words of S. Augustine contra Epistolam fundamenti cap. V. which alwaies have a place in this dispute though I can as yet admit S. Augustine no otherwise than as a particular Christian and his saying as a presumption that hee hath said no more than any Christian would have said in the common cause of all Christians against the Manichees Ego Evangelio non crederem saith hee nisi me Ecclesiae Catholicae moveret authoritas I would not believe or have believed the Gospel had not the authority of the Catholick Church moved mee For some men have imployed a great deal of learning to show that moveret stands for movisset as in many other places both of S. Augustine and of other Africane Writers And without doubt they have showed it past contradiction and I would make no doubt to show the like in S. Hierome Sidonius and other Writers of the decaying ages of the Latine tongue as well as in the Africane Writers if it were any thing to the purpose For is not the Question manifestly what it is that obligeth that man to believe who as yet believeth not Is it not the same reason that obliges him to become and to be a Christian Therefore whether moveret or movisset all is one The Question is whether the authority of the Church as a Corporation that is of those persons who are able to oblige the Church would have moved S. Austine to believe the Gospel because they held it to be true Or the credit of the Church as of so many men of common sense attesting the truth of those reasons which the Gospel tenders why wee ought to believe What is it then that obliged S. Austine to the Church The consent of people and nations that authority which miracles had begun which hope had nourished charity increased succession of time settled from S. Peter to the present the name and title of Catholick so visible that no Heretick durst show a man the way to his Church demanding the way to the Catholick So hee expresseth it cap. 111. And what is this in English but the conversion of the Gentiles foretold by the Prophets attested by God and visibly settled in the Unity of the Church Whereupon hee may boldly affirm as hee doth afterwards that if there were any word in the Gospel manifestly witnessing Manes to be the Apostle of Christ hee would not believe the Gospel any more For if the reason for which hee had once believed the Church that the Gospel is true because hee saw it verified in the being of the Church should be supposed false there could remain no reason to oblige us to take the Gospel for true All that remaines for the Church in the nature and quality of a Corporation by this account will be this That it is more discretion for him that is in doubt of the truth of Christianity to take the reason of it from the Church that is from those whom the Church trusteth to give it than from particular Christians who can by no means be presumed to understand it so well as they may do For otherwise supposing a particular Christian sets forth the same reasons which the Church does how can any man not be bound to follow him that is bound to follow the Church So that the reasons which both allege being contained in the Scriptures the Church is no more in comparison of the Scriptures than the Samaritane in comparison of our Lord himself when her fellow-citizens tell her John IV. 12. Wee believe no more for thy saying For wee our selves have heard and know that this is of a truth the Saviour of the World the Christ For the reasons for which our Lord himself tells us that wee are to believe are contained in the Scriptures But by the premises it will be most manifest that the same Circle in discourse is committed by them who resolve the reason why they believe into the dictate of the Spirit as into the decree of the Church For the question is not now of the effective cause whether or no in that nature a man is able to imbrace the true Faith without the assistance of Gods Spirit or not Which ought here to remain questionable because it is to be tried upon the grounds upon which here wee are seeking And therefore that Faith which is grounded upon revelation from God and competent evidence of the same is to be counted divine supernatural Faith without granting whatsoever wee may suppose any supernatural operation of Gods Spirit to work it in the nature of an effective cause which must remain questionable supposing the reason why wee believe the Scriptures But in the nature of an object presenting unto the understanding the reason why we are to believe it is manifest by the premises that no man can know that hee hath Gods Spirit that knoweth not the truth of the Scriptures If therefore hee allege that hee knowes the Scriptures to be true because Gods Spirit saith so to his Spirit hee allegeth for a reason that which hee could not know but supposing that for granted which hee pretendeth to prove To wit That the dictate of his own Spirit is from Gods Spirit Indeed when the motives of Faith proceed from Gods Spirit in Moses and the Prophets in our Lord and his Apostles witnessing by the works which they do their Commission as well as their message who can deny that this is the light of Gods Spirit Again when wee govern our doings by that which wee believe and not by that which wee see who will deny that this is the light of Faith and of Gods Spirit But both these considerations take place though wee suppose the mater of Faith to remain obscure in it self though to us evidently credible for the reasons God showes us to believe that hee saith it If any man seek in the mater of Faith any evidence to assure the conscience in the nature of an object or reason why wee are to believe that is not derived from the motives of Faith outwardly attesting Gods act of revealing it hee falls into the same inconvenience with those who believe their Christianity because the Church commends it and again the Church because Christianity commends it As for that monstrous imagination that the Scripture is not Law to oblige any man in justice to believe it before the Secular Powers give it force over their subjects Supposing for the present that which I said before that it is all one question whether Christianity or whether the Scriptures oblige us as Law or not Let mee demand whether our Lord Christ and his Apostles have showed us sufficient reasons to convince us that wee are bound to believe and become Christians If not why are wee Christians If so can wee be obliged and no Law to oblige us supposing for the present though not granting because it is not true that by refusing Christianity sufficiently proposed a man comes not under sin but onely comes not from under it but
upon the erecting of Constantinople into the second Head of the Empire For within fifty years the Council of the East being held there makes it the second Church and head Church of Thrace Diocese which the Chalcedon Council extends to the Dioceses of Asia and Pontus exalting it so â—arre above Alexandria and Antiochia as might seem afarr of to call for a kind of subjection at their hands If this be rightfully done what shall hinder the whole Church to dispose of the superiority of Churches when the greatnesse of their Cities makes it appear that the dependence of the Churches of less Cities upon them is for the Unity of the whole in the exercise of true Christianity And what can be said why it should not be right for the East to advance Constantinople to the next to Rome the same reason being visible in it for which Rome had the first place from the beginning It is true whereas Rome was content to take no noâ—ice of the Canon of Constantinople the Legates of Pope Leo present at Chalcedon and inforced either to admit or disclaim it protested against iâ— But upon what ground can he who by being part of the Council concluâ—es himself by the vote of it refuse his concurrence to that which he alone likes not Or to what effect is that disowned which takes place without him who protests against it unless it be to set up a monument of half the Church disowning the infinite power of the Pope the other halfe not pleading it but onely Canonicall pre-eminences by the Council of Nicaea I suppose indeed the Pope had something else to fear For Illyricum being so much nearâ—r Constantinople then Rome there was always pretense of reason to subject it as Asia and Ponâ—us â—o Constantinople to the prejudice of those pre-eminences which Rome injoyed there Especially since Illyricum was surrendred by Valentinian III upon the mariage of his Sister to Theodosius the younger as that learned Gentleman John Marsham hath observed and thenceforth become part of the Eastern Empire For hereupon followed the Law omni Innovatione cessante still extant in the Code requiring the Bishops of Illyricum to give account to Constantinople of all maters that should pass Besides had the Empire continued in force in Italy why might not Constantinople in time have pretended to the first place Rome being no more the prime City and yet still of the Empire And therefore Pope Leo as wiâ—e for the privileges of his Church as stout for the Faith did his own business when hee pleaded the Canon of Nicaea and the second place for Alexandria And whatsoever contests passed afterwards between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople the privileges of Rome in Illâ—ricum continued till the time that Gregory the Second with-drew his City from the obedience of the Empire pretending his Soveraign to be an Heretick for destroying of Images I said afore in the first Book that others relate this otherwise And Anasâ—aâ—iâ—s in the lives of Gregory II and III. owns no more but that they exâ—ommunicated the Emperors which notwithstanding occasioned the Italians to â—all from the Empire But hereupon the Empeâ—oâ— commands not onely Illyricum but Sicily and that part of Italy which conâ—â—nued subject to the Empire to resort to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Constantinople and as in case of such jealousie was necessarily to be obeyed Hereupon Pope Adrian in his Apology for Images to Charles the Great complains that they deprived the Church oâ— Rome of the Diocese together with the patriâ—ony which it held in it when they put down Images and had given no answer from that time And Nicolas I. Epist â— revives the claime Which with the rescripts of the Popes between concerning Illyricum as well as the rest of the West see also the life of Hadriane II in Anastasius and much more that might be added shows that this was the state of the Church till that time During the time that Rome on one side stood upon these terms which Constantinople on the other â—â—de was continually harassed by the Lombards who had no reason to confide in it we see because they were not long after destroyed by it there is no marvail if Milane head of the Lombards and Ravenna head of the Exarchate that is of the Dominion that was governed by the Emperors Lieutenant there resident did by the Secular Power of their Cities set up themselves to contest with the Pope about several privileges of their Churches For alass what can this signifie of competition for the Primacy with Rome if wee compare the respect of Milane or Ravenna with that which Rome hath â—ound among other Churches in the concernments of the whole Therefore I will mention here onely one action more carried through in so high a tune by Gâ—lasius and other active Popes that it is much insisted upon by those who would plead for the Popes infinite Power if they durst because they would not have it regular which is the same for what bounds can that Power have that acknowleges no Rule to limit it It is that troublesom business that â—ell out in Egypt about the Council of Chalcedon when John of Alexandria having fallen under the jealousie of the Emperor and Acacius of Constantinople goes to Rome with Leters from Antiochia to complain of the intruding of Petrus Mongus into his Sea Who being an enemy to the Council of Chalcedon but pretending fair to promote those means by which the Emperor Zeâ—o and Acacius pretended to re-unite Aegypt to the Church having never received that Council was thereupon received into communion by Acacius The Rule of the Church being undispensable whosoever communicated with Hereticks to stand for an Heretick to the Church whatsoever hee believe otherwise This cause having bred a world of trouble for many years the Popes never condescended to be re-united in Communion to the East till it was granted that all the Bishops of Constantinople since Acacius though they had professed the true Faith and some of them suffred for it should be condemned as Hereticks by raising names out of that list in which the godly Bishops were remembred at celebrating the Eucharist Though the reason why they had continued communion with Hereticks was onely for fear of making the breaches of the Church wider and more incurable Here it may seem to have been the Power of the Pope that brought even the second person of the Church to the justice of the Canon so much more evident by how much there was lesse reason to insist upon the rigor of the Canon in comparison to the end to which it was subordinate the unity of the whole Yet to him that reasons aright it will easily appear that it was no duty that either the Emperors or the Bishops of Constantinople owed the Popes that made them submit to the Canon but the obligation they had to the Unity of the Church for the maintenance whereof the Canon was provided And that Zeno taking the
God Grant that there may be question whether it be a just occasion or not certainly supposing it come to a custom in the church presently to do that which is alwaies due to be done you suppose the question determined This is that which I stand upon the matter being such as it is supposing the custom of the church to have determined it it shal be so far from an act of Idolatry that it shal be the duty of a good Christian Therefore not supposing the Church to have determined it though for some occasions whereof more are possible then it is possible for me to imagine it may become offensive and not presently due yet can it never become an act of Idolatry so long as Christianity is that which it is and he that does it professes himselfe a Christian Here then you see I am utterly disobliged to dispute whether or no in the ancient Church Christians were exhorted and incouraged to and really did worship our Lord Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist For having concluded my intent that it had not been Idolatry had it been done I might leave the consequence of it to debate But not to balk the freedom which hath caryed me to publish all this I doe believe that it was so practised and done in the ancient church which I maintaine from the beginning to have been the true church of Christ obliging all to conforme to it in all things within the power of it I know the consequence to be this that there is no just cause why it should not be don at present but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole Which if it were taken away that it might be done againe and ought not to be of it selfe alone any cause of distance For I doe acknowledge the testimonies that are produced out of S. Ambrose de Spiritu Sancto III. 12. S. Austine in Psalme XCVIII and Epist CXX cap. XXVII S. Chrysostome Homil. XXIIII in 1. ad Corinth Theodoret Dial. II. S. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. in S. Gorgoniam S. Jerom Epist ad Theophilum Epist Alexandriae Origen in diversa loca Evang. Hom. V. Where he teacheth to say at the receiving the sacrament Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roofe Which to say is to do that which I conclude Nor doe I need more to conclude it And what reason can I have not to conclude it Have I supposed the elements which are Gods creatures in which the Sacrament is celebrated to be abolished or any thing else concerning the flesh and bloud of Christ or the presence thereof in the Eucharist in giving a reason why the Church may doe it which the Church did not believe If I have I disclame it as soone as it may appeare to me for such Nay I doe expressely warne all opinions that they imagine not to themselves the Eucharist so meere and simple a signe of the thing fignified that the celebration thereof should not be a competent occasion for the executing of that worship which is alwaies due to our Lord Christ in carnate I confesse it is not necessarily the same thing to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as to worship the sacrament of the Eucharist Yet in that sense which reason of it selfe justifieth it is For the Sacrament of the Eucharist by reason of the nature thereof is neither the visible kind nor the invisible Grace of Christs body and blood but the union of both by virtue of the promise In regard whereof the one going along with the other whatsoever be the distance of their nature both concur to that which we call the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the worke of God to which he is morally ingaged by the promise which the institution thereof containeth If this be rightly understood to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist But I will not therefore warrant that they who maintain the worshipping of the Sacrament of the Eucharist doe not understand the visible kind or as themselves thinke the visible propertyes thereof by that name Which if they shall declare themselves to understand then is the question far otherwise and to be resolved upon the same termes as the question concerning the worshiping of images shall by and by be resolved That though the Sacrament of the Eucharist may be the occasion to determine the circumstance of the worshipping of Christ yet is it selfe no way capable of any worship that may be counted religious because religion injoyneth it Cardinall Bellarmine de Euch. IV. 29. would have it said that the signe is worshipped materially but the body and blood of Christ formally in the Eucharist Which are termes that signifie nothing For it is impossible to distinguish in God the thing that is worshiped from the reason for which it is worshipped so that the thing may be understood without understanding it to be the reason why it is worshipped Therefore the signe in the Eucharist seemes onely to determine why that worship which is alwaies every where due is here now ten dred Indeed when the Councile of Trent pronounceth him anathema that believes not the elements to be abolished and cease to be in it being consecrated I cannot deny that their obliging all to believe that which no man can have that cause to believe for which he belives the Christian faith hath beene a very valuable reason though not the onely reason to move the Church of England to supersede that ceremony hardly in the minds of Christians so bred to it to be parted from it contenting it selfe to injoine the receiving of it kneeling which he that refuseth to do seems not to acknowledge the being of a sacrament requiring the tender of the thing signified by it and with it And I conceive further that the carying of the Sacrament in procession and upon such occasions as signifies no order towards the receiving of it nor any such intent upon supposition whereof the Sacrament is a Sacrament hath added much waight to that reason For if the use of the sacrament were the reason to make the occasion fit the abuse thereof must needs render it unfit But for that which remaines whether those who thinke the body and blood of Christ present instead of the elements which are there no more be Idolators for worshipping the elements which remain present where they think they are not is a question no way to be resolved till it be granted that supposing them present it is no Idolatry For if the fals opinion of their absence make men idolaters then are they not idolaters which have it not Consider then that were the body and blood of Christ so present as to be in stead of the substance of bread and wine the consideration in which any Christian holding what the church of Rome teaches should worship it would be no other then that for which it should be worshipped by
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
the Synod of Antiochia mad when they writ the Leter which you may reade in Eusebius VII 30. in the name of the Churches represented by that Synod to the rest of the Churches in Christendome signifying the sentence of deposition pronounced against Samosatenus and requiring them to joyn with it If it be madnesse to think them so mad as to summon the rest of the Churches upon an obligation which they did not acknowledge what shall it be to think that this obligation was but imaginary or at least voluntarily contracted not inacted by the will of our Lord declared by his Apostles The Emperor Aurelian being appealed by the Council to cause Samosatenus to be put our of his Bishops house by force who maintained himself in it by force against the sentence of the Synod decreed that possession should be given to him whom the Christian Bishops of Italy and Rome should acknowledge for Bishop by writing to him under that title Certainly this Heathen Emperor in referring the execution of the Synods decree to the consent of those remarkable parts of the Church whereupon the consent of the rest might reasonably be presumed understood the constitution of the Church by his five senses better than those learned Christians of our time who argue seriously that this Paulus Samosatenus was not excommunicated by the Synod of Antiochia but by the Emperor Aurelian For this is the course by which all the acts of the whole Church ever came in force those parts of the Church which were not present at the doing of them concurring ex postfacto to inact them and the civil power to grant the execution of them by secular power Perhaps it will not be fit here to let passe that which Athanasius relates libro de sontentiâ Dionysii Alexandrini That this Dionysius writing against Sabellius gave occasion to the Bishops of Pentapolis who resorted to the Church of Alexandria as wee see by the VI Canon of Nicaea to suspect him of that which afterwards was the Heresie of Arius And that Dionysius of Rome being made acquainted by them with a mater of that consequence to the whole Church this Dionysius writ him an Apology on purpose to give satisfaction of his Faith wherein S. Athanasius hath great cause to triumph that the Heresie of Arius which arose afterwards is no lesse condemned than that of Sabellius presently on foot Grant wee that it was an office of Christian charity to tender this satisfaction where it was become so requisite The example of Samosatenus shows that their addresse tended to question if not to displace their Bishop by the authority of the rest of the Church ingaging the consent of his own had hee been discovered to harbor the contrary Heresie to that of Sabellius And indeed what was the rise of all those contentions about Arius that succeeded in the Church after the Council of Nicaea but this question whether Arius should be re-admitted one of the Presbyters of the Church at Alexandria or remaine excommunicate And those truly that do not believe there is any Church but a Congregation that assembles together for the service of God must needs think all Christendome stark mad for so many years together as they labored by so many Synods to attain an agreement through the Church in this and in the cause of Athanasius that depended upon it But those who believe the power of the Church to eschere to the State when it declares it selfe Christian must think the Emperors Constantius and Valens mad when they put themselves to that trouble and charâ—e of so many Synods to obtain that consent of the Church which in point of right their own power might have commanded without all that ado In the decrees of divers of those many Synods that were held about this businesse you shall finde that those Churches which the said decrees are sent to are charged not to write to the Bishops whom they depoâ—e That is to say Not to give them the stile of Bishops not to deal with them about any thing concerning the Church but to hold them as cut off from the Church Just as the Emperor Aurelian afore commanded possession to be delivered to him whom the Bishops of Italy and Rome should write to as Bishop This little circumstance expresses the means by which the communion of the Church was maintained To wit by continual intercourse of leters and messengers from Churches to Churches whereby the one understood the proceedings of the other and being satisfied of the reason of them gave force and execution to them within their own Bodies And this course being visibly derived from the practice of the Apostles sufficeth to evidence the Unity of the Church established by the exercise of that communication which maintained it When wee see the Apostles from the Churches upon which they were for the time resident dare Leters to other Churches signifying the Communion of those Churches one with another by the communion of all with the Apostles who taught and brought into force the termes and conditions upon which they were to communicate one with another have wee not the pattern of that intercourse and communion between several Churches by which common sense showeth all them that look into the records of the Church that the Unity and Communion of the whole was continued to after ages The words of Tertullian de praescript haeret cap. XX. must not be omitted here Itaque tot ac tantae Ecclesiae una est illa ab Apostolis prima ex qua omnes Sic omnes prima Apostolicae duâ— unà omnes probant veritatem Dum est illis communicatio pacis appellatio fraternitatis contesseratio hospitalitatis Quae jura non alia ratio regit quam ejusdem Sacramenti una traditio Therefore so many and so great Churches are all that one primitive Church from the Apostles out of which all come So all are the primitive and Apostolical while all agree in proving the truth While they have the communication of peace the title of brotherhood the common mark of hospitality Which rights nothing but the same tradition of the same mystery ruleth It is to be known that among the Greeks and Romans if a man had made acquaintance and friendship in a forrain City the fashion was to leave a mark for a pledge of it with one another which was called tessexa upon recognisance whereof hee that should come to the place where the other dwelt was not onely to be intertained by him whereupon these friends are called hospites signifying both hosts and guests but also assiisted in any businesse which hee might have in that place Such a kinde of right as this Tertullian saith there was between Christians and Christians between Churches and Churches Hee that produced the cognisance of the Church from whence hee came found not onely accesse to the communion of the Church to which hee came but assistance in his necessities and business in the name of a Christian
