pray to God on his knee or prostrate on his face as the ancient people of God used to doe and the custome of the country obliged him to kneele to the Prince or to fall flat before him upon his face as the custome of the Persians required shall any man be so mad as to say that it is Idolatry to give a petition to a Prince upon his knee Surely if there were no other meanes for other men to discern whether his intent be to honor him as a Prince or as God I should not onely grant but challenge that other men are to rest in doubt of it nay perhaps to take it indeed for Idolatry in case he expresseth not his intent to have been otherwise But where the custome of the place makes that distinction that is requisite between God the Prince and the mans profession conformeth to the opinion and practice of the place to suspect a man of Idolatry in such a case were that degree of madnesse to which the jealous seldome attaine For suppose it were possible that he should indeed and in heart attribute to the Prince the honor due to God alone nay suppose that indeed he intended inwardly in heart to do it as all those did who under the Assyrians Persians Macedonians and Romans did commit true proper Idolatry to their Princes I demand what obligation any man can have to quest on that wherof God onely can be judge remaining secret in the heart but no man can take any harme by so long as it is not professed but kept secret Seeing then that there is no outward Idolatry without professing to give the honour due to God alone to his Creature as no inward Idolatry without secretly giving it and no giving it secretly without an apprehension adjudging the excellence proper to God to his Creature I am of necessity to infer that there is no Idolatry to be committed without an opinion that the Creature is God communicating the Name and Title the Attributes and Perfections and so by consequence the Honour and Reverence due to the Incomparable Excellency of God to his Creature And this is the opinion of all Pagans Hethens or Gentiles whose Idolatry the Scripture as well of the Old as of the New Testament taxeth and the Law maketh a capitall Crime for all Israelites but the Gospel hath converted all Nations besides Gods people from practising For had not the inward sense of all Nations besides Gods ancient people been corrupted by the deceitfulness of sin to the imagining of other Gods besides the true one from that light which convicteth all men of the true God it had not been possible they should have fallen away from the Worship of God to Idols This is that which S. Paul calleth the holding of the truth prisoner in unrighteousnes Rom. I. 18. when those who stood or might stand convict by the light of reason remaining in them that there is but one God Fountain and Ruler of all Creatures to whom all men must give account of their doings were led along by custome to worship the Creature instead of God attributing unto it the excellence of God And how in unrighteousnesse is plain enough to any man that shall consider that the true God searching the inward thoughts of all hearts demandeth account of the most secret intentions of the heart for his own Service whereas those imaginations which men set up to themselves to be honoured for God they are well assured can demand no such account at their hand Or rather whereas the Devill striving to derive upon himself the honour of God by suggesting unto man the Worship of the Creatures which they are known to be incapable of and therfore redoundeth upon him that seduceth them to it is willing to allow those whom he seduceth the liberty to wallow themselves in uncleannesse and unrighteousnesse yea and to accept it at their hands for the Service of their false Gods because being enmity unto God it is indeed his service For it is to be acknowledged that the Gentiles though corrupted with the worship of Idols had in them light enough to discern the true God and his Providence over all thâ—ngs and the account which he will take in another World of all things as S. Paul Rom. I. 18. 13. at large chargeth And Tertullian in his Book de Testimonio animae evidently maintaineth by the Sayings which he produceth frequented in the mouthes of the Gentiles But it is withall to be maintained that being thus bribed by the Devill with license to sin and willing to perswade themselves that they were in the right they whelmed it under the bushell of their Concupiscences perswading themselves that they were righteous enough whilst they served their imaginary Deities Be it therefore resolved that all Idolatry when it is formed for I speak not of the degrees by which mankind might be seduced to it necessarily includeth and presupposeth a conceit of more Gods then one which being once admitted there can no reason be given why not numberlesse as well as more then one To all this I see but one Objection made though from many Texts of Scripture for all comes to this inference That it is Idolatry to worship the only true God in or under an Image representing him to mans remembrance and therefore that the nature of Idolatry requireth not the imagination of more Gods then one This is first argued from the first Idolatry of the Israelites after the Law in making the golden Calf and worshiping it For the people having said when they saw it These are thy Gods or this is thy God O Israel that brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt Aaron addeth To morrow is a Feast to the Lord Exod. XXXII 4. 5. using that name of God which the Scripture never attributeth to any but the true God Whereby it seemeth that Aaron and the people intended to represent the true God that had brought them out of the Land of Aegypt by this Image and to worship him under the same And Jeroboam when he set up his calves proclaimed in the same termes Behold thy Gods or behold thy God understanding the words to be said severally at Bethel and at Dan O Israell which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt And indeed there are so many circumstances seeming to argue that Jeroboam intended not to call a way the people from the worship of the true God that Abenezra the Jewe upon Exodus XXXII and Moncaus a Wallon Gentleman of late years in a book on purpose called Aaron purgatus seconded very lately by Gaffarell in his Curiosities translated since into English alleging a Persian author whom Grotins also seemeth to follow in his Anno-Annotations upon Exod. XXXII have made it their businesse to prove that neither he nor Aaron before him intended any other then to worship God before the representation of one of the Cherubims which he had commanded to be made to overshadow the ark of the Covenant For
God in Spirit and truth which the Gospel requireth is so plentifully preached in all those writings which wee call Apocrypha Whereas in our Saviors and his Apostles time and much more afterwards they promised themselves the kingdome of heaven upon the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees That is upon the outward and carnal observation of Moses Law and preciseness in all those little niceties which their Masters had fensed it with For it is no mervail that they who under persecution promised themselves a part in the resurrection of the righteous cleaving to God and his Law should finde themselves tyed to that obedience in spirit and truth which God who is a Spirit sees and allows But lesse mervail it is that having attained the carnal promises of the Law in the possession of the Land of Promise they should fall away from the like zeal and yet promise themselves the world to come upon that form of godliness which they observed being destitute of the force and power of it As an argument that this consideration is well grounded and true I will here adde the authority and practice of the primitive Church prescribing these books to be read by the Catechumeni or those that professed to believe the truth of Christianity and offered themselves to be instructed in the mater of it in order to Baptism and being made Christians For seeing these might be as well Jews as Gentiles this signifies that the doctrine of them was held by the Church a fit instruction towards Christianity even for those that were already acquainted with the doctrine of the Prophets S. Athanasius then in Synopsi testifieth that these books were read to the Catechumeni To the same purpose it is read in the Constitutions of the Apostles though the place is not at hand at present And that which the last Canon of the Apostles prescribes that besides the Canonical Scriptures the book of Ecclesiasticus be read by the youth seems to tend to the same purpose To the same purpose Dionysius de div Nom. cap. IV. calls the Book of Wisedom an Introduction to the divine Oracles But let no man think to inferr that the Apostles took these Books for Scripture inspired by God because I grant that they borrowed from them in their writings Origen hath met with this objection Prol. in Cant. where hee observeth That the Apostles have borrowed some things out of Apocryphal Scriptures as S. Jude out of the books of Enoch and the departure of Moses and yet addes that wee are not to give way to the reading of them because wee must not transgresse the bounds which our Fathers have fixed Where you see hee distinguisheth those books which the Church did not allow to be read under the name of Apocrypha from those which it did allow to be read and are therefore more properly called Ecclesiastical Scriptures which name hath particularly stuck by way of excellence upon the Wisedom of the son of Sirach though I contend not about names when wee call them Apocrypha because I see that S. Jerome hath sometimes done it And if S. Paul have alleged Aratus Menander and Epimenides heathen Poets hee did not thereby intend to allow the authors but the mater which hee allegeth If these things be so I shall not desire to abridg any mans liberty from arguing against the mater of these Books to prove them not inspired by God because not agreeing with those which wee know and agree to have been inspired by God But I shall warn them that take upon them thus to argue first to look about them that they bring not the unquestionable parts of Scripture into an undue suspicion for agreeing in something for which they have conceived a prejudice that these Books are not to be received The design of Judith and her proceeding in the execution of it is charged not to agree with Christianity neither is it my purpose here to maintain that it doth But I am more than afraid that those who object this do not know how to distinguish it from the fact of Jaell the wife of Heber the Kenite in the book of Judges which the Spirit of God in Deborah the Prophetesse so highly extolleth The like is to be said of the like passages questioned in the book of Tobit and the Maccabees and namely the fact of Razias killing himself least hee should fall into the hands of persecutors which seemeth to be related with much approbation 2 Mac. XIV 41-46 For to distinguish this fact from Samsons it will not serve the turn to say that Samson did it by inspiration of Gods Spirit supposing afore that it was contrary to Gods declared Law to do it The difficulty being greater in saying that the declared Law of God is violated by the motion of Gods Spirit when as the Spirit of God is not granted to any man but upon supposition of acknowledging Gods declared Law For howsoever Saul or Caiaphas or Balaam may be moved by the Spirit of God to speak such things as by the Scriptures inspired by God wee learn that they did speak Yet that God should imploy upon his own Commission as the Judges of whom it is said that the Spirit of God came upon them were manifestly imployed by God whom hee favored not is a thing which cannot agree with the presumption which all Christians have of the salvation of the Fathers As for the passage of Eccles XLVI 23. which seems to say that it was the soul of Samuel the Prophet and not an evil Spirit assuming his habit that foretold the death of Saul I do not understand why all this may not be said according to appearance not according to truth For it will still make for the honor of Samuel that the King whatsoever opinion hee had of this means of fore-knowledg should desire to see Samuel as him whom in his life time hee found so unquestionable But if it be said that this cannot satisfie the leter of the Scripture yet can it not be said that as Saul a wicked man did believe that hee might see Samuel so a good man at that time might not have the same Being then no part of the truth which true piety obliged all men to acknowledg In the book of Tobit there are several things besides questionable But they that imagine conjuring in the liver of a fish to drive away an unclean Spirit do not consider those exorcisms whereby it is evident both by the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles besides divers of the most ancient Fathers of the Church that the Jews both in our Lords times and after did cast out unclean Spirits For what force could they have but from the appointment of God from whom at first they were delivered for a testimony of his residence among his people Which makes me stick to condemn that relation of the Jews in the Talmud extant also in Suidas that there were admirable remedies delivered by Solomon which hee caused to be writ upon
