imputed to believers for Justification but that Mediatory righteousness of Christ whereby he suffered for our breach of Gods most righteous Law which deserves Gods curse Gal. 3. 13. and actively fulfilled the whole Moral Law of God for us which we were bound to do Levit. 18. 5. Gal. 3. 13. Gal. 4. 4 5. Mat. 3. 15. If a Creditor cast his debtor into prison for non-payment of such a sum of money as he owed him till he be payed the money or otherwise satisfied for his debt upon his sureties or friends coming to him and paying him all the money and he taking accepting and allowing of it as full and perfect satisfaction to him for the debt doth impute it or reckon it or put it upon his account and consequently to him as though it were paid and made by his debtor in person himself and doth therefore in manifestation thereof deliver up his bond or cross his Book and release him out of prison So 't is here Gods accepting taking and allowing of our Saviour Jesus Christs our sureties active and passive obedience for us as though actually and personally performed by us as full and perfect satisfaction to his Justice and thereupon we applying it by Faith pardoning our sins delivering of us from the curse of the Law formally punishments and eternal death doth thereby impute his obedience or righteousness to us that by Faith in Christ do make application of it to our selves Now the Minor is the express Doctrine of the Church of England and Ireland Homily for Salvation p. 13 14 15 16 17. And this Justification or righteousness which we so receive of Gods mercy and Christs merits imbraced by faith is taken * Mr. Fowler himself makes Justification and acceptance with God all one Free Disc p. 134. accepted and allowed by God for our full and perfect justification And again Homily for Good-Friday T. 2. p. 175. Neither was it possible for us to be loosed of this debt of our own ability it pleased him that is Christ our Surety to be the payer thereof and to discharge us quit his paying our debt meritoriously discharging us quit necessarily implys that God did accept of the merits of his death and doings for us And Ibi. p. 177. Christ was obedient to his Father even to the death and this he did for us all that believe in him And such favour did he purchase for us of his heavenly Father by his death that for the merit thereof if we be true Christians indeed and not in word only we be now fully in Gods grace again and clearly discharged from our sins those expressions that Christ did purchase for us Gods favour and clearly discharged us from our sins manifest it to all the world that God did accept and take and allow as full satisfaction of what Christ did for us Again Ibi. p. 187 188. Christ by his own oblation and once offering himself upon the Cross hath taken away our sins and restored us again into Gods favour so fully and perfectly that no other sacrifice for sin shall hereafter be requisite or needful in all the world And in the 34th Article of Religion of the Church of Ireland they say thus We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jâ—sus Christ applied by Faith and not for our own works or merits And this righteousness which we so receive of Gods mercy and Christs merits imbraced by Faith is taken accepted and allowed of God for our perfect and full Justification And in 35th Article they say thus And whereas all the world was not able of themselves to pay any part towards their ransome it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy without any desert of ours to provide for us the most precious merits of his own Son whereby our ransome might be fully paid the Law fulfilled and his Justice fully satisfied So that Christ is now the righteousness of all them that truly believe in him He for them paid their ransome by his death he for them fulfilled the Law in his life that now in him and by him every true Christian may be called a fulfiller of the Law for as much as that which our infirmity was not able to effect Christs justice hath performed And this Doctrine viz. that Christ hath for us made a full and perfect satisfaction to Gods Justice is the express Doctrine of the Church of England in her Order of the Communion which saith there That Jesus Christ did suffer death upon the Cross for our Redemption and that he made there by his own oblation of himself once offered 〈◊〉 full perfect and sufficient sacrifice oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world And Homâ—ly of Christs Nativity T. 2. p. 169. Christ made perfect satisfaction by his death for the sins of all people And that God doth take accept and allow it as full and perfect satisfaction for the sins of all his elect people is most evident by the holy Apostles Creed which the Church of England also believeth as well as by the holy Doctrine of the Canonical Scriptures which hold that Jesus Christ did not only die and was buried and was for a time held under the power of death and the grave which was as his imprisonment but that he was raised again for our Justification which declared that God was fully satisfied with what he had done and suffered else he would not have let him out of Prison Rom. 4. 25. And that he ascended up into heaven and there sitteth at the right hand of God and that from thence he shall come to iudg both quick and dead Rom. 8. 34. Heb. 1. 3. And God hath declared that in him he is well pleased Mat. 3. 17. Mat. 17. 5. And that we are compleat in him Col. 2. 18. And that we are justified in and by him Rom. 3. 24. And that we have peace with God through him Rom. 5. 1 2. And that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus Rom. 8. 1. And that he saves his people from their sins to the uttermost Mat. 1. 21. Heb. 5. 25. Of which you may see much more hereafter in the 13th particular concerning Purgatory To pass by many more arguments 4 Sacred Scripture doth evidently hold it forth unto all that will not wilfully shut their eyes or that are not judicially blinded 1. Jer. 23. 6. This is the name whereby Christ shall be called that is by all Gods people the Lord our righteousness * See Bishop Andrews his Sermon in locum All Gods people shall profess that they have their righteousness from Christ which is in effect the same with Isa 45. 25. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified and shall glory All the spiritual seed of Israel that is all Gods Elect shall be justified that is shall obtain remission of their sins and right to everlasting life by virtue of the Son
by Canon bound to follow the Fathers that Protestantism waxeth weary of it self that Calvinism is accounted * For proof read Dr. Heylins Cypr. Anglicus and its Introduction Cypr. Angl. l. 4. p. 414 415 416. there you 'l see the agreement made betwixt the Pope or his agents and some of our Clergy men and that which â—â—ey call the ancient Catholick Religion is nothing but Popery only abatement in some things at least for a time 〈◊〉 Cyprianus Anglicus was setled in his pontificalibus heresie at the least and little less than treasoâ— I say much of this Heylin saith was truth and he himself in his Introduction to that History and other books makes very manifest What Chillingworth answereth to this bold charge of the Jesuit you may see in Dr. Cheynells rise and growth of Socinianisâ— c. 6. The â—anterburian Religion not the true Protestant Religion p. 70 But to return to my business Bellarmine is answered by learned Dr. Ames a Nonconformist in his Bellarminus Enarvatus T. 4. l. 2. de peccato originali c. 3. p. 34. ad p. 46. which I have read and Bishop Jeremy â—â— I hear is answered very learnedly and fully by Mr. Henry Jeanes â—â—other Nonconformist which I have not read how conformable â—â—e Bishops Doctrine is to the false Pelagian condemned Doctrine of â—â—e Church of Rome and Nonconformable to the true and approved â—â—octrine of the Church of England let the indifferent and judiciâ—â—s Reader judg Vide Maccovium Rediv. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arminiaâ—â—ruâ— c. 9. p. 118. That Original sin inherent in us is properly sin I prove thus 1. That which hath the name and nature of sin properly so called â—â—s sin properly so called but original sin inherent in us hath the â—â—e and nature of sin properly so called ergo it is sin properly so â—â—lled 1. It hath the name of sin properly so called given unto it in saâ—â—red Scripture The Reverend * Sum of Christian Religion p. 144. A. B. â—â—sâ—er tells us That all other sins have â—â—eir special names but original sin is â—â—operly called sin and †Amand. Polan Syntag. l. 6. c. 3. p. 336. Polanus beâ—â—re him saith that 't is called absoâ—â—tely sin Rom. 7. 8. because it is the â—â—ring and fountain of other sins pecâ—atum peccans sinning sin Rom. 7. 13. â—â—eccatum inhabitans indwelling sin Rom. 7. 17 20. and Mr. Hilderâ—â—am upon Psal 51. p. 283. tells us that the Spirit of God expresly â—â—lls it sin Psal 51. 5. Behold I was shapen in iniquity â—â—d in sin did my Mother conceive me and so Dr. Mer. â—asaubon * In locum Musculus and Dr. Ames expound the place â—hich place Bishop Prideaux * Fasciculus controversiarum c. 3. q. 5. p. 112. saith â—â—nnot be understood but of original sin â—â—d its propagation as both ancient and â—â—ter Divines expound the place and in â—â—ree Chapters of the Epistle to the Romans viz. 6. 7 8. 14 times at â—â—ast and Heb. 12. 1. Rom. 6. 6 12 13 14. Rom. 7. 7. I had not known sin â—â—t by the law for I had not known lust that is to be sin except the â—â—w had said Thou shalt not coveâ— Where 't is clear that lust by which 〈◊〉 meant the first unlawful desires or motions which have not the â—â—nsent of the will lust in the habit or disposition inclination imagiâ—â—tion as well as lust in the act is forbidden in the Tenth commandâ—â—nt as not only Beza Parâ—us Calvin and Peter Martyr but also Dr. Willet and Wilson and Dr. 