who create the parties by heading the division have to look about them least they become guilty of the greatest part of soules which in reason must needs perish by the extremities in which it consisteth And the representing of the grounds thereof unto the parties though it may seem an office unnecessary for a private Christian to undertake yet seemeth to me so free from all imputation of offense in discharging of our common Christianity and the obligation of it that I am no lesse willing to undergoe any offense which it may bring upon me then I am to want the advantages which allowing the present Reformation might give me In the mean time I remaine obliged not to repent me of the resolution of my nonage to remaine in the communion of the Church of England There I find an authority visibly derived from the act of the Apostles by meanes of their successors Nor ought it to be of force to question the validity thereof that the Church of Rome and the communion thereof acknowledgeth not the Ordinations and other Acts which are done by virtue of it as done without the consent of the whole Church which it is true did visibly concurre to the authorizing of all acts done by the Clergy as constituted by virtue of those Lawes which all did acknowledge and under the profession of executing the offices of their severall orders according to the same For the issue of that dispute will be triable by the cause of limiting the exercise of them to those termes which the Reformation thereof containeth which if they prove such as the common Christianity expressed in the Scriptures expounded by the original practice of the whole Church renders necessary to be maintained notwithstanding the rest of the Church agree not in them the blame of separation that hath insued thereupon will not be chargeable upon them that retire themselves to them for the salvation of Christian soules but on them who refuse all reasonable compliance in concurring to that which may seem any way tollerable But towards that triall that which hath been said must suffice The substance of that Christianity which all must be saved by when all disputes and decrees and contradictions are at an end is more properly maintained in that simplicity which all that are concerned are capable of by the terms of that Baptisme which it ministreth requiring the profession of them from all that are confirmed at years of discretion then all the disputes on both sides then all decrees on the one side all confessions of faith on the other side have been able to deliver it And I conceive I have some ground to say so great a word having been able by limiting the term of justifying faith in the writings of the Apostles according to the same to resolve upon what termes both sides are to agree if they will not set up the rest of their division upon something which the truth of Christianity justifieth not on either side For by admitting Christianity that is the sincere profession thereof to be the Faith which onely justifyeth in the writings of the Apostles whatsoever is in difference as concerning the Covenant of Grace is resolved without prejudicing either the necessity of Grace to the undertaking the performing the accepting of it for the reward or the necessity of good works in consideration for the same The substance of Chrianity about which there is any difference being thus secured there remaines no question concerning Baptisme and the Eucharist to the effect for which they are instituted being ministred upon this ground and the profession of it with the form which the Catholick Church requireth to the consecration of the Eucharist Nor doth the Church of England either make Sacraments of the rest of the seven or abolish the Offices because the Church of Rome makes them Sacraments Nor wanteth it an order for the daily morning and evening service of God for the celebration of Festivalls and times of Fasting for the observation of ceremonies fit to create that devotion and reverence which they signify to vulgar understandings in the service of God But praying to Saints and worshipping of Images or of the Eucharist Prayers for the delivery of the dead out of Purgatory the Communion in one kind Masses without Communions being additions to or detractions from that simplicity of Gods service which the originall order of the Church delivereth visible to common reason comparing the present order of the Church of Rome with the Scriptures and primitive records of the Church there is no cause to think that the Catholick Church is disowned by laying them aside It is true it was an extraordinary act of Secular Power in Church maters to inforce the change without any consent from the greater part of the Church But if the matter of the change be the restoring of Lawes which our common Christianity as well as the Primitive orders of the Church of both which Christian Powers are borne Protectors make requisite the secular power acteth within the sphere of it and the division is not imputable to them that make the change but to them that refuse their concurrence to it Well had it been had that most pious and necessary desire thereof to restore publick Penance been seconded by the zeal and compliance of all estates and not stifled by the tares of Puritanisme growing up with the Reformation of it For as there can be no just pretense of Reformation when the effect of it is not the frequentation of Gods publick service in that forme which it restoreth but the suppressing of it in that form which it rejecteth So the communion of the Eucharist being the chiefe office in which it consisteth the abolishing of private Masses is an unsusticient pretense for Reformation where that provision for the frequenting of the communion is not made which the restoring of the order in force before private Masses came in requireth Nor can any meane be imagined to maintaine continuall communion with that purity of conscience which the holinesse of Christianity requireth but the restoring of Penance In fine if any thing may have been defective or amisse in that order which the Church of England establisheth it is but justice to compare it in grosse with both extreames which it avoideth and considering that it is not in any private man to make the body of the Church such as thâ—y could wish to serve God with to rest content in that he is not obliged to become a party to those things which he approves not conforming himself to the order in force in hope of that grace which communion with the Church in the offices of Gods service promiseth For consider againe what meanes of salvation all Christians have by communion with the Church of Rome All are bound to be at Masse on every Festivall day but to say onely so many Paters and so many Aves as belong to the hour Not to assist with their devotions that which they understand not much lesse
delivering mine opinion what is true not in confining the parties to a mean Wee have seen two men of repute now amongst us cenâ—ure Grotius his labors upon the Scriptures from which I acknowledg to have received much advantage The one of them hath made him a Socinian the other a Papist Both could have given us no better argument that hee was neither than this that hee cannot be both It is not my intent to bring mens persons into consideration with the common concernment of Christianity and of Gods Church To his own Master hee stands or falls I do but instance in an eminent person that must needs be a Papist though never reconciled to the Church of Rome That must needs be a Socinian though appealing to the Original consent of the whole Church Upon which terms how should there be any such thing as Papists or Socinians I remember an admonition of his bitter adversary Doctor Rivet That the Sea of Rome will never thank him for what hee writ And from thence I inferred as charity obliged mee to inferr That the common good of Christianity and of Gods Church obliged him to that for which hee was to expect thanks on no side This for certain Grotius never lived by maintaining division in the Churcâ— Whether any body doth so or not I say not Their Master will judge them for it if they do Now to show the world that I am in a capacity to recall any thing that I have said upon due information I will here pass a Review upon that which I have said to the hardest point that I have spoke to the agreement of Gods fore-knowledg and providence with contingence For I conceive it had need be limited a little further to be free from offenâ—e That the consideration of the object which providence presents a man with determines the Will to every choice that it makes which I argue at large II. 24. may be understood two wayes in the nature of an object which belongs to the formal cause when wee speak of faculties habits and acts which are specified by their objects as the Scholes speak or in the nature of an effective cause Not as if the object were not the effâ—ctive cause in respect to the act of deliberation But because in respect to the act of resolution or choice it determineth onely as an object without consideration whereof the choice could not be made not as a motive effectively producing the choice For I acknowledg in point of reason that there may be such contingencies as the School calls ad utrumlibet where a man is no more inclined to this side than to that And in point of Faith I acknowledg that setting aside the temptations by which the Angels and our first parents that â—ell might be said to incline rather to fall than to stand as they were created by God they were not inclined to fall but to stand Besides should I say that the object â—ffâ—ctively determineth the choice how should I say that which I take express notice of pag. 200. that those contingenciâ—s wherein the will inclineth to the one side as balanced by a propensity of disposition towards it not as every faculty is inclined to the object to which it naturally tends remain uncertain as nevertheless contingencies whatsoever probability that propensiâ—y may create And indeed though it is a perfection in mans knowledg rising from the consideration of the object to say what is like to come to pass though it fail yet to Gods which â—â—â—â—th from God alone it were blasplemy to suppose it to fail because then God should fail The infallibâ—lity therefore of it no being deâ—ivable from the object must necessarily be resolved into the infinity eternity immensity of that perfection which is his nature comprehending the future inclination and resolution of that will moved with a consideration capable to determine it which nothing but the native freedom thereof effectively determineth And if it be further demanded how that reason can stand which resolveth into that which no man understands The answer is necessary that it is an argument of infidelity to demand how in â—â—â—â—rs of Faith It is and ought to be sufficient that it involveth no manner of contradiction that the thing which may not be shâ—ll certainly be and therefore may be known and revealed by God that it shall come to pass For if it be a point of perfection rather to know this than not to know it of necessity God must have it how little soever wee understand how And therefore what appearance soever there may be in the motives which the object preâ—enteth agreeing with the present disposition of the Will that choice wiâ—l follow yet so long as it continueth undetermined though not indifferent by reason of the agreement between the inclination thereof and the motives tendred it is alwayes able to determine it self to the contrary of that which it is moved to though not without appearance of a motive determining it otherwise And the tender of that motive is that act of providence in which I say pag. 201. that Gods determining of future contingencies ends consisting with another whereby hee maintains the will in that ability of taking or refusing which the creation thereof constituteth In which case hee who maintaineth that it is not impossible for the infinite wisedom of God comprehending all things to see what man will do shall not derive his fore-sight from the object but from his very Godhead Onely supposing that it hath proceeded to the work of providence in purposing to place every man in an estate so circumstanced as at each moment hee comprehendeth For as man cannot procâ—ed to chuse this and not that not supposing the consideration upon which the choice proceeds which also must make it a good or a bad choice so neither doth God fore see his choice not fore-seeing the motive which the object presenteth him with Which seeing hee fore-seeth in the purpose of his providence supposing that perfection of his Godhead which his proceeding to the same requireth It is manifest that according to this saying that which hee seeth hee seeth in himself and not in his creature Wherefore I confess it may be said that seeing a Divine when hee is come thus farr must stay here and resolve the rest of his inquiries into the vast and bottomless chaos of Gods infinite perfections it had been better to have said so at the first and never have troubled the Reader with a discourse to prove by the Scriptures that God considereth the state wherein his providence placeth men for the ground upon which hee fore-seeth what they will do which that XXIV Chapter containeth For why should not our ignorance be as learned at the first as at the last But that which hath been said will serve to make the discourse no way superfluous For contingencies that shall be though they be nothing before they câ—me to pass yet is God something and the purpose of his pâ—â—â—â—â—ence
show were it worth the while as also from whence they took their rise to do it And if he please to step over the water again into France I can show him a more lively picture of an Empire erected within an Empire when the Reformed Churches their had there Civil Assemblies to order the businesse which should arise upon the privileges which they had purchased by their arms for the maintaining of their Religion by force Whether by right or by wrong I say not here But this is the thing which hee calleth Imperium in Imperio the Popes temporal Power making him rather Soveraign above than within other Soveraignties But I have showed you already that this opinion never was the Faith of the Catholick Church but the position of the Papal Faction disclaimed at this day by the farre greater part of that communion though the contrary being countenanced the more make the greater appearance For my own opinion I have delivered it so clear in my book of the Right of the Church in a Christian State that these Authors might if they pleased to oversee all other Divines that deliver the same by that alone have seen what they had to refute And truly I do not believe that any of them can allege a more convicting reason against those that build a Soveraignty within a Soveraignty upon the Title of the Church than that which there is alleged from the Unity of the Church prophesied of in all the promises of the calling of the Gentiles which the constitution of one visible Church of all Christians fulfilleth For if the Church of several Soveraignties is to be one and the same Body by communicating in the Service of God upon supposition of the same Faith then cannot the foundation of it create any title of temporal right to the prejudice and disturbance of those Soveraignties from whence all force within their respective territories is derived If it be said that the supposition is impossible to wit that the Church should have power to Ordain Excommunicate decree and yet be indowed with no force to constrain those that are obliged to stand to the acts thereof The reason now alleged to the contrary is evident For if the obligation of the inward man be of force to resolve a Christian to part with his life to maintain the profession of it If it be part of that obligation which Christianity createth to hold communion with Gods Church is not this obligation enough to inforce the acts of the Church and that excommunication which inforces the same And for experience from the effect it is but alleging the subsistence of the Church till the time that Gregory II and III Popes withdrew their obedience and the obedience of those parts of Italy that followed them from the Emperor Leo Isaunus upon pretense of his erring in the Faith in putting down Images For that is the first example which Christendom hath brought forth of temporal freedom from allegiance due to the Soveraigne founded upon the Title of Christianity If yet it be evident that this was the case in which I see there is some difficulty made But before this time it can neither be said that the Church was not the same after Constantine as before nor that the power of it ever produced any rebellion against the Soveraign upon this Title more than when the Martyrs suffered for their Christianity without defending themselves by force And therefore when this Doctor for the ground of his opinion as visible to his imagination as the common notions in Euclide alleges that all Power all Jurisdiction all Lawes all Punishment all Government all Appeales all Councils are derived first and do lastly resort to the Secular Power no lesse in Ecclesiastical than in Secular Causes and concerning Ecclesiastical as well as Secular Persons because all force which constrains obedience is vested in it his imagination is meerly imbroyled with equivocation of words For all Power is nothing else but a moral quality consisting in the right of obliging other mens wills those in respect of whom the Power holds by the act of his or their wills that have it And what shall hinder God to create such an obligation upon the consciences of Christians by virtue of their Christianity not allowing them any force to inact it but the denial of the communion of the Church Whether the Rules of the Church be called Laws or Canons hee that is tied to hold communion with the Church is tyed to observe those Rules by which it subsists and if hee do not deserves to be set aside rather than the Unity thereof perish Whether yee call them Magistrates or Elders that are appointed to govern the Church it maters not if by virtue of Gods Law the obligation of obeying them be evident in the Scriptures Whether it be properly called Jurisdiction or not when a Christian is censured to be put out of the Church it shall have the same effect with that Jurisdiction whereby a malefactor is put out of the world according as the correspondence between the Church and the State will bear it How this may be counted punishment how not I will not say again having said it already In all causes and concerning all persons I acknowledge there lies an appeal to the Soveraign the Church having to do onely in Ecclesiastical causes concerning men as they are members of the Church and so accidentally when the Church is as large as the State all acknowledging the same Church the Jurisdiction thereof whether properly so called or not extending to as many as that of the State For the last appeal is one of those Jura Majestatis or Prerogatives wherein Soveraignty consisteth neither is it alienable though it is limitable by those termes which Christianity when it is acknowledged to come from God establisheth On the other side the Power of the Church though never so evidently settled by Christianity may be abused not only when it is extended to some temporal effect but also when it is extended beyond the ground and reason of that Christianity which it presupposeth Instances you have of both in the claimes of temporal Power and Infallibility in behalf of the Church And as there lies an appeal to a Heathen Soveraign professing not to persecute his Subjects for their Christianity but to protect them in it upon pretense that it is extended to a temporal effect so may there by an appeal to a Christian Soveraign upon pretense that it is extended beyond the bounds which Christianity alloweth So the Council of Aâ—tiochia appealed Aurelian because Paulus Samosatenus protected himself in his House belonging to the the Church by power derived from him But hee alloweth them that trial which Christianity settleth So Constantine received the appeal of the Donatists but referred the trial to the Church in a Council at Rome and again another at Arles representing all the West But of the bounds of Secular and Ecclesiastical power I must speak again That the
it may be said that a thing comes to passe necessarily and that sense in which it may be said that it must necessarily come to passe For I suppose that the property of our English will help me here to distinguish these two senses to all that consider their mother tongue and may discerne a severall meanâ—ng when a man saies the fire burnes necessarily Peter must necessarily deny our Lord supposing that our Lord had fore told it For when the necessity is understood to be in the cause which the nature thereof though by Gods will determines it is proper to say thaâ— it comes to passe necessarily But when the necessity is understood to stand upâ—n a supposition of the effect either being or knowne to be which knowledg presupposeth it to be being supposâ—d to be true or the like it is proper to say this must needs come to passe or it must of necessity come to passe but not that it comes to passe necessarily because then the necessity must noâ— fall upon the coming of it upon passe but upon the manner by which it comes to pâ—sse I say then if any can inferr upon my saying that the necessity which it infers is antecedent to the being of it I grant I am faln into the inconvenience which I would a void and will disclaime the position upon which it followes But if it be onely consequent upon supposition either that it is or that it is taken to be it is no more then that necessity which is found in all coâ—tiâ—gencies according to all opinions that must allow all things necessarily to be â—hough not to be necessarily supposing that they are Now when I say that God determines the evenâ—s of future contingencies I say not that he doth it by determining their causes to do them speaking of free causes for the contingâ—â—cies which come to passe by the concurrence of naturall causes I grant â—o be meere necessities in regard it is necessary that when every cause actâ— to the uâ—most of his strength that must not onely needs come to passe but come to passe necessarily which the concurrence of severall forces produceth and must needâ— appear in the causes to any that comprehends the force of them all buâ— that this act of his ends in determining the motives which present themâ—elves to such causes Which act is consistent with an other act whereby he mâ—intaines the cause in an ability of doing or not doing that which it is movâ—d to do But that comprehending the inclinations thereof and the force oâ— the motives which it is presented with he comprehends thereby that it will proceed to act though comprehending that it might doe otherwiâ—e shâ—uld it regard those appearances which either habitually it hath or actuâ—lly â—t â—â—ght to have Now I confesse againe it is hard for me to show how it ought actually to have those appearances which habitually it hath But seeing thaâ— supposing this I show evidently how the providence of God iâ— unceâ—easibâ—â— the will remaining free and the effects thereof contingent I will rathâ—r conâ—esse that I cannot shew where their freedome might or ought to move when it does not then destroy the ground of all Christianity Thus much is evident supposing my saying that the certainty of the event includes the supposition of the will acting freely therefore infers no necessity antecedent to it the knowledge upon which providence decrees foreseeing that it will freely proceed being so moved CHAP. XXV The grounds of the difference between sufficient and effectuall How naturall occasions conduce to supernaturall actions The insufficience of Jansenius his doctrine Of sufficient grace under the Law of Moses and Nature ANd now I shall not use many words to declare what it is that makes those helps of grace which of themselves are sufficient effectuall For if all particulars are contayned in their generalls that which is said of all the works of providence must hold in those helps of supernaturall grace whereby it conducteth to the happinesse of the world to come And therefore the efficacy of Gods grace taking efficacy to imply the effect consists in the order which providence useth that the motives of Christianity whether to imbrace or performe the profession of it be presented in such circumstances as may render them accepted of the will to whose judgement for the preâ—ent they so appeare So that the same for nature and kind prove effectall to one which to an other prove void and frustrate For it is manifest that those helps are the grace of Christ even as they are sufficient and supposing them not to take effect And it ought to be manifest that the circumstances in which they are present to every particular person are brought to passe by the conduct of Gods spirit which filleth the world and attaineth from the beginning to the end of all things which come to passe And this spirit and the coming thereof being purchased by our Lord Christ and granted in consideration of his obedience it is easy to bee seen how it is the grace of Christ not onely as sufficient but also as effectuall This resolution then presupposeth two things as proved Chap. XVIII The first That the preaching of the Gospell is the grace of Christ That is to say A Grace granted by God in consideration of Christs merits and sufferings The second That the grace of Christ attaineth and reacheth the very effect of conversion and new obedience and resteth not in having inabled man to doe it of himselfe without the influence of it To make this part of faith better to be understood among believers better to be maintained against unbelievers that which this resolution advanceth is this That the Grace of the H. Ghost purchased by the humiliation of Christ and by his exaltation obtained as it is the meanes which God hath provided for the publishing of his Gospell to the conviction of all who understand it that they ought to submit to the faith and live according to it so it is the meanes to make it effectuall to the conversion of the Nations to Christianity that conversion effectuall in their lives and conversations by presenting the reasons and grounds thereof being of themselves sufficient for the worke to every mans consideration in those circumstances procured by the providence of God which it executeth in which his wisdome â—oresaw that they would takâ— effect and become to the purpose And truly when our Lord saith Iohn XVI 8 9 10. And when he cometh he will convict the world of sin of righteousnesse of judgement Of sin because they believe not in mee Of judgement because the prince of this world is condemned we must understand that the H. Ghost convinced the world of sin because those miracles which the Apostles did by the holy Ghost convincing the world that they spoke the word of God shewed the world that they were under sin and liable to Gods wrath if they became not Christians And that he convinced
consideration of their being changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ represented sacrificed upon the Crosse makes them properly no Sacrifice In the former consideration being properly Oblations let them be improperly Sacrifices For in this sense in the Canon of the Masse Te igitur Clementissime Pater per Jesum Christum filium tuum Dominum nostrum supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas ac benedic as hâ—c dona haec munera haec sancta sacrificia illibata Wee therefore humbly beseech and desire thee most mercifull Father through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord to accept and blesse these gifts these presents these holy unstained Sacrifices And not onely here before the Consecration but just before the Lords Prayer and the Communion Per Christum Dominum nostrum Per quem haec omnia semper Domine bona creas sanctificas vivificas benedicis praestas nobis Through Christ our Lord Through whom thou O Lord alwaies createst sanctifiest quickenest and furnishest us with all these good things The repetition of which consideration shows that they are presented to God to be consecrated and made the Eucharist as Oblations out of believers goods According to the form used in divers Greek Liturgies from the words of David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wee give thee thire own of thine own But when our Lord sayes This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is poured out for you Will any man of sense understand That is now by that which here I do offered up to God for you and the bloud as poured forth Or rather this is that body and bloud that is given to be crucified and poured forth for you shortly upon the Crosse Let it therefore have the nature of a Sacrifice so soon as the Consecration is past It shall have that nature improperly so long as it is not the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse Though truly so long as the Sacrament is not empty of that which it signifieth And accorâ—ing to this truth true Altars they are true Temples true Sacrifices though improperly where and by whom it is ministred But I will not therefore grant that this Sacrificing that is this consecrating the Elements into the Sacrifice is an action done in the person of Christ Though they are agreed that it is done by the rehersing of the words of Christ For the rehersing of Christs words is not an act done in the person of Christ Nor do I take upon mee his person whose words I recite And I have showed that the Consecration is done by the Prayers of the Church immediately though these Prayers are made in virtue of Christs order commanding to do what hee did and thereby promising that the Elements shall become that which hee saith those which hee conâ—ecrated are As for the other opinion which I am not to be the more in love with because I am not satisfied with this it is to be considered that the Elements are offered thrice in the Canon of the Masse The first is that offering which I rehersed last beginning Te igitur going before the Consecration as â—â— agree The second is that which this opinion intendeth agreeing with the other that the Consecration is past by rehersing the words of institution But mine opinion allows not this For I conceive the Consecration is yet in doing till that Prayer be past Vt quotquot ex hâc Altaris participatione Sacro-Sanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti gratiâ repleamur That as many of us as shall have received the Holy body and bloud of thy Son by this communion of the Altar may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace Which is the later of the two in which I conceive the Consecration to consist as in all other Liturgies in something correspondent to it And truly the very words of the second offering do bear that the Elements are by it offered to God not as consecrated but as to be consecrated supposing the blessing of them to be the consecrating of them as I proved afore Therefore the offering and the presenting of them to God as consecrated is that which is done by the Prayer which follows Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum And nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuis whereby the several estates of Christs Church are recommended to God in virtue and consideration of Christs passion here represented and commemorated Not that I intend here to justifie that Prayer for the dead which this containeth but because referring that to consideration in due time all Liturgies have a place where according to S. Paul intercession is made for all States of Christs Church in consideration of the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse represented by this Sacrament And because this intercession is properly the offering up of the the said Sacrifice to God for their necessities And therefore this opinion saith well that the Consecration exhibiteth onely the Sacrifice to be offered up to God by the Prayers of the Church But not by the Prayer which desireth the blessing of the Elements wherein the consecating of them is contained which is that of the elevation in the Canon of the Masse but by those Prayers whereby the effects of Christs Crosse are prayed for in behalf of his Church According to which opinion the consecrating of the Elements will be the Sacrificing of Christ no further than as the body and bloud of Christ are thereby represented as Sacrificed But there will be no further cause of complaint in this then there is cause to complain that there is not such ground for division as the parties would have For though there be onely a general reason of offering no particular consideration of destroying seen in the act of the Church offering either the Elements to be consecrated or the consideration of Christs Crosse represented to render God propitious to his Church Yet are the consecrated Elements no lesse the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse than the presence of Christs body and bloud in them will allow though in order to that Evangelical banquet upon them at which and by which the Covenant of Grace is renewed For the Apostles having made the Eucharist a Sacrifice in this regard I must not count the making of it one offensive I say then that having proved the consecration of the Eucharist to be the production of the body and bloud of Christ crucified or the causing of them to be mystically present in the elements thereof as in a Sacrament representing them separated by the crucifying of Christ And the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist in as much as it is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as that which representeth is truly said to be the thing which it representeth is also both propitiatory and impeâ—ratory by virtue of the consecration of it whereby it becometh the
