sacrifices and other ceremonies thereof how little soever they minded the true intent and meaning of it were the true predecessors of the Scribes and Pharisees in our Lords time and the Prophets and their disciples the forerunners of our Lord and his Apostles and that both persecuted both upon the same score of account The inward righteousnesse of the heart which God onely alloweth being that which both preached and professed though the former under that knowledge of God and of his will with the Law the other which the Gospell advanceth And this the true and reall ground why they and that which befell them under the Old Testament do beare the figure of our Lord and his Apostles and that which befell them by the rulers of the Jewes in the New According to the words of our Lord Mat. XXIII 34 where he showeth that by crucifying himself and persecuting his disciples they do but fill up the measure of their Fathers wickednesse And S. Paul of the Jewes to the same effect 1 Thes II. 15 16. Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own Prophets and please not God and oppose all men Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved For wrath is come on them to the end I say then that under that dimme light of Gods will which the Saints of the Old Testament injoyed when the world to come was not yet covenanted for nor the sayings and doings of our Lord Christ manifested to invite to Christianity it is necessarily consequent that God should accept of that obedience under the law which as it must come from a sincere heart and studious of pleasing him so must it needs come short of that perfection which the Gospel requireth For as I said before that love of God with all the heart and all the soul and all the might which the Law requireth is limited by the precepts of the law which whoso observes with all the heart and so forth must be thought to have performed that love wherein then the observation of Gods law consisted As for the precept of not coveting of which S. Paul sayes Rom. VII 7-11 that he had not known concupiscence had not the Law said Thou shalt not covet And Saint Augustine observes that being joyned to to the precept of loving God above all things they comprise all Christianity Though all this be true according to the spirituall sense of the Law yet according to the leter it cannot be denied that the last precept of the decalogue forbiddeth onely compassing that which is another mans Counting his wife in that number because there was then meanes to compasse another mans wife without breaking the Law which allowed of divorces And therefore this is the senâ—e of that which followeth in S. Paul Sinne taking advantage wrought in me all concupiscence by the commandment For without the Law sin is dead But I once lived without the law But the commandment coming sin revived and I died And the commandment which was to life was found for me to death For sin taking occasion by the commandment deceived me and so slew me All this I say as the rest of that Epistle concerning the inability of the Law to bring us to righteousnesse is to be understood of the outward and litterall sense of the law To wit that the Israelites before they received the Law and so other men without the Law understood not that it was a sinne but a piece of wit to compasse a mans wife or goods without violence or to commit that uncleannesse to which the law had assigned no penalty So the Law being given and having assigned no penalty to the transgression of this precept was it marvile that sin prevailing over that conviction of the conscience which the precept tendered should seduce a man to give way to concupiscence and turn the precept that was given for life to his death He then that was not imposed upon with this â—light of sinne but received the commandment as Gods who hath other penalties in store then those which the Law assigneth if out of conscience to God he observed the Laws of his worship from the heart if he kept all that which not onely the penalties assigned by the law but the will of God declared by the precept convinced him to take hold of his conscience is it not reason to conclude that he fulfilled that measure of spirituall righteousnesse which God for that time required of them whom he assured of the world to come upon condition of such obedience Which if it be so that obligation to this righteousnesse which was so declared under the Law is that Law of spirituall obedience which God judgeth those by whom for that time he accepted unto the reward of the world to come As for the precept of loving our neighbour as our selves having showed that it concerned onely Israelites under the Law I have also by the same meanes showed that they were to detest the Gentiles as Idolaters that detestation being the meanes to keep them up to the service of God from falling away to Idols Whereupon as by the Law he that fell from the Law and seduced his kindred to do the like was to find no maner of pity at the hand even of his brethren Deut. XIII 8. So also it is provided by the Jews Constitutions that they shall observe no rule of common equity in seeking evidence against such a one to bring him to conviction and to make him an example And as for those hypocrites which under pretense of the outward and carnall observatiof the Law persecuted the preachers of true spiritual righteousnesse the Prophets of Old and our Lord and his Apostles who pretended to carry it unto the Gentiles whom they hold themselves obliged to hate as having been once Idolaters it is visible that those Saints who suffered persecution at their hands did not find themselves tied to that measure which the Gospel prescribeth of praying for their enemies to the utmost This is seen in those curses which David and Jeremy pursue their enemies with the Gospel having prescribed for a generall rule to all Christians Blesse them that curse you Mat. V. 44. Luke VI. 27. Rom. XII 14. 1 Pet. III. 9. James III. 9. I deny not that herein they were figures and forerunners of our Lord and his disciples and their sayings prophesies of the curses that should overtake the people of the Jewes for persecuting them For I have showed just now the ground upon which this is to be received But I challenge that ground also which I setled at the beginning that the mysticall sense of the Scripture alwayes supposeth a litterall sense and that these things cannot be understood to be fulfilled in our Lord Christ but that first they must have been verified in the Prophets themselves In whome as it is plaine that the persecutions for which they curse did come to passe so plaine it is that their curses fell upon their persecutors For nothing
figure in saying That God would have that done which he will not do because he knowes sufficient reason to the contrary whether he declare it or not but setting that reason aside would have done Or that he would have that done which he provideth sufficient meanes to bring to passe But that all should signify some and the world the elect because God will not do all he can to save those whom he would have to be saved is a figure in Rhetorick called Mendacium when a man denies the Scripture to be true The same is the difficulty when our Lord Christ who saith to the Father John XVII 9. I ask for them I ask not for the world but for them whom thou hast given me for they are thine prayes upon the Crosse Father forgive them for they know not what they do For though he ask not that for the world which he askes for his disciples yet he would not have prayed for that which he knew not that God would have done His prayer being the reason moving God to grant meanes effectuall to bring to passe that which it desireth But had there been in God a purpose to exclude the Jews from the benefit of Christs death considering them as not having yet refused the grace which Christ prayed for it could not have been said that he would have our Lord Christ dy or pray for them and therefore that he would have them to be saved This is then my argument that the will of man is neither by the originall constitution of God determinable by his immediate operation nor by mans originall sinne subject to a necessity of doing or not doing this or that Because God treats with the posterity of Adam concerning the Covenant of the Law first and since concerning the Covenant of grace no otherwise then originally he treated with Adam about not eating the forbidden fruit For in conscience were it for the credit of Christianity that infidels whom we would perswade to be Christians should say True if you could shew me that God by his immediate act determines me to do as you require me without which you tell me I cannot do it and with which I cannot but do it Or that by the sinne of Adam I am not become subject to the necessity of doing or not doing this or that But supposing either of these if you move me to do what you professe I cannot do you are either a mad man your self or take me for one Do they take their hearers for men and Christians or for beasts who having first taught that man can do nothing but what God determines him to do inferre thereupon that they must indeavour themselves to do what God commands and what their Christianity requires Or that they are obliged by their Christianity to do that which their corruption from Adam necessitates them not to do Is it for the honour of Gods justice that it should be said that he intends to damne the most part of men for that which by their originall corruption they were utterly unable to do without giving them sufficient help to do it no help being sufficient which the determination of the will by the immediate operation of God makes not effectuall as they think Do they not make the Gospel of Christ a mockery that make it to require a condition impossible to be performed by any whom God determines not to perform it having resolved not to determine the greatest part of them that know it to performe it Certainly this is not to make the secret will of God contradict the declared will of God but to make the declared will of God a meer falshood unlesse the declaring will make contradictions true For to will that this be done for an end which God that willeth will not have come to pass makes contradictions the object of that will and that for the same consideration at the same time God from everlasting determining meerly in consideration of his own will that the condition of that which he would have to come to passe conditionally will not come to passe What is it then to declare all this to the posterity of Adam already lapsed without tendring help sufficient to inable them to imbrace what he tendereth For it is manifest that Adam had sufficient grace to doe what God commanded and it is as manifest that God tenders both the Law to the Israelite and the Gospell to the World in the same form as he tendred Adam the prohibition of eating the forbidden fruit Nor can it be denied that this prohibition contained in the force of it all the perswasions all the exhortations all the promises all the threatnings which either the Law or the Gospell to their respective ends and purposes can be inforced with It must therefore be concluded not that they suppose in Adams posterity an ability to do what they require as did the origiginall prohibition of eating the forbidden fruit but that they bring with them sufficient help to perform it not supposing any thing that may barre the efficacy thereof till the will of him to whom it is tendered makes it void And truly speaking of that which the naturall indowment of freedom necessarily imports in the reasonable creature it is utterly impossible that any thing should determine the will of man to do or not to do this or that but his own action formally or in the nature of a formal cause which therefore in the will cannot be the action of God nor be attributed imputed or ascribed to him to whom it were blasphemy to impute that which his creature is honoured with That God should immediately act upon the soul of man or his will is no inconvenience Because that act must end in the will or soul and not attaine that effect which the imperfection of the creature bringeth to passe Ending therefore in the creature and not in that which the action of the creature produceth it leaveth the same of necessity in the state wherein God first made it And I may well suppose here and will suppose that Gods act of creation continues the same for all the time that he maintaines the creature in that perfection of being that is to say in that ability of acting which from the beginning he gave it This discourse I confesse extendeth to the voiding of the immediate concurrence of God to the actions of his creature which my purpose necessarily requires me not to maintaine For concurrence-supposeth the creature to act without help of God that concurreth and therefore cannot be requisite on behalf of the cause being supposed to act of it self but on behalf of the effect wherein it endeth Which having a being is supposed necessarily to require immediate dependance upon the first being which is God A strange subtlety acknowledging the creature able to act and supposing it to act of it self to imagine that this act can end in nothing as that which it effecteth without Gods concurrence Which immediately attaining the
or so united to it hâ—â— they cannot fail of it And though the perfection of their estate admitteth no possibility of failing yet it is no waies prejudicial to the honour of God to provide men here of such an estate as is necessarily capable of failing His perfection being such as is necessarily capable of improvement And therefore it is no disparagement to God that he should create a possibility of sinning in that creaâ—ure in which if there were now not a posibility of sinâ—ing there could not be a posibility of attaining happinesse by not sining These things thus setled it remaines that we inquire whether that sufficienâ— grace wâ—ich the difference between the anâ—ecedent and consequent will of God settles be granted indifferently to all mankind or not And my answer is briefely this That God hath provided for all mankind that grace which at a distâ—nce is sufficient to save all mankind But that grace which iâ—â—â—mediately sufficient to save he hath not immediatly provided for all mankind but hath trusted hiâ— Church to provide it for the rest of mankind having left them meanes sufficâ—ent to doe it My reason is this because where God sendeth immediately meanes sufficient to save by converting to Christianity there he will dâ—mand an acount of the neglect of that meanes which hetendreth For I suppose from that which I said in the first book against the Leviathan that as many as come to the knowledg of Christianity are obliged to receive it Certainely he that believes the Christian faith must needs believe that God hath don enough to oblige all that come to knowe the truth of it to submit themselves to it otherwise to remain liable not onely to those sins which they are under when they come to know it but to the guilt of neglecting so great salvation provided tendred by God Now that those who never heard of the gospel of Christ remaine destitute of all meanes to be informed of the truth of Christianity shall not be juâ—ged either for neglecting or transgressing that will of God which it publisheth will appeare by manifest consequence from the expresse wâ—râ—s of S Paul concerning the judgement which the Jewes Gentiles before the â—osâ—ell remaine subject to Rom. XI 12. 16. For as many as have sinned without â—â—â—â—â—w al perish without the law as many as have sinned under the Law shall be 〈◊〉 by the Law For the hearers of the law are not just before God but the doers of the Law shall be justified For when the gentiles not having the Law doe by nature the things of the law these not having the law are a law to themselves who shew the workâ— of the law written in their hearts their conscience also witnessing with them and their thoughts interchangably accusing or excusing in the day that God shall judge the secrets of man according to my gospell Some constâ—ue these words thus As many as have sinned without the law shall perish without the law in the day that God shall judge the secrets of men according to my gospel If those that sin without the Law shall perish without the Law it is manifest that they shall not be condemned for transgressing the law which they never knew And if the ground why they perish be the law that is written in their hearts to which their conscience beares witnesse when their thoughts accuse or excuse them Whether this be at the day of iudgement or not it is plaine the conscience can never accuse a man nor by consequence God condem him for transgressing the will of God which he never knew And if God proceed not with the Gentiles upon the Law which the Isralites onely knew but upon the light and law of nature by which not knowing the Law they found themselves obliged to doe that which it commanded Then shall he not proced upon the Gospell with them who never had meanes to know it but upon the light of nature and the conscience of what they have don or not don according to it or against it And indeed the words of our Lord are plaine enough Iohn III. 17-21 God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved He that believeth on him shall not be condemned but he that beleiveth not on him is condemned already because he believed not in the name of the onely begotten Son of God And the condemnation is this that light is come into the world and men love darknesse better then light because their works are evill For every one that doth evill hateth the light and cometh not to the light that his works be not reproved But he that doth the truth cometh to the light that his works may be manifest that they are done in God For he thaâ— is condemned for not believing because he hates the light must first see the light before he hate it and so positively refuse to believe because his works will not endure the light And no man could doe the truth and that in God but he that was under the law of God Who if he did not the truth which the Law requireth would consequently hate the truth which the gospel preacheth So he that is condemned for not beleiving is he that heareth the gospel and receiveth it not And to this reason we must refer the words of S Paul Act XIV 16. Who in by past ages suffered all Nations to walk in their own waies And againe Acts Xâ—II 3â— God therefore who did oversee the times of ignorance now injoâ—â—râ—h all men every where to repent And Rom. III. 25. 26. Whom God hath proposed for a propitiatory through faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse because of the passing by of sins that went afore To declare I say his righteousnesse at this present time For we cannot imagin that he will not demand account of the sins that have beene done from the beginning of the world of whom Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesied saying Behold the Lord is come with the ten thousands of his holy Angels to doe judgement upon all and to rebuke all the ungodly of them of all the ungodlinesse which they have committed and of all the bad words thay have spoken against him wicked sinners Jude 14. 15. And it is not for nothing that God when he let the Gentiles alone to walke in their owne waies no withstanding left not himself without witnesse doing good giving us raine from heaven and fruitfull seasons filling our hearts with food and gladnesse as S. Pa. proceeds Acts XIV 17. Nor that he made of one blood all Nations of men to dwell upon the face of the whole Earth determining times appointed before to the bounds of their dwelling that they might seeke the Lord if by any meanes they might find him by groping though not far distant from each one of us For in him we live and move and have our being as some also of your Posts have
it willingly I have a reward if unwillingly a stewardship I am trusted with What is then my reward That I bestow the preaching of Christs Gospel without charge So as not to use my right in preaching it 1 Cor. IX 15-18 The necessity of preaching the Gospell stands in opposition to the preaching of it freely which is therefore a matter of free choice The woe to S. Paul is for not preaching the Gospell therefore not for not preaching it for nothing Wherefore the reward he meanes when he saith what is my reward that is wherein lies my claime my plea or my preâ—ense to it is not that which the Gospel covenants for with all Christians For that S. Paul was not to faile of though he preached not for nothing Seneca saith that a slave may oblige his Master by doing not onely what he commands but what he knowes will please him though he command it not Such are not those whom our Lord speakes to Luke XVII 6-10 So ye also when ye have done all things that are commanded you say we are unprofitable servants we have done what we were indebted to do Ye that have faith as a graine of mustard seed that is a small seed of Christianity to whom the parable there is proposed For it speaketh of those who sit down when their master hath supped whereas there are others that must sit down with their master Luke XXII 30. others that shall sit down as soon as he comes and himself wait on them Luke XII 37. And therefore there are servants of God under the Gospel that fail not of their wages but oblige not their Masters goodnesse without promise Above these wages is the reward which S. Paul meanes which though he pretend not by discharging his trust so cheerfully as to preach the Gospel for nothing which God commanded him not he may neverthelesse obtaine his wages by giving a just account of his office Therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not abusing but fully using as in Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He used not the gift aright And in S. Paul 1 Cor. VII 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that use this world as not freely using it Not as not abusing it Though it hath been so translated because the rest of the opposites before runne in the like correspondence They that have wives as having none those that weep as not weeping those that rejoyce as not rejoycing those that buy as not possessing So those that use this world as not using or not freely using it And in the Latine Saint Hierome Quâ—st Hebr in Gen. Sancti Apostoli his fere testimoniis abutuntur quae jam fuerant in gentibus divulgata The holy Apostles use I suppose no man will say Saint Herome meant that they abuse those testimonies which had been already divulged among the Gentiles And in Plautus and the civile law abuti is to spend which is the full use of things that may be spent For seeing Saint Paul in the beginning of the Chapter challengeth that he might have done otherwise as well as the rest of the Apostles either he might have done otherwise without sin or he had not that right in point of conscience to God which he saith they used without sinne If then the law of God determine not a man to abstaine from marriage to abandon the world and riches of the world which he hath just title to and yet this may be done to oblige God in point of goodnesse not in point of promise what is Saint Augustineâ— fault in saying of Saint Paul voluit S. Paulus ex Evangelio victum sibi quaerere Quod maluit operari amplius erogabat Saint Paul might have got his living by preaching the Gospel In that he choosed to work he laid out more in Gods service For this is not to say that the love of God for which he did it is not commanded but that he was not commanded to exercise that love in forbearing his due Therefore if any man shall teach the precepts of loving God above all and all for God and of mortifying the first motions of concupiscence together with the particulars unto which our Lords Sermon in the Mount brancheth those generalls to prescribe workes of superâ—rogation and maters not of precept but of counsaile as too many have been allowed I say not injoyned to do in the Church of Rome worthily in that regard is this professed in the Church of England to be a blasphemous doctrine Neither can it appear that the ancient Fathers ever intended any such sense by it who notwithstanding all with one voice agree in the difference between mater of precept and matter of counsell under the Gospel which difference Doctor Field in his learned work of the Church having acknowledged in the Church of England no man can justly charge me with novelty in maintaining of it Now though the perfection of Christianity consist as hath been showed in loving God above all and all for God or in resolving to do all in respect of Gods will and for his service Yet is not this perfection perfectly to be obtained during this life The reason is manifest Because it is not morally possible that the work of it should not be interrupted by original concupiscence the mortification whereof which proceeds by degrees is that perfection which a Christian arriveth at whatsoever he aime at Saint Paul had gone as farre as another man when he said Phil. III. 13 14 15. Brethren I count not my self to have seized Onely forgetting that which is behind and stretching at that which is before according to the mark I drive to the prize of the heavenly calling of God by Christ Jesus As many therefore as are perfect let us be so minded And 1 Cor. III. 18. We all looking as in a glasse upon the glory of God with bare face are changed after the same image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord To wit by the same degrees as the mortification of our own concupiscence makes room for Gods Spirit And therefore he saith again of himself 1 Cor. IX 26. I therefore so runne as not without appearance of going forwards so fight not as beating the aire But I cuffe and inslave my body least having preached to others I my selfe become reprobate Notwithstanding the law of Christianity which the Gospel preacheth supposing this concupâ—scence and providing a right of reestablishment into Gods grace for all that being cast down in this course shall returne by repentance manifest it is that though we are not saved by fulfilling the originall rule of that righteousnesse to which the creation of our nature on Gods behalf obligeth us Yet by undertaking and pursuing that perfection which the profession of Christianity importeth provided that we persevere in pursuing it unto the end though sometimes this pursuit consist in turning from those sinnes by which we had started aside Now the law of