that wee are at a distance from the Church of Rome and all who communicate with it upon a just cause of refusing the Reformation as all that professe the Reformation suppose And therefore that there remains no visible presumption what is true the ground of visibility being destroyed by the division of the Church I shall be far enough from extenuating the force of this objection or the effect of this division acknowledging that according to my opinion holding both the Reformation and the Catholick Church the Church should be visible but is indeed invisible Not absolutely but as that which is hardly visible may truly be called invisible because every one whom it concerns cannot attain to discern it upon clear grounds For my intent is to aggravate the mischiefs of division to the highest which they who believe not the Catholick Church do not take for any inconvenience And therefore I grant all and do acknowledge that division in the Church necessarily destroyeth that provision which God hath made for the unlearned as well as the learned equally concerned in the common Salvation of Christians to discern by their common sense where to resort for that which is necessary to the Salvation of all and how to improve and husband the same as their proficience in Christianity calls for more at their hands then the Salvation of all requires Whereby it comes to pass that they are put to make their choice in maters whereof it is not possible for ordinary capacities to comprehend the grounds And so must chuse out of fansy education prejudice faction or which is the vilest of all interest of this world which is in one word profit But this being a choice that must be made and though difficult yet possible to be well made hee that without supposing Infallibility on the one side or Reformation on the other side would discern between true and false supposing the Original unity of the Catholick Church must be a madman if hee advise not with the Records of the Catholick Church though out of date as to force of Law on both sides to tell him wherein Reformation infallibly consisteth For by that means though hee shall not be able to restore that unity which is once violated the duty of all but obliging to an effect that cannot take place without the consent of parties yet hee shall be able so to behave himself and that Church which goes by this Rule be it greater or be it lesse shall be so constituted as not to make but to suffer the division which it is charged with But hee who preaches original liberty to all Christians to cast themselves into Presbyteries or into Congregations at their choice bids them sail the main Sea without Ballast and besides departing from the Unity of the Church by becoming Members of arbitrary Societies not parts of the whole by the visible act of visible power in it expose themselves to the shelves and quick sands of positions destructive to the Faith of the Church And I am to demand of this Doctor if the Presbyteries be Churches by association of Congregations and the Congregations Churches without it and those which are neither Presbyteries nor Congregations that is in effect all the Parish Churches of the land be Churches no lesse than either of both because they have one whom the Triers call a godly man sent them to preach whatsoever he can make of the Bible I say I must demand of him what it is that qualifies a man a Member of a Church or a Church a Church and how a man by being such a one becomes a Member of the whole Church which hitherto hath been thought necessary to the Salvation of every Christian For who knoweth not the dispute that remains between the Reformation and the Church of Rome which shall be the true Church Which if every man be at liberty to become a Member of a Congregation with any six more that hee likes who by that means shall be a Church is plainly about nothing And therefore wee are plainly invited to a new Christianity part whereof hath hitherto been to think our selves Members of the Catholick Church by being Members of some particular Church part of the Catholick So certain it is that had not the Creed been first banished out of mens hearts it had not been banished out of the Church But when this Doctor maintaineth further that all men having power in chief to chuse for themselves in mater of Religion the Soveraign hath Power not onely to chuse for it self but to impose penalties upon those which owe no man any account of their choice if they chuse not that which the Soveraign chuseth I confesse I find this toucheth mee and the remnant of the Church of England to the quick edifying the Soveraign to deny protection in the exercise of Religion to them who find themselves bound never to communicate in the change that is made and in making in Religion amongst us But I find withal so much inconsequence and contradiction to his own sense and the sense of all Christians in it that I hope no Secular Power will be so prodigal of a good conscience as to make it self the executioner of a doctrine tending to so unchristian injustice For if as hee saith no man is answerable for the Religion hee chuseth to any but God how shall hee be liable to be punished by man for that wherein hee offendeth him not Or how can any man offend him to whom hee is not countable Nor will it serve the turn to say That by denying protection in the exercise of Religion the Secular Power punisheth no man for the judgement of his conscience For all Christians of what profession soever do generally believe that they are bound to exercise the Religion which they are bound to professe That Baptisme wherein by the positive will of God under the Gospel the profession of Christianity consisteth truly obliging true Christians to assemble themselves for the service of God with his Church according to the Rules of it It cannot therefore be said that it is no penalty no persecution for Religion to deny protection in the exercise of Religion to them who are not punished for the judgment of their conscience For whosoever can be supposed to be a good Christian not onely had rather but surely had better lose his life much more any comfort of it than lose the exercise of his Christianity in the service of God whereupon his Salvation so neerly dependeth Nor will it serve the turn to say as this Doctor saith that in persecuting the Christian Faith much more in denying protection to the exercise of any profession which it inforceth the Heathen Emperors exceeded not their Power but onely abused it having granted afore that a man is free to chuse for himself that is not countable for his Religion to his Soveraign For if it once be said that God granteth all men all freedom in the choice of their Religion it cannot
Christians had not sufficiently renounced Idolatry in receiving the faith or as if it were not free for them being Christians to Gods creatures which perhaps might have been sacrificed to Idols But because as I said afore the Jews had a custome not to eat any thing till they had inquired whether sacrificed to Idols or consecrated by offering the first fruits thereof which scrupulosity those who did not observe they counted not so much enemies to Idols as they ought to be which opinion of their fellow Christians was not so consistent with that opinion of Christianity which was requisite Not as if fornication were not sufficiently prohibited by Christianity but because simple fornication being accounted no sinne but meerly indifferent among the Gentiles all the professions and all the decrees that could be made were little enough to perswade the Jews that their fellow Christians of the Gentiles held it in the like detestation as themselves Now though we find that the Christians did sometimes and in most places forbear blood and things strangled and offered to Idols even where this reason ceased and that perhaps out of an opinion that the decree of the Apostles took hold of them in doing which they did but abridge themselves of the common freedom of Christians yet seeing the Apostles give no such sign of any intent of reviving that which was once a Law to all that came from Noe but forgotten and never published again it followeth that the Church is no more led by the reason of their decree then those Churches of Rome and Corinth were whom S. Paul licences to eat all meats in generall as the Romanes or things sacrificed to Idols expresly as the Corinthians excepting the case of scandall which our common Christianity excepteth setting aside the decree of Jerusalem which S. Paul alledgeth not and naming two cases wherein that scandall might fall out as excepting no other case But in all these instances and others that might be brought as it was visible to the Church whether the reasons for which such alterations were brought into the Church continued in force or not so was it both necessary and sufficient for them that might question whither they were tied to them or not to see the expresse act or the custome of the Church for their assurance For what other ground had they to assure their consciences even against the Scripture in all ages of the Church For if these reasons be not obvious if every one admit them not much lesse will every one find a resolution wherein all may agree and all scandall and dissention may be suppressed CHAP. XXV The power of the Church in limiting even the Traditions of the Apostles Not every abuse of this power a sufficient warrant for particular Churches to reforme themselves Heresie consists in denying something necessary to salvation to be believed Schism in departing from the unity of the Church whether upon that or any other cause Implicite Faith no virtue but the effect of it may be the work of Christian charity SUpposing now the Church a Society and the same from the first to the second coming from Christ by Gods appointment Let it be considered what is the difference between the state thereof under the Apostles and under Constantine or now under so many Soveraignties as have shared these parts of the Empire And let any understanding that can apprehend what Lawes or what Customes are requisite to the preservation of unity in the communion of the Church in the one and in the other estate I say let any such understanding pronounce whither the same Lawes can serve the Church as we see it now or as we read of it under Constantine and as it was under the Apostles He that sayes yea will make any man that understands say that he understands not what he speaks of he that sayes nay must yeeld that even the Lawes given the Church by the Apostles oblige not the Church so farre as they become useless to the purpose for which they are intended seeing it is manifest that all Laws of all Societies whatsoever so farre as they become unserviceable so far must needs cease to oblige And the Apostles though they might know by the spirit the state of the Church that should come after yet had they intended to give Laws to that State they had not given Laws to the State which was when they lived and gave Laws The authority therefore of the Apostles remaining unquestionable and the Ordinances also by them brought into the Church for the maintenance of Gods service according to Christianity the Church must needs have power not onely to limite and determine such things as were never limited nor determined by the Apostles but even those things also the determination whereof made by the Apostles by the change of time and the state of the Church therewith are become evidently uselesse and unserviceable to the intent for which it standeth And if it be true that I said afore that all power produceth an obligation of obeying it in some things I say not in all as afore even when it is abused in respect of God and of a good Conscienceâ— then is the act of the Church so farre a warrant to all those that shall follow it so farre even in things which a man not onely suspects but sees to be ill ordered by those that act in behalfe of it This is that which all the variety and multitude of Canons Rites and Ordinances which hath been introduced into the Church before there was cause of making any change without consent of the whole evidenceth being nothing else but new limitations of those Ordinances which the Apostles either supposed or introduced for the maintenance of Gods service determining the circumstances according to the which they were to be exercised For if there were alwayes cause since the beginning for particular Churches that is parts of the vvhole to make such changes vvithout consent of the whole as might justly cause a breach between that part and the whole then was there never any such thing as a Catholick Church which all Christians profess to believe And truly the Jews Law may be an argument as it is a patern of the same right which notwithstanding an express precept of neither adding to it nor taking from it unlesse we admit a power of determining circumstances not limited by the letter of it becomes unserviceable and not to be put in practice as may easily appear to any man that shall peruse the cases that are put upon supposition of those precepts which determine not the same Whereupon a power is provided by the same Law of inflicting capitall punishment upon any that not resting upon the determination established by those that have authority in behalfe of the whole shall tend to divide the Synagogue Iintend not hereby to say that the power of giving Law to the Church cannot be so well abused that it may at length inable or oblige parts of the Church
that they were inspired by Gods Spirit or that the authors thereof ever spoke by the same And with this resolution the testimonies of Ecclesiastical writers will agree well enough if wee consider that to prove them to have the testimony of the Church to be inspired by God it is not enough to allege either the word or the deed either of Writers or Councils alleging the authority of them or calling them Holy Divine or Canonical Scriptures Nothing but universal consent making good this testimony which the dissent of any part creates an exception against For if those to whom any thing is said to be delivered agree not in it how can it be said to be delivered to them who protest not to have received it Wherefore having settled this afore that no decree of the Church inforceth more than the reason of preserving unity in the Church can require wee must by consequence say that if the credit of divine inspiration be denied them by such authors as the Church approveth no decree of the Church can oblige to believe them for such though how farr it may oblige to use them I dispute not here It shall therefore serve my turn to name S. Jerome in this cause Not as if Athanasius in Synopsi Melito of Sardis in Eusebius S. Gregory Nazianzene abundance of others both of the most ancient Writers of the Church and of others more modern who justly preferr S. Jerome in this cause did not reject all those parts or most of them which the Church of England rejecteth But because were S. Jerome alive in it there could be no Tradition of the Church for that which S. Jerome not onely a member but so received a Doctor of the Church refuseth For it will not serve the turn to say that hee writ when the Church had decreed nothing in it who had hee lived after the Council of Trent would have writ otherwise The reasons of his opinion standing for which no Council could decree otherwise Hee would therefore have obeyed the Church in using those books which it should prescribe But his belief whether inspired by God or not hee would have built upon such grounds the truth whereof the very being of the Church presupposeth Nor will I stand to scan the sayings of Ecclesiastical Writers or the acts of Councils concerning the authority of all and every one of these books any further in this place There is extant of late a Scholastical History of the Canon of the Scripture in which this is exactly done And upon that I will discharge my self in this point referring my Reader for the consent of the Church unto it And what importeth it I beseech you that they are called Sacred or Canonical Scriptures As if all such writings were not holy which serve to settle the holy Faith of Christians And though it is now received that they are called Canonical because they contain the Rule of our Faith and maners and perhaps are so called in this notion by S. Augustine and other Fathers of the Church Yet if wee go to the most ancient use of this word Canon from which the attribute of Canonical Scripture descendeth it will easily appear that it signifieth no more than the list or Catalogue of Scriptures received by the Church For who should make or settle the list of Scriptures receivable but the Church that receiveth the same it being manifest that they who writ the particulars knew not what the whole should contain And truly as I said afore that the Church of Rome it self doth not by any act of the force of Law challenge that the decrees of the Church are infallible So is it to be acknowledged that in this point of all other it doth most really use in effect that power which formally and expresly it no where challengeth Proceeding to order those books to be received with the like affection of piety as those which are agreed to be inspired by God which it is evident by expresse testimonies of Church writers were not so received from the beginning by the Church So that they who made the decree renouncing all pretense of revelation to themselves in common or to every one in particular can give no account how they came to know that which they decree to be true So great inconveniences the not duely limiting the power of the Church contrives even them into that think themselves therefore free from mistake in managing of it not because they think they know what they do but because they think they cannot do amisse It remaineth therefore that standing to the proper sense of this decree importing that wee are to believe these books as inspired by God neither can they maintain nor wee receive it But if it shall be condescended to abate the proper and native meaning of it so as to signifie onely the same affection of piety moving to receive them not the same object obliging Christian piety to the esteem of them it will remain then determinable by that which shall be said to prove how these books may or ought to be recommended or injoyned by the Church or received of and from the Church CHAP. XXXIII Onely the Original 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 Jewes AS to the other point it is by consequence manifest that the Church hath nothing to do to injoyn any Copy of the Scripture to be received as authentick but that which it self originally received because it is what it is before the Church receive it Therefore seeing the Scripture of the Old Testament was penned first and delivered in the Ebrew Tongue for I need not here except that little part of Esdras and Daniel which is in the Chaldee the same reason holding in both that of the New in the Greek there is no question to be made but those are the authentick Copies Neither can the decree of the Council of Trent bear any dispute to them who have admitted the premises if it be taken to import that the Church thereby settleth the credit of Scripture inspired by God upon the Copy which it self advanceth taking the same away from the Copy which the author penned That credit depending meerly upon the commission of God and his Spirit upon the which the very being of the Church equally dependeth But it is manifest that it cannot be said that the said decree necessarily importeth so much because it is at this day free for every one to maintain that the Original Ebrew and Greek are the Authentick Copies the Vulgar Latine onely injoyned not to be refused in act of dispute or question which hindreth no recourse to the Originals for the determining of the meaning which it importeth Hee that will see this tried need go no further than a little book of Sorbonne Doctor called
