not to any part but to the whole Body of the Scriptures it would first have been said what Scripture speaking of the whole Body of the Scripture hath established this property or â—rivilege of it For my part upon the best consideration that I can take I am at a stand to finde any text of Scripture any letter or syllable of the whole Bible that sayes any thing at all good or bad of the whole Bible So farre is it from delivering this property or privilege of it So farre further from delivering it as the first truth in termes so clear and unquestionable as to make it a presumption to the deciding of all that is or may become questionable concerning the Scripture The words of S. Paul 2 Tim. III. 16 17. All Scripture inspired by God is also profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness That the man of God may be perfect Being fitted for every good work Cannot be said of the whole Body of Canonical Scripture being written before it was That is when evidently many parts of the New Testament were not written probably all and evidently concernes every part of Gods Word not the whole Body of the Scriptures Therefore with Origen I conceive they are meant of the Scriptures of the Old Testament To this effect That that instruction which is necessary to salvation being had by the Gospel which the Church teacheth those whom it maketh Christians the right understanding of the Old Testament according to the mystery of the Gospel is that which rendereth him whom God imployeth in the propagation of his Gospel and the edification of his Church able to convince those that withstand to edifie those that admit it Which if it be farre short of that which I deny the rest of those pitifull lame consequences which are usually made from the Scriptures to prove the same purpose will easily appeare to come short of it though I take not in hand to determine at present the full meaning of them but onely to show that they import not that all things necessary for the salvation of all Christians are clear to all Christians in the Scriptures The fashion is to allege Deut. IV. 2. XII 32. Yee shall take heed to do all the Word that I command you Yee shall adde nothing to it nor take any thing from it And You shall adde nothing to the Word that I command you nor take any thing from it That you may keep the commandement of the Lord your God which I command you And that it is threatned for a conclusion to the whole Scripture Apoc. XXI 18 19 If any man adde to the words of the Prophesie contained in this Book God shall lay upon him the plagues written in this Book God shall take away his share out of the book of Life and the holy City and the things that are written in this Book For is not all that is requisite sufficiently clear if nothing may be added or taken from the Scriptures Therefore is S. Paul also alleged pronouncing anathema if himself or an Angel from heaven or any man should take upon him to preach any other Gospel than that which they had already received Gal. I. 8 9. And that therefore are the Beraeans commended Acts XVII 11. that they did not admit even those things which S. Paul so great an Apostle preached to them without examining them by the Scriptures whether so as hee said or not To the same purpose John XX. 30 31. Many other miracles did Jesus which are not written in this book But these are written that yee may believe that Jesus is the Christ and that believing yee may have life through his Name Adde hereunto the Psalmists commendations of the Law XIX 7-31 as giving wisedom to the simple as inlightning the eyes and instructing the servants of God which how should it do if it be not first to be understood For the precept is a candle and the Law light saith Solomon Prov. VII 22. And Psalm CXIX 113. Thy word is a candle to my feet and a light to my paths Further the Scriptures tell us how they come to be obscure what makes them clear They shall be all taught by God saith the Prophet Isa LIV. 13. speaking of the times of the Gospel and the children of the Church And Jeremy XXXI 33 34. promiseth that God will put his New Covenant in the hearts of his children and write it in their entrailes so that they shall have no need to teach one another the knowledge of God because they should be all taught by God to know God And is not this that for which our Lord gives thanks to the Father Mat. XI 25. because having concealed the mystery of the Gospel from the wise and understanding hee had revealed it to babes and sucklings Which the Apostle expoundeth 1 John II. 20 21 27. You have an Vnctien from God and know all things I have not written to you because yee know not the truth but because yee know it and that no lye is of the truth And But as for you the Vnction which yee have received of him remaineth in you and yee need not that any man teach you But as that Vnction teacheth you of all things and is true and not false and as it hath taught you so shall you abide in it Whereupon afterwards IV. 1. Believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether of God or not To wit as those who were possessed of that by which they were to be tryed Therefore S. Paul 1 Thess V. 23. Try all things Hold that which is good To wit by that means which hee intimateth 1 Cor. II. 15. The spiritual man is judged by none but himself judgeth all things In fine I must not forget Cartwrights argument from the words of the Prophet Jeremy VII 31. XXXI 35. where hee reproveth the Jewes Idolatries by this argument that it never came into Gods minde to command them any such thing For if the grievousnesse even of their Idolatries consist in this that they were done without warrant of Gods word how can it be questionable that hee hath provided us instruction sufficient to clear us in all that wee are to do by the Scriptures But these Scriptures are as easily wiped away as they are alleged if wee go no further than to show that they inforce no such principle as is pretended for the ending of all Controversies that all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians are clear to all Christians in the Scriptures For what a pitifull inconsequence is it to argue that all things necessary to salvation are clear in the Scriptures because Moses forbideth to adde to or take from his Law For if the Gospel be not clearly contained in the Old Testament containing the Law and the Prophets and therefore much lesse in the Law alone then is it not lawfull to adde to or take from that Scripture in which all things necessary to salvation
for God which are sacrificing burning incense pouring out drink-offerings and adoration But others there are by doing which a man cannot be concluded to worship any thing but God till he do it in that way and fashion as is one by those that professe to worship it for God If it be said that these are Jews which allow Traditions but that there is another sort of Jews called Scripturaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which admit nothing but the leter of the Scriptures I answer that those also who admit onely the Text of Scripture and pretend to determine all controversies about the Law by consequences to be drawn from it could never come to agreement among themselves what consequence should take place and what not did they not acknowledge some publick persons whose determinations the whole body of them submitteth to the consequences which they derive their observations by from the leter of the Law being so ridiculously insufficient that they could not satisfie the meanest understandings otherwise as may appear by those which the Talmudists alledge for their constitutions Which being no lesse ridiculous then the traditions which they alledge incredible would be both to no effect did not the publick power of the Nation which while the Law stood was of force by it but now it is void ought to cease put all pretenses beyond dispute And for that which is alledged out of the Apocalyps which in sound of words seems to import some such thing concerning the vvhole book of the Scriptures as these Texts of Moses import concerning the Lavv I shall desire the understanding Reader but to consider that protestation vvhereby Irenaeus conjures all that should copy his Book to collate it vvell vvith the Original that they might be sure neither to adde to it nor take from it as Eusebius relateth out of his Book de Ogdoade against the Valentinians Eccl. First V. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I adjure thee that shalt copy out this Book by our Lord â—esus Christ and by his glorious presence when he comes to judge the quick and dead to collate what thou hast transcribed and correct it by this Copy whence thou hast transcribed it with care and likewise to transcribe this adsuration and puâ—â—it in the Copy Setting aside this adjuration what is the difference between S. Iohns charge and the matter of it And finding the words of S. Iohn to import neither more nor lesse to tell me what he thinks of this argument S. Iohn protesteth in the conclusion of his Revelation that who so shall adde any thing to the true and authentick Copy of these Prophesies to him shall be added the plagues written it who so taketh from it from him shall be taken his share in the Book of life and the holy City and the good things written in that Book Therefore all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians are contained in the Scriptures clearly to all understandings But strain the consequence of this Text beyond the words of it which concern onely the words of the prophesie of this Book that is the Apocalyps if you please and take it for a seal to the whole Bible forbidding to take any thing from or to adde any thing to it for some of the Ancients have so argued from it shall he that addeth the true sense to or taketh false glosses from the Bible by force of that evidence which the Tradition of the Church createth be thought therefore to adde to the Word of God or to take from it Then did God provide that his own Law should be violated by his own Law when having forbidden to adde or to take from Moses Law he provided a power to limit or to extend both the sense and practise of it and that under pain of death to all that refractarily should resist it Now I demand of them that shall alledge S. Pauls Anathema against him that should preach any other Gospel then what he had preached to the Galatians against the position that I maintain whether he do believe that the Galatians had then the New Testament consisting of the four Gospels and other Apostolicall Scriptures or whether he can maintain that they had any part of it For if this cannot as is evident that it cannot be affirmed then of necessity S. Paul speaks of the Gospel not as we have it written in the Books of the New Testament but as they had received it from the preaching of S. Paul by word of mouth which being common to all Christians unlesse we question whether all the Apostles preached the same Gospell cannot be thought to destroy either the being of the Catholick Church or the saith which it supposeth or the power wherein it consisteth and the Authority of those acts which have voluntarily proceeded from it As for the Beraeans that examined even the doctrine of S. Paul by the Scriptures is it a wonder that they should not take S. Paul for an Apostle of Jesus Christ upon his own word but should demand of him to show by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ that so they might be induced to believe him sent to preach the Gospel of Christ Therefore when they were become Christians we must believe that they understood themselves and S. Paul better then to call his doctrine under examinarion or to dispute with him about the meaning of the Scriptures which he should alledge which our illuminati which take this for an argument must consequently do because they value not in S. Paul the commission of an Apostle but the presumption they have that the Holy Ghost moved him to write the Scriptures which he hath left us though they have nothing to alledge for it but the general commission of an Apostle To the words of the Evangelist Ioh. XX. 30. 31. I answer that he speaks onely of his own Gospel And that the things written in that Gospel are sufficient to induce a man to believe that believing he may have life But that is not sufficient to inferre that therefore all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians are clearly expressed either in S. Iohns Gospel or in the whole Scripture because he that is induced by the things there written to belive the truth of Christianity may seek further instruction in the substance thereof that he may attain unto life by imbracing the same So S. Iohn saith not that a man hath life by believing what is there but what by knowing it he cometh to believe As for those words of S. Paul 1 Tim. III. 16. 17. I confidently believe that S. Paul speaketh onely of the Books of the Old Testament then before the writings of the Apostles were gathered into that body which now is the New Testament known by the name of the Scriptures Being well assured that no evidence can be made to the contrary because of those alone it could be demanded that they should bear witnesse to that which the Apostles preached and taught There being no
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
was unknowne and by him to his disciples whereby after the power came downe upon him from above he did miracles And that when he had suffered that which came from above flâ—w up againe from Jesus So that Jesus suffered and rose againe but the Christ which came upon him from above flew up againe without suffering which is that which came downe in the shape of a dove and that Jesus is not the Christ Where you see he makes the coming of Christ to be nothing else but an escape made by the Holy Ghost when he came upon our Lord out of the Fullnesse of the Godhead to return thither againe when he had suffered Now it is agreed upon that Cerinthus had spread his Heresies in Asia when Saint John writ his Gospell And though Epiphanius report that it was Ebion whom Saint John met with in the bath and refused to come in it so long as he was there calling away his Scholars with him Yet it must be resolved that it is a meere mistake of his memory because himselfe testifies as afore that the Heresy of Cerinthus flourished in Asia and in Galatia and because Eusebius after Irenaeus who conversed with Saint Johns Scholar Polycarpus reports it of Cerinthus As for the Heresy of Ebion it is manifest by Epiphanius himself in his Heresy that it sprung up first and flourished most in the parts of Palestine beyond or besides Jordane which they called Peraea what time the Church of Jerusalem had forsaken the City to remove themselves to Pella where God had provided for them at the destruction of it So that it appeareth not that Saint John saw the birth of it being probably removed into Asia before that time I shall therefore neede to say nothing of the Heresy of Ebion having Saint Jerome in Catalogo to witnesse that the Gospell of Saint John was written at the request of the Bishops of Asia in opposition to Cerinthus But the stocke of that evidence which I shall bring out of the Scripture for the state of our Lord Christ and his Godhead before his coming in the flesh lying therefore in the beginning of that Gospell which was writ on purpose to exclude it I shall referre the rest of that which I shall gather out of the New Testament to the sense and effect of it CHAP. XIII The Word was at the beginning of all things The apparitions of the Old Testament Prefaces to the Incarnation of Christ Ambassadors are not honoured with the honour due to their Masters The Word of God that was afterwards incarnate was in those Angels that spoke in Gods Name No Angel honoured as God under the New Testament The Word was with God at the beginning of all things as after his return THE Gospel of Saint John then beginneth thus In the beginning wâ—s the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The same was in the beginning with God In which words the Socinians will not have the beginning to be the beginning of all things but the beginning of preaching the Gospel That is to say when John the Baptist began to preach And the Word to be the man Jesus so called because he was the man whom God had appointed to publish it So that in the beginning was the Word is in their sense When John the Baptist began to preach there was a man whom God had appointed to publish the Gospel And truly I cannot deny that the beginning here might signifie the beginning of the Gospel by the same reason as in the Scripture and in all Languages words signify more then they expresse But that reason can be no other then this because a man speakes of things mentioned afore in discourse or of that which is otherwise known to be the subject of his discourse So words signifie more then they expresse because something that is known need not be repeated at every turne What is the reason then why this addition not being expressed is to be understood Forsooth Saint Mark beginneth his Gospel thus The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Sonne of God As it is written in the Prophets Behold I send my Messenger before thy face that shall prepare thy way before thee The voice of him that cryeth in the wildernesse Prepare â—e the way of the Lord make his path plaine John was baptizing in the wildernesse Is not this a good reason Because in one Text of Saint Marke you find the beginning of the Gospel to be the preaching of John therefore wheresoever you read the beginning you are to understand by it the beginning of the Gospel At least in the beginning of S. Johns Gospel we must seek no other meaning for it But who will warrant that the word Gospel in S. Marke signifies the preaching of the Gospel as sometimes it does or this book of the Gospel which S. Mark takes in hand to write The words it is manifest may signifie either and therefore it cannot be manifest that the word beginning without any addition is put to signifie the one and not the other For if you understand the beginning of the book of the Gospel when S. John saies In the begining was the Word Their turne is not served As for the title of the Word which scarce any of the Apostles but S. John attributes to our Lord Look upon the beginning of his first Epistle That which was from the beginning which we have heard and seen and our hands have handled of the Word of Life for the Life hath been manifested and we have seen and bear witnesse and declare unto you that everlasting Life which was with the Father and hath been manifested unto us That which we have heard and seen declare we unto you Here it must be a man that S. John calls the Word when he speakes not onely of hearing but of seeing and handling the Word of Life But when he saies that the Word was with God from the beginning and since hath been made manifest to us is there nothing but the man and his office of preaching the Gospel to be considered for the reason why he is called the Word What meant then the Apostle Ebr. IV. 12 13 The Word of God is quick and active and cutteth beyond any two edged sword and cometh so farre as to divide between the soul and the spirit to the joints and marrow and judgeth the thoughts and conceits of the heart Neither is any creature obscure to it but all things naked and bare to the eyes of him whom we have to do with Where you see he begins his discourse concerning the Gospel but ends it in God And therefore attributes to the gospel under the name of the Word those things which onely God can do because to the Author of it under the Name of the Word he attributes the knowledge and governing of all things For the reason then why our Lord is called the Word we must have recourse to that which the most ancient