that managed the power of the Keyes in behalfe of the Church and by their judgement whether at large or limited by Canons provided afore-hand for the Church was the cure appointed The Council of Trent granteth that God hath not forbidden publick confession of secret sinne My reasons inferre more That confession of sinne in secret is an abatement of that discipline which our Lord and his Apostles instituted for the cure of sinne by the Church and by consequence an abatement to the efficacy of his Ordinance Neither can any thing be alledged for it but the decay of Christianity by the coming of the world into the Church and the necessity which that bringeth upon the Church to abate of that which the primitive institution requireth that the Ordinances of our Lord may be preserved to such effects as can be obtained with the unity of the Church And therefore I deny not that this Law may be abused to become a torture and snare and an occasion of infinite scandals to well disposed Consciences For who will provide Laws for so vast a Body as the whole Church of Christendome yet is that shall give no occasion of offence They that pretend it are but Absoloms Disciples that to cure one advance innumerable No more do I deny that the skill of all Confessors that is all that must be trusted with that power which this Law constituteth is not nor can probably be able to value the sinnes that are brought to them and to prescribe the cure which they requite supposing their conscience such as will not fail to require that which their skill finds to be requisite In questions of this nature though it were to be wished that such Laws could be provided for the Church as being unblameable might render the Church unblameable Yet they that are capable of giving sentence what is best for so vast a body will find it best as in all other Corporations or Common-wealths to improve the Ordinances of God to the best of that which can be obtained with the unity of the Church And therefore setting aside those gross abuses which may follow upon the perswasion that those penalties which are to be imposed by the power of the Keyes to produce that disposition which qualifieth penitents for remission of sinnes tend onely to satisfie for the temporall penalty remaining due when the sinne is pardoned And setting aside those abuses in the practice of Penance which tend to introduce this perswasion I must freely glorifie God by freely professing that in my judgement no Christian Kingdom or State can maintain it selfe to be that which it pretendeth more effectually then by giving force and effect to the Law of private confession once a year by such means as may seem both requisite and effectuall to inforce it Not that I do condemn that order which the Church of England at the Reformation contented it selfe with as rendring the Reformation thereof no Reformation and leaving men destitute of sufficient means for the remission of sinne after Baptism to leave it to the discretion and conscience of those who found themselves burthened with sinne to seek help by the means of their Pastors as appeareth both in the Communion service and in the visitation of the sick But because I see the Church of England hath failed of that great peece of Reformation which it aimed at in this point To wit the receiving of publick Penance This aime you shall find expressed in the beginning of the Commination against sinners in these words Brethren in the primitive Church there was a godly discipline that at the beginning of Lent such persons as were notorious sinners were put to open Penance and punished in this world that their souls might be saved in the day of our Lord And that others admonished by their example might be more afraid to offend In the stead whereof untill the said discipline may be restored again which is much to be wished it is thought good What is the reason that â—o godly a desire of so evident a Reformation could not take place when Reformation in the Church was so generally sought besides those common obstructions with all good pretenses will necessarily find in all communities of Christians I shall not much labour to perswade him that shall consider the â—ares of Puritantism to have been sowed together with the grain of Reformation in the Church of England This I will say that where visible Penance is exercised for sins of themselves visible and much more which the conscience of those who commit them makes visible there is a reasonable ground of presumption that those who see this done upon others will not advance to the communion of the Eucharist without visiting their own consciences and exacting competent revenge upon their sins though they use not the help of their Pastoâ—s in taxing it That vulgar Christians would have been moved voluntarily to seek the help of their Pastors in taxing the cure of their sins without seeing the practice of that medicine upon notorious sins which the discipline of the Church required who can imagine For nothing but example teaches vulgar people the benefit of good Laws Noâ— did secret Penance ever get the force of a general Law but by example But where there is no pretense of casting notorious offenders out of the company of Christians that thereby they may be moved to submit to the cure of their sinnes by satisfying the Church of their Repentance because the secular Power inforces no sentence of excommunication it is no Christian Kingdom or Common-wealth though Christians may live in it â—as Christians may be cast upon a coast that is not inhabited by Christians For he that believes not onely that there is a Catholick Church in the world but that he must be saved by being a member of it may and will find imperfection enough in those Laws by which the Keyes of the Church are imployed and exercised but if he find no reconciliation of sinne by the Keyes of the Church because no excluding of sinners from the communion of it will find no part of the Catholick Church there because no part of the Catholick Church was ever without it And therefore I must not fail to declare my opinion in this place that in a Christian Common-wealth if by any means those that are convicted of capitall crimes by Law come to escape death either by favour of the Law or by Grace of the Soveraign as many times it falls out and likewise all those that are convicted of crimes that are infamous having satisfied the justice of the Law ought to stand excommunicate till they satisfie the Church And for the same reason those whom the Church convicteth of crimes which civill justice punisheth not but Christianity maketh inconsistent with the hope of Christians being excommunicate upon such conviction ought not to be restored to the communion of the Church until by just demonstrations of their converâ—ion the Church be satisfied of them as qualified for
secure them that put away their wives under the law in point of conscience to God And it is certain if that be true which I have setled in the second Book concerning the inward and outward the civill and spirituall obedience of God under Moses law and the difference between them that it could not alwaies do it For could he that knâ—w he put away his wife for â—ust or for wrath or for advantage think that he loved his wife whom all men know they are to love above others being bound to love all Israelites as himselfe But on the contrary he that had lighted upon a wife of crooked conditions and having done his reasonable indeavour to reclaim her had found her incorrigible how should he think he did her wrong using the power that Gods law had given him so moderately in putting her away Had God given them a Law which could in no case be used without sinne For had the nakednesse which the law allowed for a just cause of divorce signified nothing else but that which our Lord by his Gospel allows what question remains whither the conscience be secured by it or not But among Christians covenanting with God upon express promises of the world to come under a 〈◊〉 and more excellent rule of obedience with promise of helps proportionable to go through with it it is marvail if an obligation be acknowledged of bearing with patience the maners of the wife vvhich a man himselfe chuses never giving over the hope of reducing her to reason until she falsifie the trust of wedlock That when the mater is come to that point it should no more be mater of precept but mater of counsail to indure such a wife when the infamy of a mans bed my be saved and hope of reclaiming her may remain So that the question whether the meaning of Moses his words be the meaning of Christs is the same in this particular of mariage vvhich the Christians have generally with the Jews whether our Lord Jesus persiting the Lavv by bringing in the Gospell be the Christ or not The resolution whereof as it necessarily infers the difference between them which I have setled in the second Book so that difference vvill as necessarily inferre this provision of our Lord to be severall from that of Moses Out of Origen in Mat. VII a pleasant conceit is alleged Forsitan audax aliquis Judaicus vir adversus doctrine Salvatoris nostri dicet quoniam Jesus dicens Qui cunque dimi serit uxorem suam exceptâ causâ fornicationis facit â—â—â— machari permiâ—it uxo em dimittere quem ad modum Moyses quâ—m retulit propter duritiem cordiâ— Judâ—orum hoc prâ—cepisse Et hanc ipsam inquiet esse causam fornicationis per quam juste uxâ—r à viro dimittitur secundum quam Moyses praecepit dimitterâ— uxorem si inventa fuerit res turpis in â—â Perhaps some bold Jewish fellow may say crossing our Saviours Doctrine that even Jesus saying Whosoever shall send away his wife but for fornication makes her comâ—â—it adultery hath given leave to put a wife away even as Moses who he relareth did command this for the Jews hard-heartednesse And will say that this is the very same cause of fornication for which a wife is justly put away by a Husband according to which Moses also commands to put away a wife if a foul thirg be found in her Whence it is argued that there were then that expounded our Lords words to the same intent vvith Moses That there were Origen sayes not that there might be I grant But they must be Jews and adversaries to our Saviours Doctrine that should do it For he that should say so must blame our Saviour for pretending to contradict Moses vvhich Origen supposeth no Jevv could deny saying indeed the same thing Othervvise he must contradict the Synagogue for allowing divorce where Moses allowed it not if the soul thing which Moses allows divorce for be onely that fornication for which our Lord allows it Then he that would make use of Origen to prove that the terms of our Lord and of Moses may signifie the same thing must first answer the Argument wherewith he convinces him that thus should blaspheme our Lord. Adultery saith he is no cause of divorce but of death by Moses law therefore that dishonest thing for which the Law allows divorce is not adultery In fine he that examines all that is said or can be said of the diverse significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures will find but two the one proper in the case of man and wife the other by translation to the alliance between God and his people perpetually compared to a mariage all over the Scripture That this signification cannot take place here this may serve to evidence That the cause upon which our Lord allovvs divorce must be something betvveen the Wife and the Husband as it vvas in the Lavv For vvould it not be impertinent to punish transgression of Gods Covenant vvith dissolution of vvedlock The proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed is larger in the Scriptures then according to the Atrick Greek to signifie all uncleannesse at the mater requires For vvhen S. Paul sayes 1 Cor. V. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a man to have his Fathers wife would not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ordinary Greek But it is no marvail if the Jews that spoke Greek call all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which their usuall language called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our Lords words is exactly expounded by Hesychius and the Etymologick turning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who being Christians do usually expound that proâ—erty of the Greek which is usuall among Christians out of the Bible And this is demonstrated to be the signification here meant because it is not possible to show that ever there was any opinion rule or practice received in the Church that it is lawfull to divorce but in case of Adultery I do truly conceive that there was anciently a difference of opinion and practice in the Church whither it be lawfull to mary again upon putting away a wife for adultery or whether the bond of mariage remain undissoluble when the parties are separated from bed and bord for adultery But this difference argues consent in the rest that is that excepting the case of Adultery there is no divorce to be among Christians Neither do I now speak of the base times of the Eastern Empire of which I will give you such an account as I find most reasonable when I come to the difficulty that is proposed I say it may appear that the Church originally granted no divorce but for adultery whether the innocent party or whether both were allowed to mary again living the other or not It is acknowledged by our Author that Tertullian cont Marc. IV. 34. de Pudicitiâ— cap.
his time which cannot be true otherwise A thing to be wondered at that so knowing a man should look so farr for a reason evidently false having a true one in the text of Bede before his eyes For what is more evident than that the English Bishops of Austines plantation had their Ordination from him not from any Priests But if from him then from one Bishop which was not regular The Nicene Canon requiring the Representatives of the Province the Apostles Canon two at least if not three Whether S. Gregory and his Successors intended that their Power giving Austine his Commission should supply the formality of the Canon or supposed that the Welsh Bishops should joyn with him which afterwards upon the difference that fell out between them either they would not grant or hee would not desire the consecration of the Bishops of that plantation must needs be irregular because it came from Austine alone Nor need wee any other reason why Wilfride went for his consecration into France as the same Bede relateth For that there was the same irregularity also among the Welsh Bishops appears by S. Kentigern who went to Rome to purge it as his life relateth And therefore though Wine having been regularly ordained in France as Malmsbury saith de Gestis Poutif II. joyned with him two Welsh Bishops to consecrate regularly yet their regularity which might be in the consecrating of the said Bishops might alâ—o move Wilfride rather to go into France than to rest content vvith the same But that Niniane being a Welsh Bishop at such time as the Welsh had other Bishops should be ordained by Priests because a vvritten Copy Hist Duâ—â—lm in Biblioth Coton sayes after his time that Galloway had yet no Bishop is a conjecture too slight for a man of that knovvledg For there is appearance enough that under the Welsh the Sea vvas trâ—nslated to Glascow for Kentigern after Niniane And that Plecthelm vvas first Bishop of Galloway under the Saxons after that the Kingdom of Cumberland vvas become English Of the â—uldei in Scotland vvhatsoever is said before the Plantation of S. Columb I challenge â—or a meer fable After it though Bede saith that his Monastery after an unuâ—â—â—l vvay ruled even thâ— Bishops yet vvhere there vvere Bishops no reason can presume that their authority did not ordain though they thought fit that the knovvledg of the Monastery vvhence they came should direct vvhom And therefore vvhatsoever the rights of these Culdei in Scotland might aftervvards be it cannot vvay a sâ—ravvâ—â—â—rds the cause of Episcopacy because never extant in the Church of Scotland but undâ—r it They that shall peruse vvhat the late Lord Pâ—imate hath vvritten in his antiquities of the British Churches and from his infoâ—mation Sir H. Spelman in his Glossâ—ry vvill not allovv them to be any other than Câ—nons that vvâ—re to attâ—nd upon the service of God in the Church Which whether or no before the division of Dioceses in Scotland they might have that right in advanâ—ing of Bishops to all Seas which the Clergy of every Churâ—h had in respâ—ct to their own Church I leave to their antiquaries to determine The extrâ—cts of Philostorgius I give more credit to than to any thing that hath been said of the Scottish Culdei And they I admit relate II. 5. that the â—oâ—â—es who dwelt on the North of the Black Sea had Christianity some LXX years before Ulphilas was made their Bishop For having caried â—ome of the Clergy captives in an inrode they were by them taught Christianity saith Philostorgius But they might have Priests ordained by the next Bishops all having that power in that case Or they might have other Bishops before Theophilus whom the Ecclesiastical Histories reckon at the Council of Nicaea before Ulphilas The want of records will not evidence that those Clergy did all acts of Ecclesiassical power before or made themselves Bishops to do what themselves could not do that is give them the power which they had not themselves I am secure of all that can be said from the state of rural Bishops called Chorepiscopi in the ancient Church Not doubting that any Bishop may communicate any part of his power within his own Church the rule and custom of the whole Church inabling him to do it Socrates and Sozomenus testifie that whereas generally there were no Bishops but in Cities in Cyprus they were settled in Boroughs I have elâ—where observed the same in Africk and Ireland Either Cities were something else there than in other Countries or else the number of Cities could not be so great as the number of Churches in the numerous Africâ—ne Synods and when S. Patrick sounded as many Churches in Ireland as there are dayes in the year Was this any breach upon S. Pauls rule or practice setling Churches in Cities divide a Province or Soveraignty into more or fewer Churches it wayes the same to the whole Church not according to the number of those that vote in their own Synods Unless the Council of Trent could oblige Christendom by a plurality of them that voted there One Diocese of Lincoln will better allow half a douzain rural Bishops to be cut out of it than many Cities in some parts can have Bishops In a word the Rule of the Church supposeth the act of some State which it cannot regulate And is it then strange supposing the superiority of Bishops so much differing in Jurisdiction though for Order the same as I have said that some of them should have a Bishop under him that is answerable to him immediately and to the Synod of the Province by him though according to the Canons of the same with power to Ordain Priests according as the said Synods should allow or withdraw it I will say further that supposing all that I have said of the Hierarchy to be an Ordinance of the Apostles because received by all to be a meer imagination of mine own but granting the unity of the Church to be of Gods Law and the means of maintaining it self to be the consent of the Church and this consent executed by the establishment of Episopacy through the whole Church I can by no means excuse those that go about to put it down from being Schismaticks Whither upon an erroneous conscience they imagine that to be a transgression of Gods Law which the whole Church for so many ages imbracing maketh evident to be according to Gods Law Or whether God having commanded the unity of his Church and his Church having introduced it for a mean to preserve that unity they think it lawfull for themselves to refuse it not believing it to be against Gods Law and therefore within the power of the Church to appoint it For whatsoever can be said of the several customes which severall Churches allowed cannot take place in that which is supposed to be setled and received in all Churches Not is it possible that the Church should continue one as a visible Society and Body
inward witness of Gods Spirit dictating to his Spirit that they are the word of God it will be utterly impertinent to our purpose For seeking as wee do the means to resolve one another it will be impertinent to allege that which though a man is inwardly satisfied with yet outwardly to another cannot appear And certainly if there be no reason to satisfie another man of the truth of the whole that is of Christianity or of the Scriptures It cannot be expected that there should be satisfaction why this or that should belong to the truth of Christianity or the intent and meaning of the Scriptures For of necessity whatsoever evidence can be made for this or that truth contained in the Scriptures must depend upon the reason for which Christianity is received as Gods truth In fine the reason why controversies in Religion may and are to be ended by dispute of reason is this as hath been premised because that the Holy Ghost which effectually moveth us to believe supposeth sufficient reason moving in the nature of an object proposed to believe Therefore neither the truth of Christianity nor the Scripture is admitted upon the dictate of Gods Spirit but supposing the reasons which convict us that they are to be admitted And correspondently the gift of the Holy Ghost that inableth to continue in the profession and exercise of Christianity supposeth the belief of that Christianity which a man from his heart professes And by consequence the reason why hee is to believe which will not fail to inferre the truth of the Scriptures But if it be said That any person or persons as Rulers of the Church have the promise of inspiration or revelation from God for a ground upon which others are to believe It hath been showed that all such grace supposeth the profession of Christianity and the truth of the Scriptures and therefore the grounds of the same If any man should say as I perceive some have a minde to say that the gift of Infallibility in the Church supposes no such inspiration or revelation but onely the qualities of such persons as have power to conclude the Church and that they do visibly proceed to determine It will be evident that they can no more challenge this right not supposing Christianity and the foundation of the Church than the High Priest of the Jewes could proceed to give answer by Uâ—im and Tummim not supposing that God had given the Law and appointed the Priest so to do The resolution of this Question may make it appear that Christians falling out among themselves maintain themselves upon such grounds as would leave no room for the truth of that Christianity which both suppose Had wee to do with the enemies of it it would easily appear wee must allege such reasons for the truth of Gods Word as might convince the enemies of it and not suppose the truth of it when the question is how it may appear to be true It were therefore fit to consider whether a man can reasonably be a Christian and yet question the truth of the Scriptures or rather not fit to consider that which there can be no doubt in The whole content of the Scripture is either the motives or the mater of Christianity They that professe Christianity suppose the motives of it true which they admit to be sufficient Supposing them true they cannot question the Scriptures that record them Supposing those Scriptures they cannot question those motives for true Whether sufficient is resolved by admitting Christianity Alwaies the same reason that moves a man to be a Christian resolves him to believe the Scripture neither would hee allege any other had hee to do with the enemies of Christianity What those motives are concernes not us proceeding upon supposition of common Christianity to determine differences within it Yet that I may be the better understood my meaning is That the miracles done by those from whom wee have the Scriptures is the onely motive to shew that they came from God and therefore that wee are obliged to receive what they preached and by consequence the Scriptures that containe it Not intending hereby to quit the advantage which the Law hath of Heathenism and the Gospel of the Law in regard of the reasonablenesse and holinesse of the mater of each above other respectively justified by the light of nature But because the businesse is at present onely to shew the evidence wee have that God did send whatsoever reason may be given why hee would send which without other evidence had remained unknown though never so probable or reasonable Not intending hereby to balk that witnesse which the Scriptures of the Old Testament yield to the truth of the New But because that witnesse depends upon the miracles done by Moses and the Prophets to evidence their Commission from God And so the credit which the New Testament hath from the Old is resolved into those miracles which evidenced the sending of Moses and the Prophets and consists in the miracle of fore-telling those things by the one which by the other are fullfilled I know the Jewes expresly deny the credit of the Law to depend upon any miracles done by Moses and the Prophets but onely upon the appearance of God at giving the Law to all that people and speaking to them mouth to mouth The like whereof not having been done nor to be done in giving Christianity belonging to all nations who could not meet at once to receive it they think themselves grounded thereupon that the Law is not nor could be reversed by it Thus are they content that God sending Moses on his ambussage with the miracles which hee gave him for his letters of credit shall be thought not to have convicted Pharao That the Law provided no legal tryal God no evidence to the conscience of his servants distinguishing true and false Prophets which cannot be imagined but by their sayings and doings predictions and other miracles Well may the delivering of the Law have circumstances which no other miraculous action recorded in the Scriptures can compare with Shall that obscure the glory of Christs resurrection fore-told by him expresse to witnesse the truth of his message Shall it make an Ocean of miracles done by him and his Apostles to stand for nothing Shall it disable God himself to do any thing competent to make faith of a message the nature whereof bore not those circumstances which hee had used afore Now if the reason why wee believe the Scriptures to come from God as they pretend be the motives of Christianity strange it is that a man should be troubled how to answer the difficulty that may be made how wee know the truth of those motives speaking onely to Christians which have admitted them to be true But I am sure neither the witnesse of the Church nor the dictate of the Spirit can be alleged to Infidels but by them that would have themselves and this Gospel laught at both at once Seeing