children as a henne gathers her chickens under her wings and ye would not Behold your house is left unto you desolate And S. Steven Acts VII 51. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears you do alwaies crosse the holy Ghost as did your Fathers And the Scribes and Pharisees in the Gospel made void the counsel and purpose of God towards them Luke VII 30. But above all you have the purpose of God manifested by the Gospel of sending our Lord Christ for the salvation of the World as John the Baptist sayes John I. 29. Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sinne of the World And our Lord to Nicodemus John III. 16 17. God so loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him may not perish but have life everlasting For God senâ— not his Son into the World to condemn the World but that the world by him might be saved And S. Paul commandeth Timothy that prayers be made by the Church for all men even for the Powers of the World then their enemies as a thing pleasing to God Who saith he would have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth For there is one God and one Mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus who gave himself an expiation for all to be witnessed in his own time 1 Tim. II. 4 5 6. And if there be any other passages of the New Testament as others there are to witnesse that Christ is given by God for the reconciliation and salvation of all mankind One I will not omit because the mistake which is alledged to divert the sense of it is remarkable 2 Pet. III. 9. God slacketh not his promise as some men count slacknesse but is slow to wrath in our regard not willing that any should perish but all come to repentance Which they will have to signify that he would have none of us that is of the elect to perish because it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is patient towards us the elect They might have seen that this is not the meaning of the words by Luke XVIII 7. Shall not God avenge his elect that cry to him day and night though slow to wrath in regard of them I tell you he shall avenge them speedily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though slow to take vengeance in regard of them upon their oppressors Is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 slow to take vengeance upon our oppressors for us which he hath promised to take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek of the New Testament signifying the delaying of vengeance due to them that oppresse Christians as you see by S. Luke the Apostle attributes to the desire of saving those whom he spares Nor will I stop here to shew you the insufficience of those expositions which in despite of the words are fastned upon these texts to avoid the difficulties which they create to prejudicate opinions For it is manifest that the consequence of them is no more but the very same that arises from any Scripture that testifies the meanes which God uses for the good of any man to become frustrate through his fault In consideration whereof that God shall call them to account at the last day who either being convict of the truth of his Gospel or having meanes offered to be informed of the same imbrace it not or having imbraced it notwithstanding persevere not in it by living as Christ requireth Or on the contraty that he shall reward them who imbrace it and persevere in it Which being so many that they are not to be avoided without setting a great part of the Scripture upon the rack I count it not worth the while to insist here that S. Pauls meaning is not that God would have some of all estates to be saved or that he would have many to be saved or those that are saved to be saved or upon any other of those lame expedients which have been applied to plaister the wound which these plain texts do make But I insist upon this that the meaning of them cannot be That God would have those onely to be saved that shall be saved Having such a swarm of Scriptures to evidence how many things there are which God would have done and are not done having all the importunities and complaints which God useth by his Prophets to assure us that he would have found that obedience at the handes of his ancient people which he found not all the preachâ—ng of his Gospel all the motives of believing all the exhortations to accept and perform the Covenant of Grace in the New Testament ready to witnesse what men are to give account for at the day of judgement All which must be satisfied before there can be cause to balk the plain meaning of S. Pauls words which cannot seem inconvenient in any other regard but because they make God to will that which comes to passe all the Scripture witnessing that all that shall be condemned shall be condemned for not doing that which God would have them do For wheresoever Gods justice punishes there is it of necessity that man had sufficient meanes to do otherwise Where it rewardes there was possibility of transgressing there was a capacity of indifference and a will actually undetermined to do or not to do this or that notwithstanding originall sinne But first to declare what I understand this antecedent will of God to be I must distinguish with some divines that God must not be said to will this because of that or for that but may be said to will that this be because of that or for that Deus non vult hoc propter hoc sed vult hoc esse propter hoc When I say because of that or for that I extend the observation to two kindes of causes To the finall cause for which a thing is said to be done and to the motive or impulsive cause because of which a thing is said to be done when we speak of the doings of understanding and free causes For these having something in consideration to move them to do what they do this motive which they consider holds on the side of the effective cause in as much as there had been no proceeding without the consideration of it Though it is also true that the motion which consideration produces being so called but out of that resemblance which it holdeth with the motions which naturall things are visibly transported with importeth no more then the appetite of some good thing the want whereof they apprehend which is nothing else but the effect of the finall cause So that the motive cause is no other then the finall cause in respect of that effect which it hath indeed moved the effective cause to produce So then when I say that God willeth not this for that or because of that I say that God can have no ends upon his creatures being
this then that which the supposition of free will necessarily requires Certainly Aristotles resolution that they are sure in the alternative but that neither part of it can be certaine That is to say that Peter being tempted shall either deny his master or not but that being contingent it can neither be certaine that he shall nor that he shall not is utterly inconsistent with that particular providence of God over all things which Châ—â—stianty supposeth renders that great mastâ—r as a man too cunning not to see â—he conâ—equence of his own position very sususpicious in a point so neerely concerning the belief of Gods providence Now future contingencies in the notion of contingencies that are not yet come to passe being in themselves nothing that is to say being onely understood to be posible cannot reduce themselves to the nature and state or future contingencies in the notion of contingencies that shall come to passe such as we believe all contingencies that have or shall come to passe to the worlds end were to God from everlasting It is therefore a meere contradiction to imagin that contingencies either by the possibilty of their nature or by the capacity of the cause that is of it selfe utterly undetermined to do rather then not to do to do this rather then that can be an object capable of being known by that knowledg upon which they may be said to be certaine future as things that shal be not as things that may be not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to distinguish with Aristotle There are indeed those who undertake that when it is said Peter shall deny his Lord Peter shall not deny his Lord the one of which sayings must needs come to passe seeing this necessity must needs be in the object before it be in the saying because the saying is true or fals by reason that the matter of it is so or otherwise before therefore that part which appeares true in time was true from everlasting But that they suppose cannot be by virtue of any or all causes least the effects should no more be contingencies Therefore by virtue of the things themselves because of a contradiction the one part must needs be true the other false And this being of future contingencies they imagin it is which the knowledg of God attaining is therefore called sight because it reacheth that which is in being and therefore present to it But this imagination is a meere contradiction to common reason which is able to tell any man that possibilities differ onely in this from nothing that there are such things as can bring them to passe And therefore have no being at all but in the ability of their causes Whereas suppose them in being before their causes bring them to passe what remaines for their causes to doe which would have nothing to doe if that which they bring to passe were in being before they bring it so to passe And what contingency could then remaine seeing whatsoever is must needs be while it is For this position prevents any supposition that may be made concerning the being of that which is said to be before you can suppose or understand it to be And where is the difference between the being of God and that of future contingencies both being of themselves Surely supposing the necessity of this their being because God could not see them otherwise they would be not only objects denominating that knowledge of God to be sight which reacheth the present being of them but causes on which the sight of God must depend as our sight depends on the object that causeth it The future being therefore of contingencies necessarily supposeth the determination of their causes The contingence of them that thâ—s determination is from their causes themselves freely determining themselves The certainty of them from the infinite reach of Gods understanding comprehending the resolution of the Creature by the present inclination thereof meeting the considerations which it is presented with Wherefore as it is impossible that the will should act unlesse the understanding go before and the resolution of the will to do or not to do this or that necessarily depends upon some act of the understanding shewing by sufficient reason an end sufficient to move the wil to proceed and resolve So doth not the will effectually proceed untill the understanding shews that reason which effectually moves it to proceed Now these reasons proceeding from those appearances which the objects that every man meets with cause in his mind either at the present or by comparing that which outwardly appears at the present with that which is laid up in the storehouse of the mind And God having provided what objects every man in every moment shall meet with to resolve him what to do in every case that may come in debate It cannot be imagined that he provideth this and knoweth not by the means which he proviâ—eth what will be the issue supposing that he knoweth it not by his own resolution to determine a man by his own immediate act to do whatsoever he does And indeed God comprehending what considerations a man every moment is moved with and what be his own inclinations that is moved with the same it cannot seem strange that by this means seeing it appears impossible that by any other means he should comprehend what will so come to pass though knowing that he that acteth had or might have had sufficient reasons to have done otherwise Wherefore if any man ask me whether God know what will come to pass if any case should be put which he knoweth shall never be put which is now called in the Schools Gods middle knowledge because it hath on the one side that knowledge whereby he comprehendeth the natures of all things and the possibilities of all events on the other side the view which he hath from everlasting of all things that have been are or shall be for that tract of time which they endure because I seem to say that this is it which directs Gods providence in resolving what course to hold by which resolution it appears to him what shall come to pass I shall not answer nevertheless without distinguishing That God comprehends not the issues of those future possibilities which men can imagine to themselves and yet comprehends the issues of these future possibilities whereof we suppose him to determine all the circumstances For let a man infinitely endeavour to limit by his understanding all that he can consider in the case of any man left to his freedome he shall never be able to express that consideration which shall be effectuall certainly to determine him that is presented with it Because it is manifest that infinite considerations more may present themselves to move him to do nothing or otherwise But when the word of God speaks of these means which being provided by God determine effectually the resolution of him that is moved by them to wit by
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
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
already how farre they containe an exception to this In the case of Timothy ordained to that work which Saint Paul by his Epistles instructeth him how to discharge what shall we conceive to be the effect of imposition of the hands of the Presbytery supposing him thereupon indowed with a grace of doing miracles or speaking strange languages but without any gift of saving grace to direct the use of the same to the salvation of his people What else but that which a sword is in a mad mans hand or knowledge eloquence or understanding in him that should set himself to raise himself a sect of followers into heresie or schisme Which should God allow Timothy upon Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery allowing it that Christian people might have confidence in so great a Pastor in whom they saw such manifestation of Gods Spirit might he not reasonably be said to allow him means to seduce Christian people I will not therefore contend but the Grace that was given Timothy by Prophesy signifieth some visible manifestation of Gods Spirit in him concerning whom there had Prophesies gone afore in the Church of how great eminence he should be in it But so as to suppose that saving grace wherein it manifested God to be in Timothy which saving grace though not wanting in him when he came to receive imposition of hands because he who receiveâ— it being no true Christan shall never receive that effect by it yet might by the effect thereof be extended applied or determined to the right use of whatsoever miraculous grace he might thereby receive in the service of Gods Church For to him that hath by nature or by Gods blessing upon his honest indeavours an ability to preach to dispute to resolve in Christianity and hath not by Gods saving grace the intent to use it well what doth such a gift bring but ability to do mischief Therefore the gift given Timothy by imposition of hands being that which was prayed for in behalf of him by those who laid hands on him is the grace to behave himself well in the function which thereby he receiveth Which being obtained by the prayers of the Church what reason leaveth it why the prayers of the Church should not still obtaine the like setting aside the difference between them that pray or him for whom they pray And certainly the effect of all prayers depends upon the same conditions be it never so much the ordinance of God which they desire him to blesse Here is then I meane in Ordination an ordinance of God solemnized with the visible câ—remony of imposition of hands signifying the overshadowing of Gods protection or of his Spirit which it pretendeth to procure upon the promise of Gods presence with his Church when it prays to him Which if it be therefore reckoned among the Sacraments of the Church as the property of the term will certainly bear it so can it be no disparagement to the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist as if it came in ranck with them For the grace which it procureth as it is limited to a particular effect of ministring to the Church the ordinances of God according to that trust which he reposeth in the office So is the grace which God appointeth to be convayed to his people by the ministry of every office no lesse to be obtained by that outward profession under which the order of the Church obliges them to minister the same whatsoever a mans inward intention that is not visible may be then if he really did intend to do his best for the service of God and the salvation of his people I speak now so farre as the order of the Church goes For otherwise it cannot be doubted that a mans personall abilities may give a great deal of life to the publick order of the Church and adde much in prosecution of the true intent and in order to the due effect of it All which the Grace to indeavour the faithfull discharge of each office and the blessing of God upon such indeavours which the blessing of the Church with imposition of hands prayes for containeth and effecteth But of all powers of the Church and the offices which they produce there is none that cometh so nigh the promises of the Gospel as that which consists in binding the sinnes of those that visibly transgresse their Christianity upon them and in loosing them upon visible Penance For this restoreth to a capacity for the gifts of the Holy Ghost forfeited by transgressing the Covenant of our Baptisme and by admitting to communion in the Eucharist immediately reneweth the same And truly the whole worke of it is nothing else but the satisfying of the Church that the man hath appeased the wrath and regained the favour of God that is satisfied God in the language of the ancient Church in consideration of the satisfaction of our Lord Christ accepting his Penance for satisfaction which of it selfe it is not And in regard of this great vertue and effect of penance I marvail not that in the reformation Melancthon is found to have reckoned it a third Sacrament after Baptisme the Eucharist For the name of Sacrament seemeth most duely to belong to the acts of those Offices which conduce most to the attaining or to the maintaining of the state of Gods Grace And truly it cannot be denyed that the solemnity of Penance in the ancient Church was such as might wel serve to signifie the recovering of that Grace the ground which Christians have for the helpe whereof it so effectually intimateth So though a mans own repentance in private hath the same promise of Grace yet the solemnity of Performing penance in the Church seemeth requisite to the nature and quality of the Sacrament in whatsoever sense it shall be attributed to it And this solemnity all reason will allow must needs have been of great effect to procure and settle in the penitent that disposition for pardon which it seemeth to professe This solemnity being so much abated in private penance that nothing of it remaines saving the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notwithstanding so long as it remaines an office of the Church which limiteth the forme and the rules according to which it is done with due hope of effect there is no reason why the nature of a Sacrament should be therefore questionable When it is given out and simple Christians are so governed as if they were obliged to believe that attrintion is changed into contrition by vertue of the Keyes of the Church passing upon it that is that he who is not qualified for pardon when he confesses is by receiving the sentence of absolution qualified for pardon so that neither staine nor guilt of sin remaines but the debt of temporall punishment whereas the time of Canonical penance grounded a presumption that the change was wrought then may there seeme to be cause of questioning whether penance be a Sacrament that is an holy office of the Church in
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
AN EPILOGUE TO THE TRAGEDY OF THE Church of England BEING A Necessary Consideration and brief Resolution of the chief Controversies in Religion that divide the Western Church Occasioned by the present Calamity of the CHURCH of ENGLAND In three BOOKS viz. Of I. The Principles of Christian Truth II. The Covenant of Grace III. The Lawes of the Church By HERBERT THORNDIKE LONDON Printed by J. M. and T. R. for J. Martin J. Allestry and T. Dicas and are to be sold at the sign of the BELL in St PAUL's Church-yard M.DC.LIX A PREFACE To all Christian Readers IT cannot seem strange that a man in my case removed by the force of the Warr from the Service of the Church should dedicate his time to the consideration of those Controversies which cause division in the Church For what could I do more to the satisfaction of mine own judgment than to seek a solution what truth it is the oversight whereof hath divided the Church and therefore the sight whereof ought to unite it But that I should publish the result of my thoughts to the world this even to them that cannot but allow my conversing with those thoughts may seem to fall under the Historians censure Sâ—ipsum fatiganâ—o nihil aliud quâm odium quaerere extremae esse dementiae That to take pains to get nothing but displeasure is the extremity of madness Socrates if wee believe his Apology in Plato could never rest for his Genius alwayes putting him upon disputes tending to convict men that they knew not what they thought they knew The displeasure which this got him hee makes the true cause of his death The opinion which I publish being indeed the fruit of more time and leisure of less ingagement to the world than others are under will seem a charge upon those who ingage otherwise And when besides so much interest of this world depends upon the divisions of the Church what am I to expect but Great is Diana of the Ephesians My Apology is this The title of Reformation which the late Warr pretended mentioned onely Episcopacy and the Service The effect of it was a new Confession of Faith a new Catechism a new Directory all new With chapter and verse indeed quoted in the margine but as well over against their own new inventions as over against the Old Faith of the Church This burthen was as easily kicked off by the Congregations as layed on by the Presbyteries As carrying indeed no conviction with it but the Sword and what penalties the Sword should inforce it with Which failing what is come in stead of it to warrant the salvation of Christians but that the Bible is preached which what Heresie disowneth and by them whom the Tryers count godly men Make they what they can of it I from my non age had embraced the Church of England and attained the Order of Priesthood in it upon supposition that it was a true Church and salvation to be had in it and by it Owning nevertheless as the Church of England did own the Church of Rome for a Church in which salvation though more difficult yet might be had and obtained That there is no such thing as a Church by Gods Law in the nature of a Body which this state of Religion requireth is opposite to an Article of my Creed who alwayes thought my self a member of such a Body by being of the Church of England The issue of that which I have published concerning that title of Reformation which the Warr pretended was this That they are Schismaticks that concurr to the breaking or destroying of the Church of England for those causes And the objection there necessarily starting Why the Church of England no Schismaticks in Reforming without the Church of Rome My answer was that the cause of Reforming must justifie the change which it maketh without consent of the Whole Church For the pretense of Infallibility in the Church on the one side the pretense of the Word and Sacraments for marks of the Church on the other side I hold equally frivolous As equally declaring a resolution never to be tried by reason in that which wee alwayes dispute For what dispute remains iâ— the Decrees of the Council of Trent be Infallible If that form of Doctrine and ministring the Sacraments which the Reformation may pretend be marks to distinguish a Church from no Church If they were where there is no such form there are no such marks And therefore no such thing as a Church Nor is it so easie to destroy these doubts in mens judgments as the Laws by which the Church of England stood And if the salvation of a Christian consist in professing the common Christianity as I show you at large shall not the salvation of a Divine consist in professing what he hath attained to believe when hee thinks the exigent of the time renders it necessary to the salvation of Gods people How shall hee otherwise be ministerial to the work of Gods Grace in strengthening them that stand in comforting and helping the weak in raising them that are fallen in resolving the doubtfull without searching the bottom of the cause Nay how shall hee make reparation for the offenses hee may have given by not knowing that which now hee thinks hee knows The causes of division have a certain dependence upon common principles a certain correspondence one with another which when it cannot be declared the satisfaction which a man intends is quite defeated when it is declared that dissatisfaction which the consideration of particulars of less waight causeth must needs cease Whether it were the distrust of my own ability or the love of other imployment or whatsoever it were that diverted mee from considering the consequence of those principles which I alwayes had till I might come to that resolution which now I declare Neither was I satisfied till I had it nor having it till I had declared it And if I be like a man with an arrow in his thigh or like a woman ready to bring forth that is as Ecclesiasticus saith like a fool that cannot hold what is in his heart I am in this I hope no fool of Solomons but with S. Paul a fool for Christs sake Now the mischiefs which division in the Church createth being invaluable all the benefit that I can perceive it yield is this that the offenses which it causeth seem to drown and swallow up as it were that offense which declaring the truth in another time would produce For Unity in the Church is of so great advantage to the service of God and that Christianity from whence it proceedeth that it ought to overshadow and cover very great imperfections in the Laws of the Church All Laws being subject to the like Especially seeing I maintain that the Church by divine institution is in point of right one visible Body consisting in the communion of all Christians in the offices of Gods service and ought by humane administration in point