I would not have you ignorant brethren that our Fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the Sea and all were baptized unto Moses in the cloude and in the Sea and all eate the same spirituall meate and all drank the same spirituall drink For they all drank of the spirituall rock that followed them Now the rock was Christ They that entred into a Covenant of workes to obtaine the Land of promise as I have showed they did entred not expressely into a Covenant of Faith in Christ for obtaining the world to come No more then being baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the Sea as he sayes here they were that is into his goverment into the observation of the Lawes he should give in hope of the promises he should give they can be said to have been baptized expressely into Christ and that profession which his promises require Wherefore when he saith that the rock was Christ his meaning is not immediately and to those that rested in this temporall Covenant of workes But as the Manna was Christ and Moses was Christ by the meanes of that faith which God then received at their hands to wit the assurance of everlasting happinesse for them who under this calling should tender God the spirituall obedience of the inward man upon those grounds which his temperall goodnesse the tradition of their Fathers and the instruction of their Prophets afforded at that time Now I appeale to the sense of all men how those can be said to have that interest in Christ which I have showed that Christians have and therefore upon the same ground if there were no consideration of Christ in the blessings of Christ which they injoyed Wherefore when S. Paul proceeds hereupon to exhort them not to tempt Christ as some of them tempted we must not understand that he forbids us to tempt Christ as they tempted God But that they also tempted Christ who went along with them in that Angel in whom the name of God and his word was as I said afore So when the Apostle saith that Moses counted the reproch of Christ greater riches then the treasures of Aegypt for he looked at the recempense of reward Ebr. XI 26 when putting them in mind to follow their teachers considering the end which they had attained and Moses aimed at he addeth Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to day and for everlasting Ebr. XIII 8. when S. Peter sayes that the Prophets who foretold the Gospell searched against what time the Spirit of Christ that was in them declared and testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glorious things that followed 1 Pet. I. 10. when S. Paul saith that all Gods promises are yea and Amen in Christ 2 Cor. I. 20. me thinkes it is strange that a Christian should imagine that there was no confideration of Christ in these promises under which they ranne the race of Christians Nor could S. Paul say As by Adam all dy so by Christ shall all be made alive 1 Cor. XV. 22 Nor could the comparison hold betweene the first and second Adam which he makes Rom. V. 12-19 if that life which I have showed how Christ restores Christians to were given to the Fathers before Christ without confideration of Christ Nor could the Apostle otherwise say That Christ is the mediator of a New Covenant that dâ—â—th coming for the ransome of those transgressions that were under the Old they that are called may receive the promise of an everlasting inheritance Ebr. IX 15. but because those sinnes which were redeemed onely to a temporall effect by the sacrifices of the Old Law as also those which were not redeemed at all by any as I said were by the sacrifice of Christ redeemed to the purchase of the world to come Which is that which S. Paul tells the Jewes Acts XIII 29. that through Christ every one that beleeveth is justifiyed from all thinges which they could not be justified of by the Law of Moses For as the Law did not expiate capitall offenses so it expiated none but to the effect of a civil promise And though we construe the wordes of S. John Apoc. XIII 8. whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world out of the same sense repeated Apoc. XIII 8. Not that the Lambe was slaine from the foundation of the world but that their names were written in his book from the foundation of the world yet in as much as it is called the book of the Lambe that was foreknown from the foundation of the world 1 Pet. I. 19. when Moses demands not to be written in Gods book or when mention is made of it in the New Testament it must be the book of Christ in the mysticall sense And when S. Paul sayes that Christ gave himselfe a ransome for all A testimony for due time What can he meane but that though he gave himselfe for all yet this was not to be testified till the proper time of preaching the Gospell And what is this but that though this is testified onely by the preaching of the Gospell yet he was a ransome for all Which reason suffers not the same terme all Ebr. II. 9. Rom. III. 23. to be restrained from that generality which it naturally signifies Lastly when the Apostle argues that if Christ should offer himselfe more then once that he might more then once enter into the Holy of Holies he must have suffered oft from the foundation of the world that is before the end of the world in which he came indeed Ebr. IX 25. 26. he must needs suppose that he suffered for all that were saved before the Gospell For what pretense can there be that he should suffer for sinnes under the Gospell before the Gospell more then that the High Priest before the Law should expiate those sinnes which were committed against the Law by entring into the Holy of Holies And here you may see that I intend not to affirme that all that were saved under the Law though in consideration of Christ did know in what consideration Christ should be their salvation as Christians under the Gospell doe But to referre my selfe to the determination of S. Augustine and other Fathers and Docters of the Church that they understood it in their Elders and Superiors the Prophets of God and their disciples the Judges of Israell who were also Prophets and the Fathers of severall ages of whom you read Ebrews XI who being acquainted with the secret of Gods purpose were to acquaint the people with it so sparingly and by such degrees as the secret wisdome of God had appointed These things thus premised I do acknowledge and challenge the act of God in dispensing in the execution of his originall Law and bringing the Gospel into effect in stead of it not to be the act of a private person remitting this particular interest in the punishment of those sinnes whereby
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
mentioning the Devil and his Angels nor of that not mentioning the creation of Angels The knowledge then requisite to save a Christian containeth the Apostasy of the evil Angels whether it be in the Creed or not because neither the Creed as it is nor Baptisme in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost can be understood to have any sense without supposing it And therefore Irenaeus I. 2. could not deliver this Rule without mentioning the Devil and his Angels though I intend not thereupon to argue that it was contained in the words of the Creed at that time By S. Cyrils Catechises you shall understand that those who pretended to Baptisme at Easter were to be instructed in the sense and grounds of their Creed during the Lent And S. Augustine in his book de Catechizandis rudibus where hee acquaints his friend that had writ to him about something of that office with the form that hee was wont to use instructs him to begin with the beginning of Genesis and setting forth what course God had taken with mankinde before and under the Law to bring down his discourse to the coming of Christ and from thence to his second coming to Judgment Which is to the very same purpose onely taking opportunity to mixe the motives of Faith which the Old Testament containeth with the mater of Faith which the New Testament requireth Whatsoever then is said of the Rule of Faith in the writings of the Fathers is to be understood of the Creed Whereof though it be not maintained that the words which Pretenders were required to render by heart were the same yet the substance of it the reasons and grounds which make every point necessary to be believed were alwaies the same in all Churches and remaine unchangeable I would not have any hereupon to think that the mater of this Rule is not in my conceit contained in the Scriptures For I finde S. Cyril Catech. V. protesting that it containes nothing but that which concerned our salvation the most selected out of the Scriptures And therefore in other places he tenders his Scholars evidence out of the Scriptures and wishes them not to believe that whereof there is no such evidence And to the same effect Eucherius in Symb. Hom. I. Paschasius de Sp. S. in Praef. and after them Thomas Aquinas secunda II. Quest I. Art IX all agree that the form of the Creed was made up out of the Scriptures Giving such reasons as no reasonable Christian can refuse Not onely because all they whose salvation is concerned have not leisure to study the Scriptures but because they that have cannot easily or safely discern wherein the substance of Faith upon the profession whereof our salvation depends consisteth Supposing that they were able to discern between true and false in the meaning of the Scriptures To which I will adde onely that which Tâ—rtullian and others of the Fathers observe of the ancient Hereticks that their fashion was to take occasion upon one or two texts to overthrow and deny the main substance and scope of the whole Scriptures Which whether it be seen in the Sects of our time or not I will not say here because I will not take any thing for granted which I have not yet principles to prove but supposing it onely a thing possible I will think I give a sufficient reason why God should provide Tradition as well as Scripture to bound the sense of it As S. Cyril also cautioneth in the place aforenamed where hee so liberally acknowledgeth the Creed to be taken out of the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For saith hee the Faith was not framed as it pleased men but the most substantial maters collected out of the Scripture do make up one doctrine of the Faith For I beseech you what had they whosoever they were that first framed the Creed but Tradition whereby to distinguish that which is substantial from that which is not Heare Origen in the Preface to his books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cùm multi sum qui sentire se putent quae Christi sunt nonnulii eorum diversa à prioribus sentiant servetur verò Ecclesiastica praedicatio per successionis ordinem ab Apostolis tradita usque ad praesens in Ecclesiis permanens Illa sola credenda est veritas quae in nullo ab Ecclesiasticâ discordat traditione Illud tamen scire opor tet quoniam sancti Apostoli fidem Christi praedicantes de quibusdam quidem quaecunque necessaria crediderunt omnibus credentibus etiam his qui erga inquisitionem divinae scientiae pigriores videbantur manifestissimê tradiderunt Rationem scilicet assertionis relinquentes eis inquirendam qui Spiritûs dona excellentia praecipuè sermonis sapientiae scientiae per ipsum Spiritum Sanctum percipere merebantur De aliis verò dixerunt quidem quia sint quomodo autem aut unde sint siluerunt profectò ut studiosiores quoque l. quique ex posteris suis amatores sapientiae scientiae exercitium habere possent in quo ingenii sui fructum ostendere valerent Hi videlicet qui dignos se capaces sapientiae praepararent Species verò eorum quae per praedicationem Apostolicam manifestè traduntur hae sunt There being many that think their sense to be Christian and yet the sense of some differs from their predecessors But that which the Church preaches as delivered by order of succession from the Apostles being preserved and remaining the same in the Churches That onely is to be believed for truth which nothing differs from the Tradition of the Church This notwithstanding wee must know That the holy Apostles preaching the Faith of Christ delivered some things as many as they held necessary most manifestly to all believers even those whom they found the duller in the search of divine knowledge Leaving the reason why they affirmed them to the search of those that goe to receive the eminent gifts of the Holy Ghost especially of utterance wisedom and knowledge by the Holy Ghost Of other things they said that they are but how or whereupon they are they said not Forsooth that the more studious of their Successors loving wisedom and knowledge might have some exercise wherein to show the fruit of their wit To wit those that should prepare themselves to be worthy and capable of wisedom Now the particulars of that which is manifestly delivered by the preaching of the Apostles are these Which hee proceedeth to set down But Vincentius Lerinensis hath writ a Discourse on purpose to show that this Rule of Faith being delivered by succession to the principal as S. Paul requires Timothy to do and by them to those that were baptized was the ground upon which all Heresies attempting upon the Faith were condemned So that so many Heresies as historical truth will evidence to have been excluded the Church from the Apostles time for mater of belief so many convictions of this Rule Which
