great but I mean in Christ and in the Church The mariage of Adam with Eve was intended by God for a figure and prophesie of the incarnation of Christ and his spiritual mariage with the Church by virtue of it as the Scripture wheresoever it speaks of the first and second Adam declareth Therefore as I said their mariage was an indissoluble union of one with one as the mariage of Christians which reviveth it Be the mariage of Christians then a Sacrament as much as any man would have it to be be it a commemoration if Adams was a prediction of the incarnation of Christ and of his mariage with the Church Let it contain a promise of Grace to them that exercise it as Christians should do it is therefore indissoluble in the point of right I confesse that is to say it is the profession of an obligation upon the parties to hold it indissoluble But is it therefore indissoluble in point of fact May not the obligation so professed be transgressed And is not mariage a civill contract even among Pagans and Infidels and that by Gods appointment And may not the Law which God â—â—ath restrained the mariage of Christians to presuppose the conditions of a civill contract And are not civill contracts void when one party transgresseth the condition on which they are made Or cannot mariage signifie the mariage between Christ and his Church cannot the observation of it oblige God to give grace unlesse we understand all such conditions thereby to be extinguished The union of the word with our flesh the union of Christ with his Church depends onely upon that effectuall Grace which himself purposed from everlasting because as I said upon supposition of our perseverance The union of Wife and Husband signifies it no lesse though the obligation being transgressed it may become void But how shall marying as a Christian should mary be the means to obtain Grace unlesse as well the union as that promise may be forfeited by transgressing the condition upon which it is made The cheife difficulty then lies in the words of our Lord Mat. V. 30. 31. XIX 3-9 in which I must in the first place consider that there are diverse things observable in them to show that our Lord though he declared not openly that the Gentiles should imbrace Christianity and the Jews refuse it yet neverthelesse propounds it so that he must be understood to intend it for the Gentiles so converted as well as for the Jews That of Origen in the first place For the Law appointing death for the punishment of adultery what need the exception of adultery to the Jews among whom divorce for adultery was death Secondly his words in S. Mark X. 11. 12. Who so â—utteth away his wife and marietâ— another committeth adultery against her and if a wife put away her Husband and mary another she committeth adultery For by the Jews Law though the Husband might put away his wife yet the wife could not put away her Husband And though Josephus report that Herods sister Salome sent her Husband a Bill of divorce yet he reports it as that which never was done afore and therefore cannot be thought to have come to a custome in our Lords â—ime Thirdly how could our Lord say according to the Jews Law that he who maried a woman divorced committeth adultery when as what hindred a man then to mary a divorced wife out of meer charity to keep her from committing adultery Lastly if we consider S. Pauls wordes whereby he teacheth as I have showed that the wife having the same interesse in the Husband as the Husband in the wife by the Christian Law the wife can no more leave her Husband then the Husband the wife 1 Cor. VII 1-5 I. 11. it will appear that his Doctrine extending to the condition of man and wife by the then Romane Law is derived as it must needs be derived from this sense of his Masters Seeing then that divorce not onely among the Jews but among â—he Romanes was alwayes understood to dissolve the bond of Mariage what appearance can there be that our Lord when he sayeth He that putteth away his wife unlesse for adultery and marieth another committeth adultery and he that marieth her who is put away committeth adultery intendeth not to extend the exception to marying again as well as to putting away And therefore that he who putteth away for adultery she who is not put away for adultery may mary again For if those whom he spoke to could understand nothing by divorce but that which they saw and the divorce which they saw or heard of inabled all parties to mary again then that divorce which the exception of fornication allows by our Lords law understanding that exception inables to mary again Two reasons are opposed from our Lords words First in S. Mark X. 12. S. Luke XVI 18. the exception is not expressed and yet it is said He that puts away his wife and maries another commits adultery To which it is answered That the Gospels are as S. Justine the Martyr calls them remembrances of the sayings and doings of our Lord the effect whereof was delivered to and received by them who were baptized as the Law of Christianity And that therefore in recording them it was thought enough to remember the heads of those things which were undertaken to be believed and observed That therefore all that undertake to expound the four Gospels do use to adde whatsoever any of them hath more then the one which he hath in hand to make up his sense In fine therefore that in this point the sense of our Lord is not to be measured by that which S. Mark and S. Luke hath lesse but that which S. Matthew hath more And therefore that when our Lord saith He that puts away his wife and maries again commits adultery And he that maries her that is put away commits adultery He is to be understood with this exception unlesse for adultery It is objected secondly That by this account she that is put away for adultery may mary again and neither her selfe noâ— he that maries her be chargeable with adultery which were a gross inconvenience that by the Law of our Lord a woman by committing adultery or man in like case should advantage himselfe to mary again with a good conscience For if it be true He that puts away but for adultery and maries again and he that maries her who is put away but for adultery commits adultery then will it follow that he who puts away his wife for adultery and maries another and he that maries her that is so put away commits no adultery To which I answer that it follows not that our Lord so saying should mean this consequence But rather that he who maries her that is put away for adultery commits adultery much more Though he who puts her away is no cause of it neither chargeable with adultery for marying again For if the Husband be chargeable with adultery when the wife maries again being not put away
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
guilty of those excesses which they are charged with by Epiphanius S. Jerome and others Of these particulars you may see in S. Augustine de Haeresibus and Sirmondus his Praedestinatus both of them Haeresi XXVI and LXXXVI But all the while the subject of this separation is the discipline of Penance received by the whole Church as from the Apostles the limitation of the practice thereof being the ground upon which the difference is stated And for the ground of this ground Whether it could then be pretended that the Keyes of the Church could do no more then cure the scandall of notorious sinne on the one side Or whether it could then be pretended on the other side that the Keyes of the Church import any Power to pardon sinne immediately not supposing that disposition which qualifieth for pardon visible to the Church and procured by those actions which the authority of the Church injoyneth All this I am content to referre to that common sense which is capable to understand these particulars I shall not need to say much of the Novatians at Rome and elsewhere the Donatists in Africk of the Meletians in Aegypt having said this of the Montanists all of them if we regard the subject of the separations which they made in severall parts of the Church being nothing else but branches of the same sect and forsaking the unity of the Church for their part of that cause which ingaged Montanus The Novatians because they would not indure that those who fell away from the Faith in the persecution of Decius should be readmitted to the communion of the Church upon demonstration of repentance The Meletians for the same cause in Aegypt under the persecution of Diocletiane The Donatists upon some appertenâ—nce of the same cause Onely they serve to evidence the discipline of Penance to have been as universall as the Church of Christ when no part of it is found free from debates about the terms liâ—iting the exercise of it They serve also to evidence the ground and the pretenâ—e of the Power of the Keyes in the discipline of Penance by the same reason which I alledged afore After these times when the customes of the Church which from the beginning was governed by un-written Law delivered by word of mouth of the Apostles but limited more and more by the Governours of several Churches began to be both reduced into writing and also more expresly determined by the Canons of severall Councils greater and lesse it were too vain to prove that by dicourse which of it selfe is as evident as it is evident that there are such Rules extant which in their time had the force of Law to those parts of the Church for which they were respectively made Onely I do observe the agreement that is found between the originall practice of the Church in this point and that order which I have showed you out of the Apostles writings evidencing that interpretation which I have given of them by that rule which common sense inforces that the meaning and intent of every Law is to be measured by the primitive practice of it For we see so much doubt made whether those three great crimes of Idolatry Murther and Adultery were to be reconciled by Penance that is by the visible and outward demonstration of inward repentance to the Church not onely by Montanus but partly by Novatianns that that great Church of Antiochia remained doubtfull a great while