upon us it is evident that they are to be understood not of the ordinary Baptism by Water but the extraordinary of the Holy Ghost sometimes preventing Baptism as appears in the Acts more than once Other reasons out of Scripture Act. 10. 41. brought to this purpose do prove only that to repeat Baptism is needless but not damnable For the Ethiopians who are reported to Baptize Breerwoods Enquirit themselves once a year on the same day that Christ was Baptized do it as the History of them tells not so much implying an invalidity in one Baptism as a convenience to bring to mind the Baptism of Christ on Epiphany perhaps reckoning the precept of Christ given to Communicate in Remembrance of him might hold to the obliging them to repeat Baptism in remembrance of his Baptism CHAP. XLI Of the second Principal Sacrament of the Gospel the Eucharist Its names Its parts Internal and External It s matter Bread and Wine And the necessity of them Of Leavened and Vnleavened Bread Of Breaking the Bread in the Sacrament VVE now come to the Second most proper and necessary Sacrament known by several names as that of The Supper of the Lord in our Church Catechisms not because our Lord Christ made his Supper of it or ever intended we should but because at his Last Supper upon the Paschal Lamb and the conclusion of it he instituted this for his Apostles and all Faithful peoples spiritual benefit as a Spiritual Repast or Supper nourishing them to eternal Life In answer to which we read of the Promise of Christ in the Revelations Behold Rev. 3. 20. I stand at the door and Knock if any man hear my voice and open the door I will come into him and will Sup with him and he with me And St. Paul more expresly to the Corinthians When ye come together therefore 1 Cor. 11. 20. into one place this is not to eat the Lords Supper distinguishing hereby this Sacred Supper from the more ordinary communion which those first Christians had in their Charitable meetings to eat and drink together to their mutual edification and comfort From whence their Cavils seem to be groundless who with some scorn reject this name in use much amongst the Reformed fearing somewhat derogatory to those Sacred Mysteries And upon the same grounds likewise do they shun the name of the Lords Table lest the word Altar which seems to them more sacred should be less accounted of And yet without reason For surely where St. Paul calls those holy Mysteries The Table of the Lord he speaketh not properly but Metonymically 1 Cor. 10. 21. not of the Material Table on which they were placed but of the Adjuncts which were the Sacramental Elements Though it be plain that from this Supper of the Lord the Table furnished with it took its denomination of the Lords And that not only in Scriptures but amongst Primitive writers too And Altar of the Lord it was called only Metaphorically not properly by both no otherwise than the Lords day was called by way of Analogy The Sabbath day From the Form used at the celebration of those Mysteries it was called Eucharist which was Thanksgiving as Mathew 26. 26 27. From the Effect which was double Communion with Christ and with the Members of Christs Body the Faithful it was termed Communion 1 Cor 10. 16. From the Matter of which it consisted The Body and Blood of Christ Corin ibid. And many more less considerable appellations have been received in the Church to be passed over in this short view wherein we are rather to enquire into the Nature of it in these Particulars viz 1. The Author 2. The Matter 3. The Form 4. The Ends and Effects For the Author It is without controversy Christ himself the histories of the Gospels plainly so affirming Mat. 26. 26. Mar. 14. 22. Luc. 22. 19. And St. Paul to the Corinthians 1 Epist 11. 23. It having nothing herein peculiar to it it being necessary to all Sacraments so properly called that they be Instituted of God or Christ as is above proved The Greatest contention of all is concerning the Subject-matter of this Blessed Sacrament not in a few words to be opened or composed The clearest way to proceed in this disquisition is First to consider the External Part and then the Internal The External are the Signs or Elements appointed by Christ to insinuate and represent unto us his Passion or as his own express words are to bring to remembrance his death and Passion This do in remembrance of me And what is here only recorded by the Evangelists Luk. 22. 19. to have been said of the Bread St. Paul affirmeth to have been likewise spoken of the Cup Do this as often as ye drink it in remembrance 1 Cor. 11-25 of me declaring unto us the use and end of the Institution of these Signs But before we go any further it will be necessary in our way to distinguish the twofold most principal and common acceptation of the word Sacrament here For sometimes it is taken Complexly for the whole ministration of the Lords Supper and at other times only for the Material Part of it which again is sometimes taken for the External or signifying Part the Elements and sometimes for the Internal or things by them signified which are the Body and Blood of Christ and that not simply and absolutely but as under the consideration of his Bitter death and Passion and that for our sakes The Elemental and External parts of this Sacrament are to be considered two ways First before the celebration or consecration of the same and then after First then it is generally agreed to on all sides that our Saviour Christ took natural Bread and natural Wine most commonly in use in those Countreys and therefore in all reason this ought to be a constant binding prescription to all that minister and use that Sacrament and not to vary from the very kind used by him when ever it can with any tolerable care and cost be obtained But seeing that Christ in all probability without any scrupulous choice of Wheat or Rye or Barley or any one single Grain made use of that which was in ordinary use at Meals amongst them and there being no express word which of these he took there appears no reason why any one of which Bread may be made for the service and life of Man may not be taken to this purpose And especially considering that the end of the Institution which is said to be the representing of Christs death and Passion and the affecting us thereby may no less be performed by the one sort than the other Yet where the constant practice of the Church confirmed by positive Injunctions hath determined the kind it can be no ways free or safe for any unnecessarily to vary from that It is of much greater difficulty to determine What is to be done in the cases of such both extreme Northern as
