from their asserting the necessity of both species that they would not omit it if it could be otherwise and therefore Greg. Nazianz. in praise of Gorgonia saith Omnes in Navi residentes Corpus Sanguinem Christi accepisse Thirdly If this were practis'd This Answer agrees to all the fore-mentioned instances it was onely in case of necessity and that which is onely made lawful by an unavoidable necessity when that necessity is taken away is unlawful And indeed by the same reason a Jew might have prov'd the neglect of Circumcision lawful at any time because when the Children of Israel travell'd in the wilderness by reason of their uncertain removes it was necessary to omit it Fourthly I cannot tell what necessity of communicating in one kind should happen to them since they might take Wine with them or go to Land to procure it Fifthly As to the Communions sent to other Provinces Sect. 6 I know they were wont to send a loaf to one another in token of mutual Friendship Love and Unity Yea they had their Eulogia in token of their Communion in the same Church Stillingfleet Iren. p. 399 370. But that they participated of it as Sacramental Bread or that they did it without Wine or doing it so supposed themselves to celebrate an entire Sacrament are things remaining to be proved And thus we have endeavoured to return somewhat satisfactory unto our Adversaries pretences for Justification of their half-Communion It remains that I briefly confute the same which I shall endeavour by these degrees 1. Christ Instituted the Sacrament in both kinds Sect. 7 this is granted by our Authour nor could he possibly deny it 2. I say Christ Instituted in both kinds not only for Priests but Laicks which appears 1. from the Reasons annex'd to the receiving of both kinds and 1. The Reason of their receiving the bread is this because 't is the body broken for them take it saith our Saviour this is my body which was broken for you Ratio legis est lex This therefore being the Reason why they were to take and eat and this Reason concerning all believers as well as the Apostles and other priests the institution or precept to take and eat most consequently concern them and if it do not by what Argument will they conclude that this Institution as to any part of it concerns Women yea or the successours of the Apostles Now transfer the Argument to the cup and it runs thus The Reason of participating of the Cup Mat. 26.28 viz. Because it is the Blood of the New Testament which is shed for the remission of sins doth concern Laicks as well as priests Therefore the command drink ye all of this to which the Reason is annex'd 1 Cor. 11. concerns them also Again another Reason why we must do this why we must eat the Bread and drink the Cup is that we may remember Christs death and shew it forth till His second coming as the Scripture speaks and all the world acknowledgeth and doth not this concern all believers as well as priests Yea seeing the words recorded vers 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this blood 1 Cor. 11.24 25 26. you shew the Lords death till he come were not as we can find in any of the Evangelists spoken by our Saviour they must be spoken by S. Paul who applies himself to the whole Church of Corinth and consequently the words preceding this do as often as you drink in remembrance of me must belong to them by reason of the connective particle which connects the 25 and 26 verses and makes it necessary that the same persons should be related to in the words this do c. for as often as ye eat c. Again Sect. 8 I Argue thus that which is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests when worthily receiv'd concerns Laicks as well as priests But the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests 1 Cor. 10.16 as saith the Apostle to the Corinthians who I suppose were not all priests upon this account exhorting them not to partake of Idol Sacrifices in which I suppose he did not grant a liberty to the people but intended by this argument to restrain them from partaking of the table of Devils as well as priests The Major is evident for sure it concerns Laicks to partake of that which is to them the Communion or Communication of the body of Christ this argument may also be transferred unto the Cup for that being the Communion of the blood of Christ when worthily receiv'd as well as the bread it equally concerns them to participate of that as of the bread Now that which I foresee may be return'd to these arguments is this Sect. 9 That the people by participating of the bread do participate of the Cup which is the blood shed for the remission of their sins that is they participate of that which is the blood it being concomitant with the bread and so the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ but not so only but also of his blood Now 1 To omit the refutation of this figment of concomitance till anon this Answer destroys the Energy of Christs words who after they had participated of the body bids them also drink of this cup because it was his blood shed for sinners when as yet he knew that they had already done so and could have told him that he might have spared his cup and his Reason both 2. Were this so then would the participation of the cup be evidently superfiuous it being Instituted after the participation of the body to exhibit that blood to us which by the participation of the Body was already exhibited Arg. 3. Sect. 10 If in this Institution the Apostles were considered not as priests Bishop Taylor duc Duâ— p. 422 423. S. par 2. but