divinity of Plato was a tradition derived by Pythagoras from the familiarity which he had with uncleane spirits seeking to refine the grosse Idolatry of the Gentiles into a more subtill way of worshiping the Devile Which being imitated by Simon Magus and his followers of whom Menander professed Magick as Basilides and Marcus also did and the monuments of the Basilidians Magicke are extant to this day in the hands of Antiquaries as you may see in Baronius his Annales and the life of Peireski written by Gassendus and still more plentifully in a latter Booke on purpose to expound the monuments of the Basillidians God called Abraxas in those severall Fulnesses of the Godhead which the severall sects of them tuaght worshipped brought forth that worship of Angels which S. Paul condemned Col. II. 8-9 Whether as belonging to the fulnesse of the Godhead or as revealers of it Especially if it be considered that the deriving of the Originall and beginning of evill from a principle belonging to that Fulnesse of the Godhead which each sect of the Gnosticks acknowledged a position common to them all is also a part of Plato and Pythagoras his Philosophy which the Stoicks also from whom the Heretick Hermogenes in Tertullian deriveth it were tainted with as well as with the opinion of Fate utterly inconsistant with the worship of the true God as Aristotle and Epicurus his Philosophy free enough from familiarity with uncleane spirits is with denying of providence at least in human affaires which the eternity of the world necessarily produceth Neither is the Heresy of Cerdon and Marcion which succeeded the Gnosticks any thing else but Pythagoras his position of a principle of Good and an other of Evil applyed to the supposition of Christianity though such as they thought good to admit As for that of the Manichees we may an well allow Epiphanius deriving it from one Scythianus a rich merchant from Arabia to Egypt who having also learned their Magick writ foure books to maintaine Pythagoras his two principles And going unto Jerusalem to confer with the Christians there who maintained one true God and getting the worse betook himselfe to his Magick and exercising the same on the top of an house was cast downe from thence and dyed His disciple also and slave Terbinthus whom he left his heire going into Persia to confer with the priests of Mithras about the same purpose and being worsted betook himselfe to his masters Magick and got his death as his master had done Thus saith Epiphanius and that Manes marying his widow by his books and by his wealth became author of this sect onely that having got the books of the Old New Testament he used what colours they would afford him to intitle his device to Christianity for the seducing of Christians But whoso considers what master Pocâ—â—k hath produced out of the relations of the Saracens concerning the religion of the Persians p. 146. 150. whatsoever contest his predecessors might have with the Persians must acknowledg the Heresy of the Manichees to come from the Idolatry of the Persians the divines where of acknowedg a Principle of darknesse opposite to a Principle of light as we read also in Agathias expressely lib. II. that the religion of the Persians is that of Manichees And these considerations here put together upon this occasion may well seeme as I conceive to satisfie us that it is no marvaile the Pagane Greeks Romans should be so brutish as to worship stocks and stones having among them those wits that have left such excellent things of God and of mans duety to God upon record Seeing it appeares that the most divine of them were no otherwise taught then as it might best serve the Deviles turne to detaine them in the more subtill Idolatry of Magicians The rest being tainted with such positions as stand not with the worship of one true God So that it is no marvaile if they complyed with the vulgar Idolatries of their nations to him that considers that which I have written in the review of my booke of the right of the Church in a Christian state p. CLXVII to show that the followers of Plato and Pythagoras in the first times of Christianity as they were themselves Magicians so were great instruments to promote the persecuting of Christianity Which is also the true reason why the Gnosticks having devised every sect a way of Idolatry proper to themseves did indifferently counterfeit themselves Jewes Christians or Pagans for avoiding of persecution or for gaining of Proselytes eating things sacrificed to Idoles in despite of S Paul and taking part in the Idolatrous spectacles and sight of the Gentiles as Irenaeus with the rest of the Fathers witnesseth These particulars I have thus far inlarged to make a full induction of all the waies of Idolatry mentioned in the scriptures wherewith all the writings of the Jewes Pagans and Christians exactly agree by which induction it may appeare that all the waies of Idolatry which the Scripture mentioneth doe presuppose the beliefe of some imaginary and false Godhead properly called an idole as imaginary and without subsistence though that name is no lesse properly attributed to the image of it then the Image of any thing is called by the name of that which it representeth because of the intercourse which by the meanes of such Images those that worshipped them had with the author of such Imaginations even the Devile thinking they had it with theire imaginary Deities And the worshipping of those Dieties whether before under such an image or without it is that which is called Idolatry in the Scriptures For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may generally signifie all images and can have no bad sense in the usage of Hethen writers because they could never thinke amisse of the Images which they thought represented their Deities Yet when Christianity had brought in a beliefe that it was the Devile whom the Gentiles worshipped under those Images the word Idole being appropriated to them must needs be are a sense of that which the Christians detested Iust as I said even now of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it must needs beare another sense to the eares of Christans then it could among the heathen poets or Philosophers This language S. Jerome useth when in his translation of Eusebius his Chronicle num MDCCCLIV he saith of Judas Maccabaeus Templum ab Idolrum imaginibus expurgavit that he purged the temple from images of Idoles supposing the difference which I make between imaginary deityes and their Images And S. Austine in lib. Jud. Quaest XLI speaking of the case of Gedeon Cum Idolum non fuerit id est cujusdam Dei falsi simulacrum seeing it was no idole that is to say the image of any false God Which if it be true it will no way be possible to exempt the case of Aaron or Jereboam from that reason of Idolatry which this induction inforceth Or to imagine that
salvation of all and that which becomes necessary to the salvation of some by reason of their particular states and conditions cannot be said The writings of the Apostles are their Epistles with their Acts and S. Johns Revelations if these may not be referred to the rank of their Epistles The chief of their Epistles that to the Romanes that to the Galatians that to the Ebrewes with the greatest part of the rest are either occasioned by the reservation which they used in declaring to those that were become Christians of Jewes their discharge from the Law as justified by Christ or by the secret indeavors of Hereticks pretending Commission from the Apostles on one side on the other practising compliance with the Jewes to seduce those that inclined to the Law to the damnable inventions of Simon Magus and his Successors But none of them pretendeth more than preventing or avoiding those particular disorders which appeared in the respective Churches For what the Apostles did in setling Christianity at Jerusalem or propagating it by S. Paul especially so farre as the book of the Acts relates what S. John saw touching the state of Christianity to come I suppose is something else than the summe of all that is necessary to the salvation of all Christians And though in discretion every man may presume that upon occasion of the expresse purposes of these writings there is nothing necessary to the salvation of all that is not touched in some place of them yet it is one thing to be touched upon the by another thing to be delivered upon expresse purpose For those things that are but touched upon occasion referring to the knowledge which they presuppose cannot must not containe the clear understanding of those things which they onely touch Unlesse wee will have the Writer so impertinent as upon every occasion to turne aside and instruct him that hee writes to in such things as hee supposes him to know afore So the reason why the summe or substance of Christianity is not clear in the Old Testament and Gospels is because it was not then clearly preached Why not in the writings of the Apostles is because it was clearly delivered afore the clear delivering of it being seen in the catechizing of them that came to the profession of the Gospel and the communion of the Church Beside this reason particular to the Apostles writings there is another that is seen not onely in the Law and Prophers as well as in them but in all ancient records of learning arising from the distance of time between us and the writing of them and the change which such a succession produceth in the stare of things necessarily inferting obscurity answerable to that difference in the condition of those things which they expresse There is no record of Learning so flight that any man who knowes what belongs to Learning can presume of a cleare understanding of it till by comparing it with other writings nearest to it in nature and time hee get satisfaction in it For such a change of language followes the changes that come to passe in Times and Places and Lawes and Fashions and the condition of persons consequent to the same that till they be understood by reading seeing and hearing not being available in languages out of use the meaning of Writers is not to be had from their words How much more in writings of such consideration as the Scriptures are to the Church of such antiquity as the Law and Prophets and the primitive Church of the Apostles of such difference from the present state of things as between the Law either flourishing under the Princes of Gods people or tolerated by their Soveraignes between the Gospel springing up in the midst of the Empire professing Heathenisme but protecting Judaisme and the Gospel professed and protected by Christian powers and people So little record remaining otherwise either of things done under the Law or under the Apostles so farre from priding themselves in writing books How much more I say must we be in the dark for the clear meaning of that whereof every tittle is conâ—â—derable That the Apostles writings were no way obscure to those they were directed to is to mee unquestionable For though it is reasonable that they should as wee see they do in some passages rise above the pitch of the common capacity even of them they were writ to least they should become subject to neglect So that for the most part they should not be understood of the most part would be a manifest inconvenience But it is no inconvenience that by distance of time they should become liable to the same difficulty of being understood which all other ancient writings necessarily become subject to And that reason appeareth no lesse in those things which concern the necessary salvation of all than in maters of lesse consequence It will therefore be hard to reconcile to any capacity of reason that which is advanced for the first truth towards the deciding of all Controversies of Faith that all things necessary to salvation are clear in the Scriptures to all understandings Those Scriptures which onely can be pretended to deliver the truth of Christianity clearly neither professing to deliver the whole summe and substance of it and being directed to those who are supposed already instructed in all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians Therefore this unreasonable presumption is not to create any difficulty to that reason of deciding Controversies of Faith which wee proceed to settle upon the premises I cannot tell whether or no it was requisite to say so much against a presumption meerly voluntary and which common experience contradicts For if all agreeing in the truth of Christianity and the Scriptures there remain dispute about things which some count necessary to salvation others not It is enough that the truth of Christianity inferreth means sufficient to clear the truth of what remaines on dispute But first it is manifest that what remaines in dispute is not of it self manifest to all that acknowledge the Scriptures but may become manifest to them that use such means as the truth of Christianity inforceth Neverthelesse since they that are in love with their own presumptions though never so dangerous to the supreme Majesty take whatsoever crosses them for a derogation to the Scriptures let thus much be said to show that by giving the Scriptures no man may presume that God intended to declare in them whatsoever is necessary to the salvation of all clearly to all understandings But if this must have been supposed as a principle or ground whereupon wee are to resolve all Controversies of Faith it would have been requisite to have showed us that this truth is of all other so much more clearly laid down in the Scriptures as that which concurres to the clearing of all ought it self to be the most clear Now if wee consider that this privilege of containing all that is necessary to the salvation of all belongs