because being to be held as a Heathen or a Publicane as being Excommunicate that is to say suppposing that to be true which Erastus would have to be salse by consequence and in effect it would become lawfull to sue him before Gentiles as being no longer a Christian Now when it followeth What forever yee binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven If wee take binding and loosing in a general sense to signifie that Power of giving Law so that hereeby the Church is inabled to give Law to the Church setting aside for the present who of the Church is to give Law who to receive it then I say that by virtue hereof the Power of Excommunicating is given to the Church Because it is nothing else but such a Right established by a Law of God And if God give his Church a Power to make Laws then hee gives it Power to make a Law that shall give force to all the rest by inacting that penalty that shall be requisite to restrain disobedience But if wee take the terms of binding and loosing as they are used among the Jews and by consequence when that which is unlawfull is done for declaring what is lawfull or unlawfull to be done to be discharged of it I say that admitting the difference between the Law and the Gospel which I have established the Power of Excommunicating will follow in the Church For supposing the Law not to tender remission of sin in order to life everlafting but to the remporal privileges of a Jew to be bound and to be loose will signifie no more than to be in or out of possession of those privileges uncapable or capable of the fame by doing or not doing what the Law requireth to be done for that purpose In the mean time this Power will argue a Common-wealth of Israel founded by God by virtue of which foundation the Power of those who are inabled by the Law to make this declaration takes effect to all purposes contained in the Law But. supposing the Gospel to tender remission of sins in order to life everlasting upon such terms as the Covenant of Grace importeth To be bound and to be loose will signifie freedom from sin or the captivity and fervitude of it And therefore the Power of declaring this estare and what is to be done for the attaining of it will necessarily inserre a Society of the Church founded upon the Power of making that declaration whereupon any man may be accepted for such Neither can it be imagined that any part any degree of the fame can be in any man but so farr and to effect as the Community of the Church shall have allowed It is not now unknown that divers of those that dispute Controversies for the Church of Rome do challenge the Power of making Law for the Church by virtue of this Power of binding and loosing given by our Lord to his Apostles And this opinion taketh place by the former interpretation of these words which being admitted that consequence cannot be refused But taking the Power of binding and loosing to be by virtue of the Keyes of Gods House which are the Keyes of David or the House of David the figure of the Church which is that signification which the language of the Scripture required when our Lord. having promised his Church adds Mat. XVI 19. Unto thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven what soever thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven The Power of binding and loosing in the Church will be correspondent to that which the Doctors of the Synagogue had of declaring this or that lawfull or unlawfull according to Moses Laws and a man tied to do this or that for maintaining his privilege by it And having said this I conceive I have done more than hee that distinguished these two meanings in our Lords words thought fit to do Hee distinguishing thus in the first book de Synedriis pag. 291 hath thought it enough to argue that neither the one nor the other will serve to ground the Power of Excommunicating in the Church Wherein what hee hath proved I referre my self to that which hath been said But in what sense the words of our Lord are to be understood according to his own opinion hee hath not declared how requisite foever it had been to do as I according to my opinion indeavor to do As for that little Objection that in Our Lords words it is not persons but things that are said to be bound and loose It is to be underflood that things are neither bound nor loose of themselves But that by the way of common understanding of men and speech it is attributed to them from the obligations that Iye upon men or persons by virtue of which obligations or freedom from them such things as they import are said to be bound or loose as lawfull or unlawfull for them to use who using them are either bound or free to such rights as the using or not using of them inferrs Though by consequence of this Power the Power of binding by Law or loosing that is of leaving free without tying by Law will naturally follow For as in Civil Government whatfoever person or persons are absolutely and without limitaiton indowed with the Soveraign Power must necessaraily be indowed with the Power of giving Law whereby they do but limit themselves what Law they will govern by which is before those Laws be declared their will and pleasure So if wee suppose in the Church a Power of admitting into and casting out of the Society of the Church wee must needs suppose a Power of giving Law to this Society because no Society at all can have Communion with it self but according to some Rules of exercising the said Communion which for the present are called Laws Now our Lord Christ having given his Disciples the Power of binding and Loosing by opening or shutting the doors of his Church that is by admitting into or excluding out of it hath thereby given them the Power of framing his Catholick Church Not that they are so properly said to binde those whom they shut out of the Church For when Christianity declareth mankinde to be under sin not to be freed of it but by submitting to Chrissianity the bond is contracted by him that finneth the shutting of the Church door upon him is but refusing him the cure whereof hee tenders himself uncapable But those whom they admit into the Church they are properly said to loose because though they cannot be loosed without their own act yet that act is not to be done without submitting to that authority which is intrusted to require it And this authority with those who acknowledge it by being admitted into the Church is that which consstuteth the Society and Corporation of the Church For admitting into the Church and allowing to continue
manifest to those that dedicate themselves to the examining of the Word according to the rate of that leisure and forwardnesse which they bestow upon their exercise in it Athanasius Disp. cum Ario in Conc. Nic. if it be his speaking of the Godhead of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Scriptures clearly declare all things And not onely that which was in debate S. Chrysostome in Lazarum Hom. III. incourages to reade the Scripture because it is not obscure the Gentiles that sought vain-glory by writing books affecting obscurity as the way to be admired but the Holy Ghost seeking the good of all contrariwise In â—oan Hom. II. hee compares S. Johns doctrine to the Sun as shining to all not onely men of understanding but women and youths In Mat. Hom. I. to the same purpose Epiphanius Haer. LXXVI 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For all is clear in Gods Scriptures to those that will come to the Word of God with godly reason and turn not themselvs down the precipices of death through lust wrought in them by the devil To the same purpose Haer. LXIX Gregory Nyssene in Psalm Inscriptiones I. commendeth the Psalms for rendring deep mysteries easie and pleasant to men and women young and old Cyril in Julianum VII answering his scorn of the Scriptures for their vulgar language saith it was so provided that they might not exceed any mans capacity Fulgentius according to S. Austine Sermde Confessoribus Ita suae moderationis tenet temperiem ut nec ovibus desint pabula nec pastoribus alimenta The Scripture holds this moderation in the temper of it that neither the sheep wants food nor the shepherd nourishment in it S. Chrysostome observes that when S. Paul sayes 2 Cor. III. 14. Their senses are blinded in reading the Scriptures Hee makes the cause to be in the Jewes blindenesse when they understand not in the Scriptures Again Origen in Mat. Tract XXV in Rom. III. S. Basil Moral definitione XXV S. Chrysostome in Psal XCV S. Cyril Catech. IV. Rufinus in Symb. agree in affirming that whatsoever is taught in Christianity is to be proved by the Scriptures S. Jerome in Mic. I. Ecclesia Christi quae habitat bene in toto orbe Ecclesias possidens spiritus unitate conjuncta est habet urbes Legis Prophetarum Evangelii Apostolorum non est egressa de finibus suis id est de Scripturis sanctis The Church of Christ being well seated and having Churches all over the world it hath the Cities of the Law the Prophets the Gospel and the Apostles goes not out of her bounds which are the Holy Scriptures Optatus V. putting the case of the Church with the Donatists to be the case of children about their Fathers inheritance sends them to his Will as the Judge of their pretenses And so S. Austine also in Psalmum XXI The Constitutions of the Apostles II. 19. Leo Epist XXIII S. Cypr. Epist LXVIII and many more agree that the People are to answer for themselves if they follow bad Pastors S. Austine adversus Maxim III. 14. Neque ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praejudicaturus proferre Concilium Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque propriis sed utriusque communibus testibus res cum re causa cum causâ ratio cum ratione decertet Neither am I to produce the Council of Nicaea nor you that of Ariminum for a prejudice With authorities of the Scriptures as witnesses common to both not proper to either let mater contend with mater reason with reason cause with cause De Vtilitate credendi VI. hee saith the Scripture of the Old Testament ità esse modificatam ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modò ad hauriendum devotè ac piè ut vera religio poscit accedat Is so tempered that any man may draw out of it that which is enough for him if hee come devoutly and piously as true religion requires to draw Vincentius Commonit I. confesseth that inveterate Herâ—â—es and Opus imperfectum in Mat. Hom. XLIX that the corruptions of Antichrist are not to be convinced but by Scripture The same Vincentius Commonit I. and Sulpitius Severus Hist II. acknowledg the Arians to have over-spread the greatest part of the Church Theâ—efore Nazianzene Orat. advers Arianos scorns them that measure the Church by number And Liberius in Theodoret Eccles Hist II. 16. answers Constantius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The cause of the Faith hath never a whit the worse because I am alone But truly I know nothing in all antiquity more peremptory against the Infallibility of the Church than that of Vineentius denying that the Rule of Faith can ever increase or Councils do any more in it than determine that expresly and distinctly which was simply held from the beginning Commonit I. And S. Austine de Vnitate Ecclesiae cap. XVI challenges the Donatists to demonstrate their Church out of the Scriptures S. Ambrose de Incarnatione cap. V. S. Hilary de Trinitate VI. Victor in Marcum cap. III. agree that the Faith is the foundation of the Church by virtue whereof the gates of Hell prevail not against it Therefore S. Austine de Bapt. contra Donat. II. 3. acknowledges that not onely particular Councils are corrected by General but that of General Councils the later may and do correct them that went afore Again Irenaeus III. 1. affirms that the Apostles writ what they preached by the will of God for the foundation and pilar of our Faith Tertulliane de Prâ—script cap. VIII Cùm credimus nihil ultrà desideramus credere Hoc enim prius credimus non esse quod ultra credere debeamus When wee believe wee desire to believe nothing else For first wee believe that there is nothing further which wee ought to believe So cap. XIV XXIX contra Hermog cap. XXII Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina that the world was made of mater preexiâ—ent Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus definitum Let the shop of Hermogenes show it written If it be not written let it fear the wo decreed for them that adde or take away Apollinaris in Eusebius Eccl. Hist V. 10. is afraid to write least hee should seem to write or injoyn more than the Gospel to which nothing is to be added or taken from it S. Basil de Fide sayes it is plain apostasie to bring in any thing that is not written And in Asceticis Reg. LXXX proves it because faith is by Gods Word and that which is not of faith is sin So likewise S. Ambrose de Paradiso cap. XII alleging Apoc. XXII 19. S. Austine de Bono Viduitatis I. Sancta Scriptura doctrinae nostrae Regulam figit The Holy Scripture prescribes a Rule to our doctrine To the same purpose de peccatorum remiss II. 36. S. Cyril de Trinitate personâ Christi whose words Damascene uses de Orthod Fide
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
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
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
God which it restraines in these words to the Father from any that by the sense of him that speaks them can be understood to be included in it And that the sense of our Lord may be notwithstanding this onely to include the Sonne in the property of this attribute the true God I go no further then the sense of all Christians who all affirme the father to be the onely true God but believe the Sonne to be the same onely true God neverthelesse And that this is his sense I referre my self to the titles attributes workes and worship of the onely true God challenged hitherto from his words And this sense the words of S. John the meaning whereof according to the ordinary reading I have shewed before not to advantage Socinus seem to intend according to the true reading which the Vulgar Latine justified by the Marques of Velez his Spanish Copies as you may by the readings added to the Great Bible preserveth We know that the Sâ—nne of God is come and hath given us understanding to know the true one Et sumus in vero filius ejus Jesu Christo And we are in his true Sonne Jesus Christ This is the true God and eternall life Whereas it is ordinarily read And we are in the true One in his Sonne Christ Or Through his Sonne Jesus Christ 1 John V. 20. For it seemeth that the Apostle folding up both attributes of the True one that is as it followeth the True God and the True Sonne of God in our Lord Christ pointeth at the words of our Lord recorded by himself alone John XVII 3. This is eternall life to know thee the onely true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ Challenging for him that he is no more to be excluded from the Title of onely true God then from that of author of eternall Life If it be said This cannot be Because there would be then more then one onely true God The answer is ready that this is not an argument from the force of these words that this cannot be the sense of them But from the light of reason that this sense cannot be true I know it is a trick that Crellius puts upon the Reader throughout his first Book de Deo Trino Vno that the sense of the Church is not the sense of the Scriptures because it contradicteth the evidence of natures light But when the sense of the Scripture is in question the dictate of reason concerning the truth of the matter is to be set aside that it may be judged without anticipation of prejudice from evidence planted in the very words of it And this is the answer to the rest of those texts that have the like exclusive but not in so strong terms as this Now when our Lord saith Of that day and hour knoweth not the Sonne I know S. Hilary laboureth very eloquently to shew that he meanes no more then that he had not commission to declare it But this would make the sense of our Lord to be the sense of those men who when they are asked that which they hold unfit to declare and yet would not seem to refuse the civility of declaring it do answer that they know not to wit so as to hold it fit to be told I will not tye my self to maintaine this reservation fit for our Saviour to use Especially where no circumstance of the case or the discourse appeares to intimate such a meaning to them whom he discourseth with When he said in the Comoedy Tu nescis id quod scis Dromo si sapias If thou beest wise thou knowest not what thou knowest Every man understands his meaning to be thou wilt not declare it Whether when the Messias saith I know not the day of judgement Men would conceive that he meant no more then this That he is not to declare it seems to be very questionable I can by no meanes comprehend how it can be prejudiciall to the Faith to say that the humane soul of Christ the knowledge whereof is necessarily limitted to the capacity of a creature and knowes things above nature by voluntary revelation of the Word and Spirit which knowes whatsoever is in God 1 Cor. II. 10 11. should be ignorant of something that is to come Luke II. 40 52. It is said The child grew and waxed strong in Spirit growing full of wisdome and the grace of God was upon it And Jesus improved in wisdome and stature and grace with God and men Shall I go and say that he seemed thus to grow as boyes in the Schools when they cannot answer texts of Aristotle that he speakes there in the sense of the ancient Philosophers The Schoole Doctors will have our Lords humane soul to have known all from the moment that he was conceived and think him not â—ound in the Faith that doubts of it But if onely originall Tradition be matter of Faith according to the Principle that is setled the meaning of particular texts of Scripture cannot be such Especially when it is evident that such a meaning is not necessarily consequent to that which is matter of Faith And if you look but upon the sayings of the Fathers that are alledged by the learned Jesuite Petavius 1 De Trinitate III. 5-11 You shall easily perceive how truly it is said by Leontius de Sectis pag. 546. Speaking of the Agnoâ—tae who were a Sect of Eutychians which held that our Lord knowes not all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we say that we are not to stand stifly upon these things Therefore neither did the Synod of Calcedon trouble is about any such position as this Yet it is to be known that many of the Fathers even almost all say that he was ignorant Certainly Irenaeus and Athanasius if narrowly examined demand no more but that he is ignorant of nothing according to his Godhead So that it is so farre from being matter of Faith that it is not in the Church ever to make it so whatsoever the Church may do to oblige the members of it not to declare their judgment to the scandale of others in a point so obscure Now the words of S. Paul do manifestly distinguish between our Lord Christ and all Creatures insisting thus Who is the Image of the invisible God the first born of the whole Creature For in him were all things created whether in Heaven or on Earth Surely he in whom as by whom all things are sayd to have been made is not intended to be comprised in the number of things made by being called the first born of the whole Creature And therefore I conceive the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to signifie according to the Hebrew not first but before We have eminent examples in the Gospels John I. 15. the Baptist sayth of our Lord Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because he was before me Our Lord. John XV. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The world