remains under that sin which by refusing the Gospel hee refuses to escape The man whom God showes competent reasons to convict him of the truth of Christianity does hee not thereby oblige to believe If so then is Christianity by those reasons and by out Lord and his Apostles advancing them published for Gods Law to all them to whom those reasons become known Suppose that not onely the Apostles but God himself do no more than perswade men to believe can any Secular Power do more For what can it do more in making a Law than declare the will of the Soveraign under a punishment expressed And doth not God declare when hee sends those that are furnished with means to convict the world of the truth of Christianity that it is his will that they become Christians And is it not competent punishment to inact a Law that by disobeying men become incapable of escaping their own sin and the punishment of it If Christianity be no Law because a man hath his choice whether hee will believe or not hath not a thief his choice whether hee will be hanged or not steal or is not the mischief that comes by refusing the Faith as great as that As for the point of justice is not gtatitude justice doth not God oblige them in point of justice whom hee obligeth in point of gratitude doth hee not oblige them in point of gratitude whom by his Gospel hee showes the way to come from under sin to everlasting happinesse Again is it not justice that mankinde should be subjects and not rebels to God doth not the Gospel preach that mankinde are become rebels to God and that they ought to return and become his Subjects If wee can owe a debt of justice to God or to our selves the greatest is that which the Gospel bindeth upon us But suppose not onely that which this Dogmatist granteth that hee who is bound to renounce Christ with his mouth when his Soveraign commandeth is bound to believe him with his heart at the same time let mee demand by what Law hee is bound to it if the Scriptures be not Law Or how a man can be bound to believe in heart that our Lord Jesus is the Christ and not be bound to receive either the mater or the motives to believe that which Christ teacheth which is all that the Scriptures containe Wherefore wee are by no means to admit that which this Author presumes upon as evident truth That it is one thing to demand why a man believes the Scriptures another thing to demand how a man knowes them to be the Word of God and a third by what authority they become Law Because saith hee one man believes for this reason another for that But to know the Scripture to be the Word of God is a thing that no man can do but onely hee to whom this or that Scripture was revealed For it is true that one man believes for this reason another for that if they believe not for that reason for which they ought to believe But there is but one reason for which God requires us to believe namely his will declared by the motives of Faith which hee by his messengers or deputies hath presented us with And hee that is moved to believe for any reason besides that is but called a believer for hee is not such in Gods esteem And hee that by these reasons stands convict that those messengers came from God though hee cannot know by the report of his senses nor by any evidence of the mater which they contain that the Scriptures are the Word of God yet may hee reasonably be said to know that they are so because hee knowes those reasons by which hee stands convict that they are no otherwise And I have now further showed that the publishing of Christianity that is the tendering of the Scriptures with this evidence that they contain the word and will of God bindes them for a Law upon the consciences of all that receive them so obliging them not onely to believe all that they contain to be true but to undertake and do whatsoever they require Wherefore it is true that the Scriptures or Christianity becomes the civil Law of a State because the Soveraign Power thereof inacteth it But wee are further to demand whether Secular Power is able to do this because it is Soveraign or because it is Christian For if because it is Sovetaign it will follow of necessity that those who are not subject to Christian Powers are not obliged to believe the truth of the Scriptures nor to be Christians if there be no other Law to require it at their hands but the will of their Soveraign Because the onely reason which this opinion saith obliges them to believe that is the act of Soveraigne Power is wanting If because it is Christian the question will have recourse what it was that obliged the Soveraign Power to become Christian For the act of Soverâ—igne Power hath no effect upon it self but upon those that are under it And yet the same reason why the Soveraign Power is bound to believe will convince all that are under it that they also ought to believe because concerning them as men or at least as those men whom the motives of Faith are published to not as of this or that Common-wealth But in this businesse I am most ashamed for Euclid's sake that a man so studied in Geometry should build such a vast pretense in Christianity upon such an imaginary ground Forsooth Abraham and the Patriarchs after him and then Moses had the Soveraign Power of their Families and of Gods people the Patriarchs by their birth and estate Moses by the contract of the Israelites accepting of God for their Civil Soveraign and Moses for his Lieutenant The same Patriarchs and Moses were absolute in maters of Religion because Gods people inferiors were to be ruled in it by no other Laws then those which God published to them by the hands of those Superiors Hee that will go about to draw the conclusion from these principles whether granted or onely supposed shall easily see that it followes not For half an eye will serve to distinguish two qualities in the Patriarchs and in Moses the one of Soveraignes the other of Prophets or Depuries and Commissaries or Interpreters of the will of God to his people And this distinction being made I will not be beholden to any man to say which of the two it was that could oblige their inferiors to obey as Gods Lawes those things which persons so authorized should declare in his name For if those whom God by sufficient evidence had witnessed to be his Prophets and messengers should falsify his trust the blame of that which should be done upon such deceit must needs redound upon God And therefore this author pag. 231 287. agreeth with that which I argued even now that revelations and inspirations of Gods Spirit are not granted under the Gospel but to those
thing which was deposited in trust with thee through the Holy Ghost that dwelleth in us II. 2. And those things which thou hast heard of mee under many witnesses deposite with trusty persons who may alsobe able to teach others Would you have any thing plainer than this to show that the Summe of Christianity was delivered for a Rule by the Apostles by which their Successors were to examine all Doctrines Therefore 1 Tim. II. 20. O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust avoiding profane novelties of termes and oppositions of knowledge falsly so called which some professing have failed of the Faith By the Rule of Faith which he had deposited in his trust he will have him exclude the pretenses of the Gnosticks which every man might see were inconsistent with it Whereupon S. John calls it the Unction 1 John II. 20-24 27. by which they knew all things To wit that belong to the common Faith of Christians And therefore the inconsistence of it with the pretenses of the Antichristian They continuing in that which they had heard from the beginning when they turned Christians And you saith the Apostle have an unction from the Holy One and know all things I write not to you because you know not the truth but because you know it and that no lye is of the Truth Therefore let that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you If that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you then shall you also abide in the Sonne and in the Father It is plaine enough why this truth which they have heard from the beginning of their Christianity is called the Unction because the anointing of the Holy Ghost the gift whereof as I have showed you presupposeth Christianity is granted upon consideration of being baptized into the profession of Christianity Wherefore it followeth in S. John As for you the Vnction which you have received of him abideth in you And yee need not that any man teach you But as the same Vnction teacheth you of all things and is true and no lye and as it hath taught you abide in it The Unction teacheth all things that a Christian is to avoid because it teacheth to avoid all that agreeth not with the truth which the same Unction had taught him afore When according to that which hath been said being moved by the Holy Ghost to become a Christian hee was taught that truth upon profession whereof hee received the gift of the Holy Ghost for an habitual indowment And the same is the Apostles meaning when hee saith again 1 John III. 9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sinne for his seed abideth in him The seed of which a Christian is born is the Word of the Gospel which begetteth children to God when it prevaileth with sinners to become Christians This Word obliging Christians upon their salvation not to sinne abideth not in him that sinneth neither sinneth hee in whom it abideth So whether you call it Vnction or Seed In regard it is the Rule of our conversation as well as of our belief as hee that abideth in the truth must needs reject Heresies contrary to it so in whom the seed which hee is born of abideth hee cannot sinne And in his second Epistle 6 7 9. with S. Paul hee calls it the commandement which they had received from the same beginning to preserve them from the impostures of that time inticing to transgresse it In fine that this Tradition is the Law whereupon our Christianity standeth you may see by the Apostle 1 Pet. III. 20. when hee saith that Baptisme saveth us not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the examination of a good conscience to God That is to say the answer that is made out of a good conscience to the interrogatories that were even then propounded to them that were baptized by which answer they tied themselves to professe the Faith and to live according to it Which S. Paul therefore calls that good profession which Timothy had made before many witnesses 1 Tim. VI. 12 13 14. to wit when hee was baptized and therefore conjures him by the good profession which our Lord made before Pilate of his Kingdome for which hee suffered death to preserve it unspotted Which if it be so then must no Christian imagine that the receiving of this Tradition or Rule of Faith upon which men were admitted to Baptisme and made Christians consisted onely in professing to believe that which is necessary for the salvation of all Christians to be believed but also in undertaking to live as Christianity requireth Therefore S. Paul sometimes in his writings referres himself to the precepts not onely which hee had delivered them but also which they had received of him charging his flock not onely with their duty but also with their engagement 1 Thess IV. 1 2 11. 2 Thess III. 6. But besides the Rule of Faith there is another sort of Traditions concerning the outward order in the Church by which Unity is preserved in the communion of those Offices which God is to be served with by Christians which Christians come to be subject to by receiving their Baptisme from the Church and consequently undertaking to serve God with the Church For it is manifest that this communion cannot be maintained without certain Rules limiting the maner and circumstances of Gods service for time and place and the persons both which are admitted to communion with the Church and which are inabled to minister the Offices of the same Baptisme is the door to all Gods Ordinances that Christians are obliged to serve God with The praising of God the reading and hearing of the Scriptures and the expounding of them the common prayers of Christian Assemblies are all Offices which no Christian doubts that God is to be served with under the Gospel though there be no expresse precept of the New Testament what Offices the publick service of God is to consist of because before the Gospel they were alwaies in use among Gods people The Sacrament of the Eucharist being instituted by Christ to be frequented by the Church at their Assemblies for the service of God must be reckoned among the positive Laws of God to his Church obliging only because commanded Hee that supposeth the Church a Corporation founded by God to maintaine the communion of those that believe in these Offices must consequently maintain a Power of settling good order in the exercise of them as for all other circumstances so especially for the qualities of persons concurring to the celebrating of them Hee that shows by the Scripture that this order was provided for by the Apostles in the Churches of their founding shows that they intended the Church for a Body indowed with Power of limiting the like Rules for the future And this is to be showed by many passages of S. Pauls Epistles 1 Cor. XI 2 3-16 20-34 having commended them for observing his Traditions as hee had delivered
be and was sufficient means under the Law to make them understand their obligation to that spiritual obedience which the Gospel covenanteth for though wee suppose as the truth is that the Law expresly covenanteth onely for the temporal happinesse of the Land of Promise Therefore there was also sufficient meanes to oblige them to expect the coming of the Christ as wee see by the Gospel that they did at the coming of our Lord and as all that will maintain Christianity against the Jewes are bound to maintain And therefore to the objection proposed I answer That though the words of the precept of loving God with all the heart and all the minde and all the soul and all the might may contain all that Christianity requireth to be done in consideration of duty to God and with an intent of his honor and service Yet neverthelesse that sense thereof that depends upon the Covenant of the Law is to be limited to the observation of those precepts which God should confine their civil life to in the service of him alone The intent of the Covenant being to contract with God for temporal happinesse in the Land of Promise they undertaking as a Common-wealth to live by such civil Lawes as hee should give as well as to worship him by such Ceremonies as hee should prescribe And therefore supposing they observed those precepts they were to expect the inheritance of the Land of Promise though wee suppose that they did it out of respect to that reward and not onely to God and to his honor and service Yea though wee grant that for the acknowledging of the true God alone they were bound to indure persecution and death rather than for fear of torment to deny God or sacrifice to Idols or renounce his Law as wee see Daniel and the three Children did under Nebuchadnesar and the zealous Jewes in the Maccabees time under Antiochus Epiphanes For if the Heathen had cause to believe that which is received of all as the ground of civil Society that particular persons are bound to expose their lives for the defense of their Countrey that is to no other end but that they may live and die in the Lawes under which they are bred though they had no promise of God that they should hold their inheritance of this world by maintaining them Cereainly the people that obtained their inheritance by taking upon them Moses Law shall stand bound not onely to maintain it by the sword under the conduct of their Soveraignes but also by suffering for it when they were not to maintain it by force A thing nothing strange to a man that shall consider how desâ—rable life is to him that is forced from the Lawes of his Countrey As for the other part of loving our Neighbor as our selves it is without doubt pregnant with an evident argument of this truth seeing in plain reason the extent of the precept might so argue the intent of it For it is evident by infinite Texts of the Law that a mans neighbor in this precept extends no further than to Israelites whether by birth or by religion that is to say those that are ingraffed into the Covenant by being circumcised For example Let mee ask how the Law could forbid the Israelites to seek the good of the Moabites and Ammonites if it be part of the same Law to love all men under the quality of neighbors as themselves Let mee demand of any man how Mordecai was tied not to do that honor to Haman that his Soveraigne commanded to be done How hee could in conscience disobey his Prince in a mater of indifferent nature of it self had it not been prohibited by the Law of God Whether a Jew that is commanded by the Law to professe hostility against all Amalekites could be dispensed with in this obligation by any act of his Soveraign Whether any just reason can be alleged for Mordecai but this Nay those who are called strangers in the Law That is to say those that had renounced all Idols and professed to worship the true God and thereupon were privileged to dwell in the Land of Promise out of which the Israelites were sufficiently commanded to root all Idolaters those strangers I say by the leter of Moses Law are not comprehended in the precept of loving our neighbor as our selves For hee that asked who is the neighbor that the Law speaks of Lut. X. 27-37 is not convicted by our Lord by any leter of the Law but by a Parable intimating the example of that which hee did for mankinde to be the reason of that which the Gospel requires Forsooth if the love of Christians extend to strangers and enemies because the good Samaritâ—ne which is our Lord Christ extended his so farr then not because Moses Law had convenanted for it Therefore besides this precept of loving our neighbors as our selves it was requisite that the Law should by a particular provision limit that respect and tenderness wherewith they were required to use those strangers as converts to the true God for so the Syriack translation of the Law calls them alwaies to wit in the rank of Widowes and Orphans If this be true the precept of not coveting by the immediate intent of Moses Law stands confined to that sense which the Jewes at this day give it according to the decisions of their Doctors that no man by contrived oppresion or vexation designe to force his neighbor that was by the Law inabled to make a divorce to part with his wife or any thing else that hee called his own Which sense our Lord also in the Gospel manifestly favors Mar. X. 19. where recounting the precepts that those must keep that will inherit life everlasting after thou shalt not bear false witnesse hee inserres thou shalt not take away by fraud or oppression that which is another mans for the sense of the tenth Commandement thou shalt not cover that which is thy neighbors All which extendeth no further than the over act of seeking what is not a mans own And though this be out Lords answer to him that asks what hee is to do to obtaine life everlasting yet it may well seem that our Lord intended first to propound unto him the civil Law of Moses as necessary to salvation and a step towards it because the Gospel saith that our Lord loved him that answered All these things have I kept from my youth up as acknowledging that hee said true For that hee had kept these precepts in that spiritual sense and to the intent and purpose which the Gospel requireth it was not true And by that which followes when hee askes what remained to be done namely that hee leave all to follow Christ hee inferrs in one precept the whole inward and spiritual obedience of God which under the Gospel is expresly required To wit that a man set all the world and himself behinde his back that hee may follow Christ Therefore though they be the obedience
observable than in the Psalmes XVI 11. Thou shalt make known to mee the way of life Fulnesse of joyes is before thee and pleasures at thy right hand for ever more Is not this true in the sense of Ezekiah Esa XXXVII 10 21 First hee saith I shall see the Lord no more in the land of the living But upon the tender of the Prophet hee askes What is the signe that I shall go up into the house of the Lord Where the presence or right hand of God and the pleasure of it is the joy that his people have to worship him before the Ark of his presence Psal XVII 15. As for mee I will behold thy presence in righteousnesse when I awake I shall be satisfied with thy likenesse The same thing hee meanes and hee awakes when hee comes out of trouble to serve God Though I am to grant that I cannot think of any text in all the book of Psalms wherein the world to come is more literally exâ—ressed thâ—n in these words Psalm CXXVI 5 6. They that sow in tears shall reap in joy Hee that now goeth on his way weeping shall doub lesse come again in joy and bring in his sheaves Whether at the returne from Captivity or in heaven let the beginning of the Psalme speak When the Lord turned again the Captivity of his people thâ—n were wee like men that dreame But there would be no end if I should go about to produce all those passages of the Psalmes wherein the same is to be observed Let us come now to the New Testament and produce first the sayings of the Apostles wherein my position is expresly affirmed especially in the Apostle to the Hebrewes VII 19. For the Law persited nothing but the bringing in of à better hope by which wee draw nigh unto God What is this better hope but that of the world to come so much better than the Land of Promise and what bringeth it in but the Gospel of Christ by whom alone sinners have accesse to God X. 19 Againe VIII 6. But now hee hath obtained a more excellent ministery by how much hee is the Mediator of a better Covenant which is inacted upon better promises IX 15. And therefore is â—ee the Mediator of a New Covenant that dâ—ath interceding for the redemption of those sins that were under the first Covenant those that are called may receive the promise of eternal life This more excellent Ministery is the Priesthood of Chriâ—t after the order of Melchisedeck To make way for which the whole Epistle ciâ—putâ—s that the Levitical Priesthood is removed as the interest of Christianity against the Law of Moses and the qâ—â—â—â—ion on foot required Now Melchisedek was â— Priest not by the law of a carnal precept but by the power of indissoluble life saith hee again Ebr. VII 19. What thiâ— carnal precept is you have IX 9-14 When hee saith that at present to wit under the Law gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot persit him that serveth as to the conscience consisting onely in meats and drinks and several washings and carnal justifications imposed till the time of Reforma 〈…〉 When Christ coming as a High Priest of good things to come and having fo 〈…〉 sage into heaven cleanses the conscience from dead works to serve the living â—â—d So that according to the Apostle the Sacrifices of the Law effecting onâ—ly a carnal right to the Congregation of Gods people the Sacrifice of Christ a right to heaven this right is tendred by the Gospel the other by the Law And thus S. Paul 2 Tim. I. 9 10. calleth the Gospel the Grace that was given us in Christ Jesus before the ages of the world but is manifested now by the appearance of our Lord Christ Jesus who hath destroyed death but declared life and incorruption by the Gospel For though the life to come was known and declared by the Prophets under the Law yet had they no expresse commission to ingage God for it till Christ rendred it as that which the Gospel covenants for on Gods part But I must not forget the occasion of that memorable passage quoted from Ebr. IX 9. from the discourse that went afore whereby the Apostle declares the whole course and constitution of the service of the Temple to be nothing else but a Parable of the present time to wit of Christianity As also the legal Tabernacle was nothing else but a Copy of the Heavenly by the pattern whereof hee observes that Moses was commanded to build it VIII 5 6. calling it therefore the Worldly Sanctuary IX 1. because it was a Copy as it were of this whole world in the several parts of it as Philo and Josephus have discoursed at large The most Holy place into which the High Priest entred once a year by the Apostles interpretation answereth to the highest heavens whereunto our Lord Christ is ascended whom therefore hee calleth the minister of the true Tabernacle which God and not man pitched VIII 7 And therefore the outward Sanctuary into which the Priests went once a day was intended to signifie the Starry heavens and the Court of the Tabernacle the World here below as Philo and Josephus declare justifying the reason why the Apostle calls it a Worldly Tabernacle This interpretation of the Ceremonial Law made by the Apostle in this place by that which it expresly affirmes concerning the twofold sense of that part of the Old Testament induces a consequence to the twofold sense of all the rest Inferring that if the mystical and allegorical sense of the Old Testament determine in the promises of the world to come then the literal and historical sense of the same determines in the promises of this life the allegory that is to say the reason of interpreting the Old Testament to that purpose consisting in nothing else but the correspondence between them I am not ignorant that some Divines have done their best to create one Controversie more to divide the Church by maintaining that there is but one sense of the Scriptures which the leter intends The things figured under the Old Testament and the figures of them there set down making but one and the same sense as a man and his picture are called the same man because without the things signified the signes are nothing at least in the nature of signes For my part I finde it a thing as easie as for every fool to tye knots which a wise man cannot loose to ingage in disputes in which men cannot yield to the truth while that ingagement continues But I finde no pretense why that sense of the Scriptures which they make one consisting of the figure and the thing figured should not be counted two one immediately the other principally intended Because the Gospel was a secret under the Law as S. Paul so many times layes down So that hee which knew the Law many times understood not the utmost intent of it under the Gospel Seeing then that this way of