〈◊〉 and Diodate upon the place 〈◊〉 B. Prideaux Fasc controvers c. 3. q 5. p. 112. Sharpius Symphon â—a Novis Epoc. p. 397. Andrews and Dr. Mayor upon the 〈◊〉 Commandment and Bishop 〈◊〉 and Sharpius elsewhere assure 〈◊〉 verse the 8. For sin taking occâ—â— the Commandment the more 〈◊〉 â—â— the more it bursteth forth †A. B. Vsher Sum of Christian Religion p. 144. 〈◊〉 streams do that cannot be stopped till God by his holy Spirit 〈◊〉 it wrought in me all manner of concupiscence for without the 〈◊〉 was dead that is it seemed so to him because he knew it 〈◊〉 felt it not but when he knew the law he knew sin and 〈◊〉 activity and found 't was alive so verse the 14. But I 〈◊〉 sold under sin Man is said to be carnal two ways 1. Quâ—â— carni because he serves the flesh so unregenerated men 〈◊〉 nal 2. Quia proclivis est carni because he is inclined to 〈◊〉 the flesh that is original corruption which is called flesh 〈◊〉 1. Gal. 5. â—7 so Paul was carnal though he had mortified 〈◊〉 he had some relicts or remainders of it an inclination to thâ—â— of the flesh he was carnal in opposition to the law that 〈◊〉 ritual that is he was not so spiritual as the law required 〈◊〉 der sin slaves to â—in are of two sorts 1. Some sell themsâ—â— sin original sin and its lusts they willingly obey the lusts 〈◊〉 flesh so did Ahab and such are wicked men 2. Some arâ—â— another and such a slave was Paul even after his actual conâ—â— for he was a slave against his will he desired to escape from 〈◊〉 ster he served him unwillingly as may be seen verses the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is no more I that do it but sin that is original 〈◊〉 tion that dwelleth in me So verses 23 24. so Rom. 8. 2. he 〈◊〉 have added Rom. 5. 12. As by one man sin entred into the 〈◊〉 death by sin so verse the 13th For until the law sin that is 〈◊〉 ginal sin was in the world which the Apostle proves 〈◊〉 death was in the world till Moses v. 14. 2. Original sin hath the nature of sin properly so called 〈◊〉 I prove thus 1. Because it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of 〈◊〉 which is the definition that the Spirit of God gives of 〈◊〉 perly so called 1 John 3. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin is the 〈◊〉 gression of the law as we translate the words but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is dâ—â— from Alpha a Privitive Particle and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lex the law and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a want of conformity to the Law of God Now that Original 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I prove thus 1. Because it is a want of that righâ—ousness which all men ought to â—â—ave * Vide Dr. Barlow Exercitat 2. Scholastical Divines define â—â— to be oarentia rectitudinis debitae a â—â— of rectitude which ought to be in â—â— reasonable creature And this I Homily of the coming down of the Holy Ghost p. 209. Mâ—n of his own nature is fleshly and carnal corrupt and naught sinful and disobedient to God without any spark of goodness in him without any vertuous or godly motion only given to evil thoughts and wicked deeds â—â—ight prove out of Aquinas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 82. a. 3. con Cum originale peccaâ—â—um justitiae originali opponatur nihâ—â—â—â—iud
Christs Church which is his mystical body are inseparably knit together to Christ and to one another Hypocrites may be externally by outward profession and separably united to the Church and Christ but true believers in Christ abide in Christ Joh. 15. 2. they are inseparably united to Christ else as was said before Christ may lose his peculiar people yea be a head without a body for if one of his members may be eternally separated from See Dr. Field of the Church his Appendix part 1. p. 833. That the elect called according to Gods purpose have that grace that excludeth sin from reigning and that this grace once had by them is never totally nor finally lost him then others may also and if others then all of them may be so separated from him for there is the same reason of one that there is of another yea of all Our Saviour saith Not one of them his Father gave him is lost John 17. 12. yea the Apostle speaks fully that nothing shall be able to separate us that are in Christ Jesus from the love of Gâ—â— which is in Christ Jesus Rom. 8. 35 36 37 38 39. Those whom Chriâ—â— loved he loved to the end John 13. 1. Isa 54. 8. But with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee saith the Lord thy Redeeâ—â— Jerem. 31. 3. I have loved thee with an everlasting love therefâ—â— with loving kindness have I drawn thee Jerem. 32. 40. And I 〈◊〉 make an everlasting covenant with thâ—â— that I will not turn away from them 〈◊〉 do them good but I will put my feâ—â— Vide King James his Declaration against Vorstius wherein he called the Doctrine of the Apostasie of the Saints taught by Bertius a Scholar of Arminius that enemy to God an heretical blasphemous and wicked Doctrine in their hearts that they shall not depart from me and Rom. 11. 29. 〈◊〉 gifts and calling of God are witâ—â— repentance Gods decree of Eleâ—â— is unchangeable and therefore thâ—â—â— gifts that flow from it are imâ—â— table too God taketh not thâ—â—â— away from them neither can thâ—â— that have them lose them Chrâ—â—â— prayed for them John 17. 9 15 19 20 24. and Bishop Mountagâ—â— himself confesseth that Christ was ever heard in what he prayâ—â— for ART IX That the corruption of our nature commonly called Original sin which remaineth in truly regenerated persons after Baptism is not properly a sin THis I renounce 1. because 't is contrary to the sound Doctrine of the Church of England in Homily of Christs Nativity T. 2. p. 167. where we may read how excellently man was made after Gods own Image and that Adam falling into sin had in himself no one part of his former purity and cleanness but being altogether spoâ—ted insomuch that he seemed to be altogether a lump of sin and therefore by the just judgment of God was justly condemned to everlasting death and this plague fell not only upon himself but also upon all his posterity and children for ever as St. Paul Rom. 5. By one mans offence sin entred upon all many were made sinners by which words we are taught that as in Adam all men universally sinned so in Adam all men universally received the reward of sin that is became mortal and subject unto death having nothing in themselves but everlasting damnation both of body and soul they became as David saith corrupt and abominable they went all out of the way there was none that did good no not one And in the Homily of the Death of Christ T. 2. p. 184. Is not sin think you a grievous thing in Gods sight seeing for the transgression of Gods Precept in eating of one apple he condemned all the world to perpetual death and would not be pacified but only with the blood of his own Son And in Homily of Christs Resurrection T. 2. p. 195. Hard it is to subdue and resist our nature so corrupt and leavened with the sowre bitterness of the poyson which we received by the inheritance of our old Fatheâ— Adam But more fully the Church of England in her 9th Article of Religion of Original sin thus Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam as the Pelagians do vainly talk but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is ingendered of the off-spriâ—â— of Adam whereby man is very far gone from Original Righteousâ—â— and is of his own nature inclined to evil so that the flesh lusteth 〈◊〉 ways contrary to the spirit and therefore in every person 〈◊〉 into this world it deserveth Gods wrath and damnation and 〈◊〉 infection of nature doth remain yea in them that are regeneratâ—â— whereby the lust of the flesh called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whiâ—â— some do expound the wisdom some sensuality some the affectioâ—â— some the desire of the flesh is not subject to the law of God 〈◊〉 although there is no condemnation for them that believe and 〈◊〉 baptized yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and 〈◊〉 hath in it self the nature of sin In which Article is declared 1. That Original sin doth not consist in following or imitating of 〈◊〉 in sinning against God as Pelagians vainly teach 2. That Original sin is the FAULT AND CORRUPTION of 〈◊〉 nature of every man that by ordinary generation descends from 〈◊〉 Psal 51. 5. Rom. 7. 15. Gal. 4. 17. Jam. 1. 17. 1 Pet. 2. 11. 3. That Original sin deserves Gods wrath and damnation in every â—â—â—son so born into this world Rom. 7. 23 24. Gal. 5. 17. Ephes 2. 3. 4. That Original sin is and remains in every person so born eveâ—â— them that are regenerated Rom. 7. from vers 7. to vers 25. 5. That concupiscence oâ— lust hath in it the nature of sin Rom. 〈◊〉 11 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 23 24. Gal. 5. 17. Now sum up what the Church of England saith of Original sin 〈◊〉 then judg whether she doth not affirm that Original sin is propâ—â— a sin 2. Because 't is contrary to the sound Doctrine of other reformâ—â— Churches to be seen in the Harmony of Confessions Sec. 4. p. 〈◊〉 1. 'T is contrary to the latter Confession of Helvetia Man was frâ—â— the beginning created of God after the Image of God in righteâ—â— ness and true holiness good and upright but by the instinct of 〈◊〉 â—â—rpent and his own fault falling from goodness and uprightâ—â—â— became subject to sin death and sundry calamities and such 〈◊〉 one as he became by his fall such are all his off-spring even 〈◊〉 ject to sin death and sundry calamities and we take sin to be 〈◊〉 natural corruption of man derived or spread from those our 〈◊〉 parents unto us all through which we being drowned in evil 〈◊〉 â—upiscences and clean turned away from God but prone to 〈◊〉 evil full of all wickedness distrust contempt and hatred of Goâ—â— can do no good of our selves no not so much as think of any 2.
