to provide for themselves such an order in the communion of Christianity as may stand with the Scriptures and the unity of the Church though without consent of the whole Church of the present time For it is evident that this disorder may be so great in the Laws of the Church as to make them uselesse and unserviceable not onely to the profession of the true faith or to the service of God for which the communion of the Church standeth but even to the unity of the Church it selfe which is the prime precept that all which the Church does ought to aim at It is evident also that this is the true cause which the reformation hath to dispute against the Church of Rome But this I say that though particular Churches must necessarily have their particular Lawes which are the differences which severall Churches observe in the exercise of the same Ordinances yet may not any particular Church make it selfe any Law which may tend to separation by disclaiming the unity of the whole Church or either expresly or by due construction denying the same This is done by abrogating Apostolicall Traditions as inconsistent with Christianity for the mater of them not because the reason and ground of them is ceased For they who disclaim the Authority of the Apostles cannot acknowledge the unity of the Church And they who make Apostolical Ordinances inconsistent with Christianity do necessarily disclaim the Authority of the Apostles The same is done by abrogating the constitution of the Church done by virtue of the Authority left it by the Apostles For to disclaim the Church in this Authority is to disclaim the Apostles that left it And though this Authority may be so abused that particular Churches that is to say parts of the whole Church may thereby be authorized yea obliged to provide for themselves without the consent of the whole yet not against the authority of the whole that is to say of the Apostles from whence it proceedeth Nor is every abuse thereof a cause sufficient to warrant the scandals that such proceedings necessarily produce And this shall be enough for me to have said in this place Having I suppose established those principles by the right application whereof he that can make it may judge what is the true plea whereby that separation which the reformation hath occasioned must either be justified or be thought unjustifiable From that which hath been said the difference between Heresie and Schisme and the true nature of both crimes in opposition to Christianity may and ought to be inferred in this place because it ought not to be forgotten which ought daily to be lamented that at the beginning of the troubles it was questioned in the Lords House whether there were any such crimes or not or whether they were onely bug-bares to scare Children with and that hereupon every man sees England over-run with both The word Heresie signifies nothing but Choice and therefore the signification of it is sometimes indifferent importing no more then a way of professing and living which a man voluntarily chuseth as S. Paul useth it when he saith That he lived according to the most exact Heresie of the Iewes Religion a Pharisee Act. XXVI 5. For it is known that besides the necessary profession of the Jews Law there were three sects which no man by being a Jew was obliged to but by his own free choice the Pharisees the Sadduces and the Essenes which being all maintained by the Law as it was then used the common name of them cannot signifie any crime among them to whom S. Paul then spoke whatsoever we believe of the Sadduces And thus it sounds among them who use it to signifie the Sects of the Grecian Philosophers allowed by those who imbraced them not As in the Title or Lucians discourse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But because it is too ordinary for men of their own choice to depart from the rule to which they are or ought to stand obliged thereupon the word is most part used to signifie the free choice of a rule of living contrary to that rule which they stood obliged to before In which sense Adam is called by Tertullian the first Heretick as he that first departed from the will of God to live according to his own Supposing now that Christianity obliges both to the rule of faith and to the society of the Church by virtue of that rule because the beliefe of the Catholick Church is part of it as hath been declared afore it is manifest that whosoever dis-believes any part of that rule the beliefe whereof is the condition upon which a man becomes a Christian and thereby forfeits his interest in those promises which God hath made to Christians doth or may either lead others or follow in living according to that belief which he chooseth whether professing it as a Christian ought to profess his Christianity or not And in this sense it seems to be used by S. Paul when he sayes Titus III. 10. 11. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid Knowing that such a one is turned aside and sinneth being condemned by himselfe For when he speaks of admonishing them he signifies that he speaks not of such as had actually departed from the communion of the Church but sheltred themselves under the common profession of Christians doing every thing as they did that by such means they might inveigle such as suspected nothing to admit their infusions which I showed before to have been the fashion of the Gnosticks whose Doctrines the Apostle 1 Pet. II. 1. calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pestilent Heresies And whom S. Paul must needs speak of in this place because there were no other on foot so as to be mentioned by their writings Such a one then the Apostle saith is condemned by himselfe in the same sense as the Councills and Chuch-Writers say of one in the same case in seipsum sententiam dixit He hath given sentence against himselfe because by refusing the second admonition he hath declared himselfe obstinate in that which the common Christianity maketh inconsistent with the communion of the Church And this more proper to the circumstance of this text then S. Jeroms interpretation of those that condemn themselves to be put out of the Church by voluntarily leaving the communion of it though that also is not farre from truth concerning them who are properly signified by the generall name of Hereticks For it is very evident that when S. Paul saith 1 Cor. XI 17. There must be Heresies among you his meaning is onely of such factions as tended to Schism whereof he admonisheth them 1 Cor. I. 10. That there be Schisms among them Now it is manifest how much difference there is between him who holdeth something contrary to the faith and yet departeth not from the communion of the Church and him that departeth from the commnion of the Church though holding nothing contrary to the substance of
and ruled the whole Church and might as easily make his corruptions generall as Christ Christianity But if it were meerly their saying to make it a Tradition of the Apostles what shall we say of Pelagius For they must pardon me who think that the hatred of his Heresie brought the baptism of Infants into force More generall it might deservedly make it For by the condemning of his Heresie the danger of Infants going out of the world was conâ—eâ—â—ed But it was the Baptism of Infants being in force afore that made his opinion an Heresie as making the necessity of Baptism visible as supposed by all Christians and therefore the truth of Original sin Pelagius was not so very a fool as they imagine If all the knowledge that a man of his time could get by seeing all parts of the Church would have served for an exception to the authority of the baptism of Infants he might have wrangled with his adverse party about the exposition of those Scriptures which are alleadged in the point till this day and his opinion have found footing in the Church But because he could not sâ—op mens eyes so as not to see what they saw we may for wantonnesse betray the cause of God by letting the interpretation of the Scriptures loose to every mans fancy which God had appointed to be confined within the Tradition of his Apostles but they could not chuse but condemn that position which the visible practice of the Church proclaimed to be Heresie Thus farre then I proceed upon the Tradition of the Apostles to make the Baptism of Infants necessary in case of necessity that is of danger of death But I that condemn not the ancients for disputing that it ought not to be generall nor the Greek Church for reserving it till years of discretion supposing the means of it reasonably secured in that case am not like to attribute the necessity of baptizing all Infants which the present Laws of the Church do introduce to the tradition of the Apostles but to the original power of the Church founded upon the constitution thereof in determining the circumstances of those offices which being incumbent upon the Church are not determined by any law of either of his Apostles For though I take not upon me to say that there can no reason be given why this particular should not now be so determined as we see it is who do acknowledge great reasons to have been alleadged by the ancients to the contrary for their time yet I see so many ways for the misunderstanding and the neglect of Christianity to creep upon the Church that I cannot see sufficient reason why the Church should trust the conscience of particular Christians whom it concerned to see to the baptism of all Infants that might come into that case now that the world was come into the Church and that therefore the Church could not have the like presumption of the conscience of all that professed Christianity in the discharge of an office of that concernment to that which it might reasonably have while it was under persecution and men could not be thought to imbrace Christianity but for conscience sake And therefore as I do maintain it alwaies to have been within the lawfull power of the Church to make a generall Law as now it is so I must averre that there was just reason and ground for the exercise of that power in determining this point whither as in the East with some toleration of those whom they had confidence in for seeing to the baptizing of their Infants in danger of death or generally as in the West to see the occasion of mischiefe and scandall prevented by doing it presently after birth And therefore those that forsake the unity of the Church â—ather then be subject to a Law which it may lawfully make as I have showed if that which hath been resolved of the difference between Heresie and Schism be true cannot avoid being schismaticks As for the ground of that opinion which moves them to break up the seal of God marked upon those that are baptized unto the hope of salvation upon the obligation of Christianity by baptizing them anew to the hope of salvation without the obligation of Christianity whether they are to be counted Hereticks therefore or not let who will dispute This I may justly inferre they take as sure a course to murther the souls of those whom they baptize again as of those whom they let go out of the world unbaptized There remains two questions which seem to make this resolution hard to believe If there be no salvation without Baptism no not for the Infants of Christians it is demanded what becomes of their souls and whither they go I must needs allow that those ancient and later Divines alledged by Cassander and our Hooker after him had reason to entertain a charitable hope of the happinesse of those who being prevented by the inevitable casualties of mans life of attaining the Sacrament of Baptism are accompanied out of the world by the prayers of Christian Parents commending them to God with the same affections wherewith they alwaies vowed them to God by bringing them to Christianity so soon as they should become capable to be instructed in it But if I will stand to the bounds of Gods revealed will I must also say that this hope is presumed without book that is without any Law of God to warrant the effect of it For if God promise the Kingdom of heaven to Infants that depart after Baptism as the reasons premised and the practice of the Church make evidence nothing hindreth the mercy of God to extend to those that depart without it where nothing hindreth the power of his grace to regenerate without the Sacrament those whom he hath not expressed that he will not regenerate But this shall not proceed from any obligation of his Covenant of Grace nor tend to make good the evidence thereof which the practice of the Church createth And therefore shall make onely a presumption of what may be and not of what is I find that Arminius had further a doubtful conceit that all Infants departing without Baptism are to be saved by the virtue of Gods second Covenant and the death of Christ upon which it is grounded God having extended both as farre as sinne by the first Adam extendeth But the publication of the second Covenant and the intent of Christs death upon which it is grounded being conditional as hath been showed I suppose it is not enough to intitle Infants to the benefit thereof that they never did any thing to refuse it Otherwise what cause is there why all the Gentiles that go out of the world without hearing of Christianity should not be saved by virtue of it notwithstanding all that they sinne against the Law of nature Because the New Covenant is to take effect where it is not refuted and sinnes against the Law of nature cannot be constrained as a refusall of the
of the Church not onely of divine right as provided for by the Apostles but holding the rank of an end to which particular provisions of the Apostles in this mater seem but as means It is true I am farre from believing that had the Reformation retained this Apostolical Government the Church of Rome would thereby have been moved to joyn in it But when I see the Schisme which it hath occasioned to stand partly upon this difference When I see so many particulars begun by the Apostles as the Scriptures themselves evidence others determinable by the Church When I see those that correct Magnificat introduce instead of them those Lawes which have neither any witnesse from the Scriptures nor any footing in the authority of the whole Church I must needs conclude those that do these things in as much as they do them to be causes of the Schism that is Schismaticks For what authority upon earth can introduce any form reconcileable with that which the Apostles first introduced to procure the vanity of the Church being to continue one and the same Body from the beginning to the end but he must give cause of dissolving the unity of the said Body unlesse he can convince the rest of the Church that it is Gods act to whom all the Church is to be subject whereas to him they are not Wherâ—fore let not Presbyterians or Independents think that they have done their work when they can answer texts of Scripture so as not to be convinced that Bishops are of divine Right Unless they can harden themselves against the belief of one Catholick Church they must further give account why they depart from that which is not against Gods Law to introduce that which it commandeth not For that is to proclaim to the Church that they will not be of it unlesse they may be governed as they list themselves Whereas they cannot be of it by being governed otherwise then the whole Church from the beginning hath been Let them not marvail that those who go not along with them in it forewarn others of making themselves Schismaticks by communicating in their innovations But against the Independants I must further take notice that by the supposition of one Society of the whole Church the whole pretense of the Congregations is quite excluded For if God appointed all Churches to make one Church by the communion of all in the service of God supposing the same faith then did not God appoint all Congregations to be chief within themselves but to depend upon the whole both for the Rule of Faith and for the order of Gods service Again it is evident to common sense that the people of one Church can pretend no interess to give Law to another Church Whereas whomsoever we inable to preserve the unity of the whole those persons must eithâ—r have right to oblige those that are not of their own Congregations or else God shall hâ—ve provided that the Church shall be one but excluded the onely means by which it can be preserved one And therefore to all those texts of Scriptures which are alleged to prove the chief Power of the People in the Church which is the ground of the Congregations I give here this general answer which elsewhere I have applied to the said several passages First by way of exception that they can inferre no more now against the Clergy then they could thâ—n against the Apostles So that seeing the Apostles were then chief notwithstanding all that those Scriptures contain the Clergy also remain now chief in the Church Secondly and directly that they import no more then the tesâ—imony consent and concurrence of the people by way of suffrage or agreement and applause to the Acts of the Clergy the interess whereof is grounded upon the sensible knowledge which the people have of the persons concerned in Ordinations Censures or other Acts of the Church in regard whâ—reof it is no more then reason requires that they be duly satisfied of the proceedings of the Church without making them Judges of maters of Right in it So that to make the people chief in Church maters upon account of this Title is to make the people of England Soveraign because English Juries have power to return evidence in mater of fact either effectual or void Another reason I here advance upon supposition of the force and weight of the Tradition of the Church in evidencing the reason and intent of the sayings and doings of the Apostles recorded in the Scriptures Philip one of the seven having preached and converted and baptized the Samaritanes the Apostles at Jerusalem send down to them Peter and John at whose prâ—yers with â—â—ying thâ—â—r 〈◊〉 on them they receive the Holy Ghost Act. VIII 14-17 And so S. Paul â—â—yes hâ—nds upon the twelve men that were baptized afore at Ephesus â—â—â—â—hey receive the Holy Ghost Act. XIX 1-8 For what reason shall we imagine why they that were inâ—bled to baptize were not â—â—abled to give the Holy Ghost baptism being the condition upon which the Holy Ghost was due by the promise of the Gospel but to show that they were baptized into the uniâ—y of the Church out of which they were not to expect the Holy Ghost Thâ—refore that their Baptism may have effect that is give the Holy Ghost the allowâ—nce of the Apostles upon whose government the unity of the Church dependeth is requite Whiâ—h allowance their prayers for the Holy Ghost and Impoâ—â—â—ion of hands implâ—eth and presupposeth It cannot be doubted that the visible Grace of â—peaking in strâ—nge languages the great works of God was then given for an evidence of the presence of the Holy Ghost with Gods people whereupon it is called by S. Paul 1 Cor. XII 7. The manifestatioâ— of the Spirit But evâ—n of this kind of Graces S. Paul saith again 1 Cor. XIV 32. 33. The Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets For God is not the author of unsetlednesse but of order as in all Churches of the Saints If therefore there come no confusion upon Prophets Prophesying one by one because God who is the Author of Order grants such inspirations and revelations to inferiours that they cease not therefore to be subject to those which he grants to Superiours How much more re asonable is it that the Gift of the Holy Ghost promised to them that are baptized should neverthelesse deâ—end upon the blessing of the Apostles So that when S. Peter sayes to them that were convâ—rted at Pentecost Act. II. 38. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission of sinnes and yâ— shall receive the gift of the Holy â—host It seems to me no more then reason requires that he â—upposes the same blessing As also S. Paul in those of whom he saith That having believed in Christ they were sealed by the Holy spirit of promise And again Grieve not the holy spirit of God whereby ye are sealed to the day
in refusing Marcion her communion because excommunicated by his own Father the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus in bar to the pretense of Soveraignty in the Church of Rome For if Marcions Father Bishop of Synope in Pontus if Synesius Bishop of Ptolomais in Cyrenaica could oblige the Church of Rome and all Churches not to admit unto the communion of the Church those whom they had excluded because the unity of the whole could not be preserved otherwise then is not the infinite Power of one Church but the regular Power of all the mean which the Apostles provided for the attaining of Unity in the whole Not as if the Church of Rome might not have admitted Marcion to communion with it selfe had it appeared that he had been excluded without such a cause as obliged any Church to excommunicate For in doubtful causes the concernment being general it was very regular to have recourse to the chief Churches by the authority whereof the consent of the rest might be obtained But could it have appeared that such a thing had been done without any cause then would it have been regular for any Church to have no regard to such a sentence In the next place the consideration of Montanus his businesse at Rome there alledged shall evidence some part of my intent Being condemned and refused by the Bishops and Churches of Asia he sends to Rome to sollicite a higher Church and of more consequence to the whole to own the spirit by which he pretended to speak and to admit those stricter orders which he pretended to introduce A pretense for those that would have the Pope Soveraign but not so good as they imagine unlesse they could make it appear that he made the like address to no other Church but that of Rome For my part finding in other occasions frequent and plentiful remembrance of recourse had to other Churches as well as to Rome in maters of common concernment I find it necessary to impute the silence of his other addresses to the scarcity of records left the Church Not doubting that he and the Churches of Phrygia ingaged with him would do their utmost to promote the credit of his Prophesies by perswading all Churches to admit the Orders which he pretended to introduce And how much greater the authority of the Church of Rome was then that of an ordinary Church so much more had he prevailed by gaining it That no man may imagine that all lay in it nor yet that the consent of it signified no more then the consent of every Church For consider the Church of Carthage and the choler of Tertullian expressed in the beginning of his Book de Exhortatione Castitulis against Pope Aâ—phyrine for admitting adulterers to Penance And in consequence thereunto consider what we have upon record of Historical truth from S. Jerome Catal. in Tertull. and the authorities quoted afore that Tertullian falling to the Doctrine of Montanus upon affronts received from the Clergy of Rome set up a communion of his own at Carthage which continued till S. Augustines time by whom his followers were reduced to the Catholick Church For what occasion had Tertullian to break from the Church of Carthage because of the affront received from the Church of Rome in rejecting Montanus had not the Church of Carthage followed the Church of Rome in it The same is the consequence of that which passed in that famous debate of Victor Pope about breaking with the Churches of Asia because they kept not Easter on the Lords day as most Churches did but with the Jewes observing the Passion upon the full Moon celebrated the Resurrection of third day after that For might not or ought not the Church of Rome refuse to communicate with these Churches had the cause been valuable In case of Heresy in case of any demand destructive to the unity of the Church you will say that not onely the Church of Rome but any Church whatsoever both might and ought to disclaim the Churches of Asia But I have to say again that in any such case there is a difference between that which is questioned for such and that which is such and ought to be taken for such And that nothing can lightly be presumed to be such that any Church seems to professe But that in reducing such unavoidable debates from questionable to be determined the authority the chief Churches is by the constitution of the Church requisite to go before and make way towards obtaining the consent of the whole And that it cannot be thought that Victor would have undertook such a thing had it not belonged to him in behalf of his Church to declare himself in the businesse in case there had been cause All this while I would not have any man imagine that Victor having withdrawn his communion from the Churches of Asia the rest of Christendom were necessarily to think themselves obliged to do the same It is true there were two motives that might carry Victor to do it For seeing the Council of Nicaea did afterwards decree the same that he laboured to induce the Churches of Asia to it is too late to dispute whither side was in the right For that which was for the advancement of Christianity at the time of that Council was certainly for the advancement thereof at the time of this dispute And though in S. Johns time it might be and was without doubt for the best to comply with the Jews in maters of that indifference for the gaining of opportunities to induce them to become Christians yet when the breach between the Synagogue and the Church was once complete that reason being taken away the reason of uniformity in the Church upon which the unity thereof so much nependeth was to take place And therefore a man may say with respect to those Churches that the zeal of their Predecessors credit seduced them into that contentiousnesse which humane frailty ingendreth And those that after the decree of the Council persevered in the same practice are not without cause listed among Hereticks taking that name largely to comprehend also Schismaticks So I allow that Victor had just cause to insist upon his point But it is also â—vident that it would have been an increase of authority and credit to Victor and to his Church to seeme to give law to those Churches by reducing them to his Rule For reputation and credit with the world necessarily follows those that prevail And Victor being a man as I have granted his adversaries were might be moved with this advantage as much as with the right of his cause But though I allow that Victor had reason to insist upon his opinon yet I do no way allow that he had reason to interrupt the communion of the Church because those of Asia did not yield to it The mater it self not being of consequence to produce such an effect noâ— uniformity in all things necessary though conducing to the unity of the Church And therefore I do no
the enemies of Gods Church as of the members of it I conceive I have named the substance of these prayers the particulars whereof you may see in our English Litanies to be the same that the most ancient Writers of the Church witness to have been used after the exposition of the Scriptures whether they describe the celebration of the Eucharist as doth Justine Martyr or not as Tertullian And from hence I hope to resolve that question which I have proposed in another place and no man yet hath taken in hand to answer Why as well in the Ancient Latine as well as Eastern Liturgies as also by the testimonies of S. Austine and others it appeareth that these Prayers are twice repeated at the Eucharist The reason being this that first those who offered the creatures of which the Eucharist is consecrated and by which offering the assembly of the Church was maintained might testifie that they do it out of devotion to God hoping by so doing to obtain at his mercy not onely their own but the necessities of all other orders and estates by virtue of the Sacrifice of the Cross which at present they intend to commemorate and repete Which notwithstanding the elements being consecrated and the Body and Bloud of Christ once sacrificed on the Cross here and now represented they offer to him the same Prayers again presenting him as it were the same sacrifice here and now represented for the motive inducing him to grant the said necessities And therefore have reason to account this service the most eminent service that Christians can offer to God and those prayers the most effectual that they can address unto him as being proper to that Christianity in virtue whereof they hope to obtain their prayers and of nothing besides That which remains of this point is onely the consideration of those prayers which are made at those assemblies of the Church which pretend not to celebrate the Eucharist how they may appear to be prescribed by Christianity Where I shall need to say nothing of such Prayers as are to be made by Christian assemblies for the necessities of all Orders and Estates whether within or without the Church because I have already spoken of them when they are made upon occasion of celebrating the Eucharist The difference between that occasion and other occasions which the Church may have to frequent the same Prayers when the Eucharist is not celebrated inferring no difference in that which is prescribed to the Church or by the Church either in the mater or form of the same As for the Prayers which every assembly maketh for it self concerning the common necessities of all Christians as such which I conceive were first called Collecta because the assembly ended in them and was dismissed with them from gathering the same as the Mass hath the name in Latine Missa from dismissing it as I observed afore I shall need to say as little having showed by what authority all Christians are to be limited in such things as have been left unlimited by our Lord and his Apostles For the necessities of Christians as Christians become determinable if any thing cōcerning them become questionable by the same authority that governeth every Church upon such terms as it ought to govern the same But if any cause appear as many ages since there hath appeared necessity enough why particular Churches should be ruled in those forms by Synods that is by the common authority of more and greater Churches for maintaining unity in the whole which the form of Church Service may be a great means to violate as wee know by lamentable experience it remains that the same means be imployed for maintaining unity in this point which God hath provided for maintaining the same in all cases So that supposing that in process of time whether by direct or by indirect means the Church of Rome hath gained so much ground of the whole Western Church as to conform their Prayers and in a maner the whole Order of divine Service to the patern prescribed by it which I take to have been the case at the Reformation with all the Western Church it cannot be alleged for a sufficient cause of changing that the Church of Rome hath no right to require this conformity by Gods Law But the question must be whether the uniformity introduced by the same be so well or so ill for the prejudice or advancement of Christianity that it shall be requisite for the interest thereof to proceed to a change without the consent of the Church Which if it be true then whatsoever hath been objected to the Church of England upon this Title as agreeable to the form used by the Church of Rome not as disagreeable to Christianity is to be damned as ignorantly and maliciously objected for to make division in the Church without cause These same reasons will serve to resolve how necessary it is that those Prayers wherewith the rest of Ecclesiastical Offices Baptism Confirmation Penance the Visitation of the Sick and Mariages are celebrated be of a certain form and prescribed by the authority of the Church It were a thing strangely unreasonable for him that hath considered that which I have said in the second book how our Christianity and salvation is concerned in the Sacrament of Baptism and how much the disputes of Religion that divide the Western Church depend upon the knowledg of it to imagine that all those who must be admitted by the Church to the ministring of it can be able to express the true intent of it in such form of words as may be without offense and tend to the edification of Gods people in a thing so nearly concerning their Christianity Rather it may justly be questioned whether they that take upon them to baptize and consecrate the Eucharist not grounding themselves upon the authority of the Church supposing the Faith of the Church expressed in such a form as the Church prescribeth but their own sense concerning the ground and intent of those Sacraments Do any thing or nothing That is whether they do indeed minister the Sacrament of Baptism necessary to the salvation of all Christians or onely profane the Ordinance of God by professing an intention of doing that which is not indeed that Sacrament under pretense of celebrating it Whether they do indeed consecrate the elements to become sacramentally the Body and Bloud of Christ and so communicate the same to those which receive or onely profane those holy mysteries of Christianity and involve his people in the same guilt by pretending to celebrate so holy an Office and in effect doing nothing as not knowing what ought to be done nor submitting to those that do A consideration very necessary in regard of those who forsake the Baptism which they received in their infancy in the Church of England to be baptized again by new Dippers For it is true the Church hath admitted the Baptism of Hereticks for good but not of all
not that which is invisible by their authority in point of right For want of this authority whatsoever is done by virtue of that usurpation being voide before God I will not examine whether the forme wherein they execute the Offices of the Church which they thinke fit to exercise agree with the ground and intent of the Church or not Only I charge a peculiar nullity in their consecrating the Eucharist by neglecting the Prayer for making the elements the body and blood of Christ without which the Church never thought it could consecrate the Eucharist Whether having departed from the Church Presbyteries and Congregations scorne to learne any part of their duty from the Church least that might seeme to weaken the ground of their departure Or whether they intend that the elements remaine meere signes to strengthen mens faith that they are of the number of the elect which they are before they be consecrated as much as afterwards The want of Consecration rendering it no Sacrament that is ministred the ministring of it upon a ground destructive to Christianity renders it much more On the other side the succession of Pastors from the Apostles or those who received their authority from the Apostles is taken for a sufficient presumption on behalfe of the Church of Rome that it is Catholick But I have showed that the Tradition of Faith and the authority of the Scriptures which containe it is more ancient then the being of the Church and presupposed to the same as a condition upon which it standeth That the authority of the Apostles and the Powers left by them in and with the Church the one is originally the effective cause the other immediately the Law by which it subsisteth and in which the government thereof consisteth That the Church hath Power in Lawes of lesse consequence though given the Church by the Apostles though recorded by the Scriptures where that change which succeeds in the state of Christendome renders them uselesse to preserve the unity of the Church presupposing the Faith in order to the publick service of God But neither can the Church have power in the faith to add to take away to change any thing in that profession of Christianity wherein the salvation of all Christians consisteth and which the being of the Church presupposeth Nor in that act of the Apostles authority whereby the unity of the Church was founded and setled Nor in that service of God for which it was provided There is therefore something else requisite to evidence the Church of Rome to be the true Church exclusive to the Reformation then the visible succession of Pastors though that by the premises be one of the Laws that concurre to make every Church a Catholicke Church The Faith upon which the powers constituted by the Apostles in which the forme of government by which the service of God for which it subsisteth If these be not maintained according to the Scriptures interpreted by the originall and Catholicke Tradition of the Church it is in vaine to alledge the personall succession of Pastors though that be one ingredient in the government of it without which neither could the Faith be preserved nor the service of God maintained though with it they might possibly faile of being preserved and maintained for a mark of the true Church The Preaching of that Word and that Ministring of the Sacraments understanding by that particular all the offices of Gods publicke service in the Church which the Tradition of the Whole limiteth the Scriptures interpreted thereby to teach is the onely marke as afore to make the Church visible To come then to our case Is it therefore become warrantable to communicate with the Church of Rome because it is become unwarrantable to communicate with Presbyteries or Congregations This is indeed the rest of the difficulty which it is the whole businesse of this Book to resolve To which I must answer that absolutely the case is as it was though comparatively much otherwise For if the State of Religion be the same at Rome but in England farre worse then it was the condition upon which communion with the Church of Rome is obtained is never a whit more agreeable to Christianity then afore but it is become more pardonable for him that sees what he ought to avoide not to see what he ought to follow He that is admitted to communion with the Church of Rome by the Bull of profession of Faith inacted by Pius IV. Pope not by the Councile of Trent besides many particulars there added to the Creed which whether true or false according to the premises he sweares to as much as to his Creed at length professes to admit without doubting whatsoever else the sacred Canons and generall Councils especially the Synode of Trent hath delivered decreed and declared damning and rejecting as anathema whatsoever the Church damneth and rejecteth for heresie under anathema But whether the whole Church or the present Church the oath limiteth not Here is no formall and expresse profession that a man believes the present Church to be Infallible And therefore it was justly alledged in the first Booke that â—he Church hath never enjoyned the professing of it But here is a just ground for a reasonable Construction that it is hereby intended to be exacted because a man swears to admit the acts of Counciles as he does to admit his Creed and the holy Scriptures Nor can there be a more effectuall challenge of that priviledge then the use of it in the decree of the Councile that the Scriptures which we call Apocrypha be admitted with the like reverence as the unquestionable Canonicall Scriptures being all injoyned to be received as all of one rancke Which before the decree had never been injoyned to be received but with that difference which had alwaies been acknowledged in the Church For this act giving them the authority of prophetical Scripture inspired by God which they had not afore though it involve a nullity because that which was not inspired by God to him that writ it when he writ it can never have the authority of inspired by God because it can never become inspired by God Nor can become known that it was indeed inspired by God not having been so received from the begining without revelation anew to that purpose yet usurpeth Infallibility because it injoyneth that which no authority but that which immediate revelation createth can injoyne Further the decree of the Councile concerning justification involving a mistake in the terme and understanding by it the infusion of grace whereby the righteousnesse that dwelleth in a Christian is formally and properly that which settles him in the state of righteous before God not fundamentally and metonymically that which is required in him that is estated in the same by God in consideration of our Lord Christ Though I maintaine that this decree prejudiceth not the substance of Christianity Yet must it not be allowed to expresse the true reason by which it
our sinnes imputable to Christ nor his sufferings to us formally and personally but as the meritorious causes which satisfaction answerâ—â—h The effect of it the Covenant of Grace as well as helpe to perform it The Fathers saved by the Faith of Christ to come The Gospel a new Law The prâ—perâ—y of satisfaction and punishment in Christs sufferings Of the sense of the Catholick Church 245 CHAP. XXX God might have reconciled man to himselfe without the coming of Christ The promise of â—â—â— Gâ—spel dâ—pend as well upon his active as passive obedience Christ need 〈…〉 pâ—iâ—â—s that we might not The opinion that maketh justiâ—â—â—g 〈…〉 â—rust in God not true Yet not prejudicial to the Faith The dâ—câ—â—â— of the Council of Trent and the doctrine of the Schoole how it is not preâ—udicial to the Faith As also that of Socinus 254 CHAP. XXXI The state of the question concerning the perseverance of those that are once justified Of three senses one true one inconsistent wiâ—h the faith the third neither true nor yet destructive to the Faith Evidence from â—â—â— writings of the Apostles From the Old Testament The grace of Proâ—heâ—â—e when it presupposeth sanctifying grace Answer to some texts and of S. Pauls mâ—aâ—â—ng in the VII of the Romans Of the Polygamy of the Fathers What assurance of Grace Christians may have The Tradition of the Church 266 CHAP. XXXII How the fulfilling of Gods Law is possible how impossible for a Christian Of the difference between mortall and veniall sinne What love of God and of our neighbour was necessary under the Old Testament Whether the Sermon in the Mount correct the false interpretation of the â—ewes or inhanse the obligatin of the Law Of the difference between matter of Precept and matter of Counsail and the Perfection of Christians 285 CHAP. XXXIII Whether any workes of Christians be satisfactory for sinne and meritorious of heaven or not The recovery of Gods grace for a Christian fallen from it a worke of labour and time The necessity and essicacy of Penance to that purpose according to the Scriptures and the practice of the Church Merit by virtue of Gods promise necessary The Catholick Church agrees in it the present Church of Rome allowes merit of justice 300 The CONTENTS of the third Book CHAP. I. THe Society of the Church founded upon the duty of communicating in the Offices of Gods service The Sacrament of the Eucharist among those Offices proper to Christianity What opinions concerning the presence of Christs body and Blood in the Eucharist are on foot page 1 CHAP. II. That the Natural substance of the Elements remaines in the Sacrament That the Body and Blood of Christ is neverthâ—lâ—sse present in the same when it is received noâ— by the receiving of it The eating of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Câ—â—sâ— necessarily requireth the same This causes no contradâ—ction nor improperty â—â— the words of our Lord. 3 CHAP. III. That the presence of Christs body in the Eucharist depends not upon the living 〈◊〉 of him that receives but upon the true profession of Christianity in the 〈◊〉 thâ—â— câ—lâ—brates The Scâ—iâ—tureâ— that are alleged for the dependence of 〈◊〉 the communication of the properties They conclude not the sense of them b◠〈◊〉 â—â—ey are alleged How the Scripture confineth the flesh of Christ to the 〈◊〉 16 CHAP. IV. The opinion which maketh the Consecration to be done by rehearsing the operative words That our Lord consecrated by Thanksgiving The Form of it in all Lâ—â—urgies together with the consent of the Fathers Evidence that there is â—o Tradition of the Church for the abolishing of the Elements 23 CHAP. V. It cannot be proved by the Old Testament that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice How by the New Testament it may be so accounted Four reasons thereof depending upon the nature of Justifying Faith premised The consent of the Catholick Church The concurrence of the Church of England to the premises 38 CHAP. VI. The reason of the Order by which I proceed brings me to the Baptism of Infants in the next place The power of the Keyes seen in granting Baptism as well as in communicating the Eucharist Why Socinians make Baptism indifferent Why Antinomians make it a mistake to Baptize The grounds upon which I shake off both With answer to some objections 53 CHAP. VII The ground of Baptizing Infants Originall sinne though not instituted till Christ rose again No other cure for it Infants of Christians may be Disciplâ—â— are holy The effect of Circumcision under the Law inferreth the effect of Baptism under the Gospel 58 CHAP. VIII What is alledged to impeach Tradition for Baptizing Infants Proves not that any could be saved regularly who dyed unbaptized but that baptizing at years was a strong means to make good Christians Why the Church now Baptize What becomes of Infants dying unbaptized unanswerable What those Infants get who dye baptized â—5 CHAP. IX What controversie the Reformation hath with the Church of Rome about Penance Inward repentance that is sincere obtaineth pardon alone Remission of 〈◊〉 by the Gospel onely The condition of it by the Ministry of the Church What the power of binding and loosing contains more then Preaching or taking away offences Sinne may be pardoned without the use of it Wherein the necessity of using it lyeth 73 CHAP. X. The Sâ—cts of the Montanists Novatians Donatists and Meletians evidence the cure of sinne by Penance to be a Tradition of the Apostles So doâ—h the agreement of primitive practice with their writings Indulgence of regular Penance from the Apostles Confession of secret sinnes in the primitive Church That no sinne can be cured withoâ—â— the Keyes of the Church there is no Tradition from the Apostles The necessity of confessing secret sinnes whereupon it stands 86 CHAP. IX Penance is not required to redeem the debt of temporall punishment when the sinne is pardoned What assuraâ—ce of forgivenesse the law of auricular Confession as it is used in the Church of Rome procureth Of injoyning Penance after absolution performed Setting aside abuses the Law is agreeable to Gods Of the order taken by the Church of England 98 CHAP. XI The Unction of the sick pretendeth onely boaily health upon supposition of the cure of sinne by the Keyes of the Church Objections answered The Tradition of the Church evidenceth the same 106 CHAP. XII The ground of the Right of the Church in Matrimoniall causes Mariage of one with one iâ—solubly is a Law of Christianity The Law of Moses not injoyning it The Law of the Empire not aiming at the ground of it Evidence from the primitive practice of the Church 114 CHAP. XIV Scripture alledged to prove the bond of Mariage insoluble in case of adultery uneffectual 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