the Priesthood but because both are from God who hath expressed those marks of his wisedom in the elder that may seem to direct the later though claiming no title from it This reason is general There is another more particular to be drawn from that which hath been showed that the Apostles and Disciples of Christ as Governors of Gods spiritual Israel and therefore those that claime a right answerable to theirs have in them both the Office of the Levitical Priesthood and of Legal Prophets in such consideration and to such purpose as the effect of those Offices under the Gospel in the Church requireth Whereupon if at any time the Fathers of the Church do argue or dispute the Office of those who claime by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ from those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Levitical Priesthood or the Prophets under the Law Much more ordinary it is to finde them grounding the like instructions and exhortations upon those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Rulers and Judges of Israel according to the flesh What is more ordinary in Tertullian Origen S. Cyprian Clement Justine the Apostolical Constitutions the rest of the most ancient Fathers of the Church than to draw into consequence the Rebellion of Corah and the Law of obeying that which the Priests and Judges of every age should ordaine concerning difficulties of the Law against Schisme in the Church Those things which the Prophets Esay LVII 10 11. Jer. 11. 8. III. 15. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 1-16 pronounce against the Shepherds of Israel against those that claime under the Apostles in the Church For the Prophets themselves Esa LVII 10 11. Jer. II. 8. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 23. do manifestly show that these Shepherds are the Rulers of the People distinguishing them both from the Priests and the Prophets And the interest of Christianity requires that the promise of raising up better Shepherds be understood to be fulfilled in the Holy Apostles Hee that doubts of the sense of the Fathers in this point let him take the paiâ—â—s to reade S. Basil upon III of Esay and see how hee expounds those things which are prophefied against the Rulers of Gods ancient People against those that offend like them in ruling Gods Church And therefore it is utterly impertinent to the Power and right of the Church which is observed as mater of consequence to it in the second Book de Synedriis Judaeorum VII 7. that S. Paul ordained Presbyters in the Churches Acts XIV 22. as himself without doubt had received Ordination from his Master Gamaliel in the Synagogue For if the meaning be onely that hee Ordained them by Imposing hands as himself perhaps was Ordained hee tells no newes for that is it which the Scripture affirmeth But if hee mean further that S. Paul did this by authority received from Gamaliel it will he ridiculous to imagine that S. Paul by the Power which hee had from the Synagogue was inabled to give that authority in the Church which the Synagogue found it self obliged to persecute as destructive to it Besides it is easily said that the Apostles finding that it was then a custome to Ordaine those Elders which were wont to be created in the Synagogue for such ends and to such faculties as the constitution thereof required by Imposing hands And intending to conferre a like Power in Church maters upon the like order in the Church which by such acts they institute held fit to use the same ceremony in ordaining them which was in use to the like but several purposes in the Synagogue In which case it is manifest that the Power so conferred cannot be derived from that which the Synagogue gave and therefore not limited by it but by that which the Society of the Church and the constitution thereof requires As suppose for the purpose that by the Jewes Law at that time they created Elders to Judge in criminal causes onely in the Land of Israel But for inferior purposes as of resolving doubts in conscience rising upon the Law by pronouncing this or that lawfull or unlawfull to be done in other places Is it reason therefore to inferre as it is there inferred pag. 325. that when S. Paul faith 1 Cor. V. 12. Do not yee judge those that are within hee must not be understood of any judgment which the Presbyters of the Church exercised there because out of the Land of the Land of Promise Elders were not ordained for Judges by the Synagogue I say nothing of the point it self for the present I say it is no argument to inferre thus as is inferred pag. 325. the Elders which the Synagogue made were not inabled to judge out of the Land of Promise Therefore in the Christian Church there was no Power to judge the causes of Christians at that time Unlesse wee derive the authority of the Church from the Synagogue As for that which is argued pag. 328. that Had they conferred any other power than the Rules of the Synagogue allowed they would have been questioned and persecuted for it by the Jewes either in their own Courts or before the Gentiles in as much as the Christians had then no protection for their Religion which the Jewes had but as they passed for Jewes in the Empire it dependeth meerly upon the opinion the Jewes themselves had of Christianity For where the Jewes stood yet at a bay expecting the trial of that truth which the Gospel pretended not proceeding to persecute the profession of Christianity it is not to be imagined that they should proceed to persecute those acts which were done in prosecution of it But where the separation was complete and enmity declared no man need bid a Jew persecute a Christian for any thing that hee did as a Christian nor a Christian to suffer for that which a Jew should persecute All the question onely was how farre both their Masters that is the Powers of the Empire would make themselves executioners of their hatred Christianity being hitherto tolerated though not protected till the Lawes of the Empire had declared against Christianity which at that time it is plain they had not done As little do I think it concernes the Right of the Church which is there observed VII 4. pag. 287. that Ordination by Imposition of hands was meerly of humanÌ„e institution in the Synagogue and no way derived from the example of Moses laying hands upon Josue Num. XXVII 18-23 which being a singular case can no way ground a Rule For supposing that by the Law a Judiciary Power or what ever inferior Right was to be maintained and conveyed by the Act of those which were legally possessed of it or the right of conveying it Let all limitations whereby the way of conveying it was determined be counted as much of humane right as you please the power so conveyed cannot be meerly of humane right being established by Gods Law with a Power of limiting all circumstances
loose to nominate and elect publick persons in the Church but requireth the Apostles and those that hold under them to pronounce the sentence and to impose hands inable the Soveraign Power to do the same and yet require those that claim from the Apostles to execute If Philosophers have the privilege to justifie such contradictions as these then may this opinion passe for a truth In the mean time to men of common reason how reasonable it will sound that the Apostles being imployed by God to order these things in the Church and that for the maintenance of Christianity received should tye themselves to execute those acts which the Body of Christians in each City should determine to be for the maintenance of that Christianity which they knew nothing what belonged to but what they had learned from them the Apostles I am well content to referr my self to judgment But alwayes there remains or may remain a difference between the Bodies of Christians in several Cities and the Soveraign Powers over them So that the rights of both cannot be derived from one and the same Title Sad experience shows that Churches may continue where the Soveraign Powers are not Christians as they subsisted before they were Shall these Soveraign Powers give sentence of binding and loosing and appoint persons to be ordained and those that claim under the Apostles be bound to execute Shall the Great Turk have Power to officiate and minister the Sacraments of divine service in the Church because whatsoever a man may do by his minister hee may do in his own person much more as this opinion pag. 297. 298 299. expresly disputes that the Soveraign may do and that imployment or more publick consequence is the onely reason why hee doth not It is said indeed pag. 299. that hee that had Power to Teach before hee was a Christian being Baptized retains the same Power to teach Christianity And so every Soveraign being the Chief Master to teach all his Subjects whatsoever the peace of his State requires by being Baptized hee gets no new right but is directed how to use that which wee had afore But if the premises be true the assumption is ridiculous A Doctor of the Synagogue duely qualified is not a Doctor of the Church because the Church stands not upon the same terms with the Synagogue Doctors and Disciples being relatives terms of a relation grounded upon the Society of the Church or Synagogue The Soveraign Power teaches by Lawes to keep the Publick peace though that it should do no more than teach were ridiculous The Church teaches the way to heaven and for that reason the bond of Publick peace not the mater of it And therefore as no man by being Baptized getteth the right of teaching by Civil Laws So hee that hath the right of teaching by Civil Laws by being baptized getteth no right to teach Christianity The Law of Moses was given to one people which had covenanted with God to be ruled by it and upon that condition to be maintained in the Land of Promise So the Covenant of the Law and the obligation of that people to it was presupposed before God had declared whom hee would make Soveraign of that people after Moses But in as much as the determination of all things that became questionable concerning the Law was to come from those Powers which were under the Soveraign it is manifest that the act of such Power secured the consciences of Inferiors For the promise of the Law being the temporal happinesse of the Land of Promise and the body of the people being by the Law to depend upon the determination of their Superiors they practising the Law according to such determination the promise thereof must needs remain indefeisible As for the inward obedience to Gods spiritual Law whereupon as I said they might and did ground a firm hope of everlasting life under the Law it concerned not the consciences of the people how the outward Laws were determined seeing howsoever they were determined this inward obedience to Gods spiritual Law received no hinderance Though the consciences of Superiors from whom those determinations proceeded were so much concerned in them that those who should violate that obedience due to the carnal commandement by determining it to an unjust intent could no wayes pretend any inward and spiritual obedience But Christianity covenanting for this inward and spiritual obedience and expressing everlasting life as the consideration of it and particular Churches being constituted upon these terms and constituting the whole Church which is nothing but the Communion of all Churches whatsoever rights are acknowledged to be in particular Churches which the precept of preaching to and the promise of calling the Gentiles shows might be under several Soveraignties being settled in them already by divine right can never accrue to a Soveraignty though constituted by right but such as God onely alloweth by commanding Government in general but appointeth not by revealing it self in particular And therefore necessarily tend to the constituting of the whole Church by the concurrence of all Churches though of several Soveraignties to the maintenance of that Christianity in which all had equal interest before any Soveraign was Christian And now I cannot mervail if hee that believes not the Scriptures to be Law to Christians otherwise than as they are injoyned by Christian Powers acknowledge no Power in the Apostles of obliging the Church or in any body else beside the Soveraign My mervail is that hee who had pretended all this should neverthelesse acknowledge a right in several Churches that is in the Bodies of Christians dwelling within several Cities the Power of Excommunications and Ordinations and that by the Scriptures that is by divine right For whatsoever act it was or whose act soever it was whereby those rights were settled upon those Churches will hee or will hee not was a Law to those that stood bound to acknowledg such right which was really nothing if no man were bound to acknowledg and to yield effect to it Neither is it mervail if hee acknowledg no Law for the indowment of the Church that acknowledgeth not the judgment of the Levitical Priesthood to have been a Law to the Jewes but by the will of the Soveraign under the Kings But those that acknowledg that indowment to be Gods act not to be voided so long as the Covenant was in force will have seen as good an argument for the like provision to be made for the Church as the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel will allow any point of Christianity from the old Scriptures And then as it hath appeared that several Churches are by Gods appointment several Bodies capable of indowment constituting one whole Church which is the Body of all Churches So by the same means it appears that what the Church is once indowed with is as much the Churches as any mans cloak is his own And as the giving of alms in general is not arbitrary
spirit to show that he is no Schismatick not acknowledging much lesse holding the unity of the Church out of which no man can be accounted otherwise But I marvail most wherein he would have the crime of Schisme acknowledged by S. Paul in that one Text which he would be tried by to consist It is the Law of Nature that inables Christians to â—oyn in a independent Congregation as our other Doctor of Oxford hath told us If a Covenant or League passe between so many Soveraigns in this point consider how difficult it is to charge a Soveraign with breach of League such contracts consisting of many Articles one whereof violated voids the contract At least to the contrary there is no Rule Now the Covenant of a Congregation must suppose all Christianity the violation whereof in any point by any member supported by the rest frees a man of his contract How then shall S. Pauls words take place 1 Cor. XI 19. There must be Heresies that the approved may become manifest among you For if one leave six the Congregation consisting of seven how shall it appear that the six are in the right But in my supposition these petty animosities at Corinth may have been fomented by secret Hereticks as in time I shall show that they were And their indeavour might be to make a party for their Heresie out of other Churches as well as out of that of Corinth and being formed to unite them by the like bond as they saw the Church tied with by the Apostles In this case division is ruinous to Christianity not when the question is whether seven shall meet together or three and four For by this means it may become difficult for particular Christians upon true principles to give sentence for themselves in the matter of differances but easie to miss the truth and to joyn with the enemies of it thinking they serve God in communicating with them by charging themselves with judging of the sense of the Scriptures either in those Laws of the Church which concern not the salvation of particular Christians or in the common faith without those bounds which God hath provided by the Church And upon these terms those that are approved may and do become manifest by the rising of Heresies in the Church That which I shall inferre is this That though there be no such virtue as implicite faith because it is no part of faith no office of that virtue to believe that any thing is true because the Church believes it with that firm adherance to it as we are resolved to stand to that by believing which we hope to be saved yet it is part of the virtue and part of the office of a faithfull man that is a Christian to conform himselfe to the beliefe of all that which the Church lawfully determineth to be believed that is to say not to professe the contrary of it and upon that profession to do any thing towards dissolving the unity of the Church so long as the determination thereof causeth not that corruption of those things which the society of the Church presupposeth as may seem to make the unity thereof uselesse whereof this is not the place to debate when it comes to pass It is sufficient for the present that whatsoever the Church hath power to determine according to the premises that the Church that is all particular Christians are obliged not to believe by the office of faith which is onely exercised in them who can make deductions of conclusions from the principles of faith who necessarily holding the conclusions in consideration meerly of the premises do necessarily believe the conclusions by that virtue of faith which holds the principles but to hold and to conform to and not to scandalize by the office of that charity which is most eminently exercised about that which concerns the common good of all Christians in generall which uothing in the world can so much concern next the common faith as the unity and communion of the Church Thus have I bounded the power of the Church and so showed the reason upon which the right use of it is to proceed I showed afore the ground of that exception which the interest of secular Power in Church matters createth to the due use of it When I shall have showed in the third book what the Law of God hath determined in matters concerding the communion of the Church and by consequence what it leaveth to the Church to determine it will be time to take in hand the same consideration again For the ground of this exception will show how farre it extendeth whereby it will appear that Christian Powers do acknowledge the Church and the power of it to stand by Gods Law even when they limit the exercise of it by virtue of that interest which the law of God alloweth them in Church matters CHAP. XXVI What it is to adde to Gods Law What to adde the Apocalypse S. Pauls Anathema The Beraeans S. Johns Gospel sufficient to make one believe and the Scriptures The man of God perfit How the Law giveth light and Christians are taught by God How Idolatry is said not to be commanded by God IN the beginning of this Book I proposed the chief Texts of Scripture which are usually drawn into consequence to prove either the infallibility of the Church or the sufficience and clearness of the Scriptures Of which I may truly say that they are and have been for these hundred and forty yeares the Theme of a dispute between the Scriptures and the Church for the right of giving Law to the consciences of Christians what communion to chuse that of the Reformation or that of the Church of Rome But with so little success that a discreet man may truly say that the parties do now stand at a bay as it is visible that they do meerly because they are not able to force one another by the arms which they are furnished with the Arguments of either side serving to maintain them against the adversary meerly because the arguments of the other side are insufficient not because either hath either the whole truth or nothing of the truth for it I showed you there that they come short of making good that which they are imployed to prove on this side as well as on that As for my present business which is here to show how the sense of them concurs to the truth which I have established I shall but desire any man of common sense to make an argument from the Text of Moses alledged in the first place and say The people of Israel are forbidden by the Law of Moses to adde any thing to the said Law and to take any thing from it Therefore the Scriptures contain clearly set down to all understandings concerned all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians then to tell me whither he will undertake to make good this consequence of not For if the Law of Moses cannot pretend to contain
in mind to adde to the evidence for this all that I said in the beginning of this book to show that the condition of the covenant of grace implyeth a resolution generally to obay all that Christianity injoyneth For whatsoever delight in the true good God may prevent and determine the will with as prevent it he may and doth so as to take most certaine effect it must have in it the force of choice upon deliberation that makes God in steade of the world the utmost end of all a mans actions And in virtue of this choice whatsoever is done in prosecution of it consisteth in the like freedome of preferring it before the difficulties that impeach it which therefore he that will may follow and faile of his purpose He that might have transgressed and did not his goods shall be firme saith Ecclesiasticus XXXI 10. 11. Christianity then supposeth free choice as well to doe rather then not to doe as to doe this rather then that But Christianity cannot suppose this freedome till it can suppose the reason why every thing is to be done to appeare For that is it which must determine the indifference of mans will to proceede And therefore if there be any thing which without Christianity a man under Original sinne stands not convinced that it is to be done though supposing Christianity his freedome may extend to it yet not supposing the same it doth not This is that which I come to in the next place CHAP. XXIII A man is able to doe things truely honest under Originall sin But not to make God the end of all his doings How all the actions of the Gentiles are sins They are accountable onely for the Law of nature How all men have or have not Grace sufficient to save NOw to the second part of my position I say that though notwithstanding the inclination of Originall concupiscnce a man is able to do any kinde of act towards himselfe towards all other men or towards God yet is he not able to doe any for that reason for which it is indeed to be don And therefore that he is by his birth slave to sin and without the grace of Christ cannot become free of that bondage The first part of this position stands upon the words of S Paul Rom. XI 14 15. For when the Gentiles that have not the Law do by nature the things of the Law these not having the Law are a Law to themselves who show the worke of the Law written in their hearts their consciences bearing witnesse with them and their thoughts afterwards interchangeable accusing or excusing I know S Augustine Prosper and Fulgentius will have this to be said of the Gentiles that had been converted to Christianity But having shewed that the interpretation of the Scripture is not subject to the authority or judgâ—ment of particular Doctors and knowing that the tradition of the Church neither went before them nor hath followed after them to make the position upon which their interpretation proceeds a point of faith I follow pâ—remptory reason from the processe of S. Pauleâ— discourse Who having conclued the Gentiles to be liable to Gods judgement in case they imbrace not Christianity comeing to doe tâ—e like for the Jewes upon a supposition which he takes to be evident upon experience as appealing to their own consciences in it that they kept not Gods Law by which they hoped to be saved Proceeâ—s to compare with them the Gentiles whom he had convicted afore that he may prove the Jewes to have as much need of the Gospell as he had proved the Gentiles to have He saith then that the Gentiles have also a law of God which is the sense of Gods will which nature workes in their hearts And that as the Jewes did many things according to Gods written Law so did the Gentiles according to the Law of nature But if they could say that the Gentiles kept not the law of nature as hitherto he had proved No lesse might the Gentiles say that they kept not the Law by which they pretended to be righteous before God This you shall easily perceive to be S. Pauls businesse if you compare that which he writes Rom. XI 12 13. 17. 24. concerning the Jewes with that which went afore from Rom. I. 18. concerning the Gentiles Indeed when the Apostle afterwards compares the circumcision of the heart which makes a spiritual Jew with the Gentile who in his uncircumcision doth the same righteous things of the Law which the said spirituall Jew doth Rom. 11. 25 29. as I acknowledge that there is no spirituall Jew by the letter of the law but by the grace of the Gospell which though covertly had course and took effect though in a lesse measure under the Law so I must acknowledg that none but the Gentiles converted to Christianity can be compared to him But it is no prejudice to the Apostels argument to say that the Gentile is capable of that by the Gospell which the Jew could not boast of by the Law but by the grace of the Gospell under the Law Whereas if the apostle do not convict the Jew to have need of the Gospell by showing the Gentile to beere the same fruits by the Law of nature which the Jew brought forth by the law of Moses be leaves him utterly unconvicted of the necessity God had to bring in the gospell for the salvation of the Jew aswell as of the Gentile And therefore when S. Paul names the things of the Law he compâ—â—â—eth as weâ—l â—hoseduties that concerne God as those which concerne our selves and our neighbours Agreeing herein with the experience of all ages and nations whâ—ch allowes religion towards God to be a Law of all Nations as well as the â—ifference between right and wrong in civill contracts between honest â—nd shâ—mefull in mens private actions to be impressed by God upon their hearts from thence expressed in their Lawes and customes And truly it can by no meanes be denied that the difference of three sorts of good things honesta utilia â— jucunda things honest usefull and pleasurable is both understood and admitted amongst heathen nations That is to say that heathen nations doe acknowledg that there are some things which of themselves agreeing with the dignity of mans nature are more worthy to be imbraced then those which present us either with profit or pleasure without consideration of what beseemes us otherwise â—o which assuming this as evident by experience of the world that the reason of that which is honest or honourable as sutable with the dignity worth of mans excellency is not alwaies contradicted in occasions of action either by profit or pleasure there will be no possible reason for any man to deny that notwithstanding Originall concupiscence a man may be led by reason of honesty to do that which it requireth Whereof we have invincible evidence not onely in the Philosophy of the Greeks and the Civility of the Romans