before acknowledges as a Christian that right which Christians acknowledge of holding Land and Goods to be in the Church For when wee reade afore in any records of the Church where the persecution of Diocletian is mentioned as in Eusebius Eccles Hist IX 9. that Churches and Oratories were pulled down and the books of the Scriptures burned were not these Churches and Oratories and Books the common goods of the Church dedicated to the service of God but given the Church for the purpose of it When Constantine writ that famous letter to Eusebius to provide fifty Copies of the Bible was it not to furnish the Churches which hee had erected at Constantinople There is nothing more ancient in the records of the Church than the mention of Titles and Coemiteries belonging to the Church at Rome nor any thing more effectual to convince this intent than the name and condition of the same The maner was at Rome to set marks upon eschetes and confiscations and all other goods belonging to the Exchequer whether moveable or immoveable intimating that the Exchequet claimed them and that no man was to meddle with that Title for so it was called And truly the same was the reason why they set a bodily mark upon souldiers to signifie them to be the Emperors men as private men did on their goods which occasioned the allegory of the character of Baptisme the reason whereof S. Austine by that comparison declares When therefore a piece of ground or a house was given the Church to exercise their Assemblies in the name of Title evidences that a mark was set upon it whether a Crosse as Cardinal Baronius would have it whether visible to the world or onely to those of the Church I dispute not now to distinguish the Churches goods from the goods of private persons And therefore what can be more clear than that the Church had goods In the life of Alexander Severus you have a question about a certain place challenged on one side by the Christians on the other by the Taverners popinariis whom with the like hee had made Corporations as the same Life relateth decreed by him in favor of Christians It will perhaps be said that it is enough to justifie those that have seized the goods of this Church that the Tenth part and those kindes of which it is to be payed are not determined by Gods Law For if it be once granted that the act of man is requisite to designe what hee will please to indow the Church with That the act of Soveraign Power is requisite to make such or such or all kindes Tithable through each State it will be in the Soveraigne Power either to recall its own act or to limit or void the acts of particular persons To this my answer shall be That all this dispute proceeds upon a supposition that the men are Christians to whom it addresseth Seeing then it is a part of Christianity to acknowledge the Church a Corporation founded by God and so capable of rights as well as of goods Whatsoever by any mans voluntary act it stands indowed with as the Church of England is with all Tithes some man may have force no man can have right to take from it But I have showed further that all Christians whether publick or private persons are bound to indow the Church with the First-fruits of their goods Of which First-fruits the Tenth hath been the part most eminently limited under the Lawes of Nature Moses and Christ Therefore the persons whereof a Commonwealth consisteth may be Christians in giving their goods as the necessity of the Church requires but the Commonwealth it self cannot be Christian but by securing such Christian acts from violence Which if it be true so farre must any State be from seizing such goods that the first thought thought should be to restore the breach made upon Christianity by such feizures For the intent of consecrating First-fruits and Oblations whether presently to be spent or to make a standing stock to the maintenance of one Communion and corporation of the Church is evidenced by the same means as our common Christianity That is by the Scriptures expounded by the original practice of Ghristians And therefore supposing Christian States were mistaken in accepting the Obligation of Tithes as from the Levitical Law they were not mistaken either in their duty to indow the Church or in limiting the Tith for the discharge of it suppoâ—ing it necessary that all being become Christians the rate should be limited and that the Tenth whether alone or with other consecrations might serve the turne And therefore there can be no difference between the Churches goods that is Gods and private mens but the difference between mans Law onely and Gods and mans Law both speaking of those Churches upon which mans Law hath once settled that which private or publick devotion hath once consecrated to God For consider that there is neither Kingdome nor State to be named before the Reformation that ever undertook to maintain that Christianity which it professed wherein there hath not been a course taken to settle Goods consecrated to God upon his Church for the maintenance of Gods service that it might not lye at the casuality of Christians behaving themselves as Christians should do whether the service of God should be maintained or not For though while no man was a Christian but hee that had resolved to undergo persecution to death for the profession of Christianity it was not to be doubted that hee who had given himself up to the Church would not stick at giving up his goods so farre as the necessities thereof should require Yet when all the world was come into the Church whether for love of God or of the World that favored the Church what disorder might have insued had not a standing provision been made it is obvious to common reason to imagine Or rather what disorder did insue for want of it it is evident by the provisions of the Civil Law of all Christian Kingdoms and States that proved requistie to prevent it for the future Whether or no the Tenth part were due by virtue of the Levitical Law seeing it appeareth by that which hath been said that from the beginning of Christianity a stock of maintenance was due to the Church out of the First-fruits of Christians goods offered and dedicated to God whereof Tithes were from the Law of Nature before Moses one kinde They might be bad Divines in deriving the Churches Title from the Levitical Law who had not been good Christians had they not discharged themselves to it But they can be neither good Divines nor good Christians that discharge the Church of the rights so purchased to it Alwayes this being the course of maintaining the Church from the beginning the evidence for the corporation of the Church is the same with the evidence for our common Christianity To wit the Scriptures with the consent of all Christians to limit the meaning of it
I. 1. Theodoret in Levit. Quaest IX Theophilus II. Paschali S. Jerome in Psal XCVIII Omne quod loquimur debemus affirmare ex Scripturis Sanctis Whatsoever wee say wee are to prove out of the Holy Scriptures To the same purpose in Mat. XXIII in Aggaei I. Origen in Mat. Tract XXIII That wee are to silence gain-sayers by the Scriptures as our Lord did the Sadduces Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem quae mihi factorem ostendit facta I adore the fulness of the Scripture which showes mee both the Maker and what hee made saith Tertulliane contra Hermog cap. XXII S. Austine de peccat meritis remiss II. 36. Credo etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum claerissima autorit as esset si homo sine dispendio promissae salutis ignorare non posset I believe there would be found some clear authority of the Word of God for this the original of mans soul if a man could not be ignorant of it without losse of the salvation that is promised In fine seeing it is acknowledged that the Scripture is a Rule to our Faith on all hands the saying of S. Chrysostome in Phil. III. Hom. XII is not refusable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Rule is not capable of adding to or taking from it For so it looseth being a Rule For the same reason S. Basil in Esa II. and Ascet Reg. I. condemns all that is done without Scripture On the other side in the next place a greater thing cannot be said for the Church than that which Tertul. contra Marc. IV. 2. S. ser Ep. LXXXIX S. Aust cont Faust XXVIII 4. have said that S. Pauls authority depended upon the allowance of the Apostles at Jerusalem Tertul. Denique ut cum auâ—oâ—ibus contuâ—â—t convenit de regulâ Fidei dextras miscuere In a word as som as hee had conferred with men in authority and agreed about the Rule of Faith they shook hands S. Jer. Ostendens se non habuisse securitatem praedicandi Evangolii nisi Petri caeterorum Apostolorum qui cum eo erant fuisset sententia roboratum Showing that hee had not assurance to preach the Gospel had it not been confirmed by the sentence of Peter and the rest of the Apostles that were with him S. Austine That the Church would not have believed at all had not this been done Among the sentences of the Fathers which make S. Peter the rock on which the Church is built the words of S. Austine contra partem Donati are of most appearance Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum Portae This Church of Rome is the Rock which the proud gates of Hell overcome not S. Jerome is alleged hereupon consulting Damasus then Pope in maters of Faith as tied to stand to his sentence Epist LVII and Apolog. contra Rufinum Scito Romanam fidem Apostolicâ voce landatam istiusmodi praestigias non recipere Etiamsi Angelus aliter annunciet quà m semel praedicatum est Petri authoritate munitum non posse â—â—utari Know that the Faith of Rome commended by the voice of the Apostle is not liable to such tricks Though an Angel preach otherwise than once was preached that being fortified by the authority of S. Peter it cannot be changed The saying of S. Cyprian is notorious Non aliunde haereses orta sunt aut nata schismata nisi indè quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Saeerdos ad tempus Judex Christi vice cogitatur cui si secundum magisteria divina fraternit as obtemperaret universa nemo adversùm Sacerdotum Collegium quicqam moveret nemo discidio unit atis Christi Ecclesiam scinderet Heresies spring and Schisms arise from no cause but this That the Priest of God is not obeyed that men think not that there is one Priest in the Church one Judg in Christs stead for the time Whom if the whole Brother-hood did obey as God teacheth no man would move any thing against the College of Priests or tear the Church with a rent in the Vnity of it The authority which the Church giveth to the Scripture is again testified by S. Austine contra Epist fundamenti cap. V. Cui libro necesse est me credere si credo Evangelio Quum utramque Scripturam similiter mihi Catholica commendet authoritas Which book of the Acts I must needs believe if I believe the Gospel Catholick authority alike commending to mee both Scriptures To the same purpose contra Faustum XI 2. XIII 5. XXII 19. XVIII 7. XXVIII 2. XXXIII ult Therefore hee warns him that reads the Scriptures to preferr those books which all Churches receive before those which onely some And of them those which more and greater Churches receive before those which fewer and lesse So that if more receive some and greater others though the case hee thinks doth not fall out the authority of them must be the same And contra Cresconium II. 31. Neque enim sine causâ tam salubri vigilantiâ Canon Ecclesiasticum constitutus est ad quem certi Prophetarum Apostoloruus libri pertineant quos omnino judicare non audoamus For neither was the Rule of the Church settled with such wholesom vigilance without cause to which certain books of the Prophets and Apostles might belong which wee should dare on any terms to censure Where manifestly hee ascribeth the difference between Canonical Scripture and that which is not to an act of the Church settling the same Of the Power of the Church to decide Controversies of Faith all the Records of the Church if that will serve the turn do bear plentifull witnesse But the evidence for the gift of Infallibility from them seems to consist in this consequence That otherwise there would be no end of Controversies neither should God have provided sufficiently for his Church S. Austine contra Cresconium I. 33. Quisquis falli met uit huyus obscuritate quaestionis Ecclesiam de illâ consulat quam sine ullâ ambiguitate Scriptura sacra demonstrat Whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the darkness of this question concerning Rebaptizing let him consult the Church about it which the Holy Scripture demonstrateth without any ambiguity S. Bernard Epist CXC ad Innoc. II. Papam Opertet ad vestrum referri Apostolatum pericula quaeque scandala emergentia in regno Dei ac praesertim quae de fide contingunt Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna Fidei ubi non possit Fides sentire defectum All dangers and scandals that appear in the kingdome of God are to be referred to your Apostleship For I conceive it sitting that the decaies of the Faith should there especially be repaired where the Faith is not subject to fail As concerning the mater of Traditions wee are not to forget Irenaeus III. 2 3 4. where hee showes that the Gnosticks scorning both Scripture and Tradition as coming from those that knew not Gods minde
therefore affected a compliance with the ancient Church And truly it is fit it should be thought that they complied with him because hee complied with the Catholick Church for by that reason they shall comply with the Church if in any thing hee comply not with it But it is a great deal too little for him to say that will say the truth for the Church of England For it hath an Injunction which ought still to have the force of a Law that no interpretation of the Scripture be alleged contrary to the consent of the Fathers Which had it been observed the innovations which I dispute against could have had no pretense If this be not enough hee that shall take pains to peruse what Dr. Field hath writ hereupon in his work of the Church shall find that which I say to be no novelty either in the Church of England of in the best learned Doctors beyond the Seas And sure the Reformation was not betrayed when the B. of Sarum challenged all the Church of Rome at S. Pauls Crosse to make good the points in difference by the first DC years of the Church Always it is easie for me to demonstrate that this resolution That the Scripture holding the meaning of it by the Tradition of the Church is the onely means to decide controversies of Faith is neerer to the common terms that the Scripture is the onely Rule of Faith than to that Infallibility which is pretended for the Church of Rome Having demonstrated that to depend upon the Infallibility of the present and the Tradition of the Catholick Church are things inconsistent whereas this cannot be inconsistent with that Scripture which is no lesse delivered from age to age than Tradition is though the one by writing the other by word of mouth and serving chiefly to determine the true meaning of it when it comes in debate And if prejudice and passion carry not men headlong to the ruine of that Christianity which they professâ— it cannot seem an envious thing to comply with the most learned of the Church of Rome who acknowledge not yet any other Infallibility in the Church then I claime rather than with the Socinians the whole Interest of whose Heresie consists in being tryed by Scripture alone without bringing the consent of the Church into consequence and that supposing all mater of Faith must be clear in the Scripture to all them that consult with nothing but Scripture But I cannot leave this point till I have considered a singular conceit advanced in Rushworthes