The nature and intent of it renders it subordinate to the Clergy How farre the single life of the Clergy hath been a Law to the Church Inexecution of the Canons for it Nullity of the proceedings of the Church of Rome in it The interest of the People in the acts â—f the Church And in the use of the Scriptures 368 CHAP. XXXII How great the Power of the Church and the offect of it is The right of judging the causes of Christians ceaseth when it is protected by the State An Objection If Ecclesiastical Power were from God Secular Power could not limit the use of it Ground for the Interest of the State in Church matters The inconsequence of the argument The concurrence of both Interests to the Law of the Church The Inâ—erest of the state in the indowment of the Church Concurrence of both in matrimonial causes and Ordinations Temporall penalties upon Excommunication from the State No Soveraigne subject to the greater Excommunication but to the lesse The Rights of the Jewes State and of Christian Powers in Religion partly the same partly not The infinite Power of the Pope not founded upon Episcopacy but upon acts of the Secular Powers of Christendom 381 OF THE PRINCIPLES OF Christian Truth The First BOOK CHAP. I. All agree that Reason is to decide controversies of Faith The objection that Faith is taught by Gods Spirit answered What Reason decideth questions of Faith The resolution of Faith ends not in the light of Reason but in that which Reason evidenceth to come from Gods messengers THe first thing that we are to question in the beginning is Whether there be any means to resolve by the use of reason those controverâ—â—es which cause division in the Church Which is all one as if we undertook to enquire whether there be any such skill or knowledg as that for which men call themselvs Divines For if there be it must be the same in England as at Rome And if it have no principles as no principles it can have unlesse it can be resolved what those principles are then is it a bare name signifying nothing But if there be certain principles which all parties are obliged to admit that discourse which admits no other will certainly produce that resolution in which all shall be obliged to agree And truely this hope there is left that all parties do necessarily suppose that there is means to resolve by reason all differences of Faith Inasmuch as all undertake to perswade all by reason to be of the judgment of each one and would be thought to have reason on their side when so they do and that reason is not done them when they are not believed There are indeed many passages of Scripture which say that Faith is only taught by the Spirit of God Mat. XVI 17. Blessed art thou Peter son of Ionas for flesh and blood revealed not this to thee but my Father which is in the heavens II. 25. I thank thee O Father Lord of heaven and earth that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes 1 Cor. I. 26 27 28. For Brethren you see your calling that not many wise according to the flesh not many mighty not many noble But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen to shame the wise The weak things of the world hath God chosen to shame the strong The ignoble and despicable things of the world hath God chosen and the things that are not to confound the things that are John VI. 45. It is written in the Prophets And they shall be all taught of God Heb. VIII 10. Jer. XXXI 33. This is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel in those dayes saith the Lord I will put my Laws in their mindes and write them in their hearts These and the like Scriptures then asâ—ribing the reason why wee believe to the work of Gods Spirit seem to leave no room for any other reason why wee should believe But this difficulty is easie for him to resolve that diâ—â—inguishes between the reason that moveth in the nature of an object and that motion which the active cause produceth For the motion of an object supposes that consideration which discovers the reason why wee are to believe But the motion of the Holy Ghost in the nature of an active cause proceeds without any notice that wee take of it According to the saying of our Lord to Nicodemus John 111. 8. The winde bloweth where it listeth and a man hears the noise of it but cannot tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth So is every one that is born of the spirit For wee must know that there may be sufficient reason to evict the truth of Christianity and yet prove ineffectual to induce the most part either inwardly to believe or outwardly to professe it The reason consists in two things For neither is the mater of Faith evident to the light of reason which wee bring into the world with us And the Crosse of Christ which this profession drawes after it necessarily calls in question that estate which every man is setled upon in the world So that no marvel if the reasons of believing fail of that effect which for their part they are sufficient to produce Interest diverting the consideration or intercepting the consequence of such troublesom truth and the motives that inforce it The same is the reason why the Christian world is now to barren of the fruits of Christianity For the profession of it which is all the Laws of the world can injoyn is the common privilege by which men hold their estates Which it is no marvel those men should make use of that have neither resolved to imbrace Christ with his Crosse nor considered the reason they have to do it who if they should stick to that which they professe and when the protection of the Law failes or act according to it when it would be disadvantage to them in the world so to do should do a thing inconsequent to their own principles which carried them no further than that profession which the Law whereby they hold their estates protecteth The true reason of all Apostasy in all trials As for the truth of Christianity Can they that believe a God above refuse to believe his messengers because that which they report stands not in the light of any reason to evidence it Mater of Faith is evidently credible but cannot be evidently true Christianity supposes sufficient reason to believe but not standing upon evidence in the thing but upon credit of report the temptation of the Crosse may easily defeat the effect of it if the Grace of Christ and the operation of the Holy Ghost interpose not Upon this account the knowledg of Gods truth revealed by Christ may be the work of his Grace according to the Scriptures for that so it is I am not obliged neither have I any reason here to suppose being to come in
the Church to be the onely infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith necessarily suppose that the Church is by Gods appointment that is Jure divino a Corporation Society or Body of men visible though not Civil because standing upon Gods will revealed in order to the happinesse of the world to come In which Society because in no Society all that are Interessed can act for themselvs it behooveth that there be a publick Authority vested in some persons or Bodies the Act whereof may oblige the whole And thus it may and must be understood that the Church is maintained to be Judge in Controversies of Faith by the definitive sentence of those that have authority to oblige the Body Whether Pope or Council wee dispute not here or what else may be imagined For that as all other Controversies in Religion is to be decided by the resolution of the point now in hand what is the means to determine by reason all such differences Which if it could not be decided without supposing whose authority is to tye the Church there could be no end of differences in the Church whatsoever there will be Here is then an opinion famous enough that the Church is indowed with a gift of Infallability by virtue whereof whatsoever sentence is passed by them that are authorized on behalf of the Church becomes matter of Faith and obliges all men to receive it by the same reason for which they receive the Christian Faith Now they who in opposition to this opinion do maintain the Scriptures to be the onely Judge in Controversies of Faith do involve in this opposition an equivocation manifest enough For it is manifest that their intent is to render a reason by this position why they submit not to that sentence which condemneth their positions in the name of the Church To wit because it is contrary to the Scriptures And further why they with-draw themselves from the communion of that Church which condemneth them and joyn in communion grounded upon the profession of the positions condemned maintaining themselves thereupon to be the true Church of God and those that condemne them the corrupt and counterfeit Whereby it appeareth that in effect they do maintain that there is no Judge provided by God to be visible in his Church with the gift of Infallible But that they are themselves and ought to be Judges to condemne all sentences given against the Scripture by any authority established in the Church By which means the Scripture becomes no more the Judge but the Rule or the Law by which men are to judge Whether they are to stand to such sentences as are given in the name of the Church or not Now if the Scripture be the Law or the Rule by which Controversies of Faith are to be judged there will be no pretense to exclude any means that may serve as evidence to clear the meaning of it And therefore there will be no cause why the Tradition of the Church should not be joyned with the Scripture in deciding Controversies of Faith Not disputing hitherto whether or no it contain any thing that the Scripture containeth not to clear and to determine the sense of the Scripture Whereas they that maintain the sentence of the present Church to be the reason of believing can no way resolve their belief into the Tradition of the Catholick Church Because that supposes only the act of our Lord and his Apostles delivering to the Church that which it holdeth Which who so supposeth can allege no other reason why hee believeth And therefore the sentence of the present Church cannot be the reason why any man should believe that which there was reason from the beginning to believe without it They who to exclude the Tradition of the Church state this position upon these terms That all things necessary to salvation are clearly contained in the Scriptures pretending to limit the generality of the question put it upon an issue not to be tryed till wee have resolved what means there is to determine the meaning of the Scripture For to be necessary to salvation is to be true and something more So that nothing can appear necessary to salvation till it can appear to be true Nor appear to be true untill it can be resolved what means there is to distinguish between true and false Besides how unlimited this limitation is may appear by this Because whatsoever is clear is said to be clear in relation to some sight And there is so much difference between the sight of several Christians that nothing can be said to be clear to all because it is clear to some And that which is not clear to all whose salvation is concerned in it what availes it those to whom it is not clear Now I suppose those that advance these termes will not grant that nothing is necessary to salvation that may be questioned by an argument out of the Scripture which all Christians cannot answer Knowing that such things as themselvs hold necessary to salvation may be assalted by such reasons out of the Scripture as they do not think all Christians fit to resolve Besides they do not pretend that all things necessary to salvation are clear in the Scripture of themselvs but by consequence of reason which may make them clear Now hee that would draw true consequences from the Scripture had need be well informed of the mater of that Scripture which hee drawes into consequence And to that information how can it appear that any thing is more necessary than the Tradition of the Church Therefore though I say not yet whether it be true or false that all things necessary to salvation are clearly contained in the Scriptures yet at the present I say that this is not the prime truth which must give a reason of all that followes upon it but demands a reason to be given for it by those principles upon which the resolution of all maters of Faith depends All this while wee agree upon the supposition that the Church is a Society of men subsisting by Gods revealed will distinct from all other Societies Because as I said those that have departed from the Church of Rome have hitherto pretended their own communion to be the true Church For if it be said that they do not or scarce ever did agree in communion one with another so that they can pretend to constitute all one Church That is not because they do not think that they ought all to constitute one Church but because they agree not upon the conditions Each part thinking that the other doth not believe as those whom they may communicate with ought to believe But this is now manifestly contradicted by two opinions among us though the one can be no â—ect the other as yet appears not to be one The first is that of them that think themselves above Ordinances the Communion of the Church onely obliging proficients and every perfect Christian being to himself a Church Of these
it is manifest that the authority which S. Paul giveth Timothy and Titus as his Epistles to them evidence is respective to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet or at the most those Churches which resorted to them Yet are they inabled thereby to constitute Bishops for the service of the said Churches as also their Deacons and to govern the same 1 Tim. II. 5. Titus I. 6-9 The Elders of the Church which S. Paul sent for to Ephesus had authority respective to the Church there meant but received from S. Paul as his directions and exhortations intimate Acts XX. 17 28-21 So did the Elders which hee and Barnabas ordained in the Churches Acts XIV 28. The like wee finde in the Churches of the Jewes Heb. XIII 7 17. James V. 14. 1 Pet. V. 1-5 and of the Thessalonians and Philippians 1 Thess V. 12 13. Phil. I. 1. And the seven Churches of Asia have their seven Angels which the Epistles which the Spirit directs S. John to write them do show that they were to acknowledge his authority Apoc. I. 20. II. III. So as long as the Scriptures last it is evident that there was a common authority whether derived from or concurrent with the authority of the Apostles which must needs make the Church one Body during that time whatsoever privilege can be challenged on behalf of the people and their concurrence to the acts either of each particular Church or of the whole And for the continuance of this authority after the Apostles I see no cause why I should seek farr for evidence It shall susfice mee to allege the Heads of the Churches of Rome Alexandira Antiochia and Jerusalem recorded by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical Histories from the time of the Apostles Adding thereunto thereunto the protestations of Irenaeus III. 3. that hee could reckon those rhat received their authority from the Apostles in all Churches though for brevities sake hee insist onely in the Church of Rome And of Tertullian de Praescript cap. XXXII who also allegeth the very Chaires which the Apostles sate upon possessed by those that succeeded them in his time as well as the Originals of those Epistles which they sent to such Churches extant in his time I will also remember S. Augustine Epistolâ CLXV and Optatus lib. II. alleging the same succession in the Church of Rome to confound the Donatists with for departing from the comminion thereof and of all Churches that then communicated with it For what will any man in his right senses say to this That this authority came not from the Apostles Or that it argues every one of these Churches to be a Body by it self but not all of them to make one Body which is the Catholick Church Hee that sayes this must answer Irenaeus alleging for a reason why hee instances onely in the Church of Rome Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique sideles For to this Church it is necessary that all Churches that is the Christians that are on all sides should resort because of the more powerfull principality What is the reason why it is enough for Irenaeus to instance in the Church of Rome but this That all Churches do communicate with the Church of Rome when they resort to Rome and all resort thither because it is the sear of the Empire So that which is said of the Faith of the Church of Rome is said of the Faith of all Churches And potentior principalitas is not command of the Church over other Churches but the power of the Empire which forces the Christians of all sides to resort to Rome Again the cause of the Church against the Donarists stands upon this ground that the Church of Rome which the Churches of Africk did communicate with communicated with all Churches besides those of Africk But that Church of Rome which the Donatists communicated with for they also had set up a Church of their own at Rome the rest of the Church did not communicate with How this came to passe you may see by the cause of the Novatians being the same in effect with that of the Donatists By the IV Canon of Nicaea it is provided that every Bishop be made by all the Bishops of the Province some of them as many as can meeting the rest allowing the proceedings under their hand This provision might be made when there were Churches in all Cities of all Provinces but the I Canon of the Apostles onely requireth that a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops For when Christianity was thinner sowed if two or three should take the care of providing a Pastor for a Church that was void their proceeding was not like to be disowned by the rest of the neighbouring Churches nor in particular by that of the chief City to which the Cities of the rest resorted for justice The Churches of these chief Cities holding intelligence correspondence and communion with other Churches of other principal Cities those Churches which they owned together with their Rulers or whosoever they were that acted on behalf of them must needs be owned by them in the same unity and correspondence The Bishop of Rome being dead while the question depended whether those that had fallen away in the persecution of Decius should be readmitted to communion or not And the neighbour Bishops being assembled sixteen of them ordain Cornelius three of them Novatianus who stood strictly upon rejecting them whatsoever satisfaction they tendered the Church Whether of these should be received was for a time questionable especially in the Church of Antiochia and those Churches which adheered to it Untill by the intercession of Dionysius of Alexandria they were induced to admit of Cornelius without dispute All this and much more you have in Eusebius Eccl. Hist VI. 42-46 Which being done there remained no further question that those who held with Cornelius were to be admitted those that held with Novatianus remaining excommunicate Whereby it appeares that by the communication which passed between the greatest Churches and the adherence of the lesse unto them whatsoever Church communicated with any Church communicated with the whole And in what quality soever a man was known in his own Church in the same hee was acknowledged by all Churches And therefore the succession of the Rulers of any Church from the Apostles is enough to evidence the unity of the Catholick Church as a visible Corporation consisting of all Churches I must not here omit to allege the authority of Councils and to maintain the right and power of holding them and the obligation which the decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same authority of the Apostles Which if I do there can no further question remain whether the Church was founded for a Corporation by our Lord and his Apostles when wee see the parts ruled by the acts of the whole That is to say
should follow that under the Gospel there should be no such Power in the Church For had it been never so clear never â—o much granted that such a Power was in force under the Law yet could it not be derived upon the Church mediately or immediately from some act of our Lord Christ founding his Church it would not have served the turne The Law of Moses continuing Scripture to the worlds end but Law to none but to those whom it was given to oblige That is the people that subsisted by receiving it and that for that time when it was intended to be in force But if it may appear that the Church is made one Society and Communion by the act of them that founded it and that such it cannot be without a Profession limiting or uniting the right of that Communion to him that makes it nor stand such without power of denying the same to him that visibly makes that Profession and visibly failes of it Whether any such thing were in force under the Law or not under the Gospel it shall not therefore fail to be in force True it is that this cannot be true unlesse a competent reason may be made to appear of something answerable to it under the Law in the same proportion as the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel between the Synagogue and the Church holds But such a one will not be wanting in this case They that argue from the excluding of Adam out of Paradise to the putting of sinners out of the Church if they argue no more than a figure discernâ—ble by the truth when competent evidence of that truth is made conclude not amisse For though this be before the Law yet not before the purpose of God in figuring Chriâ—â—ianity was set on foot And that Paradise as it is a figure of heaven and the joyes thereof so likewise is a figure of the Church upon earth is necessarily conâ—equent to the reason upon which the mystical sense of the Old Testament is grounded So likewise under the Law the shutting of Lepers out of the camp of Israel answerable in the Jewes Law to the City of Jerusalem and supposing the truth of the Gosâ—el a figure of the visible Church neither signified any cause nor produced any effect but of a legal incapacity of conversing with Gods people But supposing a spiritual people of God intitled by their profession to remission of sins and life everlasting a visible failleure of this profession is the cause which producing inviâ—ble separation from God is competent to produce a visible separation from the Church which is visibly that people The penalty allotted to the neglect of circumcision is The childe to be cut off from his people Which penalty beginning there is afterward much frequented by the Law in many cases the penalty whereof is to be cut off from Gods people Signifying as hee hath learnedly showed and saved mee the pains of doing it again that such a forfeiture should make him that incurred it lyable to be suddenly out off by Gods hand from the land of his people And because it was an evident inconvenience that a civil Law should leaye such faults to Gods punishment who never tied himself to execute the punishment though hee made the transgressor lyable to it therefore the Antiens of Gods people according to Gods Law have allotted to such faults the punishment of scourging as next in degree to capital for grievous But there are several other crimes mentioned in the Law which who incurres is by the same Law cut off from Gods people by being put to death I demand now what correspondence can be more exact supposing the Law that tenders the happinesse of this life in the Land of Promise to them that undertake and observe it to be the fore-runner of the New Covenant that tenders remission of sins and life everlasting upon the same terms than is seen betwixt the invisible and visible forfeiture of the privileges of Gods people in the Land of Promise and the invisible and visible forfeiture of the Communion of Gods people as the sin is notorious or not Nor will it serve his turn to scorn S. Cyprian urging as you may see by my book of the Right of the Church that Origen and S. Austin do pag. 27. that Excommunication in the Church is the same as putting to death under the Law As proving that by a meer allusion which if it have not other grounds is not like to be received For S. Paul saith well that the Scriptures are able to make a man wise unto salvation through Faith in Christ Jesus 2 Tim. III. 15. speaking of the Scriptures of the Old Testament Because without faith in Christ upon the motives which his coming hath brought forth to the world they are not able to do it but supposing those motives received do inable a Christian to give a reason of that different dispensation whereby it pleased God to govern things under the Law and so not onely to attain salvation but with wisedom to direct others in it and take away stumbling blocks oâ—t of their way to it And in this case should a man go about to perswade Christians to admit such a Power over them by no other argument than this well might the motion be scorned by them to whom it were tendred But there being no pretense in this allegation but of rendring a reason for a Power of the Church from that of the Synagogue and the Fathers so well stated in the difference between the Law and the Gospel as not easily chargeable of the indiscretion to use ridiculous arguments it is to be maintained that they have given such a reason from the Old Testament as is to be required by such as would be wise to salvation by it Indeed I could not but observe in the late History of Henry the Eight p. 157. where the Writer imagines what reasons Cardinal Woolsey gave the Pope for his consent to the dissolving of some little Monasteries for the erection of his Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich that hee alleges among others That the Clergy should rather fly to Tropes and Allegories if not to Cabbala it self than permit that all the parts of Religious worship though so obvious as to fall easily within common understandings should be without their explication The intent whereof may justly seem to charge the Clergy to have advanced the mystical sense of the Scripture as a means to make the Religion they maintaine more considerable for the difficulty of it But I would there were not too much cause to suspect from other writings of the same Author a compliance with Porphyry Celsus Julian and other enemies of Christianity that have not spared to charge our Lord Christ and his Apostles with abuse and imposture in alleging the Scriptures of the Old Testament impertinently to their purpose though here hee charge onely the Clergy for that wherein they follow his and their steps To mee I confesse
by the Scriptures and by the primitive Records of the Church many revelations made to Gods people at their publick Assemblies by the means of such as had the Grace And thereupon do inferre that such a revelation was made to that Assembly upon the place directing the decree which there follows and is signified according to that brevity which the Scriptures use in alleadging that whereof no mention is premised in the relation that went afore by these words it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Now the words of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 20. Behold I am with you to the worlds end are manifestly said to the body of the Church and therefore do not promise it any priviledge of the Apostles And truly seeing it is a promise immediately insuing upon a Precept Go preach and make Disciples all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you I find it a matter of no ill consequence but very reasonable to say that the Precept is the condition of the Promise seeing no act so expressed can reasonably be understood otherwise But in regard it is otherwise manifest that the continuance of the Church is absolutely promised and foretold till the world end by name in those other words of our Lord The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Mat. XXI 18. I shall easily admit that God absolutely promises to be with his to the worlds end so as to preserve himselfe a people in the manifold distractions and confusions that fall out by the fault of those that professe themselves Christians as well as by the malice of Infidels But I shall deny that this inferres the gift of Infallibility in any person or quality in behalfe of the Body of Christians For supposing the visible profession of Christianity to continue till the worlds end so that under this visible profession there is sufficient means to conduct a true Christian in the way to salvation And that by this means a number of men invisibly united to our Lord Christ by his Spirit do attain unto salvation indeed These promises of our Lord will be evidently true though we neither acknowledge on one side any gift of Infallibility in the Church nor deny on the other side the visible unity of the Church instituted by Gods Law It will be evidently true that our Lord Christ is with his Disciples that is Christians till the worlds end who could not continue invisibly united to him without the invisible presence of his Spirit It will be evidently true that the Gates of Hell prevail not against his Church in the visible society whereof a number of invisible Christians prevail over the powers of darknesse For though granting the Church to be subject to error salvation is not to be attained without much difficulty And though division in the Church may create more difficulty in attaining salvation then errour might have done yet so long as salvation may be and is attained by visible communion with the Church so long is Christ with his nor do the Gates of Hell prevail against his Church though error which excludeth infallibility though division which destroyeth unity hinder many and many of attaining it But if the consequence that is made from those words of our Lord be lame that which may be pretended from the power of the Keyes or of remitting â—â—d retaining sins both one by the premises granted S. Peter the Apostles of the Church will easily appear to be none at all For no man can maintain the power of remitting and retaining sins to be granted to the Church but he must yield it to be communicated to more then those in whom the gift of Infallibility can be pretended to reside Neither can the greatest of the Apostles remit oâ— retain any mans sinne without inducing him to imbrace profession of Christianity or if having imbraced it he fall from it in deed and in effect without reducing him to the course and study of performing the same and upon due profession thereof readmitting him into the Church on the other side excluding those that cannot be reduced to this estate Nor can the least of all that are able to bring any man into the Church fail of doing the same upon the same terms And did ever any man ascribe the gift of Infallibility to all them that should have power and right from the Church and in the Church to do this What meaneth then the exception of clave non errante which is every where and by every body cautioned for that with any reason challenges the power of the Keyes for the Church To me it seems rather an argument to the contrary that seeing this power is challenged for the Church under this general exception without limiting the exception to any sort of maters or subjects And that the act of it is the effect of the decrees of the greatest authority visible in the Church as whether Arias should communicate with the Church or not was the issue of as great a debate as the authority of the Church can determine that therefore the sentence of his excommunication proceeded not from the gift of Infallibility in any authority concurring to the decree of Nicaea whence it proceeded granting generally the power of excommunication to be liable to the exception of clave non errante Indeed it cannot be denyed that something requisite to the exercise of this power was in the Apostles infallible or unquestionable as presupposed to the being of the Church For what satisfaction could men have of their Christianity if any doubt could remain whether the faith which they preached were sent from God or not whither the Laws of Ecclesiastical communion which they advanced were according to their Commission or not But the causes upon which the Church is obliged to proceed to imploy this Power being such as depend many times upon the rule of faith and the Laws given the Church by the Apostles by very many links between both The dependance whereof it is hard for all those that are sometimes to concur to these sentences to discern I conceive it now madnesse to maintain the gift of Infallibility from the power of the Keyes in the exercise whereof so many occasions of failing may come to pass As for the exhortations of the Apostles whereby they oblige the Churches of the Thessalonians and Ebrues diligently to obey and follow their Governors 1 Thes V. 14. 15. Heb. XIII 7. 17. these I acknowledge to be pertinent to the question in debate as concerning such Governours as had in their hands the ordinary power of the Church saving that when he saith Remember your Rulers which have spoken to you the word of God And considering the issue of their conversation imitate their faith It is possible he may speak of those that first brought them the Gospel and those were the Apostles and Disciples of Christ either of the first rank of the XII or
XI 50. 51. 52. But in what sense doe Christians find it true Surely no man that ever prayed to God in Christs name need to be told it It is requisite therefore that we have recourse to the consideration of those thinges which the Scripture uses to joyne with the mention of Christs dying for us if we will rightly determine the meaning of it And so having premised the consideration of a sacrifice upon which our sinnes were charged of our ransome by the price of it of reconciliation and propitiation for sinne obtained for us by it we must conclude that when the Scripture speakes of Christs death for us the meaning of it cannot be satisfyed by granting that he died to move us to be Christians CHAP. XXIX The grant of Grace in consideration of Christ supposes satisfaction made by him for sinne Neither our sinnes imputable to Christ nor his sufferings to us formally and personally but as the meritorious causes which satisfaction answereth The effect of it the Covenant of Grace as well as help to performe it The Fathers saved by the Faith of Christ to come The Gospel a new Law The property of Satisfaction and Punishment in Christs sufferings Of the sense of the Catholike Church THere remaines one argument from the premises where I concluded that effectuall Grace is appointed from everlasting and therefore granted in time in consideration of Christ and his merits according to S. Paul Ephes I. 3-6 For if this grace be granted in consideration of Christ and life everlasting appointed from everlasting and granted in time in consideration of that quality which this grace effâ—cteth it cannot in reason be avoided that remission of sinne and life everlasting is granted here in right and title and in effect in the world to come in consideration of that quality which the effectuall helps of Grace of their own nature tend to produce which they are appointed by God to produce and which really and in effect thus are produced being granted by God in consideration of Christs obedience But why should I be so solicitous to restore all those Scriptures to their true meaning which they have set upon the rack to make them speak a false having such evidence of reason that by this position they make the death of Christ voide and needlesse even in their owne judgement For though if they should say that Christ came onely to show those workes that migh be sufficient to make his Gospell credible and give us good example I could not say that the death of Christ were to no end Yet would they say that it were to no competent end complaining as they do how much they are wronged when they are understood to acknowledge no further end of his coming But when they say that he died to induce men to be Christians by inacting the Covenant of Grace that is assuring them that God will stand to it on his part and that according to the example of Christ bearing his Crosse they shall attaine his glory I demand how all this can be more assurance then every man hath that is peremâ—orily assured otherwise as no man doubts but competently it may be assured otherwise that the Gospell of Christ is Gods message For when sufficient evidence is once made and a man is convinced to beleeve that God promises remission of sinnes and everlasting life to them that imbrace it can he that beleives God to be God remaine any more doubtfull of the truth of his promise To Pharao and to his people it was necessary that the wonders of God should be repeated till they stood convict that there was no God else which they beleived not afore But to them that admit the God of Israel to be the onely true God being convict that the Gospell is his promise is any further assurance requisite that he will stand to it who were not God if he should not stand to it when they say that Christ died to the end that being advanced to be God he might be able to bring his promises to effect I referre my selfe to the sense of any man that is able to thinke of God with due reverence whether it be possible to imagine that a meere man having made promises to mankind in Gods name can live with God to see Gods promises frustrate And by consequence whether it can appeare necessary that our Lord Christ should be advanced to be God that he might be able in his owne person to fullfill the promises which he had made us in his Fathers Name I referre my selfe to that which I have said to show the word of God which took the flesh of man from the Virgine to be God from everlasting as the Sonne of God and his everlasting wisâ—ome and image And therefore not advanced to be God in consideration of his obedience But that having condescended to that state which his obedience in doing his fathers message and testifying the truth thereof required the Sonne of God incarnate was advanced in our flesh by the appointment of God in reward of his obedience to the privilege of sending the Holy Ghost to make his Gospell effectuall to convert the nations to Christianity that by them he might be acknowledged and glorified for that which he was from everlasting So that the end of his coming being to obtaine that grace by which the world might be converted to Christianity and being converted obtaine remission of sinnes and life everlasting for it and neither of these purposes admitted by Socinus we may well say to him as S. Paul sayes to the Jews Gal. II 21. If righteousnesse be by the Law then is Christ deade in vaine So if righteousnesse came as Socinus would have it then is Christ deade to no purpose Because all that he requires might have been as well effected without it Whereas a due valuable consideration in regard whereof the converting grace of the Holy Ghost and remission of sinnes and life everlasting in consideration of the effect thereof should be granted could not have been had without it It is strange to be observed how litle Socinus hath to produce out of the scriptures to prove a position of such consequence as this All his businesse in a maner being to draw those texts which heitherto have been understood in the sense of the Church to his intent I can for the present recall no more then those frequent passages of the Apostles especially S. Paul whereby they affirme the righteousnesse and salvation of Christians to come by the meere grace of God and our Lord Christ Which I need not here repeate no wayes apprehending the infernce That it cannot be said to come from the meere grace of God if I suppose the consideration of Christs obedience and sufferinges as the purchase of it It is true in the wordes of the Prophet Jeremy XXXI 34-34 alleged by the Apostle Ebr. VIII 8-12 to be meant of the Gospell we find a promise of God to pardon the sinnes of his
any now unlesse the signification thereof be fuâ—ther limited by other terms which being added to it every man will allow may determine a sense utterly prejudiciall to it True it is divers have observed that the word merâ—râ— in good Latine especially of those later ages in which the Fathers writ signifies no more then to attaine compasse or purchase Arguing from thence that the workes of Christians merit heaven in their sense and language no otherwise then because they are the meanes by which we attaine it So Cassander observes that S. Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. I. 13. is by S. Cyprian translated misericordiam merui not intending to say that S. Paul deserved that mercy which he professes to have received of Grace But onely to signify that he found mercy and attained it But though I should grant that this word may signify no more in the language of the Fathers yet the Faith and the sense out of which it is evident that they spake will inforce that it doth signify as much as I say when they speak of our coming to heaven by our workes For having once resolved that the Covenant of Grace renders life everlasting due by Gods promise to those that lâ—ve as at their Baptisme they undertook though not for the worth of their workes yet by the mercy of God in Christ which moved him to tender such a promise he that sayes a man attaines heaven by the meanes of those workes which he lives in like a Christian sayes that those workes of his do merit heaven in the sense that I challenge For as for those that will have the workes of Christians to merit heaven of their own intrinsicke value Of those I have already said that I conceive they do prejudice the Christian â—aith in not allowing the necessity of Gods grace through Christ in accepting the condition which the Gospel requires for such a reward as the intrinsick value of it cannot deserve by Gods originall law For granting those helps of Gods grace in Christ being supernaturall and heavenly to hold proportion and correspondence with the reward of life everlasting which is the same Yet will it not follow that in all regards for the purpose in that the actions which they produce are momentany the reward everlasting which is the consideration S. Paul uses Rom. VIII 18. 1 Cor. VII 17 18. the correspondence will produce an equality of value And though the first principle of them be heavenly and supernaturall which is the help which God for Christs sake allowes yet seeing that it comes not immediately to effect but by the meanes of the faculties of mans soule infected with originall concupiscence it cannot be said that they can demand a reward correspondent to heavenly grace alone when earthly weakness concurres to imbase and allay the value of that which it produceth But as it cannot be denied that the Church of Rome in which that Order which maintainâ—s this extremity hath so great credit allowes this doctrine of merit to be taught yet can it not be said to injoine it Because there have not wanted to this day Doctors of esteem that have alwayes held otherwise Among whom I may very well name Sylvius now or lately Professor of Divinity at Doway who in his Commentaries upon the second part of Thomas Aquinas his Summe expounds that meritum de condigno which the Schoole attributes to the workes of Christians to be grounded in dignatione Dei because God vouchsafes and daignes to accept them whose they are as worthy of the reward expressing also the promise of the Gospell whereby this condescension of God is declared The Schoole Doctors found out the termes of meritum ex congruo ex condigno merit of congâ—uity and condignity Some of them because they thought That the workes of meer nature deserve supernaturall grace in regard that it is fit that God should reward him that doth his best with it That works done in the state of Grace are worth the Glory of the world to come But as the former part of the position which is planted upon these terms is rejected by many So they who onely acknowledge meritum congrui in workes done in the state of grace that is to say that it is fit for God to reward them with his kingdome say no more then that it was fit for God to promise such a reward Which whoso denieth must say that God hath promised that which it was unfit for him to promise And if the dignity of our works in respect of the reward may have this tolerable sense because God daignes and vouchsafes it The Councill of Trent which hath inacted no reason why they are to be counted merits can neither bear out these high opinions nor be said to prejudice the Faith in this point For The kingdom of God is not in word but in power if S. Paul say true And therefore though I affect not the terme of merit which divers of the Reformation do not reject Yet can I not think it so far from the truth so prejudiciall to the faith as the peevish opinions of those that allow not good workes necessary to salvation but as signes of Faith For that which necessarily comes in consideration with God in bestowing the reward which the condition he contracteth for must necessarily do though it cannot have the nature of merit because the Covenant it self is granted meerly of Grace in consideration of Christs death yet it is of necessity to be reduced to the nature and kind of the meritorious cause Nor can the glory of God or the merit of Christ be obscured by any consideration of our works that is grounded upon the merit of our Lord Christ and expresseth the tincture of his bloud The end of the Second Book Laus Deo OF THE LAWES OF The Church The Third BOOK CHAP. I. The Society of the Church founded upon the duty of communicating in the Offices of Gods Service The Sacrament of the Eucharist among those Offices proper to Christianity What opinions concerning the presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist are on foot IF God had onely appointed the Profession of Christianity to be the condition qualifying for the world to come leaving to every mans judgment to determine what that Christianity is and wherein it consists which it is necessary to salvation hee professe and what that conversation is which his salvation requireth There had been no cause why I should go any further in this Dispute But having showed that God hath appointed the Sacrament of Baptisme to be a necessary means to salvation limiting thereby the profession of Christianity which hee requireth to be deposited and consigned in the hands of his Church whom hee hath trusted for the maintaining and propagating of it I have thereby showed that hee hath appointed all Christians to live in the Communion of the Church The effect of Baptisme being to admit unto full Communion in those Offices wherewith God is
