mass, the half Communion, the celebrating of Di­vine service in a tongue not known unto the People, the inforced single life of Priests, the worshipping of Images, and other the like points of Popery, which had given most offence, and were the principal causes of that separation.

On this account we find Mr. Pilkington preferred to the See of Durham, II and Whitting­ham to the rich Deanry of the Church; of which the one proved a grear favourer of the Non-conformists, as is confessed by one who challengeth a relation to his blood and family; the other associated himself with Goodman, as after Goodman did with Knox, for lanting Puritanism and sedition in the Kirk of Scotland. On this account Dr. Law­rence Humphrey a professed Calvinian, in point of doctrine, and a Non-conformist, (but qualified with the title of a moderate one) is made the Queens Professor for Divinity in the University of Oxon; Thomas Cartwright, that great Incendiary of this Church, preferred to be the Lady Margarets Professor in the University of Cambridge: Sampson made Dean of Christ-church, and presently propter Puritanismum Exacutoratus, Godw. in Ca­tal. Episc. Oxon. turned out again for Puritanism, as my Author hath it: Hardiman made one of the first Pre­bends of Westminister of the Queens foundation, and not long after deprived of it by the high Commissioners for breaking down the Altar there, and defacing the ancient utepsils and ornaments which belonged to the Church. And finally upon this ac­count, as Whitehead, who had been Chaplain to Queen Anne Bullain, refused the Archbishoprick of Canterbury, before it was offered unto Parker and Coverdale to be re­stored to the See of Exon, which he had chearfully accepted in the time of K. Edward; so Mr. John Fox of great esteem for his painful and laborious work of Acts and Monu­ments (commonly called the Book of Martyrs) would not accept of any preferment in the Church, but a Prebends place in Salisbury, which tied him not to any residence in the same. And this he did especially (as it after proved) to avoid subscription, shew­ing a greater willingness to leave his place, than to subscribe unto the Articles of Re­ligion, then by Law established, when he was legally required to do it by Arch-bishop Parker. Of this man there remains a short discourse in his Acts and Monuments of Pre­destination, occasioned by a Letter of Mr. Bradfords before remembred, whose Ortho­dox doctrine in that point he feared might create some danger unto that of Calvin, which then began to find a more general entertainment than could be rationally ex­pected in so short a time: And therefore as a counter-ballance he annexeth this dis­course of his own with this following title, viz.

Notes on the same Epistle, and the manner of Election thereunto appertaining.

‘As touching the Doctrine of Election (whereof this Letter of Mr. Bradford, III and many other of his Letters more do much intreat) three things, must be considered,Fox. in Acts and Mon. fol. 1505.’ 1. What Gods Election is, and what the cause thereof. 2. How Gods Election [Page 610]proceedeth in working our salvation. 3. To whom Gods Election pertaineth, and how a Man may be certain thereof.—Between Predestination and Election this difference there is, Predestination is as well to the Reprobate as to the Elect, Election pertaineth only to them that be saved. Predestination in that it respecteth the Re­bate, is called Reprobation; in that it respected the saved, is called Election, and is thus defined. Predestination is the eternal decreement of God, purposed before in himself, what shall befal all men, either to salvation or damnation; Election is the free mercy and grace of God, in his own will through faith in Christ his Son, choosing and preferring to life such as pleaseth him. In this definition of Election first goeth before (the mercy and grace of God) as the causes thereof, whereby are excluded all works of the Law, and merits of deserving, whether they go before faith, or come after; so was Jacob chosen, and Esau refused before either of them began to work, &c. Secondly, in that the mercy of God in this Definition is said to be (free) thereby is to be noted the proceeding and working of God not to be bound to any ordinary place, or to any succession of choice, nor to state and dignity of person, nor to wor­thiness of blood, &c. but all goeth by the meer will of his own purpose, as it is writ­ten, spiritus ubi vult spirat, &c. And thus was the outward race and stock of Abraham, after flesh refused (which seemed to have the preheminence) and another seed after the Spirit, raised by Abraham of the stones, that is of the Gentiles. So was the out­ward Temple of Jerusalem, and Chair of Moses, which seem'd to be of price for­saken, and Gods Chair advanced in other Nations. So was tall Saul refused, and little David accepted: the Rich, the Proud, and the Wise of this world rejected, and the word of salvation daily opened to the poor and miserable abjects, the high Moun­tains cast under, and the low valleys exalted, &c.

‘And in the next place it is added (in his own will) by this falleth down the free will and purpose of man, with all his actions, counsels, and strength of nature; ac­cording as it is written, non est volentis, neque currentis, sed miserentis Dei, &c. It is not him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that sheweth mercy. So we see how Israel ran long, and yet got nothing. The Gentile runneth, began to set out late, and yet got the game: So they which came at the first which did labour more, and yet they that came last were rewarded with the first, Mat. 20. The work­ing will of the Pharisee seemed better, but yet the Lords Will was rather to justifie the Publican, Luk. 18. The elder Son had a better will to tarry by his Father, and so did indeed; and yet the fat Calf was given to the younger Son that ran away, Luk. 15. whereby we have to understand, how the matter goeth not by the will of man, but by the will of God, as it pleaseth him to accept, according as it is written, non ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri: sed ex Deo nati sunt, &c. Which are born not of the will of the flesh, nor yet of the will of man, but of God. Furthermore, as all then goeth by the will of God only, and not by the will of man: So again, here is to be noted, that the will of God never goeth without faith in Christ Jesus his Son.’

‘And therefore, fourthly, is this clause added in the definition, through faith in Christ his Son; which faith in Christ to us-ward maketh altogether. For first, it certifieth us of Gods Election, as this Epistle of Mr. Bradford doth well express: For whoso­ever will be certain of his Election in God, let him first begin with faith in Christ, which if he find in him to stand firm, he may be sure, and nothing doubt, but that he is one of the number of Gods Elect. Secondly, the said faith, and nothing else, is the only condition and means whereupon Gods mercy, grace, Election, vocation, and all Gods promises to salvation do stay accordingly: the word of St. Paul, si permanseritis in fide, and if ye abide in the faith, Col. 1.3. This faith is the mediate and next cause of our justification simply without any condition annexed: For as the mercy of God, his grace, Election, vocation, and other precedent causes do save and justifie us upon condition, if we believe in Christ: so this faith only in Christ without condi­tion, is the next and immediate cause, which by Gods promise worketh out justifica­tion; according as it is written, crede in dominum Jesum, & salvus eris, tu, & domus tus. Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy whole house. And thus much touching the Definition of Election, with the causes thereof declared, which you see now to be no merits or works of man, whether they go before, or come after faith. For like as all they that be born of Adam, do taste of his Malediction, though they tasted not of the Apple: so all they that be born of Christ (which is by faith) take part of the obedience of Christ,’ although they never did that obedience themselves which was in him, Rom. 5.

‘Now to the second consideration: Let us see likewise, how and in what order this Election of God proceedeth in choosing and electing them which he ordaineth to salvation, which order is this. In them that be chosen to life, first, Gods mercy and free grace bringeth forth Election: Election worketh Vocation, or Gods holy call­ing; which Vocation, though hearing bringeth knowledge, and faith in Christ: Faith through promise, obtaineth justification; justification through hope, waiteth for glorification: Election is before time, Vocation and Faith cometh in time; Justification and Glorification is without end. Election depending upon Gods free grace and will, excludeth all mans will, blind fortune, chance, and all peradven­tures. Vocation standing upon Gods Election, excludeth all mans wisdom, cunning, learning, intention, power, and presumption. Faith in Christ, proceeding by the gift of the Holy Ghost, and freely justifying man by Gods promises, excludeth all other merits of men, all condition of deserving, and all works of the Law, both Gods Law, and mans Law, with all other outward means whatsoever. Justification com­ing freely by Faith, standeth sure by Promise, without doubt, fear, or wavering in this life. Glorification appertaining only to the life to come, by hope is looked for. Grace and Mercy preventeth, Election ordaineth, Vocation prepareth, and re­ceiveth the Word, whereby cometh Faith; Faith justifieth; Justification bringeth glory: Election is the immediate and next cause of Vocation; Vocation (which is the working of Gods Spirit by the Word) is the immediate and next cause of Faith; Faith is the immediate and next cause of Justification.’

‘And this order and connexion of causes is diligently to be observed because of the Papists, which have miserably confounded and inverted this doctrine; thus teaching, that Almighty God, so far as he foreseeth mans merits before to come, so doth he dispence his Election. Dominus prout cujusque merita fore praevidet, ita dispensat electionis gratiam, futuris tamen concedere. That is, that the Lord recompenseth the grace of Election, not to any merits proceeding, but yet granteth the same to the merits that follow after, and not rather have our holiness by Gods Election going before. But we following the Scripture, say otherwise, that the cause only of God, Election, is his own free mercy, and the cause only of our justification is our faith in Christ, and nothing else. As for example: first, concerning Election, if the question be asked, why was Abraham chosen, and not Nathor? why was Jacob chosen, and not Esau? why was Moses Elected, and Pharaoh hardened? why David accepted, and Saul re­fused? why few be chosen, and the most forsaken? It cannot be answered other­wise but thus, because so was the good will of God. In like manner touching Vo­cation, and also Faith, if the question be asked, why this Vocation and gift of Faith was given to Cornelius the Gentile, and not to Tertullus the Jew? why to the Poor, the Babes, and the little ones of the world (of whom Christ speaketh, I thank the Father which hast hid these from the wise, &c. Matth. 11.) why to the unwise, the simple abjects and out-casts of the world? (of whom speaketh Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 1. You see your calling my Brethren, why not many of you, &c. Why to the sinners and not to the just? why the Beggars by the high-ways were called, and the bidden guests excluded? We can ascribe no other cause, but to Gods purpose and Election, and say with Christ our Saviour, quia Pater sic complacitum est ante te; Yea Father for that it seemed good in thy sight, Luk. 10.’

‘And so it is for Justification likewise, if the question be asked why the Publican was justified and not the Pharisee, Luk. 18. Why Mary the sinner, and not Simon the inviter? Luk. 11. Why Harlots and Publicans go before the Scribes and Pharisees in the Kingdom? Matth. 21. why the Son of the Free-woman was received? and the Bond-womans Son being his elder, rejected, Gen? 21. why Israel, which so long sought for righteousness, found it not? and the Gentiles which sought it not, found it? Rom. 9. We have no other cause hereof to render, but to say with Saint Paul, be­cause they sought for it by works of the Law, and not by Faith; which Faith, as it cometh not by mans will (as the Papists falsly pretend) but only by the Election and free gift of God; so it is only the immediate cause whereto the promise of our salvation is annexed, according as we read. And therefore of faith is the inheritance given, as after grace, that the promise might stand sure to every side, Rom. 4. and in the same Chapter. Faith believing in him that justifieth the wicked, is imputed to righteous­ness. And this concerning the causes of our salvation, you see how Faith in Christ immediately and without condition doth justifie us, being solicited with Gods mercy and Election, that wheresoever Election goeth before, Faith in Christ must [Page 612]needs follow after. And again, whosoever believeth in Christ Jesus, through the vocation of God, he must needs be partaker of Gods election: whereupon resulteth the third note or consideration, which is to consider whether a man in this life may be certain of his election. To answer to which question, this first is to be understood, that although our election and vocation simply indeed, be known to God only in him­self, a priore: yet notwithstanding it may be known to every particular faithful man, a posteriore, that is, by means, which means is Faith in Christ Jesus crucified. For as much as by Faith in Christ a man is justified, and thereby made the child of salvation; reason must needs lead the same to be then the child of election, chosen of God to everlasting life. For how can a man be saved, but by consequence it followeth that he must also be elected.’

‘And therefore of election it is truly said: de electione judicandum est à posteriore; that is to say, we must judge of election by that which cometh after, that is, by our faith and belief in Christ: which faith, although in time it followeth after election, yet this the proper immediate cause assigned by the Scripture, which not only justifieth us, but also certifieth us of this election of God; whereunto likewise well agreeth this present Letter of Mr. Bradford, wherein he saith, Election, albeit in God it be the first, yet to us it is the last opened. And therefore beginning first (saith he) with Creation, I come from thence to Redemption, and Justification by faith; so to election, not that faith is the cause efficient of election, being rather the effect thereof, but is to us the cause certificatory, or the cause of our certification, whereby we are brought to the feeling and knowledge of our election in Christ. For albeit, the election first be certain in the knowledge of God, yet in our knowledge Faith only that we have in Christ, is the thing that giveth to us our certificate and comfort of this election. Wherefore who­soever desireth to be assured that he is one of the Elect number of God, let him not climb up to Heaven to know, but let him descend into himself, and there search his faith in Christ, the Son of God; which if he find in him not feigned, by the working of Gods Spirit accordingly: thereupon let him stay, and so wrap himself wholly both body and soul under Gods general promise, and cumber his head with no further spe­culations: knowing this, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, Joh. 3. shall not be confounded, Rom. 9. shall not see death, Joh. 8. shall not enter into judgment, Joh. 5. shall have everlasting life, Joh. 3.7. shall be saved, Matth. 28. Act. 16. shall have re­mission of all his sins, Act. 10. shall be justified, Rom. 3. Gal. 2. shall have floods flow­ing out of him of the water of life, Joh. 7. shall never die, Joh. 11. shall be raised at the lest day, Joh. 6. shall find rest in his soul, and be refreshed, Matth. 11. &c.’

Such is the judgment and opinion of our Martyrologist, IV in the great point of Pre­destination unto life; the residue thereof touching justification, being here purposely cut off with an &c. as nothing pertinent to the business which we have in hand. But between the Comment and the Text there is a great deal of difference, the Comment laying the foundation of Election on the Will of God, according to the Zuinglian or Calvinian way; but the Text laying it wholly upon faith in Christ (whom God the Fa­ther hath Predestinate in Christ unto eternal life) according to the doctrine of the Church of England. The Text first presupposeth an estate of sin and misery, into which man was fallen, a ransom paid by Christ for man and his whole Posterity, a freedom left in man thus ransomed, either to take, or finally to refuse the benefit of so great mercy: and then fixing or appropriating the benefit of so great a mercy (as Christ and all his merits do amount to) upon such only as believe. But the Comment takes no notice of the fall of man, grounding both Reprobation and Election on Gods absolute plea­sure, without relation to mans sin, or our Saviours sufferings, or any acceptation or re­fusal of his mercies in them. As great a difference there is between the Author of the Comment and Bishop Hooper, as between the Comment and the Text: Bishop Hooper telleth us, cap. 10. num. 2. that Saul was no more excluded from the promise of Christ, than David; Esau than Jacob; Judas than Peter, &c. if they had not excluded themselves: quite contrary to that of our present Author, who having asked the question, why Jacob was chosen, and not Esau; why David accepted, and Saul refused, &c. makes answer, that it cannot otherwise be answered, than that so was the good will of God.

And this being said, V I would fain know upon what authority the Author hath placed Nachor amongst the Reprobates, in the same rank with Esan, Pharaoh and Saul; all which he hath marked out to reprobation; the Scripture laying no such censure on Nachor, or his Posterity, as the Author doth: Or else the Author must know more of the estate of Nachor than Abraham his Brother did; who certainly would never have [Page 613]chosen a Wife for his Son Isaac out of Nachors line, if he had looked upon them as reprobated and accursed of God. I observe, secondly, that plainly God is made an accepter of persons by the Authors doctrine. For first, he telleth us that the elder Son had a better will to tarry by his Father, and so did indeed, but the fatted Calf was given to the younger Son that ran away; and thereupon he doth infer, that the matter goeth not by the will of man, but by the will of God, as it pleaseth him to accept. I observe, thirdly, that Vocation, in the Authors judgment, standeth upon Gods Election, as the work thereof; whereas Vocation is more general, and is extended unto those also whom they call the Reprobate, and therefore standeth not on Election, as the Author hath it. For many are called, though out of those many which are called, but a few are chosen. Fourthly, I observe, that notwithstanding the Author builds the do­ctrine of Election on Gods absolute will and pleasure, yet he is fain to have recourse to some certain condition, telling us, that though the mercy of God, his Grace, Election, Vocation, and other precedent Causes do justifie us; yet this is upon condition of believing in Christ. And finally, it is to be observed also, that after all his pains taken in defen­ding such a personal and eternal Election, as the Calvinians now contend for; he ad­viseth us to wrap up our selves wholly, both body and soul under Gods general promise, and not to cumber our heads with any further speculations, knowing that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish. &c.

And so I take my leave of our Martyrologist, VI the publishing of those discourse I look on as the first great battery which was made on the Bulwarks of this Church, in point of doctrine by any member of her own, after the setling of the Articles by the Queens Authority, Ann. 1562. the brables raised by Crowley in his Book against Campneys, though it came out after the said Articles were confirmed and published, being but as hail-shot in comparison of this great piece of Ordnance. Not that the Arguments were so strong as to make any great breach in the publick Doctrine, had it been pub­lished in a time less capable of innovations, or rather if the great esteem which many had of that man, and the universal reception which his Book found with all sorts of People, had not gained more authority unto his discourse, than the merit or solidness of it could deserve. The inconveniencies whereof, as also the many marginal Notes and other passages, visibly tending to faction and sedition in most parts of that Book, were either not observed at first, or winked at in regard of the great animosities which were ingendred by it in all sorts of People, as well against the persons of the Papists, as against the doctrine; Insomuch that in the Convocation of the year, 1571. there passed some Canons, requiring that not only the Deans of all Cathedrals should take a special care that the said Book should be so conveniently placed in their several Churches, that people of all conditions might resort unto it; but also, that all and every Arch-Bishop, Bishops, Deans, Residentiaries, and Arch-Deacons should choose the same to be placed in some convenient publick room of their several houses, not only for the entertainment and instruction of their menial servants, but of such strangers also as occasionally repaired unto them.

If it be hereupon inferred that Fox his doctrine was approved by that Convocation, VII and therefore that it is agreeable to the true intent and meaning of the Articles of the Church of England; besides what hath been said already by Anticipation, it may as logically be inferred, that the Convocation approved all his marginal Notes; all the factious and seditious passages; and more particularly the scorn which he puts upon the Episcopal habit, and other Ceremonies of the Church. Touching which last (for the other are too many to be here recited) let us behold how he describes the diffe­rence which hapned between Hooper, Bishop of Glocester on the one side, Cranmer and Ridley on the other, about the ordinary habit and attire then used by the Bishops of this Church, we shall find it thus, viz. Acts and Mon. so. 1366, 1367. ‘For notwithstanding the godly reformation of Religion that was begun in the Church of England, besides other ceremonies that were more ambitious than profitable, or tended to edification, they used to wear such garments and apparel as the Romish Bishops were wont to do. First a Chimere, and under that a white Rocket, then a Mathematical cap with four Angles, dividing the whole world into four parts. These trifles being more for superstition than other­wise, as he could never abide; so in no wise could he be persuaded to wear them. But in conclusion, this Theological contestation came to this end, that the Bishops having the upper hand, Mr. Hooper was fain to agree to this condition, that some­times he should in his Sermon shew himself apparalled as the Bishops were. Where­fore appointed to preach before the King, as a new Player in a strange apparel he [Page 614]cometh forth on the stage: His upper garment was a long skarlet Chimere down to the foot, and under that a white linnen Rocket, that covered all his shoulders; upon his head he had a Geometrical, that is a square cap, albeit that his head was round. What case of shame the strangeness hereof was that day to the good Preacher, every man may easily judge. But this private contumely and reproach, in respect of the publick profit of the Church, which he only sought, he bare and suffered patiently.’

Here have we the Episcopal habit affirmed to be a contumely and reproach to that godly man, VIII slighted contemptuously by the name of trifles, and condemned in the marginal Note for a Popish attire; the other ceremonies of the Church being censured as more ambitious than profitable, and tending more to superstition than to edification; which as no man of sense or reason can believe to be approved and allowed of by that Con­vocation; so neither is it to be believed that they allowed of his opinion in the present point. For a counterballance whereunto there was another Canon passed in this Con­vocation, by which all Preachers were enjoyned to take special care, [...]ne quid unquam do­ceant, pro concione; quod à populo religiose, teneri, & credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrinae veteris aut novi testamenti quodque ex'illa ipsa doctrina Cathotici Patres & veteres Episcopi Collegerint; that is to say, that they should maintain no other doctrine in their publicki Sermons to be believed of the People, but that which was agreeable to the do­ctrine of the Old and New Testament, and had from thence been gathered by the Ca­tholick (or Orthodox) Fathers, and ancient Bishops of the Church. To which rule, if they held themselves as they ought to do, no countenance could be given to Calvines Doctrines, or Fox his judgment in these points maintained by one of the Catholick Fa­thers, and ancient Bishops of the Church, but St. Augustine only, who though he were a godly man, and a learned Prelate, yet was he but one Bishop, not Bishops in the plural number, but one father, and not all the fathers, and therefore his opinion not to be maintained against all the rest.

CHAP. XX. Of the great Innovation made by Perkins in the publick Doctrine, the stirs arising thence in Cambridge, and Mr. Barrets carriage in them.

  • 1. Of Mr. Perkins and his Doctrine of Pre­destination, which his recital of the four opi­nions, which were then maintained about the same.
  • 2. The sum and substance of his Doctrine ac­cording to the Supralapsarian, or Supra­creatarian way.
  • 3. The several censures past upon it, both by Papists and Protestants, by none more sharp­ly than by Dr. Rob. Abbots, after Bishop of Sarum.
  • 4. Of Dr. Baroe, the Lady Margarets Pro­fessor in the Ʋniversity, and his Doctrine touching the divine Decrees, upon occasion of Gods denounced Judgment against the Ninevites.
  • 5. His constant opposition to the Predestina­rians, and the great increase of his Ad­herents.
  • 6. The Articles collected out of Barrets Ser­mon, derogatory to the Doctrine and per­sons of the chief Calvinians.
  • 7. Barret convented for the same, and the pro­ceedings had against him at his first con­venting.
  • 8. A form of Recantation delivered to him, but not the same which doth occur in the Anti-Arminianism to be found in the Re­cords of the Ʋniversity.
  • 9. Several Arguments to prove that Barret never published the Recantation imposed upon him.
  • 10. The rest of Barrets story related in his own Letter to Dr. Goad, being then Vice-Chancellor.
  • 11. The sentencing of Barret to a Recanta­tation, no argument that his Doctrine was repugnant to the Church of England, and that the body of the same Ʋniversity differ­ed from the heads in that particular.

THIS great breach being thus made by Fox in his Acts and Monuments, I was after­wards open'd wider by William Perkins, an eminent Divine of Cambridge, of great esteem amongst the Puritans for his zeal and piety, but more for his dislike of the [Page 615]Rites and Ceremonies here by Law established; of no less fame among those of the Calvinian party, both at home and abroad for a Treatise of Predestination, published in the year 1592. entituled, Armilla Aurea, or the Golden Chain, containing the order of the causes of salvation and damnation according to Gods Word. First written by the Au­thor in Larin for the use of Students, and in the same year translated into English at his Request by one Robert Hill, who afterwards was Dr. of Divinity, and Rector of St. Bartholomews Church near the Royal Exchange. In the Preface unto which dis­course, the Author telleth us, ‘that there was at that day four several Opinions of the order of Gods Predestination. The first was of the old and new Pelagians, who placed the cause of Gods Predestination in than, in that they hold, that God did ordain men to life or death, according as he did foresee, that they would by their natural free­will, either reject or receive Grace offered. The second of them, who (of some) are termed Lutherans, which taught, that God foreseeing that all man-kind being shut under unbelief, would therefore reject Grace offered, did hereupon purpose to choose some to salvation of his meer mercy, without any respect of their faith or good works, and the rest to reject, being moved to do this, because he did eternally fore-see, that they would reject his Grace offered them in the Gospel. The third of Semi-palagian Papists, which ascribe Gods Predestination partly to mercy, and partly to mens fore­seen Preparations and meritorious works. The fourth, of such as teach, that the cause of the execution of Gods Predestination, is his mercy in Christ in them which are saved, and in them which perish, the fall and corruption of man; yet so as that the Decree and Eternal Counsel of God concerning them both, hath not any cause be­sides his will and pleasure.’ In which Preface, whether he hath stated the opinions of the parties right, may be discerned by that which hath been said in the former Chap­ters: and whether the last of these opinions ascribe so much to Gods mercy in Christ, in them that are saved, and to mans natural Corruption in them that perish, will best be seen by taking a brief view of the opinion it self. The Author taking on him to oppugn the three first as erroneous, and only to maintain the last as being a truth, which will bear weight in the ballance of the Sanctuary, as in his Preface he assures us.

‘Now in this book Predestination is defined to be the Decree of God, II by the which he hath ordained all men to a certain and everlasting Estate: that is,Golden chain. either to salvation or condemnation to his own Glory. He tells us secondly, that the means for putting this decree in execution, were the creation and the fall. 3.Ibid. p. 52. That mans fall was neither by chance, or by Gods not knowing it, or by his bare permission, or against his will; but rather miraculously, not without the Will of God, but yet with­out all approbation of it.’ Which passage being somewhat obscure, may be ex­plained by another, some leases before. In which the Question being asked, Whether all things and actions were subject unto Gods Decree? He answereth, ‘Yes surely, and therefore the Lord according to his good pleasure hath most certainly decreed every both thing and action, whether past, present, or to come, together with their cir­cumstances of place, time, means, and end:’ And then the Question being prest to this particular, what even the wickedness of the wicked? The answer is affirmative, ‘Yes, he hath most justly decreed the wicked works of the wicked.Ibid. 29. For if it had not pleased him, they had never been at all: And albeit they of their own natures are, and remain wicked, yet in respect of Gods decree they are to be accounted good. Which Do­ctrine, though it be no other than that which had before been taught by Beza;’ yet being published, more copiously insisted on, and put into a more methodical way, it became wondrous acceptable amongst those of the Calvinian party, both at home and abroad, as before was said. Insomuch that it was Printed several times after the Latin edition, with the general approbation of the French and Belgick Churches, and no less than 15. times within the space of twenty years in the English tongue. At the end of which term, in the year 1612. the English book was turned by the Translator into Questions and Answers, but without any alteration of the words of the Author, as he informs us in the last page of his Preface, after which it might have sundry other im­pressions; that which I follow, being of the year 1621. And though the Supra-lapsarians or rigid Calvinists (or Supra-creatarians rather, as a late judicious Writer calls them) differ exceedingly in these points, from many of their more moderate Bre­thren, distiguished from them by the name of Sub-lapsarians; yet in all points touch­ing the specifying of their several supposed Degrees, they agree well enough together, and therefore wink at one another, as before was noted.

Notwithstanding the esteem wherewith both sorts of Calvinists entertained the book, III it found not the like welcome in all places, [...]. Dedi. nor from all mens hands. Amongst other Parsons the Jesuite gives this censure of him, viz. That by the deep humour of fancy he hath published and written many books with strange Titles, which neither he nor his Reader do understand, as namely about the Concatenation or laying together of the causes of mans Pre­destination and Reprobation, &c. Jacob van Harmine, (afterwards better known by the name of Arminius) being then Preacher of the Church of Amsterdam, not only cen­sured in brief as Parsons did, but wrote a full discourse against it, entituled, Examen Predestinationis Perkinsanae, which gave the first occasion to these controversies (many appearing in defence of Perkins and his Opinions) which afterwards involved the Sub­lapsarians in the self same quarrel.Hal. in Holy State, p. 50. Amongst our selves it was objected, ‘That his Do­ctrine referring all to an absolute decree, ham-string'd all industry, and cut off the sinews of mens endeavours towards salvation, for ascribing all to the wind of Gods Spirit (which bloweth where it listeth) he leaveth nothing to the cares of mens dili­gence, either to help or hinder to the attaining of happiness, but rather opens a wide door to licentious security.’ Absolv. contr. Tompsoni Diatrib. But none of all our English was so sharp in their censures of him, as Dr. Robert Abbot, then Dr. of the Chair in Oxon, and not long after Bishop of Sarum, who in his book against Thompson (though otherwise inclined too much to Calvins Doctrines) gives this judgment of Mr. Perkinsius, viz. Alioqui eruditus, & pius in discriptione Divinae Praedestinationis, quam ille contra nostram, contra veteris Ecclesiae, fidem citra lapsum Adami absolute decretum constituit, erravit errorem non levem, cujus adortis quibusdam viris inita jamdudum & suscepta defensio, turbas ecclesiis non necessarias dedit, quas etiamnum non sine scandalo & periculo haerere videmus, dum viam quisque quam ingressus est sibi ante tenendum judicat, quam ductam sacrarum literarum authoritate lineam veritatis, tan­quam filum Ariadnaeum sibi ducem faciat, that is to say, Perkins, though otherwise a godly and learned man in his description of Divine Predestination, which contrary not only to the Doctrine of the primitive times, but also unto that of the Church of England, he builds upon an absolute decree of Almighty God, without reference to the Fall of Adam, ran himself into no small error: The defence whereof being undertaken by some learned men, hath given the Church some more than necessary troubles, which still continued not without manifest scandal and danger to it; whilst every one doth rather chuse to follow his own way therein, than suffer himself to be guided in the Labyrinth by the line of truth (as by the Clew of Ariadne) drawn from the undeniable Authority of holy Scriptures. And so I leave the man with this obser­vation, that he who in his writings had made the infinitly greatest part of all man-kind uncapable of Gods grace and mercy, by an absolute and irrespective decree of Repro­bation; who in expounding the Commandments, when he was Catechist of Christs Colledge in Cambridge, did lay the Law so home in the ears of his Auditors, that it made their hearts fall down,Holy State, p. 90. and yea their hair to stand almost upright; and in his preaching use to pronounce the word Damned, with so strong an Emphasis, that it left an eccho in the ears of his hearers a long time after; this man scarce lived out half his days, being no more than forty-four years of age, from the time of his death, at the pangs conducing unto which, he was noted to speak nothing so articulately, as Mercy, Mercy; which I hope God did graciously vouchsafe to grant him in that woful Agony.

But to proceed, IV this Doctrine finding many followers, and Whitacres himself then Dr. of the Chair in Cambridge, concurring in opinion with him, it might have quickly over-spread the whole University, had it not been in part prevented, and in part sup­pressed by the care and diligence of Dr. Baroe, and his Adherents, who being a French man born, of eminent piety and learning, and not inclinable at all unto Calvins Do­ctrines, had been made the Lady Margarets Professor for the University somewhat be­fore the year 1574. For in that year he published his Lectures on the Prophet Jonah. In one of which being the 29th. in number, he discourseth on these words of the Pro­phet, viz. Baroe Fraelect. 29. p. 216. Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed, cap. 3. ver. 4. where we find it thus, Haec denunciatio non est quasi Proclamatio decreti divini absoluti, sed quaedam patio praeponendae divinae voluntatis, qua Deus eorum animos flectere voluit: quare haec oratio, etsi simplex & absoluta videatur, tacitam tamen habet conditionem (nisi rescipiscant) nam­que hanc in esse conditionem eventus comprobavit; The denouncing of this Judgment (saith that learned man) is not to be beheld as the publication of one of Gods abso­lute Decrees, but only as a form observed in making Gods Will known unto them, by which he meant to put them to it, and rouse their spirits to Repentance. Therefore (saith he) although the Denunciation of the following Judgment seem to be simply [Page 617]positive and absolute, yet hath it notwithstanding this Condition, (that is to say, un­less they do repent) included in it, for that such a Condition was included in it, the event doth shew; which said, he leads us on to the denouncing of the like Judg­ment on the house of Abimelech, which he had before in Dr. King, Chap. 18. Num. 11. who herein either followed Baroe, or at the least concurred in Opinion with him. And in the next place he proceeds a little further than the case of the Ninevites, Baroe Prael [...]i. 32. p. 217. touching upon the point of Election unto life Eternal, by the most proper superstructure could be laid upon such a foundation, Dei voluntas non erat ut perirent, si rescipiscerent, non vult enim mortem preccatoris, sed ut convertatur: Et rursus Dei erat voluntas, ut perirent, nisi rescipi­scerent. Haec enim duo unum sunt; ut Dei voluntas est ut vitam habeamus si credamus; Et Dei voluntas non est ut vitam habeamus, nisi credamus; aut si credentes, perseveremus, non autem si a­liquandiu credentes non perseveremus, that is to say, It was not the Will of God that they should perish, if they did repent, (For God desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he be converted and live) and yet it was his will that they should perish if they did not re­pent: for these two are one, as for Example: It is the Will of God, saith he, that we should have eternal life, if we believe, and constantly persevere in the faith of Christ. And it it is not the will of God that we should have eternal life, if we do not believe, or believing only for a time, do not persevere therein to the end of our lives; which point he further proves by the condition of the Message sent from God to Hezekiah by the Prophet Isaiah, 2 Kings 20.1. as before was said in Dr. King: For which, to­gether with the rest of his discourse upon that occasion, concerning the consistency of these alterations with the immutability or unchangeableness of Almighty God; I shall refer the Reader to the book it self.

So far that learned man had declared himself upon occasion of that Text, V and the case of the Ninevites before the year 1574. being ten years before the preaching of Harsnets Sermon at St. Pauls Cross, and more than twenty years before the stirs at Cambridge betwixt him and Whitacres. In all which time, or at lest the greatest part thereof, he inclined rather unto the Melancthonian way, (according to the Judgment of the Church of England) in laying down the Doctrine of Prodestination than to that of Calvin. For fifteen years it is confest in a Letter sent by some of the heads of Cambridg to William Lord Burleigh, then Chancellour of the University,Anti-Armi­nian. p. 256. bearing date March the 8. 1595. That he had taught in his Lectures, preached in Sermons, deter­mined in the Schools, and printed in several books, a contrary Doctrine unto that, which was maintained by Dr. Whitacres, and had been taught and received in the University ever since the beginning of her Majesties Reign: which last, though it be gratis dictum, without proof or evidence, yet it is probable enough that it might be so: Cartwright that unextinguished Firebrand being Professor in that place before him, and no greater care taken in the first choice of the other before recited to have had the place, than to supply it with a man of known aversness from all points of Popery. And it seems also by that Letter, that Baroe had not sown his seed in a barren soil, but in such as brought forth fruit enough, and yielded a greater increase of Followers, than the Cal­vinians could have wished. For in one place the Letter tells us, that besides Mr. Barret (of whom we shall speak more anon) There were divers others who there attempted publickly to teach new and strange Oinions in Religion, as the Subscribers of it call them. And in another place it tells us of Dr. Baroe, that he had many Disciples and Adherents, whom he emboldned by his Example to maintain false Doctrine. And by this check it may be said of Peter Baroe in reference to that University, indangered to be over­grown with outlandish Doctrines, as the Historian doth of Caius Marius, with refe­rence to the state of Rome in fear of being over-run by the Tribes of the Cymbri, which were then breaking in upon it, Actum esset de repub. nisi Marius isti seculo contigisset, the Commonwealth had then been utterly overthrown, if Marius had not been then living.

Now as for Barret before mentioned, VI he stands accused so far forth as we can discern by the Recantation, which some report him to have made for preaching many strange and erroneous Doctrines, that is to say, 1.Anti-Armini. p. 56. ‘That no man in this transitory life is so strongly underpropped, at lest by the certainty of saith; that is to say, (as after­wards he explained himself) by Revelation, that he ought to be assured of his own salvation. 2. That the faith of Peter could not fail, but that the faith of other men might fail, our Lord not praying for the faith of every particular man. 3. That the certainty of perseverance for the time to come is a presumptuous and proud security, forasmuch as it is in its own nature contingent, and that it was not only a presump­tuous [Page 618]but a wicked Doctrine. 4. There was no distinction in the faith, but in the persons believing. 5. That the forgiveness of sins is an Article of the Faith, but not the forgiveness of the sins particularly of this man or that; and therefore that no true Believer, either can or ought believe for certain, that his sins are forgiven him. 6. That he maintained against Calvin, Peter Martyr, and the rest, (cencern­those that are not saved) that sin is the true proper and first cause of Reprobation. 7. That he had taxed Calvin for lifting up himself above the high and Almighty God: And 8thly, That he had uttered many bitter words against Peter Martyr, Theodore Beza, Jerom, Zanchius, and Francis Junius, &c. calling them by the odious names of Cavinists, and branding them with a most grievous mark of Reproach, they being the Lights and Ornaments of our Church, as is suggested in the Articles which were exhibited against him.’

For having insisted, VII or at lest touched upon these points in a Sermon preached at St. Maries on the [...]9. of April, Anno 1595. all the Calvinian heads of that University being laid together by Whitacres, and inflamed by Perkins, took fire immediately. And in this Text he was convented on the fifth of May next following at nine of the clock in the morning, before Dr. Some, then Deputy Vice-Chancellour to Dr. Duport, Dr. Goad, Dr. Tyndal, Dr. Whitacres, Dr. Barwell, Dr. Jegon, Dr. Preston, Mr. Chatter­ton, and Mr. Claton in the presence of Thomas Smith publick Notary, by whom he was appointed to attend again in the afternoon. At which time the Articles above men­tioned were read unto him, which we alledged to be erroneous and false, Et repug­nantes esse religioni, in regno Angliae & legitima Authoritate receptae ac stabilitae, that is to say, contrary to the Religion received and established by publick Authority in the Realm of England. To which Articles being required to give an Answer, he confest that he had published in his Sermon all these positions, which in the said Articles are contained, sed quod contenta in iisdem Religioni Ecclesiae Angelicanae, ut praefertur, omnino non repugnant, but denied them to be any way repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church of England. Whereupon the Vice-Chancellour and the forenamed heads entring into mature deliberation, and diligently weighing and examining these Positions, because it did manifestly appear, that the said Positions were false, erroneous, and likewise re­pugnant to the Religion received and established in the Church of England, ‘adjudged and declared, that the said Barret had incurred the Penalty of the 45. Statute of the University de concionibus:’ And by vertue and tenour of that Statute they decreed and adjudged the said Barret to make a publick Recanation, in such words and form, as by the Vice-Chancellour, and the said heads, or any three or two of them should be tendred to him, or else upon his refusal to recant in that manner, to be perpetually expelled both from his Colledg and the University: binding him likewise in an Assum­psit of 40 l. to appear personally upon two days warning before the Vice-Chancellour or his Deputy, at what time and place they should require.

It appears afterwards by the Register of the University, VIII that Barret being resummo­ned to appear before him, though none but Goad, Tyndal, Barwell and Preston, were present at that time with the Vice-Chancellour or his Deputy (for I know not which) a Recantation ready drawn was delivered to him, which he was commanded to publish solemnly in St. Maries Church on Saturday, the 10th of May then next ensuing. And it is confidently affirmed by the Author of the Arminianism, and his Eccho too, that the said Recantation was publickly made by the said Barret at the time and place therein appointed.Anti-Armi­nian, p. 61. And hereof the first Author seems to be so confident, that he doth not only tell us, that this Recantation was made accordingly, but that it was not made with that Humility and Remorse which was expected; it being said, that after the reading thereof, he concluded thus, Haec dixi; intimating thereby, that he consented not in his heart to that which he had delivered by his tongue. This is the total of the business concerning Barret in the Anti-Arminianism, in which there is somewhat to be doubted, and somewhat more to be denied. And first it is to be doubted, whether any such Recautation, consisting of so many Articles, and every Article having his abjuration or Recantation subjoined unto it, was ever enjoined to be made: for though the Author of the book affirmeth in one place, that the whole Recantation, in the same manner and form as there we find it, was exemplified, and sent unto him under the hand of the Register of the University, pag. 62. yet he contesseth within few lines after, that no such matter could be found, when the heads of Houses were re­quired by an Order from the House of Commons in the last Session of Parliament, Anno 1628. to make certificate to them of all such Recantations as were recorded in their [Page 619]University Register, and of this Recantation in particular. And though it be here­upon inferred, that this Precantation was imbezilled and razed out of the Records of the University by some of the Arminian party, the better to suppress the memory of so great a foil; yet it may rather be believed, that many false Copies of it were dis­persed abroad by those of the Calvinian faction, to make the man more odious, and his Opinions more offensive than might stand with Truth.

The truth is that a Recantation was enjoyned, and delivered to him, IX though not the same, nor in the same form and manner, as before laid down; Barret confessing in his Letters of which more anon, that a Recantation was imposed on him and ex­pected from him: But then it is to be denied as a thing most false, that he never published the Recantation, whatsoever it was, which the Heads enjoyned and required at his last Convention. For, first, It is acknowledged in the Authors own Transcript of the Acts, that though he did confess the Propositions wherewith he was charged to be contained in his Sermon; yet he would never grant them to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England, and therefore was not likely to retract the same. Secondly, It is plain by Barrets said Letters, the one to Dr. Goad Master of Kings, the other to Mr. Chadderton Master of Emanuel Colledg, that neither flattery, nor threat­nings, nor the fear of losing his subsistence in the University, should ever work him to the publishing of the Recantation required of him. And thirdly, It appears by the Letters from the heads above mentioned to the Lord Treasurer Burleigh, that Barret had not made the Recantation on the 8th of March, which was full ten months after the time appointed for the publishing of it. And on these terms this business sheweth the Author his Errour, to affirm with all confidence, (for if the one doth, the other must) that Barret made this Recantation in St. Maries Church on the tenth of May, Anno 1595. Barret declaring in his Letter to Dr. Goad, about nine months after, that he would never make it; And the Heads signified to the Lord Treasurer Burleigh, on the eighth of March, heing ten months after, that at that time he had not made. And who should believe in the present case, Barret that saith he would never do it, and the Heads, who say, he had not done it on the eighth of March: or that they say upon the credit of a false and malitious Copy, (purposely spread abroad by the Puritan fa­ction to defame the man) that he had published it on the 10th of May, ten months before. I find also in the Title to this Recantation, as it stands in the Anti-Arminia­nism, (p. 46.) that Mr. Harsnet of Pembrook Hall, is there affirmed to have maintained the supposed Errours, for which Barret was condemned to a Recantation: and 'tis strange that Harsnet should stand charged in the Title of another mans sentence, for holding and maintaining any such points as had been raked out of the dunghil of Popery and Pelagianism, as was there affirmed; for which he either was to be questioned in his own person, or not to have been condemned, to the Title of a sentence passed on another man. Which circumstance as it discredits the Title, so the Title doth as much discredit the reality of the Recantation. adeo mendaciorum natura est, ut cohaerere non possint, saith Lactantius truly. The rest of Barrets story shall be told by himself, ac­cording as I find it in a Letter of his to Dr. Goad, then being Vice-Chancellour, written about nine months after the time of his first conventing: as by the Letter doth appear, which is this that followeth.

A copy of Mr. Barret's Letter to Dr. Goad.

MY Duty remembred to your Worship, &c. Sir, according to your appoint­ment, X I have conferred with Mr. Overald and Mr. Chadderton. Mr. Overald after once Conference, refused to talk of these points any more, saying it needed not: For Mr. Chadderton he is a learned man, and one whom I do much reverence, yet he hath not satisfied me in this point. For I required proof but of these two things at his hands, viz. That una fides did differre specie ab alia; and that it was aliud donum ab alio, but he did neither. But for the first, whereas he should have proved it did differre spe­cie, he proved it did differre numero, and that but out of the Master of the Sentences, whose Authority notwithstanding I do not impugn. And for the other, that it should be Aliud donum, he proveth out of St. Augustine, that fides daemonum is not alia à fide [Page 620]Christianorum, which no man ever denied: for fides Daemonum is not Donum at all, so that it cometh not in Question; so that I being here unsatisfied of one party, meaning Mr. Chadderton, and rather confirmed of the other party, I do hold my Positions as before. And for the Retractation, I purpose not to perform it: Yet that the peace of the University, and the Church may be preserved, I do solemnly promise to keep my Opinion to my self: so that in this regard my humble suit unto your Worship (and hearty prayer to God) is this, that you would suffer me to continue in the Uni­versity without molestation, though I live but in disgrace amongst you, yet I regard it not, so I may be quiet. For my intent is to live privately at my Book, until such times as by continual Conference with those that are of contrary Judgment, I may learn the truth of your Assertions: which when I have learned, I promise before God and your Worship not to conceal. But if you and the rest of your Assistants (whom I reverence) do purpose to proceed in disquieting and traducing me as you have done by the space of three quarters of this year, and so in the end mean to drive me out of the University, I must take it patiently, because I know not how to redress it; but let God be judg between you and me. These things I leave to your Worships favourable consideration; for this I must needs say, (and peradventure it may tend to your credit, when I shall report it) that above the rest hitherto I have found you most courteous and most just. I leave your Worship to Gods Direction and holy tuition, expecting a gracious Answer.

Your daily Beadsman WILLIAM BARRET.

But here perhaps it may be said, XI that though Barret might be as obstinate in refusing to publish the Recantation, as this Letter makes him; yet it appears by the whole course of those proceedings, that his Doctrines were condemned by the heads of the University, as being contrary to that which was received and established in the Church of England. And that it was so in the Judgment of those men, who either concur­red in his Censure, or subscribed the Letter to the Lord Treasurer Burleigh above-men­tioned, is a thing past question. But this can be no Argument, that Barrets Doctrines were repugnant to the Church of England, because these Heads either in favour of Dr. Whitacres, or in respect to Mr. Perkins, were pleased to think no otherwise of them: for if it be, we may conclude by the same Argument, that the Church of Rome was in the right, even in the darkest times of ignorance and superstition, because all those who publickly opposed her Doctrines, were solemnly enjoyned by the then prevailing party to a Recantation; and which is more, it may be also thence concluded that the Doctrine maintained by Athanasius touching Christs Divinity, was contrary to that which had been taught by the Apostles, and men of Apostolical spirits, because it was condemned for such, by some Arrian Bishops in the Council (or rather Conventicle) of Tyre, which was held against him.

2. It cannot be made apparent that either Dr. Duport, the Vice-Chancellor who was most concerned, or Dr. Baroe, the Lady Margarets Professour for Divinity there had any hand in sentencing this Recantation. Not Dr. Baroe, because by concurring to this Sentence he was to have condemned himself: Nor Dr. Duport, for I find his place to be supplyed, and the whole action govern'd by Dr. Some (which shews him to be absent at that time from the University) according to the stile whereof, the Title of Procancellarius is given to Dr. Some in the Acts of the Court, as appears by the Extract of them in the Anti-Arminianisin, p. 64. compared with p. 63.

But thirdly, admitting that the Heads were generally thus enclined, yet probably the whole body of the University might not be of the same Opinion with them: those Heads not daring to affirm otherwise of Barrets Doctrine in their Letter to the Lord Treasurer Burleigh, than that it gave just offence to many. And if it gave offence unto many only, it may be thought that it gave no offence to the Major part, or much less to all; for if it had, the writers of the Letter would not have been so sparing in their expressions, as to limit the offence to many, if they could have said it of the most. But of this we shall speak more in the following Chapter, when we shall come to feel the pulse of the University in the great competition between Wotton and Overald after Whitacres death. Of which Opinion Harsnet was, we have seen before. And we have seen before that Baroe had many Disciples and Adherents which stood fast unto him. And thereupon we may conclude, that when Dr. Baroe had for fourteen or fif­teen [Page 621]years maintained these Opinions in the Schools (as before was shewed) which are now novelized by the name of Arminianism; and such an able man as Harsnet had preached them without any Controul, when the greatest audience of the Kingdom did stand to him in it; There must be many more Barrets who concurred with the same Opinions with them in the University, though their names through the Envy of those times are not come unto us.

CHAP. XXI. Of the proceedings against Baroe, the Articles of Lambeth, and the general calm which was in Oxon, touching these Disputes.

  • 1. The differences between Baroe and Doctor Whitacres, the addresses of Whitacres and others to Archbishop Whitgift, which drew on the Articles at Lambeth.
  • 2. The Articles agreed on at Lambeth, pre­sented both in English and Latin.
  • 3. The Articles of no authority in themselves, Archbishop Whitgift questioned for them, together with the Queens command to have them utterly supprest.
  • 4. That Baroe neither was deprived of his Professorship, nor compelled to leave it, the Anti-Calvinian party being strong enough to have kept him in if he had defired it.
  • 5. A Copy of the Letter from the Heads in Cambridg to the Lord Treasurer Bur­leigh, occasioned as they said by Barret and Baroe.
  • 6. Dr. Overalds encounters with the Calvi­nists in the point of falling from the Grace received; his own private judgment in the point, neither for total, nor for final, and the concurrence of some other learned men in the same Opinion.
  • 7. The general calm which was at Oxon at that time touching these Disputes, and the Reasons of it.
  • 8. An answer to that Objection out of the Writings of judicious Hooker, of the total and final falling.
  • 9. The disaffections of Dr. Bukeridge, and Dr. Houson to Calvins doctrines: an An­swer to the Objection touching the paucity of those who opposed the same.
  • 10. Possession of a Truth maintained but by one or two, preserves it sacred and invio­lable for more fortunate times; the case of Liberius Pope of Rome; and that the testimonies of this kind are rather to be valued by weight than tale.

FROM Barret pass we on to Baroe, I betwixt whom and Dr. Whitacres there had been some clashings, touching Predestination and Reprobation, the certainty of Salvation, and the possibility of falling from the Grace received. And the heats grew so high at last that the Calvinians thought it necessary in point of prudence to effect that by power and favour, which they were not able to obtain by force of Argu­ment. To which end they first addressed themselves to the Lord Treasurer Burleigh then being their Chancellor, acquainting him by Dr. Some, then Deputy Vice-Chan­cellor, with the disturbances made by Barret, thereby preparing him to hearken to such further motions, as should be made unto him in pursuit of that Quarrel. But finding little comfort there, they resolved to steer their course by another compass. And having prepossest the most Reverend Archbishop Whitgift, with the turbulent carriage of those men, the affronts given to Dr. Whitacres, whom (for his learned and laborious Writings against Cardinal Bellarmine) he most highly favoured, and the great inconveniences like to grow by that publick discord; they gave themselves good hopes of composing those differences, not by the way of an accommodation, but an absolute conquest; and to this end they dispatch'd to him certain of their num­ber in the name of the rest, such as were interessed in the Quarrel, (Dr. Whitacres himself for one, and therefore like to stickle hard for the obtaining their ends;) the Articles to which they had reduced the whole state of the business being brought to them ready drawn, and nothing wanting to them but the face of Authority, where­with, as with Medusa's head to confound their Enemies, and turn their Adversaries into stones. And that they might be sent back with the face of Authority, the most Reverend Archbishop Whitgift, calling unto him Dr. Flecher, Bishop of Bristol, then newly elected unto London, and Dr. Richard Vaughan Lord Elect of Bangor, toge­ther [Page 622]with Dr. Tyndal Dean of Ely, Dr. Whitacres and the rest of the Divines which came from Cambridg, proposed the said Articles to their consideration at his House in Lambeth, on the tenth of Novemb. Anno 1595. by whom those Articles were agreed on in these following words.

  • 1. Deus ab aeterno praedestinavit quosdam ad vitam: quosdam reprobavit ad mor­tem.
  • 2. Causa movens aut efficiens praedestinatio­nis ad vitam non est praevisio fidei, aut perseverantiae, aut bonorum operum, aut ullius rei quae insit in personis Praedesti­natis, sed sola voluntas beneplaciti Dei.
  • 3. Praedestinatorum praefinitus & certus est numerus, qui nec augeri, nec minui potest.
  • 4. Qui non sunt Praedestinati ad salutem, necessario, propter peccata sua damna­buntur.
  • 5. Vera, viva & justificans fides, & spi­ritus Dei justificantis, non extinguitur, non excidit, non evanescit in Electis, aut finaliter, aut totaliter.
  • 6. Homo vere fidelis, id est, fide justi­ficante praeditus, certus est plerophoria Fidei de Remissione peccatorum suo­rum, & salute sempiterna sua per Christum.
  • 7. Gratia salutaris, non tribuitur, non in­communicatur, non conceditur universis hominibus, qua servari possint si velint.
  • 8. Nemo potest venire ad Christum, nisi datum ei fuerit, & nisi pater eum tra­xerit, & omnes homines non trahuntur à patre, ut veniant ad filium.
  • 9. Non est positum in arbitrio, aut potestate uniuscujusque hominis servari.
  • 1. God from Eternity hath predestinate certain men unto life, certain men he hath reprobate.
  • 2. The moving or efficient cause of prede­stination unto life, is not the foresight of Faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in the per­son predestinated, but only the good will and pleasure of God.
  • 3. There is predetermined a certain num­ber of the Predestinate, which can neither be augmented or diminished.
  • 4. Those who are not predestinated to salvation, shall be necessarily damned for their sins.
  • 5. A true living and justifying Faith, and the Spirit of God justifying, is not ex­tinguished, falleth not away, it vanisheth not away in the Elect, either totally or finally.
  • 6. A man truly faithful, that is, such an one who is indued with a justifying faith, is certain with the full assurance of faith, of the remission of his sins, and of his everlasting salvation by Christ.
  • 7. Saving Grace is not given, is not grant­ed, is not communicated to all men, by which they may be saved if they will.
  • 8. No man can come unto Christ, unless it be given unto him, and unless the Father shall draw him, and all men are not drawn by the Father, that they may come to the Son.
  • 9. It is not in the will or power of every one to be saved.

Now in these Articles there are these two things to be considered, III first the Authority by which they were made, and secondly the effect produced by them, in order to the end proposed; and first as touching the authority by which they were made, it was so far from being legal and sufficient, that it was plainly none at all. For what au­thority could there be in so thin a meeting consisting only of the Archbishop himself, two other Bishops (of which but one had actually received consecration) one Dean and half a dozen Doctors and other Ministers, neither impowred to any such thing by the rest of the Clergy, nor authorized to it by the Queen. And therefore their determinations of no more Authority, as to binding of the Church, or prescribing to the judgment of particular persons, than as if one Earl, the eldest son of two or three others, meeting with half a dozen Gentlemen in Westminster Hall, can be affirm­ed to be in a capacity of making Orders which must be looked on by the Subject, as Acts of Parliament. A Declaration they might make of their own Opinions, or of that which they thought fittest to be holden in the present case, but neither Articles nor Canons to direct the Church: for being but Opinions still, and the Opinions of private and particular persons, they were not to be looked upon as publick Doctrines. And so much was confessed by the Archbishop himself, when he was called in question for it before the Queen, who being made acquainted with all that passed by the Lord Treasurer Burleigh, who neither liked the Tenents, nor the manner of proceeding in them, was most passionately offended that any such Innovation should be made in [Page 623]the publicck Doctrine of this Church; and once resolved to have them all attainted of a Premunire. But afterwards upon the interposition of some Friends, and the re­verend esteem she had of the excellent Prelate, the Lord Archbishop (whom she commonly called her Black Husband) she was willing to admit him to his defence: and he accordingly declared in all humble manner, that he and his Associates had not made any Articles, Canons or decrees with an intent, that they should serve hereafter for a standing Rule to direct the Church, but only had resolved on some Propositions to be sent to Cambridge, for the appeasing of some unhappy differences in the Univer­sity; with which Answer her Majesty being somewhat pacified, commanded notwith­standing that he should speedily recall and suppress those Articles; which was perform­ed with such care and diligence, that a Copy of them was not to be found for a long time after. And though we may take up this relation upon the credit of History of the Lambeth Articles printed in Latin, 1651. or on the credit of Bishop Mountague, who affirms the same in his Appeal,Appeal. p. 71. Resp. Nec. p. 146, Anno 1525. yet since the Authority of both hath been called in question, we will take our warrant for this Narrative from some other hands. And first we have it in a book called Necessario Responsio, published by the Re­monstrants, Anno 1618. who possibly might have the whole story of it from the mouth of Baroe, or some other who lived at that time in Cambridge, Cabul. p. 117. and might be well ac­quainted with the former passages. And secondly, We find the same to be affirmed by the Bishops of Rochester, Oxon, and St. Davids in a Letter to the Duke of Buching­ham, August 2. 1625. In which they signifie unto him, that the said Articles being agreed upon, and ready to be published, it pleased Queen Elizabeth of famous memory, upon notice given how little they agreed with the practice of piety and obedience to all Government, to cause them to be suppressed, and that they had so continued ever since, till then of late some of them had received countenance at the Synod of Dort.

Next touching the effect produced by them in order to the end so proposed, IV so far they were from appeasing the present Controversies, and suppressing Baroe, and his party, that his disciples and Adherents became more united, and the breach wider than before. And though Dr. Baroe not long after, deserted his place in the University, yet neither was he deprived of his Professorship, as some say, not forced to leave it on a fear of being deprived, as is said by others: For that Professorship being chosen from two years to two years, according to the Statutes of the Lady Margaret, he kept the place till the expiring of his term, and then gave off without so much as shewing himself a Suiter for it: Which had he done, it may be probable enough, that he had carried it from any other Candidate or Competitor of what rank soever. The Anti-Calvinian party being grown so strong, as not to be easily overborn in a pub­lick business by the opposite faction. And this appears plainly by that which followed on the death of Dr. Whitacres, who died within few days after his return from Lambeth, with the nine Articles so much talk'd of. Two Candidates appeared for the Profes­sorship after his decease, Wotton of Kings Collegd a professed Calvinian, and one of those who wrote against Mountague's Appeal, Anno 1626. Competitor with Overald of Trinity Colledg almost as far from the Calvinian doctrine in the main Platform of Pre­destination, as Baroe, Harsnet or Barret are conceived to be. But when it came to the Vote of the University, the place was carried for Overald by the Major part: which as it plainly shews, that though the doctrines of Calvin were so hotly stickled here by most of the Heads, yet the greater part of the learned Body entertained them not; so doth it make it also to be very improbable, that Baroe should be put out of his place by those who had taken in Overald, or not confirmed therein, if he had desired. And therefore we may rather think, as before is said, that he relinquished the place of his own accord; in which he found his Doctrine crossed by the Lambeth Articles, and afterwards his peace distracted dy several Informations brought against him, by the adverse faction; and thereupon a Letter of Complaint presented to the Lord Treasurer Burleigh, subscribed by most of those who before had prosecuted Barret to his Recantation. Which Letter giving very great light to the present business, as well concerning Barret as Baroe; though principally aimed at the last, I think worthy of my pains, and the Readers patience: and therefore shall subscribe it as hereafter fol­loweth.

A Copy of the Letter sent from some of the Heads in Cambridge to the Lord Burleigh, Lord High Treasurer of England, and Chancellor of the University.

RIGHT HONOURABLE, our bounden duty remembred; we are right sorry to have such occasion to trouble your Lordship; but the peace of this University and Church (which is dear unto us) being brought into peril, by the late reviving of new Opinions and troublesom Controversies amongst us, hath urged us (in regard of the places we here sustain) not only to be careful for the suppressing the same to our power, but also to give your Lordship further information hereof as our honourable Head and careful Chancellor.

About a year past (amongst divers others who here attempted publickly to teach new and strange Opinions in Religion) one Mr. Barret more boldly than the rest, did preach divers Popish Errors in St. Maries to the just offence of many, which he was enjoyned to retract, but hath refused so to do in such sort as hath been prescribed: with whose fact and Opinions, your Lordship was made acquainted hy Dr. Some the Deputy Vice-Chancellour. Hereby offence and division growing as after by Dr Baroes publick Lectures and determinations in the Schools, contrary, (as his Auditors have informed) to Dr. Whitacres, and the sound received Truth ever since her Majesties Reign; we sent up to London by common consent in November last, Dr Tyndal, and Dr. Whitacres (men especially chosen for that purpose) for conference with my Lord of Canterbury, and other principal Divines there, that the Controversies being exa­mined, and the truth by their consents confirmed, the contrary Errours and conten­tions thereabouts might the rather cease. By whose good travel with sound consent in Truth, such advice and care was taken by certain Propositions (containing certain substantial points of Religion, taught and received in this University and Church, during the time of her Majesties Reign, and consented unto, and published by the best approved Divines both at home and abroad) for the maintaining of the same truth and peace of the Church, as thereby we enjoyed here great and comfortable quiet, until Dr. Baroe (in January last in his Sermon Ad Clerum in St. Maries, con­trary to restraint, and Commandment from the Vice-Chancellour and the Heads) by renewing again these Opinions, disturbed our peace, whereby his Adherents and disciples were and are too much emboldned to maintain false doctrine to the cor­rupting and disturbing of this University, and the Church, if it be not in time effe­ctually prevented. For remedy whereof we have with joint consent and care (upon complaint of divers Batchelors of Divinity) proceeded in the examination of the cause, according to our Statutes, and usual manner of proceeding in such causes, whereby it appeareth by sufficient Testimonies, that Dr. Baroe hath offended in such things as his Articles had charged him withal.

There is also since the former, another Complaint preferred against him by certain Batchelors in Divinity, that he hath not only in the Sermon, but also for the space of this fourteen or fifteen years taught in his Lectures, preached in his Sermons, determi­ned in the Schools, and printed in several books, divers points of doctrine not only contrary to himself, but also contrary to that which hath been taught and received ever since her Majesties Reign; and agreeable to the Errors of Popery, which we know your Lordship hath always disliked and hated: so that we (who for the space of many years past have yielded him sundry benefits and favours here, in the Univer­sity, being a stranger, and forborn him when he hath often heretofore (busie and curious in aliena Republica) broached new and strange questions in Religion) now unless we should be careless of maintaining the truth of Relgiion established, and of our duties in our places cannot (being resolved and confirmed in the truth of the long professed and received doctrine) but continue to use all good means, and seek at your Lordships hands some effectual Remedy hereof, lest by petmitting passage to these Errors, the whole body of Popery should by little and little break in upon us, to the overthrow of our Religion, and consequently the withdrawing of many here and else­where from true obedience to her Majesty.

May it therefore please your Lordship to have an honourable consideration of the pre­mises, [Page 625]and (for the better maintaining of peace, and the truth of Religion so long re­ceived in this University and Church) to vouchsafe your Lordships good aid and ad­vice, both to the comfort of us, (wholly consenting and agreeing in judgment) and all others of the University truly affected, and to the suppression in time, not only of these errors, but even of gross Popery, like, by such means, in time easily to creep in amongst us (as we find by late experience it hath dangerously begun). Thus craving pardon for troubling your Lordship, and commending the same in praise to Almighty God, we humbly take our leave,

From Cambridge, March. 8th. 1595.
Your Lordships humble and bounden to be com­manded, Roger Goad, Procan. R. Some, Tho. Leg, John Jegon, Thomas Nevil, Thomas Preston, Hump. Tyndal, James Mountague, Edmond Barwel, Laurence Cutterton.

Such was the condition of Affairs at Cambridge at the expiring of the year, 1595. VI the genuine Doctrine of the Church, beginning then to break through the clouds of Calvinism, wherewith it was before obscured, and to shine forth again in its former lustre. To the advancement of which work, as the long continuance of Baroe in the University, for the space of 20 years and upwards, the discreet activity of Dr. Harsnet, Fellow and Master of Pembrook Colledge for the term of 40 yeaas and more, gave a good encouragement; so the invincible constancy of Mr. Barret, and the slender op­position made by Overald, contributed to the confirmation and encrease thereof. For scarce had Overald warmed his Chair, when he found himself under a necessity of en­countring some of the remainder of Baroes Adversaries, though he followed not the blow so far as Baroe did; for some there were of the old Predestination Leven, who publickly had taught (as he related it in the conference at Hampton Court) ‘all such persons as were once truly justified, though after they fell into never so grievous sins, yet remained still just (or in the state of Justification) before they actually repented of those sins; yea, though they never repented of them through forgetfulness, or sudden death, yet they should be justified and saved without Repentance. Against which Overald maintained, that whosoever (although before justified) did commit any grievous sin, as Adultery, Murder, Treason, or the like, did become ipso facto, Conf. at Ham. C. p. 42. sub­ject to Gods wrath, and guilty of damnation (or were in the state of damnation, quoad presentem statum) until they repented:’ And so far he had followed Baroe, but he went no further, holding (as he continued his own story) that such persons as were called and justified according to the purpose of Gods Election, did neither fall totally from all the graces of God (though how a justified man may bring him­self into a present state of Wrath and Damnation, without a total falling from all the graces of God, is beyond my reason) and that they were in time renewed by the Spirit of God unto a lively faith and repentance, and thereby justified from those sins (with the guilt and wrath annexed unto them) into which they had fallen: nor can it be de­nied, but that some other Learned men of those times were of the same opinion also. Amongst which I find Dr. John Bridges Dean of Sarum, Anti-Armini. pag. 202. and afterwards Lord Bishop of Oxon, to be reckoned for one, and Mr. Richard Hooker (of whom more anon) to be accounted for another. But being but the compositions of private men, they are not to be heard against the express words of the two Homilies touching falling from God, in case the point had not been positively determined in the sixteenth Article. But so it hapned, notwithstanding that Overald not concurring with the Calvinists concerning the estate of such justified persons as afterwards fell into grievous sins; there grew some diffidences and distrust between them, which afterwards widned themselves into grea­ter differences. Insomuch, that diffenting from them also touching the absolute de­cree of Reprobation, and the restraining of the benefit of Christs death, and Gods grace unto a few particulars, and that too in Gods primitive purpose and intent, con­cerning the salvation and damnation of man-kind; those of the Anti-Calvinian party went on securely, with little or no opposition and less disturbance.

At Oxford all things in the mean time were calm and quiet, VII no publick opposition shewing it self in the Schools or Pulpits. The reasons of that which might be, first that the Students of that University did more incline unto the canvasing of such points as were in difference betwixt us and the Church of Rome, than unto those which were disputed against the Calvinists in these points of Doctrine; for witness whereof, we [Page 626]may call in the works of Sanders, Stapleton, Allyns, Parsons, Campian, and many others of that sid; as those of Bishop Jewel, Bishop Bilson, Dr. Humphreys, Mr. Nowel, Dr. Sparks, [...] Hist. l. 9. Dr. Reynolds, and many others which stood firm to the Church of England. And secondly, though Dr. Humphreys, the Queens Professor for Divinity was not with­out cause reckoned for a Non conformist, yet had he the reputation of a moderate man, (a moderate Non-conformist, as my Author calls him) and therefore might permit that liberty of opinion unto other men which was indulged unto himself; neither did Dr. Holland, who succeeded him, give any such countenance to the propagating of Calvins doctrines, as to make them the subject of his Lectures and Disputations. In­somuch that Mr. Prin, with all his diligence, can find but seven men who publickly maintained any point of Calvianism in the Schools of Oxon, from the year 1596. to the year 1616. and yet to make that number also, he is fain to take in Dr. George Abbot, and Dr. Benfield, on no other account, but for maintaining, Deum non esse authorem peccati, that God is not the Author of sin, which any Papist, Lutheran, or Arminian, might have maintained as well as they.

And yet it cannot be denied, VIII but that by errour of these times, the reputation which Calvin had attained to in both Universities, and the extream diligence of his followers for the better carrying on of their own designs, there was a general tendency unto his opinions in the present controversies; so that it is no marvel, if many men of good affection to that Church in government and forms of worship, might unawares be seasoned with his Principles in point of Doctrine;Instit. fathers in the Pref. his book of Institutes being for the most part the foundation on which the young Divines of those times did build their studies; and having built their studies on a wrong foundation, did publickly main­tain some point or other of his Doctrines, which gave least offence, and out of which no dangerous consequence could be drawn (as they thought and hoped) to the disho­nour of God, the disgrace of Religion, the scandal of the Church, or subversion of godliness: amongst which, if judicious Mr. Hooker be named for one, (as for one I find him to be named) yet is he named only for maintaining one of the five points, that namely of the not total or final falling away of Gods Elect, as Dr. Overald also did in the Schools of Cambridge, though neither of them can be challenged for main­taining any other point of Calvins Doctrine, touching the absolute decree of Repro­bation, Election unto life, without reference to faith in Christ, the unresistible work­ings of Grace, the want of freedom in the will to concur therewith, and the deter­mining of all mens actions unto good or evil, without leaving any power in men to do the contrary. And therefore, secondly, Mr. Hookers discourse of Justification, as it now comes into our hands, might either be altered in some points after his decease, by him that had the publishing of it; or might be written by him as an essay of his younger years, before he had consulted the Book of Homilies, and perused every clause in the publick Liturgy (as he after did) or had so carefully examined every Text of Scripture, upon which he lays the weight of his judgment in it, as might encourage him to have it printed when he was alive.

Of any men who publickly opposed the Calvinian tenents in this University till after the beginning of King James his Reign, IX I must confess that I have hitherto found no good assurance; though some there were who spared not to declare their dislike there­of, and secretly trained up their Scholars in other principles. An argument whereof may be that when Dr. Baroe dyed in London (which was about three or four years after he had left his place in Cambridge) his Funeral was attended by most of the Divines then living in and about the City; Dr. Bancroft then Bishop of London, giving order in it, which plainly shews that there were many of both Universities which openly fa­voured Baroes Doctrines, and did as openly dislike those of the Calvinians, though we find but few presented to us by their names. Amongst which few I first reckon Dr. John Buckridge, President of St. Johns Colledge, and Tutor to Archbishop Laud, who carried his Anti-Calvinian doctrines with him to the See of Rochester, and publickly maintained them at a conference in York House, Ann. 1626. And secondly, Dr. John Houson, one of the Canons of Christ Church, and Vice-Chancellor of the University. Ann. 1602. so known an enemy to Calvin his opinions, that he incurred a suspension by Dr. Robert Abbots then Vice Chancellor. And afterwards being Bishop of Oxon, subscribed the letter amongst others to the Duke of Buckingham in favour of Mountague, and his Book called Appello Cesarem, as before was said. And though we find but these two named for Anti-Calvinist, in the five controverted points, yet might there be many houses, perhaps some hundreds, who held the same opinions with them, though they [Page 627]discovered not themselves, or break out in any open opposition,1 King. 19, 18. 1 King. 19.1 [...]. as they did at Cambridge; God had 7000. Servants in the Realm of Israel, who had not bowed the knee to Baal, though we find the name of none but the Prophet Eliah, the residue keeping themselves so close for fear of danger, that the Prophet himself complained to God, that he alone was left to serve him. A parallel case to which may be that the Christians during the power and prevalency of the Arian Hereticks, St. Jerome giving us the names of no more than three, who had stood up stoutly in defence of the Nicene council, and the points of Doctrine there established, viz. 1. St. Athanasius Patriark of Alexandria in Egypt, St. Hillary Bishop of Poictious in France, and St. Eusebius Bishop of Vevelli in Italy, of which thus the Father, Siquidem Arianis victis triumphatorem Atha­nasium suum Egyptus excepit; Hillarium è prelio revertentem galliarum ecclesia complexa est, ad reditum Eusebii sui lugubres vestes Italia mutavit; that is to say, upon the overthrow of the Arians Egypt received her Athanasius, now returned in triumph; the Church of France embraced her Hillary coming home with victory from the battel; and on the return of Eusebius, Italy changed her mourning garments. By which it is most clear, even to vulgar eyes, that not these Bishops only did defend the truth, but that it was preserved by many others as well of the Clergy as of the People, in their several Coun­treys; who otherwise never had received them with such joy and triumph, if a great part of them had not been of the same opinions, though no more of them occur by name in the records of that age.