Dialogues for maintaining the Infallibility of the Church upon a new account The pretense of that Book is to establish a certain ground of the choice of Religion by the judgement of common sense To which purpose I pretend not to speak in this place thinking it sufficient if this whole work may inable them who are moved with it duely to make that choice for themselves and to show those that depend on them how to do the like But in as much as no man will deny the choice of Religion to be the choice of truth before falshood in those particulars whereof the difference of Religion consists It is manifest that the means of discerning between true and false in mater of Faith which I pretend cannot stand with that which hee advanceth It consists in two points That the Scripture is not and that Tradition is the certain means of deciding this truth Which if no more were said will not amount to a contradiction against that which I resolve For hee that sayes the Scripture is not the onely means excluding that Tradition which determines the meaning of it doth neither deny that Tradition is nor say that the Scripture is the certain means of deciding this kind of truth But the issue of his reasons will easily show upon what termes the contradiction stands Hee citeth then common sense to witnesse that wee cannot rest certain that wee have those Scriptures which came wee agree by inspiration of God by reason of the manifold changes which common sense makes appearance must come to passe in transcribing upon such a supposition as this That so many Columns as one Book contâ—ins so many Copies at least are made every hundreth years and in every Copy so many faults at least as words in one Column Upon which account 15 or 16 times as many faults having been made in all copies as there are words it will be so much oddes that wee have no true Scripture in any place Abating onely for those faults that may have fallen out to be the same in several copies And if Sixtus V Pope causing 100 copies of the Vulgar Latine to be compared found two thousand faults supposing two thousand copies extant which may be supposed a hundred thousand in any Language what will remain unquestionable It is further alleged that the Scripture is written in Languages now ceased which some call Learned Languages because men learn them to know such Books as are written in them the meaning whereof not being subject to sense dependeth upon such a guessing kind of skill as is subject to mistake as experience showes in commenting of all Authors But especially the Hebrew and that Greek in which wee have the Scriptures That having originally no vowels to determine the reading of it wanting Conjunctions and Preposiaions to determine the signification of him that speaks all the Language extant being contained in the Bible alone the Jews Language differing so much as it does from it the Language of the Prophets consisting of such dark Tropes and Figures that no skill seems to determine what they mean This so copious and by that means so various in the expressions of it though wanting that variety of Conjugations by which the Hebrew and other Eastern Languages vary the sense that to determine the meaning of it is more than any ordinary skill can compasse Adde hereunto the manifold equivocations incident to whatsoever is expressed by writing more incident to the Scripture as pretending to give us the sense of our Lords words for example not the very syllables Adde the uncertainties which the multiplicity of Translations must needs produce and all this must needs amount to this reckoning That God never meant the Bible for the means to decide controversies of Faith the meaning whereof requires many principles which God alone can procure because so indefinite Which the nature of the Book argueth no lesse as I observed being written in no method of a Law or a Rule nor having those decisions that are to oblige distinguished from mater of a farre diverse and almost impertinent nature Upon these premises it is inferred as evident to common sense that the Scripture produces no distinct resolution of controversies though as infinitely usefull for instruction in virtue so tending to show the truth in maters of Faith in grosse and being read rather to know what is in it than to judge by it by the summary agreement of it with that which
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
out of which that excellent translation into the Syriack which to the great benefit of Christianity these last ages have brought into Europe was made The antiquity of this later and the eminent helps which it hath contributed toward the understanding of the New Testament being so great as the Vulgar Latine though very learned and therefore very helpfull can never out-shine And yet will I never grant that either one or both of them and that with the help of the Arabick and other the most ancient Translations which the Church beside may have are not to give account to the consent of many Copies now extant nay to the credit of some one if it should so fall out in any passage that the sense of the Scripture which cannot be made out by the rest is clear to common reason according to that one Whether such a case do ever fall out in any part of the Scripture or not The assurance of Christianity not standing in this that either this or that is or must needs be true but in this that the Church is assured in all cases But by this it may appear how innocent the resolution of the authentick Original of the Old Testament vvhich I have premised is and hovv safely I ground my self not upon the credit of the Jevvs Copy but upon all the records vvhereby the Church assureth the Tradition of the Scripture In that it is freely confessed that the difference of reading vvhich can become questionable notvvithstanding the superstitious diligence of the Jevvs in preserving their Copy is neither so frequent nor any thing so vveighty as in the Nevv Which hovv much more considerable it is tovvards the upholding of our common Christianity is plain enough to him that shall have perused but the premises And surely vvere it not true as hath been premised that a certain Rule of Faith vvas from the beginning delivered to the Church it vvould seem strange that wee cannot deny that there have considerable differences crept into the reading of the New Testament so much more nearly concerning our salvation than the Old in the reading whereof through the diligence of the Jews there remains no considerable difference But if wee remember that S. Paul makes the ministery of Preaching the Gospel to be the ministery of the Spirit in opposition to the ministery of Moses in giving the Law which was the ministeâ—y of the leter wee shall finde that Faith the receiving whereof qualified Christians to be indowed with the Holy Ghost to be of such sufficience that remaining intire wee need not think the Church disparaged if the records thereof suffer decay so long as the effect of them remains written by the Holy Ghost in the hearts and lives of Christians Alwayes it being unquestionable that there are considerable differences remaining in the reading of the New Testament it will be a very great impertinence to fore-cast any danger in granting that some question may be made to the Jews Copy of the Old Testament though neither so frequent nor so considerable And all that hath been said hath issue in this consequence to justifie and to recommend to the world the usefulnesse of the design lately set on foot in London for printing the Bible with the most ancient and learned Translations in columns most agreeably to the design of Origen in his Teâ—rapla Hexapla and Octapla that is Old Testament of four six and eight columns recording the several numbers of Translations or columns whereof his several Editions consisted For in a word this furniture and that which serves to the same purpose for who will undertake that one book shall contain all is the Instrument I appeal to for evidence of the Scripture which wee have And further here is the original means of determining the sense of the same though besides this I have claimed many other helps to be requisite to that purpose The end of the First Book LAUS DEO OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE The second BOOK CHAP. 1. Two parts of that which remains How the dispute concerning the Holy Trinity with Socinus belongs to the first The Question of justification by Faith alone The Opinion of Socinus concerning the whole Covenant of Grace The opinion of those who make justifying Faith the knowledge of a mans Predestination opposite to it in the other extream The difference between it and that of the Antinomians That there are mean Opinions THE greatest difference that is to be discerned among those things that concern the duty of all Christians consists in this that some of them concern Christians as Christians others as members of the Church For though all Christians as Christians are bound to be members of the Church in as much as it is a part of their profession to believe one Catholick Church yet their obligation to be Christians being in order of nature and reason before their obligation to be members of the Church because the very being of the Church presupposeth all that are members of it to be Christians that obligation which is originall and more ancient must needs be presupposed to that which is grounded upon it Of what consequence it may be to distinguish this difference in the matter of Christian duties will perhaps appear in due time In the mean I shall freely say my opinion that all the Divines in the Christian world cannot more pertinently and to better purpose comprise the subject which they professe to be imployed about then by dividing it into that which concerns Christians as Christians and that which concerns them as members of the Church For mine own present purpose it is evident that the disputes which divide us do concern either the state of particular Christians towards God or the obligation they have to other Christians as members of the Church So that the matter which I propose to my insuing discourse is sufficiently comprised in two heads one of the Covenant of Grace the other of the Laws of the Church I know it may be said that the heresie of Socinus is of the number of those that have footing among us and that the principal point of it concerning the faith of the holy Trinity comes not properly under either of these heads And I deny not that it is very dangerous for us in regard of two points that have so great vogue among us The first is the cleare sufficience of the Scriptures commonly passing so without any limits that it seems to follow of good right that what is not clear out of the Scriptures to all understandings cannot be necessary for the salvation of all Christians to believe So that no man can be bound to take that for an Article of his Faith against which they can show him arguments out of the Scriptures which he cannot clearly assoile The other is that they put it in the power of Christians to erect Churches at their pleasure though supposing the Faith which Socinus teacheth and pretending to serve God according to the same without
qui post Baptismum supervixerit non sufficiat nisi sanctitatem mentis corporis habeat quae sine sobrietate difficile custoditur It is to be noted that faith alone is not enough for him that survives after Baptisme unlesse he have the holinesse both of mind and body which without sobriety is hardly preserved Here you have S. Jeromes distinction between the works of Faith and of the Law and Baptisme the boundary of righteousnesse by Faith alone without the works of Faith And if any man be so impertinent as to suspect S. Jerome for a Pelalagian wherein he agrees with Pelagius S. Austine may perswade him that Pelagius is no Pelagian in this but speakes the sense of the Church Serm. LXXI De Tempore Quomodo fides per dilectionem operatur Et quomodo justificatur homo per fidem absque operibus legis Quomodo intendite fratres Credit aliquis percepit fidei Sacramenta in lecto mortuus est Defuit illi operandi tempus Quid dicimus Quia non est justificatus Plane dicimus justificatum credentem in eum qui justificat impium Ergo rite justificatus est operatus non est Impletur sententia Apostoli dicentis Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus Legis Latro qui cum Domino crucifixus est corde credidit ad justitiam ore confessus est ad salutem Nam fides quae per dilectionem operatur etsi non sit in quo exterius operetur in corde tamen illa fervens servatur Nam erant quidam in lâ—ge qui de operibus Legis gloriabantur quae fortasse non dilectione sed timore faciebant volebant se justos videri praeponi Gentibus quae opus legis non fecerant Apostolus autem praedicans fidem Gentibus cum eos qui accedebaut ad Dominum videret justificaetos ex fide utram quia crediderant bene operarentur non quia bene opetati sunt credere mererentur exclamavit securus ait Quia potest justificari homo ex fide sine operibus Legis Vt illi magis non fuerint justi qui quod faciâ—bant timort faciâ—bant Cum fides per dilectionem operetur in corde etiamsi foris non exit in opere How workes Faith by Love And how is a man justified by Faith without the workes of the Law Brethren marke how A man believes receives the Sacraments of Faith in his bed and dies wants time of working What shall we say That he is not justified Plainly we say he is justified believing in him that justifies the wicked So he is justified but wrought not The saying of the Apostle is fulfilled I suppose a man is justified by Faith without the workes of the Law The thiefe that was crucified with our Lord believed with the heart to righteousnesse and confessed to salvation with the mouth For Faith that worketh by love when there is nothing to work upon outwardly remaines neverthelesse fervent in the heart For there were those under the Law that boasted of the workes of the Law which perhaps they did not for love but for fear and would seem righteous and be preferred before Gentiles that had not done the work of the Law But the Apostle preaching the Faith to the Gentiles and seeing those who come to the Lord justified by Faith so that they did well because they had believed and not merited to believe by well doing cries out