whether Cornelius or Novatians should be acknowledged the true Bishop of Rome We see the Eliberitane Canons which were unquestionably made divers years before the Council at Nicaea and therefore may be counted as ancient as any that the Church hath exclude some branches of those sinnes from reconciliation with the Church We see this vigor abated by the succeeding discipline of the Church It is indeed said in the Church of Rome at this time that the ground of the Heresie as without ground they call it of the Montanists and Novatians was this that acknowledging the Church to have power to forgive lesse sinnes they the Novatians denied it the Power to forgive Apostasy or Idolatry To which the Montanists added Murther and Adultery But I have showed in my Book of the Right of the Church p. 17-27 that within the Church also as well as among the Montanists and Novatians some of these sinnes were not admitted to communion no not at the point of death And that there never was any opinion in the ancient Church that the Church hath any Power to forgive sinne immediately but onely by the medicine of Penance which it injoyneth I referre my selfe to that which here followeth Now it is plain that neither those parts of the Church nor the Novatians did hold those sinnes desperate but exhorted them to Penance as their cure in Gods sight agreeing in not readmitting them whither for the maintenance of Discipline or for fear the Church warranting their pardon who might prove not qualified for it should become guilty of their sinnes according to S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man nor partake in other mens sinnes For S. John and the Apostle to the Hebrews had authorized the Church to make difficulty of it though S. Paul had readmitted a branch of one of them the incestuous person at Corinth whether for the unity of that Church then in danger to be divided upon that occasion or as reasonably satisfied of the truth of his repentance But when the zeal of Christianity decreased as the number of Christians increased within and persecution without withdrew so many that there was no means left to preserve the Body without abating this severity the number of Apostates in some persecutions being considerable to the number of Christians we need seek no other reason why the Montanists and Novatians should be Schismaticks not properly Hereticks then their separating from the Church rather then condescend to that which the Body of the Church found requisite to be granted Let us see what crimes they are which the Eliberitane Canons that is the Canons of the Council of Elvira in Spain exclude from the communion even in case of death As if a man at age after Baptism commit adultery in the Temple of an Idol cap. I. If an Idol Priest having been baptized shall sacrifice again II. If such a one after Penance shall have committed adultery III. If a Christian kill a man by Witchcraft wherein there is Idolatry VI. If a Christian commit adultery after Penance VII If a Woman leaving her Husband without cause mary another VIII If a Father or Mother sell a child into the Stews or a child it selfe XII If a professed Virgine shall live in uncleannesse XIII If a man marry his daughter to an Idol Priest XVII If a Clergy-man commit adultery XVIII If he who is admitted to communion upon adultery in danger of death shall commit adultery again XLVII If a Woman kill the childe which she hath conceived of adultery
secure them that put away their wives under the law in point of conscience to God And it is certain if that be true which I have setled in the second Book concerning the inward and outward the civill and spirituall obedience of God under Moses law and the difference between them that it could not alwaies do it For could he that knâ—w he put away his wife for â—ust or for wrath or for advantage think that he loved his wife whom all men know they are to love above others being bound to love all Israelites as himselfe But on the contrary he that had lighted upon a wife of crooked conditions and having done his reasonable indeavour to reclaim her had found her incorrigible how should he think he did her wrong using the power that Gods law had given him so moderately in putting her away Had God given them a Law which could in no case be used without sinne For had the nakednesse which the law allowed for a just cause of divorce signified nothing else but that which our Lord by his Gospel allows what question remains whither the conscience be secured by it or not But among Christians covenanting with God upon express promises of the world to come under a 〈◊〉 and more excellent rule of obedience with promise of helps proportionable to go through with it it is marvail if an obligation be acknowledged of bearing with patience the maners of the wife vvhich a man himselfe chuses never giving over the hope of reducing her to reason until she falsifie the trust of wedlock That when the mater is come to that point it should no more be mater of precept but mater of counsail to indure such a wife when the infamy of a mans bed my be saved and hope of reclaiming her may remain So that the question whether the meaning of Moses his words be the meaning of Christs is the same in this particular of mariage vvhich the Christians have generally with the Jews whether our Lord Jesus persiting the Lavv by bringing in the Gospell be the Christ or not The resolution whereof as it necessarily infers the difference between them which I have setled in the second Book so that difference vvill as necessarily inferre this provision of our Lord to be severall from that of Moses Out of Origen in Mat. VII a pleasant conceit is alleged Forsitan audax aliquis Judaicus vir adversus doctrine Salvatoris nostri dicet quoniam Jesus dicens Qui cunque dimi serit uxorem suam exceptâ causâ fornicationis facit â—â—â— machari permiâ—it uxo em dimittere quem ad modum Moyses quâ—m retulit propter duritiem cordiâ— Judâ—orum hoc prâ—cepisse Et hanc ipsam inquiet esse causam fornicationis per quam juste uxâ—r à viro dimittitur secundum quam Moyses praecepit dimitterâ— uxorem si inventa fuerit res turpis in â—â Perhaps some bold Jewish fellow may say crossing our Saviours Doctrine that even Jesus saying Whosoever shall send away his wife but for fornication makes her comâ—â—it adultery hath given leave to put a wife away even as Moses who he relareth did command this for the Jews hard-heartednesse And will say that this is the very same cause of fornication for which a wife is justly put away by a Husband according to which Moses also commands to put away a wife if a foul thirg be found in her Whence it is argued that there were then that expounded our Lords words to the same intent vvith Moses That there were Origen sayes not that there might be I grant But they must be Jews and adversaries to our Saviours Doctrine that should do it For he that should say so must blame our Saviour for pretending to contradict Moses vvhich Origen supposeth no Jevv could deny saying indeed the same thing Othervvise he must contradict the Synagogue for allowing divorce where Moses allowed it not if the soul thing which Moses allows divorce for be onely that fornication for which our Lord allows it Then he that would make use of Origen to prove that the terms of our Lord and of Moses may signifie the same thing must first answer the Argument wherewith he convinces him that thus should blaspheme our Lord. Adultery saith he is no cause of divorce but of death by Moses law therefore that dishonest thing for which the Law allows divorce is not adultery In fine he that examines all that is said or can be said of the diverse significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures will find but two the one proper in the case of man and wife the other by translation to the alliance between God and his people perpetually compared to a mariage all over the Scripture That this signification cannot take place here this may serve to evidence That the cause upon which our Lord allovvs divorce must be something betvveen the Wife and the Husband as it vvas in the Lavv For vvould it not be impertinent to punish transgression of Gods Covenant vvith dissolution of vvedlock The proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed is larger in the Scriptures then according to the Atrick Greek to signifie all uncleannesse at the mater requires For vvhen S. Paul sayes 1 Cor. V. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a man to have his Fathers wife would not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ordinary Greek But it is no marvail if the Jews that spoke Greek call all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which their usuall language called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our Lords words is exactly expounded by Hesychius and the Etymologick turning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who being Christians do usually expound that proâ—erty of the Greek which is usuall among Christians out of the Bible And this is demonstrated to be the signification here meant because it is not possible to show that ever there was any opinion rule or practice received in the Church that it is lawfull to divorce but in case of Adultery I do truly conceive that there was anciently a difference of opinion and practice in the Church whither it be lawfull to mary again upon putting away a wife for adultery or whether the bond of mariage remain undissoluble when the parties are separated from bed and bord for adultery But this difference argues consent in the rest that is that excepting the case of Adultery there is no divorce to be among Christians Neither do I now speak of the base times of the Eastern Empire of which I will give you such an account as I find most reasonable when I come to the difficulty that is proposed I say it may appear that the Church originally granted no divorce but for adultery whether the innocent party or whether both were allowed to mary again living the other or not It is acknowledged by our Author that Tertullian cont Marc. IV. 34. de Pudicitiâ— cap.