said For wee are his offspring As the same S. Paul had premised Acts XVII 26. 27. 28. For to what serves his witnesse but to informe the processe of his judgement But God is said to have let them alone passing by their sins because by tendring them his gospel he did not aggravate their judgement in case they should refuse it nor require of them that obedience which it inferreth Whereas by the Gospel the wrath of God is revealed from heaven upon all ungodlinesse and unrighteousnes of men that hold the truth in unrighteousnes as S. Paul saith Rom. â— 18. 19. Because saith he that which may be knowne of God is manifest in them for God hath manifested it to them by his works as it followes there So that the Gospel as it declares the judgement of God upon those sins that are done under the light of nature so it declares so much heavier vengeance against those which are done under and against the light which it sheweth Which is the reason why so many times in the Psalmes the bringing in of the gospel is prophesied under the figure of Gods coming to Judgement Psalme L. XCVI XCVII XCVIII And indeed there is necessary reason for this if we believe that God will judge every man according to his works at the last day Which as I shewed you in the dispute concerning justifying Faith that it is a principle of our common Christianity an Article of our beliefe which no man can be saved that holds not So I may thereupon further say That all men that are under the Gospell shall be judged according to that obedience which the gospell and Christianity requireth For if S. Paul had onely said Rom. XI 12 16. As many as have sinned without the Law shall perish without the law And as many as have sinned under the law shall be condemned by the law in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men according to my gospell by Jesus Christ As the construction which I spoke of even now requires He had onely said that the gospell declareth that God shall judge the secrets of men by Christ Which is that which the apostles witnessed as from our Lord Christ to move men to imbrace it But having said also that the Law is not given to the righteous but to the lawlesse and disobedient to the ungodly and sinfull to and if there be any thing opposite to the sound doctrine which is according to the glorious Gospell of the blessed God which I am trusted with 1 Tim. I 9 10 11. He sheweth us also that those who have been under the preaching of the Gospell shall be judged according to that obedience which the Gospell requireth To wit according as they have either performed or neglected it The reason because I have shewed the Gospell not to containe a meere promise of Gods part but a covenant with man by which he must stand or fall as he hath performed the termes of it or not But to neglect the gospell or to transgresse it cannot have been any part of their works that never heard of it and therefore they cannot be judged by it but by the worke of Gods law which is wriâ—ten in their hearts by vertue whereof their conscience bearing witnesse of the works that they have don or not don the thoughts thereof shall accuse or excuse them before God as S. Paul saith of the gentiles during the Law But had they been tendred that grace which is sufficient to save without doubt they must have given account to God of it the account being grounded upon that which a man receives as our Sauiour shewes by the parable of the Talents And that servant which knowes his masters will and prepares not and does according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes But he that knowes not and doth things that deserve stripes shall be beaten with a few Saith our Lord Luke XII 47. 48 Not as iâ— any servant knew nothing of his masters will as I have shewed by the light of nature For how should he then doe that which deserves stripes But because many know not that will which our Saviour preacheth and not knowing it are not under account for it Indeed God for his part hath provided that grace which is sufficient for the salvation of all mankind by providing our Lord Christ whose obedience sufferings have purchased the comming of the Holy Ghost upon his disciples and inabled them both by the workes which he had given them to doe and by the interpretation of the old Testament concerning our Lord Christ to tender the world sufficient conviction of his rising againe and of the faith of those promises which he hath made to all them that take up his Crosse to become conformable to his sufferings But these promises are so great that whosoever stands convict that they are true must needs stand convict that hee is in reason bound to imbrace the condition upon which they are tendred unlesse he can make a question whether the world to come is to be preferred before this or not And this I affirme to be sufficient grace contained in the preaching of the gospell which tendreth this conviction to all mankind supposing that no immediate act of God is requisite to determine him that standeth so convict to imbrace it but that it must be the act of his own free choice that must resolve him to it And all this of the meere free grace of God in as much as nothing but his own free grace could have moved him to provide this meanes which only the coming of our Lord Christ could furnish And though for the glory of his goodnesse this meanes is common to all mankind in as much as the motives of faith wherein it consisteth are of the same force and vertue towards all yet is it no lesse the grace of Christ being the purchase of his obedience and sufferings For if it be said that the worke of imbracing the Christian faith is supernaturall in as much as it tendeth to supernaturall happinesse It is to be answered that all the meanes that God uses to induce us to imbrace the same are also supernaturall being provided by Gods immediate act beyond all the force of nature and therefore proportionable to the work which they require And if it be said That the difficulty thereof in regard of originall concupiscence is such as no reason can overcome It is answered That as these motives are the productions instruments of Gods spirit accompaning his word whereby it knocks at the hearts of them to whom this conviction is tendred so they cary with them a promise of the habituall assistance of Gods spirit to move them that yeeld themselves to it to performe that which they undertake notwithstanding Originall concupiscence In the meane time these being the grounds of this sufficience it is manifest that as many as are utterly destitute of these meanes and that by no fault of their own in
predestined to life and by calling to mind the assurance which once he hath had of it Or that he hath no more to do but to talke with his Confessor and give him content who it is great odds does not believe any Penance to be required to qualifie him for pardon but to redeem the debt of temporall punishment remaining after it is had Whereby we may conclude what to think of the performing of Penance after absolution is pronounced I do remember what I have said of S. James that when he commanded the Presbyters of the Church to be sent for to the sick and to pray for him with assurance of pardon for his sinnes he supposeth those sinnes to be declared by him to them whereupon it follows immediately Confesse your sins one to another and pray for one another together with his present disposition in regard of them and that if the case were such as required the hardship of laborious Penance to satisfie the Church of the sincerity of his conversion though they prayed for him that is suffered him not to go out of the world without the communion of the Church yet they bound him over to perform that Penance if he recovered which the Church required in the like cases For can any man certainly know that the whole Church used so to do from the most ancient times that we have record of and doubt that the Apostle speaking of that very subject should suppose the same Neither do I doubt knowing what varieties fall out in all kinds of moral maters that the same proceeding may be either necessary or reasonable in other cases But that the regular proceeding of the Catholick Church should be laid aside that no further satisfaction should be demanded then whether a man hath performed all that was injoyned him when he confessed last or not this I say leaves it free to every mans interpretation whether it tend to abolish the sinne or not and by consequence whether a man can or ought so to rest satisfied or further be bound to see himselfe qualified for pardon according to the Covenant of Grace To which purpose the form of absolution by way of pronouncing sentence not of seeking pardon from God is to be considered Not that I doubt that the Church hath power to restore to communion with the Church which this sentence effecteth and to loose the bond of that sinne which it hath tied For if it be necessary for every Christian to be of the Church then is it necessary for him to seek remission of those sinnes which are under the Ministery of the Church by the means which the Church hath appointed But becaus I know that the primitive form of absolution must needs agree with those Scriptures which show the means of obtaining remission of sin by the Church for a great part to consist in the prayers of the Church And that the effect thereof did consist in nothing else but in being admitted to the prayers thereof for Penitenâ—â— with imposition of hands signifying the same And therefore the present form is an evidence that the discipline of the Church is decayed in the mater of Penance since the zeal of Christianity came to decay after that the Powers of the world professing Christianity could not but countenance it with those privililedges and penalties which necessarily follow the Religion of the State and by consequence temporall respects were great ingredients in perswading men to be Christians What the effect hereof may have been I will not undertake But when the world is obliged to take the sentence for good as from God and not obliged to presuppose the means to produce that disposition which onely quilifieth for pardon is not the scandall probable in and to those that have not more care of their souls then they see the Church have Sentence of absolution is pronounced Penance is reserved in regard of temporall penalties due what doth this proceeding pretend but that he who saith he is sorry for his sinne so he be content to sue out his pardon from the Church is qualified for it by the Keys of the Church that is by the sentence of it not by the Ministery of it in producing that disposition which qualifies for it It is not then to be said that the Church in the discipline of Penance hath not a certain Jurisdiction as every Corporation must necessarily have in imitation of that which by the Roman Laws is first and originally called Jurisdiction which the sword of the Empire inforceth For if no Corporation can stand without power to provide Laws for themselves if all such are mockeries if they be not inforced by penalties obliging obedience then is the corporation of the Church if ordained by God by God inabled to inforce and constrain obedience upon supposition that a man desires to be saved by his Christianity and that the communion of the Church is a part of it And the exercise of this power is rightly called the Jurisdiction of the Church which ariseth upon the orignall constitution of it But if this Jurisdiction suppose the Covenant of Grace and therefore cannot discharge any man that is not qualified as it requireth then is the sentence of absolution to presuppose the disposition requisite for pardon to have been produced by the Keyes of the Church that is by using the means which the Church as a Physitian prescribeth but further as a Judge constraineth him to taâ—â—â— that findeth it requisite to be reconciled to the Church because he is a Christian And now it will not be difficult to judge of the Law of auricular Confession once a year now in force by the Council of Lateran in the Church of Rome For having marked the abuses hitherto reproved so that I cannot be taken by any man that hath any conscience left to allow any of them and having formerly inferred by necessary consequence that it is in the power of the Church to limit and determine the circumstances of doing that which a good conscience alwaies will indure and probably will require any man to do I must conclude it to be a Law which the Church hath power to make Not as if God had commanded the Ministery of the Church to be secret For as I have showed from the beginning that the prayers of the Church are by the appointiment of our Lord Christ and the practice of his Apostles the means to obtain pardon so I have showed that it was also practised by the primitive Church And therefore I do maintain that from the beginning there was not nor could be any difference between the inward and outward Court of the Church as now there must needs be wheresoever Excommunion is inflicted upon notorious sinnes and sinnes that are not notorious are cured in secret by the the Keyes of the Church For whether it were the knowledge of others or a mans own conscience that brought his sinnes to be cured by the Ministery of the Church they came before those
reconcilement with God For where there is means for those that are detected of notorious sinnes to be restored to the Communion of the Church without the hardship of Penance there can be no reason to imagine that those whose sinnes are secret will of themselves submit themselves to the Keyes of the Church to procure pardon or to assure themselves of it I find great reason to believe that at the first those sinnes which were brought under publick Penance by the primitive Church were onely those three great crimes of Murder Adultery and Idolatry which the Montanists and Novatians excluded from reconcilement by Penance and the branches that were reducible to the same For Pacianus Paraenesi ad Poenitentiam speaking expresly of this mater expresses no more But when the Empire was Christian and the Church became ingraffed into the State then was the Rule inlarged to all crimes that the Laws of the State made capital to which in point of conscience those that are infamous by Civil Law are not inferiour though being not so pernicious to the world they are not by Civil Law punished with death The Reformation of Ecclesiastical Law intended here under Edward VI. hath taken notice of these terms As for the Presbyterians that would so fain be authorized by the State to swagger domineer over the consciences of their poor Neighbors that they have not been ashamed to submit the Original power of the Church to an appeal to the secular which is in English to let Parliament men live as they list so themselves might be inabled to do what they listed with litle ones to give them the power of the Church is to destroy the Church the power whereof they pretend not to exercise to the curing of sin but onely to the abolishing of scandall which the Church never pretended to abolish but by curing the sinne And yet they must give me leave to ask further either how that conscience can be cured of sinne that is not wounded with it or how it can be wounded with it that is bound to believe the pardon of sinne before repentance So necessary it is that they be required to disclaim the remission of sinne and the opinion of saving faith without supposing repentance and the same to be procured by the Keys of the Church before we suppose them to be a Church CHAP. XI The Unction of the sick pretendeth onely bodily health upon supposition of the cure of sinne by the Keyes of the Church Objections answered The Tradition of the Church evidenceth the same BEfore I leave this point I am here to consider what Ecclesiasticall power it is and how well grounded which the Church of Rome pretendeth to exercise in extream Unction so called because it belongeth to the sick in extremity and being accounted by them in the number of the seven Sacraments is applyed unto the sick over and above the Sacraments of Penance and of the Eucharist The question of the Sacraments wherein the nature of them consisteth and by consequence how many of them there are I wholly set aside from the present discourse Because I conceive it will be determined more briefly upon more setled grounds all at once when I shall have discovered what powers they are which the Church indeed exerciseth by those actions which are or which may be pretended to be Sacraments But it is plain enough that the Church of Rome pretendeth also to exercise the power of the Keys in extream unction because according to the words of S. James afore quoted they assign the effect of it to be the remission of sinne On the contrary they who by the promise of bodily health to be restored to the sick upon the unction which the Apostle prescribeth do gather that the whole office there commanded was temporary as only intended for those ages when the miraculous grace of healing was in force in the Church by consequence do not admit any office to be incharged or any power estated upon the Church by it That which hath been premised to show that the circumstances of the Apostles words together with the originall and generall practice of the Church argueth aloud his intent to concern the exercise of the Keyes of the Church and the power of them towards those that are in danger of death ingageth my resolution to be this That the unction of the sick together with the prayers of the Church for the recovery of their bodily health which Christianity alloweth not without praying principally for the health of the soul is no way commanded by S. James but as an appertenance or an appendant to the exercise of the power of the Keyes in reconciling the sick to the Church whereupon the prayers thereof become due and therefore without further promise of remission of sinne or grace then that generall promise which the injoyning of prayer for the sick presupposeth The reason of this assertion is now to be deduced out of the Scriptures supposing for grounds those things which hitherto have been setled When our Lord sent his Disciples to preach the Gospel and to do those works that might witnesse them to be the Disciples of him that was sent by God it is said Mark VI. 13. That they cast out many Devils and annointed many sick with oyl and healed them Now it is evident that the miracles of the Apostles as did their Masters tended to one generall purpose by bodily cures to intimate the cure of sinne and the recovery of life and health to the soul which our Lord pretended to bring and tender them though by his works convincing them that he was the Messias whom they expected to bring them deliverance from their bodily enemies and the happinesse of injoying freely the Land promised by their Fathers Whereby we may see what consideration those Writers of Controversies have of the Scriptures that ground the unction of the sick which they will have to be a Sacrament of the New Testament upon this action of the Apostles when as the Gospel though now in preaching by the Apostles as well as our Lord yet was not established till his death past and accepâ—ed by God and by his resurrection declared to be accepted as the ratification of that ambassage of reconcilement and peace which he came to publish Far more discreet is that which the Council of Trent hath said that being intimated by S. Mark it is published by S. James At least if we understand the ground whereupon we maintain that the cure of sin is intimated by that bodily health which S. Mark relateth to have been restored by the Apostles For so indeed it is The bodily cures which the Apostles then did seemed to intimate that the imbracing and undertaking of Christianity is from Christs death forwards in consideration thereof the cure of the soul and the restoring of it from death to life Which if it be so then hath the Church no further power in the pardoning or abolishing of sinne then the absolute
his presence in the Church at the beginning of Christianity Afterwards it was provided that the oyl should be consecrated by the Bishop with the Prayers of the Church in virtue whereof whither applyed by the Priests or by private Christians there might be hope that it might operate S. Chrysostome in Mat. Hom. XXXII Eth. comparing the entertaining of the Apostles at home there mentioned with obeying their successors in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For both this Table is farre more precious and pleasant then that and this light which all know who anointing themselves with oyl seasonably and with faith have avoided diseases S. Austine de Civ XXII 8. Hipponensem quandam virginem scio cum se oleo perunxisset cui pro illa orans Presbyter lacrymas suas instillaverat mox à daemonio fuisse sanatam I know a certain maid of Hippo hauing anointed her selfe with oyl in which the Priest praying for her had dropt his tears was straight cured of a Devil Here is nothing but the cure of the body by consecrated oyl only that the Priest who gave it the maid prayed for her when he gave her it Therefore when Hilarion cured the Son in law and daughter of Constantia with oyl we are to understand the consecrated oyl with which the hinds and shepheards of Aegypt cured themselves of the bitings of Serpents by his direction Hieron in Hilarione Nor did Malachias in S. Bernard pretend any more thereby then bodily cure Therefore I do not marvail that Innocent I. should speak of unction without Penance who seems expresly to grant that sick persons should anoint themselves with that oyl which the Church should send them for that purpose To wit upon supposition that they need not the Keyes of the Church for the cure of their sinnes For Frier Thomas of Walden de Sacram. Tomo II. cap. penult understandeth him as indeed his words impart if you offer them no violence and the practice of the practice of Egypt who are said to have sent it to the sick and of the Greek Church in giving it to those that are well seems to imply to wit that as when the oblations of those who cannot be present at Church are received they are partakers â—of the benefit of those prayers which the Eucharist is celebrated with because they are thereby acknowledged to belong to the communion of the Church So the sending of that unction which they apply to themselves importeth the blessing of the Church to go along with their Prayers which it is used with Thus much for certain when the Greeks contend that this unction belongs also to those that are well as the complement of their Penance arguing from the act of the Apostles who anointed those to whom they preached repentance and allowing it to the sick as that which for the present may be applyed unto them when as the exigent of their case will not allow them to perform Penance as you may see by Arcudius V. 4. they do clearly enough express the reason which I give CHAP. XII The ground of the Right of the Church in Matrimonial causes Mariage of one with one insolubly is a Law of Christianity The Law of Moses not injoyning it The Law of the Empire not aiming at the ground of it Evidence from the primitive practice of the Church IN the next place we are to consider what Interess the Church hath in the Mariages of Christians And that without granting Mariage to be one of the Sacraments of the Church or any thing implying what a Sacrament is and by consequence how many there are But yet supposing for disputations sake that it were a Sacrament that is not supposing the contrary but demanding nothing but that which must be granted whither it be so or not that our discourse may proceed Two things I suppose the one as proved in due place That the Church is by Gods Law a society which all Christians are bound to have communion with And that God hath given a peculiar Law concerning the Mariage of one with one and that indissoluble to all Christians For upon supposition hereof all the interest of the Church in Matrimoniall causes standeth Which is therefore now to be proved thence inforcing that whatsoever grows questionable among Christians concerning Mariage upon the account of that Law which is proper to Christianity belongs to the Church to determine For it is not my purpose to say that Christian States have nothing to do in Matrimoniall causes But that the Interess of the State and of the Church though not distinguishable by the persons when the fame persons belong to both are to be disâ—inguished by the causes and grounds and considerations upon which they arise and stand So that what comes from a reason concerning civill society belong to the State what from the Law which Christians onely acknowledge to the Church to limite and determine If then any difference arise among Christians concerning Mariage that supposeth not some provision brought in by the Gospel I will not undertake that the determination of it belongs to the Church by Gods Law On the contrary therefore that which becomes questionable upon that account I challenge to belong to the Church to determine that is to those that have right to determine on behalfe of the Church For I appeal to the common sense and experience of the world to evidence this That when any Law is given to any society or body founded upon reasons which afore the founding of it were not in force there will of necessity fall out new Cases in which it will be questionable whether the reason of the Law is to take place or not And let the Christian world be witnesse whether it be not requisite to acknowledge that if Christianity come from God then God hath provided a course to secure Christians in conscience that their Mariages are not against the will of God Therefore according to Aristoles reason the law which God hath given Christians concerning Mariage being generall and the cases which mens particular occasions produce being infinite and so not determined by the Law it followeth that they are referred by God to the determination of that society that is of those that act in behalfe of it with right to conclude it which God hath founded upon the acknowledgement of those Lawes whereof this is one In the first place then I am not afraid to undertake that the Law of the Mariages of Christians that they be of one with one and indissoluble is given by our Lord to his Church and maintained by it For I am confident to make evidence out of that which is received by all Christians together with the premises that it could neither have come into the world but by Christianity nor have been maintained so inviolable as it hath been by the Canons of the Church I say then that it is impossible for any reasonable man to imagine that so difficult a Law as for all men to be tied
