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
disputed by degrees that they are not true There would be nothing in my way to hinder the resolution of a positive Rule to distinguish between true and false in all things concerning the Christian Faith Notwithstanding because by that which already wee have said and that which appears to all men in the Scriptures there is sufficient means to conclude so much as I have proposed and that the proof of it will be an advantage to that which shall follow I shall undertake it supposing no more than I have said I do remember the Argument made against Tradition by Marinaro the Carmelite at the Council of Trent Which as it was thought so considerable there that order was taken that hee should appeare no more in the Council so seemed to mee when I reade it not easie to answer Now upon further consideration I make it my ground to prove the conclusion which I have advanced Hee argued That it was not possible to give a reason why God should provide that some of those truths which are necessary to salvation should be recorded in Scripture others equally obliging not For if you interpose the terme clearly and argue That there is no reason why God should deliver some things clearly by writing others not the argument will be the same To mee it seems manifest that hee who once holds that all things necessary to the salvation of all are clearly contained in the Scriptures adding onely clearly to his terms to all understandings ties himself by giving the reason why they ought to be clear because necessary to maintain that all truths are delivered by Scripture in the same degree of clearnesse to all understandings as they are in degree of necessity to the salvation of all souls For that every cause every reason should inferre the consequence produce the effect answerable in degree to that degree which the reason or cause is supposed to hold is a thing that all reason inforces every understanding justifies But that all things are not clear by the Scriptures in the same degree as they are necessary to salvation is clear to all in point of fâ—ct Inasmuch as there are infinite truths which Christians diffâ—r not about in the Scriptures because they think not their salvation concerned in the mater of them those which are thought to concern it remaining in dispute because not so clear Neither is it for a Christian to prescribe a reason why it ought to be otherwise because that were to prescribe unto Almighty God a rule not depending upon his will declared otherwise This is the issue upon which I demonstrate my intent Neither Gods act in general of declâ—ring his will in writing not his particular acts of declaring his will in such several maters as the several writings of the Prophets and Apostles which make the Body of the Scriptures contain do any way import the declaring of an intent in God thereby to manifest all things necessary to the salvation of all clearly to all understandings therefore that any thing is necessary to salvation is no presumption that it is clearly declared in Scripture to all understandings Inasmuch as it is manifest that no man can give Law to God what hee ought to declare but all men may presume that and that onely to be declared which by dealing with mâ—n under such or such a profession hee hath of his free goodnesse tied himself to declare For it being in the free choice of God whether to declare any will concerning mans salvation or none and that choice being made it remaining yet in his choice whether hee would declare his will by writing or not as it was in his power for so many years before Moses to save men without Scripture it cannot be said that either before declaring an intent to save men hee was bound to declare all that was necessary unto it by writing or by declaring it And this I hold enough to demonstrate to all understandings that the declaring of an intent to deliver us by writing things concerning our salvation imports not in God an intent to declare thereby all things necessary to the salvation of all clearly to all understandings Which will yet be cleâ—rer by proving the other part of my proposition that by the intent of writing the several Books whereof the Scripture consists clearly declared God hath not clearly declared the intent so often said The proof of this by the particulars I hold the sufficientest satisfaction that can be tendred here where the pretense is to proceed onely upon that which all Christians receive The particulars consist in the writings of the Prophets the sayings and doings of our Lord recorded in the four Gospels and the writings of the Apostles For the Gospels pretending to contain the doings and sayings of our Lord but to be written by his disciples It followes by the nature of the busâ—nesse that they must contain some thing as from the person of the Writer and of his sense over and above what they pretend to record Which properly will belong to the writings of the Apostles though contained in the Gospels And thus farre to avoid cavil I have thought fit here to distinguish Now that all mater of salvation is not clearly contained in the writings of the Prophets that is in the Old Testament written by Moses and his Scholars the Prophets I prescribe upon that which all Christians suppose as the ground upon which Christianity is justified against Judaisme That the Old Testament delivereth but the figure and shadow of the New For unlesse a man will have the figure and shadow to be all one with the body and substance hee must confesse that the substance of Christianity which is shadowed in the Old Testament is not clearly declared by the same unless he will have to be shadowed and unshadowed that is clear to be all one Let mee demand if Christianity be clearly declared by the Law to be that profession which God would have all to be saved by that should be saved from the time of prescribing it what need the miracles of our Lord and his Apostles what need the Resurrection and so his Sufferings as to the account of evidencing the truth of his Doctrine For the Law being once received upon necessary reasons it is impossible to say why any new reasons should be requiâ—ite to inforce the truth or the obligation of the Gospel if it were clearly declared by it Again it is manifest that our Lord being risen again and giving the Holy Ghost unto his Disciples by breathing on them John XX. 22. gave them also a spiritual grace of understanding the Scriptures as you finde Luke XXIV 32 45. Where first the Disciples that went to Emmaus confesse with admiration Did not our hearts burn within us when hee talked with us on the way and opened us the Scriptures declaring unto them how hee was foretold in the Old Testament as you have it afore Then having perswaded them all that it was even hee
the Christian Faith The one forfeiteth his interest in Heaven by the inward act of his soul refusing the common faith which saveth all Christians though outwardly holding communion with the Church The other by the inward act of the soul proceeding to the outward act of dissolving the communion of the Church which the common charity of Christians in the first place is to maintain If both these crimes may come under the the common name of Heresie because inward misbelief naturally tendeth to make a sect of such as shall profess to live according to it no marvail if all divisions of the Church be commonly called both Heresies and Schisms whatsoever be the cause upon which they divide If meer schisms that is where the cause is not any thing necessary to the salvation of all to be believed be also Heresie in the Language of the Apostles Neverthelesse there being so much difference between the two crimes and the grounds of them it is necessary to understand setting aside all aequivocation of terms that there is a crime consisting in mis-believing some Article of the faith which if you please may properly be called Heresie And another consisting in dissolving the unity of the Church which is properly called Schism when there is no further pretense for it then some Law which the Church being able to make the other part will rather depart then admit There may divisions in the Church upon pretence of such doctrines as are not necessary to the salvation of all and so no part of the rule of faith but so evidently to be deduced from it and from the rest of the Scriptures that the Church may have cause to determine the same and yet others may choose rather to depart from the Church then suffer the determination thereof to take place Which divisions that memorable observation of S. Jerome seems to call Heresies which said that all Schisms naturally devise to themselves some Heresie that is some doctrine extravagant from the doctrine of the Church that they may seem not to have departed from the Church for nothing Which is very well exemplified by S. Austine in the Donatists But whether such divisions are to be counted Heresies or Schisms both names properly signifying all divisions of the Church and only that crime which consisteth in mis-believing some Articles of faith appropriating the name of Heresie because common use hath given it no peculiar name of its own I leave to him that shall please to determine it Supposing these things it will not be requisite for me to say much to that which hath been published concerning the nature of Schism of late That being to be had onely out of the Scripture it is no where there to be had but in S. Paul to the Corinthians That there was at Corinth when S. Paul writ onely one Congregation of Christians which he calleth the Church of Corinth That therefore there is no crime of schism but in breaking one Congregation into more As for any visible society of the Catholick Church acknowledging the materials men that professe Christianity which he that sees cannot believe to the form which is that unity which is visible he is as great a stranger as if he had never heard of the Creed acknowledging notwithstanding an invisible unity in the common faith and love of Christians upon perswasion whereof he challenges as great freedom from schism as ever any member of the Catholick Church could claim For having showed how a thing which God made visible for many ages may reasonably be expected to be found in the Scriptures I am not to yield to try it by any part of them knowing that whosoever evidenceth a society of the Church by Gods Law evidenceth the crime that consists in the dissolving of it And it were fit we were told how all the Christians in a City where God had much people should sit at one Table or at least sup in one room before we believe that there was then no more Christians at Corinth then could assemble at once Which if I did believe I would notwithstanding alledge Iustine the Martyrs words Apol II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the day called Sunday all that dwelt in Cities or in Countries assemble themselves in one And supposing that then there were more Christians in Rome and the Territorie thereof for example for he writes to the Emperour Antoninus then could meet together in one place As Iustine means not when he saies That all in Cities or Countries meet in one that all made one Assembly but met all in common assemblies I would thereupon argue that no more does S. Paul say when he gives these rules to the Corinthians 1 Cor. XI 14. which serve any assembly that there was then but one Congregation at Corinth If in Iustines time if afore if after he can show me any Church of Rome or any City beside Rome that contained not all the Christians of that City and the Territory thereof I will believe that when Clemens writ the Letter lately published from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth there were no more Christians at Rome or at Corinth then could meet all at once But if in all the Scripture as well as in all the Records of the Church a Church signifie the university of Christians which one City and the Territory thereof containeth it is an affront to common sense for him to deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Church that is contained in the City and Territory of Rome or Corinth Let the learned Publisher of that Epistle take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there for Inquilinus or Peregrinus in Inmate or Pilgrim because his Greek gave him leave he that hath been showed so plentiful mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the subject in question for that which we now call a Diocese can have no reason to see with his eyes but because he is resolved not to use his own For in the very address of Polycarpus his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Church of God dwelling beside Philippi The dative case quite spoils the construction of the words to his sense If the Church of the Philippians dwelt near Philippi then the Christians of the Territory belonged to the Church of the City As for the visible unity of the Catholick Church it was not so easie for me to evidence that which could not be questionable till the difference between Catholick Church and true Church came to be questionable As it is not hard for any Christian to question whither the Church which was Catholick for so many ages ought now to be Catholick or not For till he have destroyed the evidence which this abridgement hath been able to advance and when that is done new evidence will not be wanting so long as the records of the Church are Historically true and men continue possest of common sense it is in vain to alledge the dictate of his own
hand that the nature of that faith to which the Scriptures of the Apostles and the most ancient Fathers of the Church ascribe remission of sins and that righteousnesse which the Gospel holdeth forth together with other promises of the same is no way declared by this resolution but darkned For it is manifestly requisite for a due account of the sense as well of the most ancient Fathers as of the Scriptures that the nature of faith be understood to consist in that to which the said promises may duely be ascribed which in both are so oft so plainly and so properly ascribed to faith not to any thing which may stand with it or necessarily follow it Now though no man can resolve to professe Christianity without true love to God above all things yet the Scriptures of the New Testament plentifully shew that the holy Ghost the Spirit of love is not given to reside habitually with any but those that are baptized and so become Christians however necessary the actuall assistance of the same holy Ghost is to go before and to induce them to become Christians by undertaking what that profession requires Therefore it will be necessary to distinguish not onely the faith but the love but the hope the fear the trust in God and all other graces begun in him that beginneth to believe the Gospel to be true but is yet not resolved to undergo the profession of it and the condition which it supposes From the same as they are in him who upon such resolution is become a Christian And if any man upon this distinction will say that the faith which he believed with afore is faith without forme but formed afterwards he shall easily have me to concurre with him in it Alwayes provided that whatsoever it is the Scripture attributes the procuring of the promises of the Gospel to that be understood to belong to the nature of that faith which alone justifies according to the Scriptures CHAP. VII The last signification of Faith is properly justifying Faith The first by a Metonymy of the cause The second of the effect Those that are not justified doe truly believe The trust of a Christian presupposeth him to be justified All the promises of the Gospel become due at once by the Covenant of Grace That to believe that we are Elect or Justified is not Justifying Faith FOR now it is time to draw the argument which I purposed at first from these premises and to say That the name of faith by the effects which by virtue of the Gospel promises it produceth being attributed first to the bare belief of the Gospel secondly to that trust which a Christian enters into by being Baptized and lastly to that trust in God through Christ which Christianity warranteth And the second of these naturally presupposing the first as the third both of them the reason can be no other then this Because the middle is that which entitleth Christians to the promise of the Gospel in respect whereof both the name of Faith and the effects of these promises are duly and reasonably ascribed both to that which it supposeth and to that which it produceth both to the cause and to the effect of it For in all manner of language it is as necessary to use that change of words and the sense of them which is called Metonymy by Humanists and by some Philosophers and Divines of the Schooles denominatio ab extrinseco as it is impossible for any man to expresse his minde without that change of speech which they call a Trope in any manner of Language It is not to be imagined that those fashions of speech are onely used for ornament and elegance of language The Humanists themselves having taught us that they are as our clothes as well to cover nakednesse as for comelynesse For as long as the conceits of the minde may be infinitely more then the words that have ben used it will be absolutely necessary to straine the use of customary speech as the conceit is not customary which we desire to expresse It will not therefore be strange that the name of faith should be used to signifie three conceptions distinct but depending one on the other so long as there are more conceptions then words It will not be strange that the effects of that trust which a man entreth into by undertaking the profession of a Christian should be attributed both to that Faith which believeth the Gospel to be true being a thing necessarily presupposed to induce a man to undertake that ingagement and to that confidence which a Christian hath in God through Christ being a thing necessarily insuing upon the undertaking of it with a sincere and effectuall purpose But this would be strange and no just reason to be given for it were it not granted that the second to wit that sincere undertaking the trust of a Christian is that which really intitleth him to the promises of the Gospel For is it not manifest to all Christians that there are too many in the world whom we cannot imagine to have any due title to those promises and yet do really and verily believe the faith of Christ to be true and Him and His Apostles sent from God to preach it If therefore we will have these Scriptures which ascribe the promises of the Gospel to believing the truth of it to be true we must understand them by way of Metonymy to be attributed to it as of right belonging to the consequence which it is naturally apt to produce Nor is there any reason that convinceth me in this point more then that which Socinus giveth why justification should be attributed to that act of faith alone whereby a man believes the Gospel to be true His reason is because he that throughly believes the true God and his providence which will bring all mens doings to judgement and render them their due reward of life or death that believes our Lord Christ truly tendereth everlasting happinesse to all that take his yoke upon them and draw in it as long as they live must needs stand convict that he is to proceed accordingly I say no lesse And I say that the preaching of the Gospel tenders motives sufficient to convict all the world of so much But I say further that so long as notwithstanding sufficient conviction tendered notwithstanding a mans faith engaged and his own sentence past against himself if he faile we see men either not embrace Christianity or not performe it having imbraced it So long right to Gods Promises cannot be ascribed to this belief though in reason whosoever is convict of the truth cannot deny but he ought to engage in Christianity and hold it The reason is because we see men not alwayes do that which resonably they ought to do And therefore it is not enough to have submitted to conviction what we ought to do And the promises of the Gospel are not properly ascribed to the belief of those truths which convince men