reason of its pride and contumacy neither can it be by reason of its pravity and perversness The flesh saith Diodate is not only incapable to submit to Gods will through weakness but also through â—â—tural repugnancy To which may be added Rom. 7. 14. For 〈◊〉 know that the law is spiritual and the law is spiritual because it binds not only all the humane creatures intents and purposes but his whole force and power and all the thoughts and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oâ— his heart to an holy inward obedience as well as to an outward compleat conformity to the will of God whicâ— if he did as he ought to perform he should be spiritual too aâ—â— free from death but I am sold under sin contrary to and averâ—â— from the law St. Paul after he was regenerated was like other men in part carnal through the proclivity of his nature to commit those sins which according to his regenerate part he hated and would not so our sound and learned Divines expound the place and urge the following verses to prove that concupiscence is properly a siâ— and in the regenerate after baptism 2. Concupiscence is properly sin because 't is forbidden in the law of God Rom. 7. 7. I had not known sin but by the law for I had not known lust the sudden motions of mind unlawful desires and affections which arise in the soul and have not the consent of the will as our Orthodox Divines expound the word that is to be sin except the law had said thou shalt not covet Where 't is clear that concupiscence is called sin and that 't is forbidden in the law of which before To which may be added the 9th Article of our Church of England which saith thus Yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of it self the nature of sin and the Article saith that 't is a FAULT and corruption of the nature of every man Bishop Jeremy Taylor himself confesseth that 't is in the Latin Copies called vitium naturae which I think in Morals is Englished vice in Theologicals sin and if virtutes Ethicorum sint splendida peccata sure their vices are proprie-dicta peccata which yet the Bishop with the Jesiâ—â—â— denies 3. Concupiscence is contrary to the Law of God because we are commanded to put it off Ephes 4. 22 23 24. That ye put of concerning the former conversation the old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts and be renewed in the spirit of your mind and that ye put on the new man which after God is created in rigâ—teousness and true holiness Where original sin is called the old man as 't is in * Calvin Pareus Peter Martyr Diodate Willet Dr. Featley Wilson in locum and Bishop Reynolds of the sinfulness of sin p. 139. Rom. 6. 6. that is the body of sin not nature but our corrupt nature which we have contracted from our old Father Adam as all our learned and sound Divines expound the places and the phrase 4. That 't is properly sin I reason thus that which rendreth persons obnoxious to the wrath of God is sin properly but original sin rendreth persons obnoxious to the wrath of God ergo original sin is properly sin the major is undeniable because nothing that is not properly sin doth render us obnoxious to Gods wrath God is angry with nothing but sin or for sin the proper object of a Christians hatred should be sin and 't is of God's as being only contrary to his nature and law Gal. 3. 10 the minor may abundantly be proved by plain Scripture Rom. 5. 12. As by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned and Rom. 6. 23. For the wages of sin is death by which in regard the Apostle speaks absolutely without any limitation he meaneth death in general of what kind soever temporal and eternal Gal. 3. 10. 1 Thes 1. 10. Rom. 5. 18. And because Bishop Taylor * Explanat of original sin p. 469 470. denies it of death eternal I pray read what the Church of England saith of it in her Homilies of Christ's Nativity T. 2. p. 167. and Homily of Christs Death T. 2. part 2. p. 181. and 184. set down before in the beginning of this Article * Man was justly condemned therefore condemned to everlasting death p. 103. and Ephes 2. 3. We are by nature the children of wrath We are not so by pure nature then we must needs be so by corrupt nature and that is original sin inherent in us Children of wrath are subjects of sin and through desert of sin subject to wrath that is the wrath of God which he hath threatned against sinners for sin death and damnation and temporal judgments Ephes 5. 6. Because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience only children of disobedience are children of wrath where there is no sin or disobedience there God hath no wrath and our 9th Article of Religion saith plainly that this original sin in every person born in this world deserveth Gods wrath and damnation and so our Church * Questions of Baptism Catechism saith For being by nature born in sin and the children of wrath and it cannot be understood of lust with consent of will for that Paul brought up at the feet of Gamaliel without doubt knew to be sin and that also is actual sin and not original of which the Article treateth 2. Because infants conceived and brought forth in sin who never committed any actual sin in their own persons have died as you may see in Davids child 2 Sam. 12. 18. and experience daily shews it and Rom. 5. 14. proves it Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is actually committed any sin in their own persons over them that is over infants who sinned not actually or by imitation but only by an inherent corruption of nature in them so our Reverend Divines A. B. Vsher and Bishop Prideaux Archbishop Ushers Sum of Christian Religion p. 143. Bishop Prideaux bis Fascic controver c. 3. q. 3. p. 113. Pareus in locum and many more of our sound Divines as well as the ancient Fathers expound the place and in the order of our burial 't is said that by Adâ—â— all die 1 Cor. 15. 21 22. Obj. But it will or may be objected that infants sinned in Adam in whose loins they were and that they are punished with death 〈◊〉 for their own inherent corruption of nature that is in them but for the sin of Adam in whose loins they were imputed to them Answ To this I answer 1. That neither Bellarmine nor Papists nor Bishop Taylor nor any compleat Conformist in the Church of Englanâ— can well object this for they hold Concil Trid. 5. Sec. 5. Can. Bel. de Sacrament baptismi c.
resurrection are purged from sins by penal Concil Trident. Sess 6. can 30. satisfaction which were not purged in this life so fully as they ought that they may enter into heaven THis I renounce because 't is contrary to the sound Doctrine of the Church of England Article the 22d of Purgatory The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Reliques and also invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture but rather repugnant to the word of God In Homily of Prayer T. 2. part 3. p. 122. 't is said That there are but two places after this life Heaven and Hell the one proper to the elect and blessed of God the other to the reprobates and damned souls as may well be gathered by the Parable of Lazarus Against the ground or rather indeed pretence for Purgâ—tory viz. That some sins of believers were not fully purged away in this life and must therefore there be purged away by making satisfaction by suffering for them The Church of England saith 〈◊〉 her Homily for Good-Friday T. 2. p. 177. That Christ Jesus did purchase such favour for us by his death of his heavenly Father that for the merits thereof if we be true Christians indeed 〈◊〉 not in word only we be now fully in Gods grace again and clearly discharged from our sins And in the Homily of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ T. 2. part 1. p. 200. she saith Thou must believe that Christ hath made upon his cross a full and sufficient sacrifice for thee a perfect cleansing of sins so that thou acknowledg no other Saviour Redeemer Mediatour Advocate Intercessor but Christ only 2. 'T is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Ireland in the 101 and 102 Articles Homil. of the misery of man part 2. p. 11 He i. e. Christ is the high and everlasting Priest which hath offered himself once for all upon the Altar of the Cross and with that one oblation hath made perfect for evermore them that are sanctified He is the alone Mediator between God and man which paid our ransome to God with his own blood and with that hath he cleansed us from all sin he is the Physician which heal eth us all our diseases and of all our venial sins too of their Religion which is this After this life is ended the souls of Gods Children be presently received into Heaven there to enjoy unspeakable comforts the souls of the wicked are cast into Hell there to endure endless torments The Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Limbus patrum Limbus puerorum Purgatory Prayer for the dead Pardons Adoration of Images and Reliques and also invocation of Saints is vainly invented without all warrant of holy Scripture yea and is contrary to the same 3. 'T is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland contained in the Confession of Faith made by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster Chap 22. Article 1. The bodies of men after death return to dust and see corruption but their souls which neither die nor sleep having an immortal subsistence immediately return to God who gave them the souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness are received into the highest Heavens where they behold the face of God in light and glory waiting for the full redemption of their bodies and the souls of the wicked are cast into Hell where they remain in torments and utter darkness reserved to judgment of the great day beside these two places for souls separated from their bodies the Scripture acknowledgeth none T is contrary also to the latter Confession of Helvetia Article 26. to be seen in the Harmony of Confessions Sect. 16. p. 483. and to the Confession of the French Church Article 24. to be seen ibi Har. of Confessions Sect. 16. For the further confutation of this Popish Poetical and Antichristian Purgatory I shall lay down these plain ensuing Positions Position 1. That the souls of true believers in Christ do aâ— soon as they die go immediately into heaven and therefore not into the Popes Purgatory The antecedent Proposition I prove thus 1. From Isa 57. 2. He shall enter into peace that is the righteous man that dies before evil days come enters in his soul into Heaven and his body rests in his grave called his bed and if so then undoubtedly he goes not into the Popes Purgatory for there is no peace to them that are there for they are tormented say Papists with the â—â—me torments that they in Hell are tormented with 2. From Luk. 16. 22 23. The beggar Lazarus died and was carried into Abrahams bosom by the Angels and the rich man died and was cast into hell Now that by Abrahams bosom is meant Heaven * Vide also Homil. for Whitsunday p. 21 321 421 5216. recited Article 14. hujus is clear by the forecited Doctrine of the Church of England c. if not by the consent of Papists too that the Angels that carried his soul into Abrahams bosom were not evil but good Angels for that neither good Angels go into Hell nor evil into Heaven must also be yielded as the 25th verse of that Chapter declares then it will follow necessarily that the soul of Lazarus was carried by the holy and blessed Angels into Heaven where Abrahams bosom was and not into any part of Hell for Lazarus was comforted he was not only not tormented with poena sensus vel damni the punishment of sense or loss but he was actually comforted which implies not only a ceasing of his former suffering evil things but enjoying of good things the comforts of the other life the full knowledg of God and feeling his fatherly love 3. 'T is said Luk. 23. 43. by our Saviour himself to the Thief upon the Cross immediately before his death To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise that is in Heaven and therefore not in the Popes Purgatory for that is not Paradise Paradise is a place of pleasure and happiness but the Popes Purgatory is a place of pain and misery of hellish torments as Papists say In 2 Cor. 12. 2 4. Paradise and that Heaven is coelum Emperaeum the seat of the blessed where God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost the blessed Angels and souls of just men made perfect are and enjoy pleasures for evermore So 't is taken in Revel 2. 7. To him that overcometh will I give saith the Spirit to the Churches to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God Where by the Paradise of God not only Pareas and others of our learned men upon the place but also Cornelius a Lapide himself understands as the most genuine sense the fruition of God and eternal blessedness of which the Paradise of Adam was a figure sign and type 4. In Revel 14. 13.