for adultery why is he chargeable with it that put her away for adultery If because he maries again not putting his wife away for adultery putting her away for adultery why is he chargeable with it The difficulty will be Then is the knot of wedlock tied to the one party and loose to the other which seems a knot more indissoluble then that of wedlock but is indeed none at all if we distinguish between the metaphor of a knot tied and the obligation signified by it For though the act of consent to the contract of wedlock is the act of two parties whereof a third that is God is depositary to discharge the innocent and to charge the guilty yet the bond or obligation which is contracted by it is answerable severally by each party in the judgement of God And is there the same reason that God should call him to account for adultery who thinks himselfe free of that contract which he stood to till his party transgressed it as her that gave him cause to think himselfe free by transgressing it The difficulty then rests in the meaning of S. Paul when he châ—rgeth the wife not to depart from her Husband If she do to abidâ— unmaried or to be reconciled to her Husband And the Husband not to put away his wife 1 Cor. VII 12. And that having before charged maried people not to part even for devotion but for a time for fear of temptation by concupiscense For can it then be imagined that he allows them to part upon any occasion but that of adultery Therefore those that are parted for adultery he forbids to marry again And these are the Texts that have moved S. Jerome Epist XLVII to be of this mind But S. Austine further expounding the Sermon in the mount upon this supposition as he himselfe professes in the beginning of his books de adultrinis conjugiis written expresse to maintain it and desiring to show how our Lords Law injoyns the same with his Apostles imagines that our Lord might mean spirituall fornication or adultery according to which the Psalme saies Thou hast destroyed all that commit fornication against thee when he gave it Which sense compriseth all sinne that carieth with it a construction of departing from our Covenant with God both in truth and according to S. Austine de Sermone domini in monte I. 16. Whereupon the Mileritane Canon XVII speaks thus Placuit ut secundum Evangelicam Apostolicam disciplinam ueque dimissus ab uxore neque dimissa à marito alteri conjungantur sed ita maneant auâ— sibi reconcilientur Quod si contempserint ad poenitentiam redigantur In qua causà legem Iâ—perialem petendam promulgari It seemed good that according to the discipline of the Gospel and the Apostles neither he that is dimissed by his wife nor she that is dimissed by her husband be wedded to another but remain so or be reconciled to one another which if they neglect that they be put to Penance and that request be made for an Imperial Law to be published in the case Where alleging the Gospel and S. Paul both it is plain the Canon proceeds upon the opinion of S. Austine For he was at this Council and in all probability had the penning of the Canons That which moved them to be of this opinion I confesse moves me to be against it I cannot be perswaded that S. Paul in this place and our Lord in the Gospel speak both to one and the same purpose All subjects of the Romane Empire when S. Paul writ had power to leave their wives or their husbands at pleasure without giving the Law account But supposing them Christians were they not to give God account were they not to give the Church account Certainly if they maried again they must give the Church account because our Lord hath said He that leaveth his wife but for adultery and marieth again committeth adultery For of adultery account is to be given the Church And truly who parts with a wife it is great odds does it out of a desire to mary another which all the Church agrees he cannot do unlesse she be an adulteresse part of it sayes further though she be he cannot do it But if he mary not another but part with his wife he must give God account whether he be bound to give the Church account or not And this account S. Paul instructs how to give He will not have Christians to part bed and bord much less to repudiate to part families to send one another a way with that which they brought but if they will needs try how good it is living unmarried he would have them know that they could not mary elsewhere because of our Lords Law which in case of fornication he silently excepteth For to me it seemeth manifest that our Lord in case of fornication provideth for the reparation of the party wronged whose bed and issue is concerned restraining the divorce which the law allowed onely to the transgression of mariage inâ—cted by the institution of Paradise when two continue not one flesh But S. Paul for the conscience of particular Christians upon what terms they may or ought to forbear â—ohabitation to wit so as they mary not again Which is exhortation enough to set aside animosities and return to bed and bord again S. Austine and Venerable Bede upon the Gospel following him confesse that according to their interpretation our Lord permits to part not for the fornication which the other party hath done but for that which himselfe may do To wit which by the company of an ill disposed yoke-fellow he may be moved to do So divorce according to this opinion is grounded upon the precept of the Gospel If thine eye offend thee pluck it out and is that which the Church of Rome at this day maintaineth by the XXVI Session of the Council of Trent Can. VIII and that as I think according to S. Paul onely that he leaves it to the Conscience of particular Christians without interessing the Church the interest whereof I conceive cannot be excluded though S. Paul here provide not for it as Cardinall Bellarmine de Matrimoniâ— I. 14. disputeth But in case of adultery it never was nor ever could seem questionable so as S. Paul to decide it whither a man might so put away his wife or no all Civill Law that then was counting him accessory to the stain of his bed and issue that did not And thereupon the ancient Canons of the Church imposing penalties upon any of the Clergy who being allowed to dwell with their wives should indure an adulteresse And therefore I conclude that S. Paul though he allow not either husband or wife to part with wife or husband as to cohabitation without renouncing the bond of wedlock no not for the state of continence as S. Austine very well argues if not for continence then for no
Epist IX ad Probum Statuimus fide Catholica suffragante illud esse conjugium quod primitus erat divina gratia fundatum Conventumque secundaemulieris priore superstite nec divortio ejectâ nullo pacto posse esse legitimum We decree the Catholick faith voting for it that to be mariage which first was founded upon Gods grace that was first made according to Christianity and that the wedding of a second wife leaving the first can by no means be lawful Which exception could possibly signifie nothing if in no case not of adultery a second could be maried while the first is alive And in the West Chromatius of Aquileia in Mat. V. as well as in the East Asterius Homil. an liceat dimittere uxorem the first damns him that shall mary again excepting adultery The second would have his hearers perswaded that nothing but death or adultery dissolves mariage But do I therefore say that the Church cannot forbid the innocent party to mary again or is bound by Gods law to allow it All Ecclesiastical Law being nothing but the restraining of that which Gods Law hath left indefinite And the inconveniences being both visible and horrible I conceive I am duly informed that George late Arch-bishop of Canterbury was satisfied in the proceeding of the High Commission Court to tie them that are divorced from marying again upon experience of adultery designed upon collusion to free the parties from wedlock having been formerly tender in imposing that charge The Greek Church may beter avoid such inconveniences not being tied to any Law of the Land but the tempering of the Canons remaining in the Governors of the Church But they that would not have the Lawes of the Church and the justice of the Land became Stales and pandars to such vilanies must either make adultery death and so take away the dispute or revive publick Penance and so take away the infamy of his bed and the taint of his issue that shall be reconciled to an Adulteresse or lastly bear with that inconvenience which the casualties of the world may oblige any man to which is to propose the chastity of single life in stead of the chastity of wedlock when the security of a mans conscience and the offence of the Church allows it not But though this in regard of the intricacies of the question and the inconveniences evident to practice may remain in the power of the Church yet can it never come within the power of the Church to determine that it is prejudiciall to the Christian faith to do so as by Gods Law And the Church that erres not in prohibiting mariage upon divorce for adultery will erre in determining for mater of faith that Gods law prohibites it so long as such reasons from the Scriptures are not silenced by any Tradition of the whole Church It is easie to see by S. Augustine de adulterini conjugiis II. 5-12 that publick Penance was the means to restore an adulteresse to the same reputation among Christians which an adulteresse that turned Christian must needs recover among Christians And that is the reason why the Canon of Arles orders that young Christians be advised not to mary again that their wives may be recovered of their adultery by Penance and so their mariage re-estated I see also that Justiniane Nov. CXVII hath taken order that women excessive in incontinence be delivered to the Bishop of the City to be put into a Monastery there to do Penance during life And supposing adultery to be death according to Moses Law the inconvenience ceaseth If the Civil