as representatives of the whole Church Then was the Sacrament Instituted in both kinds not only for priests but Laicks for that which was given to them and they required to receive as representatives of the whole Church must concern the whole Church not only priests but Laicks Now if they were not to be considered in this capacity where shall we find a warrant that the people may receive at all for if they receiv'd only in the capacity of Clergy men then the Institution extends no farther and 't is as much Sacriledge for the people to eat and drink the Symbols as 't is to offer at the consecration for 't is a medling with Sacra which equally belongs not to them But if they receiv'd in the capacity of Christians onely then they receiv'd the Commandment for drinking in the Chalice for themselves and for all Christians Their usual evasion is that the Apostles as Laicks receiv'd the Bread But then when Christ said hoc facite he made them Priests and then gave
in this controversie I refer you to Bishop Taylor 's Discourse upon this Subject if you are able to except any thing against his Stating of the Question do it if not cease to calumniate and know that the renewed Rubrick is an Explication of what the Church of England believeth in this matter and if you have any thing to produce against it besides the empty name of Zuinglianisme we are ready to consider it But to pass these things Sect. 2 let us come unto his evidence of such a change of the Sacramental elements into the body and blood of Christ which makes Christ Corporally present under the species of Bread and Wine but destroys their substance and here not daring once to fasten upon hoc est corpus meum or the sixth of John he lays hold on a passage of Saint Paul's in the 1 Cor. 11.29 and tells us that if this Transubstantiation should not be received Mr. Cressie p. 128. none could receive the body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the body of Christ but meer bread that an impenitent sinner receives And Saint Pauls charge would be irrationall when he says such an one receives judgement to himself in that he doth not discern the Lords body Ans 1. This Argument is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle who saith let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11. and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily viz. that bread and cup eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body so that the unworthy eater of the bread is the person that discerns not the Lords Body 2. Such persons are said not to discern the body of Christ because they deal with the Elements that are Instituted to represent his Body and Blood as with common meat not treating them with addresses proper to the mystery So Saint Austine non dijudicat 〈…〉 c. 8. i. e. non discernit à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter illi debita so also the Greek Schol. upon the place Sect. 3. But our Author proceeds thus If the change be not in the Elements but in the receivers Soul that is if the Elements be not transubstantiated what need is there of Consecration what effect can it have why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer the Sacrament what hinders that such a presence may not be effected every dinner and supper Answer Such Arguments as these may very well perswade us that our Author receiv'd this Doctrine from Tradition Mâ— Cressie p. 12â— s. 8 not Ratiocination as before he tells us For if he had receiv'd it by such a Ratiocination his Baptismal water must necessarily have been changed into I know not what For if it remain water still may not I ask him what need of any Consecration to become Sacramental what effect can Consecration have upon it why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament what hinders but we may have such a presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit every time we go to wash our selves This haply our Author saw and therefore he durst not say if the elements be not transubstantiated but if the change be not in the Elements which we grant it is the Bread is no longer common Bread but holy separated from a prophane use to a sacred it is now become an instrument to convey the benefits of Christs death which before it was not represents Christ's broken body which before it did not But Thirdly to make a little sport with his demonstrations Tell me is there no use of Consecration but to transubstantiate What is their Holy-water Are all their Bells their holy reliques and images transubstantiate Secondly Hath Christ required the Consecration of the Eucharist should be done by a Priest or not If not then let him tell me why a Master of a family may not consecrate these Elements as well as the Paschal Lamb If he hath required it then surely whether Transubstantiation be true or false it cannot be effected by a Laick But Thirdly tell me what is the Bread we eat at dinner the Bread broken for us Is the Wine the Papists drink on their fasting-dayes the Blood shed for the remission of their sins Do men by eating and drinking remember Christs death till he come Have they any promise of such blessings from the partaking of their common Bread as Sacramental If not why doth our Author trouble us with such a frivolous comparison He next proceeds to demonstrate this change out of the Fathers Sect. 4 and thus he begins Sect. 10. In all ancient Lyturgies that is all spurious ones as Blondel himself and for your better directions you may see the name of Blondel in the Margin without any Addition of Book or Chapter