of Christ also Must not they be necessitated here to slee to an unknown Concomitance the one of the other and not a coexistence And if thus the blood hath the flesh of Christ concomitantly as well as the â—lesh the blood and so for this reason might the Cup be received without the Bread But we positively deny both such Carnal Capernaitical Coexistence as is here presumed and such necessary Concomitance too that with the receiving of one alone the other should be necessarily taken also but hold rather where both are not Present both are absent and no Sacramental Receiving of Christ can possibly be hoped for And though I have been long of this opinion before I found any authority express to this purpose besides the very intrinsique nature of the Sacrament it self now touched Yet am I not alone For thus speaks a Reverent and Learned Father of our Church In all compounded things the moiety of the matter is the moiety of substance Bishop Whites Reply to c. pag. 483. And whatsoever Jesuited Romanists teach I see not how their Laicks can truly say that they have at any time in all their Lives been partakers of this Sacrament for if half a man be not a man then likewise half a Communion is not a Communion But were there more colour for nothing of reality do we find in their Offers to vindicate themselves in what is said for the possibility of a Sacrament in one Kind received What can be said for their gross abuse of their and our Lords Institution and their Relinquishing the unanimous practice of the Catholick Church for so many Ages together Did not Christ equally institute both Did he not equally communicate both to his Disciples Or supposing that they were then all Priests which may be well doubted of seeing they were not compleatly consecrated then by the descent of the Holy Ghost nor commissioned to Go teach and Baptise all nations until after this doth this give any likelihood that therefore it is the sole Right for Priests to receive in both Kinds Did Christ any where make two Institutions One For Priests and another for Laicks If but one Who should presume to alteâ— or adulterate his Prescriptions He said Drink ye all of Mat. 26. 27. this which is more than we find he said of the Bread And the shift is sad and pitiful which some who have nothing better to say yet must say something adde that Christ said This do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of 1 Cor. 11. 25. Fisher against White me As if he excepted sometimes from drinking when he commanded to eat Ridiculous The meaning of Christ being as plain as any thing need be that there should so often be had a devout remembrance of him as we communicate and not imply as is most boldly insinuated that sometimes we may not communicate in the Sacramental bloud of Christ For it followeth As Often as ye eat this bread and drink this cupp ye do shew the Lords death 1 Cor. 11. 26. till he come Never are they separated in the Scripture No ground at all for the omitting of one rather than the other The Church hath power to denie one as much as the other The Church hath no power to denie either or any thing else of such divine Institution The Church of God for above 1200 years did constantly and universally practise both And until the Council of Constance about the year 1415 many in the Roman Church so received but then it was violently taken away But to this very day all Churches not subdued to the Roman continue the Ancient form And do a companie of paltry reasons drawn from possible inconveniences in Lay-mens taking the Cup countervail so great a cloud of witnesses and so strong arguments to the contrary What if sometimes the Ancients did permitt the exportation of the one without the other to such as were sick or unable to receive in Publique Does this come home to the Case which requireth that the Publique Ministration should be changed also And how doth it appear I am sure not by their demonstrations that such Persons so receiving in half were ever reputed to have Sacramentally received Christ Nay not half of the Autorities or Instances commonâ—y given of such Communications do concern this subject for most are to be understood of the Panis Benedictus or the Bread blessed by the â—riâ—â—â— upon 〈◊〉 offering of it by the People which was not all consecrated Sacramentally and so given unto Christians to be imparted to such as were of the same Communion in token that they were in Communion with them though absent This I grant was sometimes performed by the sending to such the Consecrated Element of Bread in the Eucharist Not with an opinion of the Fathers of the Church however possibly same vulgar and ignorant Christians might have too high a conceit of it that such receiving was tantamount to the receiving in both Kinds Sacramentally But to their inconveniences which are many of them more fit to make sport than to sway in so grave a Controversie we shall only reply that all they can alleadg was no newes to their and our Predecessours and yet never could it enter