his presence in the Church at the beginning of Christianity Afterwards it was provided that the oyl should be consecrated by the Bishop with the Prayers of the Church in virtue whereof whither applyed by the Priests or by private Christians there might be hope that it might operate S. Chrysostome in Mat. Hom. XXXII Eth. comparing the entertaining of the Apostles at home there mentioned with obeying their successors in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For both this Table is farre more precious and pleasant then that and this light which all know who anointing themselves with oyl seasonably and with faith have avoided diseases S. Austine de Civ XXII 8. Hipponensem quandam virginem scio cum se oleo perunxisset cui pro illa orans Presbyter lacrymas suas instillaverat mox à daemonio fuisse sanatam I know a certain maid of Hippo hauing anointed her selfe with oyl in which the Priest praying for her had dropt his tears was straight cured of a Devil Here is nothing but the cure of the body by consecrated oyl only that the Priest who gave it the maid prayed for her when he gave her it Therefore when Hilarion cured the Son in law and daughter of Constantia with oyl we are to understand the consecrated oyl with which the hinds and shepheards of Aegypt cured themselves of the bitings of Serpents by his direction Hieron in Hilarione Nor did Malachias in S. Bernard pretend any more thereby then bodily cure Therefore I do not marvail that Innocent I. should speak of unction without Penance who seems expresly to grant that sick persons should anoint themselves with that oyl which the Church should send them for that purpose To wit upon supposition that they need not the Keyes of the Church for the cure of their sinnes For Frier Thomas of Walden de Sacram. Tomo II. cap. penult understandeth him as indeed his words impart if you offer them no violence and the practice of the practice of Egypt who are said to have sent it to the sick and of the Greek Church in giving it to those that are well seems to imply to wit that as when the oblations of those who cannot be present at Church are received they are partakers â—of the benefit of those prayers which the Eucharist is celebrated with because they are thereby acknowledged to belong to the communion of the Church So the sending of that unction which they apply to themselves importeth the blessing of the Church to go along with their Prayers which it is used with Thus much for certain when the Greeks contend that this unction belongs also to those that are well as the complement of their Penance arguing from the act of the Apostles who anointed those to whom they preached repentance and allowing it to the sick as that which for the present may be applyed unto them when as the exigent of their case will not allow them to perform Penance as you may see by Arcudius V. 4. they do clearly enough express the reason which I give CHAP. XII The ground of the Right of the Church in Matrimonial causes Mariage of one with one insolubly is a Law of Christianity The Law of Moses not injoyning it The Law of the Empire not aiming at the ground of it Evidence from the primitive practice of the Church IN the next place we are to consider what Interess the Church hath in the Mariages of Christians And that without granting Mariage to be one of the Sacraments of the Church or any thing implying what a Sacrament is and by consequence how many there are But yet supposing for disputations sake that it were a Sacrament that is not supposing the contrary but demanding nothing but that which must be granted whither it be so or not that our discourse may proceed Two things I suppose the one as proved in due place That the Church is by Gods Law a society which all Christians are bound to have communion with And that God hath given a peculiar Law concerning the Mariage of one with one and that indissoluble to all Christians For upon supposition hereof all the interest of the Church in Matrimoniall causes standeth Which is therefore now to be proved thence inforcing that whatsoever grows questionable among Christians concerning Mariage upon the account of that Law which is proper to Christianity belongs to the Church to determine For it is not my purpose to say that Christian States have nothing to do in Matrimoniall causes But that the Interess of the State and of the Church though not distinguishable by the persons when the fame persons belong to both are to be disâ—inguished by the causes and grounds and considerations upon which they arise and stand So that what comes from a reason concerning civill society belong to the State what from the Law which Christians onely acknowledge to the Church to limite and determine If then any difference arise among Christians concerning Mariage that supposeth not some provision brought in by the Gospel I will not undertake that the determination of it belongs to the Church by Gods Law On the contrary therefore that which becomes questionable upon that account I challenge to belong to the Church to determine that is to those that have right to determine on behalfe of the Church For I appeal to the common sense and experience of the world to evidence this That when any Law is given to any society or body founded upon reasons which afore the founding of it were not in force there will of necessity fall out new Cases in which it will be questionable whether the reason of the Law is to take place or not And let the Christian world be witnesse whether it be not requisite to acknowledge that if Christianity come from God then God hath provided a course to secure Christians in conscience that their Mariages are not against the will of God Therefore according to Aristoles reason the law which God hath given Christians concerning Mariage being generall and the cases which mens particular occasions produce being infinite and so not determined by the Law it followeth that they are referred by God to the determination of that society that is of those that act in behalfe of it with right to conclude it which God hath founded upon the acknowledgement of those Lawes whereof this is one In the first place then I am not afraid to undertake that the Law of the Mariages of Christians that they be of one with one and indissoluble is given by our Lord to his Church and maintained by it For I am confident to make evidence out of that which is received by all Christians together with the premises that it could neither have come into the world but by Christianity nor have been maintained so inviolable as it hath been by the Canons of the Church I say then that it is impossible for any reasonable man to imagine that so difficult a Law as for all men to be tied
to study the reconciling of carnality vvith Christianity Supposing the consent of a body vvhereof they thought themselves to be members it is no marvail that there would not Not supposing that it must needs appear utterly unreasonable As for the insolubility of mariage by divorce I vvill not say there hath been so absolute a consent in it by the practice of Christians as in the mariage of one to one It is argued indeed in the late Book called Vxor Ebraica pretending onely to relate the opinions and practice of Christians in mater of divorce but intending as it should seem by the Authors opinion declared elsewhere that there is no such thing as Ecclesiasticall Power or any society of the Church by Gods Law to inferre that the Church hath nothing to do vvith Matrimoniall causes vvhich it hath nothing to do with if any thing but the lavv of the Church can secure the conscience in point of divorce p. 543. 544. that so long as the Christians vvere mingled with the Jews they observed the judiciall laws of the Synagogue and therefore corrected all divorces good beâ—or God which were according to Moses Lavv. And therefore that vvhatso ever was in force among Christians before Constantine was in force meerly by the voluntary consent of Christians vvhich vvas to give vvay vvhen the secular Power should otherwise provide as in mater of divorce so in other Matrimoniall causes This is thâ—â—â—â—ich seems to be intended p. 559. But this pretence is rooted up by proving the Church to be a society and Body founded by God to communicate in the service of God for the attaining of everlasting life For thereupon it remâ—â—ns evident that the Lavvs thereof came not originally from the voluntary consent of Christians unlesse you understand that consent whereby they submit to the Christian faith that they may be saved and thereupon find themselves tieâ— to submit to them from whom they receive that faith whereby they hope to be saved but from those who first delivered Christianity to the Church that is from our Lord his Apostles And had Christians been left to their own choice it is not possible they should have imposed upon themselves that is that the whole Church should have received that charge of not divorcing which the Rules and Customes of the Church evidence to have been in force through the whole Church as by and by it will appear As for the time when the Christians observed Moses Law that excellent saying of Justine the Martyâ— takes place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They obey the Lawes and by their own lives go beyond the Laws For the Jews Law was then their Civill Law because authorized by the Romanes in as much as they restrained it not So by complying with the Jews they gained the free exercise of their Christianity as well as invited them to admit and receive it But did they therefore renounce the Law of Christ where it restrained them more then the Law of Moses Did they allow themselves more wives then one when Moses allowed it the Jews and they complyed with Moses Certainly the Law that allows a man more wives then one never constrained any man to make use of that allowance So well might the Christians acknowledging Moses Law acknowledge themselves bound not to use the power of putting away their wives when Moses Law allowed it But it is further argued there lib. III. cap. XXVIII XXIX XXX at least it seems upon the same ground to be argued that the Roman Laws from Constantine to the fall of the Eastern Empire in a maner do allow divorce upon such causes as the Soveraign thought fit Which Laws being made by Christian Princes intending to limit that infinite liberty which the former laws of the Empire allowed either party to dissolve mariage at pleasure with all that he brought must needs pretend to secure Christians in point of conscience divorcing upon no other causes then those laws allow Constantine therefore restrains the liberty of divorce to three causes on either side On the wives side if the â—usband should Murther Poyson or Rob graves On the husbands if the wife should be an Adulteress an Impoisoner or a Bawd And this at such time as he advised with Bishops in all that he did granting then an appeal to their Courts by an act dated the same year as it is probable and lately published in Sirmondus his Appendix to Theodosius his Code without date for the year but directed to the same Ablavius P. P. to whom the form is directed Cod. Theod. lib. III. Tit. XVI which Theodosius the younger a very Christian Prince extends to many more Justinian the legislative humour being then predominant limits the mater otherwise as he thought fit His successor Justine goes beyond him in allowing divorce upon consent of parties though at neither parties choice Which Law is not found to have been repealed till it was left out of that collection of Laws called the Basilicae into which Leo the wife about the year DCCCC compiled all the Laws which he meant should stand unrepealed The particulars you may see curiously collected there Which I should make no account of did it not appear also by sundry testimonies of later times there alledged that the Greek Church did proceed according to the said Laws in blessing Mariages made upon such divorces and consequently allowing the communion of the Church to those that made them Balsamon upon Syn. VI. Can. LXXXVIII defines an unreasonable cause of divorce to be that which the Judge to wit according to the Law allows not Noâ— makes he any exception to them from any Canon of the Church writing upon Photius his Nâ—mocanon Tit. XIII 4. 30. And upon Can. Carthag CV alledging Justinian Novel CXVII he saith That the Canon is not in force to wit the Law having provided otherwise referring himselfe to that which he had written upon the VI Synode quoted afore Harmenopulus also in Prochicro sayes plainly that divorces were judged amongst them by the Imperiall Laws And Matthaus Monachus Quaest Matrim Juris Grâ—co-Rom Tomo I. p. 507. So also the Canons of Alexuis Patr. CP about MXXX alledged by our Author out of a written Copy p. 613. And Michael Chrysocephalus upon Can. Apost XLVIII p. 600. Besides Matthâ—us Blastares in Nomocan alledged by Arcudius p. 517. where he being a Greek confesseth that the Greek Church had sometimes practiced according to the Civill Laws Which had they not secured the conscience it could not it ought not to have done And what case can there be in point of mariage wherein the Law of the Land secures not the conscience if in point of divorce it do Or where is the indissolubility of mariage and the Interest of the Church in mariage grounded upon it But because it would be two gross for a Christian to say that mans Law allowing divorce can secure a Christian in conscience against Gods Law forbidding it our Lord having said Whoso puts away his wife
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
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
and not for adultery remaining alive Then we see what a horrible breach the civil Power hath made upon Christianity by hindring the Power of the Church to take place For on the one side the blessing of the Church seems to concur to the securing of the consciences of particular Christians that they forfeit not their interest in the promises of the Gospell by doing that to which the Church for avoiding greater mischiefe is constrained to concurre On the other side that which is done is not onely by the consent of the whole Church in the sense of our Lords Law but by those Divines of the Eastern Church which writ during time that this corruption is pretended as Euthymius and Theophylact upon Mat. V. condemned for adultery Now supposing the Law to part Wedlock the Canon not suffering to mary again S. Pauls alternative is whole Either not to part or parting to be reconciled but not to mary again And therefore the Church had no more reason to interpose in that case then to censure who does wrong in going to sute For wrong is alwaies done but because it is between two it is not censurable onely S. Pauls aim of reconciling them is harder to be attained when the dowry is recovered then when cohibitation onely is parted And therefore as that licentiousnesse in divorcing which the ancient French the Irish the Welch the Russes and Alysimes did or do use is an evidence that Christianity was not so fully received or did not totally prevail amongst them So when the Greek Church yielded to allow those divorces which the Civil Law allowed which at the first it did not do then was their Christianity imbased and corrupted Which though it cannot have come to passe without the fault of the Clergy yet it is most to be charged upon the secular power the interesse whereof it inlargeth to the prejudice of Christianity For as in times of Apostacy and factions in the Church it hath been many times constrained to receive or retain those of whose salvation it cannot presume at the peril of their own souls So when it seems lesse evill to yield to that violence which the secular Power offers then to abandon the protection thereof those that impose violence are far more chargeable with the souls that perish by the means thereof then those that yield to iâ— for the best And that this may serve for a great part of excuse for the Greek Church we have great argument to believe Because since the taking of Constantinople being no more tied by the Civil Laws of the supream Power they allow no divorce but for adultery Neither is there any further difference between them and the Latin Church but whither Gods law upon divorce for adultery allow marying again or not Which the Council of Trent hath no further impeached then in case it be maintained that the Church erreth in saying that the bond of mariage remains insoluble notwithstanding adultery on either side Conc. Tied Sess XXIV cap. VII least the subjects of the State of Venice should be condemned unheard who had alwaies maried after divorce for adultery as the History relateth CHAP. XIV Another opinion admitting the ground of lawfull Impediments What Impediments arise upon the Constitution of the Church generally as a Society or particularly as of Christians By what Law some degrees are prohibited Christians And of the Polygamy of the Patriarchs Mariage with the deceased wives Sister and with a Cousin Germane by what Law prohibited Of the Profession of Conscience and the validity of clandestine Mariages The bounds of Ecclesiasticall Power in Mariage upon these grounds I Am now to propose another opinion pretending to justifie the Imperiall Laws examined concerning divorce the moderation whereof I do much esteem above these novelties tending to cast one Article concerning the Holy Catholick Apostolick Church out of the common faith of all Christians It saith that the secular Power is able to limit the conditions upon which mariage is contracted as being indeed a civill contract so that mariage contracted contrary to the conditions limited by the secular Power shall be ipso facto void the persons being by the Law rendred uncapable of contracting the same And that by the same reason the same Power is able to prescribe such conditions as coming to passe after mariage are of force to void it by virtue of the provision going before declaring it void whensoever such conditions should come to passe As in case of murder poysoning treason forgery robbery sacriledge in case of impotence absence of long time and the like for in case of mutual consent or upon reasonable cause without disparagement themselves dare not take upon them to say that the secular power can make any lawfull divorce This opinion is indeed considerable in regard of those impediments which Canonists and Casuists declare to have the force of avoiding mariage consummate by carnall knowledge For if they or some of them may appear to be well grounded there can be nothing more effectuall to clear my first intent to wit what is the true interesse and right of the Church in determining Matrimonial causes I say then that upon the suppositions premised that the Church is a Society founded by God and that there is a peculiar Law of our Lord concerning the mariages of Christians it necessarily followeth that as there are diverâ—e things which make mariages void or unlawfull so the Church is to be satisfied that there is none of them to be found in those mariages which it alloweth If we consider the Church generally as a Society of reasonable people certainly those things which render the contracts of all reasonable people either void or unlawfull in what Society soever they live must needs be thought to render either void or unlawfull those mariages that are so contracted in the Church As for the purpose Whatsoever is contracted either by fraud or by force is of it selfe originally void supposing that fraud or that force to have been the cause why it was contracted The reason being the same that ties a man to any thing which ever he contracted which is his own free consent in what he is not limited to by the law of God and Nature For if this be the reason that obliges where this reason fails the obligation of necessity ceaseth And shall it then be thought that any solemnity which the Church may celebrate a mariage contracted by force with can avail to make that contract binding Or that a cheat which had it not been believed a man would not have maried nor the mariage have been solemnized when it is solemnized shall have force to oblige This to those who believing that mariage is a Sacrament do think it consequent that the solemnizing of mariage renders those mariages of force to bind the parties which otherwise are not onely unlawful but also void For though I cannot here balk my order and resolve how many Sacraments there are and whether mariage
not that those Imperial Laws took place which made this profession a lawful cause of dissolving mariage in being per bonam gratiam as the Romane Law called it whether the party so deserted were allowed to mary elsewhere or not And indeed we find S. Basil qq fusius explicat XII and S. Chrysostome in Mat. hom LXIX ad pop Ant. in 1 Tim. hom XIV together with Cassiane in the example of Theonas Collat. XXI 9. 10. in their zeal to monasticall life advising maried persons not to stay for the consent of their parties in making such a profession as this At such time as the West where monasticall life was not yet so originally spread S. Hierome Epist XIV and S. Augustine Epist XLV CXCIX de adult conjugiis maintain the contrary opinion Which to me I confesse seems faâ— more probable For granting single life duely ordered to be the ordinary way and means of attaining perfection in Christianity according to the promises this state of eminence necessarily supposeth that which is necessary to the being of Christianity Therefore the way to perfection must be grounded upon justice Now in justice the contract of mariage among Christians gives each party that interesse in the others body which mariage exerciseth Which interesse noting but consent seems to dissolve And therefore seeing there is no Tradition of the whole Church to inforce this right not onely particular Churches not allowing it shall not seem to me to depart from the Unity of the whole in so doing But also Soveraign Powers through their severall dominions in regard of the interesse which all States have in the mariage or single life of their subjects shall lawfully use their Power to limit the force of it But as for mariage consummate and used I cannot see how the party deserting upon such pretense is excused from the guilt of adultery which the deserted may commit either single or maried again As for the question that may be made whither the mariage of one that hath professed single life be void or valid supposing the profession of single life to be agreeable to Christianity as I conceive I have showed sufficient reason to believe there is no consideration sufficient to make mariage after it valid but the abuse of the profession it selfe amounting to such a height as may serve to satisfie a Christian that in consideration thereof it is it selfe in the first place become void Another impediment yet remains questionable whether it be of force to dissolve those mariages which are called clandestine whither for want of consent in the Parents or the solemnities of the Church Some think that want of consent of Parents not onely makes the act unlawfull which all agree in but the mariage void As if the reverence due to Parents by Gods law did make a mans contract with a thirdperson void who is no waies bound to inquire whither his free consent be lawfully exercised or not In the Scriptures we see Gods people proceed by consent of Parents and daughters especially S. Paul supposes to referre themselves to their Fathers 1 Cor. VII 36. But neither was Esaus mariage taken to be void because it was made without such consent Geâ— XXVII 45. Nor was there any particular consent of Iacobs Parents to his mariages Gen. XXIX nor were the Fathers of Iudah or of Tobias made acquainted with their mariages And as for the Romane Laws which void mariages for want of this consent in some cases it is no more an argument of the Law of nature then the power of the Father by the same Laws which neverthelesse allow the Mother none when as Gods Law alwayes as well as the Law of Moses gives them equall interesse It is therefore manifest that there is ground in Gods Law to make this impediment of force to dissolve mariage contracted without it And that either for the Church as the reverence of Parents is a part of Gods law now in being which the power of the Church pretendeth to preserve Or for the secular Power as the interesse of Parents in the mariages of their children is of consequence to the publick peace and wealth The same may be said of those mariages that are made without witness or without solemnities of the Church saving that those solemnities which contain the approbation of the Church arising upon the account of the Church it is evidently more proper for the Church to make this impediment of force to dissolve mariage For the secular power to inâ—ct the Law of the Church by force of arms and temporall penalties There remains one cause more to hinder mariage so as to dissolve it when consummate being made notwithstanding it the condition of slavery in either of the parties at such time when as the rights of bondage subsisted This cause stands now by the Canon Law and is inâ—orced and limited by the Casuists But it was not the Canon Law that first voided the mariage of a slave taken for free but the Laws of the Empire as Ivo himselfe a Collector of the Canons witnesseth Epist CCXLIII where having produced the Law of Iustiniane he thus proceedeth In tali ergo contractu quod lex damnat non homo sed iâ—stitia separat quia quod contra leges praesumitur per leges solui meretur In such a contract then that which the law oondemns it is not man but justice thâ—â— separates Because what is presumed against Law by law deserves to be dissolved Which reâ—son takes place also in legall kindred according to the Imperiall Lawes whereby an adopted Brother is disabled to mary his sister by adoption In imitation whereof an opinion of the publick honesty of Christianity so prevâ—iled in that Church afterwards that being once Gossips came to be an hindrance of mariage which opinion howsoever grounded notwithstanding introduced the same kind of burthen and no other then that of legall kindred by adoptions These reasons though not admitted by all professions in Religion that shall meet with this yet seeing they proceed upon one and the same common ground the effect and consequence whereof cannot be admitted in some and refused by the rest And seeing that some of them are admitted on all sides there being no other reason sufficient why they should be admitted may serve to evidence the interesse of the Church in Matrimoniall causes And that evidence may serve to inferre that though the secular Power hath also an interess in the same yet in regard of the trouble which concurrence may cause in civill Government Christian Princes and States have done wisely as well as in regard to the interess of the Church they have done Christianly in referring the conduct of Matrimonial causes almost wholly to the Church Especially supposing that they take good heed that the laws thereof neither trench upon the Interess of their Crown not the wealth of their subjects But whither secular Power can make laws by virtue whereof that which a man voluntarily acts afterwards
to restore those that were fallen away in persecution contrary to the resolution of the Church which had referred it to a Council as we learn by S. Cyprian Epist XXXVIII XL. with Fortunatus a Bishop of this party betaking themselves to Rome are first refused by Cornelius but upon appearance of a party in his Church for them put him to a stand In this case S. Cyprian writing his LV. Epistle acknowledges the Church of Rome the seat of S. Peter and the principal Church whence the unity of the Priesthood was sprung but maintaines that every Bishop hath a portion of Christs flock assigned him to govern upon his account to Christ And therefore that causes are to be ended where they riâ—e and the good intelligence between Bishops ought not to be interrupted by carying causes abroad to be judged again Is not all this true supposing the case For who câ—n chuse but blame a schismaticall attempt But could any man hinder Basilides and Martialis from seeking the Church of Rome had their cause been good seeing their adverse paâ—ty did and might seek to foâ—â—ain Churches Was it not necessary to seek both to Carthage and to Rome for the freeing of the Church of Arles under Marciâ—nus from communion with the Novatians Here I conâ—eive lies the truth Some causes of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome to wit such as necessarily concern the whole Church either in the faith or in the unity of it Such was the cause of Marcianus which could not be ended but by the same consent which cast the Novatians out of the Church Was the cause of Basilides and Martialis of the same weight was it not meerly personal and concâ—rning mater of fact whither they had indeed sacrificed to Idols or not no question remaining in point of right that such could not be Bishops yet could not the Bishops of Spain over-rule the Bishop of Rome not to receive information from the aggrievâ—d Their way was to have recourse to other Churches the consent whereof might out-way the Church of Rome together with the goodnesse of the cause And the Church of Carthage must have done the same had Felicissimus and Fortunatus found reception at Rome and credit to balâ—nce their cause against S. Cyprian and the African Church So that causes of Faith necessarily concerning the whole Church whensoever they rendâ—r the peace thereof questionable those that for their weight do not concern â—he whole will concern it when they render the peace thereof questionable And so long as Law provideth not bounds to determine what causes shall be ended at home in the parts where they rise what cause is there that may not be pretended to concern the whole and by consequence the Church of Rome which being the principal Church what cause concerning the whole can end without it He that admits not this supposition conâ—â—sting in the regular pre-eminence denying the unlimited Power of the Church of Rome over other Churches will never give a reason why recourse is alwayes had to the Church of Rome and yet if the cause require to other Churches to ballance it The unity of the Church and communion with it is the thing that is â—ought The consent of the greatest Churches that of Rome in the 〈◊〉 place is the meanes to obtain it This businesse therefore is much of kin to that of the Donatists triall under Constantine when they petitioned the secular Power that they might be heard by the Bishops of Gaul intimating the reason vvhy they declined the Bishops of Italy to be because they might be tainted with falling away or shuffling in the perâ—ecution of Diocletian which they charged their adverse party in Africk with because they expresse this for the ground of their Petition in Optatus I. that under Constantius there had been no persecution in Gaâ—l Here I must pass by the consideration of any thing that may concern the dispute between secular and Ecclesiasticall Power as not concerning this place But when Constantine by his answer assigns them for Judges the Bishops of Rome and Milane with such and such of their suffraganes joyning with them the Bishops of Collen Autun and Arles in Gaul to satisfie them it is plain that he refuses them to transgresse that respect which the constitution of the Church challenged for the Churches of Rome and Milane that such causes as concerned the unity of the Church in the Western parts of the Empire should be determined not by the Pope alone noâ— the Church of Rome alone but by the Churches of Rome and Milane as the chief Churches of that part of the Empire the Church of Rome alwayes in the first place On the other side when the Donatists not satisfied with their sentence petition the Emperour again that it may be review'd and the Emperour adjourns them for a second triall to a Council at Arles it is plain that hee allowes them not an appeal from the former sentence because many of those that were Judges in the former Synod did vote in the later Synod But it is as plain that the parties then held not the Popes judgement either alone or in Council unquestionable unlesse all were madd in pretending to give either check or strength to that sentence which was originally unquestionable If therefore a sentence given by the Pope in a Council of Italy which some Gaulish Bishops joyned thereunto might be revised in a fuller Council of Gaulish Bishops with the concurrence of many others as well Italian and Spanish to say nothing of three from Britaine the first unquestionable record of the British Churches is it not manifest that Euclids axiome that the whole is greater then any part of it takes place in the Church as well as the words of S. Jerome Orbis major est Vrbe that the world is greater then the City of Rome Surely if S. Austine Ep. CLXII say well that the Donatists might have appealed to a General Council had they been justly grieved by the sentence at Rome his saying will hold if they had been grieved by the Council of Arles though concluding the Western Church But it will hold also of the Council of Arles that it had been madnesse to call it had not the generality thereof extended to conclude the Western Church further then the former at Rome though the cause came not to it by appeal CHAP. XX. Of the constitution and authority of Councils The ground of the pre-eminences of Churches in the Romane Empire The VI. Canon of the Council of Nicaea The pre-eminence of the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople Some instances against the superiority of Bishops out of the records of the Church what offices every Order by Gods Law or by Canon Law ministreth HEre the next consideration for time being that of the Council of Nicaea the VI Canon whereof first limited by written Law the pre-eminences of Churches in the Empire having taken place by custome before I will not repeat that
course that Constantius had done in the mater of Arius to reconcile Egypt to the Church by waiving the Council of Chalcedon for an expedient of his of his own for Constantius sought no more than to reconcile all by waiving of the Council of Nicaea and Acacius by communicating with Hereticks did necessarily as all offenders do make them their Superiors who maintain the Laws for the good of the whole In fine that whatsoever the Popes did by virtue of the Canon can be no ground for any irregular Power in themselves the Canon as justly maintaining the poor Britaines against the Pope as the Pope against Zeno and Acacius But the first General Council makes full recompence for all the Church of Rome may pretend to have gained by the business of Acacius Pope Vigilius being in Constantinople and refusing at the summons of the Emperor and Council to sit it proceeds and condemns three Articles which hee had declared for and so prevails that he himself thought best at length to concurr to the Act And all this being done is disowned by the Bishops of Africk Facundus by name whom hee had set on work to write for the three Articles and Istria till all was reconciled I question not the point of Heresie either in this case or that of Honorius whose constitution whereby hee thought to silence the dispute concerning the two wills in our Lord Christ made him to be condemned for an Heretick in the sixth General Council Onely I count it a pitifull excuse to imagine that the Synod is falsified in this point the VIIth Synod in the last session bidding anathema to Honorius and so many records testifying the same And where it is said that the Synod might err in point of fact that Honorius held Heresie though not in point of right in condemning that for Heresie which is not as the Jansenists at this day admitting the condemnation of five propositions by the late Pope admit not that they are contained in Jansenius his book not to dispute of that it will appear that the Pope may be judged by the Church in other cases besides that of Heresie if Honorius being no Heretick is by the Council condemned for an Heretick Indeed there is no cause that concerns the whole Church but the whole Church may judg it Nor can any cause lightly concern a Pope that concerns not the whole Church The reason why Popes have been so seldom judged is not for want of right but for fear of division in the Church which makes it not expedient to use that right There are many particulars of less consequence pleaded for the Popes Power which I will not examine admitting a regular pre-eminence for him above all other Bishops which is seen in the recourse had to him before others in maters concerning the whole Church but denying that infinite Power which nothing can be alleged to prove I acknowledg indeed that this regular pre-eminence not onely might but supposing the Church to continue in Unity must needs be further and further determined by Canon or by custom whether inlarging or restraining it as by the Canons of Sardica allowing appeals to him in the causes of Bishops For the causes of Bishops do not all necessarily concern the whole Church unless the subject of them be mater of Faith or otherwise that which calleth in question the Unity of the Church and then Lay-mens causes are no less So an appeal to Rome so constituted is properly an appeal there to be sentenced in the last resort But when recourse is had to the Pope in the first place that is no appeal but a course to bring the cause to the sentence of the whole Church whereof his sentence is the first part and a great prejudice to that which follows because of the respect which all that depend upon that Church owe his sentence And this increase of the Popes power I do think to be always a just cause of excluding from the Unity of the Church for refusing obedience to it For the Unity of the Church being of Gods Law and so inâ—bling to limit the terms upon which the Power of the Church is held and exercised by Canonical right it cannot be in the power of any part to cast off those Laws by which it is bounded within the compass of Gods Law at pleasure because they are the conditions upon which the Unity of the whole stands which no part can say they will renounce unless they may hold it upon such terms as they please But whether these limitations may not be so excessively abusive to the liberty of the whole so prejudicial to the service of God in the truth of Christianity for which they and the whole Church stands that parts of the Church may and ought to provide for themselves and their Christianity against the oppression of them that I referr to the last consideration when I shall have showed how maters in difference are to be valued by the principles that are setled In the mean time I must observe that from the time that the Pope was re-imbursed of his loss of Jurisdiction and possessions in those Provinces which upon his rebellion the Emperor with-drew from his obedience by the liberality of Pepin and Charlemaine bestovving upon him the Exarchate vvhich vvith the Kingdom of the Lombards they had taken from the Greekish Empire Though I cannot say that from that time regular proceedings were laid aside in the Western Churches Yet I must say that from thence the Popes had a ground to reduce the regular proceedings of Councils to their own will interest to introduce their own rescripts in stead of all Canons for Law to the Western Church And this though I must not prove here yet here I may allege why I go no further here in this dispute It remains that I gather up some fragments of instances that have been produced to show that Episcopacy is not of divine right because from the beginning either all or some Churches have had none Of the authors whereof I must first demand whether the Unity of the Church be of divine right or not For unless they will put the whole cause upon a new issue that there is no Law of God that the Church should be one I demand of them how this Unity could have been preserved by the equality of all Presbyters which by the Hierarchy I have showed was maintained Till they show mee this I think my self secure of all their litle objections For if the Hierarchy cannot be imputed to chance or to the voluntary agreement of all Christians as uncertain as chance certainly Episcopacy the first ingredient of it can be imputed to nothing but the provision of the Apostles And therefore I must here renew my answer to the question that is made Supposing the superiority of Bishops to consist in the Power of doing some act which a Priest cannot do what act is it that a Bishop by his Order can do a Priest cannot
by Hereticks nor Schismaticks So must he attribute the effect of the rest to the foundation of the Church the Prayers whereof God by founding it hath promised to hear being made according to that Christianity which the foundation thereof supposeth Let us consider whether extreme Unction may be or must be counted a Sacrament upon these termes or not for if that what question will remaine of the rest I conceive I have observed that which is very pertinent to the consideration of all the rest in showing that they are the solemnities wherewith some acts of that publick authority is exercised which the Church hath in respect of the members of it Onely in the Unction of the sick I have not found any act of authority distinct from that power of the Keyes whereby in extremity all are admitted to the communion of the Eucharist in hope of Gods mercy acknowledging the debt of that Penance remaining if they survive which must qualify them for it in the the judgement of the Church And the promise of forgiveness of sins annexed to it I have found to suppose that contrition which undertaketh the same in case a man survive Which notwithstanding whosoever acknowledges the Church cannot think the prayers of the Church needlesse in such an exigent But as for the ceremony of anointing with oyle I have found it in the premises to concern the recovery of bodily health by the practice of all ages that are found to have used it Though not pretending miraculous graces of curing diseases extant in the primitive times but onely that confidence which Gods generall promise to the Church groundeth of hearing the prayers thereof even for temporall blessings so farre as the exception to it which Christianity maketh shall allow It was thought fit to lay aside this ceremony at the Reformation least the Church should seem to pretend a promise the effect whereof being temporall and visible could not be made to appear Which might seem a disparagement to our common Christianity But there have not wanted Doctors of the Reformation Bucer by name that have acknowledged nor will any man of a peaceable judgement make question that the ceremony might have been retained at the visitation of the sick Which he that would have the Church lay aside because the Church of Rome useth this ceremony at it he would have the Church be no Church because the Church of Rome is one For as the office of the Church can never be more necessary then in that extremity to procure that disposition qualifying for pardon which then it is not too late to procure So can no ceremony be filter then annointing with oil to signify that health of body which the Church chearfully prayeth for on behalf of them whom she promiseth remission of sinne That health of minde which the present agony so peremptorily requireth Supposing then the constitution of the Church such that the ministery thereof must needs be thought sufficient meanes to procure salvation for the members of it And then supposing the Church so constituted injoyne prayer to be made for the sicke to whose reconcilement the keyes thereof are applied anointing them with oyl to signify that health of body and mind which is prayed for So farre am I from dividing the Church in that regard that I acknowledge it may be very well counted one of the Sacraments of the Church in that case To wit as a ceremony appointed by the Church signifying that health which the Church rightly using the Power which it is trusted with appointeth to be prayed for in that case To prove Marriage to be a Sacrament it is well known how the text of S. Paul is alledged Ephes V. 32. Sacramentum hoc magnum est This is a great mystery but I mean concerning Christ and the Church But Saint Paul saith not that the mariage of Christians is a sacrament but that the mariage of Adam and Eve was a great mystery As indeed it was if the Apostle say true that it figured the marriage of our Lord Christ with his Church and that therefore the woman was taken out of the man as Christians are the bimbs of Christ and therefore wives are to be subject to their husbands as the Church to Christ True it is that seing mariage in Paradise was made an inseparable conjunction of one with one with an intent that it should figure the inseparable conjunction between our L. Christ and the congregation of them whom he foreseeth that they shall persevere in that regard the marriage of Christians also being by our Lord reformed to the first institution of Paradise cannot chuse but signify the same though now in being Whereas the marriage of Adam was a mystery for signifying the same to be But supposing all this and not supposing an Order in the Church for the blessing of marriage as a solemnity prescribed by the Church I know not whether there could be cause to reckon marriage among the Sacraments of the Church all the rest which pretend to tha quality being offices of the Church to be performed with some solemnity Whereas supposing something peculiar to the marriage of Christians in regard whereof it is to be celebrated with the solemne Blessing of the Church there is no cause why under the equivocation premised it may not be counted among the Sacraments of the Church For is there any question to be made that Christians submitting themselves to marry according to the Law of Christ with an intent not onely to keep faith to one another according to that which is between Christ and his Church but to breed children for the Church And so submitting unto the Church and those limits wherewith the Church boundeth the exercise of Gods Law for maintaining of unity in the Church may promise themselves the effect of that Blessing which the Church joynes them with Supposing them qualified for the common blessings of Christians and the Church formed by God with a promise of his blessings What doubt can be made that the Blessing shall have effect which the Church joynes them with But what assurance can be had of the effect of that Blessing without it supposing the Church and supposing the blessing of marriage appointed by the Church I have showed the ground whereupon the allowance of mrriage among Christians is necessarily part of the interest of the Church I have showed that in Ordination in Confirmation in Penance as well as in Baptisme and in the Eucharist the Church exerciseth some power and authority which she is trusted with by God The blessing of mariage what is it but the marke of that authority in allowing the mariages of Christians which the Church thereby exerciseth If Ignatius and Tertullian require the consent of the Church to the mariages of Christians it must needes be inferred from thence that this consent was declared by the blessing of the Church as the Power of ordaining and the Power of absolving is exercised with blessing that is praying for
