vvhich is the proper signification of the Greek vvord here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense vvith the Latine create liberos as I sayd I know how much dispute there is that our Lord when he sayth The Father is greater then I is to be understood of his humane nature VVhich to me I confesse seems very hard that our Saviour should tell his Disciples for their comfort that God is greater then man and that therefore they ought to be comforted because he was going to God And having alwaies given this reason vvhy the eternall VVord of God was imployed in redeeming mankind because it came from God from everlasting I find that the priviledge of being the fountain of the Godhead vvhich is of necessity proper to the Father alone importeth that which the Sonne and the holy Ghost cannot have Not as if they had not the Godhead which is the same in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost But because they have it not from themselves and that it is necessarily more to give then to receive Whereupon it cannot be denied that the Sonne and the holy Ghost though honoured with the titles works attributes and worship of God are neverthelesse expressed and signified by the Scriptures as depending upon the Father and as something of his namely his Sonne and his Spirit though the same God also neverthelesse And this is without doubt the true answer to most of what Crellius brings in the second part of his first book De Deo that our Lord came not from himself nor to do his own will or to seek his own glory that he that believeth in him believeth not in him but in the Father that sent him John XII 4â— that he was called of God as Aaron Heb. V. 4. 5. that he received instruction from the Father that he prays to him that his words and workes are not his own but his Fathers and much more containing one and the very same difficulty which is assoiled by saying That wheresoever the weaknesse of his humane nature is not signified by the importance of what is said the rest is to be referred to the commission which he undertook to execute in our flesh which Commission supposes his coming from the Father of everlasting as the ground and reason of his undertaking of it This is that which the Prophet David signifieth Psalm XL. 7 8 9. Sacrifice and meat offering thou desirest none mine ears hast thou bored Which the Apostle Heb X. 9. quotes thus A body hast thou fitted for me The taking of our flesh being his giving up of himself for a servant to do Gods message in it as the servant that had his ear bored was to be free no more Exod. XXI 5. Burnt offering and sacrifice for sinne thou acceptest not Then said I loe I come To do thy will O God written of me in the voâ—lume of the Book is my desire yea thy Law is within my heart For his freedome in undertaking this commission as it supposeth a ground why it should be tendered so it importeth that obedience which God rewardeth And this is the cause why our Saviour tells his disciples If you loved me you would be glad that I go to my Father because the Father â—â— greater then I For if the Commission came from him then is he to performe all that the execution thereof inferreth That is to exalt our Lord to that estate which his disciples would be glad of if they knew what it were Nor let any man think that there is any danger of Arrius his heresie in all this I confesse the reasons I have advanced against Socinus do not formally destroy the pretense of the Arrians And the reason is because I find that I cannot kill those two birds with one stone Nor make the reasons that I advance to evidence the meaning of these Scriptures which are in question not to be that which Socinus would have to reach so farre as expresly and formally to destroy that sense which Arrius pretendeth I am confident that who will take the paines to consider that the Word was in the beginning when all was made shall have no ground to say that there was another beginning before the beginning of all things when that Word was made That this word was with God at the beginning as his bosome counseller Shall not sâ—y when God wanted his counsell That this Word was God Shall not say that any Christian is to count that God which is made of nothing That all things were made by it That any thing was made by that which is not God That the glory thereof in our flesh is the glory of the onely begotten Sonne of the Father shall make any difference between the honour of the Father and the honour of the Sonne And so I count it enough that the sense of the Scriptures here pleaded hath in it enough to resist the Arians with though this resistance be not here expressed But thus much is evident that as the Latine Fathers especially since S. Augustine have understood these words to be meant of our Lord Christ according to his humane nature so the Greek Fathers have understood them to be true even according to the divine nature upon that reason which I have declared And S. Hilary of the Latine Church though afore S. Augustine expresseth the reason which I have alledged ab authoritate originis because the priviledge of being Author and originall in respect of the Sonne and holy Ghost is that which they in respect of the Father can have nothing to countervail And this I say because I am perswaded that it is a consideration necessary to the maintaining and evidencing of the Tradition of the Church in this point For those that understand the state of this dispute must needs know that the most ancient writers of the Church Justine the Martyr Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Origen and the rest that were before the Council of Nicaea do speak of the Sonne of God as of the Minister and workman to execute the counsels of God in making and governing of the World And therefore are spoken of by very learned men of these times enemies enough to those Heresies as men to be suspected in the sincerity of the Christiane Faith A thing not to be marvailed at in those that believe the expresse act and decree of the present Church to be the reason and ground of believing For upon that account what hinders that to become matter of Faith being decreed by those which are enabled on behalf of the Church which was not matter of Faith an hour before But those that draw the reason why they believe from the evidence which the society communion of the church tender to common sense that nothing could be refused by the whole body thereof but that which appeared to all contrary to that which all have received from the beginning will count it a violent abuse to all reason to make the Christiane Faith larger
though first penned in Ebrew yet was translated into Greek in Aegypt as the Prefice witnesses Supposing then the interest of Christianity against Judaism to consist in that which the Fathers of the Church do plead That the same Word and Wisedom of God which first dealt with the Patriarchs which gave the Law to Moses and afterwards spoke by the Prophets in after time dwelt in our Lord Christ Jesus and delivered the Gospel I demand what could have been said more to the purpose of Christianity against Judaism by those that lived under Moses Law There is a question whether the Apostles S. Paul and whosoever it was that writ the Epistle to the Ebrews do allege these Books and allow them for their Authors when they call our Lord Christ the Image of God 2 Cor. II. 4. the Image of the invisible God Col. I. 15. the resplendence of the glory of God and the express image of his substance Ebr. I. 3. the Power of God and the Wisedom of God 1 Cor. I. 24. When they say that all things in heaven and earth were created by him and to him and subsist through him as the first-born of the whole creature Col. I. 16 17. that the world was made by him and that hee sustaineth and moveth all things by his powerfull word Ebr. I. 2 3. For how like are these things to those which wee reade in Ecclesiasticus I. 1 4. All wisedom cometh from the Lord and is with him for everlasting Wisedom was made before all things and the understanding of prudence from everlasting And XXIV 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before the world from the beginning hee made mee and for ever I fail not Having said in the beginning of the Chapter according to the Latine Copy Ego ex ore Altissimi prodivi primogenita ante omnem creaturam I came forth of the mouth of the most High the first born before every creature And again Ecclesiasticus I. 9 10. The Lord himself made her and saw and numbred her and poured her upon all his works With all flesh shee is according to his gift and hee furnisheth her to them that love him And XXIV 5-9 I came out of the most High and covered the earth like a mist I dwell in the highest and my throne is in the pilar of cloud I alone compass the circumference of heaven and walk in the bottom of the deep In the waves of the sea and in all the earth in every people and nation is my inheritance Adding that seeking rest among men shee found it no where but in Israel And in the book of Wisedom VII 22 -27 For there is in Wisedom an understanding spirit holy onely begotten manifold subtile thinn nimble perspicuous undefiled plain to be understood inviolable loving goodness quick not to be hindred beneficent loving to men firm sure not solicitous that can do any thing that survayeth all things and passeth through the purest and finest understanding spirits For Wisedom is nimbler than all motions and attaineth and passith through all things because of her pureness For it is a vapor of the power of God and a sincere effluence of the glory of the Almighty therefore no pollution can happen to it For it is the resplendence of the everlasting light the unspotted mirror of Gods working and the image of his goodness Which being one can do all things and remaining in her self reneweth all things and passing into pious souls in all ages makes them friends of God and Prophets And IX 9 10 11. And with thee is Wisedom that knoweth thy works and was present when thou madest the world and knoweth what is pleasing in thine eyes and right in thy commands Send her from thy holy heavens and from the throne of thy glory that shee may assist and labor with mee and I may know what is pleasing before thee For shee knoweth and understandeth all things and will guide mee wisely in my doings and keep mee in her glory Can any man reade these things and not remember the beginning of S. Johns Gospel In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The same was in the beginning with God All things were made by it and without it was nothing made that was made Can any man conceive that the Apostles should call our Lord Christ the Word the Power and the Wisedom of God that made all things in heaven and in earth it self being brought forth before all creatures supporting and moving all things which was with God from everlasting that hee is the image of God the shine of his glory the character of his substance That the successors of the Prophets should describe the Wisedom of God to be the Word of God that dwelt in the Prophets and the Power of God that made all things being it self brought forth before all things that sustaineth and governeth all things to dwell by the throne of God as the shine of his light the miror of his works the breath and vapor of his power and glory and from thence to come and take possession of the souls of Prophets and not acknowledg all this to come from the same fountain Especially being perswaded afore as all that are not Jews must be perswaded that the same Spirit and Word of God qualified as Wisedom describeth it which possessing the souls of righteous men in that measure whereof each of them was capable made them Gods Prophets dwelt in Christ without measure according to the fulnesse of the Godhead as the Apostles have told and said John I. 14 16. III. 34. Col. II. 9 10. Truly if any man say as I know it is said that the same sense may be derived by the Apostles from the glory of God in Ezek. I. 28. from the attributes of the Messias Psal II. 7. 2 Sam. VII 14. Esa IX 6. from the making of the world by Gods wisedom recorded Psal XXXIII 5. CXXXVI 5. Jeremy LI. 15. X. 12. especially from that which Solomon hath written of Wisedom being present with God from everlasting and doing all his works Prov. VIII 11-31 I will not contend with him about it Though in my own judgment seeing it cannot reasonably be denied that these writings being extant long afore went then with the rest of the Greek Bible And seeing the texts that are alleged do not direct us to understand how the Word and Spirit and Wisedom of God by which the Law and the Prophets spoke dwelleth for ever in our Lord Christ as these passages of their Successors do I do firmly believe that they signifie their allowance of them whose doctrine they use But it is enough that it may hereby appear as it must needs appear that they give us good and sound commentaries upon so high a point of the Prophets doctrine their predecessors when the Apostles that follow them hold such correspondence with them in it Onely hereupon I will from hence draw the reason why the inward obedience to
of the Holy Ghost Where you see that upon inlightning that is Baptism we become partakers of the Holy Ghost And this consideration utterly voides the only reason why our Lord when he sayes to Nicodemus John III. 5. Verily verily I say unto thee unlesse a man be born again of waâ—er and of the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God should not seem to speak of the Sacrament of Baptism For at that time neither was the Sacrament of Baptism instituted nor the promise of the Holy Ghost annexed to it The Holy Ghost that is to say the gift of the Holy Ghost is no where promised before the ascension of Christ For besides that which I alledged in the beginning to show that it presupposeth Christianity When it is said John VII 37. The Holy Ghost was not yet because Christ was not yet glorified The dependance thereof upon the glorifying of our Lord is plainly expressed And that according to S. Paul Ephes IV. 8. 12. Shewing out of Psal LXVIII 18. that the graces of the Holy Ghost by which the Church is united and compacted into one Body are sent down by God as a largess in consideration of the advancement of our Lord to the right hand of God as in honour of that triumph Wherewith agreeth S. Peter Acts II. 33. Being then exalted to or by the right hand of God and having received the gift of the Holy Ghost as it is also called Acts X. 54. he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear Now let any man say that these visible operations of Holy Ghost whereby the world was to be convinced of the presence of God in the Church of Christians these indeed depend upon the ascension of Christ But without the invisible operation of the Holy Ghost no man ever to salvation from the beginning supposing this for the present but not granting it if any man that is a Christian demand proof for it Though this be true yet it was not expresly promised by God nor expresly Covenanted for by man till the publishing of Christianity upon the ascension of Christ Therefore the Baptism of repentance which John preached was without question effectuall to the remission of sins as the Gospels propose it Mark I. 4. Luke III. 3 For if I maintain the salvation of those who living under the Law understood the Covenant of Grace to be folded up in it by the preaching of the Prophets much more easily can I maintain the salvation of those who have imbraced the Baptism of Repentance for remission of sins which Joâ—n Preached provided that they came to Christ to whom John Baptist sent his Disciples so soon as the command of Christianity should take place and not otherwise But not by vertue of the Covenant of Grace published which it was not to be till the ascention of Christ but by vertue of the Covenant of Grace vailed under the Law which was not unvailed as yet during the time of passage from the Law to the Gospel when the baptism of John might take place Neither was the baptism of John in the name of the Father Son and the Holy Ghost which baptism our Lord never established till after his rising again Mat. XXVIII 19. but in the name of him that was comming as S. Paul saith to the Disciples Acts XIX 4. John truly baptised the baptism of repentance saing to the people that they should believe on him that was comming after him that is in Christ Jesus which words some have endeavoured to set upon the rack and to pull them from those which follow but they hearing this were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus as if they were not S. Lukes words but S. Pauls speaking of S. John's hearers that they were baptized by him in the name of the Lord Jesus A thing altogether unreasonable to imagine that the Disciples of John should make a question whether our L. Jesus were the Christ or not as Mat. XI 2. Luke VII 18. if they had been from the beginning baptized in his Name And the words might have served to represse this conceit in them that had submitted to take the meaning from the words For it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which their meaning were it the meaning of the text would require Nor is it strange that they who had been baptized into the profession of admitting him that was comming for the Christ in hope by him to have remission of sins as their Fathers had alwayes hoped acknowledging our Lord Jesus not only to be the Christ but further sent by the Father to send the Holy Ghost should be baptized again in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost For the receiving of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of S. Pauls hands which followeth in S. Luke is sufficient evidence that it is the baptism of Christ and not of John Baptist whereof he speaketh Let us hear then the Commission of our Lord Christ to his Apostles Mat. XXVIII 19. Go make Disciples all Nation babtizing them in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek in the Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we insist upon the property of the word must necessarily signifie make Disciples But who are Christs Disciples Those that take up his Crosse to follow him Those that will do whatsoever he commandeth Those that bear much fruit Those of whom our Lord saith John VIII 34. If ye abide in my Word then are ye truly my Disciples As I shewed you before speaking of the profession of Christianity This before Christs death and the institution of Baptism Afterwards who are his Disciples Acts XI 26. It came to passe that the Disciples were first called Christians at Antivchia First at Antiochia but afterwards all over that Book as well as afore they are oftner called Disciples then Christians Neither is the name given to any but Christians saving those Disciples which I spoke of just now who under the baptism of John had given up themselves to our Lord Jesus as the Christ but through invincible ignorance knew not yet that the gift of the Holy Ghost presupposed Christs Baptism being ready as we see to receive it so soon as they understood it by the means of S. Paul Now there is nothing more manifest than that the gift of the holy Ghost is promised by our Lord in the Gospel to supply the want of his bodily presence and therefore when he declared unto them his departure and not much afore it Which things if they be true of necessity the promise of the Holy Ghost is annexed to the precept of being baptized given by our Lord at his departure and from that time to take place Neither is the meaning of his commission in the words alledged that they should first teach and then baptize though teaching that which Christianity professeth