into their hearts to attempt so monstâ—ous a change upon such frivolous pretences But the truth is the Errour of transubstantiation being throughly received occasioned this by way of common prudence as well as Christian devotion For it being firmly and clearly believed the Consecrated Elements became Christs Bodie and Blood forsaking wholely their own Nature Common Reason required that all possible respect and Care should be taken as far as the wit of man could reach that no detriment or indignity should be done to them and that then became indecent and prophane which before was not To have the Least Crum fall aside must be accounted a grand prophanation though in voluntary and therefore humane wit invented Wafers and preferred them before bread according as Christ used it In breaking of the Host some possible waste might happen therefore though Christ and following Christians communicated of 1 Cor. 10. 17. one Bread according to St Paul For we are one Bread and one bodie and we are all partakers of one Bread undoubtedly literally meaning the participation by many of the same Loaf in the Sacrament now superstition hath better instructed us than the holy Spirit St Paul and there must be no more breaking of bread amongst Christians of which the Scripture speakes so often though I confess not alwayes meaning the Eucharist but yet that too many times and which is so lively and proper a Ceremony and signification of Christs passion lest somewhat should fall out amiss toward the supposed Body of Christ in their sense To give Respect to use reverence to it to take all convenient and devout Care about it is verie reasonable and pious for the Relation it hath to Christ and his Proper Bodie and the Virtue to
but they were the intermediate effects of the stock of Grace treasured up in the Soul and exhorting and improving it self by the continual supplie of the Spirit of Christ according to the * Mat. 25. 16. doctrine of St. Paul to the Corinthians saying Insomuch that we desired Titus that as he had begun so he would also finish in you the same Grace also Therefore as ye abound in every thing in Faith in utterance in knowledge and v. 7. in all diligence and in your love to us see that ye abound in this Grace also Of this influence of Christs Spirit to the augmentation of Grace in the hearts of the true believers speaketh the same Apostle to the Colossians thus The Col. 2. 19. Head from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministred and knit together encreaseth with the encrease of God Sanctification then may be described The Grace of God infused into the Soul of a Sinner and purifying it by Faith as Justification is the reputation and acceptation of a person for Just by almighty God through the intuition of the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ And yet more distinctly to declare their mutual agreement and difference it will conduce much to the due understanding of them both First then Justification and Sanctification agree in their Subject The true believer the same person who is Sanctified being also Justified and he that is Justified being Sanctified also For so saith the prophet Nahum of him The Lord is slow to anger and great in power and will not at all acquit the wicked Nahum 1. 3. And when we find St. Paul affirming the contrary in appearance viz. that God justifieth the ungodly we are to understand him to speak not in Rom. 4. 5. Sensu composito in such manner that he is justified while he is so ungodly but in Sensu diviso a distinct sense and season as if it had been said Him that was once ungodly as he seems to interpret himself in his Epistle to the Corinthians where having spoken of the many abominations men were subject to he saith And such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are 1 Cor. 6. 11. Sanctified but ye are Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God Secondly Justification and Sanctification agree in their foundation which is at least inchoate and initial holiness For though no mans inherent holiness arises so high as to denominate him truly Just or holy for its own sake yet both to Sanctification and Justification is necessarily required some preparatorie and imperfect holiness consisting principally in the Conversion of the mind to God from sin Thirdly both Sanctification and Justification are alike owing to Faith as their immediate Cause next under Gods Spirit as may be gathered from the prayer of Christ for his disciples Sanctifie them through thy truth thy word is Joh. 17 17. truth That is the doctrine of Faith received To which Faith the effect of Sanctification is ascribed by St. Peter in the Acts whereby the Act. 15. 9. hearts of the Gentile were purified or Sanctified Fourthly they are both equally imputed unto us through the Righteousness of Christ Therefore saith St. Paul to the Corinthians To them that are Sanctified in Christ Jesus And 1 Cor. 1. 2. Heb. 10. 29. to the Hebrews it is said We are Sanctified by the blood of the Covenant So that no less are we Sanctified then Justified by Christs death and merits and the imputation of them But on the other side they are distinct in some formalities such as these may be for First the immediate cause of our Sanctification is in holy Scripture imputed to the operation and influence of the Holy Spirit as our Justification is more properly attributed to Christ the mediator between God and man As appeareth from St. Pauls words to the Thessalonians But we are bound to give thanks alwayes for you brethren beloved of the Lord 2 Thes 2. 13. because God hath from the beginning chosen you to Salvation through Sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth And St. Peter Elect according 1 Pet. 1. 