is what course the Law of the Church should take And therefore the profession of that continence which single life requireth grounding a reasonable presumption of eminence in Christianity above those that are marryed there was all the reason in the world why the Church should indeavour to put the governement thereof into such hands by preferring them before others On the other side as all truth in morall and humane maters is liable to many exceptions it cannot be denyed that more abstinence from riot and from riches both more attendance upon the service of God is found some times in those that live marryed then in those that live single In which consideration it may well seem harde to conclude all them that are marryed unserviceable for the Church The moderation therefore of the Easterne Church seemeth to proceed upon a very considerable Ground not excluding marryed persons from a capacity of Holy orders but excluding persons ordayned from any capacity of mariage For those who were promoted to the Clergy being single knowing that they were not allowed mariage what can they pretend why they should hold their estate not performing the condition of it As for the promoting of those who are already maried it is the triall of their conversation in wedlock that may ground a presumption as well for that conscience which their fidelity in dispensing the goods of the Church as for that diligence in setting aside the importunities of marriage which their attendance upon the service of the Church requireth It was therefore to be wished that the Westerne Church had used the limitation which the Nicene councill by resting contented with confirmed to admit of persons maryed before orders preferring before them those that are single But it must be granted that as well in the West as in the East though the aime was to perfer single life yet here and there now and then those that were maryed were not excluded It is not to be thought that one Spanish councill which had no effect at all without the bounds of it could as easily be reduced to effect in practice as couched in writing Especially the Generall councill of Nicaea having waived the motion of inacting the same But this demonstrates the credite of the Church of Rome in the Westerne Church at that time that the Rescripts of Syricius Innocent Popes are found the first acts to inforce the same which that Spanish council had inacted For the African and other Westerne Canons that injâ—ine the same are for time after Syricius Whereby it appeareth though they doe not use that exception which the councill of Nicca had supposed yet that the rule of single life for the Clergy was so troden under foot that it was found requisite to seeke meanes by the Synods of severall parts and by the concuâ—rence of the See of Rome to bring it into force For let no mâ—n think that those Canons took effect so soon as they were made which were made on purpose to restraine the mariages of the Clergy Who for the most part had from the beginning lived single but neither before nor after could be totally restrained from maryage It would be too large a worke in this place to repeate either the particular Canons which were made and the discourses of the Fathers to inforce them on the one side or on the other side the saying of the Fathers and other records in point of fact whereby the in execution of them doth appeare Those that would be satisfied in it may see what the Arch-Bishop of Spalato hath collected and find Epiph. his saying still take place during the flourishing time of the Church But all this while you heare nothing of any vowe annexed to the undertakeing of Holy Orders by vertue whereof maryage contracted under them should become voide For the vowe of single life being an act that disposeth of a man and his estate in this world to a totall change of his courses if he mean to observe it what reason can admit any ground for presuming of it when it is not expressed And the custom of the Eastern Church reduceth the penalty thereof unto the ceasing ofâ— that ministry by consequence of that maintenance which the order intitleth to which is not the penalty of breaking a vowe But the effects of these rules and indeavours of the Western Church was never such as to exclude the Clergy from marryage how much soever they might exclude maryed persons from the H. orders When Greg. the seventh undertook to bring them under a total restraint from maryage it is manifest that other maner of meanes were imployed to make that restraint forcible then the constitution of the Church indowes it with For that was the time when the Church undertooke to dispose of Crownes and scepters and to extend the spirituall power thereof to the utmost of temporall effects And therefore it is to be granted that by such meanes indeed it might and did come to effect But in point of fact onely not in point of right as being a rigor which the practice of all parts was sufficient protestation that the Church in that estate was not able to undergoe For the horrible and abominable effects thereof have beene so visiblâ— that it is not possible the cause of them should seeme the production of that reason which the being of any law requireth and supposeth Nor can the See of Rome justly be admitted to charge that no bounds have been observed in releasing of it which it cannot be denyed that the ancient Church in all places did observe For I truely for my part have granted that even Lawes given by the Apostles for the better governement of the Church though written in the scriptures may be dispensed in by the Church when the present constitution of things shall make it appear to the Governours thereof that the observation of that rule which served for that state in which it was prescribed â—ends to the considerable visible harme of the Church in the present state of it And therefore I will not take upon me to say that the state of bigamy which S. Paul I have showed maketh an impediment to some Orders can by no means be dispensed with But the See of Rome which dispenseth with it as of course paying the ordinary fees I conceive cannot in justice charge the releasing of the rule of single life to all the Clergy though in some measure a Law of the whole Church And how many Canons of the whole Church besides are there which must be trampled under foot by bringing that unlimited power into effect which now it exerciseth I could therefore earnestly wish for mine owne parte that some reservation had beene used in the releasing of it that the respect due to single life by our common Christianity might have remained visible to Christian people by the priviledge of it in the Church Nor doe I thinke my selfe bound by being of the reformation to maintaine the acts by
such thing as a Councill according to the supposition of the congregations And therefore in the acts of Counciles which are the Lawes whereby the Church is to be ruled the people can have no further satisfaction then to see them openly debated under the knowledge of the people Indeed the interest of Soveraigne powers in Church maters which I allow not onely in order to the publicke peace but as they are members of the Catholicke Church and so trusted with the protection of all that is Catholicke in behalf of the people gives them that power over the acts of Counciles which by and by I shal declare Which though grounded upon another account and belonging to them in an other quality then that which the constitution of the Church createth is notwithstanding provided by God to secure his people of their Christianity together with the unity of the Church But the suffrage of the people of every Church that is their acknowledgment that they know no exception against the persons in nomination for Bishops or other orders of the Church as it agreeth with the proceedings of the Apostles and primative Church so must it needs be a most powerfull meanes to maintaine that strict bond of love and reverence between the Clergy and the people in the recovery whereof the unity of the Church consisteth And supposing publick penance retrived without which it is in vaine to pretend Reformation in the Church there can be no stronger meanes to maintaine Christianity in effect then the satisfaction of the people though not in the measure of penance to be injoyned yet in the performing of it Alwaies provided that this interest of the people be grounded upon no other presumption that any man is the child of God or in the state of Grace and indowed with Gods spirit then that which the law of the Church whereby he injoyes communion which the Church createth For this presumption must needs be stronger concerning the Clergy by their estate then it can be concerning the people Because by their estate they are to be the choice of the people And though as all morall qualities are subject to many exceptions some of the people may be better Christians then some of the Clergy yet a legall presumption that any of them is so must needs be destructive to the Unity of the Church But no disorder in religion can be so great as to justifie the obdurate resolution of the Church of Rome to withdraw the scriptures from the people There is nothing more manifest then that the lamentable distractions which we are under have proceeded from the presumption of particular Christians up on their understanding in the scriptures proceeding to think their quality capable of reforming the Church Onely those that can have joy of so much mischief to our common Christianity can thinke otherwise But I am not therefore induced to thinke our Christianity any other then the Christianity of those whom our Lord whom S. Paul and other Apostles and Prophets exhort and incourage to the study of the scriptures Whom S. Chrysostome and others of the Fathers so earnestly deale with to make it their businesse All the offense consists in this that private Christians observe not the bounds of that which is Catholike when they come to read the scriptures For if they be not content to confine the sense of all they read within that rule of faith in which the whole Church agreeth because they understand not how they stand together If they thinke the Lawes of the whole Church can command things contrary to that which God by scripture commandeth It is no marvaile they should proceed to make that which they think they see in the Scripures though indeed they see it not a Law to the Church For they think it is Gods will that ties them to it But if the Church be the Church as I have showed it is then was the Scripture never given private Christians to make them Judges what all Christians are bound to believe what the Church is to injoine the Church for the condition of communion with the Church If any man object the inconvenience that it appeareth not who or where that Church is and so we are confined to those boundes that cannot appeare This inconvenince is the clearest evidence that I can produce for the Catholike Church For unlesse we grant this inconvenience to come by Gods institution and appointment we must confesse the unity of the Church to be Gods appointment because the dissolution thereof produceth this inconvenience For were the unity of the Church in being I could easily send any man to the Catholike Church by sending him to his owne Church Which by holding communion with the whole Church must needs stand distinguished from those which hold it not though under the name of Churches And he who resorts to the Church for resolution in the Scriptures supposes that he is not to break from the Church for that wherein the whole Church is not agreed Now that the unity of the Church is broken in pieces it remaines no more visible to common sense what it is wherein the whole Church agrees as the condition for comunion with it But the meanes to make it appear againe having disappeared through disunion in the Church is that discourse of reason which proceeds upon supposition of visible unity established by God in the Church And the meanes to make it appear againe to common sense is the restoring of that unity in the Church by the interruption whereof it disappeareth Then shall the edification of particular Christians in our common Christianity proceed without interruption by meanes of the Scriptures every one supposing that his edification in the common Christianity dependeth not upon the knowledge of those things wherein the Church agreeth not but of those things wherein it agreeth In the mean time it remaineth that offenses proceed to be infinite and endlesse because men giving no bounds to their studies in the Scriptures imagine the edification of the Church to consist in that wherein themselves not regarding the consent of the Church have placed their own edification in the Scriptures CHAP. XXXII How great the Power of the Church and the effect of it is The right of judging the causes of Christians câ—aseth when it is protected by the State An Objection If Ecclâ—siasticall Power were from God Secular Power could not limit the use of it Ground for the Interest of the State in Church matters The inconsequence of the argument The concurrence of both Interests to the Law of the Church The Interest of the State in the indowment of the Church Concurrence of both in matrimoniall causes and Ordinations Temporall penalties upon Excommunication from the State No Soveraigne subject to the greater Excommunication but to the lesse The Rights of the Jewes State and of Christian Powers in Religion partly the same partly not The infinite Power of the Pope not founded upon acts of Episcopacy but upon the Secular Powers
by And besides this consequence another will rise that this is the sense of all Christendome to wit where Christians are governed by Christians that there is no such thing as any power of the Church by Gods Law because all Christendome agrees Soveraignes in doing subjects in admitting that it is limitable by the Secular which cannot limit Gods Law but its own This being the force of that objection which is so largly pursued in the first book de Synedriis cap. X. my answer is That having showed how the decrees of the Apostles themselves as for the mater of them are limitable and determinable by the Church to such circumstances as may make them usefull to the Church for another state then that for which they were first made I am to grant that the Lawes also and other acts of the Church may be limited by the secular power as for the execution and exercise of them For as the Society of the Church and all the acts thereof done in virtue of Gods Charter by which it stands supposing Christianity so Christianity supposeth common-wealths that is to say the government of this world in and by those Soveraignties which subsisted when Christianity came into the world or may lawfully come to subsist afterwards For not to dispute for the present whether civill Governement subsist by the law of God or by humane consent seeing it cannot be said to subsist by the same act that is by the same declaration of Gods will by which the Church that is Christianity subsisteth it is manifest that the title by which the Church standeth must not be inconsistent with that title by which civill governement deriveth it self from the will of God And therefore that they may and must suppose one an other Who ever challenges to the Church a power in all civil causes and over all persons to ordaine and by force of their armes to execute what the Church that is those that have right to conclude the Church shall thinke the consideration of Christianity shall require he I grant erecteth a Power destructive to the civill govâ—nement Which to stand tyed to execute a decree that may be contrary to the decree of those that governe is necessarily inconsistent with But that which I say is this That the Church hath power to determine all maters the determination whereof is requisite to mainetain the communion of Christians in the service of God and to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that communion But no power to give execution to them by force of armes which the Soverain power of every state onely moveth Supposing for the present that no armes can be moved but originally from the soveraign nor any thing executed by any force which is not ultimately resolved into the power of the sword which the Soveraige beareth as known to common sense And by consequence I say that the Soveraign power having right to make the acts of the Church Lawes of the state by declaring to concur to the execution of them by the force which it moveth must needs have right to judge whether they be such as Christian powers ought or may concur to execute and accordingly limit the exercise of them But thereby I intend not to grant that Christian powers may not exceed their bounds of right in opposing and suppressing the effects oâ— those acts which may be duely don by the Church nor to dispute this point upon supposition that the particulars related in that X. Chapter I de Synedriis ought to have the esteem of precedents as things well done and within the limits of secular power in Church maters For I have already granted that the power of the Church that is to say of those that pretend it on behalfe of the Church hath so far transgressed the bounds as to suffer the temporall power of the Church in ordine ad spiritualia to be disputed and held being really destructive to all civill Governement and to act too many things not to be justified but upon suspition of it And therefore I think I demand but reason when I take leave â—o suppose that soverâ—â—gne powers are subject to erre as all men are especially in so nice a point as is their owne interest in Church matteâ—s And that these Errors may have proceeded to the hinderance of Christianity even by such acts as were intended to have the force of standing Lawes But what hath been well or ill done in this kind is not my businesse here to dispute That which I have to doe now is in generall to determine in what consideration the civill power which the Church of England granteth to be soveraign in all causes and over all persons both Ecclesiastical Civill in the dominions thereof giveth the acts of the Church the force of the Lawes of the state Which I have already expressed to be two-fold As soveraigne to suppresse whatsoever may seeme to importe an attempt upon the right of it whâ—ch subsisting without the Church iâ— to be maintained against all incrochment of whomsoever may claime in behalfe of the Church And as Christians because civill powâ—r being presupposed to the being of the Church which standeth upon supposition of the truth of Christianity the sword of Christians stâ—nd obliged to protect the Church against all pretenses For seing the society of the Church is a part of Christianity as hath been showed of necessity it followeth that Christian poweâ—s stand obliged by their Christianitie both to protect those that are lawfully possessed of right in the behalfe of the Church of their dominions in the exercise of it and also to restraine them when their acts whether expressely attempted or maintained by use of long time prove prejudiciall to that common Christianity which the being of the church presupposeth But as this necessarily presupposeth that those that claim on behalf of the Church may proceed to actions so prejudiciall to the state as may deserve to be punished or restrained by civill temporal penalties of all degrees So wil it necessarily infer that civill powers may proceed to excesses not onely in their particular actions but also in violating and oppressing the Church that the Church may be obliged to proceede against them by cutting them off from the communion of the Church so that therein subjects do stand obliged not to obey them in violating and oppressing the Church and to abstaine from communicating with them in the mysteries of Christianity continuing neverthelesse obliged to them in all the offices which the maintenance of the state which Christianity presupposeth will require at the hands of good subjects This being said I will summon the common sense of Christendom to give sentence of the truth or likenesse to truth of this argument All Christian Princes and States doe limit the use of Ecclesiasticall power within their owne dominions Therefore they doe not believe any such thing as a Church or any power derived from any Law of God by
to be maintained by the first-fruits and oblations of Christians goods have not thought it fit to leave this maintainance to the daily wil of Christians but to make good that which they have vested in the Church for a standing indowment by protection of Law it is manifest that they have left themselves no particular right in that which either themselves have consecrated or allowed their subjects to consecrate to the use of the Church But it doth not follow from hence that they have abandoned and disclaimed that common right which every Common wealth hath in all goods of particular persons for the maintenance and defence of the Publick in the necessities of it Whereby it seemeth that be the gift of Ecclesiasticall goods never so large or so absolute for the form which private mens gifts go in the Soveraigne by making them good doth not abandon the right of publicke aide in them And therefore that the Common wealth may notwithstanding serve themselves of taxes imposed on Church goods Likewise seeing the use of Church goods is declared by all records of the Church as well as by the Scriptures to tend to the maintainance of the poor which is included in the intent of maintaining Gods service in the Church it followes that if Church goods be used otherwise by those that are not proprietors but trustees for the poor it is in the secular power to reduce and restore the use of them according to the original intent of the Church But to seize them into the hands of the secular power as if the Corporation of the Church could be dissolved by mans Law which is founded by Gods to be imployed to the advantage of the seizers of them is an attempt of sacrilege upon Gods goods first and by consequence upon Gods Law by which the Church standeth For the indowment of the Church may be invaded by Secular power upon the Title of publick aide but extended beyond any bound of it that reason or common sense can allow And this is sacriledge though consistent with an opinion that they are the Churches For it is no new thing for men to transgresse their profession by their actions But it may also be invaded out of an opinion that they are onely publick goods and not Gods And that opinion supposeth that there is no such thing as a Corporation of the Church founded by God which hitherto Christians by their Creed do professe to believe And therefore this is a sacrilege of an higher nature tending to root out all difference of good and bad according to Christianity that is grounded upon the constitution of the Church Seeing then that all Christian Kingdoms and states have thought themseves tied to inable the Church by their Laws to transmit those estates to posterity which either Soveraigns or private Christians have upon supposition of Gods Law indowed it with for how should all Christians agree to do that which no Law of Christianity obliged them to do it will be of no force to argue from any limitations which Christian States may have bounded the right of Tithes with that they did not believe the Church to be a Corporation inabled by God to hold an estate bestowed upon it but onely to be made such a one by their priviledges For as it appeares by the premimises that those limitations may be according to Gods Law So whether they be so or not it is to be judged by the grounds upon which I proceed here And this is the case of the right of Patronage reserved over Churches to those that first indowed them by consent of the Church in remembrance of their merit For as it may be so limited as to be no prejudice to the Church and to Christianity So that it is every where so limited I do not find my self tied to maintaine Of the concurrent interests of Church and State in marriage or matrimonial causes I cannot say much here Supposing the premises upon which I maintaine it I can undertake thereupon to evidence the weaknesse of this presumption That those Christian powers which take upon them to limit the exercise of Ecclesiasticall power in matrimoniall causes do not believe any Ecclesiasticall power in them as of divine right that is to say any Corporation of the Church indowed by God with power to allow or disallow the marriages of Christians Suppose then that our Lord Christ hath introduced a new Law among Christians of the marriage of one with one and that indissoluble saving upon breach of wedlock Suppose that which I proved afore that the Lawes of Moses are not Lawes to the Church but arguments evidencing the Lawes of the Church by the correspondence betweene it and the Synagogue And therefore Granting that those degrees in which marriage was prohibited Jewes by the Leviticall Law are not licensed for marriage among Christians That it doth not follow that no further degrees are prohibited in the Church Suppose further from common sense and experience of the world that upon any new Law there will arise a multitude of new cases to be decided either by particular jurisdiction or by a generall Law And the power of deciding the same vested in that Corporation which first received the Law Suppose againe that marriage though among Christians limited to a mutuall interest in one anothers bodies for the preventing of concupiscence is notwithstanding a civile contract supposing the same freedome from error or force in the persons that contract that is requisite to the validity of all civil contracts And further that it may concerne the State to limit the qualities of persons that may contract it so that not being contracted within those bounds which the State shall limit it shall be either unlawfull or voide It will follow then upon these suppositions that Civile Powers may create lawfull impediments of marriage as of civile contracts But neverthelesse that the use of marriage is not to be deemed Lawfull untill the allowance of the Church give them assurance that the limitations given by our Lord and his Apostles to the marriages of Christians and the determinations which thereupon have proceded from the Lawfull power of the Church are not violated by the same Neither is it available to say as some have pretended to say that this right of the Church falls to the State when it professeth Christianity and the maintainance thereof all parties being members or subjects of it No more then that the society of the Church ceaseth and is swallowed up in the Common-wealth when the Soveraigne becomes Christiane Indeed among Gentiles whose Religion being contrived by the devill and his ministers was admitted by civile Powers as an expedient to keep their people in obedience Among Jewes whose religion given by God as a condition of maintaining them in the Land of Promise pretended expresly no more then the civile good of one people it is no marvaile that the determination of all things questionable concerning mariage should lastly resort to the civil Powers
whose dicision might secure the People of that good which the Law tendered if they should practice the Law of mariage according to their determinations But Christianity being tendered to all nations for their everlasting happiness one Society of the Church founded of all that should receive it of all nations and the limitations peculiar to Christianity occasioning many things to become questionable many times necessary to be determined for Christians the right of determining them can no more be thought an escheat to the civil power then the Church to the Common-wealth If then the Laws of all Christian Kingdoms and States have allowed the Lawes of the Church thus much force and interest in maters of marriage how much more soever they may have allowed then here is demanded It will be in vaine to argue from any Lawes of Christian States limiting the freedome of marriage or the exercise of Ecclesiasticall power in matrimoniall causes that they do not believe the Church to be by Gods Law a society the allowance whereof upon the premised considerations becomes requisite to the lawfull use of marriage among Christians For seeing both the Church and the State are subject to mistake the boundes of their concurrent interests in matrimoniall causes And therefore that there may be cause for the State by the force which it is indowed with to barre the abuse of Ecclesiasticall Power in the same or that the State may do it without cause It is ridiculous to inferre that they who limit the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Power doe not believe the Church or any lawfull Power of it in such causes independent upon their owne The same is to be said touching the Ordaining of Persons to exercise the Power and right of the Church and to minister the offices of Christianity to Christian People No man will refuse civile powers the right of maintainig the publick peace and their estates by making all such acts ineffectuall through the force which they possesse as may be done to the disturbance of it No man will refuse them as Christian the interest of protecting the Church against all such acts as may prove prejudiciall to the common faith or do riolate the common right of the Church according to which such Ordinations are to proceed But having proved that those Ordinations are made and to be made by virtue of that Power which the Apostles have left in the Church and which our Lord gave the Apostles As it hath been cleared what interest in this power their acts will allow to those severall qualities which they have setled in the Church So it remaines manifest that those who have the interest cannot otherwise be hindred by secular force in the exercise of it then by the violation of that Law of God whereby the society of the Church and those rights whereupon it is founded subsisteth Not as if I did imagine that this right hath been violated so often as Christian Princes or States have nominated persons to be ordained which they for the publick peace and good of the Church and to hinder disorderly proceeding in the Church have thought fit to name For we have eminent examples even in the happy times of the Church of Ordinations thus made to the incomparable benefit of the Church And why should not the reasons premised be thought sufficient to justify such proceedings But because it is alledged by some even that mean no harm to the Church that the right of all parties devolveth to the State by the profession of Christianity Which plea if it were good there would be no reason why the Church and all the right of it should not he thought to accrue to the State by declaring it self Christian Here I will remember one of the most eminent actions that ever was done in Europe against the right of the Church which is the Concordates between Francis I. King of France and Leo X. Pope The Pragmatick Sanction of Charles VII had maintained the right of the Church in that dominion against divers perogatives pretended by Popes but it maintained the Church also in the election of Prelates which that Prince had a desire to seize into his hands Hereupon an agreement passes the King to make good the prerogatives pretended by the Pope the Pope to accept and to maintaine the Nominations of Prelates which the King should make Which Concordates with what difficulty and after how many protestations and Remonstrances of the Clergy of the university of Paris and Soveraigne courts of the Kingdome they were accepted I leave to them that will take the paines to peruse the relation thereof historically deduced by Petrus Puteanus to judge Not forgetting what Thuanus one of the Principall ministers of that kingdome as prime President of the Parliament at Paris hath said to posterity in the first book of his Histories That so great a Prince after having dissolved the course of Ecclesiasticall Elections introduced into the Church by the Apostles never prospered in any of his greatest undertakings And if in the contention betweene the Emperors and the Popes about Investitures the case truly stated will evidence that the common right of the Church was trodden under foot as well as that of the Soveraigne I report my self to the conscience of any man that can judge whether it be reason to inferre that the proceeding of Christendome acknowledges no such thing as a Church rather then to conclude that the particulars whether well or ill done which is not my businesse here are to be tried by the reasons premised Now for the Power of Excommunication whereupon the force of all acts of the Church depends every man knowes that since Constantine received Christianity he and after him all Christian Princes and States do necessarily pretend the advancement of it by temporal penalties and priviledges of their indulgence Among which one is that punishment which in other States as well as in England a man incurres by being Excommunicate He that would challenge the power of doing this for the Church from the originall right of it must transgresse the principles premised whereby it may appeare that the Church is not able to do any thing of it selfe that requireth secular force or tendeth to alter any mans secular estate in the Common-wealth Neither is there any more evident character of that usurpation which the Popes in behalfe of the Church have been chargeable with then the inforcing of their acts with temporall penalties But all such attempts naturally resolve into the highest whereby some Popes have pretended that by the sentence of Excommunication subjects are absolved of the allegiance they owe their Princes and stand free and may stand obliged to take up armes against them as they shall disect Which is so farre from standing with any pretense of mine that I professe further to believe that no Soveraigne is liable to the utmost excommunication called the greater excommunication among Divines and Canonists though limited and defined by them upon sundry and
is a thing necessary to the subsistence of all communities Nor is a private person chargeable with the faults of the Lawes under which he lives untill it appeare that by the meanes of those faults he must faile of the end for which the community subsisteth That is of salvation by communicating with the Church of Rome But to make a private Christian a party to the decrees and customes of the Church by swearing to admit and imbrace them all because he communicateth with it is to make him answerable for that which he doeth not He that would swear no more then he believes nor believe more then he can see cause to believe being a private Christian and uncapable to comprehend what Lawes and customes are fit for so great a Body as the Church must not swear to the Lawes of the Church as good or fit were there no charge against them because past his understanding but rest content by conforming to them to hold communion with the Church But in stead of mending the least of those horrible abuses which the complaints of all parts of Christendome evidence to be visible to exclude all that will not sweare to them is to bid them redeem the communion of the Church by transgressing that Christianity which it ought to presuppose Well may that power be called infinite that undertakes to do such things as this But how should the meanes of salvation be thought to consist in obeying it Here is then a peremptory barre to communion with the Church of Rome onely occasioned by the Reformation but fixed by the Church of Rome That order which severall parts of Christendome had provided for themselves under the title of Reformation might have been but provisionall till a better understanding between the parties might have produced a tollerable agreement in order whereunto a distance for a time had been the lesse mischievous had not this proceeding cut off all hope of peace but by conquest that is by yeilding all this And therefore this act being that which formed the Schisme the crime thereof is chiefly imputable to it As therefore I saide afore that the Sacrament of Baptisme though the necessary meanes of salvation becomes a necessary barre to salvation when it inacteth a profession of renouncing either any part of the Faith or the unity of the Church So here I say that the communion of the Eucharist obtained by making a profession which the common Christianity alloweth not a good Christian to make is no more the meanes of salvation to him who obtaineth it upon such termes how much soever a Christian may stand obliged to hold communion with the Church And this is the reason that makes the communion of the Church of Rome absolutely no more warrantable then afore now that it is become unwarrantable to communicate with Presbyteries and Congregations But comparatively an extremity in respect to the contrary extremity holds the place of a meanes Nor did I ever imagine that the humor of reforming the Church without ground or measure may not proceed to that extremity that it had been better to have left it unreformed then to have neglected those bounds which the pretense of Reformation requireth I say not that this is now come to passe comparisons being odious But this I say that he who goes to reforme the Church upon supposition that the Pope is Anti-Christ and the Papists therefore Idolaters is much to take heed that he miskenne not the ground for that measure by which he is to reforme And taking that for Reformation which is the furthest distant from the Church of Rome that is possible Imagine that the Pope may be Antichrist and the Papists Idolaters for that which the Catholick Faith and Church alloweth It is a marvaile to see how much the zeale to have the Pope Antichrist surpasses the evidence of the reasons which it is proved with For otherwise it would easily appeare that as an Antipope is nothing but a pretended Pope so Antichrist is nothing else but a pretended Messias He who pretends to be that which Christ is indeed and to give salvation to Gods people Our Lord foretells of false Christs and false Prophets Mat. XXIV 24. Marke XIII 22. and those are the Preachers of new Sects which pretended to be Christs and which pretended not to be Christs Simon Magus and Menander we know by Irenaeus and Epiphanius Dositheus by Origen upon Matthew pretended all of them to be the Messias to the Samaritanes who as Schismaticall Jewes expected the Messias as well as the Jewes Saturninus and Basilides were false prophets but not Antichrists because not pretending that themselves were the Messias but pretending some of those whereof they made that fullnesse of the Godhead which they preached to consist to be the Messias Among the Jewes all that ever took upon them to be the Messias besides our Lord Jesus are properly Antichrists Among whom Barcochab under Adriane was eminent But there is reason enough to reckon Manichaeus and Mahomet both of that ranck As undertaking to be that to their followers which the Jewes expected of the Messias to save them from their enemies and to give them the world to come For Manichaeus seems indeed to have given himself the Name of Menahem signifying in the Ebrew the same as Parucletus in Greeke because he pretended to be assumed by the holy Ghost as not he but Christians believe that the Word of God assumed the manhood of Christ But when he writ himself Apostle of Jesus Christ in the head of his Epistle called the foundation which S. Austine writes against it was not with an intent to acknowledge our Lord the true Christ whose coming he made imaginary and onely in appearance but to seduce Christians with a colourable pretense of the name of Christ and some ends of the Gospels as you heard Epiphanius say to take himself for that which Christ is indeed to Christians Saint Austine contra Epist Fund cap. VI. suspecteth that he intended to foist in himself to be worshipped in stead of Christ by those whom he seduced from Christ And shows you his reason for it there But whether worshipped or not for it cannot be said that Mahomet pretended to be worshipped for God by his followers though he could not be that which our Lord Christ is to Christians unlesse he were worshipped for God yet he might be that which the Messias was expected to be to the Jewes in saving them through this world unto the world to come Whether Christians are to expect a greater Antichrist then any of these towards the end of the world or not is a thing no way clear by the Scriptures And the authority of the Fathers is no evidence in a matter which evidently belongs not to the Rule of Faith It is not enough that Saint John saith Ye know that the Antichrist is coming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 John II. 28. for how many thousand articles are there that signify no such eminence and