securely and sayes that a man may be justified by saith without the workes of the Law So that they who did what they did for fear of the Law rather were not righteous Whereas faith may work by love in the heart though it go not forth in any work Againe Libro quaestionum LXXXIII quaest LXXVI Si quis cum crediderit mox de hac vita discesserit justificatio fidei manet cum illo Non praesentibus bonis operibus quia non merito ad illam sed gratia pervenit Nec consequentibus quia in hac vita esse non sinitur If a man depart out of this life straight after he hath believed the justification by faith remaineth with him good workes neither accompanying because he came not to it by merit but by grace nor following because he is not suffered to live The reason being the same for which those who depart without Baptisme if not by their own fault are held to be saved In regard whereof S. Bernard Epist LXXVII thinkes that the Gospel Mark XVI 16. Having said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Doth not repeat He that is not baptized shall be demned But onely He that believeth not shall be demned Here the onely case in which a Christian can be saved without good workes is when time obliges him not to bring them forth And the onely reason why the workes of the Law justifie not is Because the Spirituall obedience of the Law presupposeth faith the knowledge of the Law according to the letter reaching onely to produce the outward work without that inward disposition which onely Christianity effecteth as well as requireth A thing which S. Austine in the dispute with Pelagius so often repeateth De Spiritu Litera Cap. VIII XXIX Contra duas Epistolas Plagianorum III. 2 7. De Gratia Christi peccato Originali I. 13. II. 24. De Gratia lib. arbitrio Cap. XII Origen in Rom. III. Libro III. Indulgentia namque non futurorum sed preteritorum criminum datur Igitur ut ad praepositum redeamus justificatur homo per fidem cui ad justificationem nihil conferunt opera Legis Vbi vero fides non est quae credentem justificet etiamsi quis opera habeat ex lege tamen quiâ— non sunt adificata supra fundamentum fidei quamvis videantur esse bonâ— operatorem suum justificare non pessunt si eis deest fides quae est signaculum corum qui justificantur a Deo For faith granteth indulgence of sâ—nnes past not to come He therefore is justified by Faith to returne to our purpose to whose justification workes of the Law contribute nothing But where that faith which justifieth him that believeth is not though a man have workes according to the Law yet because they are not built upon the foundation of Faith though they seeme good they cannot justifie their workers wanting Faith which is the maâ—ke of those that are justified by God The same Origen in the same book bringeth in the example of the thiefe upon the Crosse and of the woman that had been a sinner but was saved by her Faith Luke VII to the same purpose And I will not omit the wordes of S. Jerome upon that of Isa LXIV 5. All our righteousnesse is like a menstruous ragge Libro XVII In quo considerandum quod justitia quae in Lege est ad comparationem Evangelicâ— puritatis immunditia nominetur Etenim non est glorificatum quod prius glorificatum suit propter excellentem gloriam And
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
as to the Church but those whom the Church condemnes for some position which they had rather part with the Church then renounce Neither can it be said that ever there was any Sect expulsed the Church upon such cause That there was a Council held at Arles and after that another at Lions that decreed some thing about absolute predestination is as certaine as it is certaine that Faustus writ his book de gratia libero Arbitrio by commission from them for both are affirmed by the Preface which is of the same credit as the book But what was determined we cannot measure by the letter of Faustus to Lucidus which goes a longe with it Lucidus was a Priest whom Faustus moves to recant his opinion That God makes the greatest part of men on purpose to damne them This he does by a letter which he returnes to Faustus renouncing severall articles to that purpose but which he might have framed out of Faustus his book alwaies disowned For why might not Faustus be intrusted to write against the opinion and exceed his commission so far as to deny preventing grace And though Faustus his letter is subscribed by divers Bishops yet are they not the Councill nor do the subscriptions appeare in all copies As for the returne neither doth it appeare by the date nor by any other mark that it was approved or inacted by the Councill But granting it had the leter of Pope Celestine in â—avour of S. Austins doctrine must needs have given a check to the execution of it Which having decreed divers articles concerning the necessity of preventing grace in the end condemns the determining of difficult questions that incur upon the necessary dispute of preventing Grace And the II. council of Orange in the end is content to adde onely That if any man say that any man is predestinate to evill whether of sin or punishment the Synod declares him anathema Whereby as whatsoever Faustus or Cassiane might have said to the prejudice of preventing Grace is condemned by the Synod so that which the former Synod had said of predestination seems to be superseded and void by a greater authority of the See of Rome concurring with the Councile of Orange Which may be the reason why there is no further mention in antiquity oâ— the decrees of those Counciles which had they not decreed as some suppose Faustus would have heard of it by Maxentius who is so angry with the See of Rome that they made not the adversaries of S. Austin Hereticks I grant therefore that there was never any sect of Praedestinatians But I doe not therefore grant that ever there was any sect of Semipelagians Faustus or Cassiane might in opposition to absolute predestination mistake themselves so far as to deny prventing grace Some on the other side as he that writ the Treatise which Sirmondus his Praedestinatus confutes though some take it for his owne that confutes it might deserve the censure of those Counciles as the positions that prejudice preventing Grace are condemned by that of Orange and the writings of Cassiane and Faustus censured afterwards their persons remaining untouched upon conformity to the decree As for Godscalcus whom Hincmarus condemned by vertue of the Counciles of Arles and Lions which I think void I see there is opposition in point of right what ought to be held between Hincmarus and his party on the one side and Remigius of Lyons with his Whatsoever Godscalus his opinion truly was in point of fact And therefore the authority of the Church not being ingaged on either side I am at freedome to refuse absolut predestination to glory much more predetermination which is but one way to execute it admitting absolute predestination to grace And truly though I impute it for a charge to those that maintaine the determination of mans will by the immediate Act of God before it determine it selfe that they destroy freewill by pretending to maintaine it because the determining of it which they make the ground of freedome is indeed the ground of necessity which stands not with freedome which is no small fault in Divines yet as Christians I count them so much the lesse enemies to the Faith For in as much as they doe this under the pretense of establishing freedome it is manifest that they ground their salvation upon the Covenant of Grace which supposeth it And therefore think themselves notwithstanding obliged to apply their utmost indeavours to the fulfilling of it Though the difficulty of the question intangling and as it were maleficiating their understanding makes them imagine that it is maintained by that which indeed destroys it And therefore I cannot in the like manner excuse them who besides the predetermination of the will by God do hold that faith which onely justifieth to consist in believing that God predestinates to life in consideration of the obedience of Christ provided for the elect of God alone Because not requiring that voluntary conversion of the will of God for the condition oâ— the Covenant of Grace the revelation of the will of God aforesaid not implying any thing but the evidence of Gods word manifested by his spirit to that effâ—ct they disoblige themselves of imploying that freedome of the will which Christianity supposeth to perform that condition which Christianity requireth As if the losse of freedome from sin did infer the losse of freedome from necessity by vertue of originall concupiscence extending neverthelesse to the state of innocency In fine the free grace of God and the free-will of man belonging both to the foundation of Christianity there are two extremities to be argued in this question consisting in destroying the one out of a desire to preserve both which he that hath not in plaine termes destroys Christianity And therefore I blame not the determinations of the Councill of Orange that have secured us on the one hand against the merit of grace by works of nature But I find reason that we should be secured on the other hand against the determination of the will that introduces necessity to the overthrow of Christianity For it is possible for the understanding of him that desires to maintaine both grace and freewill to be so intricated with the difficulty of reconciling them both as to make the freedome of mans wil to depend upon the immediate act of Gods will determining it freely to act when it acteth out of pretense of maintaining the efficacy of Gods free grace wheras it is indeed no helpe of grace that inables not freely to doe what the Covenant of grace requireth I doe not therefore pardon our Presbyterians when they bring into their confession of faith which we must all be obliged to forsooth the determining of mans will by God having no waies secured us from the position of jâ—stifying faith to consist in beleiving that we are predestinate to life But I forwâ—rne their mis-led hearers that though they think themselves bound to pay them well for their
goods of it depending upon the same it is manifest that whether the sacrifices which the Congregation was bound to offer of course upon ordinary or solemne dayes or those which purged legall impurities inferring onely incapacities of conversing which Gods people or those which were offered for sinnes properly so called or for acknowledgment of blessings received or whatsoever they were all were made an offered upon the generall claime to the land of promise and every mans share in it Neither is there any greater argument hereof then this That there is no sacrifice appointed by the Law for capitall offenses Num. XV. 23. 27. 28. 29. as those which the Law deprived of all interest in the land of promise all right to converse among Gods people Which what it signified to Christians you may see by the apostle Ebr. II. â— X. 28. to wit that they who stick not to the termes of their Christianity must expect so much the heavier vengeance at Gods hands And therefore when the Apostle argues Ebr. X. 4 It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goates should take away sinne The answer is given by the same Apostle Ebr. IX 13. If the blood of bulls and of goates and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the defiled sanctifieth to the purity of the â—lesh That it takes not away the guilt of sinne from the conscience which shuts heaven upon us but it takes away the incapacity of coming into the Tabernacle or conversing among Gods people or other forfeitures of legall promises And therefore I may conclude that the sacrifices which the Law was established with Ex. XX. 4 â—â— though not expiatory gave the people right to the land of promise to wit as done to solemnize their resolution of submitting to the Law For the people having beene Idolaters in Aegypt as we understand by the Prophet Ezek XX. 6. 7. and now submitting to a Covenant with God for the land of promise by obeying his Law are they not thereby accepted by God for heires of it This seemes indeede not to stand well with the opinion of the Fathers S. Chrysostome Theodoret and divers others the best expositers of the Scriptures that the ancient Church hath that the sacrifices of the Law were appointed by God not of his owne originall intent but upon occasion of their pronenesse to worship Idols as the Hethen did granting them those rites which they had knowne them serve their idols with so as they might be performed after that perticulare manner which he should injoyne as done to him alone And this they make the meaning of the Prophet when he saith that God commanded their Fathers nothing concerning Sacrifices at their coming out of Aegypt Jer. VII 22. because we see that in theire first coming out of Aegypt he treates with them about keeping his Lawes but not about sacrifices Ex. XV. 25. 26. But nothing hinders those sacrifices which were brought in occasionally to have been intended to figure the sacrifice of Christ As nothing hinders those sacrifices which from the beginning had been dâ—livered the Fathers as pleges of Gods love to them through Christ to be by the malice of the devill diverted and imployed to the service of Idols Certainly the Fathers before the floud sacrificed nothing but whole burnt offeringes because at that time they were not to eate of their sacrifices feeding onely on things that grew out of the earth Gen. I 28. For afterwards when he gave the sons of Noe license to eat flesh Noe offered peace offerings whereof part being burnt upon the Altare the rest went to the use of those that had sacrificed to â—east upon Gen. VIII 19. 20. IX 4. And those which Moses solemnized the Covenant of the Law with were holocausts and peace offerings Exod. XXIV 5. those which the Law makes properly explatory being afterwards introduced by the Law Now that all sacrifices are figures of Christ we have not onely the generall reason premised but particulare instances in the New Testament The Paschall Lambe 1 Cor. V. 7. The holocausts and peace offeringes which the Law was inacted with Exod. XXIV 5. Ebr. IX 18-22 together with all those the blood whereof purgeth by the Law The daily burnt offeringes of the Congregation Ebr. X. 1. for Socinus is ridiculously willfull to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there once a yeare as if the speech were onely of the sacrifice for the day of atonement and by consequence all anniversary oblations And whereas Socinus observes that no lambe is appointed by the Law for a Propitiatory sacrifice I suppose when the Baptist saith John 1. 