which it standeth For it is manifest that the powers from whose acts this argument is drawne are such as hold communion with the Church of Rome and acknowledg the Pope in behalf of it As manifest it is that the Pope not onely challengeth to be head of the Church in Church maters but maintaineth Friers Canonists to chalenge for him Soveraigne power in civill causes over all persons in order to Christianity To say then that by the acts which they limite the use of Ecclesiastical power by they pretend that there is no Power in the Church but what they give it is to say that by those acts they contradict themselves and proclaime their own professing themselves Sons of the Church not onely to be without cause but to signifie nothing as words without sense Which with what modesty it can be affirmed in the face of Christendome I leave to Christendome to judge Onely I will here summon the liberties of the Gallicane Church as they are digested by that worthy Advocate of Paris P. Pithaeus to give sentence in this cause being a peece much appealed to by the Father of this argument as that which deserves to be accounted of prime consequence in the businesse I desire those that will take the pains to looke into them to tell me whether they find not these two to be the first two points of them That the King of France is Soveraigne in his own dominions and that he is Protector of the Canons Liberties and priviledges of the Church And then I desire them to imploy the common understanding of men to pronounce whether these be not the same points of secular interest in Church maters which I have advanced Namely as Soveraigne to have no competitor in the right of the Crowne and as Christian to be borne Protector of the Catholicke and Apostolick Faith and of the Church and of the Lawes of it which have no being but upon supposition of that faith whereof one part is the beliefe of the Catholike Church Onely I shall take notice that they protest that they are called Liberties and not Priviledges on purpose to signifie that they are no exceptions to the common right of all Soverainities in Church maters but essentiall points of it Which they call the liberties of the French Church in particular because the Kings of France they thinke have maintained them better then other Princes of Christendome have done In consequence of this collection of Pithaeus besids the proofs of them in two great volums we have of late a commentary of Petrus Puteanus upon these Liberties as they are digested by Pithaeus the businesse whereof is first to make good that they are of more unquestionable right in France then they have been and are practiced also by other Princes and states of Christendome which is answer enough to this whole argument as it stands upon the authority of Christendome expessed by the acts of it Neverthelesse I shall further alledge in this cause the collection which Frier Paul of the order delli Servi hath made of the articles accorded betweene the Pope and the state of Venice concerning the Inquisition the bounds of secular Power in the cognizance of those causes wherein that court may pretend concurrence of Jurisdiction with it I will not undertake to say that the state of Venice maintaining the Inquisition upon such termes as this collection or Capitular declareth doth maintaine those persons in the use of Ecclesiasticall power to whom by the common right of the whole Church it belongeth Neither will I maintaine that whatsoever those articles distinguish and allow the Inquisition is by virtue of the common right of the whole Church For who can ty him to expresse every where what is by Ecclesiasticall right and what of secular privilege by free act of tâ—e state bestowed upon the Church as all states that would be held Christians have alwaies done This I say that he that shall take the paines to look into it shall finde the bounds of secular and Ecclesiastical power so expressely distinguished upon the reasons which I have aleged that it shall be too late to say that they who acknowledge a Church and certaine rights by Gods Lawe belonging to the foundation of it doe contradict themselves when they do limit the exercise of those rights Being ready further to maintaine that they doe nothing but right when they limit the exercise of them according to the reasons which I have advanced As for the Leviathan who hath made himselfe so merry with compasing a state Christian in which the Ecclesiasticall power is distinct from the secular with the governement of Oberon and Queene Mabbe and theire Pugs in the land of Fairies If he speake of a state framed according to the opinion of those that make the Pope soveraigne in all causes and over all persons in order to Christianity I grant he hath reason For there is not nor can be any such state and it would be indeed a kingdome of confusion and darkenesse Nay where the Church it selfe is Soveraigne as in the Popes dominions show the difference of the grounds upon which severall rights and powers are held and exercised will be in some points though not in all no lesse visible then else where But if he intend by consequence to say the same of all Christian states that acknowledg an Ecclesiasticall power derived from the Law of God and not from the secular then I remit to those that shall have perused the practice of Christendome but in those short peeces that I have named whether they believe those states which so governe themselves to be the land of Fairies or his wits that writ such things to have beene troubled with Fairies And now in particular to say what the maintenance of the Church in giving Lawes to the Church requires that is to say in determining those maters the determination whereof becomes necessary for the maintenance of unity in the Communion of the Church It is easy to deduce from the premises that every Christian is under two obligations One to the Church which as a Christian he is bound to communicate with The other as belonging to that state of Government which he believeth to be lawfully setled in his country By the act of those whom he believes to have right to oblige respectively these two societies which if we speake onely of that part of the Church which is in one soverainty consist of the same persons if they be all of the same Church every Christian is respectively obliged For by the premises it remaines manifest that it is the act of the Church to determine the mater of Ecclesiasticall Law and give it force to oblige the respective part thereof under paine of forseiting the communion of the Church But the act of the state either not to hinder this effect when and where Christianity is onely tollerated as a corporation which it alloweth Or to make them Lawes of the state when and where
The nature and intent of it renders it subordinate to the Clergy How farre the single life of the Clergy hath been a Law to the Church Inexecution of the Canons for it Nullity of the proceedings of the Church of Rome in it The interest of the People in the acts â—f the Church And in the use of the Scriptures 368 CHAP. XXXII How great the Power of the Church and the offect of it is The right of judging the causes of Christians ceaseth when it is protected by the State An Objection If Ecclesiastical Power were from God Secular Power could not limit the use of it Ground for the Interest of the State in Church matters The inconsequence of the argument The concurrence of both Interests to the Law of the Church The Inâ—erest of the state in the indowment of the Church Concurrence of both in matrimonial causes and Ordinations Temporall penalties upon Excommunication from the State No Soveraigne subject to the greater Excommunication but to the lesse The Rights of the Jewes State and of Christian Powers in Religion partly the same partly not The infinite Power of the Pope not founded upon Episcopacy but upon acts of the Secular Powers of Christendom 381 OF THE PRINCIPLES OF Christian Truth The First BOOK CHAP. I. All agree that Reason is to decide controversies of Faith The objection that Faith is taught by Gods Spirit answered What Reason decideth questions of Faith The resolution of Faith ends not in the light of Reason but in that which Reason evidenceth to come from Gods messengers THe first thing that we are to question in the beginning is Whether there be any means to resolve by the use of reason those controverâ—â—es which cause division in the Church Which is all one as if we undertook to enquire whether there be any such skill or knowledg as that for which men call themselvs Divines For if there be it must be the same in England as at Rome And if it have no principles as no principles it can have unlesse it can be resolved what those principles are then is it a bare name signifying nothing But if there be certain principles which all parties are obliged to admit that discourse which admits no other will certainly produce that resolution in which all shall be obliged to agree And truely this hope there is left that all parties do necessarily suppose that there is means to resolve by reason all differences of Faith Inasmuch as all undertake to perswade all by reason to be of the judgment of each one and would be thought to have reason on their side when so they do and that reason is not done them when they are not believed There are indeed many passages of Scripture which say that Faith is only taught by the Spirit of God Mat. XVI 17. Blessed art thou Peter son of Ionas for flesh and blood revealed not this to thee but my Father which is in the heavens II. 25. I thank thee O Father Lord of heaven and earth that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes 1 Cor. I. 26 27 28. For Brethren you see your calling that not many wise according to the flesh not many mighty not many noble But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen to shame the wise The weak things of the world hath God chosen to shame the strong The ignoble and despicable things of the world hath God chosen and the things that are not to confound the things that are John VI. 45. It is written in the Prophets And they shall be all taught of God Heb. VIII 10. Jer. XXXI 33. This is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel in those dayes saith the Lord I will put my Laws in their mindes and write them in their hearts These and the like Scriptures then asâ—ribing the reason why wee believe to the work of Gods Spirit seem to leave no room for any other reason why wee should believe But this difficulty is easie for him to resolve that diâ—â—inguishes between the reason that moveth in the nature of an object and that motion which the active cause produceth For the motion of an object supposes that consideration which discovers the reason why wee are to believe But the motion of the Holy Ghost in the nature of an active cause proceeds without any notice that wee take of it According to the saying of our Lord to Nicodemus John 111. 8. The winde bloweth where it listeth and a man hears the noise of it but cannot tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth So is every one that is born of the spirit For wee must know that there may be sufficient reason to evict the truth of Christianity and yet prove ineffectual to induce the most part either inwardly to believe or outwardly to professe it The reason consists in two things For neither is the mater of Faith evident to the light of reason which wee bring into the world with us And the Crosse of Christ which this profession drawes after it necessarily calls in question that estate which every man is setled upon in the world So that no marvel if the reasons of believing fail of that effect which for their part they are sufficient to produce Interest diverting the consideration or intercepting the consequence of such troublesom truth and the motives that inforce it The same is the reason why the Christian world is now to barren of the fruits of Christianity For the profession of it which is all the Laws of the world can injoyn is the common privilege by which men hold their estates Which it is no marvel those men should make use of that have neither resolved to imbrace Christ with his Crosse nor considered the reason they have to do it who if they should stick to that which they professe and when the protection of the Law failes or act according to it when it would be disadvantage to them in the world so to do should do a thing inconsequent to their own principles which carried them no further than that profession which the Law whereby they hold their estates protecteth The true reason of all Apostasy in all trials As for the truth of Christianity Can they that believe a God above refuse to believe his messengers because that which they report stands not in the light of any reason to evidence it Mater of Faith is evidently credible but cannot be evidently true Christianity supposes sufficient reason to believe but not standing upon evidence in the thing but upon credit of report the temptation of the Crosse may easily defeat the effect of it if the Grace of Christ and the operation of the Holy Ghost interpose not Upon this account the knowledg of Gods truth revealed by Christ may be the work of his Grace according to the Scriptures for that so it is I am not obliged neither have I any reason here to suppose being to come in
God delivered to the Church by the Apostles commanding them so to live For that which was as difficult as impossible to have been introduced without conviction of the will of God as the rest of Christianity of necessity must go for a part of it But that in such variety of mens fannies reasons and inclinations the Church consisting from the beginning of all Nations and dispersed all over the world should of their own inclination not swayed by any information of Gods will received with Christianity agree in the same Lawes and Rulers submitting to the exercise of the same Power upon themselves is as impossible as that the world should consist of the casual concurse of atomes according to Democritus and Epicurus The name of the Church without peradventure was first used to signifie the whole body of Gods people in the Wildernesse when they might be and were called together and assembled upon their common occasions which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies After which time the people continuing still one and the same by virtue of the same Lawes then received and the Powers placed in their Ruler Not onely the whole people but such parts of it as resorted to the same Government have still born and do bear the same name The Synagogue of Libertines Cyrenaeans Alexandrians Cilicians and Asians by example Acts VI. 9. which name first belongs to the respective Bodies of Jewes that subsisted at Rome Cyrene or Alexandria in Cilicia or Asia And consequently by Metonymy to the Places where such of those Bodies as chanced to be at Jerusalem might assemble themselves And to so many of those Bodies as being at Jerusalem did assemble at those Places Now no Christian can doubt that the Body of Christians succeeds in the stead of Gods ancient people And therefore the name of Gods Church when it stands without limitation signifies no lesse As when our Lord saith Mat. XVI 18. Vpon this rock will I found my Church Whatsoever the Disciples then conceived the Church should be our Lord that knew all by the name of it meant all that duly beares the name And therefore when hee saith once again Mat. XVIII 17. Tell it to the Church It is strange there should be Christians that should think hee means the Jewes and their Rulers And that the precept concernes Christians no longer now they have left the Jewes Though it is true a man cannot tell his cause to the whole Church but to that part of it to which hee can resort which is called by the name of the Whole as I said even now of the Synagogue S. Paul to the Colossians II. 24 25. calling the Church the Body of Christ saith That hee by the dispensation of God towards them which hee is trusted with is become the minister of the Church to wit as Angels are ministers of the Church because ministers of God towards it And therefore minister of the whole Church which is the Body of Christ not of any particular Church as if an Apostle could be bound to execute his office according to the discretion of any Church which for Gods cause hee attends As all Ministers are bound to execute their Office according to the will of them whose Ministers they are It is therefore the whole Church in which God hath set Apostles Evangelists Prophets and the use of the Graces rehearsed 1 Cor. XII 28. Eph. IV. 11. Because the Office of these Graces can by no means be confined either to any particular Church or to any part of the whole Church The name of the Church signifies the same thing again Eph. I. 22. III. 21. V. 23-32 While all Christendome was contained in the Church at Jerusalem the name of the Church is so used Acts II. 47. V. 11. VIII 1 3. that it is no mater whether wee understand by it the whole Church or the Church of Jerusalem The reason Because all right and power that can at any time be found vested in the whole Church was then as fully in the Church at Jerusalem as it can be at any time in the whole Church though in respect of a Body never so much greater than it As a childe is as much a man the day of his birth as the day of his death and a tree as much as a tree when it growes one as when it is come to the height But Christianity being propagated among Jewes and Gentiles as wee reade of the Churches of Judaea Samaria and Galilee Acts IX 31. and must needs understand the Epistles to the Ebrewes to have been written to Churches consisting onely of Ebrewes as those of S. Peter and that of S. James which mentions the Elders of the Church James V. 14. So the Churches of the Gentiles in S. Paul Rom. XVI 4. wee easily understand to be the Churches of Asia 1 Cor. XVI 9. Apoc. I. 11. the Churches of Galâ—â—ia 1 Cor. XVI 1. the Churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. VIII 1. and the rest that were visible in S. Paâ—ls time Now suppose for the present that these Churches mentioned by the Apostles were no more than so many Congregations as our Independents would have it Seeing they deny not so many Churches to be so many Bodies what reason can they give why the name of the Church when it stands for the whole Church should not signifie the like There is a prerogative attributed to the whole Church by S. Paul 1 Tim. III. 25. when hee calls it the base and pillar of Truth For that this should be said of any particular Church it were too ridiculous to imagine Can the Church bear this attribute if it be not capable of doing any act that may verifie it And if it be not a Body what act can it do In fine the correspondence between Gods ancient people and his new Israel according to his Spirit seems to require That as the Religion of the Jewes and not any Civil Power of the Nation makes them all one Body at this day in point of fact by sufferance of Soveraignes because they were once so in point of right So the Religion of Christians should make them one Body in point of right how many Bodies soever they are burst into in point of fact by their own wantonnesse For the Independents exception which I spoke of can be of no force unlesse they will make it appear that all those Churches that are mentioned in the writings of the Apostles did assemble in one place Not that if this could be made to appear they had done their businesse But because if it do not appear their plea is peremptorily barred Wee reade then of M M M soules added in one day to CXX of the Church at Jerusalem Acts I. 15. II. 41. To these were added or with these they became VM Acts IV. 4. To whom were added multitudes of men and women Acts II. 47. V. 14. These assembled daily in private to serve God as Christians as well as in
as the Evangelist and our Lord both affirm that these things were prophesied concerning the cures which our Lord did upon their bodies so can it not be doubted that the cure of our soules is spiritually signified by the same whether you consider the promises whereby the ground of this correspondence is settled or the expresse words of the Apostle 1 Pet. II. 24. where that which S. Matthew expoundeth of the cures which our Lord did upon their bodies is referred to the taking away of sâ—nne by the sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse Which if it cannot be denied I shall make no difficulty to inferre that the words of the Prophet Esay VII 14. Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and yee shall call his name Emmanuel which the Evangelists referreth to our Lord Mat. I. 22. and by the premises were fulfilled when they were first said as in the figure are still accomplished in the children which by Gods grace are still â—orn of the holy faith of his Church by grace Nor that the words of the Prophet Osee XI 1. Out of Egypt have I called my Son which being manifestly said of the Israelites coming out of Egypt the same Evangelist II. 15. affirmeth to be fulfilled in our Lords coming back out of Egypt are still accomplished in those which out of the darknesse of this world are brought to Gods Church which is spiritually the Land of Promise Nor that the words of the Prophet Jeremy XXXI 15. which the same Evangelist expoundeth of the Innocents which were slaine by Herod at Bethlehem but the correspondence hitherto established requireth us to understand of the captive Jewes at Ramah in that Prophets time are still fulfilled in all that suffer persecution and death for Christianity Nor lasâ—ly that the words of the Psalmes XXII 8 18. Hee trusted in God that hee would deliver him let him save him seeing hee loveth him They pierced my hands and my feet And They part my garments among them and cast lots upon my vesture XLI 9. Hee which did eat of my bread hath lift up the heel against mee XLIX 9 21. The zeale of thine house hath eaten mee up And They gave mee gall to eat and in my thirst they gave mee vineger to drink VIII 2. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise CIX 8. His Office let another take XVI 10. Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell nor suffer thine holy One to see corruption which the New Testament will have to be fulfilled in those things that befell our Lord Christ in the flesh in his crucifying Maâ— XXVIII 18 35 43. Mark XV. 22 23 24. John XIX 17 29. in Judas betraying him John XIII 18. in his purging the Temple John II. 17. in the children that praised him Mat. XXI 16. in Matthias chosen in Judas stead Acts I. 20. in the resurrection of Christ Acts II. 31. XIII 35. But the correspondence premised and the reason of it require us first to understand of those things which befell David and Gods ancient people are still spiritually verified and accomplished in those things which befall the children of God and his Church under the state of Grace Neither shall I make any question that the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel which wee have settled being supposed it will not follow neverthelesse that all the Old Testament ought by virtue thereof to be so fulfilled in the life of our Lord Christ But that the Spirit of God in the Evangelists showeth that the Spirit in the Prophets so directed their words that they were intended to be farre more properly fulfilled in our Lord Christ than in those whom they were spoke of in the literal sense For wee do not finde that the Text that is to say that which went before and that which followes after those words which the Gospels say were fulfilled in our Lord Christ is answered by any thing which wee reade to have befallen him in the flesh And the general correspondence between Israel according to the flesh in the Old Testament and Israel according to the Spirit in the New being sufficient to justifie our Lord to be the Christ whom they expected and by consequence that twofold sense of the Old Testament which here wee maintaine there is no cause why they should be said to be impertinently alleged though by ordinary reason supposing this correspondence that could not be proved from those Texts which the Gospels say that they signifie Indeed such of them as are used by our Lord and his Apostles to prove him to be the Christ must be said and well may be maintainâ—d to do it by the perpectual correspondence of Gods earthly promises made good to his carnal people through the meanes of their Kings Priests and Prophets with the promises of the world to come made good by the means of our Lord Christ to the Church Therâ— is yet another kinde of our Lord Christs sayings and of things that befell him in the flesh in which there appears at the first view that difference of literal and mystical sense which hath been settled between the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments The Parable of the Prodigal childe for example seems not onely to contain a plain song of Gods earnest desire to be reconciled with penitent sinnerâ— but also a descant of the rejection of the Jewes and the calling of the Gentiles figured by it In like maner the Parable of him that fell among theeves as hee went down to Jericho Luke XI seemeth not onely to instruct who is the neighbor that wee are to love as our selves but also to figure the fall of man and the sending of our Lord for the restoring of him intimated as the ground of it So the acclamations of them that went afore and them that came after our Lord at his entrance into Jerusalem Mat. XXI agreeing in the same note of Hosanna to the Son of David I cannot tell whether any Christian could be so moroâ—e as to doubt but that it fell out on purpose to signifie the agreement of the Old and New Testament concentring in our Lord Christ But as it cannot be reasonably denied that these Parables and the like are mystical significations of the purpose of God in sending Christ or the event of it in the rejection of the Jewes and calling of the Gentiles So is all this nothing to the two senses of the Old Testament in which it is twice fulfilled once according to the Leter and again according to the Spirit I have thus farre inlarged this point concerning the correspondence and difference between the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament between the Ancient and New people of God to show how I conceive the scruples are to be resolved which may be made against an assumption of more efficacy and consequence than any other wheresoever any point of Christianity is to be showed from the Old Testament Yet so much more protection I owe the
the Excommunications of Jewes and of Christians For the first without question were curses of the second it is at least questionable whether it stand with Christianity to take them for curses or not I do believe that which is said in the first book de Synedriis pag. 209. that the Jewes did not so cut a man off by Excommunication as to cast him quite out of their Body But so as to deprive him of free conversation with his native people To wit according to the terms limited there afore the lesse that no man should come within his four cubits The greater that hee should dwell in a cotage alone and have bread and water brought him and see no man otherwise Neither do I finde any third kinde by the Jewes Constitutions which others would have But it were a wrong to common sense to extend this to Apostares Justin Martyr Dial. cum Tryphone and after him Epiphanius haer XXX and Jerome in Esa tells us that the Jewes shortly after our Saviors time sent an Order through all Synagogues over the world to curse the Christians thrice a day at publick Prayers in their Synagogues And at that time practised all means possible to stirr up the Empire to persecute them to the death Neither was it strange they should proceed so farr against those whom they took for Apostates because the punishments which their own body could inflict would not serve their turn But this is evidently another thing than that which the great Excommunication by their Rules importeth In the mean time here you have cursing to the purpose in this utmost exigent But so that ordinary Excommunication amongst them imported a proportionable measure of the same That the Apostles should intend to curse nothing can seem so pregnant as the words of S. Peter to Simon Magus Acts VIII 20. Thy money perish with thee But hee that in the next words advises with so much charity Repent thee of this thy wickednesse and pray to God if perhaps this designe of thy heart may be forgiven thee I suppose was farr enough from wishing that hee might perish whom hee seeks to reclaim Neither is there any reason why hee should wish his money to perish which the first sound of his words beareth And therefore it will be requisite to take it for an expression signifying that hee held and would have the Church hold him as certainly in the way and state of perdition as the money that hee loved was perishable Much more when S. Paul wisheth himself anathema or him that should preach a new Gospel or loved not the Lord Jesus it is not his intent to pray for the evil which anathema signifies upon them but to induce the Church to take them for such men as the Church believes to be liable to the utmost of Gods curses As for the businesse between S. Paul and the Corinthians thereare in it so evident marks of Penance injoyned by that Church upon the Apostles Order as no wit no learning can serve to deface S. Paul advises them to restore the Offender in these terms 2 Cor. II. 5. â— 11. If any body hath grieved mee hee hath not grieved mee but in part that I may not charge you all Sufficient for such a one is this censure inflicted by many So that yee are rather to gratifie and comfort him least such a one should be swallowed up with too much sorrow Wherefore I pray you settle love towards him For I writ also for this end to know the trial of you whether you be obedient in all things But if you grant any thing I also grant it For if I have granted any thing for your sake in respect of Christ I have granted it that Satan get nothing by us For wee are not ignorant of his devices What is the censure inflicted by many but the Penance which the Church upon S. Pauls order having injoyned now desires the Apostle to rest content with which hereby hee accords What is it that hee granteth because they grant it but in respect of Christ willing them also to gratifie and comfort him whom they had censured But upon undergoing this censure the re-admitting of him to the Communion of the Church Since Luther first disputed against Indulgences this Text hath been in every mans mouth Was there ever any reason to deny that there is in the Church a Power of abating Penance once injoyned upon trial of him that undergoes it Or that the example of S. Paul in this place is good evidence for it Had there been any controversie about it if the Church of Rome had demanded no more under this title Though to speak my own minde perhaps men mistake this Indulgence because they take not S. Pauls proceeding to be so rigid as the strictnesse of discipline under the Apostles requires They take it commonly as I said that S. Paul hereby releases him of the Penance that had been injoyned whereas it may be hee onely admits him to Penance at their request and so to the Prayers of the Church Being formerly so excluded from the Church as not to be assured of his reconcilement with God by the warrant of the Church though not excluded from the hope of it by the mercy of God Tertullian indeed hath an opinion that it is not the same man whom the Apostle commanded them to deliver to Satan afore 1 Cor. V. 5. Because as I said afore according to the strictnesse of the Montaniâ—â—s hee will not believe that the Apostle would admit such a sinner upon any Penance But this opinion is excluded by the expresse words of the Scripture For I writ also for this cause to know the trial of you which show that this is the case which hee writ of in his former Epistle It remains therefore that upon S. Pauls first Epistle hee was delivered to Satan but upon their submission and request that hee would be content with the censure which they propose hee admits him to the comfort of their Prayers According to this supposition the Indulgence which S. Paul admits is not the releasing of Penance injoyned as afterwards it signified in the Church but the injoyning of Penance inferring a grant of the Prayers of the Church towards the means of reconcilement But whatsoever become of this Indulgence presupposeth the censure which it mitigateth and therefore the Communion of the Church either abated or quite taken from him whom it restoreth to it And what is the mater that S. Paul grants that which hee grants for their sakes but in respect to Christ that Satan saith hee whose devices wee are acquainted with get nothing by us Two reasons are rendred for this The one in respect of the party excluded not to drive him to despair of salvation by Christianity and consequently to Apostasy or what else that despair might produce The other which I remember S. Austine in some place advances as the reason whereupon the Church in after ages was driven to abate of that