is admitted to Baptism is likewise invested with a right and due title to the promises of the Gospel remission of sâ—nnes and everlasting life As it may appear to all that hâ—ve contracted with the Church of England in Gods name that continuing in that which they professed and undertook on ttheir part at their Baptism they are â—ssured of no lesse by the Church And therefore this is and ought to be accounted that power of the Keyes by which men are admitted to the House of God which is his Church as S. Paul saith At least that part of it that is seen and exercised in this first office that the Church can minister to a Christian And seeing no man can challenge the priviledge of that communion to which he is admitted upon condition of that profession which Baptism supposed unlesse he proceed to live according to it it cannot seem strange that the same should be thought to be exercised in the celebration of the Eucharist as it is done with a purpose to communicate the Sacrament thereof to those that receive I shall desire any man that counts this sâ—râ—nge to consider that which I quoted even now out of Epiphanius That the Patriarch of the Jews at Tiberias being baptized by the Bishop put a considerable sum of Gold into his hand saying Offer for me For it is written Whatsoever ye bind on â—atrh shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye lose on earth shall be losed in heaven For so it follows in Epiphanius And when S. Cyprian blames or forbids offering up the names or offering up the Eucharist in the names of those that had fallen away from the Church in time of persecution till they were reconciled to the Church by Penance doth he not exercise the power of the Keyes in his hands by denying the benefit of those Prayers which the Eucharist is celebrated with to them who had forfeited their right to it by failing of that which by their baptism they undertook As on the other side whosoever the Eucharist is offered for that is whosoever hath a part in those Prayers which it is celebrated with is thereby declared loose by the Church upon supposition that he is indeed what he professes And whatsoever Canons of the Church there are of which there are not a few which take order that the offerings of such or such shall or shall not be received they all proceed upon this suppoâ—â—tion that by the power of the Keys they are to be allowed or refused their part of benefit in the Communion of the Eucharist and the effects of iâ— For not to speak of what is by the corruption of men but what ought to be by the appointment of God it is manifest that the admission of a man to the communion of the Eucharist is an allowance of his Christianity as conâ—ormable to that which Baptism professeth though in no sâ—ate of the Church it is a sufficient and reasonable presumption that a man is indeed and before God intitled to the promises of the Gospel that he is admitted to the communion of the Eucharist by the Church because whatsoever profession the Church can receive may be counâ—erfeit But so that it is to be indeavoured by all means possible for the Church to use that the right of communicating with the Church in the Sacrament of the Eucharist be not allowed any man by the Church but upon such terms and according to such laws that a man being qualified according to them may be really and indeed qualified for those promises which the Gospell tendreth Which being supposed every Christian must of necessity acknowledge how great and eminent a power the Lord hath trusted his Church with in celebrating and giving of the Eucharist when he is convinced to believe that the body and blood of Christ is thereby tendred him though mystically and as in a Sacrament yet so truly that the spirit of Christ is no lesse really present with it to inable the souls of all them that receive it with sincere Christianity then the Sacrament is to their bodies or then the same spirit is present in the flesh and bloud of Christ naturally being in the heavens For suppose that by faith alone without receiving this Sacrament a man is assured of the spirit of Christ as by faith alone understanding faith alone as S. Paul meant it I shall show that he may be assured of it yet if he have determined a visible act to be done to the due performance whereof he hath annexed a promise of the participation of the Spirit of Christ by our Spirit no lesse then of the body â—nd blood of Christ Sacramentally present by our bodies And if he hath made the doing of this a part of the Christianity which under the title of Faith alone inâ—iâ—leth to promises of the Gospell for who can be said to professe Christianity that owneth not such an Ordinâ—nce upon such a promise Then hath he determined and limited the truth of that faith which onely justifieth us at the beginning of every mans Christianity to the Sacrament of Baptism but in the proceeding of the same to that of the Eucharist These being the first Powers of the Church and having resolved from the beginning that the power of the Church extends to the deterâ—ining or limiting of any thing requisite to the communion of the Church the determination or limitation wherof by such an act as ought to have the force of Law to them that are of the Church becomes requisite to the communion of Christians in the offices of Gods service in unity I cannot see any of the controversies whereby we stand now divided that can deserve a place in our consideration before that of the Baptism of Infants For as it is a dispute belonging to the first and originall power of the Church to consider whether it extend so farre as when it is acknowledged that there is no written Law of God to that purpose that it may and justly hath provided that all the Children of Christian Parents be baptized Infants so it will apear to concern their salvation more immediately then other Laws limiting the exercise of the Churches power or the circumstances of exercising those offices of God service which it tendeth to determine can be thought to do But Before I come to dispute this point I will here take notice once more of the Book called the Doctrine of Baptisms one of the fruits of this blessed Reformation commonly attributed to the Master of a Colledge in Cambridge proving by a studied dispute that it was never intended by our Lord Christ and his Apostles that Christians should be Baptized at all That John indeed was sent to baptize with water but that the Baptism of Christ is baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire And so long as the Ceremonies of the Law were not abolished in point of fact though become void in point of right so long also baptism by water was practised by the Apostles as
shall confirme it by so visible an instance as this Death was proposed to Adam for the mark of Gods wrath and vengeance which he was become liable to by sinne The turning of this curse into a blessing was to be the effect of Christs Crosse which was not yet to be revealed The life of the Land of Promise was proposed for the reward of keeping Gods law in stead of the life of Paradise Therefore the cutting off of that life was to be taken for a mark of that curse which mankind became subject to by the first Adam till it should be declared the way to a better life by the Crosse of Christ Therefore the Giants that left it with the markes of enmity with God upon them are described as within the dominion of Hell but not asleep unlesse we can think that it is a mark of misery to go to them that sleep when all do sleep Prov. II. 17. IX 18. XXI 17. Esay XXVI 14. For that there should be no praising of God after death holds punctually in virtue of the Old Covenant which brought no man to life and was then on foot though they who writ those things might and did know that by the virtue of the New Covenant under which they knew themselves to be they should not be deprived of the priviledge of praising God after death and before the resurrection how sparing soever they were to be in imparting this knowledge openly to all the world For how otherwise should they whom the Apostle Ebr. XI declareth to have sought the kingdom of heaven have showed themselves otherwise affected with death then the Martyrs that suffered for Christ were afterwards How could it be thought the same Spirit that moved them to such a difference of effects according to the difference of time And therefore the same Solomon that saith there is nothing to be done in the grave Eccles IX 10. saith further Eccles XII 8. that when the dust returns to the earth then the soul returns to God that gave it And when Exoch and Elias were taken away by God in their Bodies neither sleep they seeing Moses and Elias attend our Lord Christ at his transfiguration Mat. XVII 3 4. Mark IX 4 5. Luke IX 30. nor is it possible for any man that would have soules to sleep to give a reason why the Covenant by which all are ordered being the same the soules of Christians should sleep when their souls sleep not And therefore when our Lord proves the resurrection by this That God is called the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob whereas God is not the God of the dead but of the living Mat. XXII 32. Mark XII 26. Luke XX. 37. he not onely supposes that his argument is good but that his adversaries the Sadduces granted it to be good And so Saint Paul when he argues that if the dead rise not againe then are we the most miserable of all people As having no further hope then this life 1 Cor. XV. 19. For what needed more to them that owned the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ and yet would deny the world to come questioning the resurrection that supposes it For the rest I will not repeate that which I produced afore out of the Books we call Apocrypha which he that peruseth will find a difference between the language of the Patriarchs and Prophets speaking of themselves and the language of those Bookes speaking of them But I will insist upon this that our Lord when he proposeth the Parable of Dives and Lazarus manifestly accepts of that opinion which notwithstanding such difficulties from the Scriptures of the Old Testament had prevailed over the better part of that people by Tradition of the Fathers and Prophets To wit that the soules of good and bad are alive in joy and paine according to the qualities in which they depart hence and shall resume their bodies to give account in them for their workes here The same doth the appearance of Moses and Elias at his transfiguration the rendering of his soul into his Fathers hand the promise of bringing the thiefe into Paradise the same day signify Whereby it appeareth that whatsoever might seeme to argue either that the soules of the Fathers were in the devils hands till the death and resurrection of Christ or that all soules go out like sparks when men dy and are kindled anew when they rise againe prove nothing because they prove too much For if they prove any thing they must prove that there is no world to come as the disputes of Ecclesiastes and Job seem to say because by the accidents of this world there is no ground of a mans estate in it Which seeing it is so farre from leaving any dispute among Christians that among Jewes the Sadduces were reputed Sectaries It is evident that whatsoever may seem to look that way in the Old Testament cannot prove that the soules of the Fathers were in the Verge of Hell till Christ riseing againe the graves were opened and many bodies of Saints which slept arose and came out of the graves after his resurrection and went into the holy City and appeared to many as we read in the Gospel of Mat. XXVII 52 53. This indeed were something if the Scripture had said that those Saints who arose with their bodies when our Lord Christ was risen againe had ascended into heaven with him in their bodies Which because it derogates from the generallity of the last resurrection having no ground in the Scripture can beare no dispute Therefore seeing these Saints as Lazarus afore and the Widowes sonne of Naim whom our Lord raised restored their bodies to the grave there is no presumption from hence that their soules were brought from Hell by our Lord to be translated into the full happinesse of the world to come with his owne I do therefore allow that which is written in the Apocryphall 2 Esdras IV. 41 42. In the grave the chambers of souls are like the womb of a woman For like as a woman that travaileth maketh hast to escape the pressure of her travaile Even so do those places haste to deliver the things that are committed unto them And VII 32. And the earth shall restore those that are asleep in her and so shall the dust those that dwell in silence and the secret places shall deliver those soules that were committed unto them For in most of those writings which the ancient Church counteth Apocryphal because they are suspected to intend some poisonous doctrine excellent things are contained which the agreement of them with Canonicall Scripture and their consequence and dependance upon the truth which they settle renders recommendable even from dangerous authors And for that which is here said whether we suppose this book to be written by a Christian or not before Christ or after Seeing there is no mention of any Saints in those visions of the old Testament where God is represented sitting upon his Throne but
cloth and the moon like bloud that the starrs fell to the earth as a fig-tree shaken with a great winde casts her figs that the heavens passed away as a book folded up and the Mountains and Islands were removed out of their places if ever such things could justly be said by the Prophets to expresse great alterations to fall out in the world then when those Tyrants and by consequence all their ministers for shame that they were not able to root up Christianity gave up the design with their power and left the Empire to strangers which in a few years fell into the hands of Constantine and the Christians his Ministers When could it be moÌ„re justly said that the Kings and great Ones of the earth the rich the Captains and the Nobles the bond and the free hid themselves in caves and rocks of the Mountains saying to them fall on us and hide us from the face of him that sits on the Throne and from the wrath of the Lamb for the great day of his wrath is come and who can stand Then when the Persecuters some gave up the design others proclaimed the hand of God upon them and all their Ministers saw Christianity which they had persecuted to flourish and their powers possessed by Christians Which how strongly it inferreth especially if you take the premises along that the Trumpets sounding the vengeance taken upon the Jews the Viols must signifie the like upon the Empire for the ten persecutions raised upon the same pretense of rooting out Christianity not by those that professe Christianity though indeed they corrupt it I leave to all the world to judge Especially if wee consider that which is often repeated from the beginning of the Prophesy that the mater of it must come to pass shortly that they are happy that shall read and observe it and that to that purpose it is sent to the seven Churches of Asia as concerning them deeply Which if it concern vengeance to be taken of the blood of those that suffered by the Papacy by consequence of the premises is yet to come at least the vengeance prophesied and ten thousand chances to one if ever it do come while those that rack the Prophesy to signifie it are forced to prophesie themselves without evidencing any commission for it and the seven Churches in a maner suppressed by Infidels far enough from being any thing of the effect of it or any of those to whom S. John can be supposed to speak when hee sends it And truly supposing that the sound of the Trumpets concernes the Jews which no reason refuses no modesty denies and supposing again that S. John was not banished into Patmos till Domitians dayes which is the original and more probable report of Irenaeus though some suppose hee was sent thither afore when Claudius his Edict commanded all Jews to depart from Rome because Epiphanius sayes that hee prophesied under Clandius and the Pro-consul of Asia might as it was ordinary command the same for that Province which the Prince had at Rome For what probability can there be that S. John should be forbidden Asia when S. Paul was permitted Achaia as wee find by the Acts I say supposing this a very good reason is to be given why the calamities of the Jews then past are represented to S. John by the vision of the Trumpets to wit for the assurance and incouragement of the Christians for the terror and conversion of their Persecuters who knowing that which was come upon the Jews prophetically described by the sounding of the seven Trumpets might both the better understand that part of it and better inferre the meaning of the seven Vials together with that which goes afore to prepare the way for the pouring of them forth and follows to show the consequence of it And I must adde farther that though I say that the destruction of Jerusalem was past when S. John was banished into Patmos yet this Prophesy of it and of the seven Trumpets might be revealed to him before according to Epâ—phanius affirming that hee prophesied in Claudius his dayes For what hindreth that which concerned the Jews onely to be revealed while Jerusalem stood the visions of the seven Seals and seven Vials concerning the Gentiles either in part or onely being reserved to the persecution under Domitian in which S. John is commanded to write that Letter to the seven Churches which hee is commanded to send the whole Prophesy with Let mee now desire the Reader to look upon that interpretation which I have given in the Review of my Book of the Right of the Church in a Christian state to that which is prophesied of the Raign of the Saints that is the Christians with their Lord Christ for a thousand years Apoc. XX. which they they that referre the seventh Trumpet and the seven Viols in which it is accomplished to the judgments to come upon the Papacy cannot avoid to inferre the opinion of the Millenaries condemned long since and suppressed in the Church in so much that the most learned of them hath professedly set up the Standard to revive it I will not here suppose any thing how prejudicial this opinion either is or as it is held may be to Christianity This I will say that those which read the History of the Successors of Alexander Kings of Syria and Aegypt so expresly prophesied Dan. XI that many particulars of it might have been buried in oblivion had not the exposition of it inforced S. Hierome and his Predecessors to have recourse to those Histories which now are lost and out of them to relate such passages as the Prophet points at I say I shall count them strange men if seeing the rest agree with the Story when they come to Antiochus Epâ—phanes and those things which the Prophet foretells of his acts in a continued Narrative they can perswade themselves that they were not fulfilled under him but must belong to the coming of Antichrist I know S. Jerome is chargeable with it But it is one thing for him to follow some Predecessors in expounding that which hee knew not how to expound otherwise another thing to impose such a doctrine upon the Church upon no ground but such an interpretation as that I must say farther that the Visions of the VII and VIII Chapters of Daniel of the four Beasts and the ten horns of the fourth and the little horn that blasphemed God and made war against the Saints VII 8 9. Of the Ramâ—e and the Goat and the little horn thereof which made war against God and his people Dan. VII 9-14 must of necessity be understood of Antiochus Epiphanes because of the taking away of the daily sacrifice so expresly foretold That Nebucchadnezzars vision of the Statue which represents four Kingdomes the last whereof is evidently that of Syria and Aegypt whereof both in their turns had the command of the Jews Dan. II. seemeth to have no other aim but to introduce the Prophesie of