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
question hereafter for the Principles which here wee seek to decide but supposing sufficient reason propounded to make it evidently credible And hee that alleges Gods Spirit for what hee cannot show sufficient reason to believe otherwise may thank himself if hee perish by believing that which hee cannot oblige another man to believe Here wee must make a difference between those men whom God imployes to deal with other men in his name and those which come to God by their means For of the first it is enough to demand how it appears that they come from God To demand by what means hee makes his will known to them supposing they come from him is more than needs at least in this place For if it be granted mee that the Apostles and Prophets were the messengers of God suppose I cannot tell how Prophesies are made evident to the souls of them to whom the Spirit of God reveals them No body will question Whether or no hee ought to believe these whom hee acknowledges Gods messengers And therefore it will be no prejudice to my purpose to set aside all curious dispute how and by what means God reveales his messages to those whom by such revelations hee makes Prophets But those that derive their knowledg from the report of such as are believed to come from God must as well give account how they know that which they believe to come from such report as why such report is to be believed For if wee believe that God furnished those whom hee imployed with sufficient means to make it appear that they came on his message wee can dispute no further why their report is to be believed If wee believe it not there will be no cause why those who pretend themselves to be Gods messengers should not be neglected as fools or rejected as impostors Nay there will be no cause why wee should be Christians upon the report of those that show us not sufficient reason to receive them for Gods messengers But this being admitted and believed unlesse evidence can be made what was delivered by them that came on Gods message it is in vain to impose any thing on the Faith of them that are ready to receive whatsoever comes upon that score The resolution then of all controversies in Religion which the Church is divided about consists in making evidence what hath been delivered by them whom all Christians believe that God sent to man on his message And therefore there will remain no great difficulty about the force and use of reason in matters of Faith if wee consider that it is one thing to resolve them by such principles as the light of reason evidenceth another to do it by the use of reason evidencing what Gods messengers have delivered to us For all dispute in point of Faith tends only to evidence what wee have received from the authors of our Faith Till that evidence come doubt remaineth when it is come it vanisheth Without the use of reason this evidence is not made though not by that which the light of nature discovereth yet by those helps which reason imployeth to make it appear what wee have received from those from whom wee received our Christianity Which without those helps did not appear But if competition fall out between that which is thus evidenced to come from God on the one side and on the other side the light of reason seeming evidently to contradict the truth of it First wee are certain that this competition or contradiction is only in appearance because both reason and revelation is from God who cannot oblige us to make contradictory resolutions Then there is no help without the use of reason to unmask this appearance I will not here go about to controule that which may be alleged on either side in any particular point by any general prejudice chusing rather to referre the debate to that particular question in which cause of competition may appear then to presume upon any thing which the truth of Christianity the only supposition which hitherto I premise appeareth not so contain Only this I will prescribe It is not the exception of a Christian to say That which the light of reason evidenceth not to be possible is not true though commended to us by the same reasons which move us to be Christians For the nature of God the counsails of God the works of God being such things as mans understanding hath no skill of till it be enlightened by God from above That sense of Gods oracles which the motives of Faith do inforce is no lesse undisputable then it is undisputable whether that which God saith be true or not who inacts his revelations by those motives CHAP. II. The question between the Scripture and the Church which of them is Judge in matters of Faith Whether opinion the Tradition of the Church stands better with Those that hold the Scripture to be clear in all things necessary to salvation have no reason to exclude the Tradition of the Church What opinions they are that deny the Church to be a Society or Corporation by Gods Law THe cure of all diseases comes from the sound ingredients of nature when they get the upper hand and restore nature by expelling that which was against it Neither can the divisions and distempers of the Church be cured but by the common truth which the parties acknowledg when the right understanding of it clears the mistakes which mans weaknesse tainteth it with There is a sufficient stock of sound Principles left all the parties which I mean when all of them acknowledg the Scriptures that is so much of them as all agree to contain the word of God But supposing the truth of them to come from God First it remaines in difference how the meaning of them may be determined when doubt is made of it And then because nothing but the true meaning of the Scripture can be counted Scripture if there be a way to determine that Whether any thing over and above it is to be received for the word of God with it Concerning which point it is well enough known what opinions there are on foot When Luther first disputed against the Indulgences of Leo X Pope those that appeared in defense of them the Master of the Popes Palace and Eckius finding themselves scanted of mater to allege out of the Scriptures betook themselvs to the common place of the Church and the Power of it the force whereof stood upon this consequence That whatsoever the Church shall decree is to be received for unquestionable Afterwards certain Articles extracted out of Luthers Writings being condemned by a Bull of the Pope Luther interposes his appeal to a Council that should decree according to the Scripture alone This is the rise of the great Controversie still on foot between the Church and the Scripture between Scripture and the Tradition of the Church of what force each of them is in deciding controversies of Faith They that hold
nothing but sufficient evidence that they came from God could have brought to passe Here if any man should say I know I have the Writings of Homer Aristotle or Tully by the Writings themselvs he might be convicted by tendering them to one that knowes nothing of Tully or Homer or Aristotle and asking him whether hee can say by those books whether they be Homers or Aristotles or Tullies Writings Bu◠he that first understands what account the world alwaies hath had their Writings in and studying them finds the marks in them may well say that hee knows the authors by their Writings So tender the Scripture in Ebrew or Greek to a savage of the West-Indies and ask him whether they be the Word of God or not who believes not in God as yet do you believe hee can tell you the truth But convict him of that which I have said how and by what means they came to our hands how they have been and are owned for Lawes to the hearts and lives of Gods people and hee will stand convict to God if hee believe not finding that written in the Books which the men own for the rule of their conversations So by the same means that all records of Learning are conveyed us are the Scriptures evidenced to be mater of historical faith But inasmuch as the mater of them had never been received but by the work of God in that regard they become mater of supernatural faith in regard of the reason moving in the nature of an object to believe as well as in regard of Gods grace moving in the nature of an effective cause I know there have been divers answers made to assoile this difficulty by those that dispute Controversies That the Scriptures authority is better known in order of nature the Churches in that order by which wee get our knowledg as Logicians and Philosophers use to distinguish between notius naturâ and notius nobis because our knowledg rises upon experience which wee have by sense of particulars and yet the general reason being once attained by that means is in some sense better known than that which depends upon it That the authority of the Scripture is the reason why wee believe but the authority of the Church a condition requisite to the same creating in the mindes of men that discreetly consider it a kinde of inferior Faith though infallible which disposes a man to accept the mater of that Faith which God onely revealeth though the reason why we believe is only the act of God revealing that which he obligeth us to believe But all this to no purpose so long as they suppose the foundation of the Church in the nature of a Corporation for the ground of admitting the mater of Faith not the credit of all believers agreeing in witnessing the motives of Faith I remember in my yonger time in Cambridge an observation out of Averrois the Saracene his Commentaries upon Aristotle which as I finde exactly true so may it be of good use That in Geometry and the Mathematicks the same thing is notius naturâ and nobis to wit the first principles and rudiments of those sciences which being evident as soon as understood produce in time those conclusions which no stranger to those studies can imagine how they should be discovered For being offered to the understanding that comprehendsthe meaning of them they require no experience of particulars with sense time brings forth to frame a general conceit of that in which all agree or to pronounce what holds in all particulars Because it is immediately evident that the same holds in all particulars as in one which a man has before his eyes The like is to be said of the processe in hand though the reason be farre otherwise Hee that considers may see that the motives of Faith assured to the common sense and reason of all men by the consent of believers are immediately the reason why wee believe the Scriptures in which they are recorded to be the Word of God without so much as supposing any such thing as a Church in the nature of a Corporation indowed with authority over those of whom it consists The consent of Christians as particular persons obliging common reason both to believe the Scriptures and whatever that belief inferres As this must be known before wee can believe the Scriptures so being known it must be if any be the onely reason why we believe either the Scriptures or that Christianity which they convey unto us And if it be the onely reason why wee believe then is it better known in order of reason as well as of sense to be true than the authority of the Church the knowledg whereof must resolve into the reason why wee are Christians And if this be true then is not the authority of the Church as a Corporation to be obliged by the act of some members so much as a condition requisite to induce any man to believe All men by having the onely true reason why all are to believe being subject to condemnation if they believe not But not if they believe not the Corporation of the Church unlesse it may appeare to be a part of that Faith which that onely reason moves us to believe Neither doth the credit which wee give to all Christians witnessing the motives of Faith to be true by submitting to Christianity in regard of them create in us any inferior Faith of the nature of humane because the witnesse of man convayes the motives thereof to our knowledg But serves us to the same use as mens eyes and other senses served them when they saw those things done which Moses and the Prophets which our Lord and his Apostles did to induce men to believe that they came from God For as true as it is that if God have provided such signs to attest his Commission then we are bound to believe So true is it that if all Christians agree that God did procure them to be done then did hee indeed procute them to be done that men might believe For so great a part of mankinde could not be out of their wits all at once Let not therefore those miracles which God hath provided to attest the Commissions of Moses and the Prophets of our Lord and his Apostles be counted common and probable motives to believe unlesse wee will confesse that wee have none but common and probable motives For what reason can wee have to believe that shall not depend upon their credit Unlesse it be the light of natural reason which may make that which they preach more evidently credible but never evidently true If these works were provided by God to oblige us to believe then is that Faith which they create truely divine and the work of God Though had all men been blinde they had not been seen and had all men been out of their wits wee might presume that they had agreed in an imposture And now it will be easie to answer the
the Excommunications of Jewes and of Christians For the first without question were curses of the second it is at least questionable whether it stand with Christianity to take them for curses or not I do believe that which is said in the first book de Synedriis pag. 209. that the Jewes did not so cut a man off by Excommunication as to cast him quite out of their Body But so as to deprive him of free conversation with his native people To wit according to the terms limited there afore the lesse that no man should come within his four cubits The greater that hee should dwell in a cotage alone and have bread and water brought him and see no man otherwise Neither do I finde any third kinde by the Jewes Constitutions which others would have But it were a wrong to common sense to extend this to Apostares Justin Martyr Dial. cum Tryphone and after him Epiphanius haer XXX and Jerome in Esa tells us that the Jewes shortly after our Saviors time sent an Order through all Synagogues over the world to curse the Christians thrice a day at publick Prayers in their Synagogues And at that time practised all means possible to stirr up the Empire to persecute them to the death Neither was it strange they should proceed so farr against those whom they took for Apostates because the punishments which their own body could inflict would not serve their turn But this is evidently another thing than that which the great Excommunication by their Rules importeth In the mean time here you have cursing to the purpose in this utmost exigent But so that ordinary Excommunication amongst them imported a proportionable measure of the same That the Apostles should intend to curse nothing can seem so pregnant as the words of S. Peter to Simon Magus Acts VIII 20. Thy money perish with thee But hee that in the next words advises with so much charity Repent thee of this thy wickednesse and pray to God if perhaps this designe of thy heart may be forgiven thee I suppose was farr enough from wishing that hee might perish whom hee seeks to reclaim Neither is there any reason why hee should wish his money to perish which the first sound of his words beareth And therefore it will be requisite to take it for an expression signifying that hee held and would have the Church hold him as certainly in the way and state of perdition as the money that hee loved was perishable Much more when S. Paul wisheth himself anathema or him that should preach a new Gospel or loved not the Lord Jesus it is not his intent to pray for the evil which anathema signifies upon them but to induce the Church to take them for such men as the Church believes to be liable to the utmost of Gods curses As for the businesse between S. Paul and the Corinthians thereare in it so evident marks of Penance injoyned by that Church upon the Apostles Order as no wit no learning can serve to deface S. Paul advises them to restore the Offender in these terms 2 Cor. II. 5. â— 11. If any body hath grieved mee hee hath not grieved mee but in part that I may not charge you all Sufficient for such a one is this censure inflicted by many So that yee are rather to gratifie and comfort him least such a one should be swallowed up with too much sorrow Wherefore I pray you settle love towards him For I writ also for this end to know the trial of you whether you be obedient in all things But if you grant any thing I also grant it For if I have granted any thing for your sake in respect of Christ I have granted it that Satan get nothing by us For wee are not ignorant of his devices What is the censure inflicted by many but the Penance which the Church upon S. Pauls order having injoyned now desires the Apostle to rest content with which hereby hee accords What is it that hee granteth because they grant it but in respect of Christ willing them also to gratifie and comfort him whom they had censured But upon undergoing this censure the re-admitting of him to the Communion of the Church Since Luther first disputed against Indulgences this Text hath been in every mans mouth Was there ever any reason to deny that there is in the Church a Power of abating Penance once injoyned upon trial of him that undergoes it Or that the example of S. Paul in this place is good evidence for it Had there been any controversie about it if the Church of Rome had demanded no more under this title Though to speak my own minde perhaps men mistake this Indulgence because they take not S. Pauls proceeding to be so rigid as the strictnesse of discipline under the Apostles requires They take it commonly as I said that S. Paul hereby releases him of the Penance that had been injoyned whereas it may be hee onely admits him to Penance at their request and so to the Prayers of the Church Being formerly so excluded from the Church as not to be assured of his reconcilement with God by the warrant of the Church though not excluded from the hope of it by the mercy of God Tertullian indeed hath an opinion that it is not the same man whom the Apostle commanded them to deliver to Satan afore 1 Cor. V. 5. Because as I said afore according to the strictnesse of the Montaniâ—â—s hee will not believe that the Apostle would admit such a sinner upon any Penance But this opinion is excluded by the expresse words of the Scripture For I writ also for this cause to know the trial of you which show that this is the case which hee writ of in his former Epistle It remains therefore that upon S. Pauls first Epistle hee was delivered to Satan but upon their submission and request that hee would be content with the censure which they propose hee admits him to the comfort of their Prayers According to this supposition the Indulgence which S. Paul admits is not the releasing of Penance injoyned as afterwards it signified in the Church but the injoyning of Penance inferring a grant of the Prayers of the Church towards the means of reconcilement But whatsoever become of this Indulgence presupposeth the censure which it mitigateth and therefore the Communion of the Church either abated or quite taken from him whom it restoreth to it And what is the mater that S. Paul grants that which hee grants for their sakes but in respect to Christ that Satan saith hee whose devices wee are acquainted with get nothing by us Two reasons are rendred for this The one in respect of the party excluded not to drive him to despair of salvation by Christianity and consequently to Apostasy or what else that despair might produce The other which I remember S. Austine in some place advances as the reason whereupon the Church in after ages was driven to abate of that
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