meaning that the CXLIVM are seen standing with the Lamb upon mount Sion XIV 1. if they belong not to that people What is the meaning that afterwards XIV 19 20. when the Angel with the sickle had made the Vintage and cast it into the Wine-presse of Gods wrath this Wine-presse is trode without the City and the bloud over-flows to the space of XVI C furlongs But that the City of Jerusalem is meant and the Judgment executed in the destruction thereof expressed by the Wine-presse of Gods wrath which over-flowed all that compasse without the City If these things cannot be unlesse the sounding of the seven Trumpets Chap. VIII and IX be understood to proclaim the same vengeance Let mee ask what is the reason that having related what the founding of them produced hee addeth IX 20 21. The rest of men that were not slain with these Plagues neither repented of the works of their hands so as not to worship Devils and Idols of gold silver brasse stone and wood which can neither see nor hear nor go Nor of their murthers and witcheries and whoredoms and thefts For the Jews not being chargeable with Idolatry at that time nor the consequences thereof how should the rest be chargeable for not repenting of the same For to say that covetousnesse of silver gold and goods of brasse stone or wood is the Idolatry and these the Idols here meant is to strain the Scripture to an improper sense whereof there is no argument in the words But if wee say that the rest of men that were not slain with the Jews are the Gentiles to whom God by destroying Jerusalem sent a warning to turn them from their Idols to Christianity for persecuting whereof they saw the Jews destroyed wee say that the main scope of the whole Prophesie is touched in these words And from hence wee shall be able to give a reason why having propounded in the twelfth and thirrteenth Chapters the subject of that vengeance which hee seeth God to take by the Vision of the seven Viols in the fifteenth and sixteenth Chapters hee returneth to remembrance of those CXLIV M that were marked to be saved and of the destruction of the rest of the Jews XIV 1-5 14-20 of which I shall not easily believe that a reasonable account can be given otherwise For having fore-told the persecution of Christians in those two Chapters the twelfth and thirteenth what could be more pertinent than that hee should return to the remembrance of the saving of those that were marked and the destruction of Jerusalem as a patern of comfort to Christians to incourage them to indure and of terror to the Gentiles to refrain that fury And therefore as before IX 20. this intent had been signified so it is most expresly repeated by the proclamation of three Angels one after another XIV 6 8 9-11 warning all to worship God alone not the Beast of Chapter XIII and fore-warning of the fall of Babylon for her Idolatries Now I am to remember you that after the sealing of the CXLIVM Jewish Christians there appears before the Throne of God so great a multitude as no man could number of all Nations Tribes people and Languages cloathed in white Robes and singing praises to God Which afterwards are expounded by the Angel to be those that come out of the great tribulation and had washed their Robes white in the bloud of the Lamb VII 9. 14. that is to say Martyrs And further that these are they who are seen at opening the fifth Seal standing beneath the Altar and calling for vengeance upon their bloud VI. 9 10. Which vengeance begins to be executed by the seven Trumpets And the Angel that throws down those coals of vengeance upon the earth from the Altar above is said to put incense to the prayers of the Saints VIII 3 4 5. So that the same Censer sends up perfume that is those prayers to the throne and vengeance down upon earth Seeing then that it is manifest to all that at opening the first Seal our Lord goes forth upon a white horse to make warr VI. 2. Who after victory and revenge upon his enemies appears in the same likenesse again as triumphing over his enemies XIX 11-16 it will be requisite to understand the Vision of opening the six Seals to be a general proposition of the whole Prophesie signifying the publishing of the Gospel and the prevailing thereof through the vengeance which God would execute upon the persecutors of it Jews first and afterwards Gentiles of the Romane Empire who would not take warning by the destruction of Jerusalem to turn from persecuting the Gospel to imbrace Christianity And therefore the signification of the rest of the Seals is common to both For when hee feeth a Red Horse to signifie warr a Black Horse to signifie famine and a Pale Horse to signifie pestilence VI. 3-8 it is manifest that all this agrees wonderfully with that which our Lord had fore-told should come to passe in Jewry as a preface to the destruction of Jerusalem of warrs famines earthquakes and pessilences so as notwithstanding the end not to be yet Mark XIII 5-10 Mat. XXIV 6-15 Luke XXI 8-20 And yet it expresseth as punctually those calamities of the world which those of the Empire did impute to the sufferance of Christianity when as God indeed intended thereby to punish them that imbraced it not Antiquity is copious in this subject that when these calamities fell out the Romanes cried out upon the Christians as the onely cause of them The beginning of Arnobius his dispute against the Gentiles will satisfie you of it When as therefore the persecution of Christianity was both begun in Jewry as the Acts of the Apostles inform us and prosecuted in the Empire it will be against the truth of the case to restrain the cry of the Souls under the Altar upon the opening of the fifth Seal either to those that suffered by the Jewes or by the Empire Now hee that peruseth that which is said to have come to passe upon the opening of the sixth Seal Apoc. VII 12-17 might have cause to think that hee reads the destruction of the world but that it is evident both that the destruction of Jerusalem is prophesied by our Lord by the like expressions which the Prophets also of the Old Testament do use in describing the vengeance which God taketh upon the Nations and also that this Prophesie expresses a large time for Christianity to continue in the world after this vengeance taken by God upon the enemies of it And therefore wee must believe that those have reason who referr the effect of it no lesse to the great change that fell out in the world upon the ceasing of the persecution of Diocletian and the coming of the Empire into the hands of the Christians than to the destruction of Jerusalem For when could it be said more justly that the world was in an earthquake that the Sun became like hair
Christians had not sufficiently renounced Idolatry in receiving the faith or as if it were not free for them being Christians to Gods creatures which perhaps might have been sacrificed to Idols But because as I said afore the Jews had a custome not to eat any thing till they had inquired whether sacrificed to Idols or consecrated by offering the first fruits thereof which scrupulosity those who did not observe they counted not so much enemies to Idols as they ought to be which opinion of their fellow Christians was not so consistent with that opinion of Christianity which was requisite Not as if fornication were not sufficiently prohibited by Christianity but because simple fornication being accounted no sinne but meerly indifferent among the Gentiles all the professions and all the decrees that could be made were little enough to perswade the Jews that their fellow Christians of the Gentiles held it in the like detestation as themselves Now though we find that the Christians did sometimes and in most places forbear blood and things strangled and offered to Idols even where this reason ceased and that perhaps out of an opinion that the decree of the Apostles took hold of them in doing which they did but abridge themselves of the common freedom of Christians yet seeing the Apostles give no such sign of any intent of reviving that which was once a Law to all that came from Noe but forgotten and never published again it followeth that the Church is no more led by the reason of their decree then those Churches of Rome and Corinth were whom S. Paul licences to eat all meats in generall as the Romanes or things sacrificed to Idols expresly as the Corinthians excepting the case of scandall which our common Christianity excepteth setting aside the decree of Jerusalem which S. Paul alledgeth not and naming two cases wherein that scandall might fall out as excepting no other case But in all these instances and others that might be brought as it was visible to the Church whether the reasons for which such alterations were brought into the Church continued in force or not so was it both necessary and sufficient for them that might question whither they were tied to them or not to see the expresse act or the custome of the Church for their assurance For what other ground had they to assure their consciences even against the Scripture in all ages of the Church For if these reasons be not obvious if every one admit them not much lesse will every one find a resolution wherein all may agree and all scandall and dissention may be suppressed CHAP. XXV The power of the Church in limiting even the Traditions of the Apostles Not every abuse of this power a sufficient warrant for particular Churches to reforme themselves Heresie consists in denying something necessary to salvation to be believed Schism in departing from the unity of the Church whether upon that or any other cause Implicite Faith no virtue but the effect of it may be the work of Christian charity SUpposing now the Church a Society and the same from the first to the second coming from Christ by Gods appointment Let it be considered what is the difference between the state thereof under the Apostles and under Constantine or now under so many Soveraignties as have shared these parts of the Empire And let any understanding that can apprehend what Lawes or what Customes are requisite to the preservation of unity in the communion of the Church in the one and in the other estate I say let any such understanding pronounce whither the same Lawes can serve the Church as we see it now or as we read of it under Constantine and as it was under the Apostles He that sayes yea will make any man that understands say that he understands not what he speaks of he that sayes nay must yeeld that even the Lawes given the Church by the Apostles oblige not the Church so farre as they become useless to the purpose for which they are intended seeing it is manifest that all Laws of all Societies whatsoever so farre as they become unserviceable so far must needs cease to oblige And the Apostles though they might know by the spirit the state of the Church that should come after yet had they intended to give Laws to that State they had not given Laws to the State which was when they lived and gave Laws The authority therefore of the Apostles remaining unquestionable and the Ordinances also by them brought into the Church for the maintenance of Gods service according to Christianity the Church must needs have power not onely to limite and determine such things as were never limited nor determined by the Apostles but even those things also the determination whereof made by the Apostles by the change of time and the state of the Church therewith are become evidently uselesse and unserviceable to the intent for which it standeth And if it be true that I said afore that all power produceth an obligation of obeying it in some things I say not in all as afore even when it is abused in respect of God and of a good Conscienceâ— then is the act of the Church so farre a warrant to all those that shall follow it so farre even in things which a man not onely suspects but sees to be ill ordered by those that act in behalfe of it This is that which all the variety and multitude of Canons Rites and Ordinances which hath been introduced into the Church before there was cause of making any change without consent of the whole evidenceth being nothing else but new limitations of those Ordinances which the Apostles either supposed or introduced for the maintenance of Gods service determining the circumstances according to the which they were to be exercised For if there were alwayes cause since the beginning for particular Churches that is parts of the vvhole to make such changes vvithout consent of the whole as might justly cause a breach between that part and the whole then was there never any such thing as a Catholick Church which all Christians profess to believe And truly the Jews Law may be an argument as it is a patern of the same right which notwithstanding an express precept of neither adding to it nor taking from it unlesse we admit a power of determining circumstances not limited by the letter of it becomes unserviceable and not to be put in practice as may easily appear to any man that shall peruse the cases that are put upon supposition of those precepts which determine not the same Whereupon a power is provided by the same Law of inflicting capitall punishment upon any that not resting upon the determination established by those that have authority in behalfe of the whole shall tend to divide the Synagogue Iintend not hereby to say that the power of giving Law to the Church cannot be so well abused that it may at length inable or oblige parts of the Church
the Christian Faith The one forfeiteth his interest in Heaven by the inward act of his soul refusing the common faith which saveth all Christians though outwardly holding communion with the Church The other by the inward act of the soul proceeding to the outward act of dissolving the communion of the Church which the common charity of Christians in the first place is to maintain If both these crimes may come under the the common name of Heresie because inward misbelief naturally tendeth to make a sect of such as shall profess to live according to it no marvail if all divisions of the Church be commonly called both Heresies and Schisms whatsoever be the cause upon which they divide If meer schisms that is where the cause is not any thing necessary to the salvation of all to be believed be also Heresie in the Language of the Apostles Neverthelesse there being so much difference between the two crimes and the grounds of them it is necessary to understand setting aside all aequivocation of terms that there is a crime consisting in mis-believing some Article of the faith which if you please may properly be called Heresie And another consisting in dissolving the unity of the Church which is properly called Schism when there is no further pretense for it then some Law which the Church being able to make the other part will rather depart then admit There may divisions in the Church upon pretence of such doctrines as are not necessary to the salvation of all and so no part of the rule of faith but so evidently to be deduced from it and from the rest of the Scriptures that the Church may have cause to determine the same and yet others may choose rather to depart from the Church then suffer the determination thereof to take place Which divisions that memorable observation of S. Jerome seems to call Heresies which said that all Schisms naturally devise to themselves some Heresie that is some doctrine extravagant from the doctrine of the Church that they may seem not to have departed from the Church for nothing Which is very well exemplified by S. Austine in the Donatists But whether such divisions are to be counted Heresies or Schisms both names properly signifying all divisions of the Church and only that crime which consisteth in mis-believing some Articles of faith appropriating the name of Heresie because common use hath given it no peculiar name of its own I leave to him that shall please to determine it Supposing these things it will not be requisite for me to say much to that which hath been published concerning the nature of Schism of late That being to be had onely out of the Scripture it is no where there to be had but in S. Paul to the Corinthians That there was at Corinth when S. Paul writ onely one Congregation of Christians which he calleth the Church of Corinth That therefore there is no crime of schism but in breaking one Congregation into more As for any visible society of the Catholick Church acknowledging the materials men that professe Christianity which he that sees cannot believe to the form which is that unity which is visible he is as great a stranger as if he had never heard of the Creed acknowledging notwithstanding an invisible unity in the common faith and love of Christians upon perswasion whereof he challenges as great freedom from schism as ever any member of the Catholick Church could claim For having showed how a thing which God made visible for many ages may reasonably be expected to be found in the Scriptures I am not to yield to try it by any part of them knowing that whosoever evidenceth a society of the Church by Gods Law evidenceth the crime that consists in the dissolving of it And it were fit we were told how all the Christians in a City where God had much people should sit at one Table or at least sup in one room before we believe that there was then no more Christians at Corinth then could assemble at once Which if I did believe I would notwithstanding alledge Iustine the Martyrs words Apol II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the day called Sunday all that dwelt in Cities or in Countries assemble themselves in one And supposing that then there were more Christians in Rome and the Territorie thereof for example for he writes to the Emperour Antoninus then could meet together in one place As Iustine means not when he saies That all in Cities or Countries meet in one that all made one Assembly but met all in common assemblies I would thereupon argue that no more does S. Paul say when he gives these rules to the Corinthians 1 Cor. XI 14. which serve any assembly that there was then but one Congregation at Corinth If in Iustines time if afore if after he can show me any Church of Rome or any City beside Rome that contained not all the Christians of that City and the Territory thereof I will believe that when Clemens writ the Letter lately published from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth there were no more Christians at Rome or at Corinth then could meet all at once But if in all the Scripture as well as in all the Records of the Church a Church signifie the university of Christians which one City and the Territory thereof containeth it is an affront to common sense for him to deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Church that is contained in the City and Territory of Rome or Corinth Let the learned Publisher of that Epistle take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there for Inquilinus or Peregrinus in Inmate or Pilgrim because his Greek gave him leave he that hath been showed so plentiful mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the subject in question for that which we now call a Diocese can have no reason to see with his eyes but because he is resolved not to use his own For in the very address of Polycarpus his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Church of God dwelling beside Philippi The dative case quite spoils the construction of the words to his sense If the Church of the Philippians dwelt near Philippi then the Christians of the Territory belonged to the Church of the City As for the visible unity of the Catholick Church it was not so easie for me to evidence that which could not be questionable till the difference between Catholick Church and true Church came to be questionable As it is not hard for any Christian to question whither the Church which was Catholick for so many ages ought now to be Catholick or not For till he have destroyed the evidence which this abridgement hath been able to advance and when that is done new evidence will not be wanting so long as the records of the Church are Historically true and men continue possest of common sense it is in vain to alledge the dictate of his own
by the Scriptures and by the primitive Records of the Church many revelations made to Gods people at their publick Assemblies by the means of such as had the Grace And thereupon do inferre that such a revelation was made to that Assembly upon the place directing the decree which there follows and is signified according to that brevity which the Scriptures use in alleadging that whereof no mention is premised in the relation that went afore by these words it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Now the words of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 20. Behold I am with you to the worlds end are manifestly said to the body of the Church and therefore do not promise it any priviledge of the Apostles And truly seeing it is a promise immediately insuing upon a Precept Go preach and make Disciples all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you I find it a matter of no ill consequence but very reasonable to say that the Precept is the condition of the Promise seeing no act so expressed can reasonably be understood otherwise But in regard it is otherwise manifest that the continuance of the Church is absolutely promised and foretold till the world end by name in those other words of our Lord The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Mat. XXI 18. I shall easily admit that God absolutely promises to be with his to the worlds end so as to preserve himselfe a people in the manifold distractions and confusions that fall out by the fault of those that professe themselves Christians as well as by the malice of Infidels But I shall deny that this inferres the gift of Infallibility in any person or quality in behalfe of the Body of Christians For supposing the visible profession of Christianity to continue till the worlds end so that under this visible profession there is sufficient means to conduct a true Christian in the way to salvation And that by this means a number of men invisibly united to our Lord Christ by his Spirit do attain unto salvation indeed These promises of our Lord will be evidently true though we neither acknowledge on one side any gift of Infallibility in the Church nor deny on the other side the visible unity of the Church instituted by Gods Law It will be evidently true that our Lord Christ is with his Disciples that is Christians till the worlds end who could not continue invisibly united to him without the invisible presence of his Spirit It will be evidently true that the Gates of Hell prevail not against his Church in the visible society whereof a number of invisible Christians prevail over the powers of darknesse For though granting the Church to be subject to error salvation is not to be attained without much difficulty And though division in the Church may create more difficulty in attaining salvation then errour might have done yet so long as salvation may be and is attained by visible communion with the Church so long is Christ with his nor do the Gates of Hell prevail against his Church though error which excludeth infallibility though division which destroyeth unity hinder many and many of attaining it But if the consequence that is made from those words of our Lord be lame that which may be pretended from the power of the Keyes or of remitting â—â—d retaining sins both one by the premises granted S. Peter the Apostles of the Church will easily appear to be none at all For no man can maintain the power of remitting and retaining sins to be granted to the Church but he must yield it to be communicated to more then those in whom the gift of Infallibility can be pretended to reside Neither can the greatest of the Apostles remit oâ— retain any mans sinne without inducing him to imbrace profession of Christianity or if having imbraced it he fall from it in deed and in effect without reducing him to the course and study of performing the same and upon due profession thereof readmitting him into the Church on the other side excluding those that cannot be reduced to this estate Nor can the least of all that are able to bring any man into the Church fail of doing the same upon the same terms And did ever any man ascribe the gift of Infallibility to all them that should have power and right from the Church and in the Church to do this What meaneth then the exception of clave non errante which is every where and by every body cautioned for that with any reason challenges the power of the Keyes for the Church To me it seems rather an argument to the contrary that seeing this power is challenged for the Church under this general exception without limiting the exception to any sort of maters or subjects And that the act of it is the effect of the decrees of the greatest authority visible in the Church as whether Arias should communicate with the Church or not was the issue of as great a debate as the authority of the Church can determine that therefore the sentence of his excommunication proceeded not from the gift of Infallibility in any authority concurring to the decree of Nicaea whence it proceeded granting generally the power of excommunication to be liable to the exception of clave non errante Indeed it cannot be denyed that something requisite to the exercise of this power was in the Apostles infallible or unquestionable as presupposed to the being of the Church For what satisfaction could men have of their Christianity if any doubt could remain whether the faith which they preached were sent from God or not whither the Laws of Ecclesiastical communion which they advanced were according to their Commission or not But the causes upon which the Church is obliged to proceed to imploy this Power being such as depend many times upon the rule of faith and the Laws given the Church by the Apostles by very many links between both The dependance whereof it is hard for all those that are sometimes to concur to these sentences to discern I conceive it now madnesse to maintain the gift of Infallibility from the power of the Keyes in the exercise whereof so many occasions of failing may come to pass As for the exhortations of the Apostles whereby they oblige the Churches of the Thessalonians and Ebrues diligently to obey and follow their Governors 1 Thes V. 14. 15. Heb. XIII 7. 17. these I acknowledge to be pertinent to the question in debate as concerning such Governours as had in their hands the ordinary power of the Church saving that when he saith Remember your Rulers which have spoken to you the word of God And considering the issue of their conversation imitate their faith It is possible he may speak of those that first brought them the Gospel and those were the Apostles and Disciples of Christ either of the first rank of the XII or
I. 1. Theodoret in Levit. Quaest IX Theophilus II. Paschali S. Jerome in Psal XCVIII Omne quod loquimur debemus affirmare ex Scripturis Sanctis Whatsoever wee say wee are to prove out of the Holy Scriptures To the same purpose in Mat. XXIII in Aggaei I. Origen in Mat. Tract XXIII That wee are to silence gain-sayers by the Scriptures as our Lord did the Sadduces Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem quae mihi factorem ostendit facta I adore the fulness of the Scripture which showes mee both the Maker and what hee made saith Tertulliane contra Hermog cap. XXII S. Austine de peccat meritis remiss II. 36. Credo etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum claerissima autorit as esset si homo sine dispendio promissae salutis ignorare non posset I believe there would be found some clear authority of the Word of God for this the original of mans soul if a man could not be ignorant of it without losse of the salvation that is promised In fine seeing it is acknowledged that the Scripture is a Rule to our Faith on all hands the saying of S. Chrysostome in Phil. III. Hom. XII is not refusable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Rule is not capable of adding to or taking from it For so it looseth being a Rule For the same reason S. Basil in Esa II. and Ascet Reg. I. condemns all that is done without Scripture On the other side in the next place a greater thing cannot be said for the Church than that which Tertul. contra Marc. IV. 2. S. ser Ep. LXXXIX S. Aust cont Faust XXVIII 4. have said that S. Pauls authority depended upon the allowance of the Apostles at Jerusalem Tertul. Denique ut cum auâ—oâ—ibus contuâ—â—t convenit de regulâ Fidei dextras miscuere In a word as som as hee had conferred with men in authority and agreed about the Rule of Faith they shook hands S. Jer. Ostendens se non habuisse securitatem praedicandi Evangolii nisi Petri caeterorum Apostolorum qui cum eo erant fuisset sententia roboratum Showing that hee had not assurance to preach the Gospel had it not been confirmed by the sentence of Peter and the rest of the Apostles that were with him S. Austine That the Church would not have believed at all had not this been done Among the sentences of the Fathers which make S. Peter the rock on which the Church is built the words of S. Austine contra partem Donati are of most appearance Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum Portae This Church of Rome is the Rock which the proud gates of Hell overcome not S. Jerome is alleged hereupon consulting Damasus then Pope in maters of Faith as tied to stand to his sentence Epist LVII and Apolog. contra Rufinum Scito Romanam fidem Apostolicâ voce landatam istiusmodi praestigias non recipere Etiamsi Angelus aliter annunciet quà m semel praedicatum est Petri authoritate munitum non posse â—â—utari Know that the Faith of Rome commended by the voice of the Apostle is not liable to such tricks Though an Angel preach otherwise than once was preached that being fortified by the authority of S. Peter it cannot be changed The saying of S. Cyprian is notorious Non aliunde haereses orta sunt aut nata schismata nisi indè quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Saeerdos ad tempus Judex Christi vice cogitatur cui si secundum magisteria divina fraternit as obtemperaret universa nemo adversùm Sacerdotum Collegium quicqam moveret nemo discidio unit atis Christi Ecclesiam scinderet Heresies spring and Schisms arise from no cause but this That the Priest of God is not obeyed that men think not that there is one Priest in the Church one Judg in Christs stead for the time Whom if the whole Brother-hood did obey as God teacheth no man would move any thing against the College of Priests or tear the Church with a rent in the Vnity of it The authority which the Church giveth to the Scripture is again testified by S. Austine contra Epist fundamenti cap. V. Cui libro necesse est me credere si credo Evangelio Quum utramque Scripturam similiter mihi Catholica commendet authoritas Which book of the Acts I must needs believe if I believe the Gospel Catholick authority alike commending to mee both Scriptures To the same purpose contra Faustum XI 2. XIII 5. XXII 19. XVIII 7. XXVIII 2. XXXIII ult Therefore hee warns him that reads the Scriptures to preferr those books which all Churches receive before those which onely some And of them those which more and greater Churches receive before those which fewer and lesse So that if more receive some and greater others though the case hee thinks doth not fall out the authority of them must be the same And contra Cresconium II. 31. Neque enim sine causâ tam salubri vigilantiâ Canon Ecclesiasticum constitutus est ad quem certi Prophetarum Apostoloruus libri pertineant quos omnino judicare non audoamus For neither was the Rule of the Church settled with such wholesom vigilance without cause to which certain books of the Prophets and Apostles might belong which wee should dare on any terms to censure Where manifestly hee ascribeth the difference between Canonical Scripture and that which is not to an act of the Church settling the same Of the Power of the Church to decide Controversies of Faith all the Records of the Church if that will serve the turn do bear plentifull witnesse But the evidence for the gift of Infallibility from them seems to consist in this consequence That otherwise there would be no end of Controversies neither should God have provided sufficiently for his Church S. Austine contra Cresconium I. 33. Quisquis falli met uit huyus obscuritate quaestionis Ecclesiam de illâ consulat quam sine ullâ ambiguitate Scriptura sacra demonstrat Whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the darkness of this question concerning Rebaptizing let him consult the Church about it which the Holy Scripture demonstrateth without any ambiguity S. Bernard Epist CXC ad Innoc. II. Papam Opertet ad vestrum referri Apostolatum pericula quaeque scandala emergentia in regno Dei ac praesertim quae de fide contingunt Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna Fidei ubi non possit Fides sentire defectum All dangers and scandals that appear in the kingdome of God are to be referred to your Apostleship For I conceive it sitting that the decaies of the Faith should there especially be repaired where the Faith is not subject to fail As concerning the mater of Traditions wee are not to forget Irenaeus III. 2 3 4. where hee showes that the Gnosticks scorning both Scripture and Tradition as coming from those that knew not Gods minde