Law inable not the Church to avoid the scandall of this collusion it is no marvail that the Church is constrained to impose upon the innocent more then Gods law requires to avoid that scandall which Gods law makes the greater inconvenience And thus having showed you that S. Austines interpretation of fornication is not true I have into the bargain showed you that it cannot serve to prove divorce upon other causes besides adultery and so the insolubility of mariage excepting our Saviours exception is as firmly proved as the consent of the Church can prove any thing in Christianity I know Origen argues that poysoning killing children robbing the house may be as destructive to the Society of Wedlock as Adultery And he thereupon seems to inferre that our Saviour excepts adultery onely for instance intending all causes equally destructive to wedlock as Grotius who follows his sense seems to limit it But Origens opinion will not interrupt the Tradition of the Church unlesse it could appear to have come into practice sometime in some part of the Church Neither would it serve his turn that would have those divorces which the secular Power allowes to extend to marying again For Origen never intended that his own opinion should bind but that it is in the power of the Church to void mariages upon other causes For he saith he knew some Governours of Churches suffer a woman to mary her former husband living Praeter Scripturam besides the Scripture And that as Moses permitted divorce to avoid a greater mischiefe But I may question whether they thought that against the Scripture which Origen thought to be against the Scripture And in the mean time as I do not see what breach his report can make upon the Tradition of the Church so it is plain the Power of the Church and not the secular did that which he reports And truly what the testimony of S. Austine extending that Adultery upon which our Saviour grants divorce to all mortall sinne but confining him that is so divorced not to mary another can avail him that would intitle the secular Power to create causes of divorce to the effect of marying again let all reason and conscience judge I shall conclude my argument Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis An exception settles the rule in all that is not excepted Either our Saviour intended that who had put away a Yoke-fellow for adultery should mary again or not If so he hath forbidden marying again upon other causes If not much more For though upon adultery he hath forbidden to mary again And thus is the Power of the Church in Matrimoniall causes founded upon the Law which our Lord Christ hath confined all Christians to of marying one to one and indissolubly whither without exception or excepting adultery For seeing that of necessity many questions must arise upon the execution of such a Law and that Civil Power may as well be enemy to Christianity as not and that as well professing to maintain it as professing to persecute it to say that God hath left the Consciences of Christians to be secured by the Civil Power submitting to what it determines is to say that under the Gospell God hath not made the observing of his lawes the condition of obtaining his promises This is that power which Tertulliane in several places expresly voucheth de Pudicitiâ cap. IV. Penes nos speaking
the Synod of Antiochia mad when they writ the Leter which you may reade in Eusebius VII 30. in the name of the Churches represented by that Synod to the rest of the Churches in Christendome signifying the sentence of deposition pronounced against Samosatenus and requiring them to joyn with it If it be madnesse to think them so mad as to summon the rest of the Churches upon an obligation which they did not acknowledge what shall it be to think that this obligation was but imaginary or at least voluntarily contracted not inacted by the will of our Lord declared by his Apostles The Emperor Aurelian being appealed by the Council to cause Samosatenus to be put our of his Bishops house by force who maintained himself in it by force against the sentence of the Synod decreed that possession should be given to him whom the Christian Bishops of Italy and Rome should acknowledge for Bishop by writing to him under that title Certainly this Heathen Emperor in referring the execution of the Synods decree to the consent of those remarkable parts of the Church whereupon the consent of the rest might reasonably be presumed understood the constitution of the Church by his five senses better than those learned Christians of our time who argue seriously that this Paulus Samosatenus was not excommunicated by the Synod of Antiochia but by the Emperor Aurelian For this is the course by which all the acts of the whole Church ever came in force those parts of the Church which were not present at the doing of them concurring ex postfacto to inact them and the civil power to grant the execution of them by secular power Perhaps it will not be fit here to let passe that which Athanasius relates libro de sontentiâ Dionysii Alexandrini That this Dionysius writing against Sabellius gave occasion to the Bishops of Pentapolis who resorted to the Church of Alexandria as wee see by the VI Canon of Nicaea to suspect him of that which afterwards was the Heresie of Arius And that Dionysius of Rome being made acquainted by them with a mater of that consequence to the whole Church this Dionysius writ him an Apology on purpose to give satisfaction of his Faith wherein S. Athanasius hath great cause to triumph that the Heresie of Arius which arose afterwards is no lesse condemned than that of Sabellius presently on foot Grant wee that it was an office of Christian charity to tender this satisfaction where it was become so requisite The example of Samosatenus shows that their addresse tended to question if not to displace their Bishop by the authority of the rest of the Church ingaging the consent of his own had hee been discovered to harbor the contrary Heresie to that of Sabellius And indeed what was the rise of all those contentions about Arius that succeeded in the Church after the Council of Nicaea but this question whether Arius should be re-admitted one of the Presbyters of the Church at Alexandria or remaine excommunicate And those truly that do not believe there is any Church but a Congregation that assembles together for the service of God must needs think all Christendome stark mad for so many years together as they labored by so many Synods to attain an agreement through the Church in this and in the cause of Athanasius that depended upon it But those who believe the power of the Church to eschere to the State when it declares it selfe Christian must think the Emperors Constantius and Valens mad when they put themselves to that trouble and charâ—e of so many Synods to obtain that consent of the Church which in point of right their own power might have commanded without all that ado In the decrees of divers of those many Synods that were held about this businesse you shall finde that those Churches which the said decrees are sent to are charged not to write to the Bishops whom they depoâ—e That is to say Not to give them the stile of Bishops not to deal with them about any thing concerning the Church but to hold them as cut off from the Church Just as the Emperor Aurelian afore commanded possession to be delivered to him whom the Bishops of Italy and Rome should write to as Bishop This little circumstance expresses the means by which the communion of the Church was maintained To wit by continual intercourse of leters and messengers from Churches to Churches whereby the one understood the proceedings of the other and being satisfied of the reason of them gave force and execution to them within their own Bodies And this course being visibly derived from the practice of the Apostles sufficeth to evidence the Unity of the Church established by the exercise of that communication which maintained it When wee see the Apostles from the Churches upon which they were for the time resident dare Leters to other Churches signifying the Communion of those Churches one with another by the communion of all with the Apostles who taught and brought into force the termes and conditions upon which they were to communicate one with another have wee not the pattern of that intercourse and communion between several Churches by which common sense showeth all them that look into the records of the Church that the Unity and Communion of the whole was continued to after ages The words of Tertullian de praescript haeret cap. XX. must not be omitted here Itaque tot ac tantae Ecclesiae una est illa ab Apostolis prima ex qua omnes Sic omnes prima Apostolicae duâ— unà omnes probant veritatem Dum est illis communicatio pacis appellatio fraternitatis contesseratio hospitalitatis Quae jura non alia ratio regit quam ejusdem Sacramenti una traditio Therefore so many and so great Churches are all that one primitive Church from the Apostles out of which all come So all are the primitive and Apostolical while all agree in proving the truth While they have the communication of peace the title of brotherhood the common mark of hospitality Which rights nothing but the same tradition of the same mystery ruleth It is to be known that among the Greeks and Romans if a man had made acquaintance and friendship in a forrain City the fashion was to leave a mark for a pledge of it with one another which was called tessexa upon recognisance whereof hee that should come to the place where the other dwelt was not onely to be intertained by him whereupon these friends are called hospites signifying both hosts and guests but also assiisted in any businesse which hee might have in that place Such a kinde of right as this Tertullian saith there was between Christians and Christians between Churches and Churches Hee that produced the cognisance of the Church from whence hee came found not onely accesse to the communion of the Church to which hee came but assistance in his necessities and business in the name of a Christian