upon unbelievers are yet they are not formally such for we must know that the formal reason of pâ—nishment properly and strictly so called is always to be fetched frâ—â— the final cause for the pain which is inflicted of God as a revenging or punishing Judg with that intention that it shall satisfie his Justice hath the true and proper or formal reason or nature of punishment and this kind of pain we deny to be inflicted upon Moses David or any other true believers after remission of their sins but what pain is inflâ—cted of the same God as a provident Father with this intention that he may further the salvation of his children obtains the nature of a * Aquin. 12 ae q. 87. a. 7. medicine not of punishment and this kind of pain we grant is by our most wise and loving Father imposed upon true penitents in this life after their sin is pardoned but Papists devised punishments are for satisfaction not for correction True believers in Christ do in this life undergo poenam correctivam corrective pain but not poenam satisfactoriam satisfactory pain here in this life or in Purgatory 1. Ad demonstrationem debitae miseriae 2. Ad emendationem labilis vitae 3. Ad excitationem necessariae patientiae dixit Augustinus in Joh. Tract 124. Potest quantum adjici quod Christus docet Joh. 93. Manifestatio operum Dei Tilen Syntag p 2. c. 65. de Purgatorio Thes 15. p. 956. or any where else they suffer not pain to satisfie Gods justice but for the demonstration of deserved misery the â—â—endment of a sinful life the exercise â—f necessary patience and the manifestation of Gods power as the word poena pain or punishment is taken in a large sense so paternal castigation of the godly for their sins such as Davids was affliction for the trial of their faith patience and constancy such as Jobs was and Martyrdom for the testimony of saving truth are by some of our Divines called punishments but not in that sense that punishment properly so called is taken which only is called penal satisfaâ—â—ion and that is punishment inflicted upon the sinner or his surety for sin to satisfie Divine Justice which is either temporal for duration but everlasting and infinite for virtue and value by reason of the transcendent dignity of the person suffering equivalent to the everlasting in time and such was the penal satisfaction which Christ suffered for the sins of his elect or everlasting in duration which is begun in this life and continued for ever after this life in the world to come and such is that which impenitent reprobates suffer Reprobates are bound by the Law of God to perform for themselves this penal satisfaction and therefore they do begin it in this life and after this life continue it in hell to all eternity because they can never fully satisfie Mat. 25. 41. But this penal satisfaction is not required to be made in part or in whole of true believers in Christ because Jesus Christ their surety hath satisfied for them to all eternity 3. Because this Popish Doctrine that the souls of believers in Purgatory suffer punishment to satisfie for their sins not sufficiently purged away in this life is a very dishonourable and destructive Doctrine to the full and perfect satisfaction of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ therefore I lay down this plain Position Position 3. That the satisfaction our Saviour Jesus Christ hath made for all the sins of true believers in him is a full sufficient and perfect satisfaction But Papists Doctrine of Purgatory-satisfactions saith virtually interpretatively and in effect 1. That it was not an universal satisfaction for all the sins of all true believers in Christ which is contrary to express canonical Scripture Tit. 2. 14. Jesus Christ who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity 1 Joh. 1. 7. And the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1. 9. If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness s if he cleanse us from all iniquity from all sin from all unrighteousness then certainly from venial sins 2. Christs active obedience and sufferings were not a sufficient satisfaction to the Justice of God for the breach of his Law by true believers in him which is directly contrary 1. to the Doctrine of the Church of England in her order of Communion which saith there That Jesus Christ did suffer death upon the cross for our redemption and that he made there by his own oblation * Homil. of Christs death T. 2. part 2. p. 187 188. So Homil. of the worthy receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper T. 2. part 1. p. 200. of himself once offered a fâ—â— perfect and sufficient sacrifice obâ—â— and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world and Homily of Christs Nativity T. 2. p. 169. Christ made perfect satisfaction by his death for the sins of all people and Homily for Good-Friday T. 2. p. 175. concerning the death of Christ it saith That it was impossible for us to be loosed from this debt by our own ability it pleased 〈◊〉 therefore to be the payer thereof and to discharge us quit and p. 177. of the same Homily it saith thus Such favour did Christ purchase 〈◊〉 us by his death of his heavenly Father that for the merit thereof 〈◊〉 we be true Christians in deed and not in word only we be now fully in Gods grace again and clearly discharged from our sin 2. 'T is contrary to Canonical Scripture which saith that Christ hath made a full and perfect satisfaction to God for all the sins of all believers in him 1. Because the Scripture saith that he paid the price that was due to God from us For 1. he not only perfectly fulfilled the Law for them he was made under the Law Gal. 4. 4. And he fulfilled all righteousness Mat. 3. 15. And he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it Mat. 5. 17. And that he did not for himself but for believers is evident Gal. 4. 3 4 5. Phil. 2. 6 7 8. And the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers for righteousness Phil. 3. 9. 2. But he suffered for true believers in him great sorrow in his soul Mat. 26. 37 38. Grievous torments in his body Mat. 27. 46. Luk. 22. 44. Joh. 20. For he was crucified and died Mat. 27. 35. Phil. 2. 8. Mark 15. 24 37. He was buried and remained under the power of death for some part of three days but without corruption he suffered poenas infernales hellish torments eternal in essence as Maccovius will have it equivalent to hell-torments by reason of the worthiness of his person into which our humane nature that suffered was taken that what he suffered in his humane nature is attributed to and taken to be the suffering of his person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
are willing to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord which necessarily implies that they did believe that as soon as ever their souls were gone out of their earthly homes they should be present with the Lord in heaven for of that they say we are confident And. 10. Of this opinion and belief was St. Pauls as you may see in Phil. 1. 21 23. For to me to live is Christ and to die is * Mori lucrum quaesi dicat mors est lucrum heatitudinis mortem ergo non timeo quia si occidar moriar vitam aeternam lucrabor inevolabo praesensque sistar ac fruar Christo So Chrisostom Anselm Theophilact Oecumenius Thomas Aquinas in locum gain How could his death begain to him if he must not go immediately to Heaven but to Purgatory there first to suffer hellish punishments for his sins Yet if I live in the flesh this is the fruit of my labour yet what I shall chuse I wot not for I am in a strait between two having a desire to depart and to be with Christ which is far better Here you see the Apostle Paul desired to depart out of the Tabernacle of his body and why that he might be with Christ he believed that as soon as his soul was departed out of his body she would presently be and remain with Christ but where not in the Popes Purgatory for there Christ was not but in heaven there he believed he was whom the heavens must receive till the restitution of all things Act. 3. 19. He believed that his soul would presently be with Christ in Heaven and therefore he saith that death temporal would be better for him than temporal life Certainly had St. Paul believed that after his soul had ended her work in his body here she should be carried into the Popes Purgatory and there be punished for his sins for a time it may be till the day of judgment he would have easily resolved himself that it had been better for him as well as for the Philippians to abide in the flesh and not to die I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ is as if he had said thus I am now bound q. d. Jam alligatus sum corpori si hoc vinculo solvar ero cum Christo illique astringar Cor. a lapide in locum to my body but if I were loosed from this bond I should be with Christ and bound to him saith Cor. a lapide Hence note saith he that souls altogether pure do presently when they leave the body not sleep but are with Christ in heaven and eternal life and therefore the Apostle desired to be dissolved and dye that he might be with Christ but if he ought to expect after death the day of judgment that then at length he might enjoy Christ he had in vain desired to be dissolved rather than live because then after his dissolution and death he should be absent from Christ as much as if he had remained in this life much more he there speaks out of Chrysostome Theophilact Oecumenius and Cyprian to the same purpose 'T is observable that he saith that souls that are altogether pure pass presently out of their bodies into Heaven and this he saith is the opinion of Turrian and of Suarezius and that St. John Apoc. 14. 13. speaks of souls perfectly just Now this I say is their shift to put off all our Protestant Divines have alledged from sacred Scripture against their Purgatory for they hold that those that are cast into Purgatory are not perfectly purged but must be purged perfectly by suffering temporal punishment and thereby making penal satisfaction to the justice of God of the fondness of which hereafter but I 'le close with them and assume Position 2. That the souls of those persons that are justified by faith is Christ's blood are perfectly purged from their sins if not immediately before yet at the moment of their death and that therefore by their own concessions and affirmations they go not into the Popes Purgatory but to Heaven as I have proved before and for the clearing of this know that not only their Angelical Doctor as Papists call Thoâ—â— Aquinas but our own Divines hold that there are three effects of sin 1. Reatus the guilt 2. Macula the spot or stain 3. Paâ—â— the punishment of it Now 1. The guilt worthiness or desert of sin which obligeth the sinner to the sustaining of just punishment for his sin is washed away in our justification by the perfect satisfaction and merits of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Church of England abundantly testifieth in her books of Articles Homilies and Common-Prayer and the Canonical Scriptures plainly declare as in John 1. 