But then again, X If none but the three Bishops had stood unto the truth in the points disputed at that time between the Orthodox Christians and the Arian Hereticks, yet had that been sufficient to preserve the Church from falling universally from the faith of Christ, or deviating from the truth in those particulars;Deut. 17.6. Mat. 18, 19. the word of truth being established (as say both Law and Gospel) if there be only two or three witnesses to attest unto it; two or three members of the Church may keep possession of a truth in all the rest, and thereby save the whole from errour; even as a King invaded by a foreign Enemy, doth keep possession of his Realm by some principal fortress, the standing out whereof may in time regain all the rest, which I return for answer to ano­ther objection touching the paucity of those Authors whom we have produced in main­tenance of the Anti Calvinian or old English doctrines, since the resetling of the Church under Queen Elizabeth; for though they be but few in number, and make but a very thin appearance: Apparent rari nautes in gurgite vasto, in the Poets language, yet serve they for a good assurance that the Church still kept possession of her primitive truths, not utterly lost, though much endangered by such contrary Doctrines as had of late been thrust upon her, there was a time when few or none of the Orthodox Bishops durst openly appear in favour of St. Athanasius, but only Liberius Pope of Rome, Theod. Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 15. who thereupon is thus upbraided by Constantius the Arian Emperour, Quota pars tu es orbis terrarum, qui solus, &c. How great a part (saith he) art thou of the whole world, that thou alone shouldst shew thy self in defence of that wicked man, and thereby over­throw the peace of the Universe. To which Liberius made this answer, non diminuitur solitudine mea, verbum dei, nam & olim tres solum inventi fuere qui edicto resisterint; that is to say, the Word of God is not made the weaker by my sole appearing in defence thereof no more than when there were but three, (he means the three Hebrew Chil­dren in the Book of Daniel) which durst make open opposition to the Kings Edict. Liberius thought himself sufficient to keep possession of a truth in the Church of Christ, till God should please to raise up more Champions in all places to defend the same, not thinking it necessary to return any other answer, or to produce the names of any others of his time, who turned Athanasius as much as he, which brings into my mind a passage in the conference betwixt Dr. Ban, Featly and Sweat the Jesuite, in which the Jesuite much insisted on that thred-bare question, viz. where was your Church before Luther? which when the Doctor went to shew out of Scriptures and Fathers, some of the Papists standing by, cried out for names, those which stood further of ingeminating nothing but Names Names, whereupon the Dr. merily asked them, if nothing would con­tent them but a Buttery book. And such an Answer I must make in the present case to such as take up testimony by tale, not weight, and think no truth is fairly proved, ex­cept it come attended with a cloud of witnesses. But what we want in number now, he shall find hereafter, when we shall come to take a view of King James his Reign, to which now we hasten.

CHAP. XXII. Of the Conference at Hampton Court, and the several encouragements given to the Anti-Calvinians in the time of King James.

  • 1. The occasion of the conference at Hampton Court, and the chief persons there assem­bled.
  • 2. The nine Articles of Lambeth rejected by King James.
  • 3. Those of the Church being left in their for­mer condition.
  • 4. The Calvinian Doctrine of Predestination decryed by Bishop Bancroft, and disliked by King James; and the reasons of it.
  • 5. Bishop Bancroft and his Chaplain both a­bused; the inserting the Lambeth Ar­ticles into the confession of Ireland no ar­gument of King James, his approbation of them, by whom they were inserted, and for what cause allowed of in the said Con­fession.
  • 6. A pious fraud of the Calvinians in clap­ping their predestinarian Doctrines at the end of the Old Testament, An. 1607. dis­covered, censured and rejected, with the rea­sons for it.
  • 7. The great incouragement given by King James to the Anti-calvinians, and the increasing of that party both in power and number by the stirs in Holland.
  • 8. The offence taken by King James at Con­radus Vorstius, animateth the Oxon. Calvinists to suspend Dr. Houson, and to preach publickly against Dr. Laud.
  • 9. The like proceedings at Cambridge a­gainst Mr. Simpson, first prosecuted by King James, and on what account, that the King was more incensed against the party of Arminius, than against their per­suasions.
  • 10. Instructions published by King James in order to the diminishing of Calvins Autho­rity, the defence of universal Redemption, and the suppressing of his Doctrines in the other points, and why the last proved so unuseful in the case of Gabriel Bridges.
  • 11. The publishing of Mountagues answer to the Gagger, the information made a­gainst it: the Author and his Doctrine ta­ken by King James into his protection, and his appeal licensed by the Kings appoint­ment.
  • 12. The conclusion of the whole discourse, and the submission of it to the Church of Eng­land.

NOw we come unto the Reign of King James of happy memory, I whose breeding in the kirk of Scotland had given some hopes of seeing better days to the English Puritans than those which they enjoyed under Queen Elizabeth. Upon which hopes they presented him at his first coming to the Crown with a supplication, no less tedious than it was impertinent, given out to be subscribed with a thousand hands, though it wanted many of that number, and aiming at an alteration in many points, both of Doctrine and Discipline: But they soon found themselves deceived. For first the King commanded by publick Proclamation, that the divine service of the Church should be diligently officiated and frequented as in former times, under pain of suffering the severest penalties by the Laws provided in that case. And that being done, instead of giving such a favourable answer to their supplication, as they had flattered them­selves withal, he commended the answering of it to the Vice-Chancellour, Heads, and other Learned men of the University of Oxon, from whom there was nothing to be looked for toward their contentment. But being, thirdly, a just Prince, and willing to give satisfaction to the just desires of such as did apply themselves unto him; as also to inform himself in all such particulars as were in difference betwixt the Petitioners and the Prelates; he appointed a solemn Conference to be held before him at Hampton Court on Thursday the 12th. of January, Anno 1603. being within less than ten moneths after his entrance on the Kingdom. To which Conference were called by se­veral Letters on the Churches part, the most Reverend and right renowned Fathers in God, Dr. John Whitgift Arch-bishop of Canterbury, Dr. Richard Bancroft Bishop of Lon­don, Dr. Tobie Matthews Bishop of Durham, Dr. Thomas Bilson Bishop of Winchester, Dr. Gervase Babbinton Bishop of Worchester, Dr. Anthony Rudd Bishop of Davids, Dr. An­thony Walson Bishop of Chichester, Dr. Henry Robbinson Bishop of Carlile, and Dr. Thomas Dove Bishop of Peterborough, as also Dr. James Mountague Dean of the Chappel, Dr. Tho­mas Ravis Dean of Christ Church, Dr. John Bridges Dean of Sarum, Dr. Lancelot Andrews [Page 629]Dean of Westminster, Dr. John Overald Dean of Saint Pauls, Dr. William Barlaw Dean of Chester, Dr. Giles Tompson Dean of Windsor, together with Dr. Joh: King Arch-Deacon of Nottingham, and Dr. Richard Field after Dean of Glocester; all of them ha­bited and attired according to their several ranks and stations in the Church of England. And on the other side, there appeared for the Plantiff or Petitioner Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Spark, Mr. Knewstubs, and Mr. Chatterton; the two first being of Oxon, and the other of Cambridge, Con. at H. C. p. 27. apparelled in their Turky Gowns to shew (as Bishop Bancroft tartly noted) they desired rather to conform themselves in outward Ceremonies with the Turks than they did with the Papists.

The first day of the Conference being spent betwixt the King and the Bishops; II the second which was the 16th. of the same moneth, was given to the Plantiffs to present their grievances, and to remonstrate their desires; amongst which it was named by Dr. Reynolds, Con. at H. C. p. 24. (as the mouth of the rest) That the nine Assertions Orthodoxal as he term­ed them) concluded upon at Lambeth, might be inserted into the Book of Articles, which when King James seemed not to understand, as having never heard before of those nine Assertions. Pag. 40. &c. He was informed that by reason of some Controversies arising in Cam­bridge about certain points of Divinity, my Lords Grace assembled some Divines of especial note to set down their opinions, which they drew into nine Assertions, and sent so them to the Ʋniversity for the appeasing of those quarrels; and thereupon his Majesty resolved thus, that when such questions arise amongst Scholars, the quietest proceeding were to determine them in the Ʋniversity, and not to stuff the Book with all Conclusions Theological. Out of which passage I observed, First, that the Attribute of Orthodoxal is ascribed to the said nine Assertions by none but Dr. Reynolds, who termed them so, and not by Dr. Barlow then Dean of Chester, who related the conference, and had been present at the making of the said Assertions, being at that time one of the domestick Chaplains of Arch­bishop Whitgift. And secondly, That they were not made to be a standing Rule to the Church of England, but only for the present pacifying of some differences which arose in Cambridge, as is here acknowledged. I observe thirdly, that King James did utterly eject the motion, as to the inserting of the said nine Assertions amongst the Articles of the Church, leaving them to be canvased and disputed in the Schools, as more proper for them. And fourthly, That being left to be disputed in the Schools, they might be held in the Affirmative, or in the Negative, as best pleased the Re­spondent.

It was also moved by Dr. Reynolds, III That the book of Articles of Religion con­cluded 1562. might be explained in places obscure,Ibid. p. 24. and enlarged where some things were defective. And in particular he desired,Pag. 25. that an explanation might be made of the 23d. Article for ministring in the Congregation, of the 25th. touching Confirma­tion,Pag. 37. and of the 37th. concerning the Authority of the Pope of Rome, Pag. 38. as also that these words,Pag. 24. viz. That the intention of the Minister is not of the Essence of the Sacrament, might be added in some fit place to the book of Articles. But that which Dr. Reynolds did most insist upon, was the 16th. Article, where it is said, That after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from Grace. The meaning whereof, though he acknowledged to be sound, yet he desired, that be­cause they may seem to be contrary to the Doctrine of Election and Predestination in the 17th. Article, those words may seem to be explained with this or the like addi­tion, viz. That neither totally nor finally. Which motion or proposal concerning Dr. Overald more than any other, he took occasion thereupon to acquaint his Majesty with that which had happened to him at Cambridge, concerning the Estate of a justified man, fallen into any grievous sin, as Murder, Treason, Adultery, and the like, as hath been shewn at large in the former Chapter. But the result of all was this, that after a full debate and consideration concerning every one of the said Articles, and the doubts moved about the same, there was no cause found for altering any thing in any of them,Pag. 41. and as little for the 16th. as for any other. For though the said Dr. Overald had de­clared it for his own opinion, that he who was called and justified according to the purpose of Gods Election, being brought into a state of wrath and damnation, did neither fall totally from all the graces of God, not finally from the possibility of being renewed again by Gods holy Spirit, as before is said, and that King James himself had left it to be considered, whether the word Often might not be added to the 16th. Ar­ticle, as thus, viz. We may often depart from Grace, &c. yet being left to the consi­deration of the Prelates, as were all the rest, the said Article remained without any alteration, as before they found it, and as it still continueth to this very day.

But here is to be observed, IV that upon the first motion concerning falling from Grace, ‘the Bishop of London took occasion to signifie to his Majesty, how very many in these days neglecting holiness of life, presumed too much of persisting in Grace, laying all their Religion upon Predestination, If I shall be saved, I shall be saved, which he termed a desperate Doctrine, shewing it to be contrary to good Divinity, and the true doctrine of Predestination, wherein we should rather reason Ascendendo than Descendendo; thus, I live in obedience to God, in love with my Neighbour, I follow my occasion, &c. Therefore I trust God hath elected me, and predestinated me to salvation; not thus which is the usual course of Argument, God hath predestinate and chosen me to life, therefore though I sin never so grievously, yet I shall not be damned, for whom he once loveth, he loveth to the end. Whereupon he shewed his Majesty out of the next Article, what was the doctrine of the Church of England touching Predesti­tion in the very last Paragraph, scilicet, We must receive Gods promises in such wise as these be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture, and in all our doings the Will of God to be followed which we have delivered to us in holy Scripture. Which part of the Ar­ticle his Majesty very well approved, and after he had, (according to his manner) very singularly discoursed on that place of Paul, Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling: he left it to be considered, whether any thing were not to be added for the clearing of the Doctors doubt, by putting in the word often, or the like: as thus, We may often depart from Grace, but in the mean time wished that the Doctrine of Predestination might be very tenderly handled, and with great discretion, left on the one side Gods omnipotency might be called in question, by impeaching the do­ctrine of his Eternal Predestination, or on the other a desperate Resumption might be arreared,Ibid. p. 43. by inferring the necessary certainty of standing and persisting in Grace. After which, upon occasion of Dr. Overals discourse concerning his affairs at Cam­bridg, his Majesty entred into a longer discourse of Predestination and Reprobation than before, and of the necessary enjoyning Repentance and holiness of life with true Faith; concluding that it was Hypocrisie; and not true justifying faith which was severed from them. For although Predestination and Election depend not upon any Qualities, Actions, or works of men, which be mutable, but upon Gods eternal and immutable decree and purpose; yet such is the necessity of Repentance after known sins committed, as that without it there could not be either Reconciliation with God, or remission of those sins.’

But here methinks I hear it said, V that though the King being then unacquainted with the Lambeth Articles, Justific. of the Fathers, &c. in pref. thought not meet to put them amongst the Articles of this Church, yet he liked it well enough in his Clergy of Ireland, that they took them into their Confession, and Bishop Bancroft had agreed to them before the Conference, and that when he was Archbishop, his Chaplain with his good liking and approbation published the Exposition or Analysis of our Articles, in which he gives the Calvinist as fair quarter as can be wished. But first (be­ginning with the last) so much of the Objection as concerns Bishop Bancrost is ex­treamly false, not agreeing to the Lambeth Articles, not being Bishop of London when those Articles were agreed unto as is mistakingly affirmed; and that Analysis of Ex­plication of our English Articles related to in the Objection being published in the year 1585. which was ten years before the making of the Lambeth articles; and eighteen years before Bancroft had been made Archbishop. And secondly, It is not very true, that King James liked, (that is to say, was well pleased with) the putting of those Articles into the confession of the Church of Ireland, though the said Confession was subscribed in his name by the Lord Deputy Chichester, is plainly enough not without his consent: for many other things were in the Confession to which the Lord Deputy subscribed, and the King consented as affairs then stood, which afterwards he declared no great liking to, either of the Tenor or effect thereof. For the truth is, that the drawing up of that Confession being committed principally to the care of Dr. Ʋsher, and afterwards Lord Primate of Ireland, a professed Calvinian, he did not only thrust into it all the Lambeth Articles, but also many others of his own Opinions: as namely, That the Pope was Antichrist, or that man of sin, that the power of sacerdotal Abso­lution is no more than declaratory, as also touching the morality of the Lords day Sabbath, and the total spending of it in religious Exercises: Which last how contrary it is to King Jame's Judgment, how little cause he had to like it, or rather how much reason he had to dislike it, his declaration about lawful Sports, which he published within three years after, doth express sufficiently; so that the King might give con­fent to the confirming of these Articles amongst the rest, though he liked as little of [Page 631]the one as he did of the other: And he might do it on these Reasons. For first, The Irish Nation at that time were most tenaciously addicted to Errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, and therefore must be bended to the other extream before they could be sireight, and Orthodox in these points of doctrine. Secondly, It was an usual practice with the King in the whole course of his Government, to ballance one extream by the o­ther, countenancing the Papist against the Puritan, and the Puritan sometimes against the Papist, that betwixt both the true Religion and Professors of it might be kept in safety.

With greater Artifice but less Authority have some of our Calvinians framed unto themselves another Argument, VI derived from certain Questions and answers printed at the end of the Bible, published by Rob. Barker his Majesties own Printer in the year 1607. from whence it is inferred by the Author of the Anti-Arminianism, Anti-Armin. p. 54. and from him by others, that the said Questions and Answers do contain a punctual Declaration of the received doctrine of this Church in the points disputed. But the worst is, they signifie nothing to the purpose for which they were produced. For I would fain know by what Authority those Questions and Answers were added to the end of the Bible? If by Authority, and that such Authority can be produced, the Argument will be of force which it takes from them, and then no question but the same Authority by which they were placed there at first, would have preserved them in that place for a longer time than during the sale of that Edition: The not retaining them in such Editions as have followed since the sale of that, shews plainly that they were of no anthority in themselves, nor intended by the Church for a rule to others: and being of no older standing than the year 1607. (for ought appears by Mr. Prin, who first made the Ob­jection) they must needs seem as destitute of antiquity as they are of authority, so that upon the whole matter the Author of the Book hath furnished those of different Judgment with a very strong argument, that they wrre foisted in by the fraud and pra­ctice of some of the Emissaries of the Puritan Faction: who hoped in time to have them pass as currant amongst the people as any part of Canonical Scripture. Such Piae fraudes as these are, we should have too many, were they once allowed of: Some prayers were also added to the end of the Bible in some Editions, and others at the end of the publick Liturgy. Which being neglected at the first, and afterwards beheld as the authorized prayers of the Church, were by command left out of those Books and Bibles, as being the compositions of private men, not the publick acts of the Church, and never since added, as before.

But to return unto King James, VII we find not so much countenance given to the Cal­vinians by the fraud of his Printer, as their opposites received by his grace and favour by which they were invested in the chief preferments of the Church of England, con­ferred as openly and freely upon the Anti-Calvinians, as those who had been bread up in the other persuasions, Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine habentur, as we know who said. For presently upon the end of the Conference he prefers Bishop Bancroft to the Chair of Canterbury, and not long after Dr. Barlow to the See of Rochester. On whose translation unto Lincoln, Dr. Richard Neil then Dean of westminster succeeds at Rochester, and leaves Dr. Buckridge there for his successour at his removal unto Lichfield in the year 1609. Dr. Samuel Harsnet is advanced to the See of Chichester, and about ten years after unto that of Norwich. In the beginning of the year 1614. Dr. Overald succeeds Neil (then translated to Lincoln) in the See of Coventry and Lichfield, Dr. George Mountein succeeded the said Neil (then translated to Durham) in the Church of Lincoln. In the year 1619. Dr. John Houson one of the Canons of Christs Church, a professed Anti-Calvinist is made Bi­shop of Oxon. And in the year 1621. Dr. Valentine Cary Successor unto Overald in the Deanry of St. Paul, is made Bishop of Exon, and on the same day Dr. William Laud who had been Pupil unto Buckridge as before said, is consecrated Bishop of St. Davids. By which encouragements the Anti-Calvinians or old English Protestants took heart again, and more openly declared themselves than they had done formerly; the several Bishops above-named finding so gracious a Patron of the learned King, are, as being them­selves as bountiful Patrons (respect being had to the performants in their nomina­tion) to their Friends and followers. By means whereof, though they found many a Rub in the way, and were sometimes brought under censure by the adverse party; yet in the end they surmounted all difficulties, and came at last to be altogether as con­siderable both for power and number, as the Calvinists were. Towards which increase the differences betwixt the Remonstrants and the Contra-Remonstrants in the Belgick Provinces did not help a little, who publishing their discourses one against the other, sharpened the Appetite of many Students in both Universities to feed more heartily on [Page 632]such Dishes are were now plentifully set before them, than they had done in former times; which they either were not to be had, or not to be fed upon without fear of surfeit, without [...]edanger of dilgorging what before they had eaten.

But so it [...] that while matters went thus fairly forwards, VIII Condradus Vorstius, suspected for a Sain [...]setenian, or Socinian Heretick; and one who had derogated in his writings from the Pur [...]y, the Immensity, the Omniscience, and immutability of Almighty God, was chosen by the Curators of Leiden, Anno 1611. to succeed Arminius in that place. Wherewith King James being made acquainted inflamed as well with a pious [...]al to the honour of God, as a just fear lest the Contagion of his Errors might cross the Seas and infect his own Sujects also, he first sollicited the States not to suffer such a man to be placed amongst them, and afterwards to send him back, when they had received him. But finding no success in either, and having sent many sruitless Mes­sages and Letters to the States about it, he published his Declaration against the said Vorstius, and therein used many harsh and bitter Expressions against Arminius and his followers (of which see Cap. 6. Num. 37. as if they had been guilty of the same im­pieties. This put the Calvinists again upon such a Gog that none of their Adversaries in either of the Universities (of what eminent parts and name soever) could escape their hands. During which heats, the reverend Dr. Houson, who had been Vice-Chancellor of the University ten years before, was called in question and suspended by Dr. Reb. Abbot, then Dr. of the Chair and Vice-Chancellour also, Propter conciones publicas, minus Orthodoxas & plenas offensionis: for preaching certain Sermons less Or­thodox and fuller of offence than they should have been. He was sufficiently known for an Anticalvinist; and had preached somewhat tending to the disparagement of the Genevian Annotations on the Holy Scriptures (censured more bitterly by none than King James himself) which brought him under this displeasure. And about two years after, Anno 1614. the said Dr. Abbot fell violently soul on Dr. William Laud, then President of St. John's Colledg, whom in his Sermon at St. Peters on Easter Sunday, he publickly exposed to contempt and scorn under the notion of a Papist, as Barrets d [...]ctri [...]es had been formerly condemned at Cambridge by the name of Popery, for which consult the Anti-Armin. p. 66.

But there was something more peculiar in the case of Mr. Edward Sympson than in that of the two great Doctors before remembred; IX King James himself being both the Informer and the Prosecutor against this man, as it is thus related by the Church Historian viz.Ch. Hist. l. 6. Hist. of Camb. p. 10 [...]. It happened in the year 1616. that Mr. Edward Sympson, (a very good Scholar) fellow of trinity Colledg, ‘preached a Sermon before King James at Royston, taking for his Text John 3.6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh: Hence he en­deavoured to prove that the committing of any great sin doth extinguish Grace and Gods Spirit for the time in the man.’ He added also that S. Paul in the seventh Chap­ter to the Remans spake not of himself as an Apostle and Regenerate, but sub statu legis: Hereat his Majesty took (and publickly expressed) great distaste; because Arminius had lately been blamed for extracting the like Exposition out of the works of Faustus Socinus. Whereupon he sent to the two Professors in Cambridg for their Judgment herein, who proved and subscribed the place ad Rom. 7. to be understood of a Regene­rate man, according to St. Augustines latter Opinion in his Retractations; and the Preacher was enjoined a publick Recantation before the King, which accordingly was performed by him. In which it is first to be observed, that no offence was taken at the first part of his Sermon, in which he went no further than Dr. Overald had gone before, as in our last Chap. Num. 6. Secondly, That the latter part thereof might have given as little, if his Exposition on the 13. Chap of St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans, had not been fathered on Arminius, against whom the King had openly declared in his book against Vorstius, and likewise upon his followers in the Belgick Provinces himself as a dangerous party, which he then laboured to suppress as before was noted. And therefore, thirdly, I observe that the two Professors in Cambridg did neither more wholly or originally of their own authority, but as they were set on by the King, who could nor otherwise be satisfied than by some such censure on Arminius, and conse­quently for his sake on the Preacher too. For that King James condemned not the Arminian doctrines in themselves, though he had taken some displeasure against their persons, as is said before, appears not only by rejecting the Lambeth Articles, and his dislike of the Calvinian doctrine of Predestination, in the conference at Hampton Court, but also by instructing his Divines commissionated for the Synod of Dort, not to op­pose the Article of Ʋniversal Redemption, which they accordingly performed. Nor [Page 633]were the said Professors at that time so forward as to move in it of themselves, as may appear by their not answering of Tompsons book, entituled de Intercrsione Gratiae & Justificationis, though the Author of it was a member of that University: but leaving it to be confuted by Dr. Abbot, their Brother in the Chair at Oxon. So great an alte­ration had been made in the Affections of the University since the first striking up of their heats against Baroe and Barret, which presently began to cool on the death of Whi­tacres, and seemed to have been utterly quenched in the death of Perkins. The ham­mering of the Golden Chair gave the first blow in it.

But though the passions of the King inflamed by holy indignation, X and kept unto the height to serve other mens turns, rather than to advance his own, had used some harsh expressions against Arminius; yet did his passions calm, and subside at last giving him leave to look about him, and to discern the dangers which did seem to threaten him on the other side: considering therefore with himself, or being informed by such of the Bishops and Divines, as were then about him, how great an adversary was Calvi­nius to Monarchical interesse, how contrary the Predestination doctrines were to all rules of Government, he found it necessary to devise or admit some course of the pre­venting of the mischief. To which end he issued certain directions to the Vice-Chan­cellor and Heads of both Universities bearing date, Jan. 18. 1619. Requiring them to take special order among other things, that all that took any degree in the Schools should subscribe to the three Articles in the thirty sixth Canon; Directions to the Vice-Chancellor & Heads. &c. Jan. 18. 1616. that no man in the Pulpit or Schools be suffered to maintain Dogmatically any point of doctrine that is not allowed by the Church of England, that none be suffered to preach or lecture in the Towns of Oxon, or Cambridg, but such as were every way conformable to the Church hoth in doctrine and discipline; and finally (which most apparently conduced to the ruin of Calvinism) that young Students in Divi­nity be directed to study such books as be most agreeable in doctrine and discipline to the Church of England, and excited to bestow their time in the fathers, and Councils, Schoolmen, Histories and Controversies, and not to insist too long upon Compendiums and abbreviations, making them the grounds of their study in Divinity. This seemed sufficient to bruite these doctrines in the shell, as indeed it was, had these directions been as carefully followed, as they were piously prescribed. But little or nothing being done in pursuance of them, the Predestinarian doctrines came to be the ordinary Theam of all Sermons, Lectures and Disputations, partly in regard that Dr. Prideaux, who had then newly succeeded Dr. Rob. Abbot in the Chair at Oxon, had very passionately ex­posed the Calvinian Interest; and partly in regard of the Kings declared aversness from the Belgick Remonstrants, whom for the reasons before mentioned, he laboured to sup­press to his utmost power. And yet being careful that the Truth should not fear the worse for the men that taught it, he gave command to such Divines as were commis­sionated by him to attend in the Synod of Dort, An. 1618. not to recede from the do­ctrine of the Church of England in the point of Ʋniversal Redemption by the death of Christ. A point so inconsistent with that of the absolute and irrespective decree of Repro­bation, and generally of the whole Machina of Predestination, and the points depending thereupon as they are commonly maintained in the Schools of Calvin, that fire and wa­ter cannot be at greater difference. But this together with the rest being condemned in the Synod of Dort, and that Synod highly magnified by the English Calvinists, they took confidence of making those disputes the Subject of their common discourses, both from the Pulpit and Press without stint or measure. and thereupon it pleased his Majesty, having now no further fear of any dangers from beyond the Seas, to put some water into their Wine; or rather a Bridle into their mouths by publishing certain Orders and di­rections touching Preachers and preaching, bearing date the 4th of August 1622. In which it was enjoyned, amongst other things,Directions of preaching and Preachers. That no Preacher of what Title soever (un­der the degree of a bishop or Dean at least) do from henceforth presume to teach in any popular Auditory the deep points of Predestination, Election, Reprobation, or of the Ʋniversality, Efficacy, Resistability, or Irresistability of Gods Grace, but rather leave those Theams to be handled by learned men, and that modestly and moderately by use and application, rather than by way of positive Doctrine, as being fitter for Schools and Ʋniversities than for simple Auditors. The violating of which Order by Mr Gabriel Bridges of Corpus Christi Colledg in Oxon, by preaching on the 19. of January then next following against the absolute decree, in main­tenance of universal Grace, and the co-operation of mans free-will prevented by it (though in the publick Church of the University) laid him more open to the prosecu­tion of Dr. Prideaux, and to the censure of the Vice-Chancellor, and the rest of the Heads, than any preaching on those points, or any of them could possibly have done at mother time.

Much was the noise which those of the Calvinian party were observed to make on the publishing of this last Order, XI as if their mouths were stopped thereby from preach­ing the most necessary doctrines tending towards mans salvation. But a far greater noise was raised upon the coming out of Mountagues answer to the Gagger, in which he asserted the Church to her primitive and genuine doctrines, disclaimed all the Calvinian Tenents as disowned by her, and left them to be countenanced and maintained by those to whom they properly belonged. Which book being published at a time, when a Session of Par­liament was expected in the year 1624. The opportunity was taken by Mr. Yates and Mr. Ward, two of the Lecturers or Preachers of Ipswich, to prepare an Information a­gainst him, with an intent to prosecute the same in the following Session. A Copy whereof being come into Mountagues hands, he flies for shelter to King James, who had a very great estimation of him for his parts and learning, in which he had over-mastred, they then though much less Selden at his own Philologie. The King had already served his own turn against the Remonstrants by the Synod of Dort, and thereby freed the Prince of Orange his most dear Confederate from the danger of Barnevelt, and his faction. Arch­bishop Abbot came not at him since the late deplorable misfortune which befell him at Branzil, and the death of Dr. James Mountague Bishop of Winton left him at liberty from many importunities and sollicitations with which before he had been troubled; so that being now master of himself, and governed by the light of his own most clear and ex­cellent Judgment, he took both Mountague, and his dectrines into his Protection, gave him a full discharge, or quietus est, from all those Calumnies of Popery or Arminianism, which by the said Informers were laid upon him; iucouraged him to proceed in finish­ing his just Appeal, which he was in hand with; commanded Dr. Francis White, then lately preferred by him to the Deanry of Carlisle, and generally magnified not long be­fore for his zeal against Popery, to see it licensed for the Press, and finally gave order unto Mountague to dedicate the book (when printed) to his Royal self. In obedi­ence unto whose Command the Dean of Carlisle licensed the book with this approba­tion, That there was nothing contained in the same, but what was agreeable to the publick Faith, Doctrine and Discipline established in the Church of England. But King James dy­ing before the book was fully finished at the Press, it was published by the name of Ap­pello Caesarem, and dedicated to King Charles, as the Son and Successor to whom it pro­perly belonged; the Author touching in the Epistle Dedicatory, all the former passages; but more at large than they are here discoursed of in this short Summary.

And thus far we have prosecuted our Discourse concerning the Five Points disputed between the English Protestants, XII the Belgick Remonstrants, the Melancthonian Lutherans, together with the Jesuits and Franciscans on the one side, the English Calvinists, the Contra Remonstrants, the Rigid Lutherans, and the Dominican Fryers on the other side. In the last part whereof we may observe, how difficult a thing it is to recover an old doctrinal Truth, when overborn and almost lost by the continual Prevalency of a busie faction. And I have carried it on no further, because at this time Bishop Laud (to whom the raising and promoting of the Arminian doctrines, as they call them, is of late ascribed) was hardly able to promote and preserve himself, opprest with a hard hand by Archbishop Abbot, secretly traduced unto the King for the unfortunate business of Early of Devonshire, attaining with great difficulty to the poor Bishoprick of St. Davids, after ten years service, and yet but green in favour with the Duke of Buckingham. What happened afterwards towards the countenancing of these Doctrines by the appearing of King Charles in the behalf of Mountague, the Letter of the three Bishops to the Duke in defence of the man and his Opinion, his questioning and impeachment by the House of Commons, and his preferment by the King to the See of Chichester, are all of them beyond the bounds which I have prescribed unto my self in this Narration. Nor shall I now take notice of his Majesties Proclamation of the 14. of June, Anno 1626. For establishing the peace and quiet of the Church of England: by which he interdicted all such preaching and printing as might create any fresh disturbance to the Church of England: or for his smart Answer to that part of the Remonstrance of the House of Commons, Anno 1628. which concerned the danger like to fall on this Church and Kingdom, by the growth of Arminianism, or of the Declaration prefixed before the book of Articles in the same year also, for silencing the said Disputes, or finally of his Majesties Instructions, bearing date, Decemb. 30. 1629. for causing the Contents of the Declaration to be put in execution, and punctually observed for the time to come. By means whereof, and many fair encouragements from many of our Prelates, and other great men of the Realm, the Anti-Calvinist party became considerable both for power and number.

A POSTSCRIPT TO THE READER, Concerning some particulars in a scurrilous Pam­phlet intituled, A Review of the Certamen Epistolare, &c.

PRimâ dicta mihi summâ dicenda camaenâ, with thee good Reader I began, and with thee I must end. I gave thee notice in the Preface of a scurrilous Libel, the Author whereof had disgorged his foul stomach on me, and seemed to glory in the shame. But whether this Author be a Cerberus with three heads, or a Smectymnuus with fire, or but a single Shimei only (for it is differently reported) is all one to me, who am as little troubled with the noise of Billings-gate, as the cry of an Oyster-wife. It is my confidence that none of the dirt which he most shamefully confess­eth himself to have thrown in my face will be found upon it,P. 175. notwithstanding that necesse est ut aliquid haereat may be sometimes true. Omitting therefore the consideration of his many Obscenities which every where are intermingled for the flowers of his Rhe­torick, I cannot but do my self so much justice as to satisfie the Reader in the truth of some things, which otherwise may be believed to my disadvantage. I am content to suffer under as much obloquie as any foul-mouth'd Presbyterian can spit upon me; but I am not willing to be thought a slanderer, a profane person, or ungrateful for the sinallest favours; all which the Author of that scurrilous Pamphlet hath imposed upon me.

In the first place it is much laboured to make me guilty of ingratitude and dis­affection to Magd. Coll. of which I had the honour to be once a member,P. 22. and do re­tain so high an estimation of it, that whensoever I shall write or speak any thing to the reproach of that foundation, let my tongue cleave unto the roof of my mouth, and my right hand forget its cunning. But I am able to distinguish between the duty I own to the House it self, and that which every member of it is to challenge from me, (quid civi­tati, & quid civibus debeam in the Orators Criticism.) And therefore I would not have the Libeller or his Partners think that his or their taking Sanctuary under the name of Magdalen Colledge, shall so far priviledge them in their actings (either against the Church in general, or my own particular) but that I shall as boldly venture to attacque them there, without fear of sacriledge, as Joab was smitten by Benaiah at the horns of the Altar.

But the best is that I am made to have some ground for my disaffection, though there be no less falshood in the fundamentals than the superstructure. And a fine tale is told of some endeavours by me used for bringing one of my own brood into that foundation; the failing of which hopes must of necessity occasion such an undervalu­ing of that Colledge as to change it from a nest of Sparrows to a nest of Cucknes. P. 22. But the truth is, that the party for whom I was a suitor, was so far from being one of my own brood, as not to be within the compass of my Relations; so much a stranger to my blood, that he was no otherwise endeared unto me, than by the extraordinary opi­nion which I had of his parts and industry. And therefore I commended him no fur­ther unto Dr. Goodwin, than that it was not my desire to have him chosen, if any abler Scholar should appear for the place. And it was well for the young man that I sped no better; Periisset nisi periisset, as we know who said. For within less than two years [Page]after he was elected into the Society of Merton Colledge (to their great honour be it spoken) upon no other commendation than his own abilities.

In the next place I am made a slanderer for saying, that the new Sabbath speculations of Dr. Bound and his adherents had been embraced more passionately of late than any one Article of Religion here by Law established. How so? Because saith he (or they 'tis no matter which) it is well known that they do more passionately embrace the great truths of Christs Divinity, and the Divine Authority of Scripture, &c. than any opinion about the Sab­bath. What may be meant by the, &c. it is hard to say, perhaps the Presbyterian Dis­cipline, or the Calvinian Doctrines of Predestination; the two dear Helena's of the Sects as sacred and inviolable in their estimation as any of their new opinions about the Sab­bath. But whether the great truths of Christs Divinity, the Divine Authority of Scripture, or any Article of Religion here by Law established, be embraced by them with the like passion as their new Saint Sabbath, may be discerned by that impunity which is in­dulged by them to all Anabaptists, Familists, Ranters, Quakers, and all other Sectaries, by whom the great Truths of Christs Divinity, and the Divine Authority of holy Scripture. and almost all the Articles of the Christian Faith have been called in question. And yet we cannot choose but know with what severity they proceeded when they were in power against all persons whatsoever, whom they found travelling on the Sunday, though their business was of more concernment to them than the lifting of the Oxe or Asse out of the ditch. With what a cursed rigour a Victualler hath been forced to pay ten shillings for selling a half-penny loaf to a poor man in the time of Sermon: What penalty they procured to be ordained against Vintners, Taylors, Barbers, for selling but a pint of Wine, or carrying home a new suit of Cloaths, or trimming the man that was to wear them on their Sabbath day: And finally, against all persons whatsoever for walking in the fields or streets after all the publick duties of the day were ended. They may tell me what they will of their giving the right hand of Fellowship to some Di­vines of Transmarine Churches, who differ in that Doctrine from them. But quid verba audiam cum facta videam, Ibid. the bleating of the Sheep, and the lowing of the Oxen will not out of my ears, though preferred under a pretence of making them an accepta­ble Sacrifice to the Lord their God.

But the main ondeavour of the Pamphlet is to bring me under the reproach of a Pro­phanation, in using such words unto the King in a Petition of mine presented to him, as it could not without sin be applied unto any but to Cod. A greater crime than any of the other two, and as falsly charged. It is suggested in the Libel, that upon the sense of some indignity which was offered to me, in being disturbed in my possession of a Lodging in Magdalen Colledge, I made complaint unto the King of the great wrong which bad been done his Majesties creature, and the workmanship of his hands, and that for this expression I was checked by the Marquess of Hertford, who was then Chancellor of that University; for proof whereof we are referred to somewhat which was said in the Bursery of that Colledge before two of the fellows.

But first I hope that all things which we said in the Bursery before any two or more of the fellows

(—Ecce inter pocula quaerant
Romalides Saturi, &c.—)

must not pass for Gospel, nor that all Table-talk, fit only for the Voider, when the meal is done, is to be preserved upon Record for undoubted Truths. Secondly, I am confident as I can be of any thing so long since done, that no such expression ever passed my pen, there being no visible necessity to enforce me to it. I conceive, Thirdly, that the Libeller cannot be so much a Stranger to the Assembly Notes on Gen. 1.6. as not to know (if he had learnt it no where else) that it is a familiar phrase in the style of the court, to say such an one was created Earl, Marquess, or Duke, &c. upon which ground the Members of the House of Peers were looked upon by our Repub­licans or Common-wealths men (not without some contempt) as his Majesties Crea­tures, Creatures of the Prerogative, as they commonly called them. And therefore, Fourthly, that the Marquess of Hertford was not likely to reprove me for calling my self his Majesties Creature, or the workmanship of his hands, in reference to my temporal fortunes, and the place I held about the King; that Noble person, acknowledging with a loyal gratitude that he received his Creation to the Honourable Title of Lord Marquess from the hands of his Majesty; and that his being made Governour to the Princes Highness was the Kings sole Workmanship. Finally, if all expressions of this [Page]nature must be laid aside, and that we must be taught a new Court-Dialect, because some Divines of the Assembly, and other professed enemies of Monarchical Govern­ment do not like the old; we must discharge the Titles of most High and Mighty, of Majesty, and Sacred Majesty, because disliked by Buchanan in his most seditious book de Jure Regni. By whom such adjuncts are reputed inter Barbarismos & Solecismos Aulicos, amongst the Barbarisms and extravagancies of the Courts of Princes.

But for the clearer satisfaction of all equal and unbyassed persons, I shall lay down the truth, the whole truth, and nothign but the truth, as to that particular. In which the Reader is to know, that at his Majesties first making choice of Oxon for his Winter Quarters, Anno 1642. The course of my attendance carried me to wait upon him there as a Chaplain in ordinary. Where I had not been above a week, when I re­ceived his Majesties command by the Clerk of the Closet, for attending Mr. Secretary Nicholas on the morrow morning, and applying my self from time to time to such di­rections as I should receive from him in order to his Majesties service. Which com­mand was afterwards re-inforced upon me, when the time of my ordinary attendance of the Court was at an end for that year (as can be proved by two several intimations of it under his own most Royal hand) with this charge super-added to it, that I was not to depart the Town without special leave. I found by this that my attendance at the Court was like to last as long as the War, and therefore that it did concern me to accommodate my self with Lodging and such other necessaries as might both encourage and enable me to perform those services which were required at my hands. A Chamber in the Colledge being vacant within few months after by the absence of one of the Fellows, and the death of the other, I gained the free consent of the absent party (Master Hobs by name, in whom the sole right of it then remained) to make use of it for my self, and my little company.

Five moneths I quietly enjoyed it without interruption. But coming from the Court on Alhallow-day, I found some Souldiers in the Room, who told me that they came to take possession of it for Master D. who had succeeded in the Rights of the man de­ceased, and that they meant to keep it for him until further order. This carried me back unto the Court, where I acquainted Master Secretary with the indignity and af­front which was put upon me; desiring him either to defend me from contempt and scorn, or that he would get me a discharge from that employment which had lain so long and heavy on me. By his advice a short Petition was drawn up to this Sacred Majesty, briefly containing the particulars before laid down, and humbly praying in the close, that he would graciously be pleased to extend unto me such a measure of his power and favour in the case before him, as might preserve me in a fit capacity to pro­ceed in those services, which otherwise I could not be able to perform as I had done formerly. His Majesty thereupon gave order to the now Lord Bishop of Lichfield, be­ing then President of the Colledge, to fee me resetled for the present; and to Sir Arthur Aston, who was then Governour of the Town, to take some strict course with his Souldiers, for not giving me the like disturbance for the time to come; which was the least I could expect from his Majesties goodness.

And here I thought my troubles had been at an end. But so it happened that the Lord Marquess of Hertford was at the same time chosen Chancellor of the University; and some of his Servants must be dealt with to espouse the quarrel. By whose solici­tation I was required to attend his Lordship within few days after, and I went accor­dingly. But when I came, and that his Lordship saw how far his Majesty had already appeared in the business, he could not but perceive wital how unfit it was for him to take any cognizance of that cause which by his Majesty had been heard and predeter­mined. He thereupon presently declined the business, seemed much offended at the trouble which was given me in it, and having dismist the rest of the company, retained me with him for some time, held some discourse with me about the quality and estate of the Kings affairs, and finally called for Ale and Wine for my entertainment. But notwithstanding those indignities which were put upon me on the one side, and those many advantages which I had on the other, I carried my self fairly all along to my troublesome Landlord, gave him a civil treatment in the Christmas Holidays, presented him with no inconsiderable New-years gift, as the times then were; and promised him that as soon as otherwise I could provide my self of convenient Lodging, I would give him the contentment he so much desired. Nor was it long before I did make good that promise. Since which time all fair offices and friendly corre­spondences [Page]have past between us, there being nothing (I thank God) which I can more easily forget than the sense of Injuries.

Hie status, haec Rerum suerat fortuna mearum,
Such was the state of these affairs,
And such the issue of my cares.

And thus good Reader thou hast seen those horrible prophanations, slanders and in­gratitudes for which I stand arraigned in that scurrilous Libel, for by that name I shall take leave to call that Pamphlet, which for the Ribauldry thereof was stopt by the Vice-Chancellor at the Press in Oxon, and being at last brought forth in the dark at London, is neither justified by the name of the Author, nor otherwise offered unto sale than by an underhand promoting of it amongst those of that Faction. But there is still a race of men, as anciently there was in Saint Hieroms time; qui ali­orum tituperatione laudabile se videri cupiunt, which hope to get themselves a name by defaming others. And for my part I am content they should enjoy the ignominy of that Peccant humour (which is so proper to the Text) without other censure than that which Michael the Arch-Angel passed upon the Devil, when he contended with him for the body of Moses, of whom it is written by Saint Jude, that he durst not bring a railing accusation against that Accuser of the Brethren, but left him to the judgment of Almighty God, with [...]; the Lord rebuke thee.

I have but one thing more to add, and that relates to the Integrity of Doctor Barloe, who stands defamed by the Libeller and his alter idem, for using some unjust dealing towards Doctor Reynolds, Doctor Sparks, &c. in his relation of the confe­rence at Hampton Court. For proof whereof one Master Sparks (affirmed to be a man of en [...]ent Learning) must be disquieted at his death, (if not rather raised up from the dead) to declare his knowledge; who signified by his friend I. M. what he once heard from H.G. an aged Minister concerning Doctor Barloe's sorrow at his death-bed, for the wrong he had done to Doctor Reynolds, and the rest in relating that con­ference with H. I. is reported to have added further, that being at a Table with Ma­ster Sparks, the Son of Doctor Sparks, he found him very sensible of the abuse (of which he could not speak without great indignation) which had been put upon his Father and Doctor Reynolds, by the said Relator. But first the man himself is dead, from whom we are to take our greatest light in so dark a business. And who can tell but that this whole narration may be one of those pious frauds devised by the Pam­phleter, or his Alter Idem) nec enim nuno fallere primum, Incipit a nobis— for im­posing as well upon the dead as upon the living. Secondly, the principal witness being dead, the credit of the figment resteth on two common vouchers; that is to say I. M. and H. I. as easie to be found, and as honest folk as Nicolas Nemo, in Ʋtopia, or Madam Charity of the Oudemeon street in Mantinea, or Doctor H. H. in the Margin of the Libel which is now before us. Thirdly, it must needs seem ex­ceeding strange to a sober Reader, that this great truth should lie concealed (like a spark raked up in ashes) five and fifty years, and then blaze out upon a sudden, when it was not thought of. And, fourthly, I had once the happiness to be exceeding well acquainted with Master Thomas Sparks of Candover, in the County of South-hampton, and Master William Sparks of Bleckly, in the County of Buckingham, sometime Divi­nity-reader in Magdalen Colledge, the only Sons of Doctor Sparks before remembred, and having had many opportunities of discoursing with them about that conference, and their Fathers acting in the same, I never heard the least word from either of them of any wrong done, or supposed to be done by Doctor Barlow, in drawing up the substance and abridgment of it, so that I doubt not but it will appear on the full debate that Doctor Barlow is more wronged in his same by these Libellers Pamphlets, than ever Doctor Reynolds had been injured by that Learned Prelate.

I have now done with these polemical discourses, and shall not easily ingage in a new adventure, unless invincible necessity, or some unsufferable provocation shall in­force me to it. In which case only it is possible that I may be tempted to the re­suming of those arms which otherwise I would willingly hang up in the Temple of Concerd: that I may spend the whole remainder of my time in more peaceful studies. I [Page]have already done my part in vindicating the Doctrine, Government, and Forms of Worship, established in the Church of England. And it is time to leave the Stage to more able Actors: To whom I recommend the care of that weighty business; not doubting but that my endeavours in the Churches service will find acceptance with all equal and indifferent men. And for the rest who are so far ingaged in the adverse party, that possibly they may hate to be reformed in the Psalmists language, I neither fear their censures, nor court their favours, but leave them to enjoy the happiness of these open times, in quibus non modo libertas, sed etiam loquendi libido impunita est, as my Author hath it. And thus good Reader, I bid thee once again farewel in the Lord, to whose unspeakable mercies in Christ Jesus, thou art most heartily recommended by

Thine always to be commanded, in the Churches service, P. H.
Lacies Court in Abingdon; Decemb. the 29th. 1659.
FINIS.
THE STUMBLING-BLOCK …

THE STUMBLING-BLOCK OF DISOBEDIENCE AND REBELLION: Cunningly laid by Calvin in the Subjects way, Discovered, Censured, and Removed.

By PETER HEYLYN, D. D.

ROM. xiv. 13.

Offendiculum fratri tuo ne ponas.

Let no man put a Stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brothers way.

ISAM. xxiv. 6.

And David said to his men, The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lords anointed. to stretch forth my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord.

LONDON, Printed by M. Clark, for C. Harper. 1681.

THE PREFACE.

IT will appear to any who shall read this Treatise, that it was written in the time of Monarchical Government, but in the later and declining times thereof, when the change of that Government was in agitation, and in part effected. In which respect I doubt not but the publishing of this Discourse at this present time may seem unseasonable unto some, and yet it may be thought by others to come out seasonably enopugh for these fol­lowing Reasons.

1. To give warning to all those that are in Supreme Authority to have a care unto them­selves, and not to suffer any Popular and Tribunitian Spirits to grow amongst them; who grounding upon Calvins Doctrine, both may, and will upon occasion, create new distur­bances.

2. To preserve the Dignity of the Supreme Power in what Person soever it be placed, and fix his Person in his own Proper Orb, the Primum Mobile of Government, brought down of late, to be but one of the three Estates, and move in the same Planetary Sphere with the other two.

3. To keep on foot the claim and Title of the Clergy unto the Reputation, Rights, and Priviledges of the Third Estate, which doth of right belong unto them; and which the Clergy have antiently enjoyed in all, and to this day in most Christian Kingdoms.

4. To shew unto the World, on whose authority the Presbyterians built their damnable Doctrine, not only of curbing and restraining the power of Princes, but also of deposing them from their Regal Dignity, whensoever they shall please to pretend cause for it. For when the Scotch Commissioners were commanded by Queen Elizabeth to give a reason of their pro­ceedings against their Queen, whom not long before they they had deposed from the Regal Throne; they justified themselves by those words of Calvin, which I have chosen for the Argument of this Discourse. By the Authority of Calvin (as my Author hath it) they endeavoured to prove, that the Popular Magistrates are appointed and made to mo­derate and keep in order the excess and unruliness of Kings; and that it is lawful for them to put the Kings that be evil and wicked into prison, and also to deprive them of their Kingdoms. If these reasons shall not prove the seasonableness of this Adventure, I am the more to be condemned for my indiscretion, the shame whereof I must endure as well as I can. This being said in order to my Justification, I must add somewhat of the Book or Discourse it self; in which the canvasing and confuting of Calvins Grounds about the Ephori of Sparta, the Tribunes of Rome, and the Demarchi of Athens, hath forced me upon many Quotations both Greek and Latin; which to the Learned Reader will appear neitehr strange nor difficult. And for the sake of the Ʋnlearned, which are not so well verst and studied in foregin Languages, I have kept my self to the direction of St. Paul, not speaking any where in a strange Tongue without an Interpreter, the sense of every such Quotation being either declared before, or delivered after it. Lastly, whereas the Name of Appius Claudius doth many times occur in the History of the Roman Tribunes, it is not always to be under­stood of the same Man, but of divers men of the same Name, in their several Ages; as the name of Caesar in the New Testament signifieth not one man but three, that is to say, the Emperour Tiberius in the Gospels, Claudius in the Boo of the Acts, and that most bloody Tyrant Nero in the Epistle to the Philippians. Which being premised, I shall no longer keep the Reader in Porch or Entrance; but let him take a view of the House it self the several Rooms, Materials, and Furniture of it; long Prefaces to no long Discourses, being like the Gates of Mindum amongst the Antients, which were too great and large for so small a City.

The Argument and occasion of this following Treatise.
Joh. Calvini Institution. Lib. 4. cap. 20 [...]. Sect. 31.

NEQƲE enim si ultio Domini est effrenatae dominationis cor­rectio, ideo protinus demandatam no­bis arbitremur; quibus nullum aliud quam parendi & patiendi datum est Mandatum. De privatis hominibus semper loquor. Nam siqui nunc sint Populares Magistratus ad moderan­dum Regum libidinem constituti (qua­les olim erant qui Lacedaemoniis Re­gibus oppositi erant Ephori; aut Ro­manis Consulibus Tribuni Plebis, aut Atheniensium Senatui Demar­chi; & qua etiam forte potestate, ut nunc res habent, funguntur in sin­gulis Regnis tres Ordines, cum pri­marios Conventus peragunt) adeo il­los ferocienti Regum licentiiae, pro officio, intercedere non veto, ut si Re­gibus impotenter grassantibus, & hu­mili plebeculae insultantibus connive­ant; corum dissimulationem nefaria perfidia non carere affirmem, qua po­puli liberiatem (cujus se, Dei or­dinatione, tuiores positos norunt) fraudulenter produnt.

NOR may we think because the pu­nishment of licentious Princes doth belong to God, that presently this power is devolved on us, to whom no other war­rant hath been given by God but only to obey and suffer. But still I must be under­stood of private persons. For if there be now any popular Officers ordained to moderate the licentiousness of Kings (such as were the Ephori, set up of old against the Kings of Sparta; the Tribunes of the people against the Roman Consuls, and the Demarchi against the Athenian Senate; and with which power per­haps, as the World now goes, the three Estates are seized in each several Kingdom, when they are solemnly assembled) so far am I from hin­dring them to put restraints upon the exhorbi­tant power of Kings, as their Office binds them; that I conceive them rather to be guil­ty of a perfidious dissimulation, if they con­nive at Kings when they play the Tyrants, or wantonly insult on the common people, in that they treacherously betray the Sub­jects Liberties; of which they knew they were made Guardians by Gods own Ordi­nance.

THE STUMBLING-BLOCK OF Disobedience and Rebellion, &c.

CHAP. I. The Doctrine of Obedience laid down by CALVIN, and of the Popular Officers supposed by him, whereby he overthroweth that Doctrine.

  • 1. The purpose and design of the Work in hand.
  • 2. The Doctrine of Obedience unto Kings and Princes, soundly and piously laid down by Calvin.
  • 3. And that not only to the good and gra­cious, but even to cruel Princes and un­godly Tyrants.
  • 4. With Answer unto such Objections as are made against it.
  • 5. The Principles of Disobedience, in the supposal of some popular Officers ordain­ed of purpose, te regulate the power of Kings.
  • 6. How much the practice of Calvin's fol­lowers doth differ from their Masters Doctrine in the point of Obedience.
  • 7. Severasl Articles and points of Doctrine, wherein the Disciples of Calvin are de­parted from him.
  • 8. More of the differences in point of Doctrine betwixt the Master and his Scho­lars.
  • 9. The dangerous consequences which arise from his faulty Principles, in the point or Article of Disobedience.
  • 10. The method and distribution of the fol­lowing Work.

SOME Writers may be likened unto Jeremies Figs, I of which the Prophet saith, that if they were good, they were very good; Jerem. 24.4. if evil, very evil, such as could not be eaten they were so evil. Of such a tempera nd esteem was Origen amongst the Ancients, of whom it was observed (not without good cause) that in his Expositions of the Book of God and other learned Tra­ctates which he writ and published, where he did well, none could do it better, and where he failed at all, no man erred more grosly. And of this sort and composition was Mr. Calvin of Geneva, than whom there is not any Minister of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, who hath more positively expresly laid down the Doctrine of Obedience unto Kings and Princes, and the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Arms against their Soveraign; nor opened a more dangerous gap to disobedience and rebellions in most States of Chri­stendom. In which it is most strange to see how prone we are (such is the frailty and corruption of our sinful nature) to refuse the good, and choose the evil; to take no notice of his words when it most concerns us, when we are plainly told our duties both to God and man; and on the other side to take his words for Oracles, his Judgment for infallible, all his Geese for Swans, when he saith any thing which may be useful to our purposes, or serve to the advancement of our lewd designs. The credit and authority of the man was deservedly great amongst the people where he lived; and in short time of such authority and esteem in the World abroad, that [Page 644] [...] [Page 645] [...] [Page 646]his works were made the only Rule to which both Discipline and Doctrine was to be conformed: and if a Controversie did arise either in points Dogmatical, or a case of Conscience, his [...] was sufficient to determine in it, at least to silence the gain­sayers. And as it is observed in the works of Nature, that corruptio optimi est pessi­ma, and that the sweetest meats make the sourest exrements; so the opinion and esteem which some of the Reformed Churches and conceived of him (which to say the truth was great and eminent) and the ill use they made of some words and passages in his Writings, which most unfortunately served to advance their purposes in his Writings, which most unfortunately served to advance their purposes, have been the sad occasion of those Wars and miseries, which almost all the Western parts of Christendom, have been so fatally involved in since the times he lived. Which words and passage as they are cautelously laid down, and compassed round with many fair expressions of affection to the Supream Powers, that they might pass without discovery, and be the sooner swallowed by unwary men: so by his fol­lowers (who are exceeding wise in their Generations) have they been hidden and concealed with all art that may be. For though they build their dangerous Do­ctrines upon his foundation, and toss this [...], this ball of discord and dis­sension from one hand to another; yet do they very cunningly conceal their Author, and never use his name to confirm their Tenets. And this they do upon this reason, that if their Doctrine give offence unto Christian Princes, and any of their Pam­phlets be to feel the fire, or otherwise come under any publick censure, (as not lonce since hapned to Paraeus) the Patron of their Sect might escape untouched, and his authority remain unquestioned, to give new life unto their hopes at ano­ther time. In which respects, and withal seeing that the heads of this monstrous Hydra of sedition do grow the faster for the cutting, and that the lopping off the Branches keeps the Trunk the fresher; I shall pass by the petit Pamphleters of these times, and strike directly at the head, and without medling with the boughs or branches, will lay my Ax immediately to the root of the Tree, and bring the first Au­thor of these factious and Antimonarchical Principles (which have so long disturbed the peace of Christendom) to a publick trial. A dangerous and invidious un­dertaking I must needs confess; but for my Countreys and the truths sake, I will venture on it: and in pursuance of the same will first lay down the doctrine of Obe­dience as by him delivered, which I shall faithfully translate without gloss or de­scant; and next compare his Doctrine with our present practice, noting wherein his Scholars have forsaken their Master, with application unto those who do most admire him: and finally I shall discover and remove that Stumbling-block which he hath cunningly laid before us, (but hid so secretly that it can hardly be discerned) at which so many a man hath stumbled, both to the breaking of his own neck and his Neighbours too. This is the race that I am to run; the prize I aim at is no other, than forasmuch as in me lieth to do good to all men, to those especially who think them­selves to be of the houshold of Faith. And therefore [...]. Let us on in Gods Name.

‘Subditorum erga suos Magistratus Officium primum est, II de eorum functione quàm ho­norificientissimè sentire, Calvin. Instit. l. 4. c. 20. fect. 22. &c. the first duty of the Subjects towards their Magistrates, is to think wondrous honourably of their place and function, which they acknowledg to be a jurisdiction delegated by Almighty God; and therefore are by consequence to respect and reverence them, as the Ministers and Deputies of God. For some there are, who very dutifully do behave themselves towards their Magistrates, and would have all men do the like, because they think it most expedient for the Common­wealth, and yet esteem no otherwise of them than of some necessary evils which they cannot want.1 Pet. 2.17. Prov. 24.21. But St Peter looks for more than this, when he commandeth us to honour the King; and so doth Solomon also where he requires us to fear God and the King. For the first under the term of honouring, comprehends a good esteem, a fair opinion; the other joyning God and the King together, shews plainly that in the person of a King there is a Ray of sacred majesty. And that of Paul is richly worth our observation,Rom. 13.5. where he commands us to obey, not for wrath only, but for Con­science sake. By which he means, that Subjects are not only to contain themselves within the bounds of their obedience, for fear they should incur the anger and dis­pleasure of their Prince or Governour (as men submit themselves to an armed Ene­my, whom they see ready to chastise them, if they should resist); but also to per­suade themselves that the expressions of their duties which they make to them, are made indeed to God himself, from whom whatever power they have is devolved [Page 647]upon them. Nor speak I of the men themselves, as if the Vizard of Authority were enough to hide either their follies or their sloth, on their lusts or cruelties, or gun the name of Virtues to their filthiest Vices, but that the function is so venerable and so full of honour, that they who execute the same and bear rule over us, are to be worthily esteemed and reverenced for their Office sake.’

‘The second duty of the Subjects doth arise from this, which is,SECT. 23. that we express the reverence and respect which we owe unto them by the actions of Obedience; whe­ther it be in yielding obedience to their Laws, or in paying Tributes, or undergoing such publick services and burdens, as do related unto the preservation of ther publick, or executing such commands as are laid upon us.Rom. 13.1. Tit. 3.1. Let every soul (saith Paul) be subject to the highers Powers; for he that doth resist the power resists the Ordinance of God. Put them in mind (saith he to Titus) to be subject to Principalities, and Powers, to obey Magistrates, and to be ready to every good work. And Peter thus, Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as Supream, or unto Governours, as to those which are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, 1 Pet. 2.13. and for the praise of them that do well. and to the end the Subject may not think that it is sufficient to counterfeit or pretend obedience in the outward thew, but to perform it truly and sincerely from the very heart, Paul adds that we commend the health and flourishing estate of those under whom we live, in our prayers to God I exhort (saith he) that first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, 1 Tim. 2.1. and giving of thanks be made for all men; for Kings, and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty: Let no man here deceive himself. For seeing the Magistrate cannot be resisted, but that God is resisted alos; though the unarmed Magistrate may possibly be contemned and slighted without fear of punishment, yet God is armed sufficiently to revenge those insolencies, which are thus offered to himself in them. Now under this obedience, I also do include that moderation and discretion, which private persons ought to have and to impose upon themselves as a Rule or Law, that so they neither intermeddle in affairs of State, nor invade the Office of the Magistrate, nor put themselves on any publick undertakings;if any thing be amiss in the publick Government, which stands in need of Reformation, it appertains not unto them to be tumultuously active in it, or to put their hands unto the work, whose hands are tied (and to be tied) on all such occasions; but that they make it known unto the Magistrate, whose hands are only left at liberty to effect the same. My meaning is, that they do nothing uncommand­ed. For when the power or precept of the Governor doth intervene, they are then armed with just authority, and may do accordingly. For as the Princes Privy Council are said to be his Ears, and Eyes; so those inferiour Ministers, by whom he execu­teth his commands or mandates, are not unfitly called his Hands.’

‘The Magistrate being such as he ought to be, and as before we have described him, III that is to say, The Father of the Countrey, the Shepherd of his people,SECT. 24. the pre­server of the publick peace, the great distributer of Justice, and the avenger of the innocent; he must be somewhat more than mad who is not pleased with such a Government. But seeing that all Ages do afford Examples of negligent and slothful Princes, who have no care at all of the publick safety; of others who are so in intent of their private profit, as to make markets of all Laws and priviledges, and to expose their justice and their favours both unto open sale: of some who drain their peoples Purses to no other end, but to maintain a vain and wastful pro­digality, and some who spend their time in nothing more, than either the rifling of the Subjects Houses, the deflouring of their Wives and Daughters, or in the slaughter of the innocent: that thes should be received for Princes, and their com­mands obeyed at all, even in lawful matters, it such a thing, as some will hardly bepersuaded to consent unto. For where men find so much unworthiness, and such filthy facts, as do not only mis-become a Magistrate, but a private person; when they see no resemblance of that Image of God, which ought to shine most brightly in a Christian Magistrate; when they behold no Tract or Footstep of such a Minister of God, as is ordainedfor the incouragement and praise of those that do well, and for the punishment of those that are evil doers: they take hom not for such a Governour whose Office and Authority is extolled so highly in the Scriptures. And to say truth, it hath been always naturally implanted in the souls of men, not more to love and reverence a just vertuous Prince, than to abominate and detest an un­godly Tyrant.’

‘But if we look into Gods Book,SECT. 25. we shall there be taught not only to submit our selves to the command of those Princes, who faithfully and as they ought do discharge their office; but of all those who are advanced unto the highest place of Govern­ment, though they do nothing less than perform their duties. For though the Ma­gistrate be one of the greatest blessings given by God for the good of mankind; and that he hath confined the Magistrate within certain limits: yet he declares, that whatsoever they are they do receive their power from no hand but his; that if they principally do intend the publick good, they are the greatest restimonies and Ex­amples of his goodness to us; if they prove insolent and unjust, they are the Execu­tioners of his wrath and judgment for the sins of the people; that all are equally invested with that sacred Majesty wherewith he hath apparelled the most lawful powers. I shall proceed no further in this present business, till I have made fome proof of that which is said before. Not that I mean to spend my time in the proof of this, that a wicked King is one of Gods curses on the earth: for besides that there is none who gainsay the same, we should say no more in this of Kings, than of the Thief that steals thy goods, or the Adulterer that defiles thy marriage-bed, or the Murderer that seeks thy life, all which are reckoned for Gods curses in the holy Scripture. The point we purpose to make proof of, goeth not down so easily; that is to say, That in the vilest men, and most unworthy of all honour, if they be once advanced to the publick Government, there doth reside that excellent and divine Authority, which God hath given in holy Scripture to those who are the Ministers of his heavenly Justice: who therefore are to be reverenced by the Subject, for as much as doth concern them in the way of their publick duties, with as much honour and obedience, as they would reverence the best King, were he given un­to them.’

‘And first the Reader must take notice of the especial Act and Providence of Al­mighty God,SECT. 26. (not without cause so oft remembred in the Scriptures) in disposing Kingdoms,Dan. 2, 21, 37. and segging up such Kings as to him seems best. The Lord (saith Da­nicl) changeth the times and the seasons; he removeth Kings, and setteth up Kings. And in another place, That the living may know that the most High ruleth in the King­doms of men, and giveth them to whomsoever he will. Which kind of sentences as they are very frequent in the Scriptures, so is that Prophesie most plentiful and abun­dant in them. No man is ignorant that Nebuchadnezzar who destroyed Hierusalem, was a great spoiler and oppressor, yet the Lord tells us by Ezechicl, that he had given unto him the land of Egypt, for the good service he had done in laying it waste on his Commandment.Dan. 2.37. And Daniel said unto him thus; Thou O King art a King of Kings, for the God of Heaven hath given thee a Kingdom, power and strength and glory; And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of hea­ven, hath he given into thy hand, and hath made thee Ruler over them all. Again to Belshazzer his son.Dan. 5.18. The most high God gave unto Nebuchadnezzar thy father a King­dom, and majesty and glory and honour; and for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. Now when we hear that Kings are placed over us by God, let us be pleased to call to mind those several precepts to fear and honour them, which God hath given us in his Book, holding the vilest Tyrant in as high account, as God hath graciously vouchsafed to estate him in. When Samuel told the people of the house of Israel what they should suffer from their King,1 Sam. 8.11. he expressed it thus, This will be the manner of the King which shall reign over you, he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his Chariots, and to be his Horsemen, and some shall run before his Chariots; And he will appoint him Captains over thousands, and Captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of War, and instruments of his Chariots; And he will take your daughters to be his Confectionaries, and to be Cooks, and to be Bakers, And he will take your fields, and your Vineyards, and your Olive-yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants; And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your Vineyards, and give to his Officers, and to his Servants; And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men and your Asses, and put them to his work; He will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his Servants. Assuredly their Kings could not do this lawfully, whom God had other­wise instructed in the Book of the Law: but it is therefore called Jus Regis, the right of Kings upon the Subject, which of necessity the Subjects were to submit unto and not to make the least resistance. As if the Prophet had thus said, So far shall [Page 649]the licentiousness of your Kings extend it self, which you shall have no power to restrain or remedy, to whom there shall be nothing left but to receive the intimation of their pleasures, and fulfil the same.’

‘But most remarkable is that place in the Prophet Jeremy, SECT. 27. which (though it be somewhat of the longest) I will here put down, because it doth so plainly state the present question.Jer. 27. [...]. I have made the earth (saith the Lord) the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power, and by my out-stretched Arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me: And now have I given all these Lands into the hand of Ne­buchadnezzar King of Babylon my Servant, and the Beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him; and all Nations shall serve him, and his Son, and his Sons Son, until the very time of his Land come; and it shall come to pass that the Nation and Kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the King of Babylon, that Nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence; wherefore serve the King of Babylong, and live. We see by this how great a measure of obedience was required by God towards that fierce and cruel Tyrant, only because he was advanced to the Kingly Throne, and did by consequence participate of that Regal Majesty, which is not to be violated with­out grievous sin. Let us therefore have this always in our mind, and before our eyes, that by the same decree of God, on which the power of Kings is constituted, the very wickedest Princes are established: and let not such seditious thoughts be admitted by us; that is to say, that we must deal with Kings no otherwise than they do deserve; and that it is no right nor reason that we should shew our selves obedient subjects unto him, who doth not mutually perform the duty of a King to us.’

‘It is a poor objection which some men have made, IV viz. that that command was only proper to the Israelites; for mark upon what grounds the command was given.SECT. 28. I have given (saith the) the Kingdom unto Nebuchadnezzar, wherefore serve him, and ye shall live: and thereupon it needs must follow, that upon whomsoever God bestows a Kingdom, to him we must address our service; and that assoon as God hath raised any to the Regal Throne, he doth sufficiently declare his will to be, that he would have that man to reign over us. Some general testimonies of this truth are in holy Scrip­ture: For thus saith solomon, For the transgression of a Land many are the Princes thereof; Prov. 24.2. and job, He looseth the band of Kings, and girdeth their loins with a girdly. Job 12.18. Which if confessed, there is no remedy at all, but we must serve those Kings, if we mean to live. There is another Text in the Prophet Jeremy, by which the People are com­manded to seek the peace of Babylon,Jer. 29.7. whither God had caused them to be carried away cap­tive, and to pray unto the Lord for it, for in the peace thereof was their peace to be. Behold the Israelites being despoiled of their Estates, driven from their houses, carried into exile, and plunged in a most miserable thraldom, are yet required to pray for the prosperity of the Conqueror; not only as we are commanded in another place to pray for them that persecute us, but that his Empire might continue in peace and safety, that they themselves might quietly enjoy the protection of it. Thus David being ap­pointed King by the Lords own Ordinance, and anointed with his holy Oyl, when undeservedly he was persecuted and pursued by Saul, would not give way that any corporal hurt should be done to that sacred person, whom God had raised unto the Kingdom. The Lord forbid, saith he,1 Sam. 24.6. that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lords Anointed, to stretch forth my hand against him, seeing he is the Anointed of the Lord. Again, But mine eye spared thee, and I said, I will not put forth my hand against my Lord, for he is the Lords Anointed. And again, who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed, and be guiltless? As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall descend into battel and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch my hand against the Lords Anointed.’

‘This reverence and dutiful regard we ought to carry towards our Governors,SECT. 29. to the very end, however they may chance to prove. Which therefore I repeat the oftner, that we may learn not to enquire too narrowly into the men, but to rest our selves content with this, that they sustain that place or person by the Lords appoint­ment, in which he hath imprinted and ingraved a most inviolable character of sacred Majesty. But some will say that Rulers owe a mutual duty to their Subjects. That hath been formerly confessed: from which if any should infer, that no obedience must be yielded but to their just and legal power, he were a very sorry disputant. Hus­bands are bound in mutual bonds unto their Wives, and so are Parents to their Chil­dren. Suppose that both neglect their duties, that Parents who are prohibited by [Page 650]God to provoke their Children unto wrath, be so untractable and harsh to them, that they do grieve them above measure with continual sourness; and that Husbands who are commanded to love their Wives, and to give honour to them as the weaker vessel, should use them with contempt and scorn: should therefore Children be the less obe­dient to their Parents, or Wives less dutiful to their Husbands? We see the contrary, that they are subject to them, though both lewd and froward. Since therefore no­thing doth concern us more, than that we trouble not our selves with looking into the defects of other men, but carefully endeavour to perform those duties which do belong unto our selves; more specially ought they to observe this rule, who live under the authority and power of others. Wherefore if we are inhumanely handled by a cruel Prince, or by a covetous and luxurious Prince dispoiled and rifled; if by a slothful one neglected, or vexed for our Religion by a lewd and wicked; let us look back up­on our sins, which God most commonly correcteth with this kind of scourges; the thought whereof will humble us, and keep down the impatience of our angry spirits. Let us consider with our selves, that it appertains not unto us to redress these mis­chiefs; that all which doth belong to us is to cry to God,Prov. 21.1. in whose hands are the hearts of Kings, and be turneth them whithersoever he will. He is that God which standeth in the Congregation of the mighty, and judgeth amongst the Gods: before whose face all Kings shall fall and be confounded, and all the Judges of the earth who do not reverence his Christ, but make unjust Laws to oppress the Poor, and offer violence to the man of low condition, and make a spoil of Widows, and a prey of Orphans.’