difference between the Law of all righteousnes and the Law of all unrighteousnes signifieth For upon other terms can no man professe himself a Christian And as great and as reall a change it is that succeeds upon that change between the relation which he that is so changed did hold towards God afore and now holds afterwards as the difference between the heir of Gods wrath and of his kingdome importeth But supposing that change which justifying faith importeth already in being that change which the effect of it in justifying importeth is of necessity meerly morall and consisteth onely in the difference between that remission of sinnes and Gods kingdome which the promise of his grace and the debt of punishment which the sentence of his justice declareth Whether therefore justifying faith be Gods work or not which here I dispute not because here I cannot resolve for the cause of it the effect of it in justifying which here I debate will signify no more then an attribute due by right to him that hath it upon Gods promise importing no change in him but that which it supposeth how much soever it import his salvarion that his relation to God be so changed For I may safely here suppose that which the title of this dispute and the very name of the Covenant of Grace attributed to the Gospel of Christ involveth That Faith justifyeth not by virtue of the work naturally but morally by that will and appointment of God by virtue whereof the Covenant of Grace standeth And this necessarily holds in the sense of the Church when it ascribeth justification to faith alone in opposition to the workes of the Law A necessary consequence whereof is this That the forgivenesse of our sinnes will presuppose and require of us that we forgive others their offenses against us Because we hold the forgivenesse of our sinnes by the title of our Christianity Whereof seeing it is one point that we forgive other men their offenses against us of necessity failing of the condition required on our part we faile of the promise tendered of Gods Therefore the Fathers also as the Scriptures afore attribute remission of sinnes to Charity to almes deeds and to forgiveing of offenses against us Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians p. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Happy were we if we did do the commandments of God in the concord of Love that our sinnes might be forgiven us through Love The Apostolicall constitutions VII 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou hast give by thine own hands that thou mayest act to the redemption of thy sinnes For by almes and truth sinnes are purged away Lactantius VI. 12. Magna est misericordiae merces cui Deus pollicetur peccata se omnia remissurum Si audieris inquit preces supplicis tui ego audiam tuas Si misertus laborantium fueris ego in tuo labore miserebor Si autem non respexeris nec adjuveris ego animum contra te geram tuisque te legibus judicabo Great are the wages of mercy which God hath promised that he will remit all sinnes If thou hearest saith he the prayers of thy suppliant I also will hear thine If thou takest pitty on them that are in paine I also will take pitty upon thy paine But if thou respect not nor help them I also will carry a mind against thee and judge thee by thine owne Law S. Chrysost Tomo VI. Orat. LXVII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But there is another way of cleansing sinne not inferiour to this not to remember the malice of enemies to containe wrath to remit the sinnes of fellow-servants For so those which we have done against our Lord shall be forgiven us Behold also a second way to purge sinnes For if ye forgive saith he And by and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if you will learn a fourth I will name almes For it hath great force and not to be expressed For to Nabucodonosor being arived at all kinde of wickednesse and going over all goodnesse Daniel saith Redeem thy sinnes with almsdeeds and thy transgressions with pittying the poor To the same purpose the same S. Chrysost makes forgiving of injuries giving thanks in affiction mercy in helping our neighbours the cure for sinne as well as humility confession and prayer In 2 ad Corinth Hom. II. Because thereby a Christian retires to his promise in Baptisme expecting remission only from Gods promise in the same So also In Epist ad Rom. Hom. XXV S. Ambrose De poenitentia II. 5. David beatum praedicavit illum cui peccata per Baptismum remittuntur illum cujus peccata operibus teguntur David proclaimes for blessed both him whose sinnes are remitted by Baptisme and him whose sinnes are covered with workes So charity covers many sinnes done after Baptisme Caesarius of Arles Homil. I. Quoties infirmos visitamus in carcerem positos requirimus discordes ad concordiam revocamus indicto in Ecclesia jejunio jejunamus hospitibus pedes abluimus ad vigiliâ—s frequentius convenimus eleemosynam ante ostium praetereuntibus pauperibus damus iniâ—icis nostris quoties petierint indulgemus istis operibus his similibus minuta peccata quotidie redimuntur As oft as we visit the sick seek those that are put in prison reduce those that fall out to agreement fast when a fast is published in the Church wash the feet of strangers assemble more frequently to wakes give almes to the poor that go by the doore pardon our enemies as oft as they demand by these works and like to these small sinnes are every day redeemed S. Austine Libro L. Homil. Hom. L. Cap. VIII Non enim ea dimitti precamur quae jam in Baptismo dimissa sunt nisi dimissa credimus de ipsa fide dubitamus sed utique de quotidianis peccatis hoc dicimus pro quibus etiam sacrificia eleemosynarum jejuniorum ipsarum orationum supplicationum quisque pro suis viribus offerre non cessat For we pray not for the pardon of those which are already pardoned in Baptisme which if we believe not that they are pardoned we call the faith it self in doubt But this forsooth we speak of daily sinnes for which also no man ceaseth to offer according to his power the sacrifices of almes and fasting and even of prayers and supplications S. Gregory In Psalm II. Poenitent Habent enim sancti viri aliquid quod in hac vita operire debeant Quia omnino est impossibile ut in loquutione aut etiam in cogitatione nunquam delinquant Student igitur viri Dei oculorum linguae culpas tegere meritis vita student pondere bonorum operum premere immoderata verborum For holy men have something in this life which they ought to hide Because it is altogether impossible that in speech or at least in thought they should never faile Therefore the men of God study to cover the faults of the eyes and tongue
it part of that quality in consideration whereof God for Christs sake allowes remission of sinnes is to say thinges utterly inconsequent In as much as I have said that Gods consideration imports onely this that he decrees remission of sinnes for repentance in the nature of a motive cause not that he is moved by repentance to decree it Neither is it any way consequent for him that admitteth new obedience to be in consideration in bestowing everlasting life to stick at admitting repentance to be in consideration in bestowing the right of it For though the promises of the Gospell in this life are many remission of sinnes and reconcilement regeneration justification sanctification adoption of sonnes and if there be any thing else of that ranke yet whatsoever difference a divine may justly argue between these from the Scriptures it were a grosse inconvenience to say that the condition of the Gospell being performed they are not all due to him in whome it is found The terme of sanctification it selfe though it necessarily imports the habituall dwelling of the Holy Ghost in him that is reconciled to God because we know the Gospell promises it yet it supposes not onely that promise but also another that God will accept it for holinesse in him in whome originall concupiscence notwithstanding remains And if the terme of regeneration import that inhaerent disposition of mind to which a man by becoming a Christian is borne a new yet that of adoption expresses the free will of God by which he accepteth him that iâ— changed to such a disposition for his sonne So that neither remission of sinnes nor right to the kingdome can be understood to be assigned under the title of justification in consideration of Christ without consideration of that condition which the Gospell of Christ requireth Lastly I say that the said opinion is apt to give just occasion of a mistake in justifying Faith that may be destructive to the Christian Faith My reason is because it is hard so to provide as heitherto sufficient provision could never be made as to distinguish from it the opinion of justification by beleeveing that Christ died for him that beleeves as one of the Elect for whome alone Christ died Which is no lesse destructive to the Faith then the Haeresy of the Antinoâ—ians that a man is justified in consideration of Christ before we beleeve it And truly the manifold controversies and everlasting wrangles which the misunderstanding of the nature of that faith which alone justifyeth hath raised among those that depart from the Church of Rome Some making it to consist in beleeving that a man is predestinate to life others in trusting in God through Christ Some making onely the passive obedience of Christ others both active and pasive to be imputed to us Some making justification to consist onely in remission of sinnes others in that and in the imputation of Christs merits both may justly move them to retire to the simplicity of the Gospell which they will never find in any termes but those which I propose That all the promises thereof are due upon makeing good the true profession of Christianity If it be said that those Homilies which the article of the Church of England referres us to for the right understanding of Justification and Justifying Faith seeme to expresse this opinion which I esteeme neither true nor yet destructive to the Faith I answere ingenuously that they seeme to me so to doe But that so doing the sense of it is utterly unreconcileable with those things which I have quoted out of the office of baptisme and the beginning of the Catechisme Which being as much subscribed by the Clergy as the Articles and Homilies are and also containing the whole Religion of the people and the Clergies therefore as Christians for the people being not acquainted with the Articles but when they change theire Curate had no meanes to take further notice of them is by consequence to be preferred in case of competition Unreconcileable I say as farre as this opinion is unreconcileable to that which I have proposed the communion of the Church no wayes requiring that men should be reconciled in the interpretation of the Scriptures provided it draw no consequence destructive to the Faith as this doth not but that which in termes it complies with doth And therefore I have held it my duty that opinion having broken forth into a manifest Heresy of the Antinoâ—ians and the detestation of that tending to let in a contrary Heresy of the Socinians as first it bred it to declare to all that are not professed enemies to the Church of England and the Catholick Church with it the first misunderstanding from whence I conceive such dangerous errors proceed that if God ever send order out of that confusion in Religion which now rules among us I may have contested that there can be no sure ground for it but the plaine faith of the Catholick Church It is well enough knowne that there is still another opinion concerning Justification to wit that of the Schoole Doctors which the Council of Trent seemeth to have made mater of Faith Which maketh the beginning of Justification to consist in that faith which beleeveth the Gospell to be true Whereupon as there necessarily followes servile feare of that punishment to which it discovers all that refuse it to be liable So it gives ground enough of hope to all that resolve not to refuse it So that the mind balancing betweene the love of God which preferres the next world and the love of our selves and of this world which preferres this if a man concerning that sorrow for his sinnes which the love of God not the feare of punishment suggests and acting those workes of Penance which if a Christian before the neglect of his calling and profession requires resolve to preferre the love of God in all his actions for the time to come the faith and the hope which he had before without forme now being informed by the love of God above all and his servile feare turned into filiall he becomes just because formally indowed with this love which makes all his indowments supernaturall and proportionable to the reward of everlasting happinesse which the Gospell tenders provided that he receive the Sacrament of Baptisme or effectually desire it if it were to be had Of this opinion I say First that it committeth as great a fault as the former in assigning the true conceit and notion of justifying Faith For whereas there are indeed as I have showed three significations of Faith in the writings of the Apostles wherein onely there is expresse question of the justification of Christians the first and last whereof depend upon the middle as the cause and effect of it And that the Apostles intend the second sense properly when they dispute against the Jewes that a man is not justified by workes nor by the Law but by Grace and by Faith that is by the Gospell tendring the
then a Patriarch it will neverthelesse be questionable how faâ—re it injoyes the same rights throughout the West or rather unquestionable that he did noâ— consecrate all the â—iâ—â—ops of the West as he of Alexandria did all the Bishops of Egypt and he of Antiochia all those of the Eastern Diocese On the other side it will be unquestionable that all causes that conceâ—n the whole Church are to resort to it And if Innocent I. mean none but those when he sayes that they are excepted from the Canon of Nicaea that forbids appeals Epist ad Victricium Rothâ—m He sayes nothing but that which the constitution of the Church justifies Bâ—t the cases produced before out of S. Cypriane show that there was muâ—h lâ—ft for custoâ—â— to determine Nay rules of discipline which in my opinon the good of the whole Church then requirâ—d that they should be common to all the West â—re of this rank noâ— could any of then ever oblige the West without the Bishop of Rome But that he alone should give rules to ty all the West may have had a regular beginning from voluntary references of Himerius Bishop of Farracona in Spain to Syricius of Exuperius Bishop of Tolouse and Victricius of Roven to Innocentius but argues not that it is the originall right of that Church But that it hath increased by custome to that height as to help to make up a claime for that infinite power which I deny in stead of that regular Power which I acknowledge Judge now by reason supposing the obligation upon all of holding unity in the Church and the dependance of Churches the mean to compass it For this will oblige us to part here with the Parallel of the Empire which having a Soveraign upon earth will require the Ministers of thereof immediate or subordinate to be of equall power in equall rights Praefects Lieurenants and Governours But the Head of the Church being in heaven and his Body on earth being to be maintained in Unity by an Aristocraty of Superiours and Inferiours whither was it according to the intent of those who ordered the pre-eminence of greater Churches thâ—t that the Church of the greatest City should be equall in power to the head Churches of o her Dioceses Or that the general reason should take place between them all an eminence of power following their precedence in ranck So that whensoever it become requisite to limite this generality by positive constitutions the pre-eminence of right to fall upon one exclusively to oâ—hers Surely though we suppose that all Christendom of their free consent agreed in this Order yet must we needs argue from the uniformity of it that it must needs come froâ— the ground setled by the Apostles For it is manifest that the rights of the head Churches of Provinces had a beginning beyond the memory of all records of the Church which testifie the being of them at the time of all businesse which they relate That the head Churches of Diocesses were not advanced in a moment by the act of the Empiâ—e but moulded asore as â—t were and prepared to receiveâ— that impression of regular eminence over inferiouâ— Churches which the act of the State should stampe the Cities with over inâ—â—riour Cities yet cannot be maintained that the greatest respect was and is by the Apostles act to be given to the greatest Churches that is