who create the parties by heading the division have to look about them least they become guilty of the greatest part of soules which in reason must needs perish by the extremities in which it consisteth And the representing of the grounds thereof unto the parties though it may seem an office unnecessary for a private Christian to undertake yet seemeth to me so free from all imputation of offense in discharging of our common Christianity and the obligation of it that I am no lesse willing to undergoe any offense which it may bring upon me then I am to want the advantages which allowing the present Reformation might give me In the mean time I remaine obliged not to repent me of the resolution of my nonage to remaine in the communion of the Church of England There I find an authority visibly derived from the act of the Apostles by meanes of their successors Nor ought it to be of force to question the validity thereof that the Church of Rome and the communion thereof acknowledgeth not the Ordinations and other Acts which are done by virtue of it as done without the consent of the whole Church which it is true did visibly concurre to the authorizing of all acts done by the Clergy as constituted by virtue of those Lawes which all did acknowledge and under the profession of executing the offices of their severall orders according to the same For the issue of that dispute will be triable by the cause of limiting the exercise of them to those termes which the Reformation thereof containeth which if they prove such as the common Christianity expressed in the Scriptures expounded by the original practice of the whole Church renders necessary to be maintained notwithstanding the rest of the Church agree not in them the blame of separation that hath insued thereupon will not be chargeable upon them that retire themselves to them for the salvation of Christian soules but on them who refuse all reasonable compliance in concurring to that which may seem any way tollerable But towards that triall that which hath been said must suffice The substance of that Christianity which all must be saved by when all disputes and decrees and contradictions are at an end is more properly maintained in that simplicity which all that are concerned are capable of by the terms of that Baptisme which it ministreth requiring the profession of them from all that are confirmed at years of discretion then all the disputes on both sides then all decrees on the one side all confessions of faith on the other side have been able to deliver it And I conceive I have some ground to say so great a word having been able by limiting the term of justifying faith in the writings of the Apostles according to the same to resolve upon what termes both sides are to agree if they will not set up the rest of their division upon something which the truth of Christianity justifieth not on either side For by admitting Christianity that is the sincere profession thereof to be the Faith which onely justifyeth in the writings of the Apostles whatsoever is in difference as concerning the Covenant of Grace is resolved without prejudicing either the necessity of Grace to the undertaking the performing the accepting of it for the reward or the necessity of good works in consideration for the same The substance of Chrianity about which there is any difference being thus secured there remaines no question concerning Baptisme and the Eucharist to the effect for which they are instituted being ministred upon this ground and the profession of it with the form which the Catholick Church requireth to the consecration of the Eucharist Nor doth the Church of England either make Sacraments of the rest of the seven or abolish the Offices because the Church of Rome makes them Sacraments Nor wanteth it an order for the daily morning and evening service of God for the celebration of Festivalls and times of Fasting for the observation of ceremonies fit to create that devotion and reverence which they signify to vulgar understandings in the service of God But praying to Saints and worshipping of Images or of the Eucharist Prayers for the delivery of the dead out of Purgatory the Communion in one kind Masses without Communions being additions to or detractions from that simplicity of Gods service which the originall order of the Church delivereth visible to common reason comparing the present order of the Church of Rome with the Scriptures and primitive records of the Church there is no cause to think that the Catholick Church is disowned by laying them aside It is true it was an extraordinary act of Secular Power in Church maters to inforce the change without any consent from the greater part of the Church But if the matter of the change be the restoring of Lawes which our common Christianity as well as the Primitive orders of the Church of both which Christian Powers are borne Protectors make requisite the secular power acteth within the sphere of it and the division is not imputable to them that make the change but to them that refuse their concurrence to it Well had it been had that most pious and necessary desire thereof to restore publick Penance been seconded by the zeal and compliance of all estates and not stifled by the tares of Puritanisme growing up with the Reformation of it For as there can be no just pretense of Reformation when the effect of it is not the frequentation of Gods publick service in that forme which it restoreth but the suppressing of it in that form which it rejecteth So the communion of the Eucharist being the chiefe office in which it consisteth the abolishing of private Masses is an unsusticient pretense for Reformation where that provision for the frequenting of the communion is not made which the restoring of the order in force before private Masses came in requireth Nor can any meane be imagined to maintaine continuall communion with that purity of conscience which the holinesse of Christianity requireth but the restoring of Penance In fine if any thing may have been defective or amisse in that order which the Church of England establisheth it is but justice to compare it in grosse with both extreames which it avoideth and considering that it is not in any private man to make the body of the Church such as thâ—y could wish to serve God with to rest content in that he is not obliged to become a party to those things which he approves not conforming himself to the order in force in hope of that grace which communion with the Church in the offices of Gods service promiseth For consider againe what meanes of salvation all Christians have by communion with the Church of Rome All are bound to be at Masse on every Festivall day but to say onely so many Paters and so many Aves as belong to the hour Not to assist with their devotions that which they understand not much lesse
is to determine controversies of Faith And what obligation that determination produceth Traditions of the Apostles oblige the present Church as the reasons of them continue or not Instances in our Lords Passeover and Eucharist Penance under the Apostles and afterwards S. Pauls vail eaâ—ing blood and things offered to Idols The power of the Church in limiting these Traditions 178 CHAP. XXV The power of the Church in limiting even the Traditions of the Apostles Not every abuse of this power a sâ—fficient warrant for particular Churches to reforme themselves Heresie consists in denying something necessary to salvation to be believed Schism in departing from the unity of the Church whether upon that or any other cause Implicite Faith no virtue but the effect of it may be the work of Christian charity p. 163 CHAP. XXVI What is to add to Gods Law What to adde to the Apocalypse S. Pauls Anathema The Beraeans S. Johns Gospel sufficient to make one believe and the Scriptures the man of God perfect How the Law giveth light and Christians are taught by God How Idolatry is said not to be commanded by God 168 CHAP. XXVII Why it was death to transgress the determinations of the Jewes Consistory and what power this argueth in the Church A difference between the authority of the Apostles and that of the Church The being of the Church to the worlds end with power of the Keyes makes it not infallible Obedience to Superiours and the Pillar of truth inferre it not 175 CHAP. XXXI The Fathers acknowledge the sufficiencie 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—rnesse of the Scriptures as the Traditions of the Church They are to be reconciled by limiting the termes which they use The limitations of those sayings which make all Christian truth to be contained in the Scriptures Of those which make the authority of the Church the ground of Faith 181 CHAP. XXXII Answer to an Objection that choice of Religion becomes difficult upon these terms This resolution is for the Interest of the Reformation Those that make the Church Infallible cannot those that make the Scriptures â—â—ear â—nd sufficient may own Tradition for evidence to determine the meaning of the Scriptures and controversies of Faith The Interest of the Church of England The pretense of Rushworthes Dialogues that we have no unquestionable Scripture and that tâ—e Tradition of the Church never changes 192 CHAP. XXXI That the Scriptures which wee have are unquestionable That mistakes in Copying are not considerable to the sense and effect of them The meaning of the Hebrew and Greek even of the Prophets determinable to the deciding of Controversies How Religion delivered by Tradition becomes subject to be corrupted 198 CHAP. XXXIV The dispute concerning the Canon of Scripture and the translations thereof in two Questions There can be no Tradition for those books that were written since Prophesie ceased Wherein the excellence of them above other books lies The chiâ—fe objections against them are questionâ—ble In those parcels of the New Testament that have been questioned the case is not the same The sense of the Church 207 CHAP. XXXIII Onely the Originall Copy can be Authentick But the truth thereof may as well be found in the translations of the Old Testament as in the Jewes Copies The Jewes have not falsified them of malice The points come neither from Moses nor Esdras but from the Talmud Iewes 218 CHAP. XXXIV Of the ancientest Translations of the Bible into Greek first With the Authors and authority of the same Then into the Chaldee Syriack and Latine Exceptions against the Greek and the Samaritane Pentateuch They are helps never thelesse to assure the true reading of the Scriptures though with other Copies whether Jewish or Christian Though the Vulgar Latine were better than the present Greek yet must both depend upon the Original Greek of the New Testament No danger to Christianity by the differences remaining in the Bible 224 The CONTENTS of the second Book CHAP. I. TWo parts of that which remains How the dispute concerning the Holy Trinity with Socinus belongs to the first The Question of justification by Faith alone The Opinion of Socinus concerning the whole Covenant of Grace The opinion of those who make justifying Faith the knowledge of a mans Predestination opposite to it in the other extream The difference between it and that of the Antinomians That there are mean Opinions p. 1 CHAP. II. Evidence what is the condition of the Covenant of Grace The contract of Baptism The promise of the Holy Ghost annexed to Christs not to Johns Baptism Those are made Christs Disciples as Christians that take up his Cross in Baptism The effects of Baptism according to the Apostles 5 CHAP. III. The exhortations of the Apostles that are drawn from the patterns of the Old Testament suppose the same How the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament are the same how not the same How the new Testament and the New Covenant are both one The free-will of man acteth the same part in dealing about the New-Covenant as about the Old The Gospel a Law 12 CHAP. IV. The consent of the whole Church evidenced by the custome of catechising By the opinion thereof concerning the salvation of those that delayed their Baptism By the rites and Ceremonies of Baptism Why no Penance for sins before but after Baptism The doctrine of the Church of England evident in this case 17 CHAP. V. The Preaching of our Lord and his Apostles evidenceth that some act of Mans free choice is the condition which it requireth The correspondence between the Old and New Testament inferreth the same So do the errors of Socinians and Antinomians concerning the necessity of Baptism Objections deferred 23 CHAP. VI. Justifying faith sometimes consists in believing the truth Sometimes in trust in God grounded upon the truth Sometimes in Christianity that is in imbracing and professing it And that in the Fathers as well as in the Scriptures Of the informed and formed Faith of the Schools 30 CHAP. VII The last signification of Faith is properly justifying Faith The first by a Metonymy of the cause The second of the effect Those that are not justified do truly believe The trust of a Christian presupposeth him to be justified All the promises of the Gospel become due at once by the Covenant of Grace That to believe that we are Elect or justified is not justifying faith 37 CHAP. VIII The objection from S. Paul We are not justifyed by the Law nor by Works but by Grace and by Faith Not meant of the Gospel and the works that suppose it The question that S. Paul speakes to is of the Law of Moses and the workes of it He sets those workes in the same rank with the works of the Gentiles by the light of nature The civil and outward works of the Law may be done by Gentiles How the Law is a Pedagogue to Christ 43 CHAP. IX Of the Faith and Justification of Abraham and the Patriarkes according to the Apostles
Circumcision John VII 22. Such was the Law of mourning for the dead so much in force at giving the Law that upon the death of Aarons sons it was necessary that a Law should presently come forth incerdicting the Priests to mourne for them upon paine of death the rest of the people remaining under that Law Though Aaron thereupon excuses himself that they did not feast upon the sinne offering upon that day of mourning and is accepted Levit. X. 5 to 19. This the Law introduceth not but was in force under the Fathers as wee see Gen. L. 2 10. XXVII 41. The same is to be said of the seven dayes in which Marriages were celebrated under the Law as wee see in Sampson Judg. XIV 12 15 17. which is doubled Tobâ— VIII 22. no where introduced by the Law no more than the seven dayes or seventy dayes or thirty dayes of mourning Gen. L. 2. Deut. XXXIV 8. The like of answering adjurations which the Law Levit. V. 1. presupposes as also Prov. XXIX 24. as a duty then received that if a man conjure all that know any thing of his businesse to declare what they know all that heare him stand bound to declare their knowledge in it For for this cause it is that the Law supposing him guilty of perjury that conceals his knowledge in that case makes him liable to the sacrifice for expiâ—tion of perjury as you may see Levit. V. 1. And by virtue of this custome among Gods people not onely stood they bound to answer the High Priest as our Lord answers Caâ—aphas Mat. XXVI 63. or the King 1 Kings XXII 18. 2 Chron. XVIII 15. Jos VII 19. Job IX 24. but also private men in the Coâ—â— where their cause was hearing adjuring all that were present to testifie their knowledge in their causes if wee believe the Jewes Constitutions In like maner wee have nothing ordained in the Law that Tithes should be payed or that it should be lawfull or acceptable to God to consecrate any other part of their goods to the service of God or to make Vowes of abstinence from things otherwise lawfull But wee have it determined by the Law what kindes shall be Tithable what Vowes shall stand good what sacrifice shall be offered by him that transgresses his Vow how every thing that a man freely consecrates to the service of God shall be valued in money Levit. XXVII 1-30 Psal XV. 4. Gen. XIV 20. XXVIII 22. Numb XVIII 29. The like is to be said of many other Lawes which being in the Old Testament mentioned as in force by custome and no where introduced by the Lawes of Moses must be presumed to descend by Tradition from the Fathers Which hee that believes as it cannot be doubted must of necessity acknowledge that not onely the principles and grounds of spiritual and inward obedience to God for Gods sake but also the precepts wherein it consists are rather presupposed by the Law than introduced by it And therefore may well be said to be translated out of the Law of Nature into Moses Law when they are mentioned by it Though hereunto I must adde this That they had not onely the doctrine of their Fathers afore the Law to introduce and to regulate this inward obedience but also the Prophets under the Law The intent of whose Office was not onely to reclaime them from Idol to their own true God but also to instruct them wherein consisted not so much that civil and outward observation of his Law which it promiseth to reward with temporal happinesse in the Land of Promise as that spiritual and inward obedience to God from which they might conceive competent ground of hope toward the world to come Every man knows how ready they were to fall from God all the time whereof wee have the records in the Scriptures before the Captivity of Babylon After that time wee do not finde that ever they â—ell to the worship of Idols but wee finde abundantly by the reproofs of the Scribes and Pharisees by our Lord in the Gospels that the next sinne to it of Superstition and Hypocrisie was soon come in insâ—eaâ— of it When by the outward observation of the Ceremonial and Judicial Lawes they promised themselves the favor of God and the reward of the world to come As by paying Tithes precisely Mat. XXIII 23. Luc. XI 42. XVIII 12. by washing their hands and vessels according to the Tradition of their Predecssors Mar. VII 4 8. Mat. XXIII 25 26. Luc. XI 39. by punctually observing the Sabbath Mat. XII 1-12 Mar. II. 23-28 Luc. VII 1-9 XIII 10-16 XIV 1-5 Joh. V. 9 inlarging their Phylacteries and fringes Mat. XXIII 5. by many things more which are to be read up and down the Gospels This disease could not have been reproved by our Lord by the testimony of the Prophet Esay Mat. XV. 9. Mar. VII 7. Esa XXIX 13. had it not taken root even before the Captivity when as yet they were so subject to fall to the worship of false Gods Therefore wee finde the reproof of this superstitious and hypocritical confidence in the Sacrifices which they thought to bribe God with and other outward performances of the Law to be the ordinary work of the most part of the Prophets David Psal XL. 7 12. Psal L. 8-13 LI. 18. The Prophet Samuel 1 Sam. XV. 22. The Prophet Esay of Sacrifices and Festivals Esa I. 11-20 Of their Fasts Esa LVIII 3-10 Of their serving God by Traditions Esa XXIX 13. The Prophet Jeremy that God required not Sacrifices but obedience Jer. VII 21 22 23. and concerning patience and hope in the afflictions which hee sendeth Lam. III. 25-33 The Prophet Hosea in the Calves of our lips Hos XIV 2. The Prophet Micah when hee teacheth what they should come before God with Micah VI. 6 7 8. The Prophet Zachary of celebrating their Fasts Zac. VII 3-10 VIII 16 19. In fine all the Prophets in their instructions and exhortations to the inward obedience of God in spirit and in truth have showed themselves true fore-runners of our Lord Christ and his Apostles Not onely in preaching the principal intent of the Law to be the same which the Gospel pretends to covenant for but in suffering as well for this as for reproving Idolaters at the hands of those that taught for doctrines the Traditions of men the like things as our Lord and his Apostles suffered for the same cause at the hands of the Scribes and Pharisees First then the acknowledgment of one God that disposeth of all things and knowes the secrets of all hearts expresly covenanted for by Moses Law by consequence of right reason infers the duty of spiritual obedience to him in all his commands Secondly the Fathers before the Law had delivered the Prophets after the Law did preach the same no lesse than they did the acknowledgment of the true God but more principally than the outward observation of the Ceremonial or Civil precept of it Therefore there might
be and was sufficient means under the Law to make them understand their obligation to that spiritual obedience which the Gospel covenanteth for though wee suppose as the truth is that the Law expresly covenanteth onely for the temporal happinesse of the Land of Promise Therefore there was also sufficient meanes to oblige them to expect the coming of the Christ as wee see by the Gospel that they did at the coming of our Lord and as all that will maintain Christianity against the Jewes are bound to maintain And therefore to the objection proposed I answer That though the words of the precept of loving God with all the heart and all the minde and all the soul and all the might may contain all that Christianity requireth to be done in consideration of duty to God and with an intent of his honor and service Yet neverthelesse that sense thereof that depends upon the Covenant of the Law is to be limited to the observation of those precepts which God should confine their civil life to in the service of him alone The intent of the Covenant being to contract with God for temporal happinesse in the Land of Promise they undertaking as a Common-wealth to live by such civil Lawes as hee should give as well as to worship him by such Ceremonies as hee should prescribe And therefore supposing they observed those precepts they were to expect the inheritance of the Land of Promise though wee suppose that they did it out of respect to that reward and not onely to God and to his honor and service Yea though wee grant that for the acknowledging of the true God alone they were bound to indure persecution and death rather than for fear of torment to deny God or sacrifice to Idols or renounce his Law as wee see Daniel and the three Children did under Nebuchadnesar and the zealous Jewes in the Maccabees time under Antiochus Epiphanes For if the Heathen had cause to believe that which is received of all as the ground of civil Society that particular persons are bound to expose their lives for the defense of their Countrey that is to no other end but that they may live and die in the Lawes under which they are bred though they had no promise of God that they should hold their inheritance of this world by maintaining them Cereainly the people that obtained their inheritance by taking upon them Moses Law shall stand bound not onely to maintain it by the sword under the conduct of their Soveraignes but also by suffering for it when they were not to maintain it by force A thing nothing strange to a man that shall consider how desâ—rable life is to him that is forced from the Lawes of his Countrey As for the other part of loving our Neighbor as our selves it is without doubt pregnant with an evident argument of this truth seeing in plain reason the extent of the precept might so argue the intent of it For it is evident by infinite Texts of the Law that a mans neighbor in this precept extends no further than to Israelites whether by birth or by religion that is to say those that are ingraffed into the Covenant by being circumcised For example Let mee ask how the Law could forbid the Israelites to seek the good of the Moabites and Ammonites if it be part of the same Law to love all men under the quality of neighbors as themselves Let mee demand of any man how Mordecai was tied not to do that honor to Haman that his Soveraigne commanded to be done How hee could in conscience disobey his Prince in a mater of indifferent nature of it self had it not been prohibited by the Law of God Whether a Jew that is commanded by the Law to professe hostility against all Amalekites could be dispensed with in this obligation by any act of his Soveraign Whether any just reason can be alleged for Mordecai but this Nay those who are called strangers in the Law That is to say those that had renounced all Idols and professed to worship the true God and thereupon were privileged to dwell in the Land of Promise out of which the Israelites were sufficiently commanded to root all Idolaters those strangers I say by the leter of Moses Law are not comprehended in the precept of loving our neighbor as our selves For hee that asked who is the neighbor that the Law speaks of Lut. X. 27-37 is not convicted by our Lord by any leter of the Law but by a Parable intimating the example of that which hee did for mankinde to be the reason of that which the Gospel requires Forsooth if the love of Christians extend to strangers and enemies because the good Samaritâ—ne which is our Lord Christ extended his so farr then not because Moses Law had convenanted for it Therefore besides this precept of loving our neighbors as our selves it was requisite that the Law should by a particular provision limit that respect and tenderness wherewith they were required to use those strangers as converts to the true God for so the Syriack translation of the Law calls them alwaies to wit in the rank of Widowes and Orphans If this be true the precept of not coveting by the immediate intent of Moses Law stands confined to that sense which the Jewes at this day give it according to the decisions of their Doctors that no man by contrived oppresion or vexation designe to force his neighbor that was by the Law inabled to make a divorce to part with his wife or any thing else that hee called his own Which sense our Lord also in the Gospel manifestly favors Mar. X. 19. where recounting the precepts that those must keep that will inherit life everlasting after thou shalt not bear false witnesse hee inserres thou shalt not take away by fraud or oppression that which is another mans for the sense of the tenth Commandement thou shalt not cover that which is thy neighbors All which extendeth no further than the over act of seeking what is not a mans own And though this be out Lords answer to him that asks what hee is to do to obtaine life everlasting yet it may well seem that our Lord intended first to propound unto him the civil Law of Moses as necessary to salvation and a step towards it because the Gospel saith that our Lord loved him that answered All these things have I kept from my youth up as acknowledging that hee said true For that hee had kept these precepts in that spiritual sense and to the intent and purpose which the Gospel requireth it was not true And by that which followes when hee askes what remained to be done namely that hee leave all to follow Christ hee inferrs in one precept the whole inward and spiritual obedience of God which under the Gospel is expresly required To wit that a man set all the world and himself behinde his back that hee may follow Christ Therefore though they be the obedience
have reason that observe the terms of the Law Deut. XXI 5. every cause and every plague shall be according to their mouth inferring that all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wee may translate doctrines but must understand that which the Greek calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or decrees must come out of their mouth Siphri 243. Pesicta Zoterta fol. 91. col 4. and instanding in the causes to be purged by the ashes of the Red Cow Num. XIX not as if none could sprinkle those ashes but a Priest which is otherwise ruled by Num. XIX 17. to be any man that was clean but because they could not be burnt but by a Priest Num. XIX 3. which is by their Law any Priest Maimoni in that Title I. 11 12. and because part of them was set aside for Priests to purifie with as another part for other Israelites Maim III. 4. So in the causes concerning Wives questioned by their Husbands being jealous by the Law of Num. V. 15. the causes of murther for which an Heifer was to be killed by breaking her neck Deut. XXI 5. And in the plagues of men houses and clothes Deut. XXIV 8. none of which could be decided without a Priest In this regard it seems to mee the Prophet sayes The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge and they shall require the Law at his mouth for hee is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts Mal. II. 7. and in termes Deut. XXX 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They shall teach Jacob thy Judgments and Israel thy Lawes According to the other Law Deut. XVII 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to the doctrines that they shall teach thee Another Power in that people is that of Prophets which seemeth to be founded upon the Law of Deut. XVIII 20 21 22. where having commanded that the Prophet which should succeed Moses be obeyed as Moses the Law proceedeth to charge them to put to death whosoever should prophesie in the name of strange Gods And then giving a rule whereby to discern between a true and a false Prophet seems to intimate the authority of Prophets Which was so very great in that people that the Kings themselves were to obey them so long as they had the reputation of true Prophets whereupon wee see how they reprove them Elias Ahab 1 Kings XVIII 17. Elisha the King of Israel 2 Kings VI. 33. John Baptist and our Lord Christ Herod Mat. XIV 4. Luc. XIII 32. though when their reputation could by faction be questioned â—o often were they questioned condemned and killed for the messages they brought in Gods name as the Apostle saith Heb. XI 37. and as it befell our Lord Christ Nay further that when they taught that any particular Law should cease for the time they were to be obeyed as Elias commanded to offer sacrifice in another place than at Jerusalem 1 Kings XVIII 17. contrary to the Law of Levit. XV. 2-9 the Temple being then on foot Whereby it appeareth that the Prophets had their authority immediately from God not depending so much as upon his Law further than as the acknowledgment of the authority of it to come from God was a necessary condition to the receiving of them for Prophets as I said asore Seeing the mater thereof might cease to oblige if they should declare the will of God to be such The Commonwealth then of Israel subsisting by divine right that is by the appointment of God giving them freedome and the command of themselves upon condition of undertaking the Law not onely the Kingdom which is the form of Government limited by the Soveraigne Power placed in one person whether by the permission of God or his appointment together with the Ministers thereof Judges and Magistrates and Officers but also the Priestly and Prophetical Office must be understood to stand by the same title As for the Church which wee have seen to be the spiritual Israel of God and maintain to be one visible body by virtue of undertaking the Covenant of Grace which the Gospel tendreth It is manifest that the King thereof is the Lord Christ who professeth not to govern it by his bodily presence but by the Law of his Word and by the invisible presence of his Spirit which was to commence upon his departure That being here hee appointed XII Apostles as Patriarchs thereof under him as the XII Princes of the Tribes were under Moses and LXX Disciples or Apostles of an inferior rank under himself also as they under Moses But for the dispatch of such businesse concerning his Kingdom as that which neither the Captains of Thousands and Hundreds who were ordained Judges before the LXX were ordained to assist Moses neither after them the Judges of particular Cities that succeeded them could decide And shall wee not conclude all this correspondence to be as competent an argument as wee are to expect for the New Testament in the Old for the constitution of the Church in the institution of the Synagogue To wit that seeing wee see God hath appointed our Lord Christ hee his XII Apostles and LXX Disciples his ministers in governing of it that hee intended it a visible body to which the visible right of governing the same might be conveyed by the reasonable voluntary act of those in whom placing the power hee must needs place the right of propagating the same in his own absence One point indeed of difference there is wherein wee should abuse our selves too much to seek for any correspondence between the Synagogue and the Church For wee suppose the intent of God to have been that the Law should oblige one people but the Gospel all that are to attain salvation out of all people so that there is no particular seat of Gods worship according to the Gospel to which all Christians are bound to resort as Jerusalem was the seat of Gods worship which all Jewes were to resort to And wee suppose our Lord Christ to be in heaven where the Princes of Israel and the LXX Elders cannot be present to assist him with their ministery Therefore wee cannot imagine that hee appointed his LXX Disciples for a standing Assembly as under the Law But to be dispersed all over the world where Christian people should be though united by the same Rule which all should follow for the preserving of Christendom in unity Let no man therefore any more imagine that the title by which any Power is held or pretended to be held in the Church can be derived from that right which the Priesthood held under the Law So as from thence to inferre that the Power which the Priesthood had not under the Law is not under the Gospel to be ascribed unto the Church as it is the Church For I do of my own accord allege that seeing the Priesthood was purely ceremonial to figure that expiation of sin which Christ should bring to passe and therefore to expire when it was brought to passe it is not possible to imagine that any right
the Priesthood but because both are from God who hath expressed those marks of his wisedom in the elder that may seem to direct the later though claiming no title from it This reason is general There is another more particular to be drawn from that which hath been showed that the Apostles and Disciples of Christ as Governors of Gods spiritual Israel and therefore those that claime a right answerable to theirs have in them both the Office of the Levitical Priesthood and of Legal Prophets in such consideration and to such purpose as the effect of those Offices under the Gospel in the Church requireth Whereupon if at any time the Fathers of the Church do argue or dispute the Office of those who claime by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ from those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Levitical Priesthood or the Prophets under the Law Much more ordinary it is to finde them grounding the like instructions and exhortations upon those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Rulers and Judges of Israel according to the flesh What is more ordinary in Tertullian Origen S. Cyprian Clement Justine the Apostolical Constitutions the rest of the most ancient Fathers of the Church than to draw into consequence the Rebellion of Corah and the Law of obeying that which the Priests and Judges of every age should ordaine concerning difficulties of the Law against Schisme in the Church Those things which the Prophets Esay LVII 10 11. Jer. 11. 8. III. 15. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 1-16 pronounce against the Shepherds of Israel against those that claime under the Apostles in the Church For the Prophets themselves Esa LVII 10 11. Jer. II. 8. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 23. do manifestly show that these Shepherds are the Rulers of the People distinguishing them both from the Priests and the Prophets And the interest of Christianity requires that the promise of raising up better Shepherds be understood to be fulfilled in the Holy Apostles Hee that doubts of the sense of the Fathers in this point let him take the paiâ—â—s to reade S. Basil upon III of Esay and see how hee expounds those things which are prophefied against the Rulers of Gods ancient People against those that offend like them in ruling Gods Church And therefore it is utterly impertinent to the Power and right of the Church which is observed as mater of consequence to it in the second Book de Synedriis Judaeorum VII 7. that S. Paul ordained Presbyters in the Churches Acts XIV 22. as himself without doubt had received Ordination from his Master Gamaliel in the Synagogue For if the meaning be onely that hee Ordained them by Imposing hands as himself perhaps was Ordained hee tells no newes for that is it which the Scripture affirmeth But if hee mean further that S. Paul did this by authority received from Gamaliel it will he ridiculous to imagine that S. Paul by the Power which hee had from the Synagogue was inabled to give that authority in the Church which the Synagogue found it self obliged to persecute as destructive to it Besides it is easily said that the Apostles finding that it was then a custome to Ordaine those Elders which were wont to be created in the Synagogue for such ends and to such faculties as the constitution thereof required by Imposing hands And intending to conferre a like Power in Church maters upon the like order in the Church which by such acts they institute held fit to use the same ceremony in ordaining them which was in use to the like but several purposes in the Synagogue In which case it is manifest that the Power so conferred cannot be derived from that which the Synagogue gave and therefore not limited by it but by that which the Society of the Church and the constitution thereof requires As suppose for the purpose that by the Jewes Law at that time they created Elders to Judge in criminal causes onely in the Land of Israel But for inferior purposes as of resolving doubts in conscience rising upon the Law by pronouncing this or that lawfull or unlawfull to be done in other places Is it reason therefore to inferre as it is there inferred pag. 325. that when S. Paul faith 1 Cor. V. 12. Do not yee judge those that are within hee must not be understood of any judgment which the Presbyters of the Church exercised there because out of the Land of the Land of Promise Elders were not ordained for Judges by the Synagogue I say nothing of the point it self for the present I say it is no argument to inferre thus as is inferred pag. 325. the Elders which the Synagogue made were not inabled to judge out of the Land of Promise Therefore in the Christian Church there was no Power to judge the causes of Christians at that time Unlesse wee derive the authority of the Church from the Synagogue As for that which is argued pag. 328. that Had they conferred any other power than the Rules of the Synagogue allowed they would have been questioned and persecuted for it by the Jewes either in their own Courts or before the Gentiles in as much as the Christians had then no protection for their Religion which the Jewes had but as they passed for Jewes in the Empire it dependeth meerly upon the opinion the Jewes themselves had of Christianity For where the Jewes stood yet at a bay expecting the trial of that truth which the Gospel pretended not proceeding to persecute the profession of Christianity it is not to be imagined that they should proceed to persecute those acts which were done in prosecution of it But where the separation was complete and enmity declared no man need bid a Jew persecute a Christian for any thing that hee did as a Christian nor a Christian to suffer for that which a Jew should persecute All the question onely was how farre both their Masters that is the Powers of the Empire would make themselves executioners of their hatred Christianity being hitherto tolerated though not protected till the Lawes of the Empire had declared against Christianity which at that time it is plain they had not done As little do I think it concernes the Right of the Church which is there observed VII 4. pag. 287. that Ordination by Imposition of hands was meerly of humanÌ„e institution in the Synagogue and no way derived from the example of Moses laying hands upon Josue Num. XXVII 18-23 which being a singular case can no way ground a Rule For supposing that by the Law a Judiciary Power or what ever inferior Right was to be maintained and conveyed by the Act of those which were legally possessed of it or the right of conveying it Let all limitations whereby the way of conveying it was determined be counted as much of humane right as you please the power so conveyed cannot be meerly of humane right being established by Gods Law with a Power of limiting all circumstances
in propagating of it which are not against Gods Law but according to it As for the Apostles of our Lord Christ all whose acts done with intent to oblige the Church are of force by Gods act of establishing them all that can remaine questionable is with what intent they introduced their Ordinances into the Church which are unquestionably of force by Gods Law for whatsoever they intended whatsoever the Synagogue might intend by the like As for that voluntary conjecture of pag. 315. which makes the XII Apostles created with Power of Binding and Loosing so many Elders to declare what was lawfull and unlawful in Christianity I admit all understood according to the premises To wit that as there was in those Elders which the Synagogue created a Power to declare what was lawful or unlawful by the Law of Moses to make a man capable or uncapable of the society of that people to which those promises were made but in every one as his creation limited So were the Apostles ordained by our Lord to declare to the world upon what termes it might be reconciled to God and obtaine everlasting life And those whom they prevailed not with they are therefore said to binde because they loosed them not And as they held this Power in chief and fully to all purposes So all that claime any part of it under them must claime no more than the act by which they conveyed it upon them may appear to have limited But it were too great an impertinence to imagine that this power depended any way upon that authority which the Law might allow or constitute even in our Lord Christ supposing him a Prophet acknowledged according to the Law otherwise then as the Gospel depends upon the Law and the Church upon the Synagogue in that they give evidence to them by which they are made void For that which our Lord gives his Apostles is more then the Law was ever able to effect if the premises be true though the Law gave competent witness and evidence to it Neither is there any more force in that which is conjectured in the same place that the VII who are created to wait upon the Tables or common Diet of the Christians at Jerusalem Acts VI. are also so many Elders because made by Imposing hands For if it be the authority of the Apostles that made Imposition of hands in force to Christians though they had a pattern from the Synagogue to move them to introduce it who shall limit them not to use it unlesse they be Elders whom they ordaine and therefore who shall conclude that they are Elders because so ordained If these things be true it will be easie to resolve the consequence of that supposition which is propounded in the Preface to that Book To wit supposing the Jewes in the Land of Promise had received Christianity at the Preaching of the Apostles as they ought to have done and so that their Estate had continued as it did which for refusing it was taken away whether the Civil Law of that people continuing as it ought to continue should have had the same Power in Ecclesiastical causes as it had in ordering all things that concerned the Ceremonial Law For if so then no Ecclesiastical Power could have subsisted among the Jewes and therefore no cause could be alleged why other Nations im̄bracing Christianity should not reserve the same Power to their own Civīl Law For supposing the Covenant under Moses to be no more in force at such time as the New is on foot which the Preaching of the Apostles had declared to be the intent of the Old at such time as Christ should come it will follow indeed that the reason why the Nation was taken away that is the refusal of the Gospel ceasing God might have preserved them in Estate had hee pleased but by the termes of the Covenant which was expired could not be tied to it But supposing hee had preserved them so wee must then suppose that the Civil Law of Moses ought to be still maintained among that people not by the Covenant which being expired and the condition of the Land of Promise holding no longer when the taking up of Christs Crosse is propounded and admitted by receiving Christianity the obligation of maintaining the same Civil Law can no further hold than the reason of maintaining Christianity should require That is So farr as the quiet of that people in the privileges which till then they injoyed would evidently have been for the advancement and maintenance of Christianity and the preserving of the Lawes which they were alwaies tied to as evidently for the quiet of that people For suppose at this hour a Synagogue of Jewes in the Empire or in Italy or wheresoever else they subsist should receive Christianity Neither would any obligation of the Law remain upon them why they should not give it all over to become free denizens of the States in which they dwelt afore their conversion which is that as I suppose that Christian States ought to propose to them to move them to imbrace Christianity neither is there any thing to difference their case now from those of our Lords time that injoyed so much of their own Lawes in the hand of Promise And supposing that God had been pleased to preserve them in that estate wee must also suppose that God intending his Church as well of the Gentiles as Jewes intended both to make parts of it upon the same termes And therefore that Power which the Apostles left for the preserving of unity in the communion of the service of God for which the Society of the Church stands that as well Jewes as Gentiles must have admitted as a part of the Christianity which they professed bounding the force of their own Civil Laws upon the same Terms as wee show the Civil Lawes of other Nations that received Christianity are to be bounded with in Church maters CHAP. XVI The Church founded upon the Power given the Apostles What is the subject mater of Church Lawes The right of the Church to Tithes and Oblations is not grounded upon the Law though evidenced by it and by practice of the Patriarchs Evidence of the Apostles Order in the Scriptures The Church of Jerusalem held not community of Goods The original practice of the Church HAving thus farre showed the foundation of Ecclesiastical Power in the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord Christ whom wee may justly affirm to have been the Church materially as so many Christians but in virtue and force as much as the whole Church can ever be it will not be requisite to those that consider things a right to argue that their Acts and Ordinances must of necessity have the force of Gods Lawes to the Church as much as those things which God said alone to Moses in the Tabernacle of Assembling had the force of Lawes to his ancient people For those that consider the beginnings of States from the beginning of the World shall