36. Behold the lambe of God that takes away the sinnes of the world when S. John saith Apoc. 1 5. To him that loved us and hath washt us from our sinnes in his bloude when the Martyrs say Apoc. V. 9. Thou wast killed and hast brought us to God out of every kinred and tribe and language and nation when the Apostle Apoc. XIII 8. mentions those whose names are not written in the booke of life of the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world These I suppose knew well enough what creatures were sacrificed and yet declare that Christ was figured by Lambes to what purpose let their words argue It is manifest indeed that the Epistle to the Ebrues argues most upon the anniversary sacrifice of the day of atonement whereof one thing I must observe to him concerning the accomplishment of that which it figureth that as he maketh it together with all other sacrifices the bloud whereof is sprinkled upon the Arke to signify Christ crucified without the walls of Jerusalem So he maketh the sacrifice of Christ crucified signified thereby a pâ—ace offering for the Church to feed upon as we doe in the sacrament of the Eucharist though by the Jewes not to be touched because they killed it without the City as abominable Ebr. XIII 8-16 But Socinus will not have this sacrifice made at least not perfected nor Christ an High Preist till he entred into the heavens to present it to God as the High Priest into the Holy of Holies to sprinkle the blood How then is he figured by those sacrifices the blood whereof is not caried within the vaile I grant the sacrifice of Christ is not done till Christ come to judgment as that was not done till the High Priest came out of the Holy of Holies declaring the accepting of it Levit XVI 18 19 20. But as he must Be an High Priest that sacrificed what God accepted so must Christ be High priest before he was killed And therefore a sacrifice as the Apostle expressely saith Ebr. X. 26 27 28. That having abolished sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe he shall appeare againe to the salvation of them that expect him As the High Priest out of the Holy of Holies The same is many wayes evident by Ebr. IX 14-20 For where Socinus will have Christ to offer himselfe unspotted to God by the â—ternall Spirit by presenting
for the rest of their Divines who are commonly called Ubiquitaries because they are supposed to teach That the oâ—ni-presence of Christs God-head is communicated to his flesh by virtue of the Hypostatical Union so that the body and bloud of Christ being every where present necessarily subsisteth in the dimensions of bread and wine in the Euchâ—rist This opinion I hold not my self any way obliged here to â—â—â—pute further than by barring it with this exception that it taketh away that supposition upon which the whole question concerning the consecration of the Eucharist â—â—â—ndeth To wit that seeing the presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament cannot be attributed to the invisible faith of him that receives it is necessarily to be attributed to the viâ—â—ble faith of the Church that celebrateth For according to this oâ—inion it is manifest that the said presence can no way depend upon any thing done by the Church in celebrating the Eucharist being alâ—eady brought to passe and in being when the Church goes about it And this is all the argument that I will use against this conceit that all the premiâ—es require and so will also all that which followeth the presence of the body and bloud in the Eucharist to be of an other nature and otherwise effected â—â—an can be understood to belong to the Elements by virtue of the Hypostaâ—ical â—nion Though wee suppose that which cannot be granted that by virtue thereof â—hey are every where Which therefore whether their Divines do really belâ—eve or onely in words I will not here dispute Thus much I can say that by the agreement of the Churches pretending the Confession of Ausburg conâ—ernâ—ng the Articles once in difference among them contained in the Boâ—â— knoâ—n by the name of Liber Concordiae they are not tied to maintain so much For it is there openly protested not onely in the Preface but chiefly in the eighth Article concerning this point p. 769 787. that they do not believe the properties of the God-head to be transfuâ—ed into the Manhood nor that the Manhood of Christ is locally extended all over heaven and earth but that Christ by his Omnipotence is able to render his flesh and bloud present where hee please Especially where hee hath promised the presence thereof by inâ—â—ituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist And Chemnitius therefore one of the beâ—â— learned of their Divines in a Book writ on purpose to set forth the grounds of their opinion concerning the communication of attributes expresly â—onâ—â—neth himself to these terms as you may see cap. XXX p. 205 206. declaring his meaning by the comparison of iron red hot which though the fire be so in it that they are not discernable much lesse seperable and though they may do the act of both natures at once upon the same subject by burning and cutting the same thing remain notwithstanding distinct in their natures What then would they have Why this being set aside they say neverthelesse most truly that in the whole work of the Mediators office the divine nature communicateth with the humane Which understanding the necessities of Christs Members both intercedes with God for supply and supplies the same by the proper will of it which his divine will alwayes concurring brings to effect In which regard it is also most truly said that the properties of the God-head do communicate with the Manhood in regard of the concurrence of them to execute that which it resolveth being alwayes conformable to the will and decree of the God-head This indeed is no more than the faith of the Catholick Church importeth nor infeâ—â—â—th the Ubiquity or Omni-presence of Christs flesh as an indowment communicated to reside in it by virtue of the Hypostatical Union as thenceforth the proper subject of it But the concurrence of both natures to the effecting of those works wherein the Mediators Office is seen whereupon depends that honour and worship which the Mâ—nhood challenges in the person of Christ as inâ—eparable from the God-head to which originally that honour is due And therefore I shall never go about to return any maner of answer to any of thoâ—e Scriptures which have been alleged for it but onely this that they inferre nothing to the purpose in hand For if it could be said that by virtue of the Hypostatical Union that is by the will of God effecting it the immensity of the God-head were so transfused into the Manhood as to make it present wheresoever this Sacrament is celebrated and so in the Elements of it then were this an answer to the difficulty in hand But such a one as would ingage him that affirms it in the Heresie of Eutyches But saying no more than this That the will of the man Christ concurres with his Divine Power to do all that his promises to his Church imports And that the effect of this Sacrament importing the presence of his flesh and bloud it is necessary that the will of the man Christ by the Divine Power concurring to the works of it should make the flesh and bloud of Christ present wheresoever his Ordinance requires they cannot say that Christs flesh is present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by virtue of the Hypostatical Union upon those grounds But that by virtue of the Hypostatical Union the will and promise of Christ is executed by the power of the God-head concurring with it and which it acteth with Which is to say that not immediately by the Hypostatical Union but by means of Christs promise which must come to effect by the power of the God-head which the humane will of Christ communicateth with And truly I conceive no man ever was so impertinent as not to suppose the Hypostatical Union when there was question how the promise of the presence of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist should come to effect But that being supposed and not serving the turn alone it remains that wee judge it by the institution of the Eucharist and the promise which it contains that is to say by those Scriptures out of which the intent of them is to be had and not by the Hypostatical Union which being supposed the question remains neverthelesse And by the Hypostatical Union wee doubt not but our Lord Christ hath power to represent his body and bloud that is to make it present where hee please but that must be not meerly by virtue of the Hypostatical Union but by doing the same miracle which Transubstantiation imports though it be the Hypostatical Union that inableth our Lord Christ to do it For though there be a difference between the being of Christs flesh and bloud under the dimensions of the Elements the substance of them remaining being reduced by the power of God under those dimensions And the substance of them being abolished Yet I suppose all men of reason will say that the Hypostatical Union contributes no more to that than to this And therefore not doubting that the Sacramental presence of the body
all Ecclesiastical Writers do with one mouth bear witnesse to the presence of the Body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist Neither will any one of them be found to asscribe it to any thing but the Consecration or that to any Faith but that upon which the Church professeth to proceed to the celebrating of it And upon this account when they speak of the Elements supposing the Consecration to have passed upon them they alwaies call them by the name not of their bodily substance but of the body and bloud of Christ which they are become Justine in the place afore quoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For wee take them not as common bread and drink but as our Saviour Jesus Christ being incarnate by the Word of God hath both flesh and bloud for our salvation so are wee taught that this food which thanks have been given for by the prayer of that Word which came from him by the change whereof are our bloud and flesh nourished is both the flesh and bloud of that incarnate Jesus Where by comparing the Eucharist with the flesh and bloud of Christ incarnate wherein divers of the Fathers have followed him hee justifies that reason of expounding This is my body this is my bloud which I have drawn from the communication of the properties of the several natures in our Lord Christ incarnate But chiefly you see the Elements are made the body and bloud of Christ by virtue of the Consecration as by the Incarnation humane flesh became the flesh and bloud of Christ So Irenâ—us IV. 34. Quemadmodum qui à terrâ— panis percipiens invocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenà coelesti Sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam â—am non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis â—â—bentia As the bread that comes from the earth receiving the invocation of God upon it is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the â—arâ—â—ly and the heavenly So also our bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible having the hope of rising again For hee had argued afore that because our flesh is nourished by the body and bloud of Christ which if they were not in the Eucharist it could not be therefore they shall rise again By virtue therefore of the conâ—ecration they are there not by the faith of him thâ—t receives according to henaeus Tertul. de Resur cap. VIII Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur ut anima de Deo saginetur The flesh feeds on the body and bloud of Christ that the soul may be fatned with God Origen in diver loc Hom. V. is the â—â—rst that adviâ—es to say with the Cenâ—uâ—ion when thou receiveâ—â— the Eucharist Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof For then the Lord comes under thy roof saith Origen S. Cyprian upon the Lords Prayer having said that Christ is our bread makes that the daily bread which wee pray for to wit in the Eucharist And in his book de lapsis makes it to be invading and laying violent hands upon the body of Christ for them who had fallen away in persecution to presse upon the Communion without Penance going afore The Council of Nicâ—a in Gelasius Cyzicenus II. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us not basely consider the bread and the cup set before us but lifting up our mindes let us conceive by faith that there lies upon that holy Table the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world sacrificed without sacrificing by Priests And that wee receiving truly his precious body and bloud S. Hilary de Trin. VIII censuring the Arians who would have the Son to be one with the Father as wee are maintains that wee are not onely by obedience of will but naturally united to Christ because as hee truly took our nature so wee truly take the flesh of his body in the Sacrament Our Lord having said My flesh is truly meat and my bloud truly drink And Hee that cats my flesh and drink my bloud dwells in mee and I in him And much more to the same purpose which could signifie nothing did not our bodies feeding upon the Elements feed upon that which is truly the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament or mystically not by virtue of our feeding which follows but by virtue of the Consecration which goes before For this natural union of the body with that which feeds it serves S. Hilary for the argument of that unity which the Son hath with the Father by nature being the union of our flesh with the flesh of Christ by virtue of our flesh united to the Word incarnate S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag IV. V. argueth that Christ having said of the bread and of the cup This is my body this is my bloud who otherwhiles changed water into wine wee are not to doubt that wee receive his body and bloud under the form of bread and wine And therefore wee are not to look on them as plain bread and wine but as the body and bloud of Christ hee having declared it All this by Sanctification of the Holy Ghost according to the Prayer of the Church But I will go no further in rehâ—arsing the texts of the Fathers which are to be found in all books of Controversies concerning this for the examination of them requires a volume on purpose It shall be enough that they all acknowledg the Elements to be changed translated and turned into the substance of Christs body and bloud though as in a Sacrament that is mystically Yet therefore by virtue of the Consecration not of his faith that receives On the other side that this change is to be understood with that abatement which the nature and substance of the Elements requires supposing it to remain the same as it was I will first presume from those very Authors which I have quoted For would not Justine have us take that for bread which hee saith wee are not to take for common bread when hee saith further that our bodies are nourished by it which by the flesh of our Lord they are not Would not Irenaeus have us think the Bread to be the earthly thing as well as the Body the heavenly when hee saies the Eucharist consists of both Tertullian ad Vxorem II. 5. perswades his wife not to marry a Gentile when hee is dead because when hee perceives her to receive the Eucharist and knows it to be bread hee believes it not to be that which Christians call it Origen when hee tells upon Mat. XV. 11. that it was called the bread of our Lorâ— gives no man in his wits occasion to think that the Elements vanish When hee saith further that it is not the bread but that which was said upon it which profits him that worthily receives it hee would have us take it for what it was whatsoever it is become S. Cyprian saith