Though an Hugonot confesseth the prayer for the Consecration of the Elements was that God would by his holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and Wine the Blood of our Lord. And for this he cites St. Basils Liturgie Cyrill Hieros Mystag Catech. after that the Acts of the Council of Nice Cyrill Alexand. Ep. ad Calosyr and Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. And here we have all that pretend to demonstrate this change except Optatus who tells us that the Altar is the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ Now the mischief is first that all these Authors unless we may except Cyrill of Alexandria are spurious and have been proved so by Dr. Hoyle in his Answer to a popish Friar and some others And first as for Saint Basils Liturgie Sect. 5 he tells us that even Bellarmine himself dares not reckon it among St. Basils works Secondly in this Liturgie is appointed to be sung the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Hymn See the Epistâ—h of the same Felix to Peter Bishop of Antioch and Zeno the Empetor in the second Tâ—mb of the Councils which began to be sung in the Church about the time of Felix the third who liv'd Anno Domini 480. Whereas Basil flourish'd Anno Domini 370. or thereabouts It mentions Confessors after Martyrs whereas the Romanists themselves confess they were not mention'd in their offices till after the dayes of this St. Basil These and many other things you may find against it in Mornaeus and Cocus and other Protestant Writers Secondly As for the Catechism of Cyrill of Jerusalem Sect. 6 he tells us p. 467 468. that even Papists themselves ascribe it to one John of Jerusalem that liv'd about 400 hundred years after Yea even Gretser tells us that he hath seen a manuscript which ascribes these Catechisâ—res to John of Jerusalem Yea in the Greek Library which the City of Augusta bought of Antonius Governour of Corcyra this book goes under the same title The Mistogogi call Catechismes of John of Jerusalem as the Index of these books doth evidence Nor doth the putter
there is no probability of being cloathed upon and therefore they cannot be supposed to go to purgatory naked since they that go thither are sure afterward to go to heaven Again vers 6 7. the Apostle tells us that whilest we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord and that Here the faithful desire to be absent from the body because it hinders them from the presence of the Lord and walking by sight now had they been acquainted with purgatory surely they would have express'd their desires of being absent from that also seeing that was like not only to be more irksome to them but also more durable and therefore a greater impediment since therefore they groan'd so much to be deliver'd from a short life here which hinders their enjoyment of Gods presence and not at all for deliverance from a hundred or two hundred years continuance in purgatory for so long saith Bellarmine the Church hath prayed for Souls in purgatory we infer they were not acquainted with it Again they that are to be receiv'd into Eternal habitations when their life fails them are to be received at death for then they fail But so are charitable men and by parity of Reason other pious souls The minor is proved from Luke 16. v. 8. Make unto your selves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness that is use it so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that when you fail i. e. dy they may receive you that is may procure you a reception or rather as Doctor Hammond you may be received into everlasting habitations But our Author hath his arguments also Sect. 18 which come now to be considered And first he tells us of an express testimony for Purgatory in the Book of Macchabees Now not to call upon him for an Answer to Dr. Cosens of the Canon of Scripture as knowing how impossible it is to be done albeit it be necessary to make this Testimony a Cogent proof seeing he onely tells us that there is such a place in the Book of Macchabees I will add where the words may be found even in Dally page 439. where they are fully considered and it made evidently to appear that they come not up to a proof of Purgatory neither are they consistent with the received Maxims of the abettors thereof and whereas our adversary calls in the Universal Tradition and practice of the Synagogue of the Jews to justifie this place the same worthy person hath made it evident that neither this nor any other Testimony produced by them is any tolerable proof of such practice p. 449. 450. Nay he evinceth most clearly from this passage that this practice was not received in our Saviour's or the Apostles time Ne apud infimos corruptos Judaeos yea he spends the 14. Chapter of his second Book to evidence that the Jewes were ignorant of Prayers for the dead and should we after all this give any credit to your confident assertions of such evident untruths It concerns you if you respect your credit to answer what is extant in the forecited places of the Learned Dally and to evince this universal Tradition and practice you here speak of without the least offer of any proof unless what follows must be so esteem'd viz. that from the Jewes no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrine and from Plato Cicero But I pray you Sir permit us who have the Arguments fore-mentioned to evidence that in our Saviours time the Jewes had no such Custome to doubt of what you boldly here assert l. 4. c. 5. p. 360. especially when the same Dally runs antipodes unto you and