for God which are sacrificing burning incense pouring out drink-offerings and adoration But others there are by doing which a man cannot be concluded to worship any thing but God till he do it in that way and fashion as is one by those that professe to worship it for God If it be said that these are Jews which allow Traditions but that there is another sort of Jews called Scripturaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which admit nothing but the leter of the Scriptures I answer that those also who admit onely the Text of Scripture and pretend to determine all controversies about the Law by consequences to be drawn from it could never come to agreement among themselves what consequence should take place and what not did they not acknowledge some publick persons whose determinations the whole body of them submitteth to the consequences which they derive their observations by from the leter of the Law being so ridiculously insufficient that they could not satisfie the meanest understandings otherwise as may appear by those which the Talmudists alledge for their constitutions Which being no lesse ridiculous then the traditions which they alledge incredible would be both to no effect did not the publick power of the Nation which while the Law stood was of force by it but now it is void ought to cease put all pretenses beyond dispute And for that which is alledged out of the Apocalyps which in sound of words seems to import some such thing concerning the vvhole book of the Scriptures as these Texts of Moses import concerning the Lavv I shall desire the understanding Reader but to consider that protestation vvhereby Irenaeus conjures all that should copy his Book to collate it vvell vvith the Original that they might be sure neither to adde to it nor take from it as Eusebius relateth out of his Book de Ogdoade against the Valentinians Eccl. First V. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I adjure thee that shalt copy out this Book by our Lord â—esus Christ and by his glorious presence when he comes to judge the quick and dead to collate what thou hast transcribed and correct it by this Copy whence thou hast transcribed it with care and likewise to transcribe this adsuration and puâ—â—it in the Copy Setting aside this adjuration what is the difference between S. Iohns charge and the matter of it And finding the words of S. Iohn to import neither more nor lesse to tell me what he thinks of this argument S. Iohn protesteth in the conclusion of his Revelation that who so shall adde any thing to the true and authentick Copy of these Prophesies to him shall be added the plagues written it who so taketh from it from him shall be taken his share in the Book of life and the holy City and the good things written in that Book Therefore all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians are contained in the Scriptures clearly to all understandings But strain the consequence of this Text beyond the words of it which concern onely the words of the prophesie of this Book that is the Apocalyps if you please and take it for a seal to the whole Bible forbidding to take any thing from or to adde any thing to it for some of the Ancients have so argued from it shall he that addeth the true sense to or taketh false glosses from the Bible by force of that evidence which the Tradition of the Church createth be thought therefore to adde to the Word of God or to take from it Then did God provide that his own Law should be violated by his own Law when having forbidden to adde or to take from Moses Law he provided a power to limit or to extend both the sense and practise of it and that under pain of death to all that refractarily should resist it Now I demand of them that shall alledge S. Pauls Anathema against him that should preach any other Gospel then what he had preached to the Galatians against the position that I maintain whether he do believe that the Galatians had then the New Testament consisting of the four Gospels and other Apostolicall Scriptures or whether he can maintain that they had any part of it For if this cannot as is evident that it cannot be affirmed then of necessity S. Paul speaks of the Gospel not as we have it written in the Books of the New Testament but as they had received it from the preaching of S. Paul by word of mouth which being common to all Christians unlesse we question whether all the Apostles preached the same Gospell cannot be thought to destroy either the being of the Catholick Church or the saith which it supposeth or the power wherein it consisteth and the Authority of those acts which have voluntarily proceeded from it As for the Beraeans that examined even the doctrine of S. Paul by the Scriptures is it a wonder that they should not take S. Paul for an Apostle of Jesus Christ upon his own word but should demand of him to show by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ that so they might be induced to believe him sent to preach the Gospel of Christ Therefore when they were become Christians we must believe that they understood themselves and S. Paul better then to call his doctrine under examinarion or to dispute with him about the meaning of the Scriptures which he should alledge which our illuminati which take this for an argument must consequently do because they value not in S. Paul the commission of an Apostle but the presumption they have that the Holy Ghost moved him to write the Scriptures which he hath left us though they have nothing to alledge for it but the general commission of an Apostle To the words of the Evangelist Ioh. XX. 30. 31. I answer that he speaks onely of his own Gospel And that the things written in that Gospel are sufficient to induce a man to believe that believing he may have life But that is not sufficient to inferre that therefore all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians are clearly expressed either in S. Iohns Gospel or in the whole Scripture because he that is induced by the things there written to belive the truth of Christianity may seek further instruction in the substance thereof that he may attain unto life by imbracing the same So S. Iohn saith not that a man hath life by believing what is there but what by knowing it he cometh to believe As for those words of S. Paul 1 Tim. III. 16. 17. I confidently believe that S. Paul speaketh onely of the Books of the Old Testament then before the writings of the Apostles were gathered into that body which now is the New Testament known by the name of the Scriptures Being well assured that no evidence can be made to the contrary because of those alone it could be demanded that they should bear witnesse to that which the Apostles preached and taught There being no
redierunt de Babyloniâ post Malachiam Aggaeum Zachariam qui tunc prophetaeverunt Esdram non habuerunt Prophetas usque ad Salvatoris adventum All that time from their return from Babylonia after Haggai Zachary and Malachy who then prophesied and Esdras they had no Prophets till the Saviors coming Excepting those whom wee finde mentioned in the Gospels And truly it is manifest by historical truth that there was a part of that Nation that gave themselves to use the Greek Language in there dispersions whereas those that returned into the Land of Promise as well as those that remained in Babylonia had learned the language of that Countrey being very near their own which was retained onely amongst the book-learned Seeing then that it is manifest that these books were committed to writing in the Greek for the most part at least it cannot in reason be imagined that the whole Nation acknowledged them as Scriptures inspired by God must have been acknowledged which no man can say that ever they came generally to be used by the whole Nation or could come to be used being onely in Greek Wee shall not finde much of them translated for the use of them that conversed in the Ebrew unlesse it be Tobit For Ecclesiasticus it is true was first written in Ebrew and but translated into Greek When the Old Testament was translated into Greek then and among them that used it were they added to the writings of the Prophets and so received by the Church that received those Scriptures from them in Greek in the same nature and upon the like credit as it was visible they held them from the time that first they were received It is now no mervail to see some men upon the truth of these reasons quite renounce all the advantage which Christianity hath by the witnesse which these writings being impartial as uttered before it came into the world do render it because they are unduely advanced by others to the rank of those that are inspired by God For the spirit of contradiction naturally carries weak men to oversee to destroy their own Interest so they may be farr enough from those whom they desire to bear down So wee are content to yield the Socinians all the advantage which the consent of the Church gives us against them upon condition that the differences wee have with the Church of Rome may be decided by Scripture alone And so are wee content to betray the Church to fight without the armes that are to be had out of these books that wee may be free of them when they seem to crosse some prejudice wherein wee have ingaged our selves But if that which hath been said of the fulfilling of the Prophets in the literal sense at this time between the return from Captivity and the coming of our Lord be not premised amisse Without doubt all the world could not recompense the losse of the books of Maccabees and the use of them to the understanding of the Prophets so inestimable is the benefit of them to that purpose And truly I should not stick to the reasons which I have premised if I should not observe here that when that people began to be persecuted for their Religion by the Gentiles it pleased God so to order the mater that for their comfort and resolution in adhering to it the truth of the Resurrection and Judgment and the World to come should be openly and clearly received and professed which though never questioned yet had been sparingly and darkly preached by the Prophets themselves Wee see it in the exhortations of the mother of the Maccabees to her children 2 Mac. VII 23. 29. and in their own protestations according to the words of the Apostle Heb. XI 35 36. that they suffered in consideration of the world to come And it is as well to be seen in those visions whereby the Resurrection is figured out to the Prophets Daniel and Ezekiel for in their time began the persecution of Gods people And as in their time those revelations were granted so by their doctrine and the doctrine of the Prophets their successors were the people of God fortified against Apostasy by the assurance of the resurrection and the world to come And by this means also and upon this ground that inward and spiritual obedience which the mystical intent of the Law requireth in order to everlasting life is so clearly and so plentifully expressed in those moral writings of the Wisedom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus that it is a great mervail to see those who are so eager to perswade Christian poople to be informed in the Law of Moses and the Prophets though many times not knowing the reason upon which the obligation of the Law ceaseth they are not onely scandalized thereby with Jewish opinions but lost and seduced to be circumcised so violent to prohibite them the information which from hence they may have in their Christianity For so sure as the Apostle in the eleventh to the Ebrews shows that all the Fathers were saved upon the same terms as Christians are so sure as the Fathers of the Church as I have elsewhere alleged convince the Jews that the Fathers before the Law were saved as Christians and not as Jews so sure an advaatage hath Christianity fro◠all that is written before it came in force Whether because it could not have been received by the Synagogue had it contained things contrary to that rule of piety and means of salvation which in the Synagogue within which it is acknowledged on all sides that means of salvation was found was in force Or whether because being written by the immediate successors of the Prophets they had as it were the sound of that doctrine still in their ears which they had received from them by word of mouth For hee that would make a question that the doctrine of the world to come is more plentifully and clearly delivered in these writings than in the Scriptures of the Old Testament inspired by God And by consequence that inward and spiritual obedience which becomes due in order to the same more plentifully here described hath no more to do but to turn over the books and compare them which will not fail to justifie what I affirm As for the book of Judith though perhaps ignorant people may scandalize themselves at it yet I shall professe to think it no disparagement to the credit or to the right and due use thereof if the conceit which Grotius hath published and confirmed by several circumstances observed in the tenor of the book should hold both in it and in the book of Tobit To wit that it was not written for a history nor requireth historical faith that such a thing was ever done but as an allegory or figure described by way of Romance to expresse the malice of Satan under the shadow of Nebuchadnesar against Jewry signified by Judith a widow and fair exercised by his Deputy Holofernes in the person of Antiochus
great difficulty could remain in reading that which was of it self understood The necessity of this method in writing is the difficulty of understanding that is to say a capacity of being determined to several senses in those writings to which it is applyed Suppose now that to be true which I showed afore to be probable that from the Captivity the study of the Law came in request according to the Law From that time it must be known amongst them how the Scriptures were to be read And truly from that time the Scribes were much more in request though I have showed elsewhere that their profession began under the Prophets being nothing else but their Disciples which wee reade of in their writings I have also showed that the profession extended from the Judges of the Great Consistory to School-masters that taught children to reade and Notaries that writ Contracts These mens profession consisting in nothing else but the Scriptures for what learning had they in writing besides is it strange that children could be taught by Tradition to reade it though the vulgar language was somewhat changed This supposition indeed will inferr that the reading could not be so precisely determined for all to agree in the same But it will also inferr that the more the study was in use the more precise determination they must needs attain Now I desire the indifferent Reader to consider two points both of them certain and resolved in the Tradition of the Jews The first that this method of points is part of the Law delivered by word of mouth as appears by the Tradition in the Gomara that hee that hath sworn that such a one shall never be the better for him may teach him the Scriptures because that they may be done for â—ire but hee may not teach him the points because the Law by word of mouth must not be taught for hire The second that it was never held lawfull to commit this civil Law to writing till the time of R. Juda that first writ their Misnaioth or repetitions of the Law upon a resolution taken by the Nation that the preservation of the Law in their dispersions did necessarily require that it should be committed to writing as Maimoni the Key to the Taâ—mud in the beginning and divers others of the Jews do witness Hee that would see more to justifie both these points let him look in Buxtorfius his answer to Capellus I. 2. where hee hath showed sufficient reason to resolve against his own opinion That all the Jews say of the points delivered to Moses in Mount Sinai is to be understood of the right reading and sense of the Law which must be delivered from hand to hand but was unlawfull to be committed to writing before the beginning of the Talmud by R. Juda To wit with authority For it was lawfull for Scholars to keep notes of their lessons Upon these premises I inferr that there were no points written in the Jewes Bibles before this time and that upon this decree they began to busie themselves in finding a method by points and applying the same to the Scripture though it is most agreeable to reason that it should have been some ages before it was setled and received by a Nation so dispersed as they were And herewith agreeth all the evidence which the records of that Nation can make Though I repeat not here the testimonies in which it consisteth having been so effectually done already in books for the purpose CHAP. XXXIV Of the anciâ—n est Translations of the Bible into Greek first With the Authors and authority of the same Then into the Chaldee Syriack and Latine Exceptions against the Greek and the Samaritane Pentateuch They are helps nevertheless to assure the true reading of the Scriptures though with other Copies whether Jewish or Christian Though the Vulgar Latine were better than the present Greek yet must both depend upon the Original Greek of the New Testaâ—ent No danger to Christianity by the differences remaining in the Bible THe first turning of the Bible into Greek the common opinion saith was done by the authority of the High Priest and heads of that people residâ—nt at Jerusalem and by men sent on purpose VI of every Tribe in all LXXII called therefore by the round number for brevities sake the LXX Translatoâ—s to Ptolomee Philadelphus But this relation suffers many difficulties that have been made of late years and indeed seems to come from a writing pretending the name of Aristeas a Minister of the said Prince from whence Philo and Josephus seem to have received the credit of it Who being of those Jews that used the Greek tongue may very well be thought to cherish that report which makes for the reputation of their Law with them that spoke it Josephus wee know in other points hath related Legends or Romances for historical truth as that of the acts and death of Moses and that of the third of Esdras concerning the dispute of the three Squires of the Body to King Darius As for Philo wee have S. Jerome who hath made sport of the legend hee â—ells of this businesse To wit how that being shut up every man in a several room at the end of so many dayes they gave up every man his Copy translated all in the same words to a tittle Which rooms Justine the Martyr couzened by the Jews of Alexandria reports were extant in his time and that hee had seen them in his dispute with Trypho the Jew But the particulars are too many to finde a room in this abâ—idgment Those that would be further informed in this point may see what Scaliger hath said against this Tradition in his Annotations upon Eusebius his Chronicle and what Morinus and others have said for it But though wee grant the book of Aristeas to be a true History not a Romance which â—â—w will do that reade it for the roughnesse of the Greek makes it rather the language of some obscure Legendary then of a Courtyer at Alexandria though wee grant that there were LXXII sent from Jerusalem to Philadelphus and did translate him the Law because besides the agreement of all other Jews and Christians Aristobulus a learned Jew of Alexandria writing to Pâ—olomee Philometor in Eusebius de Praepar Evang. XIII 7. an exposition of the Law some CXXX years after averrs it yet will not that serve the turn to make this Copy which wee have their work Because the same Aristobulus together with Josephus and Philo the Talmud Jews besides and S. Jerome among the Christians do agree that those LXXII that came from Jerusalem translated onely the five books of Moses as you may see them alleged in a late discourse of the late Lord Primate of Ireland de LXX Int. Versione Cap. I. Now it is most evident that the Copy which wee have is all of one hand and that it can by no means be thought that the five books of Moses which are part of it were translated by