in the stream then it was in the fountaine And therefore though the terms of the Scripture agreeing with those which the most ancient Fathers of the Church use may justly authorize and bring into use those expressions which have not been usuall upon a due understanding of the intent to which they are used yet is there no power in the Church to render those terms which have passed for Christian and Catholick in the Primitive times of the Church suspected of Heresie in these times Origen is strongly charged by the ancient times in particular by Epiphanius as the Seminary of the Arians And that the Arians might not have advantage by many of his sayings were too much to undertake and that which my businesse no way requires The Socinians have made their advantages of Erasmus his writings And is any man so silly as to imagine that Erasmus was therefore of Socinus his Faith Have they not made the like use of Maldonate and his Commentaries upon the Gospels And is there any appearance that his meaning should be that of Socinus I will not therefore deny that the Cardinall du Perron in his answer to King James pag. 633. does acknowledge that Arius were able to maintaine himself within compasse of Tradition were he to be tried by the Fathers before the Council of Nicaea But I give the Reader notice that this is the consequence and the interest of that position which deriveth Tradition of Faith from an expresse act of the present Church supposing the matter of it not to have been of force and effectually acknowledged in all ages of the Church Which if it were true in this case then could no man be obliged to believe the Trinity as matter of Faith Though it might remaine questionable whether or no a man may be obliged to conform to it as consistent with the Faith and not to scandalize the unity of the Church by rejecting the act and decree of it according to the Position setled in the first book I will further acknowledge that I have seen an answer to Crellius the Socinians book de Deo by one Botsaccus now of Danzick I take it in the end whereof I find a number of exceptions made by the Socinians in their writings which I have not seen against the Faith of all that writ before Constantine in particular as inconsistent with that of Nicaea the particulars whereof because I have not seen the books and therefore cannot presume to answer particularly I could not here repeate would the model of my book give leave In general whosoever will take the paines to peruse that which is there alledged shall perceive First that those who alledge them fall out among themselves perpetually sometimes and for some sayings challenging Tertulliane for example or Clement or Origen for one of them that believe not the Trinity otherwise disowning them as those that helped to introduce the Faith of it But no where remembring themselves concerned to make good that which they maintaine out of the words of Hegesippus in Eusebius that the Faith of the whole Church was defloured presently upon the death of the Apostles and to shew that such a change did indeed come to passe in the Faith of the holy Trinity Secondly that there is no more difficulty in reducing the sense of their sayings there questioned to the sense of the Church after the Councile of Nicaea then in reducing the sense of Athanasius when he alloweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood of the proceeding of the Sonne from the Father of everlasting Or the sense of all these Fathers that understood the Father is greater then I of the priviledge of the originall and author which the Father of necessity hath personally above the Sonne and the holy Ghost the Godhead being one and the same to the same sense One passage of Tertulliane I have thought worth the clearing because it seems to containe a remarkable conceit of his in expounding the words of Solomon in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the sense of the Church so many years before Arius built his heresie in a manner upon it The words are in his book contra Hermogenem Cap. III. Quia pater Deus est judex deus est non tamen ideo Pater semper judex semper quia Deus semper Nam nec Pater potuit esse ante Flium nec judex ante delictum Fuit autem tempus cum delictum filius non fuit quod judicem qui patrem Dominuâ— facâ—reâ— For God also is Father and God is judge and yet not alwayes Father and judge because alwayes God For neither could he be Father before a Sonne nor judge before sinne But there was a time when neither sinne was to make God a judge nor Sonne to make God a Father He that reads this onely would think at a blush that it is the very marke of Arius his haerâ—sie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There was a time when the Son was not But the answer is in his book contra Praxeam Cap. V. Ante omnia enim Deus erat solus ipse sibi mundus locus omnia Solus autem quia nihil aliud extrinsecus prâ—ter illum Caeterum ne tunc quideâ— solus Habebat enim secum quam habebat in semetipso Rationem suam scilicet Rationalis enim Deus ratio in ipso prius ita in ipso omnia Quâ— ratio sensus ipsius est Hanc Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt quâ— vocabulâ— sermonem etiam appellamus Ideâ—que in usu est nostrorum per simplicitatem interpretationis Sermonem dicere in primordio apud Deum fuisse cum magis rationem competat antiquiorem â—aberi quia non sermonalis a principio sed rationalis Dâ—us etiam ante principium Et quia ipse quoque sermo ratione consistens priorem eam ut substantiam suâ—m â—stendat Tamen sic nihil interest Nam â—tsi Deus nondum sermonem suum miserat proinde â—um cum ipsa in ipsa ratione intra semetipsum habebat â—acite cogitando disputandâ— secum quae per sermonem mox erat dicturus Cum ratione enim sua cogitans atque disponens sermonem eam efficiebat quâ—m sermone tractabat For before all things God was alone to himself both World and place and all But alone because without there was nothing besides him otherwise even then not alone For he had with him that which he had in him his reason forsooth For God is reasonable and reason was in him before and so all things This reason is his sense This the Greek calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which name also we call speech Therefore our people use for one translation to say that speech was in the beginning with God Whereas it is more pertinent that reason should be counted more ancient because God spokâ— it from the beginning but had reason even before the beginning And
Chaldee of Oâ—kelus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nunc enim aderat mihi â—t mitterem For it was now neere me to stretch forth my hand That is I was neere doing it Perhaps signifies neither more nor lesse And if S. Paul translates part of iâ— word for word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this cause have I raised thee up that I might sâ—ew my power upon thee Yet is that nothing to the sense of that which went afore nor to argue any intent in S. â—aul to give occasion for those horrible imaginations that have been framed upon these words as if God made Pharo and all in his case on purpose to shew his power and get glory by damning them to everlasting torments For it followes a litle after in S. Paul What if God wiâ—ling to shâ—w his wrath and make knowne his power have borne with much long â—uffering the vessels of wrath fit for destruction And that to make knowne the riches of his Glory upon vessels of mercy which he had prepared for glory In which words it is manifest that God spared the life of Pharao in the plague of pestilence though then fit for destruction For by this discourse it appeares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifiâ—s Fit of themselves not fitted by God out of his long suffering though willing that is determining to make his power knowne by destroying him proving utterly obdurate But this out of an intent by the consideration of what they had seen come upon him to win his owne people from the Idolatry of Egypt to submit to his law As when S. Paul writ by the judgements of God upon the Jews for rejecting Christianity he called the gentiles to it For this is the inference that S. Paul makes in the next words Which are even we whom he hath called not onely of the Jews but of the Gentiles Introducing in the same words that comparison between the Jews whom he then called to the Law and the Gentiles whom he was now calling to Christianity which the correspondence between the Old and New testament importeth And so the sense of S. Paul is the same with that which S. â—eter said in the words quoted afore that God delaies his wrath in taking vengeance upon the oppressors of his people because he would have none of them perish but all come to repentance The sense which I deliver you have in Grotius his Annotations before the publishing of them in a booke of Miletrius concerning this subject since in the late Annotations and before any of them came forth many yeares I had declared it for my sense of these words By which you may see that Pharao seeing himselfe and his people not cut off when their cattle were destroyed by the pestilence did not believe that it came from God And also when God had declared his purpose in preserving him alive to terrifie him the more and when he had caused the plague of Haile to cease which then he moveth him with is by the love of rule over those whom by right he had nothing â—o doe with perswaded to breake his promise of letting them goe when it should cease Moses having told him that he would breake it Ex. IX 27-35 And because God knew that these temptations would prevaile over Pharao therefore he had foretold the plagues and the deliverance of his people upon them Ex. III. 19. VI. 2. anâ— therefore it is truly said both that God hardned Pharos heart to wit by causing him to meet with these considerations which made him neglect the plague For that which elsewâ—eâ—e is called hardening of his heart is called not setting his heart upon the plague â—x VII 23. and that Pharao hardened his heart or that his heart was hard Ex. VII 3. 13. VIII 10 15. IX 7. 12 34 X. â— v 20. Lastly observe that when Pharao had let the people goe God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistiâ—s which was the neerest because God said lest the people repent them when they see war and returne into Egypt But made them goe about by the way of the wildernesse of the Red Sea Ex XIII 17. 18. And againe Ex. XIV 1-5 God spake to Moses saying speake to the children of Israel and let them return and incamp against Pâ—â—hahiroth between Migdol and the Sea before Baalsephon even against it shall they incampe beside the Sea And Pharao will say of the children of Israel they are intangled in the land the wildernesse hath inclosed them And I will harden Pharaâ—hs heart and he shall pursue them and I will get glory upon Pharao and all his host and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord. And they did so And it was told the King of Egypt that the people â—led For it is to be observed that God had not yet required of Pharo that he should let them free for ever though he had made him let them goe withouâ— any promise of returne When therefore he sees on the one side that the meaning of God was not that they should return any more which made him so unwilling to let them goe as alwaies supposing it And on the other side that by their undiscreet march as he thought which God had provided for another cause there was hope to bring them backâ—â—â— is old thoughts revived that all these plagues come not from God but otherwise that he might yet bâ—â—ng them under his rule Whereby it is most evident First that the destruction of Pharaâ— was designed by God through these meanes in consideration First of oppressing his people then his impenitence upon these extraordinary tryals Then that it appeared to him that they wouâ—d take effect when he saith Pharao will say they are intangled in the land and that this is the hardening of Pharaos heart by God And hereupon dependeth that which is said of the Egyptians Wisdome XIX 1 2. But wrath without mercy pursueth the wicked unto the end because he also had foreseen what they should doe in time to câ—me To wit that repenting themselves they would straightway pursue those whom they should have leâ— goe diligently intreating them to depart Seeing the impenitenâ—e and unbeliefe of their obdurate hearts to have been such that there by it appeared to God how upon the first overturne they would returne to their first hope of reducing the Israelites to their bondage See the like in the enemies that God raised Solomon to punish his idol a tries 1 Kings XI 14-23-26 Hadad the Edomiâ—e having escaped into Egypt every man knowâ—s that jealousies between neighbouring Princes makes them ready to entertaine their Neighbours Enemies though under colour oâ— relieving of the oppressed even when the cause is noâ— cleare And though â—adad were never so welâ—ome in Egypt yet every man knowes what diffâ—rence there is between râ—â—â—ng at home and courâ—ing Pharao in Egypt And can there remaine any question how God raised Hadad for an enemy to Slâ—mon Hâ—w but by providing that
comparison S. Cyril of Jerusalem uses in this case is sanctified by virtue of the Name of Christ remaining the same for sensible substance for I confidently maintain that the negative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destroyes the sense as the comparison justifies for who sayes that the oile of the Chrisme or the water of Baptisme is changed for substance but for force changed into a spiritual virtue So also the water both that is exâ—rcized and that which Baptisme is done with not onely retains the worse but also receiveth sanctification Theodoret Dial. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord would have those that receive the divine mysteries not regard the nature of the things they see but upon the change of their names believe the change which grace effecteth For hee who called his natural body corn and bread and again named himself the Vine honours the visible Symboles with the name of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding his grace to it And Dial. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For neither do the mystical signes after consecration depart from their own nature but remain in the same substance and figure and form and may be seen and touched as afore The Pâ—eface to the Romane Edition of these Dialogues â—aith that Theodoret uses this language because the Church had as yet decreed nothing in this point An excuse much like the censure of the Epistles of Isidore of Pâ—lusium printed at Anwerpe which are licenced as containing nothing contrary to faith oâ— good manners For if the Church is able to make new Articles of Faith then may whosoever licenses books passe this censure because by the act of the Church making that Faith which was not so afore the dead might incurr the contrary censure But supposing that the Church is not able to do such an act that which was not contrary to the Faith when Theodoret writ it can never be contrary to it I will end with Facundus because the formal terms of my opinion are contained in his words Sicut Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus quod est in pane poculo consecrato corpus ejus sanguinem dicimus non quòd propriè corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant Hinc ipse Dominus benedictum panem calicem quem discipulis tradidit corpus sanguinem suum vocavit As wee call the Sacrament of his body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cup his body and bloud Not because the bread is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mystery of his body and bloud Whereupon our Lord himself also called the bread and cup which having blessed hee delivered to his disciples his body and bloud This is in few words the sense of the whole Church concerning this businesse Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna saith that the Gnosticks forbore the Eucharist because they believed not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins which the Lord raised again by his goodnesse But why believed they not this because they would not believe Transubstantiation or because they would not believe that our Lord Christ had flesh Let Tertullianâ— speak contra Marc. IV. Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterùm vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non posset That bread which hee took and distributed to his disciples hee made his body saying This is my body That is the figure of my body But the figure it had not been if the truth of his body were not Otherwise an empty thing such as an apparition is â—ad not been capable of a figure For as Maximus saith in the third of those Dialogues against the Marcionists that go under Origens name what body and bloud was that whereof hee ministred the bread and the cup for signs and images commanding the Disciples to renew the remembrance of them by the â—ame As for that which is alleged out of Irenaeus I. 9. of Marcus the Magician and Heretick Pro calice enim vino mixto â—ingens se gratias agere in multum extendens sermâ—nem invocationis purpureum rubicundum apparere facit uâ— putetur ea Gratia ab eis quae sunt super omnia suum sanguinem stillare in illius caliâ—em l. illum per invocationem ejus Making as though hee would give thanks for the cup mixed with wine and inlarging the word of invocation by which I said the Eucharist is consecrated to much length hee makes it to appear purple and red That men may think that Grace drops the bloud thereof from the Powers over all into that cup by the means of his invocation For had Irenaeus said that this Magician turned the wine into the substance of bloud in truth or in appearance it might have been alleged that the Christians whose Sacrament this Magician counterfeited though other Gnosticks as Ignatius saith quite balked the Eucharist and used it not believed that to be bodily bloud which is in the chalice and that therefore hee did it But when hee saith onely that hee made it appear purple and red perhaps hee used white wine which by juggling hee made seem red However there is no appearance that because hee made that look red which was in the cup therefore those Christians whom hee labored thereby to seduce did believe the bodily substance of Christs bloud to be in the Eucharist in stead of the substance of wine and under the dimensions of it It remains that I take notice in as few words as is possible of those contentions that have passed about this presence and the dissiculties which Transubstanhath found in getting the footing which it hath in the Western Church The book which Paschasius Radbertus Abbot of Corby near Arniens writ under the Sons of Charles the Great to prove that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is that same which was born of the Virgin is yet extant Though the more curious finde no such thing as Transubstantiation in it but rather a conceit of the impanation of Christs body if such a hideous term may passe that is that the God-head of our Lord Christ being by the operation of the Holy Ghost united to the elements the body and bloud of Christ is by the same means united to the fame A conceit not farr wide of that which Rupertus Abbot of Duitsh near Cullen about the year MCX teacheth that the bread is assumed by the Word of God to be his body as that is his body which was formed of the flesh of the Virgin Nor is there in effect much difference between this conceit and that of Consubstantiation at least according to those that ground
Infants stand obliged to inform themselves in it when they come to age Indeed all that hath been said of the Covenant of Grace and the terms of it witnesseth that they are first to be proposed to them that understand then choice is to be made baptism following to solemnize the profession of that choice But this text is so farre from signifying that Infants should not be baptized till all this is done that it rather serves to intimate an exception to the generality of the propoâ—ition in behalf of them seeing those who shall be taught the obligation they have to be Christians whither they will or not are very regularly and legally called Disciples and therefore comprehended in the precept of making Disciples This intimation appears clearer in the words of S. Paul 1 Cor. VII 14. where he perswadeth Christians that were married to Infidels not to forsake them in these words For the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the wife And the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the Husband else were your Children unclean but now they are holy For the meaning whereof I will have recourse to the Book of Wisdome III. 11-19 where describing the miseries of the Idolatrous heathen under the title of those that neglect wisdome among other things he saith Their waies are foolish their hearts wicked and their generation accursed For saith he Blessed is the barren that is cleaâ— and hath not known the bed of sin And again The fruits of good labours that is of those that labour in the Law are glorious and the roâ—t of wisdome never fadeth But the sonnes of Adulterers shall decay And the generation that is born of evill bed shall be destroyed For the exâ—esses of the Gentiles that knew not God in the â—usts of carnal uncleannâ—sse were so great that it alwaies was to be presumed that children so bred could have no means of insâ—ruction to preserve them from the same And the difference between the people of God and Idolatrous Nations was visible evâ—n in this point from the first separation of them upon that account as appeareth by the zeal of Simeon and Levi for their Sister so dishonoured Should they deal with our sâ—ster as an harlot say they Gen. XXXIV 31. Which zeal Judith IX 3. understandeth to have proceeded upon this reason That they being abandoned to the service of strange Gods had done that uncleâ—nesse which God had forbidden and which his servants abhoâ—red as the pollution of their blood For there is no man that knows what belonged to Heathenism that can doubt that all uncleannesse of this nature was alwaies reckoned among them for a thing indifferent and no account had of it but in civill regards as it dishonoured the house oâ— tainted the issue But the people of God being bred to the knowledge of the true God and the abomination in which he hath it stood upon it chiesty in that regard because should they do as Idolaters they could not be taken for Gods people Wherefore when S. Paul adviseth them that were maried to Infidels not to part from them in case they were content to continue with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this content is to be understood to be such as might stand with Christianity that is that the Christian party should have interest to teach the issue Christianity and to guide them according to the Law For by this interest they are in S. Pauls esteem legally holy as to the Church because of a legal presumption of their Christianity by the meanes of their education under that Parent that was Christian and by the consent of that party which was not Christian had all freedom to propose unto their Posterity the obligation of Christianity If this be the case of those that are born of one side Christianâ— what shall we say of them that are born of Christian Parents For being sure as humane things can be sure that they shall come to the knowledge of Christ and then be under the obligation of Christianity they are already as to God and to all Christians not to them that do not believe Christianity under the obligation of living and of behaving themselves as Christians But we are not therefore to imagine that the guilt of originall sinne ceaseth in them any more then in those that are not Christians or that this guilt can be taken away otherwise then by Christianity And hath an Infant any thing but Baptism to intitle it to Christianity And shall they not cry out to God upon those Parents that suffer them to go out of this world not Christians Surely if we look upon the provision of the Law with a single eye that is alwaies observing the difference formerly setled between the Law and the Gospell we shall have great cause to conclude The Law that is the Covenant made with Abraham having intitled his posterity to the Land of promise provideth that every male childe of his that shall not be circumcised the eighth day shall be cut off from his people Gen. XVII 14. that is to say The life thereof shall be forfeit in Gods hands not to give him any share in the right of that people who by being circumcised became Gods people So you have here the condition of Circumcision requisite to intitle even those that are born of Abraham to the promise made to him and his seed The consequence hereof is that which the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace inferres If by entring into the Covenant made with Abraham and with his seed they become heirs of the land of promise then by entring into the covenant made with Christ and Abrahams that is Christs spiritual seed we become heirs of the world to come If by circumcision they entred into the Covenant made with Abraham and with his seed then by Baptism we enter into the Covenant made with Christ and with Abrahams spiritual seed If by the neglect of Circuâ—cision the temporall life of Abrahams seed were forfeit by the terms of this Covenant in Gods hands then by the neglect of Baptism is the spiritual life of those that are born of Christs spirtuall seed forfeit in Gods hands For if the Land of promise and the inheritance thereof estated upon Abraham and his seed according to the flesh required neverthelesse the execution of that condition by which they were admitted into the Covenant How much more shall the inheritance of the world to come promised to the children of Christians as the parties agree require the execution of that condition by which the Covenant of Grace is inacted Indeed if the Covenant of Grace were inacted between God and man by the publishing of the Gospel as most men seem to imagine there were some colour for such a consequence But if the Covenant of Abraham was to be inacted upon the flesh of them that were Circumcized even after that the whole people of Israel had entred into Covenant for themselves
Brethren if any man of you go astray from the truth and some body bring him back let him know that he who brings back a sinner from the errâ—r of his way shall save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sinnes For it is plain by S. Paul that this extendeth to the recovery of a sinner by the Keyes of the Church as they were managed during the Apostles time Certainly if we understand S. Pauls words 1 Tim. V. 22. 24. of imposition of hands in Penance as I have showed in my Book of the Right of the Church p. 23. that they may and ought to be understood it is necessarily to be inferred seeing they who admit those sinners to be reconciled unto God by the Prayers which the Church makes for them with imposition of hands signifying thereby that it alloweth them to be sâ—ncerely penitent are partakers of their sinnes which shall follow upon the readmitting of them to the Church being not worthy qualified for it Therefore the Church is to see that a man be qualified for reconciliation with the Church upon supposition of his reconciliation with God before he be reconciled to the Church And in first procuring him and then judging him to be so qualified consists the right use of those Keyes which God hath given the Church towards them that transgresse the profession of Christianity after they have made it The reason of all this is derived from those things which have been setled by the premises The condition which the Gospel proposeth for the remission of sinnes to them who stâ—nd convict by it that they are under sinne is that they return from sinne â—nd believing that our Lord Châ—iâ—t was senâ— by God to cure it undertake to professe that which he taught and to live according to the same Those which professe so to do the Church accepteth of wiâ—hout exception because this being the first account she hath of them she cannot expect more at their hands then that they submit the rest of their lives to that Christianity which she obligeth them to If by trâ—nâ—gressing this obligation which they have undertaken they forfeit the right which they obtainâ—d thereby is it in the power of the Church to restore them at pleasurâ— In vain then is all that hath been said to show that the Gospel and Christianity in order of nature and reason is more ancient then the constitution of the Church and the corporation of it And that all the power of the Chuâ—ch presupposeth the condition upon which those blessings which it tendreth are due And certainly our Lord when he saith to his Diâ—ciples Joh. XX. 23. Whosesoever sinne ye remit they are remitted intended not to contradict the sense of the Sâ—râ—bes when they say Who can forgive sinnes but God alone Mark II. 7. Luk. V. 21. Much lesse to reverse the word of his Prophets ascribing this power of him alone Esay XLIII 25. Mich. VII 18. Psal XXXII 5 What is then the effect of this promise to them that have forfeited the right of their Baptism supposing that when men first become Christians the Disciples of Christ and his Church remit sinnes by making them Christians according to that which hath been declared Surely the same observing the difference of the case For he who being convict of his disease and of the cure of it by the preaching of Christianity is effectually moved by the helpe of Gods Spirit to imbrace that cure which none but the Church which tenders it can furnish attains it not but by using it That is by being baptized But he who being baptized hath failed of his trust and forfeited his interest in Christ cannot so easily be restored I have showed you what works of mortification of devotion and mercy the recovering of Gods grace and favour requirâ—s Let no man therefore thinke that the power of remitting sinnes in the Church can abate any thing of that which the Gospel upon which the Church is grounded requiteth to the remission of finne done after Baptism The authority of the Church is provided by God to oblige those who are overtaken in sinne to undergo that which may satisfie the Church of the sincere intent of their returne And the Church being so satisfied warranteth their restitution to the right which they had forfeited upon as good ground as it warranteth their first estate in it But this presupposeth the wrath of God appeased his favour regained and the inordinâ—te love of the creature which caused the forfeit blotted out and changed through that course of mortification which hath been performed into the true love of goodnesse for Gods sake The Church therefore hath received of God no power to forgive sinnes immediately as if it were in the Church to pardon sâ—nne without that diâ—poâ—ition which by the Gospel qualifieth a man for it Or as if the act of the Church pardoning did produce it But in as much as the knowledge thereof directeth and the authority thereof constraineth to use the means which the Gospell prescribeth in so much is the remission of sinnes thereby obtained truly ascribed to the Church Lazarus was first dead before he was bound up in his Grave clothes And when he was restored to life he remained bound till he was loosed by the Apostles The Church bindeth no man but him that is first dead in sinne If the voice of Christ call him out of that death he is not revived till the love of sin be mortified and the love of God made alive in him by a due course of Penance performed If the motion of Gods spirit upon the preaching of the Gospel convincing a man that there is no means but Christianity to escape out of sinne and prevailing with him to imbrace it be effectuall to obtain the promises of the Gospel Much more shall the actuall operation of the same moving him that is dead in sinne to put sinne to death in himself that he may live a Christian for the future be effectuall to regain the grace of God for him who hath not yet the life of grace in him but is in the way of recovering it by the helpe of Gods grace But he who is thus recovered to life by the ministery of the Church is not yet loosed of the bands of his sinne till he be loosed by the Church because he was first bound by it as our Lord having raised Lazarus to live commands him to be loosed by his Apostles For if he who accepteth of the Gospel and the terms of it remain bound to be baptized by the Church for the remission of his sinne Is it strange that he who hath forfeited his pardon obtained by the Church even in the judgement and knowledge of the Church should not obtain the restoring of it but by the act of the Church And therefore the Church remitteth sinne after Baptism not onely as a Physician prescribing the cure but as a judge admitting it to be effected And the satisfaction of the Church presupposeth