2. to the foreknowledge of God the Father and Sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience Thirdly Justification looketh backward being an absolution of the guilty from sins formerly committed and holding him Just but no man is justified actually from sins which hereafter he may fall into But Sanctification relates chiefly to the time future For not only is a sinner by the Spirit of Regeneration and Sanctification purged from the old Leaven of sin and malice but he becometh a New Lump and unleavened 1 Cor. 5. 7. Rom. 6. 13. and whereas he hath yielded his members as Instruments of unrighteousness unto sin he doth yield himself unto God as those that are alive from the dead And old things are done away in him and all things become new And whosoever is 1 Joh. 3. 9. thus born of God doth not commit sin for his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God Fourthly to the Act of our Justification the will of man doth not necessarily concurr though it dissents not but is rather passive than Active but to our Sanctification is absolutely required the co-operation of the will and affections of man with the Grace of God in all those who have attained unto the use of reason For indeed by baptism Infants are so far Sanctified as to be freed from that hereditarie evil incident unto them which their will concurred not to but to actual Sanctification from those evils our wills did freely consent actual concurrence of our wills is necessary Fifthly Our Justification is entire and absolute at once no man being partly Justified and partly not Justified though he be partly Just and partly unjust or unholy But no man in this Life is so perfectly Sanctified as that there wants not somewhat to consummate the same because Justification being altogether the Act of God and not at all of Man God may and doth wholly and freely remit the guilt of sin to the penitent offendor But Man being also concerned in the Sanctification of himself his acts are imperfect and defective so that the effect it self partakes of the same and so Sanctification continues imperfect And it is not all at once but answerable to our natural man proceedeth by degrees Until we all come Eph 4. 13. in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledg of the son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the Stature of the fulness of Christ which fulness of stature is that we are to hope for and enjoy only in heaven Lastly to search no farther into this point before Justification there must of necessity goe some degree of Sanctification even in the opinion of such as contend most rigorously for freeness of Justification for to make Justification altogether
Gods Word already confirming this duty and to leave others to every ingenuous Christians diligent use of it to avoid prolixity And for the objections which may be made and are commonly found against what is above delivered for the same reason I pass them over as likewise because I intend not here Controversie but Positive Institutions CHAP. XXVII An Application of the former Discourse of Civil Government to Ecclesiastical How Christs Church is alwayes visible and how invisible Of the Communion of Christ and his Members The Church of Christ taken specially for the Elect who shall infallibly be saved never visible But taken for true Professours of the Faith must alwayes be visible though not Conspicuous in comparison of other Religions or Heresies THE Reasons moving me to insist a while upon Civil Government before I entred upon Ecclesiastical are First because I find Authors of the grounds of Christian Religion to treat of the same generally Secondly because where breaches have been made often in the Faith and Discipline of the Church there necessary provision ought to be made to secure them for the future but for want of due understanding of this Doctrine licencious zeal blinded with presumption hath transported very many into unchristian practises Thirdly because it is a necessary introduction to the more clear and compendious pursuing of our subject of the Spiritual Society of the Church of Christ and particularly its Form The Form of Christs Church may be distinguished according to the vulgar Notion into invisible and visible or inward and outward Invisible we here call that which doth not at all offer it self to our outward sense of seeing cannot be beholden with our eye Or that which may in some manner appear to our sight but not as a Church of Christ though in truth it so may be According to the first acceptation of invisible we understand the Body Mystical of Christ consisting of himself the only proper Head the Holy Spirit animating and influencing the same and the particular members of the holy most happy invisible Spirits in heaven and Saints on earth spiritually united to them by Christ in the divine band of holiness And hitherto do the words of the Apostle to the Ephesians seem to be applyed saying Having made known the mystery of his will That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather Ephes 1. 9 10. together in one all things in Christ both which are in heaven and which are in earth even in him signifying hereby the mystical conjunction of Men and Angels in Christ Jesus although there are who not improbably and more literally do understand these words only of the collection and uniting of Jews who in respect of their peculiar exaltation to Gods service and favour are stiled in Scripture heavenly compared with the Gentiles and Gentiles into one Faith and Church of Christ which therefore divers times is called a Mystery as Romans the 16. 25 26. Ephes 3. v. 3 4 5. Col. 1. 26 27. 1 Tim. 3. 