‘And here we may as well behold his goodness,SECT. 30. as his power and providence. For sometimes he doth raise Avengers from amongst his servants, and furnisheth them with power sufficient as well to execute vengeance on such wicked Rulers, as to re­deem his People so unjustly vext from the house of bondage: and sometimes useth to tht end, the fierce wrath of others, who think of nothing less than to serve his turn. Thus he redeemed his People Israel from the Tyranny of Pharaoh, by the hand of Moses, from Cushan King of Syria, by Othoniel; from other thraldoms by some other of their Kings and Judges. Thus did he tame the pride of Tyre by the arms of Egypt, the insolence of Egypt by the Assyrians, the fierceness of Assyriah by the Chal­deans, the confidence of Babylon by the Medes and Persians, after that Cyrus had before subdued the Medes. Thus did he sometimes punish the ingratitude of the Kings of Judah and Israel, and that ungodly contumacy which they carried towards him, notwithstanding all his benefits conferred upon them, by the Assyrians first, the Ba­bylonians after. But we must know that though these several instrunents did the self same work, yet they proceeded not in the self same motives. For the first sort being thereto lawfully authorized and called by Almighty God, by taking up Arms against their Kings, did nothing less than violate that sacred Majesty, which is inherent in King by Gods holy Ordinance, but being armed from Heaven, did only regulate and chastise the lesser power by the help of the greater; as Princes use sometimes to correct their Nobles. The later sort, though guided by the hand of God as to him seemed best, so that they did unknowingly effect what he had to do, intended only the pursuit of their own designs.’

‘But what soever their designs and intentions were, V the Lord did justly use them to effect his business,SECT. 31. when by their means he broke the bloody Scepters of those in­solent Kings, and overthrew their wicked and tyrannical Empires. Hear this ye Princes, and be terrified at the hearing of it. But let not this afford the least en­couragement unto the Subject, to violate or despise the Authority of the Magistrate, which God hath filled so full of majesty, and fortified by so many Edicts from the Court of Heaven, though sometimes an unworthy person doth enjoy the same, and such a one as doth dishonour it by his filthy life. Nor may we think because the punishment of licentious Princes doth belong to God, that presently this power of executing vengeance is devolved on us, to whom no other precept hath been given by God, but only to obey and suffer.De privatis hominibus semper loquor. Nam si qui nunc sint populares ma­gistratus ad moderandum Regum libidinem constituti (quales olim e­rant, qui Lacedaemoniis Regibus oppositi erant Ephori; aut Roma­nis Consulibus Tribuni Plebis; aut Atheniensium Senatui Demar­chi: & qua etiam foric potestate, ut nune res habent, funguntur in singulis Regnis tres Ord [...]nes, quunt primarios conventus peragunt): adeo illos ferocienti Reguin licen­tiae pro officio intercedere non veto, ut si Regibus impotenter grassantt­bus, & humili plebeculae insul­tantibus conniveant, eorum dissimu­lationem nefariâ perfidiâ non carere affirmem; quia populi libertatem cu­jus se Dei Ordinatione tutores po­sitos norunt, fraudulenter produnt. But still I must be understood of private persons. For if there be now any Popular Officers, ordained to moderate the licentiousness of Kings, (such as the Ephori of old set up against the Kings of Sparta, the Tribunes of the people against the Roman Consuls, and the Demarchi against the Athenian Senate, and with which power, perhaps, as the World now goes, the three Estates are furnished in each several King­dom, when they are solenmly assembled): so­far am I from hindering them from putting a restraint on the exorbitant power of Kings, as their Office binds them, that I conceive them guilty rather of a persidious dissimulation, if they connive at Kings when they play the Tyrants, or wantonly insult on the com­mon people; in that they treacherously be­tray the Subjects Liberty, of which they know they were made Guardians by Gods own Ordinance and appointment.’

‘But this must always be excepted, in the obedience which we have determined to be que to the commands of our Governors, and first of all to be observed, that it draw us not from that obedience which is due to him, to whose will all the com­mands of Kings must be subordinate, to whose decrees their strongest mandates must give place, and before whose Majesty they are bound to lay down their Scepters. For how preposterous were it to incur his anger, by our compliance with those men, whom we are bound no otherwise to obey, than for his sake only? The Lord is King of Kings, who when he speaks, is to be heard for all, and above them all. We must be subject to those men who have rule over us, but in him alone. If against him they do command us any thing, it is to be of none account. Nor in such cases is the dignity of the Magistrate to be stood upon, to which no injury is done, if in regard of the more eminent and supream power of God, it be restrained within its bounds.Dan. 6.22. In this respect Daniel denied that he had trespassed any thing against the King, in not obeying his prophane and ungodly Edict, because the King had gone beyond his proper limits, and being not only injurious against men, but lifting up his horns against God himself, had first deprived himself of all Authority. The Is­raelites are condemned on the other side, for being so ready to obey their King, in a wicked action, when to ingratiate themselves with Jeroboam, who had newly made the Golden Calves, they left the Temple of the Lord, and betook themselves to a new superstitious worship. And when their Children and posterity with the like facility applied themselves unto the humours of their wicked Kings, the Prophet doth severely rebuke them for it. So little praise doth that pretence of mode [...]ly deserve to have, with which some Court parasites do disguise themselves and abuse the simple, affirming it to be a crime not to yield obedience to any thing that Kings command: as if God either had resigned all his rights and interess into the hands of mortal men, when he made them Rulers over others; or that the greatest earthly power were a jot diminished, by being subjected to its Author, before whom all the powers of Heaven do trembling supplicate. I know that great and imminent danger may befall those men, who dare give entertainment to so brave a constancy; considering with what indignation Kings do take the matter, when they once see themselves neglected, whose indignation is as the messenger of death, saith the Wise man Solomon. But when we hear this Proclamation made by the heavenly Cryer, that we ought to obey God rather than men;let this consideration be a comfort to us,Acts 5.29. that when we yield that obedience unto God which he looks for from us, when we rather choose to suffer any thing, than to deviate from the way of godliness. And lest our hearts should fail us in so great a business, St. Paul subjoyns another motive,2 Cor. 7.2 [...]. that being bought by Christ at so great a price, we should not re-inthral our selves to the lusts of men, much less addict our selves to the works of wickedness.’

These are the very words of Calvin, VI from which his followers and Disciples most extreamly differ both in their doctrine, and their practice. First, for their practice, Calvin requires that we should reverence and respect the Magistrate for his Office sake; and that we entertain no other than a fair esteem, an honourable opinion both of their actions,Sect. 2 [...]. and their Counsels. His followers (like silthy dreamers as they are) do not only dispise dominion, but speak evil of dignities; that is to say,Jude 8. they neither reverence the persons of their Supream Magistrate, nor regard their Office: and are so far from cherishing a good opinion of those higher powers to which the Lord hath made them subject, that their hearts imagine mischief against them all the day long; and though they see no cause to condemn their actions, they will be sure enough to miscon­strue [Page 652]the end. Calvin requires that we should manifest the reverence and respect we bear them by the outward actions of obedience; Sect. 23. and to the end, that this obedience should proceed from the very heart and not to be counterfeit and false; he adds that we commend there health and flourishing estate in our prayers to God. Ibid. His followers study nothing more than to disobey them, in every one of those particulars which their Master speaks of, re­fusing to obey their laws, and to pay them tribute, and to undergo such services and burdens as are laid upon them in reference to the publick safety, and spare not as oc­casion serves to manifest the disaffection of their hearts, by such outward acts as dis [...] ­bedience and disloyalty can suggest unto them: and are so far from praying for them, that many times they pray against them, blaspheming God because he will not curse the King, and making that which they call Prayer so dangerous and lewd a Libel, that their very prayers are turned to sin. Calvin requires such moderation in the Subject, that they neither intermeddle in affairs of State, nor invade the Office of the Magistrate, and that if any thing be amiss in the publick Government which stands in need of Refor­mation, they presume not to put their hands unto the work, Sect. 23. or be tumultuously active in it. His followers will not trust the Magistrates in the performance of their own Office, but are all Counsellors and Statesmen; and think that nothing is done well, but what is done as they would have it, and by their own hands too, [...] one other. Whether things be amiss or not, they must needs be doing. Not by presenting their de­sires for a Reformation, and making known the fault (if such fault there be) to their Supream Magistrates, which was the way their Master taught them;but by raising tumults to affright them: The attempt of the French Hugonots at Ambois upon Charles the ninth, and the two tumults at Edenburgh, the one about the year 1593. against the person of King James, and the other in the year 1637. against the Ministers of King Charles, whill not be forgotten whilst Calvin and his Institutions are in print amongst us. Calvin requires that we should yield obedience not only to such Kings and Princes,Sect. 25. which faithfully and as they ought do discharge their Office, but even to all those also which do nothing less than perform their duties, not only to the meek and gentle, but even unto the fiercest and most cruel Tyrant, if any such be raised by God to the Kingly Throne. Sect. 27. His followers resolve not to yield obedience to their Kings and Princes, though they can charge them with no fault but their too much lenith; un­less it be that they have caused them to surfeit upon peace and plenty, or that the people grew too rich, and lived too happily, and drove too great a Trade, under their command: and are so far from yielding obedience to a Tyrant, or a severe and cruel Prince, call him which you will, that neither the innocent minority of Charles the ninth, nor the moderate Government of the Dutchess of Parma in the Netherlands; nor the mild peaceable temper of King James when he reigned in Scotland, could save them from their insolencies and insurrections. Finally Calvin doth declare that though we be inhumanly handled by a cruel Prince, or by a covetous or luxurious Prince di­spoiled and rifled; though by a slothful one neglected, or vexed for our Religion by a lewd and wicked, yet it pertains not unto us to redress these mischiefs; that all the remedy that we have is to cry to God; Sect. 29. Sect. 31. Sect. 27. and till God takes the work in hand, to obey and suffer: and absolutely condemns those seditious thoughts, (which some men are too apt to harbour) that we must deal with Kings no otherwise than they shall deserve: His Fol­lowers, if they think themselves oppressed, though indeed they are not; or that Re­ligion is in danger, though indeed it be not; or the honour of the State neglected, though never of so much repute, nor so bravely managed: will not descend so low as to cry to God, or be so pusillanimous and so poorly minded, as only to obey and suffer (that were a weakness fit for none but the primitive Christians) but take the Sword into their hands (be it right or wrong) to force their Kings to come unto a reckoning with them, as if they would have reparation from them for their former sufferings, and would have reparation no way but that. And as for dealing with their Kings no otherwise than they do deserve, although the maxim be unsafe, and the very though thereof seditious, as their Master tells them; would they would hold themselves to that; which had they done, so many Kings in Christendom had not been so unjustly handled, driven from their Palaces, expelled their Cities, robbed of their Fortresses and Revenues, assaulted in the open Fields, and forced sometimes to change both their Council and their Guards, (the ordinary practice by the Hugonots in France, the Presbyterians in Scotland, the Calvinists in the Netherlands, and indeed where not?) had they been dealt withal no otherwise than they deserved.

Next let us look upon them in their points of Doctrine, VII and we shall find the Scho­lars and their Master at a greater distance, than before we saw them at in point of practice. Calvin determines very soundly that Kings h ave their Authority from none but God, non nisi à se habere imperium, Sect. 2 [...]. that the supream Magistracy is a jurisdiction devolved from God upon the person of the Magistrate or delegata à Deo jurisdictio, Sect. 22. that it is the singular work or act of God to dispose of Kingdoms, and to set up such Kings as to him seems meet, which he calls Singularem Dei actionem in distribuen­dis Regnis statuendis (que) QƲOS ILLI VISƲM FƲERIT REGIBƲS, and finally that in every King or Supream Governor, ther is inviolabilis majestas, Sect. 2 [...]. and indelible character of Majesty imprinted by the hand of God. His Scholars tell us that Kings are only creatures of the peoples making; and that whatever power they have, is de­rived from them. The Observator, and the Fuller Answer unto Dr. Fern, and almost all our later Scriblers do resolve it so. They tell us secondly, (which must needs follow from the former) that the people have the sole power of disposing King­doms, and setting up such Kings as they list themselves; and being so set up, that there is no more Majesty, no brighter beam of Gods divinity in them, than in other men. Buchanan so affirms for certain, Populo jus est, imperium cui velit deferat; Buchanan de jure regni. and confidently reckoneth those reverend Attributes of Majesty and Highness, which usually are given to Kings and Princes, inter soloecissimos & barbarismos Aulicos, Id. in Epist. ad amongst the Solecisms and absurdities of Princes Courts. Calvin determins very Orthodoxly, that though the King degenerate and become a Tyrant, though he infringe the Sub­jects liberties, and invade their fortunes, persecute them for their piety, and neglect their safety, and be besides a vitious and libidinous person; yet still his Subjecs ae to look upon him, in all things which pertain to their publick duties, was as much honour and obedience, as they would do the justest and most vertuous Prince that was ever given unto a people. Eadem in reverentia & dignatione habendum, Sect. 25. quantum ad publican obedientiam attinet, qua optimum Regem si daretur habituri essent. His Scholars sing another Song, and use all arts imaginable to excite the people to rise against them and destroy them. The Author of that scandalous and dangerous Dialogue, en­tituled Eusebius Philadelphus doth expresly say, that of all good actions the murther of a Tyrant is most commendable. Buchanan accounts it a defect in Polities, Euseb. Phila­delph. Dial. Buchanan de jure regni. proemia eorum interfecoribus non decerni; that publick honours and rewards are not propounded unto such as shall kill a Tyrant: and some late Pamphleters conclude it lawful to rebel in the case of Tyranny, because forsooth, If a King exercising Tyranny over his Subjects may not be resisted, (that is to say, if the Subject may not take up Arms against him) he and his followers may destroy the Kingdom. And and we are fallen upon the business of Resistance. Calvin allows of no case (for ought I can see) in which the Subject lawfully may resist the Sovereign;Sect. 23. quandoquidem resisti magistratui non potest quin simul resistatur Deo, forasmuch as the Magistrate cannot be resisted, but that God is resisted also: and reckoning up those several pressures whereof Samuel spake unto the Jews, and which he calls jus Regis, as himself translates it, he concludes at last,Sect. 26. cui parere ipsi necesse esset, nec obsistere liceret, that no resistance must be made on the Subjects part, though Kings entrench as much upon them, both in their liberties and properties, as the Prophet speaks of. His Scholars are grown wiser, and instruct us otherwise. Paraeus saith, that if the King assault our persons, or endeavour to break into our Houses, we may as lawfully resist him, as we would do a Thief or Robber on the like occasions. And our new Master have found out many other Cases in which the Subject may resist, and which is more than so, is bound to do it,Paraeus in Rom. cap. 13. as namely in his own behalf, and in Gods behalf, in behalf of his Countrey, and in behalf of the Laws; and in so many more behalfs, that they have turned most Christian Kings out of half their Kingdoms.

But to go on, Calvin determins very rightly, VIII that notwithstanding any Contract made or supposed to be made between a King and his people, yet if the King do break his Covenants and oppress the Subject, the Subject can no more pretend to be dis­charged of his Allegiance, than the Wife may lawfully divorce herself from a froward Hisband; or Children throw aside that natural duty which they owe their Parents, because their Parents are unkind, and it may be cruel. Those which do otherwise conclude from the foresaid Contract he calls insulsos ratioeinatores, Sect. 29. but sorry and un­savory Disputants:and reckoneth it for a seditious imagination. that we must deal no otherwise with Kings than they do deserve, nec aequum esse ut subditos ei nos praestemus, qui vicissim Regem nobis non se praestet, Sect. 27. or to imagine that it is neither sense nor reason that we [Page 654]should [...]ew our selves obedient subjects unto him, who doth not mutually perform the duty of a King to us. His Scholars are grown able to teach their Master a new Lesson, and would tell him, if he were alive, that there is a mutual Contract between King and Sub­jects; and if he break the Covenant, he forfeiteth the benefit of the Agreement, and he not performing the duty of a King, they are released from the duty of Subjects. As contrary to their Masters Tenet as black to white; and yet some late Pamphleters press no doctrine with such strength and eagerness, as they have done this: Nor have the Pulpits spa­ [...]ed to publish it to their cheated Auditories, as a new Article of Faith, that if the Ruler perform not his duty, the Contract is dissolved, and the people are at liberty to right themselves. What excellent uses have been raised from this dangerous Doctrine, as many Kings of Christendom have fest already, so posterity will have cause to lament the mischiefs which it will bring into the World in succeeding Ages. Finally Cal­vin hath determined, and exceeding piously, that if the Magistrate command us any thing which is contrary to the Will and word of God, we must observe Saint Peters Rule, and rather choose to obey God, than men: and that withal we must prepare our selves to endure such punishments as the offendd Magistrate shall inflict upon us, for the said refusal;Sect. 32. Et quicquid potius perpeti quam à veritate deflectere, and rather suffer any Torments, than forsake the way of Gods Commandments. The Magi­strate, as it seems by him, must at all times be honoured by us, either in our active obedience, or in our passive; if we refuse to do his will, we must be content to suffer for it. His Scholars are too wise to submit to that, and are so far form suffer­ing for the testimony of the Gospel and a good conscience, that they take care to teach the people that it is lawful to rebel in behalf of God, to preserve the true Religion when it is in danger (or when they think it is in danger) by force of Arms, and to procure the peace of Hierusalem by the destruction of Babylon. Which being so, the dif­ference being so great and irreconcileable between the Followers and their Leader in the point of practice, between the Master and the Scholars in the points of Doctrine: me thinks it were exceeding fit the man were either less admired, or better follow­ed; that they who cry him up for the great Reformer, would either stand to all his Tenets, or be bound to none; that they would be so careful of the Churches peace, and their own salvation, as not to swallow down his Errors in his points of disciplines, and pass him by with a Magister non t [...]netur, when he doth preach Obedience to them, and doth so solidly discourse of the powers of Government.Tilly Philip. 2. Aut undi (que) religionem [suam] toliant, at usquequaque conserent, as Tully said of Antony in another case. But of this no more.

Hitherto CALVIN hath done will, IX few better; of the Genevian Doctors none, ne unus quidem, not so much as one. But there's an herb which spoils the pottage, an HERB so venomous, that it is mors in olla unto them that taste it. The figs in the next basket are evil, Jerem. 24. very evil,not to be eaten (as it is in the Prophets words) they are so evil. In that before he did exceeding soundly and judiciously law down the doctrine of obedience unto Kings and Princes, and the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Arms against their Sovereign. In this to come he openeth a most dangerous gap to disobedience and rebellions in most States in Christendom, in which his name is ei­ther reverenced or his works esteemed of. For having fully expressed the points be­fore delivered unto the conscience of the Subject, and utterly disabled them from lift­ing up their hands against the Supream Magistrate, on any occasion whatsoever: he shews them how to help themselves, and what course to take, for the asserting of their Liberties, and the recovery of their Rights, if the Prince invade them; by tel­ling them that all he spake before was of private persons, Sect. 31. but that if there were any popular Officers, such as the Ephori of Sparta, the Tribunes of Rome, the Demarchi of Athens, ordained for the restraint of Kings and Supream Governours, it never was his meaning to include them in it. And such power he doth suppose to be in the three Estates of every Kingdom, when they are solemnly assebled; whom he con­demns as guilty of perfidious dissimulation,and the betrayers of the Subject Liberties, whereof they are the proper and appointed Guardians, if they connive at Kings when they play the Tyrants, or wantonly insuit on the common people. This is the gap through which rebellions and seditions have found to plausible a passage in the Christian World, to be dethroning of some Kings and Princes, the death of others. For through this gap, broke in those dangerous and seditious Doctrines, that the inferiour Magistrates are ordained by God, and not appointed by the King, or the Supream Powers; that being so ordained by God, that are by him inabled to compel the King to rule accord­ing [Page 655]unto justice and the Laws established; that if the King be refractory and unreclaimable, they are to call him to account, and to provide for the safety of the Common-wealth by all ways and means which may conduce unto thepreservation of it: and finally (which is the darling Doctrine of these later times) that there is a mixture in all Governments, and that the three Estates convened in Parliament (or by what other name soever we do call their meeting) are not subordinate to the King, but co-ordinate with him; and have not only a supplemental power, to supply what is defective in him, but a coercive also to restrain his Actions, and a Corrective too to reform his Errors. But this I give you now in the generals only; hereafter you shall see it more particularly, and every Author cited in his own words for the proof hereof. Many of which as they did live in Cal­vin's time, and by their writings gave great scandal to all Sovereign Princes, but more as to the progress of the Reformation; so could not Calvin choose but be made ac­quainted with the effects and consequences of his dangerous principles. Which since he never did retract, upon the sight of those seditious Pamphlets, and worse than those, those bloody tumults and rebellions which ensued upon it; but let it stand un­altered to his dying day: is a clear argument to me, that this passage fell not from his Pen by chance, but was laid of purpose as a Stumbling-block in the Subjects way, to make him fall in the performance of his Christian duty both to God and man. For though the Book of Institutions had been often printed in his life time, and received many alterations and additions (as being enlarged from a small Octavo, of not above 29 sheets, to a large Folio of 160) yet this particular passage still remained unchanged, and hath continued as it is from the first Edition of it, which was in the year 1536, not long after his first coming to Geneva.

But to proceed in our design. X What fruits these dangerous Doctrines have produced amongst us, we have seen too plainly;and we may see as plainly, if we be not blind, through what gap these Doctrines entred, on what foundation they were built, and unto whose Authority we stand indebted for all those miseries and calamities which are fallen upon us. Yet to say truth, the man desired to be concealed, and not reputed for the Author of such strange conclusions which have resulted from his principles: and therefore lays it down with great Art and caution. Si qui, and Fortè, and ut nunc res ha­bent, that is to say, Perhaps, and as the World now goes, and if there be such Officers as have been formerly, as the three disguises, which he hath masked himself and the point withal, that he might pass away unseen. And if there be such Officers as perhaps there are, or that the world goes here as it did at Sparta, or in the States of Rome and Athens; as perhaps it doth; or that the three Estate, of each several Kingdom have the same authority in them as the Ephori, the Demarchi, and the Tribunes had, as perhaps they have; the Subject is no doubt in a good condition, as good a man as the best Monarch of them all. But if the Ephori, the Demarchi and the Tribunes, were not appointed at the first for the restraint and regulating of the Supream Powers, as indeed they were not; and if the three Estates in each several Kingdom have not that authority, which the Ephori, and the Tribunes did in fine usurp, and the Demarchi are supposed to have, as indeed they have not; perhaps and peradventure will not serve the turn. The Subject stands upon no better grounds, than before he did. Therefore to take away this stum­bling-block and remove this rub, I shall propose and prove these three points ensuing. 1. That the Ephori, the Demarchi, and the Roman Tribunes were not instituted at the first, for those ends and purposes, which are supposed by the Author. 2. If they were instituted for those ends, yet the illation thereupon would be weak and childish, as it relates of Kings and Kingdoms; And 3. That the three Estates in each several King­dom without all peradventures have no such authority, as the Author dreams of, and therefore of no power to controul their King. Which If I clearly prove, as I hope I shall, I doubt not but to leave the cause in a better condition than I found it. And in the proof of these, the first point especially, if it be thought that I insist longer than I need­ed on the condition of the Spartan Ephori, the Roman Tribunes, and the Demarchi of A­thens, and spend more cost upon it than the thing is worth; I must intreat the Reader to excuse me in it. I must first lay down my grounds and make sure work there, before I go about my building:And being my design relates particularly to the information and instruction of the English Subject, I could not make my way unto it, but by a discovery of the means and Artifices, by which some petit popular Officers attained unto so great a mastery in the game of Government, as to give the Check unto their Kings. Which being premised once for all, I now proceed unto the proof of the points proposed, and having proved these points, I shall make an end. Haec tria cum docuero perorabo, in the Orators Language.

CHAP. II. Of the Authority of the Ephori in the State of Sparta; and that they were not instituted for the ends supposed by Calvin.

  • 1. The Kings of Sparta absolute Monarchs at the first.
  • 2. Of the declining of the Regal power, and the condition of that State, when Lycur­gus undertook to change the Government.
  • 3. What power Lycurgus gave the Senate; and what was left unto the Kings.
  • 4. The Ephori appointed by the Kings of Sparta to ease themselves, and curb the Senate.
  • 5. The blundering and mistakes of Joseph Scaliger about the first Institution of the Ephori.
  • 6. The Ephori from mean beginnings grew to great Authority; and by what advan­tages.
  • 7. The power and influence which they had in the publick Government.
  • 8. By what degrees the Ephori encroached on the Spartan Kings.
  • 9. The insolencies of the Ephori towards their Kings altered the State into a Ty­ranny.
  • 10. The Spartan Kings stomach the inso­lency of the Ephori, and at last utterly destroy them.
  • 11. An application of the former passages to the point in hand.

I Know it is conceived by some that the Kings of Sparta were but titular, I that they were little more than Subjects, at best of no more power and influence in the pub­lick Government,Unlawfulness of resistance, p 90. than the Duke of Venice at this day in that Republick. And to say truth, they were but little better in the latter times, (though not altogether so restrained) after Lycurgus first, and the Ephori afterwards, had by their power and practices intrenched upon them; and pared away so many of the fairest Jewels in the Regal Diadem. But ab initio non fuit sic, it was not so from the beginning: the Spartan Kings being at first as absolute Monarchs as any other of those times,Tacit. Annal. ubi addictius reg­nabantur, when men were most devoted to the will of Princes. For if we look into the ancient stories of the States of Greece, it will there be found, that at the return of the Heraclidae into Peloponnesus, under the conduct of Temenus, Ctesiphon, and Aristo­demus, the sons of Aristomachus of the race of Hercules; Temenus possessed himself of Argos, Ctesiphon of Messene, and Aristodemus conquered the City and Dominion of Sparta; which, dying very shortly after, he left unto his two sons Eurysthenes, and Procles, Pausanias in Lacon. l. 3. with the authority and name of Kings. So that acquiring the Estate by Conquest, and claiming by no other Title than by that of Arms, there is no question to be made but that they governed in the way of absolute Monarchs: it being not the guise of such as come in by Conquest to covenant and capitulate with their Subjects, but to impose their will, for a Law, upon them; In the first times, and in Dominion so acquired,Justin. hist. l. 1. Arbitria Principum pro legibus erant, as we read in Justin. 'Tis true, the Royal Family was divided from the very first, into two Regal Stems or Branches, both honoured with the name of Kings, both ruling the Estate in common by their mutual Councils; of which the eldest House was that of Agidae, so called from Agis, son and Successor unto Eurysthenes; the second that of the Eurypontidae, denominated from Eurypon, Pausanius l. 3. the third from Procles. It was appointed so to be by Aristodemus, con­firmed by the Oracle of Apollo, and so continued till the subjugating of all Greece to Macedon. But this concludes no more against absolute Monarchie, than if it should be said on the like occasion, that the Roman Emperors were no Monarchs, or that State to Monarchy, because Carus and Numerianus, Diocletian and Maximianus, Constantius and Maximinus ruled the same together; as after Valentinian and his Brother Valens, and the two sons of Valentinian and Theodosius did by their Example. And so it seems it was conceived by Cleomenes, who having rooted out the Ephori, and being grown almost as absolute in the State of Sparta, as any of his Predecessors, caused his Brother Euclidas (upon the expiration of the Eurypontidae) to be made King with him: [...]tarch in Agis & Clee­me [...]. which certainly he would not have done, had he believed that the assuming of a partner would have made him less. For that the Spartan Kings were as absolute Monarchs as any others of those times (when there was almost no Form of Government in the World but that) doth appear by Plutarch, where speaking [Page 657]of the condition of that Government in the time of Eurypon (whom he calls Eurytion) he saith that it was [...], sufficiently Montarchical, if it were not more.Plutarch. in Lycurgo. And hereto Aristotle doth agree, who stiles the Government of Sparta under Charilaus, before whose times (by reason of the negligence and connivence of some former Kings) the People were become too head-strong to be kept in order,Aristot. Polit. lib. 5. cap. 12. by the name of [...], the Tyranny or absolute command of Charilaus in the State of Sparta.

But whatsoever it was in the first foundation, II it held not very long in so good con­dition. For Eurypon the Nephew of Procles, [...],Plutarch. in Lycurg. affecting to be plausible and gracious with the common people, improvidently let loose the reins of Government, and was the first that laid aside that sole and absolute power of a King; whereupon followed great disorder and distraction, which conti­nued long. For the People finding themselves at liberty, became very bold and dis­obedient; some of the Kings which did succeed being hated to the very death, be­cause they did indeavour the recovery of their old authority; others being forced to dissemble and wink at any thing, either in hope thereby to gain the love of the People, or because indeed they were not strong enough to rule them. And this did so in­crease the stomach of the dissolute and rebellious multitude, that Eunomus the Father of Lycurgus, being the fifth King from Procles, and the third from Eurypon, was slain amongst them in a tumult. As such a dear and costly rate did Eurypon procure the fa­vour and good will of the rascal rabble; by which he purchased nothing but the loss of Royalty, besides the empty honour of having the second house of the Royal Family to be called by his name, the Eurypontidae. Things growing thus from bad to worse, and both the Kings and People waxing weary of that disorder and confusion which did reign amongst them; both parties cast their eyes upon Lycurgus, of whose inte­grity and wisdom they had conceived a great opinion. For the People finding that their Kings had nothing but the name and title, [...], and nothing else whereby they differed from the rest, sent many a several message to him to require his counsel: And on the other side, the Kings were as de­sirous that he should return (being then gone abroad to travel) in hope that the au­thority of his presence would bridle and restrain the People from their insolency and disobedience towards them. But herein they were both deceived.Id. ibid. For Lycurgus see­ing how things stood, resolved to apply himself to neither party; but presently began to project, and cast how he might change and alter the whole frame of Government: which to effect, he armed himself and his Associates, and possessed the market-place, and so proceeded to the alteration which he meant to make.Id ibid. et in Agis & Cleo­men. Charilaus who was then King, being forced to flie for sanctuary to the Temple of Juno. But Plato saith there was another motive which induced him to attempt this change, which was the ill suc­cess the other Kings his kindred of the house of Hercules had found at Argos and Messene; where by degrees degenerating from a Monarchy unto a Tyranny, they were in a fair way [...], to overthrow themselves, their subjects, and their whole estates. To prevent this at Sparta, which he dearly loved, and to pre­serve his Family and the State together, [...],Plat. Epist. 8. he set up the authority of the Senate as the only medicine, to cure the miserable distemper which the State was in. So far, and somewhat further Plato; of which more anon.

What the authority and power of this Senate was, we see best from Plutarch. III [...], &c.In Lycurge. In this change of State (saith he) which Lycurgus made, his chiefest alteration was in the constitution of a Senate, which he made to have a Regal power, and equal authority with the Kings in matters of the greatest weight and impor­tance; and was to be the healthful counterpoise of the whole body of the Common-wealth. The other State before was ever wavering, sometimes inclining to Tyranny, when the Kings were too mighty, and sometimes to confusion, when the People did usurp Authority; between which two, the Senate was ordained as the fittest medium to keep even the scale, and fortifie the State of the Common-wealth. For taking sometimes the Kings part, when it was needful to pull down the fury of the People; and sometimes holding with the People against the Kings, to bridle their Tyrannical Government, they were the means that neither of the two did oppress the other. This Court or Senate had the supream direction and command in all things of moment, which did concern the Common-wealth, both for peace and war; and had the highest jurisdiction and dernier resort, from which there could be no appeal; in which regard Pausanias calls it [...],Pausanias in Lacon. l. 3. the sovereign [Page 658]Court of the Republick. It consisted of 28 Senators, all chosen out of the Nobility and chief men of the City; who together with the two Kings (who were allowed their voices in it) made up thirty in all; and unto these it did belong to call the assemblies of the People, to propound that to them which they thought convenient, and to dis­solve them too when they saw occasion.Plutarch. ibid. But for the People so assembled, it was not lawful for them to propund any thing to be debated or determined, nor to deliver their opinion in the point proposed; there being nothing left to them, but to testifie their assent to the propositions, which either by the Senate or the two Kings had been made unto them. So that whatever the Kings lost, the People got little by the altera­tion, being left out of all imployment in affairs of State, and forced to yield obedi­ence unto thirty Masters, whereas before they had but two. And as for the Authority which remained unto the Kings, it consisted especially in the conducting of the Ar­mies, and the Supremacy in matters that concerned Religion (for this hath always gone along with the Kingly office.Nenophon de Repub. Lace­daemon.) [...]. &c. For it was or­dered by Lycurgus, that the King should offer sacrifice for the prosperity of the Com­mon-wealth, when the necessity of their affairs did require the same, as one descended from the gods, that they should participate of the thing sacrificed when the gods were served, and have a Pig of every litter, that they might never want a facrifice, if upon any sudden accident the gods were to be advised withal. [...], &c. It also appertained to them to command the Armies, as oft as they were sent abroad on any military imployment; and had a Pavillion allowed them at the publick charge, for entertainment of such company as repaired unto them. In these two points the honour and authority of the Kings consisted principally, which Aristotle also hath observed.Aristot. Po­litic. l. 3. c. 10. [...]. Supremacy in Divine, command in Military matters, was all in which they differed from the other Senators; and this command (I mean in military matters) was both perpetual and hereditary, as the same Author tells us there,Id. ibid. & l. 2. c. 7. & l. 3. d. 11. and in other places. For matters which were meerly honorary, they had some prerogatives; the Kings being allowed a double Mess in all their Ordi­naries, the Senators and all the People arising from their seats to do him reverence, when he came amongst them, yielding him more than humane honours when he was deceased as to a Demi-god at least. And for their maintenance and support when they were alive,Nenophon in Repub. Lace­daemon. there was allotted to them a proportion of the richest Lands in many of the Villages and Fields adjoyning, enough to keep them out of want, though not sufficient to make them either rich or powerful.

The Royalty and Power of the Kings being thus impaired, IV the People absolutely discharged from having any hand at all in the publick Government, and the authority of the Senate growing every day more insolent and predominant than at first it was, by reason that they held their place for term of life,Plutarch in Agesilao. as we find in Plutarch; the Kings re­solved upon a course of putting the People into such a condition as might inable them to curb and control the Senators. To this end Theopompus, the ninth King of the second house, with the consent of Polydorus his Associate, ordained certain Officers, being five in number,Aristot. Pol. l. 2.8. and chosen out of the body of the common people, and annually renewed or changed,Id. Polit. l. 2. c. 7. as occasion was; to whom authority was given, [...], even in the highest points, and of most importance, as we are told by Aristotle, and shall see anon.Plutarch in Agesilao. These Officers he caused to be called by the name of Ephori, that is to say, the Overseers and Superintendents of the State, [...], because they had the charge and oversight of the Common-wealth.Aristot. Poli­tic. l. 2. c. 7. Suidas. And as amongst the Archontes in the State of Athens, which were nine in number, one of them was called the [...]. or the Archon in the way of excellency, after whose name the year was called, and their reckonings made (as Titio & Sempronio Coss. in the State of Rome;) so had the Ephori their Eponymus, one who by way of eminency was called the Ephorus. But for this first reason of their institution, take it thus from Plutarch, Pa [...]san. lib. 3. in Lacon. Plutarch in Lycurgo. [...], &c. ‘Lycurgus having thus tem­pered the form of his Common-wealth, it seem'd notwithstanding unto those which came after him, that this small number of thirty persons which made the Senate, was yet too mighty, and of too great authority. Wherefore to bridle them a little, they gave them (as he cites from Plato) a bit in their mouths, which was the Authority of the Ephori, erected in the time of King Theopompus, about 130 years after the death of Lycurgus.’ A second reason which induced those Kings to ordain these Ephori, was to ease themselves, and delegate upon them that remainder of the Royal power, which [Page 659]could not be exercised but within the City. For the Kings having little or no com­mand but in Wars abroad, cared not for being much at home, and thereupon or­dained these Officers to supply their places. Concerning which Cleomenes thus dis­courseth to the Spartans, after they had destroyed the Ephori, and suppressed the Office:Id in Agis & Cleomenes. ‘informing them that Lycurgus had joyned the Senators with the Kings, by whom the Common-wealth was a long time governed, without help of any other Officers; that afterwards the City having great Wars with the Messenians, the Kings were al­ways so imployed in that War that they could not attend the affairs of the State at home, and thereupon made choice of certain of their friends to sit in judgment in their stead, whom they called the Ephori, [...], and for a long time did govern only as the Kings Ministers, though afterwards by little and little they took unto themselves the supreme Authority.’ Ano­ther reason hath been given of the institution, which is, that if a difference grew be­tween the two Kings in a point of judgment, there might be some to arbitrate between them, and to have the casting voice amongst them when the difference could not be agreed. And this is that which Lisander and Mandroclidas (two that had been Ephori) suggested unto Agis and Cleombrotus the two Kings of Sparta; declaring,Id. ibid. ‘That the Office of the Ephori was erected for no other reason, [...], &c. But because they should give their voices unto that King who had the best reason on his side, when the other would wilfully withstand both right and reason; and therefore that they two agreeing might lawfully do what they would without controlment; that to re­sist the Kings was a breach of Law, considering that the Ephori, by Law, had no power nor priviledge, but only to arbitrate between them, when there was any cause of jar or controversie.’ And this was so received at Sparta for an undoubted truth, that Cleomenes being sole King upon the death of Agis of the other house, recalled Archidamus the Brother of Agis, from his place of Banishment, with an intent to make him King, not doubting but they two should agree together, and thereby make the Ephori of no power nor use. So then we have three reasons of the institution, (and more than these I cannot find) of which there is not one that favoureth the device of Calvin; or intimateth that the Authority of the Ephori was set up, to pull down the Kings. And to say truth, it is a most unlikely matter that the Kings of Sparta having so little power remaining, should need more Officers to restrain them than they had before; that they should make a new rod for their own poor backs, and add five Ma­sters more to those eight and twenty, which Lycurgus had imposed upon them. Which makes me wonder much at Tully, who doth acknowledge that the Ephori were ordained by Theopompus, (as both Aristotle and Plutarch do affirm) and yet will have them in­stituted for no other cause, nisi ut oppositi sint Regibus, but to oppose and curb the Kings:Aristot. Polit. l. 5. c. 11. Cicero de legi­bus, l. 3. but more that Plato (who had so much advantage of him both in time and place) should ascribe the institution to Lycurgus; and tell us that he did not only ordain the Senate, [...],Plato Ep. 8. edit. gr. lat. To. 3. but that he did also constitute the Ephorate for the strength and preservation of the Regal power.

For out of doubt it is affirmed by Plutarch, confirmed by Scaliger, V and may be ga­thered from some passages in Eusebius Chronicon, and the Authority of Aristotle, Plut. in Ly­curgo. Scalig. ani­madvers. in Euseb. Chron. who refers the same to Theopompus, as before was shewed, that the first Institution was no less than 130 years after the death of Lycurgus. Who was the first that bore this Office, hath been made a question, but never till these later times, when men are grown such Sceptics as to doubt of every thing. Plutarch affirms for certain, [...], that the first Ephorus (that is to say, the first [...],Plutarch. in Lycurgo. who had the name of Ephorus by way of excellency, for otherwise there were five in all) was called Elatus: and hereto Scaliger did once agree, as appears expresly, pag. 67. of his Annotations on Eusebius, where he declares it in these words, Primus Elatus re­nunciatur [...]. But after having a desire to control Eusebius, he takes occasion by some words in Diogenes Laertius, to cry up Chilo for the man: first posi­tively, Primus [...] fuit Chilon, and next exclusively of Elatus, Quibus animad­versis non fuerit Elatus primus Ephorus sed Chilon. To make this good being a fancy of his own (and as his own most dearly cherished) he produceth first the testimony of Laertius, and afterwards confirms the same by a new emendatio temporum, a Calculation and accompt of his own inventing. The words produced from Laertius are these verbatim, [...]. [Page 660]Which is thus rendred in the Latine; Diogen. Lat. 1. l. 1. in Chilo. and I think exactly. Fuit autem Ephorus circa quinquagessimam & quintam Olympiada. Porro Pamphila circa sextam ait, primumque Ephorum fuisse sub Euthydemo, autore Sosicrate: primum (que) instituisse ut Regibus Ephori adjungerentur, Satyrus Lycurgum dixit. If it be granted in the first place, that Chilo was not made Ephorus until the 55. Olympiad, as 'tis plain it was not, and Scaliger affirms as much, it must needs follow upon true account, that either Chilo was not the first Ephorus, or that the Ephori were not instituted in more than twice an hun­dred and thirty years, after Lycurgus had new molded the Common-wealth, contrary unto that which is said by Plutarch, and out of him repeated by Joseph Scaliger. For from the time wherein Lycurgus made his Laws, which was in the 25 year of Ar­chelaus, the eighth King of the Elder House. unto the death of Alcamenes, which was the year before the first Olympiad, Euseb. Chron. lib. post. p. 114. of Scaligers edit. were 112 years just, none under. From thence unto the last year of the 55. 220 years compleat; which put together make no fewer than 332 years full, a large misreckoning. Whereas the second year of the fifth O­lympiad, in which Eusebius puts the Institution of the Ephori, both in the Greek and Latine Copies set out by Scaliger himself;Pag. 117. of the Latin, and 35 of the Greek Edition. that second year I say being added to the 112 before-remembred, in which King Alcamenes died, makes up the full number of 130, which we find in Plutarch; and agrees punctually with the time of Theopompus, who as it is confessed by Scaliger, did first ordain them. Nor doth Laertius say, if you mark him well, either that Chilo was the first that was ever Ephorus, or the first that joyned the Ephori to the Kings of Sparta, both which absurdities are by Scaliger imposed upon him. For unto any one who looks upon Laertius with a careful eye, it may be easily discerned, that he speaks no otherwise of the Ephorate, than of an Office instituted a long time before; with the condition of the which Chilo was well ac­quainted, and therefore thought himself more fit to undergo it than his Brother was, who very earnestly desired it.Laertius in vi­ta Chilon. All that Laertius saith, is no more but this, that Chilo was made Ephorus first, (not the first Ephorus which was made, as Scaliger would have it) under Euthydemus; and that as Satyrus affirmed (who therein questionless was misled by Plato) Lycurgus was the first who joyned the Ephori to the Spartan Kings; which words, viz. [...], he hath left out of purpose to abuse his Author, and make him speak the thing which he never meant. His other blun­derings and mistakes to make good this business, first laying the dissolution of the E­phorate by Cleomenes, Pag. 67 of the Animadvers. non multo ante vel post initium Philippi, either not long before or shortly after the beginning of the reign of Philip the last King of Macedon, but one (which indeed is true) and within nine Lines, no more, laying it in the 13. year of the self-same King Philip, (most extreamly false) the changing of his Authors words from Fuit autem sub Regibus Lacedaemon annis 350, as they occur in the Translation of S. Hierom, printed at Basil, into Fuit sub Regibus Lacedaemoniorum Annis 350. against the Authors mind and the Rules of Grammar, only to bring about his device of Chilo, and blind his Readers eyes with a new Chronology; and others I could point to if my leisure served, I purpose to forbear at the present time. Nor had I been so bold with Scaliger at all, or at least not now, but that the proud man is more bold with the Antient Fathers, whom he is pleased to look on with con­tempt, and scorn, as often as they come before him: for which see pag. 255. of his Annotations. And so I leave him with that Censure which he gives Eusebius, as learned and industrious an Antiquary, as any Scaliger of them all, (no man dis­praised): Erratis hujus Autoris enumerandis charta non suffecerit; Animadvers. in Euseb. p. 255. and so sare him well.

But to proceed, VI the Ephori being thus ordained by Theopompus, became not pre­sently of such authority and power, as by degrees they did attain to: For being chosen by the Kings as their proper Ministers as before was said, and many times [...], even from their very nearest Friends,Plutarch. in Agis & Cleo­men. as we read in Plutarch; they were hard thrust at by the Senate, and forced to put up many an affront from that mightier Body. And this was it that Chilo aimed at, when he told his Brother who at the same time desired the Office,Laertius in vita Chilon. and seemed offended that he lost it, [...], that he was better skilled in bearing injuries and affronts, than his Brother was. But this continued for no longer than whilest the Kings served their turns upon them to oppose the Senate, and kept the nomination of them in their own hands. For afterwards the Kings relinquishing the Election to the common people, upon a forlorn hope, of gaining their affections by so great a benefit; they be­gan [Page 661]to set up for themselves, and in a very little time gained all the custom of the City. And of this new Election I am apt to think that Chilo, whom before we spake of, was the first [...]. Which I propose not so much out of a de­sire to comply with Scaliger, who for ought I can see, aimed at no such mat­ter; as on the credit of Eusebius, whom he so much lighteth. For in Euebius Chronicon of Josephus Scaligers own Edition, after he hath put down the institution of the Ephori in the second of the fifth Olympiad, as before I told you; he gives this Item in the third of the five and fiftieth (which is the very same that Laertius speaks of) Chilo qui de Septem Sapientibus fuit, Lacedaemone Ephorus constituitur, Euseb. Chronic. lib. poster. p. 127. dispositione com­munis gentis, that Chilo one of the seven wise Masters was ordained Ephorus at Sparta, by the general consent of all the people. But whether this were so, or not, I am not able to determine absolutely. All I observe from hence is this, that it is past all que­stion, that from this time they took upon them more than they had done formerly, and were intent on all advantages to improve their power. For whereas at the first they were appointed by the Kings to sit in Judgment in their steads, as before was said, by little and little [...], they drew that power unto them­selves,Plutarch in Agis & Cleom. and exercised it in their own name, by their own authority: not as the Mini­sters of the Kings, they would none of that, but as the Officers of the Common­wealth. And to that end they did erect a Court of Judicature, which for power and greatness of authority was little inferiour to the Senate; drawing unto them all such businesses as were [...], most worthy of care and consideration.Pausan. l. 3. in Laconicis. Aristot. Polit. lib. 3. cap. 1. By means whereof, as they drew many of the people to depend upon them, whose businesses and suits of Law were brought to be determined by them; so they encreased that dependance, by husbanding such difference as did oft arise between the Senate and the Kings, to their own advantage. For it is well observed by Aristotle, that as long as the Senate and the Kings did agree together, they kept all the power in their own hands: [...], but when they jarred amongst themslves,Id. ibid. l. 2. c. 9. they gave the people opportunity to become their Masters. But that which raised them to the height, and made them terrible at last both to King and Senate, was the mutual tie and correspondence which was between them and the people: by whom they were not only chosen, and therefore cherished by them as their own dear Crea­tures: but for the most part chosen [...], out of the body of the people, and sometime [...]: out of the very meanest and neediest of them;Aristot. Polit. l. 2. cap. 7. which made them on the other side to court the people, and to apply themselves unto them upon all occasions. And though it happened many times, that some of them being indigent and needy men, where easily wrought upon by money, and apt to sell as well the justice as the honour of the Common-wealth, to enrich themselves and raise their Families; whereof Aristotle much complains, and that deservedly:Id. ibid. &c. 8. yet this cor­ruption served to advance their power, and put them into a condition to be the bet­ter able to oblige the people. So that the common sort of people doing all they could to advance the power and reputation of the Ephori, whom they accounted for their own, as indeed they were; and the Ephori striving by all possible means to gratifie the people, by obtaining new Laws and large immunities to be enacted for them, as they saw occasion: they altered the whole frame of Government, and made it of an Aristocrasie to become an Ogligarchie, and in conclusion a plain Popular Ty­ranny.

For trusting to the power and interess whic they had in the Commonalty, VII and the support they were assured from them, if the case required it; they drew unto themselves the managery of the State-affairs; and grew so powerful at the last, that if they did not all things of their own authority, yet they had such an hand on the Kings and Senate, that nothing could be done without them. Were any Laws to be Enacted, who but the Ephori must propound them? Or any Taxes to be levied for the necessary uses of the Common-wealth, who but the Ephori must impose them?Plutarch in Agis & Cleo­men. When Lysander had reduced the City of Athens unto such extremities, that they were glad to yield unto such conditions as the Conquerors were pleased to impose upon them: from whom must the Capitulations come, but from the Ephori? It was the [...], the final resolution of the Ephori, Id. in Lysan­dro. from which they were to expect ei­ther bonds or liberty. Cynado is accused of Treason against Agesilaus and the State of Sparta, the Ephori must take the information and proceed accordingly:Xenophon. in vita Agesilai. Thucydides. l. 1. and if Pausanias be accused of holding correspondence with the King of Persia, the Ephori send out their commands, [...], and commit him presently [Page 662]to Prison. When any Ambassadors were sent forth on the publick service, from whom must they receive their power, from whom be furnished with instructions, but from the Ephori alone?Plut. in Nici­as. and who but they must appoint Comminders for the Wars, require account of their employments, and either punish or reward them as they haved served? When Cleonymus was displeased because Areus was preferred be­fore him in his pretensions to the Kingdom: the Ephori did not only take upon them to sweeten and demulce the man by great gifts and presents, [...], but also to confer upon him the command of the Army,Pausan. l. 3. in Lacon. though of right belonging to the Kings. When Mindarus the Admiral of their Navy was mise­rably beat by the Athenians in the straight of Hellespont, an Express is presently dis­patched to Sparta, Plutarch. in Alcibiades. Idem in Lysan­dro. to give unto the Ephori an account thereof: Lysander had no sooner revenged this quarrel, and beat the Fleet of the athenians near the self same place, but he acquaints the Ephori with his good success, with all speed that might be. And if the Wars prove fortunate, and the spoil so great, that part thereof be sent to Sparta, to be laid up in the publick Treasury; the Ephori, and none but they must have the fingering of the money.Id. ibid. Finally there was no Commander of the Armies, or other Officer employed by the Common-wealth, whom they called not to an ac­compt as their stomachs served; not staying till the Office was expired, and the Com­mander or the Officer become a private man again, as in other States; but even in the midst of their Command and Magistracy whatsoever it was: and whom they did not punish when they come before them,Xenophon de Rep [...]b. Lace­daem. either by imprisonment or death, as to them seem'd best. Thus have we brought them to their height, and seen them absolutely possessed of the Supream Power, in making peace or war as they thought conve­nient; and in disposing of the goods, the liberties, yea and the lives too of the Spar­tan subject. It had been a strange temper in them had they tarried there, and not encroached as much (whilest the Tide went with them) upon the persons and the power of the Kings themselves.

For howsoever at the first they were [...] the Ministers of the Kings, VIII as before was told you, and accomptable to none but them: yet after they were reckoned for the Officers of the Common-wealth, they cast off all relation to the Kings, their Masters, and thought themselves their Equals at the best, and at last their betters. A point which Theopompus did but little dream of, when first he set them up to oppose the Senate, although his Queen a wise and understanding Lady did evidently see, and tell him, what would follow on it. Of which we find this story in the works of Aristotle, and from him borrowed by Plutarch if I guess aright, that his Wife seeing what design he was bent upon, and how unluckily he was car­ried on to effect the same, advised him to take heed that by erecting this new Magi­stracy, he did not leave the Kingdom in a worse condition to his Heirs and Successors, than he received the same from his I redecessors; and that he answered thereunto, [...],Apistot. Polit. l. 5. c. 11. that by this means he hoped to leave it stronger and more durable than it was before. But the event declared unto all the World that the Woman was the better Prophet, and had the greater insight into things to come. The power of Sovereignty when once communicated to the common people, or otherwise usurped by such popular Officers, as depend wholly on the people for their place and being, is seldom time recovered into Regal hands. And though some Kings may be persuaded by some subtle Artifices (as it seems Theopompus was) that by this means the Chair of State will stand the faster; yet the proceedings of the Ephori in the State of Sparta will inform us otherwise, and easily lay open the appa­rent danger of such weak surmises. For being made Officers of State, one of the first points they obtained, was that the Kings made Oath unto them once in every month, [...],Xenophon. de Kepub. Laced. that they would govern the E­state according to the Laws established in the Common-wealth, and that they would preserve the Kingdom in the best condition that they could: the Ephori making Oath to them in the name of the City, whose Officers they were, and by whom intrusted. Next they attempt to place such Counsellors about the Kings, as they might confide in, beginning with such Kings as were under Age; and the first trial which they made was in appointing one Cleandrides to be about King Plastonax, the 19. of the elder House, as his chief Counsellor and Director, without whose approbation nothing must be done.Plutarch. in Pericles. Another of their usurpations and incroachments was to restrain their Kings in the point of Marriage, and to impose some fine or disgrace upon them, if they presumed to marry against their liking. Anaxandrides the 15. of the elder [Page 663]House, had married a Lady of brave parts, but it was her ill fortune to be barren a long time together.Pausan. lib. 3. in Lacon. The Ephori command him without more ado [...], to give her a Bill of divorce, and send her going. Archidamus the 17. of the second House married a Wife which brought him Children: But fault was found she was too little, and thereupon the Ephori condemned him in a sum of money; saying [...], that she would not bring them Kings, but demy-Kings. Plutarch. in Agesilao. And that you may perceive how difficult a thing it was to please them in this point, Leonidas had married one that was neither barren, nor too little; and yet was quarrelled by the Ephori, and in fine condemned, for marrying with a Woman of another Nation. The fundamental Laws of Sparta conferred upon the Kings the Supream command over the Military men in all Wars abroad.Id. in Agis & Cleomenes. The Ephori did not only dispose it otherwise, and gave it unto such whom they desired to oblige unto them, as you heard before: but kept the Kings at such a bay, that they neither could lead forth the Armies without their consent, nor tarry longer in the Camp than they list to let them; and if the action did miscarry, the Kings were either fined or im­prisoned for it. Agesilaus being a verry stirring Prince, and desirous to get honour in the Wars, was not permitted to set forwards till he had bought the Ephori with a sum of money: and yet being in the height of his good success was called back again,Id. in Agesi­lao. and glad to be conformable to the said Commands. And so it fared with Agis and Clcomenes both, on the like occasions. And for the fining of their Kings, besides what we have seen before in the former instances, Plistonax being betrayed by Clean­drides, (whom the Ephori themselves had placed about him) and his Army forced to disband and turn home again; is presently condemned in so great a sum, that he was not able to discharge it.Id. in Pericles. Aristot. Polit. l. 2. cap. 7. By means whereof the Kings were brought at last unto that condition, [...], as Aristotle truly noteth, that they were forced to court and bribe the Ephori upon all occasions, to the great disservice of the State, and sometimes to the fatal overthrow of their chief designs. So that it is no marvel, if considered rightly, either that the Ephori kept their state and rose not up to reverence their King, when he came before them, though all the re­sidue of the people and the Senate did it, as we read in Xenophon; De Repub. La­cedaem. Plut. in Age­silao. or that Agesilaus used to rise up to them, as often as they came unto him about any business, as we find in Plutarch; or that the Kings esteemed it such a point of Sovereignty, that when they were commanded to attend the Ephori, [...], they did refuse to go upon the first and second summons, and stirred not till the third command, as Cleomenes bragged in the said Historian.Id. in Agis & Cleomen. Which trust me was a point of no small importance.

And yet they staid not here, they went furrher still. IX They thought it not enough to condemn their Kings in vast and unproportionable sums of money, unless they laid restraints on their persons also, and had command upon their bodies. And there­fore it is noted by Thucydides not without good reason, that they did not only punish with imprisonment their great and principal Commanders;Thucydid. hist. l. 1. [...], but that it was lawful for the Ephori to do the like unto their Kings. Which to avoid, Pausanias was inforced to retire himself, and live a volun­tary exile in another Countrey. Nothing remains but they take authority to depose,Plutarch in Lysander. and in fine to murther them; and if they gain not this, all the rest is nothing. And this they are resolved to gain, or be foully foiled; nor did they fail in the attempt when they went about it. They quarrelled at Leonidas as before I told you, for mar­rying with a Woman of another Countrey, without so much as seeking for their ap­probation. And that they may be sure to effect their business, Religion is pretended, and a star must fall, only to warrant their proceedings. Which preparations bring past they cite him to appear before them, and on default of his appearance they de­posed him instantly, and conferred the Kingdom on Cleombrotus. Id. in agis & Cleomenes. But these men being out of Office, he came out of Sanctuary, and was restored again by the next years Ephori. Who to make proof that their Authority was as great as their Predecessors, thought it not argument enough to restore one King, except they did depose and destroy another. And thereupon laid hands on Agis of the other House, and inhumanly haled him to the common Prison, and there most barbarously murdered him with his Mother and Grand-mother. [...].Id. ibid. And this saith Plutarch was the first time, that ever the Ephori put a King to death. And so perhaps it was the first, but the last it was not. For Archidamus the Brother of Agis being recalled from banishment by Cleomenes, to the end he might [Page 664]enjoy the Kingdom which did by right belong unto him; was presently seised on by the murtherers, and dispatched in private, for fear he should revenge the death of his slaughtered Brother.Id. ibid. By which it is most evident without further proof, that the Spartan Aristocracie was become a Tyranny, and of all Tyrannies the most insup­portable, because meerly popular. Or if more proof should be desired, both Ari­stotle, and his Master Plato will not stick to say it; though they both died, before these two last Tragedies were acted on the stage of Sparta. For Plato being to declare what he conceived of the Government of that Common-wealth resolves that it did [...],Plato de legi­bus l. 4. approach more near to Tyranny than to any other Form whatever; the Power and Empire of the Ephori being [...], plainly Ty­rannical, and no otherwise. And Aristotle who had studied the condition of that State exactly, though at the first he seemed to think that it was very well compounded of the three good Forms, yet upon full debate thereof, he concludes at last, [...],Aristot. Polit. l. 2. c. 4. that the Dominion of the Ephori was an absolute Tyranny. Assu­redly had they lived to have seen that day, wherein the Ephori embrued their hands in the blood of their Princes, under pretence of safety to the Common-wealth, they would have voted it to have been a Tyranny in the highest degree; and then the most unsufferable Tyrants that ever wretched State groaned under. For though the Kings of Sparta were so lessened by Lycurgus Laws, that little more was left unto them than the name and Title; yet they were Kings, and held so sacred by their Neigh­bours, even their very Enemies, that none did ever offer to lay hands upon them in the heat and fury of their fights,Plutarch. in A­gis & Cleom. [...], out of the re­verence they did bear to those beams of Majesty, which most apparently shined in them.

The Ephori being grown to this height of Tyranny, X were the more ready for their fall; which followed not long after that most barbarous fact, upon the persons of their Princes. The Kings had long since stomached them and their high pro­ceedings,Id. in Agesil. bearing [...] a kind of Heritable grudge betwixt them (as my Author calls it) ever since they took upon them to controul their Masters: but either wanted opportunity or spirit, to attempt any thing to their prejudice; and therefore thought it safer to procure their favours, than run them­selves upon a hazardous Experiment. Pausanias, the 20. of the Elder House, was the first that ever did attempt either by force or practice to subvert the Office; the insolencies of the which were then grown so great, that being a stout and active Prince, he was not able to endure them. That he had entertained such thoughts is affirmed by Aristotle, where he informs us that Lysander had a purpose to take away the Kingly Government (or rather to acquire it to himself, as we find in Plutarch,) [...],Id. in Lysan­d [...]o. Aristot. Polit. lib. 5. c. 1. and that Pausanias had the like to destroy the Ephorate. But what he failed to bring about, his Successors did at last accomplish. Of which Cleombrotus and Agis, joyning their hands and heads together did proceed so far, that going into the Market place well attended by their Friends and followers, they plucked the Ephori from their seats, and substituted others in their rooms, whom they conceived would be more pliant to their prefent Enterprises: which was the first actual attempt,Plutarch in A­gis & Cleom. that ever had been made against them by the Kings of Sparta. But evulgato imperii Arcano, when so great a mystery of State was once discovered, that the Ephori were but mortal men, and might as easily be displaced and deposed as any of the other Magistrates; Leonidas immediately upon his restitution to the King­dom, made the like removal, and displaced those who had taken part against him with the former Kings.Id. ibid. So that the ice being broken, and the way made open, Cleomenes son unto Leonidas had the fairer way to abrogate the Office utterly, which at last he did. For being a brave and gallant Prince, and seeing that the project he was bent upon for the reduction of the Common-wealth to its primitive honour, could not be brought about but by their destruction; he fell upon them with his Souldiers as they sat at supper, and killed four of them in the place, the fifth escaping shrewdly hurt to the nearest Sanctuary.Id. ibid. That done he went into the Market place, and overthrew all the Chairs of the Ephori saving only one, which he reserved for himself as his Chair of State, and sitting in the same in the sight of the people, gave them an account of his proceedings, and the reasons which induced him to it: Declaring how the Ephori were at first appointed by the Kings themselves; that for long time they governed only [...] as the Kings Ministers, and no otherwise; that many years after this, Asteropus one of the Ephori, building upon a new foundation, and being the first Author [Page 665]of that dangerous change, they took the Government unto themselves, and exercised the same in their own names only; that though they had usurped a power which belonged not to them, yet had they managed it discreetly, the might perhaps have held it longer, and with better liking; but that licentiously abusing the authority which they had usurped by suppressing the lawful Governors ordained of old, by taking upon them to banish some of the Citizens, and to put some to death without law and justice, and finally by threatning those who were de­sirous to restore the Government to its antient Form, they were no longer to be suffered: that for his part he should have thought himself the happiest King that ever was, if possibly he could have cured his Countrey of that foul affection withou grief or sorrow; but being it was not to be done that way, he thought it better that some should be put to death, than the whole Common-wealth run on to a swift destruction. This said, he presently dissolved the Assembly, and seriously betook himself to the Reformation which formerly he had projected, and in short time reduced the people to the antient Discipline, the staee and reputation of the Common-wealth to its ancient height.

Thus have we made a brief discovery of the Spartan Ephori, XI upon what grounds first instituted, and on what destroyed; by what foul practices and unlawful means they gained the Sovereignty of the State, and by what they lost it: how, and by what degrees they came from low and mean beginnings to so strange a Tyranny, and with what suddenness they lost their power and their lives together. But in all this there is not any shew or colour for that which is affirmed by CALVIN, no ground for, nor verity at all in that Assertion, that the Ephori were at first ordained to oppose the Kings, to regulate their proceedings, and restrain their power: but rather that they were ordained (as indeed they were) to curb the Senate, to be the Ministers of the Kings, and subservient to them; to sit in Judgment for them, and discharge such Offices, as the Kings pleased to trust them with, in their times of absence. If Calvins popular Magistrates have no more Authority, than the Spartan Ephori, accord­ing to the rules of their Institution, they will have little colour to controul their Princes, and less for putting a restraint on the Regal power. The most they can pre­tend to must be usurpation, and that will hold no longer, if it hold so long, than they have power to make it good by blood and violence, which I hope Calvin did not aim at. And if they have no other ground than an unjust Title, prescription will not serve the turn, (for nullum tempus occurrit Regi, as our Lawyers tell us) when a couragious Prince is concerned in it, and oppressed by it. If any Popular spirits en­tertain such hopes, if nothing else will satisfie their vast ambitions but to be equal with their Kings and Supream Governours, and at last above them: let them remem­ber what became of the Spartan Ephori, and that there was a Cleomenes which called them to a sad account for all those insolencies and affronts which they had put upon himself and his Predecessors. And let all Kings and Supream Governors take heed by the example of these Spartan Princes, how they let loose the reins of Government, and lay them on the necks of the common people: which if unbridled once, and left at liberty, will not be easily induced to receive that Bit into their mouths which before they champed on: and that they give no way to such popular Magistrates as Calvin hath presented to us, who whatsoever colour and pretence they make, aim at no other mark than the Royal power, though out of too much modesty they disclaim the Title, and must be either Kings or nothing. Of which invasions and encroachments on the Supream Power, our Author gives another hint in the Roman Tribunes; the truth and fitness of which supposition must be looked on next.

CHAP. III. Of the Incroachments of the Tribunes on the State of Rome; and that they were not instituted for the ends supposed by Calvin.

  • 1. The Tribunes of the People why first In­stituted in the State of Rome.
  • 2. And with what difficulty and condi­tions.
  • 3. The Tribunes fortifie themselves with large immunities, before they went about to change the Government.
  • 4. the Tribunes no sooner in their Office, but they set themselves against the Nobi­lity, and the Senate, contrary to the Ar­ticles of their Institution.
  • 5. The many and dangerous Seditions occasion­ed by the Tribunes, in the City of Rome.
  • 6. The Tribunes, and the people do agree to­gether to change the Government of the State.
  • 7. By what degrees the people came to be possessed of all the Offices in the State, both of power and dignity.
  • 8. The Plots and Practises of the Gracchi to put the Power of the Judiciature, and Supream Majesty of the State, into the hands of the People.
  • 9. The Tribunes take upon them to commit the Consuls, and bring all the Officers of the State under their command.
  • 10. The Office and authority of the Tribunes reduced unto its antient bounds by Corn. Sylla, and at last utterly destroyed.
  • 11. An application of the former passages to the point in hand.

ALthough the reasons which induced the people in the State of Rome to desire some Officers of their own, I and the considerations which induced the Senate to give way unto it, are obvious to the eyes of every Reader, which hath perused the Roman stories: yet I shall briefly lay it down, the better to remove the intima­tion which we find in Calvin, that they were purposely ordained to oppose the Con­suls. The hory then in brief is this. The people having not long before expulsed their Kings, and got some reputation by their prowess in those petit States which bordered nearest to the City, found quickly that the liberty which they expected was nothing but a golden dream, not able to protect them from the common Gaols, and that their reputation in the Wars would not pay their Debts, or save them from the hands of their cruel Creditors. For serving in the Wars at their own proper charges, and having little else to subsist upon but their Trades or labor, they were fain some­times to take up money upon Usury. And though they did return from the Wars with Victory, and shewed those honourable scars which they had received, fighting in defence of their Countrey and the Common-wealth; yet this did edifie but little with their hungry Creditors:Plutarch in M Coriolano. who did not only sell their goods, if they were not solvent, but apprehended their persons also, and either laid them up in the common Prisons, or made them serve instead of Bondmen, and made them subject to the whip and other base corrections fit for none but Slaves. And somewhat to this purpose the old man complained, as we read in Livy, declaring to the people (who were apt to hear it) how his Patrimony had been seized on by the merciless Usurers, his person apprehended by them, and that he was not only made a Slave, but marked out for slaughter:Livit. hist. l. 2. Inde ostentare tergum foedum recentibus vestigiis verberum, shewing withal upon his back the miserable prints which the whip had left. This made the people murmur, and at last to mutiny, and in tumultuous manner, minaciter magis quam sup­pliciter, rather with threats than supplications to require the Senate to take some course for their relief: resolving otherwise to go no more unto the Wars, serve the State who would. The Senate promised fair, as there was good cause (the Volsci pres­sing hard upon them to their very gates); and by that promise won the people, and obtained a Victory. But when the Wars were done and performance looked for, in­stead of finding a redress of their former grievances, the rigour of the Law took place, & creditoribus tradebantur, and they were seised on by their Creditors as in former times: the Senate thinking it unreasonable to make the Law submit to the necessities of particular men, and against Law to defraud any man of the Debts which were due unto them.Dionys. Hali­creass. lib. 6. But a new War approaching, a new promise made, and that neglected also when the Wars was ended; the people seeing no relief was like [Page 667]to come from the hands of the Senators, Longè aliâ quam primè instituerant viâ gras­sabantur, began to lend an ear to some desperate Counsels, and fell to contertain such hopes, as formerly they durst never dream of. For drawing themselves into a body under the conduct of Sicinius a troublesome and seditious person, they forsook the City, and encamped upon an Hill adjoyning: resolving as they gave it out, to seek new dwellings, and that there was no place in Italy but would afford them air and water, [...], and ground in which they might be buried. There is no question to be made, but if the Senate had beheld the action with neglect and scorn, as Appius, and C. Martius, did advise they should;Dionys. Hali­carn. l. 6. Platarch in Corlolano. the People out of love to their Wives and Children, would have returned to their Houses: or if they had pre­sented them in time with any tolerable mitigations of the former Laws, they might have taken off their edge, and appeased the Tumult. But giving way unto their fury till it grew too high, and shewing in their resolutions far more fear than cou­rage; the people got the better of them, and thought they stood upon the higher ground, as indeed they did. Which pride and high conceit of theirs was the more increased, by the authority and persuasions of one Junius Brutus, who came not to them till they were too far ingaged, to go off with safety. A man, as the Historian noteth, of a turbulent and seditious spirit, more apt to kindle a Rebellion, than to quench the flame; but otherwise [...],Dionys. Hali­carnass. l. 6. of very great foresight into business, and one that had a ready Tongue upon all occasions. To him they gave the managing of the whole design, and he improved the trust to their best advantage. Insomuch that when Menenius Agrippa was employed unto them to demand their grievances, and had brought the point of such an issue, that there was nothing wanting to make up the breach, but some security to be given on the part of the Senate, that the people should be no more deluded with such empty pro­mises; this Junius Brutus took upon him to propose the terms: and no security would content him (as the Plot was laid) but that some popular Magistrates should be forthwith made, for the protection of the People. Concedite nobis (inquit) Magistra­tus aliquot quotannis è nostro corpore create, &c. ‘Let us, saith he,Id. ibid. have certain Magi­strates to be chosen yearly out of our own body, on whom we shall not ask you to confer more Power, than that they have authority to assist the Commons, when they are either injured or oppressed by violence, and to take order that they be not rob­bed of their rights and liberties.’ Other security than this we will trust to none. Which when the People heard (for few of them were made acquainted with the Plot before) [...], they made many a loud and joyful shout, praising the man unto the skies, and absolutely resolving to admit of no other terms, than what their Spokesman had proposed.

But yet the business was not done. II It must first pass the approbation of the Senate, and there it met with very great heats and opposition before it passed, and passed not at the last but upon conditions. The People had a faction in the very Senate, and a strong one too, who laboured what they could to obtain the point. Of these Vlerius was the chief, whose Brother had not long before expulsed the Kings, and from his courting of the People was surnamed Poplicola: a Family that had been al­ways favourable to the popular Party, and more endeavoured their content, than the honour of profit of the publick. In which regard Appius charged him to his face,Id. ibid. [...], that the whole Generation of them were so partial in behalf of People, that they have almost destroyed the Common-wealth. Others and those of the greater courage and Nobility, scorning that such an innovation should be made in the publick Government, opposed it with all might and main; not sparing to assure the Senate that in the setting up of this new Authority, they would in fine put down their own. And of these Appius and Caius Martius, (who after had the name of Coriolanus) were the leading men: who standing upon point of honour, advised the Senate that having shaken off the Ty­ranny of their Kings, they should not prostitute themselves to the lusts of the people;Id. ibid. that they should stand on their own ground, and not do any thing unworthy of their place and dignity; that these were but the beginning of sedition, and that the purpose of the Commons was to abolish Law, and set up a Party:Plutarch in Coriolano. Appius fore-telling, as inspired with the spirit of Prophesie, [...], how great a Seminary of mischiefs it would prove to the Common-wealth, and cal­ling all the Gods to witness that he had done his best to prevent the same. But when they found it like to pass, and that the Major part of the House did incline that way, [Page 668]it was advised that they should hold the people to the terms by themselves proposed, and give their Officers no more power but to relieve the people from unjust oppres­sion, and that they should only interpose, if any thing were passed in Senate to the peoples prejudice, but propose nothing of themselves, nor appear in any thing, un­til the Senate had before considered of it; that the Election should be made in cen­turiatis Comitiis only, where the Patricii and their followers bare the greatest stroke; and finally that in their applications and addresses to the Lords of the Senate, in any business whatsoever, they should all agree upon the point, so that if any one dissent­ed, the agreement and consent of all the rest should pass for nothing. For seeing that Tribunes must be granted, they hoped that by their disagreement the honour of the State might be kept upright, and that the Common-wealth was not quite past help,Dionys. Hali­carn. l. 10. [...], as long as any discord or dis­sension might be sown amongst them. Which last condition (for all the rest were broken assoon as they were agreed on) was most religiously observed till the very last, as we read in Plutarch, who gives it for a Rule amongst them, that if one Tri­bune did oppose [...];Platarch in Caio & Tiber. the agreement and command of all the rest did effect just nothing. Things being brought unto this temper, and all points agreed on, the people went to the Election, and chose five new Officers, (according to the number of the Spartan Ephori) which they called Tribunes of the People; of which Sicinius and Junius Bratus must be two at least. We may be sure they took not all his pains for nothing.