primo calore Fidei Catholicae In the first zeal of the Catholike faith That is of his professing it being reconciled to the Church for these things are properly attributed to the profession of Christianity But to barely believing that it is true afarre off and at a great distance Cornelius in his letter to Fabius Bishop of Antiochia concerning Novatianus in Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 43. Thus describeth Celerinus having been persecuted for the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A man who having most stontly through the mercy of God passed through all tortures and confirmed the weaknesse of his flesh by the strength of his faith which strength is not in the mind that judgeth Christianity to be true but by the resolution of the will to stick to it Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. II. alledges Plato that in civil commotions the greatest virtue a man can meet with is Faith To wit in him whom a man trusts though the greatest happinesse be Peace which makes it needlesse Inferring thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereby it appears that the greatest of wishes is to have peace the greatest of virtues faith Which he would not have alleged for the commendation of the Christian Faith had he not understood it to consist in that trust which a man sincerely engageth as well as in that credit which a man giveth Whereby we may understand why in another place he will have the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the faithfall for Christians to hold the same reason with that of Theognis when he commends a faithfull friend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he is worth gold and silver in a civil dissension Because he places the faith of a Christian in the obligation of Christianity which he undertakes when he expresseth that the honour which it imports lies in the performing of it As Lydia when she intreateth S. Paul in these terms Acts XVI 15. If ye judge me faithful to the Lord come into my house and abide there presseth him if he think her a true Christian as she had professed her self That is faithfull to God and his Church which she must be oblieged to upon the trust that she had taken upon her in becoming a Christian Therefore disputing not long afore against Basilides and Valeutinus the Hereticks who made mens faith to depend necessarily upon the frame of their natures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore is faith no longer the achievement of choice if it be the advantage of nature nor shall he that believes not be justly recompensed being blamelesse he that believeth being no cause Nor shall the property or otherwise of faith or unbeliefe be subject to praise or dispraise And by and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But where becomes the repentance of unbelievers through which comes remission of sins So that neither shall Baptisme be any more reasonable nor the blessed seal the gift of the holy Ghost by Baptisme nor the Son nor the Father from whom it is expected Onely the distribution of natures according to them will be found utterly without God not having for the foundation of salvation voluntary Faith So the voluntary engagement which Baptisme expresly inacteth is that Faith whereby a Christian claimes the promises of the Gospel I know the words of S. Augustine may here be objected Enchirid. Cap. XXXI De hac enim fide loquimur quam adhibemus cum aliquid credimus non quam damus cum aliquid pollicemur Nam ipsa dicitur fides Sed aliter dicitur non mihi habuit fidem Aliter non mihi servavit fidem Nam illud est non credit quod dixi Hoc non fecit quod dixit For saith he we speake here of the credit which we give when we believe something not of that which we engage when we professe something For that also is called Faith But a man meants one way when he sayes he did not give me Faith Another way when he sayes he kept not faith with me For that is he believed not that which I said This he did not what he said As if the consideration of trust to be kept or not to be kept were utterly impertinent to the nature of justifying faith For why were those that were not yet baptized never called Fideles or Believers in the primitive Church though they professed never so much to believe the Christian faith but onely Catechumeni Hearers or Scholars or at the most Competentes or Pretenders when they put themselves forth actually to demand their Baptisme Why but to signifie that the Church had not yet conceived confidence of their Christianity because they had not yet engaged themselves in the profession of it Which having solemnized by Baptisme they were thenceforth called Faithfull the Name signifying as well trusty as Believers having proceeded so farre as to engage themselves to live as Christians because they believed believed Christianity to come from God as it pretendeth There would be no end if I should go about to produce the Fathers for this name of Christians one place or two shall serve for example Tertullian De Exhort castitatis Cap. IV. Spiritum quidem Dei etiam fideles habent sed non omnes fideles Apostoli Ergo qui se fidelem dixerat adjicit postea Spiritum Dei se habere quod nemo dubitares etiam de fideli And truly even Christians have the Spirit of God yet are not all Christians Apostles Therefore S. Paul having called himselfe faithful or a Christian he adds afterwards that he hath the Spirit of God which no man would question in a Christian Whereupon in his Book De Jejuniis Cap. XI you find an Antithesis or opposition between Spiritualis and Fidilis or a meere Christian and one that had extraordinary indowments of Gods Spirit As on the other side de praescript Cap. XII Quis Catechumenus quis Fidelis incertum est Speaking of the hereticks among them It is uncertain who is a Professor who a Scholar And truly he who considers all virtue to consist in the affection of the will not in the perfection of the understanding Considering withall that faith is according to Clemens Alexandrinus where afore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a voluntary assent of the soul Or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a voluntary presumption and assent unto piety Shall find great reason to consider what affection of the will it is wherein he places the virtue of faith in a good Christian Especially experience on the one side shewing that hereticks schismaticks and badde Christians who cannot be thought to be endowed with that faith which recommends good ones do really and truly believe all that truth which their Sect or their lust is consistent with And reason on the other side shewing how the believing of it becomes reconcileable with the interest of their sect or of their lust I suppose here that the reason which makes the motives of saith though sufficient to become defeisible is the Crosse of Christ attending the profession of Christianity in
them in the world to come that should heartily and faithfully serve him in this Which adding to it the profession of the Name and warrant of Christ as the Author of that contract whereby we undertake so to do is Christianity I have yet said nothing of the passage of S. James II. 14 where he disputes expresly that faith alone justifieth not but Faith with works for it seemes to make a generall argument by it self though in truth the reason which he brings that Abraham was justified by works necessarily depends upon the true reason why S. Paul saith That Abraham was justified by faith Which reason they that will not admit deserve to crucifie themselves everlastingly to find how he can be truly said to be justified by workes that is justified by faith alone without works afore were it not pitty that the Scriptures should be set on the rack to make them confesse a meaning which the words in no language by any custome of humane speech will bear For if the Faith of him that hath no good works will not save him not justifie him as the Apostle expresly affirmeth can the workes that are said to do this be said to do it Metonymicalâ—y because they are signes or effects of Faith which doeth it when it is said that faith without them doth it not And though by the way of Metonymy the property or effect of the cause may be attributed to the effect of that cause Yet when that property or effect is denied the cause and attributed to the effect will any language indure that it should be thought properly to belong to the cause which is denied it and attributed to the effect only by Metonymy that is in behalf of the cause that is denied it Is there any need to come into these straits when by saying that a man is justified by faith alone according to S. Paul meaning by undertaking Christianity a man will be obliged to say that he is justified by works also according to S. James to wit by performing that which he undertaketh unlesse you will have him justified by undertaking that which he performes not For when it is said that a man is justified by undertaking Christianity it is supposed that he undertakes it sincerely and heartily Which sincerity containing a resolution of all righteousnesse for the future justly qualifies him for those promises which overtake him in sinne so that for the present he can have nothing to justifie him but the righteousnesse of this faith alone which the Gospel tells us that God accepteth But for the time to come just ground is there to distinguish a second justification which proceeds upon the same consideration but supposes the condition undertaken to be performed from that first which though done by faith alone inferreth the necessity of making good what is undertaken that it may be available Is not this that the Apostle saith James 11. 15 16 17. If a brother or sister be naked or want daily food and one of you say to him Go in peace be warmed and fed and yet give them not things fit for his body what is he the better So also faith if it have not workes is of it self dead Where lies this comparison but in this that he who professeth Christianity but doth not according to it is like him that professeth love to his brother but relieves not his necessities And so when it followes But a man may say thou hast faith and I have workes shew me thy workes by thy faith and I will shew thee my faith by my workes For he that liveth like a Christian it is plaine he sheweth his Faith by his workes which is evidence that he professeth Christianity sincerely but he that onely professeth is yet to make evidence by his workes that his profession is sincere As for the example of Abraham the Apostles words are these Abraham our Father was he not justified by works when he offered Isaac upon the altar Thou seest that faith wrought with his workes and by works was his saith perfited And the Scripture which saith Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousnesse was fulfilled and he was called the sonne of God What is this but that which we read 1 Mac. 11. 52. Was not Abraham found faithfull in triall and it was counted to him for righteousnesse For it was counted to him for righteousnesse that not being weak in saith he considered not his own body already mortified as being a hundred years old nor the mortification of Sarahs wombe nor doubted through want of belief in Gods promise but was strengthened in faith giving glory to God and being satisfied that he is able to do what he hath promised As S. Paul saith Rom. IV. 19 20 21. And therefore much more must it needs be counted to him for righteousnesse that by faith he offered Isaac when he was tempted and that he who had received the promises offered his onely begotten sonne of whom it had been said In Isaac shall posterity be counted to thee Reckoning that God was able to raise him from the dead Whence also he received him in a parable As the Apostle saith Heb. XI 17 18 19. For here as I shewed afore it is the act of faith and not the object of it that is imputed to righteousnesse And in that obedience whereby this temptation was overcome though there was a good work yet there was an act of that faith And therefore the Apostle deservedly addeth that his faith wrought with his workes But the faith that moved him to travail after Gods promise was perfected by this work wherein that faith moved him to tender God obedience And therefore the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse Because that which Moses had said that God counted Abraham righteous for his faith was made good and proved not to have been said without cause but that he was righteous indeed as righteous he must be whom God so accounts that obeyed God in such a triall as this So that which S. James addeth of Rahab Likewise Rahab also the harlot was she not justified by works receiving the messengers and sending them out another way How shall it agree with that of the other Apostle Heb. XI 31. Through faith Rahab the harlot perished not with the unbelievers receiving the spies in peace But by virtue of the same reason that having conceived assurance of the promises of God to his people that she might have her share in them she resolved to become one of them upon such terms as the case required wherein certainly the preservation of their spies was required So if by Faith then by Workes if by Workes then by Faith I must not leave this point till I have produced another sort of Scriptures in which the promises of the Gospel are made to depend upon workes which Christianity requireth AS namely when forgivenesse of sinners is promised upon condition that we
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
to doe all the evill that it does and that without this determination no evill can be done with it no evill can but be done For alas the covering will be too shortâ—â— to say that God produceth onely the positive action of sinne the malice incident to it consisting in the meere want of conformity to the rule which it ought to follow proceeding from the imperfection of the creature For the difference between the action of sinne and the sinne which it acteth consisteth meerely in the conceit of mans understanding not apprehending at once all the particulars wherein the action consisteth No action possibly being so badde that in some generall considerations common to those which are good it may not be counted good But those generall considerations expresse not the particular act which is supposed to be sinne So soone as the nature thereof is sufficiently expressed so soone it will appeare to be essentially sinne Therefore if God determine the creature to the act or sinne he determines it to sinne And though upon these termes there can neither be sinne nor vertue good nor evill Law nor Gospel providence nor judgment to come yet upon these termes the actions of the creature will be imputable to God alone though not as good or badde or as the actions of God yet as the actions of him that is supposed to be God in wordes but denied to be God in effect As for that which was said as if otherwise the efficacy of Gods praedestination and that grace which by it he appointeth for those that shall be saved could not subsist or as if otherwise God could not be maintained to be the first cause I will say no more now then what I said of the ground for Gods foreknowledge of future contingences That when I come to say how God determines future contingences I will doe the best I can to render such a reason as may maintaine him to be the first cause and so to foresee all future contingences by the same meanes by which he determines that they shall come to passe without giving just ground to inferre that there is neither contingence in the effect nor freedome in the cause no providence no judgment no Christianity appointed by God But if I faile of giving such a reason I disclaime it here before I give it and will rather allege that I have none to give and yet beleeve both Gods effectuall providence and the freedome and contingence of mens actions then beleive the determination of mans will by the immediate operation of Gods providence to be the sourse of freedome and contingence which I have shewed leaves no roome for contingence or providence And now I may freely grant that Jansenius hath avoided the charge of telling what it is that comes between the last instance of deliberation and the first of resolution by the immediate act of God to inable a man to do that which he that is able to deliberate and act both is not able to bring to passe Which is the same Chimaera with the imagination of infallibility in every sentence of the present Church when it comes to pronounce though the premises upon which it proceedeth do not appear even to them that pronounce infallible Nor will I envy him the advantage that he may make of the distinction between the sense of that which is said to be necessary including this praedetermination and not necessary setting it aside For having shewed that it is to no effect but to destroy contingence that is Christianity and to multiply contradiction to that common sense which all own I may well bid much good do it But I am not therefore bound to believe that it will serve his turn proceeding upon the account of indifference in the creature and the necessary effect of a secondary cause who standeth upon that necessity of Grace which Originall sinne introduceth For how shall he say that setting aside Gods praedetermination the Will may have Grace sufficient to do the work of Grace including the same it cannot but do it who makes the will utterly unable to do it till it be determined to do it And therefore takes away all difference between effectuall and sufficient Grace all intent of Christs dying for them that shall not be saved Indeed if he extend his opinion to the reconciling of mans free will with Gods Providence in matters not concerning the work of saving Grace he may make use of praedetermination in giving account how sinne is foreknown and the rest which hitherto he resolveth not But grounding himself upon the exigence of Originall sinne it were not wisdome for him to scandalize his own opinion by making sinne as necessary by Gods act as he makes the work of Grace There is extant a briefe resolution of the whole question by that learned Gentleman Thomas White where he concludeth Paragr X. That God determineth every man so to determine himself in whatsoever he does by the love of good infused and the causes which his Providence useth to represent it desirable that he cannot do otherwise How he would answer concerning evil is not so plain by his words He sayes indeed it is not the same thing to determine and cause to determine as for the Ammonites and David to kill Vrias But if the murther be duly imputed to David for procuring meanes towards it that might have failed would he have God procure meanes that cannot fail It cannot be allowed but thus that though of themselves they might fail yet supposing the foreknowledge of God that imployeth them that is supposing them to take effect which supposition all the experience in the world concludeth cannot be cleared till the effect follow they cannot fail And the nature of freedome the ground of the account to come consisteth in this that determining a man to act he might not have acted till the act was done For certainly it were a contradiction to say that which determines the will to act speaking not of the thing without but of the consideration thereof in the minde may not be extant when a man determines himself in virtue of it Nay were this consideration whereby God determineth indefeasible of its own nature for as imployed by Gods Providence that is supposing the effect to follow it is it were that very predetermination which I have infringed by the premised discourse coming from God in order of reason first and in the very next instant producing that choice wherein the determination of the will formally consisteth I will therefore conclude that wheresoever through the whole Bible God calls any man or his ancient people or by the Gospell all people to yeild him that inward obedience and worship in spirit and truth which Christianity requireth all this proceeding supposing the corruption of mans nature by the fall of Adam there he will take account of his disbursements by that which the creature shall have done not finally determined to do it by any thing preceding the choice Putting you
infinite care which it would require as men are with a little part of it But if all the sight which God hath of the creature proceed from the knowledg of himselfe whereby seeing what he may make he resolves what he will make Though I say the fight of his creature at present depends upon the decree of producing it in his owne time yet seeing I make thâ—s decree to depend onely upon the infinite wisdome and goodnesse of God which moves him to chuse what he thought best to do I make him to depend upon himselfe alone not upon his creature In like maner though I make the decree of Gods providence to proceed upon consideration of the free inclination of his creature moved by the consideration of such objects as he sees are presented to it and his foresight of future contingencies proceeding from the freâ—will thereof to stand upon the said decrees Yet since I derive the freewill of the creature from the knowledg and will of God and the state of it from the course of providence which his own knowledge directs I cannot be thought to disparage God with the imperfections of his creatures I do indeed understand that simple Christians take it with a graine of jealousy upon a mans Christianity when a man of understanding shews them the order of secondary causes in effecting the works of Gods providence as if therefore he did not believe that all comes from God because he will not have him at every turne to transgresse the ordinary course of those causes which his providence hath once set on worke because they understand it not Buâ— though the most understanding know very little of it yet thus much they know that it is more for the honour of God that it should be thought that God from the beginning hath elected a certaine order agreeable to his own infinite wisdome justice goodnesse so verainty but yet of his owne free choice by which all things come to passe his creaturs serving the turn of his purpose Then that he should at all turnes by moving his creatures to that which they are not inclined to by their first naâ—ure but by his present will immediately attaine his designes For that he should transgresse his own order for the introducing of those effectâ— which are above nature the whole book of God requires us to beleive And if the glory of God consists in causing naturall things working their owne inclinations to serve to do what he designeth much more it is for his glory that maintaining mâ—n in the excercise of his freedome he makes him never the lesse whether by good or by bad inclinations an instrument to bring to passe those events which he in his wisdome determinâ—th In the second place it may be objected I hat supposing all that can be supposed in the nature of future contingencies they must appeare possible on both sides they may appeare infinitely more and more probable on the one side but so long as they appeare not certain they cannot be the object of certaine knowledg as Gods is And certaine they cannot appeâ—re so long as we suppose them to remaine contingencies To which I answer acknowleâ—ging that I who draw my knowledge from that which I see cannot by limitâ—ng the probabilities of future contingencies attâ—ine to more then probabilâ—ty But that it would be against all the reason in the world thereby to take mâ—asure what God can attaine to comprehending not onely the inclinaâ—ions of his creatures and the considerations which they meet with but also that they shal meet with no other but what he comprehendeth And to uâ—dâ—rtake that he by what he sees cannot discern that to bâ— certain which I by thaâ— which I see câ—nnot discerne to be more then probable I know it may be saiâ— on the other side that it is onely the weakenesse of our understanding that hâ—nders us to discerne the consistence of our freedome with the immediate determâ—nation thereof by the act of God to that which it chuseth And it is usually argued that the work of saving grace and the difference which it maketh between those thâ—t are â—aved and those that are not would not remaine such a mystery as the differences on foot about it in the Christian world demonstrate if the reason of it be resolved into the congruity of that motion which suffiâ—ient reason â—enders to a reasonable creature To which I answer in the fiâ—st placâ— That if it were not a secret according to that opinion which I advance this objection wherein all the difficulty is couched would not lie against it And that supposing all the diffiultie thereof voided it would remaine no lessâ— a secret why God should move some providing that congruity others waâ—ving â—t then wâ—y he should by his own immediate act determinate som to be Christians whâ—lst â—t remains posible that those who are not so determined should bâ— the like To the other I say That it is one thiâ—ge not to know noâ— to be able â—o demonstrate how God can have certaine knowledge of things that whâ—â—st they are knowne remain contingencies Another thing to know that by â—he knowledg whâ—ch he hath they remaine noâ— contingencies Christianity supposing them to remaine contingencies For it is no shame for a Christian or for a Divine to professe ignorance when the quâ—stion is how it may bâ— eviâ—ent that matters of faith are true As in the mater of the H. Trinity I have saâ—d Buâ— that in a mater so subject to common understanding as thâ— determination of the wil by its own choice reason and experience justifying thâ—t whâ—ch faith maketh the ground of Christianity because I cannot answâ—r an objection I shall make the whole tenor of the Bible the tender of Christianity the whole treaty of God with man concerning his happinesse delusory and abusive as conditioniâ—g for that which no man can stirre head or foot toward till being determined he cannot doe otherwise I should denie that which appeâ—ares because I câ—n not evidence that which appeares not seems to me very unreasonable Especially having so many intimations in the Scripture to signifie that God hath in consideration the circumstance of each mans case for the ground of hâ—s foresight in each mans proceedings For let Gods foreknowledg never so much râ—quire that the truth of those things which he foreseeâ—h be determined and certaine it will be no abatement to this cerainety that I believe it is not grounded upon his immediate determing of mans will to doe it but upon his determining of the meanes in consideration whereof he seeth that man will certainely proceed to determine his owne choice Lastly it will be said that by this meanes all things shall come to passe necessartâ—y being determined by God to come to passe For unlesse we suppose that the purpose of God câ—n be defeated that which he purposeth to bring to passe must necâ—ssaâ—ily come to passe I answer that I have distinguished beween that sense in which