16. because as is there expressed it was an hidden and incredible thing to the Jews that the Gentiles should be taken into the like priviledges and rights of serving God as were once esteemed incommunicable to any so fully as to the Jews But whether the Scripture according to its most genuine and literal sense intendeth at any time to comprehend into one Society Angelical Peings and Humane as the Church of Christ as I do not find though the Ancients as well as Modern have held such an opinion so do I not oppose the Mystery of which we now speak being sufficiently verified in the preternatural and invisible conjunction of Christ and his Church in the indissoluble bands of his Spirit guiding the members thereof into all sufficiencie of Grace here and immortal absolute glory hereafter in heaven To understand this co-union or conjunction of Christ and his Members the better we are to call to mind a threefold union intimated in holy Writ unto us First a conjunction of Nature when more are of the same individual nature as the three Persons in the Holy Trinity are united in the same Divine Nature though in themselves distinct which is so proper to that mystery of the Trinity that it is not to be found elsewhere no not in that intimate communion we now speak of between Christ and his Members their natures continuing distinct Again another conjunction proper to Christian Religion is the union of two natures into one Person as in the Mystery of Christs incarnation when the humane and divine Nature become one so far as to constitute but one Person Christ Jesus So do not Christ and his Church But by a third way are Christ and his Church united into one aggregate Spiritual Body or Society which is effected by his Spirit which yet do not make properly a Part of that Body but by its manifold divine Graces do produce and conserve the same Christ thereby and his Church being as St. Paul saith One Spirit He that is joyned unto the Lord is one Spirit And 1 Cor. 6. 17. St. John likewise saith Hereby we know that we dwell in him and he in us because he hath given us of his Spirit This truly and only in a proper sense is invisible and that alwayes and hath two Parts the triumphant in Heaven which is a most perfect pure holy and blessed Society which have through the bloud of the Lamb and the power of his Spirit overcome the three grand Enemies Sin Death and the Devil and reaped the fruits of their sufferings and labours all tears being wiped from their eyes all sorrows being fled away all temptations for ever conquered and ceasing to molest them Now this part of Christ's Church remains alwayes invosible unto us here below And as for the other Part which is called Militant and are described to be A number of faithful and elect people living under the Cross and aspiring towards the perfection of Grace and Glory hereafter supposing at present what may hereafter be farther discussed viz. That such a peculiar number of holy persons there are within the visible Church of Christ which shall infallibly attain to everlasting bliss in heaven yet neither are these as such at any time visible or discernable to our common senses It being scarce if at all possible to judge infallibly who shall be saved and who shall not be saved it being much more difficult for any man to be assured of another mans salvation than of his own seeing that as is said hereunto an inward testimony of Gods Spirit is required which is the ground of that sound hope which is commonly called Assurance but the Promises of God in holy Scripture do not extend in like manner to the assuring of any man that another shall be saved as that he himself shall or that anothers faith shall not fail as that his own shall not but thus far only probably a truer and more certain sentence may
as of the only begotten of the Father And when St. Paul saith that God sent Rom. 8. 3. his Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh and for sin condemned sin in the Flesh he implyeth that there were two tearms considered in Christ as in all other things sent First there is the Person by whom or from whom the Party is sent and that here was God Secondly there was the Party or tearm to whom and that was either to the World in general or to that individual substance of Flesh so assumed by him and which is here intended Now it cannot be that the Act of sending should be the same with making but first a Thing is before it is sent and the rearm to which must be distinct from that which is sent Therefore Christ according to the Phrase of holy Scriptures being sent to take Flesh must have of necessity a subsistence before which subsistence must be of a Divine Nature as is also witnessed in the Epistle to the Hebrews For as much then as children Hebr. 2. 14. are partakers of flesh and bloud he also himself took part of the same That is the person of Christ took part of the mass of humane Flesh and Nature when he was formed of the substance of his Mother in her womb And in that it follows Verily he took not on him the nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham v. 16. What can be more necessarily implyed than a Person prae-existing to whom according to the nature of the thing it was indifferent to have taken the nature of Angels or the Flesh of man and that it pleased God to send his Son to man and it also pleased his Son to elect humane nature to dwell in so that the manner of Christ thus consisting of two Natures is matter of difficulty rather than the thing it self i. e. how two Natures can be and how they were and are actually united in Christ Suidas observes ten sorts of unions to be found in the World of which Suidas in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Qu. 2. 