with virgines and once maried people And shall thy sacrifice freely ascend And among other affections of a good minde wilt thou desire chastity for thee and thy wife I dispute not here how lawfull it is to pray for the dead which Tertullian touches again de Monogamiâ X. de Animâ LVIII This Tertullian supposes that if a Christian have two wives hee must offer that the Eucharist may be celebrated and that at the celebrating of it the Priest may pray for those whom hee mentions as the occasion of celebrating it The birth-dayes of Martyrs that is the Anniversaries of their sufferings was another occasion of celebrating the Eucharist as in Tertullian so in S. Cyprian Epist XXXIV Sacrificium pro eis semper ut meminiâ—â—is offerimus quoties Martyrum passiones dies annuâ commemoratione celebâ—an us Wee alwaies offer sacrifice for them as you remember when wee celebrate the yearly commemoration of the Martyrs suffering dayes Therefore where the â—ame S. Cyprian forbids offering the names of those that had fallen away in persecution and offering for them Epist IX XI hee forbids the receiving of their offerings and by consequence praying for them at the Eucharist Epiphanius Haer. XXX speaking of the Patriarch of the Jewes baptized in private 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The said Patriarâ—â—â—aâ—inâ—â—â— his hand a very considerable summ of gold streâ—ched out his hand and gave it to â—â—e Bishop saying Offer for mee S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag V. Eâ—roe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then that spiritual sacrifice that unbloudy service being done consecrâ—tâ—â— over that propitiatory sacrifice wee beseech God for the common peace of the Churches for the State of the world for the Kings their armies and allies for the sick c. adding that praying for the departed wee offer to God Christ cruciâ—â—ed â—or our sins to render him propitious to them and to us Of which effect in due place the intent hereby appears For here as hee calls it a Sacrifice upon the Consecration so hee plainly sets down wherein the propitiation which it effecteth consists according to the Catholick Church For to say truth to the purpose in hand I can produce nothing like that which I have said already in my Book of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church to which I remit you for the rest pag. 370-382 that in all the Liturgies there is a place where mention is to be made of all States of the Church for whom the Oblations out of which the Eucharist is consecrated are offered And likewise a place where the Eucharist being consecrated prayer is made in behalf of all States in the Church that is to say the Sacrifice of Christ his Crosse there present is offered up to move God to grant them all that is desired by the regular and continual prayers of the Church And among them there is a special place for those that offer at present If any man be moved to imagine that any part hereof is prejudicial to that Reformation which the Church of England professeth for I professe from the beginning not to be sâ—rupulous of offending those that offend it I remit him to that learned Appendix of Dr Field to his third book of the Church the purpose whereof in answer to the question where the Reformed Church was before Luther is to show that in this point as in others there handled the sense of the whole Church of Christ even to the time of Luther and to the Council of Trent was no other than that which the Church of England embraceth and cherisheth Thereby to show that the Reformation thereof never pretended to found a new Church but to preserve that which was by taking away those corruptions which time and the enemies of Christianity had sown in the Lawes and customs of it Which hee doth so evidently perform in this point that I must needs challenge any man that hath a minde to blast any thing here said with the staâ—e calumny of Popery to consider first Whether hee can prove those things which the Authors past exception there quoted declare to be the sense of the Catholick Church at that time to contain any thing prejudicial to the Gospel of Christ and that purity thereof which the Reformation pretendeth And because I know hee cannot do it I rest secure of all blasphemies or slanders that can be forged upon this occasion Openly professing that those who will not acknowledg that condition of the Gospel and the promises thereof which I have demonstrated to be essential to Christianity it is for their interest to defame the sense of the Catholick Church with the slanderous aspersions of Popery that so they might seduce miserable creatures to believe that there is a faith which inâ—itles them to the promises of the Gospel not supposing them converted to the Christianity which it rendereth For seeing that propitiation which the Sacrifice of the Eucharist pretendeth is grounded upon this condition of the Covenant of Grace as I have showed it is no mervail if they who pretend to reconcile the promises of the Gospel to the lusts of the flesh by which this world is injoyed indeavor to slander the purity of Christianity with those aspersions which they have seduced wretched people to count odious In fine it is not that consideration of a Sacrifice in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which the sense and practice of the Catholick Church inforceth but the violent interpretations of it which are made on both sides to both extremities that can give the leass pretense for division in the Church For while on the one side the sacrificing of Christ a new is so construed as if to doubt of the virtue of it in behalf of all that assist in it whether they communicate in it or not whether their devotions concurr to it or not were to doubt of the virtue of Christs Crosse it is no mervail if this create so great offense that the receiving of the Eucharist nay the assisting of it with the devotions of Christian people comes to be a mater of indifference On the other side while the renewing of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse by that representation thereof which the Eucharist tendreth for the redressing of the Covenant of Grace between God and those which receive is construed as prejudicial to that one Sacrifice whereby our Lord for ever hath perfected those whom hee sanctifieth no mervail if the very celebrating of it come to be a mater of indifference the effect whereof by believing that a man is predestinate or justified is had before and without it The mater of the Sacrifice then being so great a subject for the diviâ—ion upon so litle cause it is time for good Christians to awake and look about them and see that the lesse cause there is the greater good will the parties have to continue at distance In the mean time it is the common interest of Christianity even the means of their salvation by the
upon which the Holy Ghost which Christ promiseth upon his ascension is granted as I have showed then can it not be thought to have been in force from any other date then that of the promise This is the reason why I am to expect no thanks from the Anabaptists for granting that the Sacrament of Baptism was not in force when these words were said For the regeneration here required in them that shall come to the Kingdom of heaven being expressed here to be that which the Holy Ghost worketh and the sending of the Holy Ghost depending upon the profession of Christianity solemnly made by Baptism from the time that Christianity came in force Whatsoever Nicodemus understood by being born again of water and the Holy Ghost after the institution they cannot be understood to take effect without it There were then divers customes of baptizing in force among the Jews by virtue of the Law There was a custome to admit Proselytes into the Synagogues by circumcision by a sacrifice and by baptism And they that look upon this custome with judgement cannot doubt that our Saviour intending to prescribe a course for the bringing of true Proselytes which are Christians into the true Israel of God which is the Church made choice of the ceremony of Baptism because of the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel In fine John had taken it up for the fittest expression of that repentance and conversion from those evill wayes which he charged those that bore themselves high upon the priviledge of Gods people with which those whom he baptized were to professe This was enough to make Nicodemus understand by these words the declaration of a purpose to institute some such Ceremony as those which he knew to be in use But when he addeth the Holy Ghost as a promise annexed to it he sends us Johns Gospel to learn further what this promise requires And therefore I must resume here that which I observed afore that our Lord intending to institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist for the eating of his body and blood mystically as in a Sacrament prepared his Disciples for it by discoursing to them of eating his flesh and drinking his blood by considering his doctrine and turning it to the nourishment of their souls by taking up his Cross and professing Christianity Joh. VI. For one egge is not liker another then the course he takes here to intimate what he intended to ordain for the qualifying of his Disciples to be capable of the Holy Ghost whereby he declareth a promise is to his proceeding in bringing in the other Sacrament If then our Anabaptists can show us a new Gospel to assure us of the gift of the Holy Ghost without Baptism then may they take upon them to assure us of the Kingdom of Heaven without it But if the Kingdom of Heaven depend upon the new birth of the Holy Ghost and there be no possible means to assure any man of this new birth without the Sacrament of Baptism either Infants must be baptized before they go out of the world or go out of the world without that assurance Here I professe it is all one to me as to this dispute whether those whom I dispute with believe Original sinne or not For if they believe it not I remit them to that which I have said in the second Book to maintain it If they believe it I remit them to all that I have said there to show that it is not cured by Predestination alone but by that condition which the Covenant of Grace requireth To this condition he that is predestinate is cured of it by his predestination which appointeth him the cure But not being predestinate to the cure cannot be presumed to be predestinate to the Kingdom which supposeth the cure That which is born of the flesh is flesh that which is born of the spirit is spirit saith our Lord. How shall that which is born flesh be born again spirit did our Lord promise it any man that should not first professe Christianity and be baptized He that stands upon that let him dispute with that which I have said in the second Book let him show me how the Gospel how Christianity can stand if the promises of it be assigned to Gods Grace and purpose immediately without supposing any condition qualifying for th◠same It is plain what will be said Infants are not capable of making this profession of knowing what it means of judging that it ought to be made Therefore not capable of Baptism or the promises depending upon it if in that consideration they depend upon it And truly set aside that consideration and I do not marvail that man cannot believe God should make the spirituall and everlasting promises of his Gospel to depend upon a little water and so many words as it is used with Besides that S. Peter finding it inconvenient to attribute such effects to laying down the filth of the flesh establisheth instead of it the profession of a good conscience to God as that to which he would have them ascribed They then that believe that God provided and procured the fall of Adam or foreseeing the means by which it would come to pass permitted it no purpose that all his posterity being liable to Originall sinne he might chuse whom he would save and whom he would damn for it without respect of any compliance with those terms of salvation which he should hold forth do not stand to their own opinion if they referre not the salvation of Infants to the meer appointment of God without respect to any thing that the Church may do in it But they that will not part with their Christianity for so gross a presumption as that is will take heed how they become murtherers of the Childrens souls first denying them that help to Gods Kingdom which is in their power to give and that of their own by breaking the unity of the Church rather then do that which the Church alwaies did do Indeed if there were any thing in the precept of Baptism to signifie that it is not to be given them who do not actually make profession of Christianity reason would that it should be obeyed referring our selves to God for the issue of those inconveniences which his commands breed though never so visible But what saith the Apostles commission Go make Disciples all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you For I do except against the translation of it Go teach all Nations Beeing in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Syriack TALMED which can signifie nothing but make Disciples Now those that were first called Christians at Antioch Acts XI 26. were called Disciples afore and afterwards also almost throughout the Scripture which useth the name of Christians but seldome And is there not reason to take them for Disciples who being ingaged to Christianity by being baptized