Apostles are certainly their act the declaration of the Church proceeding no further than the means provided by God for that purpose will inable the Church to discerne that this doth appear will have the force of a Law to oblige all Christians not to violate the communion of Christians upon pretense that it doth not appear So the rcason of believing and the evidence thereof are both antecedent to the foundation of the Church But the declaration of the Church obliging those that are within it not to violate communion upon pretense of contrary evidence that is the effect of that right and power which God giveth his Church But there are other acts which the Church will be as often necessitated to do as it becomes questionable in the Church how any of those Offices which God is served with by Christians is to be performed What times at what places what persons are to assemble themselves for that service as of it self it is not determined so were it never so particularly determined by the writings of the Apostles yet so long as the world is changeable and the condition of the Church by that reason not to be limited in that service by the same Rule alwaies the Society of the Church could not subsist without a Power to determine it The persons especially that communicate with the Church if you will have the Church a Society must be indowed with several qualities some of them inabling to communicate passively that is to joyn in the Offices of Gods service For till our time I think it was never quessioned among Christians whether the same persons might minister and he ministred to in the Offices of Christianity Then if some persons be to be set apart for that purpose of necessity it may become questionable by what acts the fame is lawfully done according to the will of God declared by his Apostles Further when it is determined who when where are the Offices of Christianity and the Assemblies of the Church to be celebrated the least circumstance of matter and form of solemnity and ceremony though it make no difference of saith yet is able to create a cause of separation of communion that shall be just on the one side Is it any great Power that is demanded for the Church by the Original constitution thereof when it is demanded that the Church have Power to regulate it self in things of this consequence Let mee be bold to say there is never a Company in London so contemptible that can stand without having the like excepting the determination of maters of Faith And therefore it is a small thing to demand that the Apostles for their time should be able to do it by Power from God so as to be heard in Christs stead Those that received Power from them according to the measure of that Power which they received though they pretend not their acts to be our Lord Christs as the Apostles yet within the bounds of that Office to which they are ordained they have power from God determining their persons though not justifying their acts Suppose then that our Lord Christ assume a Ceremony in use in the Synagogue at such time as hee preached of baptizing those that imbraced Moses Law being born of other Nations to signifie and to solemnize the admission of them that undertake Christianity to the privileges of his New people I suppose it is the act of our Lord that makes this a Law to his Church though it was the Power which God had provided to govern his ancient people that made it a Law to the Synagogue It is no more doubted among men of Learning that our Lord Christ at his last Supper made use of Ceremonies practised among the Jewes at their Passeover in the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist the outward act whereof hee appointed to consist in those Ceremonies whereas the inward intent thereof was not known afore For whatsoever they knew of Christ they could not thereby know that hee would institute the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in those Elements In like maner it had been alwaies a custome of Superiors in the Synagogue according to that of the Apostle Ebr. VlI. 7. Without all contradiction the lesse is blessed by the greater to blesse and to pray for interiors with laying hands upon them or lifting up hands over them So did the Priests so did the Prophets so Isaac Gen. XXVII 4 7 12 19 21 22. Jacob Gen. XLVIII 9 14 17. Aaron Levit. lX. 22. because a man cannot lay hands upon an Assembly all at once The Priests blessing therefore is called among the Jewes listing up of hands and many scrupulous observations there are among them in doing it Num. VI. 23 24 25. So our Lord in doing cures as Naaman thought Elisha would have done 2 Kings V. II. in blessing his Disciples Lue. XXIV 50. and divers the like If then the Apostles of our Lord frequented the same Ceremony in solemnizing Ordination as praying for the grace of the Holy Ghost upon those that received it and in other acts of publick effect in the Church it cannot be conceived that any thing but their owne act brought it in force though the practice of Gods ancient people gave them a precedent for it but it must be conceived that this argues a Society of the Church where such Ceremonies are instituted to celebrate such acts with as were to provide for the maintenance of it Here I must not forget the Law of Tithes and the Title by which they are challenged to be due to the Church For having made that this proved the Church a Corporation by the power of making Lawes within themselves of creating Governors and of Excommunicating If it be demanded where is the common stock and revenue of it seeing no Corporation can subsist without means to maintaine the attendance requisite to those things wherein it is to communicate it will be necessary to show that those who founded the Church have provided for this Tithes are commonly claimed by the Levitical Law And it is not easie to give a reason why other Lawes of the Church should not come in force or stand in force by the Law of Moses if it be once said that Tithes are due to the Church under the Gospel because they were as signed the Levitical Priesthood by the Law Truly it deserves consideration whether they that insist upon the Levitical Law in the claime of Tithes to the Church do not prejudice the cause which they pretend to maintaine For if they look into the tenor of the Law it will easily appear that Tithes of fruits of the earth are assigned the Priesthood by God in consideration of the Land of Promise which hee gave them And that therefore the practice of the Jewes at this very day is due and legal who pay no Tithes of those fruits because the service for which they are due is by the Law prohibited out of the Land of Promise Besides it is
Corporation of the Church by divine right it is sufficient in this place onely to show that there is a right in the Body of the Church by Gods appointment to do such things as the Nature of a Society founded upon a Charter of Gods inferreth For whatsoever persons shall be by the same appointment inabled to act for the Church and to conclude it as in no form of Government the whole is able to act by it self whatsoever is done by those persons is reasonably and legally said to be done by the Church though I referr it to another dispute to determine what persons they are and in what cases These reasons therefore do satisfie mee that the delivering to Satan which S. Paul condemns the incestuous person to implies indeed something extraordinary which the sentence of Excommunication in these dayes produceth not And it is this That during the time of the Apostles to manifest the presence of God in his Church those that were shut out of it became subject to the visible incursion of evil spirits plaguing them with bodily diseases Which S. Paul calleth the destruction of the flesh Intimating that Gods end in them was to reduce him to the sense of that Christianity which hee had professed that by inwardly returning to it the spirit might be saved in the day of Christ whether or no by outwardly professing it hee might be reconciled to the Church for salvation by the means of it As for the words of our Lord Dic Ecclesiae I will not insist upon the improbabilities of Erastus his interpretation that Let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publicane is no more but this Be it lawfull for thee to sue him in the Romanes Court. For this I say It is plain by S. Paul 1 Cor. VI. 1. that our Lords Disciples that is Christians might in no case implead one another before the Gentiles whatsoever Erastus imagine Which it is plain the Jewes also did their utmost to avoid Nor is the other more probable that makes it no more than that upon his neglect of the Synagogue hee was free to return scorn and to avoid him who had scorned the Synagogue For would our Lord binde his Disciples to resort to the Synagogue and yet obtain nothing but leave to scorn him that scorned them first and afterwards the Synagogue Besides the inconvenience common to both these interptetations that such a precept to his Disciples that is to all Christians should concern them no longer nor in any other consideration than that for which at the first Christians were bound to comply with the Synagogue which compliance not onely what it was but even what it signified they then understood no more than hee that understands nothing But I leave all other advantage to prosecute the principle premised That the Disciples of our Lord acknowledged a new King of Israel which the title of Gods anointed the Messias signified a new Covenant by which hee was their King a new Israel according to the Spirit not according to the flesh and by consequence new Laws which a New Common-wealth must needs inferr And therefore call it what you will Synagogue which as yet they understood not to be void or Church which they understood must be but that it should be distinct from the Synagogue understood not being commanded to tell the Assembly they must understand it to be an Assembly of themselves Christs Disciples which all Jews might be for any thing they yet understood And when our Lord saith Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man or as a Publicane though they understood that Heathen men and Publicanes resorted to the Temple as also those that were Excommunicate by the Synagogue did because the Law stood not upon any promise of the world to come but upon the privilege and sitl of a Jew to all rights that Jewes were indowed with yet they underflood also that our Lord spoke in Parables containing sharp speeches figures and riddles When hee faith Hee that smiteth thee on the right cheek turn him the left they underflood that himself no way balked his own command when being smitten by the Jews Ministers hee an-swered not by turning the other cheek But that his meaning was to have his Disciples as ready to do them good that so should assront them as if they should pleasure his anger by turning him another cheek to strike And when hee faith Hee that constraineth thee to go a mile with him go thou twain His meaning is not that they should leave their businesse to be counted fools for it But to be ready to do him as great a pleasure So hee that fees the Jews so to avoid the society of the Gentiles and by consequence of publiâ—anes who has necessary and continual frequentation with Gentiles that when they came from the Piazza they washed their hands before they went to meat as polluted by coming near them hee that fees S. Peter obliged to give account to his brethren the Jewish Christians why hee did eat with Cornelius and his Company though worthippers of the true God and such as had imbraced the Faith that fees God instruct him so to do by the vision of earing unclean beasts as if hee could no more do the one than the other by the Law Hee I fay that considers these things will say that our Lord when hee sayes Let him be to thee as an Heathen man or a Publicane hath very sharply expressed the fame that S. Paul means when hee sayes with such a one no not to eat And therefore I conclude his meaning to be that which I have concluded heretofore that his Disciples should carry none of their suits though concerning mater of Interest out of the Church but stand to what it shall determine For how should S. Paul demand Dare any of you having a cause with another go to suit before the unrighteous and not before the Saints I Cor. VI. I. If it had not been a Law known to Christians that their suits were to be determined within themselves Referring my self for further evidence that this was then in force to what hath been showed in another place and having not been contradicted must needs be in force And if any man shall object that this would be the ruine of all States so soon as they prosesse Christianity if the Jurisdiction of them should be swallowed up in the Jurisdiction of the Church all causes being in that case causes of Christians For an answer referring him not onely to that which I have said already there but to that which I purpose to say further before I have done with this point And upon these terms I grant Erastus that when out Lord sayes Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publicane Hee sayes in effect be it lawfull for thee to sue him in the Court of the Gentiles Not as if our Lord did allow that which S. Paul forbids That a Christian should sue a Christian before Gentiles But
de Virginibus velandis Wherein hee disputes whether they were priviledged against S. Pauls order I Cor. XI 5-15 of vailing their faces in the Church of the rank of Marryrs and Consessors that is those who had abondones themselves to whatsoever the prosession of Chrissianity should inferre howsoever they escaped I need say nothing The esteem of them being known to have been such that it is no mervail if their desire or their sentence were counted a Prejudice or Prerogative to the Church As thus At the elections of the Romane Magistrates the Century of the Tribe that voted first was counted to have a Prerogative the Vore thereof being a kinde of Prejudice to them that followed to vote the same So that it was found that whose carried this Prerogative commonly carried the whole Vote Such was the effect of that absolution which Consessors in their durance did sometimes grant Penitents in the Primitive Church To wit a confidence grounded upon the esteem of their merit towards Christianity that their act would not be made void by the Body of the Church Whereupon S. Cypr. Epist XII Qui libellos à Martyribus acceperunt eorum Praerogativâ apud Deum adjuvari possunt Those who have received billets from the Martyrs and may finde help before God by their Prerogative The Monks Excommunication proceeded upon the same ground That is to say upon a confidence that whom hee by that sentence declared to have forfeited the Communion of the Church in his judgment those who had his Holinesse in esteem would not communicate with The Emperors proceeding shows it was not for nothing Who being absolved by the Ordinary rested not content till hee had satisfied the Monk The reason because even then it might be evident that the preservation of Unity in the Church obliged to grant the Communion thereof to such as there was no reasonable assurance that Gods pardon did go before it which otherwise the restoring of that Communion ought to suppose Which might move a tender conscience to do more than the Church injoyned him to do But I intend not hereby to justifie maters of fact in the Primitive Church It shall serve my turn to argue that the reason inferred appears not by this practice because another reason doth appear Onely I say further that nothing of primitive institution can be argued from a custome which they that relate it Tertullian and S. Cyprian do mark for an abuse tending either to abate the severity of discipline or to dissolve the unity of the Church And therefore hee that observes all this must not forget to observe the reasons whereby S. Cyprian protests that the courses whereby those of his time went about to force the consent of the Church by the credit of the Martyrs were seditious Ep. IX XXII And also the course that hee takes to referr the mater to the debate and common sentence of other Churches equally concerned in the cause Ep. XVII For to have recourse to the Unity of the Church to cure the distemper of a particular Church had been against common sense for him that had not known that those whom hee had to do with acknowledged the same And that being acknowledged it will be more against common sense to imagine that Martyrs or Confessors of one Church could give Law to the whole as they must do if wee suppose that absolution granted by them in the Church of Carthage was of it self of force and valid which by the same right and title must extend to all that were in the same case But there remains a second reason or plea how a Communion of the Church might be and so a Power to Excommunicate and by consequence other Rights in which it hath been showed that the Society of the Church subsisted before Constantine without any title of divine Right which Princes and States professing Christianity are bound to maintain For it is alleged that Excommunication and Penance which is the abatement of it was in force in the Primitive Church by virtue of the voluntary consent of Christians consederating themselves upon such terms as wee finde to have been in use into a discipline taken up of their own free resolution Which by consequence must be said of the rest of those rights wherein the Communion of the Church and the Unity thereof did consist at that time To which I must except generally in the first place That this plea whether true or false for the present is not receivable so much as into consideration untill it be qualified and limited so that it may be consistent with the former now refuted For no man can pretend to advance such a plea for his cause as consists of two parts whereof the first destroyes the second Now it was pretended afore that there was no Excommunication in use under the Apostles but that which was in force in the Synagogue by virtue of Moses Law and the Power erected by it of introducing such Penalties as the maintenance thereof should require And here it is pretended That Excommunication and other effects of Ecclesiastical Power came in force upon the voluntary agreement of Christians Therefore the whole plea if you will have it hang together must be this That the whole Body of Christians did voluntarily agree among themselvs to receive that Excommunication which was in force by virtue of the Law and by consequence such other Rights already in force by virtue of the Law as they agreed to be no lesse usefull for maintaining the Communion of the Church than they found Excommunication to be And on these termes I admit the two parts of this plea not to be inconsistent For the effect of the whole will be this That there was indeed a Society and Corporation of one visible Church from the beginning of Christianity to Constantine such as I now challenge that there ought to be But not by any order of the Apostles or title of divine right but by the free consent of all Christians which being the consent of subjects and subsisting by sufferance of the Soveraign resolves into his will when hee pleases to seize it into his hands But then I will appeal to the common reason of all men whether it be consistent therewith in two regards The first shall be that which I alleged before out of Irenaeus whether it be consistent with common sense to imagine that neither the Churches planted in the Germane Provinces or Spanish or Ganlish of the Romane Empire nor those in the East nor in Aegypt or Africk nor those that were planted in the middle parts of the world should practice or observe otherwise than the Communion which de facto I have already showed to have been maintained among them did require and all this have no other beginning than their own free and voluntary consent prevented by no obligation at all but the dictate of common reason pronouncing what would be best for the maintenance of that common Christianity to which wee suppose
manifest to those that dedicate themselves to the examining of the Word according to the rate of that leisure and forwardnesse which they bestow upon their exercise in it Athanasius Disp. cum Ario in Conc. Nic. if it be his speaking of the Godhead of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Scriptures clearly declare all things And not onely that which was in debate S. Chrysostome in Lazarum Hom. III. incourages to reade the Scripture because it is not obscure the Gentiles that sought vain-glory by writing books affecting obscurity as the way to be admired but the Holy Ghost seeking the good of all contrariwise In â—oan Hom. II. hee compares S. Johns doctrine to the Sun as shining to all not onely men of understanding but women and youths In Mat. Hom. I. to the same purpose Epiphanius Haer. LXXVI 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For all is clear in Gods Scriptures to those that will come to the Word of God with godly reason and turn not themselvs down the precipices of death through lust wrought in them by the devil To the same purpose Haer. LXIX Gregory Nyssene in Psalm Inscriptiones I. commendeth the Psalms for rendring deep mysteries easie and pleasant to men and women young and old Cyril in Julianum VII answering his scorn of the Scriptures for their vulgar language saith it was so provided that they might not exceed any mans capacity Fulgentius according to S. Austine Sermde Confessoribus Ita suae moderationis tenet temperiem ut nec ovibus desint pabula nec pastoribus alimenta The Scripture holds this moderation in the temper of it that neither the sheep wants food nor the shepherd nourishment in it S. Chrysostome observes that when S. Paul sayes 2 Cor. III. 14. Their senses are blinded in reading the Scriptures Hee makes the cause to be in the Jewes blindenesse when they understand not in the Scriptures Again Origen in Mat. Tract XXV in Rom. III. S. Basil Moral definitione XXV S. Chrysostome in Psal XCV S. Cyril Catech. IV. Rufinus in Symb. agree in affirming that whatsoever is taught in Christianity is to be proved by the Scriptures S. Jerome in Mic. I. Ecclesia Christi quae habitat bene in toto orbe Ecclesias possidens spiritus unitate conjuncta est habet urbes Legis Prophetarum Evangelii Apostolorum non est egressa de finibus suis id est de Scripturis sanctis The Church of Christ being well seated and having Churches all over the world it hath the Cities of the Law the Prophets the Gospel and the Apostles goes not out of her bounds which are the Holy Scriptures Optatus V. putting the case of the Church with the Donatists to be the case of children about their Fathers inheritance sends them to his Will as the Judge of their pretenses And so S. Austine also in Psalmum XXI The Constitutions of the Apostles II. 19. Leo Epist XXIII S. Cypr. Epist LXVIII and many more agree that the People are to answer for themselves if they follow bad Pastors S. Austine adversus Maxim III. 14. Neque ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praejudicaturus proferre Concilium Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque propriis sed utriusque communibus testibus res cum re causa cum causâ ratio cum ratione decertet Neither am I to produce the Council of Nicaea nor you that of Ariminum for a prejudice With authorities of the Scriptures as witnesses common to both not proper to either let mater contend with mater reason with reason cause with cause De Vtilitate credendi VI. hee saith the Scripture of the Old Testament ità esse modificatam ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modò ad hauriendum devotè ac piè ut vera religio poscit accedat Is so tempered that any man may draw out of it that which is enough for him if hee come devoutly and piously as true religion requires to draw Vincentius Commonit I. confesseth that inveterate Herâ—â—es and Opus imperfectum in Mat. Hom. XLIX that the corruptions of Antichrist are not to be convinced but by Scripture The same Vincentius Commonit I. and Sulpitius Severus Hist II. acknowledg the Arians to have over-spread the greatest part of the Church Theâ—efore Nazianzene Orat. advers Arianos scorns them that measure the Church by number And Liberius in Theodoret Eccles Hist II. 16. answers Constantius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The cause of the Faith hath never a whit the worse because I am alone But truly I know nothing in all antiquity more peremptory against the Infallibility of the Church than that of Vineentius denying that the Rule of Faith can ever increase or Councils do any more in it than determine that expresly and distinctly which was simply held from the beginning Commonit I. And S. Austine de Vnitate Ecclesiae cap. XVI challenges the Donatists to demonstrate their Church out of the Scriptures S. Ambrose de Incarnatione cap. V. S. Hilary de Trinitate VI. Victor in Marcum cap. III. agree that the Faith is the foundation of the Church by virtue whereof the gates of Hell prevail not against it Therefore S. Austine de Bapt. contra Donat. II. 3. acknowledges that not onely particular Councils are corrected by General but that of General Councils the later may and do correct them that went afore Again Irenaeus III. 1. affirms that the Apostles writ what they preached by the will of God for the foundation and pilar of our Faith Tertulliane de Prâ—script cap. VIII Cùm credimus nihil ultrà desideramus credere Hoc enim prius credimus non esse quod ultra credere debeamus When wee believe wee desire to believe nothing else For first wee believe that there is nothing further which wee ought to believe So cap. XIV XXIX contra Hermog cap. XXII Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina that the world was made of mater preexiâ—ent Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus definitum Let the shop of Hermogenes show it written If it be not written let it fear the wo decreed for them that adde or take away Apollinaris in Eusebius Eccl. Hist V. 10. is afraid to write least hee should seem to write or injoyn more than the Gospel to which nothing is to be added or taken from it S. Basil de Fide sayes it is plain apostasie to bring in any thing that is not written And in Asceticis Reg. LXXX proves it because faith is by Gods Word and that which is not of faith is sin So likewise S. Ambrose de Paradiso cap. XII alleging Apoc. XXII 19. S. Austine de Bono Viduitatis I. Sancta Scriptura doctrinae nostrae Regulam figit The Holy Scripture prescribes a Rule to our doctrine To the same purpose de peccatorum remiss II. 36. S. Cyril de Trinitate personâ Christi whose words Damascene uses de Orthod Fide
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
Apostle denies any man to be justified For all Christianity acknowledges that the Gospel is implied in the Law neither could the justification of the Fathers before and under the Law by Faith be maintained otherwise And therefore it is no strange thing to say that under the Law there were those that obtained that righteousnesse which the Gospel tendereth though not by the Law but by the Gospel which under the Law though not published was yet in force to such as by meanes of the Law were brought to embrace the secret of it But it cannot there-therefore be said that they were justified by the Law or by the works of it but by Grace and by Faith though the Law was a meanes that God used to bring them to the Grace of Faith And therefore when the Apostles inferences are imployed to fortifie this argument To wit that if a Christian be justified by works depending upon the Covenant of Grace then he hath whereof he may glory which Abraham that was justified by Faith had not Then hath he no meanes to attain that peace and security which the Gospel tendereth all having the conscience of such works as do interrupt it I do utterly deny both consequences For I say that the works that depend upon the Gospel are neither done without the Grace of God from whence the Gospel comes neither are they available to justify him whom the Gospel overtakes in sinne of themselves but by virtue of that Grace of God from whence the Gospel comes Now I challenge the most wilfull unreasonable man in the world to say how he that sayes this challenges any thing whereoâ— he may glory without God who acknowledges to have received that which he tenders from Gods gift and the promise which God tenders in lieu of it from his bounty and goodnesse To say how a man can be more assured that he is in the state of Gods grace then he can be assured of what himself thinks and does For not to decide at present how and how farre a man may be assured of Gods grace whatsoever assurance can be attained must be attained upon the assurance which a man may have of his own heart and actions and that as S Paul saies 1 Cor. 11. 10. No man knows what is in a man but the Spirit of a man that is in him For if it be said â—hat this assurance is from the Spirit of God and therefore supposes not so much as the knowledge of our selves I must except peremptorily that which I premised as a supposition in due place that no man hath the Spirit of God but upon supposition of Christianity And therefore no man can know that he hath the Spirit of God but upon supposition that he knows himself to be a good Christian otherwise it would be impossible for any man to discern in himself between the dictates of a good and bad Spirit seeing it is manifest that among those that professe Christianity many things are imputed to the Spirit of God which are contrary to Christianity Now of the sincerity of that intention wherewith a man ingages to live like a Christian a man may stand as much assured as he can stand assured of his own confidence in God or that he doth indeed believe himself to be predestinate to life And therfore it is no prejudice to that security and peace of conscience which the Gospel tendereth that it presupposeth this ingagement and the performance of it This answer then proceedeth upon these two presumptions That the grace of Christ which is the grace of God through Christ is necessary to the having of that faith which alone justifieth Which the heresy of Socinus denies with Pelagius And that it justifieth not of it self but by virtue of that grace of Christ that is the grace which God declares in consideration of his obedience These presumptions it is not my purpose to suppose gratis without debating the grounds upon which they are to be received having once purposed to resolve wherein the Covenant of Grace stands But I must have leave to take them in hand in their respective places and for the present to dispatch that which presses here which is to shew that the intent of S. Paul and the rest of the Scriptures which he expounds most at large is this That a Christian is not justified by the Law of Moses and those works that are done precisely by virtue thereof not including in it the Gospel of Christ but by undertaking the profession of Christianity and performing the same which is in his language by faith without the workes of the Law and therefore consequently by those workes which are done by virtue of this faith in performance of it And first I appeale to the state of the question in S. Pauls Epistles what it is the Apostle intends to evict by all that he disputes And demand who can or dare undertake that he had any occasion to decide that which here is questioned upon supposition that a Christian is justified by the Covenant of Grace alone which the Gospel tendereth Whether by Faith alone which is the assurance of salvation or trust in God through Christ Or by Faith alone which is the undertaking of Christianity and living according to the same For it is evident in the Scriptures of the Apostles how much adoe they had to perswade the Jewes who had received Christ that the Gentiles which had done the like were not bound to keep the Law which they it is evident did keep These had no ground had they understood from the beginning of their Christianity that their righteousnesse and salvation depended not upon the keeping of it under the Gospel of Christ It is evident that the trouble which Jewish Christians raised in the Churches to whom those Epistles are directed which dispute this point fullest upon occasion of this difficulty was the subject and cause of directing the same What cause then can there be why these Epistles should prove that a Christian is not justified by such works as suppose the Covenant of Grace when as the disease they pretend to cure consists in believing to be justified by the works of Moses Law which supposeth it not For it is evident that had it been received as now that Moses Law is void the occasion of this dispute in these Epistles had ceased what ever benefit besides might have been procured by them for succeeding ages of the Church Is it not plain that the pretense of S. Paul in the Epistle to the Romanes is this that neither the Gentiles by the Law of Nature nor the Jewes by the Law of Moses can obtaine righteousnesse or avoid the judgement of God and therefore that it is necessary for both to imbrace Christianity He that reades the two first chapters cannot question this In the fourteenth chapter together with the beginning of the fifteenth you shall find him resolving upon what terms these two sorts of Christians were to converse with one another And
how turn ye back againe to those weake and beggarly rudiments to which ye desire to be in bondage againe Ye observe dayes and monthes and seasons and yeares For the observation of legall Festivals according to the moneths and seasons of the yeares is indeed obedience to that God by whose Law the difference is made But when their conceits of themselves transports them to imagine that God esteems them for these things whereby he hath differenced them from other nations and that it cannot stand with that esteem that he should receive the Gentiles into favour upon undertaking that spirituall obedience which Christ publisheth not tying that to the same Worthily are they called by the Apostle weak and beggerly rudiments that did onely prepare them to this obedience by tying them to the true God and his outward service And is not the precept of circumcision in the first place which obliges to all the precepts and intitles to all the promises of this nature Hear S. Paul to the Philipians III. 3. 6. among whom this leaven began to spread◠We are the circumcision saith he that serve God in the Spirit and glory in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh Though I have confidence in the flesh also If any other man seem to have confidence in the flesh I more Circumcised the eighth day of the race of Israel of the tribe of Benjamin an Hebrew of Hebrews also concerning the Law a Pharisee as concerning zeal one that persecuted the Church as concerning righteousnesse that is by the law blamelesse Are not all these priviledges of that nation by virtue of Moses Law and of circumcision which obliges to it And is not that confidence of righteousnesse which is by the Law which S. Paul disclaimes though he claime as good a title to it as any Jew beside I say is not that it which moved the Jews out of zeal to the Law to persecute the Church And can that righteousnesse which moveth to persecute Christianity be thought to presuppose it Therefore what S. Paul meanes by confidence in the flesh we must learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews IX 9. 10. Where the tabernacle is called a Parable or figure for the then present time in which gifts and sacrifices were offered which could not profit him that ministred as to conscience being onely imposed upon meates and drinkes and severall Baptismes and righteousnesses of the flesh untill the time of reformation came Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those carnall and bodily rites which obtaine that carnall righteousnesse which answereth the carnall and earthly promises of the Law and were mistaken by them for meanes of obtaining resurrection unto life and the world to come which under the Law so given they had neverthelesse just cause to expect though not in consideration of such observations Another argument hereof we have from S. Paul which to me seems peremptory in that he opposeth that grace and faith whereby Christians are justified to those works which Gentiles by the Law and light of nature were able to do Which works certainly do not suppose Christianity Ephes II. 8 9. For by grace are ye saved through the Faith and that not of your selves it is Gods gift Not of workes least any man should glory There is nothing moremanifest then that the Church of the Ephesians when S. Paul wrote this Epistle was gathered of those that had been Gentiles as you may see by Ephes II. 11 12. III. 1 6. Wherefore when S. Paul sayes to them being presently Christians that they were not saved by works least they should glory it is manifest that his meaning is that their conversation before the Gospel came could not move and oblige God to provide them the meanes of Salvation which it tendereth Againe S. Paul exhorting Timothy to suffer hardship for the Gospel according to the power of God who saith he hath saved us and called us with an holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose and the grace that is given us in Christ Jesus before everlasting ages 2 Tim. I. 9. speaketh of the same Ephesians whose Pastor Timothy was at that time But most fully Titus III. 4 7. But when the goodnesse and love to men of God our Saviour appeared not of workes which we had done in righteousnesse saved he us but according to his own mercy by the laver of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost which he shed upon us richly through our Saviour Jesus Christ that being justied by his grace we might become heirs of everlasting life according to hope For that those whom Titus had in charge were Christians converted for the most part of Gentiles appeares by the Apostles words Titus I. 10. For there be many and those rebellious vaine talkers and cheaters especially they of the circumcision whose mouthes must be stopped And in the words that goe next afore the passage alledged there is a lively description of the conversation of the Gentiles For of Jewes he could not have said We also were once foolish disobedient wandring out of the way in slaved to divers lusts and pleasures living in malice and envy hatefull and hating one another Titus III. 3. Seeing then that it concerns the Gentiles as well as the Jews which the Apostle argues that men are not justified by works but by grace and by faith it is manifest that he meanes such works as the Gentiles might pretend to no lesse then the Jews and that while they were Gentiles because he speakes of that estate in which the Gospel overtook them And therefore when S. Paul denies that men are justified by works he meanes those works which men are able to do before they are acquainted with the preaching of the Gospel whether by the light and Law of nature or by the meere instruction of Moses Law For though the law of Moses containe in it many morall precepts of true and inward and spirituall obedience the observation whereof is indeed the worship of God in Spirit and in truth Yet we must consider that the same precepts are part of the law of nature written in the hearts even of Gentiles And we must consider further that these precepts may be obeyed and done two severall wayes First as farre as the outward work and the kinde and object of it goes and further as farre as the reason of it derived from the will and command of God and the intention thereof directed to his honour and service Which purpose of heart cannot be in any man but him that loves God above this world making him the utmost end of all his actions I say then that of those morall precepts of Moses law which are parts of the law of nature the outward and bodily observation goes no further then the observation of other rituall and civil precepts of the same law And therefore is to be comprised in the account of those works of the Law by which S. Paul denies deservedly that we
can be attributed to the spirit of God speaking of Gods own people in the mouth of David And without doubt as Idolatry was the originall of the most gross customes of sinne as appeares by the premises So can there be no greater argument of the corruption of mans nature then the departure of all nations from the worship of one true God to the worship of they knew not what That all nations coming of one blood from one God which at their first apostasy was so well known to them and not able to blot out of their own hearts the conscience of the service they ought him should imagine themselves discharged of that obligation by tendring it to what they pleased saving a small part of mankinde whom he reserved to himselfe by making them acquainted with himself through the familiarity which he used them with if all other arguments of a common principle of corruption in our common nature were lost is enough to make the apostasy of our first forefathers credible which the relation of Moses makes truth Wherefore when David attributes to himselfe by nature that which the people of God attribute to the Gentiles it must needs be understood in regard of a principle common to both which the Grace of God suffereth not to come to effect but preventeth in his people And when he attributeth the same to his malicious enemies Jewes onely by the first birth he warranteth us to say the same of those that are Jewes by the second birth so farre as the birth of both is the same I will not forbear to alledge here the Law of Leviticus that appoints a time of impurity for women that have brought forth as no lesse fit to signifie the evil inclination to which our nature by the fall of Adam is become liable then the ceremonies of the Law are fitly used by God to shadow the truth of the Gospel Not that I make any doubt that this impurity of it self is but legall as the impurity contracted by touching a dead man or a living creature that was unclean or that of the leprosie or by the custome of women or the like Which I am resolved amounts to no more then an incapacity of freely conversing with Gods people or an obligation to a sacrifice which is there called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it purged this incapacity which in regard of that positive Law may be called sinne But this being granted and these Legall incapacities being by the correspondence of the Law with the Gospel to signifie the cause for which men are uncapable of heaven As the leprosie of the body and the touching of a dead man or a living creature that is unclean by the law necessarily signifieth that incapacity which cometh by the custome of sinne So that uncleannesse which ariseth from those things which come from our own bodies seemeth by necessary correspondence to signifie that incapacity of coming to heaven which ariseth from the inward inclination of our nature to wickednesse Neither will I omit to allege the saying of the Prophet David alleging the reason of Gods compassion to his people in their sinnes to be their mortality Psal LXXVIII 40. For he considered that they were but flesh and even as a wind that passeth away and cometh not againe And Psal CIII 14-17 For he knoweth our frame he remembreth that we are dust The dayes of man are as of grasse as the bud of the field so springeth he For a wind passeth upon it and it is not And the place knoweth it no more But the goodnesse of the Lord is from generation to generation upon them that fear him and his righteousnesse upon childrens children For having shewed that the bodily death to which Adam was sentenced implied in it spritituall death and supposed the same according to S. Paul I may well say that he could not expresse that reason which Christians alledge to God for his compassion upon their infirmities more properly to the time and state of the Law then by alleging the death which our bodies are subject to as an argument of sinne which it is allotted to punish And the antithesis which follows between our short life and the continuance of Gods mercies to his servants of their posterity comes corespondently to set forth the grace of the Gospel though sparingly signified as under the Law And here I must not forget the Wise mans exhortation Wisdome I. 12 Affect not death through the error of your life nor purchase destruction through the workes of your hands For God made not death nor taketh pleasure in the destruction of the living For he made all things to indure And the beginnings of the world were healthful and no deadly poyson among them nor any dominion of hell upon the earth For righteousnesse is immortall But the wicked with their words and works purchased it And thinking it their friend decayed and made a covenant with it because they are worthy to be on the side of it Here it is evident that the speech is of temporall death but so that by it is intimated spirituall death according to that which hath oft been observed and will oft come to be observed that the mystery of Christianity intimated in the old Testament begins more plainly to be discovered in these books then in the canonicall Scriptures And therefore though the purchase of death is attributed to the evil words and works of the wicked yet seeing it hath taken place over all the world contrary to the first institution of God thereby he leaves us to argue the corruption of nature which moveth mankinde to take pleasure in those workes by which death takes place Last of all I will allege not the authority of the Book of Job which is not questionable but the authority of the Greek Translation of it Be the author thereof who may be be the authority thereof what it may be it is manifest how ancient it is and that it came from the people of God while they continued the people of God and hath passed the approbation of the Apostles When therefore it is said that no man is clear of sin no not the infant of one day old upon earth It remaineth manifest that this was the sense of the then people of God As it appeares also by Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That to sinne is a property born with all that are born in as much as it is come to birth And divers sayings of the Heathens might be alledged as obscure arguments of that truth which the Gospel is grounded upon But that I conceive the disorders of the world the greatest whereof that can be named is that which I named even now of the worship of Idols are greater and more evidences of the same then any sayings of Writers Which therefore it will not be requisite to heap into this abridgement CHAP. XII The Haeresie of Simon Magus the beginning of the Gnosticks