1. we cannot stay here to speak Thomas reduces all unto three One union is of things that are absolute and perfect in themselves as many stones make one heap Another is when things in nature perfect are so united that they cease thereby to be perfect of themselves as when the Elements concurr to make one perfect mixt body Thirdly when diverse things being in nature imperfect not absolutely but in that they are naturally capable of greater perfection and tend thereunto as the soul and body and the several members of the body constitute one man But after none of these exactly can Christ be said to consist of two natures united Not the first way because such things are rather relatively and denominatively one than really Not the second because it were to suppose that the Divine Nature could be alterable and mutable and because if such a composition were made both the Divine and Humane nature must loose their natural being and kind and so neither of both remain but a third thing Not the last because both Divine and humane nature are perfect of themselves in their kind So that in truth speaking strictly no precedent in Nature can be found answering this Union called Hypostatical or Persâ—nal because it is the union of two intire Natures into one Person and that the Second person of the Trinity God blessed for evermore But of the former the last representeth this Mystery most clearly and is often used by the ancient Fathers to express the same and especially by Athanasius in his Creed who thus declareth this mistery sufficiently to the sober and modest and not curious mind Christ is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds and man of the substance of his mother born in the world Perfect God and perfect man of a reasonable soul and humane flesh subsisting Equal to God as touching his God-head and inferior to his Father as touching his Manhood Who although he be God and man yet he is not two but one Christ One not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking of the manhood into God One altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of person For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man so God and Man is one Christ Now the ground of this great mistery is taken partly from the testimonies and descriptions of Christ the Mediator made in the Scripture where besides those already given diverse proper to God are ascribed to him and many which are proper to humane nature are attributed to him and because there can be nothing more absurd in nature or Christian Religion than to imagine that Christ is more than one Person one Son one Mediator therefore it follows necessarily that this one Person must consist of more than one nature and partly because the end of Christ being Incarnate seemed to require this most necessarily As First there was all reason that the nature which sinned and offended should suffer and satisfie but none but humane nature had so sinned Secondly that he should be a Prophet to instruct and teach his Church Thirdly that he should be a King to rule and direct his Church according to the Prophesies of old concerning him For Moses truly said unto the Fathers a Prophet shall Acts 3. 22. the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me which must be of humane condition Now according to this union of the Divine and Humane nature in one Person may Christ in some sense be said to be a Mediator Essential being a Mean Person not simply God nor simply Man but this is not the proper Mediation of Christ between God and Man but this rather consisteth in Acts performed and Offices of Christ And these acts of Christ may be distinguished into two sorts Preparatory and Consummatory The former I call preparatory because they were ordained as useful expediencies not as essential to Reconciliation between the parties at distance And the first act of this nature was after the manner of Civil Arbitrements to take the Case into serious consideration and to deliberate with himself about the most proper means of attaining an amicable composure of differences on foot And as the Scripture Heb. 2. 14. saith forasmuch then as the children of God to be redeemed are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death that is the Devil It appearing unto him that there was no such proper or convenient means to Arbitrate between God and Man as the taking upon him humane nature For by this means as Moses is said to be the Intercessour medius et sequester between God and the People of Israel and therefore the Law is said to have been given in the hand of a Mediatour Deut. 5. 5. Gal. 3. Hebr. 9. 15.
of the dead Secondly St. John in the Revelations clears this saying Write blessed Rev. 14. 13. are the dead which dye in the Lord from henceforth for they rest from their labour and their works follow them Their works follow them without the least mention or insinuation of being vegetated and enabled so to do with the prayers of the living And they rest from their labours without being toyled wasted and tormented with worse miseries than ever they suffered upon earth The evasion which is here borrowed from Anselme upon the words which yet in truth are no more Anselm's than the Comments under his name upon the Epistles but Herveus Natalis his living above two hundred years after Anselme that here we are to understand the time of the Resurrection might be accepted for true it is then shall the due reward be rendered to every mans works if this excluded the other For let our adversaries say whether all consideration of good works be deferred until the Resurrection Is it not in reference to them that some men are committed to Purgatory only while others immediately go to hell That some mens pains in Purgatory are gentle and light others more grievous and some mens shorter and some longer even of themselves without the help of their friends upon earth Why then must we needs understand this following of good works to be at the day of Judgment only and not in just proportion the whole time going before And therefore is that elusion we touched of being meant of perfect Men and Martyrs only rested on as the surer of the two and that from De Victore and Haymon It