to study the reconciling of carnality vvith Christianity Supposing the consent of a body vvhereof they thought themselves to be members it is no marvail that there would not Not supposing that it must needs appear utterly unreasonable As for the insolubility of mariage by divorce I vvill not say there hath been so absolute a consent in it by the practice of Christians as in the mariage of one to one It is argued indeed in the late Book called Vxor Ebraica pretending onely to relate the opinions and practice of Christians in mater of divorce but intending as it should seem by the Authors opinion declared elsewhere that there is no such thing as Ecclesiasticall Power or any society of the Church by Gods Law to inferre that the Church hath nothing to do vvith Matrimoniall causes vvhich it hath nothing to do with if any thing but the lavv of the Church can secure the conscience in point of divorce p. 543. 544. that so long as the Christians vvere mingled with the Jews they observed the judiciall laws of the Synagogue and therefore corrected all divorces good beâ—or God which were according to Moses Lavv. And therefore that vvhatso ever was in force among Christians before Constantine was in force meerly by the voluntary consent of Christians vvhich vvas to give vvay vvhen the secular Power should otherwise provide as in mater of divorce so in other Matrimoniall causes This is thâ—â—â—â—ich seems to be intended p. 559. But this pretence is rooted up by proving the Church to be a society and Body founded by God to communicate in the service of God for the attaining of everlasting life For thereupon it remâ—â—ns evident that the Lavvs thereof came not originally from the voluntary consent of Christians unlesse you understand that consent whereby they submit to the Christian faith that they may be saved and thereupon find themselves tieâ— to submit to them from whom they receive that faith whereby they hope to be saved but from those who first delivered Christianity to the Church that is from our Lord his Apostles And had Christians been left to their own choice it is not possible they should have imposed upon themselves that is that the whole Church should have received that charge of not divorcing which the Rules and Customes of the Church evidence to have been in force through the whole Church as by and by it will appear As for the time when the Christians observed Moses Law that excellent saying of Justine the Martyâ— takes place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They obey the Lawes and by their own lives go beyond the Laws For the Jews Law was then their Civill Law because authorized by the Romanes in as much as they restrained it not So by complying with the Jews they gained the free exercise of their Christianity as well as invited them to admit and receive it But did they therefore renounce the Law of Christ where it restrained them more then the Law of Moses Did they allow themselves more wives then one when Moses allowed it the Jews and they complyed with Moses Certainly the Law that allows a man more wives then one never constrained any man to make use of that allowance So well might the Christians acknowledging Moses Law acknowledge themselves bound not to use the power of putting away their wives when Moses Law allowed it But it is further argued there lib. III. cap. XXVIII XXIX XXX at least it seems upon the same ground to be argued that the Roman Laws from Constantine to the fall of the Eastern Empire in a maner do allow divorce upon such causes as the Soveraign thought fit Which Laws being made by Christian Princes intending to limit that infinite liberty which the former laws of the Empire allowed either party to dissolve mariage at pleasure with all that he brought must needs pretend to secure Christians in point of conscience divorcing upon no other causes then those laws allow Constantine therefore restrains the liberty of divorce to three causes on either side On the wives side if the â—usband should Murther Poyson or Rob graves On the husbands if the wife should be an Adulteress an Impoisoner or a Bawd And this at such time as he advised with Bishops in all that he did granting then an appeal to their Courts by an act dated the same year as it is probable and lately published in Sirmondus his Appendix to Theodosius his Code without date for the year but directed to the same Ablavius P. P. to whom the form is directed Cod. Theod. lib. III. Tit. XVI which Theodosius the younger a very Christian Prince extends to many more Justinian the legislative humour being then predominant limits the mater otherwise as he thought fit His successor Justine goes beyond him in allowing divorce upon consent of parties though at neither parties choice Which Law is not found to have been repealed till it was left out of that collection of Laws called the Basilicae into which Leo the wife about the year DCCCC compiled all the Laws which he meant should stand unrepealed The particulars you may see curiously collected there Which I should make no account of did it not appear also by sundry testimonies of later times there alledged that the Greek Church did proceed according to the said Laws in blessing Mariages made upon such divorces and consequently allowing the communion of the Church to those that made them Balsamon upon Syn. VI. Can. LXXXVIII defines an unreasonable cause of divorce to be that which the Judge to wit according to the Law allows not Noâ— makes he any exception to them from any Canon of the Church writing upon Photius his Nâ—mocanon Tit. XIII 4. 30. And upon Can. Carthag CV alledging Justinian Novel CXVII he saith That the Canon is not in force to wit the Law having provided otherwise referring himselfe to that which he had written upon the VI Synode quoted afore Harmenopulus also in Prochicro sayes plainly that divorces were judged amongst them by the Imperiall Laws And Matthaus Monachus Quaest Matrim Juris Grâ—co-Rom Tomo I. p. 507. So also the Canons of Alexuis Patr. CP about MXXX alledged by our Author out of a written Copy p. 613. And Michael Chrysocephalus upon Can. Apost XLVIII p. 600. Besides Matthâ—us Blastares in Nomocan alledged by Arcudius p. 517. where he being a Greek confesseth that the Greek Church had sometimes practiced according to the Civill Laws Which had they not secured the conscience it could not it ought not to have done And what case can there be in point of mariage wherein the Law of the Land secures not the conscience if in point of divorce it do Or where is the indissolubility of mariage and the Interest of the Church in mariage grounded upon it But because it would be two gross for a Christian to say that mans Law allowing divorce can secure a Christian in conscience against Gods Law forbidding it our Lord having said Whoso puts away his wife
XVI both expounds our Lords words in this sense and determines against divorces out of them that Origen in Mat. Hâ—â— VII accepts them in the same sense and disputes for it That Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. II. sub finem condemns the divorces vvhich the Roman Lavvs then licensed and mariage upon them That S. Chrysostome in Mat. Hom. XVII and LXIII Libro de Virginitate Serm. I. de debitore X. millium S. Ambrose in Luc. lib. XVII S. Jerome Epist XXX in Mat. XIX S. Basil ad Amphil. Can. IX in Hexaem Hom. VII Asterius Hom. ult S. Austine de adulterinis conjugiis ad Pollentium â—ollovv the the same sense and deliver the same Doctrine vvhich seems to be also S. Gregory Nazianzâ—nes vvhen he calls a Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An evill which being gâ—â— is not to be lâ—t go The record is yet to seek that may shovv any such opinion in the Church and having escaped so diligent hands I may vvell challenge all the world to produce it For vvhereas it is said p. 155. that Origen ubi supra argues that there are faults no lesse destructive to any society or communion in wedlock then adultery is And therefore that adultery is named but as an instance in a sentence to be extended by reason of equity necessarily inherent in the case to all faults equally destructive to mariage I grant that Origen hath so argued and that Grotius out of whose Annotations upon Mat. V. 31. 32. all this dust hath been raised hath seconded him in it But it is one thing to say that by consequence of reason where the fault is no lesse destructive to mariage then adultery is there ought to be the same liberty of divorce Another thing to say that by the Leter of our Lords words all causes of divorce that Moses Law or the Civil Lawes of Christian Staâ—es allows are allowable in point of Conscience The one leaves the weight of the fault and the equality of it with adultery to be judged by the Church The other takes away the Church and the judgement of it which Origen never meant to do Again I say that those things which are disputed by Origen were never held of such consideration to the Church that either the opinion or much more the practice of the Church should be valued by them It is plain he was allowed so to argue but it is as plain that his arguments took no effect either in the opinion or in the practice of the Church As for S. Augustine who was so much perplexed whither our Saviour might not mean spiritual fornication in those words Retract I. 29. having delivered it for his opinion before in his exposition of the Seâ—mon in the Mount Will any man believe that he who so â—â—ifly holds that it is unlawful to mary after divorce for Adultery as S. Austin in his Books de adulterinis conjugiis ad Pollentium and elsewhere does can allow divorce for any thing but Adultery The truth is he that considers the businesse throughly shall see that it was that supposition that obliged S. Austine to this doubt as on the contrary the improbability of the doubt is that which chiefly renders the supposition improbable Which being a thing not yet observed so farre as I know and there being no means to judge what is in the power of the Church and what is not in matter of divorce otherwise I will go out of the way to debate rather to resolve it before I go forwards CHAP. XIV Scripture alleged to prove the bond of Mariage insoluble in case of adultery uneffectuall S. Paul and our Lord speak both to one purpose according to S. Jerome and S. Austine The contrary opinion more reasonable and more general in the Church Why the Church may restrain the innocent party from marying again The Imperial Lawes could never be of force to void the Power of the Church Evidence for it SOme texts are alleged to prove the bond of Mariage undissoluble which to me I confesse do not seem to create any maner of consequence S. Paul saith Rom. VII 2. The wife that is under a Husband is tied to her Husband living by the Law But if her Husband dye she is clear of her Husband So living her Husband she shall be stiled an aduâ—teress if she become another husbands But if her Husband dye she is free from the Law so as to be no adulteress if she become another Husbands Where say they it is plain that she who maries before her former Husband is dead is an adulteress As also in 1 Cor. VII 39. The wife is tied by the Law as long as her Huband lives but if her Husband fall asleep she is free to mary whom she please onely in the Lord. And yet it is manifest that S. Paul in the first place speaks according to the Law in the second according to Christianity and that there is no question that under the Law mariage might be dissolved Therefore the words of S. Paul are not superficially to be considered when he saith Rom. VII 1 Know ye not brethren For I speak to those that know the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the meaning cannot be that the Law hath power of a man as long as the man lives that the Law hath power upon but as long as the man lives who hath power over him by the Laâ— As it is evident by the inference For the wife living is tied by the Law to her Husband but if her Husband die she is clear of her Husband And the compariâ—on froâ— which S. Paul argues holds thus As a wife is no longer tied to her Husband by the power which the Law gives him when he is dead so are not Christiâ—ns â—â—ed to God by the Power wâ—â—â—h the Law gives him when it is voided by the death of Christ but by the new bond which the Covenant oâ— Grâ—ce knitteth Now by the Law the bond of Mariage is not to be dissolved but by the will of the Husbâ—nd but if the Husband will it is dissolved by a Bill of divorce And therefore that exception is necessarily to be understood in S. Pauls words Which being understood it will be ridiculous to inferâ—e that therâ—fore the mariage of Christians is indissoluble Though diverse oâ— tâ—â— Fathers it is true hâ—ve thought it a good inference But among Christians when S. Paul sayes the wife is tied by the Law as long as her Husband lives his intent can require no more then that she is free when he is dead to mary again Not that she can no way be free while he is alive Again Eph V. 28-32 He that loveth his wife loveth himselfe For never did any man hate his own flesh but feed and cherish it as our Lord his Church For we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Therefore shall a man leave Father and Mother and cleave to his wife and they two shall become one flesh This mystery is
great but I mean in Christ and in the Church The mariage of Adam with Eve was intended by God for a figure and prophesie of the incarnation of Christ and his spiritual mariage with the Church by virtue of it as the Scripture wheresoever it speaks of the first and second Adam declareth Therefore as I said their mariage was an indissoluble union of one with one as the mariage of Christians which reviveth it Be the mariage of Christians then a Sacrament as much as any man would have it to be be it a commemoration if Adams was a prediction of the incarnation of Christ and of his mariage with the Church Let it contain a promise of Grace to them that exercise it as Christians should do it is therefore indissoluble in the point of right I confesse that is to say it is the profession of an obligation upon the parties to hold it indissoluble But is it therefore indissoluble in point of fact May not the obligation so professed be transgressed And is not mariage a civill contract even among Pagans and Infidels and that by Gods appointment And may not the Law which God â—â—ath restrained the mariage of Christians to presuppose the conditions of a civill contract And are not civill contracts void when one party transgresseth the condition on which they are made Or cannot mariage signifie the mariage between Christ and his Church cannot the observation of it oblige God to give grace unlesse we understand all such conditions thereby to be extinguished The union of the word with our flesh the union of Christ with his Church depends onely upon that effectuall Grace which himself purposed from everlasting because as I said upon supposition of our perseverance The union of Wife and Husband signifies it no lesse though the obligation being transgressed it may become void But how shall marying as a Christian should mary be the means to obtain Grace unlesse as well the union as that promise may be forfeited by transgressing the condition upon which it is made The cheife difficulty then lies in the words of our Lord Mat. V. 30. 31. XIX 3-9 in which I must in the first place consider that there are diverse things observable in them to show that our Lord though he declared not openly that the Gentiles should imbrace Christianity and the Jews refuse it yet neverthelesse propounds it so that he must be understood to intend it for the Gentiles so converted as well as for the Jews That of Origen in the first place For the Law appointing death for the punishment of adultery what need the exception of adultery to the Jews among whom divorce for adultery was death Secondly his words in S. Mark X. 11. 12. Who so â—utteth away his wife and marietâ— another committeth adultery against her and if a wife put away her Husband and mary another she committeth adultery For by the Jews Law though the Husband might put away his wife yet the wife could not put away her Husband And though Josephus report that Herods sister Salome sent her Husband a Bill of divorce yet he reports it as that which never was done afore and therefore cannot be thought to have come to a custome in our Lords â—ime Thirdly how could our Lord say according to the Jews Law that he who maried a woman divorced committeth adultery when as what hindred a man then to mary a divorced wife out of meer charity to keep her from committing adultery Lastly if we consider S. Pauls wordes whereby he teacheth as I have showed that the wife having the same interesse in the Husband as the Husband in the wife by the Christian Law the wife can no more leave her Husband then the Husband the wife 1 Cor. VII 1-5 I. 11. it will appear that his Doctrine extending to the condition of man and wife by the then Romane Law is derived as it must needs be derived from this sense of his Masters Seeing then that divorce not onely among the Jews but among â—he Romanes was alwayes understood to dissolve the bond of Mariage what appearance can there be that our Lord when he sayeth He that putteth away his wife unlesse for adultery and marieth another committeth adultery and he that marieth her who is put away committeth adultery intendeth not to extend the exception to marying again as well as to putting away And therefore that he who putteth away for adultery she who is not put away for adultery may mary again For if those whom he spoke to could understand nothing by divorce but that which they saw and the divorce which they saw or heard of inabled all parties to mary again then that divorce which the exception of fornication allows by our Lords law understanding that exception inables to mary again Two reasons are opposed from our Lords words First in S. Mark X. 12. S. Luke XVI 18. the exception is not expressed and yet it is said He that puts away his wife and maries another commits adultery To which it is answered That the Gospels are as S. Justine the Martyr calls them remembrances of the sayings and doings of our Lord the effect whereof was delivered to and received by them who were baptized as the Law of Christianity And that therefore in recording them it was thought enough to remember the heads of those things which were undertaken to be believed and observed That therefore all that undertake to expound the four Gospels do use to adde whatsoever any of them hath more then the one which he hath in hand to make up his sense In fine therefore that in this point the sense of our Lord is not to be measured by that which S. Mark and S. Luke hath lesse but that which S. Matthew hath more And therefore that when our Lord saith He that puts away his wife and maries again commits adultery And he that maries her that is put away commits adultery He is to be understood with this exception unlesse for adultery It is objected secondly That by this account she that is put away for adultery may mary again and neither her selfe noâ— he that maries her be chargeable with adultery which were a gross inconvenience that by the Law of our Lord a woman by committing adultery or man in like case should advantage himselfe to mary again with a good conscience For if it be true He that puts away but for adultery and maries again and he that maries her who is put away but for adultery commits adultery then will it follow that he who puts away his wife for adultery and maries another and he that maries her that is so put away commits no adultery To which I answer that it follows not that our Lord so saying should mean this consequence But rather that he who maries her that is put away for adultery commits adultery much more Though he who puts her away is no cause of it neither chargeable with adultery for marying again For if the Husband be
chargeable with adultery when the wife maries again being not put away for adultery why is he chargeable with it that put her away for adultery If because he maries again not putting his wife away for adultery putting her away for adultery why is he chargeable with it The difficulty will be Then is the knot of wedlock tied to the one party and loose to the other which seems a knot more indissoluble then that of wedlock but is indeed none at all if we distinguish between the metaphor of a knot tied and the obligation signified by it For though the act of consent to the contract of wedlock is the act of two parties whereof a third that is God is depositary to discharge the innocent and to charge the guilty yet the bond or obligation which is contracted by it is answerable severally by each party in the judgement of God And is there the same reason that God should call him to account for adultery who thinks himselfe free of that contract which he stood to till his party transgressed it as her that gave him cause to think himselfe free by transgressing it The difficulty then rests in the meaning of S. Paul when he châ—rgeth the wife not to depart from her Husband If she do to abidâ— unmaried or to be reconciled to her Husband And the Husband not to put away his wife 1 Cor. VII 12. And that having before charged maried people not to part even for devotion but for a time for fear of temptation by concupiscense For can it then be imagined that he allows them to part upon any occasion but that of adultery Therefore those that are parted for adultery he forbids to marry again And these are the Texts that have moved S. Jerome Epist XLVII to be of this mind But S. Austine further expounding the Sermon in the mount upon this supposition as he himselfe professes in the beginning of his books de adultrinis conjugiis written expresse to maintain it and desiring to show how our Lords Law injoyns the same with his Apostles imagines that our Lord might mean spirituall fornication or adultery according to which the Psalme saies Thou hast destroyed all that commit fornication against thee when he gave it Which sense compriseth all sinne that carieth with it a construction of departing from our Covenant with God both in truth and according to S. Austine de Sermone domini in monte I. 16. Whereupon the Mileritane Canon XVII speaks thus Placuit ut secundum Evangelicam Apostolicam disciplinam ueque dimissus ab uxore neque dimissa à marito alteri conjungantur sed ita maneant auâ— sibi reconcilientur Quod si contempserint ad poenitentiam redigantur In qua causà legem Iâ—perialem petendam promulgari It seemed good that according to the discipline of the Gospel and the Apostles neither he that is dimissed by his wife nor she that is dimissed by her husband be wedded to another but remain so or be reconciled to one another which if they neglect that they be put to Penance and that request be made for an Imperial Law to be published in the case Where alleging the Gospel and S. Paul both it is plain the Canon proceeds upon the opinion of S. Austine For he was at this Council and in all probability had the penning of the Canons That which moved them to be of this opinion I confesse moves me to be against it I cannot be perswaded that S. Paul in this place and our Lord in the Gospel speak both to one and the same purpose All subjects of the Romane Empire when S. Paul writ had power to leave their wives or their husbands at pleasure without giving the Law account But supposing them Christians were they not to give God account were they not to give the Church account Certainly if they maried again they must give the Church account because our Lord hath said He that leaveth his wife but for adultery and marieth again committeth adultery For of adultery account is to be given the Church And truly who parts with a wife it is great odds does it out of a desire to mary another which all the Church agrees he cannot do unlesse she be an adulteresse part of it sayes further though she be he cannot do it But if he mary not another but part with his wife he must give God account whether he be bound to give the Church account or not And this account S. Paul instructs how to give He will not have Christians to part bed and bord much less to repudiate to part families to send one another a way with that which they brought but if they will needs try how good it is living unmarried he would have them know that they could not mary elsewhere because of our Lords Law which in case of fornication he silently excepteth For to me it seemeth manifest that our Lord in case of fornication provideth for the reparation of the party wronged whose bed and issue is concerned restraining the divorce which the law allowed onely to the transgression of mariage inâ—cted by the institution of Paradise when two continue not one flesh But S. Paul for the conscience of particular Christians upon what terms they may or ought to forbear â—ohabitation to wit so as they mary not again Which is exhortation enough to set aside animosities and return to bed and bord again S. Austine and Venerable Bede upon the Gospel following him confesse that according to their interpretation our Lord permits to part not for the fornication which the other party hath done but for that which himselfe may do To wit which by the company of an ill disposed yoke-fellow he may be moved to do So divorce according to this opinion is grounded upon the precept of the Gospel If thine eye offend thee pluck it out and is that which the Church of Rome at this day maintaineth by the XXVI Session of the Council of Trent Can. VIII and that as I think according to S. Paul onely that he leaves it to the Conscience of particular Christians without interessing the Church the interest whereof I conceive cannot be excluded though S. Paul here provide not for it as Cardinall Bellarmine de Matrimoniâ— I. 14. disputeth But in case of adultery it never was nor ever could seem questionable so as S. Paul to decide it whither a man might so put away his wife or no all Civill Law that then was counting him accessory to the stain of his bed and issue that did not And thereupon the ancient Canons of the Church imposing penalties upon any of the Clergy who being allowed to dwell with their wives should indure an adulteresse And therefore I conclude that S. Paul though he allow not either husband or wife to part with wife or husband as to cohabitation without renouncing the bond of wedlock no not for the state of continence as S. Austine very well argues if not for continence then for no