tells us though with greater modesty ab iis Platonicis ut videtur illam Purgatorii rationem baustam atque acceptam tum Judaei tum adversarii retinent Sect. 19 that both you and they as it seems received your Purgatory from the Platonists Mr. Cr. P. 120. You have one assault more from natural Reason which you say will tell us that heaven into which no unclean thing can enter is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect souls as unto perfect nor have we any sign that meerly by dying sinful livers become immediately perfect 1 Thess 4.17 Now to this I Answer that what ever natural Reason may seem to dictate I am sure the Oracles of God will tell us that they who are alive at the Resurrection if pious souls though surely some of them shall be imperfect shall not go to Purgatory for 100. years but be caught up into the Clouds to meet the Lord in the Air and so shall be for ever with the Lord. Secondly albeit there be nothing of Reason or Scripture to intimate that onely by dying we become perfect yet doth both Reason and Scripture more then intimate that presently after death we are amongst the Spirits of just men made perfect that when this Tabernacle is dissolved we go to an house Eternal in the Heavens when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord and consequently are purified by the holy Spirit from the imperfections that adhered to us CHAP. XI Master Cressie's misadventures Sect. 1. His first Argument from 1 Cor. 11. Answered Sect. 2. His second from Reason Sect. 3. His Authorities spurious Sect. 4. As 1. Saint Basils Liturgy Sect. 5. Cyrils Mystag Catechism Sect. 6. The Acts of the Nicene Council Sect. 7. Greg. Nyssens Catechism Sect. 8. Saint Cyrils testimony considered Sect. 9. His Authorities say no more then our Churches Liturgy Sect. 10. Saint Chrysostome not for them but against them Sect. 11. His Citation abused by Master Cressie Ib. as likewise Saint Ambrose Sect. 12. The Doctours argument from the fruit of the Vine vindicated Sect. 13 14. Mr. Cressie's evasion confuted Sect. 15. The weakness of his argument against the Doctours Exposition evidenced and confessed by Jansenius Sect. 16 17. an argument against Transubstantiation Sect. 18. Why the Fathers not insisted on Sect. 19. The Fathers are not for the adoration of the Sacrament Sect. 20. Saint Chrysostome Saint Ambrose and Saint Austins testimonies considered Sect. 21 22 23. The contrary evidenced from Doctor Taylor Sect. 24. IN this Chapter we meet with many misadventures Sect. 1 Mr. Cressie p. 124. and mistakes as 1. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as old as the first general Council whereas it was never used by any Father or at least never applied unto this matter for the space of a thousand years and upwards nor can I find any of their own writers besides himself that ever pleaded the use of such a word 2. Another mistake is that the Church onely saith the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation when the Trent Council expresly tells us Mr. Cressie p. 124. that it is called so propriè convenienter aptissime most fitly properly and conveniently 3. Whereas you tell us Sect. 5 that it is a difficult matter to define what is our Churches Tenent
divided drops of species should be let us come to his proofs Sect. 15 And First He summons in Saint Ambrose to tell us that Christ is in the Sacrament because it is the Body that is the representation of the Body â—f Christ Next the Council of Ephesus to inform us that we participate the flesh of Christ not as common but as truly quickening flesh That is which by our spiritual reception of it is made quickening to us And Thirdly Saint Austine This he did saith he quodammodo con 2. in Ps 33. And this quodammodo is non rei virtute sed significante mysterio cp 23. ad Bonif. l. 12. in Joan. c. 32. to teach us that Christ was carried in his own hands that is Christ real and corporeal diâ— carry these Elements which represented him in his hand Ergo in every divided particle of the species of Bread is the Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ A Consequence very irrational and absurd Nor will the testimony of Saint Cyrill be able to conclude the business for if he argue from these words The four parts of the world have divided amongst themselves his flesh without dividing of it I Answer he adds The Paschal Lamb was found amongst all the Israelites divided and yet undivided And will our Author thence argue that he esteemed each part of the Paschal Lamb to be the whole or that he that received the least particle thereof received the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he argue from the following words for the onely begotten not passing into as he rendreth it but being distributed to them all and sanctifying each of their Souls and Bodies by his own flesh is in all of them whole and entire being every where one for as Saint Paul teacheth he is not divided I say if hence he argue I answer that he is in all of them whole and entire as being truly God and truly though mystically united to them For having sanctified them by his flesh spiritually received he is spiritually made one with them as the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 10.17 And thus have we dispatch'd his pretences for concomitance his fifth and sixth Sections are built upon the third and fourth and therefore must fall with them C. 13. S. 4. I pass on therefore to urge an Argument against concomitance And 1. Sect. 16 I will take for granted what our Author affords me viz. that this Sacrament