through the body of it upon what grounds the Gentiles are invited to the Covenant of grace which the Jewes began then to refuse This being the businesse of the Epistle the drift of it is manifest whether righteousnesse and salvation come by the Law or the Gospel by Judaisme or by Christianity The subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews is this The Jews being priviledged by the laws of the Empire in the exercise of their Religion disclaiming those of their nation that had professed Christianity found means by the power of the Romanes to constrain them by persecution to return to Judaisme The question is whether they can obtaine salvation turning Jews againe which they perswade themselves they might obtaine being such before they imbrace Christianity That this is the question let him that will take the paines to compare the proposition of it in the the beginning of the II. Chapter and the reasons which it is pursued with untill the sixth with the conclusion of the dispute in the thirteenth Considering also that discourse which followes of the intent and effect of the Law Let him I say give sentence If he refuse me I will be bold to say of him That no man is so blind as he that will not see With the Churches of Galatia when S. Paul writ to them the case was somewhat otherwise It is manifest that they consisted partly of Gentiles partly of Jews The words of the Apostle require it Gal. IV. 8 9. But then truly not knowing God ye served those which indeed are no Gods But now having known God or rather being known of God how turn ye back to those weak and beggerly elements to which ye desire to be in bondage againe For neither could they serve those that were not Gods indeed unlesse Gentiles nor unlesse Jewes returne to those elements It is manifest that to avoid persecution for the profession of Christianity those whom S. Paul writes against would have them be circumcised and so conforme themselves so farre to the Law that those who raised that persecution might be satisfied at their hands Those that would make a fair shew in the flesh constraine you to be circumcised onely that they may not be persecuted with the Crosse of Christ For neither themselves that are persecuted do keep the Law But would have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh Saith S. Paul Gal. VI. 12 13. And againe Gal. V. 11. But I brethren if I still preach circumcision why am I still persecuted For then the scandall of the Crosse is void And is not the question then between the Law and the Gospel between Judaisme and Christianity whether of them intitles to salvation and righteousnesse And shall the excluding of the Law exclude those works which suppose Christianity or rather include what ever the Gospel includes or inferres Consider what opinion the Jews had then entertained to alienate them from Christianity then and to divide them from it ever since So long as the nation stood it is manifest how much adoe there was to hold them to the worship of the true God which was the ground of that Law by which they held the Land of promise Being carried to Babylon and seeing the menaces of the Law come to passe and revolving within themselves those things which Isaiah and other Prophets had preached against the worship of Idols upon that occasion it seems but certaine it is they never departed from the worship of one true God afterward But then with the study of his law after their returne from captivity came in a curioâ—ity of learning and keeping all punctillos which the observation of it could require As supposing the wisdom of the Nation which the Law it self magnifieth Deut. IV. 6 8. together with their righteousnesse and holynesse to consist in these niceties Whereas this was indeed but the civile and outward observation of those precepts of the externall worship of one God and civil conversation among themselves to which the civil happiness of the land of promise was tied as I shewed in the first book Hereupon our Lord to his disciples Mat. V. 10. Vnlesse your righteousnesse exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdome of heaven And again to shew that the disease began long afore though then it was come to the height he reproves his hearers with these words which the Prophet Esay had charged upon his time Es XXIX 13. In vain they worship me teaching for doctrines the Traditions of men Mat. XV. 9. Mar. VII 7. Where he instanceth in the washing of cups and pots according to the Law of brasse vessels and beds of the hands before meat and after they came from market according to the tradition of the Elders which the Apostle 1 Pet. I. 18. calls their vain conversation delivered from their fathers This is manifestly that righteousnesse whereof S. Paul sayes Rom. X. 3. That the Jewes not knowing the righteousnesse of God and willing to establish their own righteousnesse were not subject to Gods righteousnesse For as it is evident that not to be subject to the righteousnesse of God is neither more nor lesse then to refuse the Gospel of Christ So their own righteousnesse which they would establish in opposition to the same must needs be that righteousnesse which they might be possest of by virtue of the Law And indeed it is not possible to imagine that the Jewes should so punctually and superstitiously reverence all these nice observations traditions and customes which the Scribes and Pharisees brought in to limit the generality of Moses Law and to determine every clause circumstance and tittle according to which it should be observed which now that vast bulk of their Talmud containes if they did not thinke that true wisdome and righteousnesse before God is placed in the nice keeping of these curiosities Nor can it be doubted that the undervaluing of them by reason of Christianity is that which first occasioned them to take offence at the Gospel and to this day maintaines them in contradiction to it It can therefore by no meanes be doubted that this is the Law and therefore the workes which S. Paul means when he argues that we are not justified by the Law nor the workes of the Law but by grace and by Faith For it is most manifest that he instances diverse times in those precepts which are not of the law of nature nor can the workes of them be counted to belong to the inward obedience of God and his worship in Spirit and truth But meerely formes which God had tied them up to his service with that they might have no occasion to seek after strange Gods And customes whereby he had so limited their civil conversation to one another that being divided thereby from other nations they might have no occasion to learn their Gods So S. Paul Gal. IV. 9. 10. But now having known God or rather being known of God
of Christianity on our part under the title of the Spirit of patefaction as you may see by Volkelius Instit III. 14. Signifying hereby as it seemeth that conviction which the Spirit of God tendereth by the motives of Christianity to manifest the truth of the Gospel preventing the will with help to inable it but not effecting either the outward act or the inward resolution to do it as you may see S. Augustine distinguish upon his own words related out of his Bookes of free will De Gratia Christi I. 41. This I here lay forth on purpose to shew that I cannot come cleare of that which I have undertaken to resolve concerning the Covenant of Grace nor any man be satisfied in the difficulties that concern it without taking in hand the whole dispute concerning the free will of man and the free Grace of God For having by the premises shewed that the condition which the Covenant of Grace requires on our part is an act of free will Though such an act as compriseth the ingagement of a mans whole life to Gods service Unlesse it appeare that the grace of the holy Ghost which God found requisite for the performance of Christianity can never be ascribed to the free will of man as due to the right useof it it will not sufficiently appear how the Gospel may be called the Covenant of Grace But before I go further I must not omit to observe a great difference between Socinus and Pelagius and how that difference seems to reflect upon the present dispute For Socinus first had conceived such disgust as I said of that predestination which appoints men to life meerly in consideration of the obedience of Christ as their own for whom it was appointed Then considered well that free will serves not so long as the helps whereby we are inabled to imbrace Christ and to persevere in Christianity may be attributed to the obedience of as assigned by God to the consideration and recognizance of it And therefore found it the onely clear course of establishing that force of freewil that he had imagined without consulting the proceediugs of the Church against Pelagius to say That the merits and sufferings of Christ were not valuable for such a purchase as being a meer man from his birth onely that he was conceived not by the way of humane generation but by the holy Ghost of the blessed Virgine And that afterwards being thirty yeares of age or thereabouts according to the time that John the Baptist began to preach he was taken up into heaven to God and there made acquainted with his message of the Gospel to mankinde which he undertaking upon the perill of all the hardship which he was to indure at the Jewes hands for it it pleased God to advance him for his obedience though due as to God from his creature to be God to the true power and worship of God though in dependance upon himself originally God For the obedience of Christ being thus over rewarded in his own person it remaineth that the gift of the holy Ghost howsoever requisite to the performance of Christianity be ascribed to the meer goodnesse of God which moved him to propose the promise thereof to those who should imbrace the Gospel as a recompense for so doing not as any grace of Christ that is any help of grace given in consideration of Christ resolving a man to imbrace it It cannot be said that Pelagius had any hand in this part of Socinus his Heresie who could not have been heard in the Church at that time had he once advanced any such ground as this though so pertinent to his position as you see by Socinus But as Pelagius thought of no such thing when he began first to dispute against the grace of Christ so can it not be said that his followers never thought of having recourse to this plea as the onely clear ground for their position to stand upon could it be made good But for the truth hereof there being no cause why I should swell this Book with those things that have been said already I will remit the reader to Jansenius his August where he shall find what remaines in the records of the Church how the Pelagians went about to joyne with the Nestorians and to make our Lord Christ to have purchased his Godhead by the actions and behavoiur of his humane nature and how in this regard they remaine involved in the condemnation of Nestorius at the council of Ephesus Though whereas the beginning of this error is there ascribed to Origen it is easie to observe a vast difference between this pretense and that conceit which is found at present in his books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but whether resolutely deliverd by him may be questioned that the humane soul of Christ was chosen by God for the word to be incarnate in in consideration of that which it had done in the other world For this supposes the Godhead of Christ before his incarnation and the truth of it which Socinus his opinion to which these relations make the Pelagians to have inclined destroyeth And so it is manifest that according to Socinus there can be no such thing as the Grace of Christ according to Pelagius there is not But that which is common to both proceeds upon a supposition common to both That man is presently in the same state of free will in which he was created that the fall of our first parents did no harme to their posterity neither can their children that are baptized be baptized into the remission of sinne when they have none of their own Though for Socinus his part he laughs at the baptizing of infants who allowes the baptizing of men that have sinned themselves but as a ceremony of indifference which Pelagius though he be content to allow and require yet not to the purpose of remission of sinne in infants Now the Church of God in which the Baptisme of infants hath been practised ever since the times of the Apostles alwayes understood the Gentiles that had been left to themselves to fall away to the worship of Idols to be wholy under the power of Satan by virtue of that advantage which he had of our forefathers And the Jewes who had retired themselves to the worship of one true God so little able by that Law to withdraw themselves from under sin that few of them were vouchsafed Gods Spirit acknowledging therefore all this to proceed from the leaven of the first sinne they acknowledged the necessity of Christs coming for the cure of it the sufficience of the cure in his Godhead from everlasting and the obedience of our flesh wherein it was incarnate This being the state of the dispute it appeareth that the intent which I propose obligeth me not to dispatch without maintaining the eternall Godhead of our Lord Christ Though not so as to consider the whole controversie of the holy Trinity but onely that of the person and natures of
was unknowne and by him to his disciples whereby after the power came downe upon him from above he did miracles And that when he had suffered that which came from above flâ—w up againe from Jesus So that Jesus suffered and rose againe but the Christ which came upon him from above flew up againe without suffering which is that which came downe in the shape of a dove and that Jesus is not the Christ Where you see he makes the coming of Christ to be nothing else but an escape made by the Holy Ghost when he came upon our Lord out of the Fullnesse of the Godhead to return thither againe when he had suffered Now it is agreed upon that Cerinthus had spread his Heresies in Asia when Saint John writ his Gospell And though Epiphanius report that it was Ebion whom Saint John met with in the bath and refused to come in it so long as he was there calling away his Scholars with him Yet it must be resolved that it is a meere mistake of his memory because himselfe testifies as afore that the Heresy of Cerinthus flourished in Asia and in Galatia and because Eusebius after Irenaeus who conversed with Saint Johns Scholar Polycarpus reports it of Cerinthus As for the Heresy of Ebion it is manifest by Epiphanius himself in his Heresy that it sprung up first and flourished most in the parts of Palestine beyond or besides Jordane which they called Peraea what time the Church of Jerusalem had forsaken the City to remove themselves to Pella where God had provided for them at the destruction of it So that it appeareth not that Saint John saw the birth of it being probably removed into Asia before that time I shall therefore neede to say nothing of the Heresy of Ebion having Saint Jerome in Catalogo to witnesse that the Gospell of Saint John was written at the request of the Bishops of Asia in opposition to Cerinthus But the stocke of that evidence which I shall bring out of the Scripture for the state of our Lord Christ and his Godhead before his coming in the flesh lying therefore in the beginning of that Gospell which was writ on purpose to exclude it I shall referre the rest of that which I shall gather out of the New Testament to the sense and effect of it CHAP. XIII The Word was at the beginning of all things The apparitions of the Old Testament Prefaces to the Incarnation of Christ Ambassadors are not honoured with the honour due to their Masters The Word of God that was afterwards incarnate was in those Angels that spoke in Gods Name No Angel honoured as God under the New Testament The Word was with God at the beginning of all things as after his return THE Gospel of Saint John then beginneth thus In the beginning wâ—s the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The same was in the beginning with God In which words the Socinians will not have the beginning to be the beginning of all things but the beginning of preaching the Gospel That is to say when John the Baptist began to preach And the Word to be the man Jesus so called because he was the man whom God had appointed to publish it So that in the beginning was the Word is in their sense When John the Baptist began to preach there was a man whom God had appointed to publish the Gospel And truly I cannot deny that the beginning here might signifie the beginning of the Gospel by the same reason as in the Scripture and in all Languages words signify more then they expresse But that reason can be no other then this because a man speakes of things mentioned afore in discourse or of that which is otherwise known to be the subject of his discourse So words signifie more then they expresse because something that is known need not be repeated at every turne What is the reason then why this addition not being expressed is to be understood Forsooth Saint Mark beginneth his Gospel thus The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Sonne of God As it is written in the Prophets Behold I send my Messenger before thy face that shall prepare thy way before thee The voice of him that cryeth in the wildernesse Prepare â—e the way of the Lord make his path plaine John was baptizing in the wildernesse Is not this a good reason Because in one Text of Saint Marke you find the beginning of the Gospel to be the preaching of John therefore wheresoever you read the beginning you are to understand by it the beginning of the Gospel At least in the beginning of S. Johns Gospel we must seek no other meaning for it But who will warrant that the word Gospel in S. Marke signifies the preaching of the Gospel as sometimes it does or this book of the Gospel which S. Mark takes in hand to write The words it is manifest may signifie either and therefore it cannot be manifest that the word beginning without any addition is put to signifie the one and not the other For if you understand the beginning of the book of the Gospel when S. John saies In the begining was the Word Their turne is not served As for the title of the Word which scarce any of the Apostles but S. John attributes to our Lord Look upon the beginning of his first Epistle That which was from the beginning which we have heard and seen and our hands have handled of the Word of Life for the Life hath been manifested and we have seen and bear witnesse and declare unto you that everlasting Life which was with the Father and hath been manifested unto us That which we have heard and seen declare we unto you Here it must be a man that S. John calls the Word when he speakes not onely of hearing but of seeing and handling the Word of Life But when he saies that the Word was with God from the beginning and since hath been made manifest to us is there nothing but the man and his office of preaching the Gospel to be considered for the reason why he is called the Word What meant then the Apostle Ebr. IV. 12 13 The Word of God is quick and active and cutteth beyond any two edged sword and cometh so farre as to divide between the soul and the spirit to the joints and marrow and judgeth the thoughts and conceits of the heart Neither is any creature obscure to it but all things naked and bare to the eyes of him whom we have to do with Where you see he begins his discourse concerning the Gospel but ends it in God And therefore attributes to the gospel under the name of the Word those things which onely God can do because to the Author of it under the Name of the Word he attributes the knowledge and governing of all things For the reason then why our Lord is called the Word we must have recourse to that which the most ancient