is true he doth speak of such but it can only be said and not proved that he speaks of such only Dying in the Lord being of far greater extent and not upon mens pleasures and the exigencie of a corrupt cause limited But distrust that these devises will not satisfie hath driven a great Champion of this Purgatory into another plainer but much more absurd answer of his own viz. That some men dye absolutely in the Lord as Martyrs c. and some men partly in the Lord and partly not in the Lord This is congruous indeed to the opinion resolved to be maintained and belike St. Augustine gives ground hereunto who in a certain Epistle saith that some men in this life are partly the Sons of Christ and partly the Sons of this world This Augustine might speak in reference to the imperfection of the state of Grace and Sonship here which will admit of some mixture of worldliness and weakness with Grace and Sanctification but doth St. Austine any where say that upon this any man is partly the child of God and partly the child of the Devil at the same time or that at the same time he is in a state of Grace and a state of Sin or reconciled to God and not reconciled This is a new invention but very suitable to the third state after this life Purgatory and both of equal truth The place of Ecclesiastes Where the tree falleth there it shall be brought against a middle state I confess hath besides the most natural sense a sense which may be aimed at besides the denyal of any middle state but that by indifferent interpreters it hath been applyed to the immutableness of mans state at his death is certain For in truth Purgatory as commended to us is a quite different state from that of bliss as a state of torment must be from a state of bliss Fourthly The Holy Scriptures teach us that The bloud of Jesus Christ 1 John 1. 7. John 5. 24. cleanseth us from all our sins and that He that heareth Christs word and believeth on him that sent him hath everlasting life and shall not come into death but is passed from death unto life And we may note that Life simply taken is never used for any other state but that of happiness in holy Scripture and therefore these two states only being mentioned in Scripture it is sufficient to conclude that no more are to be added For were it so that nothing in Scripture were directly spoken against this opinion it would no more avail the defenders of it then it would any other Heretical Invention which might be yet framed without any direct opposition from thence Now the Scriptural reasons against this we make to be these in brief First that as well Scripture as Philosophy to which they assent who introduced these Purgative Flames truly hold that all spiritual purgation and sanctification must have the consent and co-operation of the will to produce any spiritual effect in the soul but the Will after death elects not merits not nor demerits i. e. deserves neither good nor evil but is fixed to the state in which it is But if sin be remaining in the separate soul it must necessarily have its seat principally in the will which is the formal principle of all good and evil And there can be no change in the will of the deceased as to the choise of good or evil simply but only as to the more full and absolute captivating of the same in the admiration of good or pertinacie in evil Therefore the Prayers of the living not having any influence upon the will or affections at that time to change them for the best or correct the pravity of them cannot avail to the meliorating of the soul in reference to its sanctity or impurity Again No corporeal cause can be effectual upon the spirit of Man immediately while it is disjoyned from the body to the cleansing of spiritual stains But the relicts of sin are spiritual and not corporal pollutions and therefore no flames of Purgatory can mundifie the soul so as to render it more innocent and fit for heaven But the flames of Purgatory are sensible and properly material And it is not said that the suffrage of the living obtain remission of sins for the afflicted in Purgatory but only deliver them from punishments there suffered Thirdly All sins being committed in the person of a Man consisting of body and soul must be accounted for as they were acted in the Person and not only in the one Part of him neither can any sin be said to be forgiven the soul without the body which was committed in soul and body together nor can the soul be purged and not the person nor the person and not the body but the body lies unconcerned untouched all this while by such tormenting remedies and therefore there is no probability of any such semi-purgation of the soul which should avail to the benefit and salvation of the whole And therefore the souls of the damned suffering the pains of Hell fire immediately after their departure from the body are not awhit the better for what they suffer Neither can this be alledged to invalidate the other because that in God punishing the souls of the Reprobates without their bodies is no unjustice but rather a