have not received any more the Spirit of bondage to fear but ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby ye cry Abba that is Father For those that are led with the hope of temporall promises as all must necessarily be led under that Law which was established upon such must needs be subject to fear of disgrace with God whensoever their sinnes allowed not those promises to take place So then though they were then partakers of Gods Spirit as the Prophet Ezekiel showes us XXXVI 27. XXXVII 14. XXXIX 20. Yet in as much as it is called the Spirit of feare there is due argument that they were not pertaker of that peace and joy in the holy Ghost which Christians afterwards were moved with to indure all persecution for the maintainance of their profession But the Apostle pointeth us ouâ— further the sourse of this feare Heb. II. 14 15. When he saith that our Lord Christ tooke part â—f flesh and bloud that by death he might abolish him that had the power of death â—ven the devil and discharge all those that through the fear of death were all their life long subject unto bondage For so long as the promises of this life ended in death and the punishments thereof conducted to it they who knew that death came into the world upon the transgression of Adam could not think themselves discharged of Gods wrath so long as they found themselves liable to the debt of it No marvaile then if the Spirit of God were the Spirit of fear in them who saw not as yet the kingdom of death dissolved by the rising of our Lord Christ from the dead Another argument I make from the words of our Lord when the disciples were ready to demand fire from heaven upon those Samaritanes that received them not after the example of Elias Luke IX 52-56 Ye know not what Spirit ye are of saith our Lord For the Son of man came not to destroy but to save mens lives Whereby he declareth that because the Gospel bringeth salvation whereas the Law wrought wrath as S. Paul saith by tendring conviction of sinne without help to overcome it Rom. III. 20. IV. 15. VII 8-11 therefore God requireth under the Gospel of those that are his the Spirit that seeketh onely the good of them from whose hands they receive it not Whereas under the Law even his Prophets revenged themselves of their enemies by vengeance obtained at Gods hands And by this meanes we have an answer for that difficulty otherwise insoluble in our Lords words of John Baptist Mat. XI 11. Verily I say to you there never arose among those that are born of women one greater then John the Baptist But the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater then he For if God under the Law required not of his Prophets that perfection of Charity which the Gospel exacteth of all Christians if in those things which they said and did by Gods Spirit they have not expressed it well may it be said that the least of all those that belong to the Gospel in truth which here is called the kingdom of heaven is in a respect of so great concernment greater then the Prophets of the Old Testament As for the example of Jael the wife of Eber the Kenite who being in league with Jabin and Siâ—era for the good of Gods people knocked him on the head being retired into the protection of her house and is commended for it by the Spirit of God in Deborah the Prophetesse Jud. V. 17-21 VI. 24-28 The instance indeed is difficult enough And they that are so ready to condemne the fact of Judith in cutting off Holefernes by deceit and that by the example of her father Simeon that spoiled and destroyed the men of Shecheâ—â— contrary to covenant Judg. IX 2. Gen. XXXIV 23. are not advised how to come clear of it Suppose there was just cause of hostility between them a daughter of the house being dishonoured by the Prince of that people For among Gods people their chastity was alwayes as highly valued as it was little regarded among Idolaters Suppose that they condescended to be circumcised not for love to the true God but for hope of increasing their own power and riches by bringing the Israelites under their Government as there is appearance enough in the words of Hamor Gen. XXXIV 20 21 22. Yet a league being inacted upon such a pretense the zeal of Simeon and Levi in destroying those that were come under the covering of Gods wings so farre very well figures the zeal of the Jewes in persecuting the Apostles and not allowing the Gentiles any room of salvation by their own onely true God And therefore it is excellently observed by S. Jerome Tradit Hebr. in Genesin that the Scribes were of the tribe of Simeon as the Priests of the tribe of Levi in whom the curse of Jacob by the Spirit of God detesting their fact and prophesying the like to those their successors in the case of our Lord Christ and his Apostles I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel Gen. XLIX 5 6 7. was evidently fulfilled in the mysticall sense The tribe of Levi for gathering of Tithes and the tribe of Simeon for imployment of Clarkes and Notaries dwelling dispersed through all the tribes as Solomon Jarchi in his glosse upon the place literally expoundeth it But the case of Judeth is the case of a stratageme in professed hostility which whether Christianity allowe or not certainly no Law of nations disallowes And therefore though she propose to her self the zeale of Simeon and Levi for the honour of their people and the successe they had against their enemies yet if we understand her not to commend the meanes by which they brought it to passe to wit by violating the publick faith we shall not find her contradict the Spirit of God which by Jacob condemns them for it As for the â—act of Jael it is in vaine to alledge any mysticall sense to justify it as some would do unlesse we can undertake that there was no such thing done in the way of historicall truth which I suppose no man will be so madde as to do And therefore if any man will not believe that the Spirit of God in Deborah extolls onely the temporall benefit which the people of God reâ—ped by that fact of hers for which she was alwayes to be famous amongst them leaving to her self the justification of her conscience Let him seek a better answer But he who transgressing that Charity that is fundamentall in Christianity and therefore without which no Christian can obtaine the Spirit of God shall make her example a motive to that which he cannot justify even in Gods ancient people Though I allow him to mistake Christians for Pagans and Idolaters whose professed enmity to Gods people upon the account of Religion was the ground of that revenge which they were allowed then to pursue them with yet I must not allow him
with virgines and once maried people And shall thy sacrifice freely ascend And among other affections of a good minde wilt thou desire chastity for thee and thy wife I dispute not here how lawfull it is to pray for the dead which Tertullian touches again de Monogamiâ X. de Animâ LVIII This Tertullian supposes that if a Christian have two wives hee must offer that the Eucharist may be celebrated and that at the celebrating of it the Priest may pray for those whom hee mentions as the occasion of celebrating it The birth-dayes of Martyrs that is the Anniversaries of their sufferings was another occasion of celebrating the Eucharist as in Tertullian so in S. Cyprian Epist XXXIV Sacrificium pro eis semper ut meminiâ—â—is offerimus quoties Martyrum passiones dies annuâ commemoratione celebâ—an us Wee alwaies offer sacrifice for them as you remember when wee celebrate the yearly commemoration of the Martyrs suffering dayes Therefore where the â—ame S. Cyprian forbids offering the names of those that had fallen away in persecution and offering for them Epist IX XI hee forbids the receiving of their offerings and by consequence praying for them at the Eucharist Epiphanius Haer. XXX speaking of the Patriarch of the Jewes baptized in private 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The said Patriarâ—â—â—aâ—inâ—â—â— his hand a very considerable summ of gold streâ—ched out his hand and gave it to â—â—e Bishop saying Offer for mee S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag V. Eâ—roe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then that spiritual sacrifice that unbloudy service being done consecrâ—tâ—â— over that propitiatory sacrifice wee beseech God for the common peace of the Churches for the State of the world for the Kings their armies and allies for the sick c. adding that praying for the departed wee offer to God Christ cruciâ—â—ed â—or our sins to render him propitious to them and to us Of which effect in due place the intent hereby appears For here as hee calls it a Sacrifice upon the Consecration so hee plainly sets down wherein the propitiation which it effecteth consists according to the Catholick Church For to say truth to the purpose in hand I can produce nothing like that which I have said already in my Book of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church to which I remit you for the rest pag. 370-382 that in all the Liturgies there is a place where mention is to be made of all States of the Church for whom the Oblations out of which the Eucharist is consecrated are offered And likewise a place where the Eucharist being consecrated prayer is made in behalf of all States in the Church that is to say the Sacrifice of Christ his Crosse there present is offered up to move God to grant them all that is desired by the regular and continual prayers of the Church And among them there is a special place for those that offer at present If any man be moved to imagine that any part hereof is prejudicial to that Reformation which the Church of England professeth for I professe from the beginning not to be sâ—rupulous of offending those that offend it I remit him to that learned Appendix of Dr Field to his third book of the Church the purpose whereof in answer to the question where the Reformed Church was before Luther is to show that in this point as in others there handled the sense of the whole Church of Christ even to the time of Luther and to the Council of Trent was no other than that which the Church of England embraceth and cherisheth Thereby to show that the Reformation thereof never pretended to found a new Church but to preserve that which was by taking away those corruptions which time and the enemies of Christianity had sown in the Lawes and customs of it Which hee doth so evidently perform in this point that I must needs challenge any man that hath a minde to blast any thing here said with the staâ—e calumny of Popery to consider first Whether hee can prove those things which the Authors past exception there quoted declare to be the sense of the Catholick Church at that time to contain any thing prejudicial to the Gospel of Christ and that purity thereof which the Reformation pretendeth And because I know hee cannot do it I rest secure of all blasphemies or slanders that can be forged upon this occasion Openly professing that those who will not acknowledg that condition of the Gospel and the promises thereof which I have demonstrated to be essential to Christianity it is for their interest to defame the sense of the Catholick Church with the slanderous aspersions of Popery that so they might seduce miserable creatures to believe that there is a faith which inâ—itles them to the promises of the Gospel not supposing them converted to the Christianity which it rendereth For seeing that propitiation which the Sacrifice of the Eucharist pretendeth is grounded upon this condition of the Covenant of Grace as I have showed it is no mervail if they who pretend to reconcile the promises of the Gospel to the lusts of the flesh by which this world is injoyed indeavor to slander the purity of Christianity with those aspersions which they have seduced wretched people to count odious In fine it is not that consideration of a Sacrifice in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which the sense and practice of the Catholick Church inforceth but the violent interpretations of it which are made on both sides to both extremities that can give the leass pretense for division in the Church For while on the one side the sacrificing of Christ a new is so construed as if to doubt of the virtue of it in behalf of all that assist in it whether they communicate in it or not whether their devotions concurr to it or not were to doubt of the virtue of Christs Crosse it is no mervail if this create so great offense that the receiving of the Eucharist nay the assisting of it with the devotions of Christian people comes to be a mater of indifference On the other side while the renewing of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse by that representation thereof which the Eucharist tendreth for the redressing of the Covenant of Grace between God and those which receive is construed as prejudicial to that one Sacrifice whereby our Lord for ever hath perfected those whom hee sanctifieth no mervail if the very celebrating of it come to be a mater of indifference the effect whereof by believing that a man is predestinate or justified is had before and without it The mater of the Sacrifice then being so great a subject for the diviâ—ion upon so litle cause it is time for good Christians to awake and look about them and see that the lesse cause there is the greater good will the parties have to continue at distance In the mean time it is the common interest of Christianity even the means of their salvation by the
that people yet gaped for the temporall promises of the old Testament And therefore seeing those who worshipped many false Gods abound with earthly goods which they expected at Gods hands for great maters first upon the blandishments of their wives they were afraid to offend then they were induced also to worship them But under the Gospel the mariage of Gentiles not being against Gods Law becomes not unlawfull when the one turns Christian And justice allowing to part for fornication unbeliefe being a greater fornication justifies him or her that parts in consideration of it having never contracted it insoluble All this is evident by the ancientest instance of this case that the Church hath in Justine the Martyrs Apology for the Christians or rather in Eusebius Eccles Hist IV. 17. where the passage of Justine is related intire which in R. Stevens Copy of Justine is maimed in this part It is the case of a Gentleman so debauched to the â—ust of women that he was content his wife should play the good fellow as well as himselfe that she might not have to reproach him with It pleased God the wife being reclamed to Christianity thought it necessary to relinquish so riotous a Husband But being perswaded by her friends had the patience to try whether there remained any hope of reducing him And when he being gone to Alexandria had flown out more loosly then ever into the debauches of the place that she might not seem a party to his wickednesse dweling with him whom it was in her power to part with she sent him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Justin such a Leter of divorce as the Law alloweth the wife to discharge her selfe with Which example justifies the relation of Basil of Selâ—â—cia concerning S. Thecla the first Martyr of the Woman-kind in his first Book of her life that being contracted to a noble man of the Country called Thâ—â—â—yris being converted to Christianity by the preaching of S. Paul at Iconicus forsook her spouse a declared enemy to Christianity I say that there is in all this nothing contrary to Christianity the other example justifies Onely both of them give us sufficient occasion to say that S. Paul is not well understood by them that would have him to extend that cause of divorce which our Lord had delivered unto the case of desertion upon the conversion of the other to the faith For if the premises be true it is not a divorce which S. Paul allows but a nullity which he pronounces of those mariages which stand not upon profession of that interess in one anothers bodies which Christianity requires And therefore S. Augustine in his Book de Fide operibus cap. XIX doubts of her who being a Concubine professeth that if her Lord should dismiss her she will never mary any body else whether she is to be admitted to Baptisme or not For indeed there is no doubt in the case Not because the Church from the beginning generally condemned those Concubines who under a profession of fidelity to their own Lords professing interchangeably to know no woman else contented themselves with that right of a wife which Christianity requires without the secular priviledge of dâ—wry or the right to it which obliges the Husband to expense answerable For the same Augustine de bonâ— conjug cap V. declares such a conjunction as this to be mariage as to Gods Law though not as to the priviledges of the world whereas not supposing this profession he condemns it for meer adultery And they are expresly allovved by the Council of Toledo can XVII Though S. Leo Ep. XCV allovv the mariage of a vvoman to a man that already hath a Concubine as no maried man For that may be upon supposition that there never was any such troth between him and his Concubine Which must be the reason vvhy S. Austine condemns them in another place Hom. XLIX L. S. Jerome truly and Genâ—adius de Eccles dogmat cap. LXXII allovv the 〈…〉 effect to a Concubine as to a Wife in making a man digamus as to the Caâ—ons And for this reason Conjugales ergo tabulae jura dotalia nâ—n coituâ— ab Apâ—stâ—â—â— condemnâ—â—tur In the vvords of S. Jerome Is it then the deed and right of 〈…〉 or carnall knowledge that the Apostle condemneth This is not then the reason why S. Austine refuses a Concubine Baptism but because she is a Concubine without mutuall profession of that interess in one anothers boâ—â—â—s which makes her a wife as to Christianity Nor am I moved to the contrary by seeing that S. Austine refused Baptism to those that put away their vvives and maried others as Adulterers manifest Which is the occasion of his Book de â—ide operibus as he sayes in the beginning of it It vvas but his opinion or at the most a locall custome For Concil Eliber can X. Siâ—â—a quam Câ—techâ—â—eâ—â—â— reliquit duxerit maritum potest ad fontem lavacri admitti Hoc circa feminas Catechâ—â—eâ—â—â—â—â—it observandum If a woman dimissed by a pretender to Christianity mâ—ry a Husband she may be admitted to the Fâ—nt of Baptism The samâ—â—s to be observed concerning women that pretend to Christianity In case thâ—y dismiâ—â— a Husband that maries again and then desires Baptism because of the nullity of mariage made in unbelief when one party turns Christian In the Constitutions of the Apostles VIII 33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Christian man or woman maried in bondage let them either part or be ejected Here the mariage of slaves is supposed void to the party that turns Christian The Church further commands it to be voided How stands that vvith that vvhich went afore VIII 32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he have a wife or a woman a husband let them be taught to contain themselves to one another according to Christs Law But if the one party be not under Christs Law so that it cannot be presumed that a slave will do so they must be parted And by this means it remains demonstrated that it is our Lord Christ alone that hath introduced a new Lavv into his Church of the mariage of one to one alone Which though it be expressed in the Scripture rightly interpreted yet had not the practice of the Church having received this right sense for Law to their conversation giving bounds to the licentiousnesse of those wits whose interess might be to destroy the strictnesse of the Lavv it cannot be imagined that there should never be any visible attempt within the body of the Church to infringe the validity of it For seeing there is no more mention in the Scripture of that dispensation in the first Ordinance of mariage in Paradise whereby it was lawfull under the Lavv to have more vvives then one and seeing it is a maxime of such appearance in the Scripture that nothing is prohibited by the Gospell which the lavv allovveth vvould no such pretence have framed a plea for those that never wanted will
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