29. Beâ—â— the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world 1 John 1. 7. 〈◊〉 the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin 1 John 2. 12. If 〈◊〉 man sin we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation that is the propitiator for our sins who doâ—â— make atonement expiate satisfie and purge away the guilt of oâ—â— sins and make peace and pacifie his wrath and make him propitiâ—â— merciful favourable and good unto us and 1 Tim. 2. 6. He gâ—â— himself a ransome for all Himself God-man a ransome for all Hâ—â— 9. 14 15. How much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God and lest the adversary shoâ—â— say that he did not perfectly purge away all sin read Heb. 10. 〈◊〉 and by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified 〈◊〉 Apoc. 1. 5. 't is said of Christ that he washed us in his own blood 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 3. 11. Such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God And upon this account doth the Apostle declare and infer Therefore there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus God in our justification imputeth * 2 Cor. 5. 19. not our sins unto us and consequently not our guilt but he imputeth the righteousness of our Saviour Jesus Christ unto us and doth repute us just as though we had no sin and consequently no guilt upon us but Papists do acknowledg by Christ Jesus a freedom from sin according to the guilt of sin but they deny it according to the punishment of which hereafter 2. Macula the spot stain or filth of sin which deprives the soul of its spiritual beauty which it should have and is made vile Mat. 15. 11. Apoc. 21. 11. is taken away by sanctification 1 Cor. 3. 11. But ye are washed but ye are sanctified Eph. 5. 26 27 That he might sanctisie and cleanse it i. e. His Church with the
shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature for holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ whereby men must be saved so I might argue from their meritorious works but I forbear To all which I shall add what I have found in Dr. Field of the Church Appendix part 1. l. 2. p. 772. since I wrote that before of Saints being perfectly cleansed from all sin at the moment of their death He saith thus speaking of one Higgins in the 20th Chapter of that Appendix I produce the judgment and resolution of Scotus Durandus and Alexander of Ales That all sinfulness is utterly abolished in the very moment of dissolution and that there is no remission of any sin in respect of the fault and stain after death The words of these Authors I set down at large the words of Alexander of Ales the first of the School-men called the irrefragable Doctor are these Final grace taketh away all sinfulness out of the soul because when the soul parteth from the body all proneness to ill and all perturbations which were found in it by reason of the conjunction with the flesh do cease the powers thereof are quieted and perfectly subjected to grace and by the means all venial sins are removed so that no venial sin is remitted after this life but in that instant wherein grace may be said to be final grace it hath full dominion and absolute command and expelleth all sin Whereupon he addeth That whereas the Master of the Sentences and some others do say that some venial sins are remitted after this life some answer that they speak of a full remission both in respect of the fault and stain and the punishment also but that others more narrowly and piercingly looking into the thing do say that they are to be understood to say Sins are remitted after this life because it being the same moment or instant that doth continuate the time of life and that after life they are remitted in the very â—â—ment of dissolution grace more fully infusing and pouring it self into the soul at that time than before to the utter abolishing of all sin all her impediments formerly hindring her working now ceasing * Death unto the godly is the utter abolishing of sin and perfection of mortification saith A. B. Vsher Sum of Christian Religion p. 545. Thus you see that not only our learned Protestant Divines but also Alexander of Ales the first School-man called the irrefragâ—â— Doctor Scotus the subtile Doctor 〈◊〉 Durand the Master of the Ceremonies as the Papists themselves esteem and call them were of this judgment That the souls of men dying in the state of grace at the momeâ— of death are purged and cleansed perfectly from all the fault and stain of 〈◊〉 sin and then it will follow that they are freed from the third effeâ—â— of sin too and that is 3. Poena punishment which is an evil inflicted upon the sinner himself or his surety for sin For 1. if the guilt of sin be perfectly taken away as indeed it is in our Justification and the stain of sin be also perfectly taken away in the moment of our death and sin be wholly abolishhd then the punishment of sin must needs be taken away too Of this judgment was St. Bernard When all the sin shall be wholly Bernard in Psal qui habitat Ser. 10. taken out of the way no effect of it shall remain that the cause being altogether removed the effect shall be no more and you know 't is a rule in reasoning Sublata causa tollitur effectus the cause being taken away the effect ceaseth Sin then being perfectly destroyed when death parteth the soul from the body all its effects guilt filth and punishment must consequently be destroyed too and that all sin is taken away in the moment of the dissolution of the soul and body I have sufficiently proved and therefore the punishment is taken away too Pray hear what God himself saith to this point in Ezek. 18. 22. When the wicked man shall turn from all his sins that he hath committed all his transgressions that he hath committed shall not be mentioned unto him Now if God hath so far forgiven their sins as that he will not remember them then certainly he will not punish them for them in another world with hellish torments if God punish truly penitent men for their sins in this world and that to come too he cannot be said not to remember them but to remember them as we say with a witness if he forgives and forgets all their sins then undoubtedly he forgives and forgets their venial sins too if he forgive their mortal sins their sins of enmity against God which make God displeased with the sinner as Aquinas and his followers speak then it will follow by an undeniable consequence that he forgives and forgets their venial sins their lesser sins which are not * Peccatum veniale non est contra legem quia venialiter peccans non facit quod lex prohibet nec praetermittit quod lex per praeceptum obligit sed facit praeter legem quia non observat modum rationis quem lex intendit Aquin. 12 ae q. 88. a. 1. 〈◊〉 Medin in 12 〈◊〉 q. 89. a. 1. p. 1209. against the law but only besides the law and which though they displease God yet they do not make the sinner displeasing to God and that they do only obnubilate but do not obtenebrate grace as †Bel. t. 4. l. 2. De peccato venialâ— c. 1. Medina teacheth and those sins which Mr. Chillingworth in his dangerous book saith are so small as that he durst not ask God pardoâ— for them and which * B. Medin in 12 〈◊〉 q. 88. a. 1. p. 1199. Bellarmine saith are ex natura ratione probati in their own nature and kind of sin venial that is not repugnant to the love of God and 〈◊〉 neighbours that do not render as unworthy of the friendship of God and guiâ—â—â— of eternal death and that are so small as that it were unjust to punish theâ— with eternal death that they do not exclude out of heaven but that God himself is bound by law that he hath made to give to his friends the kingdom of 〈◊〉 notwithstanding their venial sins of which although they dâ— repent yet are presently remitted ex natura status quum anima emigrat e corpore from the nature of the state when the soul departs out of the body as Papists teach how these sins I say should need to be purged away from believers souls the friends of God whose sins God hath covenanted to pardon by such temporal punishments in Purgatory as are the same for nature with those the Devil inflicts upon the damned in hell and yet that their mortal sins as Davids adultery and murder Peter's