the Churches of greaâ—est Cities and yet that the â—riâ—â—ledges necessarily accruing by positive constitution might as justly have been placed upon the head Church of any Diocess as upon that of Rome I know I have no thanks for this of the Romanists for as S. Paul sâ—yes How shall I serve God and please men both in such a difference as this but seeing the canon of Nicaea doth necessarily confine the Church of Rome to a regular Power is it not a great signe of truth that those things which appear in the proceedings of the Church do concur to evidence a ground for the Rule of it inferring that pre-eminence which the Churches of Alexandria and Antiochia cannot have but the beginning of the canon establishing ancient custome settleth Let us see some of those proceedings After the Council of Nicaea the Arians having Eusâ—bius of Nicomedia for their Head desire to be heard at Rome by Pope Julius in Council concerning their proceedings against Athanasius Here shall I believe as some learned men conjecture that Pope Julius â—s meerly an Arbitratoâ— named by one part y whom the other could not refuse and that any Bishop or at least any Primate might have been named and must have been admitted as well as he Truly I cannot considering that their hope being to winne themselves credit by his sentence I must needs think that they addresse themselves to him by whose sentence they might hope to draw the greatest prejudice on their own side It cannot be denyed indeed that whereas in a case of that moment the last resort is necessarily to the whole Church whither in council or by reference by referring themselves they brought upon their cause that prejudice which necessarily lights upon all those that renounce the award of the Arbitrators whom they have referred themselves to in case they stand not to the sencentence But though they had not been chargeable with this had they not referred themselves yet must they needs have been judged by the Bishop of Rome among the rest of the Church and in the first place and his sentence must needs weigh more towards the sentence of the whole Church then the sentence of any other Arbitrator could have done For let me ask in the mean time is this an appeal to Pope Julius or to him and his Council let the sequeâ—e judge For he that condemns the Arians for not appearing at the Council which they had occasioned he that condemns the Council of Antiochia at the dedication of the golden Church presently after where they were present for revereing the Creed of Nicaea and condemning S. Athanasius notwithstanding the sentence of Julius and his Council necessarily shows us that they were not quite out of their wits to bestow so much pains for procuring a decree at the Conncil of Antiochia that must have been void ipso facto because the mater had been sentenced at Rome that is in the last resort afore Therefore I coneive Julius had right to complain that they took upon them to regulate the Churches without him nor can I much blame Socrates or Sâ—zomenus in justifying his complaint Because Athanasius his cause as well as the Creed of Nicaea concerned the whole Church And for them to condemn him whom Julius and his Council held at the instance of the Arians had justified was to make a breach in the Church though at present we say nothing of the Faith Neither had they reason to alledge the good they had done the Church of Rome by their compliance in the cause of Novatianus or to expect the like from Julius in a cause of
you say something more to limit the ground upon which they may be no lesse What limitation I would adde is plain by the premises The preaching of that Word and that ministring of the Sacraments which the Tradition of the whole Church confineth the sense of the Scriptures to intend is the onely mark of the Church that can be visible For I suppose preaching twice a Sunday is not if a man be left free to preach what he will onely professing to beleeve the Bible which what Heresy disowneth and to make what he thinks good of it And yet how is the generality of people provided for otherwise unlesse it be because they have preachers that are counted godly men by those whom what warrants to be godly men themselves In the mean time is it not evident that Preachers and people are overspread with a damnable heresy of Antinomians and Enthusiasts formerly when Puritanes were not divided from the Church of England called Etonists and Grindeltons according to severall Countries These believe so to be saved by the free Grace of God by which our Lord died for the Elect that by the revelation thereof which is justifying Faith all their sinnes past present and to come are remitted So that to repent of sinne or to contend against it is the renouncing of Gods free Grace and saving Faith How much might be alledged to show how all is now overspread with it The Book called Animadversions upon a Petition out of Wales shall serve to speak the sense of them who call themselves the godly party as speaking to them in Body Thus it speaks pag. 36. Look through your vail of duties profession and ordinances and try your heart with what spirit of love obedience and truth you are in your work And whether will you stand to this judgement Or rather that God should judge you according to grace to the name and nature of Christ written upon you and in you Sure the great Judge will thus judge us at last by his great judgement or last judgement Not by the outward conversation nor inward intention but finally by his eternall Election according to the Book of Life This just afore he calleth the seed of Christ and his righteousnesse in a Christian And pag. 38. When we are inraged we let fly at mens principles being not satisfied to rebuke mens actions opinions and workes but would be avenged of their Principles too As if we would kill them at the very hart pull them up by the Rootes and leave them in an uncurable condition rotten in their Principles But Principles ly deeper then the heart and are indeed Christ who is the Principle and beginning of all things who though heart fail and flesh faile yet he abides the root of all Shall he pretend to be a Christian that professes this Shall any pretend to be a Church that spue it not out Let heaven and earth judge whether poor soules are otherwise to be secured of the Word then by two sermons a Sunday when the sense of the Godly is claimed to consist in a position so peremptorily destructive to salvation as this It will be said perhaps that now the Ministers of the Congregations have subscribed the confession of the Assembly But alas the covering is too short When a Bishop in the Catholick Church subscribed a Councile there was just presumption that no man under his authority could be seduced from the Faith subscribed Because no man communicated with the Catholick Church but by communicating with him that had subscribed it Who shall warrant that the godly who have this sense not liable to any authority in the Church shall stand to the subscriptions of those Ministers or to the authority of the Assembly pretended by the Presbyteries If they would declare themselves tied so to do who shall warrant that there is not a salvo for it in the Confession which they subscribe If there were not why should any difficulty be made to spue out that position which is the seed of it That justifying Faith consisteth in believing that a man is of the number of the Elect for whom Christ died excluding others Why that which is the fruit of it That they who transgresse the Covenant of Baptisme come not under the state of sin and damnation come not from under the state of Grace Why but because a back-door must be left for them that draw the true conclusion from their own premises reserving themselves the liberty to deny the conclusion admitting the premises It is not then a confession of faith that will make the Word that is preached a mark of the Church without some mark visible to common sense warranting that confession of Faith As for the Sacraments no Church no Sacraments If they suppose that ground upon which that intent to which the whole Church hath used them there is no further cause of division in the Church for that secures the rule of Faith If not they are no Sacraments but by equivocation of words they are sacriledges in profaning Gods Ordinances The Sacrament of Baptisme because the necessary meanes of salvation is admitted for good when ministred by those who are not of the Church but alwaies void of the effect of grace To which it reviveth so soone as the true Faith is professed in the unity of the Church If a Sacrament be a visible signe of invisible grace that baptisme is no baptisme which signifieth the grace it should effect but indeed effecteth not Such is that Baptisme which is used to seale a Covenant of Grace without the condition of Christianity a Covenant that is not the Covenant of two parties but the promise of one Whence comes the humor of rebaptizing but to be discharged of that Christianity which the baptisme of the Church of England exacteth Why do they refuse Baptisme in New England to all that refuse to enter into the Covenant of Congregations How comes it more necessary to salvation to be of a Congregation then to be Baptized and made a Christian Is it not because it is thought that salvation is to be had without that profession of Christianity which the Sacrament of Baptisme sealeth That it is not to be had without renouncing it Upon these termes those that are denied Baptisme by the Congregations because they are not of the Congregations are denied salvation as much as in them lies but not indeed and in truth For the necessity of baptisme supposing a profession of the Catholicke Church they perish not by refusing it who will not have it by renouncing the Catholicke Church that is by covenanting themselves into Congregations They that are so affected must know that they have authority of themselves to baptize to effect which no Congregation in New England is able to do If the Sacrament of the Eucharist seale that Covenant of Grace which conditioneth not for Christianity it is no sacrament but by equivocation of words Where that conditionall is doubtfull or voide there is no security
The nature and intent of it renders it subordinate to the Clergy How farre the single life of the Clergy hath been a Law to the Church Inexecution of the Canons for it Nullity of the proceedings of the Church of Rome in it The interest of the People in the acts â—f the Church And in the use of the Scriptures 368 CHAP. XXXII How great the Power of the Church and the offect of it is The right of judging the causes of Christians ceaseth when it is protected by the State An Objection If Ecclesiastical Power were from God Secular Power could not limit the use of it Ground for the Interest of the State in Church matters The inconsequence of the argument The concurrence of both Interests to the Law of the Church The Inâ—erest of the state in the indowment of the Church Concurrence of both in matrimonial causes and Ordinations Temporall penalties upon Excommunication from the State No Soveraigne subject to the greater Excommunication but to the lesse The Rights of the Jewes State and of Christian Powers in Religion partly the same partly not The infinite Power of the Pope not founded upon Episcopacy but upon acts of the Secular Powers of Christendom 381 OF THE PRINCIPLES OF Christian Truth The First BOOK CHAP. I. All agree that Reason is to decide controversies of Faith The objection that Faith is taught by Gods Spirit answered What Reason decideth questions of Faith The resolution of Faith ends not in the light of Reason but in that which Reason evidenceth to come from Gods messengers THe first thing that we are to question in the beginning is Whether there be any means to resolve by the use of reason those controverâ—â—es which cause division in the Church Which is all one as if we undertook to enquire whether there be any such skill or knowledg as that for which men call themselvs Divines For if there be it must be the same in England as at Rome And if it have no principles as no principles it can have unlesse it can be resolved what those principles are then is it a bare name signifying nothing But if there be certain principles which all parties are obliged to admit that discourse which admits no other will certainly produce that resolution in which all shall be obliged to agree And truely this hope there is left that all parties do necessarily suppose that there is means to resolve by reason all differences of Faith Inasmuch as all undertake to perswade all by reason to be of the judgment of each one and would be thought to have reason on their side when so they do and that reason is not done them when they are not believed There are indeed many passages of Scripture which say that Faith is only taught by the Spirit of God Mat. XVI 17. Blessed art thou Peter son of Ionas for flesh and blood revealed not this to thee but my Father which is in the heavens II. 25. I thank thee O Father Lord of heaven and earth that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes 1 Cor. I. 26 27 28. For Brethren you see your calling that not many wise according to the flesh not many mighty not many noble But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen to shame the wise The weak things of the world hath God chosen to shame the strong The ignoble and despicable things of the world hath God chosen and the things that are not to confound the things that are John VI. 45. It is written in the Prophets And they shall be all taught of God Heb. VIII 10. Jer. XXXI 33. This is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel in those dayes saith the Lord I will put my Laws in their mindes and write them in their hearts These and the like Scriptures then asâ—ribing the reason why wee believe to the work of Gods Spirit seem to leave no room for any other reason why wee should believe But this difficulty is easie for him to resolve that diâ—â—inguishes between the reason that moveth in the nature of an object and that motion which the active cause produceth For the motion of an object supposes that consideration which discovers the reason why wee are to believe But the motion of the Holy Ghost in the nature of an active cause proceeds without any notice that wee take of it According to the saying of our Lord to Nicodemus John 111. 8. The winde bloweth where it listeth and a man hears the noise of it but cannot tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth So is every one that is born of the spirit For wee must know that there may be sufficient reason to evict the truth of Christianity and yet prove ineffectual to induce the most part either inwardly to believe or outwardly to professe it The reason consists in two things For neither is the mater of Faith evident to the light of reason which wee bring into the world with us And the Crosse of Christ which this profession drawes after it necessarily calls in question that estate which every man is setled upon in the world So that no marvel if the reasons of believing fail of that effect which for their part they are sufficient to produce Interest diverting the consideration or intercepting the consequence of such troublesom truth and the motives that inforce it The same is the reason why the Christian world is now to barren of the fruits of Christianity For the profession of it which is all the Laws of the world can injoyn is the common privilege by which men hold their estates Which it is no marvel those men should make use of that have neither resolved to imbrace Christ with his Crosse nor considered the reason they have to do it who if they should stick to that which they professe and when the protection of the Law failes or act according to it when it would be disadvantage to them in the world so to do should do a thing inconsequent to their own principles which carried them no further than that profession which the Law whereby they hold their estates protecteth The true reason of all Apostasy in all trials As for the truth of Christianity Can they that believe a God above refuse to believe his messengers because that which they report stands not in the light of any reason to evidence it Mater of Faith is evidently credible but cannot be evidently true Christianity supposes sufficient reason to believe but not standing upon evidence in the thing but upon credit of report the temptation of the Crosse may easily defeat the effect of it if the Grace of Christ and the operation of the Holy Ghost interpose not Upon this account the knowledg of Gods truth revealed by Christ may be the work of his Grace according to the Scriptures for that so it is I am not obliged neither have I any reason here to suppose being to come in