Epiphanes but trusting in God for deliverance The rest serving to fill up the relation I will not say so much of the book of Tobit because it is so farr from creating any difficulty in point of time that it helps very much to dissolve those difficulties which are made otherwise But this I will confidently say that supposing it to be a meer parable relating what hapned to a true Israelite in whom was no guile continuing faithfull to God and to his people in a difficult time of persecution it will be of no lesse consequence to the animating of Christians in the like course then supposing the thing related to have come to pass As for the History of Susanna what pains Origen hath taken to perswade the learned Julius Africanus for to him as wee learn by S. Jerome in Catalogo his leter of this subject is directed that it is a true story every man that will take the pains to peruse that leter may see Some say that the Jews have the same story differing in the relation of it in that they make the two Elders to be punished by Nebucadnezar not by their own people And though Origen is witnesse that the Jews had the Power of the Sword sometimes in their dispersions Yet under the Chaldeans when they were lately transplanted it is like enough they had it not For these two Elders the Jews they will have to be Ahab and Colaiah of whom you reade Jer. XXIX 21. And truly there is appearance that this relation being delivered from hand to hand among the Jews was at length penned by some of them that used the Greek and so added to the Greek Bible For you have in the Great Bible two several Editions of it in the Syriack much differing one from the other in litle circumstances Though one of them gives the two Elders other names than the Jews do Which as it will not allow the Writing to be inspired by God so will it inforce as much edification from it not detracting from the truth of it For what doth it detract that hee that writ it useth an allusion from the names of Trees under which they accuse her to have committed uncleannesse which the Greek onely bears Daniel answering to him that saw her under a Holm tree in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him that said under a Mastick tree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is indeed an argument that hee who penned it in Greek was willing to bring in a figure to set forth a conceit which the Ebrew would not bear for Origen cannot perswade mee that there can have been those names for these trees in the Ebrew though now unknown to us vvhich hold the same allusion a chance of ten thousand to one but is the writing of ever the lesse effect and consequence to the incouraging and vvarning of Gods people to vvalk in his Lavv I vvill here adde the consideration of that vvhich I observe to be common to many of them and in my opinion serves to shovv hovv much there is in them of the sense of the Nevv Testament and of the doctrine of our Lord and his Apostles This consideration rises thus S. Jerome in his Preface to the Books of Solomon saith that some ancient Church Writers ascribe the Book of Wisedom to Philo the Jevv Not meaning as hee expresly addeth that Philo that lived under Caligula vvhose works wee have but another that lived under Onias the High Priest Therefore whatsoever may have been said since S. Jerome of the author of this book cannot make it to be of the age of Caligula S. Augustine de Civ Dei XVII 20. saith that Ecclesiasticus and it both have been ascribed to Solomon as S. Jerome also in Dan. IX saith that Ecclesiasticus was then called Solomons Wisedome propter nonnullam eloquii similitudinem Because there is some resemblance between the frame of Solomons stile and that which they use Which as it is most true so is it manifest that there is no maner of resemblance between the stile of them and of our Philo. As for the mater of the work the addresse which hee maketh to the Kings and Princes and Judges of the earth I. a. VI. 1 2-10 22. manifesteth that it is intended for an exhortation to the Gentiles under whose power Gods people was not to persecute them for serving the onely true God but rather to learn the knowledg and worship of him themselves This is the occasion of setting forth the Wisedom of God from whence the Law in which the wisedom of the Nation consisted according to Moses Deut. IV. 6 7. came and which dwelt afterwards as in Solomon so in the rest of the Prophets and Patriarchs from Adam downwards as you may see from that sixth Chapter in the processe of the Book This is the intent of that which is said concerning the wisedom of that people coming from God in the Book of Baruch III. 12-38 For intending to exhort them to stick fast to God and not to fall away to the Idols of the Nations in the Captivity as the Prophets Esay and Jeremy had done which is the cause why it is ascribed to Baruch hee puts them in minde that it was none but God that could discover that way of wisedom which the Law taught Israel Which wisedom saith hee afterwards was seen on earth and conversed among men For so I construe the words not to mean that God was seen on earth and conversed among men not because it is not true but because it is not so plainly said in the writings of the Prophets but the wisedom of God was seen on earth and conversed among men to wit in the Prophets who spoke by the word and wisedom of God In like maner when the three Squires of the Body to King Darius undertook to plead what is of most force the third having named women to be the strongest addeth that Truth prevaileth over all Meaning that the truth which God by his Law had declared to his people should prevail over all that is strong in this world And so incouraging the King to protect it by countenancing the building of the Temple As you may see in the third of Esdras II. III. 34-40 Which I suppose here to be a piece that comes from the Egyptian Jews being first read in the Greek Bible and not in any record of the Jews otherwise Finally Ecclesiasticus commending the Wisedom which hee pretendeth to teach and for the mater of his commendation having recourse to the original of it descants indeed upon Solomons plain song in the VIIIth and IXth of the Poverbs and therefore delivers no new revelations but the right intent of that Prophets doctrine but recommends the Wisedom of his Nation farr beyond all that can be said of any Wisedom of the Gentiles as coming from that Wisedom by which God made the world and governs it ever since Ecclesiasticus I. XXIV from which also the Law and the Prophets came Now Ecclesiasticus
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
what they ought to do but to the consequence thereof which naturally and reasonably they are apt to produce but do not necessarily produce Againe on the other side Trust and confidence in God through Christ obtaines the promises of the Gospel who denyes it But is this trust alwaies well grounded and true Is it not possible for a man to imagine his title to the promises of the Gospel to be good when it is not I would we had no cause to believe how oft it comes to passe I grant that at the first hearing and believing the Gospel all the world have ground enough for that confidence that may save them from despairing to attaine the promises of it But hath he that hath ground not to despaire of being justified by faith ground to conside as justified by faith Or is that all one as to have ground enough for that confidence that they have right to the said promises I suppose there is a great gulfe between both For when the preaching of the Gospel convinceth a man that he is lost unlesse he accept it upon whatsoever condition it tendereth it is enough to keep any man that is in his wits from dispairing to know that there is a condition tendered by God the accepting whereof will intitle us to his promises Because being sincerely tendred in Gods name there can be no barre but on our part to the accepting of it But to have a well grounded confidence of our own right and just title to the promises it behoveth that the Spirit of a man which is in him know that there is in him a sincere resolution of accepting the conditions Which how much the better it is grounded and setled so much more shall his confidence be secure And to this confidence to bring a man from this former confidence is as great a work as to induce a man that believes the world to come to preferre it before this For I demand Is he that sins against God for love of this world enemy to God as the Apostle saith James IV. 4. or not Are not all men enemies to God when the Gospel calls them to become his friends If not why may they not be saved without it If so can they have confidence in their enemy by being discovered to be his enemies Indeed the Gospel tendring conditions of peace they have confidence that they may become friends with God by imbracing the same But the confidence of friends till they have imbraced them they cannot have It is therefore a dangerous a imposture to invite an unregenerate man so soon as he is descovered so to be to the confidence of a Christian in God through Christ As not to invite him to that confidence who may be a Christian is to drive him to despaire For not presupposing his conversion from sinne to God it is necessarily carnal presumption not the confidence of a Christian And if the Spirit of God should seal to any heart the promises of the Gospel not presupposing this ground it were not possible for any man to discern the illusions of the evil Spirit from the dictates of Gods The conscience of our submission to those terms being the onely test by which the difference is discernable For all they that trust in thee shall not be ashamed but such as transgresse without a cause shall be put to confusion Psal XXV 2. To transgresse without a cause and to put trust in God are terms incompetible So that