And yet all this was nothing if they got not more. III The Articles and Conditions which they had agreed on had bound them too precisely to their good behaviour; and if they did not break those bonds, they were Prisoners still. But first they must be fortified with some special Priviledges, to keep their persons out of danger, that they might boldly venture upon any project without fear of Law; and put themselves into such condition, that whatsoever wrongs they did, they would not be called to an account. To that end Brutus taking his opportunity whilest the heats were up, and the Senate in a disposition to deny them nothing, causeth a Law to be propoun­ded and obtained for the perpetual indemnity of the Tribunes, [...], and for declaring of their Office to be sacred and inviolable.Dionys. Hali­carn. l. 6 The substance of the Law was to this effect; That no man should compel the Tribunes to do any thing against their wills, nor beat, or cause them to be beaten, nor kill, or cause them to be killed; if any should presume to do the contrary [...], he was to be pursued as an execrable person, and his goods confiscate, and whosoever slew him should escape unpunished, and do a meritorious service to the Common-wealth. A Priviledg which they found good use of in the times succeeding, and made it serve their turns upon all occasions. Martius complained of them in the Senate for disobedience to the Consuls, and an intent to bring an Anarchy upon the State:Platarch in Coriolano. they Vote this for a breach of priviledg, and no­thing but his death or banishment will give them satisfaction for it. Appius being Consul sends his Lictor to lay hands upon them for raising Tumults in the City;Livie hist. Rom. lib. 2. this is another breach of priviledg, and he shall answer for it when his year was out. Caeso Quintius like a noble Patriot, joyns with the Consuls and the Senate to oppress their insolencies, when neither Law nor Reason would prevail upon them; this also is a breach of priviledg, Id. l. 3. and his life shall pay for it. But to proceed, having obtained this Law for their own security, their next work was to break or pass by those Laws by which the State was governed in all times before, and which themselves had yielded to at their first creation. It was the practice of the City from the first founda­tion (and a continual custom hath the force of Law) to give such respect unto the Senate,Dionys. Hali­carnass. l. 7. that the people did not vote nor determine any thing, [...], which the Senate had not first debated and resolved upon. This though no breach of priviledg was a main impediment to the advancing of those projects which they had in hand, and therefore fit to be removed, as removed it was: and so a way made open unto that confusion, which did expose the State to so many changes, that it was never constant to one Form of Government. Which being obtained, the next thing to be brought about, was to bring the Election of the Tribunes into the hands of the people (who had before the least part in it) that so depending mutually upon one onother, they might co-operate together to destroy the State, and bring it abso­lutely under the command of the common people. For at the first, according to the Articles of the Institution, the Tribunes were to be elected in Comitiis Centuriatis as be­fore was said, where none but men of years and substance (such as were of the Li­very, [Page 669]as we speak in England) had the right of suffrage; By means whereof the Pa­tricians had a very great stroke in the Elections, Et per Clientum suffragia creandi quos vellent pote [...]tatem, Livie hist. and by the voices of their Clients or dependents set up whom they listed. They must no longer hold this Power. The Tribunes were the creatures of the Common people, and must be made by none but them. A Law must therefore be propounded to put the Election, wholly into the hands of the People, and to trans­act the same in Comitiis Tributis, where no Patrician was to vote, but all things carried by the voices of the rascal Rabble. Which though it caused much heat and no small ado, yet it was carried at the last; Appius complaining openly as his custom was, Rempub. per metum prodi, that the Senate did destroy the Common-wealth by their want of courage. And whereas at the first they had so much modesty as not to come into the Senate, Sed positis subselliis ante fores decreta Patrum examinare, Valer. Maxim. lib. 2. c. 2. but to sit without upon some Benches, whilest they examined the decrees which had passed the House: they challenge now a place, though no vote in Senate, and had free ingress and egress when they would themselves.

But their main business was to pull down the Nobles, IV and make them of no more esteem than the common sort. And upon this they set their strength, and made it the first hansel of their new authority. Martius had spoken some words in Senate which displeased the Tribunes, and they incense the People to revenge the injury: who promising to assist them in their undertakings, an Officer is forthwith sent to apprehend him. This caused the Patricians whom the cause concerned, to stand close together, and to oppose this strange encroachment; and generally to affirm, as most true it was, that when they yielded to the setting up this new Authority, there was no power given them by the Senate [...],Dionys. Hali­carn. l. 7. but only to preserve the Commons from unjust oppressions. The like did Martius plead in his own behalf, as we find in Livie, auxilii non poenae jus datum illi potestati, plebis (que) non Patrum Tribunos esse, Livie hist. lib. 2. that they were trusted with a Power to help the Commons, but with none to punish, and were not Tribunes of the Lords, but of the People. And so much also was affirmed in the open Senate, that the Authority of the Tribunes was at first ordained not to offend or grieve the Senate, but that the Commons might not suffer any grievance by it; and that they did not use their Power, according to such limitations as were first agreed on, and as of right they ought to use it, [...],Dionys. Hali­carn. l. 7. but to the ruin and destruction of the Laws established. Enough of conscience to have stayed them from the prosecution, but that they had it in design, and resolved to carry it. For Brutus had before given out and assured the people, [...], that he would humble the Nobility,Id. ibid. and bring down their pride; and 'twas no reason that such a man as he should be disappointed, and not be master of his word. Martius being banished at the last, their next bout was with Appius Claudius, a constant and professed Enemy of the popular faction: one who had openly taken part against them in behalf of Martius, and after seeing them ap­prehend some Gentlemen who opposed their insolencies, had openly denied, jus esse Tribuno in quenquam nisi in plebeium, Liv. l. 2. that they could exercise their power on any but the Commons only. Him therefore they accused of Treason, or at least sedition, in that he had intrenched upon their Authority, which was made sacred by the Laws: and doubtless had condemned him to some shameful punishment, had he not died before his Trial. Which Victory on Martius, and the death of Appius, did so dis­courage the Nobility and puff up the Tribunes, that from this time forwards (as the Historian doth observe) the Tribunes cited whom they listed to answer for them­selves before the People, and to submit their lives to their final sentence: which as it did increase the Power of the popular faction in the depressing of the Nobles, and weakning the Authority of the Senate; so did it open them a way to aim at and attain to all those dignities in the Common-wealth, [...],Dionys. Hali­carn. l. 7. which were most honourable in themselves and had formerly belonged to the Patricians, and to none but them. And yet the Senate and Nobility did not so give over, but that sometimes they put them in remembrance of their first conditions, and challenged them of breaking all those bonds and Covenants, which were so solemnly agreed on and accepted by them, at the first erection of their Office. For this did Fabius press upon them when they went about to make some Law for the restraint and regulating of the power of the Consuls, viz. that their authority was given them ad auxilium singulorum, for the relief of such particulars as did want their help, not for [Page 670]the ruin of the publick;Livie l. 3. and that they should do well to bethink themselves, Tribunos plebis se creatos, non hostes Patribus, that they were chosen Tribunes to protect the people, not Enemies to oppress the Senate. And the expostulation of the Senate was both just and necessary, when they demanded of the Tribunes on the same occasion, [...], who gave them power to introduce new Laws and subvert the old;Dionys. Hali­carn. l. 10. and told them in plain terms they had broke their Cove­nants, and that they were not made upon such Conditions as to do all things that they listed, nor to do any thing at all, but only to protect the poor, and preserve the Com­mons from oppression. Which put together makes it a most evident Truth, that in the creation of the Tribunes there was nothing less intended than to curb the Senate, or to set up a Power to oppose the Consuls; as vainly and seditiously is supposed by CALVIN, though true it is they did abuse their power with the Common people, and the authority of their Office to suppress them both.

And this they were resolved to do, V although they had no other way to effect the same, than by raising seditions in the State, and putting the people into Arms upon all occasions: at which they were so perfect, and so constant in it, that seldom the whole year went round without some Tumult or sedition of their setting for­ward, as will appear to any one who is versed in Livie. If they held quiet for one year, as they seldom did (till they had brought the City under their obedience) they broke out in the next that followed with the greater violence: and when the course of the distemper was so intermitted, that it held not always a Quotidian, it proved a Tertian Feaver, or at most a Quartan, and therefore like to tarry longer with the afflicted Patient. How many seditions did they raise about the Law Argaria, of which Livie tells us that it was never moved sine maximis motibus without great Tu­mults and Dissentions?Hist. Rom. l. 2. How many Tumults did they raise to oppose the Consuls, when they had any Wars in hand, and were to press the Souldier to pursue those Wars?Id. lib. 3. How often find we in that Author, Tribunitium bellum domi territare patres, that when the Fathers had no Wars abroad, they found a Tribunitian War at home which did more affright them?Id. lib. 4. How often find we them complaining, non ultra ferri posse Tribunitios furores, that the insolencies of the Tribunes were no longer sufferable; and that they could not look to be without continual Alarms, and renewed distra­ctions, whilest the seditions and the Authors of them did succeed so prosperously? Nay they were so accustomed to it, that having had some intermission (and that no otherwise obtained, but by yielding all things to the people which they had a mind to) Livie takes notice of it as a thing observable,Id. lib. 10. permultos annos esse, that many years had intervened since the Patricians and the Tribunes had their last contention. And all this while they managed their seditions by the Tongues end only, seldom pro­ceeding unto blows, and much less to blood. But when the two Gracchi came in play and attained the Office, they fell from words to blows, and from blows to murther: Tiberius one of the two Brothers, and many of his Friends and followers being tu­multuously slain in the Common Forum, as he was acting the part of a busie and sedi­tious Tribune; whom Caius the other of the two not long after followed both in life and death.Velleius Pa­tercul. hist. And this, saith the Historian, initium in urbe Roma Civilis sanguinis gla­diorum (que) impunitatis fuit, was the first time that the Sword was suffered to range at liberty in the streets of Rome, and to be discoloured with the blood of the Citizens; their differences before that day (though not often afterwards) being determined by Parlies, but not by bloud-shed. Which being put together and considered seriously, it will appear to be no Paradox which we find in Florus, where he affirmeth, Seditio­num omnium causas Tribunitiam potestatem excitasse, Florus histor. Rom. l. 3. that the Tribunitian power was the source and fountain of all those seditions, wherewith the quiet of the State had been disturbed. Nor was it said by Quintius without very good reason, that the Au­thority of the Tribunes, in seditione & ad seditiones nata, was born in a sedition and to raise seditions;Cicero de Le­gibus l. 3. that it was pestifera potestas, a pestilent pernicious Office, and that Pompey did exceeding ill to re-invest the Tribunes with that height of power, of which they had been justly dispossessed by Sylla. Upon which grounds it had been formerly averred by the Consuls and the rest of the Senate, that the Tribunes were the cause of those distractions ( [...], are the Authors words) which did so mi­serably afflict the Common-wealth.Dionys. Hali­carn. l. 10. But this, to say the truth, is so clear a point, that it needs no proof. I only shall observe and so pass it by, how justly the Nobility and Senate were punished by their own Example; and for how little time they enjoyed that Sovereignty, which they had wrested from their Kings. From the expulsion of [Page 671]the Kings to the creating of the Tribunes were but sixteen years; and from the death of Tarquin to the reign of Brutus and Sicinius, but one year, no more, and in that little span of time the people profited so well in the School of Rebellion, that they did not only beat the Senate at their own weapon of Disloyalty, but choaked them with their own Obje­ction. For when it was objected against the Tribunes, that their Authority was gotten and maintained by seditious courses; the Tribunes handsomly replyed, that that Obje­ction might as well be made against the Authority of the Consuls; which had been in­troduced and established by no other means, [...],Id. lib. 10. than the Rebellion of the Nobles or Patricians against their Kings. A very shrewd retortion, if you mark it well; and fit to be considered of in these present times.

If any ask to what end all these stirs were raised, and these seditions set on foot, VI he may please to know, that there was an intent from the first creating of the Tri­bunes to change the Government of the State, and to put the Supream Power of all into the hands of the people; that is to say, to bring it under the command of a few factious persons, on whom the body of the people had devolved their power. And this is positively affirmed by Florus, where having told us that the Tribunes were the cause of all the tumults and seditions which had been raised within the City, he adds, that being at first ordained specie quidem tuendae plebis, Florus hist. Rom. l. 3. under pretence of being Protectors of the Commons, and taking care for the preserving of their rights and liberties; they sought in very deed to usurp the Sovereignty, re autem denominatio­nem sibi acquirere, and to get the Supream Power into their own hands. To this end as the Tribunes strived to oblige the people by causing new Laws to be made in their behalf, and for the increase of their Authority; so did the people readily obey the Tribunes, and gathered into an Head upon all occasions, as well for the pro­tection of their persons, as the confirmation of their power. When Martius had de­clamed against them in the open Senate for their factious and seditious courses, the Tribunes presently made complaint to the people of it, calling upon them to assist them, [...], and to save their Tribunes: Plutarch in Coriolano. at which the people were so madded, and ran on so furiously, that they were like to have fallen desperately up­on all the Senate. And Appius found unto his cost, that in offering to attach a Tri­hune, though he well dserved it) concio omnis coorta pro Tribuno in Consulem, Livie l. 2. the whole Assembly rose against him as one man, to defend their Tribune, the rascal multitude gathering together out of all the City to do him right against the Consul. And Plu­tarch tells us in the life of Tiberius Gracchus, that the people were so sottishly affected to him, that many of the needy and seditious rout waited upon him all night long up and down the Town;Plutarch. in Tiber. & C. Gracchis. some of them buying Tents and lying about his House to watch it, as a guard to his person. And on the other side the Houses of the Tri­bunes were kept continually open a well nights as days, that they might serve as a Protection or a Common Sanctuary for men of all sorts to repair unto whom either Debt or misdemeanor, or some greater matter had made obnoxious to the Serjeants, or other Ministers of Justice, to the great prejudice of the honest and well-meaning Subjects in their suits and businesses. And besides this, the Tribunes never failed to flatter and bewitch the people by some piece of courtship, or by preferring some new Laws (as before was said) for their ease and benefit. They had no sooner way than that to advance their power, or to obtain unto that absoluteness of Com­mand and Empire, which they projected to themselves. For doubtless that of the Historian is exactly true, [...],Dionys. Hali­carn. lib. 6. that he that means to be a Tyrant must be first a flatterer; there being no readier way to advance a Tyranny than by being popular, a profest servant of that people whom he would command. But this confederacy between the Tribunes and the people and the mu­tual ties that were between them, I cannot better lay before you than in Plutarchs words, who speaking of the Gracchi, doth inform us thus,Plutarch. in Agis & Cleo­men. That having received many favours from the peoples hands they were ashamed to be indebted to them, and therefore ear­nesTly endeavoured to requite their courtesies, by making new Decrees and Laws which they propounded and obtained for the peoples profit; and on the other side, the people for their parts were not wanting to admire and honour them the more, by how much they perceived them studious of their good and benefit. So that with like strife on either side, the one to gratifie and oblige the other, their interesses were so mingled, and their intentions so concor­porated, that they must needs hold on as they had begun, and either stand or fall together. By means whereof the people in conclusion became Lords of all, the Majesty of the State and the Power of Judicature being absolutely vested in them: which since they [Page 672]could not manage but by their Atturneys, nor otherwise execute and discharge than by their Proxies, who but the Tribunes their own creatures must be trusted with it? And this is that which Tacitus observes to be the issue of those Quarrels which were kept on foot between the Nobility and the Commons,T [...]t. hist. lib. 2. modo turbulenti Tribuni, modo Consules praevalidi, sometimes some factious Tribunes carried it away, and then again the Consul. had the better, and prevailed in Power, according as they did com­ply with the peoples humours; till Marius and Sylla first, and Julius Caesar after­wards by their Example, by force of Arms subdued both parties, and introduced an absolute Government.

Now for the steps by which the people did ascend to this height of Power, VII they were not raised at once, but were long a making. When first the discontented Nobles had expulsed their Kings, and found they could not master all those difficulties which so great a business as that was did present unto them, without being sure to have the people theirs without fear of lapsing: Poplicola advised, and at last enacted it for Law, that no man should presume upon pain of death to take upon him any Office, [...],Plutarch in Publicola. unless it come unto him by the gift of the people; and that if any were condemned, and appealed to them, the execution should be respited, till the people should give sentence in it. But then withal the Nobility kept all Offices both of power and State in their own hands only, the people being uncapable of the meanest Office which did relate unto the Government of the Common-wealth; until they gained the Tribunes and the two Aediles (which were under Officers to the Tri­bunes) to be chosen out of their own body. Which once obtained, there was no place, how high soever, which they did not aim at, and which their Tribunes did not find some way to compass for them; the Nobles and Patricians still in vain com­plaining how much they were dishonoured in the competition. First therefore ha­ving gained a Law (but with much ado) that the Commons might be married in­to Noble Families,Livie. l. 4. they presently propose another, ut populo potestas esset, seu de Plebe, seu de Patribus vellet, Consules faciendi, that the people might have liberty to choose the Consuls out of which rank of men they listed: and at the first attempt did pre­vail so far, that instead of the two Consuls which they had before, six Military Tri­bunes should be chosen by them, to be possessed of all the Consular Authority, and they to be promiscuously elected out of the Patricians and the People,Livie. l. 4. as they saw conve­nient; and having got this ground they went on a main. For not long after, P. Licinius Calvus a meer Plebeian, is made one of these Military Tribunes; and shortly after that the Magister Equitum, or the Commander of the Horse. Thus Silius and Aelius are made Questors, those of Patrician rank having had the canvass; and next that followed a Decree, that the Decemviri Sacrorum, who had the custody and charge of the Sibyls Books,Id. lib. 6. partim ex Plebe, partim ex Patriciis, should be indifferently chosen out of both Estates. In little time, the Tribunes pressing hotly for it, L. Sextus ob­tains the Consulship,Id. ibid. Id. lib. 7. Id. lib. 8. C. Martius Rutilius is first made Dictator, afterwards one of the Censors also; and P. Philo is advanced to the place and dignity of the Praetor. Ha­ving thus taken possession of all Civil Magistracy, which were of any power and dig­nity in the Common-wealth; the Tribunes would not rest nor content themselves, until the Commons were made capable of the Priesthood also: which after some slight opposition made by Appius Claudius (a Family that never yielded any thing to ad­vance the people) was conferred upon them, five Augures, and four Pontifices being added to the former number, all chosen, and for ever to be chosen by and out of the Commons.Id. lib. 10. There were only now two places of respect and credit, that of the Maximus Curio and the Pontifex Maximus, both which the Nobles did pretend to be­long to them: but the Tribunes were resolved to have it otherwise. According to which resolution,Id. lib. 26. C. Manilius got the Office of the Maximus Curio: and in the close of all,Rofin. Antiq. Rom. l. 3. c. 22. but a good while after, Omnibus honoribus plebi communicatis, after all other honours were conferred upon them, or rather communicated to them, one T. Corun­canius was declared the Pontifex Maximus. All this and more they had, but it would not satisfie.

For there was wanting still both the power of Judicature, VIII and the Supream Majesty of the State to make all compleat; and to gain this the Tribunes must bestir them­selves both with Art and Violence; or else they could not hope to estate it on them. A business of so high a nature, that it was never in a way to be brought about, till the two Gracchi undertook the contrivance of it: who being men of excellent parts and great abilities, did most unfortunately fall on the undertaking; and being fallen [Page 673]upon it did devise all ways which either Art or Wit could present unto them to effect the work. Of these Tiberius was the eldest, who stumbling in the way on the Lex Agraria, as being a means to make the poor people more considerable, and the rich less powerful; and finding that Octavius one of his Colleagues did oppose him in it, de­posed him from his Office by force and violence, only because he stood upon the right of his negative Voice. Plutarch in Tib. & Calo. He had before inflamed the people by making a seditious speech to prefer their business; and now he takes a course to inflame them more, for the advancement of his own. For one of his Friends being found dead upon a sudden, not without some suspicion of poison, as he gave it out, he put on mourning Apparel, and brought his sons before the people, into the common Forum, beseeching them to have compassion on his Wife and Children, as one that utterly despaired of his own safety, having for their sakes got the hatred of the Noble-men. And sometimes he would be the first man in the Market-place, apparelled all in black, his face swelled with Tears, and looking heavily upon the matter, would pray the people to stand to him, saying, he was afraid his Enemies would come in the Night, and overthrow his House to kill him. By means of which Devices he so wrought upon them, that many of them bought Tents and lay about his House continually, to keep him from the hands of his deadly Enemies. So that being sure of their concurrence and assi­stance in any project which he should set on foot to advance himself, under pretence of doing service to the Common-wealth; he presently proposed a Law, [...], that any man that would might appeal from the Judges to the people in what cause soever. And that he might be sure to embase the Senate, to the improvement and increase of the peoples power, he had prepared another of an higher nature, which was to add unto the Senate an equal number of the Equites, or the Roman Knights, who were to be of equal power, and to have liberty of Voting in all publick businesses with the antient Senators. In passing which and other of his popular Laws he got this Trick, (and he was very constant to it) that if he found the sense of the House to be against him, and was not like to carry with him the major part of the Voices, he would quarrel with his fellow Tribunes to spin out the time till his party were all come together; and if that could not do it neither, then he adjourned the Assembly to some other day. But yet for all these Artifices and un­worthy practices, he could not compass the design, but left it to be finished by his Bro­ther Caius: Who taking the same course to engage the people which his Brother had pursued before, brought those designs about which Tiberius failed in.Id. ibid. For first where­as the Senate were the only Judges in matters which concerned the affairs of the Common-wealth, which made them no less reverenced by the Roman Knights, than by others of the common people: Caius prevailed so far that he gained a Law for adding three hundred of these Equites to as many Senators (for the Senate did consist of three hundred anciently) [...], giving them equal power of judging in all causes which were brought before them. So that by gaining this and the former Law of appealing to the people upon all occasions, the people were estated in the power of Judicature, and the dernier resort (as the Lawers call it) was in them alone. The only point now left was the Supream Majesty, and that did Caius very handsomly confer upon them without noise or trouble. For whereas all other Orators when they made their Speeches, turned themselves towards the Palace where the Senate sat: he on the contrary turned himself towards the Market place where the people were, and taught all other Orators by his Example to do the like. And thus (saith Plutarch) by the only turning of his look he gained a point of infinite conse­quence and importance; [...], changing the Common-wealth from an Aristocratie, to a meer Demo­cratie: which was the matter so aimed at by his Predecessors.

The Tribunes had been insolent enough in the former times, IX but the obtaining of these Laws made them more unsufferable. Before they used to quarrel all the greatest Officers; as if the State could not consist but by their contentions: there being no Ma­gistrate so great, nor man so innocent, whom they exposed not sometimes to con­tempt and scorn, and made not subject to their Tyranny. The renowned Scipio him­self, the very Atlas of the State when it was in danger, a man in whom there was not any thing but brave and gallant, could not scape so clear, but that he was accused by these factious Tribunes, and forced to live retired in his Countrey-house,Livie. hist. lib. 28. far from the employments of that State, which did not otherwise subsist but by his abilities. Nor could they look on their Dictators but with eyes of malice, although they had as [Page 674]much Authority as that State could give them, or any of their Kings had enjoyed be­fore, whom they endeavour to make subject to their pride and Tyrenny by all means imaginable. And to that end, sometimes denied him the honour of a Triumph, though he had deserved it in all mens judgments but their own; and sometimes ma­king their Magister Equitum, Id. lib. 22. to be of equal power and authority with him: and fi­nally sometimes they declaim against him,Id. ibid. to make him of no reputation with the common people. And for their dealing with the Consuls, in had been a complaint of old, even if the dawning of the day of their new Authority, Consulatum captum & oppressum à Tribunitia postestate, Id. lib. 2. that the Consulship was suppressed and captivated by the power of the Tribunes; and we can no where find that they improved their modesty, as they did their power. Nor did they only quarrel with the Consuls, and proceed no further, (though that had been an high affront to the Supream Magi­strate) but threatned to commit them to the Prison also, and many times their threat­nings were not made in vain.Plutarch. in Mario. For thus we read, that Caius Marius being Tribune, threatned to send Cotta the Consul unto Prison, but afterwards was taken off by fair persuasions; and Sulpitius, one as violent as he, though not so valiant, assaulted both the Consuls as they sat in the Senate-house,Id. ibid. and killed one of their sons there, who was not so quick of foot as to scape his hands. Which though they were but bare at­tempts were yet lewd enough, sufficiently to the dishonour of such eminent Magi­strates, and to the infamy and disgrace of the publick Government. And therefore to make sure work of it, and that the world might see they could more than threaten, Quintius will tell you in the Dialogue with his Brother cicero, Brutum & P. Scipionem tales tantos viros hominum omnium infimum & sordidissimum Trib. Pl. C. Curiatium in vincula conjecisse, Cicero de Le­gibus lib. 3. that C. Curiatius, a most base and unworthy person, had caused such gallant men as Brutus and P. Scipio to be cast into Prison. And if we make a further search we shall quickly find, that M. Drusus being Tribune caused Philip the Consul to be cast headlong out of his Seat, to the no small danger of his life, only for interrupting him in the middle of a factious Speech; which was an insolency be­yond imprisonment. To speak of their behaviour towards the other Magistrates were a thing impertinent. For if the Consuls and Dictators could not scape their hands, there is no question to be made b ut that the Praetors, Censors, Quaestors, yea the Pontifices themselves, were most abundantly debased and insulted on by these po­pular Tyrants.

Thus have we brought the Tribunes to as great an height both for power and inso­lency, as were the Ephori before; X and thereby made them ready for the greater fall. A sall which was not long acoming after they had made up the measure of their pride and Tyranny. For Lucius Sylla having brought the Estate of Rome under his command, and knowing full well how dangerous these men would be to him, if they were suffered to continue in their former power, set forth a Law by which they were reduced to their ancient bounds; inabled only to relieve, not to wrong the Sub­ject. Sylla Tribunis Plebis lege sua injuriae faciendae potestatem ademit, auxilii ferendi re­liquit, as we read in Tully. Id. ibid. A thing that much displeased the people, and the Tri­bunes more. But Sylla was no [...], no great applyer of himself to the peoples humers, and therefore cared but little how they took the matter. Pompey succeeding him in power and in purpose too, took a course quite contrary; and re-established them in that Authority whereof Sylla had of late deprived them. For finding that the common people longed for nothing more than to see the Office of the Tribunes in the height again, and being resolved to lay the foundation of his greatness on the affections and dependence of the common people,Platarch in Pompeio. [...], he gratified them in that point, and thought himself a happy man to find so fair an opportunity to oblige them to him. On which deceitful grounds (for they proved no other) he set them in their power again, as before was said; for which he stands accused by Quintus, Cicero de Legi­bus. l. 3. and I think deservedly: Certain I am that Pompey bought the short affection and applause of the common people at no less a price than his own destruction:Plutarch. in I. Caesare. the Tribunes being the very men which pulled down his pride, and set up Caesar to oppose him, who going the same way to work that Sylla did, and knowing that a Tribune and a Tribunitian spirit were no friends to Monarchy, left them the name, but nothing else. The power and priviledg of the Office he kept unto himself for his own security; as one that understood, none better, how many notable advantages he should gain thereby,Dion. histor. Som. lib. 53. for the confirming of his Empire. Which Course Augustus followed also, taking the Tribunitian power into his own hands, po­sito [Page 675]Triumviri nomine, as soon as the Triumvirate was expired by the death of his Part­ners;Tacitus An­nal. lib. 1. and from thence reckoned the years of his Government, as Tribunitiae potestatis tertium, quartum, &c. which his Successors did after his Example till the time of Con­stantine, when the name of Tribune was laid by as a thing forgotten.Rosin. Antiq. Rom. The Empire was then cast into another kind of mould than it had been formerly; new Offices ordained, new Forms of Government introduced, and a new Rome built: and to what purpose should they keep the name, when the thing was gone?

Let us look back on all that is said before, and we shall find but little reason to rely upon Calvins word. He saith the Tribunes were set up to oppose the Consuls; XI but the best Writers do affirm that they were instituted only to protect the people, and to protect the people in such cases only when they did suffer any Tort or unjust oppression. He rec­koneth them for instances of such popular Magistrates as were ordained to moderate and restrain the vast power of Kings and other Supream Magistrates; but the best Wri­ters do affirm that the Tribunes were not instituted till the Kings were outed; nor instituted at the first to restrain the Consular power, though by degrees they did restrain it as they pleased; and finally that they were again abridged of their power and Tyranny, as soon as Monarchy were restored, and the State brought to be obe­dient to one Sovereign Prince. He seems to intimate that the Consuls were not wronged by such oppositions as the Tribunes daily made against them, and that the Tri­bunes did no more in such oppositions than by their place and Office they were bound to do. But the best Writers do affirm that the Consuls made complaint from time to time of those wrongs and insolencies which those proud creatures of the people did afflict them with; and they complained not without cause, as their stories tell us. So that there is but little ground for the supposition, touching the first creation of these mighty Tyrants, which Calvin trimly puts upon us; less for the applica­tion of it to his end and purpose. What other power soever they enjoyed or exer­cised more than the power of interceding, when any Bill at Ordinance was to pass the Senate, by which the people might have suffered in their goods and liberties, was an incroachment on the Consuls, and wrested from them by strong hand, some­times with blood, but never without dangerous Tumults. The best use can be made of such false surmises, especially when they are false and factious too (and some good uses may be made of the strongest poysons) is that an Item may be taken by all Kings, Princes, and Supream Governors to have a care of their Estates, and neither suffer any Tribunes, or men of Tribunitian spirits, or such as challenge to themselves Tribunitian power, to grow up under them, or live within the verge of their Dominions. The Tribune and the Tribunitian spirit are no friend to Monarchy; and have so much of Pompey in them (who restored the Office) that they will ne­ver be content to endure an Equal, much less to suffer a Superior. For further proof of which (if more proof be requisite) and for discovering to the World with what Arts and practices those factious and seditious spirits did attain their height: it would be a most excellent piece of service to all Sovereign Princes, if a just Tribunitian History were composed by some man of judgment, for the recovery of this Age from the present maladies, and a Memento to the future. But this I leave to those who have time and leisure, and other fit abilities to go through with it. I have another Task in hand, and the Demarchi call upon me to pass on to Athens, where we are like to find worse work than we met with hitherto. Worse work I mean in this respect, that we are like to find less ground for the Supposi­tion; for otherwise we are like to find no work at all, as will appear more evi­dently by that which followeth.

CHAP. IV. Of what Authority the DEMARCHI were in the state of A­THENS, and of the danger and unfitness of the instances pro­duced by CALVIN.

  • 1. Athens first governed by Kings, and af­terwards by one Sovereign Prince under o­ther Titles.
  • 2. The Annual Magistrates of Athens what they were, and of what Authority.
  • 3. By whom and what degrees the State of Athens was reduced to a Democratie.
  • 4. Of the authority of the Senate, and the famous Court of the Areopagites.
  • 5. What the Demarchi were in the State of Athens, and of what Authority.
  • 6. The Demarchi never were of power to oppose the Senate, nor were ordained to that end.
  • 7. Calvins ill luck in making choice of three such instances, which if true, would not serve his turn.
  • 8. The danger which lieth hidden under the disguise of such popular Magistrates, as are here instanced in by Calvin.
  • 9. What moved Calvin to lay these dan­gerous Stumbling-blocks in the Subjects way.
  • 10. The dangerous oppositions and practices which have hence ensued in most parts of Europe.
  • 11. The sect of CALVIN professed E­nemies to Monarchy, and the power of Princes.

THE State of Athens, I as were all others at the first, was under the Government of Kings, and of them of the race of Cecrops, from whom his Successors were called Cecropidae: Tacit. Annal. lib. 3. and they, as other Kings in those antient times, ut libitum imperita­bant, governed the people under them by no other Rule than their own discretion. Theseus the tenth from Cecrops, was the first King of Athens which let go his hold, and parted with so many of the Regal rights, as made the Kings weak and the Subjects wanton. For having a desire to incorporate all the Inhabitants of Attica into the City of Athens, the better to unite them against forein force, and to assemble them together as occasion served, he was fain to win them to it by large promises of giving them some share in the publick Government: without which bait, the wealthier sort, and such as had authority in their several Burroughs, could not be drawn into the City.Plutarch in Theseo. Yet still he kept unto himself and to his Successors [...], as we find in Plutarch, the chief Commandery in the Wars, and the preservation of the Laws, together with a superintendency in matters which concerned Religion; the main points of Soveraignty. And in this state things stood till the death of Co­drus, the seventh from Theseus, who giving up his own life to preserve his Countrey, became so honoured and admired amongst his people, that they resolved for his sake to have no more Kings, for fear they should never meet with any who might be wor­thy to succeed him: which was one of the prettiest wanton quarrels that ever was picked against a Monarchy. The Princes which succeeded after his decease, they called not Kings, but [...], or Governors; but the change was only in the name, and in the manner of their getting the Supream Authority. For being once invested with the Supream Power, they held it during life without check or censure; as is af­firmed by Africanus, an ancient Writer: who laying down the succession of the King of Athens, African. apud Euseb. Chron. edit. Scaliger. Euseb. in Chro. to the death of Codrus, adds this, [...], that after them succeeded the perpetual Archontes, who held the Go­vernment during life. The like Eusebius doth affirm, and all Authors else, which treat of the affairs of Athens. The difference was, that formerly the Kingdom was successive meerly, entailed upon the Princes of the line of Cecrops, now it began to be Elective,Tacit. hist. l. 1. and to be given to them who best pleased the people: Et loco libertatis erat, quod eligi coeperunt, and it was some degree of liberty, (and a great one too) that they had power to nominate and elect their Princes. But long they did not like of this, al­though no doubt a great intrusion on the Regal dignity. The Princes were too ab­solute when they held for life, not so observant of the people as it was expected; be­cause not liable to accompt, nor to be called unto a reckoning till it was too late, [Page 677]till death had freed them from their faults, and the peoples censure. And therefore having tried the Government of thirteen of these perpetual Archontes, of which Me­don the son of Codrus was the first, and the last Alemaeon; In decem annos Magistratuum consuetudo conversa est, they introduced another custom,Euseb. in Chr. Asrican. apud Euseb. Chron [...]. and every tenth year changed their Governors. These they called [...], or Decennial Archontes; of which they had but seven in all, and then gave them over: and from that time were governed by nine Officers or Magistrates chosen every year, who for that cause were called [...], or the Annual Magistrates. And yet it is to be ob­served that in both these changes, the Archon whosoever he was, and whether he was for term of life or for ten years only, had all the power which formerly was belonging to the Kings, save the very name; in which regard Eusebius doth not stick to call them by the name of Kings: where speaking of the institution of these Annual Magistrates, he doth thus express is,Euseb. Chron. Athenis Annui principes constituti sunt cessantibus Regibus, as S. Hierom renders it.

Now for these Annual Magistrates, they were these that follow, that is to say, II [...],Jul. P. [...] in Onomast. l. 8. c. 9. which we may call the Provost (who [...] was called the Archon) the Bishop or High Priest, the Marshal, and the six Chief Justices, Of these the Provost was the chief, [...], of whom they did denominate the ensuing year, and by whose name they dated all their private Contracts, and Acts of State.Id ibid. Sect. 2. To him it appertained to have a care of celebrating the Orgies of Bacchus, and the great Festival which they termed Thargelia, consecrated to Apollo and Diana; as also to take cogni­zance of misdemeanors, and in particular to punish those who were common Drun­kards; and to determine in all cases which concerned matter of inheritance: and furthermore to nominate Arbitrators for the ending of Suits and private differences, to appoint Guardians unto Orphans, and Overseers unto Women left with child by their Husbands. The [...] whom we call the Bishop or High Priest, had the charge of all the sacred mysteries, [...],Id. ibid. Sect. 3. and the administration of the usual and accustomed Sacrifices; together with the cognizance of sacriledg, prophaneness, and all other actions which concerned Religion, as also power to in­terdict litigious persons (or Common Barretters as we call them) from being present at the celebration of the holy Mysteries. And he retained the name of [...], because that anciently their Kings, (as in all places else) had the chief hand in matters which related to the publick service of the Gods, and the solemn Sacrifices. On the which reason and no other, the Romans had their Regem Sacrificulum, (whom Plutarch calls [...], in imitation of the Latine, but Dionysius [...],Plutarch in Problemat. Dionys. Hali­carnas. hist. l. 5. Livie hist. Ro­man. lib. 2. in the true Greek phrase); of which Livie thus. Rerum deinde divinarum habita cura: & quia quaedam publica sacra per ipsos Reges factitata erant, necubi Regum desiderium esset, Regem Sacrificulum creant. But to proceed, the Polemarchus whom we English by the name of Marshal, sat Judg in cases of sedition, and such whereby the gran­deur of the State might suffer detriment; as also in all actions which concerned ei­ther Denizens, or Merchant-strangers: and unto him it appertained to sacrifice to Diana and to Mars, the two military Deities,Jul. Pollux in Onomast. l. 8. c. 93. [...], and to prescribe the funeral pomp for such as lost their lives in their Countreys service. Each of these had their two Assessors,Id. ibid. Sect. of their own Election; but so that they were bound to chuse them out of the Senate of five hun­dred, from no lower rank. Finally for the [...], who we call Chief Justices, they were six in number, [...],Suidas in Lex. and had au­thority to give Judgment absolutely in all Civil pleas, to judg of strangers which abused the priviledges which they had in the City, of Bribery, Conspiracies, false inscriptions, in cases of Adultery and publick crimes; in points of Trade,Jul. Pollux in Onomast. ll. 4. c. 9. sect. 1. and acti­ons which concerned the Stannaries; as also to review the sentence of the Provost, and the decrees of the Senate if occasion were; and to give notice to the people, [...], as Julius Pollux, if any man preferred a Law which was not profitable and expedient for the Common-wealth. Such were the Officers, and such the duty of those Officers, ordained at Athens, upon the last alteration of the Govern­ment which before we spake of: and amongst these we find not any popular Magi­strate, who was to have a care of the common people, and to preserve them in their rights and liberties from the oppression of the greater and more powerful Citizens; much less set up of purpose to oppose the Senate. And to say truth, we must not look for any such amongst the Nine, nor in these times in which this alteration of [Page 678]the Government was first established. They could not fall immediately from a Regal State, to a Democratical, but they must take the Aristocratie in the way unto it. They had been under Kings at first, or such as had the power of Kings, although not the name. And when they chose these Annual Officers, they chose them ex nobilibus ur­bis, out of the Nobles only,Euseb. Chron. Scaliger in A [...]imadve [...]s. as Eusebius hath it: which Scaliger is forced to grant to be so at first, though out of a desire to confute his Author, he would very fain have had it otherwise. Whether or no they had such Officers as Calvin dreams of, when they had setled their Democratie, we shall see anon: having first shewn by whom and by what degrees the Government of the State was cast on the peoples shoulders, and the form thereof made meerly popular or Democratical. For certainly it is most true, that never any Democratical State shewed it self at the first in its proper colours, or came into the World by a lawful entrance; but crept into it secretly at the back-door either of Faction or Sedition.

Now the first man that gave the hint to the Democratie, III and made the people fall in love with a factious liberty, was Theseus, a valiant but unfortunate King, who the better to induce the people of Attica to desert their dwellings, and be incorporated into Athens, promised them (as before was said) that all of them should have some share in the publick Government, and after the form and manner of a Common-wealth. And so far he performed his promise, as to devest himself of some parts of Sovereignty [...], and laid the first foundation of that popular State, Pl [...]ta [...]ch in Thes [...]o. which was after built: but he paid dear for it. For the people who before had been so tractable, that they would do whatsoever their Kings commanded, at the first words speaking; began to take more state upon them, and became so stubborn, that they would do nothing on command, but looked to be flattered with and courted, upon all occasions.Id. ibid. Which being noted by Menestheus a popular man, but otherwise of the Royal Bloud, he so fed that humour, and wrought so finely on them by his Wit an cunning, that Theseus was in fine deposed, and his Sons disherited, and the remainder of the Royalty conferred by them upon Menestheus, as their deed of gift. And though no doubt the people did improve their power, both when their Kings be­came Elective, and when their Governors were Elected but for term of years, and spe­cially when the Magistrates were no more than Annual; yet they could get no further than an Aristocratie, till the time of Solon; which were about 170 years after the An­nual Officers were first established: the Annual Officers being established in the first year of the 5. Olympiad, and Solon's reformation hapning in the second of the 47. But Solon being chosen Provost (or the [...]) and finding the Repub­lick much embroiled in dangerous factions which had been long since bred between the Nobles and Commons, in the change of Governments: took on him by the joint consent of both parties, the emendation of the Laws, and the reducing of the State of the Common-wealth to a more peaceable and equal temper.Id. in Solone. And he so ordered their affairs, that the chief Offices of the City remained in the hands of the Nobility, as before they were; which for the time contented them: but the Election of those Officers, and the dernier resort, or the admittance of Appeals upon Writs of Error (as we call them);that he confirmed unto the people; which did not only please the people for the present time, but put them into a condition of drawing to themselves the Supream Authority. Insomuch that Aristotle though he seem to say, that Solon s [...]tled in the City a mixt form of Government, the Court of Areopagites (which he also instituted) pretending to an Oligarchy, the Annual Officers or Archontes to an Aristocratie, Aristot. Poli­ti [...]. l. 2. c. 10. and the power of Judicature being vested in the common people, unto a Democratie: yet he confesseth at the last, that this power of Judicature, and the ne­cessity which all men found of applying themselves unto the people, [...], changed the Republick in conclusion to a meer De­mocratie, as it continued till his time. But yet it was not brought about but with great ado,Plutarch in Solone. Pisistratus first reducing the Estate to an absolute Monarchy, (which because he got it from them by fraud and force, they called a Tyranny) and after Clisthenes freeing his Countrey from that yoke (by driving his posterity out of Attica) restoring it unto an Aristocratie, Id. in Artistide, in Pericle, & Cimene. as before it was. At last it seemed good to Aristides, though for a time he concurred with Clisthenes in his form of Government, to cast a more in­dulgent eye on the common people, who had behaved themselves exceeding gallantly in the dreadful War against the Persians: and to cause a Law to be Enacted that all Authority and power of Government should be communicated equally to all the Citi­zens, [...],Id. in Aristide. and that they should be capable [Page 679]of all the Offices and Honours in the Common-wealth. Which as it added much to the Authority of the common people, so that Authority was increased much more by the Arts of Pericles; who bearing a grudg unto the Court of the Areopagites, whereof he was never any Member, and finding that the power thereof, and of the Senate of five hundred, did derogate exceeding much from the power of the people, to whose faction he was wholly wedded: by the help and setting on of Ephialtes (a busie and popular man) took from them the hearing and determining of the weightiest causes,Id. in Poi [...]e & Cimone. and put them over to the judgment and decision of the common people, who had no more before but the last Appeal: and thereby perfected and produced that pure Democratie, which had so often been desired, but in vain attempted.

The people being screwed to this height of power, IV and the dignity of the Supream Courts so much diminished, a man would think there was but little need of such po­pular Officers as Calvin speaks of, ordained of purpose (as he thinks) to oppose the Senate, and counter-ballancetheir Authority. Nor were those Courts at any time so inclined to Tyranny, or likely in their constitution to oppress the people, when their Authority was greatest, and their power most eminent, as that the people needed any special Officers to restrain their insolencies, or to confine them to the limits of their Jurisdiction. Now for the Senate, it consisted at the first of 400 persons, an hundred out of every Tribe; and to that number was restrained by Solon, whose device it was:Id. in Solone. but Clisthenes, having increased the number of the Tribes to ten, added one hundred more, which made five in all (for each Tribe fifty) and so continued till the expi­ration of that Common-wealth. A chief part of their business was, [...], &c. to deliberate and debate of all such matters as were to be commended to the care of the common people, that when the whole body of the people was assembled together, no point should be propounded to them but what the Council of five hundred had fitted and prepared for their resolution.Id. ibid. It also appertained to them [...], &c. to consult about denouncing War, and raising Moneys, to advise upon the making of new Laws, to judg of any ac­cident which at any time hapned in the City, and of such matters which concerned their Allies and Nighbours; to impose Tribute on the Subject, and to take care both of the Navy and the Temples; and furthermore to enquire into the carriage of the City Magistrates, to appoint keepers unto Prisoners taken in the Wars, to judg of Suits concerning Orphans, and sometimes in such cases as belonged more properly to a Court of War. Other particulars there are which they were to deal in,Xenophon. d [...] Repub. Athen. but these the principal: and these though points of great concernment, and arguments of the power and trust committed to them, were little like to tempt them to abuse their power in the oppressing of the people. For besides that they were chosen but for one year only, and that too not without a previous inquisition into their former life and conversation; which were sufficient to induce them to hold fair quarter with the people by all means imaginable: they were bound by Oath at their admission to that honour, to consult the peoples good and benefit in most special manner, and not to imprison any of them, how mean soever, unless he were found guilty of some practice to be­tray the City, and diminish the authority and power of the people, or that being one of the Farmers of the Tolls and Taxes, or a Collector of the Tributes, he became non-solvent, and had not cleared his accompt with the Common-wealth.Demosthen. in oratione cont. Niceram. As for the Court or Council of the Areopagites, it consisted from the first beginning, [...], of such and such alone who had formerly been of the number of the nine chief Magistrates; and they being once admitted held for term of life:Plutarch in Solone, & Pe­ricle. which made them, being men of eminence and reputation, to be more able to annoy the people, and to intrench upon them in their rights and liberties, had their mind been answerable. For unto them belonged the general superintendency of all things in the Common-wealth, and them did Solon trust with this special Power, that they should be [...],Id. in Solo [...]. and see the Laws to be maintained and to have their course: and in particular to judg in the case of murder, and man-slaughter, and briefly in all Capital causes. And with these Courts or Councils, call them which you will, the prudent Legislator thought that he had setled and confirmed the Common-wealth, [...], as with two strong Achors, in such a firm and con­stant manner, that neither the fabrick of the State should be easily shaken, nor the people apt to take offence, or run themselves upon unpeaceable and seditious courses.

But if the Senate or the Council should abuse their power, V and use that Sword to the oppression of the common people, which was committed to their hands for their weal and benefit: might not, and did not the Demarchi take the peoples part, and save them from the wrongs and injuries intended towards them? Calvin so intimates indeed, but he speaks without book, being more guided to that Error by the sound and Etymologie of the word, than by the nature of the Office. The best Greek Au­thors who have written the affairs of Rome, do call the Tribunes of the people by this name Demarchi, and their Authority or Office by the name of [...] also. 'No­thing more common in Polybius, Halicarnassensis, Plutarch, and whosoever else have left us any thing of the Roman stories in that Language. But the Demarchi of Athens were of no such power, and had but small authority (God wot) in affairs of State. Measure them by the definition which is given by Suidas, and he will tell you that they were certain Officers appointed in the Burroughs and free Towns of Attica (being twelve in number) [...].Suidas in Lex. And for his power, he tells us that it did especially consist in making a Ter­rier of the Lands of every Township, and keeping of the publick Registers which concerned the Burrough, in calling the people of the Town together when their oc­casions did require it, and calculating of their Voices by the Poll, or scrutiny, and sometimes in distraining on their Goods and Chattels, if any of them were indebted to the State either in Amerciaments or Contributions. But take his own words with you for the more assurance. [...] (saith he) [...].Id. Ibid. The Author of the Etymologicon magnum saith the same with Suidas, but in fewer words; and he describes this mighty man of whom Calvin dreams, to be no other than the Bailiff of some ancient Burrough is with us in England, his power being li­mited and confined within the perambulation of his own Parish, in which he could do little more than take the valuation of his Neighbours Estate, and tell how much he was to be assessed at in the Subsidy Book,Etymologicon Magnum in Demarcho. [...]. So he, which is in sum what we had before. 'Tis true, there was another Officer of the same name in the City also, and for each Tribe one; the Alderman of the Word we may fitliest call him; but not of much more power and reputation than the Countrey-Bailiff. Of these saith Harpocration an old Grammarian, that they were called Naucrari at the first, and had authority to arrest or destrain such persons as stood indebted to the Exchequer or the Common-wealth.Harto [...]at. in Demarcho. [...], so Harpo­cration briefly in his wonted manner. But Julius Pollux in his Onomasticon goes to work more plainly,Jul. Pollux l. 8. c. 9. [...]ect. 30. and telleth us of these Demarchi, that they were [...], the Governours or Aldermen of their several Wards, that formerly they were called Naucrari; that anciently the twelfth part of a Tribe or Ward was called Nau­craria, and in the later times the whole Ward it self; that these Demarchi had the or­dering of the Taxes raise in every Ward, and looked unto the issuing of them for the publick use; and finally, that every Naucraria or Ward was to find two Horse-men and one Ship for the service of the Common-wealth, [...], from whence in probabiliy they derived the word. Add unto this from Suidas, as the close of all,Suidas in Lex. [...], that they had also the setting forth of the great Festival called Panathenaea; ordained by Theseus on the in­corporating of all the people of Attica into the City of Athens. [...] in Theseo.

Put all that hath been said together touching these Demarchi (and more than this I cannot find which concerns that Office) and we may easily perceive that they were men of no authority in affairs of State: VI so far from being likely to protect the people from the power and pressures of the Senate, that they were rather Executioners, or Ministers of Justice to afflict the people when the occasions of the Senate did require it of them. That the Demarchi were ordained to oppose the Senate, when it lay heavy on the necks of the common people; or actually did make head against them in behalf of the people if at any time they were oppressed and injured by it, cannot be found (I dare with confidence affirm) in any Author of good credit, either Greek or Latine. 'Tis true, there were some People-pleasers in the State of Athens, whom they called [...], who by applying themselves to the peoples humour, and seem­ing zealously assected to their power and profit, could lead them whither they would, [Page 681]and to what they lifted: and sometimes did oppose themselves for the people sake, not only against the Senate, but all other Magistrates. Of these it is that Arstotle doth make frequent mention in his books of Politicks, and seems to prophecy, that if not looked into in time, [...], they would change the State into a Tyranny. But these were neither of Officers of State, nor Justice,Aristot. Poli­tic. l. 5 c. [...]. nor indeed any Officers at all, though many times they did ill Offices to the Commonwealth, the bet­ter to advance the hopes of the popular faction, and by it themselves. And it is true which Aristotle tells us in another place, [...], that the people had not only power to elect their Magistrates,Id. ibid. l. 2. c. 12. but to call them also to accompt, in case of mal-administration; and had their proper Officers appointed to that end and purpose. But then it is true withal, but amongst them we meet not these Demarchi of whom Calvin dreams; or any others which stood up in behalf of the common people, but only in behalf of the Common-wealth. Of this sort were the [...] superadded to the nine Archontes, and of authority to call them to an after-reckoning, if they found them guilty of extortion:Jul. Pollux. l. 8. c. 9. sect. 16. Id. ibid. sect. 13. and of this sect were also those whom they called Logistae, some of the which ( [...], saith mine Author) were purposely appointed to observe and enquire into the Acts of the Senate, and to proceed against them when their time was out, according as they saw occasion: which kind of Overseers had an eye also on the Areopagites. And this is that which is observed by Aeschines the famous Orator, where speaking of the Funda­mental constitutions of the Common-wealth, he tells us, that it was ordained by the Legislators, [...],Aeschin. in O­rat. Contra Demosth. & Ctesiphon. that even the Senate of five hundred should give up an account of their ministration; and that the holy Council of the Areopagites should be obnoxious to the censure of the Logistrae, for by that very name he calls them. Of any account they were to give to these Demarchi, or any thing they did de facto, or might do de jure, with reference to the case and benefit of the common people, nothing but silence to be found in all Antiquity. And to say truth, it was not necessary that any popular Magistrates should be made of purpose, to save the people from the pride and Tyranny of the higher Courts, which were ac­countable to the people upon all occasions, and were to be accountable to them ac­cording to the fundamental institution of the Common-wealth. The State of Athens being one of the absolutest Democraties which was ever exant, and so accounted of by all who write of Politicks, had little need or use of such popular Magistrates which Cal­vin fancieth in that place; which may be serviceable to the people in an Aistocratie, but in a popular estate of no use at all. Which makes we wonder by the way, why Plato should affirm against right and reason, that the State of Athens in his time and the times before ( [...]) was an Aristocratie: Plato in Me­neximo. when by the current of all Writers and the course of story, it appears most evidently that it was not only a Democratie, but [...],Plutarch in Cimone. the purest and most unmixt Democratie that was ever read of.

Thus have we proved the first of the three points propounded in the beginning of this work, viz. that the Ephori, the Demarchi, VII and the Roman Tribunes were not or­dained at first for those ends and purposes which are supposed by the Author: but more particularly, that neither the Ephori of Sparta were first instituted to oppose the Kings, nor the Tribunes first ordained to oppose the Consuls, nor the Demarchi of Au­thority to oppose the Senate. And we have proved (which is directly contrary unto Calvins aim) that the Ephori were at first ordained to ease the Kings, and to be aiding to them against the Senate, who began sensibly to encroach on the Regal power: that the Tribunes were first instituted to no other end but to preserve the people from un­just oppression, and that their opposition to the Consuls was accounted always to be against the rules of their Institution, and a breach of Articles: And as for these De­marchi whom we spake of last, that neither by their Institution nor by Usurpation, they did oppose against the Senate in behalf of the people, but executed their com­mands upon the people, as their duty bound them. So that the great imagination which the Author had of shewing to the World a view of such popular Magistrates, as might encourage men of place and eminence to think themselves ordained after these Examples to moderate the licentiousness of Kings and Princes; is fallen directly to the ground without more ado, as being built upon a weak, nay a false foundation; not able to support the building. And more than so, in case the instances proposed had been rightly chosen, and that the Ephori in Sparta had been first ordained to oppose the Kings, the Tribunes to oppose the Consuls, and the Demarchi to keep under [Page 682]the Athenian State: yet these would prove but sorry instances of such popular Officers as were ordained ad moderandum Regum libidinem, to moderate the licentiousness of Kings and Sovereign Princes, for proof of which they were produced. The Ephori were not instituted in the State of Sparta till the Kings were brought under the com­mand of the Senate, and the State become an Aristocratie, in which the Kings had very little left them of the Royal dignity but the empty name, and were in power no other than the Dukes of Venice, save that they were to have the command of the Armies, which those Dukes have not. And for the Tribunes, 'tis well known to every one who hath perused the Roman story, that there were no such creatures to be found in Rome, till the Romans had expulsed their Kings, and were under their command of Consuls; Monarchy being changed to an Optimatie, and the peoplebound by solemn Oaths ne­ver to admit of a King amongst them. The like may be affirmed also of the De­marchi of Athens, supposing that they were of as great Authority, as either the E­phori or the Tribunes; that they were instituted in a time when the affairs of State were managed by nine Annual Magistrates, all of them chosen by the people and ac­comptable to them.Livie hist. lib. 2. In all these cases, cum non in regno populus esset sed in libertate, when the people had sued out their Wardship, and thought themselves to be at liberty, freed from those bonds which Nature and Allegiance formerly had laid upon them: they did no more than what a wise and understanding people had good cause to do, in taking the best course they could for their future safety. And in my mind the people pleade most unanswerably in their own behalf, when they alledged, se foris pro imperio & libertate dimicantes, Id. ibid. domi à civibus captos & oppressos, that fighting va­liantly abroad both for their own liberty and their Countreys honour, against their Kings, they were oppressed and wronged at home by their fellow-Citizens; that their condition as things stood, was better in times of War, than in times of peace; their liberty never more assured than when they were amongst their Enemies: and there­fore being no otherwise bound to submit themselves to that change of Government, than as it had been introduced by their own consent, they had all the reason in the World to get as good terms as they could, and be no losers by the bargain. Which though it were the case and plea particularly of the people of Rome, might be used also very fitly by the Spartans and Athenians on the self-same reasons. But this can no way be pretended or alledged by those, who live in an established and successional Monarchy, where there is one only to command in chief, and nothing left to the Subject praeter obsequii gloriam, Tacit. Annal. but the glory of obedience only, and the necessity of submiting with a Loyal heart to those commands and impositions which may be laid upon them with an unjust hand. So that admitting it for true (as indeed it is not) the Ephori, the Demarchi, and the Tribunes were ordained for the ends supposed; yet it can follow by no rules of Law or Logick, that because such popular Officers have been sometimes instituted to keep the scale upright and the balance even, betwixt the Nobles and the People in an Aristocratie, therefore the like are to be fancied in a setled Monarchy, for moderating the licentiousness, that is to say, (for that no doubt must be his meaning) for regulating the Authority of the Sovereign Prince.

Thus have we seen a manifest discovery of Calvins purpose for setting up some po­pular Officers in every Kingdom to regulate the Authority and restrain the power of Sovereign Princes; VIII and we may see a secret and more subtle danger included in that short Parenthesis, than what is obvious at first sight to the unwary Reader. For by the instances proposed and presented to us, it seems to be his meaning, that those popular Officers should not have powr only to restrain their Kings when they trangress the bounds of Law or Equity, and either Tyranically oppress the Subject, or wilfully dilapidate the Patrimony of the Common-wealth: but that they should set themselves against them and controul their doings, in the same way and after the same manner, as the Ephori did the Kings of Sparta, or the Tribunes did the Roman Consuls. Now we have shewn before out of several Authors,Vide Chap. 1. that the Ephori did not only take upon them to appoint such Privy Counsellors about their Kings as to them seemed best, to limit and prescribe them in the choice of their Wives; to send them out unto the Wars and recall them home, as if they had been hirelings only and of no more rec­koning; to put them upon Fine and Ransom, if they did any thing which was not pleasing to these humorous Gentlemen; to have them at command both to come and go at often as they whistled for them, or held up a Finger, and finally to look for lowly reverence from them, whensoever they vouchsafed to summon them to attend their pleasures: but also to imprison; next to banish, and in fine to murder them. [Page 683]And we have shewed you of the Tribunes, that after they had fortified themselves with large priviledges, and grew predominant in the affections of the common people;Vide Chap. 2. they did not only quarrel and oppose the Consuls under pretence of setting forth new Laws for the peoples benefit, nor were content to ut the people into the possession of all the Offices and honours of the Common-wealth (which formerly belonged to the Nobles only) whether the Consuls would or not: but sometimes clap'd them up in Prison, and sometimes forced them to fly the Senate-house for their lives and safe­ty, and sometimes threw them down headlong out of their Chairs of State, to the great danger of their lives, and disgrace of their persons. Princes should be in worse condition than their meanest Subjects, if they were under the command of such power­ful masters, who being exalted from mean fortunes and ignoble Families, little ac­quainted with good manners, and less with any thing which is brave and Rohal, would think themselves unworthy of so great an Office, should they not Lord it to the purpose, and exercise all kind of Tyranny on their captived Kings, which in­solence and malice could suggest unto them. If Jack be once in Office he must be a Gentleman; and gallop to the Devil if he get on Horseback.Juvenal. Sat. Asperius nihil est humili cum surgit in altum, as the Poet hath it. If once the Bramble come to have Dominion over the trees of the forrest, he will not only rob the Olive of his fatness, the Vine of his rich Wines, and the Fig-tree of his sweetness, but also will devour the Cedars, even the Cedars of Lebanon. Judg. c. 9. No King or other Supream Magistrate shall dare to stand before them; or if he do, a fire shall come out of the Bramble, and consume him utterly. Such popular Officers as those of whom Calvin speaks, are of such credit and Authority with the common people (whose Officers they are in name, but in fact their Masters) that if they do but blow the Trumpet, and say, We have no part in David, nor no inheritance at all in the son of Jesse;2 Sam. 20. every man will unto his Tents, and forsake the King or Supream Magistrate to follow after them though men of Belial. And this I do believe the rather to be Calvins meaning, because G. Buchannan who built on his foundation, and pursued his Principles, doth not only exceedingly commend the act of Theopompus, in setting up the Ephori in the State of Sparta, and the Answer which he made his Wife when she murmured at it: but thinks it very meet and reasonable that a free people (as all Subjects are in his opinion) should be armed with the like Authority in reprimenda tyrannidis acerbitate, De jure regni apud Scotos. for the suppressing of Tyrannical Government (in which themselves must be Judges) which the Ephori enjoyed at Sparta, and the Tribunes in the City of Rome. For though he durst not go so far in terminis, as to advise the instituting of such popular Magistrates as Calvin speaks of in this place; yet he comes very near it, to a Tantamont, For that which Calvin doth ascribe to his popular Magistrates, Buchannan gives to the whole body of the people generally, to whom he doth allow as much Authority over the persons of their Kings, Quod illi in singulos è multitudine habent, Id. ibid. as they have over any one of the common people: and thinks it both unreasonable and absurd that they should not be called to accompt before the ordinary Judges of their several Kingdoms (which must supply the place of these popular Magistrates) as often as any of their Subjects shall accuse them, of murder, or adultery, or neglects in Government, or whatsoever else they shall charge them with; instancing in no fewer than twelve Kings of Sctoland, who either were condemned to perpetual Prison, or else by voluntary death or exile, Justas scelerum poenas fugerunt, escaped the punishment which was most justly due unto them (as he most impudently saith) for their wicked lives.

If any ask (as some justly may) what might induced our Author to these different courses, to lay so sure a ground-work for obedience in the first part of his Discourse, IX and afterward to build upon it such a superstructure, as absolutely pulls up his own foundation: the answer is, that the man was very much distracted between his rea­son and his passion, his conscience and his private interess. Aliud (que) eupido, mens aliud suadet. His reason and his conscience told him, that every Subject was to yield obe­dience to the authority and commands of the Sovereign Princes and that if any o­ther Doctrine should be plainly preached, it would conduce both to the Scandal and the hinderance of the Reformation. And his experience in the World could not chuse but tell him, that many of the chief Reformers by their heat and iolence had given too great advantage to the publick Enemy; and made the Protestant Religion to be much suspected, Nil aliud quaerere & captare quam Seditionum opprrtunitatem, Calvin in Epi­stola Dedic. ad Franciscum. l. 1536. for giving too much ground to seditious courses, and publishing some Doctrines which were in­consistent with the rules of Government. This made him write so soundly of the [Page 684]Subjects duty even to wicked Princes, and the unlawfulness of resisting in the way of Arms, though open force and violence were offered to them by ungodly Tyrants: and this he doth so well, that few do it better. Ʋtinam sic semper errasset CALVI­NƲS, as once the learned Cardinal said of him in another case. But then his In­teress in the cause and quarrel of Geneva, who by the help of some such popular Offi­cers as he speaks of here, had not long before expelled their Bishop, who had also all the jurisdiction of a temporal Prince within the City and the Territory which be­longed unto it, inclined him to say somewhat which might serve o defend that action, and give the like advantage unto other Cities to follow the Example which was laid before them.Thuan. Hist. sui temp. l. The case is briefly touched by Thuanus thus; Jus Supremi Domini in Ci­vitatem Genevae Episcopos semper penes se retinuisse, donec mutata religione, Syndici qui sub Episcopali autoritate libertatem antea tuebantur, illus proprium sibi fecere, & ejectis Episcopis sub imperii patrocinio Rempub. administrabant. The Sovereignty (saith he) or Supream Dominion over the City of Geneva the Bishops stillkept unto themselves, till in the alteration of Religion the Syndicks, who before preserved the liberty of the people under the Government of the Bishops, assumed the same unto themselves, and ab­solutely casting out the Bishops governed it like a Common-wealth under the patronage or protection of the German Emperours. In which it is first clear on the Bishops side, that they had jus Supremi Dominii, the Sovereignty or Supream Dominion of the City. And so much is affirmed by Calvin, in another place, Habebat jus gladii & alias ci­vilis jurisdictionis partes. Calvin in Epi­stola ad Sado­letum. He had, saith he, the power of the Sword, and other parts of temporal Jurisdiction; but as he thinks (but foolishly and against all records) Magistratui ereptas, either by fraud or force extorted from the Civil Magistrate. Next it is clear, that the Bishops did continue the possession of this Supream Power, till Vi­ret and Farellus, two zealous Gospellers, came to live amongst them; who finding that those of Berne in the year 1528. had made an alteration of Religion, practised the like upon the City of Goneva. Which not being likely to effect with the Bishops leave, and as little able to effect against his liking, considering the great power and sway, which legally and properly was inherent in him: they set the Syndicks (whom they had wrought upon before) to make head against him; who by a popular Tumult madehim fly the City, which presently they changed to a Common-wealth, after the manner of the Free or Imperial Cities. In which respect Calvin bestows upon Farel­lus the Title of libertatis Patrem, In Epistola ad Minist. Tigurin, 1553. the Father of that common Liberty, which by his means the people of Geneva at the time enjoyed. As for the Syndicks by whose power and countenance they advanced the business, they were a kind of popular Officers, who had the care of looking to the conservation of the peoples Liberties, as Thuanus in­timates; and were much used in many parts of France and Italy, Bodin de Re­pub. lib. 4. c. 4. Id. ibid. as Bodinus tell us. Their Office did consist of two special points: the one à Magistratibus rationem repo­scere, to call the ordinary Magistrates to an after-reckoning, if they did any thing unworthy of their place and dignity, or to the hinderance and disservice of the Com­mon-wealth; which had somewhat in it of the Ephori in the State of Sparta: the o­ther was, prospicere ne tenniores & infimae sortis homines à nobilibus, uti fit, premerentur, to have a care that the poor people be not wronged or injured (as many times it hap­neth) by the power of the Nobles; which mas the main reason for the institution of the Roman Tribunes. In this regard the Civil Laws interpret Syndicus to be the same with defensor Civitatis, Calvin in Lexi­co Jurid. verbo Syndicus. the Conservator of the liberties of a Town or City, as full well they might: the Office being made up (as it seems it was) of that of the E­phori and the Tribunes mixt together. Now though this change was made before Cal­vins coming to Geneva, which was not till the year 1535, yet he affirms it of himself that whatsoever had been done in the alteration, suffragio meo comprobavi, he had con­firmed and approved as a thing well done:Calvin in Epl­stola ad Cardi­nal. Sadolet. and therefore thought himself to be no less obliged to defend the action, than if it had been done at first bh his own com­mand. For doubtless that of Tully is exceeding true, Nil refert utrum voluerim fieri vel gaudeam factum: Cicero in Phi­lip. 2. between the doing of a soul and disloyal act, and the approba­tion of it when it is done, is but little difference.

But to proceed; X our Author being thus made a party in the cause and quarrel of Geeva, thought himself bound not only to justifie unto others what himself appro­ved; but also to lay down such grounds whereby the Example might be followed, and their disloyalty and rebellion the less observed, because they did not go alone without company. In which respect (and 'tis a thing to be observed althoughthat Book of Institutions hath been often printed, and received many alterations and additions [Page 685](as before was noted) yet this particular passage still remains unaltered, and hath continued as it is from the first Edition, which was in the year 1536. when the Rebel­lion of Geneva was yet fresh and talked of as an ill Example. Nor was the man de­ceived in his expectation; For as he grew into esteem and reputation in the World abroad, so he attained at last to that power and Empire over the souls and consciences of his followers, that his Errors were accounted Orthodox, his defects Perfections, and the revolt of the Genevians from their natural Prince must by no means be called Re­bellion, because projected and pursued by such popular Officers, to whom it appertain­ed of common course to regulate the Authority of Kings and Princes. And though he doth not say expresly that there either are or ought to be such popular Officers in every Realm or common-wealth, but brings it in upon the by with his ifs and ands: yet ifs and ands are not allowed of in the Laws to excuse Rebellions,Bacons History of King Henry the seventh. and by the set­ting up of that dangerous Si quis (si qui sint [...]populares Magistratus, as his words there are) he seems to make a Proclamation that where there were such Popular Officers, it was their bounden duty to correct their Princes after the manner of Geneva; where there were none, the people were (God help them) in an ill condition, unless some other means were thought of, for their ease and remedy. Upon which Principles of his, his folowers raised such Positions, and pursued such practices as have distracted and embroyled the most parts of Europe, and made it of a Garden to become a Wil­derness. For finding that they could not easily create such popular Magistrates to lord it over Kings and Princes who had not been accustomed to the like Controlments; they put that power of regulating the Supream Authority either upon the body of the people generally, whereof you were told before from Buchannan, or upon such to whom they should communicate or transser their Power, as occasion served, whereof you may hear further in that which followeth. And that not only in the case of civil Liberty, for which the Examples of the Ephori and the Roman Tribunes were at first found out, and that of the Demarchi thrust upon the Readers for the like foul end; but specially in such matters which concerned Religion, wherein the extraordinary calling of some men in the holy Scriptures must serve for Precedents and Examples to confirm their practices. From hence it was that Buchannan doth not only subject his King unto the Ordinary Judges and Courts of Justice as before was noted: but fear­ing that Kings would be too potent to be so kept under, adviseth this,Buchann. de jure Regni. Eorum inter­fectoribus praemia decerni, that Rewards should publickly be decreed for those who kill a Tyrant (and Kings and Tyrants are the same as heretofore in the word and no­tion, so now in the Opinion of the Presbyterian or Calvinian faction) as usually are proposed to those who kill Wolves, or Bears. From hence it was that the inferiour or subordinate Magistrate is advanced so high, as to be entituled to a Power, adversus Superiorem Magistratum se, Rempub. & Ecclesiam etiam armis defendere, Paraeus in Epi­stola ad Rom. cap. 13. of taking Arms against the King or Superiour Magistrate, in defence of himself, his Countrey and true Religion: which though they are the words of Paraeus only, yetthey contain the mind and meaning of all the rest of that faction, as his son Philip doth demon­strate.In Append. ad Cap. 13. Epist. ad Rom. Cambden An­nal. Eliz. An. 1559. Hence was it that John Knox, delivered for sound Orthodox doctrine, Procerum esse propria autoritate Idololatriam tollere, & Principes intra legum rescripta per vim redu­cere, that it belonged unto the Peers of each several Kingdom to reform matters of the Church by their own Authority, and to confine their Kings and Princes within the bounds prescribed by Law, even by force of Arms. Hence that Geselius one of the Lecturers of Roterdam preached unto his people,Necessaria Re­spons. Jean. de Serres inventnire de Fr. History of the Netherlands. Thuan. hist. l. 114. Camden. An­nal. An. 15 59. Laurea Au­striaca. Continuati. Thuan. hist. l. 8. that if the Magistrates and Clergy did neglect their duty in the reformation of Religion, necesse est id facere plebeios, that then it did belong to the common people, who were bound to have a care thereof and proceed accordingly. And as for points of Practice, should we look that way, what a confusion should we find in most parts of Europe, occasioned by no other ground than the entertainment of these Principles and the scattering of these positions amongst the people? Witness the Civil Wars of France, the revolt of Holland, the expulsion of the Earl of East-Friezland, the insurrections of the Scots, the Tumults of Bohe­mia, the commotions of Brandenburg, the translation of the Crown of Sweden from the King of Pole to Charles Duke of Finland, the change of Government in England: all acted by the Presbyterian or Calvinian party in those several States, under pretence of Reformation and redress of grievances.