Irenaeus expresly maintaineth him one and the same God with the Father and true God and his generation ineffable without beginning and from everlasting Clemens makes him God â—quall to God as his Sonne Origen not in any work now extant that may be questioned but as he is alledged by Athanasius de decretis Synodi Niceâ—ae saies of him that if there be any image of God who is invisible that image must also be invisible with a great deal more to the same purpose where he also quotes Theognostus in secundo hypopseon affirming the same at large to set aside those that are questioned And shall we not think our selves obliged so to understand their words which the importunity of Heresies have made questionable that they may consist and agree with those which remaine unquestionable Especially all of them agreeing in this That the world was made and is governed by Christ And that the whole dispensation of God tending to the salvation of mankinde whether before the Law or under the Law as well as since his appearing in the flesh was executed by him as a preface and prologue to his coming in the flesh a supposition which all seem to ground themselves upon especially against the Jewes in giving account of our common Christianity That our Faith is in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost That we are to glorifie to worship and to be baptized in the Name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost And in counting all Hereticks that denied it For communion with the Church not communicating with those who believe it not because they believe it not is an evidence which no words of doubtfull construction can obscure in the judgement of any man that is reasonable Nay among the very heathen that have made any mention of the Christian Faith doth not Plinies Epistle concerning the Christians acknowledge that they sung hymns to Christ as to God Doth not Lucian in his Philopatris manifestly expresse the Faith of the Trinity as the cognizance of Christians at that time hath it not appeared by these inventions wherewith the Gnosticks sophisticated it that the Fulness of the Godhead consists in the Trinity according to the Christian Faith as according to the severall Sects of them in their severall inventions That the Christians honoured and worshipped the blessed Trinity as those Sects did those imaginatitions of their own which they call the Fullnesse of the Godhead When Ebion Cerinthus Artemon Theodorus and after them Sabellius Noetus Praxâ—as and Paâ—lus Samosatenus were disowned by the whole Church and excluded the communion of all Christians did not all Churches that agreed in refusing them find themselves possessed of a contrary Faith as the reason for which they were refused Were all Christians out of their simplicity cunning enough to assoile all the reasons whereby these and Arius to boot did or might argue their pretenses from texts of Scripture Or did they think themselves bound to rest in the visible consent of the whole Church whether they were able to do that or not In fine the learned Jesuite Petavius in the Preface to his books de Trinitate and the beginning of the first as he hath evidently shewed that the substance of the faith of the Trinity is acknowledged by these ancient Christians some of whose words seem to disparage the Godhead of our Lord Christ So he indeavoureth to shew that they did it out of a desire to reconcile the faith with the doctrine of Plato and his followers If his opinion be admitted there will remaine evidence enough for the Tradition of Faith even in their writings whose skill in the Scriptures goes not the right way to maintaine it The plain song will be good musick though the descant transgresse Though for my part having seen what he hath said I repent me not of that which I had conceived out of Tertullianâ— That out of a desire to reconcile the creation of wisdome in the Proverbs according to the Greek not the doctrine of Plato with the rule of Faith they conceived this a supposition fit to do it That by Gods proceeding to create the World his mind or wisdome which incarnate is our Lord Christ attained not the essence and being which it had in God from everlasting but the denomination and quality of his Word and Sonne For you shall find there that most of them concurre in the speculations of Tertulliane Whereby you may see that this learned Jesuite is not agreed with the Cardinall du Perron to deny the reason why we hold the Faith of the holy Trinity originally from the decree of the Council of Nicâ—a and from that authority of the Church which maintaineth it But from the reason whereupon that decree was grounded and made That is from the meaning of the Scriptures expressed and limited by the Tradition of the Church And therefore not burthening my self here with the expounding of all those passages of their writings before Arius which may seem to derogate from the Tradition of the Church in that point I shall referre the Reader to those things whereby he showeth that they do unanimously concurre in maintaining the same Faith For if there be amongst them that have had speculations tending to reconcile some Scriptures to it which are not onely ill grounded as I dispute not but this of Tertulliane is but also prejudiciall to the Faith as some of Origens whom I have mentioned already That this is to be imputed to the inconsequence of their severall discourses not to any difference in their common Faith I remit you to that which he hath said to judge Onely whereas he de Trinitate II. 2. hath given you a full account of those Fathers which expound the words of our Lord The Father is greater then I to be meant of his Godhead which I have onely named in gross I will advise you again hereupon that many things which are said of the Sonne as inferior to the Father as when he is said to Minister unto the Father in creating the World may be imputed not to any inequality in that Godhead which is the same in all the Trinity but unto the manner of having it the Father originally as the Fountaine the Sonne and the holy Ghost as from him wherein the difference of the persons consisteth To the same Petavius de Trinitate VIII 2. I remit them that would be satisfied of the sense of the Fathers in that which I alledged for the reason why our Lord is called the Word by S. John To wit that the intercourse between God and man after the fall was executed and managed by his Ministry Not because I think this name of the Word unfit to signifiy the originall proceeding of the Sonne from the Father much lesse his concurrence in and to the creation of all things But because believing as I do that the mystery of the Trinity is revealed by the coming of our Lord I find great reason to conceive that his Apostle intended thereby to intimate
Eve was the Mother of the living And though conceived in sin yet was not be in sin or sinfull But whether every one that turns from sin to Faith turn from sinfull custome as from his Mother to life one of the twelve Prophets will be my witnesse saying shall I give my first-born for impiety the fruit of my belly for the sin of my Soul He traduceth not him that said Increase and multiply but he calleth the first inclinations from our birth by which we are ignorant of God impieties He saith most truly that they cannot render a reason how we are born under Adams curse but by charging God He granteth actuall sin in conception but that not the sin of the Child that is conceived He saith the custome of sin may be our Mother Eve in the mysticall sense of David But he ascribeth it to those first motions from our birth which make mankind ignorant of God till they turn to Christianity Whether this be my plea or no let him that hath perused the Premises judge This same is to be said of S. Chrysostome in his Homily ad Neophytos denying that Infants are baptized because they are polluted with sin To wit that he appropriateth the name of sin to actuall sin But as Clemens acknowledges the first motions that we have from our birth to tend to ignorance of God So S. Chrysostome Hom. XI in VI. ad Rom. Hom. XIII in VII ad Rom. cleerly ascribes the coming in of concupiscence to Adams sin or rather to the sentence of mortality inflicted by God upon it wherein he is followed by Theodoret in V. ad Rom. observing that the want of things necessary to the sustenance of our mortality provokes excesses and that sins If this reason can generally hold so that all concupiscence may be said to be the consequence of mortality Christianity will be sound the necessity of Christs coming for the repair of Adams fall remaining the same But this is the reason why the same S. Chrysostome Hom. X. in VI. ad Rom. when S. Paul saith By one mans disobedience many are made sinners understandeth by sinners liable to death Concupiscence wherein Originall sinne consisteth as I have shewed being the consequence of mortality according to S. Chrysostome As for those that censure books at Oxford if they like not this I demand but one thing what they think of Zuinglius his Writings For I suppose none of them believes that Zuinglius holds originall sinne to be properly sinne or that infants are damned for it though whether they come to everlasting life or no notwithstanding their concupiscence which they are born with I find not that he saith Let them therefore choose whether they will censure Zuinglius his bookes or professe that they have the Faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons And therefore I do not understand why I should make any more of this difference of language then of that which was on foot in the ancient Church about the terms of hypostasis in the blessed Trinity among those who haâ—tily adhered to the Faith of the Church And I conceive I may compare it with the difference between the Latine and the Greek Church about the procession of the Holy Ghost whether from the Father and the Sonne oâ— from the Father by the Sonne For though I do believe with the Western Church that he proceedeth from both Yet the Eastern Church acknowledging as it doth from the Father by the Sonne If it had been in me the matter should never have come to a breach in the Church about that difference Even so the terme of Originall sinne being received in the Western Church to exclude the heresie of Pelagius I do not intend to take offence at the using or give offence by the refusing of it But I shall not therefore condemn those times or persons of the Church that used it not as unsound or defective in the Faith the Tradition whereof is not to be derived but by that which all parts agree in professing As for the punishment of everlasting torments upon infants that depart with it it is a thing utterly past my capacity to understand how it concerns the necessity of Christs coming that those infants who are not cured by it should be thought liable to them Would his death be in vaine would the Grace which it purchaseth be unnecessary unlesse those infants that have committed no actuall sinne go into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels Shall the corruption of our nature by the fall of Adam be counted a fable unlesse I be able to maintaine that infants are there or shew where they are if not there Or will any man undertake to shew me that consent of the whole Church in this point which is visible by the premises as concerning that corruption of nature which I challenge to be mater of Faith It is not to be denied that S. Augustine and enow after him have maintained it and perhaps thought that the Faith cannot be maintained otherwise But can that therefore be the Tradition of the whole Church which Doctors allowed by the Church do not believe In this as in other instances we see a difference between maters of Faith and Ecclesiasticall doctrines of which you have a Book of Gernadius intituled dâ— dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis For such positions as passe without offense when they are held and professed by such as injoy the communion of the Church or more then so rank of authority in it must necessarily be counted doctrines of the Church And yet if it appear that the contrary hath been held other whiles and else where they do not oblige our belief as matters of Faith As for the article of the Church of England which ascribeth the desert of Gods wrath and damnation to Originall sinne â— conceive it is alwaies the duty of every sonne of the Church so to interpret so to limit or to extend the acts of the Church of England that is the sense of them that it may agree with the Faith of the Catholick Church Because all such acts serve and are to serve onely to maintaine the Church of England a member thereof by maintaining the Faith of it How much more at this time that unity and communion which these acts tendred to maintain amongst our selves being irrecoverably violated by men equally concerned in the cherishing of it For admitting the Faith and the Laws of the primitive Church what can any Church allege why they are not one with us Not admitting them what can we alledge why we are not one with others It followeth therefore of necessity that the wrath of God and damnation which Originall sin deserveth according to the Article of the Church of England be confined to the losse and coming short of that salvation to which the first Adam being appointed the second Adam hath restored us There being no more to be had either by necessary consequence from the Scripture or by Tradition
to the intrinsecall value of the workes which freewill alone doth but to the promise annexed by God to the works which freewill by the help of Grace purchased by Christ produceth It was no marvaile indeed that they who had overseen the actuall helps of Grace should a scribe the merit of habituall grace so the language of that time spoke to the act of freewill in beginning to believe that is to be a Christian as not depending upon that operation of grace which themselves supposed though they oversaw it But it were ridiculous to think that he who by the preaching of the Gospel and the reasons which it letteth forth why men are to be Christians is effectually moved to become a Christian is not to impute his being so to that grace which preventeth him with those reasons How much more when those reasons are acknowledged to be the instrument whereby the Holy Ghost worketh a mans conversion at the first or his perseverance at the last is it necessary to impute it to the grace of Christ that is to those helps which God in regard to Christs death preventeth us with Surely should grace immediately determin the wil to it the effects that should be imputable to grace would be the same neither the cov of grace nor the experience of common sense remaining the same which wil not allow such a chang in a mans life as becoming a good christian of an enemy to Christs Crosse to succeed without an express change in the wil upon reasons convincing the judgement that this world is to be set behind the world to com It is now to be acknowledged that S. Austine writing against these mens positions as they were revealed to him by the letters of Prosper and Hilary his book now extant de Praedestinatione sanctorum de dono Perseverantiae hath determined the reason why one man is converted and persevereth unto death an other not to consist in nothing that can resolve into any act of mans will but ends in Gods free appointment That Pope Celestinus writing to the Bishops of Gaule upon the sollicitation of the same Prosper and Hilary in recommendation of S. Austines dostrine then so much questioned in those parts determines not onely the sufficience but the efficacy of the meanes of Grace to come from Gods Grace That the second councile of Orange determining the same in divers particulares concerning the conversion of man to become a true Christian concerning his perseverance to the end in that estate hath onely determined that by the helpe and assistance of Christ and the grace received in Baptisme a Christian may if he will faithfully labour fullfill whatsoever his salvation requireth Is there any thing in all this to signifie that a mans will before he determine is determined by God to imbrace Christianity and persevere in it to the end or not That every man is determined to everlasting glory or paine without consideration of those deeds of his for which at the last he shall be sentenced to it and either suffer or injoy it Here I must have recourse againe to Vossius his Collections finding them sufficient and my model not allowing me to say more Whether no helpe of Grace but that which takes effect be sufficient That is whether men refuse Christianity or faile of performing it because they could not imbrace and persevere in it or because they would not when they might let him that shall have perused what he hath collected in the second part of this seventh book say as to the perswasion of the whole Church Whether God would have all men to be saved and hath appointed the death of our Lord Christ to that intent let him that shall have perused the first part of the same Thesi II. III. give sentence what the Church hath allwaies believed No lesse manifest is it by that which he saith there parte II. thesi II. Parte III. thes I. II. that there is no reason to be given why any man sinneth or is damned because God would have it so On the contrary that the reason why a man is not saved to whom the Gospell is tendred is because he refuseth it which God for his part tendreth to all mankind In fine that the Catholike Church from the beginning believed no more then that those who should believe and persevere to the end good Christians were appointed by God to be saved Understanding this to be don by vertue of Gods Grace for which no reason can be rendred from any thing that a man can doe as preventing all his indeavours I acknowledg to appeare by that which he hath said Lib. VI. thes VIII When therefore S. Austine maintainneth as I have acknowledged that he doth mainetaine that the reason why one man is converted and perseveres unto death another not resolves into Gods meere appointment I will not dispute whether this be more then the whole Church delivereth for that which it is necessary to salvation to believe It is enough for me to maintaine that it seemeth to follow by good consequence of the best reasons that I can see from that sense of our Lord and his Apostles doctrine which the Church hath alwaies taught Which will allow me to maintaine as well the predetermination of the will as absolut predestination to glory and paine to be inconsistent as with the Covenant of Grace so with the Tradition of the Church I find that Gennadius being manifestly one of those in Gaule that contradicted some thing of S. Austines doctrine by his commending of Faustus and Cassiane and censuring not onely Prosper who confuted Cassianus but even S. Austine in his booke of Eclesiasticall writers in a certaine addition to that list of heresies which S. Jerom hath made reckoneth them in the list of the Heretickes condemned by the Church who teach absolute Predestination under the name of Predestinatians After him not onely Hincmarus of Rheims condemning Gotescalcus a Monk of his Province for maintayning it being transmitted to him by Rabanus of Ments who in a Synod there had condemned him for the same hath supposed it condemned for an heresy by the ancient Church but also before Hincmarus Arnobius that hath expounded the Psalms called Arnobius the younger by some and a certaine continuation of S. Hieromes Cronicle under the the name of Tiro Prosper the one contradicteth them the later mentions that they had their beginning from S. Austins writings Sirmondus also the learned Jesuite hath published a peece so ancient that pretending to make a list of Heresies it goeth no further then Nestorius reckoning next after him the Predestinatians as those who derived themselves from S. Austines doctrine To which it is well enough knowne what opposition is now made by them who believe not that there ever was any such Heresy but that the adversaries of S. Austine in Gaule do pretend that such a Sect did indeed rise upon misunderstanding his Doctrine And certainely there are properly no Heretickes