the Church to be the onely infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith necessarily suppose that the Church is by Gods appointment that is Jure divino a Corporation Society or Body of men visible though not Civil because standing upon Gods will revealed in order to the happinesse of the world to come In which Society because in no Society all that are Interessed can act for themselvs it behooveth that there be a publick Authority vested in some persons or Bodies the Act whereof may oblige the whole And thus it may and must be understood that the Church is maintained to be Judge in Controversies of Faith by the definitive sentence of those that have authority to oblige the Body Whether Pope or Council wee dispute not here or what else may be imagined For that as all other Controversies in Religion is to be decided by the resolution of the point now in hand what is the means to determine by reason all such differences Which if it could not be decided without supposing whose authority is to tye the Church there could be no end of differences in the Church whatsoever there will be Here is then an opinion famous enough that the Church is indowed with a gift of Infallability by virtue whereof whatsoever sentence is passed by them that are authorized on behalf of the Church becomes matter of Faith and obliges all men to receive it by the same reason for which they receive the Christian Faith Now they who in opposition to this opinion do maintain the Scriptures to be the onely Judge in Controversies of Faith do involve in this opposition an equivocation manifest enough For it is manifest that their intent is to render a reason by this position why they submit not to that sentence which condemneth their positions in the name of the Church To wit because it is contrary to the Scriptures And further why they with-draw themselves from the communion of that Church which condemneth them and joyn in communion grounded upon the profession of the positions condemned maintaining themselves thereupon to be the true Church of God and those that condemne them the corrupt and counterfeit Whereby it appeareth that in effect they do maintain that there is no Judge provided by God to be visible in his Church with the gift of Infallible But that they are themselves and ought to be Judges to condemne all sentences given against the Scripture by any authority established in the Church By which means the Scripture becomes no more the Judge but the Rule or the Law by which men are to judge Whether they are to stand to such sentences as are given in the name of the Church or not Now if the Scripture be the Law or the Rule by which Controversies of Faith are to be judged there will be no pretense to exclude any means that may serve as evidence to clear the meaning of it And therefore there will be no cause why the Tradition of the Church should not be joyned with the Scripture in deciding Controversies of Faith Not disputing hitherto whether or no it contain any thing that the Scripture containeth not to clear and to determine the sense of the Scripture Whereas they that maintain the sentence of the present Church to be the reason of believing can no way resolve their belief into the Tradition of the Catholick Church Because that supposes only the act of our Lord and his Apostles delivering to the Church that which it holdeth Which who so supposeth can allege no other reason why hee believeth And therefore the sentence of the present Church cannot be the reason why any man should believe that which there was reason from the beginning to believe without it They who to exclude the Tradition of the Church state this position upon these terms That all things necessary to salvation are clearly contained in the Scriptures pretending to limit the generality of the question put it upon an issue not to be tryed till wee have resolved what means there is to determine the meaning of the Scripture For to be necessary to salvation is to be true and something more So that nothing can appear necessary to salvation till it can appear to be true Nor appear to be true untill it can be resolved what means there is to distinguish between true and false Besides how unlimited this limitation is may appear by this Because whatsoever is clear is said to be clear in relation to some sight And there is so much difference between the sight of several Christians that nothing can be said to be clear to all because it is clear to some And that which is not clear to all whose salvation is concerned in it what availes it those to whom it is not clear Now I suppose those that advance these termes will not grant that nothing is necessary to salvation that may be questioned by an argument out of the Scripture which all Christians cannot answer Knowing that such things as themselvs hold necessary to salvation may be assalted by such reasons out of the Scripture as they do not think all Christians fit to resolve Besides they do not pretend that all things necessary to salvation are clear in the Scripture of themselvs but by consequence of reason which may make them clear Now hee that would draw true consequences from the Scripture had need be well informed of the mater of that Scripture which hee drawes into consequence And to that information how can it appear that any thing is more necessary than the Tradition of the Church Therefore though I say not yet whether it be true or false that all things necessary to salvation are clearly contained in the Scriptures yet at the present I say that this is not the prime truth which must give a reason of all that followes upon it but demands a reason to be given for it by those principles upon which the resolution of all maters of Faith depends All this while wee agree upon the supposition that the Church is a Society of men subsisting by Gods revealed will distinct from all other Societies Because as I said those that have departed from the Church of Rome have hitherto pretended their own communion to be the true Church For if it be said that they do not or scarce ever did agree in communion one with another so that they can pretend to constitute all one Church That is not because they do not think that they ought all to constitute one Church but because they agree not upon the conditions Each part thinking that the other doth not believe as those whom they may communicate with ought to believe But this is now manifestly contradicted by two opinions among us though the one can be no â—ect the other as yet appears not to be one The first is that of them that think themselves above Ordinances the Communion of the Church onely obliging proficients and every perfect Christian being to himself a Church Of these
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
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
it is manifest that the authority which S. Paul giveth Timothy and Titus as his Epistles to them evidence is respective to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet or at the most those Churches which resorted to them Yet are they inabled thereby to constitute Bishops for the service of the said Churches as also their Deacons and to govern the same 1 Tim. II. 5. Titus I. 6-9 The Elders of the Church which S. Paul sent for to Ephesus had authority respective to the Church there meant but received from S. Paul as his directions and exhortations intimate Acts XX. 17 28-21 So did the Elders which hee and Barnabas ordained in the Churches Acts XIV 28. The like wee finde in the Churches of the Jewes Heb. XIII 7 17. James V. 14. 1 Pet. V. 1-5 and of the Thessalonians and Philippians 1 Thess V. 12 13. Phil. I. 1. And the seven Churches of Asia have their seven Angels which the Epistles which the Spirit directs S. John to write them do show that they were to acknowledge his authority Apoc. I. 20. II. III. So as long as the Scriptures last it is evident that there was a common authority whether derived from or concurrent with the authority of the Apostles which must needs make the Church one Body during that time whatsoever privilege can be challenged on behalf of the people and their concurrence to the acts either of each particular Church or of the whole And for the continuance of this authority after the Apostles I see no cause why I should seek farr for evidence It shall susfice mee to allege the Heads of the Churches of Rome Alexandira Antiochia and Jerusalem recorded by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical Histories from the time of the Apostles Adding thereunto thereunto the protestations of Irenaeus III. 3. that hee could reckon those rhat received their authority from the Apostles in all Churches though for brevities sake hee insist onely in the Church of Rome And of Tertullian de Praescript cap. XXXII who also allegeth the very Chaires which the Apostles sate upon possessed by those that succeeded them in his time as well as the Originals of those Epistles which they sent to such Churches extant in his time I will also remember S. Augustine Epistolâ CLXV and Optatus lib. II. alleging the same succession in the Church of Rome to confound the Donatists with for departing from the comminion thereof and of all Churches that then communicated with it For what will any man in his right senses say to this That this authority came not from the Apostles Or that it argues every one of these Churches to be a Body by it self but not all of them to make one Body which is the Catholick Church Hee that sayes this must answer Irenaeus alleging for a reason why hee instances onely in the Church of Rome Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique sideles For to this Church it is necessary that all Churches that is the Christians that are on all sides should resort because of the more powerfull principality What is the reason why it is enough for Irenaeus to instance in the Church of Rome but this That all Churches do communicate with the Church of Rome when they resort to Rome and all resort thither because it is the sear of the Empire So that which is said of the Faith of the Church of Rome is said of the Faith of all Churches And potentior principalitas is not command of the Church over other Churches but the power of the Empire which forces the Christians of all sides to resort to Rome Again the cause of the Church against the Donarists stands upon this ground that the Church of Rome which the Churches of Africk did communicate with communicated with all Churches besides those of Africk But that Church of Rome which the Donatists communicated with for they also had set up a Church of their own at Rome the rest of the Church did not communicate with How this came to passe you may see by the cause of the Novatians being the same in effect with that of the Donatists By the IV Canon of Nicaea it is provided that every Bishop be made by all the Bishops of the Province some of them as many as can meeting the rest allowing the proceedings under their hand This provision might be made when there were Churches in all Cities of all Provinces but the I Canon of the Apostles onely requireth that a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops For when Christianity was thinner sowed if two or three should take the care of providing a Pastor for a Church that was void their proceeding was not like to be disowned by the rest of the neighbouring Churches nor in particular by that of the chief City to which the Cities of the rest resorted for justice The Churches of these chief Cities holding intelligence correspondence and communion with other Churches of other principal Cities those Churches which they owned together with their Rulers or whosoever they were that acted on behalf of them must needs be owned by them in the same unity and correspondence The Bishop of Rome being dead while the question depended whether those that had fallen away in the persecution of Decius should be readmitted to communion or not And the neighbour Bishops being assembled sixteen of them ordain Cornelius three of them Novatianus who stood strictly upon rejecting them whatsoever satisfaction they tendered the Church Whether of these should be received was for a time questionable especially in the Church of Antiochia and those Churches which adheered to it Untill by the intercession of Dionysius of Alexandria they were induced to admit of Cornelius without dispute All this and much more you have in Eusebius Eccl. Hist VI. 42-46 Which being done there remained no further question that those who held with Cornelius were to be admitted those that held with Novatianus remaining excommunicate Whereby it appeares that by the communication which passed between the greatest Churches and the adherence of the lesse unto them whatsoever Church communicated with any Church communicated with the whole And in what quality soever a man was known in his own Church in the same hee was acknowledged by all Churches And therefore the succession of the Rulers of any Church from the Apostles is enough to evidence the unity of the Catholick Church as a visible Corporation consisting of all Churches I must not here omit to allege the authority of Councils and to maintain the right and power of holding them and the obligation which the decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same authority of the Apostles Which if I do there can no further question remain whether the Church was founded for a Corporation by our Lord and his Apostles when wee see the parts ruled by the acts of the whole That is to say
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
of the Church can be founded upon the right thereof or derived from it Neither is it otherwise with the Prophetical Office The authority whereof as I have showed was of divine right under the Law as depending immediately upon the will of God that raised them up and gave them authority by those evidences which his own Law had made legal And this that hee might tye his people the more strongly by their ministery and by the evidence of his presence among them to observe his Law And yet in as much as all Christians must believe them fore-runners of Christ sent to give notice of his coming by such meanes as God that sent him thought fit so that hee by his Office is the chief Prophet to whom the Father reserved the full declaration of his will and pleasure concerning the alliance hee intended to hold with men of necessity their office was to expire in him neither can it remaine in the Church further than hee by a new act may appear to have appointed I do not here make any doubt that S. Paul argued very well when hee said 1 Cor. IX 13 14. Know yee not that they which work holy things eat of the holy That they who wait upon the Altar take part with the Altar So also hath God appointed them that bring newes of the Gospel to live of the Gospel But hee that will understand this argument must make up the comparison by completing the correspondence between the bringing of souls to Christ by preaching the Gospel and the sacrificing of living creatures to God by executing the Law This correspondence the Apostle himself hath delared to our hands Rom. XV. 15 16. Because of the grace given mee of God saith hee that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles exercising the sacred function of preaching the Gospel of God that the oblation of the Gentiles may be acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost And Phil. II. 17. Nay though I be poured forth upon the sacrifice and ministery of your Faith I rejoyce and that joyntly with you all Where it appeareth that by submitting to the Gospel men become a sacrifice to God in as much as they dye to the world and that they who bring them to Christianity are the Priests that offer this sacrifice And by this Priesthood it is that the Apostle challengeth a right of living upon preaching the Gospel as the Priests lived by attending upon the sacrifices of the Law Which if it be true then is the Apostles office that Priesthood under the Gospel which was to remaine by the correspondence thereof with the Law and thereforâ— cannot derive any Title from the Levitical Priesthood which it maketh void As for the Office of Prophets under the Gospel it is plain by S. Pauls Epistles that it pleased God among other miraculous Graces of the Holy Ghost whereby hee evidenced his presence in the Church to stirre up Prophets in those Primitive Churches by whom besides they might be instructed in the more solid understanding of their Christianity as may appear in particular by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV Which being supposed can any man imagine that the Office of those Prophets and the authority which it importeth can be derived from the Prophets under the Law whose Office expired in Christ His act it must be to give authority to Prophets under the Gospel and since wee have showed that the chief authority which hee left in the Church was left with his Apostles it followeth by consequence which by other Scriptures in another place I have showed to have been true that the Apostles by their Office were the chief Prophets of the Church Though as for the continuance of the gift of Prophesie under the Gospel there is no promise recorded as under the Law there is So neither any precept requiring obedience to their Office as then I have showed there was In fine God by Christ designed to raise up children to Abraham which are the new Israel according to the Spirit Hee hath given the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord that authority over them which may answer the power of the Patriarchs and Elders of his ancient people under Moses Hee hath incorporated into their Office under the Gospel the authority both of Priests and Prophets under the Law which both were to cease with the Law Therefore wee are not to derive any Poweâ— of the Church from the rights of the Priesthood under the Law not to argue that the Church hath no right to that Power which the Priesthood as then was not seised of But whatsoever power was in the Prinees of Tribes and their inferiors in the Elders and Judges of Israel for the civil Government of that people under Moses the same wee must inferre to have been in the Apostles and Disciples of Christ and by consequence in them to whom they may appeare to have committed any part of it for the government of the Church under our Lord Christ Saving the difference which the condition whereupon either people are gathered into one Society importeth Which is in them the possession of the Land of Promise upon the observation of the Law in us the Kingdome of heaven upon the Faith of Christ And therefore in them inferreth temporal Power in disposing of causes and things of this world in these onely the Power of directing in spiritual maters wherein the Church by the Covenant of Grace doth communicate This opinion may seem to some man not to agree with the doctrine of the ancientest Fathers who do many times argue what order ought to be held in the Church from that which the Law provided for the Levitical Priesthood As Clemens Ep. ad Corinthios from the order which the Law had prescribed for the Sacrifices prescribed by it argueth that the like ought to be kept in the Church pag. 53. And S. Cyprian that as Eleazar was consecrated High Priest by Moses before the Congregation of the People so ought Ordinations to be celebrated before the Assembly of the Church Which kinde of argument seems to have no force unlesse wee derive the Offices of the Church from the Levitical Priesthood Together with abundance of passages to the same purpose whereof it shall be enough to have produced these for an example But this kinde of argument is easily stopped by one instance For it is manifest that the like argument of instruction or exhortation to those that claime by and under the Apostles may be drawn from divers passages of the ancient Scriptures wherein the Prophets of the Law are exhorted to do or reproved for neglecting their Office And yet no man can go about to derive the right of their authority from the Prophets Office by the Law of Moses And then it is easily answered that nothing hinders the same reason that appeares in the Ordinances of the Levitical Priesthood to be of evident consequence in the ordering of Gods Church Not because the order of the Church depends upon