is a commemoration of Christs Sacrifice Mr. C. p. 146. of his former immolation and the realâ— shedding of his Blood do this in remembrance of me being sufficient warrant for his assertion 2. I suppose that in this Sacrament the shedding of Christs blood is by the Symbols represented For 1. Why else have we the Wine separated from the bread 2. How is it a representation of Christs Sacrifice upon the cross that being a Sacrifice in which his Sacred blood was shed 3. How do we by partaking of his blood shew forth his death but by shewing that his blood was separated from his body 4. I suppose that Christs blood is represented by the wine consecrated not antecedently to the consecration else may it represent it in the Cellar as well as in the Church 5. I suppose that shedding of Christs Blood is the separating it from the body or at least from the veins and consequently the representation of it as shed is the representation of it as severed from the veins but now it is impossible that such a representation should be made to an assertor of concomitance seeing he is bound to believe that where one single drop of blood is resident there also must the Sacred body of Christ reside entirely and consequently it is impossible that concomitance should be a truth 2. Sect. 17 If there be such a necessary concomitance then must each part exhibit whole and entire Christ and consequently the depriving the Laity of one part must be the depriving them of whole Christ as offered to them for the remission their sins and Sanctification Now then in doing so either you deprive them of some benefit or not if the first then are you Sacrilegious in depriving the people of some benefit from those Sacred mysteries they formerly received and that agreeably to the Institution of S. Paul received from Christ and the common practice of the Church for a thousand years Secondly Then must you grant that by communicating in both kinds more of Christ is received contrary to your fourth Section if the latter then not to speak of the superfluity of Christs instituion First you must assert that albeit a man receive entire Christ and that worthily and have the pardon of his sins and the benefits of the new Covenant sealed to him yet may he be never the better And secondly You will be troubled to give a reason why the Conficient should be obliged by you to drink the Chalice and not excused by concomitance Thirdly Sect. 18 If they who receive the body by concomitance receive the blood then they who consecrate the body by reason of concomitance do also consecrate the blood the parity of Reason being most notorious and consequently no Reason can be assigned why Christ in his Institution should be thought to oblige us to the Consecration in both kinds rather then the Reception in both kinds and therefore seeing the Trent Council saith peremptorily De Missa Sess sexta c. 10. that Christ commanded the Apostles and their Successors to offer in both kinds why should she not also say that he commanded them and their Successors to distribute in both kinds But were this salve good Sect. 19 yet would it not free them from the imputation of an half Sacrament though it would from the delivering of half Christ for seeing a Sacrament is an outward visible sign it follows evidently that he who hath but half of the outward visible signs hath but half of the Sacrament and consequently hath an half Sacrament these and many other things may be alledged against this half Communion which I suppose will a little exercise their Reason in the Answer of them and therefore our Author did well to take Sanctuary in the infallibility of the Church and then proceed to give some account of the Reasons that induced her to this grand Sacriledge And 1. He tells us Sect. 20 that it was done by reason of the wonderful increase of the Communicants and decay of their devotion whence very great danger of irreverence and effusion of the precious blood of our Lord was like to follow if not thus prevented Now 1. Not to tell him that this excuse hath been by the Primitive Church rejected as Superstitious lay aside that monstrous opinion of Transubstantiation and what great harm will it be if casually and by no fault of ours or wilfull contempt some of the Wine should be spilt 2. With what conscience can they pretend their Reverence to the Sacrament for this when our Authour supposes there
and by a certain faction so that the major part of those that were capable of being Members of the Council bee of a contrary opinion to the persons actually elected Why should wee believe them then For if the contrary faction should prevail their determinations would bee contradictory to the others and so the Articles of our faith must bee formed by chance and faction Again what if all the persons called come not will the Council be generall Why may not the greater part of the Council erre and yet the Church be infallible as well as the greatest part of its Members diffused erre and yet the diffused Church be infallible Especially seeing Gods promises must bee acknowledged to concern them both Shall they bee infallible whether they fast pray study and use means or not If so then to what purpose have they generally done so and why are there such debatings If not how shall wee so far distant from them be able to know how they acquit themselves in these things and consequently whether they bee infallible in their particular determinations Yea seeing the packing and fore-resolution of votes doth null their Decrees or else your Answer to