till after a distance that As by the offense of one it came to all men to condemnation so by the righteousnesie of one it came to all men to justification of life For as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous And hereupon as the exaltation of Christ is imputed to his obedience in the state of his humiliation by S. Paul Phil. II. 8. he humbled himselfe becoming obedient unto death So are the effects and consequences thereof Rom. IV. 25. who was delivered for our transgressions and rose againe for our justification to be ascribed to the same And that which the Father proclaimes of the sonne Mat. III. 17. XVII 5. This is my beloved sonne in whom I am well pleased cannot be understood in any other regard but of his obedience performed in publishing the message which the Father sent him upon into the world and suffering for it in which he testifies so often in S. Johns Gospell that he came not to doe his owne will but his Fathers that he sought not his owne glory but his Fathers he did not he said not any thing of himselfe but what he had seen his Father doe what he had heard his Father say that it were tedious to repeate the severall places And this according to the figure of David Psal XI 9. 10. then said I Lo I come In the volume of the book it is written of me that I should fullfill thy will I am content to doe it O Lord yea thy Law is within my heart Whereupon the Apostle saith that we are sanctified by this will through the once offering of the body of Jesus Christ Ebr. IX 9. to wit the will of God which by doing his will Christ had moved to favor us Even as in the figure punishment is remitted remitted to Davids posterity for the promise indeed 2 Kings VIII 19. XX. 6. 1 Kings XI 3. but made in consideration of Davids obedience 2 Sam. VII 18. Here I suppose further that this obedience of Christ is not tenderd as of Debt which they that beleeve him to have been borne a meere creature must hold But having proved that he assumed mans nature being the Word of God God of God from everlasting afore doe necessarily presume that this obedience being undue is meritorious to whatsoever purpose God that sent him accepts it And hereupon inferr that God granted those termes of reconcilement which the Gospell importeth in derogation to his owne originall Law in consideration of it For I doe suppose that man being fallen from God yet knowing God and himselfe to have been made by God and to be governed by his providence necessarily understood himselfe to be under the obligation of making God the end of all his actions and therefore of injoying no creature otherwise then the service of God should either require or allow Though that ignorance of God which originall concupiscence hath since brought into the world through the worship of Idols and the corruptions that attend upon the same had since so extinguished or darkned the light of nature in man that the greatest part of mankind though they could not deny this truth neverthelesse held it prisoner in unrighteousnesse as S. Paul sayes Rom. I. 18. This is that which I call the originall Law of God the transgression whereof bindeth over to that punishment which God by his word declareth And of this Law the necessary immediate consequence is that we submit to all such Lawes as God shall publish to man in as much as he requires and upon such penalties as he declares So that by publishing the Gospell the originall Law of God is not abrogated continuing still the rule of mens actions but rather strengthened and inlarged to all those precepts which are positive under the Gospell and come not from the light of nature as necessary conditions to salvation in all estates But the publication of the Gospell is a dispensation in the exercise and execution of the originall Law by the penalty which it in acteth in consideration of Christs obedience though being generall to all mankind after the publishing of it it may be called a New Law as proposing new termes of salvation which if any man challenge to be a derogation to Gods originall Law I will not contend about words As for the Law of Moses if we consider it as containing the termes upon which that people held the land of promise the publishing of the Gospell neither abrogates it nor derogates from it Being onely given to hold till the time of reformation as the Apostle calls it Ebr. IX 10. therefore expiring when the Gospell was published which limited the intent of it But if we consider it as containing an intimation of that spirituall obedience which God required of those that would be saved under that light by the outward and civil obedience of those positive precepts whereby they were restrained from the worship of Idols and commerce with Idolatrous nations in proportion to the reward of the world to come signified by the happinesse of the land of promise then must we acknowledge another dispensation in the same originall Law by the Law of Moses and for the time of it which was also in force under the Fathers from the beginning though not burthened which that multitude of positive precepts which the Law of Moses brought in for the condition upon which they were to hold the land of promise And in opposition to those it is called by the Fathers of the Church the Law of Nature not in opposition to Grace The very giving it by Gods voluntary appearing to the Fathers and instructing them by familiar conversation as it were being a work of meere grace as also the effect of it in the workes of their conversation which we find so truly Christian that the Fathers of the Church doe truly argue from thence that Judaisme is younger then Christianity And therefore I do here acknowledge this his dispensation by which the Fathers obtained salvation before the Gospell to have been granted also in consideration of that obedience which our Lord Christ had taken upon him to performe in the fullnesse of time Nothing hindering us to understand in Gods proceeding with them something like that which in the civil law is called novatio or delegatio renwing of bonds or assignation of payment Gods accepting the interposition of our Lord Christ to the reconcilement of them being as if he accepted a new bond for an old debt or of payment by proxy to be made at a certaine terme This is a point as manifest in the Scriptures of the New Testament as it was requisite that a point not concerning the salvation of those that live under the New Testament but the understanding of the reason thereof in the salvation of those that died under the Old for the maintenance of it against unbelevers should be manifest For S. Paul thus writeth 1 Cor. X. 1-4
that God is satisfied that is to say his wrath appeased and his favour regained by the means which the Church prescribeth But requireth also that he submit not onely to use the cure which the Church prescribeth but to the judgement thereof in admitting the effect of it And upon these terms and upon no other the virtue of Baptism mortified by sinne reviveth again according to the doctrine of the School For if nothing else but the sincere resolution of living and dying as a Christian can intitle any man to the promises of the Gospel what is it that must intitle him to them that hath once forfeited his title Surely nothing but the renewing of that trust which is forfeited by failing of it And surely that trust is not so easily re-established as it is first contracted I have shewed you in the second Book what reason we have to believe that the severity of the ancient Church in readmitting those that failed of their profession at their Baptism necessarily argues the difficulty of being re-estated in the favour of God There goes more indeed to the satisfying of the Church that he who had failed of his Christianity hath sincerely renewed his resolution for it then to the renewing of it But that this resolution will as well be effectuall and durable as it is sincere it is as difficult to assure a mans selfe as to satisfie the Church The power of the Church then in binding and loosing that is in remitting or retaining sinne consists not onely in declaring a sinner either bound or loose Whether in generall by preaching the Gospel or in particular by refusing or restoring him to the communion of the Church For whom the Church bindeth for sinne known to the Church his pardon is not to be had without the act of the Church But in constraining him that will be a Christian to mortifie the love of sinne in himselfe as his sin declares it to be alive in him is the power of the Church in remitting sinne exercised And in pronouncing sentence of absolution in what form soever the power of assuring the same Let us now look over these same Scriptures again for by them having no other we must judge whether this power extends to all sins so that no sinne after Baptism can be pardoned without the ministery of the Church and the use of it Whether it extend onely to notorious sinners as an abatement of the sentence of excommunication which being liable to upon demonstration of repentance they are admitted to be reconciled by it or lastly whether there be some other reason to determine the extent of it Surely he that argues because God hath given his Disciples this Power and the Church after them therefore he hath commanded all sinners to use it denying all hope of pardon to them that do not use it by declaring their sinnes to them whom the Church trusts for it makes a lame consequence For will any reason allow him to say that otherwise this power signifies nothing when it is granted to extend to the curing of all notorious sinnes That which we learn of it from S. Paul to the Corinthians without all controversie concerns no sinnes but but such The sinne of him that had maried his Fathers wife was so well known that it had raised a party in the Church of such as pretended it to be consistent with Christianity And when S. Paul is afraid that coming to them he shall be fain to put many of them to Penance for the sinnes which having committed they would have made no demonstration of conversion from them before his coming it is evident enough that he speaks of no secret sinnes because the punishment which he pretends to inflict is for standing out against his leters in their sinnes As for that sinne which the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to exclude from reconcilement with God by the Church Apostasy from Christianity it is necessarily and essentially a manifest sinne because it consists in the visible renouncing of that profession which had been visibly made But coming to S. James we find that he commands the Priests of the Church to be sent for promising forgivenesse of sinnes upon their Prayers And therefore when he proceedeth to say Confesse your sinnes to one another and pray for one another we gather that he promiseth the pardon of those sinnes which the sick person shall have confessed to the Priests of the Church For if it be requisite for obtaining the prayers of a Brother for the pardon of our sinnes that we confesse them to him he that prescribes it must needs understand those sinnes which he promises forgivenesse upon their prayers to be declared to them afore It is therefore manifest that the Apostle here delivereth a precept of confessing sinne both to one another and to the Priests of the Church supposing the cure of sinne be known to all Christians by the Tradition of our common Christianity and the visible custome and practice of all Churches by works of humiliation and mortification of devotion and mercy whereby satisfaction is made not onely to the Church which receiveth offense by visible sinne but also to God who is offended by all sinne in that sense and to that effect which hath been justified in the second Book Namely to the appeasing of his wrath to the regaining of his grace and favour to the restoring of the Covenant of Grace contracted at our Baptism which sinne had made void And therefore in virtue of that satisfaction for all sinne which was once made by our Lord Christ upon the Cross without which that which we are able to do towards this effect would all have been to no purpose Whereupon that the Church is not satisfied in such a case but supposing that God is satisfied first and that the prayers which the Church maketh for the pardon of sinne are granted and made or ought to be granted and made upon presumption that the sinner is in a way of obtaining pardon of God by those Prayers upon his submission to the use of those means which either the Priests of the Church by the authority thereof shall injoyn or a Brother by his skill and discretion shall advise This being unavoidably the meaning of the Apostles first it is manifest that all Christians being directed by the Apostle to have recourse to the Keyes of the Church for the cure of sinne in the danger of death they may be more obliged to the same course in time of health because it may then be used whereas in danger of death though it must be prescribed yet it cannot be used but by him that surviveth Secondly it is further implyed that the sinne which a man confesseth to his Brother if he be not able to advise a meete cure for it is not onely by the party but by him also to be brought to the Church And so in both cases you have an injunction of the Apostle for the submitting of secret sinne to the Keyes
to one wife indissolubly as mariage hath alwaies been indissoluble among Christians could have taken effect among all Christians had it not been received from the beginning for a part of that Christianity which our Lord Christ and his Disciples delivered to the Church nor preserved so inviolable as it hath been but by the society of the Church He that will give a reason how this Law could have taken place otherwise must either alledge the Law of Moses or the Law of the Romane Empire There being no other Law extant when Christianity took place For the law of Moses it is evident that at such time as Christianity came into the world it was counted lawfull according to it to have more wives then one and to put away away a mans wife by a Bill of divorce I demand then how this should come to be prohibited by virtue of that Law which was hitherto thought to allow it It will be said by the true interpretaion of the Law which having been obscured by the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees our Lord by his Gospel Mat. V. 31. 32. XIX 3-9 Mark X. 11. 12. Luk. XVII 18. clears and injoyns upon Christians for the future But I showed before in the second Book that when our Lord saith so oft in his Sermon on the Mount You have heard it was said to those of old his meaning is that Moses said so to their Fathers when he gave them the Law not that the Scribes and Pharisees said so to their Predecessors when they corrupt it Besides there are two things evident in the Scripture beyond contradiction The first that divers Lawes of Moses either make it lawfull or suppose it lawful to have more wives then one Deut. XXI 15-17 the Law supposes a man to have two wives the one beloved the other not and provides accordingly Ex. XXI 6-11 the Law gives him leave that hath bought the daughter of a Jew to mary her to his Sonne who if he have another is â—bound to pay her the mariage debt of a wife so that if he do not she is to go free Deut. XXI 1-14 the Law inables him that hath taken a captive in the War whom he likes to marry her not conditioning if he have no other wife Call these two later wives or call them Concubines so long as the Law of God allows them evident it is that it allows that which Christians by their Christianity think themselves bound to forbear Adde hereunto that the King is bound not to take too many wives Deut. XVII 16. 17. that David is not reproved as transgressing this Law though Solomon is But on the contrary that God imputes it as a favour to him that he gave him many wives 2 Saâ— XII 8. which he could not do had he not allowed it I say adde the practice as the life of the Law to the leter as the carcase of it and I may justly conclude that Polygamy is not prohibited by the Law of Moses Besides the Law provides that an Ebrue slave who may go free at the seventh year if his Master have given him a slave of his own to wife and he have children by her must part wedlock with his wife and leave her and children to his Master for his goods Exodus XXI 3. 4. nullifying the contract of Mariage by the choice of him who proffers his freedom before his wife and children in bondage a thing utterly inconsistent with the insolubility of Mariage by Moses Law Secondly our Lord in the Gospel saith not onely It was said to them of â—ld He that puts away his wife let him give her a Bill of Divorce But I say unto you as Mat. V. 31. 32. But further when they ask him Mat. XIX 7. Why did Moses then command to give a Bill of divorce and seâ—d her away He answereth Moses for your hard-heartednesse suffered you to put away your wives But from the beginning it was not so Now I say unto you that he that puts away his wife for fornicatioâ— and maries another commits adultery and he that maries her that is put away commits adultery And all this having laid his ground afore He that made them from the beginning made them male and female and said therefore shall a mâ—n leave father and mother and cleave to his wife and they two shall be one flesh So they are no longer two but one flesh Therefore what God hath joyned let no man part Whereby it is evident that he derives not the prohibition of putting away a wife to take another from any interpretation of Moses Law to the provision whereof he opposeth the provision which hereby he introduceth But from the commission which he pretendeth by virtue whereof he restoreth the primitive institution of Paradise which the Law of Moses had either dispensed with or did suppose it to have been formerly dispensed with For he saith not onely You have heard that it was said to them of old which may be thought to be understood of the Scribes and Pharisees But also Moses said and I say opposing his own saying to that of Moses so farre as prohibiting that which he had allowed imports without licensing that which was prohibited by the Law And upon this ground that by mariage man and wife become one flesh he proceeds to prohibite the divorces which Moses Law alloweth so that the reason why mariage is indissoluble is because man and wife are one flesh by the Gospel of Christ according to the first institutions in Paradise This indeed is the difficulty which I here suppose already declared how this first institution lost or may appear to have lost the force of a Law till revived by our Lord Christ though I conceive the evidence of this truth cannot be obstructed by not declaring the reason of it here S. Paul having so fully laid down the effect and intent of his masters Law 1 Cor. VII 1-6 Now of that you writ to me about it is good for a man not to touch a woman Neverthelesse because of fornications sake let every man have his wife and every woman her husband let the man render his wife the benevolence that is due likewise the wife to the Husband The woman hath no power of her Body but the man Likewise the man is not master of his own Body but the wife Defraud not one another unlesse upon agreement for a time that ye may attend to fasting and prayer and come together againâ— least Satan tempt you for your incontinence For here it is manifest that because man and wife are one flesh they have an interess in one anothers bodies not to be disposed of upon any other to the prejudice of it And upon this supposition the mariage of the first Adam in this earthly Paradise being the figure of the mariage between the second Adam and his Church becomes the rule and measure of the Mariages of Christians in the Church as the same Apostle declares at large Ephes V.