their turn that differences in religion should be everlasting the subject of great Volumes written for and again Ye to them that are content to set aside that which cannot here be decided I am confident there remains so little to be said that the resolution of them will appear to be meer consectaries and inferences from that truth which hitherto hath been premised For supposing that which common sense is able to inform that the writings which wee call Apocrypha are more ancient than the Church of Christ And that whether they were written by inspiration from God as wee believe the Law and the Prophâ—â—s to have been the Church never had any expresse revelation beside the credit upon which it received them from the Synagogue it remains that whether they were received by the Synagogue as inspired by God is all that can remain questionable Seeing it is not within the compasse of common sense to imagine that being not inspired by God at the beginning when they were penned they can become inspired by God by virtue of any act of the Church inducing them to be received for such Here then is to be seen the use of that distinction which was made between the Church as a Society of men visible to common sense and the same Church as a Society of men founded by God and visible onely to the faith of Christians For the belief of this later presupposes the truth of Christianity the motives whereof without more ado must evidence the truth of the Scriptures And so this question must be decided by such means as are more evident than the being of the Church in this later sense to wit by the being thereof in the former sense And this is that which I said that the testimony of the Synagogue in maters of this nature is every whit of as much force as the testimony of the Church Both of them proceeding upon the same evidence which the visible consent of such a company of men advanceth to common sense In fine if it may appear that the writings in question were from the beginning admitted by the Synagogue in the nature of writings inspired by God there will remain no cause why they should not be received into the same credit with other writings whereof the Old and New Testament consisteth If it may appear to the contrary it will be utterly in vain to allege any act of the Church to inforce that which is as evidently beyond the Power of the Church as it is evident that there is such a thing as the Church Neither can there be any question whether these writings were ever received by the Synagogue in this nature seeing it is evident that they do not receive any Prophets after Malachi I will not undertake that they do not believe that any body after that time was inspired by God to foretell things to come For that is not all that belongs to those whose writings are to be received as inspired by God It must appear further that they are sent by God to his people with commission to declare his will to them There must be evidence that they are moved to speak by the Holy Ghost and by consequence the people of God to whom they are moved to speak obliged to receive them How else should the gifts of Gods Spirit and the commission upon which they that have it are sent challenge of duty the acknowledgment of Gods people I reade in Josephus of divers things foretold with truth after this time nor I do I finde my self obliged to maintain that the motions were not from God But in as much as they were not furnished with such means as God appoints to manifest unto his people whom hee sends on his message they are not to receive them as sent from God whatsoever his secret purpose may be in sending such motions but shall alwaies remain obliged to govern themselves according to his will otherwise declared Now there is nothing more manifest than the declaration of Josephus intending to acquaint the Gentiles with the Faith and Laws of the Jews That untill the time of Artaxerxes that succeeded Xerxes being in his opinion the time whereof I speak the Prophets had written the relation of their own times But after that time things were written indeed but not with the like credit because there was no succession of Prophets Cont. Ap. I. And what can be more agreeable to the conclusion of the Prophet Malachi IV. 4 where having warned them to give heed to the Law of Moses the Statutes and Ordinances which God by him had given Israel Behold saith hee I send you Elias the Prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord come and hee shall turn the hearts of the Fathers to the children and of the children to the Fathers least I come and smite the Land with a curse Which the Gospell tell us was fulfilled in sending John the Baptist to make way for the Christ the Chief and end of all the Prophets Luke I. 17. Mat. XI 14. XVII 12. according to the saying of the ancient Jews that the Christ is to be annointed that is solemnly invested in his Office by Elias And for this reason when Judas Maccabeus purged the Temple and the question was what should be done with the stones of the Altar that had been polluted it is said 1 Mac. IV. 46. And they laid up the stones in a fit place in the Mount of the Temple untill a Prophet should come and give answer concerning them And speaking of the persecution after the death of Judas it is said 1 Mac. IX 27. And there fell out so great tribulation in Israel as had not been from the day that no Prophet had been seen in Israel And this time it is whereof it is either said or prophesied Psal LXXIV 10. Wee see not our tokens there is no Prophet any more neither any that understandeth any thing Now it is manifest that in the Scriptures as well as in the Jews writings the name of Prophet is not understood onely of foretelling things to come but of uttering things unknown to humane understanding And so the Law and the Prophets contains all the Scriptures of the Old Testament If therefore there were no Prophesie from those times to the coming of our Lord and John the Baptist it followeth that there is no Scripture inspired by God left us by those times according to the words of Eusebius in his Chronicle at the XXXII year of this Artaxerxes Hucusque Hebraeorum divinae Scripturae annales temporum continent Hither to the divine Scriptures of the Hebrews contain the annals of the times And the Synagogue in S. Jerome in Es cap. XLIX lib. XIII Post Aggaeum Zachariam Malachiam nullos alios Prophetas usque ad Joannem Baptistam videram From Haggai Zachary and Malachy to John the Baptist I had seen no other Prophets And so S. Austine de Civ Dei XVII 24. Toto ille tempore ex quo
Earl of Arundels Library appeareth not at all that therefore the whole translation was made then when it saith this leter came Nor that if it were then made it had any relation to or dependance upon their Schism or the sacrilege of it For though Josephus sayes that Onias found Priests and Levites of his minde to serve God there and though hee sayes elsewhere that Onias did this out of contention which hee had with the Jews at Jerusalem having banished him Thinking to draw the multitude from them to the Temple which hee had built de Bello Jud. VII 37. yet these are rather arguments that the Body of the Jews at Alexandria did not submit to his premises whatsoever his credit with the King might oblige them to permit particular men to do And Josephus Ant. XIII 6. immediately after the building of this Temple telleth us of a trial between the Samaritanes and Alexandrian Jews before the same Philometor whether the Temple at Jerusalem or that on Mount Gerizim were according to Gods Law And that those Jews were so zelous in the cause that they consented what side were cast those that pleaded for it to be put to death Which accordingly was executed upon Sabbaeus and Theodosius that pleaded for the Samaritanes Now though Josephus say not that this which hee relateth presently after the building of the Temple came to passe after it in time yet it is utterly incredible that those who had showed such zeal for the Temple at Jerusalem should the next day as it were that is in the same Kings raign run into the same crime whereof they had convicted the Samaritanes Certainly when the addition to Esther saith that the leter which hee had inserted was translated into Greek by Lysimachus son of Ptolomee a Jew of Jerusalem it is no sign that there was any pretense of Schism between the Jews of Jerusalem and those of Alexandria on foot And therefore this aspersion takes away nothing from the credit of the Greek Bible I am further confirmed in this opinion by considering the writings of Philo the Alexandrian Jew though I am not moved by them to think hee was a Christian but onely to conclude that hee cannot be convinced to be no Christian Three things I allege out of him as steps which hee hath made beyond the rest of the Jews towards a Christian The first That hee hath followed the Gospels in reproving the Tradition of the Elders for which they neglected to honor their parents as the Law commandeth The Tradition was this as wee finde by him in his book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a man vow that his Father or Mother shall never be the better for any thing that is his it shall not be lavvfull for him to maintain them out of his goods For Korban signifies anathema And hee that said Be it Korban whatsoever thou maiest be the better for of mine In his anger to Father or Mother said in effect Be it anaâ—hema That is be hee accursed that touches it In this point then Philo follovvs the doctrine of Christ against the Tradition of their Elders The second is his exposition of Deut. XXVIII 46. The stranger that is within thee shall get above thee more and more And thou shalt come under him more more in his book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The stranger truly lifted aloft with good success shall be gazed at as admired and counted happy for two the greatest excellences That having turned to God hee hath received the most proper reward a firm rank in heaven not lawfull to be expressed But the right born imbasing and counterfeiting the coin of his birth shall slide down till hee come to the very depth of darkness That all men seeing these examples may grow sober considering how God accepts that virtue which springs from an enemy stock bidding the root farewell but the shoot welcome that is grown to a stock because by tillage it is changed to bear good fruit For hovv vvould a Christian expound this text against the Jevv in the mystical sense but by making the Christian the stranger vvhom this text prophesieth of that hee shall have the upper hand of the Jevv as Origen more than once if my memory fail mee not out of this place of Philo hath done The third consists of those things vvhich hee hath said in so many places concerning the Word of God agreeable to those passages of the Wisedome of Solomon Ecclesiasticus and Baruch vvhich I compared afore vvith the doctrine of the Apostles concerning that Wisedom of God vvhich is his Word of vvhich you have enovv in Grotius his annotations upon those texts but much more might be produced For vvhosoever compares them together shall finde that he vvho said them vvas not far from the Christian Faith For if it be objected and said that there is no evidence that ever this Philo professed Christianity vvithout vvhich he cannot be counted a Christian It may reasonably be ansvvered that during the time vvhen the Synagogue vvas at a bay vvhether to receive Christianity or not at vvhat time it is plain they did not persecute it nothing can be said vvhy it might not be professed by any Jevv of those Synagogues vvhich stood so affected to it not onely vvithout any mark of apostasie upon him among his fellovvs but even vvith that trust vvhich vvee knovv this Philo had among the Jevvs of Alexandria being deputed by them to Caligula in business concerning their vvhole subsistence For if those vvho vvere baptized by John the Baptist vvere not thought to depart from the Lavv vvhy should those vvho vvere baptized into Christ vvhether the effect of both Baptisms vvere the same or diverse the Lavv continuing in practice long after that time I must therefore professe to allovv the opinion those that vvill have this vvork to have been done by the Jews of Alexandria of which wee know there was a very great Body from the time of the first Ptolomee who having taken up the Greek in stead of their Mother tongue necessarily required that they should have the Scriptures in it It is then agreeable to reason that this translation being made so soon after the study of the Law came in request and so farr from Jerusalem should acknowledg more difference of sense arising from the divers wayes of determining those words that are written without vowels than those that are of a later date when the reading was better determined by custome and practice Which accordingly wee see is come to pass For the translations into the Greek that were made after the time of our Lord by Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion no Christians and the Chaldee of Onkelus and Jonathan who whatsoever time they were made in are later than so though wee cannot say that they do alwaies and in all things agree either with one another or with the Ebrew Copies which wee use yet must wee needs say that there is a great deal more agreement between them visible
hand that the nature of that faith to which the Scriptures of the Apostles and the most ancient Fathers of the Church ascribe remission of sins and that righteousnesse which the Gospel holdeth forth together with other promises of the same is no way declared by this resolution but darkned For it is manifestly requisite for a due account of the sense as well of the most ancient Fathers as of the Scriptures that the nature of faith be understood to consist in that to which the said promises may duely be ascribed which in both are so oft so plainly and so properly ascribed to faith not to any thing which may stand with it or necessarily follow it Now though no man can resolve to professe Christianity without true love to God above all things yet the Scriptures of the New Testament plentifully shew that the holy Ghost the Spirit of love is not given to reside habitually with any but those that are baptized and so become Christians however necessary the actuall assistance of the same holy Ghost is to go before and to induce them to become Christians by undertaking what that profession requires Therefore it will be necessary to distinguish not onely the faith but the love but the hope the fear the trust in God and all other graces begun in him that beginneth to believe the Gospel to be true but is yet not resolved to undergo the profession of it and the condition which it supposes From the same as they are in him who upon such resolution is become a Christian And if any man upon this distinction will say that the faith which he believed with afore is faith without forme but formed afterwards he shall easily have me to concurre with him in it Alwayes provided that whatsoever it is the Scripture attributes the procuring of the promises of the Gospel to that be understood to belong to the nature of that faith which alone justifies according to the Scriptures CHAP. VII The last signification of Faith is properly justifying Faith The first by a Metonymy of the cause The second of the effect Those that are not justified doe truly believe The trust of a Christian presupposeth him to be justified All the promises of the Gospel become due at once by the Covenant of Grace That to believe that we are Elect or Justified is not Justifying Faith FOR now it is time to draw the argument which I purposed at first from these premises and to say That the name of faith by the effects which by virtue of the Gospel promises it produceth being attributed first to the bare belief of the Gospel secondly to that trust which a Christian enters into by being Baptized and lastly to that trust in God through Christ which Christianity warranteth And the second of these naturally presupposing the first as the third both of them the reason can be no other then this Because the middle is that which entitleth Christians to the promise of the Gospel in respect whereof both the name of Faith and the effects of these promises are duly and reasonably ascribed both to that which it supposeth and to that which it produceth both to the cause and to the effect of it For in all manner of language it is as necessary to use that change of words and the sense of them which is called Metonymy by Humanists and by some Philosophers and Divines of the Schooles denominatio ab extrinseco as it is impossible for any man to expresse his minde without that change of speech which they call a Trope in any manner of Language It is not to be imagined that those fashions of speech are onely used for ornament and elegance of language The Humanists themselves having taught us that they are as our clothes as well to cover nakednesse as for comelynesse For as long as the conceits of the minde may be infinitely more then the words that have ben used it will be absolutely necessary to straine the use of customary speech as the conceit is not customary which we desire to expresse It will not therefore be strange that the name of faith should be used to signifie three conceptions distinct but depending one on the other so long as there are more conceptions then words It will not be strange that the effects of that trust which a man entreth into by undertaking the profession of a Christian should be attributed both to that Faith which believeth the Gospel to be true being a thing necessarily presupposed to induce a man to undertake that ingagement and to that confidence which a Christian hath in God through Christ being a thing necessarily insuing upon the undertaking of it with a sincere and effectuall purpose But this would be strange and no just reason to be given for it were it not granted that the second to wit that sincere undertaking the trust of a Christian is that which really intitleth him to the promises of the Gospel For is it not manifest to all Christians that there are too many in the world whom we cannot imagine to have any due title to those promises and yet do really and verily believe the faith of Christ to be true and Him and His Apostles sent from God to preach it If therefore we will have these Scriptures which ascribe the promises of the Gospel to believing the truth of it to be true we must understand them by way of Metonymy to be attributed to it as of right belonging to the consequence which it is naturally apt to produce Nor is there any reason that convinceth me in this point more then that which Socinus giveth why justification should be attributed to that act of faith alone whereby a man believes the Gospel to be true His reason is because he that throughly believes the true God and his providence which will bring all mens doings to judgement and render them their due reward of life or death that believes our Lord Christ truly tendereth everlasting happinesse to all that take his yoke upon them and draw in it as long as they live must needs stand convict that he is to proceed accordingly I say no lesse And I say that the preaching of the Gospel tenders motives sufficient to convict all the world of so much But I say further that so long as notwithstanding sufficient conviction tendered notwithstanding a mans faith engaged and his own sentence past against himself if he faile we see men either not embrace Christianity or not performe it having imbraced it So long right to Gods Promises cannot be ascribed to this belief though in reason whosoever is convict of the truth cannot deny but he ought to engage in Christianity and hold it The reason is because we see men not alwayes do that which resonably they ought to do And therefore it is not enough to have submitted to conviction what we ought to do And the promises of the Gospel are not properly ascribed to the belief of those truths which convince men
that believe not might know by seeing Christians spring from his Doctrine Neither is that which followes any thing less clear He was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not Though Socinus hath used his skill to darken it with a strange devise of three senses of this one word World in this one sentence which he conceives will be an elegant expression if we understand the World when it is sayd He was in the World to signifie his new people when it is sayd The World was made by him The Church that is all Christians When it is sayd The World knew him not the unbelievers And truly I believe most Languages will justifie the people among whom a man lives to be called the World The ordinary French sayes Il y a beaucoup de monde dâ—ns ceste ville There is a great deal of World in this Town word for word But that in the two clauses following the World should stand first for Believers then for unbelievers is such a figure without any thing added to give occasion so to understand it as nothing can be added to make it passable though something might be added to make it to be understood Besides consider what followes He came to his own and his own received him not For are the Jewes his own people onely because he was of that people Are the Jewes no otherwise his own then the English may be called mine own because being English I bring that which here I have written to the English Surely S. John meant to aggravate their fault more then by charging them to have refused a Countryman of their own To wit him that had made them and whose they were upon that score Consider what went before This is that true Light that lighteth every man that comes into the World For unless we understand this to be every man that comes into the Church which will be to deny that Christ gives any light to unbelievers at least to be signified by these words and to make them import no more then the same great secret that Christ is the Author of Christians we must understand by it as the truth requires it to be understood That our Lord came into the world because he came to live among that people called the world by that most ordinary figure of speech that is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the World so properly called and therefore all that it containeth that is the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called to wit that people was made by him and that neverthelesse this world being the body of that people knew him not that is owned him not being his own as all people are whom he enlightneth And what meanes the Apostle when he saies of the Sonne Heb. I. 2 3. Whom he made heir of all things by whom also he made the Worlds And Who beareth or moveth all things with his powerfull word For if any man attempt to apply the same salve to this wound also what will he have these worlds to be but those of which he saith againe Heb. XI 5. By faith we understand that the worlds were made by the Word of God To wit the world of invisible things and this visible world which by the Jewes writings we understand that their ancestors were wont co call this world and the world to come because they expected to live in it after this Whereupon the same Apostle saith againe Heb. II. 5. For he hath not subjected the world to come to Angels meaning the invisible world of Angels which to us is to come As for that which followeth whether he sustaine or whether he move all things by his word seeing it is his word that does it the same is Gods Word that made all things called his word also because incarnate And what is it lesse for him to move all things then that which S. Paul saith of God Acts XVII 28. that in him we live move and have our being And S. Paul Col. I. 16. For in him or rather through him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth visible things and invisible whether dominions or magistrates or powers all things were created by him and to him For what hath Christ done for the angels that he should be said to have made them suppose the redemption and reconcilement of mankinde make a new world with us is the reconciling of the Angel to us by reconciling of us to himself the making of them as it is the new making of us Is the making of him head of them the making of them If it be it is not he that made them seeing it is the Father that made him head of them But what shall become of all visible things besides man which are said here to have been created by Christ and cannot be made anew Therefore it is the whole world that S. Paul meanes was first made not men and Angels that he meanes were restored by Christ And when he saies they were made by him and to him that is for him he barres that snare which some put upon the Apostles words when he saies By whom also he made the worlds To wit that he meanes for him he made the worlds according to a common saying among the Jews which they think he points at That the world was made for the Messias I see that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both serving to signify a meane which belongs still to the effective cause As when it is said that all things subsist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apoc. IV. 11. that the martyres overcome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apoc. XII 11. that the false Prophet deceives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apoc. XIII 14. It is all one whether we understand For the will of God For the blood of the Lamb and the word which they witnesse For the signes which were granted him to do Or by and through the same because both import a mean effective cause But that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the final cause is that which no Greek will indure And in this place S. Paul having said that all things were made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through him and to him that is for him Leaves no room to understand any thing else by these words But there is a further reason in the case and theme which S. Paul speaks to whereby it is evident that he challengeth the making of all things to Christ because he challengeth to him that worship which the Hereticks whom he writes against tendred to Angels as those by whom the World was made Which I shewed before was the doctrine of Simon Magus and Cerinthus both in the Apostles times and inferreth the abstinence from Gods creatures as proceeding from another principle from which also Moses Law came according to their doctrine the observation whereof they therefore pressed not as Moses had delivered it
from the whole Church For to require me to believe them to be in the torments prepared for the devil and his angels because I cannot say where they are were a reason too unreasonable for a Christian CHAP. XXI The opinion that makâ—s the Predetermination of mans will by God the sourse of his freedom And wherein Jansenius differs from it Of necessity upon supposition absolute The necessity of the Will following the last dictate of the understanding is onely upon supposition As also that which Gods foresight creates The difference between indifferent and undetermined These things thus premised as concerning that estate wherein the Gospell overtaketh the will of man to whom Christ is tendered being under original sin I say that it findes him not void of that freedome of choice in doing or not doing this or that which stands in opposition to necessity But that which stands in opposition to the bondage and servitude of sin This position is intended to contradict an opinion which seemeth to be very ordinary among Divines as well of the Reformation as the Church of Rome though more ingeniously professed and maintained by these Who pretending to derive the efficacy of Gods Predestination and the grace which it provideth from that decree of his Will whereby he determineth the will of his creature to do or not to doe watsoever is indeed don or not don in order of nature before it determine it selfe do consequently professe that notwithstanding this Predetermination of the will is no lesse effectuall then Gods omnipotence whereof it is the immediate and indefeasible consequence and effect yet there is no freedome in the creature no contingence in the effects of it but that which followeth upon this will of God determining understanding Creatures to do that which they do freely as it determining understanding Creatures to do that which they do necessarily This position though I intend not to admit yet I count it a point of ingenuity in them who think they free themselves of great dificulties by supposing it expressely to maintaine the truth of that supposition whereof they make so much advantage For they who not daring to incounter the difficulties wherewith it is chargeable do claime the consequences of it without premising the expresse supposition of it do as good as say nothing where they advise not the reader of those difficulties which the prime principle that they proceed upon is burthened with But he that sees how particular instances depend upon generall principles shall not stick to judge of their positions by the dependance they have upon this supposition so soon as they are informed of the credit which it deserves Now this predetermination Being the immediate effect of Gods omnipotency as for the cause of it as for the nature of it troubles very much those that maintaine it to say wherein it consists as indeed it may very well trouble any man to say of what colour a Chimaera is being in rerum natura just nothing For if they say it is a principle infused by the immediate worke of grace into the Will it is straightwaies evident that the having of it is not to make the Will able which all habituall indowments tend to but to make it actually to worke It must therefore consist in a certain motion or impulse immediately wrought by God in the Will which though it is not in the will to have depending meerely upon the Will of God yet that neither good nor ill can be don without it being necessary as they think to the effectuall determining of the will upon two accounts First as the will is a secondary cause that cannot worke unlesse moved by the first cause Secondly as the Will not being determined of it selfe cannot be determined to any act but by the same first cause But these two accompts seem to me both one For nothing can determine the will to act speaking of that which determines it formally or in the nature of a formall cause but the act of it For supposing the will to act and excluding whatsoever else might be considered the will remaines determined Not suposing that it may further be questioned what determines it The question then being onely what it is that determines the will in the nature of the effective cause the difficulty that causeth the question is but one because it is presumed that the second cause can not act if not acted that is determined to act by the first The nature then of this motion received lodged in the Will is imagined neverthelesse to be successive such as is the being of colours in the aire when they goe to the eye or that impulse which a handicraft-man moves his tooll with And the necessity of it standeth upon a generall account not of originall sine but of Gods creature such as the will in all estates is requisite to the acts of the will because nothing can be don by the creature but that which God shall determine it to do But there is of late an other opinion started in the Church of Rome by Jansenius in his Augustinus which maintaines that the Will in all actions that are goâ—d according to Christianity is determined by grace effectually inclining the will by the love of true good preventing not expecting the motion thereof and producing that influence of the will whereby formally it acteth The nature of it then consists in that very act of life whereby the reasonable creature exerciseth its choice no waies requisite to the actions of nature which man is able to do under originall sin but meerely upon that account as the cure of it restoring the due command over that concupiscence wherein originall sin consisteth and not extending to the state of innocence Which notwithstanding the will is no lesse naturally determined by it then by that principle which the other opinion advanceth For they say both that the will is not determined by the object howsoever proposed but morally as he that outwardly adviseth or perswadeth determines him that resolves upon that consideration which he advanceth to that which he proposeth And therefore this determination both agree satisfies not that efficacy of grace which the scriptures proposed in the premises require Therefore as the former opinion determineth the will naturally by a principle really lodged in the nature of the wil so this by the very vitall act of vvilling really subsistng in the nature of the Will though produced by God a cause above nature which when the delight in good which it importeth is so great as to swallow up all contradiction it determineth to the same preventing the determination of it selfe when otherwise acknowledging that though of the same nature with that which overcometh it is never the lesse defeasible From this ground there flowes an other difference between these two opinions we goe further from the fountaine head still more visible For the former admitting free will to be a faculty able to act or not to act supposing all