change which Temporal Power remaining in the same hands is able to produce within its own dominions The consequence of which consideration will be this that where Temporal Power makes such a change in the state of those Cities which are the seats of Churches that the Government and advancement of Christianity either may proceed changing the priviledges of the Churches or cannot proceed otherwise there the Church either may or ought to transferre the pre-eminences of Churches from City to City And therefore that where the case is otherwise the Church is not bound upon every act of Temporall Power to proceed to any change If this seem obscure being thus generally said let not the Reader despair before we have done to find instances in things that have come to pass not onely to clear my meaning but also to evidence the reason upon which I proceed It is likewise easie for him that considers this supposition and the effect and consequence of it to see that it gives no Jurisdiction to the Church of Rome much lesse to the Head thereof in behalfe of it over other Churches then those which resort immediately to it as every Diocess is concluded by the mother Church and every Province by the Synod of it much lesse the Power of giving Law to the whole but by the act of those Synods whereof the whole consists or of judging â—ny appeal that may be brought to it But it makes the Church of Rome as other Head Churches the center to which the causes that concern first the Western Churches in particular then the whole are to resort that they may find issue and be decided by the consent and to the unity of all whom they concern It is also easily to be observed that this eminence of the greatest Churches over their inferiours which originally is no further defined and limited then the consequence of this ground in respect of the rest of Christendom required might lawfully be defined and limited further either by sâ—lent custome or by express law of the Church consenting at leaâ—â—â—â—â—ffect and practice which is the onely real positive Law that rules all Societies Whereby new rights and priviledges might come to the Church of Rome as well as to other Churches which might also be for the good of the whole in â—â—intaining the unity of the Church together with the common interest of Christianity But I deny not on the other side that this Power the beginning whereof is so necessary and just the intent so excellent by the change of the world and the state of things in it may be so inhansed that though it do provide for the unity of the Church yet it shall not provide for the interess of Chistianity But of this and the consequence of it in due time For the present the reason upon which my position the effect and consequence whereof I have hitherto set forth is grounded is the effect of it in all proceedings of the Church recorded first in the Scriptures and afterwards in Church Writers as they succeed those that I must here principally consider being the very same that I considered in the first Book to make evidence of the being of the Church in point of fact as a body out of which now the right which held it together as the soul must appear Adding the consideration of such eminent passages in succeeding times as may serve to the same purpose I will not here repeat the marks of it which I have produced out of the Scriptures in the right of the Church Chap. II. For the dependence of Churches is part of this position as an ingredient without which the unity of the whole is not attainable I will onely adde here the consideration of that which I alleged in the first Book out of S. Johns last Epistle 5-10 Some have thought it so strange that Diotrephes and his faction should not acknowledge those that were recommended by S. John an Apostle that they have rather intitled the Epistle to a successor of his in the Church of Ephesus whose Tombe S. Jerome saw there besides S. John the Apostle whom Papias called John the elder as he is called in the beginning of these two Epistles Hieron Catal. in Johanne Papiâ Ens. Ecclesiast Hist II. 25. But he that considers what S. Paul writes to the Corinthians of his adversaries there will not marvail that S. John should find opposition at the hands of Diotrephes aspiring to the Bishoprick by banding a faction against the Jewish Christians whom it appears sufficiently that S. John cherished And therefore the mark here set upon Diotrephes is not for introducing Episcopacy as the Presbyterians would have it but for disobeying the superiour Church whereof S. John was head to the indangering of Unity in the Whole For could Diotrephes hope to make himselfe Bishop in his own Church when no body was Bishop in any Church besides Or might not Diotrephes hope to do it by heading a party that disallowed compliance with Judaism at that time If then the Apostles provided not that the Church should continue alwayes one if this Unity was not alwayes maintained by the dependence of Churches let this reproof have no effect in any succeeding time of the Church But if the eminence of S. Johns Church above the neighbour Churches in insuing ages was a necessary ingredient to the unity of the whole then be it acknowledged that S. Johns successors might lay the blame of Diotrephes his ambition upon any successor of his that should follow it Before I go any further I will here allege those Fathers which do teach that our Lord gave S. Peter the Keys of his Church in the person of the Church and as the figure of it Namely S. Cyprian Pacianus S. Hierom S. Augustine and Optatus whose words I will not here write out to inflame the bulk of this Book because you have them in the Archbishop of Spalato de Rep. Eccl. 1. VII 17-29 VIII 8. 9. Adding onely to them S. Ambrose de dignitate Sacerdotali cap. 1. affirming that in S. Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven are given to all Priests And cap. II. speaking of the words of our Lord to S. Peter Feede my sheepe Quas oves quem gregem non solum tunc beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes Which sheep and which flock not onely S. Peter then undertook but also he with us and with him we all undertook them And venerable Bede upon the words of our Lord Tell the Church Haec potestas sanctae Ecclesiae Episcopis specialiter commissa est generaliter vero omni Ecclesiae data creditur Nam quod dominus alibi hanc ligandi solvendique potestatem Petro tribuit utique in Petro qui typum gerebat Ecclesiae omnibus Apostolis hoc concessisse non dubitatur The power of the Keys is committed especially to the Bishops of the Holy Church but is believed to be
trample Paganisme under feet after the conversion of Constantine Certainely nothing can be named so correspondent to that honour which is prophesied for them that suffered for Gods law under Antiochus Epiphanes Dan. XII Is not all this honour properly derivative from the honour of God and our Lord Christ and relative to his service For that is the worke for which Christians assemble and for those assemblies the Church stands as I have often said The honour of the Saints but the occasion circumstance or furniture for it Neither is it to be doubted that the Saints in happinesse pray for the Church militant and that they have knowledge thereof if they goe not out like sparkles and are kindled againe when they resume their bodies which I have showen our common Christianity allowes not For is it possible to imagine that knowing any thing that is knowing God and themselves they should not know that God hath a Church in the world upon the consumation whereof their consummation dependeth Or is it possible that knowing this and being disposed towards this Church as they ought to be disposed towards it in respect to God they should not intercede with God for the consummation of it and the meanes thereof which is all we can desire I will not use the text of Jeremy XI 1. and Ezek. XIV 13-19 because it is manifest that Moses and Samuel that Noe Daniel and Job are named in them but to put the case that if those men were alive and made intercession for their people they should not prevaile Which is not to say that which I have showed that the Old Testament speakes not out plaine that being alive they doe intercede Therefore they make no consequence I will not use the text of the Gospell Luke XVI 9. Make ye friends of the unrighteous Mamon that when yee faile they may receive you into everlasting Tabernacles Though S. Austine de Civit. I. 27. makes a doubt whether it be by the intercession of his friends that such a man is received Because he makes no doubt that it is in consideration of the charity by which he made them his friends that he is received And therefore in that consideration it must be that they are said to receive him not in consideration of their prayers Of which therefore this text saith nothing But I must needs use the text of the Apoc. V. 8. VIII 3. whereby it appeareth as much that the Church triumphant prayeth for the Church militant as that the saints of the Church triumphant are alive And I wil use these texts of the Old Testament where Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and David are in consideration alleged to God in behalf of his people Gen. XXVI 5 24. Ex. XXXII 13. Deut. IX 27. 1. Kings XI 12 32 33 34. XV. 4. 2. Kings VIII 19. XIX 34. XX. 6. Es XXXVII 35. 1. Kings XVIII 36 1 Chron. XXIX 28. For as our Saviour argueth well that Abraham Isaac and Jacob are alive and shall rise againe because God is not the God of the dead So is the consequence as good that what God doth for their sakes he doth it for their mediation or intercession unlesse he meane to set that on their score which they desire not at his hands The Angels of little children alwaies see the Fathers face in heaven Math. XVIII 10. And there is joy in the presence of Gods Angels over one sinner that repenteth Luke XV. 10. And David saith that the Angell of the Lord pitcheth his tent round about them that feare him and delivereth them Psalme XXV 8. And they are all ministring spirits sent forth to attend upon them that shall be heires of salvation Heb. I. 14. and have they not that affection for those whom God so affecteth as to provide them such attendance not to mediate with their desires to God the effect of that goodnesse which he is so affectionate to bestow upon us An imagination so barbarous cannot possesse any man till he think himselfe beloved of God for hating those that honour Saints and Angels above measure Let them looke to the measure and let them looke how they hate them that observe it not Let them not ground their measure upon a supposition of as little affection in the Saints and Angels for us as in themselves for the Saints and Angels unlesse it be because such a supposition may deserve to deprive them of the benefit of such relations For as for the Church S. Cyprian doubts not when he desires that those who shall happen to depart first be mindfull of them that remaine in their prayers to God Epist I. And the Saints in heaven that are secure of their owne salvation he saith are solicitous for us in his booke de mortalitate S. Jerome saith the same of Heliodorus Epist I. nor is any thing to be faulted of that which he writes against Vigilantius to that purpose S. Austine supposeth that Nebridius prayed for him being dead Confess IX 3. and expects benefit from S. Cypryans prayers de Bapt. V. 7 17. He said afore that we are to be commended by the prayers of the Martyrs and de sanctis Serm. XLVI Debent Martyres aliquid in nobis recognoscere de suis virtutibus ut pro nobis dignentur domino supplicare The Martyrs must take notice of something of their owne vertues in us that they may vouchsafe to become petitioners to God for us And againe contra Faustum XX. 21. the reason why they celebrated the memories of the Saints he assignes that they might be partners in their merits and be helped by their prayers Both which Leo in S. Lam. considers as well the helpe as the example of the Saints and S. Gregory Epist VII 57. Indict II. Rogo omnipotentem Deum ut sua te gratia protegat beati Petri Apostolorum principis intercessione a malis omnibus illi sum servet I beseech Almighty God to protect thee with his grace and through the intercession of S. Peter Chiese of the Apostles keep thee unharmed by any evill It were to no purpose to show what I allow by bringing more for this cannot be disallowed allowing the premises But this being supposed whatsoever may be disputed whether Saints or Angels in this regard may be counted Mediators intercessors or Advocates between God and us will be meere contentions about words holding to the termes hitherto supposed For the intercession of our Lord Christ being grounded upon the worke of redemption the effects of it must be according To make all mankind acceptable to God under the condition which the Gospell declareth To obtain for every man those helps of Grace by which he may or by which he is effectually resolved to undergoe the condition requisite He that knowes the God-heade of Christ to be the ground in consideration whereof the obedience of Christ is acceptable by God to this effect and yet will needs say that Saints or Angels are our Mediators Intercessors or Advocates to