that people yet gaped for the temporall promises of the old Testament And therefore seeing those who worshipped many false Gods abound with earthly goods which they expected at Gods hands for great maters first upon the blandishments of their wives they were afraid to offend then they were induced also to worship them But under the Gospel the mariage of Gentiles not being against Gods Law becomes not unlawfull when the one turns Christian And justice allowing to part for fornication unbeliefe being a greater fornication justifies him or her that parts in consideration of it having never contracted it insoluble All this is evident by the ancientest instance of this case that the Church hath in Justine the Martyrs Apology for the Christians or rather in Eusebius Eccles Hist IV. 17. where the passage of Justine is related intire which in R. Stevens Copy of Justine is maimed in this part It is the case of a Gentleman so debauched to the â—ust of women that he was content his wife should play the good fellow as well as himselfe that she might not have to reproach him with It pleased God the wife being reclamed to Christianity thought it necessary to relinquish so riotous a Husband But being perswaded by her friends had the patience to try whether there remained any hope of reducing him And when he being gone to Alexandria had flown out more loosly then ever into the debauches of the place that she might not seem a party to his wickednesse dweling with him whom it was in her power to part with she sent him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Justin such a Leter of divorce as the Law alloweth the wife to discharge her selfe with Which example justifies the relation of Basil of Selâ—â—cia concerning S. Thecla the first Martyr of the Woman-kind in his first Book of her life that being contracted to a noble man of the Country called Thâ—â—â—yris being converted to Christianity by the preaching of S. Paul at Iconicus forsook her spouse a declared enemy to Christianity I say that there is in all this nothing contrary to Christianity the other example justifies Onely both of them give us sufficient occasion to say that S. Paul is not well understood by them that would have him to extend that cause of divorce which our Lord had delivered unto the case of desertion upon the conversion of the other to the faith For if the premises be true it is not a divorce which S. Paul allows but a nullity which he pronounces of those mariages which stand not upon profession of that interess in one anothers bodies which Christianity requires And therefore S. Augustine in his Book de Fide operibus cap. XIX doubts of her who being a Concubine professeth that if her Lord should dismiss her she will never mary any body else whether she is to be admitted to Baptisme or not For indeed there is no doubt in the case Not because the Church from the beginning generally condemned those Concubines who under a profession of fidelity to their own Lords professing interchangeably to know no woman else contented themselves with that right of a wife which Christianity requires without the secular priviledge of dâ—wry or the right to it which obliges the Husband to expense answerable For the same Augustine de bonâ— conjug cap V. declares such a conjunction as this to be mariage as to Gods Law though not as to the priviledges of the world whereas not supposing this profession he condemns it for meer adultery And they are expresly allovved by the Council of Toledo can XVII Though S. Leo Ep. XCV allovv the mariage of a vvoman to a man that already hath a Concubine as no maried man For that may be upon supposition that there never was any such troth between him and his Concubine Which must be the reason vvhy S. Austine condemns them in another place Hom. XLIX L. S. Jerome truly and Genâ—adius de Eccles dogmat cap. LXXII allovv the 〈…〉 effect to a Concubine as to a Wife in making a man digamus as to the Caâ—ons And for this reason Conjugales ergo tabulae jura dotalia nâ—n coituâ— ab Apâ—stâ—â—â— condemnâ—â—tur In the vvords of S. Jerome Is it then the deed and right of 〈…〉 or carnall knowledge that the Apostle condemneth This is not then the reason why S. Austine refuses a Concubine Baptism but because she is a Concubine without mutuall profession of that interess in one anothers boâ—â—â—s which makes her a wife as to Christianity Nor am I moved to the contrary by seeing that S. Austine refused Baptism to those that put away their vvives and maried others as Adulterers manifest Which is the occasion of his Book de â—ide operibus as he sayes in the beginning of it It vvas but his opinion or at the most a locall custome For Concil Eliber can X. Siâ—â—a quam Câ—techâ—â—eâ—â—â— reliquit duxerit maritum potest ad fontem lavacri admitti Hoc circa feminas Catechâ—â—eâ—â—â—â—â—it observandum If a woman dimissed by a pretender to Christianity mâ—ry a Husband she may be admitted to the Fâ—nt of Baptism The samâ—â—s to be observed concerning women that pretend to Christianity In case thâ—y dismiâ—â— a Husband that maries again and then desires Baptism because of the nullity of mariage made in unbelief when one party turns Christian In the Constitutions of the Apostles VIII 33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Christian man or woman maried in bondage let them either part or be ejected Here the mariage of slaves is supposed void to the party that turns Christian The Church further commands it to be voided How stands that vvith that vvhich went afore VIII 32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he have a wife or a woman a husband let them be taught to contain themselves to one another according to Christs Law But if the one party be not under Christs Law so that it cannot be presumed that a slave will do so they must be parted And by this means it remains demonstrated that it is our Lord Christ alone that hath introduced a new Lavv into his Church of the mariage of one to one alone Which though it be expressed in the Scripture rightly interpreted yet had not the practice of the Church having received this right sense for Law to their conversation giving bounds to the licentiousnesse of those wits whose interess might be to destroy the strictnesse of the Lavv it cannot be imagined that there should never be any visible attempt within the body of the Church to infringe the validity of it For seeing there is no more mention in the Scripture of that dispensation in the first Ordinance of mariage in Paradise whereby it was lawfull under the Lavv to have more vvives then one and seeing it is a maxime of such appearance in the Scripture that nothing is prohibited by the Gospell which the lavv allovveth vvould no such pretence have framed a plea for those that never wanted will
secure them that put away their wives under the law in point of conscience to God And it is certain if that be true which I have setled in the second Book concerning the inward and outward the civill and spirituall obedience of God under Moses law and the difference between them that it could not alwaies do it For could he that knâ—w he put away his wife for â—ust or for wrath or for advantage think that he loved his wife whom all men know they are to love above others being bound to love all Israelites as himselfe But on the contrary he that had lighted upon a wife of crooked conditions and having done his reasonable indeavour to reclaim her had found her incorrigible how should he think he did her wrong using the power that Gods law had given him so moderately in putting her away Had God given them a Law which could in no case be used without sinne For had the nakednesse which the law allowed for a just cause of divorce signified nothing else but that which our Lord by his Gospel allows what question remains whither the conscience be secured by it or not But among Christians covenanting with God upon express promises of the world to come under a 〈◊〉 and more excellent rule of obedience with promise of helps proportionable to go through with it it is marvail if an obligation be acknowledged of bearing with patience the maners of the wife vvhich a man himselfe chuses never giving over the hope of reducing her to reason until she falsifie the trust of wedlock That when the mater is come to that point it should no more be mater of precept but mater of counsail to indure such a wife when the infamy of a mans bed my be saved and hope of reclaiming her may remain So that the question whether the meaning of Moses his words be the meaning of Christs is the same in this particular of mariage vvhich the Christians have generally with the Jews whether our Lord Jesus persiting the Lavv by bringing in the Gospell be the Christ or not The resolution whereof as it necessarily infers the difference between them which I have setled in the second Book so that difference vvill as necessarily inferre this provision of our Lord to be severall from that of Moses Out of Origen in Mat. VII a pleasant conceit is alleged Forsitan audax aliquis Judaicus vir adversus doctrine Salvatoris nostri dicet quoniam Jesus dicens Qui cunque dimi serit uxorem suam exceptâ causâ fornicationis facit â—â—â— machari permiâ—it uxo em dimittere quem ad modum Moyses quâ—m retulit propter duritiem cordiâ— Judâ—orum hoc prâ—cepisse Et hanc ipsam inquiet esse causam fornicationis per quam juste uxâ—r à viro dimittitur secundum quam Moyses praecepit dimitterâ— uxorem si inventa fuerit res turpis in â—â Perhaps some bold Jewish fellow may say crossing our Saviours Doctrine that even Jesus saying Whosoever shall send away his wife but for fornication makes her comâ—â—it adultery hath given leave to put a wife away even as Moses who he relareth did command this for the Jews hard-heartednesse And will say that this is the very same cause of fornication for which a wife is justly put away by a Husband according to which Moses also commands to put away a wife if a foul thirg be found in her Whence it is argued that there were then that expounded our Lords words to the same intent vvith Moses That there were Origen sayes not that there might be I grant But they must be Jews and adversaries to our Saviours Doctrine that should do it For he that should say so must blame our Saviour for pretending to contradict Moses vvhich Origen supposeth no Jevv could deny saying indeed the same thing Othervvise he must contradict the Synagogue for allowing divorce where Moses allowed it not if the soul thing which Moses allows divorce for be onely that fornication for which our Lord allows it Then he that would make use of Origen to prove that the terms of our Lord and of Moses may signifie the same thing must first answer the Argument wherewith he convinces him that thus should blaspheme our Lord. Adultery saith he is no cause of divorce but of death by Moses law therefore that dishonest thing for which the Law allows divorce is not adultery In fine he that examines all that is said or can be said of the diverse significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures will find but two the one proper in the case of man and wife the other by translation to the alliance between God and his people perpetually compared to a mariage all over the Scripture That this signification cannot take place here this may serve to evidence That the cause upon which our Lord allovvs divorce must be something betvveen the Wife and the Husband as it vvas in the Lavv For vvould it not be impertinent to punish transgression of Gods Covenant vvith dissolution of vvedlock The proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed is larger in the Scriptures then according to the Atrick Greek to signifie all uncleannesse at the mater requires For vvhen S. Paul sayes 1 Cor. V. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a man to have his Fathers wife would not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ordinary Greek But it is no marvail if the Jews that spoke Greek call all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which their usuall language called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our Lords words is exactly expounded by Hesychius and the Etymologick turning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who being Christians do usually expound that proâ—erty of the Greek which is usuall among Christians out of the Bible And this is demonstrated to be the signification here meant because it is not possible to show that ever there was any opinion rule or practice received in the Church that it is lawfull to divorce but in case of Adultery I do truly conceive that there was anciently a difference of opinion and practice in the Church whither it be lawfull to mary again upon putting away a wife for adultery or whether the bond of mariage remain undissoluble when the parties are separated from bed and bord for adultery But this difference argues consent in the rest that is that excepting the case of Adultery there is no divorce to be among Christians Neither do I now speak of the base times of the Eastern Empire of which I will give you such an account as I find most reasonable when I come to the difficulty that is proposed I say it may appear that the Church originally granted no divorce but for adultery whether the innocent party or whether both were allowed to mary again living the other or not It is acknowledged by our Author that Tertullian cont Marc. IV. 34. de Pudicitiâ— cap.
chargeable with adultery when the wife maries again being not put away for adultery why is he chargeable with it that put her away for adultery If because he maries again not putting his wife away for adultery putting her away for adultery why is he chargeable with it The difficulty will be Then is the knot of wedlock tied to the one party and loose to the other which seems a knot more indissoluble then that of wedlock but is indeed none at all if we distinguish between the metaphor of a knot tied and the obligation signified by it For though the act of consent to the contract of wedlock is the act of two parties whereof a third that is God is depositary to discharge the innocent and to charge the guilty yet the bond or obligation which is contracted by it is answerable severally by each party in the judgement of God And is there the same reason that God should call him to account for adultery who thinks himselfe free of that contract which he stood to till his party transgressed it as her that gave him cause to think himselfe free by transgressing it The difficulty then rests in the meaning of S. Paul when he châ—rgeth the wife not to depart from her Husband If she do to abidâ— unmaried or to be reconciled to her Husband And the Husband not to put away his wife 1 Cor. VII 12. And that having before charged maried people not to part even for devotion but for a time for fear of temptation by concupiscense For can it then be imagined that he allows them to part upon any occasion but that of adultery Therefore those that are parted for adultery he forbids to marry again And these are the Texts that have moved S. Jerome Epist XLVII to be of this mind But S. Austine further expounding the Sermon in the mount upon this supposition as he himselfe professes in the beginning of his books de adultrinis conjugiis written expresse to maintain it and desiring to show how our Lords Law injoyns the same with his Apostles imagines that our Lord might mean spirituall fornication or adultery according to which the Psalme saies Thou hast destroyed all that commit fornication against thee when he gave it Which sense compriseth all sinne that carieth with it a construction of departing from our Covenant with God both in truth and according to S. Austine de Sermone domini in monte I. 16. Whereupon the Mileritane Canon XVII speaks thus Placuit ut secundum Evangelicam Apostolicam disciplinam ueque dimissus ab uxore neque dimissa à marito alteri conjungantur sed ita maneant auâ— sibi reconcilientur Quod si contempserint ad poenitentiam redigantur In qua causà legem Iâ—perialem petendam promulgari It seemed good that according to the discipline of the Gospel and the Apostles neither he that is dimissed by his wife nor she that is dimissed by her husband be wedded to another but remain so or be reconciled to one another which if they neglect that they be put to Penance and that request be made for an Imperial Law to be published in the case Where alleging the Gospel and S. Paul both it is plain the Canon proceeds upon the opinion of S. Austine For he was at this Council and in all probability had the penning of the Canons That which moved them to be of this opinion I confesse moves me to be against it I cannot be perswaded that S. Paul in this place and our Lord in the Gospel speak both to one and the same purpose All subjects of the Romane Empire when S. Paul writ had power to leave their wives or their husbands at pleasure without giving the Law account But supposing them Christians were they not to give God account were they not to give the Church account Certainly if they maried again they must give the Church account because our Lord hath said He that leaveth his wife but for adultery and marieth again committeth adultery For of adultery account is to be given the Church And truly who parts with a wife it is great odds does it out of a desire to mary another which all the Church agrees he cannot do unlesse she be an adulteresse part of it sayes further though she be he cannot do it But if he mary not another but part with his wife he must give God account whether he be bound to give the Church account or not And this account S. Paul instructs how to give He will not have Christians to part bed and bord much less to repudiate to part families to send one another a way with that which they brought but if they will needs try how good it is living unmarried he would have them know that they could not mary elsewhere because of our Lords Law which in case of fornication he silently excepteth For to me it seemeth manifest that our Lord in case of fornication provideth for the reparation of the party wronged whose bed and issue is concerned restraining the divorce which the law allowed onely to the transgression of mariage inâ—cted by the institution of Paradise when two continue not one flesh But S. Paul for the conscience of particular Christians upon what terms they may or ought to forbear â—ohabitation to wit so as they mary not again Which is exhortation enough to set aside animosities and return to bed and bord again S. Austine and Venerable Bede upon the Gospel following him confesse that according to their interpretation our Lord permits to part not for the fornication which the other party hath done but for that which himselfe may do To wit which by the company of an ill disposed yoke-fellow he may be moved to do So divorce according to this opinion is grounded upon the precept of the Gospel If thine eye offend thee pluck it out and is that which the Church of Rome at this day maintaineth by the XXVI Session of the Council of Trent Can. VIII and that as I think according to S. Paul onely that he leaves it to the Conscience of particular Christians without interessing the Church the interest whereof I conceive cannot be excluded though S. Paul here provide not for it as Cardinall Bellarmine de Matrimoniâ— I. 14. disputeth But in case of adultery it never was nor ever could seem questionable so as S. Paul to decide it whither a man might so put away his wife or no all Civill Law that then was counting him accessory to the stain of his bed and issue that did not And thereupon the ancient Canons of the Church imposing penalties upon any of the Clergy who being allowed to dwell with their wives should indure an adulteresse And therefore I conclude that S. Paul though he allow not either husband or wife to part with wife or husband as to cohabitation without renouncing the bond of wedlock no not for the state of continence as S. Austine very well argues if not for continence then for no