figure in saying That God would have that done which he will not do because he knowes sufficient reason to the contrary whether he declare it or not but setting that reason aside would have done Or that he would have that done which he provideth sufficient meanes to bring to passe But that all should signify some and the world the elect because God will not do all he can to save those whom he would have to be saved is a figure in Rhetorick called Mendacium when a man denies the Scripture to be true The same is the difficulty when our Lord Christ who saith to the Father John XVII 9. I ask for them I ask not for the world but for them whom thou hast given me for they are thine prayes upon the Crosse Father forgive them for they know not what they do For though he ask not that for the world which he askes for his disciples yet he would not have prayed for that which he knew not that God would have done His prayer being the reason moving God to grant meanes effectuall to bring to passe that which it desireth But had there been in God a purpose to exclude the Jews from the benefit of Christs death considering them as not having yet refused the grace which Christ prayed for it could not have been said that he would have our Lord Christ dy or pray for them and therefore that he would have them to be saved This is then my argument that the will of man is neither by the originall constitution of God determinable by his immediate operation nor by mans originall sinne subject to a necessity of doing or not doing this or that Because God treats with the posterity of Adam concerning the Covenant of the Law first and since concerning the Covenant of grace no otherwise then originally he treated with Adam about not eating the forbidden fruit For in conscience were it for the credit of Christianity that infidels whom we would perswade to be Christians should say True if you could shew me that God by his immediate act determines me to do as you require me without which you tell me I cannot do it and with which I cannot but do it Or that by the sinne of Adam I am not become subject to the necessity of doing or not doing this or that But supposing either of these if you move me to do what you professe I cannot do you are either a mad man your self or take me for one Do they take their hearers for men and Christians or for beasts who having first taught that man can do nothing but what God determines him to do inferre thereupon that they must indeavour themselves to do what God commands and what their Christianity requires Or that they are obliged by their Christianity to do that which their corruption from Adam necessitates them not to do Is it for the honour of Gods justice that it should be said that he intends to damne the most part of men for that which by their originall corruption they were utterly unable to do without giving them sufficient help to do it no help being sufficient which the determination of the will by the immediate operation of God makes not effectuall as they think Do they not make the Gospel of Christ a mockery that make it to require a condition impossible to be performed by any whom God determines not to perform it having resolved not to determine the greatest part of them that know it to performe it Certainly this is not to make the secret will of God contradict the declared will of God but to make the declared will of God a meer falshood unlesse the declaring will make contradictions true For to will that this be done for an end which God that willeth will not have come to pass makes contradictions the object of that will and that for the same consideration at the same time God from everlasting determining meerly in consideration of his own will that the condition of that which he would have to come to passe conditionally will not come to passe What is it then to declare all this to the posterity of Adam already lapsed without tendring help sufficient to inable them to imbrace what he tendereth For it is manifest that Adam had sufficient grace to doe what God commanded and it is as manifest that God tenders both the Law to the Israelite and the Gospell to the World in the same form as he tendred Adam the prohibition of eating the forbidden fruit Nor can it be denied that this prohibition contained in the force of it all the perswasions all the exhortations all the promises all the threatnings which either the Law or the Gospell to their respective ends and purposes can be inforced with It must therefore be concluded not that they suppose in Adams posterity an ability to do what they require as did the origiginall prohibition of eating the forbidden fruit but that they bring with them sufficient help to perform it not supposing any thing that may barre the efficacy thereof till the will of him to whom it is tendered makes it void And truly speaking of that which the naturall indowment of freedom necessarily imports in the reasonable creature it is utterly impossible that any thing should determine the will of man to do or not to do this or that but his own action formally or in the nature of a formal cause which therefore in the will cannot be the action of God nor be attributed imputed or ascribed to him to whom it were blasphemy to impute that which his creature is honoured with That God should immediately act upon the soul of man or his will is no inconvenience Because that act must end in the will or soul and not attaine that effect which the imperfection of the creature bringeth to passe Ending therefore in the creature and not in that which the action of the creature produceth it leaveth the same of necessity in the state wherein God first made it And I may well suppose here and will suppose that Gods act of creation continues the same for all the time that he maintaines the creature in that perfection of being that is to say in that ability of acting which from the beginning he gave it This discourse I confesse extendeth to the voiding of the immediate concurrence of God to the actions of his creature which my purpose necessarily requires me not to maintaine For concurrence-supposeth the creature to act without help of God that concurreth and therefore cannot be requisite on behalf of the cause being supposed to act of it self but on behalf of the effect wherein it endeth Which having a being is supposed necessarily to require immediate dependance upon the first being which is God A strange subtlety acknowledging the creature able to act and supposing it to act of it self to imagine that this act can end in nothing as that which it effecteth without Gods concurrence Which immediately attaining the
effect in which the action of the creature endeth will enforce that God is as properly said to give light as the sunne to burn as the fire to do that act which is essentially sinne as the man that sinnes And therefore at once not to sinne because we suppose his concourse tied by the originall Law of creation to the determination of his creature And to sinne as producing immediately whatsoever is in that action which is essentially sinne For unlesse the species or nature of the act importing generally no sinne were a thing subsisting by it self as by the understanding it is considered setting aside the sinne which the particular that is acted implyeth as Plato is supposed to have maintained his ideas it is impossible that he who doth the act which is essentially sinne should be said truly not to sinne The Law of concurring to the doing of sinne and producing the act which essentially importeth it necessarily drawing the imputation thereof upon him that freely tied himself by setling it Let it once be said therefore that God made the fire able to burn the sunne able to shine the will of man able to make a free choice as he is a reasonable creature and it will be very impertinent to require any action but that of the fire to the consuming of wood but that of the sunne to the dispelling of darknesse supposing God to maintaine or rather to issue every moment the ability of burning or shining once given his creature from his own spring head of being so long as his creature indureth And therefore if ever God made the will able to chuse the doing or not doing of this before that upon the direction not of right reason which directeth not to sinne but alwayes of reason for all choice supposes reason to direct it it is impertinent to suppose any thing requisite to the exercise of this freedome of choice but the maintenance of reason issuing from the fountaine of Gods Wisdome so long as the man continues a reasonable creature If the immediate concurrence of God to the action of his creature make the actions wherein the perfection of his creature consisteth much more the imperfections and faileurs of it a staine to his excellence much more shall the act of determining the choice of his creature free before it be determined impute to God whatsoever it importeth for the worse the imputation whereof or the better is a staine to his excellency And is it possible that God by making the creature capable of such imputations should depose himself from the Throne of his Godhead and set up his creature in his stead in making it able to act that either naturally without his immediate concurrence or morally also by determining that freedom by the use of his own reason and choice which he in no instance afore determineth Certainly they consider not what they grant themselves when they suppose that God made it able so to do when they make the abilities which he giveth unable to do their work till he determine them so to do so that being so determined before they determine themselves they cannot do otherwise And suppose it a contradiction that the will should choose that which no reason why it should chuse appeareth certainly when reason pronounceth the motive that appeareth to be sufficient the action that insueth cannot be said to proceed from a cause indifferent to act or not though the determination thereof be not peremptory till the act follow Now is there any necessity why God should interpose to determine the indifference of the cause otherwise then as inabling it to determine its own indifference Suppose then a sentence past in the Court of Reason importing not onely This is to be done But This shall be done Do we not see every moment protestations made by the sensuall appetite and acts entered of them by the judge Indeed if the matter of them do not bear a plea the sentence remaines But is it therefore necessary that execution follow Witnesse those that act against conscience Witnesse Aristotels dispute of incontinence placing the nature of it in doing the contrary of that which the judgement is resolved ought to be done as if the one could be absolutely the best the other the best at this time Witnesse Medea in Ovid when she saies Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor I see the better but I do the worse For the mouth of conscience is to be stopped with a pretense of repentance to come and so present satisfaction is clear gaine by the bargaine If at length it come to execution of the sentence I demand what it is that makes the resolution from thenceforth peremptory but the same reason that determined the choice afore unlesse we suppose new matter advanced in plea first and afterwards voided If that which was sufficient afore prove not effectuall till now it is not because any thing was wanting without which the will was not able to proceed but because reason to the contrary appeared considerable before I grant there be those that have so farre determined the indifference of their own inclinations that no reason to the contrary appeares considerable to delay execution of the sentence past long since But this appears by experience to take place as well in those who have degenerated to devils incarnate as those who have improved to saints upon earth And therefore cannot be attributed to the force of true good acting beyond the appearance which it createth in the mind because Gods immediate act directs it But partly to the habituall grace of the holy Ghost with the resolution of Christianity presenting true good as lovely and beautifull as indeed it is Partly to the custome of doing even those acts which without the assistance of God Spirit our nature cannot do Upon which as the habituall indowment of the holy Ghost followes by Gods gracious promise So there followes naturally a facility of doing even supernaturall actions which men habituate themselves to by the meer force of custome excluding the consideration of all that reason to the contrary that hath proved abortive and addle long since Which notwithstanding the choice remaines free by virtue of that originall freedome which determined the indifference of every man to those actions the frequenting whereof hath created an habit And this is the ground of that account which we owe that God showing sufficient reason why we ought to be Christians and the world to the contrary our choice hath followed for the better or for the worse For the efficacy of the said reasons on either side implies beside the sufficiency of them onely a supposition of that which comes to passe which the same reasons determine a man to do that remaine uneffectuall till the execution of sentence But if the will of God interpose to determine the will before it determines there can be no more ground for any account why it acteth or acteth not then the earth is to give why it
the world of Judgement because the Prince of theis world is condemned by the conversion of those who forefook him to become Christians Therefore S Steven upbraideth the Jews saying Ye stisnecked and uncircumcised in hearts and eares ye do alwaies resist the Holy Ghost even you also as did your fathers Acts VII 51. Because being convicted by the Holy Ghost which spoke in him that he spoke from God neverthelesse they submit not to his message Therefore our Lord Mark III. 28. 29 30 All sins shall be forgiven the sons of men and blasphemies which they shall blaspheme But whoso shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath no remission for ever but is liable to everlasting damnation Because they said he hath an unclean spirit which you have againe Math. XII 31 32. Luke XII 10. Because being convicted that our Lord spoke did his miracles by the Holy Ghost they blasphemed saying that he spoke and did them by an uncleane spirit For these words and these workes are the meanes by which our Lord accomplished â—his promise Iohn XIV 23. If any man love me he will keep my word and my Father will love him and we will come to him and abide with him For before the condition If any man love me be fulfilled the case is that which our Lord expresseth Apoc. III. 20. Behold I stand at the dore and knock And if any man heare my voice and open the dore I will come in to him and sup with him â—e with me But being fulfilled the words of our Lord take place Iohn XVI 15 16 17. If yee love me ye will keep my commandements And I will aske the Father and he will give you an other Advocate to abide with you for ever even the spirit of truth which the world cannot receive because they â—ee it not nor know it but you know it because it abideth with you and is in you For seeing it is manifest by the premises that the undertaking of Christianity is the condition upon which the Holy Ghost is granted as a gift to abide with Christians the preaching of Christianity that is the proposing of those reasons which God by his word hath shewed us why wee should be Christians is the knocking of our Lord Christ by the spirit at the dore of the heart that he may enter and dwell in us by the same spirit according to the words of S. Paul 2. Cor. II. 16. For ye are the Temple of the living God as God hath said To wit I will dwell and converse among them and will be their God and they shall be my people That which some Philosophers say of the naturall generation of man That the soule frames its owne dwelling being fulfilled in the worke of generation by grace when the Holy Ghost by his actuall assistance frameth the man to be fit for the habituall gift of the Holy Ghost by becoming a true Christian If then we believe that the Holy Ghost was given by God and obtained by Christ as well to make the Gospell effectuall as to move the Apostles to preach it there can no doubt remaine that the preaching of the Gospell that is to say the meanes which the Holy Ghost provideth to make it either sufficient or effectual to convince the world of it is the instrument whereby he frameth himself that invisible house of true believers in which he dwelleth And therefore the meanes whereby Gods grace becomes effectuall to those who imbrace it is the same that renders it sufficient for those who refuse it the difference lying as well in the disposition which it meets with for which the man is accountable as in the spirit of God that presenteth it which renders God the praise when it takes effect and leaves men accountable when it does not If this reason had been in consideration with Socinus and perhaps with Pelagius he would have found it necessary acknowledging as all that read the Scriptures must needs acknowledge that which they find so frequent and so cleare in the Scriptures that the habituall gift of the Holy Ghost is granted to inable those who undertake Christianity to performe it to acknowledge also that the actuall help of it is necessary to make the motives of Christianity effectuall to subdâ—e men to it And by consequence that the coming of the second Adam was necessary to restore the breach which the first had made seeing it was not to be repaired without the same Nor is it to be marveled at that naturall meanes conducted by the grace of Christ should produce supernaturall effects such as I have shewed the obediencâ— of Christianity to be which supposing the Covenant of grace and freedome of mans will cannot be otherwise The reasons which appeare to the understanding and move the will to act contrary to the inclination of originall concupâ—scence in professing Christianity and living according to the same being sufficient to convict it to give sentence that so the man ought to doe And the circumstances in which the spirit of Christ conducteth these motives to the heart which it knocketh at by their means being able to represent them valuable to take effect with him who is moved to the contrary by his originall concupiscence And though meanes naturall because they move a man to proceed according to right reason which nature requires him to doe yet as they are brought to passe and conducted by a supernaturall cause nothing hinders the effect to be supernaturall in such a nature as is by them made capable of acting above nature I do much approve the discourse of some that have indeavoured to shew how this comes to passe thus supposing the covenant of the Law to be the renewing of that which was made with Adam in Paradise for the maintaining of him in the happnesse of his naturall life Which we may suppose though we suppose not that God covenanted not with him at all for the life to come For the dispensation of those blessings of this life which the covenant of nature limited by Moses Law to the happinesse of the land of promise tendreth may well be the advantage which God taketh to make the covenant of Grace acceptable especially to those who by Gods blessing failing of the blessings of the first covenant by that meanes becoming out of love with this present worlâ— meeâ— with the Covenant of Grace in such a disposition as may render it acceptable For so long as things goe well with men in this world it seemes haâ—sh to require them to takeup the Crosse of Christ that they may obtain the world to come But when the comforts of this world faile it is no marvell if any condition that tenders hope in the world to come be welcome If it be said that this renders the grace of Christ effectuall onely to the poore and men oâ— meane condition in the world who have cause to be weary of their estâ—te in it It is answered that it is no marvell if the
that the Grace whereby we are justified is a quality habitually informing the soule of man as supernaturally infused by God into it But onely that Faith Hope and Charity are infused into them that are justified and inherent in them as shed into theire hearts by the Holy Ghost Which they say may all be understood supposing that a man is justified by the acts of Faith Hope and Love infused or shedde into the hart by the Holy Ghost as well as by habites supernaturally created to reside in the soule For you may see by Morinus in his Late worke de Administrationâ— Pâ—nitentiâ— VIII 2. 3. 7. that for MCC yeares after Christ a good while after the Schoole Doctors were come in there was no question at all made whether we are justified by an infused habit of grace or not and that it was about the yeare MCCL that this opinion intirely prevailed in the Schooles Whereby it appeareth that as this opinion containes nothing destructive to the faith if it be understood in that sense which the Church of Rome allowes that it is not the naturall worth of it which justifies but Gods accepting of it to that effect So if it did yet could not the Church of Rome be said to teach any thing destructive to the faith But onely to allow since â—uch things to be taught For the Council of Vienna under Clement V. determines it not as matter of faith but as the more probable opinion as you may see Clement de summa Trin. Fide Cathol Tit. I. Cap. VII And therefore Albertus Pâ—ghius de libero Arbitrio lib. V notwithstanding this decree stickes not to count this doctrine forged without any authority of Scripture And those that speake of it with more respect then he thinke not themselves tied to that which the Council holdâ— the more probable It is indeed manifest by the experience of all Christians that the custome and practice even of supernaturall actions to which the inclination of corrupt nature is utterly averse breedes in a man an habituated disposition of doing those things with â—ase and pleasure which at the beginning of his Christianity he could not doe without offering himselfe much violence But that habit which custome and practice leaves behind it though supernaturall for the cause or effect of it because the acts upon which it accrues as also those which it produces cannot accrue from meere nature without the helpe of Christs grace is notwithstanding for that wherein it consists a disposition really qualifying the nature and substance of the soule and inclining it to act otherwise then without it Besides the Gospell promising the Holy Ghost for a Gift to abide with and dwell in those that are baptized nothing hinders the Gift thereof to be held and termed an habituall grace In these regards I find it neither prejudiciall nor inconsequent to the Christian faith to acknowledge habituall grace though neither scripture nor tradition of the Church owne any habit of grace created by God and infused into the soule in a moment as the Schoole imagineth But they seeme to have committed another mistake in that the Church having decreed against Pelagius that the Grace of Christ is necessary to all truly good actions and therefore that man cannot merit the first grace this infused habit of grace they have made to be that First grace which God giveth before man will indeavor any thing towards it For so the Master of the Sentences determineth that grace which preventeth mans indevors to be faith with Love libro II. distinct XXVI D. which though it be capable of a very good sense That the motion to beleeve the truth of Christianity out of the love of God is that which Gods grace prevents all mans compliance with yet in what sense they swallowed it will appeare by the difficulties and dispuâ—es they were intangled with about that sorrow which the heart conceives for sinne out of meerâ— love to God not feare of punishment which the love of our selves breedeth For this sorow being necessarily a disposition preparing him for justification that cometh to God in regard the first grace which God preventeth all manâ— indeavors with is to them this infused habit of Faith and love which formally justifieth how he should come prepared for justification by that contrition which without Gods grace man cannot have who is justified by that infused habit of grace which he was first prevented by God with hath been among them the subject of endlesse jangles Whereas it is manifest the maintenance of the Faith against Pelagius requireth no more then that the resolution of persevering in Christianity to the â—nd be thought necessarily to depend upon the motion to imbrace it which God first preventeth man with without respect to any act of man obliging God to grant it And therefore it is manifest that the Church decreed no more against Pelagius but that the first motion to become a good Christian that every man is prevented with must be ascribed to Gods free grace through Christ not ingaged by any act of mans goeing afore Now requiring onely the actuall assistance of Gods preventing grace it is easy enough to say not how attrition that is sorrow for sinne in regard of punishment accompanied with slavish feare is changed into contrition that is sorrow for sinne out of the love of God whome it offendeth For it is not possible that he who loveth God should be sory for sinne for the same reason which he was sorry for while he loved the world But how the man that was attrite becomes contrite For when first the Gospell reveales unto a man his desperate estate in and by the first Adam it is not possible that he should remaine uâ—touched either with sorrow for the present or apprehension for the future And yet no lesse unpossible is it according to Gods ordinary way of working even by his Grace that he should in an instant resolve to imbrace the onely way to give him peace in that exigence But while he neither casts off the motion of grace nor resigneâ— his interest in himselfe and the world to it but considers upon what reason it behoves him to resolve this consideration by the worke of Gods Spirit disâ—overing to him how much God and the next world is to be preferred before himselfe and this as the love of God and the world to come prevailes in him above the love of himselfe and this accordingly of necessity must the greife of having offended God afore prevaile in him above all that he can conceive for the misery he hath incurred And all this by virtue of those helpes which God grants though allwayes in consideration of our Lord Christ yet not by virtue of that Covenant which is not contracted till â— man be baptized but of his owne free goodnesse dispensing the effects of Christs coming according to the reason of his secret wisdome which the Covenant of grace discovers not I neede say no more to show how a
to be a Christian that teaches that wickednesse which a Jew dare not maintaine Though it be just with God to suffer them that presume of the assistance of Gods Spirit in understanding the Scriptures before they be principled in Christianity which the gift of Gods Spirit to Christians presupposeth to be led unto such wicked imaginations by reading the Scriptures as he suffered those that setting up their Idols in their hearts and putting the stumbling block of their iniquities before their faces came to seek direction from God to be seduced by the Prophets by whom they should come to inquire as the Propheâ— threatneth Ezek. XIV 8 10. As for the fact of David and Husâ—ai in ruining of Absalom 2 Sam. XV. 32-37 XVI 16-19 XVII 5-14 there is the lesse difficulty in it because we are not obliged to maintaine the actions of the Fathers to be without sinne and the Spirit of God doth no where commend it Which also holds in those officious lies wherewith Rebecca and the Midwives of the Israâ—lites and Rahab the harlot seduced Isaak and the King of Egypt and the Rulers of Jericho to the good of Gods people Gen. XXVII Exod. I. 15-21 Jos II. 4 5. because whatsoever were the successe which God blessed them with yet as S. Augustine observes it s no where said that God blessed them for lying but for that love to his people which though joyned with their own weaknesse he then rewarded Though he that well considers the nature of these acts comparing them with these sayings and doings of David and Jeremy of Elias Elizaus and Samson which I have showed the spirit of God alloweth will without doubt find cause to believe that the reason why their acts which were joyned with such infirmities were blessed by God at that time is to be drawn from that measure of knowledge which the meanes allowed by God at that time afforded and the obligation which God required at their hands proportionable to the same From the premises we may proceed to resolve that endlesse dispute concerning the intent of our Lords Sermon in the Mount whether it was to take away those â—alse glosses which the Scribes and Pharisees had put upon the Law of Moses importing that nothing but the overt act of murder adulteries and the like stood prohibited by it or to inlarge it unto a further extent of forbidding the first motions of concupiscence in regard of that further light which the Gospel bringeth For I have showed that the most difficult passage of all which saith Thou shalt love thy neighbour and â—ate thine enemy Mat. V. 43. is according to the practise of the law in David Jeremy Elias and Elizeus which is without question the best interpreter of the law and the extent of it How much more if you translate it as questionlesse the Hebrew will allow us to translate it thou shalt love thine neighbour but mayest hate thine enâ—my For it is manifest that when the fourth Commandment saith Six dayes shalt thou labour and do all that thou hast to do the meaning is no more but this Six â—ayes thou mayest labour to wit as for this commandment So that this clause is nothing else but the consequence of that limitation which the law puts to the precept of loving a mans neighbour as himself understanding his neighbour to be onely an Israelite and teaching to pursue Idolaters with all manner of hatred Now when our Saviour saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his meaning is plain enough Ye have heard that it was said to them of old that is to the Fathers at the giving of the law not ye have heard it said by your Predecessors to wit the Scribes and Pharisees who about some hundred years beforâ— had begun to glosse the law with their Traditions Mat. V. 21 27 33 38 43. The subject matter in all the rest besides that which I have spoken of being alwaies the expresse letter of Moses law no Tradition of the Elders Yet it is not my intent to say that our Lords intent is not to clear the true meaning of the law from the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees For I acknwledge a false glosse of theirs upon Moses law which it is the intent not onely of the Sermon in the mount but of all the New Testament to clear I say the Scribes and Pharisees taking advantage of the truth of the world to come which they thought to be covenanted for and not onely intimated as the truth is by Moses law did inferre the reward thereof to be due to the outward and carnall observation of it And this is that false glosse of theirs which as every where else so here especially our Lord cleareth when he saith Vnlesse your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven Mat. V. 20. But this he doth by clearly inacting that conversation which the Gospel requireth whereof the Fathers of the Old law had onely expressed the rudiments and principles out of that light which the law joyned with the tradition of the Fathers and the doctrine of the Prophets had supplied Though so well accepted by God at that time that he failed not to grant his holy Spirit to them who had attained that measure of righteousnesse And therefore we are to conclude that during the Lâ—w there was a sincerity of righteousnesse consisting in the observation of the precepts thereof not out of any temporall respect or hope of this world but out of the sense of Gods will who searcheth the heart and judgeth the thoughts thereof according to which the Prophets of old and their disciples as Zachary and Elizabeth in the New Testament Luke I. 6. are to be counted perfect and intire in righteousnesse Comparing them forsooth with the Scribes and Pharisees and all their sect who in all ages of that people as I have showed standing so much upon the precise observation of the positive precepts thereof for their own power and advantage grossely failed in all performance where the sincerity of the heart became requâ—site But that when our Saviour saith Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect Mat. V. 48. It is manifest from the premises that he requireth of Christians that charity towards God and all men for Gods sake or to speak in those terms which I take to be more generall that respect to the will of God and his glory and service in all our doings which he did not covenant for with his ancient people Which point before I conclude that we may the better understand wherein I make this perfection of Christians to consist it will be requisite to resolve whether or no Christians can do more then the law of God requires and whether there are these offices which the law of God commands not but the Gospel onely commends as matters of counsel to those that aime at perfection among Christians not matters of necessity for all