infant should go out of the World unbaptized that is it which the great solicitude of Christians that no such thing should come to passe the provision that a Lay man might baptize in case of necessity which admitted not the solemnity of ministers of the Church the grief and astonishment which followed if at any time it came to passe will inable me not onely to affirm but to inferre both the reason of originall sinne which the baptisme of Infants cureth and the authority of the Apostles which it proclaimeth It may be sayd that Pelagius himself allowed and maintained the Baptisme of Infants to bring them to the kingdom of heaven not to everlasting life But this was but to make his own cause the more desperate For had any intimation of the Scripture any Tradition or custome of the Church justified any ground of difference between the kingdome of heaven and everlasting life he might have escaped by pleading it But being disowned in it he hath left a desperate plea for those that come after him to question the Baptisme of Infants and by consequence original sinne which if he so many hundred years agoe could have found ground for he need not have stood in the list of hereticks The visible ceremonies of Baptisme which are so resolutely pleaded by his adversaries for evidence of the same are effectual to the same purpose For if it was thought requisite on behalf of infants to renounce Satan and all his Pompe and angels and instruments of this world adhering to God Iâ— it were solemn by huffing and exorcizing to use the power which God hath given his Church over unclean Spirits for the chasing of them out of Infants that were baptized Certainly those that did it were so farre from thinking that man as he is born can be capable of that good Spirit which Baptisme promiseth that they thought him to be liable to the contrary To this argument I will adde the matter of that catechizing which the ancient Church prepared those for Baptism who pretended to it as I begun to shew you in the first book for it is in a great part repeated in divers of these ancient forms of celebrating the Eucharist which are yet extant under the names of the Liturgies of Apostles and Fathers which I have named in my book of the publick service of God The ancientest of them is that which is recorded in the Constitutions of the Apostles VIII 11. But you find also there VII 40. the order of Catechizing those that are to be baptized providing that they be instructed in the mercy of God that suffered not mankind being turned from him to perish but in all ages provided meanes to recall them from sinne and error to truth and righteousnesse by the Fathers first and by the Law and Prophets afterwards untill all this proving ineffectuall he spared not at length to send his Sonne And the same is the argument of that Thanksgiving which is premised to the consecration of the Eucharist in the place quoted as also in the same work afore II. 55. and in the Liturgies to which I referre you An evidence in my opinion very considerable to shew this point to belong to the substance of Christianity as the subject mater both of that instruction which is requisite to make a man a Christiane and of both Sacraments wherein the exercise thereof consisteth In the second place I alledge such an evidence for the grace of Christ as no point of Christianity can produce better from the practice of the Church For I alledge the prayers of the Church all over and from the beginning that they have alwaies contained three things The first is of thanksgivings for our Christianity that is for the coming of Christ the preaching of his Gospel and the effect thereof in converting us to be Christians The second of prayers that we may be able to persevere in that to which we are so converted and to perform what we undertake by professing our selves Christians notwithstanding the temptations of our ghostly enemies to depart from it The third and last in that these thanks and prayers are tendered to God in Christ for his sake signifying the acknowledgment of his grace in bringing us to be Christians and the expectation of those helps by which we must persevere from the consideration of his merits and suffering For as for Prayers and thanksgivings in generall it cannot be said that the offering of them can argue either the decay of our nature or the repairing of the same by Christ because those that acknowledge not Christ Jews and Mahumetans must and do use them if they pretend Religion and the service of God yea even Pagans according to their sense But to pray and give thanks to God to make men or because he hath made men Christians or for the helps of salvation which by being Christians that iâ— by Christ we attaine to as by him we attaine to be Christians must needs appear utterly groundlesse unlesse we suppose that there was no other way left for our salvation which cannot be understood by any meanes but by the fall of Adam and the consequences thereof to come to passe In the last place I alledge the decrees of the whole Church against Pelagius together with the consent of those parts of the Church which otherwise cannot be understood to be concluded by those decrees For it is manifest there was no decree of the whole Church against Pelagius as against Arius The Councils of Carthage and of Numidia that of Palestine and in aftertimes that of Orange being but particular Councils not containing the consent of the whole But this consideration in another regard turns to the advantage of the Churches cause For when those parts of the Church which are not obliged by the decrees do voluntarily and freely joyne in giving effect to them as it is manifest they did at that time by the concurrence of the Bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria and the great Council of Ephesus in Vossius Hist Pel. I. 38 39 47. and do since by owning the acts done against them there can be no pretense of faction to sway them to go along with those whom they are loth to offend but all must be imputed to the sense of that Christianity which hitherto they found themselves perswaded of and therefore agreed not to admit to their Communion those who acknowledged it not which is the effect of all such decrees of the Church In the mean time I forget not the records of the Church in writing that is the testimonies of those writers who going before Pelagius and giving testimonie against him cannot be thought to joyne in faction to oppresse any truth which he preached And upon this evidence I challenge both the belief of originall sinne to be necessary to the acknowledgement of the grace of Christ which Christianity professeth and also that the grace of Christ is that which inables us to begin continue and finish the good
principles to spirituall good can no way impeach it as coming from the constitution of our nature supposing the ornaments and additions of grace to be removed The opinion of the fulfilling of Gods Law by Christians supposes that the remaines of concupiscence in the regenerate and the immediate effects thereof in the first motions to sinne which cannot be prevented are not against Gods Law but onely besides it From whence it will follow that he who of his free will imbraces Christianity and perseveres in the good works which it injoyneth meriteth of justice the reward of the Life to come And truly for my part I cannot deny that all this is justly pleaded against those that are of this opinion and cannot by them justly be answered But that this opinion is injoyned by the Church of Rome I cannot understand seeing divers learned Doctors of the Schools alledged by Doctor Field for the opposition which he maketh to this opinion and that very truly and justly shewing infallibly that the contrary opinion is allowed to be maintained in the communion of the Church of Rome And that nothing hath been done since the authors whom he alledgeth to make this unlawfull to be held amongst them I suppose it will be enough to produce the decree of the Council of Trent since which it is evident that it is lawfull among them to maintaine that concupiscence is originall sinne For though the decree declareth that the Church never understood concupiscence in the regenerate to be truly and properly sinne but to be so called as proceeding from sinne and inclining to sinne Yet in as much as it is one thing to speak of concupiscence in the regenerate another in the unregenerate and in as much as it is one thing to declare the sense of the Church according to the opinion of the Synode another to condemn the contrary sense as opposite to the Faith it is manifest that this declaration condemns not those that hold originall concupiscence to be originall sinne but onely shewes that they could not answer the difficulty of originall sinne in the regenerate On the other side it cannot be justly said so farre as I understand that those of the Reformation do affirme that the grace given to Adam at his creation was due to his nature in this sense and to this effect as if they did intend to deny that he was created in such an estate and to such a condition of happinesse as the principles and constitution of his nature do not necessarily require But onely this That the gifts which by his creation he stood indowed with were necessary to the purchase of that happinesse which he that is to say his nature was created to whereupon they are justly called the indowments of nature Here I must not omit the opinion of Catharinus in the Council of Trent That Adam received originall righteousnesse of God in his own name and the name of his posterity to be continued to them he obeying God Whereupon his disobedience iâ— in Law their disobedience though in nature onely his and the act of his transgression imputed to them is their originall sinne as personall as the penalties of it No otherwise then Levâ— paid Tithes in Abraham Many passages of S. Augustine he had to alledge for this as also a Text of the Prophet Osee and another of Ecclesiasticus But especially the expresse words of S. Paul That by the inobedience of one man many are made sinnerâ— And That by sinne death came into the world which surely came into the world by the actuall transgression of Gods commandment Alledging that Eve found not her self naked till Adam had eaten the forbidden fruit Nor had originall sin been had the matter rested there And by this reason he thought he avoided a difficulty not to be overcome otherwise how the lust of generation can give a spirituall staine to the soul which must needs be carnall if it come from the flesh And by this meanes nothing but an action which transgresseth Gods Law shall be sinne which all men understand by that name This opinion the History saith was the more plausible among the Prelates there as not bred Divines but Canonists or versed in businesse and so best relishing that which they best understood to wit the conceit of a civile contract with Adam in behalfe of his posterity as well as himself To give a judgement of this opinion I shall do no more but remit the reader to those Scriptures which I have produced to shew that there is such a thing as originall sinne concluding that the nature of it wherein it consists must be valued by the evidence of it whereby it appeares that it is It will then be unavoidable that when death is the effect of sinne because righteousnese is the cause of life as Adams sinne is the cause of his death so the death of his posterity depends upon their own unrighteousnesse Why else should Christianity free us from death as hath been shewed Why should S. Paul complain of the Law that he found in his members opposing the Law of righteousnesse why should the flesh fight with the Spirit and the fruits of the flesh be opposite to the fruits of the Spirit but that the same opposition of sinne to righteousnesse is to be acknowldged in the habituall principles as in the actuall effects which proceed from the same As for that onely text of S. Paul in which he could find any impression of his meaning if the reader observe the deduction whereby I have shewed that S. Pauls discourse obliged him to set forth the ground whereupon the coming of Christ and his Gospel became necessary to the salvation both of the Jews and Gentiles he will easily find that the question is of the effective not of the formall cause that S. Paul is not ingaged to shew wherein that source of sinne which our Lord Christ came to cure consisteth but from whence it proceedeth True it is when the posterity suffers losse of estate and honour for the Fathers treason it may properly be said that the Fathers crime is imputed to the posterity Not because any reason can indure that what is done by one man should be thought to be done by another but because the effect of what one man does may justly be either granted to or inflicted upon another whether for the better or for the worse As in a civile state suppose the Laws make treason to forfeit lands and honours which every man sees are held by virtue of the Lawes that posterity which hath no right to them but from predecessors and the obligation which they had to maintaine the state should forfeit them by the act of predecessors is a thing not strange but reasonable Though so that the forfeiture may transgresse the bounds of reason and humanity if the Law should not allow posterity or kindred to live in that state to which predecessors have forfeited when there is so much cause to believe that the
the world of Judgement because the Prince of theis world is condemned by the conversion of those who forefook him to become Christians Therefore S Steven upbraideth the Jews saying Ye stisnecked and uncircumcised in hearts and eares ye do alwaies resist the Holy Ghost even you also as did your fathers Acts VII 51. Because being convicted by the Holy Ghost which spoke in him that he spoke from God neverthelesse they submit not to his message Therefore our Lord Mark III. 28. 29 30 All sins shall be forgiven the sons of men and blasphemies which they shall blaspheme But whoso shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath no remission for ever but is liable to everlasting damnation Because they said he hath an unclean spirit which you have againe Math. XII 31 32. Luke XII 10. Because being convicted that our Lord spoke did his miracles by the Holy Ghost they blasphemed saying that he spoke and did them by an uncleane spirit For these words and these workes are the meanes by which our Lord accomplished â—his promise Iohn XIV 23. If any man love me he will keep my word and my Father will love him and we will come to him and abide with him For before the condition If any man love me be fulfilled the case is that which our Lord expresseth Apoc. III. 20. Behold I stand at the dore and knock And if any man heare my voice and open the dore I will come in to him and sup with him â—e with me But being fulfilled the words of our Lord take place Iohn XVI 15 16 17. If yee love me ye will keep my commandements And I will aske the Father and he will give you an other Advocate to abide with you for ever even the spirit of truth which the world cannot receive because they â—ee it not nor know it but you know it because it abideth with you and is in you For seeing it is manifest by the premises that the undertaking of Christianity is the condition upon which the Holy Ghost is granted as a gift to abide with Christians the preaching of Christianity that is the proposing of those reasons which God by his word hath shewed us why wee should be Christians is the knocking of our Lord Christ by the spirit at the dore of the heart that he may enter and dwell in us by the same spirit according to the words of S. Paul 2. Cor. II. 16. For ye are the Temple of the living God as God hath said To wit I will dwell and converse among them and will be their God and they shall be my people That which some Philosophers say of the naturall generation of man That the soule frames its owne dwelling being fulfilled in the worke of generation by grace when the Holy Ghost by his actuall assistance frameth the man to be fit for the habituall gift of the Holy Ghost by becoming a true Christian If then we believe that the Holy Ghost was given by God and obtained by Christ as well to make the Gospell effectuall as to move the Apostles to preach it there can no doubt remaine that the preaching of the Gospell that is to say the meanes which the Holy Ghost provideth to make it either sufficient or effectual to convince the world of it is the instrument whereby he frameth himself that invisible house of true believers in which he dwelleth And therefore the meanes whereby Gods grace becomes effectuall to those who imbrace it is the same that renders it sufficient for those who refuse it the difference lying as well in the disposition which it meets with for which the man is accountable as in the spirit of God that presenteth it which renders God the praise when it takes effect and leaves men accountable when it does not If this reason had been in consideration with Socinus and perhaps with Pelagius he would have found it necessary acknowledging as all that read the Scriptures must needs acknowledge that which they find so frequent and so cleare in the Scriptures that the habituall gift of the Holy Ghost is granted to inable those who undertake Christianity to performe it to acknowledge also that the actuall help of it is necessary to make the motives of Christianity effectuall to subdâ—e men to it And by consequence that the coming of the second Adam was necessary to restore the breach which the first had made seeing it was not to be repaired without the same Nor is it to be marveled at that naturall meanes conducted by the grace of Christ should produce supernaturall effects such as I have shewed the obediencâ— of Christianity to be which supposing the Covenant of grace and freedome of mans will cannot be otherwise The reasons which appeare to the understanding and move the will to act contrary to the inclination of originall concupâ—scence in professing Christianity and living according to the same being sufficient to convict it to give sentence that so the man ought to doe And the circumstances in which the spirit of Christ conducteth these motives to the heart which it knocketh at by their means being able to represent them valuable to take effect with him who is moved to the contrary by his originall concupiscence And though meanes naturall because they move a man to proceed according to right reason which nature requires him to doe yet as they are brought to passe and conducted by a supernaturall cause nothing hinders the effect to be supernaturall in such a nature as is by them made capable of acting above nature I do much approve the discourse of some that have indeavoured to shew how this comes to passe thus supposing the covenant of the Law to be the renewing of that which was made with Adam in Paradise for the maintaining of him in the happnesse of his naturall life Which we may suppose though we suppose not that God covenanted not with him at all for the life to come For the dispensation of those blessings of this life which the covenant of nature limited by Moses Law to the happinesse of the land of promise tendreth may well be the advantage which God taketh to make the covenant of Grace acceptable especially to those who by Gods blessing failing of the blessings of the first covenant by that meanes becoming out of love with this present worlâ— meeâ— with the Covenant of Grace in such a disposition as may render it acceptable For so long as things goe well with men in this world it seemes haâ—sh to require them to takeup the Crosse of Christ that they may obtain the world to come But when the comforts of this world faile it is no marvell if any condition that tenders hope in the world to come be welcome If it be said that this renders the grace of Christ effectuall onely to the poore and men oâ— meane condition in the world who have cause to be weary of their estâ—te in it It is answered that it is no marvell if the
it part of that quality in consideration whereof God for Christs sake allowes remission of sinnes is to say thinges utterly inconsequent In as much as I have said that Gods consideration imports onely this that he decrees remission of sinnes for repentance in the nature of a motive cause not that he is moved by repentance to decree it Neither is it any way consequent for him that admitteth new obedience to be in consideration in bestowing everlasting life to stick at admitting repentance to be in consideration in bestowing the right of it For though the promises of the Gospell in this life are many remission of sinnes and reconcilement regeneration justification sanctification adoption of sonnes and if there be any thing else of that ranke yet whatsoever difference a divine may justly argue between these from the Scriptures it were a grosse inconvenience to say that the condition of the Gospell being performed they are not all due to him in whome it is found The terme of sanctification it selfe though it necessarily imports the habituall dwelling of the Holy Ghost in him that is reconciled to God because we know the Gospell promises it yet it supposes not onely that promise but also another that God will accept it for holinesse in him in whome originall concupiscence notwithstanding remains And if the terme of regeneration import that inhaerent disposition of mind to which a man by becoming a Christian is borne a new yet that of adoption expresses the free will of God by which he accepteth him that iâ— changed to such a disposition for his sonne So that neither remission of sinnes nor right to the kingdome can be understood to be assigned under the title of justification in consideration of Christ without consideration of that condition which the Gospell of Christ requireth Lastly I say that the said opinion is apt to give just occasion of a mistake in justifying Faith that may be destructive to the Christian Faith My reason is because it is hard so to provide as heitherto sufficient provision could never be made as to distinguish from it the opinion of justification by beleeveing that Christ died for him that beleeves as one of the Elect for whome alone Christ died Which is no lesse destructive to the Faith then the Haeresy of the Antinoâ—ians that a man is justified in consideration of Christ before we beleeve it And truly the manifold controversies and everlasting wrangles which the misunderstanding of the nature of that faith which alone justifyeth hath raised among those that depart from the Church of Rome Some making it to consist in beleeving that a man is predestinate to life others in trusting in God through Christ Some making onely the passive obedience of Christ others both active and pasive to be imputed to us Some making justification to consist onely in remission of sinnes others in that and in the imputation of Christs merits both may justly move them to retire to the simplicity of the Gospell which they will never find in any termes but those which I propose That all the promises thereof are due upon makeing good the true profession of Christianity If it be said that those Homilies which the article of the Church of England referres us to for the right understanding of Justification and Justifying Faith seeme to expresse this opinion which I esteeme neither true nor yet destructive to the Faith I answere ingenuously that they seeme to me so to doe But that so doing the sense of it is utterly unreconcileable with those things which I have quoted out of the office of baptisme and the beginning of the Catechisme Which being as much subscribed by the Clergy as the Articles and Homilies are and also containing the whole Religion of the people and the Clergies therefore as Christians for the people being not acquainted with the Articles but when they change theire Curate had no meanes to take further notice of them is by consequence to be preferred in case of competition Unreconcileable I say as farre as this opinion is unreconcileable to that which I have proposed the communion of the Church no wayes requiring that men should be reconciled in the interpretation of the Scriptures provided it draw no consequence destructive to the Faith as this doth not but that which in termes it complies with doth And therefore I have held it my duty that opinion having broken forth into a manifest Heresy of the Antinoâ—ians and the detestation of that tending to let in a contrary Heresy of the Socinians as first it bred it to declare to all that are not professed enemies to the Church of England and the Catholick Church with it the first misunderstanding from whence I conceive such dangerous errors proceed that if God ever send order out of that confusion in Religion which now rules among us I may have contested that there can be no sure ground for it but the plaine faith of the Catholick Church It is well enough knowne that there is still another opinion concerning Justification to wit that of the Schoole Doctors which the Council of Trent seemeth to have made mater of Faith Which maketh the beginning of Justification to consist in that faith which beleeveth the Gospell to be true Whereupon as there necessarily followes servile feare of that punishment to which it discovers all that refuse it to be liable So it gives ground enough of hope to all that resolve not to refuse it So that the mind balancing betweene the love of God which preferres the next world and the love of our selves and of this world which preferres this if a man concerning that sorrow for his sinnes which the love of God not the feare of punishment suggests and acting those workes of Penance which if a Christian before the neglect of his calling and profession requires resolve to preferre the love of God in all his actions for the time to come the faith and the hope which he had before without forme now being informed by the love of God above all and his servile feare turned into filiall he becomes just because formally indowed with this love which makes all his indowments supernaturall and proportionable to the reward of everlasting happinesse which the Gospell tenders provided that he receive the Sacrament of Baptisme or effectually desire it if it were to be had Of this opinion I say First that it committeth as great a fault as the former in assigning the true conceit and notion of justifying Faith For whereas there are indeed as I have showed three significations of Faith in the writings of the Apostles wherein onely there is expresse question of the justification of Christians the first and last whereof depend upon the middle as the cause and effect of it And that the Apostles intend the second sense properly when they dispute against the Jewes that a man is not justified by workes nor by the Law but by Grace and by Faith that is by the Gospell tendring the
Infants stand obliged to inform themselves in it when they come to age Indeed all that hath been said of the Covenant of Grace and the terms of it witnesseth that they are first to be proposed to them that understand then choice is to be made baptism following to solemnize the profession of that choice But this text is so farre from signifying that Infants should not be baptized till all this is done that it rather serves to intimate an exception to the generality of the propoâ—ition in behalf of them seeing those who shall be taught the obligation they have to be Christians whither they will or not are very regularly and legally called Disciples and therefore comprehended in the precept of making Disciples This intimation appears clearer in the words of S. Paul 1 Cor. VII 14. where he perswadeth Christians that were married to Infidels not to forsake them in these words For the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the wife And the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the Husband else were your Children unclean but now they are holy For the meaning whereof I will have recourse to the Book of Wisdome III. 11-19 where describing the miseries of the Idolatrous heathen under the title of those that neglect wisdome among other things he saith Their waies are foolish their hearts wicked and their generation accursed For saith he Blessed is the barren that is cleaâ— and hath not known the bed of sin And again The fruits of good labours that is of those that labour in the Law are glorious and the roâ—t of wisdome never fadeth But the sonnes of Adulterers shall decay And the generation that is born of evill bed shall be destroyed For the exâ—esses of the Gentiles that knew not God in the â—usts of carnal uncleannâ—sse were so great that it alwaies was to be presumed that children so bred could have no means of insâ—ruction to preserve them from the same And the difference between the people of God and Idolatrous Nations was visible evâ—n in this point from the first separation of them upon that account as appeareth by the zeal of Simeon and Levi for their Sister so dishonoured Should they deal with our sâ—ster as an harlot say they Gen. XXXIV 31. Which zeal Judith IX 3. understandeth to have proceeded upon this reason That they being abandoned to the service of strange Gods had done that uncleâ—nesse which God had forbidden and which his servants abhoâ—red as the pollution of their blood For there is no man that knows what belonged to Heathenism that can doubt that all uncleannesse of this nature was alwaies reckoned among them for a thing indifferent and no account had of it but in civill regards as it dishonoured the house oâ— tainted the issue But the people of God being bred to the knowledge of the true God and the abomination in which he hath it stood upon it chiesty in that regard because should they do as Idolaters they could not be taken for Gods people Wherefore when S. Paul adviseth them that were maried to Infidels not to part from them in case they were content to continue with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this content is to be understood to be such as might stand with Christianity that is that the Christian party should have interest to teach the issue Christianity and to guide them according to the Law For by this interest they are in S. Pauls esteem legally holy as to the Church because of a legal presumption of their Christianity by the meanes of their education under that Parent that was Christian and by the consent of that party which was not Christian had all freedom to propose unto their Posterity the obligation of Christianity If this be the case of those that are born of one side Christianâ— what shall we say of them that are born of Christian Parents For being sure as humane things can be sure that they shall come to the knowledge of Christ and then be under the obligation of Christianity they are already as to God and to all Christians not to them that do not believe Christianity under the obligation of living and of behaving themselves as Christians But we are not therefore to imagine that the guilt of originall sinne ceaseth in them any more then in those that are not Christians or that this guilt can be taken away otherwise then by Christianity And hath an Infant any thing but Baptism to intitle it to Christianity And shall they not cry out to God upon those Parents that suffer them to go out of this world not Christians Surely if we look upon the provision of the Law with a single eye that is alwaies observing the difference formerly setled between the Law and the Gospell we shall have great cause to conclude The Law that is the Covenant made with Abraham having intitled his posterity to the Land of promise provideth that every male childe of his that shall not be circumcised the eighth day shall be cut off from his people Gen. XVII 14. that is to say The life thereof shall be forfeit in Gods hands not to give him any share in the right of that people who by being circumcised became Gods people So you have here the condition of Circumcision requisite to intitle even those that are born of Abraham to the promise made to him and his seed The consequence hereof is that which the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace inferres If by entring into the Covenant made with Abraham and with his seed they become heirs of the land of promise then by entring into the covenant made with Christ and Abrahams that is Christs spiritual seed we become heirs of the world to come If by circumcision they entred into the Covenant made with Abraham and with his seed then by Baptism we enter into the Covenant made with Christ and with Abrahams spiritual seed If by the neglect of Circuâ—cision the temporall life of Abrahams seed were forfeit by the terms of this Covenant in Gods hands then by the neglect of Baptism is the spiritual life of those that are born of Christs spirtuall seed forfeit in Gods hands For if the Land of promise and the inheritance thereof estated upon Abraham and his seed according to the flesh required neverthelesse the execution of that condition by which they were admitted into the Covenant How much more shall the inheritance of the world to come promised to the children of Christians as the parties agree require the execution of that condition by which the Covenant of Grace is inacted Indeed if the Covenant of Grace were inacted between God and man by the publishing of the Gospel as most men seem to imagine there were some colour for such a consequence But if the Covenant of Abraham was to be inacted upon the flesh of them that were Circumcized even after that the whole people of Israel had entred into Covenant for themselves
22-33 And this will serve also to make evidence that the Law of Christians mariage cannot be imagined to come from the Lawes of the Empire granting as the truth is that they allowed no man to have more wives then one at once For. there is nothing more evident then this that this mutuall interesse in one anothers body was never acknowledgeded by Pagans noâ— cannot be thought to have stand by their Laws It were to be wondred at otherwise that whereas not only the Romans but in Greece the Athenians and the Germans among the Barbarians as Tacitus saith contented themselves with one man one wife Gods people should be licensed to have more then one But he that reflects upon the consideration in which these Pagans restrained themselves will not find it strange that Gods people should be permitted that which they denied themselves For this mutuall Interest in one anothers bodies which God provided for the means to prevent the sad effects of mans inbred concupiscence in dishonouring their bodies with uncleanness we shall not find to have been had in consideration among them or that uncleanness seemed at all dishonourable to man but prohibited as injurious to mens beds and the successions of families The Lawes of the Empire made it no adultery for the man to lye with another woman which in the woman it was as the Christians complain Lact antius Hist VI. 23. Non enim sicut juris publici ratio est solâ— mulier adultera est quâ— habet alium maricus autem etiam si plures habeat à crimine adulterii solutus est Sed divinâ— lex ita duos in matrimonium quod est in corpus unum pari jure conjungit ut adulter habeatur si â—uis compagem corparis in diversa distraxerit For the Woman onely is not the adulteress having another man but the husband free from the crime of adultery having more women as is the course of publick Law But the Law of God joyns two in wedlock that is into one body upon so equall right that the party is to be counted an adultererer which shall part the body so compacted into more S. Hierome Ep. ad Oceanum Aliâ— sunt leges Caesarum aliae Christi aliud Papinianus aliud Paulus noster praecipit Apud illos viris impudicitiâ— frâ—na laxantur solo stupro atque adulterio condemnatis passim perlupanaâ—ia aâ—cillulas libido permiâ—titur quasi culpam dignitas faciat non volunt as Apud nos quod non licet uxoribus aeque non licet viris eadeâ—â— servitus pars conditione censetur Other are the Laws of the Caesars then that of Christ other is that which S. Paul then that which Papinian prescribeth Among them the rains are let loose to mens uncleannesse and rape and adultery onely prohibited â—ust walks free all over stewes and maid-slaves as if the estate not the will made the fault Among us that which Wives may not do neither may Husbands the same obligation is taxed upon equall condition S. Augustine de adult Conjug II. 8. Sedâ—isti quâ— bus displicet ut inter virum â—xorem par pudicitiae forma servetur potius eligunt maximeque in hac cavsâ mundi legibus subesse quam Christi quoniam jura forensia non eisdem fâ—minas quibus viros pudicitiae nexibus videntur astringere legant quid Imp. Antoniâ—us But those who like not that the same form of chastity should be observed between man and wife and had rather especially in this cause be under the Laws of the world then of Christ because the Court Laws doe not seem to tie women by the same bond of chastity as men Let them read what the Emperour Antoninus Who knows not the lawfulnesse of unnaturall lusts among the Pagans that reads the first Chapter to the Romanes And can we think it strange that Husbands should not be forbidden unmaried persons Wherefore where the Lawes allowed not one man more wives then one there they punished not wandring lusts but provided for mens reputation and their successions Whereas the law of Moses which gives a man leave to mary a Jewess sold him for a slave to himself or to his Sonne provides her an interess in his body for the preventing of uncleanness as you saw before And all those Idolatrous Nations which Gods people were invironed with using more wives then one it is the lesse marvail that God allowed his people something in it that the race of those that feared him might not be quite extinguished and over-run by the multitude of them that served Idols And this is the true reason why S. Paul declares those that are converted to Christianity not to stand obliged to the Wives or Husbands which they had taken before 1 Cor. VII 12-15 Supposing first that by Moses Law the mariages of Jews with Idolaters were void and unlawfull to be used as we see by Ezra IX X. Nehem. X. 30. On the other side that in the Romam Empire the wife as well as the Husband had power to divorce her selfe and to dissolve wedlock which is argument enough how farre they were from being the mariages of Christians Whereupon I say that the mariages of Pagans not being made upon the same ground as the mariages of Christians which is the mutuall interess in one anothers boâ—ies as it is no marvail on one side that S. Paul obliges them not to part as Moses did because those that were not tied by Law might for the particular love they had to their wives turned Christians tie themselves to them alone and upon those who did so the wives had great advantage to grant them to Christianity as he alledges So it is evident on the other â—â—de why he allows them to part to wit having no confidence of that faith in wedlock from them which Christians of necessity professe The reason why the mariages of Jews with Gentiles were void by the Law is thus given by S. Augustine de adult Conjug I. 18. Namque hoc dominus aliquando per Ezdrâ—m Prophetam fieri jussit factâ—m est dimiserunt Israelitâ— uxores alienigenas quiâ—unque tunc haberâ—â—â—tuerunt per quas fiebat ut ipsi ad alienâ—s seducerentur deos non ut illâ— per â—â—â—ritâ—s vero acquirerentur deo Noâ—dum enim tanta gracia salvatoris illuxerâ—â— promissis temporaleâ—us vâ—teris T. adâ—â—â— inhiabat illius populi multitudâ— Et propterea cum bâ—na terrena quâ— pro magnâ— expectaâ—aâ—â— a domino viderent etiam his abundarâ— qui multâ—s falsâ—s colebant dâ—os blanditiis uxorum prius â—â—s verebantur offendere dâ—iâ—dâ— indicebantur colere For this the Lord once commanded to be done by Ezdras the Prophet and done it was The Israelites dismissed their stranger wives as many as then had of theâ— by whose means it came to passe that even they were seduced to strange Gods For as yet so great grace of our Saviour bad not shined oâ— them and the multitude of
but for adultery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and maries another and he that mariâ—s her that is put away commits adultery Mat. V. 32. XIX 9. Mark X. 11. 12. Luk. XVI 18. it is pretended there p. 454. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Gospels signifies any thing that is dishonest and that what the State judges dishonest is just ground of divorce You must know that in our Lords time there was a difference which is supposed to be the occasion of the question made to our Lord between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai two great Heads of the Pharisees about the meaning and extent of the Law concerning divorces Deut. XXIV 1 which allows him that likes not his wife because he hath found or having found matâ—r of nakednessâ— in her to put her away For Shammai confined the intent of it to that which is dishonest and deserveth shame as nakednesse doth But Hillel extended it to any thing that offends the Husband as say they for example if she burn his Meat As for R. Akiba that allowed it if a man can get a fairer wife his opinion is but the inlargement of Hillels which expoundeth Moses his words If he have found in her mater of wickednesse to signifie either nakednesse or other mater besides This question then being on fooâ— at that time it is argued p. 478 that our Lord intends nothing else but the resolution of it the Pharisees demanding nothing else and therefore making no opposition to that which he resolves Mat. XIX 3-9 And thereupon great pains is bestowed cap. XXIII XXVII to show that our Lords exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Moses according to the opinion of Shammai For if we suppose our Lord to have spoke in that Ebrue which the Jews then spake and now we read in the Talmud and Chaldee Paraphrases then must he use the word which the Law useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gospels must translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If in Syriack the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifying the uncleannesse of the Stews is necessarily understood by the circumstance of the place where it is used to signifie all uncleannesse but may be extended to all sinne whereby we go a whoring from God as the Scripture uses to speak So according to this opinion our Lord excluding onely arbitrary divorce allows it where Moses according to Shammai allows it for any cause of dishonesty or that deserves shame as nakednesse does And if these premises be pertinent to that which follows that is to justifie those divorces that are made according to the Imperiall Laws related afterwards for the Author all the while protests to determine nothing p. 496. the inference must be this That those causes of divorce which Christian powers by their Lavvs have allovved or shall allovv are the true interpretation of that cause which Moses under the time of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or nakednesse our Lord of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is usually translated Forâ—ication alloweth I forbear to relate any more of that which is alleged to shevv that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the words of our Lord may signifie the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Moses according to R. Akâ—ba For the reason which I rely upon admits no consideration of it The resolution of our Lord is manifestly inconsistent vvith the Law of Moses and therefore with any interpretation that can be thought agâ—â—eable to it For when he saith Moses for your hard-heartednesse But I say unto you What can be more evident then that he repeals the provision of the Law and restrains what Moses had allowed Is it not manifest that whâ—n he â—llegeth that God having made first one man and one woman joyned them in mariage to be parted no more he granteth that Moses Law had abated of this and declareth the reviving of Gods first appointment among his own Disciples Can the allowance of divorce according to the Law stand with the primitive institution of Paradise more then having more wives at once Can we suppose the Pharisees come to our Lord to decide between Hillel and Shammai who condemns all Pharisees Or is it a marvail that he who pretended to be the Messias should introduce a provision differing from Moses and â—rom all that pretended onely to interpret his Law That there should be no further dispute of the mater of his resolution when there lay no dispute but about his authority whither from God or not Suppose our Lord to them no more but a Propheâ— to his Disciples the Messias why should they dispute that which they knew his Disciples admitted when they saw the primitive appointment of God related by Moses clear on his side That is to say why should they not be put to silence now as well as other times when they could not answer his allegations out of the Scriptures It is therefore utterly unreasonable to imagine that our Lord intending to restrain those divorces which Moses law alloweth should use a term of the same extent with that which â—e intended to restrain The Jews indeed insist upon this That a Prophet had alwaies power to suspend the obligation of any positive Precept for the time as Elias that of sacrificing no where but at Jerusalem Levit. XVII 1-9 Deut XII 5-18 26 27. XIV 21-26 when he sacrificed in mount Carmel 1 Kings XVII 22-39 But our Lord introducing a new Law instead of Moses his Law their aâ—cestors crucified him therefore and they to this day maintain it Indeed there is cause to believe that the Prophet Malachy reproving the oppressions which the Jews then laid upon their wives for the love of strangers which they had maried over their heads contrary to the Law Mal. I. 14. 15 16. propounds the liberty of divorce which the Law allows for an expedient acceptable to God as his own provision when he saith For the Lord God of Israel saith If thou hatest put away as the Jews there expound it For they who construe it The Lord God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away cannot give account why the Prophet should mention the mater of divorce where his purpose is to blame the oppression of Israelitish wives for the love of strangers maried against the Law Whereas when he addeth For one covereth violence with his Garment saith the Lord of Hosts He aggravateth the same fault by this consideration that the covenant of mariage signified usually in the Scripture by covering the woman with the mans Garment Ezek. XVI 8. Ruth III. 10. is imployed for a means of oppression and violence upon her that out of love entred into it And the Prophet Malaâ—hi holding his Commission by virtue of Moses Law how shall he say that God hates that which by his law he provided though for a remedy of further mischief There is indeed great dispute whither the allowance of Moses law did
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.