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
by the Scriptures and by the primitive Records of the Church many revelations made to Gods people at their publick Assemblies by the means of such as had the Grace And thereupon do inferre that such a revelation was made to that Assembly upon the place directing the decree which there follows and is signified according to that brevity which the Scriptures use in alleadging that whereof no mention is premised in the relation that went afore by these words it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Now the words of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 20. Behold I am with you to the worlds end are manifestly said to the body of the Church and therefore do not promise it any priviledge of the Apostles And truly seeing it is a promise immediately insuing upon a Precept Go preach and make Disciples all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you I find it a matter of no ill consequence but very reasonable to say that the Precept is the condition of the Promise seeing no act so expressed can reasonably be understood otherwise But in regard it is otherwise manifest that the continuance of the Church is absolutely promised and foretold till the world end by name in those other words of our Lord The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Mat. XXI 18. I shall easily admit that God absolutely promises to be with his to the worlds end so as to preserve himselfe a people in the manifold distractions and confusions that fall out by the fault of those that professe themselves Christians as well as by the malice of Infidels But I shall deny that this inferres the gift of Infallibility in any person or quality in behalfe of the Body of Christians For supposing the visible profession of Christianity to continue till the worlds end so that under this visible profession there is sufficient means to conduct a true Christian in the way to salvation And that by this means a number of men invisibly united to our Lord Christ by his Spirit do attain unto salvation indeed These promises of our Lord will be evidently true though we neither acknowledge on one side any gift of Infallibility in the Church nor deny on the other side the visible unity of the Church instituted by Gods Law It will be evidently true that our Lord Christ is with his Disciples that is Christians till the worlds end who could not continue invisibly united to him without the invisible presence of his Spirit It will be evidently true that the Gates of Hell prevail not against his Church in the visible society whereof a number of invisible Christians prevail over the powers of darknesse For though granting the Church to be subject to error salvation is not to be attained without much difficulty And though division in the Church may create more difficulty in attaining salvation then errour might have done yet so long as salvation may be and is attained by visible communion with the Church so long is Christ with his nor do the Gates of Hell prevail against his Church though error which excludeth infallibility though division which destroyeth unity hinder many and many of attaining it But if the consequence that is made from those words of our Lord be lame that which may be pretended from the power of the Keyes or of remitting â—â—d retaining sins both one by the premises granted S. Peter the Apostles of the Church will easily appear to be none at all For no man can maintain the power of remitting and retaining sins to be granted to the Church but he must yield it to be communicated to more then those in whom the gift of Infallibility can be pretended to reside Neither can the greatest of the Apostles remit oâ— retain any mans sinne without inducing him to imbrace profession of Christianity or if having imbraced it he fall from it in deed and in effect without reducing him to the course and study of performing the same and upon due profession thereof readmitting him into the Church on the other side excluding those that cannot be reduced to this estate Nor can the least of all that are able to bring any man into the Church fail of doing the same upon the same terms And did ever any man ascribe the gift of Infallibility to all them that should have power and right from the Church and in the Church to do this What meaneth then the exception of clave non errante which is every where and by every body cautioned for that with any reason challenges the power of the Keyes for the Church To me it seems rather an argument to the contrary that seeing this power is challenged for the Church under this general exception without limiting the exception to any sort of maters or subjects And that the act of it is the effect of the decrees of the greatest authority visible in the Church as whether Arias should communicate with the Church or not was the issue of as great a debate as the authority of the Church can determine that therefore the sentence of his excommunication proceeded not from the gift of Infallibility in any authority concurring to the decree of Nicaea whence it proceeded granting generally the power of excommunication to be liable to the exception of clave non errante Indeed it cannot be denyed that something requisite to the exercise of this power was in the Apostles infallible or unquestionable as presupposed to the being of the Church For what satisfaction could men have of their Christianity if any doubt could remain whether the faith which they preached were sent from God or not whither the Laws of Ecclesiastical communion which they advanced were according to their Commission or not But the causes upon which the Church is obliged to proceed to imploy this Power being such as depend many times upon the rule of faith and the Laws given the Church by the Apostles by very many links between both The dependance whereof it is hard for all those that are sometimes to concur to these sentences to discern I conceive it now madnesse to maintain the gift of Infallibility from the power of the Keyes in the exercise whereof so many occasions of failing may come to pass As for the exhortations of the Apostles whereby they oblige the Churches of the Thessalonians and Ebrues diligently to obey and follow their Governors 1 Thes V. 14. 15. Heb. XIII 7. 17. these I acknowledge to be pertinent to the question in debate as concerning such Governours as had in their hands the ordinary power of the Church saving that when he saith Remember your Rulers which have spoken to you the word of God And considering the issue of their conversation imitate their faith It is possible he may speak of those that first brought them the Gospel and those were the Apostles and Disciples of Christ either of the first rank of the XII or
consideration of his merits and sufferings which they neither acknowledge to have been tendred by our Lord nor accepted by the Father to any such effect or purpose But nothing hinders him therefore to acknowledge it the Grace of God that is a meere grant of his free goodnesse whatsoever condition he require thereby to qualifie him that imbraces it for the promises which it tenders provided it be such as he that it is tendred to can accomplish For that Faith which alone justifieth according to S. Paul he maketh to consist in believing the Truth of Christianity and sincerely indeavouring to bring forth the fruits thereof out of a grounded confidence of obtaining the said promises And that in consideration hereof those that thus believe are counted righteous before God that is treated as if they had been originally righteous and not sinners before they came to believe As for the Sacrament of Baptism making no more of a Church then of an arbitrary Society of so many as agree to serve God together in the same Faith it is no marvel if he make it a meer Ceremony the use whereof was during the time of the Disciples of our Lord and the conversion of Jews and Gentiles to Christianity by their preaching to signifie the purifying of them by that Faith to which they professed thereby to be converted which intent ceasing in those who being born of Christian Parents were never tainted with the filthinesse either of Jewes or Gentiles by consequence that ceremony though it may freely be used by Christians in the nature of a thing indifferent yet ought not to carry that opinion as if any mans salvation depended upon it And having related this opinion I must relate another opposite to this in another extream which is the opinion of those that hold that Faith which alone justifieth to consist in believing that a man is predestinated by God to life from everlasting as being of the number of them whom Christ was sent to redeem exclusively to the rest of Mankind And that therefore the whole consideration for which this Faith justifieth is the obedience of Christ imputed unto them which are of thâ—s number upon no other account then the eternall purpose of God to give him for them alone whereby his sufferings are theirs in Law as much as if they had been performed by themselves the condition of Faith serving only to limit a qualification without which this purpose availeth them not being limited to take place from the time that this purpose of God is revealed unto them the revelation whereof they suppose to be that Faith which alone justifieth Who they are that maintain this opinion I will not here dispute which I intend to show cause why it is to be thought so ill of that I could with that no man that is called a Christian would own it And perhaps many of those who either expresly or in effect do hold it do withall hold other points which indeed and in effect are contradictions to it Neither can I say that our Presbyterians are parties in it but this I say that this is the opinion in opposiâ—ion to which Socinus brought in the Opinion hitherto described voiding the Grace and satisfaction of Christ by declining to the other extream as any man may see that with a little care shall peruse the fourth part of his Book De Christo Servatorâ— Cap. III. IX X. And therefore I conceive I may justly infer that to maintain this extremity which he not consulting the Catholick Church and the Faith thereof thought necessary to the voyding of that other extream which he found inconsistent with the principles of Christianity he proceeded so far as to deny any Godhead any being of Christ before his birth of the Virgin taking away by consequence that reason and ground both of satisfaction for sin and of merit of Grace which the Church ascribeth to his obedience and sufferings and placeth the Godhead of Christ which he acknowledgeth so far as to tender him the worship that is proper to God at least in some circumstances in that height of eminence to which God hath exalted him for undertaking and performing the Commission of reconciling Man to God though bound to it as a meer man and Gods Creature before he undertooke it And thus you see how that part of Socinus his Heresie in denying the Faith of the Holy Trinity indirectly commeth in to the question of the Covenant of Grace Seeing it is manifest to the sence of all men that had he not questioned the Godhead of Christ there had been no pretence of bringing the Faith of the Trinity into any dispute But of what consequence this opinion concerning Justifying Faith and the nature of it is to the substance of Christianity it will be time to consider when I have shewed why it is not true In the mean I shall note here another opinion differing in somewhat but agreeing in much with this which I take to be the opinion of our Antinomians but shall not be much troubled if any man shall dispute that I mistake it For seeing them so full with a blasphemous conceit of Gods Spirit that they would think it a disparagement to it to be tied to any dispute of reason though upon supposition of the Christian Faith to distinguish between principles and conclusions to infer a certaine position from certain grounds even of Scripture I cannot think it any great imputation to misunderstand them whose perfection it is not to understand themselves For when I name Antinomians I intend to comprise in the opinion which I refute all our Anabaptists all our Familists all our Enthusiasts and Quakers all Sectaries whatsoever that do believe themselves possessed of the Spirit not presupposing not only the beliefe of that Faith which is necessary to the salvation of all Christians but also whatsoever else it shall appear that the condition of the Covenant of Grace importeth The having of Gods Spirit as it inferreth a right to everlasting life so supposing whatsoever the Covenant of Grace importeth But by the noise which they make with the free Grace of God and the Covenant of Grace I conceive the main of their position lies in one step beyond that extream which I described even now in opposition to Socinus That we are justified by the obedience of Christ performed for them for whom God appointed it and therefore imputed to them from everlasting by vertue of that appointment made from everlasting but revealed to them by that faith whereby they know themselves to be elected to life from everlasting not depending upon the revelation thereof but the revelation upon the being of it And upon this ground it is that they say that God sees not nor can see sin in his Elect that all their sins are pardoned before they are done and that there is no mortall sin but repentance implying the want of saving faith with which no sin can stand nor any thing be but sin without
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
Catechising which the Church tendered those who stood for Baptisme the subject of that Thanksgiving which the Eucharist was consecrated with do more effectually evidence the common sense of Christians in the mater of our common Christianity then the sayings of divines being solicitous so to maintaine the grace of God that the free will of man which the interest of our common Christianity equally obligeth us justly to maintaine may suffer no prejudice How much more when it is to be justified that those sayings of divines expounded by other sayings of their owne and principles evidently acknowledged by themselves can create no other sense then the necessity of preventing grace might the Church be able and obliged to proceed to those decrees Though as for the persons whom we do not find involved in any further censure then the mark set upon their writings by the See of Rome as there is cause to think that respect was had to them because their principles did not really ingage them in any contradiction to the faith of the Church So is there cause to think that being better informed in it by the treaty of that Council they surceased for the future all opposition to the decrees of it For the evidence of that which hath been said in the point of fact I remit the reader to my author so oft named with these considerations pointing out the consequence of each particular His ingenuity learning and diligence is such that I have neither found my self obliged to quarrel at any thing that he hath delivered in point of historicall truth nor to seek for more then he hath laid forth And by that which hath been said we presume not that the preaching of the Gospel is not the grace of Christ which Pelagius acknowledged necessary to salvation but that the determination of the will to imbrace that grace which the grace of the gospel tendereth is not effected by the will alone without those helps of grace which are granted in consideration of Christ though depending upon the preaching of the Gospel and the reasons and motives which it tendereth to imbrace it Here then you see I might have made a great book to set forâ—h those things which are commonly alledged by those that write of the great dispute between grace and free will now on foot to show what the Church insisted upon and what reasons it did proceed upon against Pelagius But because there is no question made of all this by those that deny the consequences of it it shall serve my turne to have pointed out the reasons of those consequences and now to take notice of this great dispute which is come in my way so crosse that it is not possible for me to voide the difficulties which I have undertaken concerning the Covenant of Grace without voiding of it For having first shewed that the condition which the Covenant of Grace requires on our part consists in an act of mans free will to imbrace and persevere in Christianity till death And now that man is not able to perform this condition without the help of Gods grace by Christ The question is at the height how the act of free will depends upon Gods free grace and a man becomes intitled to the promise for doing that which without the help of Gods grace he cannot do And this the greater because if the help of grace determine the free will of them that imbrace and persevere in Christianity so to do then it seems the sinne and damnation of those that do not so is to be imputed to the want of those helps and Gods appointment of not giving them to those that have them not CHAP. XX. Wherein Originall sinne consisteth What opinions are on foot That it is not Adams sinne imputed to his posterity Whether man were at the first created to a supernaturall end or not An estate of meer nature but innocent possible Originall sinne is Concupiscence How Baptisme voids it Concerning the late novelty in the Church of England about Originall sinne THIS inquiry must begin with the question about originall sinne wherein it consists because thereupon depends the question of the effect and consequence thereof which is to say what is the estate wherein the Gospel of Christ overtakes the naturall man For it is well enough known that there is a question yet on foot in the Church Whether Originall sinne do consist in Concupiscence or in the want of Originall righteousnesse which having been planted in our first parents their posterity ought to have And whosoever thinks there can be little difficulty in this dispute little considers the difficulty that S. Augustine found in satisfying the Pelagians how Concupiscence can be taken away by Baptisme which all Christians find to remaine in the regenerate Seeing there can be no question made that Originall sin is taken away by Baptisme Christianity pretending to take away all sinne and Baptisme being the solemn execution of Christianity that is the solemn profession of the Christian faith This is evidently the onely difficulty that driveth so many of the Schoole Doctors to have recourse not onely to S. Anselms devise of the want of originall righteousnesse but to another more extravagant speculation of a state of pure nature which God might have created man in had he not thought more fit of his goodnesse to create him in a state of supernaturall grace that is to say indowed with those gifts and graces that might inable him to attaine that happinesse of the world to come which is now promised to Christians This state of pure nature they hold to be liable to concupiscence as the product by consequence of the principles of mans nature compounded of a materiall and spirituall a mortall and immortall substance and originally inclined the one to the sensual good of the body the other to the spiritual good of the soul here which the eternal good of it is consequent to in the world to come The nature of man liable to this condition they say was prevented by supernaturall grace as a bridle to rule and moderate the inclination of nature not to come into effect so long as so over-ruled But so that this grace being forfeited by the rebellion of Adam consequently it came into effect without more adoe and that by consequence originall sinne cannot consist in this opposition between the inclinations to sensuall and spirituall good which man hath but in the want of that grace from whence it proceedeth This controversie Doctor Field in his learned work of the Church counteth to be of such consequence that he maintaineth all the difference which the Reformation hath with the Churche of Rome about Justification free will the merit of good works and the fulfilling of the Law and the like to be grounded upon it so that there can be no cause of difference supposing it to be set aside His reason is because the opinion of Justification by inherent righteousnesse supposes that the reluctation of our sensuall