I come to conclude against the Anabaptists Our Lord saith to Nicodeâ—â—us Joh. III. 3. Verily verily I say unto thee unlesse a man be born again hee cannot seâ— the Kingdom of God And what this new birth is he setteth forth in answering that impertinent question which Nicodemus not understanding him makes how a man should come out of his Mothers belly the second time Verily verily I say unto thee unlesse a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit Here I will grant the Anabaptists that the Sacrament of Baptism is not instituted by these words but by the act of our Lord after his Resurrection when he gives his Apostles their Commission Go make Disciples all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you Mar. XXVIII 18. But for reasons which perhaps they will not thank me for though they be not able to refute As yet when this discourse was held it was not declared to all that took our Lord for a Prophet that he was the Sonne of God Nicodemus himselfe that comes to him as a Prophet saying Master we know thou art a Prophet come from God For no man could do the works that thou dost unlesse God were with him If he go away instructed that the same which obliges him to take our Lord Christ for a Prophet concludes him to be the Christ the Son of God he is beholden to the freedom of our Lord in declaring to him the pretense of his coming by this discourse But for the purpose of sending the Holy Ghost it cannot be imagined that it was declared from the beginning of our Lords preaching who reveals not the intent of his death to his Apostles till he grew towards the time of it The priviledge of sending the Holy Ghost being part of that state to which he was to be exalted rising from death How then can it be imagined that our Lord should from the beginning of his preaching appoint all to be baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is the Sacrament of Baptism that makes us Christians Certainly it is not the same thing for John to baptize in the name of him that should come as for the Apostles in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost Unlesse we think that all the people of God who expected a Messias expected him to be the Son of God which Christians worship our Lord Christ for and they crucified him for pretending to be There is therefore no cause why we should offer that violence to the Scripture Acts XXX 4. 5. John indeed baptized the baptism of repentance saying to the people that they were to believe in him that came after him that is in Christ Jesus And hearing this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus which I showed you is offered by those that would have it to signifie That those who were baptized by Iohn Baptist were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus For other answers that are devised to avoid to clear a Scripture I count them not worth the refuting so evidenâ—ly they force the express sense of the words And among them none more unreasonable thâ—n that which saith that these men were not indeed baptized with the baptism of Iohn though they thought they were And that S. Paul when he sayes John indeed baptized with water saying to the people that they should believe in him that was to come even in Christ Iesus argues and perswades them that they were not indeed baptized with the Baptism of Iohn though they thought they were For of all things in the world could men be deceived to think that they professed that which the Baptism of Iohn must oblige them to professe and did not Nor can it be said with any appearance of truth that Iohn baptizing unto repentance those whom he sends for the means of salvation for the future to him that was to come did baptize in the Name of the Lord Jesus in as much as it is necessary to be said that the Apostles when they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Acts II. 38. VIII 16. X. 48. did sufficiently intimate the name of the Father whose Son they preached our Lord to be and also of the Holy Ghost whom our Lord had promised to those that are baptized as Irenaeus so long since hath exquisitely cleared the difficulty how they observed their Commission of baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Baptizing as S. Luke reports in the Name of the Lord Jesus But of Iohn the Baptist it is said Ioh. I. 29-34 That the morrow after he baptized our Lord he declared him to be the man that was to come after him in whose name he had baptized that he knew him not but came to declare him and that by the coming down of the Dove upon him it was revealed to him that he should know our Lord to be the man that came to Baptize with the Holy Ghost Whereby it appeareth that he cannot be thought to have baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus as that importeth as much as baptizing in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost For though it is evident that Iohn knew our Lord when he came to be baptized that he knew him to be in the world from the time that he began to preach and that he should baptize with the Holy Ghost Yet not knowing the man from the time that he began to baptize how could he baptize in his name and as the Son of God that was to give the Holy Ghost before our Lord himselfe had preached and declared upon what terms it was to come I suppose it is easie enough to distinguish between baptizing in the name of Christ and baptizing with an intent of sending them whom he baptized to Christ to be baptized with the Holy Ghost Neither is this to say that Iohns Baptism availed not to remission of sinnes for the time that it was on foot by Gods appointment when as we acknowledge that dispensation of Grace which was intimated and conveyed by the Law to have been the means to bring some to the righteousnesse of faith How much more the twilight of the Gospel under John the Baptist But that before the Covenant of Grace was published by the preaching of our Lord and inacted on Gods part by his death upon the Crosse or rather by raising him from death it was not time to determine that act by which God intended that profession which he requires for the condition of it should be solemnized and celebrated Therefore there came water and blood out of our Lords side upon the Cross to intimate the ground upon which this Sacrament should be in force for the future And if this be the condition
the Gospel requires which therefore may be obtained without the Ministery of the Church For if it be said that these persons would willingly undergo Penance upon condition of being restored to the Communion of the Church upon supposition that by the Ministery thereof they are restored to Gods grace and that therefore the desire of reconciliation by the Church supplies it as the desire of Baptism is accepted when it cannot be had If this be said I will allow that he who refuses the Ministery of the Church tendring him a reasonable presumption of attaining reconcilement with God by the means of it according to the just Laws of Christianity can have no cause to promise himselfe pardon without it In the mean time it is not the desire of reconcilement by the Church that qualifies him for remission of sinne but onely takes away the barre that hinders Gods grace to work that disposition in him which qualifies for it For if it be a part of Christianity to be a member of the Catholick Church then are not they capable of the promises made to Christians that will not seek them by the Ministery of the Church when and how farre and according as their Christianity shall oblige them to seek them To the same purpose I alledge also the second reason of S. Pauls indulgence and the effects of it in the practice of the primitive Church To wit the admitting of those that had committed Idolatry in time of persecution or who were otherwise born out in their sinnes by faction in the Church to communicate with the Church when in such cases there could be no presumption of sufficient disposition in the parties for forgivenesse from God but onely to avoid a breach in the Church of all things most prejudiciall to the generall good of the Body For can there be any appearance that the Church in such cases could be satisfied of the true and sufficient conversion of those that are admitted upon such terms when it is manifest that they are not admitted of choice but to avoid a further inconvenience Wherefore seeing the Church could not justifie the doing of it if there were not possibility of their being qualified for the Communon of the Church it follows that this possiblity consists in that the means of grace being sufficient for all within the Church may be effectual without the ministery thereof provided it be within the unity of it Here I must alledge the custome even of the primitive Church imposing no Penance upon Clergy-men â— that weae degraded for those crimes for which Laymen were reduced to Penance I remember the first Book de Synedris alledges this for an objection against the necessity of excommunication seeing it was not necessary for the Clergy Not considering that excommunication is abated by Penarice as Penance is abated by degradation in the Clergy But casting a foul aspersion upon the whole Church for imposing Penance upon the people when as nothing required it if the Clergy needed it not And this upon a mistake whether in point of fact or in point of right For it is not true that the Clergy were not subject to Penance especially in the first times of Christianity either when the crime was of a deeper nature then such as ordinary Laymen did Pehance for Or when a Clergy-man having been censured to communicate among the People which was degradation at that time relapsed Though afterwards they were remitted to do their Penance in private not bringing them before the Congregation for the prayers thereof with imposition of hands Neither is the reason which the ancient Canons give to be neglected in point of right For the losse of their rank in the Church being to them a rebuke whereof Lay Christians are not capable it is necessary that a difference should be made between them and the people Especially the interest of the Church requiring it in regard of another rule that no man that had done Penance should ever be admitted to the Clergy because of the common Christianity imbased in them who have done Penance which in those who are promoted to the Clergy is required of the best For those who for their qualities might best serve the Church if they had done Penance were ever after unserviceable iâ— not might be restored Whereby it appeateth that the Church presumed of them who knew their duty better then ordinary Christians that the loss of their rank would be sufficient to reduce them to true repentance without further constraint from the Church As afterwards they were trusted to do their Penance in private But this is full evidence that the Church did not think all sin incurable without the Keys of the Church For then the Church could not have referred the applying of the means of pardon which they procure to any presumption of any mans good conscience The like appears in the reconciling of Hereticks and Schismaticks to the unity of the Church by sholes that is by whole Churches at once upon whom as it is impossible to imagine that the discipline of Penance should passe so is it known upon evidence of Historicall truth that those who were not to be baptized again as some Heresies were by the Canons in force were admitted onely with Imposition of hands that is with the blessing of the Church acknowledging thenceforth to pray for them as Christians not as those for whom she prayes that they may become Christians Which not supposing possibility of pardon for them not undergoing the discipline of the Church could not have been granted I avow it to be truly said in this case that the Baptism received among Hereticks revives and comes to effect by this blessing of the Church For seeing that the onely necessary barre to the effect of it was the denying of that point of Christianity which distinguishes every Heresie from the Catholick Church or the destroying of the unity of the Church speaking of Schismaticks those that so return professing thenceforth the whole faith and maintaining the communion of the Church cannot be said to want any thing necessary to qualifie them for the promises of Christianity Seeing then this possibility is not grounded upon the Ministery of the Church which passes not upon them but upon the common profession of Christians made by them when they were baptized and the taking away of that barre which made it ineffectuall afore by returning to the unity of the Church though without any ministration of Penance neither can it be said that the disposition qualifying for remission of sinne is not to be attained in the Church without the Ministery of the Church by the discipline of Penance nor that it is attained by the desire of it but onely that the barre is removed by submitting to it A visible instance hereof I will propose in the reconciling of England to the Church of Rome in Q. Maries days an act of the highest nature that the power of the Keys could do And yet it is notorious that
to study the reconciling of carnality vvith Christianity Supposing the consent of a body vvhereof they thought themselves to be members it is no marvail that there would not Not supposing that it must needs appear utterly unreasonable As for the insolubility of mariage by divorce I vvill not say there hath been so absolute a consent in it by the practice of Christians as in the mariage of one to one It is argued indeed in the late Book called Vxor Ebraica pretending onely to relate the opinions and practice of Christians in mater of divorce but intending as it should seem by the Authors opinion declared elsewhere that there is no such thing as Ecclesiasticall Power or any society of the Church by Gods Law to inferre that the Church hath nothing to do vvith Matrimoniall causes vvhich it hath nothing to do with if any thing but the lavv of the Church can secure the conscience in point of divorce p. 543. 544. that so long as the Christians vvere mingled with the Jews they observed the judiciall laws of the Synagogue and therefore corrected all divorces good beâ—or God which were according to Moses Lavv. And therefore that vvhatso ever was in force among Christians before Constantine was in force meerly by the voluntary consent of Christians vvhich vvas to give vvay vvhen the secular Power should otherwise provide as in mater of divorce so in other Matrimoniall causes This is thâ—â—â—â—ich seems to be intended p. 559. But this pretence is rooted up by proving the Church to be a society and Body founded by God to communicate in the service of God for the attaining of everlasting life For thereupon it remâ—â—ns evident that the Lavvs thereof came not originally from the voluntary consent of Christians unlesse you understand that consent whereby they submit to the Christian faith that they may be saved and thereupon find themselves tieâ— to submit to them from whom they receive that faith whereby they hope to be saved but from those who first delivered Christianity to the Church that is from our Lord his Apostles And had Christians been left to their own choice it is not possible they should have imposed upon themselves that is that the whole Church should have received that charge of not divorcing which the Rules and Customes of the Church evidence to have been in force through the whole Church as by and by it will appear As for the time when the Christians observed Moses Law that excellent saying of Justine the Martyâ— takes place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They obey the Lawes and by their own lives go beyond the Laws For the Jews Law was then their Civill Law because authorized by the Romanes in as much as they restrained it not So by complying with the Jews they gained the free exercise of their Christianity as well as invited them to admit and receive it But did they therefore renounce the Law of Christ where it restrained them more then the Law of Moses Did they allow themselves more wives then one when Moses allowed it the Jews and they complyed with Moses Certainly the Law that allows a man more wives then one never constrained any man to make use of that allowance So well might the Christians acknowledging Moses Law acknowledge themselves bound not to use the power of putting away their wives when Moses Law allowed it But it is further argued there lib. III. cap. XXVIII XXIX XXX at least it seems upon the same ground to be argued that the Roman Laws from Constantine to the fall of the Eastern Empire in a maner do allow divorce upon such causes as the Soveraign thought fit Which Laws being made by Christian Princes intending to limit that infinite liberty which the former laws of the Empire allowed either party to dissolve mariage at pleasure with all that he brought must needs pretend to secure Christians in point of conscience divorcing upon no other causes then those laws allow Constantine therefore restrains the liberty of divorce to three causes on either side On the wives side if the â—usband should Murther Poyson or Rob graves On the husbands if the wife should be an Adulteress an Impoisoner or a Bawd And this at such time as he advised with Bishops in all that he did granting then an appeal to their Courts by an act dated the same year as it is probable and lately published in Sirmondus his Appendix to Theodosius his Code without date for the year but directed to the same Ablavius P. P. to whom the form is directed Cod. Theod. lib. III. Tit. XVI which Theodosius the younger a very Christian Prince extends to many more Justinian the legislative humour being then predominant limits the mater otherwise as he thought fit His successor Justine goes beyond him in allowing divorce upon consent of parties though at neither parties choice Which Law is not found to have been repealed till it was left out of that collection of Laws called the Basilicae into which Leo the wife about the year DCCCC compiled all the Laws which he meant should stand unrepealed The particulars you may see curiously collected there Which I should make no account of did it not appear also by sundry testimonies of later times there alledged that the Greek Church did proceed according to the said Laws in blessing Mariages made upon such divorces and consequently allowing the communion of the Church to those that made them Balsamon upon Syn. VI. Can. LXXXVIII defines an unreasonable cause of divorce to be that which the Judge to wit according to the Law allows not Noâ— makes he any exception to them from any Canon of the Church writing upon Photius his Nâ—mocanon Tit. XIII 4. 30. And upon Can. Carthag CV alledging Justinian Novel CXVII he saith That the Canon is not in force to wit the Law having provided otherwise referring himselfe to that which he had written upon the VI Synode quoted afore Harmenopulus also in Prochicro sayes plainly that divorces were judged amongst them by the Imperiall Laws And Matthaus Monachus Quaest Matrim Juris Grâ—co-Rom Tomo I. p. 507. So also the Canons of Alexuis Patr. CP about MXXX alledged by our Author out of a written Copy p. 613. And Michael Chrysocephalus upon Can. Apost XLVIII p. 600. Besides Matthâ—us Blastares in Nomocan alledged by Arcudius p. 517. where he being a Greek confesseth that the Greek Church had sometimes practiced according to the Civill Laws Which had they not secured the conscience it could not it ought not to have done And what case can there be in point of mariage wherein the Law of the Land secures not the conscience if in point of divorce it do Or where is the indissolubility of mariage and the Interest of the Church in mariage grounded upon it But because it would be two gross for a Christian to say that mans Law allowing divorce can secure a Christian in conscience against Gods Law forbidding it our Lord having said Whoso puts away his wife
but for adultery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and maries another and he that mariâ—s her that is put away commits adultery Mat. V. 32. XIX 9. Mark X. 11. 12. Luk. XVI 18. it is pretended there p. 454. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Gospels signifies any thing that is dishonest and that what the State judges dishonest is just ground of divorce You must know that in our Lords time there was a difference which is supposed to be the occasion of the question made to our Lord between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai two great Heads of the Pharisees about the meaning and extent of the Law concerning divorces Deut. XXIV 1 which allows him that likes not his wife because he hath found or having found matâ—r of nakednessâ— in her to put her away For Shammai confined the intent of it to that which is dishonest and deserveth shame as nakednesse doth But Hillel extended it to any thing that offends the Husband as say they for example if she burn his Meat As for R. Akiba that allowed it if a man can get a fairer wife his opinion is but the inlargement of Hillels which expoundeth Moses his words If he have found in her mater of wickednesse to signifie either nakednesse or other mater besides This question then being on fooâ— at that time it is argued p. 478 that our Lord intends nothing else but the resolution of it the Pharisees demanding nothing else and therefore making no opposition to that which he resolves Mat. XIX 3-9 And thereupon great pains is bestowed cap. XXIII XXVII to show that our Lords exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Moses according to the opinion of Shammai For if we suppose our Lord to have spoke in that Ebrue which the Jews then spake and now we read in the Talmud and Chaldee Paraphrases then must he use the word which the Law useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gospels must translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If in Syriack the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifying the uncleannesse of the Stews is necessarily understood by the circumstance of the place where it is used to signifie all uncleannesse but may be extended to all sinne whereby we go a whoring from God as the Scripture uses to speak So according to this opinion our Lord excluding onely arbitrary divorce allows it where Moses according to Shammai allows it for any cause of dishonesty or that deserves shame as nakednesse does And if these premises be pertinent to that which follows that is to justifie those divorces that are made according to the Imperiall Laws related afterwards for the Author all the while protests to determine nothing p. 496. the inference must be this That those causes of divorce which Christian powers by their Lavvs have allovved or shall allovv are the true interpretation of that cause which Moses under the time of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or nakednesse our Lord of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is usually translated Forâ—ication alloweth I forbear to relate any more of that which is alleged to shevv that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the words of our Lord may signifie the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Moses according to R. Akâ—ba For the reason which I rely upon admits no consideration of it The resolution of our Lord is manifestly inconsistent vvith the Law of Moses and therefore with any interpretation that can be thought agâ—â—eable to it For when he saith Moses for your hard-heartednesse But I say unto you What can be more evident then that he repeals the provision of the Law and restrains what Moses had allowed Is it not manifest that whâ—n he â—llegeth that God having made first one man and one woman joyned them in mariage to be parted no more he granteth that Moses Law had abated of this and declareth the reviving of Gods first appointment among his own Disciples Can the allowance of divorce according to the Law stand with the primitive institution of Paradise more then having more wives at once Can we suppose the Pharisees come to our Lord to decide between Hillel and Shammai who condemns all Pharisees Or is it a marvail that he who pretended to be the Messias should introduce a provision differing from Moses and â—rom all that pretended onely to interpret his Law That there should be no further dispute of the mater of his resolution when there lay no dispute but about his authority whither from God or not Suppose our Lord to them no more but a Propheâ— to his Disciples the Messias why should they dispute that which they knew his Disciples admitted when they saw the primitive appointment of God related by Moses clear on his side That is to say why should they not be put to silence now as well as other times when they could not answer his allegations out of the Scriptures It is therefore utterly unreasonable to imagine that our Lord intending to restrain those divorces which Moses law alloweth should use a term of the same extent with that which â—e intended to restrain The Jews indeed insist upon this That a Prophet had alwaies power to suspend the obligation of any positive Precept for the time as Elias that of sacrificing no where but at Jerusalem Levit. XVII 1-9 Deut XII 5-18 26 27. XIV 21-26 when he sacrificed in mount Carmel 1 Kings XVII 22-39 But our Lord introducing a new Law instead of Moses his Law their aâ—cestors crucified him therefore and they to this day maintain it Indeed there is cause to believe that the Prophet Malachy reproving the oppressions which the Jews then laid upon their wives for the love of strangers which they had maried over their heads contrary to the Law Mal. I. 14. 15 16. propounds the liberty of divorce which the Law allows for an expedient acceptable to God as his own provision when he saith For the Lord God of Israel saith If thou hatest put away as the Jews there expound it For they who construe it The Lord God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away cannot give account why the Prophet should mention the mater of divorce where his purpose is to blame the oppression of Israelitish wives for the love of strangers maried against the Law Whereas when he addeth For one covereth violence with his Garment saith the Lord of Hosts He aggravateth the same fault by this consideration that the covenant of mariage signified usually in the Scripture by covering the woman with the mans Garment Ezek. XVI 8. Ruth III. 10. is imployed for a means of oppression and violence upon her that out of love entred into it And the Prophet Malaâ—hi holding his Commission by virtue of Moses Law how shall he say that God hates that which by his law he provided though for a remedy of further mischief There is indeed great dispute whither the allowance of Moses law did
other cause yet forbids not what he allows not But seeing such offences fall out among Christians that be maried as are not easily discernable where the fault of them lies noâ— allowing them to part nor yet condemning both parties he limits them in case they do so not to marry again imposing thereby upon the innocent party the necessity of continence which his innocence makes tolerable and the Aâ—ostles advise if it proceed not to the parting of families easily recoverâ—ble As for the guilty if it prove a burthen or a snare he may impute it to his fault And as it was not necessary that the Church should be interessed in it so long as both parties were inabled by the Law to depart and neither proceeded to mary again So the Law not allowing it there is no marvail that the Church should interpose Let us then see how the rest of the Church allowes the exception of adultery to the purâ—oâ—e of marying again Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. II. in fine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Scripture plainly inacteth Thou shalâ— not a smiss thy wife but upon account of adultery Counting it adultery to mary while the one of the parted is alive Athenâ—goras de resurrect mortuorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Christian is to abâ—de as he was born or aâ— one mariage For saith he he that dismisseth his wife and marieth another committeth adultery This necessarily concerneth no morâ— thâ—n marrying again upon that divorce which the Romane Law inâ—led eithâ—r pâ—rty to make without rendring a reason and may well bâ—aâ— the exâ—eption of marying upon divorce for adultery by the Christian Law And the sâ—â—â—â—xception may well be understood in the XLVIII Câ—non of the Apâ—â—â—â—â—s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a Lay-man casting ouâ— his wife take another or one that is put away â—y another let him stand excommunicate Proviâ—ion is made against taking to wiâ—e one that had been put away for the reputation of the Clergy For it must needs be a sâ—ain to bring such a one into a mans house If it be true that Grotius alleges out of severall passages of Tertulliane that the Church in his time admitted them to mary again who had parted with their wives for adultery we need no more But though those allegations as not quoted so are no where to be â—ound yet Tertullianes opinion is to be seen by the plea that he makes contra Marc. IV. 32. that our Lord abrogâ—teth not that divorce which Moses had inacted though he restâ—ineth it Which could not be said if the divorce which our Lord alloweth did not import right to mary again Lactantius plainly signifies the same when he sayes Adulterum esse qui à marito dimissam duâ—erit Et eum qui praeter crimen adulterii uxorem dim serit ut alterum duâ—â—t That he is an adulterer who maries a wife put away by her husband And that so is he that shall put away his wife to mary another excepting the crime of adultery The great Council of almost all the West at Arles in the businesse of the Donatists provides Can. X. That those who take their wives in adultery being young Christians be exhorted not to mary others as long as they live leaving thereby hope of reconcilement Certainly they counted it not adultery which they only exhort not to do The Council of Elvira Can IX That the wife that forsakes her husband for adultery and maries another shall not communicate so long as he remains alive of the husband nothing By the VIII X. She who leaves her husband without cause and maries another is not to communicate no not at the point of death At the date of this Council before the act of Constantine man or wife parted without showing cause Without cause then is when that cause which the Church allows viz. adultery is not She that maries him who she knew had put away his wife without cause not till the point of death This is the difference between committing adultery and marying him that commits adultery by putting away his wife without adultery And it is plain the wife is stricter used by these Canons then the husband The Commentaries upon S. Pauls Epistles under S. Ambrose his name say plainly 1 Cor. VII That the man may mary again having put away his wife for adultery not the wife having put away her husband because the man is the head of the woman I do not find this reason sufficient For S. Paul maketh the interest of the wife in the husband and that of the husband in the wife both one and the same Nor do I find the reason sufficient which Cardinall Cajetane hath given for him upon Mat. XIX 9. to wit because our Lord saying He that putteth away his wife unlesse for adultery and marieth again committeth adultery sayes nothing of what the woman may do in that case For Mark X. 11. 12. he sayes as much for the wife as for the husband not expressing the exception Why then should I not be extended to her when he addeth it But I conceive that though by Gods Law the woman be restrained no more then the man yet the Law of the Church might restrain that which Gods law restrained not And so though the man be onely advised not to mary again by the Canon of Arles yet the woman might be put to Penance so long as her first husband remained alive by the Canon of Elvira For I see S. Basil ad Amphil. Can IX confesses that though S. Paul makes the case of both equall yet custome put the woman to Penance marying upon the adultery of her husband Some ground of difference nature it selfe inforces in that the man taints not the wives issue nor brings that infamy upon her bed as she upon his In the mean time whatsoever we say of that it is manifest they held it not adultery for the party that parted for adultery to mary again And as for Fabiola who having put away a notorious adulterous husband maried another after the death of this second did voluntary Penance for it as you find in S. Jerome Epist XXX It may be the Church exacted it not because during her second Husbands time it is not said that she communicated not And it may be she followed S. Jeromes opinion which he expresseth Epist XLVII Some passages of S. Basil S. Chrysostome and Gregory Nazianze are alleged in vain signifying onely the insolubility of mariage which may allow the exception which the Gospel maketh and must allow it when we see the custome testified by S. Basil to the contrary And S. Chrysostome when S. Paul sayes of the wife If she part understands him If she part upon ordinary displeasures which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or pusillanimities which the courage of a true Christian would neglect and over see Innocent I. Pope Epist ad Exuperium puts them only to Penance that mary again having put away wives or husbands Not supposing adultery But