Epist IX ad Probum Statuimus fide Catholica suffragante illud esse conjugium quod primitus erat divina gratia fundatum Conventumque secundaemulieris priore superstite nec divortio ejectâ nullo pacto posse esse legitimum We decree the Catholick faith voting for it that to be mariage which first was founded upon Gods grace that was first made according to Christianity and that the wedding of a second wife leaving the first can by no means be lawful Which exception could possibly signifie nothing if in no case not of adultery a second could be maried while the first is alive And in the West Chromatius of Aquileia in Mat. V. as well as in the East Asterius Homil. an liceat dimittere uxorem the first damns him that shall mary again excepting adultery The second would have his hearers perswaded that nothing but death or adultery dissolves mariage But do I therefore say that the Church cannot forbid the innocent party to mary again or is bound by Gods law to allow it All Ecclesiastical Law being nothing but the restraining of that which Gods Law hath left indefinite And the inconveniences being both visible and horrible I conceive I am duly informed that George late Arch-bishop of Canterbury was satisfied in the proceeding of the High Commission Court to tie them that are divorced from marying again upon experience of adultery designed upon collusion to free the parties from wedlock having been formerly tender in imposing that charge The Greek Church may beter avoid such inconveniences not being tied to any Law of the Land but the tempering of the Canons remaining in the Governors of the Church But they that would not have the Lawes of the Church and the justice of the Land became Stales and pandars to such vilanies must either make adultery death and so take away the dispute or revive publick Penance and so take away the infamy of his bed and the taint of his issue that shall be reconciled to an Adulteresse or lastly bear with that inconvenience which the casualties of the world may oblige any man to which is to propose the chastity of single life in stead of the chastity of wedlock when the security of a mans conscience and the offence of the Church allows it not But though this in regard of the intricacies of the question and the inconveniences evident to practice may remain in the power of the Church yet can it never come within the power of the Church to determine that it is prejudiciall to the Christian faith to do so as by Gods Law And the Church that erres not in prohibiting mariage upon divorce for adultery will erre in determining for mater of faith that Gods law prohibites it so long as such reasons from the Scriptures are not silenced by any Tradition of the whole Church It is easie to see by S. Augustine de adulterini conjugiis II. 5-12 that publick Penance was the means to restore an adulteresse to the same reputation among Christians which an adulteresse that turned Christian must needs recover among Christians And that is the reason why the Canon of Arles orders that young Christians be advised not to mary again that their wives may be recovered of their adultery by Penance and so their mariage re-estated I see also that Justiniane Nov. CXVII hath taken order that women excessive in incontinence be delivered to the Bishop of the City to be put into a Monastery there to do Penance during life And supposing adultery to be death according to Moses Law the inconvenience ceaseth If the Civil Law inable not the Church to avoid the scandall of this collusion it is no marvail that the Church is constrained to impose upon the innocent more then Gods law requires to avoid that scandall which Gods law makes the greater inconvenience And thus having showed you that S. Austines interpretation of fornication is not true I have into the bargain showed you that it cannot serve to prove divorce upon other causes besides adultery and so the insolubility of mariage excepting our Saviours exception is as firmly proved as the consent of the Church can prove any thing in Christianity I know Origen argues that poysoning killing children robbing the house may be as destructive to the Society of Wedlock as Adultery And he thereupon seems to inferre that our Saviour excepts adultery onely for instance intending all causes equally destructive to wedlock as Grotius who follows his sense seems to limit it But Origens opinion will not interrupt the Tradition of the Church unlesse it could appear to have come into practice sometime in some part of the Church Neither would it serve his turn that would have those divorces which the secular Power allowes to extend to marying again For Origen never intended that his own opinion should bind but that it is in the power of the Church to void mariages upon other causes For he saith he knew some Governours of Churches suffer a woman to mary her former husband living Praeter Scripturam besides the Scripture And that as Moses permitted divorce to avoid a greater mischiefe But I may question whether they thought that against the Scripture which Origen thought to be against the Scripture And in the mean time as I do not see what breach his report can make upon the Tradition of the Church so it is plain the Power of the Church and not the secular did that which he reports And truly what the testimony of S. Austine extending that Adultery upon which our Saviour grants divorce to all mortall sinne but confining him that is so divorced not to mary another can avail him that would intitle the secular Power to create causes of divorce to the effect of marying again let all reason and conscience judge I shall conclude my argument Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis An exception settles the rule in all that is not excepted Either our Saviour intended that who had put away a Yoke-fellow for adultery should mary again or not If so he hath forbidden marying again upon other causes If not much more For though upon adultery he hath forbidden to mary again And thus is the Power of the Church in Matrimoniall causes founded upon the Law which our Lord Christ hath confined all Christians to of marying one to one and indissolubly whither without exception or excepting adultery For seeing that of necessity many questions must arise upon the execution of such a Law and that Civil Power may as well be enemy to Christianity as not and that as well professing to maintain it as professing to persecute it to say that God hath left the Consciences of Christians to be secured by the Civil Power submitting to what it determines is to say that under the Gospell God hath not made the observing of his lawes the condition of obtaining his promises This is that power which Tertulliane in several places expresly voucheth de Pudicitiâ cap. IV. Penes nos speaking
of Christians that is of the whole Church occultae quoque conjunctiones id est non priâ—s apud Ecclesiam professae juxta maechiam fornicationem judicari perclitantur Among us even clandestine mariages that is not professed before the Church are in danger to be censured next to adultery and fornication And therefore Ad uxorem II. ult Unde sufficiamus ad senarrandam faelicitatem ejus matrimonii quod Ecclesia conciliat How may we be able to declare the happinesse of that mariage which the Church interposeth to joyn de Monogamiâ cap. XI Quale est id matrimonium quod eis a quibus postulas non licet hahere What maner of mariage is that saith he speaking of marying a second wife which it is not lawfull for them of whom thou desirest it to have Because it was not lawful for the Clergy who allowed the people to mary second wives themselves to do the same Ignatius Epist ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It becometh men and women that mary to joyn by the consent of the Bishop that the mariage be according to the Lord and not according to lust It hath been doubted indeed whether we have the true Copy of Ignatius his Epistles or not whether this be one of them or not But that Copy being found which Eusebius S. Jerome and others of the Fathers took for Ignatius his own and hath all that the Fathers quote just as they quote it nothing of that which stood suspected afore to refuse them now is to refuse evidence because it stands not with our prejudices Not that this power of the Church stands upon the authority of two or three witnesses These were not to be neglected But the Canons of the Church and the custome and practice of the Church ancientâ—r then any Canons in writing but evidenced by written Law which could never have come in writing had it not been in force before it was written suffer it not to remain without evidence In particular the allowance of the mariages of those who were baptized when they were admitted to Baptism evidenced out of S. Austine the Constituions and Eliberitane Canons evidenceth the Power of the Church in this point unquestionable And therefore against the Imperiall Lawes I argue as against the Leviathan that is if any man suppose that they pretend to secure the conscience of a Christian in marying according to them upon divorce Either the Soveraign Power effects that as Soveraign or as Christian If as Soveraign why may not the Christians of the Turkish Empire divorce themselves according to the Alâ—oran which is the Law of the Land and be secure in point of conscience If as Christian how can the conscience of a Christian in the Eastern Empire be secured in that case wherein the conscience of a Christian in the West cannot be secured because there is no such Civil Law there the Christianity of both being the same For it cannot be said that the Imperiall Lawes alleged were in force in the West after the division of the Empire I argue again That they cannot secure the conscience but under the Law of our Lord as containing the true interpretation of fornication in his sense And can any man be so senselesse as to imagine so impudent as to affirm that the whole Church agreeing in taking the fornication of maried people to signifie adultery hath failed but every Christian Prince that alloweth and limiteth any other causes of divorce all limiting severall causes attaineth the true sense of it Will the common sense of men allow that Homicide Treason Poysoning Forgery Sacriledge Robbery Mans-stealing Cattle-driving or any of them is contained is the true meaning of Fornication in our Lords words That consent of parties that a reasonable cause when Pagans divorced per bonam gratiam without disparagement to either of the parties can be understood by that name For these you shall find to be legall cause of divorce by those acts of the Emperours Lastly I argue If these causes secure the conscience in the Empire by virtue of those Laws why shall not those causes for which divorce was allowed or practiced amongst the ancient French the Irish the Welch the Russes do the like For that which was done by virtue of their Lawes reported there cap. XXVI XXX is no lesse the effect of Christian power that is Soveraign He that could find in his heart to tell Baronius reproving the Law of Justine that allowed divorce upon consent that Christian Princes who knew their own power were not so easily to be ruled by the Clergy p. 611. can he find fault with the Irish marrying for a year and a day or the Welch divorcing for a stinking breath Had he not more reason to say that knowing their power they might chuse whether they would be Christians or not The dispute being What they should do supposing that they are Christians And therefore it is to be maintained that those Emperours in limiting the infinite liberty of divorces by the Romane Law to those causes upon which dowries should be recoverable or not being made for Pagans as well as for Christians did as it were rough hew their Empire to admit the strict law of Christianity in this point And that this was the intent and effect of their acts appears by the Canons which have been alleged as well in the East as in the West made during the time when those Laws were in force For shall we think the Church quite out of their senses to procure such Canons to be made knowing that they could not take place in the lives and conversations of Christians to the effect of hindring to mary again If we coulde so think it would not serve the turn unlesse we could say how S. Basil should testifie that indeed they did take place to that effect and yet the Civill Law not suffer them to take effect From our Lord Christ to that time it is clear that no Christian could mary again after divorce unlesse for adultery some not excepting adultery In the baseâ— times of that Empire it appears by the Canons of Alexius Patriarch of C P. and by Matthaeus Blastares alleged by Arcudius p. 517. that those causes which the Imperiall Lawes allowed but Gods law did not took place to the effect of marrying again But that so it was alwaies from Constantine who first taxed legall cause of divorce nothing obliges a man to suppose For though the Emperours Law being made for Pagans as well as for Christians might inable either party to hold the dowry yet the Christian law might and did oblige Christians not to mary again The Mileuitane Canon showes it which provideth that the Emperour be requested to inact that no Christian might mary after divorce For this might be done saving the Imperial Laws But when we see the Civil Law inforce the Ministers of the Church to blesse those Mariages which the Civil Law allows but Gods Law makes adulteries the party that is put away
and not for adultery remaining alive Then we see what a horrible breach the civil Power hath made upon Christianity by hindring the Power of the Church to take place For on the one side the blessing of the Church seems to concur to the securing of the consciences of particular Christians that they forfeit not their interest in the promises of the Gospell by doing that to which the Church for avoiding greater mischiefe is constrained to concurre On the other side that which is done is not onely by the consent of the whole Church in the sense of our Lords Law but by those Divines of the Eastern Church which writ during time that this corruption is pretended as Euthymius and Theophylact upon Mat. V. condemned for adultery Now supposing the Law to part Wedlock the Canon not suffering to mary again S. Pauls alternative is whole Either not to part or parting to be reconciled but not to mary again And therefore the Church had no more reason to interpose in that case then to censure who does wrong in going to sute For wrong is alwaies done but because it is between two it is not censurable onely S. Pauls aim of reconciling them is harder to be attained when the dowry is recovered then when cohibitation onely is parted And therefore as that licentiousnesse in divorcing which the ancient French the Irish the Welch the Russes and Alysimes did or do use is an evidence that Christianity was not so fully received or did not totally prevail amongst them So when the Greek Church yielded to allow those divorces which the Civil Law allowed which at the first it did not do then was their Christianity imbased and corrupted Which though it cannot have come to passe without the fault of the Clergy yet it is most to be charged upon the secular power the interesse whereof it inlargeth to the prejudice of Christianity For as in times of Apostacy and factions in the Church it hath been many times constrained to receive or retain those of whose salvation it cannot presume at the peril of their own souls So when it seems lesse evill to yield to that violence which the secular Power offers then to abandon the protection thereof those that impose violence are far more chargeable with the souls that perish by the means thereof then those that yield to iâ— for the best And that this may serve for a great part of excuse for the Greek Church we have great argument to believe Because since the taking of Constantinople being no more tied by the Civil Laws of the supream Power they allow no divorce but for adultery Neither is there any further difference between them and the Latin Church but whither Gods law upon divorce for adultery allow marying again or not Which the Council of Trent hath no further impeached then in case it be maintained that the Church erreth in saying that the bond of mariage remains insoluble notwithstanding adultery on either side Conc. Tied Sess XXIV cap. VII least the subjects of the State of Venice should be condemned unheard who had alwaies maried after divorce for adultery as the History relateth CHAP. XIV Another opinion admitting the ground of lawfull Impediments What Impediments arise upon the Constitution of the Church generally as a Society or particularly as of Christians By what Law some degrees are prohibited Christians And of the Polygamy of the Patriarchs Mariage with the deceased wives Sister and with a Cousin Germane by what Law prohibited Of the Profession of Conscience and the validity of clandestine Mariages The bounds of Ecclesiasticall Power in Mariage upon these grounds I Am now to propose another opinion pretending to justifie the Imperiall Laws examined concerning divorce the moderation whereof I do much esteem above these novelties tending to cast one Article concerning the Holy Catholick Apostolick Church out of the common faith of all Christians It saith that the secular Power is able to limit the conditions upon which mariage is contracted as being indeed a civill contract so that mariage contracted contrary to the conditions limited by the secular Power shall be ipso facto void the persons being by the Law rendred uncapable of contracting the same And that by the same reason the same Power is able to prescribe such conditions as coming to passe after mariage are of force to void it by virtue of the provision going before declaring it void whensoever such conditions should come to passe As in case of murder poysoning treason forgery robbery sacriledge in case of impotence absence of long time and the like for in case of mutual consent or upon reasonable cause without disparagement themselves dare not take upon them to say that the secular power can make any lawfull divorce This opinion is indeed considerable in regard of those impediments which Canonists and Casuists declare to have the force of avoiding mariage consummate by carnall knowledge For if they or some of them may appear to be well grounded there can be nothing more effectuall to clear my first intent to wit what is the true interesse and right of the Church in determining Matrimonial causes I say then that upon the suppositions premised that the Church is a Society founded by God and that there is a peculiar Law of our Lord concerning the mariages of Christians it necessarily followeth that as there are diverâ—e things which make mariages void or unlawfull so the Church is to be satisfied that there is none of them to be found in those mariages which it alloweth If we consider the Church generally as a Society of reasonable people certainly those things which render the contracts of all reasonable people either void or unlawfull in what Society soever they live must needs be thought to render either void or unlawfull those mariages that are so contracted in the Church As for the purpose Whatsoever is contracted either by fraud or by force is of it selfe originally void supposing that fraud or that force to have been the cause why it was contracted The reason being the same that ties a man to any thing which ever he contracted which is his own free consent in what he is not limited to by the law of God and Nature For if this be the reason that obliges where this reason fails the obligation of necessity ceaseth And shall it then be thought that any solemnity which the Church may celebrate a mariage contracted by force with can avail to make that contract binding Or that a cheat which had it not been believed a man would not have maried nor the mariage have been solemnized when it is solemnized shall have force to oblige This to those who believing that mariage is a Sacrament do think it consequent that the solemnizing of mariage renders those mariages of force to bind the parties which otherwise are not onely unlawful but also void For though I cannot here balk my order and resolve how many Sacraments there are and whether mariage
be one of them or not yet since I can say that supposing it were this would not follow for the reason which I have said nothing hinders ouâ— discourse to proceed as supposing it were not granting that it is In particular seeing that by the Law of Christianity none can mary with one that is bound to another already the innocent party so married by cousenage is so farre from being obliged by it as to be obliged not to use it upon notice Again in particular seeing that Christianity declareth mariage to intend procreation and the remedy of concupiscence the uglinesse whereof was never discovered by Idolators and Pagans wheresoever is discovered a naturall impotence to per-form the act of mariage there appeareth an error which had it not been the mariage had not been made And therefore adding the generall to the particular the contract must appear voide The same is much more to be said if by any deceit there hath been an error in the sex of one of the parties Difference in Religion between Christians and Pagans between Christians and Jews renders mariage void by virtue of the premises though it oblige not Christians to make use of their right by renouncing it as Jews were obliged to desert Idolaters But that there may some new Religion spring up in the world upon the divisions of the Church which we see are possible which question may be made whether it be lawful or whether expedient for Christians either to mary or to continue maried with suppose for the present that of the Gnosticks that of the Priscillianists that of our Ranters or Quakers who can deny And supposing such a question made and supposing the Church to be a Society trusted with the guard of Gods Law concerning mariage what determination can secure the conscience of a Christian but the determination of the Church in a cause grounded on mater of Christianity for the guard whereof the Church standeth Doth not all the world acknowledge a publick reputation of that honesty which Christianity pretendeth and challengeth to be performed in the mariage of Christians as they are Christians Do not all Christians acknowledge that there is a neernesse both of blood and of alliance within which Christians are forbidden to mary You will say to me that these degrees are limited by the Law of God in the XVIII of Leviticus and that the Church hath no more to do in prohibiting that which is not there prohibited then in licensing that which is But that will not serve my turn having proved that the Law of Moses in the first instance was given for the civill Law of one people of the Jews and for their civill happinesse in the Land of promise given them on condition of living according to it with a promise of freedom over themselves so doing The Church on the contrary a society of all Christendom founded upon undertaking the Law of Christ with promise of everlasting happinesse For what appearance is there that the same Law should contain the condition of temporall and eternal happinesse in any part of humane life and conversation Indeed he that should argue that seeing God prohibited to many degrees of affinity and consanguinity in the mariages of his ancient people whom he treated expresly with upon onely temporall promises all the same degrees therefore are prohibited Christians whom God deals with upon the promise of the world to come I cannot see how his argument could find an answer But having showed that Christians are bound to straiter terms of Godlinesse by the law of Christ then the ancient people of God whom God obliged himselfe to for the world to come but by intimations which needed stronger inclinations to virtue to imbrace will it not follow that the provision of the Levitical Law is no exception to this generall in mater of mariage Indeed it is not the power of the Church that brings in this ground of restraining more then is restrained by the Levitical Law but the nature of Christianity which I showed from the beginning to be in order of nature before the constitution of the Church and ancient to it But having showed that there is no presumption in Christianity to hinder that to belong to the Law of the Church which is not recorded in the Scripture by consequence I have showed that the practice of the Church may be sufficient evidence for it and that the power of the Church is not onely sufficient but necessary to the determining of that which is not determined by it I confesse I have a difficult objection to answer when I read Levit. XVIII 24. 25. Be not polluted with any of these For with these were the Nations polluted which I drive out before your face And the earth is polluted and I visit the iniquity thereof upon it and she spueth out her inhabitants For by this it should seem that all the prohibitions of that chapter contained in the genenerall term of these thinge stood by the perpetuall Law of God and Nature so that they were never dispensed with before the Law and that therefore there can be no reason to understand any degree to be prohibited Christians which was not prohibited Jews The objection were difficult enough had we not peremtory instances to choke them with that argue thus For is it possible for any reasonable man to imagine that God should call those things which the Fathers practised till now those abominations for which he drives out the seven Nations from before his people Is it not manifest that Jacob was maried to two Sisters at once that Moses and Aaron came of the mariage of the Mothers Sister Exod. VI. 20 that Abraham was maried to his brothers daughter at least And is it strange that should be prohibited by Moses Law which before was dispensed with But supposing that difference between the Law and the Gospel that I have proved were it not strange that that no more should be prohibited under the Gospel then by the Law Of the Polygamy of the Fathers before the Law I said enough afore to show that it was dispensed with how it was dispensed with I said not which seems to make men difficult of beliefe in the point And truly that which the Fathers say sometimes that they were taught by Gods spirit that they might do it for the maintenance of the righteous seed seems somewhat strange if we understood it as if the world did acknowledge it to be prohibited till the chiefe friends of God had particular revelation from him that it was allowed them being forbidden all the world besides Now we have good information from the Jews which all men of learning do now accept for Historical truth that after the flood there were certain precepts delivered to Noe and his Sons which therefore they call the seven precepts of the Sonnes of Noe with an intent to oblige all Nations among which there was one that prohibited the uncovering of nakednesse signifying thereby the forbearance of