to mankind Seeing there is a reason to be given for all that fall under the same in the nature of the finall or the meritorious cause God stands as much glorified man as much obliged to worke out his salvation with feare and trembling as if he knew the bottome of Gods secret counsaile And thus the objection is void It remaineth that we consider the Tradition of the Church what it declareth concerning the truth of that which I have resolved or towards it Where we must take notice of the Monkes of Adrymetus under Valentine who received S. Agustines doctrine of Gods effectuall grace and predestination to it from everlasting in such a sense that they inferred from it all indeavours of men all exhortations reproofes instructions and prayers to be utterly fruitlesse and vaine as tending to that which dependeth upon the meere appointment of God which cannot be defeated and without which nothing can serve To rectifie this mistake S. Augustine lived to write them his book yet extant de correptione Gratia wherein he declareth all that he had said of the grace of God and the efficacy thereof to proceed upon supposition of free will in man though inslaved to sin by the fall of Adam from the bondage whereof the grace of Christ voluntarily though effectually redeemeth those that are freed by it whereby as by the rest of his writings concerning the grace of Christ against Pelagius he establisheth two points belonging to the foundation of the Christian faith The first of the freedome of mans will though not from sin since the fall of Adam yet from necessity determing the resolution of it when by the treaty which the Gospell advanceth it is invited to imbrace Christianity and to live according to it Which were all a mere nullity were not any man free to resolve himselfe upon it The second of the grace of God by Christ which if it may be purchased by the indevour of mans free will then was it not necessary to send our Lord Christ as the second Adam to repaire the breach which the first Adam had made This being the sum of the Catholike faith in this mater and the rest which is advanced to shew how those two points both stand true together belonging to the skill of a Divine not to the faith of a Christian so far as by maintayning them men destroy the foundation of Christianity on neither side Which it is no marvail that some things which S. Augustin had said in giving a reason hereof seemed to some to do seeing those that accepted of his doctrine in Africk drew from it a consequence utterly destructive to Christianity I speake of those in the parts of France about Provence and Marsailles who inferring from S. Augustines saying that in his opinion God makes the farr greater part of men on purpose to condemne them to death seemed to mainetaine the beginning of salvation to come from those indeavours of mans will born as he is under originall sin which God faileth not to second with those helps of Grace which the mater requireth There is great appearance of that which Jansenius disputeth so eagerly de Haeresi Pelag. VII 5. sâ—q that the maine ground of their opposition was the decree of predestination which S. Austine would have to be absolute As being perswaded that thereby the effects of free will become fatal in which that reason of reward and punishment which the Covenant of Grace establisheth requires contingence And herewith the occasion which Faustus pretendeth for the writing of his book de Gratia et Libero Arbitrio agreeth To wit that a certaine Priest called Lucidus is required by him in the name of a Synod held at Arles under Leontius Bishop to recant certaine positions tending to maintaine the necessity of being damned for originall sin by the foreknowledg of God in them for whom Christ dyed not dying onely for sin And this by a letter subscribed by one of the Bishops This recantation being made Faustus pretendeth to write at the intreaty of the Synod to lay forth their sense and reasons But to have added something upon the decree of an other Synod held afterwards at Lions True it is indeed which Vâ—ssius observeth Historiae Pelag. VI. Thesi XIV that whereas some of them insisted on nothing else others proceeded to deny the necessity of preventing grace For whatsoever we say of Cassianâ— who hath writ to severall purposes in severall places Faustus manifestly affirmeth that by the act of free will in beginning to believe a Christian obtaines the grace of God which his owne choice preventeth Which if we understand the Faith which he speaketh of to signifie Christianity and the act of believing to consist in becoming a Christian is nothing else but the fundamentall faith of Christianity That the habituall gift of the Holy Ghost is granted in consideration of a mans turning Christian But who believes that the actuall grace of the Holy Ghost whereby the world is converted to be as well as convicted that it ought to be Christiane is obtayned by the exaltation as purchased by the humiliation of Christ which Faustus supposing the preaching of the Gospell being the meanes which it useth no way denyeth acknowledgeth by consequence that act of faith which preventeth the habituall gift of the Holy Ghost to be prevented by the actuall helps of Grace which the preaching of the Gospel importeth And Jansenius de Haeresi Pelag VIII 1-9 acknowledgeth that they had no designe to destroy the grace of God through Christ as Pelagius had therefore did acknowledg not onely the outward preaching of the gospel but inward inspiration to make it effectuall Onely that making the effect of that grace which God appointeth to depend on free wil they fel into the heresy of Palagius which they desired to a void Now Pelagius indeed acckowledged that grace which the preaching of the gospell signifyed according to his own opinion which was false For not believing that our will is any thing the worse for Adams fall he could not allow that Christ hath purchased any help to repaire the breach and to cure the disease which he had made But as he could not deny it to be an act of bounty in God to propose the reward of everlasting life which is supernatupall So he must affirme that it is purchsed by the merre naturall act of free will without any help of grace granted of Gods mercy in Christ in consideration of his obedience And by this meanes he brought the death of Christ to no effect Seeing God might have assured the tender of his gospell to come indeed from him without it And so the merit of grace that is the reason that obliges God to give it is originally ascribed to the works of free Will according to Pelagius But according to those who acknowledging Originall sin acknowledg the cure of it by the helpe of grace purchased by Christ which the preaching of the gospell bringeth not
any now unlesse the signification thereof be fuâ—ther limited by other terms which being added to it every man will allow may determine a sense utterly prejudiciall to it True it is divers have observed that the word merâ—râ— in good Latine especially of those later ages in which the Fathers writ signifies no more then to attaine compasse or purchase Arguing from thence that the workes of Christians merit heaven in their sense and language no otherwise then because they are the meanes by which we attaine it So Cassander observes that S. Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. I. 13. is by S. Cyprian translated misericordiam merui not intending to say that S. Paul deserved that mercy which he professes to have received of Grace But onely to signify that he found mercy and attained it But though I should grant that this word may signify no more in the language of the Fathers yet the Faith and the sense out of which it is evident that they spake will inforce that it doth signify as much as I say when they speak of our coming to heaven by our workes For having once resolved that the Covenant of Grace renders life everlasting due by Gods promise to those that lâ—ve as at their Baptisme they undertook though not for the worth of their workes yet by the mercy of God in Christ which moved him to tender such a promise he that sayes a man attaines heaven by the meanes of those workes which he lives in like a Christian sayes that those workes of his do merit heaven in the sense that I challenge For as for those that will have the workes of Christians to merit heaven of their own intrinsicke value Of those I have already said that I conceive they do prejudice the Christian â—aith in not allowing the necessity of Gods grace through Christ in accepting the condition which the Gospel requires for such a reward as the intrinsick value of it cannot deserve by Gods originall law For granting those helps of Gods grace in Christ being supernaturall and heavenly to hold proportion and correspondence with the reward of life everlasting which is the same Yet will it not follow that in all regards for the purpose in that the actions which they produce are momentany the reward everlasting which is the consideration S. Paul uses Rom. VIII 18. 1 Cor. VII 17 18. the correspondence will produce an equality of value And though the first principle of them be heavenly and supernaturall which is the help which God for Christs sake allowes yet seeing that it comes not immediately to effect but by the meanes of the faculties of mans soule infected with originall concupiscence it cannot be said that they can demand a reward correspondent to heavenly grace alone when earthly weakness concurres to imbase and allay the value of that which it produceth But as it cannot be denied that the Church of Rome in which that Order which maintainâ—s this extremity hath so great credit allowes this doctrine of merit to be taught yet can it not be said to injoine it Because there have not wanted to this day Doctors of esteem that have alwayes held otherwise Among whom I may very well name Sylvius now or lately Professor of Divinity at Doway who in his Commentaries upon the second part of Thomas Aquinas his Summe expounds that meritum de condigno which the Schoole attributes to the workes of Christians to be grounded in dignatione Dei because God vouchsafes and daignes to accept them whose they are as worthy of the reward expressing also the promise of the Gospell whereby this condescension of God is declared The Schoole Doctors found out the termes of meritum ex congruo ex condigno merit of congâ—uity and condignity Some of them because they thought That the workes of meer nature deserve supernaturall grace in regard that it is fit that God should reward him that doth his best with it That works done in the state of Grace are worth the Glory of the world to come But as the former part of the position which is planted upon these terms is rejected by many So they who onely acknowledge meritum congrui in workes done in the state of grace that is to say that it is fit for God to reward them with his kingdome say no more then that it was fit for God to promise such a reward Which whoso denieth must say that God hath promised that which it was unfit for him to promise And if the dignity of our works in respect of the reward may have this tolerable sense because God daignes and vouchsafes it The Councill of Trent which hath inacted no reason why they are to be counted merits can neither bear out these high opinions nor be said to prejudice the Faith in this point For The kingdom of God is not in word but in power if S. Paul say true And therefore though I affect not the terme of merit which divers of the Reformation do not reject Yet can I not think it so far from the truth so prejudiciall to the faith as the peevish opinions of those that allow not good workes necessary to salvation but as signes of Faith For that which necessarily comes in consideration with God in bestowing the reward which the condition he contracteth for must necessarily do though it cannot have the nature of merit because the Covenant it self is granted meerly of Grace in consideration of Christs death yet it is of necessity to be reduced to the nature and kind of the meritorious cause Nor can the glory of God or the merit of Christ be obscured by any consideration of our works that is grounded upon the merit of our Lord Christ and expresseth the tincture of his bloud The end of the Second Book Laus Deo OF THE LAWES OF The Church The Third BOOK CHAP. I. The Society of the Church founded upon the duty of communicating in the Offices of Gods Service The Sacrament of the Eucharist among those Offices proper to Christianity What opinions concerning the presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist are on foot IF God had onely appointed the Profession of Christianity to be the condition qualifying for the world to come leaving to every mans judgment to determine what that Christianity is and wherein it consists which it is necessary to salvation hee professe and what that conversation is which his salvation requireth There had been no cause why I should go any further in this Dispute But having showed that God hath appointed the Sacrament of Baptisme to be a necessary means to salvation limiting thereby the profession of Christianity which hee requireth to be deposited and consigned in the hands of his Church whom hee hath trusted for the maintaining and propagating of it I have thereby showed that hee hath appointed all Christians to live in the Communion of the Church The effect of Baptisme being to admit unto full Communion in those Offices wherewith God is
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
guilty of those excesses which they are charged with by Epiphanius S. Jerome and others Of these particulars you may see in S. Augustine de Haeresibus and Sirmondus his Praedestinatus both of them Haeresi XXVI and LXXXVI But all the while the subject of this separation is the discipline of Penance received by the whole Church as from the Apostles the limitation of the practice thereof being the ground upon which the difference is stated And for the ground of this ground Whether it could then be pretended that the Keyes of the Church could do no more then cure the scandall of notorious sinne on the one side Or whether it could then be pretended on the other side that the Keyes of the Church import any Power to pardon sinne immediately not supposing that disposition which qualifieth for pardon visible to the Church and procured by those actions which the authority of the Church injoyneth All this I am content to referre to that common sense which is capable to understand these particulars I shall not need to say much of the Novatians at Rome and elsewhere the Donatists in Africk of the Meletians in Aegypt having said this of the Montanists all of them if we regard the subject of the separations which they made in severall parts of the Church being nothing else but branches of the same sect and forsaking the unity of the Church for their part of that cause which ingaged Montanus The Novatians because they would not indure that those who fell away from the Faith in the persecution of Decius should be readmitted to the communion of the Church upon demonstration of repentance The Meletians for the same cause in Aegypt under the persecution of Diocletiane The Donatists upon some appertenâ—nce of the same cause Onely they serve to evidence the discipline of Penance to have been as universall as the Church of Christ when no part of it is found free from debates about the terms liâ—iting the exercise of it They serve also to evidence the ground and the pretenâ—e of the Power of the Keyes in the discipline of Penance by the same reason which I alledged afore After these times when the customes of the Church which from the beginning was governed by un-written Law delivered by word of mouth of the Apostles but limited more and more by the Governours of several Churches began to be both reduced into writing and also more expresly determined by the Canons of severall Councils greater and lesse it were too vain to prove that by dicourse which of it selfe is as evident as it is evident that there are such Rules extant which in their time had the force of Law to those parts of the Church for which they were respectively made Onely I do observe the agreement that is found between the originall practice of the Church in this point and that order which I have showed you out of the Apostles writings evidencing that interpretation which I have given of them by that rule which common sense inforces that the meaning and intent of every Law is to be measured by the