And to say truth, such is the Genius of the Sect, XI that though they may admit an Equal (as parity is the thing most aimed at by them both in Church and State) yet they will hardly be persuaded to submit themselves to a Superiour, to no Superiours more un­willingly [Page 686]than to Kings and Princes: whose persons they disgrace, whose power they ruinate, whose calling they endeavour to decry and blemish by all means imaginable. First for their calling, they say it is no other than an humane Ordinance, and that the King is but a creature of the peoples making; whom having made, they may as easily destroy and unmake again. Which as it is the darling Doctrine of this present time, so is it very eagerly pursued by Buchannan, who affirms expresly, Quicquid juris popu­lus alicui dederit, Buchann. de jure Regni. idem justis de causis posse reposcere, that whatsoever power the people give unto their King or Supream Magistrate, they may resume again upon just occa­sions. Their Power they make so small and inconsiderable, that they afford them very little even in matters of Temporal, and no Authority at all in things Spiritual. Calvin professeth for himself, that he was very much agrieved to hear that King Henry the eighth, had took unto himself the Title of Supream Head of the Church of England, accuseth them of inconsiderate zeal, nay blasphemy, who conferred it on him; and though he be content at last to allow Kings a Ministerial power in matters which con­cern the Reformation of Gods Publick Worship, yet he condemns them as before of great inconsiderateness.Calvin in A­mos cap. 7. Qui facerent eos nimis spirituales, who did ascribe unto them any great authority in spiritual matters. The designation of all those who bear pub­lick Office in the Church, the calling of Councils or Assemblies, the Presidency in those Councils, Ordaining publick Fasts, and appointing Festivals, which anciently belonged unto Christian Princes as the chief branches of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction which is vested in them; are utterly denied to Kings and Princes in their Books of Discipline. Insomuch that when the Citizens of Embden did expel their Earl, they did it chiefly for this reason,Thuan. hist. l. 114. Quod se negotiis Ecclesiasticis & Consistorialibus praeter jus & aequitatem immisceret, that he had intermedled more than they thought fit in Ecclesia­stical causes, and intrenched too much upon their Consistory. As for their power in Temporal or civil Causes, by that time Knoxes Peers and Buchannans Judges, Paraeus his inferiour Magistrates, and Calvins popular Officers have performed their parts, in keeping them within the compass of the Laws; arraigning them for their offences, if they should transgress; opposing them by force of Arms, if any thing be done unto the prejudice of the Church or State; and finally in regulating their Authority, after the manner of the Spartan Ephori, and the Roman Tribunes: all that is left will be by much too little for a Royd'Ivitot, or for a King of Clouts, as we English phrase it. Last of all, for their persons which God held so sacred, that he gave it for a Law to his people Israel, not to speak evil of their Princes, saying, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people; Let us but look upon these men, and we shall find the basest attributes too good for the greatest Kings. Calvin calls Mary Queen of England by the name of Proserpine, Calvin in A­mos cap. 7. and saith that she did superare omnes Diabolos, that all the De­vils of Hell were not half so mischievous. Beza affords Queen Mary of Scotland no better Titles than those of Medea and Athaliah; Beza in Epist. ad Jo. of which the last was most infamous in divine; the other no less scandalous in humane stories; the one a Sorceress and a Witch, the other a Tyrant and Usurper. The Author of the Altare Damascenum, who­soever he was, can find no better attribute for King James of most blessed memory, than infensissimus Evangelii hostis, Didoclaviu [...] in Epistola ad [...]ctor. the greatest and deadly Enemy of the Gospel of Christ. And Queen Elizabeth her self did not scape so clear, but that the zealous Brethren were too bold sometimes with her Name and Honour, though some of them paid dearly for it, and were hanged for their labour. How that seditious Hugonot, the Author of the lewd and unworthy Dialogue, entituled Eusebius Philadelphus, hath dealt with three great Princes of the House of France, and what reproachful names he gives them, I had rather you should look for in the Author than expect from me; be­ing loath to wade too far in these dirty puddles; save that I shall be bold to add this general Character which Didoclavius gives to all Kings in general; viz. Naturâ insi­tum est in omnibus Regibus Christi odium, that all Kings naturally hate Christ; which may serve for all. This is enough to let us see, how irreconcileable an hatred these of the Calvinian faction bear against Kings and Princes; how well they play the part of the very Antichrist in exalting themselves against whatsoever is called God; and that the special reason why they affect so much to be called the Saints, is out of a strong probable hope to see the day in which they shall bind Kings in chains, and all the Princes of the earth in fetters of iron. Finally such is their disaffection unto sacred Monarchy, which they have sucked out of the grounds and principles here laid down by Calvin, that we may justly say of them what was most truely said of the ancient Romans, quasi nefas esset Regem aliquem prope eorum terminos esse, J [...]stin. hist. l. 29. they have bestirred themselves so [Page 687]bravely in defiance of the Regal Government, as if they did account it an unpardon­able sin to suffer any King, though most good and gracious, to border near them. Which lest they should not be of power to compass by their popular Magistrates, or by the Judges, or the Peers, or the People severally; which make the main Battel for this Combat: let us next look on the Reserve, and see what hopes they have to effect the business by the three Estates conjoyned in Parliament, (or by what other name so­ever we shall call their meeting) which Calvin in the last place doth reflect upon, but cautiously with a qua forte, or a peradventure, as in that before.

CHAP. V. What are the three Estates in each several Kingdom, in which CAL­VIN speaks, and what particularly in the Realm of England.

  • 1. Of the division of a People into three E­states; and that the Priests or Clergy have been always one.
  • 2. The Priests employed in Civil matters and affairs of State, by the Egyptians and the Persians, the Greeks, Gauls, and Romans.
  • 3. The Priests and Levites exercised in af­fairs of Civil Government by Gods own ap­pointment.
  • 4. The Prelates versed in Civil matters and affairs of State, in the best and happiest times of Christianity.
  • 5. The Clergy make the third Estate in Germany, France, Spain, and the Nor­thern Kingdoms.
  • 6. That antiently in the Saxon times the Ec­clesiasticks of this Realm were called to all publick Councils.
  • 7. The Prelates an essential fundamental part of the English Parliament.
  • 8. Objections answered, and that the word Clerus in the Legal notion, doth not ex­tend unto the Prelates.
  • 9. That the inferior Clergy of the Realm of England had anciently their Votes in Par­liament, to all intents and purposes as the Commons had.
  • 10. Objections answered; and that the cal­ling of the Clergy to Parliaments and Convocations,were after different maners, and by several Writs.
  • 11. The great Disfranchisement and slavery obtruded on the English Clergy, by the depriving of the Bishops of their Votes in Parliament.
  • 12. A brief discussion of the Question, whe­ther any two of the three Estates conspi­ring or angreeing together, can conclude any thing unto the prejudice of the third.

BUT first before we fall on the Point it self, I and search into the Power ascribed by Calvin to the three Estates of every Kingdom, we must first see what kind of men they are, and of what condition, who constitute the said Estates: which being first setled and determined, we shall the better be inabled to proceed accordingly in the enquiry after that Authority which our Author gives them of regulating the pro­ceedings of the Sovereign Prince; and putting a restraint on the exorbitant power of Kings. In which we shall presume for granted what our Author gives us, viz, tres Ordines in singulis Regnis, that in each several Kingdom there are three Estates; and those three we shall prove to be (though our Author is no otherwise to be under­stood) the Clergy, the Nobility, the Common people: which distribution of the Sub­ject into three Estates as 'tis very ancient, so ws the distribution of them into three, neither more nor less, founded on good prudential motives and grounds of Polity. For as judicious Bodin very well observeth, should there be only two Estates, and no more than so, either upon such differences as might rise between them, the one side would be apt to compel the other by force of violence; or else, aequatis Ordinum suf­fragiis, Bodin de Re­pub. l. 3. cap. ult. the ballance being even between them, their meetings would be many times dissolved without producing any notable effect to the benefit of the Common-wealth. In which respect the counterpoise or addition of a third Estate was exceeding neces­sary, ut alterutri sese adjungens utrum (que) conciliet, that joyning unto either of the other two, it might unite them both into one Opinion, and advance the service of the pub­lick. And on the other side were there more than three, opinionum multitudo, the dif­ference of Opinions, and pretence of interesses, would keep them at perpetual di­stance, [Page 688]and hinder them from pitching upon any point, in which all their purposes and aims were to be concentred. So that the casting of the body of a people into three Estates, seems most convenient for the furtherance of the publick service: and of those three Estates the Priests (or Clergy, as we call them since the times of CHRIST) have generally been accounted one. For though Hippodamus (whom Aristotle justly taxeth for defects in Polity) ordained his three Estates to be the Souldiery, Aristot. Poli­tic. l. the Handi­crafts-man, and the Husbandman: yet wiser Statists saw no reason that the two last should pass for several Estates or ranks of men, being that both might be more fitly comprehended under the name and rank of the common people. And therefore the Egyptians did divide the people into these three ranks, the Priest, which is respondent to the Christian Clergy; the Souldier, who carrieth most resemblance to the State of Nobles; and those which lived by Trades and labours, whom by one general name they called Operarii, Diodor. Sicu­lus. as we now the Commons: which course we find to be observed also by the ancient Gauls dividing their whole body into these three Orders, the Druides, who had the charge of matters which concerned Religion;Caesar de Bello Gallico. l. 6. the Equites who managed the affairs of War; and then the Plebs, or common people, who were subordinate to the other two, and directed by them. How this division hath succeeded in the States of Christendom we shall see hereafter.

In the mean time we may take notice that the Priests of Egypt, II the Druides of Gaul, and those who had the ordering of those services which concerned the gods, by what­soever name or Title they were known and called in other Countreys, were not so tied unto the Altars, and other ministerial Offices which concerned the gods, as not to have some special influence in ordering the affairs of the Common-wealth. The Priests of Egypt, as we read in Aelian (an Author of unquestioned credit) pos­sessed the highest seats of Judicature, and were the only Judges which that people had:Aelian in Va­ria histor. l. 14. c. 34. Synesius Ep. 57. Judices apud Egyptios iidem quondam fuerunt qui & sacerdotes, as that Author hath it. And so much is assured us by Synesius also a Christian Bishop of the East, where he resembleth them in this particular to the Priests of Judah. The like we find in Agathias of the Priests of Persia, men better known in ancient Writers by the name of Magi: Agathias in hist. Porsic. l. 2. of whom he telleth us, eorum consilio publica omnia administrari, &c. that by their counsel and advice the principal affairs of the State were ordered, rewards pro­portioned and conferred upon well-deservers, and several punishments inflicted on the Malefactors, according to the quality of the misdemeanor; and finally that no­thing was conceived to be rightly done, quod Magnorum sententia non sit confirmatum, which had not passed the approbation of these Priests or Magi. If we draw nearer to­wards the West, and look into the Government of the State of Athens, we shall find the chief authority thereof to consist in the Senate of 500, and in the famous Court of the Areopagites, as was noted in the former Chapter: in which the Priests, or at the least the principal of that rank or order had both place and suffrage. For in that honorary Edict which they made in favour of Hyrcanus, we may clearly see that Dionysius the son of Asclepiades was one of the Priests, Joseph. Judaic. Antiqu. l. 14. c. 16. and also one of the Prytanaei, or Presidents of the Council, as we call them now; and that in calculating of the Voices, [...], Dorotheus the chief Priest had the greatest stroke, and pronounced the Edict to be passed. And for the Court of Areopagites, it consisted as before we told you of such and such alone as formerly had bore the Office of the nine Annual Magistrates, whereof the [...], or Rex Sacrorum, (whom we may English the chief Bishop) had the second place.Suidas in verbo [...] Plutarch in Pericle. And this appears yet further by a passage in the life of Pericles, where we are told of his design for the abasing of the power of the Areopagites, [...], of which Court he was not any Member, as the Author tells us, in that he had never born the Office either of the Pro­vost, or the King, or the Polemarchus, or any of the six chief Justices. So that the [...], the Rex Sacrorum, or chief Bishop being of course to be admitted into the Court or Council of the Areopagites when his year was ended, it cannot be, but that there must be many of them in that famous Session; an equal number at the least, with those who had been Polemarchi, or the yearly [...]. Add here, that we are told by Julius Pollux in his Onomasticon, Lib. 8. cap. 8. sect. 3. that it pertained to this [...], or Rex Sacrorum, besides the service of the gods, [...], to endite those before the Court who were guilty or murther; but then withal, that having put in the Enditement, and laid by his Crown, [...], he sat upon the Bench with the other Judges and passed sentence on them. Thus was it with the Druides or the Priests of Gallia, who did not only take the charge [Page 689]of all sacred matter which did relate unto the service of the gods, but de om­nibus fere controversiis publicis privatisque, Caesar de Bello Gallico l. 6. they did determine in almost all suits and controversies, as well publick as private; particularly in matters of inheri­tance, real actions, capital crimes, as murther and the like offences; and also had a power to decree both rewards and punishments as they saw occasion. And for the better dispatch of business both for their own ease and the Peoples too, they chose some certain times or Terms in which they met together not far from Chartres (being in the middle of the Countrey) whither all sorts of People who had suits and diffe­rences did repair unto them, eorumque judiciis & decretis parebant, and to their Judg­ments and Decrees did submit themselves. And thus it also was with the Pontifices or Priests of Rome, who had not only a chief place in the holy Mysteries, such as con­cerned the publick worship of their gods; but also a great power and sway in the greatest and most important businesses which concerned the State: which Tully makes one of those Constitutions or Arts of Government, which seemed to have been de­vised by the gods themselves.Cicero in Orat. pro Domo sua. Cum multa divinitus à majoribus nostris inventa atque in­stituta sunt, tum nihil praeclarius quam quod Pontifices eosdem & Religionibus Deorum im­mortalium & summae reipub. praeesse voluerunt. And as the principal Priests in Athens had their place and Vote not only in the Court of Areopagites, but in the Senate of five hundred as before was noted: so some of the more eminent sort of Priests had the like preheminence of sitting and voting in the Roman Senate, which was as high an honour as that State could give them. For besides that Rosinus hath observed that some of the Priests were chosen out of the number of the Senators, who doubtless did not lose the right of suffrage which before they had;Rosin. Antiqu. Rom. there is a memorable case in Livie touching C. Flaccus: who was no sooner chosen the Flamen Dialis, or Priest of Jupiter, but presently he put in his title to a place in Senate, which anciently belonged unto his predecessors in the right of their Office, though of late years it seemed to have been forfeited by discontinuance. The issue of which plea was this, That though Licinius the Pretor did the best he could to cross the business, alledging, Non exoletis vetustate Annalium exemplis stare jus, Livie hist. Rom. lib. 26. that they were not to be guided in the case by Worm-eaten Precedents, but by the late practice of the State; yet it was otherwise determined by the Fathers generally, and Flaccus setled in his place in the Roman Senate, Magno assensu Patrum Plebisque, with the joynt consent of all the People. But what need these particulars have been brought to confirm this point, whenas it is affirm­ed in generals by Synesius, a right godly Bishop of the Primitive times?Synes. Epist. 57. [...], that in old times the same men were both Priests and Judges. Which said, he instanceth in the particulars of the Jews and Egyptians who for long time [...], had been chiefly governed by their Priests.

This brings me on to the power and practice of the Priests in the Land of Judah, III who from the very first beginning of that State and Nation to the final dissolution of it, were of great authority; not only in composing of inferiour differences which casually did arise amongst the People, but in the managery of the chief affairs both of State and Government: and that not gained by Connivence of Frinces, or by en­trenching on the rights of the secular powers, but by the institution and appointment of the Lord himself. When Moses first complained that the sole Government of the People was a burden too heavy for him to bear, it pleased God to appoint a standing Consistory of seventy Elders, men of ability and wisdom,Numb. 11. v. 16 who were to have a share in the publick Government, and to decide amongst themselves such weighty businesses, great matters, as the Scripture calls them,Exod. 18. v. 22. which were reserved to Moses by a former Ordinance. Of these, the Priests, as men who for the most part were at better lei­sure than the rest to attend the service, and generally of more abilities to go through with it, made always a considerably number, and many times the major part. In which respect it was ordained by the Lord, when a matter did arise to be scanned in judgment between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and stroke and stroke, being mat­ters of controversie within their gates, the People should arise and go unto the place which the Lord should choose, and come unto the Priests, the Levites, and unto the Judge that shall be in those days, and enquire, and they shall shew them the sentence of judgement.Deut. c. 17. v. 8, 9. The like is also ordered in the case of false witnesses, where it is said, that if a false witness rise up against any man to testifie against him that which is wrong; then both the men between whom the controversie is shall stand before the Lord, before the Priests and Judges which shall be in those days. Deut. 19. v. 17. Which passages are not understood of any particular Priests or [Page 690]Judges, dispersed in their several dwellings up and down the Country; but of the Priests and other Judges united and assembled in that famous Consistory of the 70 Elders, conveened together in that place which the Lord should choose; called by the Jews the Sanhedrim, by the Greeks [...], and was the great Council of estate for the Jewish Nation. To this Josephus doth attest, where he informeth us, [...], that the Priests of Jewry had the cognizance of all doubtful matters;Joseph. adv. Appion. lib. 2. more plainly Philo, who knew well the customs of his native Countrey, where he affirms expresly, and in terminis, [...], that the Priests had place and suffrage in this great [...],Philo de vita Mosis. or Court of Sanhedrim. And this is that which Casaubon doth also tell us from the most learned and expert of the Jewish Rabbins, Non nisi nobilissimos è sacerdotibus, Levitis, caeteroque populo, & in lege peritissimos in Sanhedrim eligi, Casaub. Exer­cit. in Baron. 1. Sect. 3. that is to say, that none but the most eminent of the Priests, the Levites and the rest of the People, and such as were most conversant in the Book of the Law, were to be chosen into the Sanhedrim. But to return again to the Book of God, the power and reputation of this Court and Consistory having been much diminished in the times of the Kings of Judah, was again revived by Jehosaphat. Of whom we read, that he not only did appoint Judges in the Land throughout all the fenced Cities of Judah;2 Chron. 19.5. but that he established at Hierusalem a standing Council, con­sisting of the Levites and of the Priests, and of the chief of the Fathers of Israel, for the judg­ments of the Lord, Ibid. r. 8. and for controversies: according to the model formerly laid by God himself in the Book of Deuteronomy. Which Court or Council thus revived, conti­nued in full force, authority, and power, during the time of the captivity of Babilon; as appears plainly by that passage in the Prophesie of Ezekiel, where it is said of the Priests even by God himself,Ezek. 44. v. 24. in controversie they shall stand in judgment; compared with another place of the same Prophet, where he makes mention of the Seventy of the An­tients of the House of Israel,Id. c. 8. v. 11. and Jaazaniah the Son of Shaphan standing in the midst, as Prince of the Senate. And after their return from that house of bondage, they were confirmed in this authority by the Edict and Decree of Artaxerxes, who gave Com­mission unto Ezra to set Magistrates and Judges over the People; not after a new way of his own devising,Ezra. 6.7. v. 25. but after the wisdom of his God, declared in the foregoing Ages by his Servant Moses. In which estate they stood all the times succeeding, until the final dissolution of that State and Nation: with this addition to the power of the holy Priesthood, that they had not only all that while their place and suffrage in the Court of Sanhedrim, as will appear to any one who hath either read Josephus or the four Evangelists; but for a great part of that time, till the Reign of Herod, the Supream Government of the State was in the hands of the Priests. In which regard, besides what was affirmed from Synesius formerly, it is said by Justin, Morem esse apud Judaeos ut eosdem Reges & sacerdotes haberent, that it was the custom of the Jews for the same men to be Kings and Priests:Justin. hist. l. 36. and Tacitus gives this general note, Judaeis Sacerdotu ho­norem firmamentum potentiae esse, that the honour given unto the Priesthood amongst the Jews, did most espeeially conduce to the establishment of their power and Empire. And yet I cannot yield to Baronius neither,Tacit. hist. l. 3. where he affirms (the better to establish a Supremacy in the Popes of Rome) Summum Pont. arbitrio suo moderari magnum illud Concilium, Baron. Annal. An. 57. &c. that the High Priest was always President of the Council or Court of Sanhedrim: it being generally declared in the Jewish Writers, that the High Priest could challenge no place at all therein, in regard of his offence and descent, but meerly in respect of such personal abilities as made himself to undergo such a weighty burden, for which see Phagius in his notes on the 16 of Deuteronomy.

Thus have we seen of what authority and power the Priests were formerly as well amongst the Jews as amongst the Gentiles; IV we must next see whether they have not been employed in the like affairs, under the Gospel of Christ, and that too in the best and happiest times of the Christian Church. In search whereof it is not to be looked for by the ingenuous Reader, that we should aim so high as the first 300 years after Christs Nativity. The Prelates of the Church were suspected then to have their diffe­rent aims and interesses, from those who had the government of the Civil State, and therefore thought uncapable of trust and imployment in it. But after that, according to that memorable maxim of Optatus, Deschismat. Donatist. l. 3. Ecclesia erat in Republicâ, the Church became a part of the Common-wealth, and had their ends and aims united; there followed these two things upon it: first that the Supream Government of the Church depended much upon the will and pleasure of the Supream Magistrate;Scorat. Eccl. hist. lib. 5. c. 1. insomuch as Socrates observeth, [...], that the greatest Councils [Page 691]have been called by their authority and appointment: And 2ly. That the Governours and Rulers of the Church of God, came to have place and power in disposing matter, that appertained to the well ordering of the Civil State. And this they did, not our of any busie or pragmatical desire to draw the cognizance of secular causes into their own hands, or to increase their power and reputation with the common People; but meerly for the ease and benefit of those who did repair unto them for their help and counsel, and to comply with the command of the Apostle, who imposed it on them. S. Austin tells us of S. Ambrose, with how great difficulty he obtained an opportunity of conversing with him privately, and at large, as his case required: Secludentibus eum ab ejus aure atque ore catervis negociosorum hominum, August Confes. l. 6. c. 3. the multitude of those who had business to him, and suits to be determined by him, debarring him from all advan­tages of access and conference. Which took up so much of his time, that he had little leisure to refresh his body with necessary food, or his mind with the reading of good Authors. And Posidonius tells us of S. Austin, causas audisse diligenter & pie, that he diligently and religiously attended such businesses as were brought before him, not only spending all the morning in that troublesome exercise,Posidon. in vita. August. c. 19. but sometimes fasting all day long, the better to content the suitor, and dispatch the business. The like S. Austin tells us of himself, and his fellow Prelates, first that the Christians of those times pro secularibus causis suis nos non raro quaererent, August. in Psal. 118. serm. 74 & Epist. 147. did ordinarily apply themselves unto them for the determining of secular causes, and chearfully submitted unto their decisions: next that the Prelates did comply with their earnest solicitations and desires, therein Tu multuosissimas eausarum alienarum perplexitates patiendo, Id. de opere Monach. c. 29. by intermitting their own studies to ingage themselves in the determining of such secular causes as were brought before them, for the contentation of the People, and the diseharge of their own duty both to God and man. And this is that which both S. Ambrose and S. Austin tell us in their several writings, viz. that they did undergoe this trouble for no other reason than out of a conformity and obedience to the words and imitation of S. Paul, 1 Cor. cap. 6. touching the ending of such suits and differences as did arise amongst the Faithful: S. Austin saying, Constituisse Apostolum talibus causis Ecclesiasticos cognitores, Id. in Psal. 110. serm. 174. Id. de opere Monach. 29. Amb. Epist. 24. and iisdem molestiis eos affixisse Apostolos; S. Ambrose, that he had undertook the busi­nesses which were brought before him, Secundum sacrae formam praeceptionis qua eum Apostolus induebat, which did impose such a necessity upon him, that he was not able to decline it. Both of them do agree in this, and Posidonius doth agree with both in the same particular, that they were not only warranted, but obliged by S. Pauls in­junction,Posidon. in vita August. c. 19. to undertake the cognizance of such secular causes as were from time to time committed to their care and trust; and that they had not done their duty, had they made any scruple of the undertaking. But these being only private matters, let us next see whether their service was not used in affairs of State, and we shall find that Constantine did always take some Bishops with him when he went to War; not only for their ghostly counsel in spiritual matters, but for advise in matters which con­cerned the occasion, the prosecution of the War which was then in hand:Euseb. in vita Constant. l. 4. c. 54. that Ambrose was twice sent Ambassador from Valentinian the younger, to the Tyrant Maximus, which he performed to the great contentment of his Prince, and the pre­servation of the Empire; whereof he gives us an accompt in an express unto the Em­peror: that when Firmus had rebelled in Africk, Amb. Epist. 27. lib. 5. and saw himself too weak to resist the Forces which were raised against him under Theodosius, Antistites ritus Christiani pacem oraturos misit, he sent the African Prelates his Ambassadors to treat of peace:Ammian. Mar­cel. hist. l. 29. Socrat. Eccles. hist. l. 7. c. 8. that Marutha Bishop of Mesapotamia was in like nature sent to the Court of Persia, in the time of the Emperour Honorius I. as after that Epiphanius Bishop of Ticinum (which we now call Pavie) employed from the Ligurians to Athalaricus King of the Gothes in Italy, from him unto the Court of Burgundy, as Cassiodorus and Ennodius do describe at large: that James the godly Bishop of Nisibis, (a frontier Town against the Persians) was also [...], both Governour of the place, and Cap­tain of the Souldiers which were there in Garrison;Theodoret. hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 30. and did most manfully defend it against all the force and fury of the Persian Armies, An. 338. or thereabouts: and finally (which was an argument of great power and trust) that the Bishops in Justi­nians time were by him appointed to oversee the Civil Magistrates, and to give notice to the Emperour if they failed in any thing which did concern the Government of the Estate in their several places;Novel. 56. & in Append. ad Novel. 8. of which the very Edicts are still extant in the Book of Novels.

The Prelates being grown into this esteem for their integrity and wisdom with the Roman Emperours; V it is no wonder if they were imployed in the greatest Offices of trust and counsel, after the Empire was dismembred and shared betwixt such several Princes as grew up in the place of those mighty Monarchs: And this they did on so good motives, and with such success, that in short time the Prelates were not only used for advice and counsel, but the inferiour Clergy also were called unto imploy­ments of the highest nature, and in conclusion with the Prelates made up the third Estate in most Christian Kingdoms. For being that the study of Divinity is diffused and large, and that the knowledge of Philosophy, and the Art and Histories is but attendant on the same and subservient to it; there was no question made at all in the times we speak of, but that a Church-man so accomplished might be as useful in the service of the Common-wealth, as those who wanted many opportunities to be so versed in Books the best guides to business; especially when to those helps in poin of Learning, were joyned a suddenness of apprehension, a perspicacity of judgment, and which swayed most of all, integrity of life and conversation. These when they met to­gether (as they often did) in men admitted by the Church unto holy Orders, it was not either thought or found (and indeed how could it?) that their admittance into Orders did take off from any of those natural or acquired indowments of which before they were possessed, or that it was a disabling to them to make use thereof, in any matter of debate or action which concerned the publick. And that it hath been so of old in all Christian Kingdoms, besides that it is intimated by our Author here, we shall clearly see by looking over such particulars as have most influence and power in the affairs of Christendom.

And first beginning (as of right) with the German Empire,August. Thuan. hist. lib. 2. Thuanus gives this note in general, Imperium in tria omnino membra dividi, that that Emire is divided into three Estates, over all which the Emperour is the Head or the Supream Prince. Of these the first Estate is ex sacro Ordine, of the holy Hierarchy, composed of the three spiritual Electors, together with the residue of the Archbishops and Bishops, and many Abbots, Priors, and other Prelates. The second is of the Nobility consisting of the three temporal Electors, the Dukes, Marquesses, Lantgraves, Burgraves, Earls and Barons, of which there is no determinate number; the Emperour having power to add daily to them, as he sees occasion. The third Estate is of the free or Imperial Cities, in number 60. or thereabouts, who represent themselves at the General Diets, by such Commissioners or Deputies as are authorized to that purpose. Now for these Diets, (for by that name they call their Conventus Ordinum, or Assembly of the three Estates) they are summoned at the will and pleasure of the Emperour only, and at such place and time as to him seems meetest.Id. ibid. Where being met, (as all the three Estates must meet either in person or by their Ambassadors) they use to treat of Peace and War, of raising Subsidies and Taxes to support the State, of leagues and confede­racies, of raising and decrying moneys, of making, abrogating, and expounding laws, and of such other points and matters as do pertain unto the honour of the Em­pire and the publick safety. Nor is this any new authority which the Ecclesiastical Estate hath gained in the latter times; but such wherein they were intrusted from the first beginning of that Empire: It being affirmed by Aventinus (a Writer of un­questioned credit) that long before the institution of the seven Electors, (which was in An. 996.) the Prelates, the Nobility, and the chief of the People had the election of the Emperour.Aventini An­nal. Boiorum. l. 5. And if the Prelates were intrusted in so high a point, as the Election of the Emperour or the Soveraign Prince; no question but they were imployed also in his publick Councels, in matters which concerned the managery of the Common­wealth.

Next pass we over into France, and there we find the Subjects marshalled into three Estates, whereof the Clergy is the first. Rex coactis tribus Ordinibus, Sacerdotio, No­bilitate, Plebe, Paul. Aemilius hist. Franc. l. 9. subsidia rei pecuniariae petiit, that is to say, the King assembling or con­veening the three Estates, viz. the Clergy, the Nobility, and the Commons, de­manded subsidies for the support of his Estate: So Paulus Aemilius doth inform us: Out of these three are chosen certain Delegates or Commissioners, some for each Estate, as often as the Kings occasions do require their meeting, the time and place whereof is absolutely left unto his disposing; and these thus met do make up the Con­ventus Ordinum, or L' Assemblie des Estats, as the French men call it, in form much like the English Parliament, but in nothing else: the power and reputation of it be­ing much diminished in these latter times, especially since the great improvement of [Page 693]the Court of Parliament, fixed and of long time fixed in Paris. Which Court of Parliament, as it was instituted at the first by Charles Martel, Mayre of the Palace to the Merovignian line of France, and Grand-father to Charle magne, so it consisted at the first of the same ingredients, of which the great Assembly des Estats consisteth now, that is to say, the Prelates and the Peers, and certain of the principal Gentry which they call La Nebless, together with some few of the most considerable Officers of the Kings houshold. A Court of such esteem in the former time, that the Kings of Sicily, Cyprus, Bohemia, Scotland, and Navar, Andre du Chesne. have thought it no disparagement unto them to be members of it: and which is more, when Frederick the second had spent much time and treasure in his quarrels with Pope Innocent the fourth, he was content to sub­mit the whole cause in difference unto the judgement of this Court. But being at last become sedentaire and fixed at Paris, as other ordinary Courts of Justice were, (which was in An. 1286. or thereabouts) the Nobles first, and after them the Bishops withdrew themselves from the troubles of it, and left it to the ordering of the Civil Lawyers: though still the Peers do challenge and enjoy a place therein as oft as any point of moment is in agitation; the Bishop of Paris, and the Abbot of St. Denys, continuing constant members of it to this very day. But for the Assembly des Estats, or Conventus Ordinum, made up of the Clergy, the Nobility and the Commons, as be­fore I told you: he that would see the manner of it, the points there handled, and that remainder of authority which is left unto them, let him repair unto Thuanus, Thuan. hist. sui temp. lib. and look upon the great Assembly held at Bloys, An. 1573. He shall find it there.

Pass we next over the Pyrenees, to the Realms of Spain, and we shall find in each the same three Estates, whose meeting they call there by the name of Curia, Bodin. de Re­pub. lib. 3. c. the Court [...], or by way of eminency; consisting of the Clergy, the Nobility, and Com­missioners of the Provinces and most antient Cities. But we must tell you by the way, that long before the institution of these Courts, and long before the division of Spain into so many Kingdoms; the Prelates of that Church were of such authority, that a chief stroke in the election of their Kings did belong to them. For in the eighth Council of Toledo summoned by Recesvintus the 25th. of the Gothish race of the Kings of Spain, An. 653. so long agoe, in which were present 52 Bishops, 12 Abbots, and the Delegates of Vicars of ten other Bishops, who could not personally attend the service; it was ordered with the Kings consent, that from thenceforth the Kings of Spain should be elected in the Regal City, or in what other place soever the King should happen to decease, by the joynt suffrages of the Prelates, and the great Lords of the Court, Majores Palatii as the Canon calls them.Concil. Tolet. VIII. Can. 10. But take the whole Canon with you for the more assurance, and you find it thus. Abhinc ergo & deinceps ita erunt in Regni gloria praeficiendi Rectores, ut aut in urbe Regia, aut in loco ubi Princeps decesserit, cum Pontisicum Majorumque Palatii omnimodo eligantur assensu. But after Spain became divided into several Kingdoms, and that each Kingdom had its Court or Curia, as they call their Parliament, the Clergy were esteemed in each for the third Estate (the first indeed of all the three) and either in person or by their Proxies, made up the most considerable part in those publick meetings. For proof of which we need but look into the General History of Spain, translated out of French by Grimston, and we shall find a Court or Parliament for the Realm of Aragon, consisting of the Bishops, Nobles, and Deputies of Towns and Commonalties, having place in the said Estates conveened by King James at Saragossa, Anno 1325. for setling the Succession, and de­claring the Heir, another at Monson, Gen. hist. of Spain. l. 14. Id. lib. 11. where the Estates of Aragon and Catalogne did conveen together 1236. to consult about the Conquest of Valentia; and before that another Assembly of the Bishops and Noblemen called at Saragossa by Alfonso the Great, touching the War against the Moores. Id. lib. 9. And as for the Realm of Naples and Sicily, being appends on this Crown, there is little question to be made but that the Bishops and Clergy of both enjoyed the place and priviledges of the third Estate; both Kingdoms being antiently hoden of the Pope, and of his Erection, and the Italian Bishops (as lying directly under his nose) more amply priviledged for the most part than in other Countries. Thus for Castile, we find a Parliament of Lords, Prelates, and Deputies of Towns summoned at Toledo by Alfonso the Noble, An. 1210. upon occasion of an invasion made by the Moores; another before that at Burgos, Id. lib. 10. under the same King, Anno 1179. for levying of money on the people to maintain the Wars; that great Convention of the States held at Toledo by Ferdinand the Catholick 1479. for swearing to the succession of his Son, Don John, in which the Prelates, the Nobility, and almost all the Towns and Cities which sent Commissioners to the Assembly, are [Page 694]expresly named.Id. lib. Thus finally do we find a meeting of the Deputies of the three Estates of Navarre at the Town of Tasalla, Anno 1481. for preserving the Kingdom in obe­dience to King Francis Phoebus, being then a Minor, under Age: and that the Deputies of the Clergy, Id. lib. 22. Nobility, Provinces and good Towns and Portugal, assembled at Tomara, Anno 1581. to acknowledg Philip the second for their King, and to settle the Government of that Kingdom for the times to come.Id. lib. 30.

Now let us take a view of the Northern Kingdoms, V and still we find the people ranked in the self-same manner, and their great Councils to consist of the Clergy, the Nobility, and certain Deputies, sent from the Provinces and Cities, as in those be­fore. In Hungary, before that Realm received the Gospel, we read of none but Nobiles & Plebeii, Bonfinius in hist. Hungar. Dec. l. 1. Id. ibid. Dec. 2. l. 2. Id. Decad. 2. l. 3. the Nobility and common people who did concur to the Election of their Kings; but no sooner was the Faith of Christ admitted, and a Clergy instituted, but instantly we find a third Estate, Episcopos & Sacerdotum Collegia, Bishops and others of the Clergy superadded to them, for the Election of the Kings, and the dispatch of other businesses which concerned the publick, as it continueth to this day. In Dane­mark we shall find the same, if we mark it well. For though Poutanus seem to count upon five Estates, making the Regal Family to be the first, and subdividing the Com­mons into two, whereof the Yeomanry makes one, and the Tradesman or Citizen the other:Pontan. in Do­riae descript. Id. in histor. Rerum Danic. l. 7. yet in the body of the History we find only three, which are the Bishops, the Nobility, and Civitatum delegati, the Deputies or Commissioners of Towns and Cities: Take which of these Accounts you will, and reckon either upon Five or on three Estates, yet still the Ecclesiastick State, or Ordo Ecclesiasticus, as himself entituleth it, is declared for one; and hath been so declared, as their stories tell us, ever since the first admittance of the Faith amongst them: the Bishops, together with the Peers and Deputies, making up the Comitia or Conventus Ordinum. In Poland the chief sway and power of Government, next to the King, is in the Council of Estate, Se­cundum Regem maxima & Augustissima Senatus autoritas, Thuan. hist. sui temp. l. 56. as Thuanus hath it. And that consisteth of nine Bishops, whereof the Archbishops of Guisna and Leopolis make al­ways two; of fifteen Palatines, for by that name they call the greater sort of the No­bility, and of sixty five Chastellans, which are the better sort of the Polish Gentry; who with the nine great Officers of the Kingdom, (or which the Clergy are as ca­pable as any other sort or degree of Subjects) do compleat that Council. The Com­mon people there are in no Authority, (à procuratione Reipub. omnino summota) not having any Vote or suffrage in the great Comitia, Thuan. hist. sui temp. l. 56. or general Assemblies of the King­dom, as in other places. For Sweden, it comes near the Government and Forms of Danemark, and hath the same Estates and degrees of people as amongst the Danes, that is to say, Proceres & Nobiles, the greater and the less Nobility, Episcopi & Eccle­siastici, the Bishops and inferiour Clergy, Civitates & universitates, the Cities and Towns corporate (for so I think he means by universitates) as Thuanus mustereth them.Id. lib. 131. And in this Realm the Bishops and Clergy enjoy the place and priviledges of the third Estate (notwithstanding the alteration of Religion) to this very day; the Bishops in their own persons, and a certain number of the Clergy out of every Sochen (a division like our Rural Deanries) in the name of the rest, have a necessary Vote in all their Parliaments. And as for Scotland, their Parliament consisted anciently of three Estates, as learned Cambden doth inform us, that is to say, the Lords spiritual, as Bishops, Abbots, Priors; the temporal Lords, as Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Vi­counts, Barons,Cambden in de­script. Scotiae. and the Commissioners of the Cities and Burroughs; To which were added by King James two Delegates or Commissioners out of every County to make it more conform to the English Parliaments. And in some Acts the Prelates are by name declared to be the third Estate, as in the Parliament, Anno 1597. Anno 1606, &c. for which I do refer you to the Book at large.

And now at last we are come to England, VI where we shall find that from the first reception of the Christian Faith amongst the Saxons, the Ecclesiasticks have been cal­led to all publick Councils, and their advice required in the weightiest matters touch­ing the safety of the Kingdom. No sooner had King Ethelbert received the Gospel, but presently we read that as well the Clergy as the Laity were called unto the Com­mon Council: which the Saxons sometimes called Mysel Synoth, the Great Assembly, and sometimes Wittenagemots, the Council or Assembly of the Wise men of the Realm. Anno 605.Coke on Lit. l. 1.2 sect. H. Spelman in Concil. p. 126. Ethelbertus Rex in fide roboratus Catholica, &c. Cantuariae convocavit eom­mune concilium tam Cleri quam populi, &c: ‘King Ethelbert, as my Author hath it, being confirmed in the Faith in the year 605. (which was but nine years after his [Page 695]conversion) together with Bertha his Queen, their son Eadbald, the most Reverend Archbishop Augustine, and all the rest of the Nobility, did solemnize the Feast of Christs Nativity in the City of Canterbury; and did there cause to be assembled on the ninth of January the Common-council of his Kingdom, as well the Clergy as the Lay Subject, by whose consent and approbation, he caused the Monastery by him built, to be dedicated to the honour of Almighty God, by the hand of Augu­stine.’ And though no question other Examples of this kind may be found amongst the Saxon Heptarchs, yet being the West Saxon Kingdom did in fine prevail, and united all the rest into one Monarchy: we shall apply our selves unto that more punctually. Where we shall find besides two Charters issued out by Athelston, Consilio Wlfelmi Ar­chiepiscopi mei & aliorum Episcoporum meorum, Ap. eund. p. 402, 403. by the advice of Wlfelm his Archbishop and his other Bishops: that Ina in the year 702. caused the Great Council of his Realm to be assembled, consisting ex Episcopis, Principibus, proceribus, &c. of Bishops, Princes, Nobles, Earls, and of all the Wise men, Elders, and people of the whole King­dom, and there enacted divers Laws for the weal of his Realm.Apud. eund. p. 219. Thus do we read that Egbert, who first united the seven Kingdoms of the Saxons under the name of England, did cause to be convened at London his Bishops and the Peers of the highest rank, pro consilio capiendo adversus Danicos Piratas, Charta Whit­lafii Merciorum Regis ap Ingulf. to advise upon some course against the Danish Pirates who infested the Sea coasts of England. Another Parliament or Council, call it which you will, called at Kingsbury, Anno 855. in the time of Ethel­wolph the Son of Egbert, pro negotiis regni, to treat of the affairs of the Kingdom:Chart. Bertulfi. Merc. Regis ap. Ingulf. Ingulfi Croy­land hist. the Acts whereof are ratified and subscribed by the Bishops, Abbots, and other great men of the Realm. The same King Ethelwolph in a Parliament or Assembly of his States at Winchester, Anno 855. Cum consilio Episcoporum & principum, by the advice and counsel of the Bishops and Nobility, confirmed unto the Clergy the tenth part of all mens goods; and ordered that the Tithe so confirmed unto them should be free ab omnibus secularibus servitutibus, from all secular services and impositions. In the Reign of Edred we find this, Anno 948. In Festo igitur nativitatis B. Mariae cum uni­versi Magnates regni per Regium edictum summoniti, tam Archiepiscopi & Episcopi ac Abbates, quam caeteri totius Regni, proceres & optimates Londoniis convenissent ad tractan­dum de negotiis publicis totius Regni: Id ibid. p. 49. edit. Lond. viz. That in the Feast of the Nativity of the bles­sed Virgin, the great men of the Realm, that is to say, Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Nobles, Peers, were summoned by the Kings Writ to appear at London, to handle and conclude about the publick affairs of the Kingdom. Mention of this Assembly is made again at the foundation and endowment of the Abbie of Crowland; Id. p. 500. and af­terwards a confirmation of the same by Edgar, Anno 966. praesentibus Archiepiscopis, Espiscopi, Abbatibus & Optimatibus Regni, in the presence of the Archbishops, Bishops,Id. pag. 501. 502. Abbots and Peers of the Kingdom. Like convention of Estates we find to have been called by Canutus after the death of Edmund Ironside, for the setling of the Crown on his own head, of which thus the Author.Rog. Hoveden. Annal. pars prior. p. 250. Cujus post mortem Rex Canutus omnes Epi­scopos & Duces, necnon & principes cunctos (que) optimates gentis Angliae Londoniae congre­gari jussit. Where still we find the Bishops to be called to Parliament as well as the Dukes, Princes, and the rest of the Nobility; and to be ranked and marshalled first (which clearly shews that they were always reckoned for the first Estate) before the greatest and most eminent of the secular Peers. And so we find it also in a Charter of King Edward the Confessor, the last King of the Saxon race) by which he granted certain Lands and priviledges to the Church of Westminster, Anno 1066. Cum consilio & decreto Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, Comitum, aliorum (que) Optimatum, Ap. H. Spelman in Concil. p. 630. with the Council and decree of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, and others of his Nobles. And all this while the Bishops and other Prelates of the Church did hold their Lands by no other Tenure, than in pura & perpetua eleemosyna, or Frank almoigne, Cambden in Brit. as our Lawyers call it: and therefore sat in Parliament in no other capacity than as spiritual persons meerly, who by their extraordinary knowledg in the Word of God, and in such other parts of Learning, as the World then knew, were thought best able to di­rect and advise their Princes in points of judgment. In which capacity and no other the Priors of the Cathedral Churches of Canterbury, Ely, Winchester, Coventry, Bath, Worcester, Norwich, and Durham, the Deans of Exeter, York, Wells, Salisbury, and Lin­coln, the Official of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Dean of the Arches, the Guardian of the Spiritualties of any Bishoprick when the See was vacant,Selden Titles of hon. part. 2. c. 5. and the Vicars general of such Bishops as were absent beyond the Seas, had sometimes place and suf­frage in the house of Lords in the Ages following.

But when the Norman Conqueror had possest the State, VII then the case was altered. the Prelates of the Church were no longer suffered to hold their Lands in Frankal­moigne as before they did, or to be free from secular services and commands, as be­fore they were. Although they kept their Lands, yet they changed their Tenure, and by the Conqueror,Mat. Paris in Will. 1. Auno 1.70. were ordained to hold their Lands sub militari servitute, ei­ther in Capite, or by Baronage, or some such military hold, and thereby were com­p [...]lable to aid the Kings in all times of War, with Men, Arms, and Horses, as the Lay subjects of the same Tenures were required to do. Which though it were con­ceived to be a great Disfranchisement at the first, and an heavy burden to the Prelacy, yet it conduced at last to their greater honour; in giving them a further Title to their place in Parliament, than that which formerly they could pretend to. Before, they claimed a place therein ratione Officii, only by reason of their Offices or spiritual Dignities; but after this, by reason also of those ancient Baronies which were annex­ed unto their Dignities;Stamfords Pleas, l. 3. c. 1. en respect de lour possessions, l'antient Baronies annexes a lour dignities, as our Lawyers have it. From this time forwards we must look upon them in the House of Parliament, not as Bishops only, but as Peers and Barons of the Realm also, and so themselves affirmed to the Temporal Lords in the Parliament holden at Northampt [...]n under Henry 2. Non sedimus hic Episcopi, sed Barones; nos Barones, vos Barones; Ap. Selden. Titles of hon. p. 2. c. 5. Pares hic sumus. We fit not here say they, as Bishops only, but as Barons; We are Barons, and you are Barons; here we sit as Peers. Which last is also verified in terminis, by the words of a Statute, or Act of Parliament, wherein the Bishops are acknowledged to be Peers of the Land. Stat. 25 Edw. 3. c. 5. Now that the Bishops are a fundamental and essential part of the Parliament of England, I shall endeavour to make good by two manner of proofs; whereof the one shall be de jure, and the other de facto. And first we shall begin with the proofs de jure, and therein first with that which doth oc­cur in the Laws of King Athelstan, amongst the which there is a Chapter (it is Cap. 11.) entituled De officio Episcopi, & quid pertinet ad officium ejus; and therein it is thus declared.Spelm. concil. p. 402. Episcopo jure pertinet omnem rectitudinem promovere, Dei scilicet & se­culi &c. & convenit ut per consilium & testimonium ejus omne legis scitum, & Burgi men­sura, & omne pondus sit secundum dictionem ejus institutum, that is to say, it belongeth of right unto the Bishop to promote Justifice, in matters which concern both the Church and State, and unto him it appertaineth that by his counsel and award, all Laws and Weights, and Measures be ordained throughout the Kingdom. 2. Next we will have recourse to the old Record entituled Modus tenendi Parliamentum. In which it is affirmed, ad Parliamentum summoneri & venire debere Archiepiscopos, Epi­scopos, Abbates, Priores, & alios majores cleri, qui tenent per Comitatum aut Baroniam ratione hujusmodi tenurae, Modus tenendi Parliament. that all the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbats, Priors, and other Prelates of the Church, who hold their Lands either by an Earls fee or a Barons fee, were to be summoned and to come to Parliament in regard of their Tenure. 3. Next look we on the chartularies of King Henry the first, recognized in full Parliament at Clarendon under Henry the 2d. where they are called avitas consuetudines, which de­clare it thus, Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, & universae personae qui de Rege tenent in Capite, habeant possessiones suas de Rege sicut Baroniam, &c. & sicut caeteri Barones debent in­teresse juditiis Curiae Regis cum Baronibus, quousque perveniatur ad diminutionem membro­rum vel ad mortem. Matth. Paris in Hen. 2. The meaning is in brief, that Archbishops, Bishops, and all other Ecclesiastical persons which hold in Capite of the King, are to have and hold their Lands in Barony, and that they ought as Barons to be present in all Judgments with the other Barons in the Court of Parliament, until the very sentence of death or mutilation (which was very common in those times) was to be pronounced. And then they commonly did use to withdraw themselves, not out of any incapacity sup­posed to be in them by the Law of England, but out of a restraint imposed upon them by the Canons of the Church of Rome. 4. In the great Charter made by King John in the last of his Reign, we have the Form of summoning a Parliament, and calling those together who have Votes therein, thus expressed at large. Ad haben­dum commune consilium Regni de auxilio assidendo, &c. & de scutagiis assidendis, faciemus summoneri Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Abbates, Comites, & Majores Barones Regni sigillatim per literas nostras: Et praeterea summoneri faciemus in generali per Vice Comites & Balli­vos nostros omnes alios qui in Capite tenent ad certum diem, Id. in Joh. sc. ad terminum 40. dierum ad minus, & ad certum locum, &c. In which we have not only a most evident proof, that the Bishops are of right to be called to Parliament, for granting Subsidies and Escuago, and treating of the great Affairs which concern the Kingdom, but that they are to [Page 697]be summoned by particular Letters, as well as the Earls and Barons or either of them; A Form or copy of which summons issued in the time of the said King John, is ex­tant on Record, and put in print of late in the Titles of Honour. Pr. 2. c. 5. And we have here (I note this only by the way) a brief intimation touching the Form of summoning the Commons to attend in Parliament, and the time of 40 days expresly specified to intervene between the summons and the beginning of the Parliament: Which Com­mons being such as anciently did hold in Capite, and either having a Knights fee or the degree of Knighthood, did first promiscuously attend in these publick meetings, and after were reduced to four (quatuor discretos milites de Comitatu tuo, Id. ibid. as the Writ ran unto the Sheriff) and at last to two, as they continue to this day. 5. We have it thus in the Magna Charta of King Henry the 3d. the birth-right of the English Subject, according as it stands translated in the book of Statutes. First we have granted to God, and by this our present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, Magna Charta. ca. 1. and shall enjoy all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. But it was a known Right and Liberty of the Church of England, that all the Bishops, and many of the greater Clergy (and peradventure also the inferiour Clergy whereof more anon) had their Votes in Parliament; and therefore is to be preserved inviolable by the Kings of England, their heirs and Successors for ever. Which Charter as it was confirmed by a solemn Curse denounced on all the Infringers of it by Boniface Archbishop of Canterbury, Matth. Paris in Henr. 3. and ratified in no fewer than 30 succeeding Parliaments: so was it enacted in the reign of Edward the first, that it should be sent under the great Seal of England, to all the Cathedral Churches of the Kingdom, to be read twice a year before the people; 25 Edw. 1. c. 2. 28 Edw. 1. c. 1. 25 Edw. 1. c. 3. that they should be read four times every year in a full County-Court, and finally that all judgments given against it should be void. 6. We have the Protestation of John Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury in the time of King Edward the 3d. who being in disfavour with the King, and denied entrance into the House of Peers, [...]llenged his place and suffrage there as the first Peer of the Realm, and one that ought to have the first Voice in Parliament in right of his See. But hear him speak his own words, which are these that follow. Amici (for he spake to those who took witness of it) Rex me ad hoc Parliamentum scripto suo vocavit, & ego tanquam major Par Regni post Regem, & primam vocem habere debens in Par­liamento, jura Ecclesiae meae Cantuariensis vendico, Antiqu. Britan. in Joh. Strat­ford. & ideo ingressum in Parliamentum peto, which is full and plain. 7. And lastly, there is the Protestation on Record of all the Bishops in the reign of King Richard the 2d. at what time William Courtney was Arch-bishop of Canterbury: who being to withdraw themselves from the House of Peers at the pronouncing of the sentence of death on some guilty Lords, first made their Procurators to supply their rooms, and then put up their Protestation to preserve their Rights; the sum whereof, for as much as doth concern this business, in their own words thus. De jure & consuetudine regni Angliae ad Archiepiscopum Cantuarien­sem qui pro tempore fuerit, necnon caeteros Suffraganeos confratres & compatres, Abbates & Priores alios (que) Prelatos quoscun (que) per Baroniam de domino Rege tenentes, pertinet in Parliamentis Regis quibuscunque, ut Pares regni praedicti personaliter interesse, ibidemque de regni negotiis ac aliis tractari consuetis cum caeteris dicti regni Paribus & aliis ibidem jus interessendi habentibus consulere & tractare, ordinare, statuere, & diffinire, ac caetera fa­cere quae Parliamento ibidem imminent facienda. In vita Gul. Courtney. This put together makes enough abundantly for the proofs de jure, and makes the Bishops right to have Vote in Par­liament to be undeniable: Let us next see whether this right of theirs be not con­firmed and countenanced by continual practice, and that they have not lost it by dis­continuance; which is my second kind of proofs, those I mean de facto. And first beginning with the reign of the Norman Conqueror, we find a Parliament assembled in the fifth year of that King, wherein are present Episcopi, Abbates, Comites, & Pri­mates toties Angliae, the Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and the rest of the Baronage of Eng­land. Matth. Paris in Williglmo 1. In the 9th year of William Rufus an old Author telleth us, de regni statu acturus, Episcopos, Abbates, & quoscunque Regni proceres in unum praecepti sui sanctione egit; that be­ing to consult of the affairs of the Kingdom he called together by his Writ the Bishops, Abbots and all the Peers of the Realm.Eadmer. hist. Nov. l. 2. During the reign of Henry the 2d. (for we will take but one Example out of each Kings reign, though each Kings reign would yield us more) a Patliament was called at London, wherein were many things dispatched as well so Ecclesiastical as secular nature; the Bishops and Abbots being present with the other Lords. Coacto apud Londoniam magno Episcoporum, & Procerum, Abbatum (que) Concilio, multa ecclesiasticarum & secularium rerum ordinata negotia, decisa litigia, saith the Monk [Page 698]of Malmesbury. Malmesb. hist. reg. Angl. l. 5. And of this Parliament it is, I take it, that Eadmer speaketh, Hist. Novel. l. 4. p. 91. Proceed we to King Henry the 2d. (for King Stephens reign was so full of Wars and Tumults that there is very little to be found of Parliaments) and there we find the Bishops with the other Peers convened in Parliament for the determination of the points in controversie between Alfonso K. of Castile and Sancho K. of Navarre, re­ferred by compremise to that King of England, and here determined by K. Henry amongst other things, habito cum Episcopis Comitibus & Baronibus cum deliberatione consilio, as in Roger Hoveden. Hoveder An­nal. pars poster­in Hen. 2. Next him comes Richard the first, his Son, during whose imprison­ment by the D. of Austria, his Brother John then Earl of Moriton endeavoured by force and cunning in Normandy to set the Crown on his own head: which caused Hubert the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to call a Parliament (Convocatis coram eo Episcois, Comitibus & Baronibus regni) wherein the Bishops,Id in Joh. Earls, and Barons did with one consent agree to seiz on his Estate, and suppress his power, the better to preserve the Kingdom in wealth, peace and safety. After succeded John, and he calls a Parliament, wherein were certain Laws made for the defence of his Kingdom, Communi assensu Archiepis­coporum, Episcoporum, Comitum, Baronum & omnium fidelium suorum Angliae, by the common Council and assent of the Arch-bishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, and the rest of his Leiges. (Remember what was said before touching the Writ of Summons in the said Kings time) From this time till the last Parliament of King Charles, there is no Kings reign, of which we have not many (though not all) the Acts of Par­liament still in print amongst us. Nor is there any Act of Parliament in the printed Books, to the enactig of the which the Bishops approbation and consent is not plain­ly spectified, either in the general Prome set before the Acts, or in the body of the Act it self; as by the books themselves doth at large appear. And to this kind of proof may be further added the form and manner of the Writ by which the Prelates in all times have been called to Parliament, being the very same verbatim with that which is directed to the Temporal Barons, save that the Spiritual Lords are command­ed to attend to the service, in fide & dilectione, the Temporal in fide & homagio, and of late times in fide & legeantia. A form or copy of which summons as ancient as King Johns time,V. Titles of Hon. pt. 2. c. 5. is still preserved upon Record, directed nominatim to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury; and then a scriptum est similiter to the residue of the Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and Barons. Then add the Priviledg of Parliament for themselves and their servants, during the time of the Sessions; the liberty to kill, and take one or two of the Kings Deer as they pass by any of his Forests in coming to the Parliament upon his commandment; Charta de Fo­resta cap. Cambden in Britannia. their enjoying of the same immunities, which are and have been heretofore enjoyed by the Temporaal Barons: and tell me if the Bishops did not sit in Parliament by as good a Title, and have not sat there longer by some hundreds of years in their Predecessors, as or than any of the Temporal Lords do sit or have sat there in their Progenitours; and therefore certainly Essential, Fundamental parts of the Court of Parliament.

But against this it is objected, VIII first, that some Acts have passed in Parliament, to which the Prelates did not Vote, not could be present in the House when the Bill was passed; as in the sentencing to death or mutilation of a guilty person: as doth appear both by the Laws and constitutions recognized at Clarendon, and the following practice. This hath been touched on before, and we told you then, that this restraint was laid upon them, not by the Common Law of England, or an Act or Ordinance of the House of Peers, by which they were disabled to attend that service. It was their own voluntary Act, none compelled them to it, but only out of a copnformity to some former Canons (ad sanctorum Canonum instituta, Antiqu. Brit. in Gul. Conri­ne [...]. Constitut. O­thobon. fol. 45. as their own words are) by which it was not lawful for the Clergy-men to be either Judges or Assessors in causa Sangui­nis. And yet they took such care to preserve their Interests, that they did not only give their Proxies for the representing of their persons, but did put up their Protesta­tion with a salvo jure for the preserving of their rights for the time to come: jure Paritatis & interessendi in dicto Parliamento quaod omnia & singula ibi exercenda in omni­bus semper salvo, Antiqu. Britan. in Gul. Court­ney. as the manner was. Examples of the which are as full and frequent, as their withdrawing themselves on the said occasions. But then the main Objection is, that as some Acts have passed in Parliament absentibus Praelatis, when the Bishops did absent themselves of their own accord; so many things have been transacted in the Parliament excluso Clero, when the Clergy have been excluded or put out of the House by some Act or Ordinance. A precedent for this hath been found and pub­lished by such as envied that poor remnant of the Churches honour: though possibly they will find themselves deceived in their greatest hope, and that the evidence will [Page 699]not serve to evince the cause, The Author of the Pamphlet entituled, The Prerogative and practice of Parliaments, first laying down his Tenet, that many good Acts of Par­liament may be made though the Arch-bishops and Bishops should not consent unto them (which is a point no man doubts of,Printed at London 16.8. p. 37. consideriong how easily their Negative may be over-ruled by the far greater number in the House of Peers) adds, that at a Parliament holden at St. Edmundsbury 1196. in th reign of Edw. 1. a Statute was made by the King, the Barons, and the Commons, Excluso Clero, and for the proof hereof refers us unto Bishop Jewel. Now Bishop Jewel saith indeed, that in a Parlia­ment solemnly holden at St. Edmundsbury by King Edward 1. An 1296. the Arch-bishops and Bishops were quite shut forth, and yet the Parliament held on, and good, and whole­some Laws were there enacted, the departing or absence of the Lords Spiritual notwithstand­ing. In the Records whereof it is written thus, Defence of the Apolog. pt. 5. c. 2. §. 1. Habito Rex cum Baronibus suis Parlia­mento, & Clergo excluso statutum est, &c. the King keeping the Parliament with his Ba­rons, the Clergy (that is to say, the Arch-bishops, and Bishops) being shut forth, it was enacted, &c. Wherein who doth not see, if he hath any eyes, that by this reason (if the proof be good) many good Acts of Parliament may be made, though the Commons either out of absence or opposition should not consent unto them of whose consent unto that Statute (whatsoever it was) there is as little to be found in that Record, as the con­currence of the Bishops. But for Answer unto so much of this Record so often spoken of and applauded as concerns the Bishops, we say, that this (if truly senced as I think it be not) was the particular Act of an angry and offended King against his Clergy, not to be drawn into Example as a proof or Argument against a most clear, known, and un­doubted right. The case stood thus, A Constitution had been made by Boniface the 8th. Ne aliqua collecta ex Ecclesiasticis proventibus Regi aut cuivis alii Principi con­cedatur, Matth. Westm. in Edw. 1. that Clergy-men should not pay any Tax or Tallage unto Kings or Princes our of their Spiritual preferments, without the leave of the Pope: under pretence whereof the Clergy at this Parliament at St. Edmundsbury, refused to be contributory to the Kings occasions, when the Lay-Members of the House had been forwards in it. The King being herewith much offended, gives them a further day to consider of it, adjourning the Parliament to London, there to begin on the morrow after St. Hilaries day; and in the mean time commanded all their Barns to be fast sealed up. The day being come, and the Clergy still persisting in their former obstinacy, excluso è Par­lamento Clero Concilium Rex cum solis Baronibus &c populo habuit, totumq, Antiq. Brit. in R. Winchelsey. statim Clerum protectione sua privavit; the King (saith the Historian) excluding the Clergy out of the Parliament, advised with his Barons and his people only, what was best to be done, by whose advice he put the Clergy out of his protection, and thereby forced them to conform to his will and pleasure. This is the summa totalis of the business, and comes unto no more but this, that a particular course was advised in Parliament on a particular displeasure taken by the King against the body of his Clergy then con­vened together, for their particular refusal to contribute to his wants and Wars, the better to reduce them to their natural duty. Which makes not any thing at all against the right of Bishops in the House of Peers, or for excluding them that House, or for the validity of such Acts as are made in Parliament during the time of such exclusion: especially considering that the King shortly after called his States together,Wlsingh. in Edw. 1. Anno 1297. and did ex­cuse himself for many extravagant Acts whch he had committed against the liberties of the Subject (whereof this was one) laying the blame thereof on his great occa­sions, and the necessities which the Wars which he had abroad, did impose upon him: And so much as in answer unto that Record, supposing that the words thereof be rightly senced, as I think they are not, and that by Clerus there we are to understand Arch-bishops and Bishops, as I think we be not, there being no Record (I dare boldly say it) either of History of Law, in which the word Clerus serve to signifie the Arch-bi­shops, and Bishops, exclusive of the other Clergy; or any writing whatsoever, wherein it doth not either signifie the whole Clergy generally, or ther inferiour Clergy only ex­clusive of the Arch-bishops, Bishops, and other Prelates. Therefore in answer unto that so much applauded Cavil of Excluso Clero, from what Record soever it either hath been hitherto or shall hereafter be produced; I shall propose it to the consideration of the sober Reader, whether by Clerus in that place, or in any other of that kind and time, we must not understand the inferiour Clergy, as they stand distinguished in the Laws from my Lords the Bishops. For howsoever it be true, that Clerus in the Ecclesiastical notion of the word doth signifie the whole Clergy generally, Arch-bishops, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons: yet in the legal notion of it, it stands distin­guished [Page 700]from the Prelates, and signifieth only the inferiour Clergy. Thus do we find the Ecclesiasticks of this Realm divided into Prelates, men of Religion, and other Clerks, 3. Edw. 1. c. 1. the Seculars either into Prelates and Clerks, 9 Edw. 2. c. 3. 1 Rich. 2. c. 3. or Prelates and Clerks Beneficed, 18 Edw. 3. c. 2. or generally into the Prelates and the Clergy, 9 Edw. 2. c. 15. 14 Edw. 3. c. 1. & 3. 18 Edw. 3. 2.7. & 25 Edw. 3.2.4. & 8 Hen. 6. c. 1. and in all acts and grants of Subsidies, made by the Clergy to the Kings or Queens of England since the 32 of Henry 8. (when the Clergy Subsidies first began to be confirmed by Act of Parliament.) So also in the Latin ideom, Regist. War­ham. Regist. Cran­mer. Statut. [...]. Eliz c. 17. & ever since. Stat. 1. Phil. & Mar. c. 8. which comes nearest home, Nos Praelati & Clerus, in the submission of the Clergy to King Henry VIII. and in the sentence of divorce against Anne of Cleve, and in the instrument of the grant of the grant of the Clergy Subsidies presented to the Kings of England ever since the 27th. of Queen Elizabeth, and in the form of the Certificates (per Praelatos & Clerum) returned by every Bishop to the Lord High Treasurer, and finally, Nos Episcopi & Clerus Cantuariensis Provinciae in hac Synodo more nostro solito dum Regni Parliamentum celebratur, congregati, in the Petition to K. K. Philip and Mary, about the confirmation of the Abby Lands to the Patentees. So that though many Statutes have been made in these later times, excluso Clero, the Clergy (that is to say the inferiour Clergy) being quite shut out, and utterly excluded from those publick Councils; yet this proves nothing to the point, that any Act of Parliament hath been they either were shut out by force, or excluded by cunning, As for Kilbancies book which that Author speaks of,Proing. & pract. of Parl. p. 38. in which the Justices are made to say 7 H. 8. that our Sovereign Lord the King may well hold his Parliament by him and his Temporal Lords, and by the Commons also, without the Spiritual Lords, for that the Spiritual Lords have not any place in the Parliament Chamber, by reason of their Spiritualties, but by reason of their Temporal possessions: Besides that it is only the opinion of a private man, of no authority or credit in the Common-wealth, and contrary to the practice in the Saxon times, in which the Bishops sate in Parliament as Spiritual per­sons, not as Barons; the reason for ought I can see, will serve as well to pretermit all or any of the Temporal Lords, as it can serve to pretermit or exclude the Bishops, the Temporal Lords being called to Parliament on no other ground, than for the Tem­poral possessions which they hold by Barony.