Hist Nat. l. 2. c. 5. Gâ—eek Philosopher wrote a Book with this Title Of not killing any living thing And Pliny writes of the Amycle whose chief City was Anxur in Italy that being Pythagoreans they suffered themselves to be consumed by Serpents because they would not kill them Yet methinks the Manichaean Hereticks should not have fallen into so great superstition having the use of the Scripture where God giveth Man free liberty to convert the Beasts Exod. 9. 3. of the field to his food as well as the Hearb of the field But perhaps the Latin word occides being general may have deceived them as St. Augustine Aug. Civ Dei l. 1. c. 20. intimateth where he tells us that the Manichees grounded their opinion Of not killing any living thing upon this Commandment Thou shalt not kill which St. Augustine there refuteth from their own opinion and practise For they held also an opinion that Plants had life too and yet they destroyed them in eating Hearbs And there wanted not some conscientious and learned Christians who held it against Christian perfection and purity to kill any man though in just defense as did Ambrose who doth not absolutely deny it to be lawful yet looks upon it as a blemish to Christian Religion to shed blood So that he holds it scarce lawful in such a case as shipwrack for one man to save his own life by thrusting another man of a planck which might have carried him to land and so to return Ne dum salutem defendat Pietatem contaminet Ambr. 31 Off. cap. blows back to him again that as a Robber on the High-way shall assail him least in defending his life he corrupts or stains his Religion To this we can only say That the Church hath been so tender and pure in her Profession that though she hath not any where condemned that we call natural and lawful Resistance to the securing of a mans Fortunes and especially Life yet hath she in her Canons of Irregularities set such a value and reverence upon the bloud of man that even involuntary and much more voluntary killing any man doth by her Decrees render one in Priestly Orders uncapable of doing his Office because as St. Ambrose his words imply though the guilt before God should not be great yet the blemish and scandal before men would be so and all suspicion and appearance of evil ought to be avoided And this way of arguing which is yet the only of any colour is of much less force to make wars unlawful being denounced by just Authority as late Fanaticks would pretend at least to hold to gain esteem of men of singular consciences which yet gross experience hath certified us extends no farther than opportunity and advantage have enabled and encouraged them to violate For a man hath not power absolute over his own person but is under the command of his Superiours who are to judge of the reasonableness of the endangering his own life and destroying the life of another For if we should so far affront the Law of Nature as to grant a man might not use any Self-defence to the apparent loss of the life of another it would not from thence follow at all that he might not receive power and authority and such a command which to deny were sinful to bereave another of his life How many examples in the Old Testament justifie this In the New Testament having no instance of such Christians as had any Soveraign Political Power do we wonder that we have neither Example nor Precept directly commending this to Christian practise But by implication we have when St. Paul exhorteth thus Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he is called 1 Cor. 7. 〈◊〉 Now it was well known to the Apostle that there were continual wars in the Roman Empire and that many Christians were Souldiers and that that was their Calling wherein they were called For Cornelius was a Souldier And when the Souldiers came to St. John Baptist enquiring What shall we do He did not say Lay down your Commission Serve no longer Luke 3. 14. But Do violence to no man neither accuse any falsly and be content with your wages which is as much as Use your imployment soberly and justly neither prey upon any man upon your private account And whereas the words of Christ in his Sermon on the Mount seem to Matth. 5. 22 38 39 40 41. be pretended to the contrary Christ there exhorting patiently to bear affronts and injuries without revenging a mans self they are to be understood of violence repayed without lawful Authority either expressed or implyed but this is alwayes implyed in just defences And again these are rather Counsels than Commands peremptorily forbidding so to do but advising to forbear that out of a Spirit of meekness and patience which is not utterly unlawful to do but to the disadvantage of the Gospel in general and the diminution of that reward annexed to the humble and patient suffering of wrongs for Gods sake But though this is to be preferred before the other it follows not that the other is unlawful or that it is so much as lawful to forbear executing justice on such offenders when commanded by good Authority And so do the Jews interpret those words of Leviticus Thou shalt not stand against the bloud of thy neighbour thus as Fagius hath noted on the place Whoever See Paulus Fagius on Lev. 19. 16. is able to deliver his neighbour in any of his Members and doth it not he is in the same guilt as if he shedded blood and becomes guilty of death And it is impossible a man should be guilty of blood in doing that which he shall be in that he doth it not It being thus explained what is not meant by this Command what is by it intended may more briefly be declared and that as in other Precepts is of two sorts Negative Not to murder against which foul and crying sin so much and so plainly is denounced in holy Writ that to recount them here in this short Comment were unseasonable and superfluous It may be defined A wilful and unjust taking away the life of a Man And there are two principle Causes of this unjustness First No good or warrantable ground or demerits Secondly No good Authority so to do Now Authority is twofold Express and Implicite There is no express Law commanding the destruction of another that seeks mine but Implicite there is and so it may be just Express is that which exerciseth it self against convicted Malefactours And of both these is he destitute who executeth himself I cannot say that it is unlawful for a man required by just Authority to kill himself but of himself to do this is certainly a murderous act though he were guilty of Death For as St. Austin hath observed Aug. Civ Deâ— l. 1. c. 17. He that killeth himself doth certainly kill a man and it is not said Thou