of the Church But you have also a possibility for the cure of sinne without the authority of the Church in as much as it had been too impertinent for the Apostle to have given a Precept of confessing sinne to one another if no sinne could be pardoned without having recourse to the Church The same is the effect of S. Johns words If a man see his Brother sinne a sinne not unto death For it is manifest that that sinne which one man sees is not notorious to the Church And yet the distinction which S. John maketh between the sinne which he commandeth a private Christian to pray for and the sinnes which he commandeth not the Church to pray for with the difficulties which the primitive Church had about it show that those sinnes which private advice cannot cure he would have brought to the Church And S. Johns meaning is that a man should pray for such sinnes of his Brother as he is sure are not to death Supposing first his Brother disposed by himself or by his advise to take the course that may qualifie him for forgivenesse But if it prove doubtful whether to death or not the Apostle by saying that there are some sinnes which he referreth to the Church whither to pray for pardon of them to wit in order to restoring them to the communion of the Church or not supposeth that they are reported to the Church by him that saw them when the Church saw them not But first supposing that they might possibly have been cured without bringing them to the Church And if these things be true then is the bringing of a sinner back from the error of his way according to that Precept of S. James which followeth an obligation that is to be discharged not onely by the office of a private Christian in convicting a private Christian of his sinne and of the means that he is to use for his recovery but also by bringing him to the Church if the case require it Which obligation will necesâ—atily lie upon the sinner himself in the first place But so that his own skill and fidelity to his own salvation may possibly furnish him his cure at home The tenor of our Saviours words throughly inforceth the same according to that which I observed in the first Book p. 140. that all Christians may be said to bind sinne by showing a Christian his sinne in case he refuse that cure which he that convicts him of his sinne convicts him that is to use And to loose sin in case he imbrace it But this in the inner Court of the Conscience between God and the soul For though the words of our Lord If thy Brother offend thee tell him of it between him and thee extend to private injuries obliging a Christian first to seek reparation by the good will of his party upon remonstrance of the wrong Then not to seek it out of the Church but by the Church yet they necessarily comprehend all sinnes which another man knows which to him are offences And therefore when our Saviour saith If he hear thee thou hast gained thy Brother it is manifest that the effect of his promise which followeth Whosoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven is obtained by the act of a private Christian without recourse to the publick authority of the Church And who will believe that the skill and fidelity of some private Christian may not furnish him as good a cure as he can expect to learn from any private Christian to whom he can have recourse And yet the process of our Lords discourse showes that the intent of it concerns in chiefe the exercise of the Keyes of Gods Church even upon those sinnes which are not notorious Which who so considers cannot refuse to grant that S. Pauls injunction for the restoring of him that is surprised in sinne concerns both the office of private Christiaâ—s and also of a whole Church and the Body of it And truly considering what hath been said concerning Scripture and Tradition it cannot seem strange that the Apostles leaving such authority with the Churches of their founding with generall instructions to those whom they trusted them with writing to the Bodies of those Churches things respectively concerning all Christians should give directions concerning all in generall terms which the visible practice of the said Churches might determine to the respective office of each quality and estate in those Churches No more then that our Lord finding the power of the Keyes not yet visible before Christianity should propose his instructions in that generality which onely his Apostles orders and the practice of their Churches upon their instructions determineth For the power of the Keyes in the Church inables it further untill the worlds end to limit further whatsoever shall appear to require further determination to the end of binding and loosing of sinne which it importeth according as the present state of the Church in every age shall require Let us now consider that though I have made evidence by consequence from the writings of the Apostles that remission of sinnes committed after Baptism may be obtained without the Keyes of the Church yet it is hard to find any expresse promise to that effect in their writings unlesse it be that of S. Johns first Epistle In which notwithstanding a limitation of that confession which the Apostle requires to the Church and to those that are trusted by the Church may reasonably be understood supposing the way of curing sinne by the ministery of the Church to have been customary and therefore known at that time And on the contrary though I do believe these consequences to be unreproveable yet it is to be considered that S. Pauls indulgence seems to be granted upon a particular occasion incident to distemper the ordinary course of the Church Namely the prevailing of some sinne to a faction of some great or the greatest part of the Church Which as it necessarily intercepted the use of the power of the Keyes though provided and ordained by God for the curing of the said sinnes so can it by no means argue that God hath not appointed it for the ordinary means of curing them As for the consequence which was made from the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and of the Gospels before the establishment of the Covenant of Baptism to show that they take effect also in sinnes after Baptism It may easily be considered that they take place no further then that disposition which is requisite to the forgivenesse of those sinnes whereby the grace of Baptism is violated may be supposed to be produced without helpe of the Church Which as I conceive I have proved to be possible so I conceive no man living can prove to be so easie that all those who stand in need of the remedy can presume upon so good ground as the safety of the soul requires to obtain it or to have obtained it of themselves without that helpe which
is to be attributed to the Unction appears to be of so much the later date And therefore I alledge also the words that are quoted out of the Book de rectitudine Catholicae conversationis among S. Austines Works Qui aegrotat in solâ dei miserecordiâ confidat Eucharistiam cum fide devotione accipiat oleumque benedictum fideliter ab Ecclesiâ petat unde corpus suum ungatur Et secundum Apostolum oratio fidei salvabit infirnuim alleviabit eum dominis Nec solum corporis sed animae sanitatem accipiet Let him that is sick trust onely in the mercy of God and receive the Eucharist with faith and devotion and faithfully send for the consecrated oyl from the Church that his body may be anointed with it And according to the Apostle the Prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall give him ease And he receive health not onely of Body but soul also This indeed is something like that which they say now in the Church of Rome that our originall inclination to evill dulnesse and faintnesse to good and aversenesse of the mind from spirituall exercises are those reliques of sinne which this Unction cureth In the mean time remission of sinne is or ought to be presupposed by the Keyes of the Church passed upon him that duly receives the Eucharist Nor can that health of the mind which cureth these infirmities be attributed to the Unction which pretends bodily health but to the prayers of the Church prescribe to be made for the sick in that estate And since those that deduce the office of anoiniting the sick and by consequence the effect of it from the practice of the Apostles curing with oyl as Bede Theophylact and Euthynius upon Mark VI. how will they justifie the spirituall promise of remission of sinne to depend upon the bodily act of anointing the sick but upon supposition of that disposition of the soul which qualifieth for it which cannot be supposed when recourse ought to be had to the Keyes of the Church for obtaining it and is not And thereforâ— there can be no greater argument thereof in the practice of the Church then this that the orâ—inary use of this unction both in the Eastern and Western Church is after receiving the Euâ—hariâ—l which supposeth in the Church a legall presumption at least of the parâ—â—es being in the state of grace The words of venerable Bede upon Mark VI. 13. are by no means to be neglected Dicit Apostolus â—acobus Infirmatur quis in vobis Inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae orent super ipsum ungentes eam â—leo in nomine dâ—mini Et si in peccatis sit dimittentur ei Unde patet ab ipsis Apostolâ—â— hunc Sanctae â—cclesiae morem esse traditum ut energumeni vel alii quilibet aegroti uâ—gantur oleo pontificali benedictione consecrato The Apostle James saith Is aâ—y man among you sick let him bring the Priests of the Church and â—et them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord. And if he be in sinnes they shall be forgiven him Whence it appeareth that this custome was delivered to the Holy Church by the Apostles that the vexed with evill Spirits and other sick persons be anointed with oyl consecrated by the blessing of the High Priest I believe no lesse By that which the Apostles did then it appeareth that thereupon S. James ordered and the Church used to anoint the sick in hope of bodily health but with prayers for the soul also and that by the ministers of the Church when the case required their presence that is when the ministers of the Keyes was requisite But when he saith That the vexed with unâ—leâ—n spirits as well as the sick were to be anointed with it he toucheth thar whiâ—h he declareth more at large uâ—on James V. 14. 15. Hoc Apostolos fecisse in Evangelio legimus nunc Ecclesiae consuetudo tenet ut infirmi oleo coâ—secrato ungantur a Presbyteris oratione comitante sanentur Nec solum Presbyteris sed ut Innocentuis Papa scribit etiam omnibus Christianis uti licet eodem oleo in sua aut suorum infirmitate ungendo Quod tamen oleum non nisi ab Episcopis licet confici Nam quod ait in nomine domini significat oleum consecratum in nomine domini Vel certe quia cum ungunt infirnium momen domini super eum invocare debent This was not onely read in the Gospel that the Apostle did but also the custome of the Church now holdeth that the sick be anointed with consecrated oyle by the Priests and cured by Prayer accompanying the same Nor may onely Priests but also all Christians as Pope Innocent writeth use the same oyle when they or theirs are sick by anointing Which oyl notwithstanding is not to be consecrated but by the Bishop For that which he sath in the name of the Lord signifieth that the oyl must be consecrated in the name of the Lord. Or he saith it forsooth because when they anoint the sick they are to call upon the Name of the Lord over him The words of Pope Innocent Epist I. Quod non est dubinum de fidelibus aegro tantibus accipi vel intelligi debere qui sancto oleo Chrismatis perungi possunt quo ab Episcopo confecto non solum sacerdotibus sed omibus uti Christianis licet in sua aut suorum necessitaâ—e inungendo Which words of S. James are without doubt to be taken and understood of believers that are sick who may be anointed with the holy oyle of anointing Which being consecrated by the Bishop not Priests onely but all Christians may use when they or theirs need it by anointing And by and by Nam poenitentibus istud infundi non potest quia genus est Sacramenti Nam quibus reliqua Sacramenta negantur quomodo unum genus putatur concedi For it cannot be poured upon Penitents because it is a kind of Sacrament For how should it be thought that one kind can be allowed them whom the rest of the Sacraments are refused Bede agâ—in Si ergo infirmi in peccatis sint haec Presbyteris Ecclesiae confessi fueriâ—â— ac perfecto corde ea relinquere atque emendare sategerint dimittentur eis Neque enim sine coâ—fessione emendationis peccà ta querunt dimitti Unde recte subiungitur Confitemini ergo alteurtium peccata vestra orate pro invicem ut salvemini In hac autem sententia illa debet esse discretio ut quotidiana leviaque peccata alterutrum coaequalibus confiteamur eorumque quotidianà credamus oratione salvari Porro gracioris leprae immunditiaem juxta legem sacerdoti paudamus aâ—que ad ejus arbitium qualiter quanto tempore jusserit pacificari curemus If the sick then be in sins and shall have confessed them to the Priests of the Church and indeavoured to leave and mend them with a perfect heart
XVI both expounds our Lords words in this sense and determines against divorces out of them that Origen in Mat. Hâ—â— VII accepts them in the same sense and disputes for it That Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. II. sub finem condemns the divorces vvhich the Roman Lavvs then licensed and mariage upon them That S. Chrysostome in Mat. Hom. XVII and LXIII Libro de Virginitate Serm. I. de debitore X. millium S. Ambrose in Luc. lib. XVII S. Jerome Epist XXX in Mat. XIX S. Basil ad Amphil. Can. IX in Hexaem Hom. VII Asterius Hom. ult S. Austine de adulterinis conjugiis ad Pollentium â—ollovv the the same sense and deliver the same Doctrine vvhich seems to be also S. Gregory Nazianzâ—nes vvhen he calls a Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An evill which being gâ—â— is not to be lâ—t go The record is yet to seek that may shovv any such opinion in the Church and having escaped so diligent hands I may vvell challenge all the world to produce it For vvhereas it is said p. 155. that Origen ubi supra argues that there are faults no lesse destructive to any society or communion in wedlock then adultery is And therefore that adultery is named but as an instance in a sentence to be extended by reason of equity necessarily inherent in the case to all faults equally destructive to mariage I grant that Origen hath so argued and that Grotius out of whose Annotations upon Mat. V. 31. 32. all this dust hath been raised hath seconded him in it But it is one thing to say that by consequence of reason where the fault is no lesse destructive to mariage then adultery is there ought to be the same liberty of divorce Another thing to say that by the Leter of our Lords words all causes of divorce that Moses Law or the Civil Lawes of Christian Staâ—es allows are allowable in point of Conscience The one leaves the weight of the fault and the equality of it with adultery to be judged by the Church The other takes away the Church and the judgement of it which Origen never meant to do Again I say that those things which are disputed by Origen were never held of such consideration to the Church that either the opinion or much more the practice of the Church should be valued by them It is plain he was allowed so to argue but it is as plain that his arguments took no effect either in the opinion or in the practice of the Church As for S. Augustine who was so much perplexed whither our Saviour might not mean spiritual fornication in those words Retract I. 29. having delivered it for his opinion before in his exposition of the Seâ—mon in the Mount Will any man believe that he who so â—â—ifly holds that it is unlawful to mary after divorce for Adultery as S. Austin in his Books de adulterinis conjugiis ad Pollentium and elsewhere does can allow divorce for any thing but Adultery The truth is he that considers the businesse throughly shall see that it was that supposition that obliged S. Austine to this doubt as on the contrary the improbability of the doubt is that which chiefly renders the supposition improbable Which being a thing not yet observed so farre as I know and there being no means to judge what is in the power of the Church and what is not in matter of divorce otherwise I will go out of the way to debate rather to resolve it before I go forwards CHAP. XIV Scripture alleged to prove the bond of Mariage insoluble in case of adultery uneffectuall S. Paul and our Lord speak both to one purpose according to S. Jerome and S. Austine The contrary opinion more reasonable and more general in the Church Why the Church may restrain the innocent party from marying again The Imperial Lawes could never be of force to void the Power of the Church Evidence for it SOme texts are alleged to prove the bond of Mariage undissoluble which to me I confesse do not seem to create any maner of consequence S. Paul saith Rom. VII 2. The wife that is under a Husband is tied to her Husband living by the Law But if her Husband dye she is clear of her Husband So living her Husband she shall be stiled an aduâ—teress if she become another husbands But if her Husband dye she is free from the Law so as to be no adulteress if she become another Husbands Where say they it is plain that she who maries before her former Husband is dead is an adulteress As also in 1 Cor. VII 39. The wife is tied by the Law as long as her Huband lives but if her Husband fall asleep she is free to mary whom she please onely in the Lord. And yet it is manifest that S. Paul in the first place speaks according to the Law in the second according to Christianity and that there is no question that under the Law mariage might be dissolved Therefore the words of S. Paul are not superficially to be considered when he saith Rom. VII 1 Know ye not brethren For I speak to those that know the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the meaning cannot be that the Law hath power of a man as long as the man lives that the Law hath power upon but as long as the man lives who hath power over him by the Laâ— As it is evident by the inference For the wife living is tied by the Law to her Husband but if her Husband die she is clear of her Husband And the compariâ—on froâ— which S. Paul argues holds thus As a wife is no longer tied to her Husband by the power which the Law gives him when he is dead so are not Christiâ—ns â—â—ed to God by the Power wâ—â—â—h the Law gives him when it is voided by the death of Christ but by the new bond which the Covenant oâ— Grâ—ce knitteth Now by the Law the bond of Mariage is not to be dissolved but by the will of the Husbâ—nd but if the Husband will it is dissolved by a Bill of divorce And therefore that exception is necessarily to be understood in S. Pauls words Which being understood it will be ridiculous to inferâ—e that therâ—fore the mariage of Christians is indissoluble Though diverse oâ— tâ—â— Fathers it is true hâ—ve thought it a good inference But among Christians when S. Paul sayes the wife is tied by the Law as long as her Husband lives his intent can require no more then that she is free when he is dead to mary again Not that she can no way be free while he is alive Again Eph V. 28-32 He that loveth his wife loveth himselfe For never did any man hate his own flesh but feed and cherish it as our Lord his Church For we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Therefore shall a man leave Father and Mother and cleave to his wife and they two shall become one flesh This mystery is