shall be of force to void mariage contracted afore upon wich ground the opinion which I propounded last would justifie the divorces which the Imperiall Laws make to the effect of marrying again will be a new question Seeing that if any thing bâ— to be accepted it will be in any mans power to dissolve any mariage and the law of Christ allowing no divorce but in case of adultery will be to no effect Neither will there be any cause why the same Divines should not allow the act of Justine that dissolves mariage upon consent which they are forced to disclaim allowing the rest of those causes which the Imperial Laws create Indeed whither any accident absolutely hindring the exercise of mariage and falling out after mariage may by Law become of force to dissolve it I need not here any further dispute For so the securing of any Christian mans conscience it is not the act of secular Power inacting it for Law that can avail unlesse the act of the Church go before to determine that it is not against Gods Law and therefore subject to that civil Power which is Christian The reason indeed may fall out to be the same that makes impotence of force to do it and it may fall out to be of such force that Gregory III Pope is found to have answered a consultation of Boniface of Mence in the affirmative XXXII q. VII c. Quod proposuisti But this makes no difference in the right and power of the Church but rather evidences the necessity of it For though as Cardinall Cajetane sayes the Canon Law it selfe allows that Popes may erre in determining such maters cap. IV. de divortiis c. licet de sponsa duorum which every man will allow in the decree of Deuededit Pope Epist unicâ yet the ground of both Power witnessing the Constitution of the Church as a necessary part of Christianity as it determines the true bounds of both so it allows not the conscience of a Christian to be secured by other means And were it not a strange reason of refusing the Church this Power because it may erre when it must in that case fall to the secular Powers who have no ground to pretend any probable cause of not erring For he that proceedeth in the simplicity of a Christian heart to use the means which God by Christianity hath provided for his resolution may promise himselfe grace at Gods hands even when he is seduced by that power which is not infallible But he that leans upon that warrant which God by his Christianity hath not referred him to must answer for his errors as well as the consequences of the same CHAP. XVI Of the Power of making Gouernours and Ministers of the Church Upon what ground the Hierarchy of Bishops Priests and Deacons standeth in opposition to Presbyteries and Congregations Of the Power of Confirming and the evidence of the Hierarchy which it yieldeth Of those Scriptures which seem to speak of Presbyteries or Congregations NOw are we come to one of the greatest Powers of the Church For all Societies according as they are constituted either by the act of Superiors or by the will of members are by their constitution either inabled to give themselves Governours or tied to receive them from those by whose will they subsist The Society of the Church subsisting by the will of God is partly regulated by the will of men voluntarily professing themselves Christians If God having limimited the qualities and the Powers by which his Church is to be Governed do referre the designing of persons to bear those qualities and powers to his Church it must needs appear one of the greatest points that he hath left to their choice Therefore I have made it appear from the beginning that the originall of this Power was planted by our Lord Christ in his Apostles and Disciples to whom immediately he committed the trust of propagating it And now that I may further determine within what bounds and under what terms those his immediate Commissaries did appoint it to be propagated to the end of the world I say that by their appointment the bodies of Christians contained in each City and the territory thereof is to constitute a several Church to be governed by one cheif Ruler called a Bishop with Presbyters or Priests subordinate to him for his advice and assistance and Deacons to minister and execute their appointment The said Bishops to be designed by their Clergy that is their respective Priests and Deacons with consent of neighbour Bishops ordaining them and by the assent of the people whom they are to govern I say further That the Churches of greater Cities upon which the Government of the lesse dependeth are by the same Rule greater Churches and the greatest of all the Churches of the chiefe Cities So that the chief Cities of the Christian world at the planting of Christianity being Rome Alexandria and Antiochia by consequence those were by this Rule the chief Churches and in the first place that of Rome This position excludeth in the first place that of Independent Congregations which maketh a Church and a Congregation to be all alone so that the people of each Congregation to be able first to give themselves both Laws and Governours then to govern and manage the Power of the Keyes according to Gods word that is according to that which they shall imagine to be the intent of it For whatsoever authority they allow their Ministers or Elders seeing they are created out of the people by the meer act of the people and that the consent of the People is required to inact every thing that passeth it will be too late for them to think of any authority not subordinate to the people upon whom they have bestowed the Soveraign On the other extreme this position excludeth that of the Romanists who will have the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall Power to have been first setled upon S. Peter as sole Monarch of the Church and from him derived upon the rest of the Apostles as his Deputies or Commissaries So that the Power which other Bishops Priests and Deacons have in their respective Churches being granted by the successors of S. Peter Bishops of Rome is therefore limitable at their pleasure as no otherwise estated by divine right then because God hath setled it in S. Peter and his successors as the root and source of it Between these extremes there remain two mean opinions whereof one is the platform of the Presbyteries in which every Congregation is also a Church with a Consistory to rule it consisting of a Minister with his Lay-Elders whom now they call Triers referring to them the â—riall of those who come to communicate and Deacons Of these Congregations so many as they without Rule or Reason so farre as I know think fit to cast into one resoâ—t or division they call a Session or Class and as many of those as they please a Synod and of Synods a Province So that as the
For all Priests have by their Order the Power of the Keys and by virtue of the same of baptizing and giving the Eucharist to those whom the Laws of the Church not their private judgment admits unless it be in cases which their private judgment stands charged with And that which they shall do upon such terms is to as good effect towards God in the inward Court of Conscience as if a Bishop had done it But because there be cases that concern the unity and good estate of that particular Church whereof each man is a member others that may concern the whole others some part of the whole Church the constitution of the Church necessarily requires in â—â—â—ry Church a Power without which nothing of moment to the State thereof shall be of force in the outward Court as to the Body of the Church This the Chief Power of the Apostles this S. Pauls instructions to Timothy and Titus this the Epistle to the seven Churches this the practice of all Churches before the Reformation settles upon the Bishop And therefore I should think that I showed you a peculiar act which Bishops can do and Priests cannot if I could onely show you that according to this Rule nothing is to be done without the Bishops consent For whatsoever either Law or unreprovable custom may inable a Priest to do that hee doth by the consent of his Bishop involved in passing that Law or admitting that custom And hereof the Bishops peculiar right of sitting in Council is full evidence which if the practice of the Church could justifie nothing else would be an act peculiar to the Order of Bishops according to the premises It was an ancient Rule in the Church that a Priest should not baptize in the presence of a Bishop nor give a Bishop the Eucharist To show that it is by his leave that hee acts as Tertullian saith of the right of Baptizing de Bapt. cap. XVII So the Canons which allow not a Priest to restore him to the communion that had done publick Penance in the face of the Church require the consent of the Bishop to acts that concern the Body of it That ancient author that writ de VII Ordinibus Ecclesiae among S. Jeromes works reckons divers particulars some whereof hee complains that the Bishops where hee lived did not suffer the Priests to do Doth hee therefore make Bishops and Priests all one Certainly hee speaks my sense and my terms when hee sayes the Bishop is the Priests Law That Bishops in Council give Law to the Clergy as well as the people out of Council that which is not otherwise determined nothing but his Order can determine And this is the ground of the difference between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction comparing the Bishop and Presbyters of one and the same Church one with another For the Order of Priesthood importing the Power of the Keys in baptizing in binding and loosing in the invvard court in giving the Eucharist it is plain there is a Power of Order common to both But the use of it without limiting any due bounds at the discretion of every Priest would be destructive to the Unity of the Church which I suppose That Power therefore which provideth those limitations according to vvhich the common povver of the Keys is lawfully exâ—râ—ised whether it be properly called Jurisdiction or not is necessary to the being of every Church even by the common Power of the Keys upon which the foundation of the Church standeth I can therefore allow the said author to complain that Priests in his partâ— were not suffred to do those acts which in the Fast in Illyricum in Africk they did do For all those parts were governed by Synods of Bishops But I allow not his argument Because a Priest can celebrate the Eucharist which is more It is more to the salvation of those that receive toward which the Eucharist immediately worketh no less if a Priest than if a Bishop give it But it is not so much to the Body of the Church as to excommunicate or to restore him that is excommunicate That therefore some offices may be done by both and that according to the order of the ancient Church is no argument that both are one but that it is no prejudice to the Chief Power of the Bishop that they are done by a Priest Let Confirmation be the instance for our author instances in it Certainly there never was so great necessity for it as since all are baptized infants For it expresly renueth the Covenant of Baptism not onely in the conscience between God and the soul but as to the Body of the Church implying an acknowledgment of the obligation then contracted And of the Church to which this acknowledgment is rendred For hee that desires baptism of the Church at years of discretion desireth it upon those terms which the Church tendreth And therefore hee who is baptized an infant and afterwards confirmed submitteth to the same terms in his own person which hee could not do when hee was baptized It is not therefore said That none can be saved that is not confirmed For let him observe the rule of Christianity and that within the Unity of the Church and hee wants nothing necessary to the common salvation of Christians But how effectual a means the solemnity of this profession might be to oblige a man to his Christianity and to the Unity of the Church let reason judg Now S. Hierome saith most truly that this office is reserved to the Bishop for the preserving of Unity in the Church by maintaining him in his prerogative But is that an argument that his prerogative is not original but usurped To me it is not who acknowledg the Eucharist of a Priest as effectual to the inward man as that of a Bishop the difference between them standing in reference to the visible Body of the Church Our author acknowledgeth the same that S. Hierome advers Luciferianos teacheth Demanding onely that it may be lawfull for Priests to consecrate the Chrism which they confirmed with in case of necessity which hee saith was done in many Churches and protesting not to impose Law on the Bishop vvho saith hee is Law to the Priest The supposed S. Ambrose says that in Egypt Priests did confirm in the Bishops absence It is no news that Gregory the Great alloweth Priests to confirm in Sardinia Epist III. 26. for Durandus hath made him an Heretick for it in IV. Dist VII Quaest IV. and Adriane himself afterwards Pope Quaest de Confirm in IV. art ult yields thereupon that a Pope may â—rr in determing mater of Faith And the Instruction of the Armenians by Eugenius IV. in the Council of Florence acknowledges it had been done by Priests the Chrism being consecrated by the Bishop afore The limitations of necessity of the Bishops absence of Chrism consecrated by the Bishop import his allowance and that his prerogative Though as the case is now
of Christendome AND now I may make good that which might seem an excessive word when I said it that the Power which I demand for the Church is no more then the subsistence of every Corporation constituted by Soveraine Power requireth Onely that it stands by Gods Law these by mans For what Corporation subsisteth without publick persons to governe or to execute those things wherein it communicateth without any power to limit that which the Lawes of the foundation determine not to admit and to shut out whom the foundation thereof qualifieth without a stock to defray the charge of those offices for communion wherein it subsisteth That which renders the power of the Church considerable even in the Church that is by the originall constitution of it is the extent thereof comprising all Christians For by that meanes in what quality a man is owned by his own Church in the same he is owned by all Christians supposing the unity of the Church to take place and prevaile That which renders it considerable in the world is the professing of Christianity by the Soveraine Powers of the World that is of those States which Christendome containeth For supposing that which hath been made to appear that the Church being a Society formed by the act whereby God constituteth it dissolveth not into the state when by professing Christianity it becoms obliged to protect the Church The rights and Powers thereof and the qualities of persons ministring the same necessarily remaine distinct from those which the State wherein it subsisteth either involveth or produceth And the Protection of the state signifieth further that allowance or that maintenance of the rights that concurre to the acts thereof which a Christian State needs must afford that Christianity which it professeth The Power of ministering the immediate instruments of Grace the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist The power of the Keyes in exacting that profession which qualifieth for them the meanes subordinate to the ministring of them The power of solemnizing those Offices with the Prayers of the Church which the Promise of Grace implied in the foundation of the Church attendeth all these make the act of the Church meerly ministeriall the blessing that attendeth the meer effect of Gods grace onely limited to the communion of his Church When the Church determineth the times the places the persons the occasions the formes the circumstances the maner of celebrating any of those offices which qualify for Communion in the service of God with the Church of those which provide for the celebration thereof of those wherein it consisteth the acts whereby it determineth that which God hath not determined done within the Sphere of Gods Law oblige all to conformity by Gods Law as the acts of Corporations oblige the members by the act of the State upon which they stand Not as if this conformity were the worship of God but that wich prepareth and maketh way for it The Lawes of the Apostles though recorded in Scripture are necessarily by the subject matter of them of this nature Therefore I maintaine them subject to change upon the same account as the Lawes of all visible Corporations are necessarily subject to change He that should think the observing of them pleasing to God for the thing which they injoyne and determine not for that act of Gods service the circumstance whereof they limit might commit superstition in observing the Lawes given by the Apostles as well as by the Church There may be ground for a presumption in reason that there is superstition in doing that which for the nature and kind of it may lawfully be done when there is so much businesse about the circumstance that there is no appearance to reason how it can stand and be done in order to the principall which it pretendeth For example Pilgrimage to the holy Land hath in it a pretense of extraordinary devotion to which a man sequestreth his time from his attendance upon this world and the advantages of it But if in effect the exercise of devotion appear not the principall is there not ground in reason for a construction that a man hopes to bribe God with his bodily exercise to grant those effects of Grace which he cannot be obliged to but by the condition which the Gospel importeth This is superstition and will-worship in the badde sense or the vaine worship of God by doctrines delivered by men which our Lord and the Prophet Esay charge the Jewes with When a man stands upon the circumstances tending to limit the order and uniformity of that worship of God in Spirit and Truth wherein Christianity consisteth as if the observation of them were the substance of it And yet that uniformity which the Lawes of the Church procure so necessary to the maintenance of Gods service for which it standeth that there is no lesse superstition in standing upon the not doing of them Which cannot be stood upon so farre beyond the sphere of their kind and nature without appearance of an imagination that a man becomes acceptable to God by refusing them But to proceed to violate the unity of the Church upon such a cause is nothing else then to place the worship of God as much in committing sacriledge as in abhorring of Idols This being the utmost of what the Church is able to do by the originall constitution thereof it will not be prejudiciall to that service of God which Christianity injoyneth that the acts thereof should take hold upon the conscience Because it is easily understood by that interruption of Gods service which the disorders of this time have made visible how every Christian is bound in conscience to concurre to that uniformity which as it procureth the service of God so is procured by the Lawes of the Church But this effect is invisible between God and the conscieuce The visible effect of the originall power of the Church is considerable in regard of the greatnesse of that Body which is the whole Church and ownes the act of every Church done within the within the true sphere by giving effect to it But it becomes considerable to the world by that accessory force which the protection of the Church by the power of the World necessarily insuing upon the profession of Christianity so long as the acknowledgement of one Catholick Church is a part of it addeth to the acts of the Church by owning them for the acts of a Corporation which the State protecteth Before I come to limit this effect I must acknowledge one part of the Church-right to have ceased and become voide by the coming of the world into the Church and the conversion of the Romane Empire to the Faith That is the power of ending all sutes between Christians within the Church Saint Paul is expresse in it And the generality of our Saviours command to resort to the Church if thy brother offend thee can never be satisfied with any other sense The Synagogue had the same order upon the
but for adultery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and maries another and he that mariâ—s her that is put away commits adultery Mat. V. 32. XIX 9. Mark X. 11. 12. Luk. XVI 18. it is pretended there p. 454. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Gospels signifies any thing that is dishonest and that what the State judges dishonest is just ground of divorce You must know that in our Lords time there was a difference which is supposed to be the occasion of the question made to our Lord between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai two great Heads of the Pharisees about the meaning and extent of the Law concerning divorces Deut. XXIV 1 which allows him that likes not his wife because he hath found or having found matâ—r of nakednessâ— in her to put her away For Shammai confined the intent of it to that which is dishonest and deserveth shame as nakednesse doth But Hillel extended it to any thing that offends the Husband as say they for example if she burn his Meat As for R. Akiba that allowed it if a man can get a fairer wife his opinion is but the inlargement of Hillels which expoundeth Moses his words If he have found in her mater of wickednesse to signifie either nakednesse or other mater besides This question then being on fooâ— at that time it is argued p. 478 that our Lord intends nothing else but the resolution of it the Pharisees demanding nothing else and therefore making no opposition to that which he resolves Mat. XIX 3-9 And thereupon great pains is bestowed cap. XXIII XXVII to show that our Lords exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Moses according to the opinion of Shammai For if we suppose our Lord to have spoke in that Ebrue which the Jews then spake and now we read in the Talmud and Chaldee Paraphrases then must he use the word which the Law useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gospels must translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If in Syriack the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifying the uncleannesse of the Stews is necessarily understood by the circumstance of the place where it is used to signifie all uncleannesse but may be extended to all sinne whereby we go a whoring from God as the Scripture uses to speak So according to this opinion our Lord excluding onely arbitrary divorce allows it where Moses according to Shammai allows it for any cause of dishonesty or that deserves shame as nakednesse does And if these premises be pertinent to that which follows that is to justifie those divorces that are made according to the Imperiall Laws related afterwards for the Author all the while protests to determine nothing p. 496. the inference must be this That those causes of divorce which Christian powers by their Lavvs have allovved or shall allovv are the true interpretation of that cause which Moses under the time of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or nakednesse our Lord of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is usually translated Forâ—ication alloweth I forbear to relate any more of that which is alleged to shevv that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the words of our Lord may signifie the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Moses according to R. Akâ—ba For the reason which I rely upon admits no consideration of it The resolution of our Lord is manifestly inconsistent vvith the Law of Moses and therefore with any interpretation that can be thought agâ—â—eable to it For when he saith Moses for your hard-heartednesse But I say unto you What can be more evident then that he repeals the provision of the Law and restrains what Moses had allowed Is it not manifest that whâ—n he â—llegeth that God having made first one man and one woman joyned them in mariage to be parted no more he granteth that Moses Law had abated of this and declareth the reviving of Gods first appointment among his own Disciples Can the allowance of divorce according to the Law stand with the primitive institution of Paradise more then having more wives at once Can we suppose the Pharisees come to our Lord to decide between Hillel and Shammai who condemns all Pharisees Or is it a marvail that he who pretended to be the Messias should introduce a provision differing from Moses and â—rom all that pretended onely to interpret his Law That there should be no further dispute of the mater of his resolution when there lay no dispute but about his authority whither from God or not Suppose our Lord to them no more but a Propheâ— to his Disciples the Messias why should they dispute that which they knew his Disciples admitted when they saw the primitive appointment of God related by Moses clear on his side That is to say why should they not be put to silence now as well as other times when they could not answer his allegations out of the Scriptures It is therefore utterly unreasonable to imagine that our Lord intending to restrain those divorces which Moses law alloweth should use a term of the same extent with that which â—e intended to restrain The Jews indeed insist upon this That a Prophet had alwaies power to suspend the obligation of any positive Precept for the time as Elias that of sacrificing no where but at Jerusalem Levit. XVII 1-9 Deut XII 5-18 26 27. XIV 21-26 when he sacrificed in mount Carmel 1 Kings XVII 22-39 But our Lord introducing a new Law instead of Moses his Law their aâ—cestors crucified him therefore and they to this day maintain it Indeed there is cause to believe that the Prophet Malachy reproving the oppressions which the Jews then laid upon their wives for the love of strangers which they had maried over their heads contrary to the Law Mal. I. 14. 15 16. propounds the liberty of divorce which the Law allows for an expedient acceptable to God as his own provision when he saith For the Lord God of Israel saith If thou hatest put away as the Jews there expound it For they who construe it The Lord God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away cannot give account why the Prophet should mention the mater of divorce where his purpose is to blame the oppression of Israelitish wives for the love of strangers maried against the Law Whereas when he addeth For one covereth violence with his Garment saith the Lord of Hosts He aggravateth the same fault by this consideration that the covenant of mariage signified usually in the Scripture by covering the woman with the mans Garment Ezek. XVI 8. Ruth III. 10. is imployed for a means of oppression and violence upon her that out of love entred into it And the Prophet Malaâ—hi holding his Commission by virtue of Moses Law how shall he say that God hates that which by his law he provided though for a remedy of further mischief There is indeed great dispute whither the allowance of Moses law did