of Christians that is of the whole Church occultae quoque conjunctiones id est non priâ—s apud Ecclesiam professae juxta maechiam fornicationem judicari perclitantur Among us even clandestine mariages that is not professed before the Church are in danger to be censured next to adultery and fornication And therefore Ad uxorem II. ult Unde sufficiamus ad senarrandam faelicitatem ejus matrimonii quod Ecclesia conciliat How may we be able to declare the happinesse of that mariage which the Church interposeth to joyn de Monogamiâ cap. XI Quale est id matrimonium quod eis a quibus postulas non licet hahere What maner of mariage is that saith he speaking of marying a second wife which it is not lawfull for them of whom thou desirest it to have Because it was not lawful for the Clergy who allowed the people to mary second wives themselves to do the same Ignatius Epist ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It becometh men and women that mary to joyn by the consent of the Bishop that the mariage be according to the Lord and not according to lust It hath been doubted indeed whether we have the true Copy of Ignatius his Epistles or not whether this be one of them or not But that Copy being found which Eusebius S. Jerome and others of the Fathers took for Ignatius his own and hath all that the Fathers quote just as they quote it nothing of that which stood suspected afore to refuse them now is to refuse evidence because it stands not with our prejudices Not that this power of the Church stands upon the authority of two or three witnesses These were not to be neglected But the Canons of the Church and the custome and practice of the Church ancientâ—r then any Canons in writing but evidenced by written Law which could never have come in writing had it not been in force before it was written suffer it not to remain without evidence In particular the allowance of the mariages of those who were baptized when they were admitted to Baptism evidenced out of S. Austine the Constituions and Eliberitane Canons evidenceth the Power of the Church in this point unquestionable And therefore against the Imperiall Lawes I argue as against the Leviathan that is if any man suppose that they pretend to secure the conscience of a Christian in marying according to them upon divorce Either the Soveraign Power effects that as Soveraign or as Christian If as Soveraign why may not the Christians of the Turkish Empire divorce themselves according to the Alâ—oran which is the Law of the Land and be secure in point of conscience If as Christian how can the conscience of a Christian in the Eastern Empire be secured in that case wherein the conscience of a Christian in the West cannot be secured because there is no such Civil Law there the Christianity of both being the same For it cannot be said that the Imperiall Lawes alleged were in force in the West after the division of the Empire I argue again That they cannot secure the conscience but under the Law of our Lord as containing the true interpretation of fornication in his sense And can any man be so senselesse as to imagine so impudent as to affirm that the whole Church agreeing in taking the fornication of maried people to signifie adultery hath failed but every Christian Prince that alloweth and limiteth any other causes of divorce all limiting severall causes attaineth the true sense of it Will the common sense of men allow that Homicide Treason Poysoning Forgery Sacriledge Robbery Mans-stealing Cattle-driving or any of them is contained is the true meaning of Fornication in our Lords words That consent of parties that a reasonable cause when Pagans divorced per bonam gratiam without disparagement to either of the parties can be understood by that name For these you shall find to be legall cause of divorce by those acts of the Emperours Lastly I argue If these causes secure the conscience in the Empire by virtue of those Laws why shall not those causes for which divorce was allowed or practiced amongst the ancient French the Irish the Welch the Russes do the like For that which was done by virtue of their Lawes reported there cap. XXVI XXX is no lesse the effect of Christian power that is Soveraign He that could find in his heart to tell Baronius reproving the Law of Justine that allowed divorce upon consent that Christian Princes who knew their own power were not so easily to be ruled by the Clergy p. 611. can he find fault with the Irish marrying for a year and a day or the Welch divorcing for a stinking breath Had he not more reason to say that knowing their power they might chuse whether they would be Christians or not The dispute being What they should do supposing that they are Christians And therefore it is to be maintained that those Emperours in limiting the infinite liberty of divorces by the Romane Law to those causes upon which dowries should be recoverable or not being made for Pagans as well as for Christians did as it were rough hew their Empire to admit the strict law of Christianity in this point And that this was the intent and effect of their acts appears by the Canons which have been alleged as well in the East as in the West made during the time when those Laws were in force For shall we think the Church quite out of their senses to procure such Canons to be made knowing that they could not take place in the lives and conversations of Christians to the effect of hindring to mary again If we coulde so think it would not serve the turn unlesse we could say how S. Basil should testifie that indeed they did take place to that effect and yet the Civill Law not suffer them to take effect From our Lord Christ to that time it is clear that no Christian could mary again after divorce unlesse for adultery some not excepting adultery In the baseâ— times of that Empire it appears by the Canons of Alexius Patriarch of C P. and by Matthaeus Blastares alleged by Arcudius p. 517. that those causes which the Imperiall Lawes allowed but Gods law did not took place to the effect of marrying again But that so it was alwaies from Constantine who first taxed legall cause of divorce nothing obliges a man to suppose For though the Emperours Law being made for Pagans as well as for Christians might inable either party to hold the dowry yet the Christian law might and did oblige Christians not to mary again The Mileuitane Canon showes it which provideth that the Emperour be requested to inact that no Christian might mary after divorce For this might be done saving the Imperial Laws But when we see the Civil Law inforce the Ministers of the Church to blesse those Mariages which the Civil Law allows but Gods Law makes adulteries the party that is put away
shall be of force to void mariage contracted afore upon wich ground the opinion which I propounded last would justifie the divorces which the Imperiall Laws make to the effect of marrying again will be a new question Seeing that if any thing bâ— to be accepted it will be in any mans power to dissolve any mariage and the law of Christ allowing no divorce but in case of adultery will be to no effect Neither will there be any cause why the same Divines should not allow the act of Justine that dissolves mariage upon consent which they are forced to disclaim allowing the rest of those causes which the Imperial Laws create Indeed whither any accident absolutely hindring the exercise of mariage and falling out after mariage may by Law become of force to dissolve it I need not here any further dispute For so the securing of any Christian mans conscience it is not the act of secular Power inacting it for Law that can avail unlesse the act of the Church go before to determine that it is not against Gods Law and therefore subject to that civil Power which is Christian The reason indeed may fall out to be the same that makes impotence of force to do it and it may fall out to be of such force that Gregory III Pope is found to have answered a consultation of Boniface of Mence in the affirmative XXXII q. VII c. Quod proposuisti But this makes no difference in the right and power of the Church but rather evidences the necessity of it For though as Cardinall Cajetane sayes the Canon Law it selfe allows that Popes may erre in determining such maters cap. IV. de divortiis c. licet de sponsa duorum which every man will allow in the decree of Deuededit Pope Epist unicâ yet the ground of both Power witnessing the Constitution of the Church as a necessary part of Christianity as it determines the true bounds of both so it allows not the conscience of a Christian to be secured by other means And were it not a strange reason of refusing the Church this Power because it may erre when it must in that case fall to the secular Powers who have no ground to pretend any probable cause of not erring For he that proceedeth in the simplicity of a Christian heart to use the means which God by Christianity hath provided for his resolution may promise himselfe grace at Gods hands even when he is seduced by that power which is not infallible But he that leans upon that warrant which God by his Christianity hath not referred him to must answer for his errors as well as the consequences of the same CHAP. XVI Of the Power of making Gouernours and Ministers of the Church Upon what ground the Hierarchy of Bishops Priests and Deacons standeth in opposition to Presbyteries and Congregations Of the Power of Confirming and the evidence of the Hierarchy which it yieldeth Of those Scriptures which seem to speak of Presbyteries or Congregations NOw are we come to one of the greatest Powers of the Church For all Societies according as they are constituted either by the act of Superiors or by the will of members are by their constitution either inabled to give themselves Governours or tied to receive them from those by whose will they subsist The Society of the Church subsisting by the will of God is partly regulated by the will of men voluntarily professing themselves Christians If God having limimited the qualities and the Powers by which his Church is to be Governed do referre the designing of persons to bear those qualities and powers to his Church it must needs appear one of the greatest points that he hath left to their choice Therefore I have made it appear from the beginning that the originall of this Power was planted by our Lord Christ in his Apostles and Disciples to whom immediately he committed the trust of propagating it And now that I may further determine within what bounds and under what terms those his immediate Commissaries did appoint it to be propagated to the end of the world I say that by their appointment the bodies of Christians contained in each City and the territory thereof is to constitute a several Church to be governed by one cheif Ruler called a Bishop with Presbyters or Priests subordinate to him for his advice and assistance and Deacons to minister and execute their appointment The said Bishops to be designed by their Clergy that is their respective Priests and Deacons with consent of neighbour Bishops ordaining them and by the assent of the people whom they are to govern I say further That the Churches of greater Cities upon which the Government of the lesse dependeth are by the same Rule greater Churches and the greatest of all the Churches of the chiefe Cities So that the chief Cities of the Christian world at the planting of Christianity being Rome Alexandria and Antiochia by consequence those were by this Rule the chief Churches and in the first place that of Rome This position excludeth in the first place that of Independent Congregations which maketh a Church and a Congregation to be all alone so that the people of each Congregation to be able first to give themselves both Laws and Governours then to govern and manage the Power of the Keyes according to Gods word that is according to that which they shall imagine to be the intent of it For whatsoever authority they allow their Ministers or Elders seeing they are created out of the people by the meer act of the people and that the consent of the People is required to inact every thing that passeth it will be too late for them to think of any authority not subordinate to the people upon whom they have bestowed the Soveraign On the other extreme this position excludeth that of the Romanists who will have the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall Power to have been first setled upon S. Peter as sole Monarch of the Church and from him derived upon the rest of the Apostles as his Deputies or Commissaries So that the Power which other Bishops Priests and Deacons have in their respective Churches being granted by the successors of S. Peter Bishops of Rome is therefore limitable at their pleasure as no otherwise estated by divine right then because God hath setled it in S. Peter and his successors as the root and source of it Between these extremes there remain two mean opinions whereof one is the platform of the Presbyteries in which every Congregation is also a Church with a Consistory to rule it consisting of a Minister with his Lay-Elders whom now they call Triers referring to them the â—riall of those who come to communicate and Deacons Of these Congregations so many as they without Rule or Reason so farre as I know think fit to cast into one resoâ—t or division they call a Session or Class and as many of those as they please a Synod and of Synods a Province So that as the
of the Church not onely of divine right as provided for by the Apostles but holding the rank of an end to which particular provisions of the Apostles in this mater seem but as means It is true I am farre from believing that had the Reformation retained this Apostolical Government the Church of Rome would thereby have been moved to joyn in it But when I see the Schisme which it hath occasioned to stand partly upon this difference When I see so many particulars begun by the Apostles as the Scriptures themselves evidence others determinable by the Church When I see those that correct Magnificat introduce instead of them those Lawes which have neither any witnesse from the Scriptures nor any footing in the authority of the whole Church I must needs conclude those that do these things in as much as they do them to be causes of the Schism that is Schismaticks For what authority upon earth can introduce any form reconcileable with that which the Apostles first introduced to procure the vanity of the Church being to continue one and the same Body from the beginning to the end but he must give cause of dissolving the unity of the said Body unlesse he can convince the rest of the Church that it is Gods act to whom all the Church is to be subject whereas to him they are not Wherâ—fore let not Presbyterians or Independents think that they have done their work when they can answer texts of Scripture so as not to be convinced that Bishops are of divine Right Unless they can harden themselves against the belief of one Catholick Church they must further give account why they depart from that which is not against Gods Law to introduce that which it commandeth not For that is to proclaim to the Church that they will not be of it unlesse they may be governed as they list themselves Whereas they cannot be of it by being governed otherwise then the whole Church from the beginning hath been Let them not marvail that those who go not along with them in it forewarn others of making themselves Schismaticks by communicating in their innovations But against the Independants I must further take notice that by the supposition of one Society of the whole Church the whole pretense of the Congregations is quite excluded For if God appointed all Churches to make one Church by the communion of all in the service of God supposing the same faith then did not God appoint all Congregations to be chief within themselves but to depend upon the whole both for the Rule of Faith and for the order of Gods service Again it is evident to common sense that the people of one Church can pretend no interess to give Law to another Church Whereas whomsoever we inable to preserve the unity of the whole those persons must eithâ—r have right to oblige those that are not of their own Congregations or else God shall hâ—ve provided that the Church shall be one but excluded the onely means by which it can be preserved one And therefore to all those texts of Scriptures which are alleged to prove the chief Power of the People in the Church which is the ground of the Congregations I give here this general answer which elsewhere I have applied to the said several passages First by way of exception that they can inferre no more now against the Clergy then they could thâ—n against the Apostles So that seeing the Apostles were then chief notwithstanding all that those Scriptures contain the Clergy also remain now chief in the Church Secondly and directly that they import no more then the tesâ—imony consent and concurrence of the people by way of suffrage or agreement and applause to the Acts of the Clergy the interess whereof is grounded upon the sensible knowledge which the people have of the persons concerned in Ordinations Censures or other Acts of the Church in regard whâ—reof it is no more then reason requires that they be duly satisfied of the proceedings of the Church without making them Judges of maters of Right in it So that to make the people chief in Church maters upon account of this Title is to make the people of England Soveraign because English Juries have power to return evidence in mater of fact either effectual or void Another reason I here advance upon supposition of the force and weight of the Tradition of the Church in evidencing the reason and intent of the sayings and doings of the Apostles recorded in the Scriptures Philip one of the seven having preached and converted and baptized the Samaritanes the Apostles at Jerusalem send down to them Peter and John at whose prâ—yers with â—â—ying thâ—â—r 〈◊〉 on them they receive the Holy Ghost Act. VIII 14-17 And so S. Paul â—â—yes hâ—nds upon the twelve men that were baptized afore at Ephesus â—â—â—â—hey receive the Holy Ghost Act. XIX 1-8 For what reason shall we imagine why they that were inâ—bled to baptize were not â—â—abled to give the Holy Ghost baptism being the condition upon which the Holy Ghost was due by the promise of the Gospel but to show that they were baptized into the uniâ—y of the Church out of which they were not to expect the Holy Ghost Thâ—refore that their Baptism may have effect that is give the Holy Ghost the allowâ—nce of the Apostles upon whose government the unity of the Church dependeth is requite Whiâ—h allowance their prayers for the Holy Ghost and Impoâ—â—â—ion of hands implâ—eth and presupposeth It cannot be doubted that the visible Grace of â—peaking in strâ—nge languages the great works of God was then given for an evidence of the presence of the Holy Ghost with Gods people whereupon it is called by S. Paul 1 Cor. XII 7. The manifestatioâ— of the Spirit But evâ—n of this kind of Graces S. Paul saith again 1 Cor. XIV 32. 33. The Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets For God is not the author of unsetlednesse but of order as in all Churches of the Saints If therefore there come no confusion upon Prophets Prophesying one by one because God who is the Author of Order grants such inspirations and revelations to inferiours that they cease not therefore to be subject to those which he grants to Superiours How much more re asonable is it that the Gift of the Holy Ghost promised to them that are baptized should neverthelesse deâ—end upon the blessing of the Apostles So that when S. Peter sayes to them that were convâ—rted at Pentecost Act. II. 38. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission of sinnes and yâ— shall receive the gift of the Holy â—host It seems to me no more then reason requires that he â—upposes the same blessing As also S. Paul in those of whom he saith That having believed in Christ they were sealed by the Holy spirit of promise And again Grieve not the holy spirit of God whereby ye are sealed to the day
the like moment because of the sentence of the Nicenâ— Council already past in the main ground of the cause and because of the sentence of the Synod of Rome past in the cause Now when this difference comes afterwards to be tried by a General Council at Sardica shall this trial inferre the infinite Power of the Pope or the regular Power of a General Council For surely the Council of Sardica was intended for a General Council as the Emperor Justinian reckons it being summoned by both Emperours Constantius and Constans out of the whole Empire When the breach fell out and the Eastern Bishops withdrew themselves to Philippopolis the whole Power in point of right ought I conceive to remain on that side which was not the cause of the breach But the success sufficiently showeth that it did not so prevail For many a Council might then have been spared The soveraign regard of peace in the Church suffered not those that were in the right to insist upon the acts of it as I suppose In the mean time the Canons thereof whereby appeals to the Pope in the causes of Bishops are setled whither for the West which it represented or for the whole which it had right to conclude not having caused the breach shall I conceive to be forged because they are so aspersed having been acknowledged by Justinian translated by Dionysius Exigâ—us added by the Eastern Church to their Canon Law Or shall I not ask what pretense there could be to settle appeals from other parts to Rome rather then from Rome to other parts had not a pre-eminence of Power and not onely a precedence of rank been acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome But though I think my self bound to acknowledge that such Canons were made by the Council at Sardica yet not that they took effect by the act of it The Canons of Councils had not effect as I said afore till received The troubles that succeeded might well hinder the admitting of them into practice And that this exception is not for nothing I appeal to all that shall but consider that the Canons of the Council of Antiochia which the Eastern Bishops at Sardica stood for made part of the Code of the whole Church which the Council of Chalcedon owned The Canon of Sardica being no part of it till after times And this is the point upon which the dispute between the Pope and the Churches of Africk about appeals most depends The case that brought it to issue was the case of Apiarius a Priest onely that appealed to Rome The Popes Legates pretended that appeals to Rome were settled by the Council of Nicaea The Churches of Africk finding no such Canon of Nicaea in their records desire that recourse might be had to Alexandria and Constantinople for the true Copies The true Copies import no such thing but it is alleged and it is reason it should be alleged that the appeals of Bishops are setled by the Canons of the Council of Sardica the very terms whereof are couched in the instructions to the Council of Africk The Council of Sardica was not the Council of Nicaea but the acts of it were done by those who pretended to maâ—ntain it Whither it were justly done or imported an intent of imposture to challenge the authority of the Canons of Nicaea for the Canons of it I dispute not But had the case in question been the case of a Bishop as it was onely the case of a Priest what could the Churches of Africk have alledged why they should not be tyed by the Canons of Sardica who acknowledged themselves tyed by the Canons of Nicaea For there was onely the Bishop of Carthage present at the Council of Nicaea but there was six and thirty Africane Bishops at the Council of Sardica enow to represent all the Diocese of Africk and to tie those whom they represented What could they alledge but the inexecution of the Council of Sardica Or what greater evidence could they alledge for the inexecution of it then that there was no Copy of any such Canon in the records of all their Churches Or how could the Pope desire a fairer pretense for the execution of it for the future then the concurrence of the Africanâ— Churches by so many Bishops For though the Council of Sardica is quoted in that which is called the VI Council of Carthage yet the whole issue of the businesse was onely whither they were Nicâ—ne Canons that were alleged or not and when it appeared that they were not the dispute was at an end and the Africane Synode by the leter extant in the Africane Code desires the Pope to stand to terms of the Nicene Canons Therefore it is clearly a fault in the Copy that the Council of Sardica is named which could not be pleaded because all knew that it was not in force as the Council of Nicaea was in the Churches of Africk So that the act of the Council of Sardica necessarily presupposeth that the Church of Rome was effectually acknowledged the prime Church of the West and by consequence of all Churches because it setleth the right of appeals upon it before other Churches in certain causes though it appear not what effect it took unlesse you allow the conjecture which I have to propose Within a few years after this contest there appears a standing Commission of the Popes to the Bishops of Thessalonica to be their standing Lieutenants in Illyricum mentioned in the leter of Pope Leo to Anastasins of Thessalonica as derived from their predecessors Had the Bishop of Rome been no more then the Bishop of Thessalonica how came this to be his Lieutenant rather then on the contrary And truly where those priviledges of the Church of Rome over the Churches of Illyricum began whereby the Popes had made the Bishops of Thessalonica their standing Legates appears not by the records of the Church So that it is as free for me to conjecture that they come from the Council of Sardica as for others to conjecture otherwise For it is not unreasonable to think that it might take effect upon the place where it was made with fuller consent of the Bishops of that Diocese present in greater numbers then strangers though scarce known in Africk after some LXX years But at such time as Rome disputed with Africk about appeals and injoyed regular priviledges in Illyricum can the Church of Milane or any Church of Spain or Gaul or Britaine be thought parallel to it From this time the rescripts of the Popes are extant unforged and directed to divers prime Churches of Gaul and Spain And the Heads of them were added by Dionysius Exiguâ—s about DXXX unto that collection of Canons which what force it had in the Western Church appears in that Cresconius abridging the Canons which the African Church used referrs them to the Heads which he follows both beginning at Syricius Cresconius ending at Gelasius And the Copies of Dionysius his Collection that now are
such thing as a Councill according to the supposition of the congregations And therefore in the acts of Counciles which are the Lawes whereby the Church is to be ruled the people can have no further satisfaction then to see them openly debated under the knowledge of the people Indeed the interest of Soveraigne powers in Church maters which I allow not onely in order to the publicke peace but as they are members of the Catholicke Church and so trusted with the protection of all that is Catholicke in behalf of the people gives them that power over the acts of Counciles which by and by I shal declare Which though grounded upon another account and belonging to them in an other quality then that which the constitution of the Church createth is notwithstanding provided by God to secure his people of their Christianity together with the unity of the Church But the suffrage of the people of every Church that is their acknowledgment that they know no exception against the persons in nomination for Bishops or other orders of the Church as it agreeth with the proceedings of the Apostles and primative Church so must it needs be a most powerfull meanes to maintaine that strict bond of love and reverence between the Clergy and the people in the recovery whereof the unity of the Church consisteth And supposing publick penance retrived without which it is in vaine to pretend Reformation in the Church there can be no stronger meanes to maintaine Christianity in effect then the satisfaction of the people though not in the measure of penance to be injoyned yet in the performing of it Alwaies provided that this interest of the people be grounded upon no other presumption that any man is the child of God or in the state of Grace and indowed with Gods spirit then that which the law of the Church whereby he injoyes communion which the Church createth For this presumption must needs be stronger concerning the Clergy by their estate then it can be concerning the people Because by their estate they are to be the choice of the people And though as all morall qualities are subject to many exceptions some of the people may be better Christians then some of the Clergy yet a legall presumption that any of them is so must needs be destructive to the Unity of the Church But no disorder in religion can be so great as to justifie the obdurate resolution of the Church of Rome to withdraw the scriptures from the people There is nothing more manifest then that the lamentable distractions which we are under have proceeded from the presumption of particular Christians up on their understanding in the scriptures proceeding to think their quality capable of reforming the Church Onely those that can have joy of so much mischief to our common Christianity can thinke otherwise But I am not therefore induced to thinke our Christianity any other then the Christianity of those whom our Lord whom S. Paul and other Apostles and Prophets exhort and incourage to the study of the scriptures Whom S. Chrysostome and others of the Fathers so earnestly deale with to make it their businesse All the offense consists in this that private Christians observe not the bounds of that which is Catholike when they come to read the scriptures For if they be not content to confine the sense of all they read within that rule of faith in which the whole Church agreeth because they understand not how they stand together If they thinke the Lawes of the whole Church can command things contrary to that which God by scripture commandeth It is no marvaile they should proceed to make that which they think they see in the Scripures though indeed they see it not a Law to the Church For they think it is Gods will that ties them to it But if the Church be the Church as I have showed it is then was the Scripture never given private Christians to make them Judges what all Christians are bound to believe what the Church is to injoine the Church for the condition of communion with the Church If any man object the inconvenience that it appeareth not who or where that Church is and so we are confined to those boundes that cannot appeare This inconvenince is the clearest evidence that I can produce for the Catholike Church For unlesse we grant this inconvenience to come by Gods institution and appointment we must confesse the unity of the Church to be Gods appointment because the dissolution thereof produceth this inconvenience For were the unity of the Church in being I could easily send any man to the Catholike Church by sending him to his owne Church Which by holding communion with the whole Church must needs stand distinguished from those which hold it not though under the name of Churches And he who resorts to the Church for resolution in the Scriptures supposes that he is not to break from the Church for that wherein the whole Church is not agreed Now that the unity of the Church is broken in pieces it remaines no more visible to common sense what it is wherein the whole Church agrees as the condition for comunion with it But the meanes to make it appear againe having disappeared through disunion in the Church is that discourse of reason which proceeds upon supposition of visible unity established by God in the Church And the meanes to make it appear againe to common sense is the restoring of that unity in the Church by the interruption whereof it disappeareth Then shall the edification of particular Christians in our common Christianity proceed without interruption by meanes of the Scriptures every one supposing that his edification in the common Christianity dependeth not upon the knowledge of those things wherein the Church agreeth not but of those things wherein it agreeth In the mean time it remaineth that offenses proceed to be infinite and endlesse because men giving no bounds to their studies in the Scriptures imagine the edification of the Church to consist in that wherein themselves not regarding the consent of the Church have placed their own edification in the Scriptures CHAP. XXXII How great the Power of the Church and the effect of it is The right of judging the causes of Christians câ—aseth when it is protected by the State An Objection If Ecclâ—siasticall Power were from God Secular Power could not limit the use of it Ground for the Interest of the State in Church matters The inconsequence of the argument The concurrence of both Interests to the Law of the Church The Interest of the State in the indowment of the Church Concurrence of both in matrimoniall causes and Ordinations Temporall penalties upon Excommunication from the State No Soveraigne subject to the greater Excommunication but to the lesse The Rights of the Jewes State and of Christian Powers in Religion partly the same partly not The infinite Power of the Pope not founded upon acts of Episcopacy but upon the Secular Powers