which is the whole Church These being the particulars that concern this point in the writings of the Apostles I am not solicitous for an answer to the Puritanes objections finding in them no ingredient of any of their designs but onely a number of Presbyters of the same rank in one and the same Church no wayes inconsistent with the superiority of Bishops no ways induring the Power of the Keys in the hands of Lay Elders But if the writings of the Apostles express not that form of Government by Bishops Priests and Deacons which it is manifest that the whole Church ever since their time hath used First neither can it be said to agree any thing so near with any of their designs And all the difference is reasonably imputable to the difference between the State of the Church in making and made the qualities of Apostles and Evangelists not being to be propagated to posterity any more then their persons but the uniformity of succeeding times not being imputable to any thing but their appointment As for the reason why the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are so promiscuously used as well in the records of the primitive Church as in the writings of the Apostles I admit that of Epiphanius that at the beginning a Bishop with his Deacons might serve some Churches I admit the ordaining of Bishops for inferiour Churches to be framed and in the Churches of mother Cities according to Clemens I admit the ordaining of Clergy to no particular Churches But I cannot reject that which I learned from an author no wayes inconsiderable the supposed S. Ambrose upon S. Pauls Epistles He not onely in the words quoted in the first Book upon 1 Cor. XI but upon Rom. XVI and 1 Cor. I. alleges that when S. Paul writ Governours were not setled in all Churches acknowledging that Presbyters were Can he then be thought to make Presbyters and the Governours of Churches all one But Amalarius de officiis Eccles II. 13. quoting things out of these his Commentaries which now appear not and out of him Rabanus upon 1 Tim. IV. 14. and Titus I. sayes that they who under the Apostles had power to ordain and are now called Bishops were then set over whole Provinces by the name of Apostles agreeing herein with Theodoret upon 1 Tim. III. IV. and S. Hierome upon Gal. I. and many others of the Fathers that extend the name of Apostles far beyond the XII as Timothy in Asia Titus in Creete The Churches of particular Cities having their own Presbyters to govern them but expecting ordinations and the setling of the more weighty causes from these their superiours These were the Presbyters that ordained Timothy 1 Tim. IV. 14. saith Rabanus who certainly being ordained to so high a charge could not be ordained by the Presbyters of any particular Church Now the successors of these Apostles or Presbyters finding themselves inferior to their Predecessors saith he and the same title a burthen to them appropriated themselves the name of Bishops which imports care leaving to Priests that which imports dignity to wit that of Presbyters This Amalarius allegeth out of the said Commentaries Adding that in process of time through the bounty of those who had the power of ordaining these Bishops were setled two or three in a Province untill at length not onely over all Cities but in places that needed not Bishops This being partly the importance of this Authors words partly that which Amalarius and Rabanus gather from his meaning gives a clear answer to all that S. Jerome hath objected out of the writings of the Apostles to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are by their institution both one because they are called both by the same title And therefore cannot with any judgement be alleged to his purpose In fine the same Author upon Ephes IV. affirmeth that for the propagation of Christianity all were permitted at the first to preach the Gospel to Baptize and to expound the Scriptures in the Church But when Churches were setled and Governours appointed then order was taken that no man should presume to execute that office to which he was not ordained By whom I beseech you but by the same who had formerly allowed and trusted all Christians with all offices which the propagation of the common Christianity required Even the Apostles and Disciples and their companions and assistants in whom that part of power rested which the Apostles had indowed them with until Bishops being setled over all Churches they might truly be said to succeed the Apostles in the Government of their respective Churches though no body can pretend to succeed them in that power over all Churches that belonged to their care which the agreements passed between the Apostles must needs allow each one Nor need I deny that which sometimes the Fathers affirm that even Presbyters succeed the Apostles For in the Churches of Barnabas and Sauls founding Act. XIV 28. while they had no Governours but Aposâ—les and Presbyters it is manifest that the Presbyters did whatsoever they were able to do as Lieutenants of the Apostles and in their stead But shall any man inâ—â—rre thereupon that they who say this allow Presbyters to do whatsoever the Apostles could do seeing them limited as I have said by the Authors which I allege For what if my Author say upon Ephes IV. that at the first the Elders of the Presbyters succeeded upon the Bishops decease Shall thâ— rule of succession make any difference in the power to which he succeeds Or both acknowledge the Laws which they that order both shall have appointed even the Apostles Let S. Hierome then and whosoever prefers S. Hieroms arguments before that evidence which the practice of the Church creates have leave to dispute out of the Scriptures the beginning of Bishops from the authority of the Church which neither S. Hierome nor any man else could ever have brought the whole Church to agree in had not the Apostles order gone afore for the ground of it provided that the love of his opinion carry him not from the unity of the Church as it did Aerius For he that saith that this ought to be a Law to the Church need not say that every Christian is bound upon his salvation to believe that it ought to be a Law to the Church so long as the succession of the Apostles is upon record in the Church in the persons of single Bishops by whom the Tradition of faith was preserved according to Irenaeus and Tertullian the unity of the Church according to Optaâ—us and S. Austine What wilfullnesse can serve to make all Presbyters equal in that power which all the acts whereby the unity of the Church hath been really maintained evidently challenge to the preheminence of their Bishops above them in their respective Churches The constitution of the whole Church out of all Churches as members of the whole will necessarily argue a pre-eminence of Power in the
whereby they thought they held their estate whether of this world or the hope they might have of the world to come For my opinion obligeth me not to say that Idolatry was commanded by this law of Jeroboam or practised by all that conformed to it But that though not expresly commanded yet it followed by necessary consequence upon the introducing of the Law Not by consequence of naturall necessity from that which the terms thereof imported but by that necessity which the Schoole calls morall when the common discretion of men that are able to judge in such matters evidences that supposing such a Law it must needs and will come to passe CHAP. XXVI The Place or rather the State of happy and miserable Soules otherwise understood by Gods people before Christs ascension then after it What the Apocalypse what the rest of the Apostles declare Onely Martyrs before Gods Throne Of the sight of God I Come now to the nicest point if I mistake not of all that occasions the present Controversies and divisions of the Western Church the state of soules departed with the profession of Christianity till the day of Judgement The resolution whereof that which remaines concerning the publick service of God the order and circumstances of the same must presuppose This resolution must procede upon supposition of that which the first book hath declared concerning the knowledge of the Resurrection and the world to come under the Old Testament and the reservation and good husbandry in declaring it which is used in the writings of it The consideration whereof mightily commendeth the wisdome and judgment of the ancient Church in proposing the bookes which we call Apocrypha for the instruction of the Ca echumeni or learners of Christianity For these are they in which the Resurrection and the world to come and the happy state of righteous soules after death is plainly and without circumstance first set forth I need not here repeat the seven Maccabees and their mother professing to dy for Gods Law in confidence of Resurrection to the world to come 2 Mac. VII 9 11 23 36. nor the Apostle Ebr. XI 35-38 testifying the same of them and the rest that lived or died in their case But I must not omit the Wisdom of Solomon the subject whereof as I said afore is to commend the Law of God to the Gentiles that in stead of persecuting Gods people they might learn the worship of the onely true God For this he doth by this argument that those who persecute Gods people think there remains no life after this but shall find that the righteous were at rest as soone at they were dead and in the day of judgement shall triumph over their enemies Wisdome II. III. 1-8 V From hence proceeding to show how the wisdome of Gods people derives it selfe from Gods wisdome who so strangely delivered them from the persecutions of Pharaoh and the Egyptians for a warning to those that might undertake the like In particular the Kings of Egypt under whom this was writ and the Jewes most used the Greek The Wisdome of Jesus the sonne of Sirach pretending to lay down those rules of righteous conversation which the study of the Law the off-spring of Gods Wisdome had furnished him with is not so copious in this point though the precepts of inward and spirituall obedience and service of God from the heart which he delivers throughout can by no meanes be parted from the hope of the world to come being grounded upon nothing else And he proposeth it plainly from the beginning when he saith He that feareth God it shall go well with him in the end and at the day of his death he shall be blessed The very additions to Daniel are a bulwarke to the Faith of the Church when it appeares that the happinesse of righteous soules after death is not taken up by any blind tradition among Christians but before Christianity expressed for the sense of Daniels fellows in those words of their hymne O ye spirits and souls of the righteous blesse ye the Lord praise him and magnify him for ever And whatsoever we may make of the second book of Maccabees the antiquity of it will alwayes be evidence that the principall author of it Jason of Cyrene could never have been either so senselesse or so impudent as to impose upon his nation that prayers or sacrifices were used by them in regard of the resurrection if they believed not the being and sense of humane souls after death 2 Mac. XII 43. Proceed we to those passages concerning this point which the Gospell afford us and consider how well they agree herewith I will not here dispute that our Lord intended to relate a thing that really was come to passe but to propose a parable or resemblance of that which might and did come to passe when he said Luke XVI 19 There was a certaine rich man that was clad with fine linnen and purple and made good chear every day But I will presume upon this That no man that meanes not to make a mockery of the Scriptures will indure that our Lord should represent unto us in such terms as we are able to bear that which falls out to righteous and wicked soules after death if there were no such thing as sense and capacity of pleasure and paine in souls departed according to that which they do here I will also propose to consideration the description of the place whereby he represents unto us the different estate of those whom it receiveth And in Hell lifting up his eyes being in torments he sees Abraham from afarre and Lazarus in his bosome And afterwards And besides all this between us and you there is a great gappe fixed so that those who would passe from hence cannot nor may they passe from thence to us For I perceive it is swallowed for Gospell amongst us that Dives being in Hell saw Lazarus in the third heavens Whereas the Scripture saith onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the invisible place of good and bad â—oules For so the processe of the Parable obliges us to understand it Sâ—â—ing it would be somewhat strange to understand that gappe wherewith the place of happy soules is here described to be parted from the place of torments to be the earth and all that is between the third heavens and it The Jewes at this time as we see by the Gospell believing according to the testimonies alleged that righteous soules were in rest and pleasure and happinesse wicked in misery and torments called the place or state of those torments Gehenna from the valley of the sonnes of Hinnom neer Jerusalem where those that of old time sacrificed their children to devils burnt them with fire The horror of which place it appears was taken up for a resemblance fit to represent the torment of the wicked soules after death In like manner Gods people being sensible of Gods mercy in using meanes to bring them back to the ancient inheritance
brother Satyrus as likewise Gregory Nazianzene for his brother Caesarius whome neverthelesse they suppose to be in happinesse Their words you may see there p. 188. To which he that will take the paines may adde all that Blâ—ndel hath collected in his second book of the Sibyls Cap. XLI of Epitaphes which pray for them whom they describe in happinesse For in short where there is hope that the deceased is among Gods Saints there is there doubt on the other side that he may have need of light and peace and refreshment And therefore the supposed Dionysius Eccl. Hierarch Cap. VII where he relateth the custome of praying for the remission of sins in behalfe of the dead relateth the singing of psalmes of thanks-giving at funeralls And S. Austine telleth how Euodius begun the CI. Psal when his mother was dead yet in consideration of the danger which every soule that dies is subject to prayeth for her as he had commanded Confess IX 12. In fine though custom made not the dâ—fference every where visible between Prayers for Saints and prayers for ordinary Christians yet was the common Faith of the Church a sufficient ground for both whatsoever descant private construction might make upon the plainsong of it Tertullian expecting the raigne of Christians upon earth for a thowsand yeares and thinking those that should rise first most advantaged tooke the delay of rising againe for paying the utmost farthing and to have part with them that rise first fit to be prayed for for our friends that are dead de Amina Cap. LVIII de Monog Cap. X. But this the Church is not chargeable with That there was a conceit among some licentious Christians that the paines of the damned might either cease or be abated by the prayers of the living you shall find by the answer so often quoted p. 226 232. and that All Souls day had the beginning from such a conceite But though men openly wicked may dye in communion with the Church yet the Church supposeth no man damned that dies in communion with the Church and therefore the Church is not chargeable with prayers for the damned It is a knowne rule of the Church that the offerings of those that dyed not in communion with the Church should not be received that the offerings of those that dye in communion with the Church could not be refused That this Rule is more ancient then the Heresy of Marcion and others before Marcion that baptized others for those that were dead as you have seene that is as ancient as the Apostles appears Because the reason why they baptized others in their stead must be because all those that were baptized were prayed for at the Eucharist and onely those