wheresoever we are bid trust in God being implicitely forbid trust in the world or our selves which all that love the world or themselves not in order to God necessarily do there is supposed the ground of this trust inconsistent with the conscience of sinne And though this ungrounded confidence importeth carnal presumption yet may it occasion dispaire For when the guilt of sinne in the conscience stronger then all prejudicate opinion and imposture of false doctrine discovers that there is no ground for the confidence of a Christian and prejudice on the other side admits no recourse to that condition which is the ground of it no marvaile if it seem impossible to attain peace of conscience which appearance is the very horror of despair Seeing then that trust in God as reconcileable and for the attaining of remission of sinnes is the immediate fruit of the Gospel believed but trust in God as reconciled which is confidence of remission of sinnes obtained is necessarily the consequence of that faith which justifieth the justification of a Christian being a sinner before a Christian necessarily implying remission of sins what remaineth but that the professing of faith to God for the undergoing of Christianity be the condition upon which the promises of the Gospel become due that is to say that faith which alone justifieth For it is true the Gospel tendereth severall promises remission of sinnes in the first place because the first thing a man convict and sentenced to death seeks is his discharge But no man can have this discharge but upon the same terms he must become the sonne of God whether as regenerate by grace or as adopted to glory that is to the right and title of it and upon the same terms be sanctified by the holy Ghost which as I shewed before is promised as a gift that is habitually to be possessed onely to Christians and to all Christians And therefore it is impossible to imagine a man discharged of his sinnes that is not for the very same reason and therefore at the same instant of nature as well as of time regenerate adopted and sanctified It is indeed to be granted that justification signifies something different from all these promises in as much as it is manifest that in the language of the Scriptures it importeth not making of a man righteous but declaring him and accounting him righteous treating him and dealing with him as righteous All this is true And yet I shall not grant that it is so properly understood to be the act of God as sitting upon his throne of judgement whether according to mercy or justice as the act of God contracting with mâ—n for everlasting life upon condition of submitting to the Covenant of Grace and the terms of it Indeed the preaching of the Gospel premises the generall judgement to come as tendering the way to come clear of it to wit by Christ whom it declareth judge of quick and dead For S. Paul thus proposeth it to the Athenians Acts XVII 30 31. God who eversaw the times of ignorance now chargeth all men every where to repent Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world righteously by the man whom he hath appointed making faith hereof to all by raising him from the dead And of the overture thereof which he made to Felix S. Luke saith Acts XXIV 25. As he discoursed of righteousnesse and temperance and judgement to come And S. Paul speaking of the Gospel Rom. 1. 18. The wrath of God is
standeth still or the heavens why they move For it is not the nature of heaven and earth that makes them stand still or move but the will of God that made it their nature and creates all the necessity that followes upon it as I said afore If therefore a man can do nothing till God determine him to do it and cannot but do that which he determines him to do then is there the same necessity for that which he doth as for the heavens moving or the earth standing still Here a difficulty is made in regard of the merits of Jesus Christ who for the joy set before him underwent the crosse despising the shame and sate down at the right hand of God Heb. XII 2. And Humbled himself becoming obedient to death even the death of the Crosse Wherefore God also hath over-exalted him Phil. II. 8 9. As if because the merits of Christ are the acts of a will by the hypostaticall union utterly determined to the will of God it were not requisite that the promises of the Gospel should be obtained by performing the Covenant of Grace when a man might not have performed it The answer is not to be cleared more then the mystery of the holy Trinity is to be comprehended For of a truth how should it be understood how the will of God the Father freely tendered how the same in the Sonne undertook to assume our nature to perform the work of our redemption in it But upon this freedom depends the consideration which makes the Grace of Christ due by Gods promise For though the will of man in Christ were utterly determined to that which the will of God should choose yet because it became so determined by the divine will in Christ freely assuming our nature the influence of that freedome into all that he freely did in virtue of that choice makes the acts thereof meritorious of the rewards of his Crosse Nor is there any use to be made of the distinction between the compound and divided sence of any propositions but those that speak of that necessity which followes upon a supposition of the being of those things which are said to be necessary That necessity and onely that it reconcileth with contingence Necesse est praedestinatum salvari Non necesse est praedestinatum salvari In English for we must suppose the property of each language it must needs be or it is necessary that he who is predestinate should be saved It is not necessary not of necessity it must not needs be that he who is predestinate should be saved Compounding or twisting in your minde the quality of predestinate with salvation that is supposing a man to be predestinate the affirmative is true necessity is attributed to the salvation of a man so qualified dividing them that is not supposing the man to be praedestinate the negative Because Christianity supposeth praedestination to preserve freedome and contingence But if you say in Latine Praedestinatus necessario salvatur In English He that is praedestinate is saved necessarily or by necessity it must be utterly denied for the same cause The same distinction may be used when the necessity is not upon supposition of the being of that which is said to be necessary but to no purpose For it is necessary that the fire burne or the Sunne show us light if wood be put to it if it be above our hemisphere It is not necessary if otherwise But this makes not that which is necessary upon such a supposition ever a whit the more contingent Nay it were ridiculous to expresse it because a limitation so unnecessary may be understoode No lesse necessary will that act of the will be to which God determines though otherwise the being of it were not onely not necessary but impossible Nor will it be true to say that he who doth what God determines him immediately to do hath power to do the contrary at the same time though not to do it at the same time simultatem potentiae ad oppositum not potentiam simultatis For if the will cannot act still so determined it were a contradiction to say that it hath power to do that which you say it cannot doe Wherefore if God from the beginning ever gave the reasonable creature a will actually not determined to do or not to do this or that the same will by which God does this continuing for all that time that he maintaines it there is no more roome left for a will of determining the same in God untill by virtue of his first will it determine it selfe then there is roome in God not to will that which actually and presently he willeth It is therefore too late to say That God determining as well the maner by which all things come to passe as what shall come to passe can as well determine the acts of his reasonable creatures to be done freely as the acts of naturall things to be done necessarily Having supposed afore that he determines these acts by determining immediately the will to do them For though I count it necessary to grant that God by his providence determines all future contingences for the reason to be shewed in due time yet should he determine the will to doe them without supposing it to determine it selfe there could remaine neither contingence in the effect nor freedome in the cause And therefore I say that God determines those thinges that come to passe freely and contingently so to come to passe but he cannot determine this by destroying freedome and contingence Therefore not by determining immediately the will of man to doe or not to doe this or that For this determination produceth not that necessity which stands upon supposition of an act freely done and therefore contingent as that which neede not have beene done or of the foresight of it or of effectuall meanes to bring it to paâ—â—e which cannot be defeated because they are supposed to take effect but that which stands onely upon supposition of the cause which being the determination of God and therefore indefeasible the necessity which it produceth whatsoever it be for the kind will be stronger then any necessity that is antecedent to the being of any thing in the creature And though I said before absolutely that the action of the creature cannot be imputed to God yet upon an impossible supposition as this I can and must inferre that nothing can be imputed to the creature as good or evill to reward or punishment but all to God Which is a consequence that Christian ears must not indure For I suppose no Christian ears can indure to heare that God should infuse any inclination to malice into the heart of his creature because when it comes to effect the effect will be imputable to God and because before it comes to effect the work of God must be called evill as inclined to evill How then shall we indure to heare it said that God by his indefeasible omnipotence determines the creature