If it be said that my second answer to the argument of Excluso Clero supposeth that the inferior Clergy had some place in Parliament, IX which not to be supposed makes the Answer void: I shall crave leave to offer some few observations unto the conside­ration of the sober and impartial Reader, by which I hope to make that supposition probable, and perhaps demonstrative. First then we have that famous Parliament (call it Concilium magnum, or Concilium commune, or by what other name soever the old Writers called it) summoned by King Ethelbert, Concil. Hen. Spei [...]. Anno 605. which my Author calleth Commune concilium tam Cleri quam Populi, where Clerus comprehendeth the body of the Clergy generally, as well the Presbyters as the Bishops; as the word populus doth the lay-subject generally, as well Lords as Commons; or else the Lords and Commons, one of the two must needs be left out. And in this sense we are to understand these words in the latter times,Matth. Paris in Hen. 1. as where we read that Clerus Angliae & populus Ʋniversus were summoned to appear at Westminister, at the Coronation of King Henry the first, where divers Laws were made and declared, subscribed by the Arch-bishops, Bishops, and others of the principal persons that were there assembled:Rong. Hov. in Hen. 2. that Clero & populo con­vocato, the Clergy and People of the Realm were called to Clarendon, Anno 1163. by King Henry II. for the declaring and conforming of the Subjects liberties: that in the year 1185. towards the latter end of the said Kings Reign, Convocatus est Clerus & po­pulus cum tota Nobilitate ad fontem Clericorum, Matth. Paris in Hen. 2. the Clergy, Commons, and Nobility were called unto the Parliament held at Clerkenwell: and finally that a Parliament was called at London, in which the Arch-bishop of Canterbury was present, cum toto Clero & tota secta Laicali, Quadrilog. ap. Selden Tit. of Hon. pt. 2. c. 5. in the time of King John. Hitherto then the Clergy of both ranks and orders, as well as Populus or tota secta Laioalis, the Subjects of the Laity, or the Lords and Commons, had their place in Parliament. And in possession of this right the Clergy stood when the Magna Charta was set out by King Henry III. wherein the Freedoms, Rights, and Priviledges of the Church of England (of which this evidently was one) was confirmed unto her: of the irrefragable and inviolable authority whereof we have spoken before.Magna Charta, cap. 1. The Cavil of Excluso Clero which hath been used against the Voting of the Bishops in the House of Peers, comes in next for proof, that [Page 701]the inferiour Clergy had their place or Vote with the House of Commons; (if in those times the Lords and Commons made two Houses, which I am not sure of) the Clergy could not be excluded in an angry fit, or out of a particular design to deprive them of the benefit of the Kings protection; if they had not formerly a place amongst them: and if we will not understand by Clerus, the inferior Clergy, which much about that time (as before we shewed) began to be the legal English of the word; we must needs understand the whole Clergy generally, the Clergy of both ranks and orders. But our main proofs are yet to come, which are these that follow. First, it is evident that antiently the Clergy of each several Diocess were chargeable by Law for the expences of their Proctors in attending the service of the Parliament; accor­ding as the Counties were by Common law (since confirmed by Statute 23 H. 6. c. 11.) to bear the charges of their Knights, the burroughs and Cities of their Representees; which questionless the Laws had not taken care for, but that the Clergy had their place in Parliament as the Commons had.Rotul. Patent. 26 Ed. 3. pt. 1. 1. M. 22. And this appears by a Record of 26th. of King Edward III. in which the Abbot of Leicester being then, but never formerly commanded to attend in Parliament amongst others of the Regular Prelates; petiti­oned to be discharged from that attendance, in regard he held in Frank-Almoigne only, by no other tenure. Which he obtained upon this condition, ut semper in Procuratores ad hujusmodi Parliamenta mittendos consentiat, &, ut moris est, eorundem expensis contribuat, that is to say, that he and his Successors did give their Voices in the choice of such Procurators, as the Clergy were to send to Parliament, and did contribute towards their charges as the custom was. Next in the Modus tenendi Parliamentum, which be­fore we spake of, there is a modus convocandi Clerum Angliae ad Parl. Regis, Modus tenendi Parl. Ms. V. Titles of hon. pt. 2. a form of to the Court of Parliament; said to be used in the time of Edward the Son of Ethelred, presented to the Conqueror, and by him observed; which shews the Clergy in those times had their place in Parliament. Which being but a general inference shall be de­livered more particularly from the Modus it self, which informs us thus, Rex est caput, principium & finis Parliamenti, &c. ‘The King is the Head,Modus tenendi Parl. Ms. c. 12. the beginning and end of the Parliament, and so he hath not any equal in the first degree; the second is of Arch-bishop, Bishops, and Priors, and Abbots holding by Barony; the third is of Procu­rators of the Clergy; the fourth of Earls, Barons, and other Nobles; the fifth is of Knights of the Shire; the sixth of Citizens and Burgesses: and so the whole Parlia­ment is made up of these six degrees.’ But the said Modus tells us more, and goeth more particularly to work than so. For in the ninth Chapter, speaking of the course which was observ'd in canvassing hard and difficult matters, it telleth us that they used to choose 25 out of all degrees, (like a grand Committee) to whose consideration they referred the point; that is to say, two Bishops and three Proctors for the Cleergy, two Earls, three Barons, fire Knights, five Citizens, and as many Burgesses. And in the 12th that on the fourth day of the Parliament, the Lord High Steward, the Lord Constable, and the Lord Marshal were to call the House, every degree or rank of men in its several Order; and that if any of the Proctors of the Clergy did not make appea­rance, the Bishop of the Diocess was to be fined 100 l. and in the 23d. Chapter it is said expresly, that as the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses in things which do concern the Commons, have more Authority than all the Lords; so the Proctors for the Clergy, in things which do concern the Clergy, have more Authority than all the Bishops.Preface to the 9th. part of Reports. Which Modus, if it be as antient as the Norman Conqueror, as both Sir Edward Coke con­ceiveth, and the title signifieth, it sheweth the Clergies claim to a place in Parliament to be more antient than the Commons can pretend unto: but if no older than the Reign of King Edward III. as confidently is affirmed in the Titles of Honour,Titles of hon. pt. 2. c. 5. it sheweth that in the usage of those latter times the Procurators of the Clergy had a right and place there as well as Citizens and Burgesses, or the Knights of the Shires. And this is fur­ther proved by the Writs of Summons directed to the Arch-bishops and Bishops for their own coming to the Parliament; in the end whereof there is a clause for warning the Dean and Chapter of their Cathedrals, and the Arch-deacons with the whole Clergy to be present at it, that is to say the Deans and Arch-deacons personally, the Chapter and Clergy in their Proctours, then and there to consent to such Acts and Ordinances as shall be made by the Common Council of the Kingdom. The whole clause word for word is this, Praemunientes Priorem & Capitulum (or decanum & Capitulum, Extant ibid. pt. 2. c. 5. as the case might vary) Ecclesiae vestrae N. ac Archidiacanos totumque Clerum vestrae Dioceseos, quod iidem Decanus & Archidiaconi in propriis personis suis, ac dictum Capitulum per unum, idem­que [Page 702]Clerus per duos Procuratores idoneos plenam & sufficientem potestatem ab ipsis Capitulo & Clero habentes, praedicto die & loco personaliter intersint, ad consentiendum iis quae tunc ibidem de communi consilio ipsius Regni nostri divina favente clementia contigerit ordinari. Which clause being in the Writs of King Edward I. and for the most part of the Reign of his next Successors, till the middle of King Richard the second, at which time it began to be fixt and formal; hath still continued in those Writs (without any difference almost between the Syllables) to this very day. Id. ibid. Now that this clause was more than Verbal, and that the Proctors of the Clergy did attend in Parliament, is evident by the Acts and Statutes of King Richard the second: the passages whereof I shall cite at large, the better to conclude what I have in hand. The Duke of Glocester and the Earl of Arundel having gotten the mastery of the King, obtained a Commission directed to themselves and others of their nomination,Statut. 21 R. 2. c. 2. to have the rule of the King and his Realm: and having their Commission confirmed by Parliament, in the 11. year of his reign, did execute divers of his Friends and Ministers, and seized on their Estates as forfeited. But having gotten the better of his head-strong and rebellious Lords, in the one and twentieth of his reign he calls a Parliament, in the Acts whereof it is declared, ‘That on the Petition of the Commons, of the assent of all the Lords Spiritual and Tem­poral, and of the Proctors of the Clergy, Ibid. c. 2. he repealed the said Statute and Commission, and with the assent of the said Lords and Commons did ordain and establish that no such Commission nor the like be henceforth purchased, pursued or made. This done, the Heirs of such as had been condemned by vertue of the said Commision, demanded restitution of their Lands and Honours. And thereupon the Lords Spiritual and Tem­poral, and the Procurators of the Clergy (the Commons having prayed to the King be­fore as the Appellants prayed) severally examined, did assent expresly that the said Par­liament and all the Statutes, Ibid. c. 12. &c. and restitution made as afore is said. And also the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, the Procurators of the Clergy; and the said Commons were severally examined of the Questions proposed at Nottingham, and of the Answer which the Judges made unto the same: which being read as well before the King and the Lords, as before the Commons, it was demanded of all the States of the Parliament, what they thought of the Answers, and they said that they were lawfully and duly made, &c. And then it followeth, whereupon the King, by the as­sent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Procurators of the Clergy and the said Commons, and by the advice of the Justices and Sergeants aforesaid (who had been asked their Opinion in point of Law) ordained and established that the said Parlia­ment should be annulled and held for none.’ Add unto this that passage in the 9 of Edward 2. where it is said, that many Articles containing divers grievances committed against the Church of England, the Prelates and Clergy, were propounded by the Prelates and Clerks of our Realm; in Parliament, and great instance made that convenient remedy might be appointed therein: Proem ad arti­calos Cleri. that of the complaints made to the King in Parliament by the Prelates and Clergy of this Realm, 50 Ed. 3.5. & 8 Rich. 2. c. 13. and that of the Petition delivered to the King in the Parliament by the Clergy of England,Selden hist. of Tithes. c. 8.33. 4 Hen. 4. c. 2. And finally that memorable passage in the Parliament, 51 Edw. 3. which in brief was this. The Commons finding themselves agrieved as well with certain Constitutions made by the Clergy in their Synods, as with some Laws or Ordinances which were lately passed, more to the advantage of the Clergy than the common people, put in a Bill to this effect, viz. ‘That no Act nor Ordinance should from thenceforth be made or granted on the petition of the said Clergy, without the consent of the Com­mons; and that the said Commons should not be bound in times to come by any constitutions made by the Clergy of this Realm, for their own advantage, to which the Commons of this Realm had not given consent. The reason of the which is this, and 'tis worth the marking) car eux ne veullent estre obligez a nul de vos estatuz ne Ordinances faitz sanz leur assent, because the said Clergy did not think themselves bound, (as indeed they were not in those times) by any Statute, Act, or Ordinance, made without their Assent in the Court of Parliament.’ Which clearly shews that in those times the Clergy had their place in Parliament as the Com­mons had. Put all which hath been said together, and tell me if it be not clear and evident that the inferiour Clergy had their place in Parliament; whether the clause touching the calling of them thither, were not more than verbal in the Bishops Writs, and is true that in the Writ of summons directed to their several and respective Bi­shops they were called only ad consentiendum, to manifest their consent to those Acts and Ordinances, which by the Common-council of the Realm were to be ordained. [Page 703]But then it is as true withal, that sometimes their advice was asked in the weighty matters, as in the 21 of King Richard the 2. and sometimes they petitioned and re­monstrated for redress of grievances, as in the instances and cases which were last produced. And 'tis as true that if they had been present only ad consentiendum, to testifie their assent to those Acts which by the Common-council of the Realm were proposed unto them: their presence was as necessary, and their Voice as requisite to all intents and purposes (for ought I can see) as the Voice and presence of the Commons in the times we speak of. For in the Writs of summons issued to the several Sheriffs for the electing of Knights, Citizens and Burgesses to attend the Par­liament, it is said expresly, first that the King resolveth upon weighty motives touch­ing the weal and safety both of Church and State to hold his Parliament,Forma Brevis pro summonit. Parliamenti. & ibidem cum Praelatis, Magnatibus & Proceribus dicti regni nostri colloquium habere & tractare, then and there to advise and treat with the Prelates, Peers and Nobles of this Realm: Which words are also expresly used in the Writs of summons directed to the Bishops,Titles of Hon. part 2. cap. 5. and to every of them; who also are required in a further clause consilium suum im­pendere, to give the King their best advice in his great affairs. So that the Prelates and Nobility convened in Parliament made the Kings great Council, and were called thither to that end. What then belonged unto the Commons. 1. No more than did belong to the Clergy also, that is to say, the giving of their consent to such Laws and Statutes as should there be made. Which notwithstanding in Tract of time gave them such a sway, and stroke in the course of Parliaments, that no Law could be made, nor no Tax imposed without their liking and allowance. And this is that which is expressed in the last clause of the said Writ, by which the Knights and Bur­gesses are to come prepared ad faciendum & consentiendum iis quae tunc ibidem de consilio dicti Regni nostri super negotiis antedictis contigerint ordinari. Forma Brevis, &c. Which is the very same which you had before in the Writ directed to the Bishops, for summoning the Clergy of their several Diocesses, and that here is a faciendum which the other had not. A word which if you mark it well, hath no operation in the construction of the Text, except it be in paying Subsidies, or doing such things as are appointed to be done by that great Council of the Kingdom; Which clause, though it be cunningly left out (that I may say no worse) in the recital of the Writ by the Author of the Book entituled, The Prerogative and practice of Parliaments: is most ingenuously ac­knowledged in the Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled at Oxon, Declaration of the Treaty, p. 15. where it is said, That the Writs of summons, the foundation of all power in Parliament, are directed to the Lords in express terms to treat and advise with the King and the rest of the Peers of the Kingdom of England; and to the Commons to do and consent to those things, which by that Common-council of England should be ordained. And thus it stands, as with the common people generally in most states of Christendom, so with the Com­mons anciently in most states of Greece; of which Plutarch telleth, us,Plutarch in L [...] ­curgo. That when the people were assembled in Council, ‘it was not lawful for any of them to put forth matters to the Council to be determined, neither might any of them deliver his O­pinion what he thought of any thing, but the people had only authority [...], to give their assent unto such things as either the Senators or their Kings do propound unto them.’

But against this it is objected, first, X that it is not to be found at what time the Clergy lost their place and Vote in Parliament, and therefore it may reasonably be presumed that they had never any there: and 2dly, that if they had been called ad consentien­dum (though no more than so) we should have found more frequent mention of their consent unto the Acts and Statutes in our printed Books. For answer unto which it may first be said, that to suppose the Clergy had no Voice in Parliament, be­cause it is not to be found when they lost that priviledg, is such a kind of Argument (if it be an argument) as is made by Bellarmine, Bellarm. de Eccl. lib 4. c. 5. to prove that many of the contro­verted Tenets of the Church of Rome, are neither erroneous nor new, because we cannot say expresly, quo tempore, quo autore, when and by whose promoting they first crept in. And though we cannot say expresly when the inferiour Clergy lost their place in Parliament, in regard it might be lost by discontinuance or non-usage; or that the clause was pretermitted for some space of time the better to disuse them from it, or that they might neglect the service in regard of their attendance in the Convocation, which gave them power and reputation both with the common people: yet I have reason to believe, that this pretermission and disuse did chiefly happen under the Go­vernment of the Kings of the House of Lancaster, who being the true Heirs and Suc­cessors [Page 704]of John of Gaunt, cast many a longing eye on the Church revenues, and hardly were persuaded to abstain from that height of sacriledg, which Henry the 8. did af­ter come to. And this I am induced to believe the rather, in regard that in the con­firmation of the Churches rights so solemnly confirmed and ratified in all former Par­liaments; there was a clog put to or added in these times, which shaked the Fabrick: the confirmation being first of such rights and liberties as were not repealed, 3 Hen. 5. cap. 1. & 4 Hen. 5. cap. 1. and afterwards of such as by the Common Law were not re­pealable, 2 Hen. 6. cap. 1. which might go very far indeed. And secondly I find that in the 8. of Henry the 6. an Act of Parliament was passed, that all the Clergy called to Convocation by the Kings Writ, and their servants and Family shall for ever hereafter fully use and enjoy such liberty and defence in coming, tarrying and returning, as the great men and Commonalty of the Realm of England called to the Kings Parliament do enjoy, 8 Hen. 6. cap. 1. &c. Which being an unnecessary care or caution when the Clergy had their Voice in Par­liament, and very necessary to be taken formerly, if they had never had such Voice: makes me conceive, that it was much about this time that they lost that priviledg. But this I leave as a conjecture, and no more than so. For answer to the second Argument, that if they had been called of old ad consentiendum, we should have found more frequent mention of their consent unto the Acts and Statutes of the former times; besides that it is a Negative proof, and so non concludent, it strikes as much a­gainst the presence and consent of the Knights and Burgesses in the elder Parliaments, as it can do against the Clergy. For in the elder Parliaments under King Henry 3. and K. Edward the first there is no mention of the Commons made at all, either as preent or consenting; nor much almost in all the Parliaments till King Henry 7. but that they did petition for redress of grievance, and that upon their special instance and request several Laws were made for the behoof and benefit of the Common-wealth:In the Proem to the severall Sessions. which part the Clergy also acted in some former Parliaments, as before was shewed. So that this negative Argument must conclude against both or neither. But secondly I answer, that in these elder times in which the Proctors for the Clergy had their place in Parliament, they are included generally in the name of the Commons. And this I say on the Authority of the old modus tenendi Parliamentum, in which the Commons are divided in the Spiritualty and the Temporalty; and where it is expresly said, that the Proctors for the Clergy, the Knights, the Citizens and the Burgesses did represent the whole commonalty of the Realm of England. Cap. ult. And this holds good in Law (for ought I find unto the contrary) to this very day. Certain I am that Crompton in his book of the Jurisdiction of Courts, where he speaks of Parliaments, doth tell us that the Knights, Citizens, Burgesses, and Barons of the Cinque-ports, ove le Clergie qu' eux assemble au Pawles, Crompton Ju­risd. des Courts, Car. represent le corps de tout le Comminalty Dengli­terre, together with the Clergy which assembled at S. Pauls, do represent the body of the whole Commonalty of England. So then, the Clergy were not only called but were present also, according to that clause in the Writ of Summons (which before I spake of) directed to their several and respective Bishops, as the Kings spiritual Sheriffs, if I may so say) enabled by the Laws to that end and purpose. Which some endeavouring to avoid, have at last found out that the clause before recited out of the Writ to the Bishops, is not a calling of the Clergy to attend in Parliament, but to command them to attend in the Convocation: which I have heard much pressed by those who pretend unto some knowledg in the course of things. Which though it be a gross mistake, and inconsistent with the words and circumstances of the Writ it self, which relates meerly to the Parliament, and business of a Parliamentarie nature: yet for the clearing of the point, and undeceiving such as have been deceived, they may please to know, thta besides this Writ by which the Clergy are commanded to appear in Parliament, there is another Writ and another Form of calling them unto the service of the Convocation, which is briefly this. The King sends out his Writ or Mandat to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, requiring him super quibusdam arduis & ur­gentibus negotiis, Regist. Warham. &c. for divers great and weighty reasons cocnerning the Kings Ho­nour, the Churches safety, and the publick peace of his Dominions, to summon all the Bishops, Deans and Chapters, Arch-deacons, and the whole Clergy of his Pro­vince to meet in Convocation at a day and place appointed. On the reception of which Writ thge Arch-bishop sendeth out his Monitory to the Bishop of London (who by his place in Dean of the Episcopal Colledg, Antiqu. Britan. in initio. and to disperse the Mandates of the Me­tropolitan) requiring him to appear himself in person, and to send out his Warrant unto every Bishop of the Province, to appear there also, and to take order that the [Page 705]Deans of the Cathedrals, and Arch-decaons personally, the Chapter of one Procurator, the Clergy of the Diocese by two, (whom we usually call Clerks of the Convocation) do attend that service. Which coming to the hands of each several Bishop the do ac­cordingly give intimation to their Deans and Chapters,Regist. War­ham. and to their Arch-deacons and the Clergy; and they accordingly prepare themselves to obey the Monitory, and to return certificate of their doings in it. The like proceeding is observed also for the Province of York. So that the calling of the Clergy to the Convocation being by a different Writ and another Form, which hath no reference to nor dependance on the Writs directed by the King to each several Bishop for their attendance in the Parlia­ment, it must needs be (as I conceive it) that by that clause remaining in the Writs aforesaid, the Clergy have good right and Title to a Voice in Parliament, though they have lost their jus in re, the benefit, the use and possession of it.

But I speak this as once the Apostle said in another case, XI not by commandment but by permission. For I persaude my self the Clergy do not aim so high at the recovery of a right so long antiquated and disused, but would be well enough content with the re­stitution of the Bishops to their Vote in Parliament, of which they stood possessed by so strong a Title as the very constitution of the Parliament, and the fundamental Laws of the English Government could confer upon them. For though the Bishops sat in Parlia­ment in their own personal capacities, and not as the representative body of the Clergy; yet the poor Clergy, found it some respect unto them to be thus honoured in their Heads: and were the more obliged to obey such Acts as were established in that Court, wherein these heads ha dopportunity of interceding, if perhaps any thing were propounded which might be grievous to the Clergy, and many times a power of hindring and divertring if not by Voice and Numbers, yet by strength of reasons. They were not altogether Slaves and Bond-men, whilest the Church held that remnant of her ancient Rights; for whilest the Heads retained that Honour, the body could not chuse but rejoyce in it and be cherished by it. But since they have been stripped of that (by what unworthy Arts the World knows too well) they are become of such condition, that the most despicable Tradesman in a Corporate Town is more considerable in the eye of the State, and hath a greater interesse in the affairs thereof, than the greatest Prelate, and to say truth, than all the Clergy of the Realm. For being there are three Ingredients which make up a Freeman (as Sir Francis Bacon well observed in his speech concerning the Post-nati) that is to say, 1. jus Civitatis, which did inable a man to buy and sell, and to take Inheritances; 2. jus suffragii, a Voice in the passing of Laws and Election of Officers; and 3. jus honoris, a capability of such Offices and Honours as the State could give him: the Clergy by this means are limited to the first right only, and ut­terly excluded from the other two, and thereby put into a worse condition, than the meanest Freeman in the Kingdom. Insomuch that whereas every needy Artizan, if he be free of any Corporate Town or City, every Cottager that dwelleth in an ancient Bur­rough, and every Clown which can lay claim to forty shillings per Annum of Freehold, either for life or of Inheritance, hath a Voice in Parliament, either in person or by Proxy; and is not bound by any Law but what himself consents to in his Represen­tatives: the Clergy only of this Realm (as the case now stands) being out of the greatest States of this Kingdom, as is acknowledged expresly in terminis by Act of Parliament,8 Eliz. c. 1. are neither capable of place there in their personal capacities, nor suffered to be there in their Procurators, as of old they were; nor have so much as any Voice in chusing of the Knights and Burgesses which represent the body of the people generally. I know it hath been said in reply to this, that the Clergy may give Voices at the Ele­ction of the Knights and Burgesses, and that it is their own neglect if they do it not. But I know too, that this is only yielded unto such of the Clergy, as are possessed of Lands and Houses in those several places where such Elections are to be made, and not then neither in most places, except it be to make a party for particular ends, espe­cially where some good man or the main cause it self it concerned therein: which as it totally excludeth the greatest part of the Clergy from having any Voice at all in these Elections, (the greatest part of the Clergy (the more the pity) having neither Lands nor Houses to such a value in fee simple) so it gives no more power unto those that have, than what of necessity must serve (I am sure occasionally it may) to their own undoing. For to say truth, those that give out that the Clergy may give Voice at such Elections, use it but as a shift for the present turn: intending nothing less indeed (as hath oft been seen) than that the Clergy should be capable of so great a trust. The reason is, because there is not any Freeman [Page 706]of a City or a Corporate Town who hath a Voice in the Election of a Citizen to serve in Parliament, nor almost any Cottager or Free-holder who hath a Voice in the Election either of a Knight or Burgess, but is directly eligible to the place him­self. Of Citizens and Burgesses Elected from the very meanest of the people, we have many instances, and shall have more according as they find their strength, and have received a taste of the sweets of Government. And for the chusing of the Knights of the several Shires, it is determined by the Statutes that as 40 s. Land of Free-hold per Annum, 8 Hen. 6. c. 7. is enough to qualifie a Clown for giving a Voice at the Election; so the same Clown if he have 20 l. Land per Annum is capable of being chosen for a Knight of the Shire, as appears plainly and expresly by the Statute Law. For though the Writ directed to the several and respective Sheriffs prescribe a choice of dues milites gladio cinctos, yet we know well that by the Statute of King Henry 6. which is explanatory in this case of the Common Law, such notable E­squires or Gentlemen,23 Hen. 6.15. born of the same Counties, as shall be able to the Knights, are made as capable as a dubbed Knight to attend that service; and he that hath no more than 20 l. per Annum either in Capite or Socage is not only able by the Law to be made a Knight, 1 Ed. 2. c. 1. but was compelled thereunto even by the Statute-Law it self, until the Law was lately altered in that point.17 Carol. c. 1. And on the other side it is clera enough (for there have been of late some experiments of it) that though a Clergy-man be born an Esquire or Gentleman (for they are not all born ex fece Plebis, as the late Lord Brook forgetting his own poor Extraction hath been pleased to say) and though he be possessed of a fair Estate descended to him from his Ance­stors,L. Brook a­gainst Episco­pacy. or otherwise possessed of some Lands or Houses in Town, Burrough, or City, whereby he stands as eligible in the eye of the Law, as any Lady-Gentleman of them all; yet either he is held uncapable, and so pretermitted; or if returned, rejected at the House it self to his soul reproach. It is a Fundamental constitution of the Realm of England, that every Freeman hath a Voice in the Legislative power of Parliament:And so ac­knowledged in a Writ of Summons of K. Edw. 1. and it is a Rule in Politicks, quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari de­bet. Which being now denied to the English Clergy, reduceth them to that condi­tion which St. Paul complains of; and makes them no otherwise accounted of by the common people, than as, [...], the filth and off-scouring of the world to this very day.

This tempts me to a brief dicussion of a Question exceeding weighty in it self, XII but not so much as thought of in this great Disfranchisement, the slavery obtruded lately on the English Clergy: that is to say, whether that any two of the three Estates conspiring or agreeing together can conclude on any thing unto the prejudice of the third. Bodinus that renowned States-man doth resolve it Negatively; and states it thus, nihil à duobus ordinibus discerni posse, quo uni ex tribus incommodum inferatur, Bodin de Rep. l. 3. c. 7. si res ad singulos ordines seorsum pertinet, that nothing can be done by two of the Estates to the disprofit of the third, in case the point proposed be such as concerns them seve­rally. The point was brought into debate upon this occasion. Henry the 3d. of France had summoned an Assembly of the three Estates or Conventus Ondinum to be held at Bloys, Anno 1577. (the Form and Order of the which we have at large by Thuanus Lib. 63.) But finding that he could not bring his ends about so easily with that numerous body, as if they were contracted to a narrower compass, he caused it to be mov'd unto them that they should make choice of 36, twelve of each Estate,Tonanus in hist temp. l. 63. quox Rex cum de postulatis decerneret in consilium adhibere dignaretur, whom the King would deign call to Council for the dispatch of such Affairs and motions as had been either moved or proposed unto him. Which being very readily assented to by the Clergy and Nobility, who hoped thereby to find some favour in the Court, and by degrees to be admitted to the Privy Council, was very earnestly opposed by Bodinus, being then Delegate or Commissioner for the Pro­vince of Veromandois, who saw full well that if businesses were so carried, the Commons (which made the third Estate,) would find but little hopes to have their grievances redressed, [...]iin de Rep. [...]. 1. c. 7. their petitions answered. And therefore laboured the rest of the Commissioners not to yield unto it, as being utterly destructive of the Rights and Liberties of the common people: which having done, he was by them intrusted to debate the business before the other two Estates, and did it to so good effect, that at the last he took them off from their resolution, and obtained the cause. What Arguments he used in particular, neither himself nor Thuanus tel­leth [Page 707]us. But sure I am that he insisted both on the ancient customs of the Realm of France, as also of the Realm of Spain and England, and the Roman Empire; in each of which it was received for a ruled case, nihil à duobus ordinibus statui posse, quo uni ex tribus prejudicium crearetur, that nothing could be done by any of the two Estates unto the pre­judice of the third. And if it were a ruled case then in the Parliament of England, there is no reason why it should be otherwise in the present times, the equity and justice of it being still the same, and the same reasons for it now as forcible, as they could be then. Had it been otherwise resolved of in the former Ages, wherein the Clergy were so pre­valent in all publick Councils, how easie a matter had it been for them either by joyn­ing with all the Nobility to exclude the Commons, or by joyning with the Commonal­ty to exclude the Nobles. Or having too much conscience to adventure to so great a change, an alteration so incompatible and inconsistent with the Constitution of a Par­liament; how easily might they have suppressed the potency, and impair the Privi­ledges of either of the other two, by working on the humours or affections of the one to keep down the other? But these were Arts not known in the former days, nor had been thought of in these last, but by men of Ruine, who were resolved to change the Government (as the event doth shew too clearly) both of Church and State. Nor doth it help the matter in the least degree, to say that the exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Peers, was not done meerly by the practice of the two other Estates, but by the assent of the King, of whom the Laws say he can do no wrong, and by an Act of Parliament whereof our Laws yet say, quae nul doit imaginer chose dishonourable, that no man is to think dishonourably.Plowden in Commentar. For we know well in what condition the King was when he passed that Act, to what extremi­ties he was reduced, on what terms he stood, how he was forced to flye from his City of London, to part with his dear Wife and Children, and in a word, so over­powred by the prevailing party in the two Houses of Parliament, that it was not safe for him (as his case then was) to deny them any thing. And for the Act of Parliament so unduly gained, besides that the Bill had been rejected when it was first brought unto the Lords, and that the greater part of the Lords were frighted out of the House, when contrary unto the course of Parliament it was brought again; it is a point resolved both in Law and Reason, that the Parliament can do nothing to the destruction of it self, and that such Acts as are extorted from the King are not good and valid, whereof we have a fair Example in the book of Sta­tutes.15 Ed. 3. ‘For whereasz the King had granted certain Articles pretended to be granted in the Form of a statute, expresly contrary to the Laws of the Realm, and his own Prerogative and Rights Royal (mark it, for this is just the case) which he had yielded to eschew the dangers, which by denying of the same were like to follow:’ in the same Parliament it was repealed in these following words; It seemed good to the said Earls, Barons, and other wise men, that since the Statute did not proceed of our Free will, the same be void; and ought not to have the name nor strength of a Sta­tute, and therefore by their counsel and assent we have decreed the said Statute to be void, &c. Or if it should not be repealed in a formal manner, yet is this Act however gotten, void in effect already by a former Statute, in which it was enacted in full Parliament, and at the self-same place where this Act was gained, that the Great Charter (by which and many other Titles the Bishops held their place in Parliament) should be kept in all points, and if any Statute be made to the contrary, 42 Ed. 3. c. 1. it shall be holden for none.

CHAP. VI. That the three Estates of every Kingdom whereof Calvin speaks, have no Authority either to regulate the power, or control the actions of the Sovereign Prince.

  • 1. The Bishops and Clergy of England, not the Kings, make the third Estate, and of the dangerous consequences which may fol­low on the contrary Tenet.
  • 2. The different influence of the three Estates upon conditional Princes, and an absolute Monarch.
  • 3. The Sanhedrim of no Authority over the persons, or the actions of the Kings of Judah.
  • 4. The three Estates in France of how small Authority over the actions of that King.
  • 5. The King of Spain not over-ruled, or re­gulated by the three Estates.
  • 6. Of what Authority they have been an­tiently in the Parliaments of Scotland.
  • 7. The King of England always accounted heretofore for an absolute Monarch.
  • 8. No part of Sovereignty invested legally in the English Parliaments.
  • 9. The three Estates assembled in the Par­ment of England, subordinate unto the King, not co-ordinate with him.
  • 10. The Legislative power of Parliaments is properly and legally in the King alone.
  • 11. In what particulars the power of the English Parliament doth consist espe­cially.
  • 12. The Kings of England ordinarily over­rule their Parliaments by themselves, their Council, and their Judges.
  • 13. Objections answered, touching the power and practice of some former Parliaments, and the testimonies given unto them.
  • 14. No such Authority given by God in Holy Scripture to any such Popular Magistrates, as Calvin dreams of and pretends.
  • 15. The Application and Conclusion of the whole discourse.

I Have been purposely more copious in the former Chapter, because I thought it necessary to declare and manifest who made the three Estates in each several King­dom, which are pretended by our Author to have such power of regulating the Au­thority, and censuring the actions and the persons of their Sovereign Princes. And this the rather in regard it is thought of late, and (more than thought) presented to the world in some publick writings, (especially as it relates to the Realm of Eng­land) that the King, the Lords, and Commons, make the three Estates; which brings the King into an equal rank with the other two, in reference to the business and affairs of Parliament. A fancy, by what accident soever it was broached and published, which hath no consistence either with truth, or ordinary observation, or with the practice of this Realm, or of any other. For the proof of this my position, that the King is none of the three Estates as is now pretended, if all proofs else should fail, I have one from Calvin, whose judgment in this point amongst many of us, will be instar omnium. Calvin, instit. 4. cap. ult. For where he saith in singulis Regnis tres esse Ordines, that there are three Estates in each several Kingdom, and that these three Estates convened in Par­liament, (or by what other name soever they call their meeting) are furnished with a power, Regum lididinem moderandi, of moderating the licentiousness of Kings and Princes; and that they become guilty of perfidious dissimulation, si Regibus impotenter grassantibus, &c. If they connive at Kings, when they play the Tyrants, or wantonly insult on the common people: I trow it cannot be conceived that the King is any one of the three Estates, who are here trusted (or at least supposed to be intrusted) with sufficient power, as well to regulate his authority, as to control his actions. If Calvin be allowed to have common sense, and to have wit and words enough to ex­press his meaning, (as even his greatest Adversaries do confess he had) it must be granted that he did not take the King of what Realm soever, to be any of the three Estates: or if he did, he would have thought of other means to restrain his insolencies, than by leaving him in his own hands, to his own correction. Either then Calvin is mistaken in the three Estates, (and if he be mistaken in designing the men he aims at, may he not be mistaken in the power he gives them?) or else the King is none, and indeed can be none of the three Estates, qui primarios conventus peragunt, who usually convene in Parliament for those ends and purposes before remembred. But not to [Page 709]trust to him alone, though questionless he be ideoneus testis in the present case: Let us behold the Assembly of the three Estates or Conventus Ordinum in France (from whence it is conceived that all Assemblies of this kind had their first Original) and we shall find a very full description of them in the Assembly des Estats at Bloys under Henry III. Anno 1577. of which thus Thuanus. ‘Rex in sublimi loco sub uranisco sedebat, Thanus in histor. sci. temp. l. 63. &c. The King (saith he) sate on an high erected Throne under the Canopy of State, the Queen-Mother, and the Queen his Wife, and all the Cardinals, Princes, Peers upon either hand. And then it followeth, Transtris infra dispositis ad dextram suam sacri Ordinis Delegati, ad laevam Nobilitas, & infra plebetus ordo sedebat; that on some lower forms there sate the Delegates of the Clergy towards the right hand of the King, the Nobility towards the left, and the Commissioners for the Commons in the space be­low.’ We may conjecture at the rest by the view of this: Of those in Spain, by those Conventions of the States which before we spake of, at Burgos, Monson, Toledo, and in other places, in which the King is always mentioned as a different person, who called them, and dissolved them as he saw occasion. For Scotland, it is ordinary in the stile of Parliaments, to say the King and the Estates do ordain and constitute; for which I do refer you to the Book of Statutes) which clearly makes the King to be a different person from the Estates of that Kingdom. And as for England, Statutes of Scotland. besides what may be gathered from the former Chapter, we read in the History of Titus Livius, touching the Reign and Acts of King Henry V. that when his Funerals were ended, the three Estates of the Realm of England did assemble together, and declared his Son King Henry VI. being an Infant of eight months old to be their Sovereign Lord, Tit. Liv. M. S. in Bibl. Bodl. as his Heir and Successor. ‘And in the Parliament Rolls of King Richard III. there is mention of a Bill or Parchment presented to that Prince, being then Duke of Glocester, on the be­half, and in the name of the three Estates of this Realm of England; that is to wit, of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and of the Commons by name: which for­asmuch as neither the said three Estates, nor the persons which delivered it on their behalf were then Assembled in form of Parliament, was afterwards in the first Parlia­ment of that King by the same three Estates Assembled in this present Parliament (I speak the very words of the Act it self) and by Authority of the same, enrolled,Ap. Speed in K. Rich. 3. re­corded, and approved: And at the request, and by the assent of three Estates of this Realm; that is to say, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons of this Land Assembled in this present Parliament, and by Authority of the same, it be pro­nounced, decreed, and declared, that our said Sovereign Lord the King was, and is the very and undoubted Heir of this Realm of England, 1 Eliz. cap. 3. &c.’ And so it is acknow­ledged in a Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 3. where the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in that Parliament assembled, being said expresly, and in terminis to represent the three Estates of the Realm of England, did recognize the Queens Majesty to be their true, lawful, and undoubted Sovereign Liege Lady, and Queen. This makes it evident, that the King was not accounted in the times before for one of the three Estates of Par­liament, nor can be so accounted the present times. For considering that the Lords and Commons do most confessedly make two of the three Estates, and that the Clergy in another Act of Parliament of the said Queens time, are confessed to be one of the greatest States of the Realm, which Statute being still in force,Statut. 8. Eliz. cap. 1. doth clearly make the Clergy to be the third; either there must be more than three Estates in this Kingdom, which is against the Doctrine of the present times, or else the King is none of the Estates, as indeed he is not, which was the matter to be proved. But I spend too much time in confuting that which hath so little ground to stand on, more than the dangerous consequences which are covered under it: For if the King be granted once to be no more than one of the three Estates, how can it choose but follow from so sad a principle, that he is of no more power and consideration in the time of Par­liament, than the House of Peers, which sometimes hath consisted of three Lords, no more; or than the House of Commons only, which hath many times consisted of no more than eighty, or an hundred Gentlemen: but of far less consideration to all intents and purposes in the Law whatever, than both the Houses joyned together. What else can follow hereupon, but that the King must be co-ordinate with his two Honses of Parliament, and if co-ordinate, then to be over-ruled by their joynt concurrence, bound to conform unto their Acts, and confirm their Ordinances; or upon case of inconformity and non-compliance to see them put in execution against his liking and consent, to his foul reproach. And what at last will be the issue of this dangerous consequence, but that the Lords content themselves to come down to the Commons, [Page 710]and the King be no otherwise esteemed of than the chief of the Lords, the Princeps Senatus if you will, or the Duke of Venice, at the best no more, which if Sir Edward Dering may be credited, as I think he may in this particular, seems to have been the main design of some of the most popular and powerful Members then sitting with him, for which I do refer the Reader to his book of Speeches. Which dangerous con­sequents whether they were observed at first by these who first ventured on the expres­sion, or were improvidently looked over, I can hardly say. Certain I am, it gave too manifest an advantage to the Antimonarchical party in this Kingdom, and hardned them in their proceeding against their King, whom they were taught to look on and esteem no otherwise than as a Joint-tenant of the Sovereignty with the Lords and Com­mons. And if Kings have partners in the Sovereignty, they are then no King; such being the nature and Law of Monarchy, that si divisionem capiat interitum capiat necesse est, Laciant. Insti­tut. Div. l. 1. c. if it be once divided, and the authorities thereof imparted, it is soon de­stroyed. Such is the dangerous consequence of this new Expression, that it seemeth utterly to deprive the Bishops, and in them the Clergy of this Land, of all future hopes of being restored again to their place in Parliament. For being the Parliament can consist but of three Estates, if the King fall so low as to pass for one, either the Bishops or the Commons, or the Temporal Lords must desert their claim, the better to make way for this new pretension: and in all probability the Commons being grown so potent, and the Nobility so numerous and united in bloud and marriages, will not quit their interesse; and therefore the poor Clergy must be no Estate, be­cause less able, as the World now goeth with them, to maintain their Title. I have often read that Constantine did use to call himself [...] the Bishop or superintendent of his Bishops; Euseb. de vita Constant. and I have often heard our Lawyers say, that the King is the general Ordinary of the Kingdom: but never heard nor read till within these few years, that ever any King did possess himself of the Bishops place or Vote in Parlia­ment, or sat there as the first of the three Estates (as anciently the Bishops did) to supply their absence. By which device, whether the Clergy or the King be the greater losers (though it be partly seen already) future times will shew.

This Rub removed, II we next proceed to the examination of that power, which by our Author is conferred on the three Estates: which we shall find on search and tryal to be very different, according to the constitution of the Kingdom in which they are. For where the Kings are absolute Monarchs, as in England, Scotland, France, and Spain, Bod in de Re­puô. l. 1. c. the three Estates, have properly and legally little more Authority, than to advise their King, as they see occasion, to present unto his view their common grievances, and to propose such remedies for redress thereof, as to them seem meetest, to canvass and review such erroneous judgments as formerly have passed in infe­riour Courts, and finally to consult about, and prepare such Laws as are expedient for the publick. In other Countreys where the Kings are more conditional, and hold their Crowns by compact and agreement between them and their Subjects; the re­putation and authority of the three Estates is more high and eminent, as in Polonia, Denmark, and some others of the Northern Kingdoms, where the Estates lay claim to more than a directive power, and think it not enough to advise their King, unless they may dispose of the Kingdom also, or at least make their King no better than a Royal Slave. Thus and no otherwise it is with the German Emperors, who are ob­noxious to the Laws,Thuan. hist. sui temp. l. 2. and for their Government accomptable to the Estates of the Empire: insomuch that if the Princes of the Empire be persuaded in their consciences that he is likely by his mal-administration to destroy the Empire, and that he will not hearken to advice and counsel ab Electorum Collegio Caesaria potestate privari potest, Anonym. Script. ap Philip. Pa­raeum in Ap­pend. ad Rom. 13. he may be deprived by the Electors, and a more fit and able man elected to supply the place. And to this purpose in a Constitution made by the Emperor Jodocus, about the year 1410. there is a clause, that if he or any of his Successors do any thing unto the contrary thereof, the Electors and other States of the Empire sine rebellionis vel infidelitatis crimine libertatem babeant, Goldast. Con­stit. Imperial. Tom. 3. p. 424. should be at liberty without incurring the crimes of Treason or Disloyalty, not only to oppose, but resist them in it. The like to which occurrs for the Realm of Hungary, wherein K. Andrew gives Authority to his Bishops, Lords,Bonfinius de Edict. publ. p. 37. and other Nobles sine nota alicujus infidelitatis; that without any imputation of Disloyalty, they may contradict, oppose, and resist their Kings, if they do any thing in violation of some Laws and sanctions. In Poland the King takes a solemn Oath at his Coronation, to confirm all the Priviledges, Rights and Liberties which have been granted to his Subjects of all ranks and Orders by any of his Predecessors: [Page 711]and then adds this clause, quod si Sacramentum meum violavero, incolae Regni nullam nobis obedientiam praestare tenebuntur; which if he violates, his Subjects shall no longer be obliged to yield him Obedience. Which Oath as Bodin well observeth,Bodin de Rep. lib. 2. cap. 8. doth sa­vour rather of the condition of the Prince of the Senate, than of the Majesty of a King. The like may be affirmed of Frederick the first King of Danemark, who being called unto that Crown on the ejection of K. Christian the 2d. An. 1523. ‘was so condition­ed with by the Lords of the Kingdom, that at his Coronation, or before, he was fain to swear, that he would put none of the Nobility to death or banishment, but by the judgment of the Senate, that the great men should have power of life or death over their Tenants and Vassals, and that no Appeal should lie from them to the Kings Tribunal, nor the King be partaker of the confiscations; nec item honores aut im­peria privatis daturum, Id. ibid. &c. nor advance any private person to Commands or Ho­nours, but by Authority of his great Council.’ Which Oath being also taken by Fre­derick the second, made Bodinus say, that the Kings of Danemark, non tam reipsa quam appellatione Reges sunt, were only titular Kings, but not Kings indeed: Which Chara­cter he also gives of the King of Bobemia. Id. ibid. p. 88. But in an absolute Monarchy the case is otherwise, all the prerogatives and rights of Sovereignty being so vested in the Kings person, ut nec singulis civibus nec universis fas est, &c. that it is neither lawful to par­ticular men, nor to the whole body of the Subjects generally to call the Prince in que­stion for Life, Fame, or Fortunes:Id. ibid. p. 210. and amongst these he reckoneth the Kingdoms of France, Spain, England, Scotland, the Tartars, Muscovites, & omnium pene Africae & Asiae imperiorum, and of almost all the Kingdoms of Africk, and Asia. But this we shall the better see by looking over the particulars as they lie before us.

But first before we come unto those particulars we will look backwards on the con­dition and Authority of the Jewish Sanbedrim; III which being instituted and ordained by the Lord himself, may serve to be a leading Case in the present business. For being that the Jews were the Lords own people, and their King honoured with the Title of the Lords Anointed: it will be thought, that if the Sanhedrim, or the great Council of the seventy had any Authority and power over the Kings of Judah, (of whose jus Regni such a larger description is made by God himself in the first of Sam. cap. 8.) the three Estates may reasonably expect the like in these parts of Christen­dom. Now for the Authority of the Sanhedrim, it is said by Cardinal Baronius, that they had power of Judicature over the Law, the Prophets, and the Kings them­selves.Baron. Annai. Eccl. An. 31. sect. 10. Erat horum summa autoritas ut qui de lege cognoscerent, & Prophetis, & simul de Regibus judicarent. Which false position he confirms by as false an instance, af­firming in the very next words, horum judicio Herodem Regem postulatum esse, that King Herod was convented and convicted by them; for which he cites Josphus with the like integrity. I should have wondred very much what should occasion such a gross mistake in the learned Cardinal, had I not shewn before, that as he makes the Sanhedrim to rule the King, so he hath made the high Priest to rule the Sanhedrim: which to what purpose it was done every man can tell, who knoweth the Cardinal endeavoureth nothing more in his large Collections, than to advance the dignity and supremacy of the Popes of Rom. But for the power pretended to be in the Sanhe­drim, Id. in Epist. dedicator. and their proceedings against Herod as their actual King; Josephus whom he cites is so far from saying it, that he doth expresly say the contrary. For as Jose­phus tells the story, Hyrcanus was then King, not Herod; and Herod of so little hopes to enjoy the Kingdom, that he could not possibly pretend any Title to it. But having a command in Galilee procured by Antipater his Father, of the good King Hyrcanus, he had played the wanton Governor amongst them, and put some of them to death against Law and Justice. For which the Mothers of the slain [...], did often call upon the King and people in the open Temple, [...], &c. that Herod might answer for the murther before the Sanhedrim. Joseph. Antiq. Judic. l. 14. cap. 17. Which being granted by the King, he was accordingly convented by them, and had been questionless condemned, had not the King, who loved him dearly, given him notice of it; on whose advertisement he went out of the Town, and so escaped the danger. This is the substance of that story: and this gives no Authority to the Court of Sanhedrim, over the persons or the actions of the Kings of Judah. Others there are, who make them equal to the Kings, though not supe­riour, (Magnam fuisse Senatus autoritatem & Regiae velut parem, saith the Learned Gro­tius: Grotius in Matth. cap. 5. v. 22.) And for the proof thereof allege those words of Sedechias in the Book of Jeremy: who when the Princes of his Realm required of him to put the Prophet to [Page 712]death,Jerem. 38.5. returned this Answer, Behold he is in your hand, Rex enim contra vos nihil potest, for the King is not he that can do any thing against you. Which words are also cited by Mr. Prynne to prove that the King of England hath no Negative Voice; but by neither rightly. For Calvin (who, as one observeth, composed his Expositions on the book of God according to the Doctrine of his Institutions) would not have lost so fair an evidence for the advancing of the power of his three Estates: Prynne of Parl. pt. 2. p. 73. Hookers Pre­face. had he con­ceived he could have made it serviceable to his end and purpose. But he upon the contrary finds fault with them, who do so expound it, or think the King did speak so honourably of his Princes, ac si nihil iis sit negandum, as if it were not fit to deny them any thing.Calvin. in Jerem. c. 38. ver. 5. Not so, saith he, it rather is amarulenta Regis querimonia, a sad and bitter complaint of the poor captivated King against his Counsellors; by whom he was so over-ruled, ut velit nolit cedere iis cogitur, that he was forced to yield to them whether he would or not: which he expresly calls inexcusabilem arrogantiam, an intolerable piece of sawciness in those Princes, and an exclusion of the King from his legal Rights.

Let us next take a view of such Christian Kingdoms as are under the command of absolute Monarchs. IV And first we will begin with the Realm of France, the Govern­ment whereof is meerly Regal, if not despotical, such as that of a Master over his Ser­vants: which Aristotle defineth to be a Form of Government, [...], wherein the King may do whatsoever he list,Aristot. Politic. l. 3. ac­cording to the counsel of his own mind. For in his Arbitrary Edicts which he send­eth abroad, he never mentioneth the cosent of the People, or the approbation of the Council, or the advice of his Judges (which might be thought to derogate too much from his absolute power) but concludes all of them in this Regal Form, Car tel est nostre plaisir, for such is our pleasure. And though the Court of Parliament in Paris do use to take upon them to peruse his Edicts, View of France by Dallington. before they pass abroad for Laws, and sometime to demur on his Grants, and Patents, and to petition him to reverse the same, as they see occasion; yet their perusal is a matter but of meer formality, and their demurs more dilatory than effectual. It is the Car tel est nostre plaisir that con­cludes the business, and the Kings pleasure is the Law which that Court is ruled by. As for the Assemblie des Estats, or Conventus Ordinum, it was reputed anciently the Supream Court for Government and Justice of all the Kingdom; and had the cog­nizance of the greatest and most weighty affairs of State. But these meetings have been long since discontinued, and almost forgotten: there being no such Assembly from the time of King Charles the eighth, to the beginning of the reign of King Charles the ninth,Thuanus. hist. sui temp. which was 70 years, and not many since. And to say truth, they could be but of little use, as the World now goeth, were the meetings oftner. For whereas there are three Principal, if not sole occasions of calling this Assembly, or Conventus Ordinum, that is to say, the disposing of the Regency, during the nonage or sickness of the King, the granting Aids and Subsidies, and the redress of the grievances: there is now another course taken to dispatch their business. The Parliament of Paris, which speaks most commonly as it is prompted by power and greatness, appointeth the Regent; Contin. Thuani. An. 1610. View of France. the Kings themselves together with their Treasurers and Under-Officers determine of the Taxes, and they that do complain of Grievances may either have recourse to the Courts of Justice, or else petition to the King for redress thereof. And for the making new Laws or repealing the old, the naturalization of the Alien, and the regulating of his Sales or Grants of the Crown-Lands, the publick patrimony of the Kingdom, which were wont to be the proper Subject and debates of these Grand Assemblies: they also have been so disposed of, that Conventus Ordinum is nei­ther troubled with them, nor called about them. The Chamber of Accompts in Paris (which hath some resemblance to our Court of Exchequer) doth absolutely dispose of Naturalizations, Andr. Du Chesn. and superficially surveyeth the Kings Grants and Sales, which they seldom cross. The Kings Car tel est nostre plaisir is the Subjects Law, and is as binding as any Act or Ordinance of the three Estates: and for repealing of such Laws as upon long experience are conceived to be unprofitable, the Kings sole Edict is as powerful as any Act of Parliament. Of which Bodinus doth not only say in these general terms,Bodin de Rep. lib. 1. cap. 8. Saepe vidimus sine Ordinum convocatione & consensu leges à Principe abro­gatas, that many times these Kings did abrogate some ancient Laws without the calling and consent of the three Estates: but saith, that it was neither new nor strange that they should so do, and gives us some particular instances, not only of the later times but the former Ages. Nay when the power of this Assemblie des Estats was most great [Page 713]and eminent, neither so curtailed nor neglected as it hath been lately; yet then they carried themselves with the greatest reverence and respect before their King, that could be possibly imagined. For in the Assembly held at Tours under Charles the 8. though the King was then no more than 14 years of age, and the Authority of that Court so great and awful that it was never at so high an eminence for power and reputa­tion, quanta illis temporibus, as it was at that time: yet when they came before the King, Monsieur de Rell being then Speaker for the Commons or the third Estate, did in the name of all the rest, and with as much humility and reverence as he could de­vise, promise such duty and obedience, such a conformity of his will and pleasure, such readiness to supply his wants, and such alacrity in hearking unto his Command­ments, that as Bodinus well observes, his whole Oration was nothing else, quam per­petua voluntatis omnium erga Regem testificatio, but a constant testimony and expression of the good affections of the Subject to their Lord and Sovereign.Id. ibid. But whatsoever power they had in former times is not now material, King Lewis the thirteenth, ha­ving (on good reason of State) discharged those Conventions for the time ensuing. Instead whereof he instituted an Assembly of another temper, and such as should be more obnoxious to his will and pleasure, consisting of a certain number of persons out of each Estate, but all of his own nomination and appointment, which join'd with certain of his Council and principal Officers, he caused to be called L' Assembly des No­tables, assigning to them all the power and privileges which the later Conventions of the three Estates did pretend unto, right well assured that men so nominated and intrusted would never use their powers to his detriment, and disturbance of his heirs & successors.

But to proceed, V Bodinus having shewn what dutiful respects the Convention of Estates in France shewed unto their King, adds this Note, nec aliter Hispanorum conventus haben­tur, that the Assembly of the three Estates in the Realms of Spain carry themselves with the like reverence and submission to their Lord the King: Nay major etiam obedi­entia & majus obsequium Regi exhibetur, the King of Spain hath more obedience and observance from his three Estates, than that which is afforded to the Kings of France. Id. ibid. which being but general and comparative, is yet enough to let us see that the Assem­bly of Estates in the Realms of Spain, which they call the Curia, is very observant of their King and obsequious to him, and have but little of that power which is supposed by our Author to be inherent in the three Estates of all the Christian Kingdoms; But this Bodinus proveth more particularly, ascribing to the King, and to him alone, the power of calling this Assembly when he sees occasion, and of dissolving it again when his work is done; according as is used both in France and England. And when they are assembled and met together, their Acts and Consultations are of no effect, fur­ther than as they are confirmed by the Kings consent. Which he declareth in the same Form (eadem formulâ quâ apud nos) that hath accustomably been used by the Kings of France, which is authoritative enough; that is to say decernimus, statuimus, volumus, We will, and we appoint, and we have decreed. The Kings of Spain, Id. ibid. p. 90. though not so despotical in their Government as the French Kings are, are as absolute Monarchs, and have as great an influence on the three Estates, to make them pliant to their will, and to work out their own ends by them, as ever had the French Kings on their Courts of Parliament: a touch whereof we had before in the former Chapter. And this we may yet further see by their observance of the pleasure of King Philip the 2d. Who having maried the Lady Elizabeth Daughter of Henry the 2d. of France, Convocatos Castellae & reliquarum Hispaniae Provinciarum Ordines, calling toge­ther the Estates of Castile and his other Provinces of Spain, Thuan. hist. sui. temp. l. 23. he caused them to swear to the succession of his Son Prince Charles, whom he had by the Lady Mary of Por­tugal, and after having on some jealousies of State put that Prince to death, caused them to swear to the succession of another Son by the Lady of Austria. And for the power of his Edicts, which they call Pragmaticas, they are as binding to the Subject as an Act of Parliament, or any kind of Law whatever: Examples of the which are very obvious and familiar in the Spanish Histories. For though there be a body of Laws in use amongst them, partly made up of some old Gothish Laws and Constitu­tions, and partly of some parts of the Law imperial: yet for the explanation of the Laws in force, if any doubt arise about them, or for supplying such defects which in the best collection of the Laws may occur sometimes, the Magistrates and Judges are to have recourse to the King alone, and to conform to such instructions as he gives them in it. And this is it which was ordained by Alfonso the tenth, qui etiam magistra­tus ad judices Principem adire jussit, quoties patrio jure nihil de proposita causa seriptum es­set, [Page 714]as Bodinus hath it.Bodin de Rep. lib. 1. cap. 8. 'Tis true that for the railing of supplies of money, and the imposing of extraordinary Taxes upon the Subject, the Kings of Spain must be be­holden to the three Estates, without whose consent it cannot legally be done. But then it is as true withal,Id. ibid. p. 90. that there are customary Tributes called Servitia which the King raiseth of his own Aurhority without such consent. And their consenting to the ex­traordinary is a thing of course: the Spanish Nation being so well affected naturally to the power and greatness of their Kings, whom they desire to make considerable if not formidable in the opinion of their Neighbours, that the Kings seldom fail of mo­neys if the Subjects have it. Finally that we may perceive how absolute this Monarch is over all the Courts or Curias of his whole Dominions; take this along according as it stands verbatim in the Spanish History.Spanish Hist. 67. by Iyrannel. ‘The King of Spain as he is a potent Prince and Lord of many Countreys, so hath he many Councils for the managing of their affairs distinctly and apart without any confusion: every Council treating only of those matters which concern their Jurisdiction and charges: with which Councils and with the Presidents thereof, being men of chief note, the King doth usually confer touching matters belonging to the good Government, preservation, and increase of his Estates, and having heard every mans Opinion, he commands that to be executed which he holds most fit and convenient.’

Next let us take a view of Scotland, VI and we shall find it there no otherwise (I mean in reference to the point which is now in question) than in France or Spain. For be­sides that Bodinus makes it one of those absolute Monarchies, ubi Keges sine controversia omnia jura Majestatis habent per sese, Bodin de Re­pub. l. 2. c. 7. Cambden in Britan. de­script. in which the Kings have clearly all the Rights of Majesty inherent in their own persons only: it is declared in the Records of that very Kingdom, that the King is directus totius Dominus, the Sovereign Lord of the whole State, and hath all authority and jurisdiction over all Estates and degrees, as well Ecclesiae­stical as Lay or Temporal. And as for those Estates and Degrees convened in Parlia­ment, we may conjecture at their Power, by that which is delivered of the Form or Order which they held it in,Form of hold­ing the Parl. in Scotland. which is briefly this. ‘As soon as the Kings Writ is is­sued out for summoning the Estates to meet in Parliament, he maketh choice of eight of the Spiritual Lords, such on whose wisdom and integrity he may most rely; which eight do chuse as many of the Temporal Lords, and they together nominate eight more out of the Commissioners for the Counties, and as many out of the Com­missioners for the Towns or Burroughs. These 32 thus chosen are called Domini pro Articulis, Lords of the Articles: and they together with the Chancellor, Treasurer, Keeper of the Privy Seal, and principal Secretaries of State, and the Master of the Rolls (whom they call Clerk Register) do admit or reject every Bill, [but not before they have been shewn unto the King] if they pass there they are presented afterwards to the whole Assembly, where being throughly weighed, and examined, and put unto the Votes of the House; such of them as are carried by the major part of the Voices (for the Lords and Commons sit together in the same House there) are on the last day of the Sessions exhibited to the King: who by touching them with his Scepter pronounceth that he either ratifieth and approveth them, or that he doth disable them and make them void. But if the business be disliked by the Lords of the Articles it proceeds no further, and never comes unto the consideration of the Parliament, or if the King dislikes of any thing in it when they shew it to him, it either is razed out or mended before it be prefented to the publick view.’ King James of blessed memory, who very well understood his own power and the Forms of that Parliament, describes it much to the same purpose, in his Speech made at Whitehall, March 31. Anno 1609. ‘About twenty days (saith he) before the Parliament, Proclamation is made throughout the Kingdom to deliver unto the Kings Clerk of Register all Bills to be exhibited that Session before a certain day. Then are they brought unto the King, and perused and considered by him, and only such as he alloweth of are put into the Chancellors hands to be propounded to the Parliament, and none others. And if any other man in Parliament speak of any other matter than is in this sort first allowed by the King, the Chancellor telleth him that the King hath allowed of no such Bill. Besides, when they have passed them for Laws they are presented to the King, and he with his Scepter put into his hands by the Chancellor, must say, I ratifie and approve all things done in this present Parliament.’ And if there be any thing that he disliketh it is razed out before. So the eldest Parliament-man as he said himself at that time in Scotland. This was the Form of holding Parliaments in Scotland, which, whosoever doth consider with a se­rious [Page 715]eye may perceive most plainly, that it is wholly in the Kings power to frame the Parliament to his own will, or at the least to hinder it from doing any thing to the prejudice of his Royal Crown and Dignity: in that the nominating of the Lords of the Articles did in a manner totally depend on him. Which being observed by the Scots, they took the opportunity when they were in Arms to pass an Act during the Presidency of the Lord Burley, Anno 1640. for the abolition of this Order,Acts of Parlia­ments, 16 Ca­rol. and for reducing of that Parliament to the Forms of England; as being thought more advan­tagious to their purposes, than the former was. So that the violent disloyalty of the Scotish Subjects, their Insurrections against their Kings, and murdering them some­times when their heels were up, which makes that Nation so ill spoken of in the Sto­ries of Christendom, are not to be imputed to the three Estates convened in Parlia­ment, or to any power or Act of theirs,Rivet cont. tenuit. but only prae fervido Scotorum ingenio as one pleads it for them, unto the natural disposition of that fierce and head-strong people, yet easilier made subject unto Rule and Government. The three Estates assembled in the Court of Parliament, (when in the judgment of our Author they are most fit to undertake the business) have for the most part had no hand in those desperate courses.

And now at last we are come to England, where, since we came no sooner, VII we will stay the longer: and here we shall behold the King established in an absolute Monarchy, from whom the meeting of the three Estates in Parliament detracteth nothing of his Power and Authority Royal. Bodin as great a Politick as any of his time in the Realm of France, hath ranked our Kings amongst the absolute Monarchs of these Western parts. And Cambden as renowned an Antiquary as any of the Age he lived in,Bodin de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. hath told us of the King of England, supremam potestatem & merum imperium habere, Cambden in Britan. de­script. ‘That he hath supream power and absolute command in his Dominions, and that he neither holds his Crown in vassalage, nor receiveth his investiture of any other, nor acknowledgeth any Superiour, but God alone.’ To prove this last, he cites these memorable words from Bracton an old English Lawyer, omnis quidem sub Rege, & ipse sub nullo sed tantum sub Deo, that every man is under the King, but the King under none saving only God. But Bracton tells us more than this, and affirms expresly, that the King hath supream power and jurisdiction over all causes and persons in this his Majesties Realm of England, that all Jurisdictions are vested in him and are issued from him, and that he hath jus gladii, or the right of the Sword, for the better go­vernance of his people. This is the substance of his words, but the words are these.Bracton de leg. Angl. l. 2. c 24. Sciendum est (saith he) quod ipse Dominus Rex ordinariam habet jurisdictionem & dig­nitatem & potestatem super omnes qui in regno suo sunt. Habet enim omnia jura in manu sua quae ad coronam & laicalem pertinent potestatem, & materialem gladium qui pertinet ad Regni gubernandum, &c. He adds yet further, Habet item in potestate sua leges & constitutiones, that the Laws and Constitutions of the Realm,Id. l. 2. c. 16. are in the power of the King: by which words, whether he meaneth that the Legislative power is in the King, and whether the Legislative power be in him, and in him alone, we shall see a­non. But sure I am, that he ascribes unto the King the power of interpreting the Law in all doubtful cases, in dubiis & obscuris Domini Regis expectanda interpretatio & voluntas, which is plain enough. For though he speaketh only de chartis Regis expe­ctanda interpretatio & voluntas which is plain enough. For though he speaketh only de chartis Regiis & factis Regum, of the Kings Deeds and Charters only, as the words seem to import; yet considering the times in which he lived (being Chief Justice in the time of King Henry the 3d.) wherein there was but little written Law more than what was comprehended in the Kings Grants and Charters, he may be under­stood of all Laws whatever. And so much is collected out of Bractons words by the Lord Chancellor Egerton, of whom it may be said without envy; that he was as grave and learned a Lawyer, as ever sat upon that Bench. ‘Who gathereth out of Bracton, that all cases not determined for want of foresight are in the King, to whom belongs the right of interpretation, not in plain and evident cases, but only in new que­stions and emergent doubts; and that the King hath as much right by the constitu­tions of this Kingdom, as the Civil Law gave the Roman Emperors, where it is said, Rex solus judicat de causa à jure non desinita.’ Case of the Post-nati. p. 107, 108. And though the Kings make not any Laws without the counsel and consent of his Lords and Commons, whereof we shall speak more in the following Section, yet in such cases where the Laws do provide no remedy, and in such matters as concern the politick administration of his Kingdoms, he may and doth take order by his Proclamations. He also hath Authority by his [Page 716]Prerogative Royal to dispense with the rigour of the Laws, and sometimes to pass by a Statute with a non obstante, as in the Statute 1 Hen. IV. cap. VI. touching the value to be specified of such Lands, Offices, or Annuities, &c. as by the King are granted in his Letters patents. But these will better come within the compas of those jura Majestatis, Cambden in Brit. or rights of Sovereignty, which our Lawyers call sacra & individua: Sacred, by reason they are not to be pried into with irreverent eyes; and individual or insepa­rable, because they cannot be communicated unto any other. Of which kind are the levying of Arms,Case of our Af­fairs, p. suppressing of tumults and rebellions, providing for the present safety of his Kingdom against sudden dangers, convoking of Parliaments, and dis­solving them, making of Peers, granting liberty of sending Burgesses to Towns and Cities, treating with forein States, making War, Leagues, and Peace, granting safe conduct and protection, Indenizing, giving of Honour, Rewarding, Pardoning, Coyning, Printing, and the like to these. But what need these particulars have been looked into, to prove the absoluteness and sovereignty of the Kings of England, when the whole body of the Realm hath affirmed the same, and solemnly declared it in their Acts of Parliament.16 Rich. 2. c. 5. In one of which is affirmed, that the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in no earthly subjection, but immediatly to God, in all things touching the regality of the said Crown; and to none other. And in ano­ther Act, that the Realm of England is an Empire governed by one Supream Head and King, having the Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same, unto whom a Body politick compact of all sorts and degrees of people, divided in terms and by names of Spiritualty and Temporalty be bounden, and ought to bear next to God a natural and bumble obedience. 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. And more than so, That the King being the supream Head of this Body Poli­tick is instituted and furnished by the goodness and sufferance of Almighty God with plenary, whole and entire power, preheminence, authority, prerogative, and jurisdiction to render and yield justice and final determination to all manner of Subjects within this Realm, and in all causes whatsoever. Nor was this any new Opinion invented only to comply with the Princes humour, but such as is declared to have been fortified by sundry Laws and Ordinances made in former Parliaments;Ibid. and such as hath been since confirmed by a solemn Oath, taken and to be taken by most of the Subjects of this Kingdom. Which Oath consisting of two parts, the one Declaratory, and the other Promissory; in the Declaratory part the man thus taketh it, he doth declare and testifie in his conscience that the Kings Highness is the only supream Governour of this Realm, and of all other his Domi­nions and Countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal, &c. And in the Promissory part,1 Eliz. c. 1. they make Oath and swear, that to their power they will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Priviledges, Preheminencies, and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness, his Heirs and Successors, or united and annexed to the Im­perial Crown of this Realm. Put all which hath been said together, and it will appear, that if to have merum imperium, a full and absolute command, and all the jura maje­statis which belong to Sovereignty; if to be so Supream, as to hold immediatly of God, to have all persons under him, none but God above him; if to have all autho­rity and jurisdiction to be vested in him, and proceeding from him, and the material sword at his sole disposal for the correcting of offenders, and the well ordering of his people; if to have whole and entire power of rendring justice and final determination of all causes to all manner of Subjects, as also to interpret and dispence with Laws; and all this ratified and confirmed unto him by the solemn Oath of his Subjects in the Court of Parliament, be enough to make an absolute Monarch: the Kings of Eng­land are more absolute Monarchs than either of their Neighbours of France or Spain.

If any thing may be said to detract from this, VIII it is the new device so much pressed of late, of placing the chief Sovereignty, or some part thereof, in the two Houses of Parliament; concerning which Mr. Pryn published a discourse entituled, The supreme power of Parliaments and Kingdoms; and others in their Pamphlets upon that Argu­ment have made the Parliament so absolute, and the King so limited, that of the two, the Members of the Houses are the greater Monarchs. But this is but a new de­vice, not heard of in our former Monuments and Records of Law; nor proved, or to be proved indeed by any other Medium than the Rebellions of Cade, Tiler, Straw, Kett, Mackerel, Prynns book of Parl. &c. pt. 3. and the rest of that rascal rabble; or the seditious Parliaments in the time of King Henry III. King Edward II. and King Richard II. when civil war and faction carried all before it. For neither have the Houses, or either of them enjoyed such Sovereignty de facto in times well setled, and Parliaments lawfully assembled, nor ever could pretend to the same de jure. Or if they do, as many have been apt enough [Page 717]to raise false pretences, it would much trouble them to determine whether this Sove­reignty be conferred upon them by the King or the People, whether it be in either of the Houses severally, or in both united. If they can challenge this pretended Sove­reignty in neither of these capacities, nor by none of these titles, it may be warrant­ably concluded that there is no such Sovereignty as they do pretend to. And first there is no part nor branch of Sovereignty conferred upon them by the King. The Writs of Summons, which the Deelaration of the Lords and Commons assembled at Oxon. 1643. doth most truly call the foundation of all power in Parliament, Declaration of the Trtaty. p. 15. tell us no such matter. The Writ directed to the Lords doth enable them only to confer and treat with one another, & consilium vestrum impendere, and to advise the King in such weighty matters as concern the safety of the Kingdom. But they are only to advise, not compel the King, to counsel him, but not controll him; and to advise and counsel are no marks of Sovereignty, but rather works of service and subordination. Nor can they come to give this Counsel without he invite them, and being invited by his Writ cannot choose but come, except he excuse them: which are sure notes of duty and subjection, but verry sorry signs of power and sovereignty. 'Tis true, that being come together, they may and sometimes do, on a Writ of Error, examin, and reverse or affirm such judgments as have been given in the Kings Bench; and from their sentence in the case there is no appeal, but only to the whole body of that Court, the King,Case of our As­sairs, p. 7, 8. and both the Houses, the Head and Members. But this they do, not as the upper House of Parliament, but as the distinct Court of the Kings Barons of Parliament, of a particular and ministerial jurisdiction, to some intents and purposes, and to some alone: which though it doth invest them with a power of judicature, confers not any thing upon them which belongs to Sovereignty. Then for the Commons, all which the Writ doth call them to, is facere & consentire, to do and consent unto such things which are ordained by the Lords and Common Council of the Kingdom of England, and sure conformity and consent, (which is all the Writ requireth from them) are no marks of Sovereignty, nor can an Argument be drawn from thence by the subtlest Sophister, to shew that they are called to be partakers of the Sovereign power, or that the King intends to denude himself of any branch or leaf thereof to hide their naked­ness. And being met together in a body collective, they are so far from having any share in Sovereignty, that they cannot properly be called a Court of Judicature, as neither having any power to minister an Oath,Id. p. 9. or to imprison any body (except it be some of their own Members if they see occasion) which are things incident to all Courts of Justice, and to every Steward of a Leet, insomuch that the House of Com­mons is compared by some (and not incongruously) unto the Grand Inquest at a general Sessions, whose principal work it is to receive Bills, and prepare businesses,Review of the Observat. p. 22. and make them fit and ready for my Lords the Judges. Nay so far were they here­tofore from the thoughts of Sovereignty, that they were lyable to sutes and punish­ments for things done in Parliament, though only to the prejudice of a private Sub­ject, until King Henry VIII. most graciously passed a Law for their indemnity. For whereas Richard Strode, one of the company of Tinners in the County of Cornwall, be­ing a Member of the Commons House, had spoken somewhat to the prejudice of that Society, and contrary to the Ordinances of the Stanneries; at his return into the Country, he was Arrested, Fined, Imprisoned. Complaint whereof being made in Parliament, the King passed a Law to this effect, viz. That all suites, condemnations, 4 Hen. 8. c. 8. ex­ecutions, charges and impositions put or hereafter to be put upon Richard Strode, and every of his Complices that be of this Parliament, or any other hereafter, for any Bill, speaking, or reasoning of any thing concerning the Parliament to be communed and treated of, shall be void and null: But neither any reparation was allowed to Strode, nor any punishment in­flicted upon those that sued him, for ought appears upon Record. And for the Houses joyned together (which is the last capacity they can claim it in) they are so far from having the supream Authority, that (as it is observed by a learned Gentle­man) ‘they cannot so unite or conjoyn as to be an entire Court either of Sovereign or Ministerial jurisdiction; no otherwise co-operating than by concurrence of Votes in their several Houses, for preparing matters in order to an Act of Parliament:Case of our Af­fairs, p. 9. Which when they have done, they are so far from having any legal Authority in the State, as that in Law there is no stile nor form of their joynt Acts; nor doth the Law so much as take notice of them until they have the Royal Assent. So that considering that the two Houses alone do no way make an entire Body or Court, and that there is no known stile nor form of any Law or Edict, by the Votes of the two Houses only, [Page 718]nor any notice taken of them by the Law; it is apparent that there is no Sovereignty in their two Votes alone.’ How far the practice of the Lords and Commons which remain'd at Westminster, after so many of both Houses had repaired to the King, &c. may create Precedents unto Posterity, I am not able to determine: but sure I am, they have no Precedent to shew from the former Ages. But let us go a little further and suppose for granted, that the Houses either joynt or separate be capable of the So­vereignty, were it given unto them: I would fain know whether they claim it from the King, or the People only. Not from the King, for he confers upon them no fur­ther power than to debate and treat of his great Affairs, to have access unto his person, freedom of speech, (as long as they contain themselves within the bounds of Loyalty) authority over their own Members:Hakewell of passing Bills in Parliament. which being customarily desired, and of course obtained (as it relates unto the Commons) shews plainly, that these vulgar privi­ledges are nothing more the rights of Parliament than the favours of Princes, but yet such favours as impart not the least power of Sovereignty. Nor doth the calling of a Parliament ex opere operato, as you know who phrase it, either denude the King of the poorest robe of all his Royalty, or confer the same upon the Houses, or on either of them; whether the King intend so by his call, or otherwise. For Bodin (whom Mr. Prynn hath honoured with the title of a grand Politician, Prynn of Par­liament. par. 2. p. 45. Bodin. de Re­pub. doth affirm expresly, Principis majestatem nec Comitorum convocatione, nec Senatus populique praesentia minui, that the Majesty or Sovereignty of the King is not a jot diminished, either by the calling of a Parliament or Conventus Ordinum, or by the frequency and presence of his Lords and Commons. Nay to say truth, the Majesty of Sovereign Princes is never so transcen­dent and conspicuous as when they sit in Parliament with their States about them, the King then standing in his highest Estate, as was once said by Henry VIII. who knew (as well as any of the Kings of England) how to keep up the Majesty of the Crown Im­perial. Nor can they claim it from the People, who have none to give; for nemo dat quod non habet, as the saying is. The King (as hath been proved before) doth hold his Royal Crown immediately from God himself, not from the contract of the People. He writes not populi clementia, but Dei gratia, not by the favour of the People, but by the grace of God. The consent and approbation of the People (used and not used before the day of Coronation) is reckoned only as a part of the solemn pomps which are then accustomably used. The King is actually King to all intents and purposes in the Law whatever, immediatly on the death of his Predecessor. Nor ever was it otherwise objected in the Realm of England, till Clark and Watson pleaded it at their Arraignment in the first year of King James. Speeds Histo­ry in K James. Or grant we that the Majesty of this Kingdom was first originally in the people, and by them devolved upon the King by their joynt consent: yet having given away that power by their said consent, and setled it upon the King by an Act of State, confirmed by Oaths and all Solemnities which that Act requires; they cannot so retract that grant, or make void that gift, as to pass a new conveyance of it, and settle it upon their Representees in the House of Commons. Or if they could, yet this would utterly exclude all the Lords from having the least share or portion in this new found Sovereignty; in that they repre­sent not the common people, but sit there only in their own personal capacities, and therefore must submit at last to these new made Sovereigns, who carry both the Purse and Sword at their own girdles. So then the people cannot give the Sovereignty, and if they have no power to give it, the Lords and Commons have no claim thereunto de jure. See we next therefore how much of this Sovereignty they or their Predecessors rather have enjoyed de facto, in peaceable and regular times, fit to be drawn into ex­ample in the Ages following. The chief particulars in which the Sovereignty consists we have seen before; and will now see whether that any of them have been exercised and injoyed in peaceable and regular times by both, or either of the two Houses of Par­liament. And first for calling and dissolving Parliaments, making of Peers, granting of liberty to Towns and Cities, to make choice of Burgesses, which antiently had no such liberty, treating with forein States, denouncing War, or making Leagues or Peace after War commenced, granting safe conduct and protection, indenizing of Aliens, giving of honours unto eminent and deserving persons, Rewarding, Pardon­ing, Coyning, Printing, making of Corporations, and dispensing with the Laws in force; they are such points which never Parliament did pretend to till these later times, wherein every thing almost is lawful (I am sure more lawful) than to fear God and honour the King. Nor do I find that Mr. Prynn hath laboured to entitle them to [Page 719]these particulars. For levying of Arms, and the command of the Militia, besides that the Kings of England have ever been in possession of it, and that possession never disturbed or interrupted by any claim of right made in the behalf of the two Houses, (which is as sure a title as the Law can make): the Houses have declared by an Act of Parliament,Stat. 7. Ed. 1. Cap. 1. that of right it belongs unto the King streightly to defend (that is prohibit) all force of Arms, and that the Parliament is bound to aid him in that prohibition. Touching the Royal Navy, and the Ports and Forts, the Kings prescription to them is so strong and binding,3. Edw. 3. that in the 3d. of Edward III. the House of Commons did disclaim the having cognisance of such matters as the guarding of the Seas, and marches of the Kingdom; which certainly they had not done, had they pretended any title to the Ports and Navy. As for suppressing tumults, and providing for the safety of the Kingdom against sudden danger, the Law commits it solely to the care of the King;11 Henr. 7. c. 18. obliging every Subject by the duty of his allegeance to aid and assist him at all seasons when need shall require. And for their power of declaring Law in the House of Peers, where­in they deliver their opinion in the point before them, in true propriety of speech they have none at all.Case of our Af­fairs. p. 4. And this is that which was affirmed by his Majesty at the end of the Parliament, Anno 1628. saying, that it belonged only to the Judges under him to interpret Laws, and that none of the Houses of Parliament joynt or separate (what new Doctrine soever might be raised) had any power either to make or declare Law without his consent. 3 Car. And if it be done with his consent, it is not so properly the declaring and interpreting of an old Law, as the making rather of a new, saith a learned Gentleman.Case of our Af­fairs, p. 5.