as you see by S. Austine and the Canon of the Masse quoted just afore If then men openly wicked dyed in communion with the Church it was because the Laws of the Church were not executed which had they beene executed they should not have dyed in communion with the Church And because this inexecution may be for the common good of the Church it was not offensive that such were prayed for among other members of the Church For there is possibility for the salvation of those for whose salvation there is no presumption that is reasonable And there had been just offence for the kindred and friends of such dead had they been refused the common right of all members of the Church Therefore S. Austine saies though they that dye in this case receive no help yet they that remaine alive receive some comfort and satisfaction in the memory of their relations being owned by the prayers of the Church for Christians I will not here allege that the Church of England teacheth to pray for the dead where the Litanie praies for deliverance in the hour of death and in the day of judgement Or when we pray after the communion that by the merits and death of Christ and through faith in his blood we and all the whole Church may obtaine remission of our sins and all other benefits of his passion But it is manifest that in the service appointed in the time of Edward the VI. prayer is made for the dead both before the Communion and at the Buriall to the same purpose as I maintaine It is manifest also that it was changed in Queen Elizabeths time to content the Puritans who now it appeares could not be content with lesse then breaking of the Church in peeces And therefore since unity hath not beene obtayned by parting with the Law of the Catholike Church in mine opinion for the love of it I continue the resolution to bound Reformation by the rule of the Catholike Church Allowing that it may be matter of Reformation to restore the prayers which are made for the dead to the originall sense of the whole Church but maintayning that to take away all prayer for the dead is not paring off abuses but cutting to the quick For I must now adde that all this showes the praiers of the Church of Rome for the delivering of soules out of Purgatory paines to have no ground in the Tradition of the Church there being no such place as Purgatory among those store-houses which are designed for those that depart in the state of Grace till the day of judgement no paine appointed to make satisfaction for the debt of temporall punishment remayning when the sin is remitted no translating of soules so purged from purgatory to heaven and the happynesse of it The delay of the resurrection may be a penalty if you take into it the consideration of that estate in which the soule may be detayned being such as that affection to the drosse of the world which it departeth with inforceth But what use is there of torment when the race is done When neither amendment of the party on whom it is inflicted nor of others that see the example can be expected to make God torment them whom he is reconciled to for the satisfaction of his vindicative justice is to make his vindicative justice delight in the evill of his creature when no reformation is to be expected by it Which in the government of the world is cruelty not justice If the law allow an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth it could never stand with Christianity under the law to take it where it repaires not a mans losse though the magistrate was to give it being required Civil Law may allow revenge to satisfie passion but the magistrate grants reparation to satisfie commutative justice which the party may demand for meere revenge That there is no ground for such punishment in the tradition of the Church I refer you to the title of Purgatory in the answer to the Iesuits challenge for evidence And it is indeed a thing which the disputing of our controversies hath made to appeare That there was from the beginning no question of any punishment for them that dye in Gods Grace That S. Austine
held to be God namely the image â—t is to be granted that whosoever it was that writ the book against Imageâ— under the name of Charles the great did understand the council to injoine the worship of God to be giveâ— the image of our Lord For of any othâ—r image of God there was no question in that Councile But it is not to be denied that it was a meere mistake and that the Councile acknowledging that submission of the heart which the excellence of God onely challenges proper to the Holy Tâ—inity maintaines a signification of that esteeme to be paid to the Image of our Lord. For the words of the Councile I refer you to Estius in III. Sentent distinct IX ss II. and III. where you shall see besides the honour due to God alone and the honour due to his Saints the Council injoines a kind of honour for the images of either respectively signifying the esteeme we have for God and of his Saints I know there is much noise of Latria to signifie the honour due to God alone and Dulia that which belongs to his Saintâ— And I am satisfied that there is no ground for the difference either in the originall reason or use of the words But as nothing hinders them to be taken as words of art use to be taken to signifie peculiar conceptions in Christianity so if dulia be understood as S. Austine understandes it câ—ntra Faustum XX. 21. for that love and communion which we imbrace the saints that are alâ—ve with there is no fear of Idolatry in honouring the Saints departed with dulia But the honour we give the images is not the honour we give the principal but onely by the equivocating of terms according to the decree of the Council Therefore that honour of images which the decree maintaineth is no Idolatry But he that saies it is no idolatry which they injoine does not therefore justifie or commend them for injoyningit It were a pittifull commendation for the Church that it is not Idolatry which the decree thereof injoynes It is therefore no evidence that the decree obliges because it injoines no idolatry You saw how neere the honour of Saints in the prayers which come from this decree came to Idolatry And though those that counted Images idoles in the East stood for the honour of the Saints yet it is certaine and visible that the authors of the decree did intend to advance the honour of the Saints thereby and effect it What is that effect That the Saints are prayed to by Christians in such forme and with such termes as doe not distinguish whether they hold them Gods or creatures Grant they agree with their profession and you must construe them to the due difference suppose they understand not the common profession or the consequence of it who warants them no Idolaters It is alleged out of S. Basil de Spiritu Sancto cap. XVIII that the honour of the Image passeth to the principall He speaketh of the honour of the Sonne that it is the honour of the Father whose image the Son is And so it is indeed The honour of the Father and of the Son is both one and the same To say that the image of our Lord is to be honoured as he is is perfect idolatry But he who believes the Son to be of the fathers substance and his picture to be his picture cannot say so if he be in his wits Either he commits Idolatry or he contradicts himselfe That may and must be said It is easy to see how many Divines of the Church of Rome make images honourable with the honour of their principall The images of our Lord by consequence with latria the honour proper to God When this is said it must be cured by distinguishing though not properly yet improperly though not by it self yet accidentally reducible to that honour which the principall is worshipped with that is the image of Christ as God Yet you are not to use these termes to the people least they prove Idolaters or have cause to think their teachers such So Cardinall Bellarmine de Imaginibus II. 23 24 25. There is a cure for Idolatry in the distinction supposing him to contradict himself For what greater contradiction then that the honour that may be reduced to the honour of God should be the honour of God seeing that it is not the honour of God which is not proper to God as consisting in the esteeme of him above all things So for the adoration of the Crosse the signe of the Crosse which I spoke of before is onely a ceremony which being from the beginning frequented by Christians upon all occasions the Church had reason to make use of in the solemnizing of the greatest actions of Gods publike service particularly those whereby the authority of the Church is convayed and exercised The Crosse whereon our Lord Christ was crucified is a relique though not parte of his body yet for coming so nere to his body deserving to be honoured Other Crosses are the images of that The Schoole Doctors question what honour it is which the true Crosse of Christ demands And the head of them Thomas Aquinaâ— answers the honour proper to God by the name of latria Either as representing the figure of Christ crucified or as washed with his blood If the Crosse of Christ must be worshipped with the honour proper to God because washed with our Saviours bloud then must it have received divine vertue from his bloud Is not this construction reasonable And what made the Idoles of the Hethen idoles but an opinion of divine vertue residing in them by being set up for the exercise of their religion that supposed many Gods I grant the construction is necessary though not reasonable For I find it construed otherwise To make a difference between the true Crosse of Christ which is honoured for a relique and other Crosses which are honoured as the pictures of it and signes putting us in mind of Christ on the Crosse So the words of Thomas Aquinas may be reasonably taken to teach Idolatry If they be not necessarily so to be taken yet as he teacheth to honour it with Latria either he teacheth Idolatry or contradicteth himself for the same reason as in Images What the effect of these excessive positions hath been is easie to see They clothe their images they paint them they guild them the finest they may They think themselves holy for touching kissing and caressing them as children do their babies They touch their bodies with them and think themselves hallowed by the meanes They put a cotton on the end of a stick and touch first the images then the eyes the lips and the noses of them that come and that in their surplisses Thus are they induced to pray directly to the Saints for their carnall concupiscences as did the heathen idolaters to vow to give themselves to them to put themselves under their protection and defence to set them up in their
the â—lesh to fall from their own to their husbands or their wives Gods the worshippers whereof they saw prosper in the world Not so those who had undertaken his Crosse and thereupon if faithfully had received his spirit which the Gospell bringeth For so why should the Church think that having Images should seduce those that are such to thinkâ— them the seates of some God head which supposeth a conceite of more Gods then one And upon this supposition proceedeth all that is written â—n the prophesies of Esay and Jeremy in the book of Baruch under the person of Jeremy and in the rest of the prophets in scorne of the Images of the Gentiles To wit that they imagined some Deity contayned and inclosed in them which were indeed meere wood and stone The question that remaines is but onely this whether this power of the Church hath been duely executed and within the bounds of our common Christianity or not For to pretend that the Apostles themselves have put it in use by prescribing that images be had and in Churches would be to contradict all that appeares in the point by the records of the Church For though I be obliged to say that there was never any constitution of the Apostles injoyning the whole Church not to bring any image into any Church because all the Church that is considerable hath sometimes done it yet will it easily appeare there is no act of the whole Church binding all to have them in Churches The council of Elivira Can. XXXVI Placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere ne quod câ—litur in parietibus pingatur It seemed good that there be no pictures in the Churches least that which is worshiped be pictured on the wales The Epistle of Epiphanius to Iohn Bishop of Jerusalem is extant in S. Jerome relating how finding somthing of our Lord Christ painted upon a vaile in a Church of his Diocesse he gave order to teare it which being out of his Diocese he could not have don had he not thought it against Gods Law and therfore no law of the Church And Eusebius Eccles Hist VII 18. relating the statue of our Lord curing the woman that had the issue of blood at Caesaâ—ea Philipi faith it is no marvaile that Gentils converted to the â—aith should honour our Lord and his Apostles for he saith he had sâ—en images of Peter and Paul as well as of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preserved from their time as the Gentiles used to honour their Saviors or benefactors But had it been against Gods Law would not the Apostles have told them so would they not have believed the Apostles whom they belâ—eved before they were Christians The picture of the good shepheard upon the Chalices of the Church which Tertullian appeales to de Pudicit cap. VII easily shows that they used not his Picture who used an Embleme of Christ for a Picture And you heard S. Austine say that he knew many worshippers of Pictures and Tombes among Christians The true ground and effect of these passages is hard for me to evidence here in a few words I believe S. Austine saw some dow baked Christians doe that at the tombes of Christians which when they were idolaters they did at the tombes of their friends where part of their Idolatries don were to their Ghosts For by that which followes he complains that he saw that excesse of meate and drinke upon the graves of Christians which it is no marvaile if the Idolatries of the Gentiles allowed So that it is no such marvaile that such Christians should worship Pictures as did the Gentiles The Canon is one of the hardest pieces of antiquity that I know The most probable seemes to be this That it followes the reason alleged in Deuteronomy against any image for God because they saw no shape of God So the word cultus seemes strictly to signifie that honour which Christianity tenders immediately to God not that which it may injoine to his creature And their reason will be this because the God head cannot be painted therefore no Pictures in Churches I doe believe there was somthing of the quarrell betweene Iohn of Jerusalem and Epiphanius about Origen upon which Theophilus of Alexandria heaved S. Chrosystome out of the Sea of Constantinople in that act of tearing the vaile But I believe Epiphanius acted according to his opinion in it and an opinion that he owned to all the world what ever the rest of the Church did for we see not that proceeding against Iohn of Jerusalem as against S. Chrosystome Eusebius might thinke those statues of our Lord and his cure those pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul more ancient then indeed they were But neither doth he charge any Idolatry upon them nor is there any question in the case but of having pictures in private not in the Church That after this time Churches were everywhere trimmed with the stories of the Saints and the Passions of the Martyrs I need not repeat much to prove the controversy in the East about the worshipping of them is evidence enough that the use of them went forward but with such contradiction that some held them Idoles and broke them in peeces who were there upon called Iconoclastâ— others worshipped them who after many attempts of the contrary party prevailed at length in a Council at Nicaea thence called the VII General Council with the concurrence of the Pope That the decree of the Councill injoines no Idolatry notwithstanding whatsoever prejudice to the contrary I must maintaine as unquestionable supposing the premises So far is it from leaving any roome for the imagination of any false God head to be represented by the images which it allowes that it expressely distinguisheth that honour done the image of our Lord Christ to be equâ—vâ—cally called worship that is to be onely so called but not to signifie the esteeme of God which he that believes the Holy Trinity can no way attâ—ibute to the image of our Lord supposing not granting that it were lawfull to honoure the image of our Lord not with any gesture or word signifying any God head inclosed in it which the idolatries of the heathen did signifie but that it is the picture of that man who also is God which he who believes the Trinity and puts off his hat and bowes the knee to the image of our Lord must needs signifie I say this shall be no â—dolatry because whether the worship of the image or of him whose image it is necessarily it is no worship of God but proceeds from an esteem that the image is a contemptible creature but that the man whom it signifies is God I say upon these termes it is not possible that it should be Idolatry to worship this image Because though the words or the gesture which are used may signifie the honour due to God alone yet the profession under which they are used necessarily limits them to the honour of that which is not