are healed For yee were as sheep gâ—ing astray but are now returned to the Pastor and Bishop of our soules First when S. Peter repeats the very words of Esay to question whether he alledge this passage or not I suppose is ridiculous Neither will it be of consequence though we take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For wether Christ took our sinnes up to the Crosse or beare them upon the Crosse still they remain charged on Christ faâ—â—ned to the Crosse As for the Apostle Ebr. IX 25 26 28. where having said that Christ went into heaven to appear before the face of God without any intent to suffer himself any more as the high Priest entered once a year into the Holy of Holies with the bloud of a sacrifice for then must he have suffered many times since the foundation of the world But was once manifested at the end of the world to abolish sinne by the sacrifice of himself he concludes that being once offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take away the sinnes of many he shall appear the second time without sinne to the salvation of those that expect him It is here evident that Christ was manifested at the end of the world to such in the world as knew him not not to God in heaven that did And therefore sinne is abolished by the sacrifice of the Crosse if by his intercession in heaven in consideration of it And his second appearance is without sinnâ— because he shall have taken sinne away but he shall have taken it away by being offered Therefore if he will needs translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take away the the sinnes of many yet can he not deny that they are taken away by being born upon the Crosse For must we not have account from the text in what consideration he takes them away And is the assuring of us that God will make good his promise or is the moving of God to make it good the pertinent reason why he is said to take away our sinnes by a sacrifice There is no doubt that S. Peter expresses the end of Christs sufferings in that which followes ye were as sheep going astray but is not therefore the consideration to be expressed upon which that end is attained As for that little objection of Socinus that when the Prophet saies For the labour of his soul he shall see and be satisfyed By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many and he shall beare their iniquities That it must meane He shall take away their iniquities because justifying went afore Neither uses the Language of the Scripture allwayes according to order of nature and reason to put that first which gives the reason of that which followes So that bearing theire iniquities not taking them away may well follow as the reason why he justifies And if insteade of and we translate for which is usuall in the scriptures we silence the objection and make the reason why he justifies to follow in due place to wit because he beares their iniquities Lastly that the Prophets and righteous in generall and the Messias in particular were to beare the sinnes of the world and expiate the wrath of God for them you may see by Grotius upon Mat. XX. 28. that the Jewes have understood out of this place of the Prophet Esay Which is prejudice enough If they who understand not the reason why and how we say our Lord expiates sinne by bearing it and whose interest it concerns not to understand it by the native sense of the Prophets words find that which Christians deny and by denying prejudice the common cause Which to acknowledge prejudices not Christianity understanding as much difference betweene that expâ—ation which they make and that which Christ makes as Christianity puts between Christ and Christians Let us now consider that reconciliation which S. Paul saith many times is wrought for us by Christs death 2 Cor. V. 18 All thinges are of God that hath reconciled us to himselfe by Jesus Christ and given us the ministery of reconcilement As that God was reconciling the world to himselfe by Christ not imputing to them their transgressions anâ— putting the word of reconciliation upon us We are therefore ambassadors in Christs stead as if God did exhort you by us we beseech you in Christs stead be reconciled to God For him that knew no sin he made sinne for us that we might become the righteousnesse of God in him Socinus mervailes how any man can imagine that Christ can proffer us reconcilement and not be reconciled to us when he proffers it An imagination as ridiculous as his that fansied he should meete his fellow before his fellow met him For if reconcilement be betweene two though one may provide the means as in our Case God though out of love yet seeing as yet he onely offers friendship that is to say seeing as yet we are not made freindes it is manifest that both are reconciled at once And doth not experience of the world show that when Princes and States are at warre the one out of a desire of peace seekes means of reconcilement but is not reconciled before the other agree So God ingages to be reconciled by publishing the Gospell while he gives man leave to deliberate but is not reconciled till man undertake Christianity by being baptized So when God seekes to be reconciled to men it is true as S. Paul sayes he imputes not their transgressions to them for if he should prosecute their sinnes by imputing them he should not seeke reconcilement But when he is reconciled it is a contradiction that he should impute them Now though the Apostles are messengers of reconcilment in Christs stead yet with this difference that he also furnished the means they onely brought the message S. Paul therefore having signified this means afore when he sayes that not imputing to the world their transgressions he sought to be reconciled with them by Christ and inferring Him that knew no sinne he made sinne for us that we might become the righteousnesse of God in him Either he makes no difference betweene our Lord and the Apostles or it is expressed by these wordes in reference to that which went afore To wit that God was willing to be reconciled with the world because he had provided Christ and Christ had undertook the sinnes of it So againe Rom. V. 10 11. For if being enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his sonne much more being reconciled shall we be saved by his life Nor onely so But we glory in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whome we have received reconcilement From what shall we be saved by being reconciled From wrath saith the Apostle in the words next afore Therefore before reconcilement we were under wrath And surely there is a difference betweene the right and title that we have to be reconciled with God though upon condition of our conversion to Christianity and between the
XVI both expounds our Lords words in this sense and determines against divorces out of them that Origen in Mat. Hâ—â— VII accepts them in the same sense and disputes for it That Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. II. sub finem condemns the divorces vvhich the Roman Lavvs then licensed and mariage upon them That S. Chrysostome in Mat. Hom. XVII and LXIII Libro de Virginitate Serm. I. de debitore X. millium S. Ambrose in Luc. lib. XVII S. Jerome Epist XXX in Mat. XIX S. Basil ad Amphil. Can. IX in Hexaem Hom. VII Asterius Hom. ult S. Austine de adulterinis conjugiis ad Pollentium â—ollovv the the same sense and deliver the same Doctrine vvhich seems to be also S. Gregory Nazianzâ—nes vvhen he calls a Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An evill which being gâ—â— is not to be lâ—t go The record is yet to seek that may shovv any such opinion in the Church and having escaped so diligent hands I may vvell challenge all the world to produce it For vvhereas it is said p. 155. that Origen ubi supra argues that there are faults no lesse destructive to any society or communion in wedlock then adultery is And therefore that adultery is named but as an instance in a sentence to be extended by reason of equity necessarily inherent in the case to all faults equally destructive to mariage I grant that Origen hath so argued and that Grotius out of whose Annotations upon Mat. V. 31. 32. all this dust hath been raised hath seconded him in it But it is one thing to say that by consequence of reason where the fault is no lesse destructive to mariage then adultery is there ought to be the same liberty of divorce Another thing to say that by the Leter of our Lords words all causes of divorce that Moses Law or the Civil Lawes of Christian Staâ—es allows are allowable in point of Conscience The one leaves the weight of the fault and the equality of it with adultery to be judged by the Church The other takes away the Church and the judgement of it which Origen never meant to do Again I say that those things which are disputed by Origen were never held of such consideration to the Church that either the opinion or much more the practice of the Church should be valued by them It is plain he was allowed so to argue but it is as plain that his arguments took no effect either in the opinion or in the practice of the Church As for S. Augustine who was so much perplexed whither our Saviour might not mean spiritual fornication in those words Retract I. 29. having delivered it for his opinion before in his exposition of the Seâ—mon in the Mount Will any man believe that he who so â—â—ifly holds that it is unlawful to mary after divorce for Adultery as S. Austin in his Books de adulterinis conjugiis ad Pollentium and elsewhere does can allow divorce for any thing but Adultery The truth is he that considers the businesse throughly shall see that it was that supposition that obliged S. Austine to this doubt as on the contrary the improbability of the doubt is that which chiefly renders the supposition improbable Which being a thing not yet observed so farre as I know and there being no means to