more over their fellow-Presbyters or shepherds of the flock but commanded to give good example to their flock expecting not a triple Crown here on earth that perisheth but a Crown of Glory that fadeth not away which Christ the only chief Shepherd will give at the great day of Judgment to all his holy humble diligent and faithful Pastors And thus was the Church governed in the Primitive times communi conciâ—io Presbyterorum by the common Jerom. in Tit. 〈◊〉 1. Jerom. ad Evagrium council of the Presbyters as St. Jerome told the Pope himself and this Council was not such a pickt Council of Princely Cardinals of his own creatures and sworn vassals as the Popes is which hath only a shew of the ancient Government of the Church but is indeed a wicked combination against it a meer device to uphold his Usurpation tyranny power pride and Lordly dominion over the Princes of the world and the Churches and Church-officers of Jesus Christ But it was a common Council of fellow-Presbyters of the same Church chosen by the Church in which Council for necessary order sake was by common consent toâ— chosen for that time one Presbyter that was the most worthy grave aâ—â— able man to be president or if you will Speaker of that Council for tâ—â—â— time who had only a precedency of order but no more a superiority of jurisdiction over the Colledg of Presbyters than the Speaker of the House of Commons hath over the rest of his fellow-commoners in Parliament assembled here in England 2. That the Pope of Rome is not St. Peter ' s Successor either in his Apostleship for that was extraordinary and died with him or Bishoprick For Peter the Apostle was not properly a Bishop neither could he be as the word Bishop is now commonly taken with us For he was an Apostle of the whole Church and so could not be tyed to the Church of Antioch or Rome as Papists would make the world believe he was He that makes Peter the Apostle a Bishop brings him oâ—â— of the Parlor into the kitchin as Dr. Raynolds speaks of St. James the Apostle in his Conference with Hart. He that makes the King of England a Justice of Peace or the Lord Chief Justice of England a Justice of Peace but of one County Diocess City or Parish or Town unkings the King and Unlord-chief-justiceth the other Peter had no superiority of authority over the rest of his fellow-Apostles Peter was not the Rock upon which Christ promised to build his Church but that Confession that Peter made in the name of Christs Disciples Thou art Christ the Son of the living God And Peter had the same Commission from Christ and no other that the other Apostles had and they had the same that he had Peter was no more Bishop of Rome than S. Paul was Nay it can never be proved by Sacred Scripture that Peter the Apostle was at Rome at any time but that he was elsewhere above twenty years may be proved by Sacred Scripture and very probably that he was not at Rome when we cannot certainly prove him elsewhere in this or that particular place Obj. Papists out of Eusebius say thus That when Peter had laid the foundation Hart in Conference with Dr. Raynolds c. 6. D. 3. P. 257. of the Church at Antioch where be saâ—e Bishop seven years he went to Rome and preaching the Gospel there twenty-five years continued Bishop of that City Ans To this I answer thus 1. That though Eusebius was a â—â—arned man yet he was a meer man and not infallibly guided in his History and works as the Prophets and Apostles were 2. Eusebius is reproved by Pope Gelasius in a Council of seventy Bishops as false in his History which reproof is proved to be just by Canus viz. For his reporting of Christs Epistle to Agbarus and his avouching many things by Clemens Alexandrinus whereas the fable of the one and the works of the other are reproved by the Council And moreover he writeth in the same Chronicle That Sennacherib who besieged Jerusalem and Salmanassar who took Samaria were one and the same man which Saint * Com. in Isa 36. Jerom hath shewed to be contrary to holy Scripture as Dr. †Confer c. 6. d. 3. p. 258. Reynolds answers Hart. And he saith further That such another oversight is this of Peter ' s being seven years Bishop of the Church of Antioch and 25 years after that Bishop of the Church of Rome and he gives those probable reasons that others do give to prove That Peter was never at Rome He proves the first part of the story to be false and contrary to Sacred Scripture thus Peter by this account should have gone to Antioch about the 4th year after Christs death and there abode seven years even till the second * So Cornel. a Lapide Chron. Actuum Apostolorum pag. 3. year of Claudius the Emperor in †Cornel. a Lapide saith he went to Rome the third of Claudius in his Preface to the first Epistle of Peter which he went to Rome But the holy Scripture sheweth that Paul who was not presently converted after Christs death after three years found Peter at Jerusalem Gal. 1. 18. He went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and abode with him fifteen days And Peter after that abode within the coasts of Jury first at Lydda Act. 9. 38. then at Joppa where he tarried many days Act. 9. 43. then at Caesaria Act. 10. 48. then at Jerusalem Act. 11. 2 where Herod Agrippa cast him into prison in the second or * Cornelius a Lapide saith 't was in the third year of Claudius Chron. Act. Apostolor p. 3. the very time that he removed as he saith from his seven years sitting Bishop at Antioch to Rome and wrote his first Epistle Preface to the 1. Epistle of Peter Vid. Lightf Harmony p. 92. third year of Claudius as it is likely for he died in the fourth when the Church of Antioch was both †plainted and wâ—tered by others and not by Peter viz. by Barnabas and Paul and were called Christians before ever Peter câ—â— there And therefore the first branch of Eusebius his report that Peter having founded the Church of Antioch and that he sate there Bishop seven years in the second year of Claudius is flatly contrary to Scripture And Onuphrius in his Annotations upoâ— Platina in Vitam B. Petri Apostoli saith It is most clear and surely known by the Acts of the Apostles and Paul ' s Epistle to the Galatianâ— that for nine years after Christs death Peter never went out of Jury till the second year of the reign of Claudius and therefore he could not sit seven years Bishop at Antioch before he went to Rome Thus the former part of Eusebius his story being proved false why may not the latter part viz. that Peter after this sate twenty-five years Bishop of Rome be also false To which I
add further that 't is evident by Gal. 1. 18 that after three years after Paul return from Arabia he returned to Damascus which might be 〈◊〉 or seven years after Christs death For Papists write that Pâ—â— was converted the 20th year of Tiberius the Emperour which was the second year after Christs death as they themselves reckoâ— And he went after he received his sight to Damascus and then preached Jesus Christ Act. 9. 19 20 22. and thence went into Arabia and thence returned to Damascus again and there preaâ—â—ched and then after three years he went up to Jerusalem to sâ—â— Peter and abode with him fifteen days which could not be 〈◊〉 above six years after Christs death Then fourteen years after that Paul with Barnabas went up from Antioch to Jerusalem thâ—â— is fourteen years after Paul's Conversion as Cornelius a Lapide wiâ—â— have it but others think 't was fourteen yeaâ—â— after his * Dr. Lightfoot's Harmony p. 96. first going up to Jerusalem to sâ—â— Peter which must needs be nineteen or twenâ—â— years aâ— least after Christs death Others will have it to be to the Council of Jerusalem which was as Jerom saith eighteen years after Christs death where Peter was the first but not the conclusive speaker Act. 15. and then and there it was agreed among them that Paul and Barnabas should be the Apostles of the Gentiles and Peter and James of the Jews Gal. 2. 9. And that after this Peter came down to Antioch as Onuphrius affirms ubi supra and that then Paul reproved him to his face for dissembling Which clearly confutes Eusebius his story of St. Peter's being Bishop seven years at Antioch before the second or third year of Claudius Papists say that the Council was held the ninth year of Claudius and that that very year he banished the Jews out of Rome and that then Peter by the counsel of God came from thence * If Peter had then came from Rome and upon such an account 't is very probable that some mention would have been made of it in Sacred Writ as well as of Aquilla ' s and Priscilla ' s Act. 18. 2. to Jerusalem but this they do not prove by good evidence Affirmantis est probare they that affirm that Peter was at Rome must prove it I have proved that Peter was at Jerusalem and the coasts thereabout above 20 years after Christs death then he could not be at Rome the second or third year of Claudius as they say but prove not Cornelius a Lapide saith that from Christs death to Peter's death which was the last year of Nero there Chron. Actuum Apostolorum p. 7. were but 36 years above 20 of which years I have proved Peter to be elsewhere Then it s undeniably true That he sate not seven years Bishop at Antioch and 25 years Bishop at Rome for there remain but 16 years at the most in which time it will be difficult if not impossible to prove that Peter was at Rome That Peter was not at Rome I offer these arguments 1. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans written in the third of Nero's reign say some others say 't was written in the 13th of Claudius in which Peter say Papists sate Bishop Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. p. 432 of Rome saluteth many Saints but maketh no mention of St. Peter whom 't is very probable he would not have neglected if he had been there Bishop 2. When Paul was at Rome he wrote to those that were abroad and makes mention of several particular fellow-labourers and yet he makes not mention of Peter Yea though he make mention of the Salutation of Aristarchus and Mâ—rcus one whom they say was at Rome with Peter Jesus called Justus one of the Circumcision and Epaphras and St. Luke the beloved Physician who wrote the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles and Demas who afterward forsook him though I say he remembers these mens Salutations to the Colossians yet not one word of or from Peter Col 4. 10 11 12 14. and when he wrote to Timothy from Rome a little before his death he saith to him Eubulus greeteth thee and Pudens and Linus who is said to be the first Bishop of Rome that is Pastor of the Church there and Claudia and all the brethren yet no remembrance from Peter to him though he had been at Rome and could not but be acquainted with Peter if he had been there 2 Tim. 4. 21. So in his Epistle from Rome to Philemon vers 23 24. he saith thus There salute thee Epaphras my fellow-labourer in Christ Jesus Marcus Aristarchus Demas and Lucas my fellow-labourers yet not a word of Peter 3. Paul mentioning his fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of Goâ— nameth Aristarchus Marcus and Jesus who is called Justus saith thus These are my fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of God which have been a comfort to me but not a word of Peter yea if he had been there Bishop of Rome formerly 't is charitable to conceive that he would have written to the Church at Rome in Paul ' s behalf but not a word of any such matter They say that they heard not any thing concerning him Act. 28. 21. 4. Paul at Rome writing to Timothy tells him thus At my first answer no man stood with me but all men forsook me 2 Tim. 4. 16. Now if Peter had been there and Bishop of Rome as they say he was 't is not probable that he would have forsaken him especially having had such a check for his first denying of his Lord and Master 5. When Paul was brought Prisoner to Rome Luke in the Acts of the Apostles Act. 28. telleth us that he was received of the brethren yet makes no mention at all of Peter though Cornelius a Lapide tell us That Claudius Actuum Apostolorum Chron. p. 5. his Decree for banishing the Jews was revoked the first year of Nero this being they say the third but Diodate saith 't was the tenth or eleventh year of Nero ' s reign iâ— which time Peter might have returned to Rome at least once in tâ—â— years he might have visited his Church there and St. Paul too to whom he had given the right hand of fellowship in a more emiâ—â—â—â— and more dangerous place than Rome even at Jerusalem 6. After Paul had been at Rome three days he sent for the chief of the Jews and when they came to his lodging he gave them an account of his being brought prisoner there Which if Saint Peter had been there 't is very likely he would have known and told them yea if he had been formerly Bishop of Rome though he had been at Jerusalem or Antioch or thereabout he would have sent them notice of it either by letter or by word by some one of the Brethren but that they deny Act. 28. 21. 7. They desire to hear what he thought for as concerning this Sect we know that it is every where spoken against And they