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
ground for Councils and for their authority which I have laid in the first Book nor bound the right of Civil and Ecclesiasticall Power in giving force to the acts of them which I reserve for the end of this third Bood But to evidence the constitution of them from whence their authority in the Church must proceed I maintain here from the premises that the originall constitution of the Church determineth the person of the Bishop to represent his respective Church in Council And that the constitution of Councils consisting of Bishops representing their respective Churches evidenceth the authority of Bishops in the same Which produceth the effect of obliging either the whole Church or that part which the Council representeth by the consent of Votes The act of the Council of Jerusalem under the Apostles Act. XV. was respective to the Churches of Jerusalem and Antiochia with those which were planted from thence by Paul and Barn 〈…〉 made by an authority sufficient to oblige the whole Church The El 〈…〉 concurred to the vote with the Apostles those that will be so ridicul 〈…〉 for Lay Elders of Presbyters But will never tell us how the V 〈…〉 Elders should oblige the Church of Antiochia and the plantations 〈…〉 y were the Elders who joyned with the Apostles from whom they could not be dis-joyned were able to oblige the whole Church And indeed there is no mention of them in the acts of chusing Matthias and the seven Deacons Acts I. VI. which acts concerned the whole Church And therefore there is appearance that the authority which they alwayes had in respect of the Church to be constituted was by that time known to be limited by the allowance and consent of the Apostles But when I granted that S. Paul seems to allow both the Romanes and the Corinthians to eat things sacrificed to Idols as Gods creatures I did not grant that his authority could derogate from the act of the Apostles But that the act of the Apostles was not intended for the Churches represented at the doing of it As that which was done Act. XXI how great soever the authority might be that did it seems to extend no further then the occasion in hand That which remains then in the Scriptures agreeth perfitly well with the original practice of the whole Church It cannot be denied that there are here and there in the records of the Church instances evidencing the sitting of Presbyters in Council which I deny not must needs import the priviledge of voting But the reason of their appearing there appears so often to be particular by commission from their Bishops and to supply their absence that there is no means in the world to darken this evidence for the superiority of Bishops For can it possibly be imagined that the Bishop should alwaies represent his Church in all Councils without choice or other act to depute him were he no more then the first of the Presbyters Is it not evident that the whole Church alwaies took him for the person without whom nothing could be done in the Church which whither in Council or out of Council never dealt with his Church but by him alwayes with his Church by his means Now for the authority of Councils thus constituted though for peace sake and because an end must be had the resolution of all Councils must come from number of Votes which swayes the determinations of all Assemblies yet there is thereupon a respect to be had to the Provinces or parts of the Church which those that vote do represent unlesse we will impute it to blame to those that suffer wrong if they submit not themselves to the determinations of those whom themselves have more right to oblige This consideration resolves into the grounds of the dependence of lesse Churches upon greater Churches all standing in the likelihood of propagating Christianity out of greater Cities into the lesse and of governing the Church in unity by submitting lesse residences to greater rather then on the contrary Which is such a principle that all men of capacity will acknowledge but all would not stand convict of had not the Church admitted it in effect from their founders before they were convict of the effect of it by humane foresight Upon this supposition the Church cannot properly be obliged by the plurality of Bishops who all have right to vote in Council but by the greatnesse and weight of the Churches for whom they serve concurring to a vote And hereof there be many traces in the Histories of the Church when they mention the deputation of some few Bishops representing numerous Provinces which for distance of place or other peremptory hinderances could not be present to frequent as others For can this be a reasonable cause why they should be obliged by the votes of those who were present in greater number The true reason why the decrees of Councils have not alwaies had nor ought alwayes to have the force and effect of definitive sentences but of â—â—rong prejudices to sway the consent of the whole Because there was never any Council so truly Generall that all parts concerned were represented by number of Voâ—es proportionable to the interesse of the Churches for whom they serve For certainly greater is the interest of greater Churches Which case whenâ—oever it comes to passe those that are not content have reason to allege that they are not to be tied by the vote of others but by their own consent And therefore the nnity of the Church requireth that there be just presumption upon the mater of decrees that they will be admitted by those who concurre not to them as no lesse for their good then for the good of the rest of the Church In the mean time the pretense of the Popes infinite Power remaines inconsistent with the very pretenâ—e of calling a Council For why so much trouble to obtain a vote that shall signifie nothing without his consent his single sentence obliging no lesse These are the grounds of that Aristocraty in which the Church was originally governed by the constitution of the Apostles unlesse we will think that a constant order viâ—â—ble in all the proceedings thereof could have come from the voluntary consâ—nt of Christendom not prevented by any obligation and drawing every part of it towards their severall interests which makes the obligation of Councils and their decrees harder to be obtained but when once obtained more firm and sure as not tending to destroy the originall way of maintaining Unity by the free correspondence and consent of those who are concerned but to shorten the trouble of obtaining it And if this were understood by the name of the Hierarchy why should not the simplicity of Apostolical Christianity own it Now because the greatnesse of Churches depended by the ground laid upon the greatnesse of the Cities which was in some sorâ— ambulatory till it was setled by the rule of the Empire begun by Adriane and compleated by Constantine my meaning will
answer to the Jesuites Challenge Pag. 308-326 that the spoiling of Hell is attributed by the Fathers to the rising of our Lord Christ from the grave whereby the law of death was voided Which if it be true what Tradition can there remaine in the Church that our Lord Christs soule should harrow hell and ransacke it of the soules of the Fathers there detained or in the Verge of it Saint Basil de Sp. S. cap. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How then do we go down to Hell aright Imitating the buriall of Christ by Baptisme For the bodies of these who are Baptized are as it were buried in the water Saint Chrysostome in 1 ad Cor. Hom XL. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to be baptized and first to sink then come up againe is an Embleme of going down into Hell and coming up againe And truly if the force of Christs death in voiding the dominion of death stood by the merit of his sufferings Then was the descent of his flesh into the grave of force to that effect without any descent further of his soul into the lower parts thereof And if the death of Christ and his continuing in death for the time that God had appointed was declared by God to be accepted by him to that effect then was his rising from death his triumph over hell and death whereby the title of his rising againe being declared it must needs appear that neither death nor hell nor the devil hath any more interest in Christians Nor is it so strange that the descent of Christ into hell should be mentioned by the Apostles Creed after his buriall if it signify not the descent of his soul as it would be that it should be left out of other Creeds if it did signify that it is necessary to the salvation of all so to believe For neither is it expressed in the Creed of Nicaea or Constantinople nor was it found in that which the Church of Rome or that which the Churches of the East used saith Ruffinus upon the Creed who notwithstanding expoundeth it because the Church of Aquileia which he belonged to used it Which had the signification of it been a distinct truth necessary to the salvation of all to be believed the Churches could by no meanes have connived at one another in not delivering it And truly seeing the dominion of death intimating the second death to which those who belong not to the New Testament are accursed is signified in the Old Testament by going under the earth The signification of going down into Hell in the Creed can by no meanes be thought superfluous though our Lord neither went thither to rescue the Fathers soules nor to triumph over the Powers of darknesse For as thereby the common curse from whence we are redeemed so is also the reason and meanes of our deliverance from it intimated And seeing there is appearance from that which hath been said that the divell himself did not understand the secret of Gods intent to dissolve his interest in mankind by the death of Christ untill it appeared by what right our Lord resumed his body which he had Laid downe this being declared in the other world by his rising again and in signe thereof the soules of the saints that slept rising againe with him and resuming their bodies there is no reason why the mention of his resurrection following immediately upon the descent into Hell in the Creed should not sufficiently expresse that triumph which this declaration importeth Which triumph being effected by the Godhead though in his flesh it will be no marvaile to meet with some sayings of the Fathers that ascribe it to his Godhead Now the common doctrine of the Schoole maketh it no matter of Faith to believe the descent of Christs soule into that Hell where the damned were but onely to the Verge of it where the souls of the Fathers were It is enough with them that the effect of this Power reached to the place of the damned Cardinall Bellarmine when he published his controversies held it probable that the soul of Christ descended to the place of the damned But upon better consideration in the review of them thinks that the other opinion of Thomas and the rest of the Schoole is to be followed And yet it is not possible to distinguish between this Verge and the lowest hell by any Tradition of the Church Nay Durandus goes so farre out of their rode as to maintaine that the soul of Christ went not to hell that is to Lymbus but onely by the effect of it in making the soules of the Fathers happy Which is in my opinion declaring to them the reason of their happinesse And the opinion of Suarez the Jesuite is remarkable That taking an Article of Faith for a truth necessary for the salvation of all Christians to be known the descent of Christ into hell is no Article of Faith For that is not very necessary for single Christians to know And for that cause perhaps it is not in the Nicene Creed which whoso believeth believes enough to save him And that perhaps for this cause some Fathers expounding the Creed to the People make no mention of it In III. Disput XLIII Sect. II. and IV. I may adde for the advantage of my opinion That if it be not necessary for single Christians to believe much lesse is it necessary for the Church as a body to believe it For those things which the Church believeth as a body it imposeth to be believed upon them who are of the body But it cannot be reasonable for the Church as a body to impose upon the members thereof the beliefe of that which it is not necessary to their salvation as single Christians to believe And therefore allowing the conscientiousnesse of S. Augustine who having presumed that he who believes not the descent is no Christiane doubts not that by the descent as many were delivered as Gods secter justice thought fit Epist XCIX And of Saint Jerome in Eph. II. allowing some work of God to be managed by it which we understand no more then what good our Lords death did the good Angels I allow also the reservedness of those of the Confession of Auspurg or of Suisse who acknowledging the literall sense of this Article find not themselves bound to maintaine for what reason it was I am not offended with those in the Church of England that assigne the triumph of our Lord for the reason of it But believing with Saint Gregory Nyssene in Pascha Resurrect Christi Epist ad Eustath that our Lord by the descent of his body into the grave abolished him that had the power of death by his soul made way for the thiefe into Paradise where it self was count this enough for the salvation of all Christians to be believed And therefore that the Church cannot impose upon them as the necessary meanes of their salvation to believe any more I do not intend to say much more
him who believes it not so present as in my opinion the ancient Church did believe Both must worship the body and blood of Christ because incarnate and therefore as the body and blood of Christ is inseparable from the consideration of his God-head which every Christian intends to worship And how can then a mans mistake in thinking the elements to be away which indeed are there make him guilty of honouring those creaturs as God which we know if he thought that they were there he must needs take for creatures and therefore could not honour for God I doe believe it hath been said by great Doctors of the Church of Rome that they must needs think themselves flat Idolaters if they could think that the elements are not abolished That showes what confidence they would have the world apprehend that they hold their opinion with But not that the consequence is true unlesse that which I have said be reprovable For what reason can be given why that bodily gesture which professedly signifieth the honour of God tendred to Christ spiritually present in the Eucharist should be Idolatry because the bread and wine are believed to remaine there Which according to their opinion supposing them to be abolished their accidents onely remaining is no idolatry but the worship of our Lord Christ for God In the next place as concerning prayer to Saints I must suppose that the termes of prayer invocation calling upon and whatsoever else we can use are or may be in despite of our hearts equivocal that is we may be constrained unlesse we use that diligence which common discretion counts superfluous to use the same words in signifyng requests made to God and to man Which are not equivocall according to that equivocation which comes by meere chance but by that for which there is a reasonable ground in that eminence which out conceptions and therefore our words which signifie them expresse unto us For all the apprehensions that we have of God all things intelligible coming from things sensiâ—le we can have no proper conceite of Gods excellence and the eminence thereof above his creatures which necessarily appeares to us under attributes common to his creatures removing that imperfection which in them they are joyned with This is the reason why all signes of honour in word or deed may be equivocall when they need not be counted so being joyned with signes either of other words or deeds which may serve to determine the capacity of them Adoration worship respect reverence or howsoever you translate the Latine cultus are of this kind as I said afore Ingressus scenam populum saltator adorat coming upon the stage to dance he adores or worships the people or as an othersaies jactat basia he throwes them kisses He does reverence to the spectators by kissing his hand and saluting them with it So prayer invocation calling upon God is not so proper to God but that whether you will or not every petition to a Prince or a Court of justice is necessarily a prayer and he that makes it invocates or calls upon that Prince or that Court for favour or for justice Now the militant Church necessarily hath communion with the triumphant believing that all those who are departed in Gods Grace are at rest and secure of being parted from him for the future though those who have neglected the content of this world the most for his service and are in the best of those mansions which are provided for them till the day of judgement whom here we call properly Saints injoy the neerest accesse to his presence To dispute whether we are bonnd to honour them or not were to dispute whether we are to be Christians and to believe this or not Whether this honour be Religious or civill nothing but equivocation of words makes disputable and the cause of that equivocation the want of words vulgar use not having provided words properly to signifie conceptions which came not from common sence If we call it Religion it is manifest that all religion is that reverence which the conscience of our obligation to God rendreth If civil the inconvenience is more grosse though lesse dangerous For how can we owe civill respect where there is no relation of members of the same city or Common wealth Plainely their excellence and the relation we have to them being intelligible onely by Christianity must borrowe a name from that which vulgar language attributes to God or to men our superiours I need say nothing in particular of Angels whom if we believe to be Gods ministers imployed instructing his children upon earth we must needs own their honour though the intercourse between us be invisible It were easy to pick up sayings of the Fathers by which religious honour is proper to Christ and others in which that honour that reverence which religion injoines is tendred Saints and Angels And all to be imputed to nothing but want of proper termes for that honour which religion injoyneth in respect of God and that relation which God hath setled betweene the Church militant and triumphant being reasonably called Religious provided that the distance be not confounded between the religious honour of God and that honour of the creature which the religious honour of God injoines being neither civill nor humane but such as a creature is capable of for religions sake and that relation which it setleth I must come to particulars that I may be understood He that could wish that the memories of the Martyrs and other Saints who lived so as to assure the Church they would have beene Martyrs had they been called to it had not beene honoured as it is plaine they were honured by Christians must find in his heart by consequence to wish that Christianity had not prevailed For this honour depending on nothing but the assurance of their happinesse in them that remained alive was that which moved unbelievers to bethinke themselves of the reason they had to be Christians What were then those honours Reverence in preserving the remaines of their bodies and burying them celebrating the remembrance of their agonies every yeare assembling themselves at their monuments making the daies of their death Festivals the places of their buriall Churches building and consecrating Churches to the service of God in remembrance of them I will adde further for the custome seemeth to come from undefiled Christianity burying the remains of their bodies under the stones upon which the Eucharist was celebrated What was there in all this but Christianity That the circumstances of Gods service which no law of God had limited the time the place the occasion of assembling for the service of God alwaies acceptable to God should be determined by such glorious accidents for Christianity as the departure of those who had thus concluded their race What can be so properly counted the raigne of the Saints and Martyrs with Christ which S. Iohn foretelleth Apoc. XX. as this honour when it came to