Others have found out a new way to invest the Parliament with the Robes of So­vereignty, not as superior to the King, but co-ordinate with him: and this, say they, IX appears sufficiently in that the two Houses of Parliament have not only a power of consulting but of consenting, and that too in the highest office of the Monarchy, (whereof they are a Co-ordinative part) the making of Laws. Fuller An­swer to D.F. p. 2. Which dangerous doctrine as it was built at first on that former error which makes the King to be one of the three Estates in Parliament, so it is super-structed with some necessary consequents; whether more treasonable or ridiculous, it is hard to say. For on these grounds the Author of the Fuller Answers hath presented us with these trim devises,Id. pag. 1. viz. that England is not a simple subordinate and absolute, but a co-ordinative and mixt Monarchy; that this mixt Monarchy is compounded of three co-ordinate Estates, a King and two Houses of Parliament; that these three make but one supream, but that one is a mixt one, or else the Monarchy were not mixt; and finally, which needs must follow from the premises, that although every Member of the Houses seorsim, taken severally, may be called a Subject, yet all collective in their Houses are no Subjects. Auditum admissi risum teneatis? Can any man hear these serious follies and abstain from laughter? or think a fellow who pretends both to wit and learning should talk thus of a Monarchy (which every one that knoweth any thing in Greek, know to imply the supream government of one) compounded of three to-ordinate Estates, and those co-ordinate Estates consisting of no fewer than 600 persons? Or that a man who can pretend but to so much use of reason, as to distin­guish him from a beast, cauld fall on such a senseless dotage, as to make the same man at the same time to be a Subject and no Subject; a Subject in the Streets, and in his private House, no Subject when he sits in Haberdashers Hall for advance of moneys, or in either of the two Houses of Parliament? And yet this senseless doctrine is be­come so dangerous, because so universally admired and hearkened to, that the be­ginning and continuance of our long disturbances may chiefly be ascribed unto this opinion, to which they have seduced the poor ignorant people. The rather in regard that some who have undertaken the confutation of these brainless follies, have most im­providently granted not only that the two Houses of Parliament are in a sort co-ordinate with the King ad aliquid, to some Act or exercising of the supream power, As in the book called Consci­ence satisfied. that is to the making of Laws; but that this co-ordination of the three Estates (of which the King is yielded every where for one) is fundamental, and held by the two Houses on no worse a title than a fundamental Constitution; which is as much as any reasonable Parliamen­tarian need desire to have. Therefore in Answer to the Fuller, (not taking notice of his foolish and seditious inferences) we will clear those points. 1. That the two Houses of Parliament are not co ordinate with the King, but subordinate to him. And 2. That the power of making Laws is properly and legally in the King alone. As for the first, we had before a Recognition made by Act of Parliament, by which the Kingdom of England is acknowledged to be an Empire governed by one supream Head and King, to whom all sorts and degrees of people ought to bear next to God a na­tural [Page 720]and humble obedience;24 H. 8. c. 12. which certainly the Lords and Commons had not made to the dethroning of themselves, their Heirs and Successors from this co-ordinative part of Sovereignty, if any such co-ordination had been then believed. Or if it be sup­posed, to excuse the matter, that King Henry VIII. being a severe and terrible Prince, did wrest this Recognition from them (which yet will hardly serve for a good de­fence:) what shall we say to the like recognition made in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign,1 Eliz. c. 1. when she was green in State, and her power unsetled, and so less apt to work upon her people by threats and terrors? Assuredly had the Houses dream't in those broken times of that co-ordinative Sovereignty, which is now pretended, they might have easily regained it, and made up that breach, which by the violent assaults of King Henry VIII. had been made upon them: which was a point they never aimed at. Besides, if this co-ordinative Majesty might be once admitted, it must needs follow, that though the King hath no Superiour, he hath many Equals; and where there is equality there is no subjection. But Bracton tells us in plain terms, not only that the King hath no Superiour in his Realm, except God Almighty, but no Equal neither; and the reason which he gives is exceeding strong, Quia sic amitteret praecep­tum, cum par in Parem non habeat potestatem, Beacton de leg. Angl. l. 1. c. 8. because he could not have an Equal, but with the loss of his Authority and Regal Dignity, considering that one Equal hath no power to command another. Now lest the Fuller should object (as perhaps he may) that this is spoken of the King out of times of Parliament, and of the Members of the Houses seorsim, taken severally as particular persons; but when they are convened in Parliament, then they are Sovereigns and no Subjects: first he must know, that by the Statute of Queen Elizabeth, all of the House of Commons are to take the Oath before remembred for the defending of all preheminences, and authorities united and an­nexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, and for bearing faith and true allegi­ance to the King, his Heirs and lawful Successors: and that if any of them do refuse this Oath,Stat. 5. Eliz. 1. he is to have no voice in Parliament. 2. He cannot choose but know, that even sedente Parliamento, both the Lords and Commons use to address themselves to his Sacred Majesty in the way of supplication and petition, (and certainly it is not the course for men of equal rank to send Petitions unto one another); and that in those Petitions they do stile themselves his Majesties most humble and obedient Subjects. Which is not only used as the common Complement which the hypocrisie of these times hath taken up, (though possibly it might be no otherwise meant in some late addresses) but is the very phrase in some Acts of Parliament,25 Hen. 8. c. 22. &c. as in the Acts at large doth at full appear. 3. They may be pleased to know, how happy a thing it was for the Realm of England that this Fuller did not live in former times. For had he broached this Doctrine some Ages since, he would have made an end of Parliaments. Princes are very jealous of the smallest points of Sovereignty, and love to Reign alone without any Rivals: their Souls being equally made up of Pompeys and Caesars, and can as little brook an Equal, as endure a Superiour. And lastly, I must let him know what Bodinus saith, who telleth us this, Legum ac edictorum probatio aut publicatio quae in Curia vel Senatu fieri solet, Bedin de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. non arguit imperii majestatem in Senatu vel Curia inesse, viz. That the publishing and approbation of Laws and Edicts which is made ordinarily in the Court or Parliament, proves not the Majesty of the State to be in the said Court or Parliament. And therefore if the power of confirmation or rejecting be of a greater trust and more high concernment, than that of consulting and consenting, as no doubt it is, the power of consulting and consenting, which the Fuller doth ascribe to the two Houses of Parliament, will give them but a sorry title to Co­ordinative Sovereignty.

This leads me on unto the Power of making Laws, X which as before I said, is pro­perly and legally in the King alone, tanquam in proprio Subjecto, as in the true and ade­quate subject of that Power. And for the proof thereof, I shall thus proceed. When the Norman Conqueror first came in, as he won the Kingdom by the Sword, so did he govern it by his Power: His Sword was then the Scepter, and his Will the Law. There was no need on his part, of an Act of Parliament; much less of calling all the Estates together, to know of them after what Form, and by what Laws they would be governed. It might as well be said of him, as in the flourish and best times of the Roman Emperors,Justin. Institut. l. 1. c. Quod Principi placuerit legis babet vigorem, that whatsoever the King willed it did pass for Law. This King and some of his Successors being then [...], and having a despotical power on the lives and fortunes of their Subjects, which they disposed of for the benefit of their Friends and followers, Normans, [Page 721]French, and Flemings, as to them seemed best. But as the Subjects found the Yoke to be too heavy and insupportable; so they addressed themselves in their Petitions to the Kings their Sovereigns, to have that Yoke made easier, and the burden lighter, especially in such particulars, of which they were most sensible at the present time. By this means they obtained first to have the Laws of Edward the Confessor, contain'd for the most part in the Great Charter afterwards: and by this means, that is to say, by pouring out their prayers and desires unto them, did they obtain most of the Laws and Statutes, which are now remaining of the time of King Henry the 3d, and King Edward the first. Many of which as they were issued at the first either in Form of Charters under the Great Seal, or else as Proclamations of Grace and Favour; so do they carry still this mark of their first procuring, the King willeth, the King command­eth, the King ordaineth, the King provideth, the King grants, &c. And when the Kings were pleased to call their Estates together, it was not out of an Opinion that they could not give away their Power, or dispense their Favours, or abate any thing of the severity of their former Government, without the approbation and consent of their people: but out of just fear lest any one of the three Estates (I mean the Clergy, the Nobility, and the Commons) should insist on any thing, which might be prejudicial to the other two. The Commons being always on the Craving part, and suffering as much perhaps from their immediate Lords, as from their King, might possibly have asked some things which were as much derogatory to the Lords (under whom they held) as of their Sovereign Liege the King, the chief Lord of all. In this re­spect, the Counsel and Consent as well of the Prelates as the Temporal Lords, was accounted necessary, in passing of all Acts of Grace and Favour to the people: be­cause that having many Royalties and large immunities of their own, a more near, re­lation to the person, and a greater interesse in the honour of their Lord the King; nothing should pass unto the prejudice and diminution of their own Estates, or the disabling of the King to support his Sovereignty. And this for long time was the Stile of the following Parliaments, viz. ‘To the honour of God and of holy Church, Preface, an. 1 Ed. 3. and to the redress of the oppressions of the people, our Sovereign Lord the King, &c. at the request of the Commonalty of his Realm, by their Petition made before him and his Council in the Parliament, by the Assent of the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other great men assembled in the said Parliament, hath granted for him and his Heirs, &c.’ To this effect, but with some little (and but a very little) variation of the words, was the usual Stile in all the Prefaces or Preambles of the Acts of Parliament, from the beginning of the Reign of King Edward the 3d, till the beginning of the Reign of King Henry the 7th, save that sometimes we find the Lords complaining, 10 Ed. 3. &c. 21 Ed. 3. &c. 28 Ed. 3. &c. or petitioning, and the Commons assenting, as their occasion did require: and sometime also no other motive represented, but the Kings great desire to provide for the ease and safety of his people, upon deliberation had with the Prelates and Nobles, and learned men assisting with their mutual Counsel. 23 Ed. 3. And all this while there is no question to be made, but that the power of making Laws was conceived to be the chiefest Flower of the Royal Diadem, to which the Lords and Commons neither joint nor seperate, did not pretend the smallest Title more than petitioning for them, or assenting to them: it being wholly left to the Kings Grace and goodness, whether he would give ear or not to their Petitions, or hearken unto such Advice as the Lords or other great men gave him in behalf of his people. And this is that which was declared in the Parliament by the Lords and Commons (and still holds good as well in point of Law as Reason) that it belonged unto the regality of the King to grant or deny what Pe­titions in Parliament be pleaseth. But as the Kings came in upon doubtful Titles,2 Hen. 5. or otherwise were necessitated to comply with the peoples humours, (as sometimes they were) so did the Parliaments make use of the opportunities for the encrease of their Authority, at least in the formalities of Law, and other advantages of expres­sion. So that in the minority of King Henry the sixth, unto those usual words by the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and at the special instance and re­quest of the Commons (which were inserted ordinarily into the body of the Acts from the beginning of the Reign of King Henry the sixth,) was added this, By the Autho­rity of the said Parliament. But still it is to be observed,3 Hen. 6. c. 2. & 8 H. 6.3. &c. that though those words were added to the former clause, yet the power of granting or ordaining was acknowledged to belong to the King alone; as in the places in the Margin, where it is said, Our Lord the King considering the premises, by the advice and assent, and at the request aforesaid, hath ordained and granted by the Authority of the said Parliament, 3 H. 6.2. and our [Page 722]Lord the King considering, &c. hath ordained and established by Authority of this Parlia­ment, 8 H. 6.3. And thus it generally stood, (but every general Rule may have some exceptions) till the beginning of the Reign of King Henry the seventh. about which time that usual clause, the special instance or request of the Commons, began by little and little to be laid aside, and that of their advice or assent to be inserted in the place thereof: for which I do refer you to the Book at large. Which though it were some alteration of the former stile, and that those words By the Authority of this pre­sent Parliament, may make men think that the Lords and Commons did then pretend some Title unto the power of making Laws: yet neither advising or assenting are so operative in the present case as to transfer the power of making Laws to such as do advise about them, or assent unto them; nor can the alteration of the Forms and stiles used in anitient times, import an alteration of the Form of Government, un­less it can be shewed, (as I think it cannot) that any of our Kings did renounce that Power, which properly and solely did belong unto them, or did by any solomn Act of Communication, confer the same upon the Lords and Commons convened in Par­liament. And this is that which is resolved and declared in our Common Law, where it is said,Cited in the unlawfulness of resist. p. 107. Le Roy fait les loix avec le consent du Seigneurs et communs, et non pas les Seigneurs et communs avec le consent du Roy, that is to say, that the King makes Laws in Parliament by the assent of the Lords and Commons, and not the Lords and Commons by the assent of the King. And for a further proof of this, and for the clearing of this point, that the Lords and Commons pretend to no more power in the making of Laws, than opportunity to propound and advise about them, and on mature advice to give their several Assents unto them, we need but look into the first Act of the Parliament in the third year of K. Charles, being a Recognition of some ancient rights belonging to the English Subject. An Act conceived according to the Primitive Form,Statut. 3 Carol. in way of a Petition to the Kings most excellent Majesty, in which the Lords and Commons do most humbly pray as their Rights and Liberties, that no such things as they complained of, might be done hereafter; that his Majesty would vouchsafe to declare that the Awards, doings, and proceedings to the prejudice of his people in any of the premises, shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example, and that he would be pleased to de­clare his Royal pleasure, that in the point aforesaid all his Offieers and Ministers should serve him according to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm. To which although the King returned a fair general Answer, assuring them that his Subjects should have no cause for the time to come to complain of any wrong or oppressions contrary to their just Rights and Liberties; yet this gave little fatisfaction till he came in person, and cau­sing the Petition to be distinctly read by the Clerk of the Crown, Ibid. returned his Answer in these words, Soit droit fait come est desire, that is to say, let right be done as is desired. Which being the very formal words by which the said Petition and every clause and Article therein contained, became to be a Law and to have the force of an Act of Par­liament; and being there is nothing spoken of the concurrent Authority of the Lords and Commons for the enacting of the same, may serve instead of many Argu­ments for the proof of this, that the Legislative power as we phrase it now, is wholly and solely in the King; although restrained in the exercise and use thereof by con­stant custom,Smith de Rep. Angl. unto the counsel and consent of the Lords and Commons. Le Roy veult or the King will have it so, is the imperative phrase by which the Propositions of the Lords and Commons are made Acts of Parliament. And let the Lords and Com­mons agitate and propound what Laws they please for their ease and benefit (as ge­nerally all Laws and Statutes are more for the ease and benefit of the Subject, than the advantage of the King): yet as well now, as formerly in the times of the Roman Emperors, Quod Principi placuerit legis habet vigorem, nothing but that which the King pleaseth to allow of, is to pass for Law: the Laws not taking their coercive force (as judicious Hooker well observeth) from the quality of such as devise them, but from the Power which giveth them the strength of Laws. Pooker Eccle­siast. Pol. I shut up this Discourse with this expression and comparison of a late Learned Gentleman, viz, ‘That as in a Copyhold Estate, the Copyholder of a meer Tenant at will comes by custom to gain an Inheri­tance, and so to limit and restrain the will and power of the Lord, that he cannot make any determination of the Copyholders Estate otherwise than according to the custom of the Mannour; and yet doth not deprive the Lord of his Lordship in the Co­pyhold, nor participate with him in it, neither yet devest the Fee and Franktenement out of the Lord,Case of our Affairs. p. 6. but that they still remain in him, and are ever parcel of his De­mesn: so in the restraining of the Kings Legislative power to the concurrence of the [Page 723]Peers and Commons, though the custom of the Kingdom hath so fixed and setled the restraint, as that the King cannot in that point use his Sovereign power without the concurrence of the Peers and Commons according to the custom of the King­dom; yet still the Sovereignty (and with it the inseparable Legislative power) doth reside solely in the King.’

If any hereupon demand to what end serve Parliaments, XI and what benefit can re­dound to the Subject by them; I say in the Apostles words, much every way. Rom. 3.2. Many vexations oftentimes do befall the Subjects without the knowledg of the King, and against his will, to which his Ears are open in a time of Parliament. The King at other times useth the Eyes and Ears of such as have place about him, who may per­haps be guilty of the wrongs which are done the people: but in a Parliament he seeth with his own Eyes, and heareth with his own Ears, and so is in a better way to re­dress the mischief than he could be otherwise. Nor do the people by the opportunity of these Parliamentary meetings, obtain upon their Prayers and Petitions a redress of grievances only, but many times the King is overcome by their importunity to abate so much of his Power, to grant such points, and pass such Laws and Statutes for their ease and benefit, as otherwise he would not yield to. For certainly it is as true in making our approaches and Petitions to our Lord the King, as in the pouring out of our Prayers and supplications to the Lord our God: the more multitudinous and united the Petitioners are, the more like to speed. And therefore said Bodinus truly, Principem plaeraque universis concedere quae singulis denegarentur, Bodin de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. that Kings do many times grant those favours to the whole body of their people, which would be absolutely denied or not so readily yielded to particular persons. There are moreover many things of greater concernment, (besides the abrogating of old Laws and making new) which having been formerly recommended by the Kings of England, to the care and coun­sel of their people convened in Parliament, are not now regularly dispatched but in such Conventions: as are altering the Tenure of Lands, confirming the Rights, Titles, and possessions of private men, naturalizing Aliens, legitimating Bastards, adding sometimes the secular Authority to such points of Doctrine and Forms of Worship as the Clergy have agreed upon in their Convocations, if it be required, changing the publick weights and measures throughout the Kingdom, defining of such doubtful cases as are not easily resolved in the Courts of Law, raising of Subsidies and Taxes, attainting such as either are too potent to be caught, or too hard to be found, and so not triable in the ordinary Courts of Justice; restoring to their Bloud and Honours such, or the Heirs of such, as have been formerly attainted; granting of free and general Pardons, with divers others of this nature. In all and each of these the Lords and Commons do co-operate to the publick good,Sir Tho. Smith, de Rep. Angl. Cambden in Brit. Crompt. of Courts, &c. in the way of means and prepara­tion, but their co operation would be lost and fruitless, did not the King by his Conco­mitant or subsequent grace produce their good intentions into perfect Acts; and being Acts either of special Grace and Favour, or else of ordinary Right and Justice, no way derogatory to the Prerogative Royal, are usually confirmed by the Royal assent, without stop or hesitancy. But then, some other things there are of great importance and advantage to the Common-wealth, in which the Houses usually do proceed even to final sentence (the Commons in the way of inquisition or Impeachment, the Lords in that of Judicature and determination) with the consent and approbation of the King, though many times without his personal assent and presence. The King may be abused in his Grants and Patents, to the oppression of the people, or the dilapida­tion and destruction of the Royal Patrimony; Judges, and other the great Officers of Law and Equity are subject to corruptions, and may smell of gifts, whereby the passages of Justices do become obstructed; The Ministers of inferiour Courts as well Ecclesiastical as Civil, either exhaust the miserable Subject by Extortions, or else consume him by delays; Erroneous judgments may be given through fear or favour to the undoing of a man and his whole posterity, in which his Majesties Justices of either Bench can afford no remedy; The great Ones of the State may become too insolent, and the poor too miserable; and many other ways there are by which the Fabrick of the State may be out of Order: for the removing of which mischiefs, the rectifying of which abuses, the Lords and Commons in their several ways before remembred, are of special use; yet so, that if the King's Grants do come in question, or any of his Officers are called to a reckoning, they used heretofore to signifie unto his Majesty what they found therein, and he accordingly either revoked his Grants, or displaced his Servants, or by some other means gave way unto their contentment: the Kings [Page 724]consent being always necessary, and received as a part of the final sentence, if they went so far. So that we may conclude this point with these words of Bodin, who being well acquainted with the Government of this State and Nation, partly by way of Conference with Dr. Dale the Queens Ambassadour in France, and partly in the way of observation when he was in England, doth give this resolution of the point in Controversie,Bodin. de Re­pub. l. 1. o. 8. Habere quidem Ordines Anglorum authoritatem quandam, jura vero majestatis, & imperii summam in unius Principis arbitrio versari. The States saith he of England have a kind of Authority, but all the Rights of Sovereignty and com­mand in chief, are at the will and pleasure of the Prince alone.

And to say truth, XII although the Lords and Commons met in Parliament are of great Authority, especially as they have improved it in these later times; yet were they never of such power, but that the Kings have for the most part over-ruled them, and made them pliant and conformable to their own desires: and this not only by themselves, but sometimes also by their Judges, by their Council often. For such was the great care and wisdom of our former Kings, as not to venture single on that numerous Body of the two Houses of Parliament, whereby the Sovereignty might be so easily over-matched; but to take with them for Affistants as well the Lords of their Privy Council with whom they might advise in matters which concerned them in their Sovereign Rights, as their learned Council (as they call them) consisting of the Judges and most eminent Lawyers, from whom they might receive instruction as the case required, and neither do, nor suffer wrong in point of Law: and by both these, as well as by the power and awe of their personal presence, have they not only re­gulated but restrained their Parliaments. And this is easily demonstrable by continual practice.4 Ed. 1. For in the Statute of Bigamie made in the fourth year of King Edward I. it is said expresly, ‘That in the prefence of certain Reverend Fathers, Bishops of Eng­land, and others of the Kings Council, the Constitutions under-written were recited, and after published before the King his Council, forasmuch as all the Kings Coun­cil, as well Justices as others did agree, that they should be put in writing and ob­served.’ In the Articuli super Chartas, when the Great Charter was confirmed at the request of the Prelates,28 Ed. 1. c. 2. Earls, and Barons, we find these two claufes: the one in the beginning thus, Nevertheless the King and his Council do not intend, by reason of this Statute, Ibid. c. 20. to diminish the Kings right, &c. The other in the clofe of all in these follow­ing words, And notwithstanding all these things mentioned, or any part of them, both the King and his Council, and all they which were present at the making of this Ordinance, do will and intend that the Right and Prerogative of his Crown shall be saved in all things. In the 27th of King Edward the 3d. The Commons presenting a Petition to the King,27 Ed. 3. which the Kings Council did mislike, were content thereupon to mend and explain their Petition, the Form of which Petition is in these words following. ‘To their most redoubted Sovereign Lord the King, praying the Commons, that where­as they have prayed him to be discharged of all manner of Articles of the Lyre, &c. which Petition seemeth to his Council to be prejudicial unto him, and in disherison of his Crown if it were so generally granted; his said Commons not willing not desiring to demand things of him, which should fall in disherison of him or of his Crown perpetually, as of Escheats, &c. but of Trespasses, Misprifions, Negligences, and Ignorances, &c.’ In the 13th of the reign of King Richard the 2d, when the Commons did pray that upon pain of forfeiture, the Chancellor, or Council of the King should not after the end of the Parliament make any Ordinance against the Com­mon Law,13 Rich. 2. the King (by the advice of his Council) answered, Let it be used as it hath been used before this time, so as the Regality of the King be saved, for the King will save his Regalities,4 Hen. 4. as his Predecessors have done. In the 4th year of King Henry IV. when the Commons complained against Sub-poenae's and other Writs grounded upon false suggestions, the King (upon the same advice) returned this Answer, that he would give in charge to his Officers, that they should abstain more than before time they had to send for his Subjects in that manner. But yet (saith he) it is not our intention that our Officers shall so abstain, that they may not send for our Subjects in matters and causes necessary, as it hath been used in the time of our good Progenitors. Finally, not to bring forth more particulars in a case so clear, it was the constant custom in all Parlia­ments, till the Reign of King Henry V. that when any Bill had passed both Houses,Henr. 5. and was presented to the King for his Royal Assent, the King by the abvice of his Privy Council, or his Council learned in the Laws, or sometimes of both, did use to cross out and obliterate as much or as little of it as he pleased, to leave out what he [Page 725]liked not, and confirmed the rest; that only which the King confirmed being held for Law. And though in the succeeding times the Kings did graciously vouchsafe to pass the whole Bill in that Form which the Houses gave it, or to reject it wholly as they saw occasion: yet still the Privy Council, and the Judges, and the Council learned in the Laws, have and enjoy their place in the House of Peers, as well for preservation of the Kings Rights and Royalties, as for direction to the Lords in a point of Law, if any case of difficulty be brought before them; on which occasions the Lords are to de­mand the Opinion of the Judges, and upon their Opinions to ground their Judg­ment. As for Example, In the Parliament 28 of Hen. VI. The Commons made suit that William de la Pole Duke of Suffolk should be committed to Prison for many Trea­sons and other Crimes, and thereupon the Lords demanded the Opinion of the Judges,28 Hen. 6. whether he should be committed to Prison or not; whose Answer was, that he ought not to be committed in regard the Commons had not charged him with any particular offence, but with generals only; which Opinion was allowed and followed. In another Parliament of the said King, held by Prorogation, one Thomas Thorpe the Speaker of the House of Cemmons, was in the Prorogation-time condemned in 1000 l. damages, upon an Action of Trespass at the suit of Richard Duke of York, and was committed to Prison for execution of the same. The Parliament being reassembled, the Com­mons made suit to the King and Lords to have their Speaker delivered to them, ac­cording to the Privilege of Parliaments:The priviled. of the Barons. p. 15. the Lords demanded the Opinion of the Judges in it, and upon their Answer, did conclude, that the Speaker should stilll re­main in Prison according to Law, notwithstanding the privilege of Parliament; and according to this resolution the Commons were commanded in the Kings name to chuse one Tho. Carleton for their Speaker, which was done accordingly. Other Ex­amples of this kind are exceeding obvious, and for numbers infinite; yet neither more in number, nor more obvious than those of our Kings serving their turns by and upon their Parliaments, as their occasions did require. For not to look on higher and more Regal times, we find that Richard the 2d, a Prince not very acceptable to the Common people, could get an Act of Parliament,21 Ric. 2. to confirm the extrajudicial O­pinion of the Judges, given before at Notingham; that King Henry IV. could by an­other Act reverse all that Parliament, entail the Crown to his posterity,1 Hen. 4. and keep his Dutchy of Laneaster and all the Lands and Scigneuries of it, from being united to the Crown; that King Edward the 4th could have a Parliament to declare all the Kings of the House of Lancaster, to be Kings in Fact but not in Right,1 Ed. c. 1. and for uniting of that Dutchy to the Crown Imperial, notwithstanding the former Act of separation; that King Richard the 3d could have a Parliament to bastardize all his Brothers Chil­dren,Speeds Hist. in K. Richard 3. Verulams Hist. of K. Hen. 7. 11 Hen. 7. c. 10. to set the Crown on his own Head, though a most bloody Tyrant, and a plain Usurper; that K. Henry VII. could have the Crown entailed by an Act of Parliament, to the issue of his own body without relation to his Queen of the House of York, which was conceived by many at that time to have the better Title to it; another, for paying a Benevolence which he had required of the Subject, though all Benevolences had been damned by a former Statute made in the short, but bloudy reign of King Richard the 3d, that King Henry VIII. could have one Act of Parliament to bastar­dry his Daughter Mary, in favour of the Lady Elizabeth; 65 Hen. 8. c. 22, & 28. c. 7. & 35 H. 8. c. 1. another to declare the Lady Elizabeth to be illegitimate, in expectation of the issue by Queen Jane Seymour; a third for setling the succession by his Will and Testament, and what else he pleased; that Queen Mary could not only obtain several Acts in favour of her self and the See of Rome, but for the setling of the Regency on the King of Spain, 1 Mar. ses. 2. c. 1, 2. & 1. & 2 Ph. & M. c. 8.10. in case the Chil­dren of that Bed should be left in non-age. And finally that Queen Elizabeth did not only gain many several Acts for the security of her own Person, which were deter­minable with her life, but could procure an Act to be passed in Parliament for making it high Treason to affirm and say, That the Queen could not by Act of Parliament, bind and dispose the Rights and Titles which any person whatsoever might have to the Crown. 13 Eliz. c. 1. And as for raising moneys, and amassing Treasures by help of Parliaments, he that desires to know how well our Kings have served themselves that way by the help of Parlia­ments, let him peruse a book entituled, the Privilege of Parliaments, writ in the man­ner of Dialogue between a Privy Counsellor, and a Justice of Peace, and he shall be satisfied to the full. Put all that hath been said together, and sure the Kingdom of England must not be the place, in which the three Estates convened in Parliament have power to regulate the King, or restrain his actions, or moderate his extravagances, or where they can be taxed for persidious treachery, of they connive at Kings when they [Page 726]play the Tyrants, or wantonly insult on the Common-people, or otherwise abuse that power which the Lord hath given them. Calvin was much mistaken if he thought the contrary; or if he dreamt that he should be believ'd on his ipse dixit, without a pun­ctual enquiry into the grounds and probability of such a dangerous intimation as he lays before us.

But against this it is objected, XIII that Parliaments have disposed of the Militia of the Kingdom, of the Forts, Castles, Ports, and the Navy Royal, not only without the Kings leave, but against his liking: that they have deposed some Kings, and advanced others to the top of the Regal Throne: And for the proof of this they produce Ex­amples out of the Reign of King Henry III. Edw. II. and King Richard the second. Examples, which if rightly pondered, do not so much prove the Power, as the Weakness of Parliaments, in being carried up and down by the private conduct of every popular pretender. For 'tis well known that the Parliaments did not take upon them to rule, or rather to over-look K. Henry III. but as they were directed by Simon Montfort Earl of Leicester, who having raised a potent faction in the State, by the as­sistance of the Earls of Glocester, Matth. Paris, Henr. 3. Hereford, Derby, and some others of the great Lords of the Kingdom, compelled the King to yield unto what terms he pleased, and made the Parliaments no other than a means and instrument to put a popular gloss on his wretched purposes. And 'tis well known that the ensuing Parliaments which they in­stance in, moved not of their own accord to the deposing of K, Edw. the 2d, or K. Richard the 2d, but sailed as they were steered by those powerful Councils, which Qu. Isabel in the one,Walsingham. in Hist. Angl. & Hypodig. Neu­striae. and Henry Duke of Lancaster in the other, did propose unto them. It was no safe resisting those (as their cold wisdoms and forgotten loyalties did suggest unto them) qui tot legionibus imperarent, who had so many thousand men in Arms to make good their project, and they might think as the poor-spirited Citizens of Samaria did in another case (but a case very like the present) Behold two Kings stood not before him, 2 Kings 10.4. how then can we stand? For had it been an Argument of the power of Parlia­ments, that they deposed one King to set up another, dethroned King Richard to advance the Duke of Lancaster to the Regal Diadem; they would have kept the House of Lancaster in possession of it, (for the full demonstration of a power indeed) and not have cast them off, at the first attempt of a new plausible pretender, declared them to be kings in fact, but not in right, whose lawful right they had before prefer­red above all other Titles, and set the Crown upon the heads of their deadly Enemies. In the next place it is objected that Parliaments are a great restraint of the Sovereign power (according to the Doctrine here laid down by Calvin) in that the King can make no Laws, nor levy any money upon the Subject, but by the counsel and assent of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament. But this Objection hurts as little as the former did. For Kings, to say the truth need no Laws at all. In all such points wherein they have not bound themselves by some former Laws made for the common use and benefit of the Subject, they are left at liberty, and may proceed in governing the people, given by God unto them, according to their own discretion, and the advice of their Council. New Laws are chiefly made for the Subjects benefit, at their desire, on their importunate requests, for their special profit; not one in twenty, nay, I dare boldly say not one in an hundred, made for the advantage of the King, either in the improvement of his power, or the encrease of his Revenue. Look over all the Acts of Parliaments, from the beginning of the reign of King Hen­ry III. to the present time, and tell me he that can, if he finds it otherwise: Kings would have little use of Parliaments, and less mind to call them, if nothing but the making of new Laws were the matter aimed at. And as for raising Moneys and impo­sing Taxes, it either must suppose the Kings to be always unthrifts, that they be al­ways indigent and necessitous, and behind-hand with the World (which are the or­dinary effects of ill husbandry) or else this Argument is lost, and of little use: For if our Kings should husband their Estates to the best advantage, and make the best benefit of such Escheats and forfeitures and confiscations as day by day do fall unto them; If they should follow the Example of K. Henry VII. and execute the penal Laws according to the power which those Laws have given them, and the trust re­posed in them by their People; if they should please to examine their Revenue, and proportion their expence to their comings in, there would be little need of Subsidies and supplies of money, more than the ordinary aids and impositions upon Merchan­dize, which the Law alloweth of, and the known rights of Sovereignty backed by prescription, and long custom have asserted to them: So that it is by Accident, not by [Page 727]and Nature, that the Parliament hath any power or opportunity to restrain their King in this particular; for where there is no need of asking, there is no occasion of deny­ing; by consequence no restraint upon, no baffle or affronting offered to the Regal power. And yet the Sovereign need not fear (if he be tolerably careful of his own Estate) that any reasonable demand of his in these money-matters, will meet with op­position or denial in his Houses of Parliament. For whilest there are so many Acts of Grace and Favour to be done in Parliament (as what almost in every Parliament but an enlargement of the Kings favours to his people) and that none can be done in Parliament but with the Kings siat and consent: there is no question to be made, but that the two Houses of Parliament will far sooner chuse to supply the King (as all wise Parliaments have done) than rob the Subject of the benefit of his Grace and Favours, which is the best fruit they reap from Parliaments. Finally, whereas it is Objected (but I think it in sport) that the old Lord Burleigh used to say, that he knew not what a Parliament in England could not do; and that K. James once said in a Parliament, that then there were 500 Kings, which words were taken for a Concession that all were Kings as well as he in a time of Parliament; they who have given us these Objections do either misunderstand their Authors, or abuse themselves. For what the Lord Burleigh said of Parliaments (though it be more than the wisest man alive can justifie) he spake of Parliaments, according as the word is used in its pro­per sense; not for the two Houses, or for either of them exclusive of the Kings presence and consent; but for the supream Court, for the highest Judicatory, consisting of the Kings most excellent Majesty, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Represen­tees of the Commons, and then it will not serve for the turn intended. And what King James said once in jest (though I have often heard it used in earnest upon this occasion) was spoken only in derision of some daring Spirits, who laying by the mo­desty of their Predecessors, would needs be looking into the Prerogative, or finding Er­rors and mistakes in the present Government, or medling with those Arcana imperii which former Parliaments beheld at distance, with the eye of Reverence. But cer­tainly King James intended nothing less than to acknowledg a co-ordinative Sove­reignty in the two Houses of Parliament, or to make them his Co-partners in the Re­gal power. His carriage and behaviour towards them in the whole course of his Government, clearly shews the contrary: there never being Prince more jea­lous in the points of Sovereignty, nor more uncapable of a Rival in those points than he.

But yet the main Objection (which we may call the Objection paramount) doth remain unanswered. XIV For if the three Estates convened in Parliament, or any other popular Magistrate, whom Calvin dreams of, be ordained by the Word of God, as Guardians of the peoples Liberties; and therefore authorized to moderate and re­strain the power of Kings as often as they shall invade or infringe those liberties, as Calvin plainly says they were; or that they know themselves to be ordained by Gods Word to that end and purpose (cujus se lege Dei Tutores positos esse norunt) as he says they do: then neither any discontinuance or non-usage on their parts, nor any pre­scription to the contrary alledged by Kings and supream Princes, can hinder them from resuming and exercising that Authority which God hath given them, whensoever they shall find a fit time for it. But first I would fain learn of Calvin in what part of the Word of God we shall find any such Authority given to those popular Magistrates (by what Name soever they are called in their several Countreys) as he tells us of. Not in the Old Testament I am sure, though in the institution of the seventy El­ders there be some hopes of it. For when Moses first ordained those Elders, it was not to diminish any part of that Power which was vested in him, but to ease himself of some part of the burthen which did lie upon him. And this appears plainly by the 18th Chapter of the Book of Exodus. For when it was observed by Jethro his Father in Law, that he attended the businesses of the people from morning till night, he told him plainly ultra vires suas negotium esse, that the burthen was too heavy for him, vers. 18. and therefore that he should chuse some Ʋnder Officers, and place them over Thousands, over Hundreds, and over Fifties, and over Tens, Vers. 21. Leviusque sit tibi partito in alios onere: that so it might be the easier for him, those Officers bear­ing some part of the burthen with him. Yet so that these inferiour Officers should only judge in matters of inferiour Nature, the greater matter being still reserved to his own Tribunal. Which Counsel, as it was very well approved by Moses, so was it given by Jethro and approved by Moses, with reference to the will and pleasure of Allmighty [Page 728]God, Vers. 23. And what the Lord God did in it we shall find in the Book of Num­bers Chap. 11. For when Moses made complaint to God, that the Burthen of all the people was laid on him, Vers. 11. (where note it is the burden still which he makes complaint of) and that he was not able to hear all the people alone, because it was too heavy for him, Vers, 13. God willed him to make choice of seventy of those Officers, which before he had placed over the people, and to present them to him in the Taber­nacle of the Congregation; where he would give unto them the Spirit of Government, ut sustenent tecum onus populi, to the end that they might bear the burthen of the people with him, Vers. 17. Nothing in all this, but the easing of the Supream Magistrate of some part of the Burthen, which was before too heavy for him, without any diminu­tion of his power in the least respect. Nor doth it make for Calvins purpose, that God said to Moses, that he would take of the Spirit which was upon him, and put it on the seventy Elders, Vers. 17. the Spirit resting upon Moses in as full a measure as at first it did, not lessened by the communication of it to those Ʋnder-Officers. And so the point is stated by two learned Writers, though otherwise of different per­suasions in the things of God.Estius in diffi­ciliora sacrae setipturae loca. Num 11. v. 17. Deodat. Annot. in Num. 11. By Estius for the Pontificians it is so determined, Non significatur per hoc, quod minus haberet Moses de spiritu quam antea, sed significatur, quod ex eodem spiritu gratiae, quo repletus Moses populum illum regebat, etiam alii adjutorium essent habituri, ad eundem populum regendum. The very same with that of Deodatus for the Protestant or Reformed Writers. Not that the gift of the Spirit (saith he) should be in any manner truly (or really) diminished in Moses, but because that infallible conduct of the Spirit of God, which until then had been peculiar to Moses, should be made common to all the seventy in the publick Government. And much less did it derogate from the spirit and power of Moses, that the Seventy were indued by God with the gift of Prophesie, Vers. 25. that being but a personal Grace, and perhaps but temporary to those persons neither, to gain them at the first the greater estimation amongst the people, whom they were to govern; never pretended to by any of their Successors in that Magistracy for the times ensuing. And therefore when Moses was told of it, he made light of the matter, and was so far from envying at it, that he seemed to wish that all Gods people might be able to prophesie to one another, Vers. 29. conceiving rightly nihil abesse dignitati suae personae, Estius in Num. 11. v. 29. as my Author hath it, that it did nothing derogate from his power and dignity; though Joshua out of an honest zeal to his Masters greatness might fear it tended, or might tend unto the diminution of his Masters dignity and credit, as is observed by Deodate. What power these seventy Elders had in succeeding times, when they were drawn into a body, and made up that great Court which was called the Sanhedrim; and how far they were then from curbing and restrain­ing the power of those several Kings under which they lived, hath been shewn already.

Now if the Old Testament do give so little countenance to that great Authority which Calvin hath assigned so peremptorily to his three Estates, or any other popular Magistrates in their several Countreys, I am sure the New Testament doth afford them less; in which obedience to the Supream Magistrate, is punctually and frequently re­quired of all sorts of persons, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, saith the Apostle of the Gentiles, Rom. 13.1. If every soul, then neither any Papal, Presbyte­rian or popular pretender can challenge any exemption from that obedience and sub­jection to the higher powers, which is required of them in this Text; and much less exercise any jurisdiction or Authority over them, whereby they may be brought in subjection to him.Hyeroym. in Rom. 13. ‘St. Jerom tells us that this Rule is given by the Apostle, for fear lest some presuming on that Christian Liberty unto which they were called, might possibly refuse to yield obedience and pay their just Tributes to those higher powers to which the Lord had made them subject.’ And therefore he desires to humble them and bring them unto a better understanding of their Christian Duty, ne forte propter superbiam, magis quam propter Deum contumeliam patiantur. Lest the reproach or pu­nishment which they suffered for it, should be imputed rather to their pride and arro­gancy, than their zeal to God. Now what St. Jerom tells us in the general only, is by St. Chrysostom prest particularly, with reference almost to all degrees and Estates of men:Consost. in Kom. Hem. 23. Here the Apostle sheweth (saith he) that these things are commanded to all men, both Priests and Monks, and not to temporal men only, which he declareth in the beginning, when he said, Let every soul be subject to the highest powers: al­though thou be an Apostle, although thou be an Evangelist, although thou be a Prophet, although thou be whatsoever thou art. Which said he gives this reason for it, That Religion is not overthrown by this subjection. If no Apostle could pretend to an exemp­tion [Page 729]from those common duties which Subjects owe unto their Princes; then certainly the Pope who pretends to sit in Peters Chair, and to challenge all the priviledges which belonged unto him, must needs be in as great subjection to a Christian Emperor, as the Apostles were (in their times) to any Heathen King. If those things were requi­red of Priests and Monks, as he says they were, then must the Papal Clergy, (whether they be Monastick or secular Priests) perform those duties, and yield that due obedi­ence unto those Kings and Princes under whom they live, which are here required. But so it is, that partly by strong hand, and partly by taking their opportunities in the darker Ages of the Church, the Pope hath not only freed his Clergy from the power of Princes, in matters even of Civil nature and concernment, but challengeth for himself a power above them, and exercised it for a long time with great pride and Tyranny, contrary to the Apostles Rule and the Fathers Commentary. If to Evange­list or Prophet could challenge any such exemption as the Father plainly saith they could not; then much less can the Presbyterian Minister pretend unto it, though he be both a Prophet and an Evangelist also in his own conceit. Which notwithstanding, the Scotish Presbyterians had got unto so great a head in the minority of King James, in all matters, which related to Ecclesiastical congnizance (and to that cognizance they reduced all matters) they commonly declin d the Kings judgment, and his Courts of Judicature as altogether incompetent; appealing from them either to their own Presbyteries, or to the next general Assembly of their own appointing: and stand­ing so wilfully to those Appeals, that some of them had like to have paid dear for it, (af­ter that Kings coming into England) if the King had not been more merciful to them, than that they deserved at his hands. If no man whatsoever he be, can lawfully acquit himself from this subjection as is said by Chrysostom; what will become of Calvins po­pular Magistrates, and of the great Authority which he gives them over Kings and Princes; those popular Officers being included equally with the rest of the people, in St. Pauls injunction? It s true that Calvins popular Officers may seem to have some colour for it, both from our English Translation and the vulgar Latin; by which obe­dience is required sublimioribus potestatibus, to the higher powers; and all such popu­lar Officers, whatsoever they be, may warrantably be lookt upon as higher powers, in respect of the residue of the people. But first the words in the Original. viz. [...], do not so properly signifie the higher, as the supream powers: and so the word is rend [...]ed in the first of S. Peter cap. 1. ver. 13. in which submission is required to every Ordi­nance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be unto the King [...], as to the Supream, or unto such as are sent by him, &c. [...] saith S. Peter in the singular, [...], saith S. Paul in the plural number; both words proceeding from [...], in the Nomi­native Case, and consequently being of the same sense and signification. But secondly permitting them the benefit of these Translations, yet will they find but little colour for that coercive power, that Sovereign Authority and Jurisdiction, which Calvin hath assigned to the three Estates or any other popular Officers over Kings and Princes. For though such popular Officers may warrantably be lookt upon as higher powers in respect of the residue of the people, as before was said, yet are they lower powers in re­spect of the King, from whom as they receive all the Authority which they have, what­soever it be, so unto him they are to render an accompt of their actings in it, when­soever he pleaseth. So that these popular Officers may be compar'd not unntly unto the Genera subalterna in the Schools of Logick; each of them being subordinate to one another (the Constable to the Mayor or Bayliff in a Corporate Town, or to the Justices of the Peace in the County at large, the Mayors and Justices to the Judges in their several Circuits, the Judges in their several Circuits and their Courts of Ju­dicature to the Lord Chancellor for the time being, and he unto the three Estates when convened in Parliament) till they end all in genus summum, in that supream power which is subordinate to none, and unto which the rest are Species subalternae (as the Logicians phrase it) in their several Orders, till they end all in Specie infimâ, even in the lowest of the People.

Less comfort can I give them from the Apostle of the Jews from the words of St. Peter, in which submission is required (as before was said) to every ordinance of man, whether it be unto the King as unto the Supream, or unto Governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. Now those which are thus authorised, and sent by Kings to the ends and purposes before mention­ed, may very properly be resembled unto Jehosophats Commissioners in the Kingdom of Judah, or the itinerary Judges in the Realm of England; 2 Chron. 17.7. and can neither claim nor [Page 730]exercise any other Authority, than what in their Commissions and instructions is assigned unto them. And certainly no King did or will ever grant any such Com­mission whereby his Under-officers and Inferior Magistrates may challenge any power above him, or exercise any jurisdiction or Authority over him. If any thing in this Text may be thought to favour Calvin in this strange opinion, it is that Kings are said to be [...], humana creatura, saith the vulgar Latin, an Ordinance of Man, as the English read it; and being but a Creature of the Peoples making, the rest may think themselves as good men as he. ‘The Rhemists will have Kings to be called humane Creatures, because Elected by the people, or holding their Sovereignty by birth and carnal propagation, ordained for the wealth, peace, and prosperity of the Subjects; to put a difference betwixt that humane Superiority, and the spiritual Rulers and Regiments, guiding and governing the people to an higher end, and in­stituted by God himself immediately, Christ having expresly constituted the form of Regiment used ever since in the Church.’ Whereunto Dr. Fulk, for want of a better doth return this Answer, viz. That though there be great difference between the government of Princes and Ecclesiastical Governors, yet the Apostle calleth not Princes an humane Cre­ation, as though they were not also of Gods Creation (for there is no power but of God) but that the form of their Creation is in mans appointment. All the Genevians generally do so expound it, and it concerns them so to do in point of interesse. The Bishop of that City was their Sovereign Prince, and had jus utriusque gladii, as Calvin signified in a Letter to Cardinal Sadolet, till he and all his Clergy were expelled the City in a po­pular Tumult, Anno 1528. and a new form of Government established both in Church and State. So that having laid the foundation of their Common-wealth in the ex­pulsion of their Prince, and the new model of their Discipline in refusing to have any more Bishop; they found it best for justifying their proceedings at home, and in­creasing their Partizans abroad, to maintain a parity of Ministers in the Church of Christ, and to invest the people and their popular Officers with a chief power in the concernments and affairs of State, even to the deposing of Kings, and disposing of Kingdoms.

But for this last they find no warrant in the Text which we have before us. For first admitting the Translation to be true and genuine (as indeed it is not) the Roman Emperor, and consequently other Kings and Princes may be said to be an humane Ordinance, because their power is most visibly conversant, circa humanas Actiones, a­bout ordering of humane Actions, and other civil affairs of men, as they were sub­jects of the Empire, and Members of that Body politick, whereof that Emperor was head. Secondly, to make Soveraign Princes by what name and Title soever called, to be no other than an humane Ordinance, because they are ordained by the people and of their appointment; must needs create an irreconcileable difference between St. Peter and St. Paul, by which last the Supream Powers, whatsoever they be, are called the Ordinance of God. The Powers (saith that Apostle) are ordained of God, and therefore he that resisteth the Powers, resisteth the Ordinance of God. Upon which words Deodate gives this gloss or comment. ‘That the Supream Powers are called the Ordinance of God, because God is the Author of this Order in the world: and all those who attain to these Dignities, do so, either by his manifest will and ap­probation, when the means are lawful: or by his secret Providence by meer permission or toleration, when they are unlawful. Now it is fitting that man should approve and tolerate that which God approves and tolerates.’ But thirdly, I conceive that those words in the Greek Text of St. Peter, viz. [...], are not so pro­perly translated as they might have been; and as the same words, [...], are rendred by the same Translators (somewhat more near to the Original) in another place. For in the 8th. Chapter to the Romans, vers. 22. we find them rendring [...], by the whole Creation (and why not rather every Creature, as both our old Translation and the Rhemists read it, conform to omnis Creatura in the vulgar Latine?) which had they done and kept themselves more near to the Greek Original in St. Peters Text, they either would have rendred it by every humane Creature, as the Rhemists do; or rather by all Men, or by all Man-kind, as the words import. And then the meaning will be this, that the Jews living scattered and disperst in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and other Provinces of the Empire, were to have their conver­sation so meek and lowly (for fear of giving scandal to the Gentiles amongst whom they lived) as to submit themselves to all Man-kind, or rather to every Man (unto every humane Creature, as the Rhemists read it) that was in Authority above, whe­ther [Page 731]it were unto the Emperor himself, as their supream Lord, or to such Legats, Pre­fects, and Procurators, as were appointed by him for the govenment of those several Provinces, to the end that they may punish the evil-doers, and incourage such as did well, living conformably to the Laws, by which they were governed. Small comfort in this Text, as in any of the rest before, for those popular Officers which Calvin makes the Overseers of the Sovereign Prince, and Guardians of the Liberties of the common people.

If then there be no Text of Scripture, no warrant from the Word of God, by which the popular Officers which Calvin dreams of, are made the Keepers of the Liberties of the common people, or vested with the power of opposing Kings and Sovereign Princes as often as they wantonly insult upon the people, or willingly infringe their Priviledges: I would fain learn how they should come to know that they are vested with such power, or trusted with the defence of the Subjects Liberties (cujus se Dei oratione Tutores positos esse norunt) as Calvin plainly says they do. If they pretend to know it by inspiration, such inspiration cannot be known to any but themselves alone; neither the Prince or People, whom it most concerneth, can take notice of it. Nor can they well assure themselves whether such inspirations come from God of the Devil; the Devil many times insnaring proud ambitious and vain-glorious Men by such strange delusions. If they pretend to know it by the dictate of their private Spirit (the great Diana of Calvin and his followers in expounding Scripture) we are but in the same uncertainties, as we were before. And who can tell whether the private Spirit they pretend unto, and do so much brag of,1 Ring. 22.22. may not be such a lying Spirit as was put into the mouths of the Prophets, when Ahab was to be seduced to his own de­struction? Adeo Argumenta ex absurdo petita ineptos habent exitus, as Lactantius notes it.

All I have now to add, is to shew the difference between Calvin and his followers, in the propounding of this Doctrine; delivered by Calvin in few words, but Magi­sterially enough, and with no other Authority than his ipse dixit; enlarged by David Paraeus in his Comment on Rom. 13. into divers branches, and many endeavours used by him (as by the rest of Calvins followers,) to find out Arguments and instances out of several Authors to make good the cause. For which, though Calvin scap'd the fire, yet Paraeus could not. Ille Crucem pretium sceleris tulit, hic Diadema. For so it hapned, that one Mr. Knight of Brodegates (now Pembroke Colledge) in Oxford, had preach'd up the Authority of these popular Officers in a Sermon before the Uni­versity, about the beginning of the year 1622. for which being presently transmitted to the King and Council, he there ingenuously confessed, that he had borrowed both his doctrine, and his proofs and instances from the Book of Paraeus above mentioned. Notice whereof being given to the University, the whole Doctrine of Paraeus as to that particular, was drawn into several Propositions; which in a full and frequent Convocation held on the 25th. of June, 1622. were severally condemned to be erro­neous, scandalous, and destructive of Monarchical Government. Upon which Sen­tence, or determination, the King gave order that as many of those books as could be gotten, should solemnly and publickly be burnt in each of the Universities, and St. Pauls Church-yard, which was done accordingly. An accident much complained of by the Puriten party for a long time after, who looked upon it as the funeral pile of their Hopes and Projects; till by degrees they got fresh courage, carrying on their de­signs more secretly, by consequence more dangerously than before they did. The terrible effects whereof we have seen and felt in our late Civil Wars and present con­fusions. But it is time to close this point, and come to a conclusion of the whole dis­course; there be no other Objections that I know of, but what are easily reduced un­to those before, or not worth the answering.

15. Thus have we taken a brief survey of those insinuations, grounds or principles (call them what you will) which Calvin hath laid down in his book of Institutions, for the incouragement of the Subjects to rebellious courses, and putting them in Arms against their Sovereign, either in case of Tyranny, Licentiousness, or Mal-administra­tion, of what sort soever; by which the Subject; may pretend that they are oppressed either in point of Liberty, or in point of Property. And we have shewn upon what false and weak foundations he hath raised his building; how much he hath mistaken or abused his Authors, but how much more he hath betrayed and abused his Readers. For we have clearly proved, and directly manifested, out of the best Records and Mo­numents of the former times, that the Ephori were not instituted in the State of Sparta to oppose the Kings; nor the Tribunes in the State of Rome to oppose the Consuls; nor [Page]the Demarchi in the Common-wealth of Athens to oppose the Senate: or if they were, that this could no way serve to advance his purpose of setting up such popular Officers in the Kingdoms of Christendom; those Officers being only found in Aristocraties, or Democraties, but never heard or dreamt of in a Monarchical Government. And we have shewn both who they are which constitute the three Estates in all Christian Kingdoms; and that there is no Christian Kingdom in which the three Estates con­vened in Parliament (or by what other name soever they do call them) have any au­thority either to regulate the person of the Sovereign Prince, or restrain his power, in case he be a Sovereign Prince, and not meerly titular and conditional; and that it is not to be found in Holy Scripture, that they are or were ordained by God to be the Patrons and Protectors of the common people, and therefore chargeable with no less a crime than a most perfidious dissimulation, should they connive at Kings when they play the Tyrants, or wantonly abuse that power which the Lord hath given them, to the op­pression of their Subjects. In which last points, touching the designation of the three Estates, and the authority pretended to be vested in them, I have carried a more particular eye on this Kingdom of England where those pernicious Principles and insi­nuations which our Author gives us, have been too readily imbraced, and too eagerly pursued by those of his party and opinion. If herein I have done any service to su­pream Authority, my Countrey, and some misguided Zealots of it, I shall have reason to rejoyce in my undertaking. If not, posterity shall not say that Calvins memory was so sacred with me, and his name so venerable, as rather to suffer such a Stumbling-block to be laid in the Subjects way without being censured and removed, than either his authority should be brought in question, or any of his Dictates to a legal tryal. Having been purchased by the Lord at so dear a price, we are to be no longer the Ser­vants of men, or to have the truth of God with respect of persons. I have God to be my Fa­ther, and the Church my Mother, and therefore have not only pleaded the cause of Kings and Supream Magistrates who are the Deputies of God, but added somewhat in behalf of the Church of England, whose rights and priviledges I have pleaded to my best abilities. The issue and success I refer to him by whom Kings do Reign, and who appointed Kings, and other Supream Magistrates to be nursing Fathers to his Church; that as they do receive authority and power from the hands of God, so they may use the same in the protection and defence of the Church of God: and God, even their own God will give them his Blessing, and save them from the striving of unruly people, whose mouth speaketh proud words, and their right hand is a right hand of iniquity.

FINIS.
De Jure Paritatis Ep …

De Jure Paritatis Episcoporum: OR, A BRIEF DISCOURSE ASSERTING THE Bishops Right of Peerage, WHICH EITHER By Law or Ancient Custom DOTH Belong unto them.

WRITTEN By the Learned and Reverend PETER HEYLYN, D. D. In the Year, 1640.

When it was Voted in the Lords House, That no Bishop should be of the Committee for the preparatory Examination of the EARL of STRAFFORD.

—He being dead yet speaketh, Heb. xi. 4.

LONDON, Printed by M. Clark, for C. Harper. 1681.

A PREFACE.

ALthough there are Books enough writ to vindicate the Ho­nours and Priviledges of Bishops, yet to those that are fore-stalled with prejudice and passion, all that can be said or done will be little enough to make them wise unto sobriety; to prevail with them not to contradict the con­viction of their mind with absurd and fond reasonings, but that Truth may conquer their prepossessions, and may find so easie an access and welcome unto their practical judgments, that they may profess their faith and subjection to that order, which by a misguided zeal they once endeavoured to destroy.

Many are the methods that have been, and are still used to rase up the foun­dation of Episcopacy, and to make the Name of Bishop to be had no more in re­membrance. For first some strike at the Order and Function it self: And yet St. Paul reckons it among his faithful sayings, 1 Tim. 3.1. that the Office of a Bishop is a good work. And the order continued perpetually in the Church with­out any interruption of time, or decrees of Councils to the contrary, for the space of many Centuries after the Ascension of Christ, and the Martyrdom of the Apostles. For they ordained Bishops and approved them. Before St. John died, Rome had a succession of no less than four, viz. Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, and Evaristus; Jerusalem had James the just, and Simeon the Son of Cleophas; Antioch had Euodius and Ignatius; and St. Mark, Anianus, Abilius and Cerdo successively fill'd the See of Alexandria. All these lived in St. Johns days; and their order obeyed by Christians, and blessed by God throughout the whole world for the Conversion of Jews and Gentiles, for the perfecting of the Saints, and the edifying of the Body of Christ: Nay, their labour was blessed by God first for the Conversion, and then for the Resormation of this Church and Kingdom; and therefore I hope there is no sober Protestant in England, but will heartily say, Amen to that Prayer of Mr. Beza's, who although no great Adorer of Episcopacy, yet consider­dering the Blessings that God brought to this Nation by their Ministry, put up this devout Petition,Si nunc Anglicanae Ecclesiae instau­ratae suorum Episcoporum & Ar­chiepiscoporum auctoritate sufful­tae perstant: quemadmodum hoc illi nostra memoria contigit, ut ejus ordininis homines non tan­tum insignes Dei martyres, sed etiam praestantissimos pastores ac Doctores habuerit: fruatur sane istâ singulari Dei beneficentia, quae utinam sit. illi perpetua. Theod. Bez. ad Tract. de min. Evang. Grad. ab Hadr. Sarav. cap. 18. Fruatur Anglia ista singulari Dei Beneficentiâ, quae utinam sit illi per­petua, Let England enjoy that singular Blessing of God, which I pray to God may be perpetual to it.

There are others that envy them their Honours and Dignities. For though the Holy Spirit of God does oblige all Christians to esteem their Bishops very highly (or more than abundantly [...]) in love for their work sake, 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. and reason it self dictates that the honours confer'd upon Representatives and Embassadors, redound to the Prince that delegates and imploys them; though Jews, Heathens, and Mahom [...]tans [Page]ever paid the profoundest Veneration to their Priests, Caliphs, and Musti's, and our Relig ous Ancestors in the Saxon, Danish, and Norman times, set the highest value upon their Bishops; yet the Religion of this Age is to load them with all possible Calumnies and Reproaches, and with Corah and his Complices to charge them with taking too much upon them, and to disdain to set them with the Dogs of their Flocks.

The Priests were Judges in Egypt, and so were the Magi and Areo­pagites (who were sacred persons) in Persia and Athens; and it was no other wise with the Druids amongst the Ancient Britains and Gauls. For Caesar tells us how their Office extended to things Temporal as well as Religious;Sacrificia publica & privata pro­curant, religiones interpretantur. Druides a bello a besse consueve­runt, ni que tributa una cum reli­quis pendunt — St quod admissum est facinus, si caedes facta, si de haereditate, de finibus controversia est, iidem decernunt — Caesar. Com. lib. 6. that they did not only order publick and private Sacrifices, and expound Religion, and in­struct Youth, but were free from Contribution and War­fare, and all burthens of State, and determined all Controversies, both publick and private, and executed the place both of Priests and Judges; for if any offence were committed, as Murther or Man-slaughter or any Controversie arose touching Lands or Inheritance, they sen­tenced it, rewarding the Vertuous, and punishing the Wicked. The Patricii, the noblest Romans were ambitious to be admitted into the College of the Priests; and when the Government became Monarchical, the Emperors took upon them the pontifical Dignity, thinking it no diminution of them Gran­deur to be imployed about the Service of the gods, but rather conceiving the Priesthood too noble an imployment to be confer'd upon a Subject.

But we need no other Testimonies to convince us of the Rights of Church­men, for the management of the civil concerns of human Society, that the holy Scriptures. Amongst the Jews the Civil and Ecclesiastical power were not so distinguished, but one and the same person exercised both. For not to expatiate upon particular instances, Melchisedeck, Eli, Samuel, Ezra, Esdras, were all Priests, and had the power not only of Ecclesiastical, but Civil jurisaictior. Neither could Samuel have hewed Agag in pieces with his own hand,1 Sam. 15.33. if it had been unlawful for persons dedicated to the sacred Offices of Religion to havè in­termeddled in causes of blood: Which very instance proves that Clergy-men are not excluded from managing the highest secular concerns by any immutable Laws of God or Nature. And if there are any Canons or Councils that forbid them to meddle in things of that kind, that so they may the better attend upon the sacred Offices and Exercises of Religion, let those be obligatory to the persons unto whom they were delivered, but not be pleaded or produced to the prejudice of English Bishops, who have distinct Priviledges and Laws. For there have been Constitutions that have forbidden Church-men to Marry, to make Wills, to be Executors of mens Wills and Testaments, to be the Wards of Orphans, &c. And these Constitutions are of as great force to bind the Clergy of England, as the Council of Toledo to thrust the Bishops out of the House of Lords in Causes of Attainder and Blood. Let the Archbishops of Ments and Colen, with other Princes of the Empire look to it, if it be unlawful for Ecclesiastical persons to ad­judge Criminals to death.

It will be infinite to shew how St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, and the Godly Bishops of all Ages had no Supersedeas given them to intermeddle in things civil and secular, because of their Wisdom and Knowledge in things Sacred and Divine. Certainly the Holy Spirit of God did not conceive it unfit that Worldly matters and Controversies should be committed to Church-men; for it is highly reasonable to think that those who are the Pastors of mens Souls, will be the best Judges in determining their civil Rights.

It could not indeed be expected, whilst the Empire was Heathen, that Bishops should be busied and employed in Secular affairs, unless it were in those Contro­versies which arose among the Christians themselves, wherein St. Paul gives direction that they should rather determine their Contentions by a private Ar­bitrement of their own, than by the publick judgments of their Enemies.1 Cor. 6. But when Kings became Christians,Soz. lib. 1. c. 9. we find persons making their Appeals from the Tribunals of Princes to the Consistory of Bishops. For then Bishops had power to reverse the sentence of death, and to stay the hands of Executioners, when the poor Criminals were going to receive the reward of their Iniquities; just as the Praetors and Consuls of Rome would submit their Fasces, those Ensigns of Authority, when they did but casually meet with some of the Priests. Con­stantine granted the Bishops this priviledge, that condemned Malefactors might appeal unto their Courts; and when such appeals were made, the Bishops had power as well to deliver them over into the hands of Justice, as to extend unto them a Pardon or Reprieve. For the priviledge confer'd on them, was as well for the punishment and terror of the Wicked, as for mitigating the rigour of Justice, and encouraging Criminals to Vertue and Repentance.

Mr. Selden himself, who was none of the best Friends to Church-men, grants, that for four thousand years the Civil and Ecclesiastick jurisdiction went always hand in hand together.Ex hisce simul, sanè ex primo & secundo li­bro hoc satis, puto, constabit per Annos amplius M. M. M. M. tam sacrorum regimen (qua forense esset atque à functione facrâ ritè distinctum) quam profanorum (five res spectes five perso­nas) juxta jus etiam divinum, ex Ecclesiae Judaicae populorumque Dei anteriorum disci­plinâ perpetuâ ad eosdem attinuisse judices seu Magistratus ejusdem Religionis, atque ad syne­dria eadem, neutiquam omnino ex juris istius instituto aliquo, sacrorum & prosanorum, instar Ecclesiarum seu Spiritualium, & laicorum seu teor­poralium. Nominibus nullatenus discriminata. Seld. de syn. praefat. libr. secundi. And so it did till Pope Nicolas made the one independent upon the other. So that their disunion is a Popish Innovation; for till his time the Judges of Church and State ever sate to­gether; affairs Sacred and Religious were scan'd and determined in the morning, and those that were Secular and Civil in the afternoon. There was not, till that time, any clashing between Moses and Aaron; no prohibitions out of one Court to stop or evacuate the proceedings of ano­ther, and then it was that Justice run down like a stream, and Righteousness like a mighty River.

If it be said that there are many corruptions among Church-men, and espe­cially in Ecclesiastical Courts: The answer is, That Callings must be distin­guish'd from persons, or else those two noble professions of Law and Physick will fall under the same condemnation with Divinity. No man of any sobriety will condemn either of those professions, because there are some Empericks in the World who kill mens Bodies, and some Petifoggers that intangle and ruine their Estates. And I hope Divines may have some grains of allowance granted them, as well as the Inns of Court and Chancery, and the College of Physicians; if they cannot, let that Calling which is most innocent cast the first stone.

It cannot be hoped that there will in this Age be a Revival of the primitive usage of these two Jurisdictions. But yet this ought to be seriously regarded by all who have any belief of a Deity and regard for their native Country; I mean that either our English Monarchs might be totally excused from their Corona­tion-Oath, or not be put upon a necessity of violating thereof. Their Oath in favour of the Clergy, is, that they will grant and keep the Laws, Customs, and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King St. Edward their Predecessor, according to the Laws of God, Rushw. Hist. Collect. part. 1 [...]. pag. 204. the true profession of the Gospel established in this Kingdom, agreeable to the Preroga­tive of the Kings thereof, and the Ancient customs of the Realm. But how this Oath is observed, when the Bishops are infringed in their ancient and indisputable priviledges, let it be considered by all persons of sober mind. [Page]and principles. And let it be declared what order of men in the whole Nation the King can rely upon with so much safety and confidence, as upon the Bishops; and that not only upon the account of their Learning, Wisdom, Sanctity and Integrity (qualifications not every day to be met withal in State-Politicians) but upon the score of Gratitude and Interest. For 'tis from their Prince that they derive their Honours, Dignities, Titles, Revenues, Priviledges, Power, Jurisdictions, with all other secular advantages; and upon this account there is greater probability that they will be faithful to his Concerns and Interests, than those who receive nothing from him but the common advantages of Go­vernment. But this argument is known too well by our Anti-Episcopal Demo­craticks. And perhaps 'tis the chief, if not the only reason of their enmity against an Order of men of so sacred and venerable an Institution.

As for this little Treatise, the Author of it is too well known unto this Na­tion, to invite any Scholar to peruse it. It was written when the Bishops were Voted by the House of Lords not to be of the Committee in the Examination of the Earl of Strafford. For then it was that Dr. Heylyn considered the case, and put these few Sheets as a MSS. into the hands of several of the Bishops, that they might be the better enabled to assert and vindicate their own Rights. It was only intended for private use, and therefore the Reader is not to expect so punctual an accuracy as he may find in other Treatises of this Learned Author. It has been perused by some persons of good Eminency for judgment and station in the Church of England; and by them approved and commended. All that is wished by the Publisher is, that it may produce the effects which he proposes to himself in exposing it to publick view; and that those Lords who are now Pri­soners in the Tower, and from whose tryal some have laboured to exclude the Bishops, were able to give unto the World as convincing Evidence of their In­nocency, as that great and generous States man did, who fell a Sacrifice to a prevailing Faction; and whose Innocent Blood was so far from being a lustra­tion to the Court (as some thought it would have proved) as it drew after it such a deluge of Gore, as for many preceding years had never been spilt in this Kingdom.

But 'tis not my design or desire to revive any of the Injustice or Inhumanities of the last Age. Suffice it to say, that it was for this Apostolical Government of Bishops that King Charles the First lost his Kingdoms, his Crown, his Life. And the exclusion of Bishops from Voting in causes of blood, was the prologue to all those Tragical mischiefs that happened to that Religion and Renowned Prince. And those who have the least veneration for his present Majesty, cannot cer­tainly conceive him a King of such slender and weak abilities, as to permit Him­self and Family to be ruined by those very methods, with which his Father was before him.

De jure Paritatis Episcoporum; OR, The Right of Peerage vindicated to the BISHOPS OF ENGLAND.

SINCE the restoring of the Bishops to their place and Vote in the House of Peers, I find a difference to be raised, between a Peer of the Realm, and a Lord of the Parliament; and then this Inference, or Insinuation to be built upon it, that though the Bishops are admitted to be Lords of Parliament, yet they are not to be reckoned amongst the Peers of the Realm, the con­trary whereof I shall endeavour to make good in this fol­lowing Essay, and that not only from the Testimony of ap­proved Writers, but from unquestioned Records, Book-Ca­ses, Acts of Parliament, and such further Arguments, as may be able to evince the point which we have in hand.

But first perhaps it may be said, that there is no such difference in truth and verity betwixt a Lord of Parliament and a Peer of the Realm, but that we may conclude the the Bishops to be Peers of the Realm, if they be once admitted to be Lords of Parlia­ment: concerning which take this from Chief Justice Coke, where he affirms that only a Lord of Parliament shall be tryed by his Peers, being Lords of Parliament, and nei­ther Noblemen of any other Countrey, nor others that are called Lords and are no Lords of Parliament, are accounted Peers, that is to say Peers within this Statute (he meaneth the Magna Charta) or Great Charter of England, the ground of all our Laws and Liberties to this very day) by which it seems that he conceived a Peer and a Lord of Parliament to be terms equivalent: every Peer of the Realm being a Lord of Par­liament, and every Lord of Parliament a Peer of the Realm, which clearly takes away the pretended difference that is made between them.