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
change the customes of the Church Therefore this repeal never took place in the West For first the Gothes retained Theodosius his Law as Cassidore VII 46. testifieth which Cvias saith is the reason why in Gaiâ—s out of whom Justinian took his Institutes for the most part it is at this day read Duorum fratrum vel sororum liberi vel fratris sororis jungi non possunt The children of two Brothers or Sisters or of a Brother and Sister may not mary together contrary to that which Justinian is known to have inacted Then the later Emperours revived the Law of Theodosius upon which occasion it is still read in many Copies of the Institutes de Nupt. X. 4. non possunt expresly against many parts of Justinians Law And for the East how shall we say that Justinians Law was repealed or upon what ground but that the custome of the Church prevailed to move Christian Emperours to repeal it seeing Christendom scandalized at the license introduced by it He therefore that alleges Iâ—stinian in these cases or even Moses let him allege Herods marying his Brothers Daughter and espousing his Daughter to his Brother Pheroras in Iosephus Aâ—t XII XVI and so allowing the same which when Claudius for his own lust licensed there was scarce found a Gentleman in Rome that would do the like as Tacitus reporteth Indeed when S. Austine says this was rarely done afore Theodosius signifying that sometimes it was done we must accknowledge not onely that the mariage was not void that was so made from the beginning for neither is the mariage of the deceased wives Sister or of the neece void by the Canons of the Apostles and the Eliberine Canon injoyns upon marying the wives sister five yeares Penance signifying that it was not void but also we remain uncertain whether it were censured by the Church or how But when S. Gregory allows Austine the Monk to allow the first Christian Saxons to mary in the fourth degree we are not certified whither according to the account of the Romane Law or according to that account which the Popes afterwards brought in use For the Romane Law counting the stock for one made no first degree in the cross line but reckoned Brothers the second and by consequence Cousin Germanes the fourth determining both legall successions and affinities within seven degrees which are sometime called six as you include both terms or exclude the one L. X. ff de gradibus affinibus Paulus Sent. IV. 11. ubi Anianus Modest L. XLV ff de gradibus affinibuâ— Whereupon mariage was first forbidden in the West as far as the seventh degree inclusive Caus XXV q. 2 3. cap. 20. ib. Greg. P P. I. Nic. P P. II. c. 17. ib. sentent IV. dist XL. Isid Orig. IX c. 6. Caus XXXV q. 5. Grat. c. 21. whereby it should seem that this degree was dispensed with by S. Gregory being otherwise then prohibited But the Pope afterwards introducing a contrary way of counting brothers for one degree and Cousin Germanes the second which before were the second and the fourth determined kindred by seven of these degrees which were before just halfe so many Alex. PP 2. c. 2. Caus XXXV q. 5. and all these prohibited c. 14. Caus XXXV q. 2 3. till reduced to the fourth by the Laterane Council under Innocent III. for the difficulty and burthen of it which fourth is just the eight by the former account which is now the law of the West under the Pope A thing which I cannot admire at enough either how proposed or how admitted Whereas in the East the seventh degree according to the Roman account is neither permitted nor the mariage dissolved if consummate Ius Graecorum L. III. p. 204. lib. IV. pag. 266. afterwards under Michael Patriarch of C P. Ib. lib. 3. p. 206. the seventh was forbidden the eighth alwayes licensed See further Harmenop lib. IV. Tit. 5 Arcudius VII 30. which I allege all to no purpose but this that the consent of Christendom submitting to be restrained beyond all degrees any way pretended to be expressed by Gods Law is an evidence of the two Principles alledged that they were from the beginning admitted by all Christendom Indeed when it is said that which the Church censured not which S. Gregory dispensed with which the Romane Emperours and Gothish Kings reserved themselves a power of dispensing in as appeares by a Law of Honorius and Theodosius in C. Theod. Si nuptia ex resciptâ— pâ—tantur and by Cassiâ—d VII 46. It is no marvail if it be permitted by the Statute of H. VIII XXXVI 38. we may see the case hath been not much otherwise with us since that statute then with Christendom before the act of Theodosius For as then the known custome of the Church so since with us the remains of the opinion of that publick honesty which Christianity first introduced hath been the cause that few have used the known liberty of the temporal law and that with such reluctation of judgement as hath been thought the occasion of evill consequences As for those degrees which being prohibited by the Popes are of course dispensed in for paying the fees without any notice of particular reason in the case as it is not for me either to maintain the abuse of Ecclesiasticall power or because of the abuse to yield the Church to have no power in those causes which it could have no power in if that power might not be abused so I am able to conclude that it were more Christian for any Christian state to undergo a burthen altogether unreasonable then to shake of a burthen for which there is so much reason in Christianity as I have showed for prohibiting the mariage of Cousin Germanes Another impediment of force to void mariage whether onely contracted or consummate also by carnall knowledge pretended by the Church of Rome and practised in the Eastern Church is that of profession of single life to attend upon the service of God alone For whether Christians under wedlock upon consent may part from bed and bord for this purpose there is no reason for any Christian to make difficulty the wish of S. Paul that all were as he 1 Cor. VII 1. taking place in them as well as in all others That to avoid fornication one man should mary one wife not taking place but in them in whom no such resolution is supposed Upon which supposition they are commanded to return to the use of wedlock after having retired for Prayer and Fasting least Satan tempt them through their incontinence But this is disputable whether it be a dissolution of the bond or onely a suspension of the exercise of mariage It is further pretended that the one party may by publishing such a profession make void the mariage that is not yet consummate by carnall knowledge leaving the other free to mary elsewhere This in the Church of Rome For in the Eastern Church I doubt
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
seen him in the flesh disparaging S. Paul that had not who therefore vindicateth himself to be neverthelesse 1 Cor. IX 1. 2 Cor. 5. 10. And indeed there is great cause to think that they were of Cerinthus his party who as Epiphanius relateth having taught at Antiochia that Christians are tied to Moses Law and being disowned by the Apostles to have received no such commission from them Act. XV. 1. 24. out of discontent set up a sect by themselves borrowing to their former Doctrine something of Simon Magus being of that time as you may see by Epiphanius and Irenaeus whereof this may justly seem to have sowed the seeds at Corinth about that time As for those who pretended to be Apostles and were not but were discovered to be otherwise by the Angel of the Church of Ephesus Apoc. II. 2. whose commission they pretended our Lords or the Apostles or what besides let every man judge For those whom S. Paul calls Apostles of the Churches 2 Cor. VIII 23. and Epaphroditus when he is called the Apostle of the Philippians and minister of S. Pauls necessities Phil. II. 25. I am confident their titles import not Apostles to but from the said Churches that is not sent by God or any body else to them not that they might not have commission from the Apostles but that it is not here signified by this Title but sent by those Churches with commission to bestow their oblations at Jerusalem and by the Philippians to present the offerings which they contributed to the support of S. Paul Phil. IV. 10-18 Now our Lord having ordained not onely twelve Apostles for the Heads of the twelve Tribes of that spiritual Israel of his Church which he now began to create but also LXX inferiour Disciples though not called Apostles yet sent to preach by our Lord during his life time Luk. X. 1. answerable to the LXX Elders of Israel under Moses and in after ages Though it cannot be doubted that those whom our Lord had set his best marks upon during his life time were and were to be of greatest authority in his Church after the raising of it yet we have no mark left to show that these LXX were by the said Commission of our Lord during his life time intituled to any rank or particular charge in the Church after his death but by the appointment of the Twelve and acceptation of the Church And therefore I find no difficulty in believing those Ancients which conceive that some of the seven which are the first that we read of applied by the Appstles to any particular office or function in the Church may have been of the number of the said LXX Disciples No not though we allow according to the sense of all antiquity that they were properly Deacons to the Twelve as Governours of the whole Church at that time comprised in the City of Jerusalem and the adjacent parts For was not their function sacred and Ecclesiastical which before the ordaining of them was performed by the Apostles themselves Were not the Monies which they dispensed the oblations of Christians consecrated to God in the maintenance of the Church Were not the Tables which they furnished out of those goods the feasts of love where Christians at the beginning to have more opportunity of instruction from the Apostles and to strengthen one another did eat together the poor at the charge of the rich celebrating withall the Eucharist He that doubts of the premises let him satisfie himself by the reasons premised He that finds the evidence of them why should he make difficulty in admitting those seven to be Deacons then more then in admitting those who afterwards either waited at the Altar or dispensed the oblations of believers to the maintenance of the poor The State of Christianity was altered and so the maner of exercising their function was not the same But if the reason of the difference be no more then follows upon alteration in the state of Christianity the Society and Corporation of the Church remaining all one then is the office the same Let no man then that believes a Church by divine right and consecration of the same imagine the Deacons office to be conversant in temporal things because in dispensing of monies those monies being consecrated to God for the maintenance of the Faith Nor let any man that sees these seven as soon as they are ordained to wait upon these Tables fall to preaching the Gospel Stephen at Jerusalem Philip in Samaria and why not all the rest as occasion may serve think this any stranger then that the Apostles themselves should wait upon the same Tables at such tims as no man doubts that they preached the Gospel The empty noise of Minister of the word and Sacraments â—sounding in the mouth of those who scorn to acknowledge any error in themselves or their â—faction binds up poor people like children in a biggin of vain belief that by Gods Law no man is to Preach or Baptize that may not consecrate the Eucharist who were they to prove what they take for granted would be as silent as their hearers But if these seven attend upon these Tables and that â—under the Apostles how comes it that the Oblations of the Antiochians are consigned to the hands of the Presbyters by Paul and Barnabas Act. XI 30 Forsooth what were these Presbyters but so many Lay Elders to give check to the Apostles by their interess in disposing of the Church Goods Sure they that have heard of XII Princes of Tribes and LXX Elders that governed all Israel with and under Moses and in correspondence with them XII Apostles and LXX Disciples the â—irst fruits of the spiritual Israel under our Lord Christ will not commit so gross an inconsequence as not to subordinate them to the Twelve He that admits that which I said even now that it doth not appear that the LXX Disciples whatsoever dignity and respect they might have among the Disciples by being so sent did hold any office in the Church by virtue of it but that which they were designed to by the act of the Church must also allow that upon such designation both the LXX and others might properly be called Presbyters or Elders Onely supposing the name of Presbyters to be relative to the Body of those whereof they are Presbyters there will be as much difference between them and the Apostles as between the Twelve Princes and the Elders of Israel to whom all maters of the Law resorted which could not be ended at home and every litle Piepouder Judge that could decide alone or with two more upon compromise Wherefore I will not contend with them who think it so convenient to say that those Elders of Acts XI 30. were Presbyters of the local Church of Jerusalem For when upon the mater the Church of Jerusalem and the whole Church were both a thing the Church of Antiochia being but yet in the Cradle and therefore those of Iudea and
his time which cannot be true otherwise A thing to be wondered at that so knowing a man should look so farr for a reason evidently false having a true one in the text of Bede before his eyes For what is more evident than that the English Bishops of Austines plantation had their Ordination from him not from any Priests But if from him then from one Bishop which was not regular The Nicene Canon requiring the Representatives of the Province the Apostles Canon two at least if not three Whether S. Gregory and his Successors intended that their Power giving Austine his Commission should supply the formality of the Canon or supposed that the Welsh Bishops should joyn with him which afterwards upon the difference that fell out between them either they would not grant or hee would not desire the consecration of the Bishops of that plantation must needs be irregular because it came from Austine alone Nor need wee any other reason why Wilfride went for his consecration into France as the same Bede relateth For that there was the same irregularity also among the Welsh Bishops appears by S. Kentigern who went to Rome to purge it as his life relateth And therefore though Wine having been regularly ordained in France as Malmsbury saith de Gestis Poutif II. joyned with him two Welsh Bishops to consecrate regularly yet their regularity which might be in the consecrating of the said Bishops might alâ—o move Wilfride rather to go into France than to rest content vvith the same But that Niniane being a Welsh Bishop at such time as the Welsh had other Bishops should be ordained by Priests because a vvritten Copy Hist Duâ—â—lm in Biblioth Coton sayes after his time that Galloway had yet no Bishop is a conjecture too slight for a man of that knovvledg For there is appearance enough that under the Welsh the Sea vvas trâ—nslated to Glascow for Kentigern after Niniane And that Plecthelm vvas first Bishop of Galloway under the Saxons after that the Kingdom of Cumberland vvas become English Of the â—uldei in Scotland vvhatsoever is said before the Plantation of S. Columb I challenge â—or a meer fable After it though Bede saith that his Monastery after an unuâ—â—â—l vvay ruled even thâ— Bishops yet vvhere there vvere Bishops no reason can presume that their authority did not ordain though they thought fit that the knovvledg of the Monastery vvhence they came should direct vvhom And therefore vvhatsoever the rights of these Culdei in Scotland might aftervvards be it cannot vvay a sâ—ravvâ—â—â—rds the cause of Episcopacy because never extant in the Church of Scotland but undâ—r it They that shall peruse vvhat the late Lord Pâ—imate hath vvritten in his antiquities of the British Churches and from his infoâ—mation Sir H. Spelman in his Glossâ—ry vvill not allovv them to be any other than Câ—nons that vvâ—re to attâ—nd upon the service of God in the Church Which whether or no before the division of Dioceses in Scotland they might have that right in advanâ—ing of Bishops to all Seas which the Clergy of every Churâ—h had in respâ—ct to their own Church I leave to their antiquaries to determine The extrâ—cts of Philostorgius I give more credit to than to any thing that hath been said of the Scottish Culdei And they I admit relate II. 5. that the â—oâ—â—es who dwelt on the North of the Black Sea had Christianity some LXX years before Ulphilas was made their Bishop For having caried â—ome of the Clergy captives in an inrode they were by them taught Christianity saith Philostorgius But they might have Priests ordained by the next Bishops all having that power in that case Or they might have other Bishops before Theophilus whom the Ecclesiastical Histories reckon at the Council of Nicaea before Ulphilas The want of records will not evidence that those Clergy did all acts of Ecclesiassical power before or made themselves Bishops to do what themselves could not do that is give them the power which they had not themselves I am secure of all that can be said from the state of rural Bishops called Chorepiscopi in the ancient Church Not doubting that any Bishop may communicate any part of his power within his own Church the rule and custom of the whole Church inabling him to do it Socrates and Sozomenus testifie that whereas generally there were no Bishops but in Cities in Cyprus they were settled in Boroughs I have elâ—where observed the same in Africk and Ireland Either Cities were something else there than in other Countries or else the number of Cities could not be so great as the number of Churches in the numerous Africâ—ne Synods and when S. Patrick sounded as many Churches in Ireland as there are dayes in the year Was this any breach upon S. Pauls rule or practice setling Churches in Cities divide a Province or Soveraignty into more or fewer Churches it wayes the same to the whole Church not according to the number of those that vote in their own Synods Unless the Council of Trent could oblige Christendom by a plurality of them that voted there One Diocese of Lincoln will better allow half a douzain rural Bishops to be cut out of it than many Cities in some parts can have Bishops In a word the Rule of the Church supposeth the act of some State which it cannot regulate And is it then strange supposing the superiority of Bishops so much differing in Jurisdiction though for Order the same as I have said that some of them should have a Bishop under him that is answerable to him immediately and to the Synod of the Province by him though according to the Canons of the same with power to Ordain Priests according as the said Synods should allow or withdraw it I will say further that supposing all that I have said of the Hierarchy to be an Ordinance of the Apostles because received by all to be a meer imagination of mine own but granting the unity of the Church to be of Gods Law and the means of maintaining it self to be the consent of the Church and this consent executed by the establishment of Episopacy through the whole Church I can by no means excuse those that go about to put it down from being Schismaticks Whither upon an erroneous conscience they imagine that to be a transgression of Gods Law which the whole Church for so many ages imbracing maketh evident to be according to Gods Law Or whether God having commanded the unity of his Church and his Church having introduced it for a mean to preserve that unity they think it lawfull for themselves to refuse it not believing it to be against Gods Law and therefore within the power of the Church to appoint it For whatsoever can be said of the several customes which severall Churches allowed cannot take place in that which is supposed to be setled and received in all Churches Not is it possible that the Church should continue one as a visible Society and Body
the carnal rest of the Jewes is a figure of the spiritual rest of Christians in grace here in glory in the world to come And therefore when he is afraid least he should have laboured in vain upon the Galatians IV. 10. because they observed days and moneths years when he teacheth the Colossians II. 16. not to be over-ruled in the mater of new Moons or Sabbath When he sheweth the Romanes XIV 5. that they who esteemed on one day before another were weak Christians He did not mean to remove the obligation of the seventh day upon the first but to show that Christians may as well think themselves bound in conscience to be circumcised as to be under the precept of the Sabbath And let me understand how we can be bound by the precept of the Sabbath and not be bound to that measure of rest which the precept of the Sabbath limiteth For the constitution which the Jews go by this day is so grounded in the Text that it is not possible to imagine that ever it was practised otherwise the leter of the Law manifestly distinguishing between worke and servile workâ— and permitting the dressing of meat upon the first and last dayes of the Passovâ—r Pentecost and the feast of Tabernacles but forbidding servile work that is to say such work as slâ—ves were imployed about for their Masters advantage but upon the Sabbath and day of atonement forbidding all work that is not onely servile work but the dressing of meat upon those days whereupon comes the express prohibition of kindling fire on the Sabbath not for the time that they lived in the wildernesse but as the Law expresseth in all their habitations Ex. XII 16. XXXV 30. XVI 23. Levit. XXIII 3. 7 8 21 25 28. Numb XXIX 1 7. And therefore Deut. XVI 8. where for brevities sake he saith of the Passover No worke shall be done in it The Greek adds out of Exodus and Leviticus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides what shall be dressed for meat And therefore when our Lord goes to dâ—ne with a Pharisee Luc. XIV 1. it is no marvail that he is invited upon a Festivall on which they hold themselves still bound to eat the best meat and drink the best wine and put on the clothes they have But he knew his entertainment must be upon meats dreâ—t the day before And therefore he not onely reproveth the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who for their own profit to draw their Oxe or their Ass out of the pit could bâ—lâ— it and in a charitable cause of healing a man stood upon it But further he showes it to be a meer positive precept of the Law when by the right of a Prophet he commandeth the lame man whom he had cured to cary away his bed upon the Sabbath Joh. V. 10. the Prophet of the old Law having forbidding to cary any burthen upon the Sabbath Jer. XVII 21. 22. And the reason my Father still worketh and so do I worke inâ—erreth that as the rest of God was not from bodily labour so neither is it the rest from bodily labour which he or his Gospel intendeth I conclude therefore that which will seem strange to unskilful people That the onely thing commanded by the leter of the fourth Commandement is to rest from bodily labour upon the seventh day of the week on which God rested from whence it is called the Sabbath But by the mysticall sense of it under the New Testament to rest from our own works of sinne here that we may attain to the rest of God in the world to come And I cannot see how a more evident argument can be expected for this then the extending of the precept to cattel and strangers not onely to children who otherwise are not under the precept For strangers in the Law that is those that worshipped the true God alone but were not circumcised who are therefore alwayes translated Conuerts in the Syriack to wit from Idols were onely tyed to seven precepts which all the Sons of Noe had received from him Whereof that of the Sabbath was none And therefore it is not they that are commanded to rest but Gods people are commanded that they shall not work as they are commanded that their Cattel shall not work I know there is a strong Argument against this in vulgar esteem which to me makes no difficulty at all that they are commanded to sanctifie or keep holy the Sabbath But he that admits the true difference between the Law and the Gospel must admit a legall as well as a spirituall holinesse And I would know what holinesse there is in offering a brute beast to God in sacrifice that is not in sitting still on the seventh day Both being stamped with Gods command and the rest of the Body signifying the rest of the soul from sinne which is very holy as the sacrifice is holy because it signifieth the holinesse of our Lord Christ or of them whom he sanctifieth The Apostle teacheth us thus to distinguish when he saith Heb. IX 11. If the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of a red cow sprinkling the purified sanctifieth to the purity of the flesh For the holiness it procureth is but the capacity of free conversation amongst the people of the true God as to the leter of the Law And bodily rest upon the Sabbath is a full profession of the true God which made heaven and earth and brought his people out of Egypt I do not deny that the service of God was commanded by the Law upon the Sabbath But not by this precept You have an order for publick Assemblies on the Sabbath as well as on other Festivals Levit. XXIII you have an order for what sacrifices should be offered on each of them Num. XXVIII But had the Law gone no further then the fourth Commandment the Jews had not been tied to those precepts I acknowledge further that they were bound to serve God with other offices such as are common to them and us both upon the Sabbath as upon other Festivals when they had Synagogues or means to assemble themselves otherwise as Abenezra observes out of 2 King IV. 23. For had it not been the custome to resorâ— to the Prophets at the Festivals he would not have said Why wilt thou go to the Prophet It is neither new Moon nor Sabbath And the order for this which we see by the acts of the Apostles and the Gospels as well as by the Jews Constitutions no man will deny to have obliged them by virtue of the Law But not by the leter of it which had it been precisely followed the objection of Origen and other of the Fathers must have taken place and no man must have stirred out of the place where he should be found at the coming in of the Sabbath But in regard there was alwayes in that people a sense of that spiritual service of God which these carnal precepts tended to therefore was there provided a power
same ground to wit that the offenses that fall out among Gods people might not scandalize the Gentiles Therefore Saint James writing his Epistle to converted Jewes supposeth that they exercised the same power of judging between Christian and Christian as they did being Jewes between Jew and Jew And exhort them thereupon to use it like Christians James II. 1-13 for this I have shewed to be his meaning in another place And Saint Cypriane teaches Quirinus in the testimonies which he produces against the Jewes out of the Scripture III. 44. Fideles inter se disceptantes non debere Gentilem Judicem experiri In Epistola Pauli ad Corinth I. Audet quisquam vestrum That Christians being in debate among themselves are not to come to the triall of a heathen Judge For in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians you have dare any of you In the Constitutions of the Apostles II. 45 46 47. this authority is most truly attributed to the Church by describing the manner of proceeding in it Nor will any man of reason question that the author of them though not so ancient as the title under which he goes understood the state of the Church before Constantine There he showes that the Church in the use of this power aimed at the precept of our Lord to be reconciled to our brethren before we offer sacrifice to God Mat. V. 23 24. For though the offering of beasts in sacrifice to God be ceased yet the reason of the precept holds in the Eucharist and the offering of those oblations out of which it was consecrated for Christians To this purpose he prescribeth that Consistories be held on the Munday to see what differences were on foot in the Church that they might have the week before them to set them to right that so they might offer at the Eucharist on the Lords day with a clear conscience For at the Eucharist they were to salute one another with a kisse of peace and the deacon cried aloude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man have any thing against any man let no man give the kisse of peace dissembling All evidences for the practice of the Church That which Gratiane hath alledged out of the Epistle of Clemens to James of Jerusalem Causa XI Quaest I. Cap. XXXII is found also in the life of Saint Peter out of the book of the Popes lives which you have in the Counciles though in that Copy of it which hath since been published under the name of Anastasius it appeareth not The words are these in the Epistle Si qui ex fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores seculi non judicentur Sed apud Presbyterâ—s Ecclesiae quicquid illud est definitur If any of the brethren have suits among themselves let them not be judged before judges of the World But whatsoever it is let it be judged before the Priests of the Church The life of Saint Peter saith thus Hic Petrus B. Clementem Episcopum consecravit cui Cathedram vel Ecclesiam omnem disponendam commisit dicens Sicut mihi gubernandi tradita est a Domino meo Jesu Christo potestas ligandi sâ—lvendique ita ego tibi committo ut ordines dispositores diversarum causarum per quos actus non Ecclesiastici profligentur tu minime curis seculi deditus reperiâ—â— sed solummodo orationi praedicationi ad populum vacare stude This Peter consecrated B. Clement Bishop and committed to him the see or the whole Church to be ordered saying As the power of governing or binding and loosing was delivered me by my Lord Jesus Christ so do I also depute thee to ordain those that may dispose of divers causes by whom actions that are not of the Church may be dispatched so that thou be not found addicted to secular cares but onely study to attend upon prayer and preaching to the people I know the first is forged and the second of little credit And he that writ the Epistle might intend to create an authority against trying the Clergy in secular Courts which could not be the subject of any thing that Clement might write But both authors write what they might know in their time to have fitted the Apostles time There is nothing more suitable to that estate which the Apostles signify then that Clemens should appoint who should attend upon the dispatching of suits between his people that he might attend upon the principall of his Office For that all resorted not then to the Church it is ridiculous to imagine It is enough that there is no instance extant of any suit between Christians tried before Gentiles before Constantinâ— And this is the reason why Constantine undertaking the protection of Christianity made the Law that is yet extant in the Code of Theodosius de Episcopali Audientia I. that any man might appeale to the Bishop in any cause before sentence Is there any appearance that so vast a priviledge would ever have been either demanded or granted had not the matter of it been in use by the Constitution of the Church among Christians Therefore it was no marvaile that it was limited afterwards for it made the Church judge in all causes in which one party would appeal to it as it appeares by Justinians Law and other constitutions afore Justiniane For when the Empire was become Christiane the reason of our Lords and his Apostles Order was expired In the mean time the referring of causes to the Bishop upon appeale was but to referre the causes of Christians to the Bishop which belonged to his knowledge afore And when all were Christians to demand that all should resort to the Bishop had been to dissolve the Civile Government which the Church supposeth The causes that were afterward heard by Bishops of the trouble whereof Saint Augustine complaines and which Saint Peter had cause to provide that Clemens should not be oppressed with resorted to them either as arbitrators by consent of parties or as Judges delegated by the secular power in causes limited by their acts And now is the time to answer the objection against the being of the Church and the Protection which is drawn from those bounds which the power of excommunicating challenged by the Church hath been and is confined to by all Christiane states Though having made the question generall I find it requisite to extend also the answer to those other points wherein I have said the right of the Church is seen and upon which the society thereof is founded no lesse then upon the power of excommunicating And then the argument will be to this effect That seeing no Christian can deny that the Lawes the Ordinations the Censures of the Church are lawfully prohibited to take effect by the secular Powers of Christian States therefore the right of doing those acts stands not by Gods Law but by the sufferance and appointment of the same secular Powers chusing whom they please to execute their own rights
which it standeth For it is manifest that the powers from whose acts this argument is drawne are such as hold communion with the Church of Rome and acknowledg the Pope in behalf of it As manifest it is that the Pope not onely challengeth to be head of the Church in Church maters but maintaineth Friers Canonists to chalenge for him Soveraigne power in civill causes over all persons in order to Christianity To say then that by the acts which they limite the use of Ecclesiastical power by they pretend that there is no Power in the Church but what they give it is to say that by those acts they contradict themselves and proclaime their own professing themselves Sons of the Church not onely to be without cause but to signifie nothing as words without sense Which with what modesty it can be affirmed in the face of Christendome I leave to Christendome to judge Onely I will here summon the liberties of the Gallicane Church as they are digested by that worthy Advocate of Paris P. Pithaeus to give sentence in this cause being a peece much appealed to by the Father of this argument as that which deserves to be accounted of prime consequence in the businesse I desire those that will take the pains to looke into them to tell me whether they find not these two to be the first two points of them That the King of France is Soveraigne in his own dominions and that he is Protector of the Canons Liberties and priviledges of the Church And then I desire them to imploy the common understanding of men to pronounce whether these be not the same points of secular interest in Church maters which I have advanced Namely as Soveraigne to have no competitor in the right of the Crowne and as Christian to be borne Protector of the Catholicke and Apostolick Faith and of the Church and of the Lawes of it which have no being but upon supposition of that faith whereof one part is the beliefe of the Catholike Church Onely I shall take notice that they protest that they are called Liberties and not Priviledges on purpose to signifie that they are no exceptions to the common right of all Soverainities in Church maters but essentiall points of it Which they call the liberties of the French Church in particular because the Kings of France they thinke have maintained them better then other Princes of Christendome have done In consequence of this collection of Pithaeus besids the proofs of them in two great volums we have of late a commentary of Petrus Puteanus upon these Liberties as they are digested by Pithaeus the businesse whereof is first to make good that they are of more unquestionable right in France then they have been and are practiced also by other Princes and states of Christendome which is answer enough to this whole argument as it stands upon the authority of Christendome expessed by the acts of it Neverthelesse I shall further alledge in this cause the collection which Frier Paul of the order delli Servi hath made of the articles accorded betweene the Pope and the state of Venice concerning the Inquisition the bounds of secular Power in the cognizance of those causes wherein that court may pretend concurrence of Jurisdiction with it I will not undertake to say that the state of Venice maintaining the Inquisition upon such termes as this collection or Capitular declareth doth maintaine those persons in the use of Ecclesiasticall power to whom by the common right of the whole Church it belongeth Neither will I maintaine that whatsoever those articles distinguish and allow the Inquisition is by virtue of the common right of the whole Church For who can ty him to expresse every where what is by Ecclesiasticall right and what of secular privilege by free act of tâ—e state bestowed upon the Church as all states that would be held Christians have alwaies done This I say that he that shall take the paines to look into it shall finde the bounds of secular and Ecclesiastical power so expressely distinguished upon the reasons which I have aleged that it shall be too late to say that they who acknowledge a Church and certaine rights by Gods Lawe belonging to the foundation of it doe contradict themselves when they do limit the exercise of those rights Being ready further to maintaine that they doe nothing but right when they limit the exercise of them according to the reasons which I have advanced As for the Leviathan who hath made himselfe so merry with compasing a state Christian in which the Ecclesiasticall power is distinct from the secular with the governement of Oberon and Queene Mabbe and theire Pugs in the land of Fairies If he speake of a state framed according to the opinion of those that make the Pope soveraigne in all causes and over all persons in order to Christianity I grant he hath reason For there is not nor can be any such state and it would be indeed a kingdome of confusion and darkenesse Nay where the Church it selfe is Soveraigne as in the Popes dominions show the difference of the grounds upon which severall rights and powers are held and exercised will be in some points though not in all no lesse visible then else where But if he intend by consequence to say the same of all Christian states that acknowledg an Ecclesiasticall power derived from the Law of God and not from the secular then I remit to those that shall have perused the practice of Christendome but in those short peeces that I have named whether they believe those states which so governe themselves to be the land of Fairies or his wits that writ such things to have beene troubled with Fairies And now in particular to say what the maintenance of the Church in giving Lawes to the Church requires that is to say in determining those maters the determination whereof becomes necessary for the maintenance of unity in the Communion of the Church It is easy to deduce from the premises that every Christian is under two obligations One to the Church which as a Christian he is bound to communicate with The other as belonging to that state of Government which he believeth to be lawfully setled in his country By the act of those whom he believes to have right to oblige respectively these two societies which if we speake onely of that part of the Church which is in one soverainty consist of the same persons if they be all of the same Church every Christian is respectively obliged For by the premises it remaines manifest that it is the act of the Church to determine the mater of Ecclesiasticall Law and give it force to oblige the respective part thereof under paine of forseiting the communion of the Church But the act of the state either not to hinder this effect when and where Christianity is onely tollerated as a corporation which it alloweth Or to make them Lawes of the state when and where
therefore how shall it appeare to signify here any more then him that pretends to be the Christ For it is evident that Saint John both there and 1 John IV. 3. speakes of his own time As for the Revelation neither is it any where said that it prophesieth any thing of Antichrist nor will it be proved that it saith any thing of the Pope Much of it being a Prophesie hath been expounded to all appearance of something like the Pope though with violence enough All of it without Prophesying what shall come to passe could never be expounded to that purpose and it is not strange that so great a foundation should be laid upon the event of an obscure Scripture such as all Prophesies are to be conjectured by that which we think we see come to passe For I referre to judgement how much more appearance there is that it intendeth the vengeance of God upon the Pagan Empire of Rome for persecuting Christianity both in the Text and composure of the prophesie and in the pretense of tendring and addressing it Nor is there any thing more effectuall to prove the same then the Idolatries which it specifies that the Christians chused rather to lay down their lives then commit True it is no man can warrant that by praying to Saints for the same things that we pray to God for and by the worship of Images Idolatry may not come in at the back door to the Church of Rome which Christianity shuts out at the great Gate But if it do the difference will be visible between that and the Idolatry of Pagans that professe variety of imaginary deities by those circumstances which in the Apocalypse expresly describe the Idolatries of the Heathen Empire of Rome And therefore I am forced utterly to discharge the Church of Rome of this imputation and to resolve that the Pope can no more be Antichrist then he that holds by professing our Lord to be the Christ and to honour him for God as the Christ is honoured by Christians can himself pretend to be the Christ Nay though I sincerely blame the imposing of new articles upon the faith of Christians and that of positions which I maintaine not to be true yet I must and do freely professe that I find no positinecessary to salvation prohibited none destructive to salvtion injoyned to be believed by it And therefore must I necessarily accept it for a true Church as in the Church of England I have alwaies known it accepted seeing there can no question be made that it continueth the same visible body by the succession of Pastors and Lawes the present customes in force being visibly the corruption of those which the Church had from the beginning that first was founded by the Apostles For the Idolatries which I grant to be possible though not necessary to be found in it by the ignorance and carnall affections of particulars not by command of the Church or the Lawes of it I do not admit to destroy the salvation of those who living in the comunion thereof are not guilty of the like There remaines therefore in the present Church of Rome the profession of all that truth which it is necessary to the salvation of all Christians to believe either in point of faith or maners Very much darkned indeed by inhansing of positions either of a doubtful sense or absolutely false to the ranck and degree of matters of Faith But much more overwhelmed and choaked with a deal of rubbish opinions traditions customes and ceremonies allowed indeed but no way injoyned which make that noise in the publick profession and create so much businesse in the practice of Religion among them that it is a thing very difficult for simple Christians to discerne the pearl the seed and the leaven of the Gospel buried in the earth and the dough of popular doctrines and observations so as to imbrace it with that affection of faith and love which the price of it requires But if it be true as I said afore that no man is obliged to commit those Idolatries that are possible to be committed in that communion it will not be impossible for a discerning Christian to passe through that multitude of doctrines and observations the businesse whereof being meerly circumstantiall to Christianity allows not that zeale and affection to be exercised upon the principall as is spent upon the accessory without superstition and will-worship in placing the service of God in the huske and not in the kernell or promising himself the favour of God upon considerations impertinent to Christianity As for the halfe Sacrament the service in an unknown language the barring the people from the Scrptures and other Lawes manifestly intercepting the meanes of salvatian which God hath allowed his people by the Church It seems very reasonable to say that the fault is not the fault of particular Christians who may and perhaps do many times wish that the matter were otherwise But that the Church being a Society concluding all by the act of those who conclude it there is no cause to imagine that God will impute to the guilt and damnation of those who could not help it that which they are sufferes in and not actors Nay t is much to be feared that the authors themselves of such hard Lawes and those who maintaine them will have a strong plea for themselves at the day of judgement in the unreasonablenesse of their adversaries That it is true all reason required that the meanes of salvation provided by God should be ministred by the Church But finding the pretense of Reformation without other ground than that sense of the Scriptures which every man may imagine and therefore without other bounds and measure then that which imagination for which there are no bounds fixeth They thought it necessary so to carry matters as never to acknowledge that the Church ever erred in any decree or Law that it hath made Least the same error might be thought to take place in the substance of Christianity and the Reformation of the Church to consist in the renouncing of it Which we see come to passe in the Heresy of Socinus And that finding the Unity of the Church which they were trusted with absolurely necessary to the maintenance of the common Christianity whereby salvation is possible to be had though more difficult by denying those helps to salvation which such Lawes intercept They thought themselves tied for the good of the whole not to give way to Laws tending so apparently to the salvation of particular Christians On the other side supposing the premises there remaine no pretense that either Congregations or Presbyteries can be Churches as founded meerly upon humane usurpation which is Schisme not upon divine institution which ordereth all Churches to be fit to constitute one Church which is the whole I need not say that there can be no pretense for any authority visibly convayed to them by those which set them up having it in themselves before I
forfeiture may be an instruction to them if once they believe that it was by just Law This justice then and the ground of it is the onely reason why the predecessors fault is truly said to be imputed to his posterity But between God and mankind in the forfeit of Adam by the precept given him there cannot be understood any contract by virtue whereof posterity that did not the act can be liable to the punishment of it And therefore we must distinguish between the imputing of one mans sinne to another formally so as to punish a man for another mans sin which if he concurred to the act may be just otherwise not And effectively in the nature of a meritorious cause which reduceth it self to the effective when in consideration of one mans sinne another is made subject to that evil which he should have been free from otherwise And according to this distinction though the posterity of Adam is liable to much evill in consideration of his sin yet is not this evil properly the punishment of it but the effect of the same will of God in propagating mankind with the staine of concupiscence which takes place in maintaining understanding creatures to do all that sinne which God might have hindred them from doing had he not thought it better to draw good out of evil then utterly to prevent it And this is no more then the correspondence between the first and second Adam which S. Paul proceeds upon Rom. V. inferreth For I have shewed already that the righteousnesse of Christ is not imputed to any man formally and immediately so as to say that any man is justified by Gods deputing our Lord Christ for his benefit personally excluding those for whom he was not deputed And I have shewed againe that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to all Christians effectively and in the nature of a meritorious cause In as much as have shewed that those helps of grace without which no man is able to imbrace Christianity as it is to be imbraced are granted by God in consideration of his merits and sufferings laid out to that purpose And that which remaineth for me to shew in due place is this That that disposition which qualifieth for the promises of the Gospel being brought to passe in any man by those helps obliges not God to grant those promises which the Gospel rewards it with by any worth in it self but by virtue of Gods grace in consideration of Christs merits and sufferings laid out to that purpose By which correspondence it may appear that those who can perswade themselves that the posterity of Adam are bound to answer for the sin of his fall as their own act cannot stand bound to acknowledge a Christian to whom the merits of the sufferings of Christ are imputed upon the same terms obliged to any condition upon which his right to the promises of the Gospel can depend being once due to him by virtue of Christs merits and sufferings deputed to be personally his As on the contrary those that acknowledge the merits and sufferings of Christ to be justly imputed to the persons of those whom he was sent to redeem cannot stand bound to acknowledge the posterity of the first Adam to be liable to concupiscence by his fall seeing the coming of Christ for the redemption of those whom God thereby should please to exempt from the common imputation thereof would be no lesse effectuall to the voiding of that condemnation which it contracted then supposing what ever disease of our nature concupiscence coming in by his fall may signifie So that supposing the immediate and personall imputation of the fall of Adam to all his posterity of the merits and suffering of Christ to all those for whom they are appointed the evil which mankind suffereth by the meanes of Adams fall is properly the punishment of his sinne the good which it receiveth by the meanes of Christs sufferings is the reward of it nor can have any dependance upon any act of his free will Otherwise then as that which God worketh by him not as that which he requireth at his hands But supposing the meritorious imputation of Adams fall and Christs righteousnesse the evil which his posterity lies under by meanes of it will not be properly the punishment of sinne because not the recompense of the evill which a man does by the evil which he suffers though properly a penalty because an evil inflicted in consideration of sinne Now supposing that Adam understood the precept In the day thou eatest thereof shalt thou die the death to condemn his posterity as well as himself it is manifest notwithstanding that the obligation thereof was not by virtue of his accepting of it and contracting upon it but originall by virtue of that being which God had bestowed and therefore taking hold of all his posterity on whom he meant to bestow it Wherefore though it is handsomly called by S. Augustine and others a Covenant of God with mankind which being transgressed by Adam forfeited the benefit thereof to his posterity Yet to speak properly it was the meer appointment of God in that which lay in his power and right to appoint that the uprightnesse wherein Adam was created should descend to his posterity he continuing in it otherwise the propagation thereof should be maintained the uprightnesse failing Nor can any man think strange that Christianity should oblige us to believe this if we consider the many and strange extravagances which those who either acknowledge not Christianity or have fallen from it do runne into by not resting in it The Epicureans and as some think the Peripateticks denying Providence the Stoicks Free-will and so the same providences The Pythagoreans whom the Platonicks are intangled with and the ancient Gnosticks Marcionites and Manichees manifestly imitate setting up two Gods one the author of evil the other of good the Heathen worshipping in effect the devil whom those Sects set up under the Name of author of evil the Jews and Mahumetanes if they have any thing to say to the originall of evil in mankind to whose use God hath commended the world being obliged to say that it comes from the fall of Adam Pelagians and Socinians not confessing what Jewes and Mahumetanes cannot deny but not able to give any account why the noble creature of mankind should be so overspread with evil coming from a good God and accountable for his own actions The question thus stated and Christianity tendring first the fall of bad angels and the seducing of Adam by their malice and in consequence thereunto of the greatest part of mankind to the worship of evil angels by whom they were seduced excepting those whom God dealt with by his word ministred by angels first then by his Sonne whose Gospel now is preached I suppose there is nothing wanting to evidence either the truth or obligation of it though those that preach it are not inabled to evidence why God pleased to suspend the