the same effect there is no cause why he should be excused of Idolatry for his paines But withall he cannot be excused of contradicting himselfe as grossely as he that maintaines those Saints or Angels to be that one true God whom he acknowledges not to be that God but his creatures If there be reason to presume that they who acknowledge Saints or Angels their Mediators Intercessors or advocates to God intend to commit Idolatry by contradicting themselves thus grossely there may be reason to thinke that they count them their Mediators Intercessors or Advocates to God to that effect to which Christ alone is our Mediator Intercessor or Advocate But if whosoever is accepted to pray for an other is necessarily by so doing his Mediator Intecessor or Advocate to him with whom he is admitted to deal on his behalfe by his prayers then will it be necessary to limite the worke of mediation to that effect which may be allowed to the intercession of the Saints or Angels for us if we will have them to be to purpose Certainely neither could Iob intercede for his friends nor Samuel for the Israelites nor Abraham for Abimelech or Pharao nor any of Gods Prophets for any that had or were to have recourse to them for that purpose but they must be by so doing Mediators intercessors and Advocates for them with God For neither can the mediation of Saints or Angels nor of any prophet or other that can be persumed to have favour with God be to any effect but that which the termes of that reconciliation which our Lord Christ hath purchased for us doe settle or allow But he that saith the Saints and Angels pray for us saith not that we are to pray to Saints or Angels nor can be say it without Idolatry intending that we are to do that to them which they do to God for us On the other side though that which we doe to them and that which they doe to God be both called praying yet it wil be very difficult for him that really and actually apprehendeth all Saints and Angels to be Gods creatures to render both the same honour though supposing not granting the same Christianity to injoyn both But to come to particulars I will distinguish three sorts of prayers to Saints wheâ—her taught or allowed to be taught in the Church of Rome The first is of those that are made to God but to desire his blessings by and through the merits and intercession of his Saints I cannot give so fit an example as out of the Canon of the Masse which all the Westerne Churches of that communion do now use There it is said communicantes memoriam venerantes omnium Sanctorum tuorum quorum meritis precibusque concedas ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio Communicating in and reverencing the memory of such and such and of all thy Saints by whose merit and prayer grant that in all things we may be guarded by thy protection and helpe There is also a short prayer for the Priest to say when he comes to the Altar as he findes opportunity Oramus te Domine per merita sanctorum tuorum quorum reliquia hic sunt omnium sanctorum ut indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea We pray thee Lord by the merits of the Saints whose reliques are here and all Saints that thou wouldest vouchsafe to release me all my sins And on the first Sunday in Advent mentioning the Blessed Virgin they pray Vt qui vere eam matrem Dei credimus ejus apud te intercessionibus adjuvemur That we who believe her truely the mother of God may be helped by her intercessions with thee The second is that which their Litanies containe which though I doe not undertake to know how they are used or how they ought to be used by particular Christians that is how far voluntary how far obligatory yet the forme of them is manifest that whereas you have in them sometimes Lord have mercy upon us Christ have mercy upon us Holy Trinity one God have mercy upon us You have much oftner the Blessed Virgine repeated again and againe under a number of her attributes you have also all the Saints and Angels or such as the present occasion pretends for the object of the devotion which a man tenders named and spoken to with Ora pronobis that is Pray for us The blessed virgine some saie with te rogamus audi nos We beseech thee to heare us One thing I must not forget to observe that the prayers which follow those Litanies are almost alwaies of the first kind That is to say addressed directly to God but mentioning the intercession of Saints or Angels for the meanes to obtain our prayers at his hands The third is when they desire immediately of them the same blessings spirituall and temporall which all Christians desire of God There is a Psalter to be seen with the Name of God changed every where into the Name of the blessed Virgine There is a book of devotion in French with this title Moyen de bien seruir prier adorer la Vierge Marie The way well to serve pray to and adore the blessed Virgine There are divers forms of prayer as well as excessive speeches concerning her especially and other Saints quoted in the Answer to the Jesuites Challenge pag. 330-345 Of those then the first kind seems to me utterly agreeable with Christianity importing onely the exercise of that Communion which all members of Gods Church hold with all members of it ordained by God for the meanes to obtaine for one another the Grace which the obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ hath purchased for us without difference whether dead or alive Because we stand assured that they have the same affection for us dead or alive so farre as they know us and our estate and are obliged to desire and esteem their prayers for us as for all the members of Christs mysticall body Neither is it in reason conceivable that all Christians from the beginning should make them the occasion of their devotions as I said out of any consideration but this For as concerning the terme of merit perpetually frequented in these prayers it hath been alwawes maintained by those of the Reformation that it is not used by the Latine Fathers in any other sense then that which they allow Therefore the Canon of the Masse and probably other prayers which are still in use being more ancient then the greatest part of the Latine Fathers there is no reason to make any diffficulty of admitting it in that sense the ground whereof I have maintained in the second Book The third taking them at the foot of the leter and valuing the intent of those that use them by nothing but the words of them are meer Idolatries as desiring of the creature that which God onely gives which is the worship of the creature for the Creator God blessed for evermore And were we bound to make
for poor soules that they receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist They who depart from the Church that they may minister the Sacraments on such grounds and to such effects as the Church allowes not incurre the nullities and sacriledges which departing from the Church inferreth But if beside the Faith of the Church the authority of the Church be supposed to the effect of the Sacraments how shall the Sacraments be Sacraments though ministred upon profession of the true Faith where no authority of the Church can be pretended for the ministring of them Or where it can onely be pretended but is indeed usurped and void Posterity will never forget that there are in a Land inhabited by Christians called England Country Parishes in which the Sacraments have not been ministred for so many years as the order of the Church of England hath been superseded by the late warre If the Word and Sacraments be the marks of the Church what pretense for a Church where there is indeed a pretense of the Word though no presumption that it is Gods but of Sacraments not so much as a pretense What hath the rest of England deserved of the Congregations or of the Presbyteries that they should be left destitute of the meanes of salvation because they cannot see reason to be of Congregations or Presbyteries Lay men preach and Lay men go to Church to hear them preach because they cannot preach themselves at home to their families The horror of profaning the Sacraments of the Church by Sacriledge is yet alive to make them tremble still at usurping to celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist But will those Lay men that preach answer for the Lay mens soules to whom they preach that they have sufficient means of salvation by hearing them preach being of no Church that might answer that it is Gods Word which they preach ministring no Sacraments for a mark of the Church Is it possible a Christian should hold himself able to preach who holds not himself able to baptize Or is it the appetite of devouring consecrated goods that insnares men to preach who when it comes to baptizing had rather let innocent soules perish then own the authority of the Church which inables every Christian to baptize in case of necessity because they know they usurp the office of preaching without authority from the Church It is I that have said that a Lay man may be authorized to preach by the Church And I believe still I said true in it But shall I therefore answer for him that preacheth without authority from the Church Should he preach by authority from the Church there were presumption for his hearers that it is the Word of God which the Church authorizeth When he preacheth without authority from the Church shall he not answer for the soules whom he warrants salvation by his preaching without Church or Word or Sacraments But these are not the Godly Those that know themselves such are thereby authorized to retire themselves into Congregations that they may injoy the purity of the Ordinances It is then mens Godlinesse that inables them to forsake the Church and betake themselves into Congregations And indeed I know an Oxford Doctor who to prove himselfe no Schismaticke for it hath alledged that he can be no Schismatick because he knowes himself to be Godly and to have Gods Spirit I deny not that he hath alledged other reasons why he is no Schismaticke the ground whereof I considered afore But what Quaker could not have alledged the Spirit of God as well as he And did not he who pretends himself Christ alledge reasons for it as well as pretend the Spirit A nice mistake it is to imagine that a Christian is to accept the Scriptures for the Word of God because the Spirit of God assures him that so they are For of a truth untill the Spirit of God move him to be a Christian he accepteth them not for such When it doth he is moved so to accept them by the Spirit of God as by the effective cause But for reasons which though contained in the Scriptures yet were they not visibly true before a man can accept the Scriptures for the Word of God he could never so accept them by Gods Spirit Unlesse we can imagine the virtue of Gods Spirit not to depend upon the preaching of his Gospel which I suppose onely Enthusiasts do imagine Nor doth the Spirit of God distinguish to any Christian the Apochrypha from Canonicall Scripture but by such meanes as may make the difference visible No more doth it assure him that he is a good Christian but upon the knowledge of such resolutions and actions wherein Christianity consisteth If it be requisite to make a man no Schismatick that it be not his own fault that he is not of the Catholicke Church If he perswade himselfe upon unsufficient reasons that there is no such thing by Gods Law as the visible body of a Catholick Church Just it is with God to leave such a one to thinke it Gods Spirit that assures him a godly man being a Schismatick It is not therefore supposition of invisible godlinesse that can priviledge men to withdraw themselves from the Church into Congregations supposing such a thing as a Catholicke Church The purity being invisible but the barre to it separation from Gods Church visible the Ordinances for which they separate will remaine their own Ordinances not Gods The Presbyterians sometimes pleade their Ordination in the Church of England for the authority by which they ordaine others against the Church of England to doe that which they received authority from the Church of England to doe provided that according to the order of it A thing so ridiculously senselesse that common reason refuseth it Can any State any society doe an act bâ— virtue whereof there shall be right and authority to destroy it Can the Ordination of the Church of England proceeding upon supposition of a solemne promise before God and his Church to execute the ministery a man receiveth according to the Order of it inable him to doe that which he was never ordained to doe Shall he by failing of his promise by the act of that power which supposed his promise receive authority to destroy it Then let a man obtaine the kingdome of heaven by transgressing that Christianity by the undertaking whereof he obtained right to it They are therefore meere Congregations voluntarily constituted by the will of those all whose acts even in the sphere of their ministery once received are become voide by theire failing of that promise in consideration whereof they were promoted to it Voide I say not of the crime of Sacrilege towards God which the usurpation of Core constituteth but of the effect of Grace towardes his people For the like voluntary combining of them into Presbyteries and Synodes createth but the same equivocation of wordes when they are called Churches to signify that which is visible by their usurpation in point of fact
revealed from heaven upon all ungodlinesse and unrighteousnesse of men that hold the truth in unrighteousnesse For the preaching of the Gospel is that revelation which here he meanes And by S. Augustine de Catechizandi Rudibus we understand that by the order of the Church there was no instruction in Christianity without conviction of the judgement to come as that which obligeth to have recourse to Baptisme for the avoiding of it But when God condescends to tender to those whom he holds liable to his justice terms of reconcilement plainly he comes down from his Throne of judgement to deale with his obnoxious creatures upon equall terms or rather terms of disadvantage supposing what no Christian can deny that the Gospel tenders terms of our advantage Nay he is content to go before and to declare himself tied before hand if we accept expecting our choice whether we will be bound by accepting or not which is a difference between the Law and the Gospel not unworthy to be observed For the Covenant of the Law was struck once for all with all those whome it concerned to wit the whole people of Israel at once their posterity being by birth subject to it But when the Gospel is preached the Covenant of Grace is tendered indeed but not inacted till some man consent to become a Christian and therefore God first binds himself to stand to the termes which he tenders expecting whether man will accept them or not And though it be called the Covenant of Grace while it is but tendered yet it is not a Covenant till it be inacted between God and every one that is baptized Seeing then that no justification of sinners takes effect but by virtue of the Covenant of Grace and that the act of Gods meer Grace inacts and gives force to that Covenant manifest it must needs be that justification imports the act of God admitting him for righteous who setting aside that Covenant could not challenge so to be held and dealt with But if justification import this act of God shall it not therefore imply shall it not suppose some condition qualifying him for it For what challenge can he whom the Gospel overtaketh in sinne pretend for reward by it being engaged by Gods law to the utmost of his power otherwise shall a mans conversion from sinne past to righteousnesse to come challenge both the cancelling of his debts and a reward beyond all proportion of that which he is able to do being obliged to do it But shall that Gospel which pretends to retrive righteousnesse into the world allow the reward of righteousnesse without any consideration of it How then shall it oblige man to righteousnesse being a law that derogates from any law of God that went afore it allowing all the promises it tenders without any consideration of righteousnesse For I will not here stand to dispute whether the Covenant of Grace be a law or not because every contract is a law to the parties and this being between God and man and supposing the transgression of Gods Originall law necessarily abates the extent and force of it But I will demand what is or what can be the righteousnesse of a sinner but repentance Which as it is part of righteousnesse so farre as it is understood to be conversion from all sinne so as it is understood to be the conversion of sinners to Christianity is all righteousness because all sinners are called to Christianity Only with this difference that repentance is the way to that end which is righteousnesse Repentance in fieri righteousnesse in facto esse according to the terms of the Schoole And is it not righteousnesse for a sinner to desire to purpose to resolve to be righteous for the time to come Or can he that is truly qualified a sinner be any other way truly qualified righteous Therefore that resolution of righteousnesse which he that sincerely undetakes Christianity must needs put on the first part whereof is the profession of God by Christ the author and rewarder of it This I say is that which qualifies a Christian for the promises of the Gospel but alwayes by virtue of Gods free act in tendring the Covenant of Grace not by any obligation which his creature can prevent him with And this is manifestly S. Pauls sense in Rom. IV. 3 11 22 23 24. where he alleges Moses that Abrahams faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse and David pronouncing him blessed unto whom God imputeth no sinne To shew that the Gospel declareth Christians to be justified by faith no otherwise then the Fathers understood men to become Righteous by Gods grace accepting that which nothing could oblige him to accept for righteousnesse For no man is so wilfully blinde as to imagine that the Apostle speakes here of our Lord Christ the object not of the act of faith whose words are That Faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse and blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne And sinne as I take it stands not in opposition to the object of faith And when the Scripture saith Psal CVI. 30 31. Then stood up Phineas and exercised judgement and so the Plague ceased And this was imputed to him for righteousnesse among all posterities for evermore It is manifest that doing vengeance upon malefactors is accounted a righteous thing for Phineas to do though by Gods command yet without processe of law And 1 Mac. 11. 52. Was not Abraham found faithfull in temptation and it was counted to him for righteousnesse And shall not faith be said to be imputed to him for righteousnesse in the same sense as we see evidently induring temptation is imputed to him and doing vengeance to Phineas for righteousnesse That is to say that the act of faith not the object of it which act what it is and wherein it consists I suppose is decided by the premises is imputed to Abraham and his Spirituall seed for righteousnesse I have said nothing all this while concerning that opinion which makes that faith which alone justifieth to consist in believing that a man is justified or predestinate to life in consideration only of Christs obedience imputed to him And truely having said so much why it cannot consist in having trust and confidence in God through Christ I do not think I need say much more to it First whether or no a Christian can have the assurance of faith that he is for the present justified or that he is from everlasting predestinate to life is a thing that I intend not here either to grant or to deny Nothing hindring me supposing for the present but not granting that such assurance may be had upon that supposition to dispute that he is not justified by having that assurance but that by being justified he obtaines it For were it not the strangest thing in the world that any knowledge should produce the object of it which it supposeth Can any reason allow the effect to produce the cause or any thing
to depend upon the consequence of it No more can Christianity allow the assnrance of this truth I am justified supposing it to be true to be the ground why it is true And if any man say that justifying faith is not the assurance of this truth I am justified but of this truth I am â—redestinate to life the reason being Because the obedience of Christ appointed for the salvation of the elect alone is imputed to him once for all to life not onely for the present to righteousnesse can any reason be given why this reason should not take effect from everlasting but depend upon the knowledge of it wherein justifying faith is said to consist For if the onely consideration that intitles him to the promises of the Gospel be the obedience of Christ why shall not that right take place from the same date from which the consideration tendered for it takes place Why should not the opinion of the Antinomians at least that which I make to be ground of that Heresie take place rather then this of Presbyterians For both of them being equally destructive to the Gospel of Christ that which agrees best with it self the several assumptions whereof are most consistent with and consequent to one another is doubtlesse the more receivable Now whether we make justification granted from everlasting to the elect for whom alone Christ was sent to go before faith as the object goes before the knowledge and assurance of it Or whether we make it to depend upon faith though passed meerely in consideration of the obedience of Christ deputed for the salvation of the elect alone there will remaine no obligation upon the elect to performe any obedience to God being intitled to and assured of salvation afore it and without it For the Gospel is the last Law of God derogatory to any declaration of his will antecedent to it and not suffering any other to take place further then is provided by it So that supposing that God hath published salvation to the elect meerly in consideration of Christ without requiring any terms at their hands Well may it be said that notwithstanding he may determine them to do those things which he would have them do that shall be saved But it cannot be said that he can oblige them to any condition to be performed of their free choice Or consequently that there can remaine any difference between good and bad in the doings of them who are free from all obligation to the meanes because intitled to the end without them And truly it is more modesty to say that the actions of the elect to which God determines them upon these terms are not good then to say as by consequence it must be said that the actions of the reprobates are bad which upon these terms are not their actions but Gods nor imputable to any will of theirs but to his But this inconvenience being unavoidable whether we make justification to depend upon that faith which consists in assureing us of the same and that is to make an object to depend upon the act which it produceth or that faith to depend upon it as included in predestination to liâ—e both of them being destructive to Christianity it is but a poor plaister by contradicting a mans self to seem to salve so great an inconvenience And truly t is much to be wondered at how those that professe nothing but Scripture could ever perswade themselves of an imagination for which there is nothing to be alledged out of the whole tenor of the Scriptures Whatsoever can be produced out of the Old Testament for that trust which the people of God might or ought to have in God for the obtaining of his promises whatsoever out of the New for that peace and security with which Christians may and ought to expect the world to come supposing but not granting all that can be pretended thereby do but demand where it is said that a man hath this trust this peace this security by having it and all will be mute And therefore having shewed that the trust and peace of a Christian supposeth that ground upon which he is justified I will spend no more words to shew that the knowledge and assurance of justification or predestination supposes the being of it and that the ground whereupon it takes place CHAP. VIII The objection from S. Paul We are not justified by the Law nor by Workes but by Grace and by Faith Not meant of the Gospel and the workes 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 workes of the Gentils by the light of nature The civil and outward workes of the Law may be done by Gentiles How the Law is a Pedagogue to Christ THE last reason whereby I prove my intent consists in the assoiling of that Objection which is alledged from the disputes of S. Pauls Epistles arguing that a Christian is not justified by the Law or by the works of the Law and therefore by Grace and by Faith For he that is justified by ingaging himself to professe Christianity and to live according to the same must needs be justified by performing his ingagement Unlesse a man would say that he is justified by making a promise which he never observeth and which it concerns him not to keep being once justified by making of it And truly having said that God admits a man into the state of his Grace in consideration of the act of undertaking this profession I do not onely grant but challenge for my privilege to maintaine that he hold him in the same state in consideration of the act or acts whereby he performes the same And therefore to the Objection I returne this in generall That I do not grant any man to be justified by any thing that supposes not of the Gospel of Christ since the publishing of it That is not by such works as can be done by him that hath not yet admitted and imbraced the Gospel of Christ and that by virtue of that Grace of God which sets on foot the Covenant of Grace For the Law going before the Gospel and being unable to produce that obedience which God would accept in lieu of the World to come further then as containing in it self the Gospel and the effects of it It is manifest that righteousnesse cannot be attributed to the Law nor the works of the Law And yet if we consider that the Gospel it self is a law of God whereby he ties at least himself to certain rerms upon which he declares that he will be reconciled with his enemies There is no reason to understand when S. Paul sayes that a man is not justified by the Law or the works of the Law that he meanes to deny a Christian to be justified by doing according to the Gospel which is the law that God pretends to introduce in stead of that law by which the