primitive practice of it For we see so much doubt made whether those three great crimes of Idolatry Murther and Adultery were to be reconciled by Penance that is by the visible and outward demonstration of inward repentance to the Church not onely by Montanus but partly by Novatianns that that great Church of Antiochia remained doubtfull a great while whether Cornelius or Novatians should be acknowledged the true Bishop of Rome We see the Eliberitane Canons which were unquestionably made divers years before the Council at Nicaea and therefore may be counted as ancient as any that the Church hath exclude some branches of those sinnes from reconciliation with the Church We see this vigor abated by the succeeding discipline of the Church It is indeed said in the Church of Rome at this time that the ground of the Heresie as without ground they call it of the Montanists and Novatians was this that acknowledging the Church to have power to forgive lesse sinnes they the Novatians denied it the Power to forgive Apostasy or Idolatry To which the Montanists added Murther and Adultery But I have showed in my Book of the Right of the Church p. 17-27 that within the Church also as well as among the Montanists and Novatians some of these sinnes were not admitted to communion no not at the point of death And that there never was any opinion in the ancient Church that the Church hath any Power to forgive sinne immediately but onely by the medicine of Penance which it injoyneth I referre my selfe to that which here followeth Now it is plain that neither those parts of the Church nor the Novatians did hold those sinnes desperate but exhorted them to Penance as their cure in Gods sight agreeing in not readmitting them whither for the maintenance of Discipline or for fear the Church warranting their pardon who might prove not qualified for it should become guilty of their sinnes according to S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man nor partake in other mens sinnes For S. John and the Apostle to the Hebrews had authorized the Church to make difficulty of it though S. Paul had readmitted a branch of one of them the incestuous person at Corinth whether for the unity of that Church then in danger to be divided upon that occasion or as reasonably satisfied of the truth of his repentance But when the zeal of Christianity decreased as the number of Christians increased within and persecution without withdrew so many that there was no means left to preserve the Body without abating this severity the number of Apostates in some persecutions being considerable to the number of Christians we need seek no other reason why the Montanists and Novatians should be Schismaticks not properly Hereticks then their separating from the Church rather then condescend to that which the Body of the Church found requisite to be granted Let us see what crimes they are which the Eliberitane Canons that is the Canons of the Council of Elvira in Spain exclude from the communion even in case of death As if a man at age after Baptism commit adultery in the Temple of an Idol cap. I. If an Idol Priest having been baptized shall sacrifice again II. If such a one after Penance shall have committed adultery III. If a Christian kill a man by Witchcraft wherein there is Idolatry VI. If a Christian commit adultery after Penance VII If a Woman leaving her Husband without cause mary another VIII If a Father or Mother sell a child into the Stews or a child it selfe XII If a professed Virgine shall live in uncleannesse XIII If a man marry his daughter to an Idol Priest XVII If a Clergy-man commit adultery XVIII If he who is admitted to communion upon adultery in danger of death shall commit adultery again XLVII If a Woman kill the childe which she hath conceived of adultery
to restore those that were fallen away in persecution contrary to the resolution of the Church which had referred it to a Council as we learn by S. Cyprian Epist XXXVIII XL. with Fortunatus a Bishop of this party betaking themselves to Rome are first refused by Cornelius but upon appearance of a party in his Church for them put him to a stand In this case S. Cyprian writing his LV. Epistle acknowledges the Church of Rome the seat of S. Peter and the principal Church whence the unity of the Priesthood was sprung but maintaines that every Bishop hath a portion of Christs flock assigned him to govern upon his account to Christ And therefore that causes are to be ended where they riâ—e and the good intelligence between Bishops ought not to be interrupted by carying causes abroad to be judged again Is not all this true supposing the case For who câ—n chuse but blame a schismaticall attempt But could any man hinder Basilides and Martialis from seeking the Church of Rome had their cause been good seeing their adverse paâ—ty did and might seek to foâ—â—ain Churches Was it not necessary to seek both to Carthage and to Rome for the freeing of the Church of Arles under Marciâ—nus from communion with the Novatians Here I conâ—eive lies the truth Some causes of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome to wit such as necessarily concern the whole Church either in the faith or in the unity of it Such was the cause of Marcianus which could not be ended but by the same consent which cast the Novatians out of the Church Was the cause of Basilides and Martialis of the same weight was it not meerly personal and concâ—rning mater of fact whither they had indeed sacrificed to Idols or not no question remaining in point of right that such could not be Bishops yet could not the Bishops of Spain over-rule the Bishop of Rome not to receive information from the aggrievâ—d Their way was to have recourse to other Churches the consent whereof might out-way the Church of Rome together with the goodnesse of the cause And the Church of Carthage must have done the same had Felicissimus and Fortunatus found reception at Rome and credit to balâ—nce their cause against S. Cyprian and the African Church So that causes of Faith necessarily concerning the whole Church whensoever they rendâ—r the peace thereof questionable those that for their weight do not concern â—he whole will concern it when they render the peace thereof questionable And so long as Law provideth not bounds to determine what causes shall be ended at home in the parts where they rise what cause is there that may not be pretended to concern the whole and by consequence the Church of Rome which being the principal Church what cause concerning the whole can end without it He that admits not this supposition conâ—â—sting in the regular pre-eminence denying the unlimited Power of the Church of Rome over other Churches will never give a reason why recourse is alwayes had to the Church of Rome and yet if the cause require to other Churches to ballance it The unity of the Church and communion with it is the thing that is â—ought The consent of the greatest Churches that of Rome in the 〈◊〉 place is the meanes to obtain it This businesse therefore is much of kin to that of the Donatists triall under Constantine when they petitioned the secular Power that they might be heard by the Bishops of Gaul intimating the reason vvhy they declined the Bishops of Italy to be because they might be tainted with falling away or shuffling in the perâ—ecution of Diocletian which they charged their adverse party in Africk with because they expresse this for the ground of their Petition in Optatus I. that under Constantius there had been no persecution in Gaâ—l Here I must pass by the consideration of any thing that may concern the dispute between secular and Ecclesiasticall Power as not concerning this place But when Constantine by his answer assigns them for Judges the Bishops of Rome and Milane with such and such of their suffraganes joyning with them the Bishops of Collen Autun and Arles in Gaul to satisfie them it is plain that he refuses them to transgresse that respect which the constitution of the Church challenged for the Churches of Rome and Milane that such causes as concerned the unity of the Church in the Western parts of the Empire should be determined not by the Pope alone noâ— the Church of Rome alone but by the Churches of Rome and Milane as the chief Churches of that part of the Empire the Church of Rome alwayes in the first place On the other side when the Donatists not satisfied with their sentence petition the Emperour again that it may be review'd and the Emperour adjourns them for a second triall to a Council at Arles it is plain that hee allowes them not an appeal from the former sentence because many of those that were Judges in the former Synod did vote in the later Synod But it is as plain that the parties then held not the Popes judgement either alone or in Council unquestionable unlesse all were madd in pretending to give either check or strength to that sentence which was originally unquestionable If therefore a sentence given by the Pope in a Council of Italy which some Gaulish Bishops joyned thereunto might be revised in a fuller Council of Gaulish Bishops with the concurrence of many others as well Italian and Spanish to say nothing of three from Britaine the first unquestionable record of the British Churches is it not manifest that Euclids axiome that the whole is greater then any part of it takes place in the Church as well as the words of S. Jerome Orbis major est Vrbe that the world is greater then the City of Rome Surely if S. Austine Ep. CLXII say well that the Donatists might have appealed to a General Council had they been justly grieved by the sentence at Rome his saying will hold if they had been grieved by the Council of Arles though concluding the Western Church But it will hold also of the Council of Arles that it had been madnesse to call it had not the generality thereof extended to conclude the Western Church further then the former at Rome though the cause came not to it by appeal CHAP. XX. Of the constitution and authority of Councils The ground of the pre-eminences of Churches in the Romane Empire The VI. Canon of the Council of Nicaea The pre-eminence of the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople Some instances against the superiority of Bishops out of the records of the Church what offices every Order by Gods Law or by Canon Law ministreth HEre the next consideration for time being that of the Council of Nicaea the VI Canon whereof first limited by written Law the pre-eminences of Churches in the Empire having taken place by custome before I will not repeat that
course that Constantius had done in the mater of Arius to reconcile Egypt to the Church by waiving the Council of Chalcedon for an expedient of his of his own for Constantius sought no more than to reconcile all by waiving of the Council of Nicaea and Acacius by communicating with Hereticks did necessarily as all offenders do make them their Superiors who maintain the Laws for the good of the whole In fine that whatsoever the Popes did by virtue of the Canon can be no ground for any irregular Power in themselves the Canon as justly maintaining the poor Britaines against the Pope as the Pope against Zeno and Acacius But the first General Council makes full recompence for all the Church of Rome may pretend to have gained by the business of Acacius Pope Vigilius being in Constantinople and refusing at the summons of the Emperor and Council to sit it proceeds and condemns three Articles which hee had declared for and so prevails that he himself thought best at length to concurr to the Act And all this being done is disowned by the Bishops of Africk Facundus by name whom hee had set on work to write for the three Articles and Istria till all was reconciled I question not the point of Heresie either in this case or that of Honorius whose constitution whereby hee thought to silence the dispute concerning the two wills in our Lord Christ made him to be condemned for an Heretick in the sixth General Council Onely I count it a pitifull excuse to imagine that the Synod is falsified in this point the VIIth Synod in the last session bidding anathema to Honorius and so many records testifying the same And where it is said that the Synod might err in point of fact that Honorius held Heresie though not in point of right in condemning that for Heresie which is not as the Jansenists at this day admitting the condemnation of five propositions by the late Pope admit not that they are contained in Jansenius his book not to dispute of that it will appear that the Pope may be judged by the Church in other cases besides that of Heresie if Honorius being no Heretick is by the Council condemned for an Heretick Indeed there is no cause that concerns the whole Church but the whole Church may judg it Nor can any cause lightly concern a Pope that concerns not the whole Church The reason why Popes have been so seldom judged is not for want of right but for fear of division in the Church which makes it not expedient to use that right There are many particulars of less consequence pleaded for the Popes Power which I will not examine admitting a regular pre-eminence for him above all other Bishops which is seen in the recourse had to him before others in maters concerning the whole Church but denying that infinite Power which nothing can be alleged to prove I acknowledg indeed that this regular pre-eminence not onely might but supposing the Church to continue in Unity must needs be further and further determined by Canon or by custom whether inlarging or restraining it as by the Canons of Sardica allowing appeals to him in the causes of Bishops For the causes of Bishops do not all necessarily concern the whole Church unless the subject of them be mater of Faith or otherwise that which calleth in question the Unity of the Church and then Lay-mens causes are no less So an appeal to Rome so constituted is properly an appeal there to be sentenced in the last resort But when recourse is had to the Pope in the first place that is no appeal but a course to bring the cause to the sentence of the whole Church whereof his sentence is the first part and a great prejudice to that which follows because of the respect which all that depend upon that Church owe his sentence And this increase of the Popes power I do think to be always a just cause of excluding from the Unity of the Church for refusing obedience to it For the Unity of the Church being of Gods Law and so inâ—bling to limit the terms upon which the Power of the Church is held and exercised by Canonical right it cannot be in the power of any part to cast off those Laws by which it is bounded within the compass of Gods Law at pleasure because they are the conditions upon which the Unity of the whole stands which no part can say they will renounce unless they may hold it upon such terms as they please But whether these limitations may not be so excessively abusive to the liberty of the whole so prejudicial to the service of God in the truth of Christianity for which they and the whole Church stands that parts of the Church may and ought to provide for themselves and their Christianity against the oppression of them that I referr to the last consideration when I shall have showed how maters in difference are to be valued by the principles that are setled In the mean time I must observe that from the time that the Pope was re-imbursed of his loss of Jurisdiction and possessions in those Provinces which upon his rebellion the Emperor with-drew from his obedience by the liberality of Pepin and Charlemaine bestovving upon him the Exarchate vvhich vvith the Kingdom of the Lombards they had taken from the Greekish Empire Though I cannot say that from that time regular proceedings were laid aside in the Western Churches Yet I must say that from thence the Popes had a ground to reduce the regular proceedings of Councils to their own will interest to introduce their own rescripts in stead of all Canons for Law to the Western Church And this though I must not prove here yet here I may allege why I go no further here in this dispute It remains that I gather up some fragments of instances that have been produced to show that Episcopacy is not of divine right because from the beginning either all or some Churches have had none Of the authors whereof I must first demand whether the Unity of the Church be of divine right or not For unless they will put the whole cause upon a new issue that there is no Law of God that the Church should be one I demand of them how this Unity could have been preserved by the equality of all Presbyters which by the Hierarchy I have showed was maintained Till they show mee this I think my self secure of all their litle objections For if the Hierarchy cannot be imputed to chance or to the voluntary agreement of all Christians as uncertain as chance certainly Episcopacy the first ingredient of it can be imputed to nothing but the provision of the Apostles And therefore I must here renew my answer to the question that is made Supposing the superiority of Bishops to consist in the Power of doing some act which a Priest cannot do what act is it that a Bishop by his Order can do a Priest cannot
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