But secondly, admit the distinction to be sound and solid, yet it will easily be pro­ved that Bishops are not only Lords of Parliament, but Peers of the Realm. In order whereunto we must take notice of some passages in our former Treatise, touching the Bishops place and Vote in Parliament, that is to say, that from the first planting of the Gospel in the Realms of England, parcelled at that time amongst several Kings, the Bishops always had the principal place in their Common Councils, which the Saxons call by the name of Wittenegemote, or the Assembly of wise men, and afterwards in the time of the Normans, took the name of Parliaments. In all which Interval from E­thelbert the first Christian King of Kent in the year of our Lord 605. till the death of Edward the Confessor, which happened in the year 1066, no Common Council of the Saxons had been held without them, and all this while they held their Courts by no other Tenures than purâ & perpetuâ Eleemosynâ (franke Almoigne as our Law­yers call it) discharged from all Attendances upon secular Services. And therefore they could sit there in no other Capacity, than ratione officii & spiritualis Dignitatis, in regard of their Episcopal function; which as it raised them to an height of emi­nence in the eye of the people, so it was probably presumed that they were better qua­lified than the rest of the Subjects (as the times then were) for Governing the great Affairs of the Common-wealth.

But when the Norman Conqueror had attained the Crown, he thought it an im­provident Course to suffer so much of the Lands of the Nation as then belonged unto [Page 740]the Prelates (whether Bishops or Abbots) in the Right of their Churches to be dis­charged from doing service to the State: And therefore he ordained them to hold their Lands sub militari servitute, either in Capite, or by Baronage, or some such mili­tary hold whereby they were compellable to aid the Kings in all times of War, with Men, Arms, and Horses, as the Lay-subjects of the same Tenure were required to do. Concerning which our Learned Antiquary out of Matthew Paris informs us thus, viz. Cambden Brit. fol. 123. Rex enim Gulielmus Episcopatus, & Abbatias, quae Baronias tenebant in purâ & perpe­tuâ Eleemosynâ, & catenus ab omni servitute militari libertatem habuerunt, sub servitute statuit militari, Irrotulans singulos Episcopos, & Abbatias pro voluntate sua, quot milites sibi & successoribus hostilitatis tempore à singulis voluit exhiberi. Which though at first it was conceived to be a great Disfranchisement, and an heavy burden to the Prelacy, yet Cambden very well observes that it conduced at last to their greater ho­nour in giving them a further Title to their place in Parliament, a claim to all the Rights of Peerage, and less obnoxious to Disputes, if considered rightly, than that which formerly they could pretend to: so that from this time forwards we must look upon them in all English Parliaments not only as Bishops in the Church, but as Peers and Barons of the Realm; of the same Tenure, and therefore of the same preheminence with the Temporal Lords. Which certainly must be the Reason that the Bishops of the Isle of Man are not called to Parliament, because they hold not of the King by Ba­rony, as the rest of the English Bishops do, but hold the whole Estate in Lands from the Earl of Darby.

Thus also saith a Learned Lawyer,Coke Institut. part. 2. f. 3. Every Arch-bishoprick and Bishoprick in Eng­land are of the Kings foundation, and holden of the King per Baroniam, and many Abbots, and Priors of Monasteries were also of the Kings foundation, and did hold of him per Baroniam, and in this Right the Arch-bishops, and Bishops, and such of the Abbots, and Priors as held per Baroniam, and were called by Writ to Parliament, were Lords of Parliament. And yet not Lords of Parliament only, but Peers and Ba­rons of the Realm, as he shall call them very shortly on another occasion.

In the mean time we may observe that by this changing of their Tenure, the Bishops frequently were comprehended in the name of Barons, and more particularly in that passage of Magna Charta, Coke Institut. part 2. fol. 23. where it is said Comites, & Barones non amercientur nisi per pares suos, that Earls and Barons are not to be amerced but by their Peers; concerning which the said Great Lawyer tells us thus, viz. That though this Statute (as he calls it) be in the negative, yet long use hath prevailed against it, for now the Amercia­ment of the Nobility is reduced to a certainty, viz. a Duke 10 l. an Earl 5 l. a Bishop that hath a Barony 5 l. where plainly Bishops must be comprehended in the name of Barons, and be amerced by their Peers, as the Barons were; though afterwards their Amerciaments be reduced to a certainty, as well as those of Earls, and Barons in the times succeeding. And then if Bishops be included in the name of Barons, and could not be legally amerced but by their Peers (as neither could the Earls or Barons by the words of this Charter) it must needs follow that the Bishops were accounted Peers, as well as any either of the Earls or Barons by whom they were to be Amerced. And for the next place we may behold the Constitutions made at Clarendon the tenth year of King Henry the 2d.Matth. Paris, in Hen. 2d. Anno 1164. in which it was declared as followeth, viz. Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, & universae personae Regni qui Rege tenent in Capite, habeant pos­sessiones suos de Rege sicut Baroniam, & inde respondeant Justiciariis, & Ministris Regis, & sicut caeteri Barones, debent interesse Curiae Regis cum Baronibus quousque perventum sit ad diminutionem membrorum, vel ad mortem. Where first I think that those words uni­versae personae are to be understood of none but Ecclesiastical persons (according to the notion of the word persona in the Common Law) and so to comprehend the Re­gular Clergy as well as the Arch-bishops, and Bishops. But secondly, if we must un­derstand it of the Laity also, it must needs follow thereupon, that all which held their Lands of the Crown in Capite were capable in those times of a place in Parlia­ment. And so it seems they had in the Reign of King John, and afterwards in the Reign of King Henry the 3d, but in the last years of the said King Henry, and by the power and prudence of King Edward the first, were brought into a narrower com­pass, none being admitted to appear, and attend in Parliament, but such as he thought fit to summon by his Royal Mandate.

And hereunto as well our choicest Antiquaries, as our most eminent Lawyers do consent unanimously. But here is to be noted (saith Chief Justice Coke) that if the King give Lands to any one tenendum per servitium Baronis de Rege, he is no Lord of [Page 741]Parliament till he be called by Writ to the Parliament; which as he there declares for a point of Law, so is it also verified in point of practice, out of the old Record en­tituled Modus tenendi Parliamentum, in which it is affirmed, Ad Parliamentum, summo­niri, & venire debere Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Abbates, Priores, & alios majores Cleri, qui tenent per Comitatum, aut Baroniam, ratione hujusmodi Tenurae, that all Arch-bishops, Bishops, Priors, and other Prelates of the Church, who hold their Lands either in right of their Counties, or in right of their Baronages, were to be summoned, and come to Parliament in regard of their Tenures. Where we may see that though they had a jus ad rem in regard of their Tenures, yet they had no pretence to their Jus in re but only by the Writ of Summons. And secondly whereas the Modus speaks of some Bishops which were to be called to the Parliament in the right of their Counties, I think he means it of the Bishops of Durham and Ely which enjoyed all the Rights, and priviledges of a County Palatine in their several Circuits. By which we see that to the making of a Baron, or a Lord of Parliament, it is not only necessary that he hold by Barony, but that he have his Writ of Summons to attend the service which puts a signal difference between Lords of Parliament, and such as are called Lords in re­spect of their birth, or in regard of some great Offices which they hold in the State; of the first sort whereof are all the eldest sons of Earls and upwards, who are not only honoured with the name of Lords, but challenge a precedence by the Rules of Heraul­dry before all the Barons of the Realm, and yet can lay no claim to the Rights of Peerage, unless perhaps they may be summoned to the Parliament in their fathers life time. And so it hapned in the Case of the Earl of Surrey the eldest son of Thomas Lord Howard Duke of Norfolk, arraigned in the last days of King Henry the eighth, and tried by a Jury of twelve men, because not being called to Parliament in his fa­thers life-time, he could not be considered as a Peer of the Realm. And in the last sort we may reckon the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord President of his Majesties Council, the Lord High Chamberlain, the Lord Ad­miral, the Lord Steward, and the Lord Chamberlain of his Majesties Houshold, the Lord Warden of the Cinque-ports, and the three Chief Judges, who if they be not otherwise of the Rank of Barons, can plead no Title to their Peerage, nor to Vote in Parliament; and so it hapned in the Case of Sir William Stanly Lord Cham­berlain to King Henry the seventh, tried by a Jury of twelve men in a case of Treason without relation to his great Office or Title of Lord. Most true it is, that some of these great Officers have their place in Parliament, and so have all the Judges of the Courts of Westminster, the Master of the Rolls, the Masters of the Chancery, the Kings Attorney General, and perhaps some others; all summoned to attend the service by Especial Writs, but they are only called to advise the Court to give their Judgment and Opinion when it is demanded, but not to canvass, or debate, and much less to conclude in any business which is there discoursed of, as both the Bishops and the Temporal Lords are impowred to do. Which difference appears in the Writs them­selves. For in the Writ of Summons to the Judges, and the rest here mentioned, the words run thus, viz. Quod intersitis nobiscum, & cum caeteris de concilio nostro, (and some­times nobiscum only) supra praemissis tractaturi, vestrumque consilium impensuri. But in the Writ of Summons to the Bishops and the rest of the Peers, we shall find it thus, viz. quod intersitis cum praelatis, magnatibus, & proceribus super dictis negotiis tractaturi, vestrum (que) consilium impensuri, &c. which Writs of Summons to the Bishops, and the Temporal Peers, are the same verbatim; but that the Bishops are required to attend the service sub fide, & dilectione, the Temporal Peers sub fide, & ligeantia, quibus nobis tenemini. Upon which Premises it may be rationally inferred, that the Bishops of this Church were reputed Barons, (a Baron and a Barony being conjugata) and being Barons have as good a Claim to the right of Peerage as any of the Temporal Lords, who hold as well their Peerage as their place in Parliament by no other Tenure; for that a Baron of Realm, and a Peer of the Realm are but terms synonymous, and that the Bishops of the the Church of England are both Peers and Barons hath been proved before, and may be further evidenced from that which they affirmed to the Temporal Lords convened in Parliament at Northampton under Henry the 2d, for the determining of the diffe­rences betwixt the King and Thomas Becket Arch bishop of Canterbury; which the Temporal Lords would fain have thrust upon the Bishops, as more competent Judges, to which the Bishops thus replied, viz. non sedemus hic Episcopi, sed Barones, nos Baro­nes, vos Barones, Pares hic sumus; We sit not here say they as Bishops only,Seldens Titles of Honour, pag. [...]18. but as Barons also, we are Barons and you are Barons, here we sit as Peers. Their sitting in [Page 742]the Parliament was in a right of their Baronies. And in the right of their Baronage they were also Peers, and Peers to all intents and purposes as well as any others, (whe­ther Earls or Barons) who had Vote in Parliament. This appears further by the words of Arch-bishop Stratford, who being suspended from his place in Parliament by King Edward the 3d, came boldly to the Doors of the House, and turning towards those that attended there, thus maintained his Claim, Amice Rex, me ad hoe Parlia­mentum scripto sua vocavit, Antiq. Brittan. & ego tanquam major Par regni post Regem & primam vocem habere debens in Parliamento, Jura Ecclesiae meae Cantuariensis vendico & ideo Ingressum in Parliamentum peto. Which makes it plain, that the Arch-bishop did not challenge a place in Parliament, as the first Peer of the Realm, and one that ought to have the first Voice in all English Parliaments, either by way of favour or of Custom only, but as a power, and priviledg which he ought to have (habere debeus as the words are) in right of his See.

Proceed we to the Case of John Bishopp of Winchester in the reign of the said King Edward the 3d, who having departed from the Parliament without leave from the King, was for the same accused, and prosecuted at the Kings Suit, by one Adam de Fincham his Majesties Attorney or Sollicitor General, to which Action the Bishop did appear, and put in his plea, in which he doth maintain himself to be a Peer of the Realm, and therefore to be tried by Parliament for the said offence, which in a time of Parliament was committed by him. But take the whole Record with you for the more assurance, ‘Et praedictus Episcopus in propriâ personâ suâ venit & defendit omnem contemptum, & transgressionem. & quicquid, &c. & dicit quod ipse sit unus de Paribus regni, & Praelatus saerosanctae Ecclesiae, & Jus venire ad Parliamentum Domini Regis per summonitionem, Coke Institut. part. 4. fol. 16. & pro voluntate ipsius Domini Regis cum sibi placuerit, & dicit quod si quis eorum erga Dominum regem in Parliamento aliquo delinqueret, in Parliamento debet corrigi & emendari, in non alibi minori Curiâ.’ And this Record proves plainly, that he challenged his Right of Peerage. Though by my Author it is brought for ano­ther purpose, that is to say, that misdemeanours and offences which are done in Parliament ought not to be enquired into, or punished in a lower Court, contrary to the power, and practice of the Kings of England in all times foregoing.

Now that which was affirmed by the Bishop of Winchester in reference to his right of Peerage, was generally challenged by all the Bishops in the time of King Richard the 2d, on the impeachment of the Duke of Ireland, and some others in the Court of Parliament. At which time being to withdraw themselves by the Canon Law which had prohibited all Clergy-men from intermedling in Causa sanguinis, they made this following Protestation to preserve their Rights.

‘In Dei nomine Amen,Antiqu. Brit. in Courtney. cum de Jure & Consuetudine regni Angliae ad Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem qui pro tempore fuerit nec non caeteros suos, suffraganeos, confratres, & Coepiscopos, Abbates & Priores, alios (que) praelatos quoscun (que) per Baroniam de Domino no­stro Rege tenentes, pertinet in Parliamentis Regis quibuscunque ut Pares Regni prae­dicti personaliter interesse, ibidemque de regni negotiis & allis ibidem tractari cousuetis, cum caeteris dicti regni paribus, & aliis consulere, ordinare, statuere, & definire, ac caetera fa­cere quae Parliamenti tempore ibid. imminent facienda, in quibus omnibus & singulis not Willielmus Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus totius Augliae primas, & Apostolicae sedis Legatus pro nobis, nostrisque suffraganeis coepiscopis, & confratribus, nec non Abbatibus, Prioribus & praelatis omnibus supradictis protestamur, & eorum quilibet protestatur, quis per se vel procuratorem, si fuerit modo praesens, & publicè & expressè quod intendi volumus, ac vult co­rum quilibet in hoc praesenti Parliamento & aliis, ut Pares Regni praedicti more solito in­teresse, considerare, tractare, ordinare, statuere, & diffinire, ac caeterae exercare cum caeteris Jus interessendi habentibus eisdem, statis & ordine nostris & eorum cujuslibet in omnibus semper salvis. Verum quia in praesenti Parliamento agitur de non nullis materiis in quibus non licet nobis alicui eorum juxta sacrorum Canonum Instituta, quomodolibet personaliter interesse; eo propter pro nobis, & eorum quolibet protestamur, & eorum quilibet hie praesens etiam protestatur quod non intendimus, nec volumus, sicuti de Jure non possumus, nec debe­mus intendi, nec vult aliquis eorundem in praesenti Parliamento, dum de hujusmodi mate­riis agitur, vel agotur, quomodolibet interesse, sed nos & eorum quemlibet in eâ parte pe­nitus absentare, Jure Paritatis nostrae & cujuslibet eorum interessendi in dicto Parliamento, quoad omnia, & singula ibidem exercenda, & eorum quilibet statu & ordine semper salun. Ad hoc insuper protestamur, & eorum quilibet protestatur, quod propter hujusmodi absen­tiam non intendimus, nec volumus, nec eoruns aliquis intendit, nec vult quod habet proces­sus & habend'in praesenti Parliamento super materiis ante dictis, In quibus nec possu­mus [Page 743]nec debemus, & permititur interesse quantum ad nos, & quemlibet eocum attinet sutu­ris temporibus, quomodolibet impugnentur, infirmentur seu etiam revocentur.’

In which Record we may observe, First, that the Bishops and the rest there men­tioned held their Lands by Baronage; Secondly, that they were sommoned to the Parliament in regard of their Tenures; Thirdly, that being called to serve in Par­liament, they sat there as Peers, and gave their Counsel in all matters and affairs of moment, which were therein handled; Fourthly, that though to testifie their obe­dience to some Canons which were then in force, they did withdraw their personal presence at the time of Trial, yet they did it with a salvo Jure Paritatis, not to infringe the rights and priviledges which belonged unto them in regard of their Peerage. And finally we may observe, that this Protestation is not only extant in the Antiquitates Britannicae (to which the Margent doth refer us) but at the desire of the said Pre­lates, the good leave of the King, and the consent of all the Peers, which were there assembled, it was entred in the Journal of the House of Peers, where it still con­tinues.

But because possibly the Bishops may claim more than belongs unto them, or that perhaps their Testimony may not be admitted in matters of their own concernment, we will next see what is affirmed by others as to that particular. And first we will begin with the Learned Cambden, who informeth us thus, viz. Ad quos Abbates (ha­ving first reckoned them according to their Names,Cambd. Brit. fol. 123. and Order) ut etiamnuin ad E­piscopos Parliamentis quibuscun (que) ut Pares regni cum caeteris Paribus personaliter inter­esse, consulere, tractare, ordinare, statuere, definire ratione Baroniarum, quas de Rege tene­bant, de Jure & consuetudine spectavit: for proof whereof, besides the Credit of the Auther, we are by him referred to the publick Acts or Records of Parliament, but unto what Records particularly he informs us not.

And therefore we nust help our selves by Sir Edward Coke, who tells us,Jurisdiction of Courts. Coke Institutes. part. 4, p. 45. out of the Records of Parliament, and in his Margent pointing to the 13th of King Edward the third, doth instruct us thus, viz. Abbates, Priores, alios (que) Praelatos quoscun (que) per Baroniam de Domino Rege tenentes pertinet in Parliamentis Regni quibuscunq, ut pates Regni praedicti personaliter interesse, ibi (que) de Regni negotiis ac aliis tractari consuetis cum caeteris dicti Regni Paribus & aliis ibidem jus interessendi habentibus consulere, & tractare, ordinare, statuere & definire, ac caetera facere, quae Parliamenti tempore imminent fa­cienda; Which if it be the same with that which we had before, differing only in some words (as perhaps it is) yet we have gained the Testimony of that Learned Lawyer, whose judgment in this Case must be worth the having.

For hear him speaking in his own words and he tells us this, viz. Coke Institut. fol. 4. That every Lord of Parliament either Spiritual, as Arch-bishops, and Bishops, or Temporal as Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, and Barons, Peers of the Realm, and Lords of Parlia­ment ought to have several Writs of Summons, where plainly these words, Peers and Lords of Parliament relate as well to Spiritual, as to the Temporal Lords. And therefore if the Arch-bishops, and the Bishops may be granted to be Lords of Parlia­ment, they must be also granted to be Peers of the Realm.

Now to the Testimony, and Authority of particular persons, we shall next add the sentence and determination of our Courts of Law, in which the Bishops are de­clared to be Peers of the Realm, and to be capable of all the priviledges, which be­long to the Peerage. For first in the aforesaid Case of the Bishop of Winchester, when he was brought upon his Trial for departing from the service of the Parliament with­out leave of the King, and pleaded sor himself, quod esset unus è Paribus Regni, &c.The priviledg of Barony. It was supposed clearly, both by Court and Council that he was a Peer, that part of his defence being not gainsayed, or so much, as questioned.

So in the Year-Books of the Reign of King Edward the 3d, in whose Reign the Bishop of Winchester's Case was agitated (as before is said) a Writ of Wards was brought by the Bishop of London, and by him pleaded to an Issue, and the Defendant could not be Essoyned, or have day of Grace, for it was said that a Bishop was a Peer of the Land, haec erat causa, saith the Book, which reports the Case.

In the like Case upon an Action of Trespass against the Abbot of Abbingdon, who was one of the Lords Spiritual, day of Grace was denied against him because he was a Peere de la Terre.

So also it is said expresly, that when question was made about the returning of a Knight to be of a Jury where a Bishop was Defendant in a Quare impedit, the Rule of the Court was, that it ought to be so, because the Bishop was a Peer of the Realm.

And in the Judgment given against the Bishop of Norwich in the time of Richard the 2d, he is in the Roll expresly allowed to be a Peer; for he had taken exceptions that some things had passed against him without the Assent, or knowledg of his Peers of the Realm. To which Exception it was Answered, that it behoved him not at all to plead that he was a Prelate, for traversing such Errors and misprisions, as in the quality of a Souldier, who had taken wages of the King, were committed by him.

Thus also in the Assignment of the Errors under Henry the fifth, for the Reversal of the Attainder of the Earl of Salisbury, one Error is assigned that Judgment was given without the consent of the Prelates which were Peers in Parliament. And al­though that was adjudged to be no Error, yet was it clearly allowed both in the Roll, and the Petitions, that the Bishops were Peers.

Finally in the Government of the Realm of France, the Bishops did not only pass in the Ranks of Peers, but six of them were taken into the number of the Douze-pairs or twelve Peers of that Kingdom, highly esteemed and celebrated in the times of Charle­mayne, that is to say, the Arch-bishop and Duke of Rhemes; the Bishop and Duke of Laon, the Bishop and Duke of Langres; the Bishop and Earl of Beuvois, the Bishop and Earl of Noyon, the Bishop and Earl of Chalons. And therefore it may be infer­red, that in the Government established by the Anjovin and Norman Kings, the Eng­lish Bishops might be ranked with the Peers at large, considering their place in Par­liament, and their great Revenues, and the strong influence which they had on the Church and State.

But there is little need for Inferences, and book-Cases, and the Authorities of particular men to come in for Evidence, when we are able to produce an Act of Par­liament to make good the point. For in the Statute made the 4th year of King Henry the fifth, it was repeated and confirmed, ‘That no man of the Irish Nation should be chosen by Election to be an Arch-bishop, Bishop, Abbot, or Frior, nor in no other manner received or accepted to any dignity and benefice within the said Land, &c. The Reason of which inhibition is there said to be this, viz. because being Peers of the Parliament of the said Land, they brought with them to the Parliaments, and Councils holden there some Irish servants, whereby the privities of the English­men within the same Land have been, and be daily discovered to the Irish people, (Rebels to the King) to the great peril and mischief of the Kings lawful Liege people in the said Land.’ And if the Bishops and Arch-bishops of Ireland had the name of Peers, there is no question to be made, but the name of Peers, and the right of Peerage may properly be assumed or challenged by them.

Now as this Statute gives them the name of Peers, so in an Act of Parliament in the 25th year of King Henry the 8th, they are called the Nobles of your Realm, as well Spiritual as Temporal, as all your other Subjects now living, &c. Which Term we find again repeated by the Parliament following, the Nobles Spiritual and Temporal, and that twice for failing; so that we find no Title given to Earls and Barons, Nobles and Peers, and Lords as the Statutes call them, but what is given to the Bishops in our Acts of Parliament, and certainly had not been given them in the stile of that Court, had any question then been made of their Right of Peerage; And that their calling had not raised them to a state of Nobility; concerning which take this from the Lord Chief Justice Coke for our more assurance, and he will tell us that the general division of persons by the Law of England, is either one that is Noble, and in respect of his no­bility of the Lords House of Parliament, or one of the Commons of the Realm, and in respect thereof of the House of Commons in Parliament.

Next to the Parliament the most renowned Judicatory of this Land, is the Great Council of the Peers, called by the King on sudden and emergent occasions which can­not safely stay the leisure of a Parliament, for the prescribing of such remedies as the case requires; and called so for no other reason, but that it is a general meeting of the Bishops and Temporal Lords, under the common name of Peers, to give the King such Counsel and advice in his greatest difficulties, as the exigencies of affairs shall suggest unto them; which proves the Bishops to be Peers, as well as any of the Tem­poral Lords. Nor could it properly be called the Great Council of Peers, if any but the Peers be invited to it. The last example of which Council was that held at York, about the latter end of September, Anno 1640. upon the breaking in of the Scottish Re­bels. And the like Argument may be drawn from that Appellation, which commonly is given to that place, or Room wherein the Lords Spiritual and Temporal do con­sult [Page 745]together in the times of Parliament, best known unto us by the name of the House of Peers, and known unto us by that name for no other Reason, but because it is ap­propriated to the use of the Peers (that is to say, the Nobles Spiritual and Temporal, or the Bishops and the Temporal Lords) for their Consultations.

And as they have the name of Peers and the Rights of Peerage, so is there none of all the Antient Rights of Peerage, which belong not to them as fully and as amply as to any of the Temporal Lords, that is to say, a necessary place and Vote in Parlia­ment, and a particular Writ of Summons to invite them to it, the freedom of their persons from Arrests at the suit of a Subject, not to be troubled with Essoynes or sup­plicavits in the Courts of Justice, a power to qualifie their Chaplains to hold several Benefices, not to have any Action against them tried except one Knight at the least be returned of the Pannel; the Liberty of killing one, or more of the Kings Deer in any of his Parks or Chases, both in their going to the Parliament, and returning home, of which take this in General from our Learned Antiquary,Cambden. Brit. fol. 123. Inde Ecclesia­stici illi omnibus, quibus caeteri Regni Barones gavisi sunt immunitatibus nisi quod à Paribus non judicentur; that is to say, that they enjoy all priviledges, and Immunities, as the Lay Lords do, but that they are not to be Judged by their Peers. But first he is not certain that this exception (their not being to be Judged by their Peers) will hold good in Law, and therefore leaves the resolution of that point to our Learned Lawyers, sed an hoc sit Juris explorati dixerint ipsi Juris periti, as his own words are. And secondly, the reason which he gives is no more than this, that since by reason of the Canons, they could not be Judges or Assessors in causa sanguinis, they therefore were referred to a Common Jury of twelve Men in all publick Trials; but by this reason they must either have no Trial at all, or may as well be tried by their Peers, as a Common Jury, because they are disabled by those Canons from sitting in Judgment on the life of a Common Juror as well as of a Lord, or Peer, which I marvail Cambden did not see.

But weaker is the Reason which is given by Stamford in his Pleas of the Crown, that is to say, that Bishops are not to be tried by their Peers, because they do not hold their place in Parliament Ratione Nobilitatis, sed ratione officii: and yet not only in re­gard of their Office eien en respect de lour possessions, l'antient Baronyes annexes a lour dignitye, but in regard of their possessions, and those ancient Baronies which are an­nexed to their Sees, which reason in my Judgment hath no reason at all, for then the old Barons which were called to Parliament in regard of their Tenure (as they were all until the time of King Richard the 2d) could have no Trial by their Peers, because they had no place in Parliament, but in respect of their possessions, or tem­poral Baronies; and secondly, the Bishops as before was proved, are accounted Nobles, and thereupon may challenge their place in Parliament, not only ratione officii, (as anciently before the times of William the Conqueror) but also ratione Nobilitatis; since they were ranked amongst the Barons in regard of their Tenure.

Others perhaps may give this reason, that Bishops in the former times were debar­red from Marriage, and that now holding their Estates and Honours only for term of life, they are not capable of transmitting either unto their posterity, which possibly may make the Laws less tender of them than they might be otherwise; but then what shall we say of the Wives and Widows of the Temporal Lords, who being either bar­ren, or past hope of Children shall notwithstanding be tried by their Peers according to the Statute of Henry the sixth; Or put the case that any man should be created Earl or Baron for the time of his life, or with a limitation to the Heirs of his body; and either live unmarried or continue childless; must he be therefore made incapable of a Trial by the Peers of the Realm, because his Honours and his Life do expire toge­ther. I think no reasonable man can say it, and I hope none will.

It cannot be denied but that some Bishops have been tried by Common Juries, that is to say Adam de Orlton Bishop of Hereford, Thomas Lyld Bishop of Ely, Thomas Merkes Bishop of Carslile, John Fisher Bishop of Rochester, and Thomas Cranmer Arch­bishop of Canterbury; but then it is to be observed, that none but Fisher suffered death on that account, whether by reason of some illegality in their proceedings, or in re­ference to their High and holy Callings it is hard to say; And secondly we may ob­serve, that though in some confusions and disorder of times such Presidents may be produced as in matter of Fact, yet the Case is not altogether so clear in point of Law, as not to leave the matter doubtful, as we heard before; and that it was con­ceived [Page 746]by some Learned men of that profession, that if those Bishops had desired to be tryed by their Peers, it could not have been denied them in a course of Ju­stice.

And therefore thirdly, we observe that the Bishops of Hereford and Ely did trust so much to their dependance on the Pope, and their exemption from the power of all secular Judges, that they refused absolutely to be tryed by any but the Arch­bishop of Canterbury, as the Popes Legate in this Kingdom, which possibly might put their Enemies upon a course of enquiring into their offences by a Common Jury, the parties being wilfully absent and not submitting to a Trial in due course of Law; and that the way being thus laid open, it was no hard matter to make the Bishop of Carlisle obnoxious to that kind of Trial, which being forsaken on all sides (as the times then were) he was not able to avoid.

Which might be also the condition of Arch-bishop Cranmer, and as for Fisher Bishop of Rochester he was to deal with an impetuous and violent Prince, who was resolved to put the greater disgrace upon him, because he had received some greater Honours from the Pope, than the condition of Affairs might be thought to bear.

But against all these violations of their Rights of Peerage, it may be said in their behalves for the times to come, that by the Statute of the 25th of King Edward the 3d, which serves to this day for the standing Rule in Cases of Treason, it is requi­red that the Malefactor, or the suspected person must be attainted by such men, as are of his own Condition, and therefore Bishops to be tryed by none; but the Peers of the Land, unless it be in open opposit on to this Rule of King Edward, and in de­fiance to the fundamental Law in the Magna Charta, where it is said, that no man is to be Disseised of his Freehold, exiled, or any ways destroyed; nisi per Judicium pa­rium suorum; Or per Legem Terrae, but by the Judgment of his Peers, and by the Law of the Land, and I can find no Law of the Land which tells me that a Bishop shall be tryed by a Common Jury.

Finally, if it be a sufficient Argument, that Bishops ought not to be reckoned as Peers of the Realm, because they may be tryed by a Common Jury, then also at some times, and in certain Cases, the Temporal Lords, Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, &c. must not pass for Peers, because in all Appeals of Murder, they are to be tryed by Com­mon Jurors, like the rest of the Subjects.

But secondly it is objected, That since a Bishop cannot sit in Judgment on the death of a Peer, nor be so much as present at the time of his Trial, they are but half-Peers as it were, not Peers to all intents and purposes, as the others are. But this incapacity is not laid upon them by the Laws of the Land, or any Limitation of their powers in their Writ of Summons, or any thing inhering to the Episcopal Fun­ction, but only by some ancient Canons, (and more particularly by the fourth Ca­non of Toledo) which, whether they be now of force or not may be somewhat que­stioned; Secondly, whensoever they withdrew themselves, they did it with a salvo Jure paritatis, as before is shewn. To which intent they did not only cause their Protestations to be filed on Record,Coke Institut. part 4. fol. 23. but for the most part made a Proxy to some Temporal Lords to Act in their behalf, and preserve their right, which though they did not in the Case we had before us, yet afterwards in the 21st of King Richard the 2d, and from that time forwards (when they found Parliamentary Impeachments to become more frequent) they observed it constantly as it continues to this day.

Nor were they hindred by those Canons, whatsoever they were, from being pre­sent at the depositions of Witnesses, or taking such preparatory examinations as con­cern the Trial, in which they might be able to direct the Court (by the Rules of Conscience) though they withdrew themselves at the time of the sentence. That was a Trick imposed upon the Bishops by the late long Parliament, when they excluded them from being members of the Committee which was appointed for taking the examinations in the business of the Earl of Strafford. And this they did not in relation to those ancient Canons, but upon design, for fear, they might discover some of those secret practices, which were to be hatched, and contrived against him. Against which Preparations for a final Trial, or taking the Examina­tions, or hearing of depositions of Witnesses, or giving counsel in such cases as they saw occasion; the Council of Toledo saith not any thing which can be honestly in­terpreted to their disadvantage. So that the Bishops Claim stands good to their [Page 745]right of Peerage, any thing in those ancient Canons, or the unjust practices of the late Long Parliament to the contrary notwithstanding.

To draw the business to an end, what one thing is required unto the constituting of a Peer of England which is not to be found in an English Bishop, if Tenure and E­state? they hold their Lands per integram Baroniam, as the old Lords did; if Voice in Parliament? they have their several Writs of Summons as the Lay-Lords have; if we desire Antiquity to make good their Interesse? most of them have sat longer there in their Predecessors, than any of our Temporal Lords in their noblest Ancestors; if point of Priviledg? they have the same in all respects as the others have, except it be in one particular, neither clearly stated, nor universally enjoyed by those who pre­tend most to it; if Letters Patents from the King to confirm these Honours? they have his Majesties Writ of Conge d'eslire his Royal Assent to the Election, his Mandate un­der the Great Seal for their Consecration: If therefore we allow the Bishops to be Lords of Parliament, we must allow them also to be Peers of the Realm; There being nothing which distinguisheth a Peer from from a common Person, but his Voice in Parliament; which was the matter to be proved.

A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS.

The Way of the Reformation of the Church of England declared and justified.

SECT. I.

  • I. THE Introduction shewing the Occasion, Method, and Design of the whole Dis­course. Page 1
  • I. Of Calling or Assembling the Convocation of the Clergy, and the Authority thereof when con­vened together. Page 2
  • II. Of the Ejection of the Pope, and vesting the Supremacy in the Regal Crown. Page 5
  • III. Of the Translation of the Scriptures, and per­mitting them to be read in the English Tongue. Page 7
  • IV. Of the Reformation of Religion in the points of Doctrine. Page 10
  • V. Of the Reformation of the Church of England in the Forms of Worship; and the times ap­pointed thereunto. Page 14
  • VI. Of the power of making Canons, for the well ordering of the Clergy, and the directing of the people in the publick duties of Religion. Page 18
  • VII. An Answer to the main Objections of either Party. Page 20

SECT. II.

  • I. That the Church of England did not innovate in the Ejection of the Pope, and setling the Su­premacy in the Regal Crown. Page 23
  • II. That the Church of England might proceed to a Reformation without the approbation of the Pope or the Church of Rome. Page 26
  • III. That the Church of England might lawfully proceed to a Reformation without the help of a General Council, or calling in the aid of the Protestant Churches. Page 30
  • IV. That the Church did not innovate in Transla­ting the Scriptures and the publick Liturgy into vulgar Tongues, and of the Consequents thereof to the Church it self. Page 34
  • V. That the proceedings of this Church in setting out the English Liturgy were not meerly Regal; and of the power of Sovereign Princes in Eccle­siastical affairs. Page 38
  • VI. That the Clergy lost not any of their just Rights by the Act of submission, and that the power of calling and confirming Councils did anciently belong to the Christian Princes. Page 41

Of Liturgies.

CHAP. I. What doth occur, and whether any thing at all, for set Forms of Prayer from the time of Adam unto Moses.

  • I. PRayer, and the chief Exercise of publick Worship. Page 49
  • II. The ground, use, and necessity of publick prayer. ibid.
  • III. What priviledg belongs unto the Priest or Mi­nister, in that part of Gods worship which consists in Prayer. Page 50
  • IV. The inconvenience and confusion that must needs arise for want of set forms in the Worship of God. Page 51
  • [Page]V. Liturgies, or set Forms of Prayer in use amongst all sorts of people, Jew, Gentiles, Chri­stians. ibid.
  • VI. The meaning of the werd Liturgy, [...], in the Civil sense. Page 52
  • VII. As also in the Ecclesiastical Notion of it. ib.
  • VIII. Whether the Offerings of Cain and Abel were regulated by a prescribed Form. Page 53
  • IX. A prescribed Form of Worship conceived by some to have been introduced by Enos. Page 54
  • X. The Sacrifices and Devotions of the ancient Pa­triarchs for the most part occasional only. Page 55
  • XI. The consecrating of set places for Gods wor­ship, first begun by Jacob. ibid.

CHAP. II. That from the time of Moses unto that of Da­vid, the Jews were not without a Liturgy, or set Form of Worship.

  • I. The Israelites in the Land of Egypt bad not the liberty of publick worship. Page 56
  • II. That people made a constituted Church, first, in the time of Moses. Page 57
  • III. The prescribed Rites and Form of Legal Sa­crifices in the time of Moses. Page 58
  • IV. Set Forms of Prayer and Benediction used at the offering of Sacrifices in the time of Moses. Page 59
  • V. The Song of Moses made a part of the Jewish Liturgies. ibid.
  • VI. The Form and Rites used in the celebration of the Passover, according to Joseph Scaliger. Page 60
  • VII. The same, together with the Hymns then used, described by Beza. ibid.
  • VIII. The several Prayers and Benedictions which were used therein, according to the Jewish Rab­bins. Page 61
  • IX. A form of Blessing of the people prescribed by God unto the Priests: a prescribed Form used by the people at the offering of their first fruits and tithes. Page 62
  • X. The like in burning of their Leaven, and in confessing of their sins to Almighty God, as also in the excommunicating of impenitent per­sons. Page 63
  • XI. An Answer to two main Objections from, and against the Jewish Rabbins. Page 64
  • XII. The Forms of Marriage, and Rites of Bu­rial used amongst the Jews. Page 65

CHAP. III. Of the condition and estate of the Jewish Li­turgy from the time of David unto Christ.

  • I. Several hours of Prayer used among the Jews, and that the Prayers then used were prescribed Forms. Page 66
  • II. The great improvement of the Jewish Liturgy, in the time of David, by the addition of Psalms and Instruments of Musick. Page 67
  • III. The form of celebrating Gods publick service according to Davids Institutions, prescribed by the Jewish Rabbins. Page 68
  • IV. The solemn form used in the Dedicating of the first and second Temples. Page 69
  • V. The Temple principally built for an House of Prayer. Page 70
  • VI. The several and accustomed Gestures used a­mong the Jews, in the performance of Gods publick worship. ibid.
  • VII. The weekly reading of the Law on the Sab­bath days not used until the time of Ezra. Page 72
  • VIII. The reading of the Law prescribed and re­gulated according to the number of the Sections, by the care of Ezra, and of the 18 Benedictions by him composed. Page 73
  • IX. The Exposition of the Law prescribed, regu­lated, and ordered by the Authority of the Church. Page 74
  • X. The first foundation of Synagogues, and Ora­tories, and for what employments. Page 75
  • XI. The Church of Jewry ordained Holy-days and prescribed forms of Prayer to be used there­on. Page 76
  • XII. Set days for publick Annual Fasts appoint­ed by the Jewish Church, with a set form of Prayer agreeably to the occasion. Page 77
  • XIII. The form of celebrating Gods publick Ser­vice, according as it is described by Jesus the Son of Syrac. ibid.
  • XIV. Jesus the Son of God conforms himself unto the Forms established in the Jewish Church. Page 78
  • XV. A transition from the Forms received in the Jewish Church, to those in use among the Gen­tiles, Page 79

CHAP. IV. That antiently the Gentiles had their Liturgies or prescribed Forms of Prayer and publick Worship of God.

  • I. The use of Sacrifice amongst the Gentiles before Moses time. Page 80
  • II. Times, Priests, and Temples, sanctified and selected by the Gentiles, for the publick service of their gods. ibid.
  • III. A general proof, that antiently the Gentiles had their Liturgies, and set Forms of worship. Page 81
  • IV. Preparatory Forms used at the celebration of their Sacrifices. Page 82
  • V. The Rites and Forms used in the Sacrifice it self. Page 83
  • VI. Several short forms of words observed amongst the Gentiles, both Greek and Latin, in their publick Sacrifices. Page 84
  • [Page]VII. Set Forms of prayer used unto Jupiter, Mars, Janus, Juno, and other of the gods and god­desses. Page 85
  • VIII. The solemn Form used by the Gentiles in evocation of the gods of besieged Cities. Page 86
  • IX. As also in devoting themselves, or Enemies, to a certain ruine, for preservation of the Common­wealth. Page 87
  • X. The several Gestures of the Gentiles in the act of publick Worship prescribed and regulated. ibid.
  • XI. The Rites and Forms used by the Greeks par­ticularly in their solemn Sacrifices. Page 89
  • XII. A prescript Form of Matrimony amongst the Romans. ibid.

CHAP. V. That in the time of the Apostles Liturgies or set Forms of Ministration in the Christian Church, were composed and used.

  • I. The Jews and Gentiles made one Church by Christ our Saviour. Page 91
  • II. A Form of Prayer prescribed by Christ to his Disciples. Page 92
  • III. The Institution of the Christian Sacrifice, with the set Form thereof by our Lord and Saviour. Page 93
  • IV. That the Lords Prayer, with other Benedicti­ons, were used by the Apostles in the celebration of the blessed Eucharist. Page 94
  • V. A Form of celebrating Gods publick service, prescribed in the first of St. Paul to Timothy, according to the judgment of the Fathers. Page 95
  • VI. The Form and manner of Gods publick Ser­vice described in the first to the Corinthians. Page 96
  • VII. The Hymns and Psalms used in the Church of Corinth, were not voluntary, but prescribed and set; and of the Musick therewith used. Page 97
  • VIII. That 'tis probable, that the Apostles ordain­ed Liturgies for the publick use. Page 98
  • IX. What may be said, touching the Liturgies a­scribed unto St. Peter, Mark, and James. Page 99
  • X. The Form of ministring the Sacrament of the blessed Eucharist, described by Dionysius the Areopagite. Page 100
  • XI. That of the ministring of the Sacrament of holy Baptism, described by him; and seconded by the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens. Page 101
  • XII. Places appointed in this Age of Gods publick Worship, and honoured with the name of Chur­ches. Page 103

CHAP. VI. What doth occur concerning Liturgies and Set Forms of Worship, betwixt the death of the Apostles, and the Empire of Constantine the Great.

  • I. The Form observed in Baptism, and admini­stration of the Eucharist, and in celebrating of the Sundays service, according unto Justin Mar­tyr. Page 105
  • II. The order used in Baptism, and in the pub­lick meetings of the Congregations in Tertul­lians time. Page 106
  • III. That in those times, the use of Psalms and Hymns, was intermingled with the other parts of publick Worship. Page 107
  • IV. Tertullian cleared from a wrong sense im­posed on him, in the point of Worship, by some late Writers. ibid.
  • V. The course and order of the Ministration, ac­cording to the Author of the Constitutions, who lived about those times, in their account who placed him latest. Page 108
  • VI. The order of reading holy Scripture in the Congregation, prescribed and regulated in those times. Page 109
  • VII. Proofs for a publick Liturgy, or set Form of prayer, from the works of Origen. Page 110
  • VIII. As also from the Writings of Saint Cy­prian. Page 111
  • IX. Touching the Form of Prayer prescribed by the Emperour Constantine, for the use of his Army. Page 112
  • X. That prescribed Forms of prayer were not oc­casioned by the Arian or Pelagian Heresies, as it is supposed. Page 113
  • XI. What was decreed conducing to set Forms of prayer in the antient Coun [...]il of Laodicea. ibid.
  • XII. Several Offices or Forms of prayer at that time in use, agreeably unto the several sorts of people in the Congregation. Page 114
  • XIII. A list of several solemn Festivals appointed by the Church for Gods publick Worship in those early days. Page 116
  • XIV. Churches erected by the Christians in these two Ages, for the publick duties of Religion. ibid

CHAP. VII. Apparent proofs for Liturgies and Set Forms of Worship, betwixt the Reign of Constan­tine and St. Austins death.

  • I. The Form of Baptism described by Cyril of Hierusalem, conform unto the antient Patterns. Page 118
  • II. As also of administring the blessed Eucharist. Page 119
  • III. Conclusive proofs for Liturgies or set Forms of Worship in Saint Basils time. ibid.
  • IV. And from the Writings of Saint Chrysostom. Page 120
  • V. The Liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil vindi­cated, and the Objections answered which are made against them. Page 121
  • [Page]VI. Liturgies or set Forms of Worship in the We­stern Churches, by whom, and what degrees established. Page 122
  • VII. Proofs for the intient Liturgies, and prescri­bed Forms of Worship from Austins works. Page 123
  • VIII. What was decreed concerning Liturgies or prescribed forms of Worship in the African Councils. Page 124
  • IX. The Form of ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, prescribed and regulated. Page 125
  • X. A prescribed form of Marriage, and set Rites of Burial, used anciently in the Church of Christ. Page 126
  • XI. Touching the Habit used of old, by Gods Priests and Ministers in the officiating his divine service in the Congregation. Page 127
  • XII. Several Gestures used by Gods people in the Congregation, according to the several parts of publick Worship. Page 128
  • XIII. A brief Essay concerning the Antiquity of the Gloria Patri, the time when it was first made a part of the publick Liturgies, and the accustomed Gestures at the pronouncing of the same. Page 129

CHAP. VIII. A Corollary touching the Dedication of Churches, and of the Anniversary Feasts thereby occasioned.

  • 1. Dedication of Religious places used anciently by all Nations, and the reasons why. Page 133
  • 2. A repetition of some things that were said be­fore, with reference and application to the point in hand. Page 134
  • 3. The Tabernacle consecrated by Gods own ap­pointment, and the consequents of it. ibid.
  • 4. Antiquity of the like Dedications amongst the Romans, and by whom performed. Page 135
  • 5. The Form and Ceremonies used in those Dedica­tions by the antient Romans. Page 136
  • 6. The antiquity and constant usage of such Dedi­cations in the Church of Christ. Page 137
  • 7. Titulus and Encaenia what they signifie in the Ecclesiastical notion. Page 138
  • 8. The great Solemnities and Feasts used by the Jews and Gentiles in the Dedication of their Temples. Page 139
  • 9. As also by the Primitive Christians. Page 140
  • 10. Dedication Feasts made Anniversary by the Roman Gentiles. Page 141
  • 11. And by the Christians in the times of their greatest purity. ibid.
  • 12. Continued till our times in the Church of En­gland. Page 142
  • 13. The conclusion of the whole, and the Authors submission of it to the Supream Judg. Page 143

Of the Form of Prayer appointed to be used by Preachers before their Sermons.

  • 1. THE Introduction to the whole. Page 148
  • 2. The Canon of the year 1603. Page 149
  • 3. The meaning and purpose of that Canon. ibid.
  • 4. The Injunction of Queen Elizabeth to the same effect. ibid.
  • 5. The Injunction of King Edward VI. to the same effect. Page 150
  • 6. The like Injunction of King Henry VIII. ibid.
  • 7. The ground and reason of the Injunction of that King, and the exemplification of it in the pra­ctice of Bishop Latimer. ibid.
  • 8. The difference between Invocation, and that bidding of Prayer which is required by the Ca­non. Page 151
  • 9. The Canon justified by the practice of Bishop Andrews. Page 152
  • 10. By the practice of Bishop Jewel in Queen Eli­zabeths time. Page 153
  • 11. By the practice of Arch-bishop Parker, in King Edwards time. ibid.
  • 12. By the like practice of Bishop Latimer in that Kings time also. Page 154
  • 13. More of the practice of Bishop Latimer in this point. ibid.
  • 14. The same proved also by the practice of Bishop Gardiner. Page 155
  • 15. The result arising both from the precept and the practice of the Church herein. ibid.
  • 16. How the now Form of Prayer, by way of In­vocation was first taken up. Page 156
  • 17. No Prayer by way of Invocation used by the Antients in their Sermons. Page 157
  • 18. The Prayer appointed by the Canon, and the Injunctions used rather heretofore as a part of the Sermon, than as a preparation to it. ibid.
  • 19. Bidding of Prayer more consonant unto the meaning of the Law, than any set Prayer in the way of Invocation. Page 158
  • 20. Bidding of Prayer more proper for the place or Pulpit, which was not made for Prayer, but for Exhortation. ibid.
  • 21. The like concluded from the posture of the Preacher also. Page 159
  • 22. Some inconveniences arising from the Form of Prayer by Invocation. ibid.
  • 23. More inconveniences of that nature by accusing the Liturgy as defective. Page 160
  • 24. The conclusion and submission of the whole to his Lordships judgment. Page 161

The Undeceiving of the People in the point of Tithes.

  • 1. THAT never any Clergy in the Church of of God, hath been or is maintained with less charge to the Subject than the established Clergy of the Church of England. Page 167
  • 2. That there is no man in the Kingdom of Eng­land, who payeth any thing of his own towards the maintenance and support of his Parish-Mi­nister, but by his Easter-Offering. Page 171
  • 3. That the change of Tithes into Stipends will bring greater trouble to the Clergy than is yet considered, and far less profit to the Countrey, than is now pretended. Page 174

The History of Episcopacy.

PART I.

CHAP. I. The Christian Church first founded by our Lord and Saviour, in an imparity of Mini­sters.
  • 1. THE several Offices of Christ our Saviour in the Administration of his Church. Page 187
  • 2. The aggregating of Disciples to him. Page 188
  • 3. The calling of the Apostles out of them, and why twelve in number. ibid.
  • 4. Of the Name and Office of an Apostle. Page 189
  • 5. What things were specially required unto the making of an Apostle. Page 190
  • 6. All the Apostles equal in Authority amongst themselves. ibid.
  • 7. The calling and approinting of the 70 Disciples. Page 191
  • 8. A reconciliation of some different Opinions about the number. Page 192
  • 9. The twelve Apostles superiour to the Seventy by our Saviours Ordinance. ibid.
  • 10. What kind of superiority it was, that Christ interdicted his Apostles. Page 193
  • 11. The several powers, faculties, and prehemi­nences given to the Apostles by our Saviour Christ. Page 194
  • 12. That the Apostles were Bishops, averred by the ancient Fathers. ibid.
  • 13. And by the text of holy Scripture. Page 195
CHAP. II. The foundation of the Church of Hierusalem under the Government of Saint James the Apostle, and Simeon one of the Disciples, the two first Bishops of the same.
  • 1. Matthias chosen in the place of Judas. Page 196
  • 2. The coming of the Holy Ghost, and on whom it fell. Page 197
  • 3. The greatest measure of the Spirit fell on the A­postles, and therewithal the greatest power. ibid.
  • 4. The several Ministrations in the Church then given; and that in ranking of the same, the Bi­shops are intended in the name of Pastors. Page 198
  • 5. The sudden growth of the Church of Hierusa­lem, and making Saint James the first Bishop there. ibid.
  • 6. The former point deduced from Scripture. Page 199
  • 7. And proved by the general consent of Fathers. ib.
  • 8. Of the Episcopal Chair, or throne of James, and his Successors in Hierusalem. Page 200
  • 9. Simeon elected by the Apostles to succeed Saint James. Page 201
  • 10. The meaning of the word Episcopus, and from whence borrowed by the Church, ibid.
  • 11. The institution of the Presbyters. Page 202
  • 12. What interest they had in the common business of the Church, whilst St. James was Bishop. ib.
  • 13. The Council of Jerusalem, and what the Pres­byters had to do therein. Page 203
  • 14. The institution of the Seven, and to what Of­fice they were called. ibid.
  • 15. The names of Ecclesiastical Functions promis­cuously used in holy Scripture. Page 204
CHAP. III. The Churches planted by Saint Peter, and his Disciples, originally founded in Episcopacy.
  • 1. The founding of the Church of Antioch, and that Saint Peter was the first Bishop there. Page 205
  • 2. A reconciliation of the difference about his next Successors in the same. Page 206
  • 3. A List of Bishops planted by him in the Churches of the Circumcision. Page 207
  • 4. Proofs thereof from St. Peters general Epistle to [Page]the Jews dispersed, according to the exposition of the Ancient Writers. ibid.
  • 5. And from Saint Pauls unto the Hebrews. Page 208
  • 6. Saint Pauls Praepositus, no other than a Bishop in the Opinion of the Fathers. ibid.
  • 7. Saint Peter the first Bishop of the Church of Rome. Page 209
  • 8. The difference about his next Successors there, reconciled also. ibid.
  • 9. An Answer unto such Objections as have been made against Saint Peter's being Bishop there. Page 210
  • 10. Saint Mark the first Bishop of Alexandria, and of his Successors. Page 221
  • 11. Notes on the observations of Epiphanius and Saint Hierom, about the Church of Alexandria. Page 212
  • 12. An observation of Saint Ambrose applyed un­to the former business. ibid.
  • 13. Of Churches founded by Saint Peter and his Disciples in Italy, France, Spain, Germany, and the Isle of Britain, and of the Bishops in them instituted. Page 213
CHAP. IV. The Bishoping of Timothy and Titus, and other of Saint Pauls Disciples.
  • 1. The Conversion of Saint Paul, and his ordain­ing to the place of an Apostle. Page 214
  • 2. The Presbyters created by Saint Paul, Acts 14. of what sort they were. Page 215
  • 3. Whether the Presbyters or Presbytery did lay on hands with Paul, in any of his Ordinations. Page 216
  • 4. The people had no voice in the Election of those Presbyters by Saint Paul ordained. Page 217
  • 5. Bishops not founded by Saint Paul at first, in the particular Churches by him planted; and upon what reasons. ibid.
  • 6. The short time that the Churches of Saint Pauls Plantation, continued without Bishops over them. Page 218
  • 7. Timothy made Bishop of Ephesus by Saint Paul, according to the general consent of Fa­thers. Page 219
  • 8. The time when Timothy was made Bishop, ac­cording to the holy Scripture. Page 220
  • 9. Titus made Bishop of Cretans; and the truth verified herein by the antient Writers. Page 221
  • 10. An Answer unto some Objections against the subscription of the Epistle unto Titus. ibid.
  • 11. The Bishoping of Dionysius the Areopagite, Aristarchus, Gaius, Epaphroditus, Epaphras, and Archippus. Page 222
  • 12. As also of Silas, Sosthenes, Sosipater, Cre­scens, and Aristobulus. Page 223
  • 13. The Office of a Bishop not incompetible with that of an Evangelist. ibid.
CHAP. V. Of the Authority and Jurisdiction given unto Timothy and Titus; and in them to all other Bishops by the Word of God.
  • 1. The authority committed unto Timothy and Titus was to be perpetual, and not personal only. Page 224
  • 2. The power of Ordination intrusted only unto Bishops by the Word of God, according to the exposition of the Fathers. Page 225
  • 3. Bishops alone both might and did ordain without their Presbyters. Page 226
  • 4. That Presbyters might not ordain without a Bishop, proved by the memorable case of Collu­thus and Ischyras. ibid.
  • 5. As by those also of Maximus, and a Spanish Bishop. Page 227
  • 6. In what respects the joint assistance of the Presbyters was required herein. Page 228
  • 7. The case of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, objected, and declared. ibid.
  • 8. The care of ordering Gods Divine Service a work peculiar to the Bishop. Page 229
  • 9. To whom the Ministration of the Sacraments also doth in chief belong. Page 230
  • 10. Bishops to have a care that Gods Word be preached, and to encourage those that take pains therein. ibid.
  • 11. Bishops to silence and reprove such Presbyters as preach other Doctrines. Page 231
  • 12. As also to correct and reject the Heretick. ibid.
  • 13. The censure and correction of inferiour Presby­ters in point of life and conversation, doth belong also to Bishops.
  • 14. And of Lay-people, if they walk unworthy of their Christian calling. ibid.
  • 15. Conjectural proofs that the description of a Bishop in the first to Timothy, is of a Bishop strictly and properly called. Page 233
CHAP. VI. Of the estate of holy Church, particularly of the Asian Churces, toward the later days of Saint John the Apostle.
  • 1. The time of Saint Johns coming into Asia. Page 235
  • 2. All the seven Churches except Ephesus, of his Plantation. ibid.
  • 3. That the Angels of those Churches were the Bi­shops of them, in the opinion of the Fathers. Page 236
  • 4. And of some Protestant Divines of name and eminency. ibid.
  • 5. Conclusive Reasons for the same. Page 237
  • 6. Who is most like to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus. ibid.
  • 7. That Polycarpus was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna. Page 238
  • [Page]8. Touching the Angel of the Church of Pergamus, and of Thiatyra. ibid.
  • 9. As also of the Churches of Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Page 239
  • 10. What Successors these several Angels had in their several Churches. Page 240
  • 11. Of other Churches founded in Episcopacy by Saint John the Apostle. ibid.
  • 12. Saint John deceasing, left the Government of the Church to Bishops, as to the Successours of the Apostles. Page 241
  • 13. The ordinary Pastors of the Church. Page 242
  • 14. And the Vicars of Christ. Page 243
  • 15. A brief Chronologic of the estate of holy Church, in this first Century. Page 244

PART II.

CHAP. I. What doth occur concerning Bishops, and the Government of the Church by them, during the first half of the second Century.
  • 1. OF the condition of the Church of Corinth, when Clemens wrote unto them his E­pistle. Page 249
  • 2. What that Epistle doth contain in reference to this point in hand. Page 250
  • 3. That by Episcopi, he meaneth Bishops truly and properly so called, proved by the scope of the Epistle. Page 251
  • 4. And by a text of Scripture therein cited. ibid.
  • 5. Of the Episcopal Succession in the Church of Corinth. Page 252
  • 6. The Canons of the Apostles ascribed to Cle­mens, what they say of Bishops. Page 253
  • 7. A Bishop not to be ordained under three or two at least of the same Order. ibid.
  • 8. Bishops not barred by these Canons from any Secular affairs, as concern their Families. Page 254
  • 9. How far by them restrained from the employ­ments of the Common-wealth. ibid.
  • 10. The jurisdiction over Presbyters, given to the Bishops by those Canons. Page 255
  • 11. Rome divided into Parishes, or tituli, by Pope Euaristus. Page 256
  • 12. The reasons why Presbyteries or Colleges of Presbyters, were planted first in Cities. ibid.
  • 13. Touching the superiority over all the flock gi­ven to the Bishop by Ignatius. Page 257
  • 14. As also of the Jurisdiction by him, allowed them. Page 258
  • 15. The same exemplified in the works of Justin Martyr. Page 259
CHAP. II. The setling of Episcopacy together with the Gospel, in the Isle of Britain, by Pope Eleu­therius.
  • 1. What Bishops Egesippus met with in his Pere­grination; and what he testifieth of them. Page 260
  • 2. Of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, and of the Bishops by him mentioned. ibid.
  • 3. How Bishops came to be ordained, where none were left by the Apostles. Page 261
  • 4. The setling of the Gospel in the Isle of Britain by Pope Eleutherius. Page 262
  • 5. Of the Condition of the Church of Britain from the first preaching of the Gospel there, till the time of Lucius. Page 263
  • 6. That Lucius was a King in those parts of Bri­tain which we now call England. Page 264
  • 7. Of the Episcopal Sees here founded by King Lucius at that time. Page 265
  • 8. Touching the Flamines and Arch-flamines, which those Stories speak of. ibid.
  • 9. What is most like to be the reason of the number of the Arch-bishopricks and Bishopricks here, of old established. Page 266
  • 10. Of the Successors, which the Bishops of this Ordination are found to have on true Record. Page 267
  • 11. Which of the British Metropolitans was antiently the Primate of that Nation. Page 268
CHAP. III. The Testimony given to Episcopal Authority, in the last part of this second Century.
  • 1. The difference betwixt Pope Victor and the Asian Bishops, about the Feast of Easter. Page 269
  • 2. The interpleading of Polycrates and Irenaeus, two renowned Prelates, in the aforesaid cause. Page 270
  • 3. Several Councils called about it, by the Bishops of the Church then being; with observations on the same. ibid.
  • 4. Of the Episcopal Succession in the four prime Sees, for this second Century. Page 271
  • 5. An Answer to some Objections made against the same. Page 272
  • 6. The great authority and esteem of the said four Sees, in those early days. ibid.
  • 7. The use made of this Episcopal Succession by Saint Irenaeus. Page 273
  • 8. As also in Tertullian, and some other Anti­ents. Page 274
  • 9. Of the authority enjoyed by Bishops in Tertul­lians time, in the administration of the Sacra­ments. Page 275
  • 10. As also in enjoyning Fasts, and the disposing of the Churches treasury. ibid.
  • 11. And in the dispensation of the Keys. Page 276
  • [Page]12. Tertullian misalledged in maintenance of the Lay-Presbytery. Page 277
  • 13. The great extent of Christianity and Episco­pacy, in Tertullians time, concludes this Cen­tury. Page 278
CHAP. IV. Of the Authority in the Government of the Church of Carthage, enjoyed and exercised by Saint Cyprian and other Bishops of the same.
  • 1. Of the foundation and preheminence of the Church of Carthage, Page 279
  • 2. Of Agrippinus and Donatus, two of Saint Cyprian's Predecessors. ibid.
  • 3. The troublesome condition of that Church, at Cyprian's first being Bishop there. Page 280
  • 4. Necessitated him to permit some things to the discretion of his Presbyters, and consent of the People. Page 281
  • 5. Of the Authority ascribed by Cyprian to the People, in the Election of their Bishop. Page 282
  • 6. What power the People had de facto, in the said Elections. ibid.
  • 7. How far the testimony rf the People was re­quired in the Ordination of their Presbyters. Page 283
  • 8. The power of Excommunication reserved by Saint Cyprian, to the Bishop only. Page 284
  • 9. No Reconciliation of a Penitent allowed by Cyprian without the Bishops leave and licence. Page 285
  • 10. The Bishop's power as well in the encourage­ment, as in the punishment and censure of his Clergy, Page 286
  • 11. The memorable case of Geminius Faustinus, one of the Presbyters of Carthage, Page 287
  • 12. The Bishop's power in regulating and declaring Martyrs, Page 288
  • 13. The Divine Right, and eminent Authority of Bishops fully asserted by Saint Cyprian. Page 289
CHAP. V. Of the condition and affairs of the two Patri­archal Churches of Alexandria, and Antiochia.
  • 1. Of the foundation and first Professors of the Di­vinity-School in Alexandria. Page 290
  • 2. What is affirmed by Clemens, one of those Pro­fessors concerning Bishops, Page 291
  • 3. Origen the Divinity Reader there, permitted to expound the Scriptures, in the presence of the Bishop of Caesarea, ibid.
  • 4. Contrary to the custom of the Alexandrian and Western Churches, Page 292
  • 5. Origen ordained Presbyter by the Bishops of Hierusalem and Caesarea, and excommunicated by the Bishop of Alexandria, Page 293
  • 6. What doth occur touching the superiority and power of Bishops in the Works of Origen, ibid.
  • 7. The custom of the Church of Alexandria altered in the election of their Bishops, Page 294
  • 8. Of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, and his great care and travels for the Churches peac, Page 295
  • 9. The Government of the Church in the former times, by Letters of intercourse and correspon­dence amongst the Bishops of the same, ibid.
  • 10. The same continued also in the present Century, Page 296
  • 11. The speedy course taken by the Prelats of the Church, for the suppressing of the Heresies of Sa­mosatenus, Page 297
  • 12. The Civil Jurisdiction, Train, and Throne of Bishops, things not unusual in this Age, Page 298
  • 13. The Bishops of Italy and Rome, made Judges in a point of title and possession, by the Roman Emperour, Page 299
  • 14. The Bishops of Italy and Rome, why reckoned as distinct in that Delegation. Page 300
CHAP. VI. Of the estate wherein Episcopacy stood in the Western Churches, during the whole third Century.
  • 1. Of Zepherinus Pope of Rome, and the Decrees ascribed unto him concerning Bishops, Page 301
  • 2. Of the condition of that Church, when Corne­lius was chosen Bishop thereof, Page 302
  • 3. The Schism raised in Rome by Novatianus; with the proceedings of the Church therein, Page 303
  • 4. Considerable observations on the former story, Page 304
  • 5. Parishes set forth in Country Villages, by P. Dio­nysius, ibid.
  • 6. What the words [...] and [...] do sig­nifie most properly in ancient Writers, Page 305
  • 7. The great Authority which did accrue unto the Presbyters, by the setting forth of Parishes, Page 306
  • 8. The rite of Confirmation, reserved by Bishops to themselves, as their own Prerogative, Page 307
  • 9. Touching the ancient Chorepiscopi, and the Authority to them entrusted, Page 308
  • 10. The rising of the Manichean Heresie, with the great care taken by the Bishops for the crushing of it, Page 309
  • 11. The lapse of Marcellinus Pope of Rome; with the proceedings the Church in his condem­nation, Page 310
  • 12. The Council of Eliberis in Spain, what it de­creed in honour of Episcopacy, Page 311
  • 13. Constantine comes unto the Empire with a brief prospect of the great honours done to Bishops in the following Age, Page 312
  • 14. A brief Chronology of the estate of holy Church, in these two last Centuries, Page 314

The History of the Sabbath.

BOOK I. From the Creation of the World to the destruction of the Temple.

CHAP. I. That the Sabbath was not instituted in the Be­ginning of the World.
  • 1. THE entrance to the Work in hand, Page 325
  • 2. That those words, Gen. 2. And God blessed the seventh day, &c. are there deli­vered as by way of anticipation, Page 326
  • 3. Anticipations in the Scripture confessed by them, who deny it here, Page 327
  • 4. Anticipations of the same nature not strange in Scripture, Page 328
  • 5. No Law imposed by God on Adam, touching the keeping of the Sabbath, Page 329
  • 6. The Sabbath not ingraft by Nature in the soul of man, ibid.
  • 7. The greatest Advocates for the Sabbath, deny it to be any part of the Law of Nature, Page 330
  • 8. Of the morality and perfection, supposed to be in the number of seven, by some learned men, Page 331
  • 9. That other numbers in the confession of the same learned men, particularly the first, third, and fourth, are both as moral, and as perfect as the seventh, ibid.
  • 10. The like is proved of the sixth, eighth, and tenth, and of other numbers, Page 332
  • 11. The Scripture not more favourable to the num­ber of seven, than it is to others, Page 333
  • 12. Great caution to be used by those who love to re­create themselves in the mysteries of numbers, Page 334
CHAP. II. That there was no Sabbath kept, from the Cre­ation to the Flood.
  • 1. Gods rest upon the Seventh day, and from what he rested, Page 335
  • 2. Zanchius conceit touching the Sanctifying of the first Seventh day, by Christ our Saviour, Page 336
  • 3. The like of Torniellus, touching the Sanctify­ing of the same, by the Angels in Heaven, ibid.
  • 4. A general demonstration that the Fathers before the Law did not keep the Sabbath, Page 337
  • 5. Of Adam, that he kept not the Sabbath, ibid.
  • 6. That Abel and Seth did not keep the Sabbath, Page 333
  • 7. Of Enos, that he kept not the Sabbath, Page 339
  • 8. That Enoch and Methusalem did not keep the Sabbath, ibid.
  • 9. Of Noah, that he kept not the Sabbath, Page 340
  • 10. The Sacrifices and devotions of the Ancients were occasional. ibid.
CHAP. III. That the Sabbath was not kept from the Flood to Moses.
  • 1. The Sons of Noah did not keep the Sabbath, Page 341
  • 2. The Sabbath could not have been kept in the dis­persion of Noahs Sons, had it not been com­manded, Page 342
  • 3. Diversity of Longitudes and Latitudes, must of necessity make a variation in the Sabbath, Page 343
  • 4. Melchisedech, Heber, Lot, did not keep the Sabbath, Page 344
  • 5. Of Abraham and his Sons, that they kept not the Sabbath, ibid.
  • 6. That Abraham did not keep the Sabbath in the confession of the Jews, Page 345
  • 7. Jacob nor Job no Sabbath-keepers. ibid.
  • 8. That neither Joseph, Moses, nor the Israelites in Egypt did observe the Sabbath. Page 346
  • 9. The Israelites not permitted to offer Sacrifice while they were in Egypt, ibid.
  • 10. Particular proofs that all the Moral Law was both known and kept amongst the Fathers. Page 347
CHAP. IV. The nature of the fourth Commandment: and that the Sabbath was not kept among the Gentiles.
  • 1. The Sabbath first made known in the fall of Mannah, Page 348
  • 2. The giving of the Decalogue; and how far it bindeth, Page 349
  • 3. That in the judgment of the Fathers, in the Christian Church, the fourth Commandment is of a different nature from the other nine, Page 350
  • 4. The Sabbath was first given for a Law by Moses. Page 351
  • 5. And being given, was proper only to the Jews, Page 352
  • [Page]6. What moved the Lord to give the Israelites a Sabbath, ibid.
  • 7. Why the seventh day was rather chosen for the Sabbath than any other, Page 353
  • 8. The seventh day not more honoured by the Gen­tiles than the eighth or ninth, Page 354
  • 9. The Attributes given by some Greek Poets to the seventh day, no argument that they kept the the Sabbath, Page 355
  • 10. The Jews derided for their Sabbath, by the Grecians, Romans, and Egyptians, Page 356
  • 11. The division of the year into weeks not generally used of old, amongst the Gentiles. Page 357
CHAP. V. The practice of the Jews in such observances as were annexed unto the Sabbath.
  • 1. Of some particular adjuncts affixed unto the Jewish Sabbath, Page 358
  • 2. The Annual Festivals called Sabbaths in the Book of God, and reckoned as a part of the fourth Commandment, Page 359
  • 3. The Annual Sabbaths no less solemnly observed and celebrated than the weekly were, if not more solemnly, Page 360
  • 4. Of the Parasceue or Preparation to the Sab­bath and the solemn Festivals, Page 361
  • 5. All manner of work as well forbidden on the An­nual as the weekly Sabbaths, Page 362
  • 6. What things were lawful to be done on the Sab­bath days, Page 363
  • 7. Touching the prohibitions of not kindling fire, and not dressing meat, Page 364
  • 8. What moved the Gentiles generally to charge the Jews with Fasting on the Sabbath day, Page 365
  • 9. Touching this Prohibition, Let no man go out of his place on the Sabbath day, Page 366
  • 10, All lawful recreations, as Dancing, Feasting, Man-like Exercises, allowed and practised by the Jews upon their Sabbaths. ibid.
CHAP. VI. Touching the observation of the Sabbath, unto the time the People were established in the Promised Land.
  • 1. The Sabbath not kept constantly during the time the People wandred in the Wilderness, Page 368
  • 2. Of him that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day, ibid.
  • 3. Wherein the sanctifying of the Sabbath did con­sist, in the time of Moses, Page 369
  • 4. The Law not ordered to be read in the Congre­gation every Sabbath day, Page 370
  • 5. The sack of Hiericho, and the destruction of that People was upon the Sabbath, Page 371
  • 6. No Sabbath, after this, without Circumcision, and how that Ceremony could consist with the Sabbaths rest, Page 372
  • 7. What moved the Jews, to prefer Circumcision be­fore the Sabbath, Page 373
  • 8. The standing still of the Sun at the prayers of Josuah, &c. could not but make some alteration about the Sabbath, ibid.
  • 9. What was the Priests work on the Sabbath day; and whether it might stand with the Sabbaths rest, Page 374
  • 10. The scattering of the Levites over all the Tribes, had no relation unto the reading of the Law on the Sabbath-days. Page 375
CHAP. VII. Touching the keeping of the Sabbath, from the time of David to the Maccabees.
  • 1. Particular necessities must give place to the Law of Nature, Page 376
  • 2. That Davids flight from Saul was upon the Sabbath, Page 377
  • 3. What David did, being King of Israel, in order­ing things about the Sabbath, ibid.
  • 4. Elijahs flight upon the Sabbath, and what else hapned on the Sabbath in Elijah's time. Page 378
  • 5. The limitation of a Sabbath days journey, not known amongst the Jews when Elisha lived, Page 379
  • 6. The Lord becomes offended with the Jewish Sabb