the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon is perfectly vain in such a corrupt age as wee live in p. 51. sect 8. wherein if ever all may be said to seek their own how shall wee know whether all the Bishops of the Church of Rome come not as they did to the Trent Council with resolutions to condemn the Protestants right or wrong Furthermore who must call this Council Pope or Princes when they are met how shall wee know that they are fit Members when wee cannot know the legality of their Baptisme and Ordinations because wee cannot know the intentions of all the particular persons who Baptized and Ordained them VVhat if there can bee no general Council VVhat if Princes will not suffer Bishops within their Dominions to repair to it Must wee call general Councils to suppresse every novelty How shall wee know true Councils Have you not large Catalogues of reprobate and doubtful Councils Upon what uncontroulable grounds do you reject this and own that whence have you any infallible evidence that your charactarismes of a true Council are true ones Must this general Council bee made out of the whole Christian world or not If not how is it a general Council How can the promises made to the whole World bee applyed to it How is it a representative of the whole Church If it must be from all parts 1. 'T is evident wee never had a general Council For what Bishop came in the primitive times from India Aethiopia Persia Parthia Armenia what Brittish or Scottish Bishops were there And 2. A general Council is then a thing impossible for some Bishops bee in America and others in the East-Indies some dispersed through most of the Turkes Dominions and how long would it be before all these could have tydings of a Council How long would they bee in journying to the place appointed for convention How many of the most aged will dye by the way How many will be hindred by Infidel Princes VVho will provide for such a multitude when convened How will it bee possible for them to conferre by reason of the difference of their language Or to provide Interpreters for them all what will become of their Flocks at home while they spend so many years journey to a Council These and an hundred questions more of the persons appointed to call them of the place and the like might bee insisted on to shew that general Councils were never instituted by God for the Rule of our Faith But I am weary and therefore send you to Mr. Baxters key for Cath. pt 2. and others Nor can this infallibility of general Councils bee concluded either from Scripture reason the suffrage of Antiquity Sect. 3 or the concessions of the Sons of the Church of England Though all these Topicks are made use of to this purpose And. 1. To return answer to his evidence from Scripture that of Deut. 17. from the 8. to the 13. is very unserviceable to his design For not to tell him with Episcopius Mr. C. p. 258. sect 12. how inconsequent this deduction is from the Old-Testament wherin if wee may believe our Author wee have an expresse evidence from God of such an infallible convention to the New which affords us no such thing Wee answer further 1. It is not evident from the place that any mention is made of Religious causes for albeit there bee mention of cause and cause yet in the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a cause before brought to the inferiour Judges V. 8. before whom the causes of Religion were not brought 2. That their judgement was not infallible is evident For 1. The Scripture affirms of these Priests who are here appointed to Judge that they departed out of the way caused many to stumble at the Law yea corrupted the covenant of Levi. Mal. 2.8.9 They accepted persons in that Law that is in judging the law was wrested by them in favour of persons whom they particularly affected yea further these Judges condemned the Prophets of the Lord Jer. 26.8 The priests Prophets and all the people condemn Jeremy to death and that for accusing the people and Priests of defection from the Lord to Idolatry from the Precepts of the Law to the most enormous sins Matth. 23.17 Yea they approved of false Prophets as is every where extant in the Old-Testament for that this was done by these Judges appears in that a Prophet was not to be Judged but by the Senate whence Christ saith Luke 13.33 It cannot bee that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem because it was the place where this Sanhedrim was 2. Had it been so why was it that so many sects were found among them of Sadduces Pharisees Essens Gaulonites and Herodians How is it that this infallible Judge never went about to interpose his sentence How is it that they never resorted to him for satisfaction but indeed these Sects were made up of the persons that were to judge and so no equal decision was like to bee made by such interested persons 3. Wee know that this Synod was made up of Sadduces and Pharisees the one of which denied the Resurrection the other by their traditions annihillated the Command of God Now these as wee may read in Josephus mutually prevailed in the Nation Now then had this Synod been to judge of the Resurrection when the Sadduces prevailed would they have been infallible in their Judgements Surely no more then the Arrian Councils And when the Pharisees would they not yea did they not determine such things which made void the Commandments of God but what need wee flick upon these arguments when wee have such an illustrious instance in their rejection of our Saviour and refusing to beleive on him would the Synagogue have judged him