St. Peter who spake of the Church at Literal Babylon which he knowing and hearing St. John whose Scholar they say he was by Babylon in his Revelations to mean Rome thought Peter to mean so too which was the ground of his Error that Peter was at Rome and of those that inconsiderately followed him Old Writers have misreported things and yet have said they had them from the Elders and they from the Apostles Irenaeus who wrote in the next Age after the Iren. l. 2. c. 39. Apostles reports That the Lord Jesus taught forty or fifty years and that this he had of all the Elders of Asia and that they had it from St. John and that St. John lived with them till Trajan's time and that Mr. Calamy was mistaken and abused by a Writer and Printer of his Casual Sermon preached at Aldermanbury after the Act a-against Nonconformists Preaching viz. That we should be delivered Anno 1666 but he affirmed no such words but reproved that vain conceit some of those Elders did not only see John but other Apostles and they heard these things from them And yet notwithstanding all these great Authorities or Traditions this was an erroneous opinion of Irenaeus and that of Epiphanius is held the sounder That Christ lived but about thirty-three years and theâ— suffered death and this is believed because it is most agreeable to Scripture Therefore I say that the testimony of Papias yea of Jerome is not to be credited where there is not good ground in Sacred Scripture for their opinions especially where many probable reasons are produced from Scripture against their uncertain opinions And so I may say of the Fathers that said that Peter was at Rome and died there Some of our Divines produce Jerome to prove that he was Crucified at Jerusalem Papists say that he was Crucified which was a Jewish death and that Paul who without doubt suffered death at Rome was beheaded which was a Roman death Dr. * Confer c. 6. d. 3. p. 265. â—yranus a Papist upon Mat. 23. 34. saith Some of them ye shall kill as James the Brother of John c. Some shall ye crucifie as Peter and Andrew his Brother Vid. also Chrysostom in Mat. 23. 34. Reynolds tells Hart that a learned man viz. Velenus in opusculo inscripto Petrum non fuisse Romam 〈◊〉 illic passum of our side having weighed and seeing the dissention of Writers touching the time that he came to Rome and knowing by the Scripture that their speech of his abode in Rome is false and marking the shameful practise of the Romanists in forging calos for their own advantage as Constantines Donation and espying some such forgery among their Monuments of Peter 〈◊〉 Linus fable of his death and finding his Martyrdom mentioned by Jerom and Lyra in such sort as though he had been crucified by the Scribes and Pharisees he was brought by these and the like perswasions into this opinion that Peter never came to Rome And of this opinion was Balaeâ—â— in Act. Rom. Pont. l. 1. praefat and so have been many others since And besides there were Christians at Rome in the time of Tiberius and Caligula before ever Peter is reported to be at Rome as Eusebius witnesseth Hist l. 2. c. 2. and Tertullian in his Apology c. 5. And if we may believe * Libro 1. recognitionum Clementio Object Papists object that if Peter long ago preached to the Gentiles Act. 15. 17. Ergo he preached at Rome Answ I answer thus 1. That it follows not 2. Paul preached to the Gentiles before Peter did Act. 〈◊〉 3. Before Peter saw the Vision of the sheet and heard the command of the Lord be thought it unlawful for him to go to the Gentiles Act. 10. 28. 4. Peter first preached Christ to Cornelius and his friends at his house in Caesaria Act. 10. 5. 'T is most probable that Antioch received the Gospel from Barnabas and Paul and others before Rome and they were first called Christians Act. 11. 19 26. 6. Some of those strangers of Rome that were at Jerusalem Act. 2. 10. might preach the Gospel at Rome Clement Barnabas was there before Peter And that which is objected out of Act. 28. 21. that the Jews told Paul That they had received no Letters out of Judea concerning him and that neither any of the brethren shewed or spake any harm of him is not to be conceived that they had not received or heard of his Epistle which he sent to the Romans some few years before but concerning his particular business and occasion of his being sent Prisoner then to Rome And it makes much as I observed before against St. Peter's being so long Bishop at Rome as Papists would have that these Jews should hear nothing of Paul and be so ignorant of the Doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ of which Peter was by special agreement an Apostle to them Thus I suppose I have sufficiently overthrown the main foundation of the Popes Primacy and Supremacy For if Peter was never at Rome then he was not Bishop of Rome and if he was not Bishop of Rome then the Pope of Rome is not his Successor in the Episcopacy thereof and then by Papists own consequence he is not supreme Bishop of all the Church 3. The Pope of Rome successively was and hath been the inventor and setter forth of Superstitious and Pharisaical Sects which are against the Word of God and the glory of his name To shew in particular how every Pope brought some Superstition into the Church would be very Voluminous for that therefore I must refer you to the Centurists to Dr. Reynolds Conference with Hart to Dr Henry More 's Mystery of Iniquity and the little Treatise of ancient Ceremonies called Vitis degeneris Bishop Jewel's Works and the Mass in English and Latin by James Mountain Printed 1641. I might refer you to the Popes Decretals and indeed they are a good evidence against themselves but they are late forgeries devised to justifie their latter Superstitions and Usurpations therefore I forbear though some Romanizing Protestants have them in too high estimation Though â—ome real Hereticks were the first Inventors of some Superstitions yet the Popes and their Agents were the first setters up imposers of theâ—â— in the Church bringing of Spittle Salt Cream Oyl and the sign of the Cross into the service of God at Baptism is well known to be theirs Kneeling or adoring as * Bishop Sparrow in his Rationale p. 273. some men call it at the receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Vsing the sign of the Cross above thirty times praying to and for the Dead at their Mass worshipping of †Vide ubi supra p. 〈◊〉 what the Church of England saith in her Homily against peril of Idolatry part 3. p. 70. Images of Saints departed this life of Crucifixes the Cross Altars bowing to the East their Superstitious Fasts and Feasts putting holiness in times
that they 〈◊〉 things indifferent which may be abâ—sed or well used Answ This 〈◊〉 yielded in part Flowers are wrougâ—â— in Carpets Arras and Pictures 〈◊〉 Princes printed or stamped in theâ—â— Coyns which when Christ did see in the Roman Coyn we read 〈◊〉 that he reprehended it neither do we condemn the art of Painting and Image-making as wicked of themselves but we would grant them that Images used for no Religion or Superstition rather we mean Images of none worshipped nor in danger to be worshipped of any may be suffered But Images placed publickly in Temples cannot possibly be without danger of worshipping and Idolatry wherefore they are not publickly to be had or suffered in Temples The Jews to whom the Law was first given and should best know the meaning of it would not suffer Images publickly to be in the Temple at Jerusalem though no worshipping was required at their hands but rather offered themselves to death than to assent that Images should be once placed in the Temple neither would they suffer any Image-maker among them And Origen added this clause lest their minds should be plucked from God to the contemplation of earthly things And they are much commended for this earnest zeal in maintaining Gods honour and true Religion P. 45. And truth it is that Jews and Turks who abhor Images and Idols as directly forbidden in Gods Word will never come to the truth of our Religion while the stumbling-blocks of Images remain among us and lie in their way And P. 49. What meaneth it that Christians after the use of the Gentiles Idolaters cap and knee before Images is not this stooping and kneeling before them adoration of them which is forbidden so directly by Gods Word P. 50. Satan desiring to rob God of his honour desireth exceedingly that such honour might be given to him wherefore those which give the honour due to the Creator to any creature do service acceptable to no Saints who be the friends of God but unto Satan Gods and mans mortal and sworn enemy Obj. But they say that they do not worship the Image as the Gentiles did their Idols but God and the Saints whom the Images do represent and therefore that their doings before Images are not like the Idolatry of the Gentiles before their Idols Answ 'T is answered thus St. Augustine Lactantius and Clemens do prove evidently that by this their answer they be all one with the Gentiles-Idolaters The Gentiles saith St. Augustine which seem to be of the purer Religion say We worship not the Images but by the corporal Images we do behold the signs of the things which we ought to worship And Lactantius saith