same ground to wit that the offenses that fall out among Gods people might not scandalize the Gentiles Therefore Saint James writing his Epistle to converted Jewes supposeth that they exercised the same power of judging between Christian and Christian as they did being Jewes between Jew and Jew And exhort them thereupon to use it like Christians James II. 1-13 for this I have shewed to be his meaning in another place And Saint Cypriane teaches Quirinus in the testimonies which he produces against the Jewes out of the Scripture III. 44. Fideles inter se disceptantes non debere Gentilem Judicem experiri In Epistola Pauli ad Corinth I. Audet quisquam vestrum That Christians being in debate among themselves are not to come to the triall of a heathen Judge For in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians you have dare any of you In the Constitutions of the Apostles II. 45 46 47. this authority is most truly attributed to the Church by describing the manner of proceeding in it Nor will any man of reason question that the author of them though not so ancient as the title under which he goes understood the state of the Church before Constantine There he showes that the Church in the use of this power aimed at the precept of our Lord to be reconciled to our brethren before we offer sacrifice to God Mat. V. 23 24. For though the offering of beasts in sacrifice to God be ceased yet the reason of the precept holds in the Eucharist and the offering of those oblations out of which it was consecrated for Christians To this purpose he prescribeth that Consistories be held on the Munday to see what differences were on foot in the Church that they might have the week before them to set them to right that so they might offer at the Eucharist on the Lords day with a clear conscience For at the Eucharist they were to salute one another with a kisse of peace and the deacon cried aloude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man have any thing against any man let no man give the kisse of peace dissembling All evidences for the practice of the Church That which Gratiane hath alledged out of the Epistle of Clemens to James of Jerusalem Causa XI Quaest I. Cap. XXXII is found also in the life of Saint Peter out of the book of the Popes lives which you have in the Counciles though in that Copy of it which hath since been published under the name of Anastasius it appeareth not The words are these in the Epistle Si qui ex fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores seculi non judicentur Sed apud Presbyterâ—s Ecclesiae quicquid illud est definitur If any of the brethren have suits among themselves let them not be judged before judges of the World But whatsoever it is let it be judged before the Priests of the Church The life of Saint Peter saith thus Hic Petrus B. Clementem Episcopum consecravit cui Cathedram vel Ecclesiam omnem disponendam commisit dicens Sicut mihi gubernandi tradita est a Domino meo Jesu Christo potestas ligandi sâ—lvendique ita ego tibi committo ut ordines dispositores diversarum causarum per quos actus non Ecclesiastici profligentur tu minime curis seculi deditus reperiâ—â— sed solummodo orationi praedicationi ad populum vacare stude This Peter consecrated B. Clement Bishop and committed to him the see or the whole Church to be ordered saying As the power of governing or binding and loosing was delivered me by my Lord Jesus Christ so do I also depute thee to ordain those that may dispose of divers causes by whom actions that are not of the Church may be dispatched so that thou be not found addicted to secular cares but onely study to attend upon prayer and preaching to the people I know the first is forged and the second of little credit And he that writ the Epistle might intend to create an authority against trying the Clergy in secular Courts which could not be the subject of any thing that Clement might write But both authors write what they might know in their time to have fitted the Apostles time There is nothing more suitable to that estate which the Apostles signify then that Clemens should appoint who should attend upon the dispatching of suits between his people that he might attend upon the principall of his Office For that all resorted not then to the Church it is ridiculous to imagine It is enough that there is no instance extant of any suit between Christians tried before Gentiles before Constantinâ— And this is the reason why Constantine undertaking the protection of Christianity made the Law that is yet extant in the Code of Theodosius de Episcopali Audientia I. that any man might appeale to the Bishop in any cause before sentence Is there any appearance that so vast a priviledge would ever have been either demanded or granted had not the matter of it been in use by the Constitution of the Church among Christians Therefore it was no marvaile that it was limited afterwards for it made the Church judge in all causes in which one party would appeal to it as it appeares by Justinians Law and other constitutions afore Justiniane For when the Empire was become Christiane the reason of our Lords and his Apostles Order was expired In the mean time the referring of causes to the Bishop upon appeale was but to referre the causes of Christians to the Bishop which belonged to his knowledge afore And when all were Christians to demand that all should resort to the Bishop had been to dissolve the Civile Government which the Church supposeth The causes that were afterward heard by Bishops of the trouble whereof Saint Augustine complaines and which Saint Peter had cause to provide that Clemens should not be oppressed with resorted to them either as arbitrators by consent of parties or as Judges delegated by the secular power in causes limited by their acts And now is the time to answer the objection against the being of the Church and the Protection which is drawn from those bounds which the power of excommunicating challenged by the Church hath been and is confined to by all Christiane states Though having made the question generall I find it requisite to extend also the answer to those other points wherein I have said the right of the Church is seen and upon which the society thereof is founded no lesse then upon the power of excommunicating And then the argument will be to this effect That seeing no Christian can deny that the Lawes the Ordinations the Censures of the Church are lawfully prohibited to take effect by the secular Powers of Christian States therefore the right of doing those acts stands not by Gods Law but by the sufferance and appointment of the same secular Powers chusing whom they please to execute their own rights
by And besides this consequence another will rise that this is the sense of all Christendome to wit where Christians are governed by Christians that there is no such thing as any power of the Church by Gods Law because all Christendome agrees Soveraignes in doing subjects in admitting that it is limitable by the Secular which cannot limit Gods Law but its own This being the force of that objection which is so largly pursued in the first book de Synedriis cap. X. my answer is That having showed how the decrees of the Apostles themselves as for the mater of them are limitable and determinable by the Church to such circumstances as may make them usefull to the Church for another state then that for which they were first made I am to grant that the Lawes also and other acts of the Church may be limited by the secular power as for the execution and exercise of them For as the Society of the Church and all the acts thereof done in virtue of Gods Charter by which it stands supposing Christianity so Christianity supposeth common-wealths that is to say the government of this world in and by those Soveraignties which subsisted when Christianity came into the world or may lawfully come to subsist afterwards For not to dispute for the present whether civill Governement subsist by the law of God or by humane consent seeing it cannot be said to subsist by the same act that is by the same declaration of Gods will by which the Church that is Christianity subsisteth it is manifest that the title by which the Church standeth must not be inconsistent with that title by which civill governement deriveth it self from the will of God And therefore that they may and must suppose one an other Who ever challenges to the Church a power in all civil causes and over all persons to ordaine and by force of their armes to execute what the Church that is those that have right to conclude the Church shall thinke the consideration of Christianity shall require he I grant erecteth a Power destructive to the civill govâ—nement Which to stand tyed to execute a decree that may be contrary to the decree of those that governe is necessarily inconsistent with But that which I say is this That the Church hath power to determine all maters the determination whereof is requisite to mainetain the communion of Christians in the service of God and to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that communion But no power to give execution to them by force of armes which the Soverain power of every state onely moveth Supposing for the present that no armes can be moved but originally from the soveraign nor any thing executed by any force which is not ultimately resolved into the power of the sword which the Soveraige beareth as known to common sense And by consequence I say that the Soveraign power having right to make the acts of the Church Lawes of the state by declaring to concur to the execution of them by the force which it moveth must needs have right to judge whether they be such as Christian powers ought or may concur to execute and accordingly limit the exercise of them But thereby I intend not to grant that Christian powers may not exceed their bounds of right in opposing and suppressing the effects oâ— those acts which may be duely don by the Church nor to dispute this point upon supposition that the particulars related in that X. Chapter I de Synedriis ought to have the esteem of precedents as things well done and within the limits of secular power in Church maters For I have already granted that the power of the Church that is to say of those that pretend it on behalfe of the Church hath so far transgressed the bounds as to suffer the temporall power of the Church in ordine ad spiritualia to be disputed and held being really destructive to all civill Governement and to act too many things not to be justified but upon suspition of it And therefore I think I demand but reason when I take leave â—o suppose that soverâ—â—gne powers are subject to erre as all men are especially in so nice a point as is their owne interest in Church matteâ—s And that these Errors may have proceeded to the hinderance of Christianity even by such acts as were intended to have the force of standing Lawes But what hath been well or ill done in this kind is not my businesse here to dispute That which I have to doe now is in generall to determine in what consideration the civill power which the Church of England granteth to be soveraign in all causes and over all persons both Ecclesiastical Civill in the dominions thereof giveth the acts of the Church the force of the Lawes of the state Which I have already expressed to be two-fold As soveraigne to suppresse whatsoever may seeme to importe an attempt upon the right of it whâ—ch subsisting without the Church iâ— to be maintained against all incrochment of whomsoever may claime in behalfe of the Church And as Christians because civill powâ—r being presupposed to the being of the Church which standeth upon supposition of the truth of Christianity the sword of Christians stâ—nd obliged to protect the Church against all pretenses For seing the society of the Church is a part of Christianity as hath been showed of necessity it followeth that Christian poweâ—s stand obliged by their Christianitie both to protect those that are lawfully possessed of right in the behalfe of the Church of their dominions in the exercise of it and also to restraine them when their acts whether expressely attempted or maintained by use of long time prove prejudiciall to that common Christianity which the being of the church presupposeth But as this necessarily presupposeth that those that claim on behalf of the Church may proceed to actions so prejudiciall to the state as may deserve to be punished or restrained by civill temporal penalties of all degrees So wil it necessarily infer that civill powers may proceed to excesses not onely in their particular actions but also in violating and oppressing the Church that the Church may be obliged to proceede against them by cutting them off from the communion of the Church so that therein subjects do stand obliged not to obey them in violating and oppressing the Church and to abstaine from communicating with them in the mysteries of Christianity continuing neverthelesse obliged to them in all the offices which the maintenance of the state which Christianity presupposeth will require at the hands of good subjects This being said I will summon the common sense of Christendom to give sentence of the truth or likenesse to truth of this argument All Christian Princes and States doe limit the use of Ecclesiasticall power within their owne dominions Therefore they doe not believe any such thing as a Church or any power derived from any Law of God by
divers suppositions of their own which I intend not hereby either to admit or to dispute because it is enough for my turne that we agree in this that the precept of avoiding the Excommunicate is limitable upon such considerations as the constitution and being of the Church presupposeth As the Apostle when he orders the Corinthians not so much as to eat with one that professeth Christianity and yet lives in the sinnes he nameth 1 Cor. V. 11. meaneth the same that he expresseth and signifieth by avoiding an Heretick Titus III. 10. S. John by not bidding him God speed and our Lord by holding him as a Heathen man or a Publicane But he that shall consider the vast difference between the State of Christianity under the Apostles and when the Empire and now severall Soveraignties professe it remembring that Christianity disolves not but maintaines civil Government and every mans estate in it must see this to be one of those Lawes which without limitation become uselesse to the maintenance of the Church and therefore must necessarily be limited that it may be serviceable The ordinary limitation of it by that verse of the Casuists is well enough known Vtile lex humile res ignorata necesse But he that will observe shall find that all these Exceptions to the generall rule of avoiding the Excommunicate are grounded upon that one title of the necessity of this world and the subsistence thereof which the being of the Church presupposeth A man converseth with the excommunicate for his profit to recover a debt This is the necessity of his estate of which he owes God an account in behalfe of his obligations A man or wife converses with wife or husband excommunicate for the bond of mariage This is that necessity which that law presupposed to the foundation of the Church createth Superiours and inferiours converse with one an other excommunicate This is the necessity of their estate which Christianity maintayneth Other necessities are warrantable under the generall title of necessity The necessity of violence or feare why should it not have a place here as well as that of ignorance onely that both are generall justifying all and not onely this kind of actions The necessity of giving and getting good counsaile or almes is all reducible to the same head Wherefore all these considerations resolve themselves into that generall ground which I tender that Christianity supposes the lawfull state of the world according to the reason of civill Government and altereth no mans condition in it of it selfe but maintaineth every man in that estate in which it findeth him as S. Paul argueth at large 1. Corin. VII 17-24 being such as Christianity alloweth By reason whereof the avoiding of the excomunicate easily to be visibly performed by Christians among themselves when their conversation was among many times more men that were not Christians becomes without limitation impossible to be observed of them that live onely with Christians How feasible that obligation is as the Casuists now make it I leave it to them to maintaine or how feasible it may be made This I say that all these reasons conccurre to oblige all Christian subjects not to forbeare the conversation of their Soveraignes The civill Laws of every state the advantage which the state of all subjects doth or may require from the soveraign the inâ—eriority wherein they are and the necessity which all these reasons produce For neither can Christianity pretend to disolve the Law of the land Nor can justice goe forwards without conversation of the subject with the soveraigne And Christianity obligeth superiours and inferiors to maintaine the relations in which it overtaketh them And finally the necessity of these reasons createth an exception even to the Law of the Church communion though setled by our Lord and his Apostles And this as much as to say that the greater Excommunication taketh no place against Soveraignes And this position is so far from being new in England that in my nonage it was disputed at Cambridge upon an eminent occasion at the reception of the Archbishop of Spalato by an expresse order of King James of excellent memory as I conceive I am well informed and thereby satisfied that I maintaine hereby no novelty in the Church of England But those that distinguish not this from the act of S. Ambrose in refusing the communion to the great Theodosius upon a horrible murther done by his expresse commandement may doe well to consider either with what conscience they censure such a Prelate in what they understand not or why they condemne the whole Church whereof all Christians are or ought to be members For how can the Church refuse any Christian the communion if it refuse not the same to all Christians even the soveraigne in that case wherein the condition of all is one and the same And hereby also wee may see what was the opinion of the learned Prince King James concerning this action of S. Ambrose whatsoever may have been said Who had he made question of the lesse excommunication consisting in excluding from the Eucharist would never have caused it to be disputed that the greater hath no place against Soveraigne As concerning the Jurisdiction of the Church in the causes of Christians if the question be made whether or no it now continue that common wealths professe Christianity the argument seemeth peremptory that it doth not continue because then of necessity all civill powers should resolve into the Power of the Church because all Jurisdiction by consequence to this priviledge must needs resolve into the jurisdiction of the Church all causes being the causes of Christians and resorting therefore to the jurisdiction of the Church and therefore no use of secular Courts but the power of the sword must become subordinate to execute the sentence of the Church And therefore seeing that on the otherside the reason why S. Paul forbids them to goe to sute before secular courts is this because they were the Courts of Infidels and that the scandals of Christians were by that meanes published before unbelievers which it is evident was the reason why this course was thought abominable even among the Jewes it is manifest that the jurisdiction of the Church in maters that arise not upon the constitution of the Church though inforced by S. Paul and our Lord ceaseth together with the title and cause of it when secular Powers professe Christianity Which notwithstanding it is a thing well known that the line of Charles the Great in the West revived those privileges which Constantine had granted the Church as his act also is repeaâ—ed in their Capitulares VI. 281. which Gratiane also hath recorded XI Quaest cap. Quicunque From which beginning many sorts of causes especialy such as charity seemed to have most interest in which the Clergy were thought fittest to manage have continued to be sentenced by the Ecclesiastical Court in all Christian dominions Notwithstanding that they rise not upon the constitution
a prejudice peremptorily over-ruling all the pety exceptions that our time hath produced to dissolve this Unity which ought to have been preferred before them had they been just and true as none of them proveth CHAP. XXIV The Service of God to be prescribed in a known Language No pretense that the Latine is now understood The means to preserve Unity in the Church notwithstanding The true reason of a Sacrifice inforceth Communion in the Eucharist What occasions may dispense in it Communion in both kindes commanded the People Objections answered Who is chargeable with the abuse I Would now make one Controversie more how much soever I pretend to abate Controversies than hitherto hath been disputed between the Reformation and the Church of Rome because though wee hear not of it in our books of Controversies yet in deed and in practice it is the most visible difference between the exercice of Religion in the two professions that you can name For what is it that men go to Church for but to hear a Sermon on one side and to hear a Mass on the other side And yet among so many books of Controversies who hath disputed whether a man is rather to go to Church to hear a Sermon or not to hear a Mass but to receive the Eucharist This is the reason indeed why I dispute not this Controversie because the Mass should be the Eucharist but by abuses crept in by length of time is become something else untill I can state the question upon such terms as may make the reason of Reformation visible Whether the celebration of the Eucharist is to be done in a Language which the people for the most part understand not in Latine as the Mass supposing the most part understand it not is first to be setled before wee inquire what it is that Christians chiefly assemble themselves for Though the question concerns not the Eucharist any more than the other offices of Gods publick Service onely as the Eucharist if it prove the principal of them is principally concerned in it I am then to confesse in the beginning that those of the Church of Rome have a strong and weighty objection against mee why they ought not to give way that the Service of the Church though in a form preseribed by the Church as I require should be celebrated in the Vulgar Languages which every people understand The objection is drawn from that which wee have seen come to pass For the Service of the Church the form and terms of it being submitted to the construction of every one because in English hath given occasion to people utterly unable to judg either how agreeable maters excepted against are to Christianity or how necessary the form to the preservation of unity in the Church first to desire a change then to seek it in a way of fact though by dissolving the Unity of this Church For hee that maintains as I do that whatsoever defects the form established may have are not of waight to perswade a change in case of danger to Unity And secondly that those who have attempted the change have not had either the lot or the skill to light upon the true defects of it but to change for the worse in all things considerable must needs affirm that otherwise they could never have had the means to possess mens fansies with those appearances of reason for it which have made them think themselves wise enough to undertake so great a change And truly there is nothing so dangerous to Christianity as a superficial skill in the Scriptures and maters of the Church Which may move them that are puffed up with it to attempt that for the best which it cannot inable them for to see that so it is indeed Whereas they who hold no opinion in maters above their capacity because concerning the state of the whole are at better leisure to seek their salvation by making their benefit of the order provided Seeing then it cannot be denied that the benefit of having the Service of God prescribed by the Church in our Vulgar English hath occasioned so great a mischief as the destruction of it it seems the Church of Rome hath reason to refuse children edge tools to cut themselves with in not giving way to the publick Service of God in the Vulgar Languages Unless it could be maintained that no form ought to be prescribed which is all one as to say that there ought to be no Church in as much as there can be no Unity in the Faith of Christ and the Service of God according to the same otherwise Now that you may judg what effect this objection ought to have wee must remember S. Pauls dispute upon another occasion indeed but from the same grounds and reasons which are to be alleged for the edification of the Church in our case God had stirred up many Prophets in the Church of Corinth together with those who celebrated the mysteries of Christianity in unknown Languages and others that could interpret the same in the Vulgar partly out of an intent to manifest to the Gentiles and Jews his own presence in his Church including and presupposing the truth of Christianity but partly also for the instruction of the people novices in Christianity for a great part in the truth of it and for the celebration of those Offices wherewith hee is to be served by his Church It came to pass that divers puffed up with the conceit of Gods using them to demonstrate his presence among his people took upon them to bring forth those things which the Spirit of God moved them to speak in unknown Languages at the publick assemblies of the Church Who might indeed admire the work of God but could neither improve their knowledg in his truth nor exercice their devotion in his praises or those prayers to him which were uttered in an unknown Language This is that which the Apostle disputeth against throughout the fourteenth Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians making express mention of Prayers Blessings which I have showed to be the consecration of the Eucharist and Psalms ver 14-17-26 and concluding v. 27 28. that no man speak any thing in the Church though it be that doctrine those prayers or praises of God which his own Spirit suggesteth unless there be some body present that can interpret Which what case can there fall out for the Church which it reacheth not For you see S. Paul excludeth out of the Church even the dictates of Gods Spirit evidencing his presence in the Church by miraculous operations unless they may be interpreted for the edification and direction of the Church What can hee then admit for the Service of God in the name of his Church or for the instruction thereof which it can neither be instructed by nor offer unto him for his service Nay what cause can there be why the Church should meet according to S. Paul if there be nothing done that is understood What
cause can be alleged why there should be a Church that is a Body and an authority to Order that Body if there be no Office for which it should assemble because that which it understandeth not is no such Office For I have laid this for a ground that the Society of the Church subsisteth for the Service of God at the common Assemblies of the Church in the Unity of the same Christianity So that though it may be alleged that the Unity of Christianity may be preserved by the Society of the Church though the Service of God be not understood yet the end for which it is preserved is not compassed when the Service of God is not performed by those who understand it not is Christianity requireth Certainly it is a question to be demanded of those of the Church of Rome why they do not preach to the people in Latine as well as they celebrate the rest of Gods Service in that Language if they be content to submit themselves to S. Pauls doctrine For whatsoever reason they can allege why that in the Vulgar and the rest in Latine will rather serve to demonstrate that it would be more visibly ridiculous than that it is any more against S. Pauls doctrine But is it any more to the benefit of Gods people toward the obtaining of their necessities of God that they should assemble to offer him the devotions which they understand not than not to assemble or offer none For whatsoever may be said that the devotions of those who do understand what they do are available to the benefit of those who do not will hold nevertheless though they were not present nor pretended to do that which the Congregation doth provided that they have as good a heart to do that which the Congregation doth as they have being present at it Unless wee suppose that God values their hearts because they are there more than hee would value them being elswhere Nor can I possibly imagine what can be said to all this but onely in abatement of that ignorance in the Latine of the Church service which the Nations of the Western Church may be supposed to attain to whether by custome of being used alwayes to the same form or because the Vulgar languages of Italy Spain and France being derived from the Latine may inable even unletered people to understand that or the most part of that which is said in Latine at the Church service which is the reason why the Jews after their return from Captivity having changed their Mother Hebrew into the vulgar tongue of the Babylonians and Châ—ldeans being indeed derived from it with lesse change then the Italian from the Latine maintained notwithstanding the service of God in their originall Hebrew so farr as we are able to understand by the circumstances produced elsewhere And though at this present some parts of it are rather Chaldeâ— then Hebrew yet they are now in such a condition that a great many of them are not able to attain either that language or the Hebrew but speak and understand onely that language where they are bred the service which they use in their Synagogues remaining in the Hebrew And the Greeks at this day having got a vulgar language as much differing from the ancient learned Greek as the Italian from the Latine notwithstanding cease not to exercise the serviceâ— of God in the learned Greek which they understand not Which the Western Nations and Nothern may continue to do with as little burthen as they voluntarily undergo least they should give the minds of rude people cause to make more doubt then they see upon a change which they see And truly I do think this consideration of preserving unity in the Church of such weight that I do not think it was requisite when the Latine tongue began to be worn out of use by litle and litle through the breaches made by the Germane Nations upon the Western Empire that the service of the Church should straight-way be put into the Languages of those Nations who were every day changing their languages and learning the Latine or rather framing new languages by mixing their own with the Latine Neither will I undertake to determine the time the state in which the Church first becomes or became obliged to provide this change for the same reason For it is evident that it had not been possible to preserve correspondence and intercourse between all these Nations with the maintenance of unity in that Christianity which while this change was making they had received had not the knowledge of the Latine among them made it reasonable to continue the use of it in the Church service But as the case is now that a totall change of the Latine into new languages hath been accomplished and that the greatest part of Christian people by many parts are by no means able to learn what is done at the service of the Church confiningit to the Latine I must needs count it strange that the example of the modern Jews in their Synagogues or those miserably oppressed Christans in Turky should be alleged as to prove that there is nothing to oblige the whole Church to provide betâ—r for all Christians then those Churches do for their people or the Jews for their Synagogues when we dispute what ought to be done We should rather look to the originall practice of Christendom which there may be reason to intitle unto the Apostles and consequently the changes that may have succeeded to a defect of succeeding ages failing and coming short of their institutions then allege the practice of the Jews which the Christians have so litle cause to envy that they may well conclude them to be a people forsaken of God by the litle appearance of Religion in the offices which they serve God with or the necessities of ignorant and persecuted Christians for a rule to Churches flourishing with knowledge and means of advancing Gods service If from he beginning when by the means of those who spoke Greek and Latine or other languages used within the Empire from whence the tidings of the Gospel came other Nations had received the service of God in those languages wherein the Churches of Rome Constantinople Alexandria or Antiochia or possibly other Churches from which their Christianity was planted did celebrate it they might with some colour of reason have argued that so it ought to continue in the Western Church But since it appeareth that the service of God hath been prescribed in the Arabick the Syriack the Ethiopick the Coptick the Sclavonian the Russe and other â—orâ—ain languages what can a man inferr from the practice of the Church of Rome not allowing the Saxons in Britain the Germanes in Almane and the North and Eastland Countries the Slavonians in Pole and Boheme and other parts the service of God in their Mother tongues towards the disputes of this time that they ought not to be allowed it but the inhansing of the Popes Power