then I said before to show you that the ancient Church from the beginning held the happinesse of the Saints souls to continue imperfect till the resurrection of their bodies Gennadius de dogmat Eccles LXXVIII LXXIX will have us to take it for the doctrine of the Church that the soules of the Fathers before Christ were in hell tiâ—l they were delivered thence by Christ That since Christ they go straight to Christ expecting the resurrection of their bodies that with them they may attaine intire happinesse And that this doctrine had for some time great vogue in the Church I deny not Nor intend to deny that the Saints are with Christ some whereof the Apocalypse represents before the Throne But that there is no Tradition for the translating of the Fathers souls that the saints are in Abrahams bosom or Paradise with them till the resurrection I conceive I have showed by clearing the sayings of the most ancient Christians from the misprisions which they are intangled with He that shall consider the premises may find Tertul. Lactant. and Victorinus whom Cardinal Bellar. acknowledgeth to detaine all soules in their store-houses till the resurrection De S. Beat. I. 5. good company among the rest of the Fathers And therefore I will referre it to the reader to judge between that exposition that he fits the passages of the Fathers with which he produces and that which my opinion requires Especially having Doctor Stapleton Defens Ecclesiast Authorit â— 2. to confesse with others of that side that all the ancients in a manner do hold the contrary of that which is since defined by the Councile of Florence Saint Bernard I must not omit because it is he who considering the text of the Apocalypse which you may see by the premises sayes more then all the Scripture besides hath so pertinently observed out of it that they are but in the Court as yet but at the consummation of their blisse shall enter into Gods house Therefore he maketh three states of the soule The first in tents the second in the Courts the third in Gods house into which neither the Saints shall enter without the common people of the Church nor their soules without their bodies De omnibus Sanctis Serm III. And Serm. IV. the Saints which now see onely the manhood of Christ under the altar he saith shall be lifted upon the altar to see the essence of God The Schoole since his time upon occasion of the contest with the Greek Church believing with Saint Bernard hath stated the dispute upon this terme of seeing God And John XXII Pope is questioned whether intending to determine with Saint Bernard he held heresy heretically or not For his successor Bennet XII first and after him the Councile of Florence hath decreed that for matter of Faith which before the decree was not matter of Faith And therefore if that be true which I said in the first book can never become matter of Faith For my part I see Saint Augustine de cura pro mortuis cap. IX resolve the question how the dead can know what is done here three wayes By the report of those who go hence and by the will of God remember what is done here by the ministery of Angels and by the revelation of Gods Spirit And if Saint John being in the Spirit saw by vision of Prophesy God sitting upon his throne in heaven as well as the Elders and Martyrs soules did I can easily grant that those souls which should have such revelations of Gods Spirit whether by the ministery of Angels or without it might see God upon his Throne as Saint John and the Prophets did and and as the Elders and Martyrs are there described to do But this would be no more that sight of God in which Saint Paul and Saint John seem to place the happinesse of Gods kingdome then that sight of God which Moses had when he communed face to face with God before the Ark was that sight whereof God said to him Thou shalt not see my face For no man shall see my face and live This for certain S. Augustine deriving the knowledge of our maters which blessed soules may have from the ministery of Angels and revelations of Gods Spirit and perhaps from report from hence was farre enough from owning Saint Gregories consequence Quae intus omnipotentis Dei claritatem vident nullo modo credendum est quod foris sit aliquid quod ignorent Those who see within the brightnesse of Almighty God it is not to be thought that there is any thing which they are ignorant of without Moral XII 14. For supposing the Saints see the essence of God it followeth not that thereby they see what is done here because it is not the essence of God but his will by which it may appear So farre it is from any appearance of truth that he who hath recourse to soules that go hence to the ministery of Angels to revelations of Gods Spirit to inform the saints departed of that which is done here should believe them to have that sight of God wherein the happinesse of his kingdom consisteth In fine by the Arch-bishop of Spalato de Rep. Ecclesi VIII 110-120 you shall find the opinion of Calvine to be the same I here maintaine though his followers it seemes are afraid of the evidence for it or the consequence of it Let us see whether justly or not It hath been a custome so general in the church to pray for the dead that no beginning of it can be assigned no time no part of the Ch. where it was not used And though the rejecting of it makes not Aerius an Heretick as disbelieving any part of the faith yet had he broke from the Ch. upon no other cause but that which the whole Church besids him owned he must as a Schismatick have come into Epiphanius his lift of Heresies intending to comprise all parties severed from the Church All that I have known pretended is that which the learned Blondel in a French work of the Sibyls verses hath conjectured that it had the begâ—nning from that book Which book as divers before him have showed reason why it should be thought the worke of a Christian intending to advance Cristianity by such meanes So I confesse I can not see whence it should come more probably then from Montanus or some of his fellow Prophets as he conjectureth For though he hath failed of his usuall diligence in clearing the difficulties which the account of time raiseth how Justine Martyrs Apology and Hermes his Pastor should borrow from Montanus yet doe I not see why Montanus might not begin to declare himselfe by it before the date of them But neither doth my businesse require or my modell allow me to debate it For supposing Justine Martyr or Clemens or Tertullian or Lactantius or many more particular writers were induced to allege it as for the advantâ—ge of the common Christianity He that sees not how
difficulty is the same For is not This of which our Lord speaks the same that hee took If you say not so because hee gave thanks before hee said This is my Body This is my Bloud at least it must be that which hee broke after hee had given thanks and that of necessity is the same bread which hee took as the same wine For to imagine that This demonstrates bread and wine which when hee sayes is my Body and Bloud are then abolished to make room for the Body and Bloud is that which his affirmation is will by no means allow requiring that which it affirmeth to be verified for that time which it demonstrateth or presenteth to the understanding So that This must be the Body and Bloud of Christ at such time as it is This that is that Bread and that Wine which Gods word demonstrateth In fine whatsoever it is which This may be said to demonstrate besides Bread and Wine it will be unpossible to make appear that the Disciples understood that which the Scriptures whereby wee must learn what they understood expresse not But this is not all When S. Matthew sayes I will drink no more of this production of the Vine which S. Luke sayes that our Lord said before the consecration of the Sacrament either wee must say that hee repeated the same words which is nothing unlikely seeing the tender of the cup at which they were said is repeated by our Lord as it is agreed upon that the Jewes at the Supper of the Passeover did customarily repeat the same And this answer takes away all imputation of confusion from the text of S. Matthew But if any man stand upon it that these words were said onely before the consecration though they are repeated by S. Matthew after it at the delivering of the cup and therefore that it is not called wine which is in the cup after the consecration If hee consider how pertinently hee makes S. Matthew bring in this saying upon the delivery of the cup not supposing that to be wine which was in it hee will finde himself never a whit easied by that escape For how grosse were it for him to put these sayings together This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for many to the remission of sins And I say unto you I will drink no more of this production of the Vine had hee not taken that which was in the cup for wine The same holds in the words of S. Mark having followed S. Matthew in this So when S. Paul makes our Lord say Take eat this is my Body which is broken for you is it not manifest that breaking is properly said of bread of a body of flesh not without some impropriety to be understood by that which is common to bread and to a body of flesh And would S. Paul have used a term which necessarily referrs him that hears it to bread were it not bread which our Lord brake after the consecration of the Sacrament in resemblance wherewith this body is said to be broken because it was wounded But when the same S. Paul speaking of that which they take which they eat which they drink which certainly they do after the consecration when it is the Sacrament saith So oft as yee eat this bread and drink this cup yee declare the Lords death till hee come Therefore whoso eateth this bread and drinketh this cup unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ Is there then any reason left why wee should not believe bread to be bread and wine to be wine when the word of God sayes it but that whatsoever the word of God say wee are resolved of our prejudice And when hee saith again Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup speaketh hee of eating and drinking any thing else but that which all Christians receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist If any thing can possibly be more manifest than this it is that which hee addeth arguing that all Christians are one Body â—s the bread is one to wit which they eat because they all partake of onâ— bread And therefore when hee saith further The cup of blessing which weâ— blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which wee break is it not the communion of the body of Christ I will not insist upon this that it is called bread after the blessing though S. Matthew observeth that our Lord calleth it so after giving of thanks because the cup may be called the cup of blessing which wee blesse before the blessing be past and done But I say confidently that to make our Lord say that the bread is the communion of the Body and the cup that is the wine that is in the cup which is blessed for what else can be understood to be in the cup with correspondence to bread is the communion of the bloud of Christ is to make him say that which hee did not mean unlesse hee did mean that that is bread and wine whereby Christians communicate in the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist But shall this evidence of the nature and substance of Bread and Wine remaining in the Sacrament of the Eucharist even when it is a Sacrament that is when it is received either deface or efface the evidence which the same Scriptures yield us of the truth of Christs body and blood brought forth and made to be in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by making it to be that Sacrament Surely wee must not suffer such a conceit to prossesse us unlesse wee will offer the same violence to the manifest and expresse words of the Scripture For of necessity when our Lord saith This is my body this is my blood either wee must make is to stand for signifieth and This is my body this is my bloud to be more than this is a sign of my body and bloud Or else the word is will inforce the elements to be called the body and bloud of Christ at that time and for that time when they are not yet received That is to say whether hee that receives them who think it for their advantage to maintain that This is my body and my bloud signifies no more but this is a sign of my body and bloud to advise how they can ground the true real participation of the body and bloud of Christ in by the Sacrament of the Eucharist upon the Scripture allowing no more than the signification of the body bloud of Christ by that Sacrament to be declared in those words of the Scripture that describe the institution of it For that a man receives the body and bloud of Christ spiritually through faith in receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist is no more than hee does in not receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist if by the act of a living faith wee do eat the flesh of Christ and drink his
bloud as understanding themselves aright all Christians must needs do Unlesse wee can maintain that wee receive the body and blood of Christ not onely when wee receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist but also by receiving it there is no cause why our Lord should say This is my body this is bloud when hee delivered onely the sign of it to good and bad and therefore not out of any consideration of the quality of them that received it And what a grosse thing were it to say that our Savior took such care to leave his Church by the act of his last will a legacy which imports no more than that which they might at all times bestow upon themselves And let mee know whether the Church could not devise signes enow to renew the memory of Christs death or if that be likewise included to expresse their profession also of dying with Christ by bearing his Crosse if our Lords intent had been no more than to appoint a Ceremony that might serve to commemorate our Lords death or to expresse our own profession of conformity to the same For certainly they who make no more of it whom I said wee may therefore properly call Sacramentaries cannot assign any further effect of Gods grace for which it may have been instituted and yet make it a meer sign of Christs death or of our own profession to dy with Christ or for Christ But if I allow them that make it more than such a sign to have departed from a pessilent conceit and utterly destructive to Christianity I cannot allow them to speak things consequent to their own position when they will not have these words to signifie that the elements are the body and bloud of Christ when they are received but become so upon being received with living faith which will allow no more of the body and bloud of Christ to be in the Sacrament than out of it For the act of living faith importeth the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ no lesse without the Sacrament than in it Certainly it is no such abstruse consequence no such farr fetched argument to inferr If this is my body this is my bloud signifies no more than this is the sign of my body and bloud then is the Sacrament of the Eucharist a meer sign of the body and bloud of Christ without any promise of spiritual grace Seeing that being now a Sacrament by being become a Sacrament it is become no more than a sign of the body and bloud of Christ which though a living faith spiritually eateth and drinketh when it receives the Sacrament yet should it have done no lesse without receiving the same I will here allege the discourse of our Lord to them that followed him to Capernaum John VI. 26-63 upon occasion of having been fed by the miracle of five loaves and a few little fishes Supposing that which any man of common sense must grant that it signifies no more than they that heard it could understand by it and that the Sacrament of the Eucharist not being then ordained they could not understand that hee spake of it but ought to understand him to speak of believing the Gospel and becoming Christians under the allegory of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud But when the Eucharist was instituted the correspondence of the ceremony thereof with the allegory which here hee discourseth is evidence enough that as well the promise which hee tendreth as the duty which hee requireth have their effect and accomplishment in and by the receiving of it I must here call you to minde that which I said of the Sacrament of Baptisme that when our Lord discoursed with Nicodemus of regeneration by water and the Holy Ghost John III. not having yet instituted the Sacrament of Baptisme in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost nor declared the promise of giving the Holy Ghost to them that should receive the same it must needs be thought that hee made way thereby to the introducing of that Ordinance the condition and promise whereof hee meant by the processe of his own and his Apostles doctrine further to limit and determine In like maner I must here insist and suppose that hee speaks not here immediately of eating and drinking his flesh and bloud in the Eucharist which his hearers could not then fore-tell that hee meant to ordain but that the action thereof being instituted with such correspondence to this discourse the intent of it may be and is to be argued from the same Now I have showed in due place that the sayings and doings of our Lord in the Gospel are mystical to signifie his kingdome of Glory to the which hee bringeth us through his kingdome of Grace So that when our Savior fed that great multitude with the loaves and the fishes which hee multiplied by miracle to the intent that they might not faint in following him and his doctrine it is manifest that hee intimateth thereby a promise of Grace to sustain us in our travail here till wee come to our Countrey of the Land of Promise When therefore hee proposeth the theme of this discourse saying Yee seek mee not because yee have seen miracles which serve to recommend my doctrine but because yee have eaten of the loaves and were filled Labor not for the meat that perisheth but for that which indures to life everlasting hee showes two things First that his flesh and bloud sustain us in our pilgrimage here because hee showes the Manna which the Fathers lived on in the Wildernesse to be a figure of it Secondly that they bring us to immortality and everlasting life in the world to come by expounding the figure to consist in this that as they were maintained by manna till they died so his new Israelites by his flesh and bloud by eating his flesh and drinking his bloud which hee was giving for the life of the world never to dye Now wherein the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud consisteth hee showes by his answer to their question upon this Warning them to work for the meat that lasts unto everlasting life which hee tenders and not for that which perisheth The question is What shall wee do to work Gods works And the answer The work of God is this to believe in him whom hee hath sent I have showed in due place that the condition which makes the promises of the Gospel due is oâ—r Christianity to wit to professe the faith of Christ faithfully that is not in vain Therefore when our Lord saith The work of God is this To believe on him whom hee hath sent hee means this fidelity in professing Christianity For indeed who can imagine otherwise that hee should call the act of believing in Christ that work of God which Christ came to teach Gods people Hee then that considers the death of Christ that is to say the crucifying of his flesh and the pouring out of his bloud with that faith which supposes all