judge what is in the power of the Church and what is not in matter of divorce otherwise I will go out of the way to debate rather to resolve it before I go forwards CHAP. XIV Scripture alleged to prove the bond of Mariage insoluble in case of adultery uneffectuall S. Paul and our Lord speak both to one purpose according to S. Jerome and S. Austine The contrary opinion more reasonable and more general in the Church Why the Church may restrain the innocent party from marying again The Imperial Lawes could never be of force to void the Power of the Church Evidence for it SOme texts are alleged to prove the bond of Mariage undissoluble which to me I confesse do not seem to create any maner of consequence S. Paul saith Rom. VII 2. The wife that is under a Husband is tied to her Husband living by the Law But if her Husband dye she is clear of her Husband So living her Husband she shall be stiled an aduâ—teress if she become another husbands But if her Husband dye she is free from the Law so as to be no adulteress if she become another Husbands Where say they it is plain that she who maries before her former Husband is dead is an adulteress As also in 1 Cor. VII 39. The wife is tied by the Law as long as her Huband lives but if her Husband fall asleep she is free to mary whom she please onely in the Lord. And yet it is manifest that S. Paul in the first place speaks according to the Law in the second according to Christianity and that there is no question that under the Law mariage might be dissolved Therefore the words of S. Paul are not superficially to be considered when he saith Rom. VII 1 Know ye not brethren For I speak to those that know the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the meaning cannot be that the Law hath power of a man as long as the man lives that the Law hath power upon but as long as the man lives who hath power over him by the Laâ— As it is evident by the inference For the wife living is tied by the Law to her Husband but if her Husband die she is clear of her Husband And the compariâ—on froâ— which S. Paul argues holds thus As a wife is no longer tied to her Husband by the power which the Law gives him when he is dead so are not Christiâ—ns â—â—ed to God by the Power wâ—â—â—h the Law gives him when it is voided by the death of Christ but by the new bond which the Covenant oâ— Grâ—ce knitteth Now by the Law the bond of Mariage is not to be dissolved but by the will of the Husbâ—nd but if the Husband will it is dissolved by a Bill of divorce And therefore that exception is necessarily to be understood in S. Pauls words Which being understood it will be ridiculous to inferâ—e that therâ—fore the mariage of Christians is indissoluble Though diverse oâ— tâ—â— Fathers it is true hâ—ve thought it a good inference But among Christians when S. Paul sayes the wife is tied by the Law as long as her Husband lives his intent can require no more then that she is free when he is dead to mary again Not that she can no way be free while he is alive Again Eph V. 28-32 He that loveth his wife loveth himselfe For never did any man hate his own flesh but feed and cherish it as our Lord his Church For we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Therefore shall a man leave Father and Mother and cleave to his wife and they two shall become one flesh This mystery is
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
vulgarly understood and that for the communion as well as for the sacrifice it must further be provided that this Communion be complete in both kinds in which the Sacrament is celebrated not barring the people of the Cup as it is the custome in the Church of Rome to do And truly there is not so much marvell at any thing in difference as there is why it hath been thought fit to make this the cause of so great a breach For the precept running in those terms which take hold of them who are obliged by it that is of the whole Church consisting of Clergy and people both alike because I have showed that do this in remembrance of me concerns the whole Church by the prayers whereof it is consecrated How will it be possible to make any humane understanding capable to comprehend that when our Lord saith take eat drinke do this the people shall stand charged onely with part of it Indeed had there been any limitation of the Law-givers intent expressed either by way of precept as this lies or by the practice of the Church originally under the Apostles and generally throughout Christendom there might have been pretense for dispute And it must not be denied that there have been those that have attempted to show that the Apostles so used it even in the Scriptures But by such means as if they meant not indeed to prove it for a truth but to show how willingly they would gratifie those who would be glad to see it proved whether true or false And do therefore sort to no other effect then to make it appear that their desire to prove it out of the Scripture was farr greater then the Scripture gave them cause to cherish For were breaking of bread put a thousand times in the Scripture for celebrating the Eucharist as sometimes it is put Act. II. 42. 45. XX. 7. at least for those Suppers at which the Eucharist was celebrated what would this avail unlesse we could be perswaded that as oft as breaking of bread is put for eating there we are to understand that there was no drink Or unlesse we could understand by one and the same term of breaking bread that all Priests had drink as well as bread but the Lay people none Therefore whatsoever advantage it may be in regard it is certain that the greatest part of the world will never be wise to make a noise with any plea though never so unprobable rather then be thought to have nothing to say men of judgement and conscience must needs take it for a confession that there is no ground for it in the Scriptures to see things alleged so farr from all appearance of truth As for the practice of the Catholick Church I may very well remit all that desire to inform and not to scandalize themselves to those things which Cassander hath which much learning collected as sufficient to make it appear if any thing that men are unwilling to see can be made to appear that as to this day there is no such custom in the Eastern Church so in the Western Church it is not many ages since it can be called a custom And that by so visible degrees introduced as may be an undeniable instance to make evidence that corruption may creep into the Laws and customs of the Church though by those degrees which are not alwayes visible Indeed it is alleged that there are some natures found in the world that can by no means indure the taste of wine which therefore some men call abstemious without casting it back again â—nd induring as great pangs as men are seen to indure that are forced or couâ—ened to eat things which they hate So that to force such natures to receive the Sacrament in both kinds were to destroy the reverence due to it both in them who receive it and in them that shall see it used with no more reverence It is alleged again That Christianity goes further than wine That is That some Christian Nations dwell in Countries so untemperately cold that wine will not keep in their Countries but changes as soon as it comes Now as no reason appeareth why the Sacrament should not be celebrated for the use of those people who cannot receive it in both kinds Neither can any reason appear why other people receiving it in one kinde should not receive the same benefit by it which they do Last of all it is alleged that in the primitive Church it was many times received by the people in one kinde upon several occasions For in regard that Christians could not alwayes be prâ—sent at the celebrating therâ—oâ— when there was not such means as have since been provided especially those who were maried to unbelievers it was a custom to send them the Communion who were known to joyn with the devotion of the Church though hindred to joyn therewith in bodily presence as wee learn by Justiâ—e Martyrs second Apology And because in the quality of wine a litle quantity is not to be preserved as preserve it they did besides other reasons to take it Fasting therefore it was sent onely in the other kinde as wee finde by Tertullian writing to his wife Again if a man that was under Penance fell in danger of departing this life before hee was reconciled to the Church by receiving the Communion again which by this one instance wee may see how much the primitive Christians abominated to do As the Law of the Church was that they should not be refused the Communion in that case So the custom was for the same reason to send it them onely in one kinde as appeareth by an eminent example related from Dionysius of Alexandria by Eusebius Hist Eccles VI. 44. But these instances if they be looked into will appear to be of the same consequence as if it should be alleged to a Jew that if two Jews should turn back to back and go one of them East the other West till they came to meet again howsoever this may be possible to be done seeing when they meet again if the one count Saturday the other must needs count Sunday as appears evidently by the reason of the Sphere and the dayly motion of the Sun round the earth therefore they cannot both keep the Sabbath upon the day which the Law appoints therefore it is in the power of the Synagogue to appoint that no Sabbath be kept Or because during the forty years travail of the Israelites through the Wilderness to the Land of Promise their children were not circumcised by reason that they knew not when they should be summoned to remove by the moving of the cloud that was over the Tabernacle which they were alwayes to be ready to do Therefore it was in the power of the Synagogue to dispense with the circumcision of male children under the Law of Moses Positive precepts they are all that of circumcision and that of the Sabbath as well as this of the Eucharist Neither can it