Easter was then in use And if it can be said that the keeping of Easter for seven dayes from whence in stead of the Heathen names the Christians called the dayes of the week feriam primam secundam septimam and the use to pray standing from Easter to Whitsuntide were not original nor universal customs of the Church but accessory and local yet can it never be said that there was any time or any part of the Church that did not fast before Easter that Fast which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek and quadragefimam in Latine Though I cannot say for forty days as the name seems to import 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a summ of fifty days in the language of all Jews or Christians that write in Greek For I have not on any hand any satisfaction in the words of Irenaeus the true reading whereof there maintained seemeth to import that in some places they fasted but forty hours before the Feast of the Resurrection Tertullian de Jejuniis cap. XIII objecteth to the Catholicks that they Fasted the Easter Fast citra dies quibus ablatus est sponsus On this side the dayes on which the Bridegroom was taken away More dayes than our Lord was in the grave But that is farr from forty That which is alleged for the forty dayes Fast out of Ignatius is not found in the true Copy Thus farr the solemnity of Easter and the Fast before it appear original But not forty days This will scarce allow that to be true which the learned Selden in his book de Anno Jud. c. XXI produceth of his Eutychius which saith that the Christians after the Ascension of our Lord though they kept Easter when our Lord suffred and rose again yet kept the Fast of forty days immediately after the Epiphany as our Lord after his Baptism which they supposed fell on the day of his birth and that when Demetrius was Bishop of Alexandria by many leters and messages that passed between him and Victor of Rome and the then Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antiochia it was agreed that the order which hath since prevailed should take place Much less will the said passages of Irenaeus and Tertullian allow that which the book of the Popes lives compiled by Anastasius but out of the records of that Church reports of Telesphorus that hee ordered the Lent Fast for VII weeks afore Easter rather signifying that hee ordered something about it which later authors report according to that which was later in debate For that there was dispute in the time of Pius about keeping Easter that is ending the Fast on the Lords day or according to the Jews may appear by the revelation which Hermes his Pastor pretendeth to that purpose Which Anastasius allegeth to that purpose Therefore though I can allow Eutychius no credit of historical truth when hee agreeth not with authors which have that credit yet in a case where intelligence is wanting I must needs think his relation considerable It is well enough known what Socrates hath discoursed for his opinion that the Lent Fast came in by meer custom not by any Order of the Apostles what hee hath alleged of the visible practice of the Church in his time to that purpose Eccles â—ist V. 21. Sozomenus VII 19. more particularly that the Montanists fasted two weeks some three continual weeks others as much or more weeks as came to three weeks which perhaps may save Socrates his credit reporting that at Rome three weeks if it be true which Peitus hath observed that Leo and S. Austine say that they fasted not the the Tuesdayes and Thursdayes of Lent in their time others in five six or seven More he might have said For the Christians of Syria Aethiopia and the Coptites begin their Ninive a week before Septuagesima That is their forty days fast because Jonas prophesied Yet forty dayes and Ninive shall be destroyed The variety seemes to argue that it came by degrees to this certain number of dayes by the example of the Clergy the freedom of the people and the authority of the Church Which though I shall be glad to be informed further in whether so or otherwise yet having setled from the beginning that the chief difference between the Apostles Orders and those of the Whole Church is the mater of them determinable by common sense and the state of times to conduce or not to conduce to the end of Gods service for which it stands To mee it makes not much difference whether instituted by the Apostles or received by the whole Church the power of the Church manifestly extending to it And the solemnizing thereof being of such inestimable use though not for the instructing of them that stood to be Christians as in the primitive times yet alwayes for the profession and practice of Penance and for the reconciling of sinners to the Communion of the Eucharist at Easter And therefore if I do not apply unto the Forty days Fast as to the Fast before Easter I do apply the rule of S. Austine that those things which the whole Church observeth having no remembrance of the beginning of them must be ascribed to the Tradition of the Apostles yet I do apply unto them that other saying of S. Austine which importeth That to dispute against those things which the whole Church observeth is the height of madnesse Nor is there any thing in that Law unsurable to Christianity but that which the coming of the world into the Church necessarily inforceth That all are constrained to keep it and so good Christians notwithstanding the exception of the sick and impotent may suffer for the refractory and prophane among whom they live Who when it came first in use no doubt were left to themselves and to that which the good example of the Clergy moved them in conscieâ—ce to undergo The Church of England I see for the prejudices which that time was possest with could not undertake to restore the ancient custome of publick Penance at the beginning of Lent But when the Church professeth withall how much it were for the souls health of all that Penance were restored when it prescribeth a Commination against sinners to charge upon particular Consciences to exercise that themselves which for preserving of Unity it undertaketh not to impose upon all when it ordereth those Prayers for the service of that season which cannot be said with a good conscience but by those who in some measure apply themselvs to these exercises well may we grant that the tares of false doctrine springing up with the Reformation have made these wholsome orders of litle effect but it must never be granted that the Church of England maketh either the Lent Fast or other times of fasting superstitiosu As for the difference of meats true it is that S. Paul hath marked those that sorbid mariage that injoyn abistnence from meats which God hath made to be received with thanksgiving by those that believe and
is positive and importeth not the promise of Grace by the nature of the action commanded but by the free will and appointment of God it were injurious to the goodness of God to think that hee denyeth the promise to those who would perform the condition if they could receiving the Eucharist in one kinde because they cannot receive it in both For to say nothing at present what reason may hinder him that otherwise would betake himself where hee might receive it in both kindes how many thousand souls live and dye in that Communion without knowing that there is any where means to receive it in both kindes Which if it be so then this resolution leaves the charge where it ought to lye not upon the people who suffers in it but upon the Priesthood who injoy by it a fruit less privilege above them at the charge of Gods Ordinance which suffereth the sacrilege But especially the Prelates whose consent and connivence maintains the abuse For all that hath been alleged to excuse it may appear to a reasonable man not to have been the reason for which it was introduced nor yet to avoid the irreverence of the wine that may remain in the countrey mens beards for what is that to women that have none but to add to the Clergy a pre-eminence above the people by excluding them from that to which it admitteth the Priest that consecrateth A thing that had not needed had the Clergy known that all the reverence which is justly due to them is grounded upon the difference between them and the people in sobriety of cariage and integrity of conscience visible in the same And that serves not the turn but rather turns to a contrary effect when the people may perceive that they betray their trust both to them and to God by so unnecessarily abusing their Office So that the mean to recover and restore that trust and reverence due to the Clergy from the People which the maintenance of Christianity absolutely requireth will consist in the recovering and restoring of that integrity and holiness of life in the Clergy grounded upon their renouncing the interests and ingagements of this world which their profession importeth Not in maintaining that difference which the people may discern not to agree with our common Christianity CHAP. XXIV Prayer the more principall Office of Gods service then Preaching Preachings neither Gods word nor the meanes of salvation unlesse limited to the Faith of Gods Church What the edification of the Church by preaching further requires The Order for Divine service according to the course of the Church of England According to the custome of the universall Church ANd now there is nothing in the way why we should not judge between the Reformation the Church of Ro. whether the Sermon or the Masse be the principall office for which Christians are to assemble as the Romans once did between their neighbours of Ardea and Aricia adjudging to themselves the land which they were chosen to judge whether of those Cities it belonged to There had been indeed just complaint that the people were not taught the duties of their Christianity at their assemblies in the Church There had been just complaint that the service of the Church was not understood being performed in an unknowne tongue That the Eucharist was celebrated without any Communion of the people That the Communion when it was given as rarely it was was onely in one kind But never any complaint that there were so many assemblies of the Church without preaching whereas when there is none the Church ought not to assemble though for the communion of the Eucharist and the service of God which by the Apostles ordinance it is to be celebrated with No man living durst ever make any such complaint nor can any man living justifie it And yet when the change comes to be made as if such a demand had been both made and justified the sermon is set up instead of the Masse in most places And the Reformation is taken to be characterized as much by putting down the Eucharist or reserving it to foure times a year as or so by restoring the Comunion of it in both kinds with the service which it is celebrated with in the language that is vulgarly known Not so the Church of England The Reformation whereof consisteth in an order as well for the celebration of and Communion in the Eucharist all Lords days and festivall daies as in putting the service into our mother English desiring that there might be also a Sermon when it may be had in so good order as to create no offense to Gods people or irreverence in his Service But prescribing the order aforesaid though that cannot be attained to Whereby it may appeare that is was nothing but the â—ares of false doctrine sowed among the good wheat of the Reformation in England that hath hindred this good order to take effect in practice For it were a great impertinence to me to dispute here that the Eucharist thus celebrated is to be preferred before a Sermon wiâ—hout it no man having attempted to maintaine the contrary and the reason being so cleare upon the premises That as the undertaking of Christianity by Baptisme puts a man in possession of his title to the Kingdome of heaven which the hearing of it preached onely makes him capable to choose So the renâ—wing of his undertaking by the communion of the Eucharist and the exerciâ—e thereof by the service of God which it is celebrated with is the meanes of attaining that which the further knowledge of Christianity attained by a Sermon renders a man onely capable to attaine Namely the gift of the Holy Ghost inabling to make good that Christianity which our Baptisme undertakes and so to attaine life everlasting I proceed here upon supposition of that which I have said in my Book of the right of the Church Pag. 98-106 to ground the difference between preaching the Gospell to those that are not Christians and teaching those that are upon the Scriptures of the old and New Testament Our Lord and his Apostles pretending as indeed they were to be prophets might easily be admitted to teach the people in the Synagogue wheresoever they came because the whole Nation was to obey them by the Law Deutr. XVIII 13. supposing them to be Prophets indeed Thus had they meanes to preach Christ and Christianity to the Jewes so long as the Jewes in regard of the credit which their doctrine life and miracles had among the Jewes could not condemne them for false Prophets As for the Gentiles who had not any custome to assemble themselves for the service of God worshipping false Gods They could doe no more then give them the newes of the Gospell till having perswaded them to be Christians they might assemble them as they found meanes both to praise God and pray to God according to that which they either had attained to or desired to attaine And to teach them what they
held to be God namely the image â—t is to be granted that whosoever it was that writ the book against Imageâ— under the name of Charles the great did understand the council to injoine the worship of God to be giveâ— the image of our Lord For of any othâ—r image of God there was no question in that Councile But it is not to be denied that it was a meere mistake and that the Councile acknowledging that submission of the heart which the excellence of God onely challenges proper to the Holy Tâ—inity maintaines a signification of that esteeme to be paid to the Image of our Lord. For the words of the Councile I refer you to Estius in III. Sentent distinct IX ss II. and III. where you shall see besides the honour due to God alone and the honour due to his Saints the Council injoines a kind of honour for the images of either respectively signifying the esteeme we have for God and of his Saints I know there is much noise of Latria to signifie the honour due to God alone and Dulia that which belongs to his Saintâ— And I am satisfied that there is no ground for the difference either in the originall reason or use of the words But as nothing hinders them to be taken as words of art use to be taken to signifie peculiar conceptions in Christianity so if dulia be understood as S. Austine understandes it câ—ntra Faustum XX. 21. for that love and communion which we imbrace the saints that are alâ—ve with there is no fear of Idolatry in honouring the Saints departed with dulia But the honour we give the images is not the honour we give the principal but onely by the equivocating of terms according to the decree of the Council Therefore that honour of images which the decree maintaineth is no Idolatry But he that saies it is no idolatry which they injoine does not therefore justifie or commend them for injoyningit It were a pittifull commendation for the Church that it is not Idolatry which the decree thereof injoynes It is therefore no evidence that the decree obliges because it injoines no idolatry You saw how neere the honour of Saints in the prayers which come from this decree came to Idolatry And though those that counted Images idoles in the East stood for the honour of the Saints yet it is certaine and visible that the authors of the decree did intend to advance the honour of the Saints thereby and effect it What is that effect That the Saints are prayed to by Christians in such forme and with such termes as doe not distinguish whether they hold them Gods or creatures Grant they agree with their profession and you must construe them to the due difference suppose they understand not the common profession or the consequence of it who warants them no Idolaters It is alleged out of S. Basil de Spiritu Sancto cap. XVIII that the honour of the Image passeth to the principall He speaketh of the honour of the Sonne that it is the honour of the Father whose image the Son is And so it is indeed The honour of the Father and of the Son is both one and the same To say that the image of our Lord is to be honoured as he is is perfect idolatry But he who believes the Son to be of the fathers substance and his picture to be his picture cannot say so if he be in his wits Either he commits Idolatry or he contradicts himselfe That may and must be said It is easy to see how many Divines of the Church of Rome make images honourable with the honour of their principall The images of our Lord by consequence with latria the honour proper to God When this is said it must be cured by distinguishing though not properly yet improperly though not by it self yet accidentally reducible to that honour which the principall is worshipped with that is the image of Christ as God Yet you are not to use these termes to the people least they prove Idolaters or have cause to think their teachers such So Cardinall Bellarmine de Imaginibus II. 23 24 25. There is a cure for Idolatry in the distinction supposing him to contradict himself For what greater contradiction then that the honour that may be reduced to the honour of God should be the honour of God seeing that it is not the honour of God which is not proper to God as consisting in the esteeme of him above all things So for the adoration of the Crosse the signe of the Crosse which I spoke of before is onely a ceremony which being from the beginning frequented by Christians upon all occasions the Church had reason to make use of in the solemnizing of the greatest actions of Gods publike service particularly those whereby the authority of the Church is convayed and exercised The Crosse whereon our Lord Christ was crucified is a relique though not parte of his body yet for coming so nere to his body deserving to be honoured Other Crosses are the images of that The Schoole Doctors question what honour it is which the true Crosse of Christ demands And the head of them Thomas Aquinaâ— answers the honour proper to God by the name of latria Either as representing the figure of Christ crucified or as washed with his blood If the Crosse of Christ must be worshipped with the honour proper to God because washed with our Saviours bloud then must it have received divine vertue from his bloud Is not this construction reasonable And what made the Idoles of the Hethen idoles but an opinion of divine vertue residing in them by being set up for the exercise of their religion that supposed many Gods I grant the construction is necessary though not reasonable For I find it construed otherwise To make a difference between the true Crosse of Christ which is honoured for a relique and other Crosses which are honoured as the pictures of it and signes putting us in mind of Christ on the Crosse So the words of Thomas Aquinas may be reasonably taken to teach Idolatry If they be not necessarily so to be taken yet as he teacheth to honour it with Latria either he teacheth Idolatry or contradicteth himself for the same reason as in Images What the effect of these excessive positions hath been is easie to see They clothe their images they paint them they guild them the finest they may They think themselves holy for touching kissing and caressing them as children do their babies They touch their bodies with them and think themselves hallowed by the meanes They put a cotton on the end of a stick and touch first the images then the eyes the lips and the noses of them that come and that in their surplisses Thus are they induced to pray directly to the Saints for their carnall concupiscences as did the heathen idolaters to vow to give themselves to them to put themselves under their protection and defence to set them up in their