the Gentiles say we fear not the Images but them after whose likenesses the Images be made and to whose names they be consecrated And Clemens saith that Serpent the Devil uttereth these words by the mouth of certain men We to the honour of the invisible God worship visible Images which surely is not false See how in using the same excuses which the Gentile-Idolaters pretended they shew themselves to join with them in Idolatry For notwithstanding this excuse Augustine Lactantius and Clemens prove them Idolaters And the Scriptures say they worship stocks and stones notwithstanding this excuse even as our Image-mongers do And Ezekiel therefore calleth the gods of the Assyrians stocks and stones although they were but Images of their gods So are our Images of God and the Saints named by the names of God and his Saints after the use of the Gentiles What should it mean that they according as did the Gentile-Idolaters light Candles at noon-time or at midnight before them but therewith to honour them for other use is none of so doing for in the day it needeth not but was ever a Proverb of foolishness to light a candle at noon-day And in the night it availeth not to light a candle before the blind and God hath neither use nor honour thereof By which it appeareth that Are not Tapers appearances of the same Religion to be abstained from as well as candles we do agree with the Gentile-Idolaters in our Candle-Religion And P. 52. As the Gentiles so our Image-maintainers have invented and spread many lying-tales and written many Fables and Miracles of Images And P. 53. Among the holy Relicks they have they say the tayl of the Asse on which our Saviour rode which they offer to be kissed and to be offered unto And P. 55. The having of Images in Churches publickly hath not only brought us to worshipping of them but to worshipping of them with the same kind of worship wherewith they worship the Copy as the Homily shews out of Naclaâ—tus Bishop of Clugium And P. 56. the Homily saith thus Having shewed and proved that our Images have been be and will be worshipped and by their own confession that they ought to be worshipped I will out of Gods Word make this general argument against all such makers setters up and maintainers of Images in publick places thus And first I will begin with the words of our Saviour Christ Wo be to that man by whom an offence is given Wo be to him that * Is there not the same reason against Popish Ceremonies and other unnecessary things offendeth one of these little ones or weak ones Mat. 18. Better were it for him that a milstone were hanged about his neck and he cast into the midst of the sea and drowned than that he should offend one of these little ones or weak ones And in Deut. 27. God himself denounceth him accursed that maketh the blind to wander out of the way And in Levit. 19. Thou shalt not lay a stumbling-block or stone before the blind But Images have been be and as afterwards shall be proved ever * May not the same be said of Popish Ceremonies Con the Popes Nuncio brought with him into England in A. B. Laud ' s reign many Reliques of Saints Medals and pieces of gold with the Popes picture on them to seduce the Ladies of the Court and Country Heylin ' s Cyp. Angl. l. 4. p. 358. will be offences and stumbling-blocks especially to the weak simple and blind common people deceiving their hearts by the cunning of the Artificer as the Scripture expresly in sundry places doth testifie and so bringeth them to Idolatry and therefore wo be to the erector setters up and maintainers of Images in Churches for a greater penalty remaineth for them than the death of the body Obj. If it be replied that this offence may be taken away by diligent and sincere doctrine and preaching of Gods Word as by other means and that Images in Churches therefore be not things absolutely evil to all men although dangerous to some and therefore that it were to be holden that the publick having of them in Churches is not expedient as a thing perilous rather than unlawful and utterly wicked Ans This will be answered by proving the third Article which
the pure Word of God as they do in Ecclesiasticus 25. which is appointed to be read only to the 13 verse And in Ecclâ—s 30. which is to be read only to 18th verse And Ecclâ—s 46. which is to be read only to v. 20. where the 20th verse which saith That Samuel prophesied after his death and shewed the King his death and lift up his voice from the earth to prophesie to blot out the wickedness of the people is omitted because as I suppose the ancient Fathers have judged it to be contrary to the pure Word of God and if upon that account that be left out 't is thought that upon the same account Chap. 48. should be cut off at v. 13. or that left out which saith that nothing as the old Translation and as Junius hath it ulla res or as the last hath it No word could overcome Elizeus and that after his death his body prophesied For every Book of the Apocrypha hath falshoods in Doctrine or History as the learned †Sum of Christ Relig. p. 14. 15. A. B. Vsher saith and shews in many particulars in every Book where 't is observed by him and Jerome and Bishop * Fascic controv c. 1. q. 2. p. 14. Prideaux that Philo the Jew who lived since Christ is judged the Author of the Book of Wisdom though he would make the world believe that †See the Title and c. 9. the old Translation Solomon was the Author of it Now I pray give me leave to propose to the godly wife some few passages I have glanced upon in reading that Book whether they are agreeable to Gods pure Word 1. Whether that be true and agreeable to Sacred Scripture That God made not death Wisd 1. 13. seeing it is said Gen. 2. 17. In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die And Heb. 9. 27. It is appointed unto all men once to die and after that to judgment Pray who but God hath appointed it and whether God may not as well be said to make death as darkness Gen. 1. Exod. 10. 21 22. Josh 24. 7. Psal 104. 20. Thou makest darkness 2. Whether there be no poyson of destruction in any of Gods creatures as 't is said there is not Wisd 1. 14. seeing Adders Asps Serpents Toads Spiders c. have poyson in them as is evident Deut. 34. 24 33. Job 20. 16. Psal 58. 4. Psal 140. 3. Rom. 3. 13. And was not King John poysoned to death 3. Whether that be a true and a good expression and agreeable to Gods pure Word which is in Wisd 2. 2. For we are born at all adventures in the Latin 't is thus Casu nati sumus i. e. We are born by chance Seeing the expression sounds very ill among Christians who deny chance and ascribe all events to Gods Providence the Scriptures indited by the infallible Magic Phis l. 1. c. 3. p. 57. Spirit of God being the rule alone for Doctrine and manners to them saying That a sparrow doth not fall to the ground without the Providence of God and that our hairs are numbred Mat. 10. 29 30. And that God begat us and formed us Deut. 32. 18. Isa 44. 2. And Job telle us that God brought him out of the womb Job 10. 18. Now I hope you will not say that God doth cause any thing by chance or at all peradventure because all things are ordered and come to pass according to the counsel of God Act. 2. 23. Act. 4. 28. and the †Sum of Christian Relig. p. 109 110. Reverend and learned A. B. Vsher whom we Christians should credit more than Philo the Jew saith expresly That nothing cometh to pass by meer hap or chance but as God in his eternal knowledg and just will hath decreed before should come no pass And that of wise Solomon Prov. 16. 33. is very remarkable The lot is cast into the lap but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord. 2. The words are not true quoad nos homines but sound very ill in the School of Philosophy as well as of Divinity for Philosophers tell us That chance is a cause by accident of those things which are undertaken without election or counsel and an effect by accident is that which doth happen besides the intention of the agent And they make this difference between Fortune and Chance That fortune is ascribed to those things that are endued with reason and will as when a man digs a Well and finds a treasure finding the treasure an effect they say iâ— by accident and is by them ascribed to Fortune And Chance they say is a cause of the events which do happen about things that are destitute of will and reason as when a glass falls from a table upon the ground yet is not broken this they say is an effect by accident and is by them ascribed to Chance But now we have reason and will when we are born and our parents also who are the chief agents in our birth have reason and will and do act in our births not only as natural agents but also as rational creatures and are causes by themselves of our births for they do effect Causae per se our births by their own faculty that is by nature or counsel and they do not effect our births by accident by a strange faculty that is besides the propension of nature or purpose of mind neither do we our selves in our births so act for we have a natural inclination when our Months are finished to be born and our Parents have the like natural propension to bring us forth and therefore we cannot be truly said to be born by chance or at all adventure or by fortune and if so then our births should be effects by accident that is happen besides the intention and expectation of the agent which cannot be for our birth is intended and expected 3. Besides too I do not remember the word applied to all among us but only to bastards who indeed in our common discourse are said to come or to be born by chance but untruly too as is shewed above But this sense would sound very ill among us if applied to all persons how to make a true and good sense of the words I know not 4. Whether that be an universal truth and agreeable to Gods word in Wisd 3. 12 13. to be read October 14. speaking of the ungodly that despise wisdom thus Their wives are foolish and their children wicked and their off-spring cursed Was not Abigail the wife of churlish drunken ingrateful Nabal a wise and chaste woman who by her prudence pacified incensed David and saved her husbands and servants lives and restrained him from shedding innocent blood And was Jonathan the Son of Saul a wicked man and cursed was King Hezekiah the Son of wicked King Ahaz a wicked and cursed child Is it not directly contrary to Gods pure Word which shews that Ahaz was a